Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 5

message: Please note: Commencing from Tuesday 18 December, following the completion of each State/Territory Senate count, the full distribution of preferences will be available in a PDF and downloadable format. - does this mean that the full final declared tallies for all seats and counts will be uploaded tomorrow? Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They finally got around to counting my Senate vote last Thursday. So yeah, quite likely - the very last postal votes would have arrived last Friday, but they'd be the stragglers and not high in number. Note Kim Wilkie may be challenging the Swan result as well in the Court of Disputed Returns based on possible illegal campaigning in the Labor suburb of Rivervale, which swung exceptionally highly to the Liberal Party  The result if proven would not be a reversal of the result, but rather an "invalid" declaration resulting in a by-election. Although it's not usual for the losing party in a contest to win on by-election, it did happen in Mundingburra in Queensland state election in 1995, which in some ways is a highly comparable example by circumstances. Orderinchaos 06:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is correct. McEwen's been re-declared for the Libs with 12 votes but I understand the whole mess is going to the Court of Disputed Returns. Orderinchaos 04:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems the recount went the opposite way you predicted OiC :P Timeshift (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: McEwen hasn't been declared yet!! Guy0307 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point Guy - the vtr site hasn't yet updated. I was going off the news.com.au story someone posted earlier. Re count: with that margin it could go in any direction, especially depending on scrutineers, I think it's heading straight for a byelection anyway. Orderinchaos 06:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Update - now confirmed News Ltd jumped the gun. ABC says final result for McEwen tomorrow.  Orderinchaos 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AEC final results 

message: Or even Australian Liberal Party? Anyone with much knowledge care to comment here, it would be welcome. Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comm Lib Party - People's Party? 

