Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 5

AEC final results
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)
 * 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)

The article is currently inconsistent about whether Labor will win 83 or 84 seats. I assume it's 84 if they win the disputed seat of McEwen, 83 otherwise. Correct? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It seems the recount went the opposite way you predicted OiC :P Timeshift (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * McEwen hasn't been declared yet!! Guy0307 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Update - now confirmed News Ltd jumped the gun. ABC says final result for McEwen tomorrow. Orderinchaos 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comm Lib Party - People's Party?
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)

Senate result table incorrect
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Reverted table, there is no reason to put the Liberals higher. The Liberal-only ticket that ran everywhere but Vic, NSW and Qld got less votes than the Greens did Australia-wide. Thus the table is like it is - most to least votes. The joint ticket, above the Greens and below Labor, is clearly referenced to explain. One simpleton does not mean this isn't working. Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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) p.s. I refer you to the ABC pages, and  which group the Coalition parties in adjacent rows or columns. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There's also the CLP whhich everyone keeps forgetting. Orderinchaos 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Ballard (talk • contribs)
 * 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)
 * We go with the AEC's data, but the ordering is in fact up to us. Orderinchaos 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I also note that nobody has complained about the position of the Nats in the House of Reps. The tables should be left as is, but the 2004 solution implemented (a fully expanded and detailed multi row columned table). Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

I'm really not bothered about this issue either way, but Timeshift, can you please cool down? You've been unusually aggressive with people over the last week or so, and it's creating angry disputes where there reallly shouldn't be any. Rebecca (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have? Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Senate table changes
I've decided to "be bold" and put some changes into the Senate table - grouping the coalition, and adding a "changes" column. I think it's an improvement. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a good argument for grouping the coalition parties (or at least the two that operated joint and split tickets) for the sake of readability. The argument that the old version is good enough (which it is) is not a reason not to change it. However, I think Timeshift might have a point that it would be difficult to consistently apply the logic used here to all past elections, where the situation was sometimes even more complicated. Either way, grouping them together doesn't mean we have to ditch the Nat and CLP colours! JPD (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Orderinchaos 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am particularly interested in fixing the special problem of how to represent the joint Lib/Nat tickets in the tables. Where Lib + Nat are always distinct (as they are in the house of reps) then having them non-adjacent is not a problem. I think it should be possible to do something sensible + consistent in all Senate elections where Lib + Nat had joint tickets, as far back as that goes. I don't think there's that problem (joint tickets) to deal with in old elections like 1940 + 1943. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it comes back to if people are likely to be confused (for example, if I was a European trying to learn about Australian politics - a position I often adopt because I have been known to learn about their politics on Wikipedia - and saw the table, I might be led to conclude the Liberals are a minor party in the Senate, or even a split from a "Liberal/Nationals" party/coalition) then we need to do something to have them separate. I personally believe joint tickets are a bit anti-democratic anyway, but that's just me. Orderinchaos 03:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no joint ticket issues, I moved CLP back to where they had been. On another Senate table subject, I think "Pauline's UAP" should be removed from the Senate table. In general, I think a party shouldn't be on the table if they have zero seats both before and after the election. The fact that they got more votes than the CLP doesn't warrant them being on the table - a few other minor parties managed that too. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue it's worthy of being on the thing solely because of the amount of news it generated. One odd thing - I note it says no swing, but she did actually run in 2004 and got a similar share of the vote, so that should probably be fixed up, with a note. Orderinchaos 04:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We should make a "Coalition Total" row with the joint ticket votes + lib votes + nat votes (5,014,842). Guy0307 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I thought of doing shared rows for votes, percentages + swing like this:


