![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't want to bite the newbies but there is a lot of edit-warring over the figures to use. On the one hand, the results are progressively changing; on the other, different editors are switching between AEC, ABC, and perhaps other sources. Is it worth having semi-protection for a few days until the votes are tallied? — sroc ( talk) 13:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as how Tony Crook is being counted as if he were part of the Coalition by most of the news services, isn't the point to include the references I already included about how he regards himself as an independent who could, under certain circumstances, work with Gillard? Many people have been counting him as if it's obvious Abbott will get his vote. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've put this back the way it was - the news media is reporting this as if it were a Coalition seat, despite the fact that Crook considers himself outside the coalition and is stating openly that he is making up his mind which of the two to support. If Oakeshott/Katter/Windsor/Bandt/Wilkie are noteworthy because their votes on whom to make Prime Minister are still in play, Crook's name not only has to be added to the list, but it must be made clear that he is currently being counted by most news media as if his seat counted as a Coalition seat. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I continue to fight for a fully-sourced set of sentences indicating that Tony Crook sees himself as an independent rather than a given vote for Tony Abbott. The statements included are his own words establishing that being a member of the National Party does not mean he will necessarily vote for the Coalition candidate, nor does it mean he will support Labor so long as it pursues its mining tax policy. If you kill the sentences (which I think are important), at least have the decency to retain the source references, which establish that his vote is in play and not a given for Tony Abbott. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you mean the "News Limited" company. Finally I get it. Thanks for explaining it to me. <sarcasm evident> Anyway, the points about Crook need to be on the election page because his vote is actively in play. Kerry O'Brien didn't interview him because he's just another Coalition MP. Antony Green didn't field dozens of questions about why he was being counted as another coalition MP because he really is one. Clarification as to why a member of the National Party is one of the six MPs being sought after by both the Gillard and Abbott camps must be in the article. Not just links to the references, but words explaining what's going on with him. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
At some point a lot of the earlier election articles need to be revisited, together with List of Australian federal elections and the various lists of members of the resulting parliaments. The figures aren't always in line with each other (or with other sources like Psephos) and there are some cases where we're either showing minority governments that didn't happen or the Coalition operating when it wasn't - 1919 & 1931 spring most readily to mind. The problem seems rooted in MPs getting elected with a variety of different labels (including, sometimes, the state party label) and various endorsements (e.g. joint endorsements by the Nationalist and Country parties in 1919), complicated alliances between parties and various splits at state & federal level that aren't always apparent in the table. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all,
just wanted to see what people though of adding seat changes to the table for ALP and Coalition? We have in there all the percentages, seats won, and seat changes for Independent and Greens, just wondering what people thought of adding in (as said above) the seat changes for ALP and Coalition? I know the counting isn't finished but this table is updated all the time with seats in doubt, seats won and percentages. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what this section is about, forming a WP:CONSENSUS. I am for adding in all information into the table OR deleting it altogether. What do others say? CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, can some one smart explain the change of seats please? AEC and ABC give different changes and the table here is different? ABC and AEC give Coalition +13 and ALP -15 and -13? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 09:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
People - you can't have a seat swing figure when there are undecided seats. It makes no sense. Timeshift ( talk) 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Following discussion above (particularly #Consensus on Seat Change in House of Reps table and #Seat swings, I am seeking to reach a consensus on whether and how results should be shown on the page for Australian federal election, 2010, while votes are still being tallied by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). As I see it, we have the following options:
I would be happy to include interim results provided that there is consensus on what results should be shown; otherwise, I would support leaving the results out to avoid further edit conflicts. — sroc ( talk) 05:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The seat swings are only of use if predicted seats are used, however the article uses only seats the ABC classifies as won. Swings are therefore invalid and factually incorrect, therefore unsuitable for wikipedia. If we started to use 'projected' rather than 'won' seats however, then swings could be included. But as it's factually incorrect and therefore unsuitable for wikipedia, it simply cannot stay. I've removed all seat swings (as some were complaining of inconsistency with seat swing numbers for non major parties). Timeshift ( talk) 09:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
So, we had a consensus BUT we don't have a consensus because one person disagrees! So, what's the point of gaining consensus then? If this is the way it is going to be than it is free for all and we do what we like! I think the whole table should be deleted. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Show the interim results, labeled as such. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Surturz: Of course, this will all come out in the wash. The problem is that this is currently a prominent article in that:
We should therefore strive to make this article as complete and accurate as possible, within Wikipedia standards, in order to show Wikipedia in the best light in the meantime.
There is an issue of some debate which is being discussed in order to decide the best outcome. The problem is that one user (Timeshift) has a dissenting view from all of the other users who have commented on the issue, and is taking control in the name of "consensus". — sroc ( talk) 23:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so what I am reading is that we put in no data/numbers for the changed seats - I agree with that. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The dispute is over wording here. Some WP:CONSENSUS is needed, and not just from the currently engaged editors. Timeshift ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So Frickeg and sroc support my wording. Zachary, please pull away from the POV News Ltd sensationalisms and discuss here rather than continue to engage in warring. Note that all your wanted inclusions are there on Tony Crook. Thankyou. As for who he'd support, if he wants Royalties for Regions and is anti-mining tax as his two platforms, it's pretty clear who he'll end up supporting. But that is not a factor in the neutral non-sensationalist wording required in the results section. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
My note above was deleted, accidentally I think. There is clear edit-warring going on here. Please read WP:3RR and stop the reversions. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both, leave the wording as is BUT give Crook a bullet. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In regards to this latest edit, either side of politics is more correct than saying the two major parties - the coalition is a composition of four parties, Labor and the coalition are not "two parties" in the technical sense. Timeshift ( talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Dissident MPs" in the lead is too News Ltd'ish, there's no need for it. Any MP can be a dissident in the coalition and retain their preselection. It is a silly caveat. Consensus works by, if a change from the status quo is disputed, it is incumbent upon the contributor who added the material to gain consensus, not the other way around. Yet again, I plead, please discuss this on the talk page rather than initiating/engaging in inflammatory edit wars. Timeshift ( talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder regarding my note above: 3RR applies to reversions of any material. I think 3RR has been breached, or is very closed to being breached, by a couple of editors here. Any further reversions could result in a block. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should clarify - I agree with Timeshift's wording BUT I agree with giving Crook a bullet. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish to draw attention to this thread requesting comments over a dash between party and preferred. Thankyou. Timeshift ( talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I am actually looking for a compromise here. We need more than we have, and I'm sure we can find some way to properly represent that Crook is as much in play as the other five MPs. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
If Crook can't be included in a bullet list of people who are considered "crossbenchers", then we need some term for describing that he is nevertheless as in play as the others. If it's not "dissident MP", then what do people suggest? As written now, the suggestion is made that only the behavior of those considered "crossbenchers" by the AEC/ABC definition will decide the next government. No. Tony Crook's decision will also decide it. That's what I'm trying to capture. I sincerely am asking for help on how to do this. Timeshift annoys me, but I'm not here to ruffle feathers, I'm here to get something important properly represented in this article. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking over Timeshift's changes to the Tony Crook page, I note that Timeshift concedes that Crook is sitting as a crossbencher. Given that his alleged lack of "crossbencher" status is why he's not getting a bullet point with the other five MPs, I ask that people consider this in their deliberations about what's proper. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've also neutralised all crossbenchers bar Bandt to say "open to negotiating with either side to form government". "Either party bloc" indicates Labor has a bloc with another party, I hope you're not confusing the Greens as an arm of Labor. Timeshift ( talk) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: Nice to see agreement. I hope no one minds if I shorten the ridiculously long title, makes the TOC rather unwieldy and also takes up a ton of room on people's watchlists. Frickeg ( talk) 03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Should the coalition in the two party area be reduced one seat to account for Crook not yet having come to a decision? Timeshift ( talk) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've actually seperated the WA Nats out alltogether (EDIT: addition removed, see diff), admittedly they did win their own seat without any coalition agreement. Timeshift ( talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent question - but I'd only do it if the Official AEC do it and I notice that do not show the WA Nationals. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
But that table is going by the ABC and the AEC and the ABC for seats have it Coalition 72. So with consensus being reached before about that table I think it (crook) should stay as one of the 72. Is Crook's statement Official WA Nationals policy? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if that is the case then he should be separate. What happens to the table that we use for the Lower House, does that mean that is incorrect because we have been using AEC and ABC sources for that and what about ABC, are they correct or incorrect? I think we should get some more users inputs before we make a change BUT what you are saying Timeshift sounds correct so if so, I'm all up for your changes after a bit more discussion. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
My only concern is that the ABC site has him with the Coalition and on 72 seats and that table is based on the ABC site - but I like the look of the table so I am happy either way. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 06:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to shock everyone by saying I actually don't care about this. :) I long since accepted that the current AEC/ABC convention is to represent his vote as being counted as a Coalition seat - what I was fighting about was that we needed to demonstrate strongly that Crook isn't really Coalition, and after last night, I feel confident we've done that. I personally wouldn't object to the WA Nationals getting their own line, since they did run Crook knowingly as a candidate who would act independently of the coalition. But I actually don't care about this issue. I think we've done what we need to do at this point. Either solution would satisfy me. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I do approve of the textual clarification that it wasn't only Crook but also the WA National Party that is open to negotiation with either party bloc. That's been true since the get-go...perhaps the reason we had such acrimony on this issue was that people didn't fully understand that until now? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added margin and counted percentages to the seat movement table. Is this ok or do people think it will get out of date too quickly? Maybe just the margin only? I like both. Timeshift ( talk) 03:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it still true, as the article currently says, that seats the ABC considers "decided" are being represented in the seat totals table? If so, and if we are counting the WA Nationals as a separate entity, the Coalition total at present should only be 71. The ABC appears to have not called Brisbane, where the LNP is only considered to be "leading". Perhaps when they do, the 72 will be correct, but if we're only showing "decided" seats, this wouldn't be right. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I read Timeshift's comment, and the AEC does appear to have everything decided, but the article says that we are using ABC's seat count, and they haven't called Brisbane. Shall I go ahead and change the sentence to reflect we're actually using the AEC count? If we are, then the information we're showing is correct. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't get the Changed Seats section, as mentioned before, this article's table is different to the AEC's and the ABC's and they are different to each other - is someone able to explain please? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, this is interesting - after reading this I think the WA National's should be grouped with the Coalition. What do you think?
11.4. FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
134. The National Party of Australia (WA) shall be affiliated with the National Party of Australia unless and until such affiliation is terminated by a majority decision of a General Conference.
134.1 While such affiliation exists, the Party shall seek to implement items of Federal policy through the Federal Parliamentary Party or the Federal Council of the National Party of Australia.
134.2 In the event of the National Party of Australia (WA) ceasing to be affiliated with the National Party of Australia, State Council shall draft rules for the guidance of West Australian Federal Parliamentary Members in conjunction with such members. Such rules will be confirmed at the next General Conference of the Party.
http://www.nationalswa.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-F1bTTudNG4%3d&tabid=99
Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
CanberraBulldog, trump card time:
He urged me to consider my position and said to consider that I am a member of the Nationals. But I highlighted to him that although we are a federated body, the WA Nationals are an autonomous political organisation, he said.
Mr Crook said he had been disappointed by media coverage of the hung parliament, which has included his seat of O'Connor in the number of seats won by Mr Abbott's Coalition.
In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be, he said.
Mr Crook's separation from the Coalition puts him at odds with Nationals MPs from the eastern states, who have formed a united coalition with Mr Abbott's Liberals. [3]
"I'm clearly an independent. I can sit on the crossbenches quite comfortably," he said. [4]
Timeshift ( talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC
72 all, 1 WA Nat, 1 Green, 4 indies. That wraps up this election's tally folks! Timeshift ( talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
TimeShift, why so aggressive, where you beaten as a small child? No where in this section I have been aggressive or argued a/my point or tried to trump you or anyone. I just put some interesting reading out there and asked what people thought of it, so back off and don't be so aggressive and trying to be correct all the time - it's not a competition. I am happy for the WA Nats to be by themselves or with the coalition which ever one is correct. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, Another interesting read on Tony Crook and the Nationals WA - this is from Antony Green:
August 25, 2010 Is Tony Crook, new Nationals MP for O'Connor, a member of the Coalition?
Since election night I have received more than 50 e-mails from members of the public wanting to know why I have included Tony Crook, the new Nationals MP for O'Connor, in the total of seats for the Coalition.
Mr Crook, like every other WA National candidate, was nominated under the umbrella of the Federally registered National Party. He appeared on the ballot paper with the party affiliation of 'The Nationals', as did all National Party candidates in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. As far as party registration with the Electoral Commission is concerned, Mr Crook is in the same party as National MPs from other states.
If after the election Mr Crook or the WA Nationals no longer wish to be treated in this way, I can say on behalf of the ABC we are prepared to consider instructions from Mr Crook that he does not wish to be included in the total of seats for the Coalition.
If we receive such instruction to remove Mr Crook from the total of Coalition seats, we will take such action and ensure that it receives appropriate news coverage.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/index.html
Oh, P.S - i read that the ALP have not given up Boothby. This is from the ABC:
From the seat of Boothby in South Australia comes this twist according to our South Australian political reporter.
Twitter - nickharmsen: Ok this gets weirder folks. ALP refusing to concede Boothby. Claiming irregularities with ballot box. Promising to take to court. ALP SA Secretary says both Lab and Lib scrutineers witnesses an AEC official improperly dealing with 3000 votes. He says AEC has admitted to a problem. Libs have claimed victory with a 1400 vote lead
Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been talk of a legal challenge, or at least the possibility of one, against the election of Coalition candidates Russell Matheson in Macarthur and Natasha Griggs in Solomon, on the basis that their position as councillors runs foul of the archaic constitutional requirement that candidates not enjoy “office for profit under the Crown”.
Interesting times ahead - I read that Brendan 'Bear' Grylls said that they should be counting Crook not in the Coalition but as an Independent - straight from the boss that he shouldn't be in the coalition count of seats. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
More interesting reading on the WA Nationals and Crook saga:
From the ABC, Antony Green Blog: COMMENT is from Antony Green.
"In an email to the ABC, the WA Nationals have indicated they believe Mr Crook should be considered an independent..."
Is that enough for you to flick him to independent, or is his anti-mining tax stance still effectively pinning him on the coalition side as a guaranteed vote (at this point)?
COMMENT: The request was made to me. When I explained that it would be achieved by creating a seperate WA National Party that was not associated with the Federal National Party and would therefore not be part of the Coalition, the request was withdrawn.
and
Hi Antony, with the ABC reporting that the WA Nationals have written in asking to not be counted in the Coalition column, will you now take him out?
COMMENT: After some discussion on options about how that could be achieved, the National Party withdrew the request.
So, are the WA Nats still 'Officially' part of The Nationals and the Coalition or not? Wonder what Antony Green would say if he read this Article? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
But, as Antony Green pointed out '......the WA Nationals have written in asking to not be counted in the Coalition column.....After some discussion on options about how that could be achieved, the National Party withdrew the request.' and 'In an email to the ABC, the WA Nationals have indicated they believe Mr Crook should be considered an independent....The request was made to me. When I explained that it would be achieved by creating a seperate WA National Party that was not associated with the Federal National Party and would therefore not be part of the Coalition, the request was withdrawn.'
So in reading this and all other information does this mean the Nationals WA is still part of the Federal Nationals but Tony Crook may act as a crossbencher if he wants? What Antony Green is pointing out is that the WA Nationals withdrew their request and are therefore still part the Federal Nationals and the Coalition? That's what I think is coming out of all of this... what do others think, has this article jumped the gun in placing the WA Nationals by themselves in the House of Reps table? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm very satisfied that this article has The WA Nationals (Crook) in the correct place in the House of Reps table. This is from his Policy Director, '....are correct, you can not count Tony's seat as a Coalition seat because at this point in time the Coalition have not agreed to support our policy position. Tony has campaigned on this message and he is simply following through on his promise to his electorate during his campaign. Tony will negotiate to get the best deal for O'Connor and the State of Western Australia.' CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder to keep in mind the last Newspoll of the campaign... ALP 36.2%, LNP 43.4%, GRN 13.9%, OTH 6.5%, 2PP 50.2% ALP. There's a 2% trade gap between the Green and Labor vote (can be expected that a couple will fall back from Green to Labor between polling phonecall and polling booth), but apart from that, it's pretty much spot on, bearing in mind the 2PP will keep sliding a bit further... Timeshift ( talk) 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why Labor is the first party, when it received the lowest primary vote of any incumbent government since the 1970's? Also, labor lost about 11-13 seats. Enidblyton11 ( talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it goes on the two-party preferred (2PP) first. Labor is about 87,000 votes in front on the 2PP so that is why, apparently. I am no expert but that is what I have read. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
top of the page, right hand corner Enidblyton11 ( talk) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Enidblyton11. So we are yet again victim to slavish adherence to the dumb behaviour of someone's idea of a template that will work in all situations. My experience is that they never do. The heading "First party Second party" is completely unnecessary. Without it, side by side pictures and short details of each party would be perfect. No apparent bias at all. Can anyone fix this dumb template please? HiLo48 ( talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The election in Brisbane has now been called by the ABC for the Coalition. That means our numbers are in fact correct on the seat totals. I also take some satisfaction in noting that, although the ABC election site does still follow the convention of counting Crook in with the Coalition, there is a very prominent disclaimer underneath the seat totals indicating that Crook intends to sit on the crossbench. Whether Wikipedia had anything to do with the ABC's decision or not, I don't know. I imagine it was the intercession of Crook himself that made them put the disclaimer there. But if it was related to our determination to get the story right, I must say I'm proud of us for getting it right. Now Australians will know that, after the election, the two main party blocs are on an equal footing, and neither has any more "mandate", according to the seat totals, than the other. We've done our part to defuse a possible spin based on a debunkable falsehood. :) Zachary Klaas ( talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, see my rant at User:Timeshift9. Abbott has zero claim to power. Timeshift ( talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Easy enough for Labor as they're united... but whose seats do we add to whose party pages infoboxes for LIB/NAT/LNP/CLP? Timeshift ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Timeshift, don't know where else to ask you this (we can delete it after)? How did you get the WA Nat swing - I can only see 2.46? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I am too, silly me, how did you (mathamatically) work out the WA Nat swing? I'm not sure how to work it out - coffee hasn't kicked in yet! Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, thanks heaps for that - my maths isn't the best at times! Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Antony Green says,
"The Australian Constitution provides a framework for government in Australia. However, that framework is bare of flesh on how to deal with the current impasse." [7]
One side needs (at least) four:
Who would've thought a bullet point could be the decider.
The most interesting times be with us.
- Cablehorn ( talk) 04:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia, already lists Ms Gambaro as the "Member for Brisbane since 2010".
"I'd still like the AEC to declare it," Ms Gambaro said. [8]
Timeshift ( talk) 09:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a bit offtopic, but why is the National 2PP count relevant? Also, given that there are a sizable number of independents, isn't the national 2PP count a bit misleading? Should it not be a table of how many votes each party/independent "commands" after preferences? -- Surturz ( talk) 13:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift: it would be nice to have some reasoning rather than a conclusion, please?
Nick-D: noted that the leaders may argue over which case is more persuasive in convincing the crossbenchers that they have a better claim for some sort of mandate, and Peter Brent can have his opinion, too.
My point is that 2PP is used to determine who wins each seat; it is not used to determine who wins government. While it merits discussion, I am not convinced that it is appropriate to include in the table of official results. I would welcome more discussion on this. — sroc ( talk) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
See here... the official AEC results site. Oh, look at that! 2PP figure comes BEFORE the primary figures!! And why is that? Because each seat is won and lost on the 2PP vote, not the primary vote. It's called two party preferred for a reason. Read instant-runoff voting. This is now settled, the end, finished. The 2PP will not be removed from election pages in every federal election page back to 1901, and state elections... they have always been there and for the foreseeable future always will be... though i'm sure some would love to see the back of it. Timeshift ( talk) 05:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the 2PP count handles seats with both Liberal and National candidates? There have been cases of people prefing Labor between the two parties - does the 2PP go with whichever candidate is the last one standing or something else? And what would be done if both parties contested a seat where the final two were Labor vs Independent? Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Two party preferred (TPP) refers to a distribution of preferences where, by convention, comparisons are made between the ALP and the leading Coalition candidates. In seats where the final two candidates are not from the ALP and the Coalition, a notional distribution of preferences is conducted to find the result of preference flows to the ALP and the Coalition candidates.
I think this sentence in the intro is a bit awkward-
"On the crossbench, four independent members, one member of the National Party of Western Australia and one member of the Australian Greens hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives."
Maybe it could start something like - "The six remaining seats ..." or "Holding the balance of power ..." something like that. ?
BTW - The ABC has a note re Crook - "Note: The Coalition's total of 73 seats includes Tony Crook from the WA Nationals, however he has indicated he intends to sit on the crossbenches." [9]
Good work all. Cablehorn ( talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it accurate to refer to all of the crossbenchers as having the balance of power? If only some pledge their support to the eventual government (i.e., based on either side's 72 seats and the support of four or five crossbenchers), the other one or two will not really have the balance of power, will they? — sroc ( talk) 09:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That definition - guaranteed support to enable a minority government to hold office - is not the common usage in Australia. Because we haven't had a hung federal parliament since 1940, few of us have any memory of that situation. Rather, the term has come to describe those non-aligned Senators who had the freedom to swing either way when controversial legislation passed their way. The Senate doesn't (normally) make or break governments in Australia. We are now facing a new usage of a term which already has already another meaning in Australia. No precedent. So don't look backwards for a meaning. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Katter and Windsor were pre-existing, Oakeshott was elected at the 2008 Lyne by-election.
The Australian news media have fairly uniformly been referring to all three (Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott) as the "incumbent independents", which is true. It doesn't hurt to have one sentence indicating that Oakeshott wasn't elected at the last general election, but he was elected before this election, and that counts for incumbency. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I concede. The revised wording is acceptable to me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Liberal/National Coalition or Labor? Timeshift ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand what it means, with the arrow moving to the left (to "2007"). In any case, the flag is problematic anywhere in thumbnail versions, since it is almost indistinguishable from the NZ and Fiji flags. Tony (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Previous election | Next election | |
2007 | 2010 | To be called |
Previous Prime Minister | Prime Minister-elect | Next Prime Minister |
Julia Gillard | To be determined | |
Labor |
Tony Crook, the incoming member for the seat of O'Connor in Western Australia, has indicated he intends to sit on the crossbench and will face tough questioning about his allegiances at today's meeting.
"I am sure Tony will tell us what his reservations are, if any. He was elected as a National. I am sure he is a proud National," Paul Neville, the returning Nationals member for the Queensland seat of Hinkler, said.
"We in the eastern states have always supported our colleagues in the west and I am sure they will understand how important it is for us to have new numbers in the Parliament and I have no reason to believe that they'll be anything else but supportive." [11]
Funny stuff. Abbott still wants to claim his 73rd even though the WA Nats and Crook want nothing to do with the coalition. Will be interesting to see what changes, if any. Timeshift ( talk) 21:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Nationals Senator John Williams says his party will play a vital role if the Coalition forms a minority government, and he has his own demands. "A lot of people have been talking about the three independents having the balance of power," he said. "Well, if we can't be [in] government, the 12 House of Reps Nationals also would be in a position of the balance of power."
If 2PP isn't important, why does the 2PP get a mention and primary votes are left out at http://vtr.aec.gov.au ? Seats here are decided on a preference vote not a primary vote. It's like telling the UK not to include primary votes because it's not relevant. What utter hogwash. Timeshift ( talk) 04:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The TPP vote count figure is a summation of the TCP vote count figures from all seats where the two TCP candidates are from the ALP and the Coalition. It excludes TCP vote count figures for either the ALP or the Coalition from seats where one, or both, of the TCP candidates is not from either the ALP or the Coalition – in the 2010 election these seats are Batman, Denison, Grayndler, Kennedy, Lyne, Melbourne, New England and O'Connor. TPP figures for these divisions will not be available until a 'scrutiny for information' is done after vote counting is finalised. In a scrutiny for information each of the formal ballot papers is allocated to either the ALP or Coalition candidate depending on which candidate got the highest preference on the ballot paper.
This contrib really does start debating the point, there's no getting around that. It's too POVy for the results section which has purposely been kept factual without debating the point... well, as little as possible while still explaining Crook's position - but this contrib further debates the point. Why can't this be added to Crook's page? Timeshift ( talk) 09:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, i've tried but stumble with awkward wording... how can we say that the WA Nats were/are open to forming govt with either side as their stated policy both prior to and after the election? At the moment it makes it sound a little like now there's a BoP situation, that they've decided they are willing to go with either side. Timeshift ( talk) 09:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see the confusion is rooted more in the nature of the National Party than Crook. As I understand it the National Party is actually the least national of the parties in Canberra, with the state branches having a huge degree of autonomy, as most obviously seen in the very different relations with other parties in different states (NSW: ongoing Coalition, VIC: on & off Coalition, QLD: merger with the Liberals and MPs & Senators can choose which party to sit in, WA: independent third force in non-traditional small-c coalition, SA: sole MLA was sitting in a Labor cabinet until she lost her seat this year, NT: joint party with the Liberals with MHRs sitting with the Liberals and Senators with the Nationals). You also had the confusion in the last parliament with the National Senators sitting for a period as crossbenchers but still being part of the National party room. It seems a great deal of disagreement is allowed within a single tent, most obviously in the federal party nominating both pro and anti-Coalition candidates.