message: The vote numbers are way off, Greens are stated as having outpolled the Liberals, and Nationals have just 20,000 votes. Moneybags McGee (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers aren't off - that's just the way they're presented by the Electoral Commission, and we have to use their figures. In three states (VIC, QLD, NSW), Liberals and Nationals ran under joint tickets, so that's shown as "Liberal/National (Joint Ticket)" at 30.55% (this represents 39.65% in those three states, compared to Labor's 41.24%). The Liberals ran on their own in the ACT and the three remaining states (WA, SA, TAS) which is 8.77% (representing 40.21% in those areas, to Labor's 36.74%). The Nationals are not in coalition with the Liberals in either WA or SA at state or federal level, so their vote in those states is counted separately. The CLP in the Northern Territory got 0.32% (40.03% in the NT). The total coalition vote therefore is 39.64%, down 5.21% on the last election, while Labor's is 40.30%, up 5.28% on the last election. Orderinchaos 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, well I understand how it's presented now, but would it be a problem to add the combined vote of the Lib/Nat/CLP Coalition? That could make it easier to understand the results by looking at the table. Moneybags McGee (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - it would be WP:OR, especially as the Nat vote represented there is explicitly outside the coalition, and the Libs in ACT and Tasmania do not have a National counterpart. Had the AEC treated it differently we'd be able to as well. The problem's created by the parties effectively by doing things like running joint tickets and being in coalition in some states and not in others. Orderinchaos 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table is perfectly clear if you read the reference next to the joint ticket. But we didn't do that, did we? Timeshift (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not OR to sum figures for a pre-existing combination. Whilst the Coalition may not be as joined together in WA or SA, presumably all Liberal, National and CLP candidates stood committed to working in the existing combination in Canberra? That table is also not consistent with the figures on Australian federal election, 2004 - I presume that time there wasn't a joint Coalition ticket in of the states. Having a Coalition total attached to each table would be useful for readers. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is not OR to sum figures, and that all the candidates were standing as part of an existing Coalition even where they were not on joint tickets. Having a Coalition total would be valid, but I don't think the fact that it isn't there is a major concern. As for the comparison with 2004, are you referring to the swing figures (I can't see a problem with anything else)? I assume the AEC have calculated the swings by combining the separate Lib and Nat votes in Queensland in 2004 with the joint ticket votes in NSW and Vic. I don't know how they'd manage it the other way round, but in any case, they are the AEC's figures, so it is fair enough to present them. JPD (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Nationals in WA specifically campaigned on being an independent rural party with no ties to the Liberals - it's one of the key factors in the near-doubling of their vote here (pretty much a unique situation in Australia), and a significant percentage of the new Nationals voters in Division of O'Connor preferenced the Labor Party in Reps. This is all quite sourceable both from newspaper columns in those areas, and from the Nationals WA website. SA is a little more complicated. As for the swing figures, it would appear that is what they have done, and I'm not sure how they'd manage the reverse either (that's something we'll find out in 2010, I guess :P) Orderinchaos 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it see it, that sort of campaigning is a reason for presenting the separate figures, but not a reason against giving a Coalition figure - while the Nats may emphasise the fact that they are a separate party, they are quite clearly acting in coalition in Canberra. As for 2010, ar you saying that there is reason to believe the joint ticket in Qld won't be repeated? JPD (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to peculiarities within the WA branch, not the party overall. It's got a lot to do with history and if I ever get around to writing the article on them you can all read about it :) Suffice it to say they weren't even on talking terms with their own leader, Mark Vaile, for the last two years of the Howard government, and there has been serious talk of separation were the federal party ever to attempt to impose "coalitionist" views on the WA party. As for Queensland I'd say with the newfound enthusiasm of Barnaby Joyce and his regarding himself as somewhat of a Senate independent doing deals with Nick Xenophon now that he doesn't have to vote against government legislation any more (which he still managed to do on 19 occasions if The Age is to be believed - anyone got a list?), I'd imagine the Nats would perceive that having "Barnaby Joyce" in the top box on the Senate paper would be an attractive option to many of their own constituency. Orderinchaos 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean re the WA branch. Still, the hypothetical WA Nat elected to Canberra would have been under current arrangements part of the federal party, andhence part of the Coalition, wouldn't they? JPD (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely sure - they claim otherwise. They specifically told voters who asked that they would not take direction from the Nationals' whip in parliament. Orderinchaos 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I did mean the way the swing showed the Lib/Nat joint ticket as being down in 2007 despite the total % being higher than that for 2004. Maybe it's worth expanding the note to explain the discrepency so the whole series of election results can give clear comparison? Also is there anywhere on Wikipedia with the individual Senate results for each state? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't placing the Liberals "higher", I was placing the two main coalition results together, seeing as that is the way I think most people would want to see it. That seemed to make a lot of sense, and didn't require any OR to implement as a solution. It still reads Labor, Liberal, Green in that order to have it that way, it's just that the Liberals hog two boxes. Orderinchaos 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue if you move the Libs up there, the Nats have just as much right to that as well. And that would look silly. There is no issue in ordering the list by number of votes received per ticket from highest to lowest. Something I might do which may help is remove the joint ticket ref, move it and expand it in to the coalition page, and wikilink Liberal/National (Joint Ticket) to that section of the coalition page. Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution might be if you could put the three of them in the same/linked boxes, as we do when members change parties in electorate articles. Rebecca (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is far more reabable to group Libs, Nats and Lib-Nat-joint-ticket in adjacent rows, or perhaps even a multi-row entry. Placing Greens above Liberal on the table is insane. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is insane about placing Australia-wide Greens above Non-eastern states Liberal? They got more votes. The solution here is simply to do what was done on the 2004 page. And to wait for results to be finalised and uploaded to the same ref used for all previous elections. Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because (a) it makes the table less readable, by splitting two different portions of the Liberal vote; and (b) (less importantly, though more important than number of votes) they got less seats. Grouping them makes clear they are all part of a Coalition vote. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nats are already all the way down. They are one half of the coalition. Why no arguments until now? Or are the Liberals more important? For this reason I think that it does not make the table less readable than previously. But I don't see anyone saying they can't figure out who won what, except one claiming the Liberal vote hadn't been updated. Hopefully the UWA results will fix the issue up when they are released in the coming days per previous elections. Or we can put the second, expanded table in, like on the 2004 page. Timeshift (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the CLP whhich everyone keeps forgetting. Orderinchaos 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This is just the way the joint ticket and cookie crumbled. Some need to suck it up and accept that one ticket gained more votes than the other, and no tables are in order of seats, only votes. If UWA has it different then so be it, or again the 2004 solution. Timeshift (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we be guided by the UWA? The ABC groups the Coalition, and I would argue that makes more sense. (And yes, I think the CLP needs to be grouped with the Coalition also). 00:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we go by the ABC? Or the AEC? (which we would favour over the ABC) Neither are consistent, but wikipedia for all elections goes by vote order not seat or coalition order (except for the table lower down the 2004 page, aka the 2004 solution). Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We go with the AEC's data, but the ordering is in fact up to us. Orderinchaos 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree - the election at the end of the day was between the Coalition and Labor, which is the main contest which selects the seats, and as the Nats didn't win any seats in non-joint-ticket states, it could be argued they won all of them as coalition seats. As such it makes more sense to have the coalition all in one place, perhaps like someone said as a multi row column. Orderinchaos 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the 2004 solution? You can't fit a table of what you're referring to on the page without overlapping the PM table on some screens, not to mention breaking the standardisation since 1901. The tables should be left as is, but the 2004 solution implemented (a fully expanded and detailed multi row columned table). Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's been done in the past should never be an impediment to finding a better solution - if necessary we can change the older ones. That seems reasonable to me personally (the 2004 solution). Orderinchaos 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should the House of Reps be the same as the Senate? The issue is quite a different one there, as you don't have Lib/Nats, Libs and Nats as three separate entities scattered randomly across the table for people to try and figure out. If it was just Libs and Nats in the Senate we could use that solution here too, but that is not the case. Orderinchaos 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try and figure out? Is the reference not clear enough? Does it need expansion? Does the ref need removing and instead link joint ticket to the coalition wiki page, with a new section explaining the joint ticket and how this works with the coalition? And it is more or less the same point - all election results are ordered by votes on that ticket, not the seats. Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have forgotten we're both from that tiny minority "political junkie" class. We're writing for them, not for us. Orderinchaos 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What am I forgetting exactly? We aren't writing for retards. Labor has 32 seats won next to it, Greens have 5, Liberal have 32, etc etc, of a total of 76. It's a table. Not rocket science. Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Coalition should be grouped (adjacent rows, or possibly a multi-row entry) in all cases (i.e. both houses, all elections), for the sake of readability. As for why I haven't complained before... well I've often found the WP election tables confusing, it just didn't occur to me to complain/change it until now. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can't do that without expanding the table too big and overlapping with the leaders table to the right. Why don't you agree with the 2004 solution? Btw, see Australian federal election, 1940 and Australian federal election, 1943 *snigger* Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have? Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Not just here, but in a few places over the last few days. I don't know what's going on, but you might want to try and chill out a bit. Rebecca (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than take pot shots at me why not take it to my talk page for rational discussion? Timeshift (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hon, I'm not trying to take potshots at you, but this is the sort of thing I mean. I'm just asking if you could try and cool it a bit, that's all. Rebecca (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate result table incorrect

