Talk:2007 New South Wales state election

Proportional representation??
The statement that the NSW Legislative Assembly electorates are proportional representation is not correct. The Legislative Council has proportional representation. The Legislative Assembly has single-member electorates where each voting district elects a single representative using preferential voting. That is NOT proportional representation. Merkanmich 06:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To add my 2c worth, South Australian legislative election, 2006 shows that SA has proportional representation single member electorates in the lower house, and is a Featured Article. If something this basic was wrong, it would have been picked up in the mountains of revisions the page went through to become FA. Timeshift 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for picking that up, Merkanmich. You're right. A single-member electorate, by definition cannot have members elected to it in proportion to their representation in the community. And "Timeshift9", I hope you can see that just because an article has been "FA" doesn't mean its perfect. Or even correct. Joestella 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Read my comment on the SA election talk page. And I didn't say the article was perfect either, that's a word you've inserted to further your debate. The bottom line is that there is no substantial support for your MPL table removal, and as such, unless there is substantial support to remove the MPL table on state and federal pages, I will ensure the MPL table stays. Timeshift 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

50ish days to go
With only 50 days to go i'm quite suprised there hasn't been an increase in the frequency of edits occuring... and this discussion page is empty. The most populous city in the most populous state of Australia doesn't even have any other elections in their infobox! Where are all the NSW editors out there? Timeshift 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm here, restraining myself. We can't make this page into a Macquarie Street weblog. What are we missing? Joestella 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * More about the issues affecting voters surrounding the election... the stuff that is there is a bit light and tabloidy and doesnt really go in to issues all that well. I spose im basing what im expecting on the Victorian election cause they're most populous bar you. Take a look at their election page via the link in the politics infobox at the bottom. A lot of work was put in to that, complete with seperate wiki pages for the campaign as well as results. Timeshift 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a very dull election. Jeendan 08:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that. The only thing worse than Iemma running NSW is Debnam, both leaders are hopeless. Timeshift 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

MPL table
Although this has been in use for other elections in other states, it has a couple of problems: I'd say that the table is too "American" in that it assumes a presidential-style contest, but American election articles lack this sort of thing. Joestella 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * voters don't vote for premier candidates, they vote for local MPs
 * the personal particulars of premiers and opposition leaders do not speak to the elections process
 * the key elections process is the changing seats total between parties in the state's lower house
 * black text on a blue background (on the Liberal side) is poor design
 * there are more than two parties