Crook's comments in the run-up to the election seemed to be not that he was going to be an independent but that he and any other WA Nats elected would ideally sit with the rest of the Nationals if they could get the federal Nationals to put an end to the formal Coalition and adopt a more independent position similar to that the WA Nats have back in their state. If the WA Nats couldn't achieve this then they would sit as crossbenchers themselves as voters have sent them to Canberra to do more than just argue inside the National & Coalition partyrooms.
There have been cases in other countries where MPs have sat in the same parliamentary party despite being divided over support for a broader coalition and how far this is tolerated has much more to do with how power is distributed within the party and how far such dissent tolerated than about whether things are clear to the outside world. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to complicate things, it looks like there is a real possibility that two newly-elected Coalition members may be forced to face by-elections before they can take office, under section 44 (iv) of the constitution. A Crikey article states that George Christensen (politician) and Russell Matheson failed to resign from public service positions before the election, putting themselves at risk of high court action. Theory is that, given the 2PP margins for these two are apparently slim, Labor might actually have more seats than the current 72 in the final washup. Donama ( talk) 07:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The other destabilising element is the coming High Court challenge to two new Coalition MPs who foolishly failed to resign their positions on local councils before being elected.
Former Campbelltown mayor Russell Matheson, the new Liberal member for Macarthur, is even promising to stay on Liverpool council despite serving in the Federal Parliament.
And George Christensen, the new CLP member for Dawson, only formally quit the Mackay Regional Council last week after it was clear he’d scored a political promotion.
Both these chaps could fall foul of section 44 (iv) of the Constitution which prohibits anyone enjoying an office of profit under the crown from nominating for Federal Parliament.
Independent Phil Cleary and Liberal Jacqui Kelly both faced by-elections after coming a cropper in court challenges relying on this constitutional provision, but the High Court has never been asked whether this includes councillor stipends. ( source)
Newspapers don't endorse anyone. Certain journalists may support a particular party, but this does not mean the paper as a whole does (this is why you always see the small print which usually reads: the opinions of X does not reflect those of Y). Also, whatever company owns the newspaper is also irrelevant. Davez621 ( talk) 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent part of this article. It shows how much the endorsements were along partisan lines. Timeshift ( talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
After all is said and done and everything comes out in the wash, will we still display Crook in the results as seperate from the Liberal/National Coalition? I just wanted to clarify, as WA has no federal Coalition agreement, and Crook/the WA Nats went in to the election as such. After the election, he continued to maintain this. Regardless of who he chooses to support, as with any other crossbencher, he should remain seperate, correct? Timeshift ( talk) 07:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it true that any government that holds 76 or more seats in the House of Reps is not a minority government? For example, if the new government should consist of 72 Coaliton MHRs, 1 WA National and 3 independents, that's a majority government because all 76 are part of it - isn't it? Grassynoel ( talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If Labour decided to proceed without guaranteed support from 76 MPs they would be forming a minority government which would try to stay in power by either making case by case or short term deals with crossbenchers or the official opposition to avoid defeat on a confidence motion. In such a scenario, the Coalition would be unlikely to be given an opportunity to form a minority government unless the Labour government resigned in the period shortly after the election since the more time that has elapsed before a government is defeated the more likely it is that the GG would grant the PM's request for an election (which she is likely to do if defeated in a confidence vote). Of course, if Abbott secures a firm, preferably written, agreement from a sufficient number of cross benchers that they would support his government for a significant period the GG is likely to ask Abbott to form a government, particularly if Gillard is defeated on the throne speech or another confidence vote in the first year of her mandate (and in particular if she's defeated in the House at the first opportunity MPs have to vote on confidence and supply). This happened in Australia in 1941 when Curtin was asked to form a government after the Conservatives were defeated and in Ontario in 1985. Dramedy Tonight ( talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The ABC says, "Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens have signed a formal deal to join forces as Labor tries to secure a parliamentary majority." [12]
They also say, "The deal will draw the Labor bloc level with the Coalition in the House of Representatives, with 73 seats each." and have "Labor 73 (72 + Bandt) - Coalition 73" as their result so far on their news' main page. [13] - Cablehorn ( talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift ( talk) 06:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? I updated the Infobox election template after much bug-fixing and cross-checking with various samples and the only difference in the template should be the placement of the flag. What's wrong with it? — sroc ( talk) 12:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
See here. They've also put a proper Nat swing. Should we change the primary votes to Liberal and their Coalition parties like we have done at previous elections? Timeshift ( talk) 06:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on the last election, final results should be with us either late this or early next week. While the 2PP remains meaningless without the 8 non-classic Labor-leaning-in-total divisions, let's keep the 2PP to 50/50. It's silly to keep going .01 or .02 one way or the other when it means absolutely nothing. The count is 88.4% complete, it will rest around 91–92 if it was like last election, and should be done soon. Obviously though, if one 2PP has the statistical lead at that point, they can be put ahead of the other in the 2PP section of the table. Is this fair enough? Timeshift ( talk) 07:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this article following the AEC to the letter or does the article and authors take what they consider correct from the AEC and add it to the article and leave out the rest?
I'm just noticing that the House of Rep table is not reflecting the true state on the AEC. For example, ALP has 71 seats and the WA Nat is in with the Nationals - I know this has all been discussed but days have passed and info and updates have changed. I just wanted to raise this to see what others though? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The "seats changed" has been removed from the infobox; "seats needed" remains. Isn't one pointless without the other? — sroc ( talk) 11:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The first party is no longer labor on two party preferred votes. Please see link http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ and http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/coalition-ahead-on-twoparty-preferred-20100830-147gq.html does anyone know how to change first party, second party at the top right? Enidblyton11 ( talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Its not spin it's facts. Dickhead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.101.194 ( talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are obviously a Labor supporter. But, according to the AEC the Coalition are ahead on the two-party vote. How can Labor still be the first party I note the comments of 144.136.101.194 Enidblyton11 ( talk) 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Sroc, the convention on Wikipedia, I believe, is to show the winner as the left-most box, so I'd accept that would be appropriate if Tony Abbott does become the PM. Just not yet. Tony1, thanks. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Zachary. I am not using spin as you call it, simply saying Labor is not the first party. You admit to being a Labor supporter, I admit to being a swinging voter. I do not condone personal insults, I just noticed the comments. Thanks for changing first party, second party. Enidblyton11 ( talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
From pollbludger: Yesterday, the Australian Electoral Commission performed an act which in a rational world would have excited no interest. Since last weekend the commission has featured a “national two party preferred result” on the front page of its Virtual Tally Room, which has assumed tremendous psychological interest as Labor’s margin has steadily eroded from 0.6 per cent to 0.4 per cent. However, the tally had a flaw which biased it in Labor’s favour: there were no Labor-versus-Coalition figures available from strongly conservative Kennedy, Lyne, New England or O’Connor, where the notional two-candidate preferred counts conducted on election night involved independents. This was only balanced out by left-wing Melbourne, where Labor and the Greens were correctly identified as the front-running candidates for the notional count. For whatever reason, the AEC decided yesterday to level the playing field by excluding seats where the notional preference count candidates had been changed since election night, which in each case meant left-wing seats where the Liberals had finished third to the Greens (Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (Denison). The result was an instant 0.4 per cent drop in Labor’s score, reducing them to a minuscule lead that was soon rubbed out by further late counting. In fact, very little actually changed in yesterday’s counting, which saw a continuation of the slow decline in the Labor total that is the usual pattern of late counting. The media, regrettably, has almost entirely dropped the ball on this point. Mark Simkin of the ABC last night reported that Labor’s lead had been eradicated by the “latest counting”, as opposed to an essentially meaningless administrative decision. Lateline too informed us that Labor’s two-party vote had “collapsed”, and Leigh Sales’ opening question to Julie Bishop on Lateline was essentially an invitation to gloat about the fact. Most newspaper accounts eventually get around to acknowledging the entirely artificial nature of the 50,000-vote reversal in Labor’s fortunes, but only after reporting in breathless tones on the removal of votes that will eventually be put back in.
So Labor looks to still win the 2PP anyway. Yawn :) Timeshift ( talk) 21:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, STV is not so much a "proportional representation" system as a system which provides more results that typically are more proportional than first-past-the-post. It is possible to have an STV election which does not demonstrate proportionality, given that STV is usually done in multimember constituencies (in the Australian case, the constituencies are the states) - the results may be proportional within the states but could at the same time not demonstrate proportionality with respect to the nation. But this is a minor point...I just didn't want to let the comment pass without responding about this issue. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 15:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-elect applies to the person who has been voted to be president, prime minster, etc. but has not yet started work. Why is Tony Abbot described as Prime Minister-elect in this article? Forgive me if this has been covered in the above wall of words. Anthony ( talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
So that's two people who've asked this question on this talk page. It sure looks like you're calling him the Prime Minister-elect (to be determined), whatever that means. Sorry. it does. Sorry to criticise what appears to be a much loved generic infobox. Anthony ( talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as recent history makes plain, we don't elect prime ministers, we elect parliamentarians and they elect the PM. I disapprove of photos of two parliamentarians at the top of the article. It's going to mislead readers about what the election is for. Seriously. Anthony ( talk) 12:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand it's used elsewhere. It could work well here if the correct fields were employed. Including all that info on the leaders is misleading. This is not, despite the impression you might get from newspapers etc, a prime ministerial election. This would be a much less fancy, but much more accurate use of the template, for now. Anthony ( talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
@ sroc: Our job is to inform and educate, not imply this is a prime ministerial election, especially if most people think it is. And you don't need to understand why people misread the "info"box; just try to understand that they do. Anthony ( talk) 14:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That's much better! Thanks. To clarify, my problem with the inordinate emphasis on the presidential candidates Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott in a federal election article is that it parrots the impression created by the parties (having one spokesperson makes campaigning safer and more effective) and the media (it simplifies and dramatises the narrative), but we are an encyclopedia. This is an election of a parliament. A picture of new parliament house, or the chamber would be appropriate in the lead.
Anthony (
talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We must be very careful about any suggestion that this was a prime ministerial election. That matter itself was actually an election issue. The Coalition and many of its less well informed supporters have used the ALP's replacement of Kevin Rudd as leader as a negative, arguing that the party overode what Australians had decided. Just yesterday I heard Derryn Hinch arguing that the ALP replaced the person Australians had voted for. It's a legally wrong view. Wikipedia should not be encouraging it in any way. I wish the photos weren't there either. HiLo48 ( talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The template assumes something that can't be safely assumed to be true, anywhere in the world as far as I know. In the Westminster system, the only person who's ever described as a "Prime Minister-elect" in a general election context is a current Opposition Leader. An incumbent PM who leads their party into an election that they win, remains PM throughout the election period, and then continues as PM. They're never at any time called PM-elect. Even in a US-style presidential election, the person elected is not always called President-elect. Obama was so called after November 2008, becuase he was going to be replacing Bush in January 2009 but was not able to be called President until then. But if he seeks a second term in November 2012 and is successful, he won't be called President-elect then. But his opponent would, if they defeated him. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to create a brouhaha like ("-elect" above), but I think the 'voting system' in the intro is a bit long-winded (for an Intro) and scary, and would be better as a simple overview like this, with the erudite 'in-depth' part in the Background section like this.
Timeshift9 reckons it's "... critical to overseas readers ..." the "... status quo ..." remains. (see article history 07:08 (UTC), 1 September)
I think "overseas readers" could find their way to the 'Background' section.
Any opinions or WP:CONSENSUS ?
- Cablehorn ( talk) 05:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments: Remove or keep?
The arguments for "Keep" so far:
Anthony ( talk) 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't understand. What did I miss? As far as 5-1 goes, I'm trying to engage in rational argument here, not arithmetic. Which of your arguments did I not account for? Anthony ( talk) 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Saying my argument has no basis is not the same as countering my argument. But it is clear I lose the vote. Move on. Anthony ( talk) 05:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted because ministerial status and dates are completely irrelevant to which seats changed hands at this election. It belongs in his article if anywhere. Timeshift ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
See here. It gives an excellent overview of what happened between the states at this election. Can it somehow be woven in to the article without making it look like a brief editorial amongst all the results? Suggestions welcome. Timeshift ( talk) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Am I right in saying fiddling-about with the main info-box template can and has affected the rest of the planet? ..... But, I'm seeing it as far too wide, making it skew-whiff. Abbott and Gillard aren't centered (ha) and the bold descriptors in the box are way off to the left, leaving a big grey-space in the middle-left .