message: Is there any fair use rationale that will get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Firstruddministry.jpg over the line to stop deletionists? Timeshift (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. It isn't like it's a replaceable image - it's not like any random citizen can ring up each member of the ministry and say "hey, would you folks mind coming down to Canberra so we can take a photo for Wikipedia?". While it's possible to do that individually, as a group, I think we have a strong case that it's not a replaceable fair use image, and thus acceptable for use here. Rebecca (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have a go at tightening the raionale. (It will probably help to remove the irrelevant stuff such as the noncommercial permissions.) However, while I agree that this is not replaceable, we need to be careful about where it is used. For First Rudd Ministry, it is clearly significant to the topic, and we can say we can't organise a free group photo. For Cabinet of Australia, any past cabinet photo would be almost equally appropriate (in fact, the previosu (Howard) pic might be better, as this one includes more than the cabinet), and so we need to argue that we cant' get a free photo of past cabinets either (probably true, but this needs to be said in the rationale). For Prime Minister of Australia, I think we have trouble arguing that this particular photo adds enough significance to the article. JPD (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also that noone has seriously tried to delete this - it was automatically tagged as having an invalid fair use rationale, because a simple but vital ingredient (the name of the article(s) the rationale is for) was omitted. A fair use rationale that doesn't tell us which use it is talking about is meaningless. JPD (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[First Rudd Ministry]] image 

