Talk:2010 South Australian state election/Archive 1

Workcover
Is it worth mentioning this as it would appear to be the biggest issue (albeit at less than two years) moving toward the election? Timeshift (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably original research to start developing issues sections until the parties themselves actually start running with specific issues. The ACT election is this October, and I can pretty much tell what the major issues are likely to be, but since neither party has actually started campaigning in earnest, any section would be more the work of my informed opinion than a real coverage of actual election issues. Rebecca (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely though there must be something to indicate why Labor has dropped from 61 percent to 53 percent on 2PP, yet the preferred premier rating from july 2007 onward when 2pp really took a dive, remained pretty much the same. The polling is not moving on preferred premier because the opposition supports the government's WorkCover changes, so it isn't a vote changer - the decreased 2PP would therefore simply be a protest at the changes. I do think that in some way WorkCover should be noted, whilst I agree with you on OR, how else can the polling be explained? Timeshift (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it might be possible to do that without it becoming OR if you can cite political commentators/academics arguing that that was the case. Otherwise, I'm afraid it'd be stretching into OR.


 * More broadly, though - even in terms of explaining polling - I think it's too early to be talking about an election campaign so far out. There's no guarantee that the polling will be the same when the election rolls around, and there's no guarantee that the issues being talked about now will have much relevance at all in two years time. In the ACT, which I've been working on - and where we are in an election year - the issues are quite different from those of two years ago (and there were some pretty big ones then).


 * I think there isn't much that can really be said (beyond preselections) up until a few months before the election, at least until the parties go into campaign mode - otherwise it really is OR, as anyone would be kind of picking out the issues based on their own opinion, which may or may not be borne out. I'm still not comfortable doing that with the ACT - while some of the issues are fairly clear (especially what the minor parties are running on, because they're noisy and make the news), it really isn't clear what sort of issues the Labor-Liberal battle will come down to in October.


 * Two things you could definitely do, though: I know the Liberals have completed their preselections, so those details could go in the article. It might also be worth getting a list of retiring MPs going (since there are some who've already made their intentions clear - Gunn comes to mind). Rebecca (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Polling
I'm not so sure if (at this stage at least) it's worth the space. Roy Morgan has been proven time and time again to be super unreliable, and we already have the latest newspoll with a link to all previous historical newspolls as the reference. Timeshift (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm removing Roy Morgan. Timeshift (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR or not?
I was going to add:


 * The two party preferred swing of 12.1 percent required by the Liberals is the mathematical uniform swing required to gain 9 Labor seats to form a majority government. Swings are seldom uniform, although differences between varying swings tend to cancel each other out.

Is there any WP:OR in that, but furthermore should any of the non-alp/lpa members get a mention. The SEO final redistribution report in 2007 states 'Given that the evidence before the Commission suggested that those four members generally vote with the government, this means that in practical 14 terms, Labor governs with 32 seats, a majority of 17 on the floor of the House.' (, page 13). I was of the understanding Maywald would side with Liberal over Labor if the seats fell in such a way, however there's many things in there to indicate otherwise.

And should Mt Gambier be mentioned, because assuming the Liberals pick up Mt Gambier (Perryman controversially beat Gandolfi for preselection so who knows) that pegs 9 back to 8, and a uniform swing of 10.2 rather than 12.1 Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to do much without straying into WP:OR isn't it? I think it's now safe to say that the Libs can expect to win Mount Gambier even with a 0% swing, and so they can get the 9 seats they need with a 10.2% (assuming we're not double counting Mt. Gambier). We should also mention that if the Liberals win 6 to 8 seats, balance of power would be held by indepedents Karlene Maywald, Bob Such and Kris Hanna. Hanna would almost certainly support the ALP, while Such and Maywald are harder to predict, but I don't think we should say that without a cite. (Maybe Hanna has publicly stated he would back Labor?). Peter Ballard (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything like "tend to" or "is likely to" is pretty much WP:OR. Keep in mind for example the 1987 federal as a counterpoint where the Labor party decreased in 2PP but gained several (4 I think?) seats from the Coalition. Orderinchaos 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Upper House referendum
Is the proposed referendum to abolish the upper house being conducted at the same time as this? Worth a mention here? Any polling done on that? JRG (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I haven't heard a peep on this since the last election. I'm not sure Rann would still want to go through with it now. Regardless, it's worthy to add, so i've copied the info from SA Leg Cncl. Timeshift (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Added an update. Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

===regarding comments on my edits- hasn't Rann said MP numbers reduced from 22 to 12(not halved), not 22 to 11? In the case of 22 to 12, quotas could actually increase. But I've read recently in the Independent Weekly that Rann's currently proposed changes would increase quotas required, making it harder for minor parties and independents to gain representation- so unless the Independent Weekly has got it wrong?. In any case it's only about a year to go until the election, and it should concern people that such an important issue as the reform of the Legislative Council has yet to be discussed properly in parliament or the (mainstream) media in SA.
 * If the numbers reduced from 22 to 12, the quotas would actually decrease from 1/12 (8.3%) to 1/13 (7.7%), assuming the combined reform of 4 year terms was instituted. Having the LC retire with the HoA would bring SA's constitution into line with WA and Victoria, although both have gotten around the issue with quotas which are too low by having regions in their upper houses. Orderinchaos 06:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

==Who knows what will happen?


