![]() | 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 |
Very few, if any, policies adopted under the Gillard government are centre-left. This isn't supposed to be a criticism of her policies because whether or not it is correct to be left or right wing is a matter of opinion. However, the matter of whether someone is left-wing isn't. Can this reference to "centre-left" be removed from the lead? It would probably be more controversial to say that it is a "centre-right minority government" versus a "right-win opposition coalition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Insider ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is the previous 2010 election article before the election was announced. It could be a bit of a template. -- Surturz ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope everyone agrees this is a useful addition. I have used a "blog" entry from Antony Green's election blog. I would argue that this is equivalent to a WP:RS as it is well researched, factual and is not an opinion piece. -- Surturz ( talk) 12:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been hidden for space reasons. Click show to view
|
---|
I dont think that the leaders (names and photos) should be included in the infobox until such time as the next campaign commences. Else we're crystal balling. Opinions? – Moondyne 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you prepared to make a statement like the following in the lead paragraph:
The article is about an event which is potentially 3 years away. How can we say who the leaders will be at that time? Remember that this is an encyclopaedia and should only be recording event son the public record. When we start talking about future events weneed to be more circumspect. I'm waiting for a good argument why they should be so prominent in this article. – Moondyne 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If we break this right down, we can never say with 100% certainty who're going to be the leaders on election day. Not even a week before polling day; because heart attacks, fallings under buses, assassinations etc can and do happen. Unlikely, but possible. The closer we get to the day, the more likely it becomes that the current leaders will still be the leaders, that's the best we can ever say. Anyone with half a brain realises this, and knows there's always an implied assumption about these sorts of future-focussed statements. Who would be willing to wager $1000 that Gillard and Abbott will both be leaders of their respective parties in 2013? Not that many people, I suspect. But that doesn't stop us saying the current leaders are assumed to be the ones who'll be in charge next time around. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
On a procedural matter, let's have a proper discussion rather than trying to end debate by saying "there is no consensus", which as far as I can tell means "this is the way it is done in other articles". Unilaterally declaring "there is not enough support for changing consensus" before the debate has sufficiently evolved is not helpful. --- Barrylb ( talk) 03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Saying "This has already been discussed" is one of the rudest and most arrogant things to say to newer editors and to those who do not contribute as frequently as those obsessed with a topic. We must NEVER assume that all wisdom has been previously expressed here. And now, having done the deep philosophical stuff, my own view is that we should diminish any emphasis on the current parties and leaders. Including it is POV. Some will inevitably see it as politically biased. It leaves out smaller but growing forces such as The Greens. We don't know who will be there at the next full election. We do know that a lot could change - leader ballots, by-elections, coalitions, etc. Just stick to the facts about dates, processes, etc. I don't care how the last one was done. Let's make this the best it can be from scratch. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer. All other wikipedia 'next' pages have it, we've had it for ages, and there is no WP:CONSENSUS to remove it and make us unique. It is that simple! It stays! Bazinga!!! :) *awaits a barrage of accusations* Timeshift ( talk) 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
|
I would like to reiterate to Timeshift, and for others, that it does not help the discussion if you do not give reasons. If you just throw your hands up and say, "Status quo, form consensus!" then others do not know why you are resistant to change. If one editor has reasons for wanting a change and you do not give a valid reason then you are just stonewalling and not providing any useful discussion at all.
I would also like to respond to Surturz' comments earlier, which I have just seen (I've had other things on this weekend):
The earlier discussion was on a different issue, namely, whether Gillard and Abbott should be shown as leaders of their respective parties in the current (2010) election, which you will not I supported retaining. The current discussion regards a different issue, namely, whether Gillard and Abbott should be shown as leaders going into the next election, which may be as much as three years away. It is a different issue with different arguments, so please do not try to equate them as a way of killing this discussion. — sroc ( talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I draw your attention, again, to:
— sroc ( talk) 04:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the {{ hat}} template. I hate to vote count but if I must its 7-4 in favour of removing the leader images (FOR: moon, barry, jack, donama, tony, hilo, nickd. AGAINST: timeshift, surturz, rebecca, sroc.). There's no grounds for hiding this discussion. – Moondyne 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, here's one reason it might be worth hiding it for now...