If anyone has the smarts and/or guts to fix it it'd make this obseessive happy.
Regards - Cablehorn ( talk) 03:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that any discussion concerning the format of the Infobox election template should be made on the Template talk:Infobox election page. Any changes to the template don't just affect the infobox on this election or Australian elections but elections worldwide, so we should seek comment/consensus from others who may want a say. I have already included discussions there about the positioning of the flag icon, format of the previous/next election links and omitting the "(title)-elect TBD" until a name is inserted, so if you don't like the format of the infobox (and ideally if you have suggestions on how to improve it), then please feel free to have the discussion there. — sroc ( talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In some forums where I play, where opinion is the go, rather than reliably sourced material, there is a line I regularly use - Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. OK, it's meant to stir people up a bit, and I would never use it here to convince people I was right, but telling me that I've been outvoted won't ever convince me that I'm wrong. As well as it being technically wrong to imply that we elect the leaders, via the infobox, a major problem this time round was that the ALP's replacement of Rudd by Gillard was actually (and probably still is) an election issue in itself. The Libs and their supporters, particularly among shock jocks, used it as a weapon against the ALP with dishonest and incorrect lines like "Labor sacked the leader we had all voted for". By leaning in the direction of a presidential style election, the crappy infobox we are acting as if we are forced to use is actually putting a POV position on the article. It is supporting the Libs and the shock jocks in their misleading tactics. (PS: I didn't vote ALP either, but I hate shock jocks!) HiLo48 ( talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree in principle to splitting up the parties so that, instead of "Liberal/National Coalition", it reads the results for the individual parties in the Coalition (i.e., the Lib-Nats of Queensland, the WA Nationals as well as the Libs and the Nats). However, the colours shown to represent the parties needs to be explained to me. Are there officially recognised party colours in Australia? Is the colour of the Lib-Nats of Queensland actually different from that of the Liberals or the Nationals? Are the party colours of the WA Nationals actually exactly the same as those of the National Party generally? If this isn't true, we need to represent what is true. But even if it is true, this strikes me as a kind of surreptitious way of making the claim that the WA Nationals were really in the Coalition all along (an easier claim to make now that Tony Crook's made up his mind, but since he still says he'll vote independently of the Coalition whip on issues besides confidence and supply, it's still a distortion.) There was no question that the Lib-Nats of Queensland were in the Coalition the whole time, and it's still an open question, even after Crook's declaration, whether the WA Nats are fully inside the Coalition. Can we find another way to represent this? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted to the original. On wikipedia we rank everything in results tables based on percentage except other/independent. This is how it is done on all prior federal elections, and state elections. Timeshift ( talk) 21:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The % order will remain, just like every other Australian federal and state election. Good on India and Germany for doing it the way they do it, that's nice for them, and i'm happy for them. Timeshift ( talk) 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please? Can I hear from someone else besides Timeshift? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
In articles for elections where the result is not immediately clear, a discussion of the formation period is often included. In at least one case, this had led to the creation of a new article, but I doubt that will be necessary here. I haven't been following the aftermath enough to create such a section myself, but I have followed it enough to know the brief treatment in the lead is insufficient. Do others agree? Is anyone willing to put something together? - Rrius ( talk) 04:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a link to the text of the writs that authorised the election in each division? Grassynoel ( talk) 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have "fixed" the infobox on this article to say "Prime Minister following election", which seems to me to be neutral terminology not to offend anyone. (Better than having a blank space above Gillard's name, anyway.) If anyone has preferred alternate wording, please suggest it here to form some sort of consensus before launching an edit war, please. — sroc ( talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
/sarcasm
What I really want to know is whether 11 citations are necessary for the proposition. If there is something you are trying to hammer down, mention it. In any event, it seems appropriate to drop 9 or 10 references. - Rrius ( talk) 06:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone put a bit of a lock on this artice. All hell may break loose re vandalism later in the evening. Regards - Cablehorn ( talk) 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)]] ( talk) 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Its official. All the major channels announced that Labor has majority seats with support of the Greens member and three of the independents. 114.77.205.172 ( talk) 09:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This is where the existence of a pre-existing Coalition in Australia muddies the waters. One way of looking at what we now have is that a coalition of the ALP, a Green, and three independents has defeated a coalition of the Coalition (of Libs and Nats) and two independents. The ALP happens to be the major partner of the first mentioned coalition, so it will provide the PM and most of the ministers. Arguments about who got the most votes are confused by the pre-existing Coalition, which tried to expand itself to a coalition in government, and failed. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is contraditction with the Sunday Tele over their endorsement. In this article, it's supporting Labor but in the Sunday Tele article; it's supporting the Liberals. It's obvious that the Sunday Tele would support the Liberals. Can someone please correct this? Thanks -- TUSWCB ( talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Katter is supporting the coalition? Really? The wording needs to be improved. Are ALL of the crossbenchers giving ONLY supply and confidence votes to their respective choices? If so this needs to be made clearer. Timeshift ( talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I also notice that whilst Katter may be backing the Coalition, he will not block supply or vote no confidence in Labor. So really, it's 77-73. Timeshift ( talk) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Why change "Julia Gillard" > "Gillard" in the infobox? This seems unnecessary and inconsistent with other uses. I'm reverting. If anyone has a reason to change this, could you please explain? — sroc ( talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to note that Labor has a 76–74 margin over the Coalition with the support of the crossbenchers, which is what allows a minority government to be formed. I think this margin is notable and certainly worth mentioning explicitly, rather than relying on the reader to do the maths. Also, it is more correct to say that this margin is what allowed Labor to form government, not Oakeshott and Windsor on their own.
Timeshift reverted my edit because I used the word "alliances". Call it "support" or whatever you like, but can we put this reference in, please? — sroc ( talk) 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
See Antony's new tally here. He's now conceding a 72 all outcome with six crossbenchers. For the lulz! Timeshift ( talk) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This says on the numbers, Labor is one vote away from losing power. But on 76-74, if one changes then it's 75-75, but I thought a motion of no confidence required a majority, ie: 76? So isn't it correct that two crossbenchers would have to move from Labor to Coalition to bring the government down? Timeshift ( talk) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Also if there is a By-Election and the Coalition wins, etc. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
LOL - I was just practsing being a Pollie. I was just throwing in how else they can/could lose Power. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The NBN is a huge winner if they deliever it correctly, not like the Home Insulation - so it could also bring them down. The biggest challenge is the Resource Tax on Minerals. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I know I'll cop some flak for this, but given that Labor has formed Government partly through a formal agreement with the Australian Greens, should this not be mentioned in the lead? The Independents have not formalised agreements, while the Australian Greens have. If we are to fairly report on the outcome of this election, Timeshift and Zach will need to be prepared to try some balance on for size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomshanahan1983 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The item " two-party-preferred vote", currently the title of the WP article on this topic, has been the subject of debate about whether it should be hyphenated. I sought advice from User:Noetica on this. His response is on my talk page, collapsed. I'd be pleased to receive feedback. Link Tony (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Next Australian federal election -- Surturz ( talk) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
* Tony Crook won the seat of O'Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. While some class Crook as a member of the Coalition and include him in their Coalition totals, there is dispute over the classification.[26] Crook says, "In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be".[27] There is no federal Coalition agreement in Western Australia; Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government.[28][29][30] On 6 September Crook said he will support the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.[31]
Can this text be trimmed? I was thinking something like:
Tony Crook won the seat of O'Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. On 6 September Crook said he will support the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.[31]
I think the longer text was to justify not counting him as a Coalition member. This is beyond doubt now, so I think we should be okay with the shorter text? -- Surturz ( talk) 11:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm for keeping this as it was, because Crook remains on the crossbench. He has indicated since the election result in favour of a Gillard government was resolved that he will be voting on issues independently of the Coalition whip. He's still on the crossbenches and should be treated that way. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Since yesterday afternoon's announcement I have heard Abbott and two other Coalition pollies stating what seems to be their official mantra on the situation. It has almost identical wording each time and goes like this...
"We got more votes and won more seats than Labor."
Our article says little about total votes at this stage, and hasn't really resolved the two party preferred figures. It does say that seats were equal. Is this just a case of pollies "harmlessly" stretching the truth, or will it eventually lead to statements in reliable sources that we should take notice of, even if they're not the truth?
HiLo48 ( talk) 12:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Did Labor get more of the primary vote? The AEC has Labor at 4,700,000+ and the Coalition at 5,350,000+ or am I looking at it incorrectly? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The Coalition is the party, just depends on the state/territory a person is in. The Coalition/Party has been around for many, many years so people now what the Coalition is BUT I see both of your points and agree. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I live in the United States. Most people here are barely aware that an election was held in Australia. Certainly none of us knows the four parties in the Coalition. And the "party colours" really confuse the issue, since one of the Coalition parties uses green as do their political opponents. So I added a column to explicitly identify the parties of the Coalition. I also moved the section heading since the table definitely shows numbers. Nick Beeson ( talk) 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, just to add to this conversation, can we also add two digits behind the decimal point with percentages and swing, as with the 2PP? I don't think rounding up or down truely reflects the parties outcome. I'm happy to keep updating from the AEC website. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've tidied up the footnote references, which were just ugly. I hope no one is offended.
Meanwhile, why are the parties in the Coalition not grouped together? Surely this would make it easier to follow? — sroc ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Until today, I’d never seen a national broadsheet with pretensions to fair and balanced reporting actually admit that it wasn’t just biased against a party supported by 14% of the country, it wanted to “destroy” it. But that’s just what The Australian did in its editorial today:
Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box. The Greens voted against Mr Rudd’s emissions trading scheme because they wanted a tougher regime, then used the lack of action on climate change to damage Labor at the election. Their flakey economics should have no place in the national debate. [18]
Interesting. Timeshift ( talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The section about Queensland in particular appears to be way, way out of date. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed Prime Minister-elect in the infobox to Subsequent Prime Minister but was reverted by User:Sroc. My reason for changing it is that the Prime Minister is not elected, but holds office on commission from the Governor-General. Furthermore, it adds to the incorrect belief some have that people directly vote for the Prime Minister, when they do not, this article is about an election where Australians voted for an MP to represent them in the House, and Senators for the State/Territory in which they reside, there wasn't voting for anything else, yes - as a result of the election the government is decided, but the PM is not elected, only voters in two Divisions saw Julia Gillard or Tony Abbot on the ballot paper. I believe it should be changed from Prime Minister-elect to something which does not imply what doesn't actually happen (the PM being elected) such as Resulting Prime Minister (e.g at New Zealand general election, 2008), Subsequent Prime Minister (e.g at United Kingdom general election, 2010), or Prime Minister-designate (e.g at Canadian federal election, 2008). --~ Knowzilla (Talk) 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Julia Gillard is the Prime Minister. At no stage has she lost her commission. She is NOT the Prime Minister-elect - to refer to her as that is factually wrong. I changed it to remove the 'elect' then someone reverted it and threatened that changing it back would be a violation of some Wikipedia policy. Presumably a policy on presenting facts as calling her 'elect' is fantasy and made up, and is another example of the false rubbish some people put on Wikipedia. Newtaste ( talk) 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
For the reasons already stated, it should not be "-elect". Previously, its use was a weakness of the infobox template. Since the template now allows for an alternative, we should use one. United Kingdom general election, 2010, the only election article I can think of off the top of my head that has been decided since the change, uses "Subsequent Prime Minister". That works for me. - Rrius ( talk) 06:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This has already been discussed at length. There seem to be essentially two issues at play:
In both cases, there is no reason why elections in Australia should be treated any differently from the UK, New Zealand, or other such parliamentary systems where the PM is not directly tied to public votes. Certainly in the latter case, there is no reason why elections in Australia should be treated any differently from any other electoral system that allows the same leader to win multiple terms.
If this is an issue that requires a change to the wording used in the infobox for elections in Australia, IMHO, such a change should be applied as the default in the Template:Infobox_election so that everyone can take advantage. This being the case, this discussion should be had at Template talk:Infobox election so that the rest of the world can join in the discussion. — sroc ( talk) 11:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a bizarre scenario presented in the infobox. Gillard's commission as prime minister never stopped; she was never "re-appointed" and certainly never re-elected. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't want to bite the newbies but there is a lot of edit-warring over the figures to use. On the one hand, the results are progressively changing; on the other, different editors are switching between AEC, ABC, and perhaps other sources. Is it worth having semi-protection for a few days until the votes are tallied? — sroc ( talk) 13:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as how Tony Crook is being counted as if he were part of the Coalition by most of the news services, isn't the point to include the references I already included about how he regards himself as an independent who could, under certain circumstances, work with Gillard? Many people have been counting him as if it's obvious Abbott will get his vote. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've put this back the way it was - the news media is reporting this as if it were a Coalition seat, despite the fact that Crook considers himself outside the coalition and is stating openly that he is making up his mind which of the two to support. If Oakeshott/Katter/Windsor/Bandt/Wilkie are noteworthy because their votes on whom to make Prime Minister are still in play, Crook's name not only has to be added to the list, but it must be made clear that he is currently being counted by most news media as if his seat counted as a Coalition seat. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I continue to fight for a fully-sourced set of sentences indicating that Tony Crook sees himself as an independent rather than a given vote for Tony Abbott. The statements included are his own words establishing that being a member of the National Party does not mean he will necessarily vote for the Coalition candidate, nor does it mean he will support Labor so long as it pursues its mining tax policy. If you kill the sentences (which I think are important), at least have the decency to retain the source references, which establish that his vote is in play and not a given for Tony Abbott. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you mean the "News Limited" company. Finally I get it. Thanks for explaining it to me. <sarcasm evident> Anyway, the points about Crook need to be on the election page because his vote is actively in play. Kerry O'Brien didn't interview him because he's just another Coalition MP. Antony Green didn't field dozens of questions about why he was being counted as another coalition MP because he really is one. Clarification as to why a member of the National Party is one of the six MPs being sought after by both the Gillard and Abbott camps must be in the article. Not just links to the references, but words explaining what's going on with him. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
At some point a lot of the earlier election articles need to be revisited, together with List of Australian federal elections and the various lists of members of the resulting parliaments. The figures aren't always in line with each other (or with other sources like Psephos) and there are some cases where we're either showing minority governments that didn't happen or the Coalition operating when it wasn't - 1919 & 1931 spring most readily to mind. The problem seems rooted in MPs getting elected with a variety of different labels (including, sometimes, the state party label) and various endorsements (e.g. joint endorsements by the Nationalist and Country parties in 1919), complicated alliances between parties and various splits at state & federal level that aren't always apparent in the table. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all,
just wanted to see what people though of adding seat changes to the table for ALP and Coalition? We have in there all the percentages, seats won, and seat changes for Independent and Greens, just wondering what people thought of adding in (as said above) the seat changes for ALP and Coalition? I know the counting isn't finished but this table is updated all the time with seats in doubt, seats won and percentages. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what this section is about, forming a WP:CONSENSUS. I am for adding in all information into the table OR deleting it altogether. What do others say? CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, can some one smart explain the change of seats please? AEC and ABC give different changes and the table here is different? ABC and AEC give Coalition +13 and ALP -15 and -13? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 09:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
People - you can't have a seat swing figure when there are undecided seats. It makes no sense. Timeshift ( talk) 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Following discussion above (particularly #Consensus on Seat Change in House of Reps table and #Seat swings, I am seeking to reach a consensus on whether and how results should be shown on the page for Australian federal election, 2010, while votes are still being tallied by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). As I see it, we have the following options:
I would be happy to include interim results provided that there is consensus on what results should be shown; otherwise, I would support leaving the results out to avoid further edit conflicts. — sroc ( talk) 05:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The seat swings are only of use if predicted seats are used, however the article uses only seats the ABC classifies as won. Swings are therefore invalid and factually incorrect, therefore unsuitable for wikipedia. If we started to use 'projected' rather than 'won' seats however, then swings could be included. But as it's factually incorrect and therefore unsuitable for wikipedia, it simply cannot stay. I've removed all seat swings (as some were complaining of inconsistency with seat swing numbers for non major parties). Timeshift ( talk) 09:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
So, we had a consensus BUT we don't have a consensus because one person disagrees! So, what's the point of gaining consensus then? If this is the way it is going to be than it is free for all and we do what we like! I think the whole table should be deleted. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 10:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Show the interim results, labeled as such. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Surturz: Of course, this will all come out in the wash. The problem is that this is currently a prominent article in that:
We should therefore strive to make this article as complete and accurate as possible, within Wikipedia standards, in order to show Wikipedia in the best light in the meantime.
There is an issue of some debate which is being discussed in order to decide the best outcome. The problem is that one user (Timeshift) has a dissenting view from all of the other users who have commented on the issue, and is taking control in the name of "consensus". — sroc ( talk) 23:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so what I am reading is that we put in no data/numbers for the changed seats - I agree with that. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The dispute is over wording here. Some WP:CONSENSUS is needed, and not just from the currently engaged editors. Timeshift ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So Frickeg and sroc support my wording. Zachary, please pull away from the POV News Ltd sensationalisms and discuss here rather than continue to engage in warring. Note that all your wanted inclusions are there on Tony Crook. Thankyou. As for who he'd support, if he wants Royalties for Regions and is anti-mining tax as his two platforms, it's pretty clear who he'll end up supporting. But that is not a factor in the neutral non-sensationalist wording required in the results section. Thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
My note above was deleted, accidentally I think. There is clear edit-warring going on here. Please read WP:3RR and stop the reversions. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both, leave the wording as is BUT give Crook a bullet. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In regards to this latest edit, either side of politics is more correct than saying the two major parties - the coalition is a composition of four parties, Labor and the coalition are not "two parties" in the technical sense. Timeshift ( talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Dissident MPs" in the lead is too News Ltd'ish, there's no need for it. Any MP can be a dissident in the coalition and retain their preselection. It is a silly caveat. Consensus works by, if a change from the status quo is disputed, it is incumbent upon the contributor who added the material to gain consensus, not the other way around. Yet again, I plead, please discuss this on the talk page rather than initiating/engaging in inflammatory edit wars. Timeshift ( talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder regarding my note above: 3RR applies to reversions of any material. I think 3RR has been breached, or is very closed to being breached, by a couple of editors here. Any further reversions could result in a block. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should clarify - I agree with Timeshift's wording BUT I agree with giving Crook a bullet. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish to draw attention to this thread requesting comments over a dash between party and preferred. Thankyou. Timeshift ( talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I am actually looking for a compromise here. We need more than we have, and I'm sure we can find some way to properly represent that Crook is as much in play as the other five MPs. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
If Crook can't be included in a bullet list of people who are considered "crossbenchers", then we need some term for describing that he is nevertheless as in play as the others. If it's not "dissident MP", then what do people suggest? As written now, the suggestion is made that only the behavior of those considered "crossbenchers" by the AEC/ABC definition will decide the next government. No. Tony Crook's decision will also decide it. That's what I'm trying to capture. I sincerely am asking for help on how to do this. Timeshift annoys me, but I'm not here to ruffle feathers, I'm here to get something important properly represented in this article. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking over Timeshift's changes to the Tony Crook page, I note that Timeshift concedes that Crook is sitting as a crossbencher. Given that his alleged lack of "crossbencher" status is why he's not getting a bullet point with the other five MPs, I ask that people consider this in their deliberations about what's proper. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've also neutralised all crossbenchers bar Bandt to say "open to negotiating with either side to form government". "Either party bloc" indicates Labor has a bloc with another party, I hope you're not confusing the Greens as an arm of Labor. Timeshift ( talk) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: Nice to see agreement. I hope no one minds if I shorten the ridiculously long title, makes the TOC rather unwieldy and also takes up a ton of room on people's watchlists. Frickeg ( talk) 03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Should the coalition in the two party area be reduced one seat to account for Crook not yet having come to a decision? Timeshift ( talk) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've actually seperated the WA Nats out alltogether (EDIT: addition removed, see diff), admittedly they did win their own seat without any coalition agreement. Timeshift ( talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent question - but I'd only do it if the Official AEC do it and I notice that do not show the WA Nationals. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
But that table is going by the ABC and the AEC and the ABC for seats have it Coalition 72. So with consensus being reached before about that table I think it (crook) should stay as one of the 72. Is Crook's statement Official WA Nationals policy? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if that is the case then he should be separate. What happens to the table that we use for the Lower House, does that mean that is incorrect because we have been using AEC and ABC sources for that and what about ABC, are they correct or incorrect? I think we should get some more users inputs before we make a change BUT what you are saying Timeshift sounds correct so if so, I'm all up for your changes after a bit more discussion. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
My only concern is that the ABC site has him with the Coalition and on 72 seats and that table is based on the ABC site - but I like the look of the table so I am happy either way. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 06:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to shock everyone by saying I actually don't care about this. :) I long since accepted that the current AEC/ABC convention is to represent his vote as being counted as a Coalition seat - what I was fighting about was that we needed to demonstrate strongly that Crook isn't really Coalition, and after last night, I feel confident we've done that. I personally wouldn't object to the WA Nationals getting their own line, since they did run Crook knowingly as a candidate who would act independently of the coalition. But I actually don't care about this issue. I think we've done what we need to do at this point. Either solution would satisfy me. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I do approve of the textual clarification that it wasn't only Crook but also the WA National Party that is open to negotiation with either party bloc. That's been true since the get-go...perhaps the reason we had such acrimony on this issue was that people didn't fully understand that until now? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added margin and counted percentages to the seat movement table. Is this ok or do people think it will get out of date too quickly? Maybe just the margin only? I like both. Timeshift ( talk) 03:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it still true, as the article currently says, that seats the ABC considers "decided" are being represented in the seat totals table? If so, and if we are counting the WA Nationals as a separate entity, the Coalition total at present should only be 71. The ABC appears to have not called Brisbane, where the LNP is only considered to be "leading". Perhaps when they do, the 72 will be correct, but if we're only showing "decided" seats, this wouldn't be right. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I read Timeshift's comment, and the AEC does appear to have everything decided, but the article says that we are using ABC's seat count, and they haven't called Brisbane. Shall I go ahead and change the sentence to reflect we're actually using the AEC count? If we are, then the information we're showing is correct. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't get the Changed Seats section, as mentioned before, this article's table is different to the AEC's and the ABC's and they are different to each other - is someone able to explain please? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, this is interesting - after reading this I think the WA National's should be grouped with the Coalition. What do you think?
11.4. FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
134. The National Party of Australia (WA) shall be affiliated with the National Party of Australia unless and until such affiliation is terminated by a majority decision of a General Conference.
134.1 While such affiliation exists, the Party shall seek to implement items of Federal policy through the Federal Parliamentary Party or the Federal Council of the National Party of Australia.
134.2 In the event of the National Party of Australia (WA) ceasing to be affiliated with the National Party of Australia, State Council shall draft rules for the guidance of West Australian Federal Parliamentary Members in conjunction with such members. Such rules will be confirmed at the next General Conference of the Party.
http://www.nationalswa.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-F1bTTudNG4%3d&tabid=99
Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
CanberraBulldog, trump card time:
He urged me to consider my position and said to consider that I am a member of the Nationals. But I highlighted to him that although we are a federated body, the WA Nationals are an autonomous political organisation, he said.
Mr Crook said he had been disappointed by media coverage of the hung parliament, which has included his seat of O'Connor in the number of seats won by Mr Abbott's Coalition.
In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be, he said.
Mr Crook's separation from the Coalition puts him at odds with Nationals MPs from the eastern states, who have formed a united coalition with Mr Abbott's Liberals. [3]
"I'm clearly an independent. I can sit on the crossbenches quite comfortably," he said. [4]
Timeshift ( talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC
72 all, 1 WA Nat, 1 Green, 4 indies. That wraps up this election's tally folks! Timeshift ( talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
TimeShift, why so aggressive, where you beaten as a small child? No where in this section I have been aggressive or argued a/my point or tried to trump you or anyone. I just put some interesting reading out there and asked what people thought of it, so back off and don't be so aggressive and trying to be correct all the time - it's not a competition. I am happy for the WA Nats to be by themselves or with the coalition which ever one is correct. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, Another interesting read on Tony Crook and the Nationals WA - this is from Antony Green:
August 25, 2010 Is Tony Crook, new Nationals MP for O'Connor, a member of the Coalition?
Since election night I have received more than 50 e-mails from members of the public wanting to know why I have included Tony Crook, the new Nationals MP for O'Connor, in the total of seats for the Coalition.
Mr Crook, like every other WA National candidate, was nominated under the umbrella of the Federally registered National Party. He appeared on the ballot paper with the party affiliation of 'The Nationals', as did all National Party candidates in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. As far as party registration with the Electoral Commission is concerned, Mr Crook is in the same party as National MPs from other states.