message: First Preferences by Party - Vic - Turnout: 95.16%, Turnout: 92.62%, Notes: These results are final. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And we have the answer. Spoke to the AEC, it stumped them, I had a call back from an official who thanked me for advising them of the issue, the person who does the calculations found the division of Melbourne to go maverick a day before he went on leave, and thus Melbourne is currently not included in the figures, thus there is no complete and final tally for the lower house in Victoria, and the 2PP is not yet complete either. As Melbourne went maverick (Labor vs Green), the 2PP should be updated in the next day or so by the person who does the calculations. As it is one of the top 5 safest in the country for Labor, that would explain why the 2PP dropped half a percent or so all of a sudden a while back. So the two party preferred figure is not yet out! Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated and fixed. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2PP figure is not final 

message: Per this and this, it mentions Mackerras has now done estimates to 1940 in a table to the right, but I can't see the table the article refers to? The 1943 2pp was already known from a prior ref, and one of the articles mentions the 1943 swing so from that I've now got the 1940 and 1943 2pp figures... but having much trouble finding the 1946 2pp or swing... can anyone suggest something? Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That table will be in the Australian article itself. Can anyone get a scan of it and email it to Timeshift? (I'll have a look later today if I get into the city, but I don't have a scanner so there's no guarantees.) Orderinchaos 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't need a scan, I simply need to know what 1946 was, or the swing, and which page of today's paper it's on for the ref. From that all the figures are known per above. Thanks to the person who reveals it! Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2pp estimates to 1940 

message: Going way back to the leader images discussion, I've trialled a crop for Howard's image. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does it have to do here? Guy0307 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the discussion took place here as here is where the images were being used. Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He wasn't Prime Minister at the election. He was Prime Minister after the election. See 1996 and 1983 elections as examples. Timeshift (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader images 

message: "Labor and the coalition won 18 seats each in the Senate. The Greens won three seats, with independent Nick Xenophon being elected on primary votes alone. This brings the 76-member Senate total to 37 coalition, 32 Labor, 5 Green, 1 Family First, and 1 independent. This means that when the new Senate meets after 1 July 2008, the balance of power will be shared between Xenophon, Family First's Steve Fielding and the five Greens."
Some might not pick up that these (last two sentences) are only projections, not results. I have changed this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.185.67 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your standard federal election only elects half of the senate. A members term is two terms, or six years. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading - Senate Results 

message: The political parties have colours encoded using different methods in different places. In some places, such as the House results, the seats are coloured using HTML tags. In the seats changing hands, they use templates. For consistency, the templates should be used throughout. (For example, the CLP have different colours in different places.) --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 08:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re CLP, done. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent colours 

message: I included this information in the intro since it seems a highly salient fact about the election - Bruce's similar loss is in the intro of Australian federal election, 1929. At a minimum, it deserves more attention than in the current version, where it's buried in a general para listing all sorts of results.  JQ (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the information in the 1929 article is in the lead. The 2007 had many aspects, all discussed in the article. I see no need to note Howard's loss in the intro. Timeshift (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: a sub-heading under "House Results" or "Seats changing hands" might be appropriate, given the coverage it got. I don't think it belongs in the lead however - it didn't get THAT much coverage. IMHO Peter Ballard (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard's loss of own seat 

message: I've added senator tables for the various states at State-by-state upper house results, if some are able to have a quick look to make sure I've remembered the modifications to add such as Fisher replacing Vanstone, McGauren changing parties etc etc, that would be great. Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Mathias Cormann, who replaced Ian Campbell in June 2007. User:Jmount (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta! Timeshift (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper house results 

message: Noting the current contributors to the discussion, I thought i'd mention that there is a debate at Talk:Liberal Party of Australia over Pyne and "hard right". Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyne defines Liberal policies as "hard right" 

message: Is Ruth Russell, human shield in Iraq in 2003, noteable enough to be added as a "high profile candidate" in candidates and seats? Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ruth Russell]] 

message: I'm adding a collection to the end of week 6, if anyone has any, please upload! Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling booth images 