 * Two points. The proposal is to lower the numbers from 22 to 16. And, as suggested above, the Independent Weekly article is indeed wrong. As OIC says, quotas will actually decrease if they move to 4 year terms with 16 members. (Because they would elect 16 at a time instead of 11 at a time, so a quota is 1/17 of the vote instead of 1/12).

Peter Ballard (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC


 * But you would still think it would be better for minor parties, to have an Upper House with 22 rather than 12 members. I think that is the main point of the Independent Weekly article, that it might soon be much harder for the minor parties/independents to maintain representation in the Legislative Council.219.90.187.133 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But the quota required to be elected will not increase. Thus as a proportion of members, minor parties will still achieve the same level of representation. In a house of 20, if 2 are minors, or in a house of 10, if one is a minor, that is still the same level of minor parties as a percentage of seats. And anyway, this is not the place to discuss this sort of anything, article talk pages are meant for article discussion, not subject discussion. Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused now. Rann says "In 2010, at the time of the state election, there'll be a referendum and people can either vote to keep the Upper House as it is, vote for reform to reduce the number of MPs and give them four year-terms rather than eight-year terms. Or finally abolish the Upper House." but the ABC says "He wants to offer voters three choices - whether the Upper House should be abolished; whether the number of its MPs should be reduced to 16; or whether the term should be reduced to four years." - which is it? Timeshift (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the ABC ref (this one of 28/5/2007) is confused. It makes no sense to go to 4-year terms without reducing the number of MLCs, or vice versa. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to the article. I find it fascinating that the article clearing up the state of events came 12 days after I added the contradiction to this article, without a word from Rann about it since announcing it after the 2006 election. Interesting. *takes tinfoil hat off* Timeshift (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting it was in response to this Wikipedia article? It'd be nice to think that the powers that be read (rather than edit!) Wikipedia, but far more likely that Rann's latest comments are in response to the Independent Weekly article of 19/12/2008 which pointed out that it was a "logistical impossibility". (Even though the ABC pointed this out 18 months earlier). Peter Ballard (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the tinfoil hat, tongue in cheek :P But yes, they do actually read wikipedia, or should I say, their drones do. Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Despite this, the government plans to proceed as planned pending a report from the Attorney-General." You would have thought that there is no room to move.. the Constitution would be quite clear that only two choices are allowed. What would happen if it were disallowed? Would the SA Supreme Court or the High Court need to enforce the Constitution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.162.173 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Redistribution analysis
Does anyone know of any published analysis, Poll Bludger/Antony Green/Mackerras etc? Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Electoral Boundaries Commission calculates margins when it publishes redistributions. See Appendix 11 of this document: http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/apps/uploadedFiles/news/417/Final_report_-_2_Appendix_Section.pdf --William Bowe (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks William... I did find that PDF later on and used it to create the new pendulum that appears on this page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Seats needed"
The "seats needed" for Labor says 0. This should be "additional seats needed". Otherwise, "seats needed" should be -4. Quark1005 (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The "swing needed" (=0) should also be changed. Quark1005 (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It can't be renamed for just one and not the other. Also, -4 seats aren't needed to win/retain government. 0 has been the standard used on all 'next' election pages including the federal election. Timeshift (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Labor does not need a swing to enter government, as it is already in government. Orderinchaos 22:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

New Liberal Leader
SA Liberal have elected a new leader;  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.16.112 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes yes i'm getting there, there's been quite a few pages to edit. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lawson - retiring?
Robert Lawson - this article says that all non-retiring Liberal MPs have been promoted to shadow cabinet. When this page, and the ref, are added together, the only name not in either list is Lawson. Is he retiring? I can't find a cite... Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is retiring, but I can't find an online cite either. You can take my word for it that it's referred to in the following: Lauren Novak, "Farmer who reaped a record", The Advertiser, 5/12/2009, p. 1; Greg Kelton, "The Liberal leadership: Any further challenge and vanquished will then vanish", The Advertiser, 9/7/2009, p. 12. --William Bowe (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo needed
This article needs a photo of Isobel Redmond (her bio article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Redmond also needs one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.111.242 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why there's a placeholder there asking people if anyone can get a public domain photo of her. Images found on the net generally do not qualify. Timeshift (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it worth somebody contacting her office and asking if she can release one on a CC licence? I did that for Colin Barnett a while back - feel free to use that example if contacting her. Orderinchaos 06:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of date
The results are massively out of date. http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/election2010/ I would fix it, but I'm too tired. --121.45.133.65 (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tammy Jennings
Hi has Tammy Jennings been elected? Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the results section of this article. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No way to tell for sure as yet as the counting is incomplete (about 20% of people vote by postal, and only when all the votes are in do they know what quota to apply to the votes, distribute the preferences and thereby figure out a winner). However, given the Greens polled relatively well (6% or so), it appears likely Tammy Jennings will get a seat. We'll know better by next Monday I'd say. Orderinchaos 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for explaining that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)