If after the election Mr Crook or the WA Nationals no longer wish to be treated in this way, I can say on behalf of the ABC we are prepared to consider instructions from Mr Crook that he does not wish to be included in the total of seats for the Coalition.
If we receive such instruction to remove Mr Crook from the total of Coalition seats, we will take such action and ensure that it receives appropriate news coverage.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/index.html
Oh, P.S - i read that the ALP have not given up Boothby. This is from the ABC:
From the seat of Boothby in South Australia comes this twist according to our South Australian political reporter.
Twitter - nickharmsen: Ok this gets weirder folks. ALP refusing to concede Boothby. Claiming irregularities with ballot box. Promising to take to court. ALP SA Secretary says both Lab and Lib scrutineers witnesses an AEC official improperly dealing with 3000 votes. He says AEC has admitted to a problem. Libs have claimed victory with a 1400 vote lead
Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been talk of a legal challenge, or at least the possibility of one, against the election of Coalition candidates Russell Matheson in Macarthur and Natasha Griggs in Solomon, on the basis that their position as councillors runs foul of the archaic constitutional requirement that candidates not enjoy “office for profit under the Crown”.
Interesting times ahead - I read that Brendan 'Bear' Grylls said that they should be counting Crook not in the Coalition but as an Independent - straight from the boss that he shouldn't be in the coalition count of seats. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
More interesting reading on the WA Nationals and Crook saga:
From the ABC, Antony Green Blog: COMMENT is from Antony Green.
"In an email to the ABC, the WA Nationals have indicated they believe Mr Crook should be considered an independent..."
Is that enough for you to flick him to independent, or is his anti-mining tax stance still effectively pinning him on the coalition side as a guaranteed vote (at this point)?
COMMENT: The request was made to me. When I explained that it would be achieved by creating a seperate WA National Party that was not associated with the Federal National Party and would therefore not be part of the Coalition, the request was withdrawn.
and
Hi Antony, with the ABC reporting that the WA Nationals have written in asking to not be counted in the Coalition column, will you now take him out?
COMMENT: After some discussion on options about how that could be achieved, the National Party withdrew the request.
So, are the WA Nats still 'Officially' part of The Nationals and the Coalition or not? Wonder what Antony Green would say if he read this Article? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
But, as Antony Green pointed out '......the WA Nationals have written in asking to not be counted in the Coalition column.....After some discussion on options about how that could be achieved, the National Party withdrew the request.' and 'In an email to the ABC, the WA Nationals have indicated they believe Mr Crook should be considered an independent....The request was made to me. When I explained that it would be achieved by creating a seperate WA National Party that was not associated with the Federal National Party and would therefore not be part of the Coalition, the request was withdrawn.'
So in reading this and all other information does this mean the Nationals WA is still part of the Federal Nationals but Tony Crook may act as a crossbencher if he wants? What Antony Green is pointing out is that the WA Nationals withdrew their request and are therefore still part the Federal Nationals and the Coalition? That's what I think is coming out of all of this... what do others think, has this article jumped the gun in placing the WA Nationals by themselves in the House of Reps table? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm very satisfied that this article has The WA Nationals (Crook) in the correct place in the House of Reps table. This is from his Policy Director, '....are correct, you can not count Tony's seat as a Coalition seat because at this point in time the Coalition have not agreed to support our policy position. Tony has campaigned on this message and he is simply following through on his promise to his electorate during his campaign. Tony will negotiate to get the best deal for O'Connor and the State of Western Australia.' CanberraBulldog ( talk) 04:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder to keep in mind the last Newspoll of the campaign... ALP 36.2%, LNP 43.4%, GRN 13.9%, OTH 6.5%, 2PP 50.2% ALP. There's a 2% trade gap between the Green and Labor vote (can be expected that a couple will fall back from Green to Labor between polling phonecall and polling booth), but apart from that, it's pretty much spot on, bearing in mind the 2PP will keep sliding a bit further... Timeshift ( talk) 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why Labor is the first party, when it received the lowest primary vote of any incumbent government since the 1970's? Also, labor lost about 11-13 seats. Enidblyton11 ( talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it goes on the two-party preferred (2PP) first. Labor is about 87,000 votes in front on the 2PP so that is why, apparently. I am no expert but that is what I have read. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
top of the page, right hand corner Enidblyton11 ( talk) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Enidblyton11. So we are yet again victim to slavish adherence to the dumb behaviour of someone's idea of a template that will work in all situations. My experience is that they never do. The heading "First party Second party" is completely unnecessary. Without it, side by side pictures and short details of each party would be perfect. No apparent bias at all. Can anyone fix this dumb template please? HiLo48 ( talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The election in Brisbane has now been called by the ABC for the Coalition. That means our numbers are in fact correct on the seat totals. I also take some satisfaction in noting that, although the ABC election site does still follow the convention of counting Crook in with the Coalition, there is a very prominent disclaimer underneath the seat totals indicating that Crook intends to sit on the crossbench. Whether Wikipedia had anything to do with the ABC's decision or not, I don't know. I imagine it was the intercession of Crook himself that made them put the disclaimer there. But if it was related to our determination to get the story right, I must say I'm proud of us for getting it right. Now Australians will know that, after the election, the two main party blocs are on an equal footing, and neither has any more "mandate", according to the seat totals, than the other. We've done our part to defuse a possible spin based on a debunkable falsehood. :) Zachary Klaas ( talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, see my rant at User:Timeshift9. Abbott has zero claim to power. Timeshift ( talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Easy enough for Labor as they're united... but whose seats do we add to whose party pages infoboxes for LIB/NAT/LNP/CLP? Timeshift ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Timeshift, don't know where else to ask you this (we can delete it after)? How did you get the WA Nat swing - I can only see 2.46? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I am too, silly me, how did you (mathamatically) work out the WA Nat swing? I'm not sure how to work it out - coffee hasn't kicked in yet! Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, thanks heaps for that - my maths isn't the best at times! Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Antony Green says,
"The Australian Constitution provides a framework for government in Australia. However, that framework is bare of flesh on how to deal with the current impasse." [7]
One side needs (at least) four:
Who would've thought a bullet point could be the decider.
The most interesting times be with us.
- Cablehorn ( talk) 04:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia, already lists Ms Gambaro as the "Member for Brisbane since 2010".
"I'd still like the AEC to declare it," Ms Gambaro said. [8]
Timeshift ( talk) 09:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a bit offtopic, but why is the National 2PP count relevant? Also, given that there are a sizable number of independents, isn't the national 2PP count a bit misleading? Should it not be a table of how many votes each party/independent "commands" after preferences? -- Surturz ( talk) 13:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift: it would be nice to have some reasoning rather than a conclusion, please?
Nick-D: noted that the leaders may argue over which case is more persuasive in convincing the crossbenchers that they have a better claim for some sort of mandate, and Peter Brent can have his opinion, too.
My point is that 2PP is used to determine who wins each seat; it is not used to determine who wins government. While it merits discussion, I am not convinced that it is appropriate to include in the table of official results. I would welcome more discussion on this. — sroc ( talk) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
See here... the official AEC results site. Oh, look at that! 2PP figure comes BEFORE the primary figures!! And why is that? Because each seat is won and lost on the 2PP vote, not the primary vote. It's called two party preferred for a reason. Read instant-runoff voting. This is now settled, the end, finished. The 2PP will not be removed from election pages in every federal election page back to 1901, and state elections... they have always been there and for the foreseeable future always will be... though i'm sure some would love to see the back of it. Timeshift ( talk) 05:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the 2PP count handles seats with both Liberal and National candidates? There have been cases of people prefing Labor between the two parties - does the 2PP go with whichever candidate is the last one standing or something else? And what would be done if both parties contested a seat where the final two were Labor vs Independent? Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Two party preferred (TPP) refers to a distribution of preferences where, by convention, comparisons are made between the ALP and the leading Coalition candidates. In seats where the final two candidates are not from the ALP and the Coalition, a notional distribution of preferences is conducted to find the result of preference flows to the ALP and the Coalition candidates.
I think this sentence in the intro is a bit awkward-
"On the crossbench, four independent members, one member of the National Party of Western Australia and one member of the Australian Greens hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives."
Maybe it could start something like - "The six remaining seats ..." or "Holding the balance of power ..." something like that. ?
BTW - The ABC has a note re Crook - "Note: The Coalition's total of 73 seats includes Tony Crook from the WA Nationals, however he has indicated he intends to sit on the crossbenches." [9]
Good work all. Cablehorn ( talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it accurate to refer to all of the crossbenchers as having the balance of power? If only some pledge their support to the eventual government (i.e., based on either side's 72 seats and the support of four or five crossbenchers), the other one or two will not really have the balance of power, will they? — sroc ( talk) 09:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That definition - guaranteed support to enable a minority government to hold office - is not the common usage in Australia. Because we haven't had a hung federal parliament since 1940, few of us have any memory of that situation. Rather, the term has come to describe those non-aligned Senators who had the freedom to swing either way when controversial legislation passed their way. The Senate doesn't (normally) make or break governments in Australia. We are now facing a new usage of a term which already has already another meaning in Australia. No precedent. So don't look backwards for a meaning. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Katter and Windsor were pre-existing, Oakeshott was elected at the 2008 Lyne by-election.
The Australian news media have fairly uniformly been referring to all three (Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott) as the "incumbent independents", which is true. It doesn't hurt to have one sentence indicating that Oakeshott wasn't elected at the last general election, but he was elected before this election, and that counts for incumbency. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I concede. The revised wording is acceptable to me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Liberal/National Coalition or Labor? Timeshift ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand what it means, with the arrow moving to the left (to "2007"). In any case, the flag is problematic anywhere in thumbnail versions, since it is almost indistinguishable from the NZ and Fiji flags. Tony (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Previous election | Next election | |
2007 | 2010 | To be called |
Previous Prime Minister | Prime Minister-elect | Next Prime Minister |
Julia Gillard | To be determined | |
Labor |
Tony Crook, the incoming member for the seat of O'Connor in Western Australia, has indicated he intends to sit on the crossbench and will face tough questioning about his allegiances at today's meeting.
"I am sure Tony will tell us what his reservations are, if any. He was elected as a National. I am sure he is a proud National," Paul Neville, the returning Nationals member for the Queensland seat of Hinkler, said.
"We in the eastern states have always supported our colleagues in the west and I am sure they will understand how important it is for us to have new numbers in the Parliament and I have no reason to believe that they'll be anything else but supportive." [11]
Funny stuff. Abbott still wants to claim his 73rd even though the WA Nats and Crook want nothing to do with the coalition. Will be interesting to see what changes, if any. Timeshift ( talk) 21:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Nationals Senator John Williams says his party will play a vital role if the Coalition forms a minority government, and he has his own demands. "A lot of people have been talking about the three independents having the balance of power," he said. "Well, if we can't be [in] government, the 12 House of Reps Nationals also would be in a position of the balance of power."
If 2PP isn't important, why does the 2PP get a mention and primary votes are left out at http://vtr.aec.gov.au ? Seats here are decided on a preference vote not a primary vote. It's like telling the UK not to include primary votes because it's not relevant. What utter hogwash. Timeshift ( talk) 04:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The TPP vote count figure is a summation of the TCP vote count figures from all seats where the two TCP candidates are from the ALP and the Coalition. It excludes TCP vote count figures for either the ALP or the Coalition from seats where one, or both, of the TCP candidates is not from either the ALP or the Coalition – in the 2010 election these seats are Batman, Denison, Grayndler, Kennedy, Lyne, Melbourne, New England and O'Connor. TPP figures for these divisions will not be available until a 'scrutiny for information' is done after vote counting is finalised. In a scrutiny for information each of the formal ballot papers is allocated to either the ALP or Coalition candidate depending on which candidate got the highest preference on the ballot paper.
This contrib really does start debating the point, there's no getting around that. It's too POVy for the results section which has purposely been kept factual without debating the point... well, as little as possible while still explaining Crook's position - but this contrib further debates the point. Why can't this be added to Crook's page? Timeshift ( talk) 09:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, i've tried but stumble with awkward wording... how can we say that the WA Nats were/are open to forming govt with either side as their stated policy both prior to and after the election? At the moment it makes it sound a little like now there's a BoP situation, that they've decided they are willing to go with either side. Timeshift ( talk) 09:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see the confusion is rooted more in the nature of the National Party than Crook. As I understand it the National Party is actually the least national of the parties in Canberra, with the state branches having a huge degree of autonomy, as most obviously seen in the very different relations with other parties in different states (NSW: ongoing Coalition, VIC: on & off Coalition, QLD: merger with the Liberals and MPs & Senators can choose which party to sit in, WA: independent third force in non-traditional small-c coalition, SA: sole MLA was sitting in a Labor cabinet until she lost her seat this year, NT: joint party with the Liberals with MHRs sitting with the Liberals and Senators with the Nationals). You also had the confusion in the last parliament with the National Senators sitting for a period as crossbenchers but still being part of the National party room. It seems a great deal of disagreement is allowed within a single tent, most obviously in the federal party nominating both pro and anti-Coalition candidates.
Crook's comments in the run-up to the election seemed to be not that he was going to be an independent but that he and any other WA Nats elected would ideally sit with the rest of the Nationals if they could get the federal Nationals to put an end to the formal Coalition and adopt a more independent position similar to that the WA Nats have back in their state. If the WA Nats couldn't achieve this then they would sit as crossbenchers themselves as voters have sent them to Canberra to do more than just argue inside the National & Coalition partyrooms.
There have been cases in other countries where MPs have sat in the same parliamentary party despite being divided over support for a broader coalition and how far this is tolerated has much more to do with how power is distributed within the party and how far such dissent tolerated than about whether things are clear to the outside world. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to complicate things, it looks like there is a real possibility that two newly-elected Coalition members may be forced to face by-elections before they can take office, under section 44 (iv) of the constitution. A Crikey article states that George Christensen (politician) and Russell Matheson failed to resign from public service positions before the election, putting themselves at risk of high court action. Theory is that, given the 2PP margins for these two are apparently slim, Labor might actually have more seats than the current 72 in the final washup. Donama ( talk) 07:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The other destabilising element is the coming High Court challenge to two new Coalition MPs who foolishly failed to resign their positions on local councils before being elected.
Former Campbelltown mayor Russell Matheson, the new Liberal member for Macarthur, is even promising to stay on Liverpool council despite serving in the Federal Parliament.
And George Christensen, the new CLP member for Dawson, only formally quit the Mackay Regional Council last week after it was clear he’d scored a political promotion.
Both these chaps could fall foul of section 44 (iv) of the Constitution which prohibits anyone enjoying an office of profit under the crown from nominating for Federal Parliament.
Independent Phil Cleary and Liberal Jacqui Kelly both faced by-elections after coming a cropper in court challenges relying on this constitutional provision, but the High Court has never been asked whether this includes councillor stipends. ( source)
Newspapers don't endorse anyone. Certain journalists may support a particular party, but this does not mean the paper as a whole does (this is why you always see the small print which usually reads: the opinions of X does not reflect those of Y). Also, whatever company owns the newspaper is also irrelevant. Davez621 ( talk) 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent part of this article. It shows how much the endorsements were along partisan lines. Timeshift ( talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
After all is said and done and everything comes out in the wash, will we still display Crook in the results as seperate from the Liberal/National Coalition? I just wanted to clarify, as WA has no federal Coalition agreement, and Crook/the WA Nats went in to the election as such. After the election, he continued to maintain this. Regardless of who he chooses to support, as with any other crossbencher, he should remain seperate, correct? Timeshift ( talk) 07:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it true that any government that holds 76 or more seats in the House of Reps is not a minority government? For example, if the new government should consist of 72 Coaliton MHRs, 1 WA National and 3 independents, that's a majority government because all 76 are part of it - isn't it? Grassynoel ( talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If Labour decided to proceed without guaranteed support from 76 MPs they would be forming a minority government which would try to stay in power by either making case by case or short term deals with crossbenchers or the official opposition to avoid defeat on a confidence motion. In such a scenario, the Coalition would be unlikely to be given an opportunity to form a minority government unless the Labour government resigned in the period shortly after the election since the more time that has elapsed before a government is defeated the more likely it is that the GG would grant the PM's request for an election (which she is likely to do if defeated in a confidence vote). Of course, if Abbott secures a firm, preferably written, agreement from a sufficient number of cross benchers that they would support his government for a significant period the GG is likely to ask Abbott to form a government, particularly if Gillard is defeated on the throne speech or another confidence vote in the first year of her mandate (and in particular if she's defeated in the House at the first opportunity MPs have to vote on confidence and supply). This happened in Australia in 1941 when Curtin was asked to form a government after the Conservatives were defeated and in Ontario in 1985. Dramedy Tonight ( talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The ABC says, "Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens have signed a formal deal to join forces as Labor tries to secure a parliamentary majority." [12]
They also say, "The deal will draw the Labor bloc level with the Coalition in the House of Representatives, with 73 seats each." and have "Labor 73 (72 + Bandt) - Coalition 73" as their result so far on their news' main page. [13] - Cablehorn ( talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift ( talk) 06:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? I updated the Infobox election template after much bug-fixing and cross-checking with various samples and the only difference in the template should be the placement of the flag. What's wrong with it? — sroc ( talk) 12:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
See here. They've also put a proper Nat swing. Should we change the primary votes to Liberal and their Coalition parties like we have done at previous elections? Timeshift ( talk) 06:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on the last election, final results should be with us either late this or early next week. While the 2PP remains meaningless without the 8 non-classic Labor-leaning-in-total divisions, let's keep the 2PP to 50/50. It's silly to keep going .01 or .02 one way or the other when it means absolutely nothing. The count is 88.4% complete, it will rest around 91–92 if it was like last election, and should be done soon. Obviously though, if one 2PP has the statistical lead at that point, they can be put ahead of the other in the 2PP section of the table. Is this fair enough? Timeshift ( talk) 07:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this article following the AEC to the letter or does the article and authors take what they consider correct from the AEC and add it to the article and leave out the rest?
I'm just noticing that the House of Rep table is not reflecting the true state on the AEC. For example, ALP has 71 seats and the WA Nat is in with the Nationals - I know this has all been discussed but days have passed and info and updates have changed. I just wanted to raise this to see what others though? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The "seats changed" has been removed from the infobox; "seats needed" remains. Isn't one pointless without the other? — sroc ( talk) 11:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The first party is no longer labor on two party preferred votes. Please see link http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ and http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/coalition-ahead-on-twoparty-preferred-20100830-147gq.html does anyone know how to change first party, second party at the top right? Enidblyton11 ( talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Its not spin it's facts. Dickhead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.101.194 ( talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are obviously a Labor supporter. But, according to the AEC the Coalition are ahead on the two-party vote. How can Labor still be the first party I note the comments of 144.136.101.194 Enidblyton11 ( talk) 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Sroc, the convention on Wikipedia, I believe, is to show the winner as the left-most box, so I'd accept that would be appropriate if Tony Abbott does become the PM. Just not yet. Tony1, thanks. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Zachary. I am not using spin as you call it, simply saying Labor is not the first party. You admit to being a Labor supporter, I admit to being a swinging voter. I do not condone personal insults, I just noticed the comments. Thanks for changing first party, second party. Enidblyton11 ( talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
From pollbludger: Yesterday, the Australian Electoral Commission performed an act which in a rational world would have excited no interest. Since last weekend the commission has featured a “national two party preferred result” on the front page of its Virtual Tally Room, which has assumed tremendous psychological interest as Labor’s margin has steadily eroded from 0.6 per cent to 0.4 per cent. However, the tally had a flaw which biased it in Labor’s favour: there were no Labor-versus-Coalition figures available from strongly conservative Kennedy, Lyne, New England or O’Connor, where the notional two-candidate preferred counts conducted on election night involved independents. This was only balanced out by left-wing Melbourne, where Labor and the Greens were correctly identified as the front-running candidates for the notional count. For whatever reason, the AEC decided yesterday to level the playing field by excluding seats where the notional preference count candidates had been changed since election night, which in each case meant left-wing seats where the Liberals had finished third to the Greens (Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (Denison). The result was an instant 0.4 per cent drop in Labor’s score, reducing them to a minuscule lead that was soon rubbed out by further late counting. In fact, very little actually changed in yesterday’s counting, which saw a continuation of the slow decline in the Labor total that is the usual pattern of late counting. The media, regrettably, has almost entirely dropped the ball on this point. Mark Simkin of the ABC last night reported that Labor’s lead had been eradicated by the “latest counting”, as opposed to an essentially meaningless administrative decision. Lateline too informed us that Labor’s two-party vote had “collapsed”, and Leigh Sales’ opening question to Julie Bishop on Lateline was essentially an invitation to gloat about the fact. Most newspaper accounts eventually get around to acknowledging the entirely artificial nature of the 50,000-vote reversal in Labor’s fortunes, but only after reporting in breathless tones on the removal of votes that will eventually be put back in.
So Labor looks to still win the 2PP anyway. Yawn :) Timeshift ( talk) 21:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, STV is not so much a "proportional representation" system as a system which provides more results that typically are more proportional than first-past-the-post. It is possible to have an STV election which does not demonstrate proportionality, given that STV is usually done in multimember constituencies (in the Australian case, the constituencies are the states) - the results may be proportional within the states but could at the same time not demonstrate proportionality with respect to the nation. But this is a minor point...I just didn't want to let the comment pass without responding about this issue. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 15:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-elect applies to the person who has been voted to be president, prime minster, etc. but has not yet started work. Why is Tony Abbot described as Prime Minister-elect in this article? Forgive me if this has been covered in the above wall of words. Anthony ( talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
So that's two people who've asked this question on this talk page. It sure looks like you're calling him the Prime Minister-elect (to be determined), whatever that means. Sorry. it does. Sorry to criticise what appears to be a much loved generic infobox. Anthony ( talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as recent history makes plain, we don't elect prime ministers, we elect parliamentarians and they elect the PM. I disapprove of photos of two parliamentarians at the top of the article. It's going to mislead readers about what the election is for. Seriously. Anthony ( talk) 12:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand it's used elsewhere. It could work well here if the correct fields were employed. Including all that info on the leaders is misleading. This is not, despite the impression you might get from newspapers etc, a prime ministerial election. This would be a much less fancy, but much more accurate use of the template, for now. Anthony ( talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
@ sroc: Our job is to inform and educate, not imply this is a prime ministerial election, especially if most people think it is. And you don't need to understand why people misread the "info"box; just try to understand that they do. Anthony ( talk) 14:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That's much better! Thanks. To clarify, my problem with the inordinate emphasis on the presidential candidates Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott in a federal election article is that it parrots the impression created by the parties (having one spokesperson makes campaigning safer and more effective) and the media (it simplifies and dramatises the narrative), but we are an encyclopedia. This is an election of a parliament. A picture of new parliament house, or the chamber would be appropriate in the lead.
Anthony (
talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We must be very careful about any suggestion that this was a prime ministerial election. That matter itself was actually an election issue. The Coalition and many of its less well informed supporters have used the ALP's replacement of Kevin Rudd as leader as a negative, arguing that the party overode what Australians had decided. Just yesterday I heard Derryn Hinch arguing that the ALP replaced the person Australians had voted for. It's a legally wrong view. Wikipedia should not be encouraging it in any way. I wish the photos weren't there either. HiLo48 ( talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The template assumes something that can't be safely assumed to be true, anywhere in the world as far as I know. In the Westminster system, the only person who's ever described as a "Prime Minister-elect" in a general election context is a current Opposition Leader. An incumbent PM who leads their party into an election that they win, remains PM throughout the election period, and then continues as PM. They're never at any time called PM-elect. Even in a US-style presidential election, the person elected is not always called President-elect. Obama was so called after November 2008, becuase he was going to be replacing Bush in January 2009 but was not able to be called President until then. But if he seeks a second term in November 2012 and is successful, he won't be called President-elect then. But his opponent would, if they defeated him. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to create a brouhaha like ("-elect" above), but I think the 'voting system' in the intro is a bit long-winded (for an Intro) and scary, and would be better as a simple overview like this, with the erudite 'in-depth' part in the Background section like this.
Timeshift9 reckons it's "... critical to overseas readers ..." the "... status quo ..." remains. (see article history 07:08 (UTC), 1 September)
I think "overseas readers" could find their way to the 'Background' section.
Any opinions or WP:CONSENSUS ?
- Cablehorn ( talk) 05:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments: Remove or keep?
The arguments for "Keep" so far:
Anthony ( talk) 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't understand. What did I miss? As far as 5-1 goes, I'm trying to engage in rational argument here, not arithmetic. Which of your arguments did I not account for? Anthony ( talk) 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Saying my argument has no basis is not the same as countering my argument. But it is clear I lose the vote. Move on. Anthony ( talk) 05:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted because ministerial status and dates are completely irrelevant to which seats changed hands at this election. It belongs in his article if anywhere. Timeshift ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
See here. It gives an excellent overview of what happened between the states at this election. Can it somehow be woven in to the article without making it look like a brief editorial amongst all the results? Suggestions welcome. Timeshift ( talk) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Am I right in saying fiddling-about with the main info-box template can and has affected the rest of the planet? ..... But, I'm seeing it as far too wide, making it skew-whiff. Abbott and Gillard aren't centered (ha) and the bold descriptors in the box are way off to the left, leaving a big grey-space in the middle-left .