message: One thing I don't like about the current article is there is no clear and concise explanation of why Labor won, although analysis is pretty unanimous that it was a combination of Workchoices, new Labor leadership, and old Liberal leadership.      Also there is duplication between the "Issues" and "Election Campaign" sections. (The "Issues" section was largely written before the official campaign began, and largely contains guesses at what the Issues would turn out to be). So I'd like to suggest the following changes:
* A section entitled something like "Analysis" which explains the result (according to the WP:RS).
* The "Issues" section gets merged into the "Election Campaign" section, with much of it going into a "pre-election campaign" subsection.
Peter Ballard (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to state by state results, the lower house page looks good but the upper house page is a bit bare... does anyone think anything is missing? I was thinking about adding a list of senators elected by state to the page, but is there a way to make it look decent rather than a bunch of text? Same for seats that changed hands by state... a compact table might do but i'm not good at designing tables from scratch... Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should certainly be consistent, naming all elected senators or none except independents. Naming the Greens' and Family First senators, but not the ALP/Coalition senators looks strange. In fact, elected/continuing Senators could be added as extra columns. Might as well fill it out with real information! Also (minor quibble) I removed any mention of "Seats won" from the "Lib/Nat joint ticket" rows. the Otherwise, it looks good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Ballard (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. We just cite the analysis of reputable commentators. It's fairly easy, because the commentators were pretty unanimous. I gave 4 cites above. (As to why I haven't tried to add it yet: combination of too busy, and plain forgot). Peter Ballard (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing individual articles and commentators to form why the election played out the way it did sort of gets in to WP:SYN territory. Timeshift (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggested reorganisation 

message: Why was this changed to fourth and 1975 with a 30 seat swing removed? I realised that it's different in that the election was engineered via the governor general's dissollution, but an election is still an election. Timeshift (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that comparison with the previous election is more relevant than whether or not the party is in government at the time. I'm not sure why the previous wording was considered inaccurate - did it actually suggest that Whitlam was still in government? JPD (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It previously said "fifth-largest defeat of the previously elected government". Why User:Blueboy96 decided it was "more accurate" to change this is probably a mystery only he can answer.  Peter Ballard (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the change. Fraser was the caretaker PM at the time of the election, so the Whitlam government was not incumbent. Orderinchaos 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we be going by seats held and not which of them form the "government"? If not, the wording itself should be changed. Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the point of the statistic is to record where it ranks in electoral swings in Australian history. It makes no sense to bend the criteria so that the biggest swing in Australian history is omitted. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, Fraser - just like an opposition - had to win seats to form government. In terms of "winning seats so he could form a majority in the House when he couldn't before", the swing Fraser achieved is the largest ever; and this article shouldn't be choosing a wording which rules out 1975.  Peter Ballard (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The issue is the number of seats changing hands, not who was in government. I don't think the previous wording was inaccurate in terms of referring to the government, but it might be clearer if it could be said without mentioning being in government at all. Actually, I don't think it's accurate to describe the largest swing as the largest defeat, anyway. It's not clear whether "largest defeat" should refer to the change from one election to another or the difference between the parties at a single election. JPD (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, it all depends how swings are measured. As a proportion of seats, Labor won 17 out of 75 seats in 1910, which is more than 1/5, which is more than 1983, 1996 or 2007. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Labor did get a 13 percent swing to them ;-) Timeshift (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: and the largest - the 1996 swing was smaller than the 2007 one or any of the other above three. Orderinchaos 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No counter-argument, so I'm deleting it. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth largest defeat since federation 

message: Does anyone know how to align the Senators elected tables to the right of the results rather than below, as is the style for the maps on the lower house results page? Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure exactly what you mean but did NSW as a test - feel free to revert if I misunderstood :) Orderinchaos 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes like that, but all the way to the right, like the maps are on the lower. Is it possible? Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (The maps were done a different way as they're images, but this seems to work for text).  Orderinchaos 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper house results tables 

