Talk:2010 Australian federal election

message: Greenway needs to be added to the "Divisions Changing Hands" Table as it was a LIB seat that was won by the ALP. I don't have the time - but someone needs to fix the table. Thanks202.139.104.226 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some clarification here: Greenway was one of the electorates which became notionally Labor-held in the NSW redistribution. This demonstrates the difference between the AEC and ABC results: the AEC's Seats Which Changed Hands does list Greenway, and not Dickson, Gilmore, Herbert, Macarthur and Swan which were also notionally Labor but were won by the Liberals. The ABC site, however, seems to be using the notional holder: Changing Seats does not list Greenway as it goes from notionally Labor-held to actually Labor-held, and it does list the notional ALP seats with an asterisk (*). I'm guessing that we're using the AEC as a source as we only mention the ALP notionals in the header note and not as changing hands, but in this case how do we record the margin and swing? To list the ALP's notional margin implies that was the margin of the previous Liberal MP, Louise Markus. Is this the only case where the notional holder won the seat? --Canley (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also worth noting that the lead paragraph above this table says "Five notional boundary redistributed seats were contested at this election." On a previous talk page I said there were five of these, including Greenway but I missed out Macarthur. National Seat Status confirms there were actually six. The latter sentence says "Based on booths contested at the previous election, the seats redistributed by the AEC from being marginal Coalition seats to marginal Labor seats – Dickson, Gilmore, Herbert, Macarthur and Swan – were all retained by the Coalition." Although the ALP notional margin in Greenway was quite large (5.67%), it was still just within the range of what the AEC defines as marginal (under 6%), so this whole paragraph should probably be re-worded. --Canley (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added Greenway to the list of seats changing hands and of boundary redistributed seats, and this may be controversial, but I've listed Louise Markus as holding the seat on a negative margin as it was notionally Labor held and this illustrates the swing against Labor. Any thoughts or fixups definitely appreciated. --Canley (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it from the table to the para with the five other seats won/retained through redistribution... thw seat was redistributed to become a Labor seat like the five others there. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it say "Six notional boundary redistributed seats were contested at this election."? (I guess you reverted my edit which included this change). --Canley (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenway needs to be added to the "Divisions Changing Hands" Table as a seat that changed hands - LIB to ALP 

message: Notes: 1. These results are final. Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And there was much rejoicing! *gets to work* Frickeg (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All results are final 

message: Ahh. Do enjoy these sorts of stats! Timeshift (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Two candidate preference flows are out

message: At the very least, it needs severe balance and neutrality implemented, at the most, deletion. Please discuss as this is the remaining mess for the 2010 federal election. Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the article cannot be recovered and should be deleted. We simply have no neutral basis for deciding the content. Barrylb (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I'm pretty sure a number of us suggested that earlier on too. As for the promises, given the hung parliament and the need for the government to please many people to get anything passed, they are probably less relevant now than ever. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed. What a mess; I can't see much that's salvageable here. It's basically a politically-biased collection of trivia and stuff that's covered elsewhere. Frickeg (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, four to one for deletion. Looks like an AfD may be in order. Didactik, I don't have an issue with a properly written campaign piece, but that article is completely and utterly unsalvageable. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's horrible. --Pete (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I think a few small parts of the article might be salvageable if merged onto this page. I don't think this article mentions the Labor-Greens preference arrangements; I would suggest they are notable at least in explaining the difference between primary vote and 2PP outcome. It probably rates a mention but certainly no more than the first two sentences from the campaign article in that section need to be brought across. The disendorsed candidates may also be worth bringing across also, though not in their currently gossipy state, but I'm not convinced about this. The leader's debate I think also needs to be mentioned (certainly it did occur and its existence was a notable part of the campaign), but sentences like "Ms Gillard clearly performed better among women" are OR and can go. Apart from those few things (which probably amount to no more than a paragraph), I would agree that the rest of the article amounts to trivia and gossip - it terrifies me that the article reports "Cabinet leaks" as verified facts. I think the sentiment that we have no way for deciding the content nails the reason why this article needs to go. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greens chose to preference Labor in some seats this election and in the Senate, as they did at the last election. If this is what you're referring to I don't really find it noteable. I do however have the encyclopedia method of it - have a look at the full results article within this article above the lower house results. It lists the 2PP splits and swings for the Greens, FFP, CDP, WA Nats, and independent candidates. Timeshift (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Voters, of course, have a choice on how their preferences are distributed. They can follow a how-to-vote card or vote above the line for the Senate, or they can do their own preference allocations. I recall reading of some research that said that Greens voters are not very obedient when it comes to following party instructions on how they allocate preferences. They make up their own minds! I would love to find that information again. Does anyone have any idea where I might find it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pollytics has recently posted an updated article on this topic here. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that, it's excellent. The Greens HTVs had no affect on seats won. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Bob Brown is an example for his followers. He personally advocates below-the-line voting. He speaks here on the subject in a recent interview. I admire him especially for this - the above-the-line system gives undue power to party machines. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Australian federal election campaign, 2010]] remains a blight 

message: Just an FYI (please don't respond here) that there's a discussion currently occurring at Talk:Victorian state election, 2010#Which infobox? regarding which infobox should be used for some/all state and, potentially, federal elections. Opinions appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment regarding which election infobox should be used 