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-pulse-live/politics-live-21-march-2013-20130321-2ggsv.html
That said, a benefit of Wikipedia is that we can change the information is it is updated. I think there's nothing wrong with just having the current leader as the assumed candidate and changing it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Insider ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We now know the current parliament is meeting on 28 September 2010.
Anyone disagree with these figures? Do we need a cite to include them or can we just work it out ourselves? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone succinctly detail which states are due to have redistributions in the next three years? Once we get final information we can add a list of notional changes. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Above, Timeshift9 said:
In fact, the Template:Infobox election has space for several additional fields that can be used to display this data. We can, in fact, use that template and include this information, which will then present it in the same style/format as the infobox on all of the other election pages.
This is no reason to use another infobox that has a different style from that used on other elections when the same template could be used to show whatever data we decide to include. — sroc ( talk) 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add some "early election speculation" based on this ref. Basically, some text about what might trigger an early election and what sort of election might occur if this did happen. I would argue it is NOT a WP:CRYSTAL violation, because we are describing the ACTUAL LAWS about elections, rather than speculating about the likelihood. I think readers of this article might very well be interested in what conditions are necessary to trigger an early election.
In my mind, something like "Abbott will try to force an early election by using the mining tax to split the independents from the ALP" is a WP:CRYSTAL vio.
However, something like "If the government is defeated on a supply bill and the G-G believes no other parliamentary grouping is able to gain the confidence of the house, then an early election would be called. If it is an early election, then it will be a House only election" is not a WP:CRYSTAL vio - it is informative. Thoughts? -- Surturz ( talk) 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Technically, any election held after the dissolution of a parliament that doesn't run the full three years is an early election. Every election we've ever had, except for 1901 and 1910, have been technically early. Thinking slightly more realistically, if the parliament goes for 2 years 350 days, nobody's going to bothered about that. Same for 2 years 325 days. But only 2 years would meet most people's definition of "early". Somewhere in the middle is an undefined dividing line. I raise this only to remind my colleagues that if we talk about "early elections", we need to have an idea of exactly what that means. Can anyone confidently state what the practical definition of an early Australian federal election is? I certainly couldn't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth putting in some text about a possible double dissolution? Since the balance of power in the Senate shifts to the Greens, the reader might be interested in the possibility that the current (presumably more Coalition-friendly) Senate triggers a double dissolution by rejecting a bill twice. Antony Green [3] reckons it is unlikely that the G-G would grant a double dissolution without the new Senate voting on the same bill first. He also thinks that it is the House vote, not the Senate vote that will be of interest. I suppose Senator Fielding's bizarre comments have raised the issue. It's an unlikely scenario with no definite conventions, which would normally knock out notability, but OTOH it is possibly something that a reader might want to know about. Thoughts? -- Surturz ( talk) 08:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
September 10-12 Newspoll. How to add to the new infobox? For what it's worth, 2PP unchanged with both primaries down, dissatisfaction down for both leaders, Gillard PPM steady Abbott down 3. Interesting non-vote/leader questions and responses too ;) Timeshift ( talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the merits (or otherwise) of adding this info, but if the question is a technical one of how to add this info to the infobox, here's the answer. The infobox currently contains this code:
<!-- rating --> | 1blank = <!-- Leader rating --> | 1data1 = | 1data2 = | 2blank = <!-- [[Two-party-preferred vote|2PP]] rating --> | 2data1 = | 2data2 =
Each set of data contains a heading (e.g., 1blank) and two data fields, one for each party (e.g., 1data1 for Labor, 1data2 for the Coalition). For multiple rows, just change the number at the start (e.g., 2blank, 2data1, 2data2). I think that there are up to 6 sets of data that can be used (i.e., up to 6blank, 6data1, 6data2). Purely as an example (with made-up figures):
<!-- rating --> | 1blank = Preferred leader (Newspoll, Sep. 2010) [http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/09/13/1225921/545947-100914-newspoll.pdf] | 1data1 = 48% | 1data2 = 52% | 2blank = [[Two-party-preferred vote|2PP]] rating (Newspoll, Sep. 2010) | 2data1 = 55% | 2data2 = 45%
would produce the table shown at right.
