Talk:2010 Australian federal election

Revisiting the Crook paradox
An addit to the Crook problem. Just been reading our Antony Green.

Crook is a National, not a Liberal. In fact his mortal enemy is the Lib Tuckey ... or at least we know Tuckey's feelings towards Crook. So confusion arises because he / WA Nats don't want to be counted as part of the Coalition, but on the other hand want to be counted as a Nat ... and so his pic opportunity at the Nat's first meeting -- [Uncle Warren (with a dripping benevolent grin) giving him a big hug is such stuff as nightmares are made on.]

Here's the nub of Green's opinion / problem: ..."Mr Crook has indicated he does not want to be seen as a member of the Coalition. However, he has joined the National Party caucus, and the WA National Party have specifically requested that the ABC not separate its vote from the national total for the National Party. So Mr Crook's seat has been included in the Coalition total, based on election nominations, but this does not imply he will sit in Parliament as a member of the Coaltion."

- Cablehorn (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PS ... I think us giving him his own dot-point among the crossbench is correct. He could, (feasibly) on any number of issues, not vote with the Coalition on the floor, without comprising his position (paradigm?). - Cablehorn (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the point. He ran for and was was elected as a non-Coalition MP. Consensus agreed he should be seprarate. Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PPS ... ABC Lateline - 23 Sept 2010 - 'Abbott trust issue: Windsor'
 * Tony Windsor: " And I think that's a shame because Tony Abbott has 72, the Labor Party have 72; you could have seen a Parliament where both sides put forward constructive legislation, actually had constructive debates, but I think what's happened today is an early-warning signal that this is going to be business as usual, the gloves are back on and, "We're here to wreck rather than construct."'' "  - Cablehorn (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Tony Windsor is as impartial or objective as Antony Green on this issue. Talking of formal coalition agreements seems rather precious to me - when counting up votes, the Coalition is traditionally seen as being Liberal and Country Party MPs, regardless of what spats they are having at various levels. --Pete (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're serious, i'll refer you to the election article's text and refs on it and then ask you to inform us of a prior occasion this happened where an independent National Party and candidate ran and won and was a crossbencher and willing to back either side, if you're not serious, you could have been more inventive with a reason to revert the archiving :) Timeshift (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at above, but that's ok. As for archiving material only a week old, I thought it rather premature, and said so. --Pete (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Crook to sit as "Independent"
Firstly, since we are now in post-election mode, does this 'news' belong here? I think it does. Just pre-empting (& inviting) discussion. Otherwise, Crook's para in - "On the crossbench" section, & maybe elsewhere - needs a re-wording. It's in a "...he's something/he's not something..." bit of a mess. - Cablehorn (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand where this article is currently incorrect. He is not an independent independent if that's what you're inferring. He remains a National Party of Western Australia MP. Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, all's good. I know he's still a WA Nat. Antony Green's statement, ... "Mr Crook has indicated he does not want to be seen as a member of the Coalition. However, he has joined the National Party caucus, and the WA National Party have specifically requested that the ABC not separate its vote from the national total for the National Party. So Mr Crook's seat has been included in the Coalition total, based on election nominations, but this does not imply he will sit in Parliament as a member of the Coaltion." ... is just haunting me. - Cablehorn (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we need to find a way to be a little more flexible in describing the situation, and not insist on shoving people into rigid boxes where they don't really fit. The constitution doesn't require people to attach themselves to parties in a particular way. We shouldn't either. It's effectively WP:OR. We should just report what reliable sources say has been said by the key players and let readers make their own guesses about what way people will vote in the House. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But Green saying "... he has joined the National Party caucus ..." and "... Mr Crook's seat has been included in the Coalition total, based on election nominations ..." now seems to be way-off. If we can't trust Green or Jesus or Pyne, then who? - Cablehorn (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What point are you trying to make HiLo? What on this page is incorrect or should be changed? Crook went in to the election as a non-Coalition Nationals WA candidate and came out of the election as a non-Coalition Nationals WA MP. Timeshift (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To the chagrin of some commentators, anarcho-wikipedism mostly seems to get it about right. - Cablehorn (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh? Timeshift (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just, in a manner of speaking, agreeing with you, Timeshift9. Which I do on rare occassions. - Cablehorn (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"'Tony campaigned on the fact that he's an independent WA National and he wouldn't sit in party rooms if it meant he couldn't get a good deal for WA.' The WA Nationals are allied to the federal Nationals party but are not required to vote along party lines."

I've removed it. He was stating he is independent as a non-Coalition Nationals WA MP (and not attending National Party of Australia meetings), he did not state he is an Independent of the likes of four other crossbenchers who have zero party affiliation. Timeshift (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Antony Green's Election Blog"


 * " I'm glad you counted Crook in the Coalition for the purposes of this article.


 * While Crook may (or may not) be an independent now, I think he RAN FOR ELECTION under the National banner (unless he renounced the Nats during the election campaign?)


 * Which means that if we are measuring how people voted (not what they got!) then surely votes for him are Coalition votes.


 * COMMENT: The Nationals didn't want the votes taken out of the totals, only Mr Crook's seat. I was running an election results system, not a parliamentary numbering system.
 * Posted by: Arrow | September 23, 2010 at 08:37 AM " - Cablehorn (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

'The newly elected WA Nationals MP, Member for O'Connor, Tony Crook, says he is open to being coaxed back into the Nationals' fold.'  CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop rehashing old ground. Crook was elected as a non-Coalition National Party of Western Australia candidate. There was and is no Coalition agreement prior to and after the election. This is the consensus on wikipedia. Anything further he does applies to Next Australian federal election, not here. Timeshift (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely he has the right to change his mind. We must not stay in the traditional Coalition (Australia) mindset. Anywhere else in the world coalitions come and go. There doesn't have to be a coalition agreement BEFORE an election. It can be established and/or rewritten at any time. And members have changed parties before in Australia. Just not so often in recent times. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. I repeat, anything further he does applies to Next Australian federal election, not here. He went in to and out of the election as a non-Coalition Nationals WA candidate/MP. Read this article. What he does in the 43rd parliament does not apply to this article. It applies in the next. Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it applies whenever he does whatever he does. His actions may cause a change of government without an election. Might have to invent a kind of mezzanine article then, in between the elections. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Labor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives,[1] four short of the requirement for majority government, resulting in the first hung parliament since the 1940 election.[2][3][4] Six crossbenchers hold the balance of power.[5][6] Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply.[7][8] Independent MP Bob Katter and National Party of Western Australia MP Tony Crook declared their support for the Coalition on confidence and supply.[9][10] The resulting 76–74 margin allowed Labor to form a minority government.[8]"


 * The Next article holds the changes since the previous election. The above is how it will always be, this was/is the paradigm after the election and upon the opening of the 43rd parliament that was elected at this election. As far as this article goes, the 2010 result/article will always show Crook as it currently shows him. It cannot retrospectively change... these sorts of changes are only appropriate for the Next page. I find it interesting this had already been agreed upon here... Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes,you're right that the result of this election cannot change. But as I've already indicated at it's article, the next election is not a clear event in any way at all. We must be prepared for many changes along the way. (I remember the Whitlam days - very interesting.) As I said above, government can change without an election. I think we need a little more flexibility. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I just put that article in as an interesting read - not that his info should change, what is in this article is correct - I just thought it was interesting and wanted to share. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the AEC website, it shows four Independents, presumably Wilkie plus the three regional chaps. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Greenway needs to be added to the "Divisions Changing Hands" Table as a seat that changed hands - LIB to ALP
Greenway needs to be added to the "Divisions Changing Hands" Table as it was a LIB seat that was won by the ALP. I don't have the time - but someone needs to fix the table. Thanks202.139.104.226 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just some clarification here: Greenway was one of the electorates which became notionally Labor-held in the NSW redistribution. This demonstrates the difference between the AEC and ABC results: the AEC's Seats Which Changed Hands does list Greenway, and not Dickson, Gilmore, Herbert, Macarthur and Swan which were also notionally Labor but were won by the Liberals. The ABC site, however, seems to be using the notional holder: Changing Seats does not list Greenway as it goes from notionally Labor-held to actually Labor-held, and it does list the notional ALP seats with an asterisk (*). I'm guessing that we're using the AEC as a source as we only mention the ALP notionals in the header note and not as changing hands, but in this case how do we record the margin and swing? To list the ALP's notional margin implies that was the margin of the previous Liberal MP, Louise Markus. Is this the only case where the notional holder won the seat? --Canley (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that the lead paragraph above this table says "Five notional boundary redistributed seats were contested at this election." On a previous talk page I said there were five of these, including Greenway but I missed out Macarthur. National Seat Status confirms there were actually six. The latter sentence says "Based on booths contested at the previous election, the seats redistributed by the AEC from being marginal Coalition seats to marginal Labor seats – Dickson, Gilmore, Herbert, Macarthur and Swan – were all retained by the Coalition." Although the ALP notional margin in Greenway was quite large (5.67%), it was still just within the range of what the AEC defines as marginal (under 6%), so this whole paragraph should probably be re-worded. --Canley (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added Greenway to the list of seats changing hands and of boundary redistributed seats, and this may be controversial, but I've listed Louise Markus as holding the seat on a negative margin as it was notionally Labor held and this illustrates the swing against Labor. Any thoughts or fixups definitely appreciated. --Canley (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved it from the table to the para with the five other seats won/retained through redistribution... thw seat was redistributed to become a Labor seat like the five others there. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it say "Six notional boundary redistributed seats were contested at this election."? (I guess you reverted my edit which included this change). --Canley (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All results are final
Notes: 1. These results are final. Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And there was much rejoicing! *gets to work* Frickeg (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Two candidate preference flows are out
Ahh. Do enjoy these sorts of stats! Timeshift (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Australian federal election campaign, 2010 remains a blight
At the very least, it needs severe balance and neutrality implemented, at the most, deletion. Please discuss as this is the remaining mess for the 2010 federal election. Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, I notice there is nothing on the Australian Federal Election page (which seems to be psephological in the main) about the promises / pledges made during the campaign. I think a) there is a place for a campaign page, b) the campaign needs a separate page to the election, and c) the main promises should be documented on the campaign page e.g. the Kippa_Ring railway line. I support neither major party and have no opinion on the balance of the page. Didactik (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the article cannot be recovered and should be deleted. We simply have no neutral basis for deciding the content. Barrylb (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm pretty sure a number of us suggested that earlier on too. As for the promises, given the hung parliament and the need for the government to please many people to get anything passed, they are probably less relevant now than ever. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also agreed. What a mess; I can't see much that's salvageable here. It's basically a politically-biased collection of trivia and stuff that's covered elsewhere. Frickeg (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, four to one for deletion. Looks like an AfD may be in order. Didactik, I don't have an issue with a properly written campaign piece, but that article is completely and utterly unsalvageable. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's horrible. --Pete (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See Articles for deletion/Australian federal election campaign, 2010. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a few small parts of the article might be salvageable if merged onto this page. I don't think this article mentions the Labor-Greens preference arrangements; I would suggest they are notable at least in explaining the difference between primary vote and 2PP outcome. It probably rates a mention but certainly no more than the first two sentences from the campaign article in that section need to be brought across. The disendorsed candidates may also be worth bringing across also, though not in their currently gossipy state, but I'm not convinced about this. The leader's debate I think also needs to be mentioned (certainly it did occur and its existence was a notable part of the campaign), but sentences like "Ms Gillard clearly performed better among women" are OR and can go. Apart from those few things (which probably amount to no more than a paragraph), I would agree that the rest of the article amounts to trivia and gossip - it terrifies me that the article reports "Cabinet leaks" as verified facts. I think the sentiment that we have no way for deciding the content nails the reason why this article needs to go. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Greens chose to preference Labor in some seats this election and in the Senate, as they did at the last election. If this is what you're referring to I don't really find it noteable. I do however have the encyclopedia method of it - have a look at the full results article within this article above the lower house results. It lists the 2PP splits and swings for the Greens, FFP, CDP, WA Nats, and independent candidates. Timeshift (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Voters, of course, have a choice on how their preferences are distributed. They can follow a how-to-vote card or vote above the line for the Senate, or they can do their own preference allocations. I recall reading of some research that said that Greens voters are not very obedient when it comes to following party instructions on how they allocate preferences. They make up their own minds! I would love to find that information again. Does anyone have any idea where I might find it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Pollytics has recently posted an updated article on this topic here. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read that, it's excellent. The Greens HTVs had no affect on seats won. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bob Brown is an example for his followers. He personally advocates below-the-line voting. He speaks here on the subject in a recent interview. I admire him especially for this - the above-the-line system gives undue power to party machines. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding which election infobox should be used
Just an FYI (please don't respond here) that there's a discussion currently occurring at Talk:Victorian state election, 2010 regarding which infobox should be used for some/all state and, potentially, federal elections. Opinions appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Electorate map?
Just wondering what the thoughts are on creating an electorate map similar to that used in the US elections. I know it's not exactly the same in Australia, since we have electorates rather than an electoral college, and as such the map tends to get dominated by the large outback seats and the visual impact of the map may not reflect the actual outcome of the election (the 2010 election being a case in point). Still, it might be possible to make a map with insets of the major capital cities. Any thoughts or suggestions before I get busy with Inkscape?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done... I can't wait to see the finished result! It's hard to know what to suggest until a draft is produced unfortunately... Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you do start Yeti Hunter I just want to make sure you've seen the maps at Full national and state-by-state lower house results and maps for the 2010 Australian federal election. How will yours differ? Barrylb (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks OK, but I'm truly puzzled as to why the GREENS party is not being represented by their colour, Green? I know the National have dark green and yellow as their colours and I'm guessing there is a desire to avoid confusion, but surely the logical choice would have been to use green for the Greens and yellow for the Nationals? - Violette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.183.23 (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

IRV or PV
First, the heading uses the abbreviation "IRV". It was my understanding that in Australia the voting system known in the US as instant run-off voting and in the UK as the Alternative Vote (AV) is known as "preference voting" or PV. Should that change, or am I wrong? -Rrius (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The voting system used for the lower house is described at instant-runoff voting. What we want to call it when referring to it in articles is a different kettle of fish. Timeshift (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Coalition Senate Election Results
The aggregated Coalition Numbers in the Senate Results table seem to be partly incorrect.

Totalvotes and Vote Percentage are too low,

i added up the numbers of the Joint Ticket, Liberal Party, Liberal National Party, Country Liberal Party(NT) as well as National Party, and the sum was NOT 4871871 totalvotes and 38.3 percent first preference votes, BUT slightly more (votes: 4914205 ; votepercentage: 38.63 )

It seems like, you forgot the National Party votes. (But the seat numbers are included and alright).

Besides correcting this, it would be helpful to see the disaggregated numbers of the Coalition as published here: http://elections.uwa.edu.au


 * Your assumption is not correct—as you can see from the table in Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2010, the National Party of Western Australia is not included in the Liberal/National coalition total, and the difference between the figures (42,334) is equal to the Nationals WA primary vote. As stated in the article Coalition (Australia), the state branches of the National Party in WA and SA are not part of the Coalition. --Canley (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The AEC don't combine primary votes. Any other queries Mr IP? Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Greens
Recently there was an edit which placed the Greens into the infobox but was removed on inaccuracy grounds. If we can change Labor and Coalition statistics from 2PP to primary in the infobox, this would easily let Greens take a third spot. In my opinion, 12% of the vote is significant and the Greens went on to give crucial crossbench support in both houses.Azirus (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And has the infobox always said "Popular vote"? Because that's an inaccuracy too when it's listing the 2PP. I thought the template allowed both to be displayed. Frickeg (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the one who made the edit back to the reporting of two parties. I think that if the formatting is fixed up, the primary vote of all three parties is provided PLUS another line for 2PP for the Coalition and the ALP, AND the leader is reported as Bob Brown, not Christine Milne (as he was at the time of the 2010 election) then I don't see a problem with it. There was just too much to fix up at one time (especially when a photo is involved) which is why I decided to revert it, but go for it if you can do it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.147.37 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics
A RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics which may affect the infobox of this article. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114234058/http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/BDAB2EF3C2B1AC18CA25776500108B46/$file/S%20136.pdf to http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/BDAB2EF3C2B1AC18CA25776500108B46/$file/S%20136.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813152324/http://www.pollbludger.com:80/903 to http://www.pollbludger.com/903
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211203123/http://blogs.abc.net.au:80/antonygreen/2008/08/new-federal-bou.html to http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2008/08/new-federal-bou.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119153314/http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/427AC5068B98C314CA257766000489F7/$file/S%20139.pdf to http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/427AC5068B98C314CA257766000489F7/$file/S%20139.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118164654/http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2010/08/20/173451_election2010.html to http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2010/08/20/173451_election2010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Australian federal election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823075516/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999219.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/BDAB2EF3C2B1AC18CA25776500108B46/%24file/S%20136.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/427AC5068B98C314CA257766000489F7/%24file/S%20139.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Error on the Map of results
Bennelong is shown as Labor on the Map of results when it actually voted for the Liberal party in 2010, Could someone fix this error please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.105.99 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've fixed the fill for Bennelong. --Canley (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Found another 2 errors on the election map results
Dickson and Hasluck are displayed Red on the map when really the Liberal party won those 2 seats not Labor at the 2010 election, Please fix Edit: And Forde as well is in Red when it should be Blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.105.99 (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have reported these to the editor who did the map on Wikimedia Commons, hopefully they can make the fixes and reproduce the file from the original source. If not, I'll give it a try. --Canley (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've fixed these issues. --Canley (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Excerpt of HOR results table has an error
The results for Others "Votes 148,537 	% 1.19 	Swing –0.32" bear no relation to the results in Results of the 2010 Australian federal election (House of Representatives) that they are supposedly excerpted from. Family First alone has more than 1.19% of the vote.

AntediluvianBlue (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)