 * Since this table is already widely used on Australian election articles, it probably would be better to discuss this at WikiProject Australian politics rather than jsut replace it. Having said that, I agree with Joestella that it doesn't really seem appropriate for Australian elections, focussing on two leaders rather than the election. JPD (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think people are being too politically correct here. It is widely known that it's either going to be one leader or the other that will be representing the state after the elections, and it is also widely known that people vote for the party's ideology or their leader, seldom the candidate; it's simply how Australian politics works. Technically people vote for their local MP, which is why more detail should be put in to the body of the article (see 06 SA election which is a Featured Article for a good basis on a state election page), but overwhelmingly swinging voters decide on the party's leader. You do get some exceptions for some sitting members who build up a base of personal support over time, but certainly most seats do not have this or very little of it. In Tasmania, the Greens hold major party status with 4 lower house seats, and as such have a place in the MPL table on their page. In regards to the colour issue, fixed. Unless there is mass support for changing the MPL tables as the standard throughout the WikiProject Australian politics community for all state and federal elections, please do not change the table. Thankyou. Timeshift 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I worry about a standard based not on the mechanics of the election but on what "Timeshift9" thinks is "widely known". Rather than pretend that this is a presidential contest, consider that in NSW, independents have forced a major party leader to relinquish the premiership, or that in Queensland, the coalition leadership must be determined after the election. Just as the election authorities count the ballots on the assumption that an election is "anybody's game", so should we. Joestella 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And who's running the country after that? One guy, or the other. The buck will stop with either one. One person has to represent the face of the government in NSW. Either Iemma, or Debnam. Timeshift 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We can say with certainty that after an American executive election, one of the candidates for president or governor will be elected. The premier will not be chosen at the 2007 election, "Timeshift9". S/he will be chosen by the Governor of New South Wales, after the election, in a separate process and it could (in theory) be any MLA. That we can be reasonably sure that it'll be Debnam or Iemma this time around is not a good basis for a standard. Joestella 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If and when it changes, then the page is updated. The 2007 federal page had beazley, now it has rudd. You do not understand wikipedia convention, I soon hope others will arrive to comment on this. Timeshift 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to be rude. I'm not so interested in "Wikipedia convention", whatever it is you mean by that, as I am in technical accuracy and good design. The bottom line is, at the "New South Wales legislative election, 2007" we are not electing a premier. As per your suggestion, I have detailed my ideas and concerns at the appropriate project talk page. Joestella 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In practicality NSW voters are electing a government which is represented by a leader and premier. That is the bottom line. Your design issues have been concerned, but I suppose you will still argue against it and defy wikipedia convention which administrators can enforce? Timeshift 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your new look infobox has fewer usability issues, but it doesn't address all of my concerns and it doesn't even satisfy your desire for standardisation, "Timeshift9". Why not wait to see what other people think about the key issue: is this a legislative or an executive election? Joestella 16:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are happy to wait for others to come then why not leave it on the AUSTRALIAN STANDARD until then? Surely you know that until support is established, stick with the status quo? Timeshift 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Third Opinion On Wikipedia, "convention" is a short word that summarises pages of discusson about what the community has generally agreed should be done in most cases, with emphasis on "should" and "most". The four-party infobox is compact and clearly shows what's going on, whereas the two-party one does make things look like a strictly bipartisan contest. With that said, the two-party box is the norm, and the distinction between voting directly for the party leader and voting for his local representative is made by the use of the term "NSW Legislative Assembly", and is repeated again later in this article. If the conventional two-party box were expanded to include the leader of the National Party and perhaps a mosaic of independents I think it might give a more objective overview of the contest. Flakeloaf 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Flakeloaf, thanks for replying, and agreeing that a table needs to be there to show leaders as representatives of their parties. The problem with adding independents is they arent a leader of a party - simply an independent, and should have their cause described in detail in the article, and if they are important enough (ie: no pokies who got 20.5% of the vote in the sa election which by the way is an FA article with the 2pp box) will be mentioned in the intro. In regards to parties like Nationals being added, I see where you're coming from, but this has been discussed before... as it's a liberal-national coalition, the leader of the larger party suffices, as shown in the 06 qld election where it's a labor vs nationals 2pp table. Then there's tasmania's election which was decided that the greens should share a 3-way as they had 4 seats, enough to officially qualify as a "major party" by the electoral office. As far as this case goes, the Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner, has a very brief article and no photo. If Joestella wishes to add the Nationals to the table he is welcome to, but I don't know how independents would work and don't believe we have photos for them. Australian elections for state and federal have got a 2pp table to show leaders, I'm unsure why Joestella is so intent on changing it when it's been that way forever and a day and has had an article successfully through Featured Article status with it. Why cause unproductive disruption? Timeshift 18:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Third opinion project page: "The third-opinion process requires good faith on all sides." Remarks by Timeshift (who also been over-relying on weasel words) such as "You do not understand…" and "I suppose you will still argue…and defy…" (and an uncivil accusation of "unproductive disruption") obstruct the process. — Athænara  ✉  18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. Timeshift 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one previously unfamiliar with electoral processes in that part of the world, the Legislative Assembly table gives a clearer focus on the process itself (as intended to be addressed in the encyclopedia article) than does the two-photo table repeatedly substituted for it. — Athænara  ✉  19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See this Featured Article. Timeshift 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My view of that 2006 example (also edited many times by you) is the same as I posted about this one. Do you have ownership issues with these articles?   — Athænara   ✉  19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Athænara, being a member of Mensa doesn't mean you can look down at everyone else with air of intellectual aloof, so don't talk to TS like he's a fool. You're being much more uncivil than he may seem to you. michael talk 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He has not been uncivil to me, nor have I alleged that he has been. My concern was about aspects of the dispute here before a request for WP 3O involvement was posted on Third opinion.   — Athænara   ✉  23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't own anything, but I have a respect for a standard used on all developed state and federal election pages within Australian politics. The MPL table is used on all developed election pages here, and Joestella wants to replace it with a lower house table, with information that's already available lower down, making his version completely redundant. I've provided a different style as he was concerned with "design" issues but that didn't make him happy, all that would make him happy was breaking the standard style, and inserting a table of redundant information. Timeshift 05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your example of Queensland 2006 goes right to the heart of the MPL problem. A big issue in that campaign was who would the coalition make premier - since it was far from clear whether the Liberals or the Nationals would win more seats. In that election Flegg, Springborg and Beattie were on equal footing as potential premiers.

As for standards, I'm happy to put the work in to bring the other election articles up to any new standard. I'm not pushing NSW exceptionalism. Joestella 06:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was expected that the outcome would retain the status quo where the Nationals would finish with more seats, thus it's a Nationals member not a Liberal that's the leader of the coalition. Wikipedia is designed to be changed easily at any time so other contributors don't mind it, because if something changes and someone else becomes the opposition leader or premier, it's changed with a few clicks and key presses. Considering the SA election passed the featured article process, a very long and intensive process where many things, including aesthetics and design are considered. The MPL table was fine, the only issue was the dark black, but Labor and Liberal were changed to white and all is good. As that page is an FA, I don't see what design leg you have to stand on. And I did offer an easier alternative (although it's not my choice or the standard by any means but it was a compromise). These arent elections in the 1800s, these are elections where the leader of the party most often decides if a party gains or retains power. Timeshift 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Joestella, I have reverted your table change again. There is no majority support for your MPL table removal which is the standard for Australian state and federal elections. I will ensure, no matter how long it takes, that the status quo is maintained unless there is majority support otherwise. Timeshift 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would highly suggest avoiding removing the MPL table under the guise of another edit reason. The bottom line is that there is no substantial support for your MPL table removal, and as such, unless there is substantial support to remove the MPL table on state and federal pages, I will ensure the MPL table stays. Timeshift 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And since myself, JPD, Flakeloaf, ChampagneComedy appear to support the new table (and another user faulted your lack of civility), I think the debate has so far come down in favour of change. Joestella 08:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the original table format is ok. As others have noted, I think this dicussion is better held at WikiProject Australian politics as all political articles using the same table format could be affected. In terms of process, it is better to seek consensus on this type of issue rather than via edits and edit summaries.  Peter Campbell 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I support Joestella's arguments in this matter. Although I don't have anything of substance to do with this article. - Grumpyyoungman01 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

to Timeshift and Joestella
Timeshift i can't see why your so angry about this. None of the other commenters seem to be very supportive of you. it isn't a presedential election at all. Joe stella your table is a bit bland i have to agree. I have come up with a compromise solution. I think you and Joe stella have broken the 3RR rule anyway so you should both take a break from this page. ChampagneComedy 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the flag on the table like that. The parliamentary crest is more relevant. But your point is well made, "ChampagneComedy". I'll take a step back. Why not post on the discussion at the WikiProject as well? Joestella 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat. I'm simply reverting changes made so maintain the status quo as per all australian state and federal elections - and unless there is substantial support in the wikiproject australian politics community for change, which there is currently not, I will maintain the page from Joe's breaking of the standard. If people want to break away from the MPL tables used on ALL state and federal elections for australian politics, then fine, but so far there is no substantial or majority support for such a move. Timeshift 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see there is no agreement yet - it's premature to be making wholesale changes across the country when very few of the political contributors have actually been given an opportunity to have their say. Whether we like it or not, Australian elections especially in recent years have become very presidential in nature, and almost the entire media focus is on the two leaders as the date looms. Standardisation is a good aim and one we should all be working towards, but not at the expense of consensus. Orderinchaos78 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinion polls
The opinion polls have been moved to New South Wales legislative election, 2007/Opinion polls. The simplest issue here is that that is not a correct name for an article, as Wikipedia has not used subpages like this in the article space for a long time. It could simply be moved to 2007 New South Wales legislative election opinion polls or some similarly cumbersome title, but I think the issue of how this info should be presented at all needs a bit of discussion.

The argument that it is too much pure data for this article is reasonable. However, it is not clear that it is a topic deserving it's own article. Maybe it would be appropriate in a slightly broader sub-article about the campaign or something like that? My personal preference would be for this information to be displayed in the main article in a graphical form. JPD (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this was a silly move - the opinion polls are only of interest in regards to the election - note that the opinion page does have any discussion page and hasn't been updated for a long time. Far better to move back to this page. Sad mouse 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1999 landslide?
Why is the current majority a hangover from the 1999 election? 2003 was the most recent election, and was even more of a landslide. I propose a change from 1999 to 2003 if there are no objects. Recurring dreams 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The coalition lost 13 seats in 1999, but only 1 in 2003. The current majority's size, therefore, essentially dates from 1999, not 2003. Joestella 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe word it "a hangover from the 1999 and 2003 landslides?" That might make the historical context more clear. Recurring dreams 09:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Oppose Someone has suggested merging this article and the electoral pendulum table. It's probably too big for that. Joestella 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidates
What happened to the link to Candidates of the New South Wales legislative election, 2007?--Grahamec 11:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the names of candidates in every division/district are notable. If the lists exist elsewhere (the ABC, the electoral authority), we can simply provide a link. Particularly high-profile candidates, third-party "kingmakers" and the like can be noted in the text of the article. Joestella 12:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-election/Results etc
With polling booths closing very soon, does anyone plan to regularly update the page (I don't plan to)? www.pollbludger.com will no doubt be keeping an almost minute by minute blog with the regular coverage on ABC etc. Timeshift 05:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

results?
is there anywhere that lists full results of who won each seat? --Astrokey 44 09:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Formal & Informal votes for LC
Attn: JPD Your revision of my edit is not correct. The ALP's total primary vote in the Legislative Council at this stage in the count is 39.8% not 36.3%. The Electoral Commission totals you are looking at, include informal votes of 8.9%, which do not enter into the count. All parties totals have been amended to reflect this except ALP (eg. Lib total (inc. informals) is 30.7% - but correct tally is 33.7%). Mrodowicz 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was misled by an earlier summary that implied that only the ABC figures included informal votes. However, I will point out that the current figures are not percentages excluding informal votes only, but percentages of the votes counted and available to us so far. The "other" votes you are excluding are not only the informal votes, but all the below the line votes as well (apart from votes for Dawn Fraser). So 30.7% of voters voted Lib/Nat above the line, and these were 33.7% of the people voting above the line. What proportion this is of formal votes, or what proportion of formal votes put a Lib/Nat candidate first, is not currently available. JPD (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Results?
Any chance of getting the popular vote results? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What did you think the figures already there were? I see you have updated to more recent results, but why did you not include any indication of the status of the figures, and change the headings? JPD (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seemed rather strange to have "74% of the vote" counts *more than a week* after the election... Does it really take *that* long to count the votes? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's now more than 74%, but the LC results haven't been declared yet. It's not exactly a simple system. JPD (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

LC Count was finalised this morning. Candidates Elected: First Preference vote counts:  Rafy 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Results tables
I'm not completely happy with the new tables. Apart from minor issues such as colours only being used for the big three parties, and the more important question of whether giving up on showing the Lib/Nat LC seats separately in the table is worth it for a "nicer" layout, I think blocks in the party colours are much more effective than coloured numbers. They also avoid the issues of readability, with the bonus that more distinctive colours are available. At the very least, I suggest that the tables' width be set, rather than taking up the whole available space, as if this is too large, the figures are spread out and hard to read. JPD (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The new tables are more consistent with the style employed across this and related articles.
 * * Width - I take your point. I invite you to alter this as you see fit
 * * Lib/Nat rows - they are one group for the purposes of council elections
 * * Colours - the colour-coding employed previously adds nothing from a reader perspective, and for minor parties, the choice of colours is tenuous. The use of colour-coding for major parties only highlights the majors, since their results are likely to be of greater interest to readers.
 * I hope this addresses your concerns. Joestella 10:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know very well that the Coalition has one ticket - the question is whether it is helpful to show the number of members elected from each party as well as the votes the ticket receive. As for colours, I have to completely disagree. The colour coding employed before is much more useful to the reader than the present version. Using coloured text is not a good idea. The major parties are highlighted quite enough by the ordering in the table. JPD (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did add a note breaking down the Lib and Nat seat totals at the bottom. I take your point about coloured text - sort of. But these are dark colours, no real accessibility issues there. And as for the more complex colour coding from before, beyond the major parties, we struggle to find instantly-recognisable colours for each party. CDP and FFP use red, white and blue in their campaign materials, for example. Joestella 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see that you are trying to make everything clear, and with the note it is quite satisfactory. I am just not convinced that it would not be better to include that information in the table. I also agree that if we are to have coloured text, then you have done it in the best way. I just don't see the point in this compromise between distinctive colouring and accessibility, when a block of colour and black text would provide the best of both worlds. The question of whether how easy/relevant the choice of colours should affect their use is one that has been discussed without any clear answer many times (after all, the red and blue for ALP/Libs do not come from campaign materials, either), but I definitely don't think issues with the CDP and FFP are a reason not to use green for the Greens. JPD (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Article names
The names of articles related to this election are inconsistent. This one is "state election", the campaign article uses "general election", and the candidate article uses "legislative election". I don't know what is normal for state election articles, but one of these has to be right, and the two wrong articles should be moved. -Rrius (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, hadn't noticed those ones. It's a symptom of the main election article having moved twice in 18 months. Thanks for highlighting the issue. Orderinchaos 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncited POV/bias
Does anyone else think this article is full of it? Timeshift (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)