message: I'm trying to figure out where this is up to, the only recent article I can find is this which doesn't say much at all, except that whilst the ballot papers can be viewed "in some way", legal representatives can't gain access to the ballot papers. Wah? Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving access to the parties is the last thing a court would want to do in a contestable situation - they should be kept in neutral hands and eyes as far as is possible. Orderinchaos 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Court proceedings will recommence next month.  It seems a safe bet a by-election will take place. By the way, I don't know what you've got planned for the table, but I think the number of Liberal seats should remain at 55, regardless of the by-election outcome. Bush shep (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incumbency was identified as a huge factor at the last poll, where people were voting for John Howard and continuity. With that removed from the equation and a Liberal opposition plumbing record lows and unable to form an effective or audible policy response to the new Government, I think McEwen would be a fairly safe gain for Labor. Will be interesting to see if it does, what that says for the 5 marginal WA seats in 2010. Orderinchaos 21:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I will be adding McEwen to the Labor result. As Orderinchaos agreed, it is all part of the original 2007 election. Future by-elections (ie gippsland) wouldn't count, but as the mcewen by-election replaces the 2007 election result, it is counted in the 2007 election. So the table would become 84 to 54. Thanks :-) Timeshift (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's where I diagree. The result has been declared, the writs have been returned and Bailey has taken her seat. It's not a "replacement" election, it's a by-election. Bush shep (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the court rules that a by-election must be held, it is because of the discrepancies of the counting. It fell to Labor then to Liberal, and for the court to rule it invalid and call a by-election means neither previous result was valid. Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the court rules the result invalid, it doesn't change the fact that the Liberal Party won it at the election. (The fact that there was a recount is a bit of a red herring.) Bush shep (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the court rules that the original declaration was invalid due to a flawed couunting process, then the Liberal Party won't have won it at the election, whoever wins the by-election will have won it at the 07 election. Timeshift (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The election is done and dusted. Here's the results for McEwen. There's a reason it's called a by-election. Bush shep (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The election in McEwen is done and dusted until a court rules that the results for it were invalid. Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a difficult one. How was Mundingburra in Queensland 1995 and Lindsay in Fed 1996 handled? That may be instructive... (I would look myself but I'm not on a regular machine) Orderinchaos 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lindsay was won by the same party. Mundingburra saw the ALP's seats reduced from 45 to 44. Antony Green records their original 45.  Bush shep (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Antony Green has done many things that we haven't. If the court rules the result invalid, then the Liberals didn't win McEwen. Guy0307 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As the official election return and most reliable sources will note the original and not the final result, it seems that having the correct result as certified in early December, with footnotes on the numbers, is probably the best way to deal with it. If Antony Green is not courageous enough to make such changes, I don't think we on Wikipedia should be pioneers. Orderinchaos 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the 07 result is ruled invalid, then we are not hostage to Antony Green or anyone else except consensus. But I think this is rather pointless until it happens anyway so how about we let this rest until we have to cross the bridge. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are, however, hostage to policy. Orderinchaos 03:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  McEwen 

message: Is it noteable to add that Leichhardt wasn't mentioned by commentators like Eden-Monaro was in terms of being a Bellwether? I would suspect it is because Entsch held it with a 10 percent margin prior to the election. Both have the same bellwether credentials in modern electoral times - correct since 1972. Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll leave that sort of thing to the opinion columns of the newspapers - it really has no place on an encyclopaedia. Even if one takes the idea that Eden-Monaro is a bellwether, Leichhardt is not as it has no demographic similarities to the rest of the country - it's basically holiday resorts, a regional city and a huge number of Aboriginals - and so its shifts over and above the 50 line over various elections (affected by almost constant redistribution as with every Queensland seat) are largely coincidental. Eden-Monaro, on the other hand, contains urban, provincial and rural areas and a mix of age groups. That being said, none of this is remotely encyclopaedic as the relationship is not in any sense causative. Orderinchaos 03:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the definition of a bellwether? Yours sounds quite selective... Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is there is no definition - it's a pop notion, it certainly doesn't appear in any reputable publications. I've been following a number of Wikipedia's major disputes recently and the importance of using reliable sources and avoiding dud science cannot be overestimated. Orderinchaos 03:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And if that definition comes from news articles that state EM is a bellwether for falling to the governing party since 1972? That would be a pop notion contained within a WP:RS wouldn't it. But that is a contradiction in terms... Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion pages of a newspaper are not RS - this has been argued out before elsewhere. Otherwise we'd have to start calling Andrew Bolt or Piers Akerman a reliable source. News articles are not, in any sense, academically sound publications - they don't go through anywhere near the level of peer review or fact checking that academic journals and papers do, nor do they have the same purpose (they aim to sell copy, not promote the growth of knowledge). This article is probably going to be extensively reworked once the sources become available (at a guess June), many of them are still in the review stage as we speak. Orderinchaos 03:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So this is WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from the point of view of creating new concepts, no. That's generally left to the political scientists, not the journalists with whatever qualifications they may hold (not all even hold a BA, for the record). Orderinchaos 08:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that explain excluding EM being a bellwether since 1972 coming from WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellwethers