Talk:Victorian Legislative Assembly

message: We need to say something about the change to fixed four-year terms that took effect in 2003 (?).  Also, is there any circumstance whatsoever under which a state election could be held on a date other than the date fixed by the legislation?  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed four-year terms 

message: Government benches	Government benches	Seats held	Percentage of Assembly	Opposition benches	Opposition benches    	Seats held	Percentage of Assembly
             	Liberal Party     	35        	39.77                 	             	Australian Labor Party	43        	48.86
             	National Party    	10        	11.36                 	                  	                      	          	
                  	Total             	45        	51.14                 	                  	Total                 	43        	48.86
I believe that the box above is a more accurate depliction of the distribution of seats. The bottom box is misleading because it promotes Labor as the biggest and therefore in control of the Assembly. I also think the Percentage of Assembly column are unnecessary. Purrum (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I too, prefer this grouping of the Coalition for the Legislative Assembly. Романов (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: How does "biggest" mean "control of the Assembly"? Timeshift (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also because alphabetically Labor are listed first can mean Labor are number 1 , top dog etc Purrum (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  and it doesn't visually show that the Libs and Nats are in coalition Purrum (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Same applies here. Placing the Coalition, as the governing parties together reduces confusion and is the more sensible option. Романов (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because the English have it that way doesn't make it the right way to display it. I'm not that naive to blindly follow the leader. If I can improve an article I will. This is definitely a change for the better. Purrum (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That requires WP:CONSENSUS from a lot more than just two editors. Timeshift (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it requires WP:CONSENSUS,  It your job to go out and get it. Purrum (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: lol that's funny. Learn the rules. A change from the status quo requires consensus. Not to keep the status quo. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once you agree to the change, then we have consensus. Purrum (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How presumptuous. Two editors does not equal a consensus change of a globally used standard. Timeshift (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current distribution of seats 

message: The structure I am proposing is currently the only one available. I am happy with it. If you are unhappy with it, please, make a better one. All I am saying is that until that happens, we should at least add the only available structure. Andreas11213 (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure