Talk:2010 Australian federal election/Archive 2

Worth mentioning?
I believe this is the first time that the governing party (Labor, or Lib/Nat) has had to rely on two parties and an independent to secure the passage of legislation. Noteable? The other query is the articles that make mention of the noteability that the balance of power is held by a Senator (Fielding) elected in 2004 on less than 2% of the vote. To quote one article I was reading, Paul Keating's 'unrepresentative swill' is something of an understatement at the moment. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

First point isn't particuarly notable... the second isn't at all notable. 58.178.7.240 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Graph
Can a line graph of the opinion polling please be included? IMO, it would be a lot clearer than the table. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where all the ACNielsens and Galaxys can be found so User:JPD can create the new graphs, like the ones used at Australian federal election, 2007? Timeshift (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this helpful? Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why August for the Senate?
Is it possible to spell out why the senate election cannot be held until August. The reasoning behind the rest of the dates is there. I'm guessing the reasoning is the practical considerations around campaigning nomination of candidates etc. Same thing would be good explaining the latest the election could be held would probably be the last Saturday of May, again due to practical considerations. Thoughts? qwertytam (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Qwertytam


 * We say "The writs for a "half-Senate" election cannot be issued until one year before the end of the current term. The current term ends on 30 June 2011; one year before then is 30 June 2010; and thus the earliest possible such election would be in August 2010.


 * The necessity for the writs to be issued only within the one-year timeframe is not absolutely clear cut, but it's discussed in Odgers' Senate Practice:


 * ''Section 13 of the Constitution provides that a periodical election for the Senate must “be made” within one year before the relevant places in the Senate are to become vacant. The relevant places of senators become vacant on 30 June. This means that the election must occur on or after 1 July of the previous year. The question which arises is whether the whole process of election, commencing with the issue of the writs, must occur within one year of the places becoming vacant, or whether only the polling day or subsequent stages must occur within that period, so that the writs for the election could be issued before 1 July. This question has not been definitely decided. In Vardon v O’Loghlin 1907 5 CLR 201, the question before the High Court was whether, the election of a senator having been found to be void, this created a vacancy which could be filled by the parliament of the relevant state under section 15 of the Constitution. The Court found that this situation did not create a vacancy which could be filled by that means, but that the senator originally returned as elected was never elected. A contrary argument was raised to the effect that, under section 13 of the Constitution, the term of service of a senator began on 1 January [now 1 July] following the day of his election, and it would lead to confusion if it were held that the subsequent voiding of the election, perhaps a year or more after the commencement of the term, could not be filled as a vacancy under section 15. In dismissing this argument, the Court, in the judgment delivered by Chief Justice Samuel Griffith, made the following observation:


 * ''Chapter 4 Elections for the Senate
 * 94. It is plain, however, that sec. 13 was framed alio intuitu'', i.e., for the purpose of fixing the term of service of senators elected in ordinary and regular rotation. The term “election” in that section does not mean the day of nomination or the polling day alone, but comprises the whole proceedings from the issue of the writ to the valid return. And the election spoken of is the periodical election prescribed to be held in the year at the expiration of which the places of elected senators become vacant. The words “the first day of January following the day of his election” in this view mean the day on which he was elected during that election. For the purpose of determining his term of service any accidental delay before that election is validly completed is quite immaterial.


 * ''This part of the judgment has been taken to indicate that, in interpreting the provision in section 13 whereby the periodical Senate election must be made within one year of the relevant places becoming vacant, the Court would hold that the whole process of election, not simply the polling day or subsequent stages, must occur within that period. This question, however, has not been distinctly decided. It would still be open to the Court to hold that only the polling day or subsequent stages must occur within the prescribed period, and there are various arguments which could be advanced to support this interpretation. The view that the requirement that the election “be made” within the relevant period means only that the election must be completed in that period is quite persuasive.


 * ''If it were decided, however, to hold a periodical Senate election with only the polling day or subsequent stages occurring within the prescribed period, there would be a risk of the validity of the election being successfully challenged and the election held to be void. This would lead to the major consequence that the whole election process would have to start again. It may be doubted whether the Court would favour an interpretation which would bring about this consequence.


 * Section 13 of the Constitution, as has been noted, also provides that the term of service of a senator is taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of the election. In this provision, the term “day of ... election” clearly means the polling day for the election. This is in accordance with the finding in Vardon v O’Loghlin. The day of election is polling day provided that the election is valid; if the election is found to be invalid then no election has occurred and the question of what is the day of election does not arise.


 * (end quote).


 * So maybe it's not absolutely certain that our statement is correct, but I'd be very surprised, given the above, that any government would seek to test the issue by causing writs to be issued prior to 30 June 2010. Then there's the question of the State Governors, who have the sole constitutional authority to actually issue the writs (s. 12 of the Constitution).  I'm sure more than one of them would be very loath to upset what is essentially the received wisdom on this point, and in declining the PM's request, a constitutional crisis may well ensue.  So, for all practical purposes, I feel we're safe to say what we're currently saying.  I'm not well enough up on my electoral law to be able to say precisely in August 2010 when the earliest possible half-Senate election could be, assuming the writs were issued on the earliest possible date, 30 June 2010 (or maybe it's 1 July 2010).  But I'm sure it could happen sometime in August.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Retiring senators
This edit said that it was "pointless" to mention that Troeth's term would not end till 30 June 2011. I kind of dispute that. It is the case that she will not cease to be a senator on election day, as defeated MPs will, but will carry on till the end of her term. Isn't this relevant information to have there? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... I can see both sides of this one. I suspect that the main problem is that, at present, Troeth is the only retiring senator. Certainly when there are more of them it would be ridiculous to state after each that their term expires in June 2011. Perhaps a footnote would work better? Frickeg (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The date section above it already says when Senators terms end. I fail to see why it needs to be re-mentioned for one or every Senator in the retiring list. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one reason is that not all our readers read entire articles. If they were interested only in who's retiring, they'd go straight to this list, without the benefit of the information presented earlier.  I wasn't suggesting the term end date should be mentioned for every retiring senator, but some mention of in this section would be appropriate.  I could live with a footnote, but on reflection I'd prefer something along the following lines, which clearly states when each group finishes their parliamentary service:


 * Retiring MPs and Senators


 * Members of the House of Representatives
 * Members who choose not to contest the election will retire at the dissolution of the parliament. Those who have indicated their intention to retire are:


 * Liberal
 * Petro Georgiou — Kooyong, announced 23 November 2008
 * Brendan Nelson — Bradfield, announced 16 February 2009
 * David Hawker — Wannon, announced 1 June 2009
 * Peter Costello — Higgins, announced 15 June 2009
 * Chris Pearce — Aston, announced 23 June 2009


 * Labor
 * Bob Debus — Macquarie, announced 5 June 2009


 * Senators
 * Senators who choose not to contest the election will retire on 30 June 2011. Those who have indicated their intention to retire are:


 * Liberal
 * Senator Judith Troeth — Victoria, announced 14 January 2009


 * -- JackofOz (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough - although I think it's clearer to say that their "terms will end" on 30 June 2011. I also think that, as with all other retiring MP lists, they should be in alphabetical order. Frickeg (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Timeshift (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I've made the change.  Thanks, folks.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

David Barnett - and predictions generally
Commentator David Barnett from the Canberra Times (incorrectly) predicted in early 2008 that the election would be called in two years' time rather than three, and will be based upon a comparison of the Rudd government's record with that of the Howard government.
 * Now that his prediction about the timing has fallen flat, is there really any point in even including it at all any more? Lots of people predict lots of things, but is it really encyclopedic to mention them?  I'd also include Malcolm Mackerras in this.  WP is not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't be giving comfort to those who think their predictions are worth recording for posterity.  There are lots of other forums for them to spout their prognostications.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Timeshift (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

2011 Election
The next New South Wales state election is due on 26 March 2011[11] and this may make a 2011 federal election undesirable.


 * This statement is rather vague and POV, and I question whether it is necessary at all. You could argue that it would actually be a good thing to hold a concurrent state and federal election on 26 March 2011 so that voters in NSW only have to go out to the polling booths once rather than twice.--Susurrus (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Holding the two elections together would be an absolute nightmare, and one that Labor especially would want to avoid. That's indisputable. But I agree that the statement above needs a cite. I'm sure Antony's said something somewhere. Frickeg (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is hardly indisputable. The NSW Business Chamber launched a report in 2007 recommending, among other things, concurrent state and federal elections every four years to help stop the blame-shifting between state and federal governments and, as I stated above, for greater voter convenience. I read about it here. It was the main reason I questioned this statement in the first place. --Susurrus (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant politically. Federal Labor is riding high, NSW Labor is on the nose. As Rudd ultimately has the power to call the election when he wants, we can all be pretty sure it won't happen on the same day. Depending on what happens until then, the Coalition would probably want to avoid it too. But a cite would still be great. Frickeg (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but in the absence of a citation, perhaps greater elaboration of the reasoning behind the statement would be appropriate. --Susurrus (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's Antony's latest, notably "Section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act prevents the holding of a referendum or election under state law on the same day as any Commonwealth election without the consent of the Governor-General." TRS-80 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. The reason I actually mentioned 26 March 2011 in the first place is that that, by my calculations, is the earliest possible date on which a federal election could be held if Kevin Rudd chose to serve out a technically full parliamentary term. But given the political reasons mentioned above, I would say that the most sensible date would probably be 27 November 2010, a good three years since the last election. --Susurrus (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Scratch that, that's when the Victorian election is on, so let's make it 30 October 2010 instead. --Susurrus (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now read more of this reference. Given the fact that Antony writes that "it is extremely unlikely that the Rudd government would wait until 2011 to hold an election" without even seeing any need to mention the NSW election specifically, why should it be mentioned in the Wikipedia article? At most I think it should be mentioned that the Rudd government is unlikely to wait until 2011 to hold the election, citing the above reference. --Susurrus (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nielsen poll out
Newspoll due tomorrow but Nielsen beat them, and considering events I thought others may want to see the just-released Nielsen poll. Timeshift (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh! Newspoll a day early! Timeshift (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And very typically the Oz buries the most crucial piece of information in the final paragraph. Digestible (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Polling: 2PP
Timeshift said in a recent edit summary: "(→Polling: it's actually lib when referring to 2pp as nat prefs can go to labor and land on the labor 2pp)"

Is there any proof that Newspoll distributes National party preferences? I always assumed they just added the Lib and Nat votes and then distributed the minor party preferences.

The Newspoll website uses Labor v Coalition. I think we ought to use that. Digestible (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Preference distributions are based on preference flows of the last election... eg, Green votes went 79% Labor, 21% Liberal. If someone votes Nat, Labor, Lib in a three cornered contest seat, the 2PP vote at that election ends up with Labor. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That only holds for urban seats. In rural seats the opposite is true and Lib preferences get distributed. But that's not the point. Where's the evidence that the Newspoll distributes Nat preferences? Digestible (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Errr, that the Nationals are polled seperately and that Newspoll calculate the 2pp based on preference flows at the 2007 election? Being a coalition is absolutely irrelevant to this. What evidence do you have that shows Newspoll counts the Nat vote as a Lib primary vote? Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the latest Newspoll release. Look at the primary vote table. The Coalition column is the sum of the Liberal and National column. The two party preferred table is Coalition v Labor. If Newspoll says Coalition, then so should wikipedia. Digestible (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It does indeed, change it back. However we should find out more information... a two-party vote is just that. Two parties. The Coalition is not a party, it is a formal coalition of two completely seperate parties. Newspoll (and others) calculate the 2PP with the previous election pref flows. Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed. I've used Lib/Nat in preference to Coalition, as I think that makes it clearer who we're talking about. As for two party preferred, when referring to the cumulative vote in an election, it is a short-hand. The Coalition 2pp is the sum of the Liberal vote in LIB v ALP seats and the National vote in NAT v ALP seats. In three-cornered contests only a fraction of the Lib/Nat vote leaks to the ALP; and only a fraction of seats are three-cornered contests. So we're talking about a fraction of a fraction, which is why Newspoll ignores it. (You can see the exact figures in this table here.) Digestible (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Name Change
Given it looks like the election will almost certainly be held in 2010 (Centrebet is quoting odds of 6.5 to 1 that it will be held after October - let alone next year) I propose renaming this article "2010 Australian Federal election". As I recall this is the same approach we took in 2007. In the extremely unlikely event that a 2010 election becomes less likely we could easily change back to "Next" or even "2011". 124.187.133.235 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:CRYSTAL balling. Timeshift (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why wasn't it crystal balling in 2007? Let's be honest - the odds of a 2011 election approach zero. Even Kevin Rudd openly laughed when the idea of a 2011 election was raised. The New Zealand election could be any time from now until 2012 but their article is at "New Zealand general election, 2011". 124.187.133.235 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping we could actually have a mature discussion about the merits (or otherwise) of a move. Instead you seen content to throw WP:'s at me. I have no particular preference either way - but thought it might be pertinent to discuss something which is out of kilter with past elections and other (relevant) precedents. Obviously I was mistaken. For the record WP:CRYSTAL says nothing about this situation and Other Stuff only addresses one of my several points. 124.187.133.235 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article title is an entirely accurate and appropriate representation of the next Australian federal election. When the election year is decided we can change the article's name. There is no rush. The naming of the New Zealand election article isn't necessarily a precedent we should follow. In fact there is some debate there about whether they should be following the precedent we set here. Barrylb (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pat Farmer
Farmer was defeated for Macarthur preselection, has consistently ruled out running as an independent and is openly considering a run at the state seat of Camden. It is agreed by everyone, including Farmer, that he will not contest the next election. Surely something of this counts as announcement of retirement? Frickeg (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Loss of preselection
This edit needs some discussion, I think.

An MP can only truly be said to have retired when they fail to renominate by the deadline, which is always after the parliament is dissolved. Normally, we don’t need to wait for that point, but are guided by their earlier public statements to the effect that they have chosen to retire.

Neal and Farmer, to my knowledge, have made no such statements. They have lost preselection, that’s all. It will probably mean they’re going to retire; but not necessarily. The section is introduced “Members who have indicated their intention to retire are ..” - but Neal and Farmer have not so indicated. Not yet, anyway. If we want to mention people who’ve lost preselection and are currently mulling over their political futures, we can do that separately.

