Talk:2004 Australian federal election/Archive 1

message: If the 3-year term is dated from the first sitting after the previous election, which was in March 2002, why then can the next election be delayed until as late as April 2005?  Where does the extra month come from?  Can anybody explain this?  JackofOz 13:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing

message: Just as regards Bob Brown, I think there's probably a bit of a definitional issue as to what precisely constitutes the "Australian left". I'm perfectly aware that a great many people would not eg. describe Latham as left-wing. But then again, there probably are many who would.
I think I remember reading on the Bob Brown entry itself that he was described as the leader of the "anti-American left" or something like that. Now while I don't think that's great phraseology, I think it expresses that there's a particular segment of the left among which he is undeniably the most prominent member (where previously it might have been Kernot or Stott-Despoja).
I don't know what to do. I think it'd be legitimate to describe him as the most prominent figure in the anti-war movement, but I think that that is probably too narrow a description of his general appeal.
Lacrimosus 00:36, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaders

message: Evolver of Borg, please buy yourself a hat. If the Meg Lees Party  ... er ... I mean Australian Progressive Alliance ... wins a seat, post it to me and I'll eat the thing. Seriously, they have no chance. Tannin 08:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I added tables (more or less directly imported from the Candian election page) to liven up the ASCII and make the data more readable. I'm not an Australian, so there may be nuances in the old version that I failed to transfer (e.g., the position of the National Party to indicate a coalition?); screw with it as much as you want. Jxg 22:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables Mark I

message: Thanks David - i didnt even realise i'd hit rollback - im getting used to a new mouse and keyboard. PMA 12:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: I didn't change the seat listing to tables this time, but I think we need to make a decision on what form the listing should take. Fixed-text or tables? I would tend to side with tables, but only if we can integrate more information into them. - Aaron Hill 01:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these ones  look pretty bad.  The ones here  are a lot better, but could do with some borders (a thin line) and maybe left-aligning the header row.  The "tables" as they exist now look like they are a workaround from before wikipedia had any decent table support. -- Chuq 03:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Those tables do look good, though maybe the background colours could be less dominant and changed to be more suitable to the parties (consistent with the ABC News colours maybe?)... a column for party logos perhaps as well? I think Adam Carr is strongly against tables and I'd like to hear from him before taking any action, especially as he is reverting any attempt to convert to tables (and considering the current state of the tables proposed, quite correctly). I also think that the tables should have a row combining the totals of the Liberal and National Parties (ala this revision) because it is the easiest way to quickly compare the total of the Coalition majority with the number of ALP seats.  - Aaron Hill 03:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of tables

message: Subpage: Talk:Australian legislative election, 2004/Aaronhill's proposed tables
I've added an alternative to the same page. It relies on blank space to format the table. m.e. 09:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaronhill's proposed tables 

message: A Senate table is in the works as well. - Aaron Hill 08:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The Australian Greens don't have a formal leadership.  Not sure what you could call him, though...  I'm consulting with Party people.
Shermozle
:This is correct, Adam has mentioned this in the body of the article - I've edited Bob Brown's caption to match -- Chuq 23:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Brown is not "leader" 

message: The election is not just for the legislature (as say is a US Congressional election) but for the executive - ie the actual government of Australia. Can't we have a better title for the page?
Thortful 22:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, they are not directly choosing the executive.  Granted, the executive is responsible to the legislature and in practice is a subset of it, but constitutionally, they are separate entities.  The people of Australia are voting for the legislature, whose composition will determine the executive. David Cannon 22:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why "legislative?"

message: "this issue is gaining traction for the Greens in electorates with large gay and lesbian populations, such as Sydney, Grayndler and Melbourne".
This seems an obtuse statement to me: does this mean there are less gay people in Brisbane and Perth? Just because they hold the Mardis Gras in Sydney doesn't mean, I would say, all the gay people in Australia have moved to live there. Wouldn't the 'gay vote' be roughly the same across Australia, definitely urban areas? Feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong, that's why I didn't edit the article :D
: Davedx 05:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The gay vote

message: Since I've seen a bit of back and forth as to whether the Liberal and National parties have joint or separate Senate tickets in Queensland - Adam Carr is right, they are definitely separate. The Liberal Party have 4 candidates in Group C, the National Party have 3 candidates in Group M - see . For other candidature questions, see  for the list of lists. All the Senate preference allocations are there, too, if you're interested. —Stormie 02:52, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I have put up something that will clarify this for those that dont know for all states in the main page. Xtra
----
Now that both Howard and Latham have given their policy speeches someone should write a section setting out their main policy commitments. I can't do it because I'm too partisan. Adam 05:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lib/Nat joint/separate Senate tickets

message: When Aaronhill does a result table for the Senate, can he include two extra columns, one at the beginning for the number of long term (holdover) Senators whose term expire at 30 Jun 2008, and another at the end for the total number of senators.
: Done. I still cringe when I look at my tables, but they'll do the job. - Aaron Hill 03:26, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
: The Senate results table with the holdover seats looks very good. Thank you for the effort.
211.30.76.7 07:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Aaronhill's result tables for Senate. 

message: I guess its now time to vote on the tables as seen on: Talk:Australian legislative election, 2004/Aaronhill's proposed tables. Alternatives are still welcome of course. Voting ends on Friday, October 8 at 6:00 PM AEST (8:00 AM, October 8 in UTC) . Voting is first past the post (ie. choose only one option).
It seems to be Aaron Hill ...   m.e. 09:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result Tables 

message: # Aaron Hill 09:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
# but can't use the quota box in the senate as different for each state Xtra 11:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Aaronhill's tables

message: # I suppose I should support my own tables (as reformatted). They are structured the same as Aaron's, but I think they are easier to read. m.e. 09:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: M.e.'s tables

message: * Anyone know whats the predictions for the Senate? PMA 12:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate

message: the reason why the AEC website says that liberals only have 71, is because they don't factor in the seat held by the country liberal party (which realy is just a division of the liberal party) Xtra 13:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CLP Seat 

message: There doesn't seem to be any mention of turnout. Going by the article on the 2001 election, it seems to be down, and all the parties except the Greens seem to have lost votes - unless some votes haven't been counted yet. Can anyone add information on turnout as a proportion of the electorate, and the swing in this? -- Gregg 00:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Turnout in Australian elections is usually pretty good, given that voting is compulsory in Australia and non-compliance is punishable with a fine. Alex.tan 07:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. So... why does turnout appear to have fallen from 11.4 million to 9.5 million, since the last election? Or are there still two million odd votes to be counted? -- Gregg 10:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  only 75% of the votes have been counted Xtra 10:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That explains it. Thanks. -- Gregg 10:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there was an unusually high postal/pre-poll vote this election, possibly due to school holidays in several states. - Mark 11:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Turnout

message: It seems to me that this is a poltical victory for George W. Bush - He's retained a faithful ally for Iraq, and Australians have rejected the message of John Kerry's sister.
:Kerry has a sister?! I think you misunderstand how little most Australians care about American politics. We can barely raise enough interest in our own elections! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already mentions John Howard's apparent vindication of involvement in Iraq.  I see no reason to suggest that it is a "victory" for George W. Bush or John Kerry, as both supported Howard over Mark Latham.  Regardless of who wins the U.S. election, they'll have to clean up a mess in Iraq.  John Kerry needs a cooperative partner in Iraq just as much as President Bush, hence why he stated opposition to Mark Latham's plans to withdraw troops. -Shem 203.214.148.234 08:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Whilst it could be played in the US as a win for Bush; Iraq or even the FTA that appears to have come about as our "reward" for support, didn't seem to play any role in the election at all. Maybe something should go into the US election article about how the result could be spun to be supporting of Bush, I don't believe anything should go into this article unless the spin is used.Steven jones 02:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: If Labor had made a big election issue over hammering the Coalition for their actions with regards to supporting Bush in Iraq, and the results had gone the same way, then maybe you could spin this as a vote for Bush. But that didn't happen. —Stormie 03:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Iraq was hardly mentioned as an issue once the campaign began. But the damage to Latham was done back in March with his off-the-cuff "out by Xmas" comments to Mike Carlton. That produced an immediate dip in the polls and he never recovered his earlier standing, not so much because of the issue itself but because of the impression it gave of policy-on-the-run. But it was economic issues that cost Labor the election. Adam 04:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Victory 