 * ... the only problem is, we can't just rip the swing numbers off the AEC site, but we have to work them out ourselves. I think the pictured table above is even clearer, but what we've got is probably good enough; the empty boxes in the Lib-Nat-joint-ticket line make it obvious what is going on, I think. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As the swings are add-together rather than proportion this isn't much of a problem. It'd be more a case of add the four together (L/N, L, N, CLP), add them together for 2004, add the AEC-displayed swings together and then check to make sure there is no error. I don't see why this would fall foul of WP:OR. Once we get it in a way it works here, we should probably implement the same solution at 2004 for consistency. Orderinchaos 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the swings don't add, but there's a simple way anyway: work out the 2004 total percentage, and do a simple subtraction. But before I or anyone else goes editing a whole pile of election articles, I'm curious what format people think is best. p.s. I'm leaning to leaving CLP out, and only combining Lib/Nat because we don't have any choice. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, reflecting on this - it does add. Let's say Party A swings 3% from 36% to 33%, Party B swings 2% from 15% to 13%, Party C swings 1% from 3% to 2%. The total swing assuming Party A-C are a coalition will be 6%, as 36+15+3 (54) swings by 3+2+1 (6) to go to 33+13+2 (48). The only problem for us, then, is rounding errors caused by the AEC outputting 2dp percentages. Orderinchaos 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If only it was that simple. But the AEC is doing some funky adjustment to the joint ticket figures, because they ran a joint ticket in Qld this time but not in 2004. So the joint ticket vote in 2004 was 25.72%, this time it was 30.68%, yet the AEC gives it a swing of -3.55%. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We talked about this earlier - what the AEC is is fairly straightforward, and definitely doesn't affect the fact that swings add (the Lib and Nat swings are "wrong" in the same way, balancing it out). In fact, adding the coalition figures together would completely remove this anomaly. It just doesn't reflect the reality about how the parties operated and received votes. JPD (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do that, either. It's not really a good idea to include the SA and WA branches of the Nationals in any national Coalition figure, because not only are they very much not in coalition at state level, but it's far from clear that they would have sat with the Coalition at federal level. I strongly suspect this was why Labor only decided to really run dead in one seat in the country - O'Connor in WA, where the Nats where in with a decent chance against Wilson Tuckey. IIRC, there was quite a bit of suggestion that Nats candidate Gardiner would not sit with the federal Nationals if elected. Rebecca (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed (see my comments re this earlier also). Besides it makes almost no difference to the result - the swing and nearly all of the votes are either Libs or joint ticket. Orderinchaos 11:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So is that agreement to stay with what I've done but go no further? i.e. (a) move any mention of seats from the joint tickets column, (b) put joint, Lib and Nat in adjacent rows for clarity; and (c) leave CNP separate), ...


 * ... i.e. this? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is how to fit it in the main table. It would be good if they could all go in some sort of linked box, rather than three seperate boxes, to a) make clear that they're linked, and b) clarify why they're appearing out of vote order. Rebecca (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that pretty well my earlier suggestion (above) with all Lib/Nat votes lumped together in a single dual-row entry? There's still the lower house table to indicate that the Lib vote is overwhelmingly the lion's share. Yes it is a simplification, but whatever we do is a simplification. (Unless we break down the votes state by state, but I think that is way too complex a table to go in the lead). Peter Ballard (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. You can't sort the data into completely original ways that don't particular pertain to reality. I'm just suggesting to put that information, exactly as above, but formatted properly as part of the existing table, rather than randomly placing these three rows out of vote order. Rebecca (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About that, btw... the deputy FA coordinator suggested recently that we shouldn't really have tables in the lead at all. We will ultimately need to move them into the article, and think of what is needed to improve our infobox to convey the required information (minimally). Orderinchaos 07:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The unpopular infobox used at New South Wales general election, 2007 does a fairly good job of displaying the most important information, and could be combined with the leaders' pics. Having said that, distinguishing between a table in the lead and an infobox seems quite fussy. If it really is a problem, the tables could be moved into the results section without significantly changing access to the information.
 * As for the ordering issue within the tables, I still don't see why the solution here should be different to 1940/1943. As for Rebecca's linked box, we should be able to remove the borders in particular cells, shouldn't we? JPD (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking about that infobox today :) The ideal way would be to NPOV it (that was really the only reason it was unpopular if I recall), implement the consensus re major party leaders on it then use it consistently on all articles - at present we have three different looks/feels on election articles around Australia. I might toss around some ideas in my userspace and see what I can generate. As for the solution here - we're really just trying to find the best way to do things here after a long discussion then have the option of implementing it on earlier articles. Orderinchaos 14:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Separate reply re lead table - we're getting same feedback from both GA and FA people, which would present major problems in getting any of these articles past GA/FA in future. I've seen a screenshot of what someone with accessibility issues sees and the table mangles with the infobox where it is presently and some of the text is obscured. Orderinchaos 14:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope you all had a Merry Christmas. Answering JPD, the 1940 and 1943 tables, with their joint UAP/Country Party tickets, are also deficient and need to be fixed. For instance, at Australian federal election, 1940, there is no way to tell how many seats were won by the UAP and how many were won by the Country Party. Answering Rebecca, I don't think it is "sort(ing) the data into completely original ways" to group the Lib + Nat vote together, when in half the states they're lumped together anyway. And the summary table is just that - a summary, and should present the information in as readable a way as possible. Having said that, I'd accept either of my suggested tables above (though I prefer the first one, i.e. the one without any "joint ticket" row). But I am strongly opposed to giving seats to the "joint ticket" row, because it is confusing, even misleading.
 * And I agree that the tables should be moved out of the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's blatant original research, and bad original research at that. You cannot merge figures for states where the parties are not in coalition and would have quite likely not sat together in Canberra if they'd elected MPs. This is why you need the above table: it provides the accurate data in a way that makes sense. Rebecca (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But the above table gives, at least by implication, 2 seats (+ 4 in total) to the 20,000 National votes in SA/WA. At least when they're lumped together, it's clear that their seats mostly come from a joint ticket vote. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this? I know it looks bad, I'm thinking of a way to improve it.