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
— sroc ( talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
RE: this ref. If the Greens really did team up with Abbott to pass the Coalition's paid parental leave scheme, wouldn't that be seen as a supply motion? The Menzies government fell in 1941 because the independents sided with the opposition to adjust the budget by one pound... -- Surturz ( talk) 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added polling to the page. Should anybody feel they can remove the polling and deviate from the status quo for all next election pages including the prior Australian ones, they will need to form a solid WP:CONSENSUS to do such a thing. Until then please respect wikipedia's status quo in this particular subject/area. Timeshift ( talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason that the polling section includes Newspoll only? Almost all other countries include all the major pollsters. DPF ( talk) 02:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting read. Timeshift ( talk) 04:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have a date? Would we be changing this article everytime a new election comes up? I'm confused... Jmanfffreak ( talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
To gain consensus, I ask why an editor would place or prefer a third party before a major party in polling [5]? Or prefer the change indifferent to every other polling table on Australian related political polling tables on Wikipedia? See: NSW and Qld for examples. Possibly the editor is trying to distinguish left and right in the table? Романов ( talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is broken at the bottom but I can't figure out what caused it or where the error is located. Can anyone help? Timeshift ( talk) 10:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I could swear I heard a radio report the other day that Moylan won't be recontesting next election, but I can't find any evidence of this. Who am I getting her confused with? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010 is really more related to this election that 2010, so now that this article is well established, should it be made a subarticle of this rather than 2010. - Rrius ( talk) 03:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to add - shouldn't the ALP and Coalition numbers stay the same as the 2010 election results - regardless of who joins, leaves or crosses? A result is a result! I feel the Coalition should go back to 72, even thought Slipper has left, he was still voted in the 2010 election as a Coalition member. I agree the number on the floor have NOW changed but not the 2010 election result. That is why I have changed it back to 2010 election result numbers.
What do others think? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, got you, so shouldn't @010 election (in the info box be chaged to current seats - as 2010 election means 2010 election results!?!? CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Further - just doesn't make sense - last election means last election, you can't win 72 seats at the last election but then win 71 seats at the last election - they won 72 seats at the last election. I know Slipper is on the cross-bench now but at the last election he was Coalition and they won 72 seats at the last election not 71.
What do others think? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand now, but just doesn't look right, looks silly but I understand. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Something which some idiots have changed is saying that KAP has one seat in parliament. Bob Katter has one seat as an independent; not as a member of the aus party. someone should probably change this, but it's on multiple pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.205.92 ( talk) 09:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the important thing to remember is what the threshold was for KAP inclusion - official registration with the Australian Electoral Commission. Timeshift ( talk) 08:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the intro seems very clunky, can't we just defer to another article to explain the electoral system - perhaps just a line in the info box. At the very least, a change to the future tense along the lines of 'The election will be held with compulsory voting, with a preferential system for the House of Representatives and a Single Transferable Vote with optional group tickets for the Senate'. -- GoForMoe ( talk) 12:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone against having this table at the end of the article, which takes up a minority of space compared to it's section? I think it's an excellent concise wrapup of history and is definately relevant to future elections. To know where you're going, you need to know where you've come from. Timeshift ( talk) 23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Timeshift ( talk) 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
For my two bobs worth the table below shoud be included on the main page. After all it was a casual senate vacancy that was the spark that lit the fuse for the 1975 drama.