message: Okay, folks. Here is where I draw a line in the sand: Historical accuracy. Over a few months now I have several times inserted and later seen removed the mention of Malcolm Mackerras' prediction in January 2005 about the election. Whether you like him or not, he predicted it. It happened! He deserves recognition. 
As of right now, the Mackerras Pendulum image is still there but the paragraph has been removed, thus losing the sense and historical importance of the pendulum/image. (The paragraph morphed after the link to User:Adam Carr's pendulum was added, and it remains.) The Mackerras entry went in the edits at 23:43, 11 Oct 2004 by 202.154.105.254. 
If it is unacceptable to record the historically quite accurate prediction in the body of the entry, as it seems from people's censoring of the mention of Mackerras' prediction, then I imagine that no-one will complain if I create a separate section for the history of predictions about this election. Other people's predictions can then be documented, too. I await your advice and, if no-one objects, will do this late in the weekend. Peter Ellis 03:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the Mackerras piece ("Nothing for certain in landslide danger zone," Australian, 5 January 2004) in front of me and he does not predict the election result, or even attempt to do so. In fact he said: "I have no idea how the Australian people will divide their votes and nor does anyone else." He posits a 3% swing to the coalition as a hypothesis, but further down the column he posits a swing to Labor of 4%. Mackerras does not in general make election predictions. I do not appreciate being accused of censorship. Research should precede accusation. Adam 04:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, please do not be touchy. (I realise that you have opinions about how people in Wikipedia are behaving at the moment, and I am almost certain from what I can read that I'm on your 'side'.) Notice that I made the point that the edits in which the Mackerras matters were removed were by 202.154.105.254 and not you. As for the prediction, have I mis-attributed the prediction to the article rather than the list/pendulum he has on his web site? If so, I'll correctly attribute it to his site. (See the predicted situation/pendulum as recorded in detail at the Malcolm Mackerras entry and in the image of the pendulum.) I think that most folk would call saying something will occur in a particular way 10 months and 4 days ahead of time a prediction; I'll call it a prophecy if that is clearer. Peter Ellis 05:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Malcolm Mackerras]]' prediction 

message: I reverted Xtra's change of 19 Oct - see the commentary on the ABC site:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendTAS.htm under "Antony Green's Analysis" - 
If all votes are assumed to be ticket votes, then the final vacancy in Tasmania goes to Jacquie Petrusma of Family First ahead of Christine Milne from the Greens. However, the final margin of victory is only 4,300 votes. In 2001, one in five Tasmanian votes, or around 60,000 ballot papers, were cast below the line. Christine Milne is a well known political figure in the state, and it is quite likely that many below the line votes from the Labor, Liberal and Australian Democrat tickets will leak to Milne. The final result in Tasmania will now be known until all below the line votes are entered into the computer counting system, and the button is hit to distribute preferences.
The "results" shown on that page are for an "all votes are above-the-line votes" scenario.  -- Chuq 12:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family First/Greens in Tas Senate 

message: During this election there have been a number of reports and complaints made to the AEC regarding activities and material which may constitute electoral fraud.  I think we should include a small section on this, with focus on those incidents which can be confirmed (i.e. those reported to the AEC) and obviously being careful with the NPOV and defamation (in other words, just because it may have benefited one particular party, does not necessarily mean it was the work of that party).
Anyone have any particular views on this front before I start adding a new section?  Also, if anyone has relevant URLs available, it would be appreciated.  -- BenM 02:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so should we leave it out or just include a small section of those issues reported to the AEC?  If the latter we could then include the allegations of bribery made by that independent MP against the Nationals at the start of the campaign (the trade the seat for a diplomatic post thing).  -- BenM 02:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  that could cause defamation problems if the claims turn out to be unfounded. the AEC puts out a report after each election including all these type of occurences. could we take it from that when it comes out. Xtra 08:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral fraud and complaints 

message: the last senate spot in qld is very interesting to watch.
it is extremely close between the nationals and the greens.
added to this are the legal threats of both the nats and the greens to have the election overturned if they don't get their way.
most importantly though is that if the nats get joyce up, the coalition will have a majority in the senate.
however, this may not mean absolute control to howard, as the qld nats have made it clear that they are under no binding obedience to the coalition.
at the moment, after the nats were trailing by a few hundred votes on friday, they are now ahead.
there is every possibility that the qld nats will become the balance of power in the senate. this may be commentworthy. Xtra 10:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qld Senator #6