message: Just wondering what the thoughts are on creating an electorate map similar to that used in the US elections. I know it's not exactly the same in Australia, since we have electorates rather than an electoral college, and as such the map tends to get dominated by the large outback seats and the visual impact of the map may not reflect the actual outcome of the election (the 2010 election being a case in point). Still, it might be possible to make a map with insets of the major capital cities. Any thoughts or suggestions before I get busy with Inkscape?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done... I can't wait to see the finished result! It's hard to know what to suggest until a draft is produced unfortunately... Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Before you do start Yeti Hunter I just want to make sure you've seen the maps at Full national and state-by-state lower house results and maps for the 2010 Australian federal election. How will yours differ? Barrylb (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks OK, but I'm truly puzzled as to why the GREENS party is not being represented by their colour, Green? I know the National have dark green and yellow as their colours and I'm guessing there is a desire to avoid confusion, but surely the logical choice would have been to use green for the Greens and yellow for the Nationals? - Violette  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.183.23 (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Electorate map?

message: First, the heading uses the abbreviation "IRV". It was my understanding that in Australia the voting system known in the US as instant run-off voting and in the UK as the Alternative Vote (AV) is known as "preference voting" or PV. Should that change, or am I wrong? -Rrius (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The voting system used for the lower house is described at instant-runoff voting. What we want to call it when referring to it in articles is a different kettle of fish. Timeshift (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRV or PV 

message: The aggregated Coalition Numbers in the Senate Results table seem to be partly incorrect.
Totalvotes and Vote Percentage are too low,
i added up the numbers of the Joint Ticket, Liberal Party, Liberal National Party, Country Liberal Party(NT) as well as National Party, and the sum was NOT 4871871 totalvotes and 38.3 percent first preference votes , BUT slightly more (votes: 4914205 ; votepercentage: 38.63 )
It seems like, you forgot the National Party votes. (But the seat numbers are included and alright).
Besides correcting this, it would be helpful to see the disaggregated numbers of the Coalition as published here:
http://elections.uwa.edu.au
:Your assumption is not correct—as you can see from the table in Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2010, the National Party of Western Australia is not included in the Liberal/National coalition total, and the difference between the figures (42,334) is equal to the Nationals WA primary vote. As stated in the article Coalition (Australia), the state branches of the National Party in WA and SA are not part of the Coalition. --Canley (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The AEC don't combine primary votes. Any other queries Mr IP? Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coalition Senate Election Results 

message: Recently there was an edit which placed the Greens into the infobox but was removed on inaccuracy grounds. If we can change Labor and Coalition statistics from 2PP to primary in the infobox, this would easily let Greens take a third spot. In my opinion, 12% of the vote is significant and the Greens went on to give crucial crossbench support in both houses.Azirus (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And has the infobox always said "Popular vote"? Because that's an inaccuracy too when it's listing the 2PP. I thought the template allowed both to be displayed. Frickeg (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who made the edit back to the reporting of two parties. I think that if the formatting is fixed up, the primary vote of all three parties is provided PLUS another line for 2PP for the Coalition and the ALP, AND the leader is reported as Bob Brown, not Christine Milne (as he was at the time of the 2010 election) then I don't see a problem with it. There was just too much to fix up at one time (especially when a photo is involved) which is why I decided to revert it, but go for it if you can do it properly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.147.37 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greens 

message: A RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes which may affect the infobox of this article. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114234058/http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/BDAB2EF3C2B1AC18CA25776500108B46/$file/S%20136.pdf to http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/BDAB2EF3C2B1AC18CA25776500108B46/$file/S%20136.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813152324/http://www.pollbludger.com:80/903 to http://www.pollbludger.com/903
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211203123/http://blogs.abc.net.au:80/antonygreen/2008/08/new-federal-bou.html to http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2008/08/new-federal-bou.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119153314/http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/427AC5068B98C314CA257766000489F7/$file/S%20139.pdf to http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/427AC5068B98C314CA257766000489F7/$file/S%20139.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118164654/http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2010/08/20/173451_election2010.html to http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2010/08/20/173451_election2010.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823075516/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999219.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/BDAB2EF3C2B1AC18CA25776500108B46/%24file/S%20136.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/427AC5068B98C314CA257766000489F7/%24file/S%20139.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Bennelong is shown as Labor on the Map of results when it actually voted for the Liberal party in 2010, Could someone fix this error please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.105.99 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've fixed the fill for Bennelong. --Canley (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on the Map of results 

message: Dickson and Hasluck are displayed Red on the map when really the Liberal party won those 2 seats not Labor at the 2010 election, Please fix 
Edit: And Forde as well is in Red when it should be Blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.105.99 (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have reported these to the editor who did the map on Wikimedia Commons, hopefully they can make the fixes and reproduce the file from the original source. If not, I'll give it a try. --Canley (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've fixed these issues. --Canley (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found another 2 errors on the election map results 

message: The results for Others "Votes 148,537 	% 1.19 	Swing –0.32" bear no relation to the results in Results of the 2010 Australian federal election (House of Representatives) that they are supposedly excerpted from. Family First alone has more than 1.19% of the vote.
AntediluvianBlue (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt of HOR results table has an error