Senator | State | Party | Cause of vacancy | Replacement Senator | Term expire |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mark Arbib | NSW | ALP | Resigned 5 March 2012 | Bob Carr | 2014 |
Mary Jo Fisher | S.A. | Liberal | Resigned 10 August 2012 | To be preselected | 2014 |
Nick Sherry | Tas | ALP | Resigned 1 June 2012 | Lin Thorp | 2014 |
Helen Coonan | NSW | Liberal | Resigned 22 August 2011 | Arthur Sinodinos | 2014 |
Bob Brown | Tas | Greens | Retiring 30 June 2012 | Peter Whish-Wilson | 2014 |
Judith Adams | WA | Liberal | Died 31 March 2012 | Dean Smith | 2017 |
Purrum ( talk) 01:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
At what point given lead-in times can we safely assume there won't be an election in 2012? Timeshift ( talk) 03:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! On a somewhat related note, regarding Sydney state by-election, 2012#Dates, can anyone fill in the gaps or can't the rest be determined yet? Timeshift ( talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make the poll results tables collapsible? As these tables show the results for every 2-3 weeks they have become very long, require unnecessary scrolling to go past the section and do not display properly on mobile devices. My suggestion is that only some of the most recent polls be shown while the remaining past polls be placed in a collapsible section similar to the Tour de France general classification standings. If there are no arguments for not doing so, I'll start the conversion process in a few days time. Rubaisport ( talk) 22:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Next Australian federal election → Australian federal election, 2013 – Unless an election is called before this Tuesday, the election cannot be held in 2012. The title should be updated to reflect this. 124.184.87.215 ( talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone mentioned a while back that it might be a good idea to graph the opinion polling - I've given this a shot and would like views on whether it's worth including and where.
The script I wrote for it is available here. My main suggestion for it would be to tighten up the chart view, but I'm not sure how to do that yet. -- GoForMoe ( talk) 07:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
More of the graphs - I've also done a bit of extra work on the previous two (and updated for the current newspoll).
Not sure if the graph of net satisfaction is appropriate, though I'd suggest it is relevant. --
GoForMoe (
talk)
10:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Graphs and raw data since the last election, and historical polls/results, all wrapped up in a nice little package. Apart from the opinion I removed, this is one hell of an outcome. Love your work! Timeshift ( talk) 06:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Another (rather small but nevertheless important) thing i've noticed is that the oppn comes before the govt for leadership satisfaction, and the opp leader comes before the govt leader in the legend for BPM and net satisfaction ratings. Can these be fixed please? Timeshift ( talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Just making the observation that if the graphs weren't here, the latest Newspoll would have been added by now. Timeshift ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there updated graphs? Timeshift ( talk) 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Do the graphs look outdated to others too? The first 2013 result still isn't appearing in the article's thumbnail images... the wikipedia server doesn't appear to be refreshing them. Timeshift ( talk) 07:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the net leadership satisfaction graph has a 2013 update but Abbott's is missing. Timeshift ( talk) 07:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Two things: First, I renew my proposal to put the data in a new page called Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013 and leave the graphs and {{ main}} link here. Second, the updating issue is a Wikimedia software issue being dealt with at the moment. - Rrius ( talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I see a lot of mention here about the latest possible date for the election, but no mention of the earliest possible date it can occur. Or is the prime minister just allowed to call the election whenever she likes as long as its before the maximum date? Rikeus ( talk) 14:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My edit, shown here Formal Announcement of Election date was recently removed from the page. It shows how a mistake has been made when the date was chosen. It was a valuable part of the page, showing reactions from several parts of the Australian community. This edit captures the feelings of a majority of the Australian community. They need a voice too. Springyboy ( talk) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Respected ABC Psephologist Antony Green recently posted in comments to his blog:
There is a list of retiring MPs on the 2013 election Wikipedia page. It looks as good as any list I could produce [7]
Hearty congrats to all the editors who have contributed to that section, you should feel proud! -- Surturz ( talk) 12:46, 30 January 2013 (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 |