If I'm wrong and either has said they have in fact decided their federal parliamentary career is over, we should cite that statement. But citing the loss of preselection does not do the job. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Farmer has, here, where he explicitly rules out running as an independent and says "when the election is called I'm unemployed". Neal's case is more ambiguous, but I wouldn't be too rigid about it. Most of those members could still reverse their decision anyway (as many have before), since nominations for the seats are still open. If people really feel strongly against having Neal there, we could have a little addendum somewhere: something like, "Members who have lost preselection to contest the election for their parties, but have not explicitly indicated that they will be retiring, are:" but that sounds a little fussy to me, to be honest. Frickeg (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Farmer cite. We can use that.  Neal - until she comes out with a statement about her future, we shouldn't be making the decision for her.  Yes, it is fussy.  If that's a big problem, I'd rather say nothing at all about these people than mislead readers.  Sometimes people who lose preselection stand as independents anyway, even though they have little or no hope of winning, because it makes a difference to their super or something.  They certainly get paid their parliamentary salary right up to polling day, and go down in the record as "Defeated", whereas those who do not renominate stop getting paid when the parliament is dissolved and are listed as "Retired".  A $20,000 difference in income is not what I'd call fussy.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is really simple. The people of Robertson elected Belinda Neal. They did not elect Labor. Labor has chosen not to endorse Neal as their official candidate at the next election. Neal has not said she will resign. Therefore it's completely plausible she could contest the election as an independent. Until she has said she will not contest the next election, she should not be on this page. Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Leave as is. It explicitly states that she lost preselection. For members who lose preselection, retirement is the rule and an independent run is the exception. It's pedantic in the extreme to insist that Belinda Neal is still a potential candidate. Her preselection is widely expected to mark the end of her current tenure in parliament and until she indicates otherwise that's what should be displayed. Digestible (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you say, Digestible. Except your conclusion.  Although it's the norm that people who lose preselection do retire, it really amounts to OR to assume that in any particular case.  It's one thing to say Neal is expected to retire now; it's quite another to say she has announced this - because she hasn't, and may not.  Unlikely, but far from unprecedented.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   02:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And we don't say anything about her retiring in her own article, so how could we get away with it here? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Re-worded section so that it no longer reads like Neal has announced her retirement. Digestible (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that the whole section is about people who "will not be contesting the election". We are not in a position to make that claim about Belinda Neal.  Not yet.  I've put her into a note.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Deposed party MPs typically don't recontest as an independent, so any announcement to that effect by Neal is superfluous. Your changes hint that she might contest as an independent when she has given absolutely no indication that she might do so. I think it highly irresponsible to peddle such misinformation. Digestible (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * She has also given no indication that she as the incumbent MP will not re-contest her seat, so it's a lie to add her under retiring MPs. Timeshift (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was almost going to say you have nothing to complain about, Digestible, because you've reworded the intro to "The following members are not presently candidates for re-election", rendering the issue void. But I'm not sure I entirely agree with that wording, much and all as I understand what you're driving at.  What does it mean to be a "candidate" for a federal election?  Is party pre-selection all it takes?  In a practical political sense, definitely.  But the Parliament and the AEC would not recognise any currently pre-selected people as "candidates", because the election has not been called and the time for lodging nominations has not yet come.  In that sense, there are no candidates at all yet.  It's possible that one or more of the pre-selected people will die or withdraw before that time ever comes, so they will never be shown officially as a candidate.   It's only the the people who actually nominate during the nomination period who'll be shown as candidates.  But it's not all bad news.  We do know that certain people will NOT be candidates, because they've taken the trouble to make public statements to that effect, which we can cite.  Even they could change their minds and re-contest after all (not unprecedented), but let's cross that bridge if and when we come to it.  It's certainly not misleading to cite their public statements about their current intentions.   The Belinda Neals of the world are in a different category, though.  She's lost preselection, and I'm 100% with you that it would be extraordinary if she now recontested Robertson, or contested any other seat, either as an independent or representing any party.  But it could happen; it's happened before.  She has made no statement about her future at this time, and we cannot presume to know what she's thinking.  If you know differently, please provide a cite.  Pat Farmer took about 4 months after losing pre-selection before making any public statement about his retirement, so Neal could just sit tight and weigh up her options without rushing in to make any decision about which way she's going to go.  So, back to the wording: "The following members are not presently candidates for re-election" will not do, for the reasons stated above.  May I suggest "The following members have indicated they will not be candidates for re-election".  We still have to remove Belinda Neal from the main list, until she advises she's decided to retire.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Health care debate
Does anyone think that adding a debates section with respected commentators comments to this article would be beneficial? Wikistar (Place order here) 07:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. These pages should be about the electoral side of it, not the political side of it. When campaign time comes, that's another story. That's the way it's always been. Timeshift (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Page move
Move this page to Australian federal election, 2011 (already exists) as the PM has already affirmed that elections would be held this year (although this contrary to CNN/Bloomberg that said 10 months)
 * btw- Sorry, i already jumped the gun to move to "2011" before i found the site.Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You should be doubly sorry. There was zero consensus for this change.  The election is most unlikely to be held in 2011, and will almost certainly be held in 2010.  What CNN/Bloomberg has to say about Australian political affairs is neither here nor there - not exactly what we'd call a "reliable source" for this topic.  I've moved the page back to "Next Australian federal election", where it belongs.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the move to Australian federal election 2010: just because the Prime Minister emphatically stated on The 7.30 Report that the election would be held in 2010, that doesn't mean it will. This is still crystal balling. Barrylb (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's zero chance that the election will be held next year. Everyone from the PM down emphatically states otherwise. What's the point of pretending there's a semblance of a possibility of a 2011 election? Rebecca (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The move depends on believing a politician. The same one who very recently said it was more likely she would play full forward for the Western Bulldogs, travel to Mars and star in a Hollywood movie with Brad Pitt than become prime minister. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC).


 * It's not just her. Basically every political commentator around has said the same thing. The election won't be in 2011. We know it won't be in 2011. Every source says it won't be in 2011. But because it, theoretically, could be in 2011, you want to base the article on that assumption? Sounds like original research to me. Rebecca (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a section of the article called Date. Please add your sources there, otherwise yours is the OR. Please also note that the only human source that really counts is what Gillard herself says. No-one else sets the date. And the Constitution and the CEA are still the only certain sources. Not a politician. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving the article has had some perhaps unintended consequences. The very first sentence reads "The next Australian federal election will elect members of the 43rd Parliament of Australia and must be held on or before 16 April 2011."  If we're all so utterly convinced it will be held in 2010 (not saying I disagree with that prediction) to the point that we've come right out and labelled it "2010", what's the reference to 2011 doing there?  We go into chapter and verse about exactly how the last possible date is worked out - but then we dismiss a 2011 election with "extremely unlikely".  If it's so 100% certain it's going to be in 2010, why don't we say exactly that?  At the moment we're still having 2 bites of the cherry (one larger than the other, admittedly).  For the record, much of the preceding is rhetorical. Btw: Who in their wisdom moved the page to "Australian federal election, 2010" but left this talk page at "Talk:Next Australian federal election"?
 * This should not have been moved without discussion and consensus, just as it should not have been moved to 2011 (!) yesterday. I recommend it be moved back until such time as the election is actually called. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Senators facing re-election
ACT and NT Senators should be listed here too. They face re-election at every election. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Actually, not quite right*, but right enough for most purposes.  (* The only elections that don't affect them are Senate-only elections, because the terms of ACT and NT Senators end at the dissolution of the House of Representatives, and that doesn't happen when there's a Senate-only election.  But the last such election was in 1970, five years before there even were any territory senators.)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculation in the lead
I strongly oppose the paragraph describing media speculation about the election date. It's pointless, and DOES conflict with Wikipedia's no speculation rule. The media has to sell content every day. Sometimes it isn't even really news. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to sell anything. Nor should it be speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
I'm disengaging. I've requested assistance here, i'll wait for others to remove speculation of the media date. It's always been the standard that we do not add media speculation no matter how real it seems unless the people who count have said it. It's a pity this and WP:CONSENSUS seems lost on you, not to mention how hypocritical you now appear based on events at the Gillard page. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just removed the material on the ABC report as it is a bit speculative (though almost certainly correct). One way or the other the speculation will be unimportant by lunchtime tomorrow anyway. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are the Nationals listed as "crossbenchers"?

 * 5 National Party (including one CLP)

They are part of the opposition, aren't they? Tony  (talk)  08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good pick-up. The Nats should be listed with the Libs as part of the Coalition. Rebecca (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx ... if you don't do it, I'll blunder in later and work out what to do. Also, is it possible to fit into the limited space of the infobox that the "seats" and "swing needed", etc., are for the lower house? Foreigners might not immediately understand this. What do you think? Tony   (talk)  08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Foreigners may also not understand The Coalition. In most places a coalition is usually a temporary arrangement of convenience made between previously unassociated parties AFTER an election to gather enough seats to form a government. In Australia, we have this unique, permanent entity known as The Coalition. Politically aware Australians know what it is, but I doubt if many non-Australians do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We have the Coalition (Australia) article. Rebecca (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rebecca. Didn't know about that. Now we know that whoever sorts this out will include a nice WIkilink to that article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't quite "permanent", HiLo48. It ceased to exist in the 1980s, during the absurd "Joh for Canberra" campaign.  And could do again.  They only really stick together because they need each other (1975 was an exception to that rule, but even then, Fraser had some debts to repay, so he kept the Nats in coalition even though the Libs could have ruled in their own right).   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ... 


 * I think this was added when Joyce became Senate leader, and said something about "we will no longer necessarily vote with the Libs", and someone interpreted this as moving to the crossbenches. Good find. Frickeg (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page/article
Anyone else noticed that the article and the talk page are at different names? (The article's at "2010" and the talkpage at "Next".) Could an admin fix this please? Frickeg (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reunified. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably caused by the fact that the original move did not have consensus, so, while avoiding a big fight over it, not everyone was interested in helping with an inappropriate move, HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (* ahem *) I raised this issue on 25 June, 22 days ago !! But I was roundly ignored, as was my entire post.  I've been sulking ever since.  :) --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dropping of writ and "Date" section
I'm not sure whether someone is already working on updating the now out-of-date "Date" section, but here is a source for the writ dropping on the evening of 19 July for anyone who chooses so to do. I would do it, but it is (past) bedtime on my side of the world. -Rrius (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Timeshift (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Map
I've also removed the map at right from the article. As it doesn't include the capital city seats it gives a misleading impression of both the number of seats at stake and who holds them. Maps of Australian federal electoral divisions normally expand the capital cities to ensure that all the seats are shown. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look around the metro QLD area... what the? Timeshift (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good move. Pity you can't click on the metro areas to get an expansion. Tony   (talk)  09:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

the infobox sucks
There are many things wrong with it. Here are some:
 * 1) The 2004 2007 2010 bunch up, and it's hard for readers to work out whether it's a PIN, or a phone number.
 * 2) "Leader since": month could be given too?
 * 3) The decimal place varies, and shouldn't. Is it "53.0", for example?
 * 4) I suppose we'll have to sit with the "2PP" abbreviation; foreigners, and many Australian readers, won't have a clue, and will have to look at the footnote way down.
 * 5) "Seats needed"—now we switch to the 2010 election, yes? Immediately above, it's the 2007 election. Slightly confusing.
 * 6) "Seats needed" for what? The zero is ... hard. Same with "Swing needed". Why not leave the government column blank?
 * 7) While we're talking of columns, the header for each is separated by the pictures. Confusion as to whether the columns are for Gillard/Abbot or Govt/Oppn.
 * 8) Colours are a breach of WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and the right-side look like links.

It's bad. Tony  (talk)  10:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should have a Two party preferred article. It's kind of important in the context of Australian politics, but you're right, it does need explaining to foreign readers. Rebecca (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have that article! As for Tony1's concerns, I think a mountain is being made of a molehill. It's the infobox that's been used for oz elections for ages and nobody's ever taken exception to it, however it seems not to be up to Tony's standard. Timeshift (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ...why in the heck is that section in the Mackerras Pendulum article? Rebecca (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunno, but I think it's useful/relevant. Perhaps a slight trim? But we're digressing... Timeshift (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a link from the info box template to "Two party preferred", which redirects to Mackerras Pendulum. I agree that there should be a separated "Two party preferred" article (but I'm not inclined to write it - at least not today). Mitch Ames (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind - I have written a Two party preferred article now. This being Wikipedia, no doubt it will soon be improved upon... Mitch Ames (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out there, the name will have to be changed. A hyphen is essential, and two-party preferred what? Tony   (talk)  02:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

House dissolution
Anyone know when the House of Reps is going to be prorogued/dissolved? Or why there's no media release about the election and related details from the PM yet? Or why the PM's own website is still saying it's Kevin Rudd in charge? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's Sunday? Please people, not everyone is as obsessed about this as you are. Perhaps not even the key players. It will be a busy few weeks for them. Maybe they want a weekend off while they can have it. Remember that, in a year or two's time, all that most people will be interested in is that an election was held on 21 August 2010, the xxx Party won it, and that made yyy prime minister. All the detail of media releases and polls along the way, who said what about whom, exact dates in the process of getting to the election, etc, will become very unimportant. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A most unhelpful response, HiLo. If you can't answer my questions, just say so.  As for details, my main interest is in filling in the gaps at Chronology of Australian federal parliaments. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   05:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I happen to agree with HiLo. The writs aren't even issued yet. Patience. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? You folks are obviously hovering around this article. If asking a simple question denotes obsession and impatience, heaven help us. The AEC is working today Sunday; politicians are working today Sunday; newspapers, radio and TV are all operating today Sunday; Wikipedia is working today Sunday.  We already have dates for issue of the writs, close of the rolls, close of nominations etc etc.  Has it escaped anyone's attention that the election is actually about electing the 43rd Parliament, yet the 42nd is still in session, and there's no official word yet about when it's going to be dissolved.  Maybe nobody knows - but I strongly doubt it.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   05:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Who's hovering exactly? LOL! (I have 2,500 watchlisted pages, and I check most when they've been edited) Timeshift (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, she's called the election, but is waiting until 6pm tomorrow evening to issue the writs and dissolve the House so as to give anyone who hasn't enrolled another day to do so. See here.  -- Lear's Fool 05:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's about when the writs will be issued. Under S.32 of the Constitution, the writs have to be issued within 10 days of dissolution.  In other words, dissolution can occur up to 10 days before the writs are issued.  It could be happening as we speak this afternoon for all I know.  There's usually a proclamation outside Parl House by the Governor-General's Official Secretary, which is recorded for posterity by waiting journos and camerapersons.  They have to be given some advance warning about it.  Do they get a phone call only 30 minutes beforehand, or do they get told earlier than that?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   05:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible that the houses of parliament have not yet been dissolved. The GG's website just says she "received" the PM yesterday which could indicate it was not a formal meeting (but the GG might choose not to indicate anyway). One thing for certain is that parliament will be dissolved by 6pm tomorrow if the writs are issued then. Barrylb (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible it hasn't happened yet. Indeed, very probable, imo, if there's been no news about it.  And yes, it has to happen before the writs are issued at 6pm tomorrow.  It's looking like it'll happen some time tomorrow 19 July.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For general info: I've been advised by the Sergeant-at-Arms office the House will dissolved at 5pm today Monday 19 July. The person I spoke to could not explain why there is zero public information about this.  (Jackof Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was looking for a reference to this last night and only found one in Business Week: "In the parliament to be dissolved by Governor- General Quentin Bryce at 6 p.m. local time today..." (the story was published on Sunday night at 9.30pm, so is likely referring to today (Monday). -- Canley (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, there has been a Commonwealth Gazette about this: The Constitution - Governor-General - Prorogue Parliament; Dissolve House of Representatives: Parliament prorogued from 4.59 pm on Monday 19 July, House of Reps dissolved at 5 pm. --Canley (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Canley. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that you are 100% correct Canley - that is what APH has advised us here at workCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding the Greens and Primary Vote in the Info box
Hi all, new to this webpage, not sure of the history or the past for this page but is it possible to add in the Greens and the Primary Vote? I noticed in a few polls that the Greens are at 13-14% and that the Coalition are at 42% and Labor is at 38% Also, Timeshift, are you also rude in the real life all the time! I didn't know that this page only uses Newspoll, like others here, could you not have just explained it nicely instead of trying to act so superior?!?!CanberraBulldog (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi all again, just had a re-think about my question/comment - I guess the Info box doesn't need what I asked as the Polling Section sums it up very well, so I guess we can delete my questions/comment. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to delete my comment so for an expert wikipedian to delete this comment would be great. Cheers, sorry for being a pest! CanberraBulldog (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because almost day after day a random IP comes along and cherry picks a good coalition poll, not that there's many. It is possible to add the Greens, but there are two columns, Australia is a de-facto two-party system. In some election articles you'd find more than two where more than two parties/coalitions hold lower house seats but not where only two hold seats. As for primary votes, it's very misleading when Australia has full-preference voting and 80% of Green votes go to Labor. Seats are won and lost on preferences not primaries. The coalition has historically had some extremely low primary votes but won on preferences, it all depends on who occupies the centre ground. And as I noticed you said when I tried to post and got an edit conflict, yes it is all summed up in the polling section. Timeshift (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment again to all - I saw the Newspoll today and there first poll shown was Primary Vote - I thought it may be a could one to add in the main info box for people that are new or learning about politics - just a thought. CanberraBulldog (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Australian federal election campaign, 2010
It seems pretty much a Gillard hate page at the moment. Timeshift (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we even need that article? Attempting a blow by blow account of a the election is pretty pointless at best. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I already made that point in a revert on this page. Should I prod/AfD it? Timeshift (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to see it disappear. It belongs in the main article in the first instance anyway. Breakout articles are only created if needed. I've never seen an election article that had much in the campaign section. -- Barrylb (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't think it's a great idea for an article at all. It's active life will obviously be brief. Inevitably, those who are enthusiastic enough to post in it will tend to be strong fans of one of the competing parties, so bias in selecting sources will be more likely than not. It's a time when the media has a field day finding sensational angles on the campaign, and that's the stuff that will end up here. I cannot see how we can hope to keep bias AND media hype out of it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The precedent for the campaign article is Victorian state election campaign, 2006 for the Victorian state election, 2006. There is quite a lot of content specific to the campaign that does not fit well with the parent article; mainly due to the adversarial nature of campaigns and the media engagement.  I think it would be inappropriate and premature to nominate it for deletion; as you can see from Talk:Victorian state election campaign, 2006 this type of article is judged to be of value.  A summary of the campaign can be added to the main article.  The challenge is to provide balanced information on the media and campaign hype - which is what campaigns are all about.  Peter Campbell 12:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That article is, frankly, not a good precedent for anything - I wouldn't object to seeing it disappear too, it's poorly written and structured and makes us look like amateurs. Orderinchaos 10:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can always edit the article if you think it needs improvement. It seems that other editors don't share your very negative opinions.  Peter Campbell 23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's beyond help. Noone dares touch it, it seems - including me - because doing so probably involves 14-16 hours work, when deletion is probably what is actually needed, hence rendering said hours' work pointless. Never mistake apathy for endorsement. Orderinchaos 23:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put my money where my mouth is and nominated it for deletion. Orderinchaos 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you bother to look at the result of the last time that article was nominated for deletion - which was strongly in favour of keeping? Why are you wasting our time arguing (and now deleting) content rather than contributing? Peter Campbell 04:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Over three years ago, when the climate was much more inclusionist and, if you read it, you'll notice I was myself one of the keep voters and I think only one of the admins present in this discussion even had their bit. Back then, only a short period after the election, it was harmless and it was assumed it would be fixed in due course. Now it's a partisan and somewhat stagnant dog's breakfast, as I've partly elucidated on the talk page. There's less sympathy for the view these days that "it can be fixed" because it's generally accepted en.wikipedia has plateaued in terms of active contributors - I've seen many people I used to work with very well just disappear, even those I'm still in regular contact with. Orderinchaos 10:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am bemused that you choose to spend so much time criticising and deleting articles and voicing strident opinions about content on article talk pages. It doesn't surprise me that many editors have left Wikipedia rather than deal with this sort of stuff. I prefer to work on content, so I think I will take my efforts elsewhere rather than get dragged into arguments and get personally attacked. Rest In Peace Wikipedia Peter Campbell 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A state election campaign is far easier to manage than a federal one... it'll be a dog's breakfast in no time. It already is, the way it bangs on negatively about Gillard almost from start to finish. Timeshift (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it "bangs on about Gillard from start to finish" at all. That is a bit harsh. Gillard launched the campaign - with a quote provided.  Abbott criticises Gillard (predictably).  Brown criticises Gillard and Abbott.  That's politics.  This is also what the general public see and hear about our system of democracy.  Very few engage with pendulums, political theory, or even read any policies.  If you think some "pro Gillard" content is required then add it.  Peter Campbell 12:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That last sentence highlights the fundamental problem with the article. Nobody should be deliberately seeking out and adding pro-anybody content. That approach cannot possibly satisfy Wikipedia's WP:NPOV requirements. But it will happen. HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most comment by politicians during election campaigns is POV. WP:NPOV can be satisfied by ensuring contrasting comments (from two or three sides) are included, rather than a bias towards any one in particular.  Otherwise, Wikipedia would not include any political comments.  Peter Campbell 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And in theory, if i'm a good person i'll go to heaven. Everything is good in theory. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what your point is. What has "heaven" and "everything being good in theory" got to do with the election campaign? Peter Campbell 01:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "WP:NPOV can be satisfied by ensuring contrasting comments (from two or three sides) are included, rather than a bias towards any one in particular." Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:NPOV: In a nutshell: Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. That's the challenge.  Peter Campbell 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire page (as in "campaign 2010") at this stage seems to be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and should be deleted. There is no way any sort of perspective can be developed at this time over the events now occurring, and the end result will be a poorly written article far too large to clean up later that simply sums up what everyone can already read on the various news websites in a stilted, undue-weight fashion. They do this far better than we do. I'm even less comfortable that its primary writer is openly associated with one of the parties which does indeed seem to be given undue prominence on the article - my involvement this time is a key reason I'm not writing much on the election, and it'd be nice to see others respect the same rules. Orderinchaos 10:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Orderinchaos, if you are referring to me as the "primary writer" - just to be clear, I have no role with any political party during this election. I am a member of the Australian Greens, but not currently active with them. I am not aware of any rule that precludes someone who is a member of a political party editing content. Any edits I make are obviously open to full public scrutiny, and I am not lurking under a pseudonym.  Peter Campbell 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Otherwise we'd be confusing neutrality skills with political attitude; they are quite different things. Tony   (talk)  06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to members of political parties editing - indeed, I am one myself, as are several of the others on this page, none of whom I have objected to. However a read of WP:COI (especially the headline sections) suggests that in some cases one's personal involvement in a subject can be at a level which precludes neutral editing, and the article we're critiquing reflects a very strong undue weight on the Greens with respect to their actual media coverage / prominence. Whether you like it or not, the only coverage the Greens have got so far is two very painful interviews about preferences (I say painful in the sense of criticising the interviewer, not the interviewee). This would warrant at best a line in the article. Primary sourcing to press releases from the party is also generally considered a no-no. The fact that it's only in a press release and not in a secondary source suggests the reliable sources didn't consider it worth reporting, which means we shouldn't either. Orderinchaos 23:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assertion that there is a "very strong undue weight on the Greens with respect to their actual media coverage/prominence". There are two mentions of the Greens - once in the campaign opening statements - where all party's statements are present in the interests of WP:NPOV, and once regarding the preferences announcement which attracted a lot of media. There isn't any sourcing to party press releases; all content is currently referenced to newspaper articles, so that's not a valid criticism either. Why not just edit the article, or list it for deletion if that's what you really want? Out of interest, which party are you a member of? Peter Campbell 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Come off it - no undue weight, and there's actually more about Bob Brown than either of the major party leaders in the first section? Considering the media's *obsessive* (imo excessive) focus on Gillard and Abbott, there's no question that this is somewhat promotional in my view. In total, around 40% of the current content references the party. "Equal coverage of all points of view" is not WP:NPOV, which makes very clear: "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." (And it appears I made an error re the party press release; I was thinking of the Victorian page you worked on, which depends heavily on party pressers from both the Liberals and Greens to attack Labor, strangely enough.) Orderinchaos 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We clearly aren't going to agree on much at all. Again, I suggest editing rather than arguing about random percentages and perceptions about content and possible bias. Peter Campbell 04:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The main page "2010 Election" is documenting data/statistics. The "2010 Election Campaign" page is documenting politics/history. Both are valid for posterity.

- The Campaign page needs a consistent formatting style though. Cablehorn (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Such documentation of politics/history is IMO best done in a historical context. The AJPH takes an extreme view and will only report on something six months after it has happened - I'd say after the election is over is the best time to do it. The Victorian state election campaign, 2006 is an inveterate mess and has been since its creation, is full of opinion and non-notable events (which happened to get 5 seconds of media coverage at the time) and it is not useful to anybody and is basically incapable of being cleaned up because of its size and cruft - this campaign page will go the same way, and has already started to. Orderinchaos 13:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Orderinchaos, you say "The AJPH takes an extreme view and will only report on something six months after it has happened" So, what should be done about this historical piece Australian Labor Party leadership election, 2010 that occurred four weeks ago. The '2010 Election Campaign' page needs a lot of cleaning-up, and is somewhat of a step into unknown territory. The page can be revised anytime in the future [like six months] - even dumping it if it goes belly-up. I agree it could, but it may not. IMO we need to at least record the day-by-day occurrences that could easily be forgotten in the wash-up. On the other hand, we can just have a five week hiatus and pretend nothing happened between 17 July 2010 & 21 August 2010. Cablehorn (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did say I believed the AJPH had an extreme view. Mine is simply "after it is concluded" - which does apply to the leadership election. Orderinchaos 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely why the below should be done, that way nothing is lost but we don't give the public a pile of POV. Timeshift (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the best idea is to move the campaign article in to userspace and let people edit away to their hearts content, then after the election it can be reviewed, recentisms and cruft taken out, and a version everyone can be more or less happy with to move back to articlespace, post-election... just a thought. Timeshift (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair & reasonable point, Timeshift9. Cablehorn (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support this too. Right now, I don't think anyone could argue the present form of the article is encyclopaedic, with its random jumps between past, present and future tense, its over-representation of the Greens, lack of balance for a national election (nothing whatsoever apart from following the leaders around) considering the election is actually 158 elections in one, and even interrupting of quotes to throw in an opinion. Orderinchaos 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not actually edit the article instead of criticising its content? If it gets shifted to userspace it effectively disappears to most people who visit Wikipedia, leaving nowhere for those who feel motivated to do some edits about the campaign. I am struggling to understand why you want to shut this down, when everyone can contribute to a good outcome. Peter Campbell 23:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly established that I'm not criticising its content but rather its very existence in its present form. This is not something that can be fixed by editing. The Victorian article is living proof of this - I'm not even sure anyone could edit it usefully. Additionally, as a volunteer with limited spare time, I prefer to devote what time I do have available for Wikipedia to things I think are worth my time. A running political commentary of questionable neutrality is something I leave for my Facebook and blog comments. Orderinchaos 23:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'The precedent article', the Victorian state election campaign, 2006 is a great read from an historical point-of-view and gives a beneficial insight into the nature of the circus that is a contemporary Australian election campaign. The main article, 'federal election, 2010' is essential but sterile. Future students of political history would turn more to the 'Victorian campaign' article for the colour & taste of the election. It also offers valuable citations for the same reason. The psephologists on the other hand would positively drool over the stats/data page. Both have their place in history. I'd like to keep the campaign article for now. It is a dog's breakfast, but is only reflecting the actual campaign which is more so. Cablehorn (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we disagree on almost every point - it is not a great read, as the grammar and tense management is poor, the multitude of section headings add nothing and are extremely distracting, and the language is overblown and at times incorrect. It does not give a beneficial insight, as it provides no context, and is so consistently negative towards the Labor government that if one actually succeeds in reading it from start to finish, one is entirely bemused as to how on earth they won (and why none of the microparties listed and quoted did). And the "valuable citations" are in many cases the parties' or activists' own websites. The Australian Journal of Politics & History gives a readable, informative three-page narrative that tells me much more. And that source, to me, indicates a dull and boring campaign with a few spikes of interest and some factional infighting within both major parties with the attendant amusement therein, and a result anyone could have predicted. If you want an interesting state election campaign, try WA 1911, 1993 or 2001; SA 1993 or 2002; VIC 1945, 1955 or 1992, TAS 1979, NSW 1978 (a book has been written about it) or QLD 1989 (I'd anticipate NSW 2011 will be the next). Orderinchaos 01:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

←Weight/balance WRT the Australian Green Party: it has been widely acknowledged in the media that the Greens are almost certain to hold the balance of power in the new Senate (from 1 July 2011). This makes them a highly significant force in the election, whether through their preference deals with the ALP in both houses, or their impending balance of power in the Senate. Tony  (talk)  02:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL applies to that - NPOV is very much about published, independent reliable sources, not speculation over what could happen. And even if they are the balance of power in the Senate - so what? As the Democrats proved while in that role, the position has its clear limits. Orderinchaos 02:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Orderinchaos, I can't agree with you more. You do disagree on almost every point I make. You would've hated the "tense" exchange between Red Kerry & Laughing Joe Hockey on the 7:30 Report last night. What a hoot! If you missed it, the transcript's cited in the Australian federal election campaign, 2010 article. Cablehorn (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And at this point folks Orderinchaos found reason to block me from editing. Cablehorn (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Already watched that interview earlier this morning. I found myself agreeing with Kerry - to be honest, most politicians no matter what side of politics obfuscate and twist, and know they're doing it, so the exact point at which they're outed and still trying to hold the line can be quite a spectacle. I don't know if anyone else remembers Ralph Willis in an interview with (I think) Ray Martin some years ago, but similar story. Orderinchaos 04:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

←WP:CRYSTAL nothing. The point is that there is no doubt expressed in the media. Crystal applies to WP editors who might be forecasting, not to our reportage of forecasts in the media. Tony  (talk)  04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what your point relates to the fact that I was complaining that the Greens had more focus in this article than either of the major parties given that all reliable sources have focused almost to a ridiculous extent on the two major party leaders, and not very much at all on the Greens. If the article were trying to make the assertion you are making with the provisos attached, I wouldn't be opposed. Orderinchaos 05:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to all editors of the campaign page. It looks good. As someone with no love of either major party, I can see no bias in the page. It is interesting that the editing style has been debated here at length without the word chronicle being used. Wikipedia was intended as a live chronicle. Yes?

With growing interest in the integrity and accountability (and capability) of politicians, I believe the politicians' conduct during the campaign is more important than the outcome. Therefore, the page is worthwhile; a "blow-by-blow account" is not worthless. Didactik (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia was intended as a free encyclopaedia, not a "live chronicle". In fact, live chronicling, or blogging as it is otherwise known, is actually against Wikipedia's policies. Orderinchaos 12:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course it is an encyclopedia. And it should be up-to-date.  Where in that guideline, or anywhere else, is it stated a chronicle (live or dead) is synonymous with a web log?  Your equating of a chronicle with a web log is news to me.  To the extent Wikipedia is used as a chronicle, it is intended as a live chronicle rather than a dead chronicle.  One can interpret a guideline in many ways.  You have been rather argumentative this weekend this weekend.  Go fly a kite (in the Mary Poppins sense). Didactik (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was intended as a live chronicle, we'd have commissioned editors and a system of accreditation, and wouldn't have such an emphasis on verifiability against reliable sources, and prohibitions on original research. Wikipedia actually conforms fairly closely in its standards with an academic literature review. And the AJPH's chronicle comes out several months after the event (the one covering this election will come out in June 2011), anything before the event takes place is idle commentary not to mention a significant BLP risk, especially given the polarisation of our editor group on political lines - our articles on major political figures often bog down over trivia - and the chances of it being repaired after the fact are low due to what appears to be mass editor fatigue on en.wikipedia (if you look around, there are presentations from WMF themselves admitting that editor numbers are steadily dropping off now that most of the major topics have been written about.) Better not to have something that can't be fixed to begin with. Orderinchaos 01:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for argumentative, WP:AGF. I have not attacked you or any other contributor on a personal basis, I have only engaged with the issues and I'd appreciate the same courtesy extended in return. Orderinchaos 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Polling?
Should we really be including only polling from Newspoll? It seems we might be giving undue prominence to a single organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.245.254 (talk • contribs)


 * Only one sources of polling has a high risk of bias - particularly when it is aligned with Murdoch owned papers. What about Morgan and Galaxy? Peter Campbell 23:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Newspoll has been shown time and time again to be accurate. Look at the 2007 result. It polls over 1000, polls regularly (and the one to do the state parliaments regularly), and asks the largest field of questions. Using Newspoll also stops people accusing us of being pro-Labor as Newspoll is through The Australian/News Ltd. Morgan is by my own admission pro-Labor, and Galaxy don't poll regularly or ask as many questions, and I think their sample size may be smaller too. Newspoll is what has always been used. Newspoll being the most authoritative poll is one thing i'm prepared to agree with Abbott on. Timeshift (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Without taking a side on this (yet), can I suggest that either some sort of consensus be built on this issue (perhaps at WT:AUP) or someone more experienced than myself (eg Timeshift) point to where this consensus was formed? I've run into it before, and I think it would be easier for all involved if there were a properly established consensus on this issue that could be linked to whenever we get questions like this.  I get the feeling there'll be a lot of discussion on this issue in the next month or so.  -- Lear's Fool 00:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's time we had a proper discussion about it, and I think it's bad reporting to single out one particular pollster. Newspoll are not more reliable than Galaxy or Morgan, and we're denying readers a complete picture (and indeed, creating a misleading one) by pretending that Australia has only one pollster. Everywhere else in the world on Wikipedia cites all relevant polling; so should we. Rebecca (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Polling has to be more than relevant. I walked past the room where the TV was on last night and heard Channel 9 spouting the results of its poll, showing a considerable swing to the Libs, I think. That poll would be relevant, but probably not all that reliable. The ideal reporting of a poll includes the sample size, the geographic spread, the means of contacting people (phone/street surveys, etc), and the exact questions asked. All those factors can have big impacts on the result. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Channel Nine, to my knowledge, does not do its own polling, but reports Newspoll, Galaxy and Morgan like everyone else. Rebecca (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This was actually reported as a Nine/Galaxy poll, which actually contradicted a Galaxy poll taken a day earlier. Given national Nine's strong pro-Liberal bent, this is hardly surprising (ironically, WA Nine is probably the most Labor-friendly news source in the state, despite having the daughter of a former Liberal MP as its newsreader :)) Orderinchaos 10:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm a lone voice on this, but my view is that including opinion polling for its own sake is unencyclopedic, and violates WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL. I don't know why editors put such stock in them. They're only really encyclopedic when used for context, such as the dumping of party leaders. --Surturz (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If its cited then it is warranted as it leads to the buildup expectations and potential surprises or not. Its not crystal ball-ing anything as it shows the progression towards the election. (im presuming polls over the next weeks will be listed too)Lihaas (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Surturz, election pages all over the world on wiki have polling. Your comments regarding polling being irrelevant are silly. As an aside, did you know that no opposition leader who has ever got to 50% or higher dissatisfaction has never gone on to become PM? :) Why would you dismiss these sorts of changes in polling which are reasonably consistent (at least in MoE) with other polls? Polling patterns in 2007 and 1996 were very similar, except for the fact that the opposition leader consistently maintained the lead on Preferred PM in 2007. Isn't it helpful to indicate where the polls are at? The coalition primary vote is 4-5% lower than it was at the 2007 poll and election and a majority are dissatisfied with Abbott. Polls in themselves guage public opinion and don't contain a narrative, that is why psephologists and politicos alike put stock in to them. When public opinion turns, so will the polls - to whoever's advantage. Look at Rudd - consistent large satisfaction ratings, coming back to earth in the last few months, but a sudden collapse and flip to an equal net dissatisfaction when the mining tax ads started. Polls let the reader form their own conclusions. Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you think opinion polls are facts, but they are not facts. They just have the appearance of facts. And even though you believe they are facts, you are advocating inserting them into articles WP:INDISCRIMINATEly so the reader can "form their own conclusions". This is an encyclopedia that is meant to inform. If we haven't got anything tangible to say, then we should not say anything. Opinion polling is primary data that we should neither present nor interpret; we should be looking for good WP:SECONDARY sources that do that, and then present the conclusions of those sources. --Surturz (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Opinion polling is primary data that we should neither present" - i'd suggest you just stop talking about things you obviously know nothing about... but I can't blame your apparent attempts at obfuscation considering where the polls are at. Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Surturz, that opinion polls are not particularly appropriate here - they might be suitable in Wikinews, but I don't believe they belong in an encyclopedia. Perhaps there's a good argument for them in Australian federal election campaign, 2010, which is an article about the campaign - and the polls are a reflection of the progress of that campaign. However the only "poll" that is relevant to the Australian federal election, 2010 article is the election itself. Anything else is necessarily an attempt to predict the future. I suggest that we should move the current Polling section into Australian federal election campaign, 2010, which currently has very little to say on the matter. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. a) it's standard practice to have election polls on wikipedia articles, b) polls don't just occur inside a campaign, the vast majority occur outside a campaign. Timeshift (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with their usefulness too (per Mitch / Surturz) but consensus is (not just in Australia) to include them and, two years from now, they do provide an interesting indication in general terms of how things went. Thus I support their inclusion, although think they probably should be less prominent and certainly should be read in line with being a forecast based on a limited sample, not a "fact". Orderinchaos 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, alternatives to just using Newspoll include the ABC's poll of the polls which averages the various polls (though it only seems to go back to June 7) and the aggregated pollytrend at Pollytics.com which uses some rather sophisticated maths to combine the polls. That said, there's nothing wrong with just using Newspoll - whatever you think of the way The Australian interprets its results, the poll itself is professionally administered and well regarded, and gets similar results to all the other properly conducted opinion polls. The fact that it's conducted fortnightly throughout the electoral cycle is also a big plus - the AC Nielsen and Galaxy polls are concentrated around elections. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the 2007 election we had someone design line graphs which showed 2PP and preferred PM from every polling company from 2004 to 2007... I thought it was great. Perhaps if someone has the skills and time and make it look as reasonably professional as the one on the 2007 election page? Timeshift (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got some spare time, I could probably do it with Matlab. Where can I find all the data?  -- Lear's Fool 11:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Click on the graphs in the 2007 page for links. Sat/dissat (or approval/disapproval equiv.) would be a good third graph as it's the only question to test one side independent of the other side. And please, give us a sample here before you put it on the article page... thanks for being willing to do it! Timeshift (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I've got Newspoll, Nielson and Roy Morgan for the 2PP and Primary, but I'm having a little difficulty finding the Galaxy one, the ozpolitics link is down.  I think I'll start with 2PP and the primary vote, and then I'll look for satisfaction/dissatisfaction later on.  -- Lear's Fool 12:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It comes with another caviat. We can't update your graphs like we can text. The infobox can still be updated with the latest Newspoll but the maps will require you to be attentive and regularly updating... is this an issue? Or perhaps with the graphs just have the last month or two's polling only in the currently used table form... Timeshift (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking we could have a graph on this article with the polling from all the sources since the last election in order to give some context on the poll results leading up to this election. I shouldn't have much trouble updating it up until the election, and then after that it can just be left as a visual demonstration of the polls leading up to this election, like the graphs on the 2007 election article.  With regards to maps, I was thinking of doing up the graphs, but the maps might be a little beyond me at this point.  -- Lear's Fool 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops typo, I meant graphs not maps... and yes you make a good point, only need to update the graph till August 21. Timeshift (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I can commit to that, if I'm late on anything feel free to prod me about it. I'll try to put together the 2PP by the end of the night. -- Lear's Fool 12:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it possible if you can upload a snapshot just after you start it? I wanna see what the look of the graph is that we'll be dealing with if I may please... Timeshift (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Federal ALP 2PP polls 2008 to 2010.svg. It needs a little work before it goes in the article.  I couldn't find a source for all the Galaxy polling, and I want to add in events such as changes in leadership etc.  Also, the .svg rendering of the dates on the horizontal axis is a little dodgy at lower resolutions.  Still, it's a start.  -- Lear's Fool 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ... it's a start :) Timeshift (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

background
as per electoral articles across wikipedia a background to the election is encyclpaedic, and the info int he removal was cited with such parallels drawn, it this not WP:OR and also linked directly to the election.Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is pretty inaccurate for a start. The "super tax" was never "imposed" and did not require "rolling back"—the source says it was "planned" and "diluted". Calling it a "super tax" in Australia implies it is a tax on superannuation, did you mean "super profits tax"? The single source (Bloomberg) does not mention "corporate welfare" at all that I could see, to say so is a bit of a stretch of interpretation. You've also spelt Labor with a 'u'. --Canley (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need to add POV mining fields especially on this page. Rudd, Gillard and Abbott pages have detail on current events. Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The source details it for the eelction. If you want to update or change it then go ahead. But improvement is not grounds for removal.
 * As for "corporate welfare" if you feel another link is appropriate go ahead, but the text on that page seemed appropriate for this.Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Others and I have already disagreed. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to form a new WP:CONSENSUS before re-adding your disputed material. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you re-inserted exactly the same "background" text after I pointed out numerous errors—it's all very well to suggest other editors update or improve that section instead of deleting it, but virtually nothing was correct about it. The article lede and House of Reps sections contain more than enough background for the article anyway, and as Timeshift says the articles on the key players provide details should they be required. --Canley (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. "Others and I" is not true, there were only 3 opnion here. and WP:Consensus is not formed by a simply number vote.
 * Per Canley, you are right. but then lets suggest improvements. What is not right about the cited info? The mining tax was certainly a reason that eventually led to Rudd's removal and this consequent election.Lihaas (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But was it? Sorry, it seems like WP:SYNTHESIS to make that conclusion, and I think even most of the media would be hesitant about making such a statement: for example, the Bloomberg source you cite mentions the RSPT, and juxtaposes the statement that Gillard took over from Rudd as leader around that time, but stops short of announcing that she did so, and called an election, because of the tax. Also, as the election was called after the issue of the RSPT was essentially resolved (and it has been barely mentioned during the campaign), can we really say it had any effect on the election? It could also be argued that opinion polls, the shelving of the emissions trading scheme, Rudd's management style or many other issues may have contributed to his downfall—but to mention them as integral to the election is purely guesswork. Unless the Labor Party caucus releases a statement about why they replaced Rudd (and they never will), it's supposition to suggest otherwise or to synthesise possible reasons.
 * OK, let's look at the text in question (and I've bolded what I consider questionable):


 * "An early election was called after a Labour Party leadership election chose Julia Gillard ahead of serving prime minister Kevin Rudd, forcing his resignation. Gillard then moved to take leadership after a campaign by mining companies to roll back a "super tax" imposed by Rudd. The election was read in at least the business media as a battle in regards to corporate welfare."


 * You call this an "early election", which I suppose technically it is, but the election was likely to be called for any time from the 7 August onwards (whether by Rudd or Gillard), as opposed to a double-dissolution which would certainly be an early election (plus you would undoubtedly have a concrete reason for such an election—the legislation being blocked by the Senate). Regarding the leadership election, Rudd resigned before the ballot took place and Gillard was elected leader unopposed, however the statement implies that Rudd was forced to resign after the ballot. Now I did point out several errors in my previous post which you did not address, plus I don't feel any need to improve a Background statement as I don't think one is needed. At the moment, Rudd is only mentioned in the opinion poll tables, and I think election articles should be a "fresh start"—Gillard vs Abbott and here is the result. If you really insist on this, I suppose I would not object to a statement about how long Gillard has been leader of the ALP since replacing Rudd, as this is a factual statement which does not tend to guess why Rudd was replaced or the election was called when it was. --Canley (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody has ever defined what the term "early election" means in the federal sphere. The Parliament has a maximum life of 3 years, but can be dissolved earlier.  Except in one case, back in 1910, none of our parliaments has ever gone full term.  It's silly to pedantically conclude therefore that all the elections except for that one have been "early".  But some would definitely be generally agreed as being "early".  Question is: which ones, and what's the cut-off point?  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Australia’s Federation Guard to conduct a 19-Gun Salute at Parliament House
This just scared me half to death - the noise was incredible.

Australia’s Federation Guard (AFG) will conduct a 19-Gun Salute to acknowledge the proroguing of Parliament. During the activity artillery guns will fire 19 rounds using blank cartridges. The cartridges do not contain any projectiles; however they do contain gunpowder to simulate the sound of firing. The rounds will be fired at five-second intervals commencing from 5:00 pm. CanberraBulldog (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Polling graphs
Right, I've put together charts for the two-party-preferred polls with Newspoll, Neilson and Roy Morgan here and the primary polls with Newspoll here. At this point, I would like to add lines on the graph indicating where leaders have changed etc. and perhaps add in the Neilson polling for the primary vote as well. I haven't included Galaxy because I can't find a convenient source that has all the results tabulated. I thought I should get the ball rolling on how we want to include these (should they replace the current tables?) and whether they need any more changes (like some averaged trendlines or something.). -- Lear's Fool 12:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a few moments... btw, can you fix "Nielson" in the graph to Nielsen... thanks. Timeshift (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, not so good news. Here's my test revision... I also tried it at the 2007-used 300px but still the same issue. Suggestions? Timeshift (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the svg renderer for Matlab doesn't cope so well with the text. From my mucking around with "show preview" they need to be 500px before that stops being a problem.  We could try something like this:




 * ...or this:




 * ...or we could put it in as a .png. Is there a way of forcing Mediawiki to render it as a png?  Otherwise I'll have to find another way of rendering the files.  -- Lear's Fool 13:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've outlined the text, so it seems to render OK. I've left the original text in the file as transparent: [[File:Australian federal primary polls 2008 to 2010 outline.svg]][[File:Federal ALP 2PP polls 2008 to 2010 outline.svg]]


 * Shall I do the other one? (I've uploaded it to Wikipedia, but I can delete and upload on Commons if people are happy with this. --Canley (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the lines were so thick, I can fix that but it does make it quite visible in the thumbnail size. --Canley (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That one looks much better, do that (I don't mind the thick lines, they aren't so thick as to confuse or blur movements). I've made some changes to the page, what do people think? For brevity on this page, I think we should have the two graphs used on 2007 (2PP and Preferred PM) as well as leader satisfaction-dissatisfaction... including primary graphs for all polling companies is too much, but is worth adding to the opinion polling sub-page where it can also hold the large tables. What do others think? Timeshift (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think if you fix the line thickness they'd be worth putting on the Commons as a new versions of the old ones. It certainly renders better.  -- Lear's Fool 13:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, is it possible to add dots for the 2007 result and the pre-election poll at the beginning of the graphs? Timeshift (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the lines thinner, and changed Nielson to Nielsen (if that was the spelling you were changing, Lear's Fool). --Canley (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks much better, thanks! I reckon they should be uploaded to the commons as new versions of the old ones, but I need to find a way of rendering the svgs properly before I upload them so new polls etc. can be added without someone else needing to trace the svg.  Timeshift, I've got versions of both of the graphs with large dots indicating the 2007 election result, but I might wait until I'm happy with the rendering at lower resolutions before I upload it.  -- Lear's Fool 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Like in the tables, do you think the pre-election poll should be added for comparison? Timeshift (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it, personally, I'm not really sure what benificial comparison it would bring. The polls taken before the election were between Howard and Rudd, and then we have the election, and then there's a three month break before there's any more polls, and then it's between Rudd and Nelson, so I'm not really sure how they would relate. Shouldn't it simply be one graph for the one term? -- Lear's Fool 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When you look at the tables, don't you agree it's good to have a primary/2pp comparison of the 2007 result and the pre-election polling? It demonstrates to the reader how accurate polling is, and are true to their margin of error. Not to mention, it allows the reader to compare what the coalition and Labor votes were doing immediately prior to the last election, to this election. Timeshift (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose. -- Lear's Fool 14:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Retiring territory senators
I though each territory had two senators. Why are both listed for retirement? At the moment, 40 senators are listed as retiring in a 76-member chamber. Tony  (talk)  07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The terms of territory senators correspond with the House of Reps, and they're both elected at each election. Frickeg (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks: probably needs to be said somewhere. That is surprising, but now I see why the two major parties cooked that up: it means they always share one each, rather than the possibility that both senators will be of one party. Tony   (talk)  08:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put some relevant words in there. This arrangement has been in place for 35 years now, ever since we've had territory senators.  But Tony, these 4 territory senators are not "retiring", as you put it.  That would mean they've decided to give up politics and not contest the election.  But they are all contesting it, as far as I know.  What's happening is that their terms are expiring on 20 August, the day before the election.  Should they be re-elected, their new terms will commence on election day.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's another interesting point, too - all other senators take up their posts on 1 July 2011, but the territory ones take office immediately. Orderinchaos 23:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, you seem to be equating the probability that both major parties will have one senator each from each territory, with the fact that their terms start and end at different times than the state senators. I can't see that that has anything to do with it. It's the fact that there are only 2 senators, as compared with 12 from the states, that forces this outcome. The mathematics of the proportional preferential system make it virtually a certainty that, no matter which major party's No. 1 candidate wins the first vcacancy, the second vacancy will be won by the other party's No. 1 candidate. And this would be the case no matter when their terms start and end. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. My point was based on what was surely the issue facing the party mathematicians when territory senators were proposed: if they'd gone with the existing arrangements for state-based senators, there'd be only one senator elected from each territory each election, with six-year terms. That would have meant (1) the parties would have to put up a genuine fight (funds, etc), and (2) the territory senators could alter the balance in the chamber, since 51% would get you the whole senate position in an election. Tony   (talk)  12:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you're getting at now. Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Notional seats
Should the infobox be modified to be post-redistribution in the number of seats held, and seat and % swing required? Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm. This is a tough one, but I'd say yes. Of course there should be a note somewhere explaining this, but Greenway will be a hold not a gain for them, for example. I'd say that in electoral terms they hold 87 seats (or will once the election is called), and that as this is an electoral page it should reflect that. Frickeg (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO just put a ref in the infobox next to seats explaining it. Timeshift (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've amended accordingly. Timeshift (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The number of seats held is shown on the Parliament House website here: http://aph.gov.au/house/members/memlist.pdf This is the only appropriate source of information regarding the "number of seats held" by each party. According to this source the number of seats held are as follows: Labor: 83 Coalition: 55 + 9 = 64 Independent: 3 Total: 150

I have updated the article as appropriate. --Rational1991 (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this, and you shouldn't have marked it as a minor edit. Please discuss it here with other editors, this is not a non-controversial edit. --Canley (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let's sort this out and discuss the reasons for listing the notional seat numbers. Firstly, the Parliament you refer to has been dissolved and technically all seats are vacant during the campaign, and the post-redistribution boundaries are now in play. Secondly, the seat changes, gains and swings we will refer to in this article will be meaningless against the 2007/41st Parliament numbers. --Canley (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Post redistribution numbers are by no means exact, they are vague estimates by private individuals from observations of voting behaviour on a booth by booth basis. I personally do not feel the use of these estimates in the infobox is appropriate, it would be appropriate if the AEC published the data. As a result, I feel that the infobox can only legitimately display the results of elections (ie. the last general election and by elections), this essentially means the composition of the parliament at dissolution.

--Rational1991 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the WP:CONSENSUS is to include them, so really, quite simply, that is the way it will be. Note the swing required is practically unchanged. Timeshift (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The AEC has published them—National Seat Status—Including notional seat status for NSW, Qld, Tas and WA – June 2010. The post-redistribution tables include the new calculated margins and the notionally elected parties, which correspond to the figures on the infobox. --Canley (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Also to Rational, does he disagree with the "post-2007 election" pendulum and the "current" (post-redistribution) pendulum existing side by side? Articles are always a work in progress. 2007 has 83/65/3, in a month's time this 2010 page will have the 2010 results, and the current post-redistribution figures currently on this page will only exist in the page's history. Timeshift (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also Rational1991, the post-redistribution seat numbers and margins are calculated by the AEC and the Parliamentary Library. Antony Green did calculate his own figures based on his database of votes and booths at the 2007 election (which is what I assume you mean by "vague estimates by private individuals"), but replaced his estimates with the official AEC ones when they were released. In additional to the National Seat Status, the AEC has also released spreadsheets of the votes and percentages based on the new boundaries at the 2007 election, and it is these figures that the AEC, the ABC (and Wikipedia) will use to calculate the swings in each electorate. --Canley (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Two-party-preferred, with the hyphens please
It's a triple adjective. Is it Canley or Fool's Lear? Could you please ensure that the hyphen is in the title of the graph next time you update it? The title could be in a larger font-size, too. Tony  (talk)  00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS the graph is very hard to decipher with the bunching of those lines for the main poll companies. At the very least, could the graph go back to, say, October 09? Who needs to know more at this stage? That would spread it a bit horizontally. Tony   (talk)  00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AND at the current size, it's just about impossible to read the key. The graph needs to be larger. And why not make 45% the lowest value on the y-axis? You could always change it if the coalition breaches that, but I doubt it will. I intend to remove the graph this evening if it's still incomprehensible. Tony   (talk)  01:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you won't remove the graph. It was added with WP:CONSENSUS. If you wish to remove it then form new consensus. Thankyou muchly. Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will remove the graph unless it is made useful. Tony   (talk)  02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And guess what? An edit war will ensue because i'll keep re-adding it, because you're removing it after WP:CONSENSUS had been formed on it. Learn the rules. Have a lovely day. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's Lear's Fool, not Fool's Lear, like the character in the play by Shakespeare.
 * Secondly, threatening an edit war, through either unilateral removal of the graph or relentless reverts, is not necessary: and we all know that the rules don't allow that. Let's just cool down a bit and talk it out.
 * Tony, I appreciate your input on the graphs. As you'll see above, there has been an extensive discussion regarding the charts, which has involved compromise and a number of acknowledgements by all parties that the current graphs are not entirely ideal.  If you have specific concerns (as it appears you do), feel free to bring them up here, and we'll all have a chat about it and see what you can do.  A number of your concerns (such as the time period of the graph) have already been brought up, but please don't let that stop you from voicing your concerns.  I intend to try to improve the graphs in the next day or two, but I am currently trying to take a short wikibreak and am to busy too deal with it right now.  -- Lear's Fool sock 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, when you next update the data (end of this week, or when the major polls next announce?), can you deal with these easy-to-fix issues? In particular, the 45 at bottom and the Oct 09 start can't be more than a couple of minutes' work. I didn't read earlier discussions, but if people object to anything I've said, please raise it here an now. Tony   (talk)  03:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while I'm reading the above thoroughly: no, Lear's Fool appears to be the person threatening an edit war. I'm just saying I'll take down a bad graph. Don't ascribe "threats" to me unless I've actually made them. Tony   (talk)  04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I threatened an edit war to Tony, but look at the context it was in. It was said to reinforce the fact that WP:CONSENSUS had been formed, therefore if he wanted to change it he needed to form a new consensus. I don't want to edit war, but any occurrance would have been as a result of Tony's lack of understanding of this. Timeshift (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry, "threatening" was entirely the wrong word to use, and I apologise for that. Tony has some genuine concerns, all I'm trying to say is that talking them out on this page is probably the best solution.  -- Lear's Fool 10:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is need for more than one graph of opinion polls results. What do people think about the way opinion polls were graphed in United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010? They give both long-term graphs (back to the start of that parliament), and nice, uncluttered recent graphs. This graph is clear, although expresses only one company's results. I think they had one series of graphs that averaged the main polling companies' results. This specialised article on the UK polling looks quite good.  Tony   (talk)  11:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks good, but don't know how it'd work in Australia where the polling is done far less frequently. Orderinchaos 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with leaders' names in "Preferred PM" and "Satisfaction" tables
Both go back quite a way, but indicate wrongly that Gillard and Abbott are the subjects throughout. This is wrong. Tony  (talk)  02:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the footnotes try to get that across. Still, perhaps there's a better way of getting it across, it took me a sec to notice the footnotes the first time I saw it.  Unfortunately I don't know anything about table markup, so I can't think of a better way of doing it.  -- Lear's Fool sock 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not good at the moment. Rather misleading. I'll try to find someone who's good at tables. Tony   (talk)  03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, could I suggest that the deep red and deep blue used in I think two tables might be lightened, for accessibility reasons? Tony   (talk)  03:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Who can't see that the leadership poll results from previous leaders are wider caused by that extra number next to each and every result to indicate a footnote? It is how it's always been done and nobody's ever taken an issue until now... another Tonyism? Feel free to propose suggestions for improvement... but don't act the way you're acting over it. On a wider issue... people spend years here doing good work, it's incredible how much ozpol articles have grown and matured, but then you come along and start criticising everything and tearing everything down, why? Just a thought. Timeshift (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I have no idea what your opening sentence means. Second, you risk personalising this discussion page. I note your pretty rude entry on my talk page, entitled "You". That kind of thing is a breach of WP:CIVIL. You need to cool it.
 * The fact that a few people have spent "years here going good work" doesn't mean someone else can't come in and make improvements, or indeed, to make criticisms; that is progress. But to propose that I am criticising "everything" needs scrutiny. Are you really claiming that? To criticise "everything" in the article would be a big job, and I'm not critical of "everything"—just a few things. To propose that I am "tearing everything down" is another piece of inflammatory accusation. This looks like a bad case of WP:OWNERSHIP. I suggest that you work cooperatively and try not to personalise things. Tony   (talk)  01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You. You. You. You is fine. Do try to get over yourself, thanks. If you can't read then sorry? I find 99 percent of ozpol edits fine, yours often have issues. You can't just change a couple of articles where there's over a century's worth of other articles that have a particular standard, and expect to change it without consensus first. For established practices you need to communicate before expecting everyone to go along with it. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is your last warning before I take action against you for incivility. I am referring specifically to your opening: "You. You. You. You is fine. Do try to get over yourself, thanks." This is unacceptable in what is meant to be a collaborative, harmonious environment. Tony   (talk)  01:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel your heavyhanded engagement in attempting to change long-standing ways of doing things by only doing it to a few pages and without any consultation unacceptable and unharmonious. If you have issues with how things are formatted or done and is standard through over a century's worth of articles, then please raise the issues on talk pages. Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you both cool it? This really isn't helping. The point of this section is supposed to be about discussing the poll tables. I have to say that I think the current format is fine - it is made clear that there is something different about the pre-Gillard/Abbott ratings. However, they haven't really been adapted for the smaller format, which I'll try to do now (still showing footnotes for Howard and Nelson when there are no such ratings, etc.). Frickeg (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing for me to cool. It's your friend here who is being utterly offensive, both here and on my talk page, and—yet again—here, with a sarcastic tone, a direct criticism of another editor's "skills" (a definite no-no at WP:CIVILITY), and the coining of the term "Tonyism", which I find insulting. Tony   (talk)  01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest putting a subheading in the table when there is a leader change? So it says "Gillard /Abbott", then some numbers, then "Rudd / Abbott", more numbers, then "Rudd / Turnbull", "Rudd / Nelson".

--Canley (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I like that! Well done! Frickeg (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I had in mind, but apparently it has arisen from illegitimate "criticism" by me. Should it be implemented? Tony   (talk)  01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be implemented. It is a good approach borne out of talkpage discussion - unlike the methods you employ that i've already outlined in previous posts. In this particular instance I took issue with your attitude towards raising the issue, outlined in previous posts. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You took issue with my attitude towards raising the issue. Right. How about less WP:OWNERSHIP? Tony   (talk)  01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are choosing to make the false connection of one to the other. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up that the tables at Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2010 are missing the leader change rows. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

High google ranking, high hit rate
Page visits for this article this month. It's a high-profile page. Settling down to more than 2000 hits a day, which is sure to increase. Good PR for WP. Tony  (talk)  11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Tony. Guess how many hits Rudd got on June 24? a) 12,000. b) 24,000. c) 36,000. d) 72,000.


 * D... incredible. Timeshift (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Percentage vs percentage point
Editors are reminded of the difference, which is misused in the main text of all articles on previous federal elections I've looked at.
 * A 0.25% rise in the interest rate is from 5.0% to 5.0125%. A 0.25-point rise is from 5.0% to 5.25%.
 * A 2.0% swing would be from a 50% to a 51% vote. A 2.0-point swing would be from 50% to 52%.  Tony   (talk)  01:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't the way it's used or understood in the context of Australian elections. Both Mackerras and Green, the foremost psephologists in Australia, describe swings in terms such as "On the Perth inner metropolitan seat of Swan there was a swing to the Liberal Party of 0.2 per cent" and "The average swing to Labor was 3.7 per cent." I note Murray Goot uses your preferred "point" format, but he seems to be in a minority. Orderinchaos 01:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I encountered several instances of "percentage point", used correctly, in the two federal election articles I looked at this morning. I'm afraid it is widely used; for example, The Sydney Morning Herald is unerring. Not only that, it is mathematically incorrect to use "percentage" when you mean "percentage point". I've given two examples above. Tony   (talk)  01:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Victorian Electoral Commission also uses "percentage point swing", as well as the SMH as Tony points out. However, the Australian Electoral Commission seems to invariably use "percentage swing" as far as I could see. --Canley (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the AEC realises that common usage of terms of acceptable, and that they agree that percentage point swing is unweildly and pointless. Ahhhh! :) Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mosnum. Tony   (talk)  01:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Avoid ambiguity in expressing a change of rates." - I note other wikipedia election articles don't use "percentage points". Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You continue to breach the civility code, again, after I issued a final warning. It is approaching the point of no return. Other WP articles that use the construction ambiguously need to be changed. Tony   (talk)  02:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to consider how much of a mountain you are making out of a molehill. Again - "Avoid ambiguity in expressing a change of rates." - I note other wikipedia election articles don't use "percentage points". Consensus and all that. Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An exclamation mark does not undo the offence caused. You left out this wording from MOSNUM: "to express a change in a percentage or the difference between two percentages; for example, The agent raised the commission by five percentage points, from 10 to 15% (if the 10% commission had instead been raised by 5%, the new rate would have been 10.5%)." I am not going to go around in circles. Tony   (talk)  02:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR... agreed policies get agreement from the community. Unless you're finding that there is a consensus to use 'percentage point' everywhere in election wikis, then you'll find it will not be included. Thanks! (expressions can be so ambiguous when online...) Timeshift (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm not sure that necessarily applies to an electoral swing as the previous election's percentage of the vote is rarely actually mentioned and if it isn't, how does one draw the wrong conclusion? It seems pretty widely understood that the percentage is referring to the swing across an electoral "pendulum". You are correct that referring to an increase (or decrease) as a percentage can be ambiguous as in the WP:MOS example, but a swing may be an entirely different beast. We don't refer to a "swing in interest rates" to use that example. --Canley (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A swing is a change in percentage vote. And as a side-line comment, I'm sure you've all heard such expressions as "has widened to a four-point lead over the opposition". Tony   (talk)  03:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But not "suffered a three-point swing against it"; it's far more common to hear "suffered a three-percent swing against it". Frickeg (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

←The SMH and apparently at least the Victorian EC—and very possibly other ECs—would say "three-point swing", or perhaps in the first occurrence in a piece, "three-percentage-point swing". It's not rocket-science, and it's unambiguous and mathematically correct. I've seen instances this morning of "percentage" that are plain wrong, mathematically. Tony  (talk)  06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "That isn't the way it's used or understood in the context of Australian elections." I'd just like to comment that Tony is absolutely spot on – the context has very little to do with how the information/analysis should be presented. Lay commentators, who have little or no understanding of statistics, frequently get it wrong. I therefore often find myself wondering what such statements mean, and almost always end up having to resolve the ambiguity myself by looking at the underlying figures. In any event, the article is likely to be read by people not just from Australia, and it should therefore cite the figures in the universal definition, so as to be accessible to all readers. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone, certainly not myself, is arguing that Tony is wrong—just that it doesn't mean that calling a swing as a percentage swing is necessarily incorrect. As others have pointed out, numerous other commentators (clearly not "lay commentators"), media outlets, other Wikipedia articles on elections, and even the AEC which administers Australian federal elections expresses swings as a percent figure without reference to points. Let's say we weren't referring to or calculating percentage of votes at all, just the number of votes. In 2007, Party A gets 80 votes and Party B gets 120 votes. In 2010, Party A gets 240 votes and Party B gets 160 votes. Across the arc of an electoral pendulum I could still say that was a swing of 40% (because referring to a swing in terms of number of votes would be meaningless). The swing just happens to correspond to the difference between the percentage votes. A lead is different as it is definitely referring to the difference between two percentages and you would need to specify a point difference, likewise with an increase or a decrease. A swing, however, implies movement across the arc of a pendulum, so "percentage" is appropriate as it means the percentage of that possible arc across which the pendulum has moved. Using "percentage points swing" is definitely not wrong, but just because the SMH and VEC use those terms does not mean plain "percentage swing" is wrong. Also, Tony seems to be suggesting that we refer to swings as "A 2.0-point swing", which seems even more ambiguous to me as it omits mentions of percentages entirely. --Canley (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm finding quite a lot of correct usage of "percentage point" (or "point") in Australian electoral articles. It's pleasing to see, although needs to be consistent, of course. And in response to Canley's previous entry: "Across the arc of an electoral pendulum I could still say that was a swing of 40%". Yep, and it would be wrong to use "40 points", because the original numbers, rather than percentages or proportions, are being compared. This is where the confusion arises, but it's easy. When talking of a change in percentage, you need to use "percentage point", or plain "point". Most usage in these electoral articles is explicitly in terms of changing percentages. "The swing just happens to correspond to the difference between the percentage votes." Difference or swing or lead or gap, it's the same, because the difference between two percentage values is at issue; if you render that difference in terms of "percentage", readers will not know whether the difference is with respect to the whole 100% (that's usually what is intended) or the first of the two percentage values (that's the default reference, I'm afraid, and not usually intended by writers). "... just because the SMH and VEC use those terms does not mean plain "percentage swing" is wrong". The problem is still there, becuase either value (swing-from or swing-to) is always either mentioned or implied. Tony   (talk)  11:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite simple to say who's "right" and who's "wrong" in the same way that "who's" (and not "whose") should be used earlier in this sentence: in the examples we are dealing with in this section, if you arrive at a number by subtraction, then it is by definition [percentage] points; if it is arrived at by division, then % (percent) ought to be used. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Antony Green has given his two cents on this topic on his election Q&A—his answer: either is correct (which is what I was saying).
 * Should swings be described as percentage or percentage points?


 * Either is correct. The argument comes about because a change in interest rates from 5% to 6% would always be described as a one percentage-point change. So using simlar terminology, if the Labor vote in a seat went from 50% to 53%, this would be a three percentage point swing. However, the number of voters shifting to creating this swing would also correspond to three percent of the electorate as a whole, so to say there has been a three percent swing is also valid because this is the percentage of the electorate to change.

--Canley (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Belinda Neal
Referring back to the issue we discussed here: I now feel completely vindicated. (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinion poll updates
Thanks to Lear's Fool for posting these valuable updates. I'm sorry to be the complainer again, but ... well ... that's what I do. I hope this is taken in a positive frame.
 * 1) In the next update, could you avoid yellow: it's very hard to make out. Orange or brown, in my experience, are much clearer. You also might consider a slightly darker shade of green.
 * 2) The dots could be just a tiny bit bigger.
 * 3) Most importantly, the text in both graphs is unreadable: the titles, the key, and the x- and y-axis legends. All need to be significantly larger, and there seems to be no space problem except for the key-box for the primary-vote graph, which has little extra room to spare in the top-right. I wonder whether it could go middle right when the box is doubled in size so we can read it (although that would be a less tidy location for it).
 * 4) Minor point, MoS encourages sentence case rather than title case for titles. The "L" of "Labor" and the "N" of "Newspoll" would thus become functional for the readers (when it's three times the size and they can decipher the text).
 * 5) You might consider dropping the super-title "Date" for the x-axis, since the months/years along the axes are quite clear enough (or will be when enlarged).
 * 6) For the 2PP graph, would it be possible next time to use Matlab's averaging function to produce, say, a dotted black line through the graph?

In the meantime, I've added lead sentences for each graph. The basic principle, I believe, should be that readers shouldn't have to double-click on a graph (and then click on a further expansion at Commons) to see the basics. Tony  (talk)  08:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Timeshift for correcting my typos in the added text, but I wonder why it had to be accompanied by a sarcastic edit-summary. Tony   (talk)  08:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder why you are asking at all. Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking what? Tony   (talk)  10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (To Tony). Good point on the yellow, I'll fix that in the next 24 hours or so, and I'll also change the sizes of the dots and the sentence case stuff.  The text size might take a little playing around, as will the legend location, but I'll do some testing and try to upload a better solution with the other small fixes.  I did actually mention (in passing) the possibility of a long-term average further up the page, it is not at all difficult to generate one.  A fitted curve is usually better than a moving average for datasets like these, so I'd probably do that.  My concern, however, is that the 2PP graph is already a little crowded, and I still want to add the Galaxy numbers if I can find a source for them, so that would be a fourth dataset.  If we were to then add long-term averages for each of these graphs, we would have eight lines, which is clearly too many.  Another possibility would be to generate one aggregated poll by averaging all the others, but I would be very uncomfortable doing this because of the original research in deciding what weights to give to each.  -- Lear's Fool 13:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I did suggest you create a seperate graph with a single gold line plotting the Reuters poll average which, by combining all available polls, currently has Labor on 53.5% 2PP. Timeshift (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would, but I can't do it without a table of their results, and I can't find that. Also, I just notice I misspelt Nielsen as Nielson, so I'll fix that as well.  -- Lear's Fool 14:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Google "reuters poll trend"... here's an ok link and also explains how they do the average so you could work it out with their method and plot it... but as for a database... hmm... Timeshift (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've googled and been unsuccessful, although that link isn't bad. Even if I had their method for producing it, I can't because I don't have a database or table of the Galaxy results.  -- Lear's Fool 14:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

←The British had a a graph of the running average of four pollsters, I think. Surely it's not OR. Thanks for taking the trouble to do these graphs: it's really useful. Tony  (talk)  15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, I've uploaded a new version of the primary vote graph with a number of changes, and I'm very happy with it. Purge the cache and tell me what you think.  -- Lear's Fool 05:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, they look fantastic. Great job! --Canley (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work, LF. I'd still go for larger text (and the years under each month along the x-axis, thus enabling larger font-size), but these are definite improvements. Tony   (talk)  13:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to make all your lives difficult - it seems Newspoll will no longer be publishing an individual Liberal and National vote. Timeshift (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Winner" of the Great Debate
I'm getting in early here, in what will probably turn out to be a forlorn hope. But I have to ask.

Can we please not report that Julia or Tony is the "winner" of the debate, unless we define what we mean, or anyone means, by that term? The media regularly obsesses about winners of political debates, but they never explain that, beyond whatever the worm does. Does it mean that everyone is now going to vote for the "winner"'s party come election day? Certainly not. Or that enough people will vote that way to give that party victory? Well, maybe, but how can we tell for sure, a month out from the election? I can't imagine what else it might mean. After all, one of the purposes of these debates is to have an opportunity to put your side's case, and to do so as persuasively as possible. If you succeed in persuading enough people to vote for your side, then of course you're a winner, but that can only be judged on election day. Another purpose, I suppose, is to engender community debate about particular issues, and in that sense, there are no winners or losers. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Judgements about the winner of the debate made by reputable political commentators are surely worth mentioning in the article (accompanied by appropriate sources), otherwise readers are left in the dark about the nature of a reasonably noteworthy event in the campaign. I agree that the debate will probably not be influential (short of a massive stuff-up), but it is still noteworthy (or "notable" if you will), and one of the key things to report is surely whether or not there was a winner, and if so, who?  I mean, I agree that we should do a little more than just say who said which politician won.  Perhaps we should also include a few lines on what certain commentators felt were the stronger or weaker points for each candidate.  -- Lear's Fool 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lear's Fool. Although we obviously can't say "Gillard/Abbott was the winner of the debate", we can say "Most commentators judged Gillard/Abbott as the winner" or "Media opinion was divided on the outcome of the debate", or something similar in the lines of "reaction to the debate" rather than a definitive judgement. Frickeg (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we should not say "Most commentators judged..." anything. We will never get agreement on "most". I'm a commentator, and I won't tell you what I think of the result of the debate, mainly because i think it's a gigantic commercial media wank. If we must, we could say that "Fred Nurk declared xxx to be the winner of the debate, so long as Fred is a highly regarded political commentator and the quote is very explicitly sourced. No generalisations please. [I liked the suggestion on ABC Radio this morning that the octopus should be brought over from Germany to eat the worm.] HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, we certainly can get agreement on "most". You know as well as I do that after these kinds of things there often emerges a general consensus among the media. This kind of thing is completely verifiable and is clearly relevant to the debate itself, so there can be no reason not to include it. I think it should be pretty clear that by "commentators" we're referring to published, well-known writers in the media rather than to Wikipedia contributors. Frickeg (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I look forward to seeing the wording and sources used after the debate. I will judge it very carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In a way, the "critical reception" sections on movies and TV shows offer a good guide for us. Frickeg (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am still no closer to understanding what is actually meant when we say X was the winner. What are the criteria for judgment?  Why are they never explicitly stated anywhere?  Can anyone here enlighten me?  Given that X can "win" the debate but still lose the election, or vice-versa, how does it advance the progress of mankind one toenail to know who "won"?  Don't get me wrong: I think it's a good thing we have these debates, and there should be more of them, but surely it's the issues they talk about that's what important.  There should be no more need to talk about a winner than there is when Kerry O'B interviews a pair of opposing pollies on the 7:30 Report.  That is, no need at all.  If the media want to get sidetracked by this absurd "winner" mentality, let them, but let us not get hooked into it.  After all, we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  One of things we do well is define our terms.  It's our lifeblood, really.  Let's stick to that discipline.  If we can usefully define what we mean by the winner of tonight's debate, fine; otherwise we should stay completely away from talking about it.  And, btw, saying something like "the majority of commentators judged X to be the winner" is not anywhere near good enough for a definition.   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

←Here, what the media "say" can be reported; preferably with their reasons. Tony  (talk)  04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with JackofOz. In this case, there has been no consensus at all amongst the media agencies, probably because it was such a bland debate where everybody carefully repeated their talking points with no deviation. This means that the media end up judging it through their own ideological lenses: Seven - Labor, Nine/Sky/Australian - Liberal, Fairfax/ABC - in between. Two of the articles I have read give no actual reason at all for their choice. Orderinchaos 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But the audience gave it to Gillard 67 to 33 Abbott... Timeshift (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual numbers are irrelevant to my issue. Whether every commentator gave it to the same side or whether there was a wide range of different views, is irrelevant to my issue.  What I want to know is, what are those numbers and results measuring?  What was the yardstick?  What does it mean to win such a debate?  Nobody seems to know, yet everyone's happy to talk about who won or lost.  Won or lost what, and how do they know?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me use a MasterChef analogy, as it seems to be topical. Someone goes into a pressure test and comes up with a dish.  They're given scores of 8, 8 and 7 by the judges.  Already we know something about what that means - it's 8 or 7 out of 10, not out of 100 or 1000.  But they're told beforehand that they'll be judged on presentation, taste and level of skill - so, those are the explicit criteria involved.  The judges often say "It comes down to the dish you cooked", which means that other considerations such as age, experience, sex etc are all irrelevant.  Imagine if there were 3 contestants in a particular challenge, and the judges blandly declared that A had won, without stating at any stage what differentiated him/her from B or C.  There would be an uproar.  Allegations of bias and favouritism would be quickly forthcoming.  It would be a scandal.  Yet this is exactly what happens with political debates.  There is never any exposition of what the leaders are being measured on, yet most everyone is happy to declare a winner.  It makes absolutely no sense to me, and never has.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Under the circumstances, I think nothing is served by buying into the "winner/loser" thing. The result was not sufficiently lop-sided. Tony   (talk)  03:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Ironically, the lacklustre and almost scripted nature of the debate itself may be notable for comment. Orderinchaos 03:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I don't think it's up to us to analyse how the audience came to their vote, it just did what it did, just like any vote. It doesn't need a yardstick. Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We needn't say anything about there being a definitive winner, but there can be nothing wrong with giving the above figure, or citing reliable sources on reaction to the debate. We can rail against audiences making judgements as much as we like, but the fact is that it happened, it was reported, and there's no reason not to include it. Frickeg (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Timeshift: The studio audience's response was one thing. The media's obsession for days beforehand about who was going to "win", and for days afterward about who did "win", is quite another thing.  There's no vote involved in that, just an expression of various opinions.  Frickeg: Of course the event happened, and of course we should report it.  I'm arguing that's where it should stop.   There is no universal agreement about who "won", but even if there were, 100 random people would give 100 different reasons why they thought this was the case, and 100 different explanations of what it means to have "won" this debate.  This is very different from 100 people all voting for, say, Labor on 21 August, for 100 different reasons.  They don't have to justify their vote to anyone.  All that's important there is that they voted that way, end of story.  But in the debate scenario, nobody is expected to commit to voting for either of the parties on the basis of how the leaders performed.  As I said above, one side could easily "win" the debate but lose the election, or vice-versa.  Equally, an individual might feel that one side "won" the debate, but still has absolutely no intention of voting for that side.  So, it has nothing to do with voting, either on the night of the debate, or on election day.  But just what it does have to do with has never been explained.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think any should be linked to, but if we must, then just the ABC as our national broadcaster. I've taken a look at some of the News Ltd "election coverage", and there's so many things wrong not to mention the bias... did anyone happen to do the News Ltd political compass? Basically if you weren't a communist they said you were closer to Liberal than Labor. What a pile of... Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newbies
I had to post a word of encouragement at the talk page of a newish user whose head had been bitten off by Timeshift9 for replacing an image at an article related to this one. I thought the edit-summary of Timeshift's revert was a little aggressive, too. The user had just returned after 15 months, and has not edited much since arriving a few years ago. S/he has asked why the image can't be included elsewhere on the page; it's worth considering.

Timeshift removed my polite note about biting off E.3's head from his/her talk page four minutes after I posted it, with an offensive edit-summary ("sometimes i just wish i could block particular people from posting to me...). This aggressive behaviour really needs to stop. It's going to end up as a civility complaint at AN/I before long. The civility code makes it quite clear what should not be said, whether on a talk page or an edit-summary.

I ask all users to welcome others into this topic area. Wikipedia is now short of good editors and can ill afford to turn off entrants. Tony  (talk)  07:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have every right to say "sometimes i just wish i could block particular people from posting to me" and I won't be bowing down to any counselling from you. Timeshift (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not counselling: I'm giving you a warning. Tony   (talk)  08:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And i'm wanting you to leave me alone. Simple request. Timeshift (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony, can we have a discussion about where to include the image? Or should I just WP:Bold and add it somewhere. Thanks E.3 (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the context, Timeshift, you don't have "every right" to say that. You have been uncivil on this page, in your edit-summaries, and to E.3. You have blanked my post on your talk page in which I politely pointed out that you were biting someone. No, you don't have that right. Tony   (talk)  09:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you refuse to leave me alone, from this point on I will no longer be responding to you, ever. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down guys.
 * FWIW I don't see what was so bad about E.3's pic, though the other pic is quite fine too. E.3 - if you can establish its provenance then put it in the body of the article somewhere, I'm sure an extra pic of the KDudd won't kill the article. --Surturz (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a free photo. Please don't give bad advice. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but it was good advice (to check out its provenance). WP's copyright is difficult to get to know; I am sure E.3 will get the hang of it soon enough. If he/she needs assistance, I can point to the bits to read about it. Tony   (talk)  07:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its origin is linked to on the page - the flickr user. It cannot be found anywhere else on the net and the flickr user has licensed it under CC 2.0 I have read the copyright information and I have done all the right things. I think its a good picture, Surturz agrees with me, I dont really understand what Timeshift is getting so worked up about, s/he has acted unreasonably to other editors in relation to this, so I'm putting the picture up. Thankyou E.3 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not only newbies that are getting bitten and Timeshift is not the only biter. Be WP:Bold,  Peter Campbell 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, please don't encourage users to use BOLD to violate image copyright. We weigh up questionable sources. The fact the image is of such poor resolution and the rest of the uploader's gallery has no consistent stream of images that a photographer's account has. Not to mention i'm sure i've seen the image somewhere before. Searching for the image on the internet can only find so far, not to mention images that were previously hosted by various sites including news media that no longer have the image online. We have no reason to believe it belongs to the uploader. As for getting worked up, it's most likely an image copyright violation, it really is as simple as that... Timeshift (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Timeshift is actually right on this one. The lack of metadata and low resolution, as well as imperfections in the PNG original (which uses lossless compression) which suggest it was a still shot taken from a TV program or some other video, convinces me sufficiently that it's probably something they have gotten off a website and thus have no power to release copyright on. It is a good faith mistake by the newbie - our copyright rules are difficult to understand at the best of times, they are a lot more strict than those which might govern a simple website because we don't just host the image but also allow republishing. Orderinchaos 21:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Group Voting Tickets?
At the moment, the lead reads:


 * 'Australia has compulsory voting, and uses full-preference instant-runoff voting in single-member seats for the lower house (the House of Representatives), and single transferable vote, group voting tickets in the proportionally represented upper house (the Senate).'

Since the use of the group voting ticket is optional (but voting isn't), is there a way we can improve this without confusing things? Removing "group voting tickets" will still make it true, but less descriptive, but keeping it is slightly misleading (even if almost everyone votes above the line). But I understand how the Senate is a little difficult to summarise into a sentence. Perhaps "single transferable vote with the option of following a group voting ticket" if it isn't too long? StuartH (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps "group voting ticket" is implicitly optional? I'm honestly not sure. StuartH (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a fundamental or intrinsic part of the electoral system. Whether people cross a single box above the line or every box below the line, they're still allocating their preferences the way they want them.  It's more of a practical facility made available to voters, to shorten their time in the ballot box, that's all.  I'd suggest it be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, not up there in the lede as something super-significant.  -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is actually a pretty fundamental part of the electoral system - one of the two houses of parliament is elected that way, so it's easily important enough for the lead. Although I quite like Stuart's first suggestion of "single transferable vote with the option of following a group voting ticket", it isn't really a single transferable vote at all, since it's electing six senators instead of one. I have a feeling that group voting tickets may be implicitly optional so I'm leaning towards the status quo here. Frickeg (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not pretending to be an expert at all here, but I think it is still a single transferable vote, despite multiple candidates being elected. You still have one vote, it just may get transferred multiple times (if it's considered a surplus vote for an already-elected candidate or if it's a vote for an eliminated candidate). So it meets the definition of single transferable vote, and that's important enough to go in the lead. But is the group voting ticket? It's effectively the same system, just with the convenient option of someone picking your preferences for you. Just a thought... StuartH (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a single transferable vote system before the group voting ticket came into effect in 1984, and it remains a single transferable vote system. That's the essence of the system; the group voting ticket is a convenience, not a different system.  There's a difference between a system and a method.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite right. But I still think that the significance of the group voting ticket method warrants inclusion in the lead if we're talking about voting systems. Frickeg (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A bit of OR coming up... The group voting ticket is a massive advantage to the established parties, because it tends to give them much more control over where their preferences go. I have no idea where to look, but I would like to see some sort of comparison between preference distributions before and after group voting became possible. HiLo48 (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind there was less parties and no tablecloth Senate voting papers back then - even as recently as 1984 many contests in the House were 2-party only, and the Senate race for each state had at most 8 or 9 parties. Orderinchaos 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could have been a double-dissolution?
Is it worth mentioning that Gillard had the option of calling a double-dissolution election, but didn't? (one wonders why she didn't, actually). --Surturz (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not - every prime minister has that option, and if she did, it would be the first one since 1987, so would be unusual rather than expected. Orderinchaos 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Vic proposed redistribution released
Bad timing I know. Looks like Murray (Sharman Stone) will be abolished... Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, what a headache. On the bright side, there'll be information for the 2013 page when this is all over. ;) Burke's back, by the looks of it - we've already had two previous incarnations, so this'll be the first federal electorate to have three separate incarnations. Also, the abolition of Murray makes me happy as it's another geographical name, and seeing federal geographically-named electorates abolished always gives me a warm little glow. Frickeg (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I loathe to link to someone so unprofessional, but here is Antony's view. Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Election statistics
Following the close of the electoral roll, the AEC has released information here on the number of voters enrolled to vote by total, and by age range, per state. Is that information that should be included on this page? Jherschel (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think there's something similar on the 2007 page that could serve as a guide. Frickeg (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of people enrolled is actually being a topic for wider discussion, with apparently a lot of people turning 18 simply not bothering to enrol. This IS an issue worthy of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Orderinchaos 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Polling graphs
Okay, I'm going to update the new Nielsen and Morgan numbers later this afternoon, but I was just wondering what support there would be for me generating another set of graphs that only capture the last few months, given the higher polling frequency during this time. It could be done in the vein of this graph from the UK election this year, and may also include labels showing when major events occured (eg the debate, party launches, monumental stuff-ups etc), although I am aware that we need to be care of suggesting our own conclusions (WP:SYN as Timeshift would say). -- Lear's Fool 04:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point of clogging up the article with another graph... the current graph shows all polling between the 2007 and 2010 elections and can be zoomed up to 2000px. I don't feel there is much value in a seperate table of just the last few months, it doesn't add anything. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than retaining the current one, which is too crowded for words, it would be so much more useful to give readers what they want: the polls during the election period; i.e., remove the current one (or link to it in the "Opinion polling" article). The UK one is excellent. Tony   (talk)  10:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I definately can't agree with that, undoubtedly when readers look at the polls they don't just want to know about the election period, they want to know about throughout the term to a) see when issues affected the polls and b) compare the campaign polling to life-of-the-current-parliament polling. Timeshift (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Timeshift inasmuch as if we are only to have one of each, then the current time range is better than a shorter one. However, I still think it could work with both.  Have a look at 2010 UK election to see how it could be done...  -- Lear's Fool 12:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think it is a waste of space. A second graph, campaign-period only, would not show a thing that the full term graph doesn't. It's easy to see sudden sharp movements. And if people want to look closer they have a choice of up to 2000 pixels. Timeshift (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The overriding problem in the long-term graph is that it's almost impossible to make out the movements during the campaign period—all a big jumble. Fine if this article is about post-modern art, but not here. Readers are interested in the campaign, which, after all, is implicit in the title of the article. The other thing that occurs to me is that there's very little interesting structure once you go back a bit. Tony   (talk)  10:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Graph update required. Neilsen 53-47 to Labor, Gillard approval up, Abbott approval down. Timeshift (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Will be done by tomorrow afternoon. -- Lear's Fool 12:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Polling graphs - should Galaxy and Essential be included?
Seems only logical that if we are going to have a multi-company 2PP graph that we include all five players, not just a random three... Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Essential have been providing weekly data for the last couple of years, but Galaxy is pretty patchy (they seem to only conduct polls around elections). Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have said a number of times that I'd love to add more polls, but I can't find the data. The three there at the moment aren't "randomly chosen", they're the only ones I can find charts of data for.  I've considered e-mailing Galaxy for their results, but they don't have an e-mail address on their website.  Any suggestions as to how to get this data would be appreciated, but, like I say, their absence from the graph is not for a lack of effort on my part.  -- Lear's Fool 12:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard's anti-democratic electoral laws overturned
!!! Where is an appropriate place for this? It is undoubtedly noteworthy. Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TimeShift, with your heading you should work for labor! I think it is pretty important, as the ruling being of 'upheld', this will mean extra votes for Labor and the Green. Here is the ABC's take on the judgement http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/06/2975602.htm?section=justin. Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the High Court upheld GetUp's challenge! And the end result is more Labor/Green votes, but not the means. You should work for the Liberals! Oh wait, that's right, you... i'm stopping right there. :) Timeshift (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You make me laugh, you truly think I work for the Libs - LOL - what a hoot! But seriously, it is a great ruling, how silly was it that you could not enroll to vote after the issuing of the writs.CanberraBulldog (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet when one reads comments sections of News Ltd articles on this issue, you see the Lib fanbois somehow justifying the previous law, as though people who didn't sign up by the new deadline were somehow not worthy of a vote... disgraceful. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK kiddies. Behave. Yes, it's definitely noteworthy, and something should be added to the article. But I suggest we leave the term anti-democratic out of the title. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. I was not for a moment suggesting we let POV in to the article. Talk pages are another matter. Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The law wouldn't have been a problem if not for the fact we don't have fixed terms. So the PM gets to decide when they'll go to the polls and everyone in that position (people who have moved house, have returned to the country after a period working overseas, etc) that doesn't jump snap start and drop everything is left off the roll. Whereas with fixed terms one can have a timetable for these things and it's then up to the AEC to properly advertise it months in advance. Orderinchaos 02:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should probably have its own article, like other High Court cases/decisions: Rowe v Electoral Commissioner? The reasons for the decision have not been published yet, but I'll start the article when they are. --Canley (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, the line in Key Dates about 'Close of rolls' should have a note refering to the case of Rowe and Thompson v Electoral Commissioner - refer |The Australian and the |High Court interim statement. Jherschel (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Campaign "launch"es
Labor's finally having its campaign "launch" on Monday 16 August. Is it just me, or is it completely ridiculous to give a speech 5 days before an election, 30 days into a 35-day official campaign, and call it a "launch"? What are they launching at this late juncture? Even the Libs "launch" was way too late to be called that. These really stretch the meaning of the language, and insult people's intelligence into the bargain. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The term has lost all meaning. I think the best we can do for both parties (all parties?) is write statements like "In what it described as its campaign launch, party x announced..." No heading. No emphasis. Just another day on the campaign trail. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am led to believe that one of the reasons for the 'launches' of both parties campaigns is that the payment/expenses for their traveling staff can be picked up by the public purse up until the party officially 'launches' their campaign. After that, the party needs to pay for everything themselves from donations and what they have left over in their own kitty, but that is just what I can find from others. Will try and find a source to this 124.171.9.81 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Found a source... Annabelle Crabb from the ABC "Convention between the big parties and the Department of Finance dictates that travel allowance for politicians and their staff - transport expenses, accommodation, and so on" 124.171.9.81 (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work. Well, it makes sense that there would be some rule like this; but it needs to be reviewed because of the so-obvious way it can be manipulated.  What next - a campaign "launch" on the Thursday night before the election?  Just to save some money?  There comes a point when the taxpayers left with the bill start to wake up and question this dubious practice.  I'm now seeing print journos refer to these late "launches" in quotes, as I have done and will continue to do.  End of mini-rant.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Betting odds
Is this and/or this a good addition to the page? Betting odds have historically shown to be an excellent predictor of election outcomes. Labor's odds continue to shorten. I also notice the rather short odds on Family First winning a seat... Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'd want to see some reliable sources talking about them first: have any respectable commentators been referencing betting odds? -- Lear's Fool 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course election odds are talked about in WP:RS. Here's one article, see also here and here and here. Not to mention this. . Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a great idea!CanberraBulldog (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Policies
Do you think this page/Wikipedia's role would be enhanced with links to pages that documents developments and responses to the various policies being proposed and defended in this election? Leighblackall (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's anagram time
Combining Gillard (ladies first) and Abbott in various ways, we get:


 * Dirtbag Ballot between the Ratbag Lib Dolt and the Tall Rabbit God.

Sorry, I'm in a frivolous mood. Delete if you feel so inclined. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do like Dirtbag Ballot... spooky :) Timeshift (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll of 28,000 voters - is it worthy of seperate inclusion?
22,000 voters in 54 marginal seats and 6,000 in safe seats, massive. For Labor, NSW: Lindsay, Bennelong, Macarthur and Robertson lost, retain Eden-Monaro and Dobell, win Paterson and Cowper. QLD: Brisbane, Bonner, Petrie, Leichhardt, Forde, Dawson, Flynn and Dickson lost. VIC: Corangamite lost, McEwen, La Trobe and Dunkley won. SA: Boothby won. WA: Hasluck and Swan lost. Total: 79 Labor, 68 coalition, 3 independent. Labor marginals 2PP 49.2%, national 2PP 51.6%.

"'The super-sample poll published by Fairfax, covering 22,000 voters in 54 seats (about 400 each), turns out to have been conducted not by Nielsen, but an outfit called JWS Research whose automated phone polling on the weekend were widely noted at the time. The Sydney Morning Herald sells its managing director John Scales as “a renowned pollster” who was director of Morgan from 1992 to 1995, and research director at Crosby Textor (Liberal Party strategy firm) from 2002 until earlier this year.'"

Comments appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, sure, but we'll know for sure what happened in four days, is it going to have much value after the election? -- Lear's Fool 07:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As much as the other polls are. Except this one has polled 28,000 people. It just makes sense that if we're going to add all the polling companies, that even though this isn't regular, it is of 28,000, which must therefore make it quite a candidate for inclusion. Perhaps it would be better suited on the opinion poll sub-page of this article? Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, certainly. Still, maybe a sentence or two in the polling section of this page?  Is it the largest poll of it's kind in Australia?  If so, I think that could warrant a mention.  -- Lear's Fool 07:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Sydney Morning Herald says so. -- Lear's Fool 07:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And as I mentioned during a later edit in the original post, the managing director of the polling company used to be the research director for Croxby Textor (Liberal Party strategists) from 2002 to this year. I'm not suggesting the poll is biased, but to predict a Labor win a few days out from an election, breaking down the seats, from a poll of 22,000 (and the first political poll in Australia to do robocall polling), I believe demonstrates that there is no agenda being pushed by the company. Timeshift (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's notable in three ways. Firstly we have "the biggest and most comprehensive of its kind". That sounds significant. Secondly, "Using automated phone calls..." That sounds new and exciting, but is it reliable? And thirdly, it predicts a (clearish) Labor win. I'd like to see more about the automated phone calls thing. How did that work? Has it been written up in any more detail anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * HiLo, check out the link I provided in my original post. William Bowe talks of a study on robocalls having no effect on outcomes. Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My curiosity is partly professional. As an old IT nerd, I once worked in the world of computerised interactive telephone systems. An ongoing topic of debate was about how differently people responded once they realised they were communicating with a computer, rather than a human. It's an interesting area. (To me anyway.) I think it will be a while before we really know. (Although some might say we'll know by Saturday night.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only difference in my mind would be the fact that robocalls cannot push/convince people to lean one way or the other. Though I wonder if someone chooses undecided, whether it would go to another question about who they would lean to. This might have an effect if one side for some reason would have a higher rate of hangups for people that would end up voting for that particular party. But on the other hand, even trained pollsters must sometimes undoubtedly enter in to bias they didn't realise nor mean to do. But at least a robocall ensures a consistent approach compared to pollsters (personality, tone of voice, bias, etc). It is somewhat interesting. Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And just to explain it rather simply, this poll gave a 51.6% 2PP to the ALP. Most polls are around 52% ALP 2PP. But if some seats are swinging up to 10%, basic maths says there has to be an opposite swing somewhere else. This poll completely fits with what we're observing. Timeshift (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OOH! Now we have a seat-by-seat breakdown!!! See here. I can't believe they're giving Labor 57% in McEwen and Dunkley, and 54% in Cowper and Boothby! Bring on Saturday! Timeshift (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Better Pictures for the Party Leaders
The Pictures for the Party Leaders are pretty bad(Julia's head/face is larger than Abbot's that seems a little biased and appears to be shown clearer and in more detail - which indicates bias). Can we get better ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.187.118 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).


 * If you can find a better free image (not one that simply has a copyright but gives people permission of fair-use which is not allowed for living people on wikipedia), then be our guest. Timeshift (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements
Just throwing this out there, all the newspapers in their endorsments of the major parties refer to both 'Labor' and 'The Coalition' rater than Liberal. Would it be much trouble to create a party colour (The same colour as the LNP, as it is undoutably a merged Coalition) to show both the Liberal and National Parties in there endorsed position as they are clearly endorsing the 'The Coalition'. Романов (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Frickeg (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper endorsements are wrong. According to yesterday's Australian, the SMH didn't endorse anyone, and the Sunday Herald Sun endorsed Labor, there may be more errors too, those are the only ones I can recall. 131.236.167.107 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A narrow plurality...
...is very obscure. I don't want a revert war, but really, it's rubbish. How about spelling out the meaning in other words? HiLo48 (talk)

Relative majority. See Plurality (voting). It's not clear the ALP has "won" since it looks like it will be a hung parliament meaning who forms government depends on who the Independent and Green MPs support. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, stop your vandalism, you already started the revert war. About that word you don´t know about, as explained above and it is linked in the article. This all showcases Wikipedia failures. --Thomaskh (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You're the guy who called my post vandalism, then accepted my advice from that very post. Strange. Just leave the abuse for somewhere else please. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not accept your "advice" because it wasn´t me who added the links. haha That´s just laughable. --Thomaskh (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, plurality is a North American polisci term. British/Australian English uses "relative majority". In any case, saying "she won" was very premature. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

...Especially since she lost. She's received fewer seats than Abbot, and considering what she did to Rudd, she's got NO credebility in negotiations.Ericl (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Who won the 2PP? Labor :) A minority of Australians voted for the coalition :) Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Warren Truss was the leader and he attacked me personally last night," Mr Katter said. "And (Nationals Senate Leader) Barnaby Joyce in a similar piece of incredible unfortunateness." - bahahahaha! Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You're all being very childish, kiddies. And now getting way off topic. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service
Any chance we can ease up on the competition to be first to post the speculative news? Why the rush? HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speculative news like saying Gillard "won"? :) Dramedy Tonight (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don´t add a new section for that same topic. No we will not because that "speculative news " as ^^^you^^^called it were confirmed with  links from the aussie news media. --Thomaskh (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's still speculative, another thing Wikipedia should not include, Why the rush?? HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, be the first to know.....^^--Thomaskh (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Crook/Western Australia Nationals in totals
Is anybody able to fathom whether or not the WA Nationals should or shouldn't be included in Coalition totals? Most of the national results are including them automatically without comment but some of the specific stories are stating that Crook will sit with the Nationals but not with the Coalition. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not. My understanding is that the WA Nationals are not a part of the Coalition, and that Crook intends to sit on the crossbench, although I'm sure that one of the WA Wikipedians will be better placed to answer that (paging Orderinchaos... paging Orderinchaos...).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Source on that, incidentally. Amusing that the Oz seems to have mixed up Wilson Tuckey and Joe Hockey! Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Crook is a definate seperate. He will be sitting on the crossbenches and will not be part of the coalition. :) Timeshift (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Which makes for six crossbenchers and even a block of three independents couldn't swing things alone.
 * Ironically if the federal Nationals had adopted the WA position then there would be an obvious government available on these numbers. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Satisfaction of leaders??
Why are there polls of the satisfaction of the individual party leaders on this page but no clear polling of the satisfaction of the parties other than that graph. Also, the polls of the satisfaction of the leaders is set out very strangely. Why is the dissatisfaction only shown for the liberal party - i know you can figure out the satisfaction by subtracting it from 100, but why not show the satisfaction of the liberal leaders rather than showing the dissatisfaction? And then what are these random last two columns on the right that just say "satisfied" "dissatisfied" without showing who it is referring to.. perhaps I'm an idiot and missing something here but this part of the table is hard for me to understand, and i'm not generally an idiot, so i suggest that it is changed, and i also suggest that it shows the satisfaction rather than dissatisfaction for liberal leaders. Javsav (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Effect on internet censorship?
Was Internet censorship in Australia a significant issue in this election, and will the loss interfere with plans for a China-style censorship of Net traffic? Wnt (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk pages are intended to discuss changes to the article, and are not forums for general discussion about the topic. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the impact of major issues on an election is fully appropriate for an article. To be clear, I'm not asking for a show of personal opinions - rather, if there are sources that discuss the impact of this and other issues on the election and vice versa, their information should be added here. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the coalition only criticised Labor's implementation, rather than the ideological theory behind it, i'd say it barely ranks at all. Except maybe that some Labor votes will divert via the Greens first. Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Labor colours
This page is using both Template:Australian Labor Party/meta/color and Template:Australian politics/party colours/Labor but the shades of red are different. Can someone skilled with colour templates either get the two onto the same colour or ensure the article only uses one of these? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. We should in general aim for using the latter one though; the former was for when we didn't have templates of our own. Frickeg (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How much commentary?
How much should we talk about the potential leanings of independents? Apart from the two Greens/ex-Greens, there's three independents, all former Nationals who hated the party and left. Now we're getting indications that Katter has been insulted by them, and we're hearing about how they are really wanting the NBN. Should commentary on these issues be added? Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say an absolute minimum. There'll be enough uncertainty in how they'll go; we needn't add to it with speculation. Frickeg (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) How any of them may or may not lean when considering which major party to support is a matter of opinion at this stage. Let's wait till the actual negotiations start, and report what actually transpires.  Also, getting into this now is liable to lead to all sorts of biases (some deliberate, some unconscious) and a pseudo prosecution of the case for or against particular parties, which we can very well do without.  So, no. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspoll win again :)
Ta da! Timeshift (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dumb luck (helped by a large sample size, of course). The 2PP (to date) was within the margin of error of all the main polls. Newspoll just happened to be closest. There's a table of the final polls at Pollytics here - all have margins of error of about 2-3% Newspoll was alone in detecting the big swing in Queensland though. Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Senate Results (by state)
Overall Change

Party, 	          	    New,     Total

Liberal/National Party, 	   18, 	    34

Australian Labor Party, 	   15, 	    31

Australian Greens, 	            6,  	    9

Others ,           	            1,  	    2

VIC

Candidate, Party

1 	Kim John CARR, 	          Australian Labor Party

2 	Michael RONALDSON, 	  Liberal Party

3 	Richard DI NATALE, 	  Australian Greens

4 	Stephen Michael CONROY, Australian Labor Party

5 	Bridget McKENZIE, 	  The Nationals

6 	John MADIGAN, 	          DLP - Democratic Labor Party

NSW

Candidate, Party

1 	Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS, 	    Liberal Party

2 	John FAULKNER, 	                    Australian Labor Party

3 	William HEFFERNAN, 	            Liberal Party

4 	Matthew THISTLETHWAITE, Australian Labor Party

5 	Fiona NASH, 	                    The Nationals

6 	Lee RHIANNON, 	                    Australian Greens

QLD

Candidate, Party

1 	George Henry BRANDIS, 	Liberal National

2 	Joe LUDWIG,	       Australian Labor Party

3 	Barnaby JOYCE, 	       Liberal National

4 	Jan McLUCAS,	       Australian Labor Party

5 	Larissa WATERS,	       Australian Greens

6 	Brett MASON, 	       Liberal National

WA

Candidate, Party

1 	Mathias CORMANN, 	Liberal Party

2 	Chris EVANS, 	       Australian Labor Party

3 	Chris BACK, 	       Liberal Party

4 	Glenn STERLE, 	       Australian Labor Party

5 	Judith ADAMS, 	       Liberal Party

6 	Rachel SIEWERT, 	Australian Greens

SA

Candidate, Party

1 	Alex GALLACHER, Australian Labor Party

2 	Mary Jo FISHER, Liberal Party

3 	Anne McEWEN, 	Australian Labor Party

4 	Sean EDWARDS, 	Liberal Party

5 	Penny WRIGHT, 	Australian Greens

6 	David FAWCETT, 	Liberal Party

TAS

Candidate, Party

1 	Helen POLLEY, 	        Australian Labor Party

2 	Eric ABETZ, 	        Liberal Party

3 	Christine MILNE, 	 Australian Greens

4 	Anne URQUHART, 	        Australian Labor Party

5 	Stephen Shane PARRY, 	 Liberal Party

6 	Lisa SINGH, 	        Australian Labor Party

NT

Candidate, Party

1 	Nigel SCULLION, Country Liberal Party

2 	Trish CROSSIN, 	Australian Labor Party

ACT

Candidate, Party

1 	Kate Alexandra LUNDY, 	Australian Labor Party

2 	Gary HUMPHRIES, Liberal Party

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/senate-results.htm

note: I also live in Australia (although it doesn't really matter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloryify (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gloryify (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (DOH!, forgot to sign my name the first time)


 * From what I understand, that DLP seat could just as easily go to Fielding, or (less likely) the ALP or Liberals. Depends how the postals and BTL votes fall.  So I wouldn't treat it as confirmed just yet.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC).

hung
Can someone please explain "hung parliament"? Unless it's an exact tie, then how is there not a majority party? 75.221.177.161 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your question seems to assume that every member of parliament is from one of "the two sides", Labor or the Coalition. In fact, it seems likely that there will be three Independents and a Green, as well as the members from the two major groups. So it's quite possible for neither of the major groups to have a majority. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe four independents (Denison). Also the WA Nationals member has said he'll sit on the crossbench too (not that there's much doubt as to who he'd support). Frickeg (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hung parliament is worth reading. But basically, it happens when no party or group gains an absolute majority.  In this case, that would be 150/2 = 75 + 1 = 76 seats.  That's the magic number.  Anything short of that, and you've got a hung parliament.   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of seat movements table
Can this table be numbered so that the number of moving seats does not have to be counted manually? Tabletop (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This won't be necessary once the final results are up; the number of changing seats will be in that table. Frickeg (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Election map?
Does anyone know where to obtain an election map of Australian constituencies (preferably svg)? I could not find one the website of the Australian Electoral Commission. --Furfur (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.248.187 (talk)
 * If you want to use it in Wikipedia, I believe User:Barrylb has been producing vector maps of electoral divisions from government GIS data. The images are freely-licensed but the underlying data is copyright Commonwealth of Australia. You can download the GIS data yourself from the Australian Electoral Commission here, or if you just want a reference map there is a PDF map. I'm not sure, but I believe Adam Carr also freely licenses his bitmap electoral maps as we've used them in the past, but I could be wrong.--Canley (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Canley, thank you very much for your answer. The pdf map is quite exactly the kind of map I was looking for. I will have a look whether I am able to create an svg map from it. Thank you also for the link to Adam Carr. Greetings --89.247.248.187 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lowest since WWII
We are told in the article, presumably quite accurately, that "After counting on election night, the Labor Party had received a primary vote of 38.6%. If reflected in the final results, it would be the lowest for a governing party since World War II."

The Coalition primary vote was 34.1%. How does that look historically for an opposition? HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 34.1%? No, you're forgetting the LNP. The Coalition primary vote at the moment is at 43.46% (Libs 30.27%, LNP 8.99%, Nats 3.87%, CLP 0.33%). Frickeg (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quite a silly and moot point really. I wouldn't vote Liberal in a fit, and I voted Green. I support a continued Labor government which I get to indicate through my preferencing. Labor has won the national 2PP vote. So exactly how does a low primary vote have any bearing on governing legitimacy? It's funny how for the first time since federation it's clearly Labor that's getting a clear majority of preferences, and now they kick up a fuss... directed at nobody in particular. Timeshift (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've actually gone ahead and removed it like the rest of the News Ltd sensationalist wording in there. The results table is there, readers can make their own conclusions. Timeshift (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it appears to be trivial, but if I wasn't forced to, I wouldn't allocate preferences. Who my first preference goes to is very important to me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ... see Langer vote for the exceptions about allocating preferences.--86.179.192.79 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was first past the post i'd vote Labor. But with the option, I vote Green 1. Timeshift (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Coalition"
How should we list them in the results? Unfortunately the tories had to throw the Liberal National Party in to the coalition pie, to add to the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia, the Country Liberal Party, not to mention the Liberal/National group voting ticket and the seperate National WA/SA tickets in the Senate. Originally I combined them all as "The Coalition", but it's too slangy. I thought Lib/Nat/LNP/CLP Coalition is more proper, but Pomahob disagrees. I don't think it's an option to seperate them all out. How should it be labelled? Maybe just Liberal/National Coalition which covers every branch's name in some form...? Timeshift (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Separate them for sure. We've always separated the Libs and the Nats previously. If they want a four-part Coalition, they'll have to take the consequences. The two-party-preferred vote will, of course, show "Coalition" or possibly "Liberal/National Coalition" (since the other one is essentially "Liberal/National/Liberal National/Country Liberal", which is just too cumbersome). The AEC is listing them separately too. Frickeg (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's silly. Newspoll combined their polls recently due to the LNP and so should we. We cannot measure primary vote swings if we seperate it out. In the current way, we see the coalition primary went +1.5, Labor almost -5, Greens +3.5. To divvy up the coalition primary is a recipe for disaster. Timeshift (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see your point, but I still think they need to be separated in some way. Could there be a Coalition subtotal somewhere? In any case, swings are going to be tough anyway. If we count them as one, what about Riverina and Richmond (or, for that matter, O'Connor)? It's an awkward situation all round. As an aside, how tragic that the main reason I opposed the LNP merger was because I knew it would make it difficult for us on Wikipedia! Frickeg (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear hear, it is such a cumbersome inconvenience! The unweildy four-party beast known as The Coalition should just get it over with and become the LNP already! :) Timeshift (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that's such an unwieldy name, and it takes up an annoying amount of room on the tables. "Conservative" would do just fine! Frickeg (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or regressives, or reactionaries :) Timeshift (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary results - Confusing!
Preliminary results

Lower house

'In a total of 150 seats, 76 seats form a majority government. Results are progressively updated using the official Australian Electoral Commission statistics. The following seat numbers are confirmed seats from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:[6][7]'

This above section is very confusing and changing all the time. It states that the table is confirmed by the ABC website, so I update, according to the ABC and the referenced ABC link, then I am told that it should be from the AEC, which one is it???? It is very confusing to have links and reference from ABC and AEC, should we just not use the official AEC and wait for FINAL results to have this table - it's kinda like putting the cart before the horse, is it not?CanberraBulldog (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Read below. It's in plain english. I really can't see what your issue is. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

When updating figures...
... I ask that people stick to the process that has always been used. The AEC is used for the votes, while the ABC is used for the seats. Obviously, the AEC should be used for votes as they are the ones who conducted the vote and are in the process of counting and updating the vote. The ABC is and has been used because they tend to spend more time actually crunching the numbers. The percentages are taken from the linked AEC ref in the article, the seats are taken from the win column (confirmed by ABC standards), not the predicted column, taken from the ABC ref in the article. An extra part has been added to the table for seats 'in doubt'. And each bit of this has been spelt out above the results tables in the article! There is nothing at all biased or unfair about this process, and it's the way it's always been. So please stick to this process, and if there is an issue i'm sure it can be sorted out by WP:CONSENSUS, but until then, please, let's keep some logic to this. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the AEC seems to be choosing to call all seats with a margin of over 50.50%, which seems rather courageous, but anyway. From what I can tell the two seats listed as "doubtful" are Hasluck and Batman (for which the two-party-preferred count hasn't started for some reason). So it's probably much safer to go off the ABC for seats at least. Frickeg (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is why ABC "won" seats are used, because they dont take risks. Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it strange to use a News source for seats and the Official AEC just for votes, but if that's the way it is then that sounds good. Thanks for explaining it so well and explaining the logic.CanberraBulldog (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why strange? If it proves to be more of a reliable source (and both are WP:RS), and it's the way we've always done it, indeed. It's common sense. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for results
Are the results in the article based on official AEC results or ABC results? Or is it AEC results on the votes and other stats but ABC's call on the seats only? The introductory paragraph above the table does not make this entirely clear. It would seem unhelpful to rely on two sources, as different editors are changing the results based on conflicting sources. Can we decide on one source and stick to it — or at least make it abundantly clear what the source is for each type of data and only update the table according to the appropriate source? —sroc (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I added my comment before I saw Timeshift9's. —sroc (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just addressed your concerns. As for votes from AEC and seats from ABC, that's always been the norm. Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying this, Timeshift9. I have made some further wording revisions as an attempt at putting the clarity beyond doubt, but please amend if needed. —sroc (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fixed "merely" bit, all good. Timeshift (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ABC is now saying 4 'others' I assume that means 4 independents - should we update the table or just leave it as is? whoops, it just now changed ALP to 71 - wow the table sure does change! CanberraBulldog (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)?

Lower house
With a total of 150 seats in the House of Representatives, 76 seats are needed to form a majority government.

Vote counts shown below are progressively updated using the official Australian Electoral Commission statistics. The seat numbers are figures calculated by the Australian Electoral Commission as having been decided.

Results released on the night of the election indicated that a hung parliament was likely, with independents and the Greens holding the balance of power. Both Labor and the Coalition appeared to have fallen short of the 76 seats required for majority government. Accordingly, either side requires the support of crossbenchers to govern. On the crossbench, the Greens won a seat at a general election for the first time with Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne, with all three incumbent independents successfully re-elected, Bob Katter, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott. and Andrew Wilkie as additional new independent. In addition, Tony Crook, the member elected as a Western Australian National for the district of O'Connor is not a part of the coalition.

All three old independents were formerly members of the National Party, the minor party of the Coalition; however, they have not yet indicated their support for either party. Wilkie had been a previous member of The Greens. Bandt, The Greens, had previously announced he would align with Labor in the event of a hung parliament. Both major party leaders are seeking to form a minority government.

Seat movements

 * Final results are not available yet and the margins will be added only after counting has finished.

84.46.46.34 (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ Best to get agreement here on any change to the method/source of presenting results, there are plenty of editors watching, no need for Edit request template which will bring in uninvolved editor. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As explained above (see ) and on your talk page, current consensus is to rely on the ABC's analysis as the most reliable indicator for calling seats. In particular, whereas the AEC appears to have an arbitrary margin beyond which they call a seat as "won", the ABC waits for a clearer margin before calling it which seems more reliable.  If you have reason to dispute this, please state your reasons in an attempt to reach a new consensus. —sroc (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant 84.46.51.70's talk page — you look so alike! —sroc (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)