This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the deputy leadership also up for election at the moment or does that only happen if Albanese is elected leader (and thus has a price tag on his candidature) or is the deputy only elected by the caucus? Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to be misnamed. First, a spill is when the leadership is declared vacant. That is not the case here. There is always a leadership election after an election by rule; Rudd is simply not contesting an election that was always going to happen. The other point is that this election is so very different from a spill because of the inclusion of rank-and-file members. In reality, all of the articles should be moved to the less slangy/jargony "election", but this one just doesn't fit as a spill anyway. - Rrius ( talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
So the two votes are given equal weighting. Does this mean that they look at the percentage of the vote, not at the raw numbers? By that I mean if Shorten wins 75% of the caucus vote and Albanese wins 65% of the "grassroots" vote, Shorten becomes leader even though there are less people voting in the caucus (as far as I know)? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 04:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a disagreement among editors as to whether this is a campaign to replace Kevin Rudd - the outgoing permanent leader - or to replace Chris Bowen the temporary leader that is holding a place for whomever of Albanese and Shorten wins this contest. I recognize that the idea of an interim leader and a quasi-popular election of a new permanent leader are new in Australia, but in Canada we've been doing this for many, many years and the UK has had a go as well. Generally, history quickly forgets interim leaders and campaigns are viewed as a replacement of the previous permanent leader. This is fairly easily explained in the prose of the article, but it is a bit less clear as to how to treat it in the infobox. I suspect few would answer the question "who did Ed Milliband succeed as UK Labour leader?" with "Harriet Harman", though she was the interim leader he replaced. Most would say Gordon Brown. There will likely be a similar effect here as time wears on.
There does not seem to be consistent treatment of this. The Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 lists Harman in the infobox, not Brown. Canadian articles use a different template that references the "resigning leader" and ignores the interim leader: Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013, New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012.
I would argue that my solution of listing Kevin Rudd with Chris Bowen (denoted as interim leader) in a smaller font below is the best solution to this issue. How do others view it?
- Nbpolitico ( talk) 12:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is misleading because right now it says that Shorten got "55 out of 86" and then lists the percentage as "52.02%" (which is the caucus and members vote combined). I was going to add the members vote, but I'm not particularly sure how to (do I just add "vote_type2" or something?). Anyone want to add this for me? WilliamLehnsherr ( talk) 05:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the deputy leadership also up for election at the moment or does that only happen if Albanese is elected leader (and thus has a price tag on his candidature) or is the deputy only elected by the caucus? Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to be misnamed. First, a spill is when the leadership is declared vacant. That is not the case here. There is always a leadership election after an election by rule; Rudd is simply not contesting an election that was always going to happen. The other point is that this election is so very different from a spill because of the inclusion of rank-and-file members. In reality, all of the articles should be moved to the less slangy/jargony "election", but this one just doesn't fit as a spill anyway. - Rrius ( talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
So the two votes are given equal weighting. Does this mean that they look at the percentage of the vote, not at the raw numbers? By that I mean if Shorten wins 75% of the caucus vote and Albanese wins 65% of the "grassroots" vote, Shorten becomes leader even though there are less people voting in the caucus (as far as I know)? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 04:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a disagreement among editors as to whether this is a campaign to replace Kevin Rudd - the outgoing permanent leader - or to replace Chris Bowen the temporary leader that is holding a place for whomever of Albanese and Shorten wins this contest. I recognize that the idea of an interim leader and a quasi-popular election of a new permanent leader are new in Australia, but in Canada we've been doing this for many, many years and the UK has had a go as well. Generally, history quickly forgets interim leaders and campaigns are viewed as a replacement of the previous permanent leader. This is fairly easily explained in the prose of the article, but it is a bit less clear as to how to treat it in the infobox. I suspect few would answer the question "who did Ed Milliband succeed as UK Labour leader?" with "Harriet Harman", though she was the interim leader he replaced. Most would say Gordon Brown. There will likely be a similar effect here as time wears on.
There does not seem to be consistent treatment of this. The Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 lists Harman in the infobox, not Brown. Canadian articles use a different template that references the "resigning leader" and ignores the interim leader: Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013, New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012.
I would argue that my solution of listing Kevin Rudd with Chris Bowen (denoted as interim leader) in a smaller font below is the best solution to this issue. How do others view it?
- Nbpolitico ( talk) 12:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is misleading because right now it says that Shorten got "55 out of 86" and then lists the percentage as "52.02%" (which is the caucus and members vote combined). I was going to add the members vote, but I'm not particularly sure how to (do I just add "vote_type2" or something?). Anyone want to add this for me? WilliamLehnsherr ( talk) 05:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)