Very few, if any, policies adopted under the Gillard government are centre-left. This isn't supposed to be a criticism of her policies because whether or not it is correct to be left or right wing is a matter of opinion. However, the matter of whether someone is left-wing isn't. Can this reference to "centre-left" be removed from the lead? It would probably be more controversial to say that it is a "centre-right minority government" versus a "right-win opposition coalition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Insider ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is the previous 2010 election article before the election was announced. It could be a bit of a template. -- Surturz ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope everyone agrees this is a useful addition. I have used a "blog" entry from Antony Green's election blog. I would argue that this is equivalent to a WP:RS as it is well researched, factual and is not an opinion piece. -- Surturz ( talk) 12:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been hidden for space reasons. Click show to view
|
---|
I dont think that the leaders (names and photos) should be included in the infobox until such time as the next campaign commences. Else we're crystal balling. Opinions? – Moondyne 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you prepared to make a statement like the following in the lead paragraph:
The article is about an event which is potentially 3 years away. How can we say who the leaders will be at that time? Remember that this is an encyclopaedia and should only be recording event son the public record. When we start talking about future events weneed to be more circumspect. I'm waiting for a good argument why they should be so prominent in this article. – Moondyne 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If we break this right down, we can never say with 100% certainty who're going to be the leaders on election day. Not even a week before polling day; because heart attacks, fallings under buses, assassinations etc can and do happen. Unlikely, but possible. The closer we get to the day, the more likely it becomes that the current leaders will still be the leaders, that's the best we can ever say. Anyone with half a brain realises this, and knows there's always an implied assumption about these sorts of future-focussed statements. Who would be willing to wager $1000 that Gillard and Abbott will both be leaders of their respective parties in 2013? Not that many people, I suspect. But that doesn't stop us saying the current leaders are assumed to be the ones who'll be in charge next time around. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
On a procedural matter, let's have a proper discussion rather than trying to end debate by saying "there is no consensus", which as far as I can tell means "this is the way it is done in other articles". Unilaterally declaring "there is not enough support for changing consensus" before the debate has sufficiently evolved is not helpful. --- Barrylb ( talk) 03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Saying "This has already been discussed" is one of the rudest and most arrogant things to say to newer editors and to those who do not contribute as frequently as those obsessed with a topic. We must NEVER assume that all wisdom has been previously expressed here. And now, having done the deep philosophical stuff, my own view is that we should diminish any emphasis on the current parties and leaders. Including it is POV. Some will inevitably see it as politically biased. It leaves out smaller but growing forces such as The Greens. We don't know who will be there at the next full election. We do know that a lot could change - leader ballots, by-elections, coalitions, etc. Just stick to the facts about dates, processes, etc. I don't care how the last one was done. Let's make this the best it can be from scratch. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer. All other wikipedia 'next' pages have it, we've had it for ages, and there is no WP:CONSENSUS to remove it and make us unique. It is that simple! It stays! Bazinga!!! :) *awaits a barrage of accusations* Timeshift ( talk) 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
|
I would like to reiterate to Timeshift, and for others, that it does not help the discussion if you do not give reasons. If you just throw your hands up and say, "Status quo, form consensus!" then others do not know why you are resistant to change. If one editor has reasons for wanting a change and you do not give a valid reason then you are just stonewalling and not providing any useful discussion at all.
I would also like to respond to Surturz' comments earlier, which I have just seen (I've had other things on this weekend):
The earlier discussion was on a different issue, namely, whether Gillard and Abbott should be shown as leaders of their respective parties in the current (2010) election, which you will not I supported retaining. The current discussion regards a different issue, namely, whether Gillard and Abbott should be shown as leaders going into the next election, which may be as much as three years away. It is a different issue with different arguments, so please do not try to equate them as a way of killing this discussion. — sroc ( talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I draw your attention, again, to:
— sroc ( talk) 04:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the {{ hat}} template. I hate to vote count but if I must its 7-4 in favour of removing the leader images (FOR: moon, barry, jack, donama, tony, hilo, nickd. AGAINST: timeshift, surturz, rebecca, sroc.). There's no grounds for hiding this discussion. – Moondyne 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, here's one reason it might be worth hiding it for now...
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-pulse-live/politics-live-21-march-2013-20130321-2ggsv.html
That said, a benefit of Wikipedia is that we can change the information is it is updated. I think there's nothing wrong with just having the current leader as the assumed candidate and changing it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Insider ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We now know the current parliament is meeting on 28 September 2010.
Anyone disagree with these figures? Do we need a cite to include them or can we just work it out ourselves? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone succinctly detail which states are due to have redistributions in the next three years? Once we get final information we can add a list of notional changes. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Above, Timeshift9 said:
In fact, the Template:Infobox election has space for several additional fields that can be used to display this data. We can, in fact, use that template and include this information, which will then present it in the same style/format as the infobox on all of the other election pages.
This is no reason to use another infobox that has a different style from that used on other elections when the same template could be used to show whatever data we decide to include. — sroc ( talk) 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add some "early election speculation" based on this ref. Basically, some text about what might trigger an early election and what sort of election might occur if this did happen. I would argue it is NOT a WP:CRYSTAL violation, because we are describing the ACTUAL LAWS about elections, rather than speculating about the likelihood. I think readers of this article might very well be interested in what conditions are necessary to trigger an early election.
In my mind, something like "Abbott will try to force an early election by using the mining tax to split the independents from the ALP" is a WP:CRYSTAL vio.
However, something like "If the government is defeated on a supply bill and the G-G believes no other parliamentary grouping is able to gain the confidence of the house, then an early election would be called. If it is an early election, then it will be a House only election" is not a WP:CRYSTAL vio - it is informative. Thoughts? -- Surturz ( talk) 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Technically, any election held after the dissolution of a parliament that doesn't run the full three years is an early election. Every election we've ever had, except for 1901 and 1910, have been technically early. Thinking slightly more realistically, if the parliament goes for 2 years 350 days, nobody's going to bothered about that. Same for 2 years 325 days. But only 2 years would meet most people's definition of "early". Somewhere in the middle is an undefined dividing line. I raise this only to remind my colleagues that if we talk about "early elections", we need to have an idea of exactly what that means. Can anyone confidently state what the practical definition of an early Australian federal election is? I certainly couldn't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth putting in some text about a possible double dissolution? Since the balance of power in the Senate shifts to the Greens, the reader might be interested in the possibility that the current (presumably more Coalition-friendly) Senate triggers a double dissolution by rejecting a bill twice. Antony Green [3] reckons it is unlikely that the G-G would grant a double dissolution without the new Senate voting on the same bill first. He also thinks that it is the House vote, not the Senate vote that will be of interest. I suppose Senator Fielding's bizarre comments have raised the issue. It's an unlikely scenario with no definite conventions, which would normally knock out notability, but OTOH it is possibly something that a reader might want to know about. Thoughts? -- Surturz ( talk) 08:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
September 10-12 Newspoll. How to add to the new infobox? For what it's worth, 2PP unchanged with both primaries down, dissatisfaction down for both leaders, Gillard PPM steady Abbott down 3. Interesting non-vote/leader questions and responses too ;) Timeshift ( talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the merits (or otherwise) of adding this info, but if the question is a technical one of how to add this info to the infobox, here's the answer. The infobox currently contains this code:
<!-- rating --> | 1blank = <!-- Leader rating --> | 1data1 = | 1data2 = | 2blank = <!-- [[Two-party-preferred vote|2PP]] rating --> | 2data1 = | 2data2 =
Each set of data contains a heading (e.g., 1blank) and two data fields, one for each party (e.g., 1data1 for Labor, 1data2 for the Coalition). For multiple rows, just change the number at the start (e.g., 2blank, 2data1, 2data2). I think that there are up to 6 sets of data that can be used (i.e., up to 6blank, 6data1, 6data2). Purely as an example (with made-up figures):
<!-- rating --> | 1blank = Preferred leader (Newspoll, Sep. 2010) [http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/09/13/1225921/545947-100914-newspoll.pdf] | 1data1 = 48% | 1data2 = 52% | 2blank = [[Two-party-preferred vote|2PP]] rating (Newspoll, Sep. 2010) | 2data1 = 55% | 2data2 = 45%
would produce the table shown at right.
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
— sroc ( talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
RE: this ref. If the Greens really did team up with Abbott to pass the Coalition's paid parental leave scheme, wouldn't that be seen as a supply motion? The Menzies government fell in 1941 because the independents sided with the opposition to adjust the budget by one pound... -- Surturz ( talk) 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added polling to the page. Should anybody feel they can remove the polling and deviate from the status quo for all next election pages including the prior Australian ones, they will need to form a solid WP:CONSENSUS to do such a thing. Until then please respect wikipedia's status quo in this particular subject/area. Timeshift ( talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason that the polling section includes Newspoll only? Almost all other countries include all the major pollsters. DPF ( talk) 02:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting read. Timeshift ( talk) 04:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have a date? Would we be changing this article everytime a new election comes up? I'm confused... Jmanfffreak ( talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
To gain consensus, I ask why an editor would place or prefer a third party before a major party in polling [5]? Or prefer the change indifferent to every other polling table on Australian related political polling tables on Wikipedia? See: NSW and Qld for examples. Possibly the editor is trying to distinguish left and right in the table? Романов ( talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is broken at the bottom but I can't figure out what caused it or where the error is located. Can anyone help? Timeshift ( talk) 10:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I could swear I heard a radio report the other day that Moylan won't be recontesting next election, but I can't find any evidence of this. Who am I getting her confused with? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010 is really more related to this election that 2010, so now that this article is well established, should it be made a subarticle of this rather than 2010. - Rrius ( talk) 03:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to add - shouldn't the ALP and Coalition numbers stay the same as the 2010 election results - regardless of who joins, leaves or crosses? A result is a result! I feel the Coalition should go back to 72, even thought Slipper has left, he was still voted in the 2010 election as a Coalition member. I agree the number on the floor have NOW changed but not the 2010 election result. That is why I have changed it back to 2010 election result numbers.
What do others think? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, got you, so shouldn't @010 election (in the info box be chaged to current seats - as 2010 election means 2010 election results!?!? CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Further - just doesn't make sense - last election means last election, you can't win 72 seats at the last election but then win 71 seats at the last election - they won 72 seats at the last election. I know Slipper is on the cross-bench now but at the last election he was Coalition and they won 72 seats at the last election not 71.
What do others think? Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand now, but just doesn't look right, looks silly but I understand. Cheers CanberraBulldog ( talk) 08:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Something which some idiots have changed is saying that KAP has one seat in parliament. Bob Katter has one seat as an independent; not as a member of the aus party. someone should probably change this, but it's on multiple pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.205.92 ( talk) 09:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the important thing to remember is what the threshold was for KAP inclusion - official registration with the Australian Electoral Commission. Timeshift ( talk) 08:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the intro seems very clunky, can't we just defer to another article to explain the electoral system - perhaps just a line in the info box. At the very least, a change to the future tense along the lines of 'The election will be held with compulsory voting, with a preferential system for the House of Representatives and a Single Transferable Vote with optional group tickets for the Senate'. -- GoForMoe ( talk) 12:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone against having this table at the end of the article, which takes up a minority of space compared to it's section? I think it's an excellent concise wrapup of history and is definately relevant to future elections. To know where you're going, you need to know where you've come from. Timeshift ( talk) 23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Timeshift ( talk) 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
For my two bobs worth the table below shoud be included on the main page. After all it was a casual senate vacancy that was the spark that lit the fuse for the 1975 drama.
Senator | State | Party | Cause of vacancy | Replacement Senator | Term expire |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mark Arbib | NSW | ALP | Resigned 5 March 2012 | Bob Carr | 2014 |
Mary Jo Fisher | S.A. | Liberal | Resigned 10 August 2012 | To be preselected | 2014 |
Nick Sherry | Tas | ALP | Resigned 1 June 2012 | Lin Thorp | 2014 |
Helen Coonan | NSW | Liberal | Resigned 22 August 2011 | Arthur Sinodinos | 2014 |
Bob Brown | Tas | Greens | Retiring 30 June 2012 | Peter Whish-Wilson | 2014 |
Judith Adams | WA | Liberal | Died 31 March 2012 | Dean Smith | 2017 |
Purrum ( talk) 01:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
At what point given lead-in times can we safely assume there won't be an election in 2012? Timeshift ( talk) 03:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! On a somewhat related note, regarding Sydney state by-election, 2012#Dates, can anyone fill in the gaps or can't the rest be determined yet? Timeshift ( talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make the poll results tables collapsible? As these tables show the results for every 2-3 weeks they have become very long, require unnecessary scrolling to go past the section and do not display properly on mobile devices. My suggestion is that only some of the most recent polls be shown while the remaining past polls be placed in a collapsible section similar to the Tour de France general classification standings. If there are no arguments for not doing so, I'll start the conversion process in a few days time. Rubaisport ( talk) 22:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Next Australian federal election → Australian federal election, 2013 – Unless an election is called before this Tuesday, the election cannot be held in 2012. The title should be updated to reflect this. 124.184.87.215 ( talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone mentioned a while back that it might be a good idea to graph the opinion polling - I've given this a shot and would like views on whether it's worth including and where.
The script I wrote for it is available here. My main suggestion for it would be to tighten up the chart view, but I'm not sure how to do that yet. -- GoForMoe ( talk) 07:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
More of the graphs - I've also done a bit of extra work on the previous two (and updated for the current newspoll).
Not sure if the graph of net satisfaction is appropriate, though I'd suggest it is relevant. --
GoForMoe (
talk)
10:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Graphs and raw data since the last election, and historical polls/results, all wrapped up in a nice little package. Apart from the opinion I removed, this is one hell of an outcome. Love your work! Timeshift ( talk) 06:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Another (rather small but nevertheless important) thing i've noticed is that the oppn comes before the govt for leadership satisfaction, and the opp leader comes before the govt leader in the legend for BPM and net satisfaction ratings. Can these be fixed please? Timeshift ( talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Just making the observation that if the graphs weren't here, the latest Newspoll would have been added by now. Timeshift ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there updated graphs? Timeshift ( talk) 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Do the graphs look outdated to others too? The first 2013 result still isn't appearing in the article's thumbnail images... the wikipedia server doesn't appear to be refreshing them. Timeshift ( talk) 07:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the net leadership satisfaction graph has a 2013 update but Abbott's is missing. Timeshift ( talk) 07:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Two things: First, I renew my proposal to put the data in a new page called Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013 and leave the graphs and {{ main}} link here. Second, the updating issue is a Wikimedia software issue being dealt with at the moment. - Rrius ( talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I see a lot of mention here about the latest possible date for the election, but no mention of the earliest possible date it can occur. Or is the prime minister just allowed to call the election whenever she likes as long as its before the maximum date? Rikeus ( talk) 14:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My edit, shown here Formal Announcement of Election date was recently removed from the page. It shows how a mistake has been made when the date was chosen. It was a valuable part of the page, showing reactions from several parts of the Australian community. This edit captures the feelings of a majority of the Australian community. They need a voice too. Springyboy ( talk) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Respected ABC Psephologist Antony Green recently posted in comments to his blog:
There is a list of retiring MPs on the 2013 election Wikipedia page. It looks as good as any list I could produce [7]
Hearty congrats to all the editors who have contributed to that section, you should feel proud! -- Surturz ( talk) 12:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)