If anyone has the smarts and/or guts to fix it it'd make this obseessive happy.
Regards - Cablehorn ( talk) 03:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that any discussion concerning the format of the Infobox election template should be made on the Template talk:Infobox election page. Any changes to the template don't just affect the infobox on this election or Australian elections but elections worldwide, so we should seek comment/consensus from others who may want a say. I have already included discussions there about the positioning of the flag icon, format of the previous/next election links and omitting the "(title)-elect TBD" until a name is inserted, so if you don't like the format of the infobox (and ideally if you have suggestions on how to improve it), then please feel free to have the discussion there. — sroc ( talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In some forums where I play, where opinion is the go, rather than reliably sourced material, there is a line I regularly use - Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. OK, it's meant to stir people up a bit, and I would never use it here to convince people I was right, but telling me that I've been outvoted won't ever convince me that I'm wrong. As well as it being technically wrong to imply that we elect the leaders, via the infobox, a major problem this time round was that the ALP's replacement of Rudd by Gillard was actually (and probably still is) an election issue in itself. The Libs and their supporters, particularly among shock jocks, used it as a weapon against the ALP with dishonest and incorrect lines like "Labor sacked the leader we had all voted for". By leaning in the direction of a presidential style election, the crappy infobox we are acting as if we are forced to use is actually putting a POV position on the article. It is supporting the Libs and the shock jocks in their misleading tactics. (PS: I didn't vote ALP either, but I hate shock jocks!) HiLo48 ( talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree in principle to splitting up the parties so that, instead of "Liberal/National Coalition", it reads the results for the individual parties in the Coalition (i.e., the Lib-Nats of Queensland, the WA Nationals as well as the Libs and the Nats). However, the colours shown to represent the parties needs to be explained to me. Are there officially recognised party colours in Australia? Is the colour of the Lib-Nats of Queensland actually different from that of the Liberals or the Nationals? Are the party colours of the WA Nationals actually exactly the same as those of the National Party generally? If this isn't true, we need to represent what is true. But even if it is true, this strikes me as a kind of surreptitious way of making the claim that the WA Nationals were really in the Coalition all along (an easier claim to make now that Tony Crook's made up his mind, but since he still says he'll vote independently of the Coalition whip on issues besides confidence and supply, it's still a distortion.) There was no question that the Lib-Nats of Queensland were in the Coalition the whole time, and it's still an open question, even after Crook's declaration, whether the WA Nats are fully inside the Coalition. Can we find another way to represent this? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted to the original. On wikipedia we rank everything in results tables based on percentage except other/independent. This is how it is done on all prior federal elections, and state elections. Timeshift ( talk) 21:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The % order will remain, just like every other Australian federal and state election. Good on India and Germany for doing it the way they do it, that's nice for them, and i'm happy for them. Timeshift ( talk) 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please? Can I hear from someone else besides Timeshift? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
In articles for elections where the result is not immediately clear, a discussion of the formation period is often included. In at least one case, this had led to the creation of a new article, but I doubt that will be necessary here. I haven't been following the aftermath enough to create such a section myself, but I have followed it enough to know the brief treatment in the lead is insufficient. Do others agree? Is anyone willing to put something together? - Rrius ( talk) 04:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a link to the text of the writs that authorised the election in each division? Grassynoel ( talk) 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have "fixed" the infobox on this article to say "Prime Minister following election", which seems to me to be neutral terminology not to offend anyone. (Better than having a blank space above Gillard's name, anyway.) If anyone has preferred alternate wording, please suggest it here to form some sort of consensus before launching an edit war, please. — sroc ( talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
/sarcasm
What I really want to know is whether 11 citations are necessary for the proposition. If there is something you are trying to hammer down, mention it. In any event, it seems appropriate to drop 9 or 10 references. - Rrius ( talk) 06:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone put a bit of a lock on this artice. All hell may break loose re vandalism later in the evening. Regards - Cablehorn ( talk) 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)]] ( talk) 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Its official. All the major channels announced that Labor has majority seats with support of the Greens member and three of the independents. 114.77.205.172 ( talk) 09:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This is where the existence of a pre-existing Coalition in Australia muddies the waters. One way of looking at what we now have is that a coalition of the ALP, a Green, and three independents has defeated a coalition of the Coalition (of Libs and Nats) and two independents. The ALP happens to be the major partner of the first mentioned coalition, so it will provide the PM and most of the ministers. Arguments about who got the most votes are confused by the pre-existing Coalition, which tried to expand itself to a coalition in government, and failed. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is contraditction with the Sunday Tele over their endorsement. In this article, it's supporting Labor but in the Sunday Tele article; it's supporting the Liberals. It's obvious that the Sunday Tele would support the Liberals. Can someone please correct this? Thanks -- TUSWCB ( talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Katter is supporting the coalition? Really? The wording needs to be improved. Are ALL of the crossbenchers giving ONLY supply and confidence votes to their respective choices? If so this needs to be made clearer. Timeshift ( talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I also notice that whilst Katter may be backing the Coalition, he will not block supply or vote no confidence in Labor. So really, it's 77-73. Timeshift ( talk) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Why change "Julia Gillard" > "Gillard" in the infobox? This seems unnecessary and inconsistent with other uses. I'm reverting. If anyone has a reason to change this, could you please explain? — sroc ( talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to note that Labor has a 76–74 margin over the Coalition with the support of the crossbenchers, which is what allows a minority government to be formed. I think this margin is notable and certainly worth mentioning explicitly, rather than relying on the reader to do the maths. Also, it is more correct to say that this margin is what allowed Labor to form government, not Oakeshott and Windsor on their own.
Timeshift reverted my edit because I used the word "alliances". Call it "support" or whatever you like, but can we put this reference in, please? — sroc ( talk) 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
See Antony's new tally here. He's now conceding a 72 all outcome with six crossbenchers. For the lulz! Timeshift ( talk) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This says on the numbers, Labor is one vote away from losing power. But on 76-74, if one changes then it's 75-75, but I thought a motion of no confidence required a majority, ie: 76? So isn't it correct that two crossbenchers would have to move from Labor to Coalition to bring the government down? Timeshift ( talk) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Also if there is a By-Election and the Coalition wins, etc. CanberraBulldog ( talk) 01:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
LOL - I was just practsing being a Pollie. I was just throwing in how else they can/could lose Power. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The NBN is a huge winner if they deliever it correctly, not like the Home Insulation - so it could also bring them down. The biggest challenge is the Resource Tax on Minerals. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I know I'll cop some flak for this, but given that Labor has formed Government partly through a formal agreement with the Australian Greens, should this not be mentioned in the lead? The Independents have not formalised agreements, while the Australian Greens have. If we are to fairly report on the outcome of this election, Timeshift and Zach will need to be prepared to try some balance on for size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomshanahan1983 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The item " two-party-preferred vote", currently the title of the WP article on this topic, has been the subject of debate about whether it should be hyphenated. I sought advice from User:Noetica on this. His response is on my talk page, collapsed. I'd be pleased to receive feedback. Link Tony (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Next Australian federal election -- Surturz ( talk) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
* Tony Crook won the seat of O'Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. While some class Crook as a member of the Coalition and include him in their Coalition totals, there is dispute over the classification.[26] Crook says, "In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be".[27] There is no federal Coalition agreement in Western Australia; Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government.[28][29][30] On 6 September Crook said he will support the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.[31]
Can this text be trimmed? I was thinking something like:
Tony Crook won the seat of O'Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. On 6 September Crook said he will support the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.[31]
I think the longer text was to justify not counting him as a Coalition member. This is beyond doubt now, so I think we should be okay with the shorter text? -- Surturz ( talk) 11:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm for keeping this as it was, because Crook remains on the crossbench. He has indicated since the election result in favour of a Gillard government was resolved that he will be voting on issues independently of the Coalition whip. He's still on the crossbenches and should be treated that way. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Since yesterday afternoon's announcement I have heard Abbott and two other Coalition pollies stating what seems to be their official mantra on the situation. It has almost identical wording each time and goes like this...
"We got more votes and won more seats than Labor."
Our article says little about total votes at this stage, and hasn't really resolved the two party preferred figures. It does say that seats were equal. Is this just a case of pollies "harmlessly" stretching the truth, or will it eventually lead to statements in reliable sources that we should take notice of, even if they're not the truth?
HiLo48 ( talk) 12:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Did Labor get more of the primary vote? The AEC has Labor at 4,700,000+ and the Coalition at 5,350,000+ or am I looking at it incorrectly? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The Coalition is the party, just depends on the state/territory a person is in. The Coalition/Party has been around for many, many years so people now what the Coalition is BUT I see both of your points and agree. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I live in the United States. Most people here are barely aware that an election was held in Australia. Certainly none of us knows the four parties in the Coalition. And the "party colours" really confuse the issue, since one of the Coalition parties uses green as do their political opponents. So I added a column to explicitly identify the parties of the Coalition. I also moved the section heading since the table definitely shows numbers. Nick Beeson ( talk) 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, just to add to this conversation, can we also add two digits behind the decimal point with percentages and swing, as with the 2PP? I don't think rounding up or down truely reflects the parties outcome. I'm happy to keep updating from the AEC website. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've tidied up the footnote references, which were just ugly. I hope no one is offended.
Meanwhile, why are the parties in the Coalition not grouped together? Surely this would make it easier to follow? — sroc ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Until today, I’d never seen a national broadsheet with pretensions to fair and balanced reporting actually admit that it wasn’t just biased against a party supported by 14% of the country, it wanted to “destroy” it. But that’s just what The Australian did in its editorial today:
Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box. The Greens voted against Mr Rudd’s emissions trading scheme because they wanted a tougher regime, then used the lack of action on climate change to damage Labor at the election. Their flakey economics should have no place in the national debate. [18]
Interesting. Timeshift ( talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The section about Queensland in particular appears to be way, way out of date. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed Prime Minister-elect in the infobox to Subsequent Prime Minister but was reverted by User:Sroc. My reason for changing it is that the Prime Minister is not elected, but holds office on commission from the Governor-General. Furthermore, it adds to the incorrect belief some have that people directly vote for the Prime Minister, when they do not, this article is about an election where Australians voted for an MP to represent them in the House, and Senators for the State/Territory in which they reside, there wasn't voting for anything else, yes - as a result of the election the government is decided, but the PM is not elected, only voters in two Divisions saw Julia Gillard or Tony Abbot on the ballot paper. I believe it should be changed from Prime Minister-elect to something which does not imply what doesn't actually happen (the PM being elected) such as Resulting Prime Minister (e.g at New Zealand general election, 2008), Subsequent Prime Minister (e.g at United Kingdom general election, 2010), or Prime Minister-designate (e.g at Canadian federal election, 2008). --~ Knowzilla (Talk) 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Julia Gillard is the Prime Minister. At no stage has she lost her commission. She is NOT the Prime Minister-elect - to refer to her as that is factually wrong. I changed it to remove the 'elect' then someone reverted it and threatened that changing it back would be a violation of some Wikipedia policy. Presumably a policy on presenting facts as calling her 'elect' is fantasy and made up, and is another example of the false rubbish some people put on Wikipedia. Newtaste ( talk) 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
For the reasons already stated, it should not be "-elect". Previously, its use was a weakness of the infobox template. Since the template now allows for an alternative, we should use one. United Kingdom general election, 2010, the only election article I can think of off the top of my head that has been decided since the change, uses "Subsequent Prime Minister". That works for me. - Rrius ( talk) 06:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This has already been discussed at length. There seem to be essentially two issues at play:
In both cases, there is no reason why elections in Australia should be treated any differently from the UK, New Zealand, or other such parliamentary systems where the PM is not directly tied to public votes. Certainly in the latter case, there is no reason why elections in Australia should be treated any differently from any other electoral system that allows the same leader to win multiple terms.
If this is an issue that requires a change to the wording used in the infobox for elections in Australia, IMHO, such a change should be applied as the default in the Template:Infobox_election so that everyone can take advantage. This being the case, this discussion should be had at Template talk:Infobox election so that the rest of the world can join in the discussion. — sroc ( talk) 11:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a bizarre scenario presented in the infobox. Gillard's commission as prime minister never stopped; she was never "re-appointed" and certainly never re-elected. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)