 * If there'sa summed total for the Coalition then surely it should also include the CLP figure? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I might add it tomorrow - or feel free to add it yourself. Guy0307 (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all these cries out for coalition groupings, yet nobody is willing to add the Country Libs in to the coalition grouping in the Senate. Perhaps it might be due to the CLP ticket gaining more votes but less seats than the National ticket? Which would make the table even more confusing than it has become? Well, so much for the merits of the senate coalition grouping argument when nobody has carried it out. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I was just waiting for discussion from someone other than myself. As for the CLP, it is easy to keep separate because there are no joint ticket issues, so it's probably best kept separate. Another possibility is to summarise the Senate table (akin to the 2-row summary for the House of Reps) with just 3 rows: "Labor", "Coalition" and "Other". Yet another possibility is to group the Coalition (including the CLP) in the main table, but then have a more detailed table below, perhaps that one including state-by-state voting. Lots of possibilities... Peter Ballard (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First Rudd Ministry image
Is there any fair use rationale that will get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Firstruddministry.jpg over the line to ? Timeshift (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Macquarie
Although the redistribution made it notionally a Labor seat pre-election, it was in fact held by Kerry Bartlett (Liberal). He lost it to Bob Debus (Labor). The Seats changing hands table makes no mention of it. Without at least a note, it appears that Macquarie was not one of the seats that changed hands from one party to another, when it was. Orderinchaos mentioned this at Talk:Australian legislative election, 2007/Archive4 (see final post) but nothing seems to have happened.

Btw, the link in the archive box there points to a non-existent page. No idea how to fix it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Two replies to two questions:
 * Re archive box - will fix that - the problem is (for everyone else's benefit) that the original name of the page was Australian legislative election, 2007, and the archives have not been moved to the new name.
 * Re Macquarie - what do others think? The problem actually affects two seats:
 * Macquarie was redistributed and became a notionally Labor seat (having been a fairly safe Liberal one previously), with the safe Liberal territory moving to Greenway. The seat was won by a Labor member against its Liberal incumbent. Therefore it changed hands but as the swing says ALP -> ALP, it's not in our table.
 * Parramatta was redistributed and became a notionally Liberal seat (having been a marginal Labor one, held by Liberals for several terms prior to 2004). It was won by its incumbent Labor member on a swing. According to our table, it changed hands, although it had the same member/affiliation before and after.
 * The problem here is these are technicalities but the man on the street would say 1 changed hands and 2 didn't. We need a way to note this that is consistent and does not involve OR. Orderinchaos 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two different notions of changing hands, one of which (looking at who actually held the seat) is practical when talking about how the parliament changed, and the other (comparing post-redistribution with post-election) which is more informative in terms of swings achieved. Basing the table consistently on either is reasonable, as long as the seats which look different from the other point of view are mentioned in accompanying text. (I don't think a footnote is enough - this is quite important information, and could have been even more significant - it definitely isn't set in stone that redistribution changes cancel each other out the way they did this time.) OiC has expressed a preference for the post-redistribution notion, which is fine except for the extra factor of the margins displayed in the table. They are (generally) un-redistributed margins from 2004, which to me at least suggests that the table is talking about changes since 2004, not the redistribution. JPD (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're in agreement that both should be in the section, but one will be in the table and the other as a note. I think it's safer to follow the AEC on the former and our judgment on the latter. You're right re distributions too - at least one of my politics textbooks claims the 1998 result was based on boundaries which locked the Labor vote in Labor areas and so favoured the Liberal party in marginal seats. The author demonstrated this by working out the statewide 2pps necessary to win power over various elections. Subsequent redistributions - most notably in SA but also elsewhere - have rectified this to some extent. Orderinchaos 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Do you mean the ABC? I don't think the AEC has such a table. Following the ABC is fair enough, especially since I am taking back my comment about the margins. Both the ABC and our table are using the post-redistribution margins. (I was confused by Parramatta which was 0.8% on way before the redistribution and 0.8% the other way afterwards.) The ABC table was intended mainly for live election watching, and since our article is more historical, we might have reason to take the other approach, but I'm not bothered about it. JPD (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... the fact that the table refers to members does lend itself to the non-ABC approach - I am trying to fit Parramatta in, but it is awkward however I do it. JPD (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Sorry, got confused re AEC - I was thinking of these tables which list the previous Labor margin, they don't have a section with seats changing hands. Orderinchaos 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

2PP figure is not final
First Preferences by Party - Vic - Turnout: 95.16%, Turnout: 92.62%, Notes: These results are final. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Updated and fixed. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

2pp estimates to 1940
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Leader images
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)
 * And what does it have to do here? Guy0307 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the discussion took place here as here is where the images were being used. Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the image of the winner, in this case Prime Minister Rudd, should be placed above the loser, in this case former Prime Minister Howard. I think that makes sense. - Violet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.154.184 (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Misleading - Senate Results
"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)


 * 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)

Regarding last edit summary, UWA not UOW, and ignore the \\'s. Not fully with it today. Timeshift (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent colours
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.) -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 08:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re CLP, done. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard's loss of own seat
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Upper house results
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)
 * Added Mathias Cormann, who replaced Ian Campbell in June 2007. User:Jmount (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta! Timeshift (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pyne defines Liberal policies as "hard right"
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)

Ruth Russell
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)

Polling booth images
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)

Some suggested reorganisation
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: Peter Ballard (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs attention? I'm not sure how one could write an analysis that gives conclusive reasoning why Labor won the election, without going in to WP:OR territory. Timeshift (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I've found two essays which may be of use, both are peer reviewed. "Exit Right" by Judith Brett (Quarterly Essay 28, Black Inc, Dec 2007) and "No, Prime Minister" by Strangio & Walter ("Briefings" series, UNSW Press, Sep 2007) both cover in detail a lot of the minutiae - much of it is sourced to other publications or to news reports over 2007. One example is on p14 of the former: "Much of the time [Rudd] behaved as if he were already in government, holding summits and making major policy announcements... at times of his choosing and stealing much of the limelight at APEC. [...] It takes two to have a fight, and with Rudd refusing to fight on the government's terms, Howard and the government seemed more and more like men boxing with an enemy who was the projection of their own ideological imaginations." It then goes into four separate attempts to impugn Rudd's integrity and how and why each failed. There's a lot of other stuff, but just thought I'd share that while it was fresh in my mind. Orderinchaos 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fifth largest defeat since federation
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Well Labor did get a 13 percent swing to them ;-) Timeshift (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to "It was the fourth-biggest swing recorded at an election since 1940 (after 1943, 1975 and 1969), and the largest swing to occur in the absence of a recession, political or military crisis", was Australia still in a recession in 1996? Wasn't the economy improving by this time? Timeshift (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Because there are so many measures of defeat (% swing, % 2PP swing, number of seats, proportion of seats, do we only count elections that unseat a government, do we count elections that unseat a caretaker government, etc.), I propose that any "fourth largest defeat", "fifth largest defeat" etc. claims be sourced. The "fourth largest 2PP swing since 1940" is OK because it has the Mackerras/Steketee source. But the one which originally began this discussion "fourth/fifth largest defeat of a sitting government since Federation" is unsourced, so I suggest we can avoid the whole silly argument by deleting it. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No counter-argument, so I'm deleting it. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Macquarie
Doesn't matter, the seat changed from Bartlett to Debus. Should be included. Timeshift (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a very different seat in 2007 to the one in 2004. The election didn't change it from Bartlett to Debus. The redistribution did. You can't count both Parramatta AND Macquarie. Bush shepherd (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they should both be included, as one went from notional Liberal to Labor, and another had a changing member from Liberal to Labor. Timeshift (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So if any sitting Liberal MP chooses to contest a Labor seat, and loses, that counts as a Labor gain? Bush shepherd (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The seat was notional Liberal prior to the election. It's a bit like Flynn which was notionally National. It notionally changed parties at the redistribution, then notionally reverted at the election. I don't see where the sitting MP comes in to it. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Macquarie was a notionally Labor seat. You say the sitting MP doesn't come into it. Good! I agree! Have we reached a consensus? Bush shepherd (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant I don't see how the sitting comes in to it in your example. Macquarie was held by Bartlett during the election campaign, and held by Debus after the election. It changed hands. Timeshift (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He "held" it only in the sense that he won it in 2004. He did not in any sense hold the vastly redrawn seat of Macquarie. It is standard psephological practice to take the redistribution into account when determining gains. That's why Bowman is not counted as a Liberal gain for 2004. Bush shepherd (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Macquarie was held by Bartlett during the election campaign, and held by Debus after the election. I'll let others contribute from this point. Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So if the seat had been renamed, that would make all the difference? Bush shepherd (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush shepherd has a point (and I thought this was resolved ages ago anyway) - it was not "won" by Labor, it was actually already on the Labor side of the ledger before polling day. Strangely, Parramatta, despite being a Labor-held seat, was won by Labor as it had moved to the Liberal side of the ledger by losing some of its more Labor areas to Reid. Orderinchaos 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a concurrence with me then? Bush shepherd (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If your point is that Macquarie did not switch whilst Parramatta did, then yes. Orderinchaos 08:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was "won" by Labor is debatable. What isn't debatable is that Macquarie changed hands from Liberal Bartlett to Labor Debus as a result of the election. Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're going around in circles. It changed hands as a result of the redistribution. The election reinforced the status quo with regards to Macquarie; it didn't alter it. If you're going to be consistent with your flawed methodology, then you ought to remove Parramatta from the table since Owens was the member for Parramatta before and after the election. Bush shepherd (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we are going around in circles - I think they should both be included, as one went from notional Liberal to Labor, and another had a changing member from Liberal to Labor. Timeshift (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the problem. You're applying two different and contradictary standards as to what qualifies as a seat changing hands. Bush shepherd (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If a seat changes parties at an election, or changes notionally, I think both should be included - inclusionist, not contradictory. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's contradictary. You're either comparing it to the previous election, or you're comparing it to its post-redistribution status. The table as it stands is a walking contradiction: it lists both Parramatta and Macquarie as Liberal seats prior to the election. Bush shepherd (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It clearly shows the reality via the sitting member, and the swing be it positive or negative, with notional added etc etc. I'm comparing it to what it was the day before the election. One was notionally Liberal with a sitting Labor MP, the other was notionally Labor with a sitting Liberal MP. Both went to Labor, both should be included with a distinction to what happened, and they do. Minus, notional, etc. Timeshift (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we were to apply this rather artificial standard, though, it would confuse the issue - for example in 1990, Moore shifted into the northern coastal suburbs of Perth and has ever since been a very safe Liberal seat. It was held by Cec Blanchard, a Labor member, until that election where it was won by Liberal Paul Filing. This was a redistribution as significant as the recent one to Greenway in Sydney, which has lost all of its Labor voting areas and furthermore acquired the most solidly Liberal bits of Macquarie. Noone in their right mind would argue Labor held the new seat of Moore - it was clearly already a Liberal seat when Filing won it. This sort of thing has happened many times in history. Orderinchaos 08:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the seat held by a Labor MP before the election and Liberal MP after the election? Or notionally another party's? If so I believe it should be included, and with a rather large minus margin rather than a tiny one. Timeshift (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said Moore was Labor-held before the 1990 election (for several terms) as it included heavily Labor districts such as Midland. Macquarie, the situation was it lost Richmond and Windsor, a solid Liberal area in part because of a nearby military base, and gained Lithgow from Calare which is one of the most Labor-voting areas in New South Wales outside Sydney. The core of the seat was now split between a weak Liberal area in the eastern Blue Mountains (eg Springwood), a Labor-Green area in the western Blue Mountains (particularly Katoomba) and a strong Labor around Lithgow, with some smaller Liberal rural areas which made little difference to the overall picture. So the seat wasn't even the same seat as the one run at the 2004 election. Same with Greenway, although it had already switched in 2004 - it lost Blacktown and all the Labor areas in its south and gained the aforementioned Richmond-Windsor area. Orderinchaos 09:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What point are you trying to make? The seat changed parties at the election, thus it should be under seats changing parties. The uniqueness is explained by the small (or large) negative margin. Timeshift (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm making the point that the seat did not "shift", as at the time of the election it was defined as a Labor seat. The only swing relevant is from the post-redistribution figure to the election figure - this is the opposite to what occurred in Parramatta, where a Labor person holding a Liberal seat had to win it for Labor. Orderinchaos 09:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And if it didn't "shift", it shows in the negative margin that the seat was held by. But it still changed parties at the election, Liberal MP before, Labor MP after, or vice versa. The fact it was notional shows. Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (reduce indent) *sigh* Going in circles. It did not change parties at the election - being held by one party before the election and another after means nothing when such a major change occurred to its boundaries that it's demographically no longer the same seat. Misportraying the facts on Wikipedia articles makes us look like irresponsible journalists rather than a credible encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 09:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. If the sitting MP is different to the margin, which is notional by 20 percent due to a redistrib, then it should be there with the sitting MP, and the margin in minus. This shows it is not notionally held by the sitting MP. I fail to see where this falls over. Timeshift (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From my perspective your explanation above works perfectly for Parramatta (where it was not notionally the member's but the member managed to win the seat), but not for Macquarie (where it did not notionally belong with the member and the member failed to gain it at election). My view is that when the seat is no longer notionally held by the member, the member is now simply a candidate for a seat at election rather than any special status. Orderinchaos 10:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree as the seat is held by the member until the election and perhaps beyond depending on a swing, so where to from here? Timeshift (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said last time we discussed this, the table should contain either Macquarie or Parramatta, but not both. Having both would stop it being a sensible indicator of anything in particular, and simply make it a list of seats where something changed at some point. As long as it is made clear what the table does and doesn't include, I don't think it is worth arguing over which criteria is used (particularly in this case). JPD (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I also said before, including Macquarie logically suggests that Gwydir should also be included in some way. JPD (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But Gwydir was abolished, there was no notional change pre-election nor a different party MP after the election. And I wouldn't quite level it down to "simply make it a list of seats where something changed at some point", specifically seats that were a different party, notional or otherwise, prior to the election. Timeshift (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Either we are talking about changes in sitting members, comparing the new house with the old one (which clearly includes the member whose seat no longer existed), or looking at seats won at the election, comparing results with the notional results, treating redistribution changes as something separate which happened before to the election. You could lump all the different scenarios together in terms of "a different party, notional or otherwise", but then the value of the table format in providing clarity is reduced. At the very least, the accompanying text should explain this, but I think it's better to choose one or the other and explain the other changes in the text. JPD (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Both seats have been explained now. Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Having both in the table is still misleading. Orderinchaos 00:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When one has a negative margin/opposity party mp and the other has notional written there, with above explanations, it is not misleading. Timeshift (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your latest edit completely ignores the core objection to your original change.
 * Labor cannot 'gain' a seat that was already theirs. Bush shepherd (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But they can notionally gain a seat that they notionally lost at the redistribution. Timeshift (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, again, that applies to Parramatta. But not Macquarie. You can't gain something you've already been given. Orderinchaos 02:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in Macquarie, they actually gained a seat that they had notionally gained at the redistribution. I think have both in the table is either misleading or confusing, depending on howmuch attention people pay to it. JPD (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in Macquarie, they actually gained a seat that they had notionally gained at the redistribution. I think have both in the table is either misleading or confusing, depending on howmuch attention people pay to it. JPD (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: I propose to use the text under the seats changing hands to mention the redistribution changes (Parramatta, Macquarie, Gwydir, Flynn) and to use the table list only the commonly ascribed "gains". This would be consistent with the 2004 layout where Bowman and McMillan are mentioned only in the text, and not listed in the table. Bush shep (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Orderinchaos 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that differ from the previous way? It doesn't. Timeshift (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the consensus last time we discussed it. It does make the most sense. JPD (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Yes it's a restoration to the way it was. Seeing as we couldn't find any common ground, I think it's only sensible to go with the majority viewpoint. Note also too that the one cited source, the ABC, does not include Macquarie as a Labor gain. Bush shep (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calare
The ABC doesn't include this as a "gain" either. In Antony Green's words, "Calare has been re-classified as a notional National Party seat." There might be some objection to this, that's why I'm putting it up for discussion. If Calare is to be included in the table it needs to be presented better than it was: the incumbent party was independent but the margin was NATvALP. Bush shep (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know we reached consensus. Oh that's right, we didn't. Reverted. Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have already noted, we tried to reach a consensus but none could be reached. I proposed a solution which had two concurrences and only one objection. I defend my action as the sensible course to take. You on the other hand, arrogantly insist that in the absence of a consensus your opinion trumps everything else.
 * I protest in the strongest terms your outrageous and bullish editing. Bush shep (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Calare was made into a safe National seat by the boundary changes. Prior to this, Calare had been a Labor-National balance, with the 70% Labor booths around Lithgow and the 50%+ ones around Bathurst offsetting the rest - this is one reason it was precisely suited to its independent character. Orange, which is Andren's home base, has moved from being at the centre of the electorate to one far end of it. Even Andren had concluded he was unable to win the new seat, although had supported Gavin Priestly's campaign with TV ads in the area. Every reliable source I read (including Mackerras, Green and the AEC) had it marked as a Nats seat. Orderinchaos 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so Calare's in the same basket as Macquarie. At what point does Timeshift lose his right to veto any change made to this section? Bush shep (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's not the way Wikipedia works - fact is that he holds one opinion and you and I hold quite a different one. Ours is validated by AEC, Mackerras and Green - probably the three most prominent authorities on this - while there is a philosophical consistency to his argument (although not his insistence on including *both* in the table) and in a historical (or even state) sense where information is less available than it is for the present, it holds well. However, I think at least back to 1977 where, mainly thanks to Mackerras (and if I recall cited by Adam Carr as well) we have that data, we should be using it as it can be cited to a reliable source. Orderinchaos 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, cave in to the most militant editor. Bush shep (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - we should fix it. Orderinchaos 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Been there. Done that.
 * (cur) (last) 22:27, 21 April 2008 Timeshift9 (Talk | contribs) (100,396 bytes) (Undid revision 207117968 by Bush shep (talk))
 * (cur) (last) 14:11, 21 April 2008 Bush shep (Talk | contribs) (100,112 bytes) (→Seats changing hands: removed Macquarie and Calare from table, see discussion) (undo)
 * Bush shep (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After having it pointed out to me that even the source material cited in the table itself disagrees with maintaining Calare and Macquarie in the table, I've re-removed them, and added a sentence to the paragraph preceding the table. Orderinchaos 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Upper house results tables
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

McEwen
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Indeed. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * We are, however, hostage to policy. Orderinchaos 03:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bellwethers
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)
 * 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)
 * What is the definition of a bellwether? Yours sounds quite selective... Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So this is WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * How does that explain excluding EM being a bellwether since 1972 coming from WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)