Talk:2012 South Brisbane state by-election

Polling date?
has a date for the bi election been set yet? What is the usual practice (min / max) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.213.173 (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is as yet no date. Because the vacancy happened (or will happen; see the article) after the general election but before the first meeting of the new Parliament, it is for the Governor to issue a writ of election under section 82(b) of the Electoral Act, and polling day must, under section 48 of that act, be a Saturday no less than 26 or more than 56 days (including in either case the polling day and the day the writ is issued). However, there is no time specified in which the Governor must issue the writ after receiving the resignation. I'm 100% sure of regular practice, but it seems to be that elections are called fairly promptly. The hangup in this case seems to spring from three things: a desire to hold the by-election on local election day, a lack of certainty over exactly when Bligh is allowed to resign (Was 30 March okay, or must she await declaration by the ECQ? Or perhaps return of the general election writ?), and a desire not to force voters to go to the polls three times in rapid succession. -Rrius (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidate order
Ballot paper order is the accepted manner in which to present candidates contesting an election. Even the source used for citation of the declared candidates displays the candidates in this manner. There is no valid reason to display candidates in any other order without the fairness of such display being questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyW12 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Not to mention this is how it is done for oz by-elections. The change from the status quo needs consensus as it is disputed, not the other way around. Timeshift (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Accepted order"? Where is this accepted? Can either of you provide some proof? How is alphabetical order unfair exactly? What possible benefit could you possibly put forward for ballot order for anyone reading the list? The only reason you two are really advancing, aside from the spurious argument that ballot order is fairer than alphabetical order, is that it has been done this way at other Australian by-election articles. So what? This article is this article, and if some irrational system is used elsewhere, that is no reason to copy it here. -Rrius (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rubbish... i'm not going to get in to these circular arguments. Ultimately, you don't have consensus for your disputed change away from the status quo. If there happens to be a consensus that forms to move away from listing by-election candidates in order of ballot order, then so be it! Timeshift (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Electoral Commission of Queensland, the independent body that administers elections in the state, displays candidates in ballot paper order. The ballot draw is random and displays no bias, and that is why ballot order is the accepted manner by which published listings of candidates is displayed, for any election in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyW12 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what possible reason is there to list the candidates in any order other than that on which they will appear on the ballot paper? The order in which not only the Electoral Commission, but Antony Green and every single other electoral analyst lists them? This seems like a no-brainer to me. Frickeg (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that it appears consensus is against me, but Timeshift's "rubbish" makes no sense, and you all have still failed to explain why a person coming to this site should have to look through a list of arbitrarily ordered candidates. Alphabetical order is every bit as unbiased as a random draw, so SallyW12's continued argument is simply asinine. If I were advocating listing them by the order the parties ranked in the last election or listing by the order I think they will place in this election, she'd have a point, but that is not the case. Alphabetical orders is equally fair and unbiased with the advantage that it is more expected. As one final point, Timeshift needs to look up what a circular argument is, because mine isn't one. -Rrius (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How is ballot order 'arbitrary'? Alphabetical order, where the ALP will always come before the LNP, is somehow less biased in your opinion? Oh please. Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call ballot paper order irrational or asinine, given it can be justified by how the electoral commission displays nominated candidates. Interesting to look back at the so-called alphabetical order being debated - which was sorted by party name alphabetically, displaying a level of bias toward registered parties. In Australia up until the early 1980s, candidates were displayed in surname alphabetical order on a ballot paper. Ballot draws were introduced to provide an element of randomness, as there were many instances whereby political parties deliberately fielded candidates with surnames that were of a high alphabetical ranking.SallyW12 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidates table
All pages for Qld state by-election tables since 2000 have no candidates table. Federal elections over the same period are a mixed bag. The main point is that the two pieces of information imparted by the table—the candidates contesting the election and the party, if any, they belong to—is already imparted by the results table. It serves no purpose to have a candidates table, and so there should not be one. -Rrius (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a continued persecution of the ballot order to me. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it does, but it isn't. It was always my intention to remove the candidates list, going all the way back to when I began compiling it. A candidates list serves no function when the candidates are listed in the results table. It is as simple as that. I have to admit to being more than a little offended by your of accusing me of improper motives with nothing to go on but your feelings? I have presented a rational argument: the candidates table provides no information not provided in the results table, and excluding it also brings it into conformity with the other QLD by-election articles. That is not a situation I created, so I can't see why you would choose not to assume good faith. We have been involved in a number of discussions, some of which we agreed in, many in which we didn't. Where in all of that have I given you a reason to believe I am a bad-faith actor? -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you are acting in bad faith. I believe you act in good faith in that you hold an honest but ill-informed belief over the ballot order issue, you accepted the consensus but did not end up agreeing IMHO.
 * By-election articles throughout Australian politics are not consistent in their content, but they are consistent in allowing inclusion of previous precedence. These types of articles have had implicit consensus in their design. As the articles were created and built up over the past 5 years i've been on here, one thing has been a candidate listing. Sometimes they are utilised even better such as Port Adelaide state by-election, 2012 and Ramsay state by-election, 2012. If someone can put the time in to a by-election article to include sections, such as candidates, they do and good on them, editors don't remove them and I can't recall any time any editor ever had. And it's not like it was added overnight... I feel that the candidates table is the accepted status quo and that the removal of it would require consensus. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, when I put forward reasons for my edit and you respond by saying it sounds like I am relitigating a previous issue, you are alleging that the reasons I gave aren't the real reasons. Implicitly it is calling me a liar. The only way that wouldn't be true is if there was a clear connection between these arguments and the ones in the previous discussion, but there isn't even a cloudy connection between them.


 * Moving on, you keep saying that because it is done one way at some articles, it should be done that way here. That is a flawed argument to begin with, but it is fatally flawed by the fact that the Qld articles do not have that history. Also, you refer to candidates "sections", but that isn't the issue here. I've seen plenty of articles with sections noting something about the candidates, but without listing them. I have no problem with that whatsoever. My problem is with including a table that contains some of the information from the results table, but no information that isn't in the results table. It has no value, and the fact that someone had to put in the effort to create it is not a good argument for keeping it. The candidates table makes a lot of sense, and I would say is of supreme importance before there is a result. Once we have a result, it is natural that the results table should replace the candidates table. The Port Adelaide and Ramsay examples simply don't apply. In both cases, the tables are used to provide information that is not in the results table and would not naturally fit there. If what you really want to do is extract information from Antony Green's background page for the election and put it in, I have no objection, but retaining a duplicative table immediately above the results table merely because other articles have superfluous candidates tables and no one has bothered to remove them or because some people might feel bad that their work has been deleted is just not sensible. If you want to create a Ramsay-style table, I support you to the hilt; otherwise, some justification for retention is needed. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should be kept because it encourages expansion for that, it's inclusionism over deletionism. But thankyou for saying that if additional info is added, you wouldn't object to it. If I can find time I might get around to it. But then again I might not. I'm not sure that an unprecedented removal of a candidates table is warranted. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you haven't seen a thing doesn't make it unprecedented or unwarranted. The only argument you've come up with for what value it adds to the article is that someone might someday choose to make it something that isn't worthless if we leave it there. I'm sorry, but that is not a justification for leaving something in an article. I might expand the table if I find the time, but in the meantime there is no reason to keep it. I am by nature an inclusionist; it is not inclusionism versus deletionism. That debate is about retaining or not retaining things perceived by some to have little value. A table that adds nothing to a table it is virtually sitting right on top of is a thing of no value. -Rrius (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a related issue I want to bring up now, rather than waiting for the eventuality. When I initially created the candidates list, I noted the ones who had also been candidates at the general election. When the list was converted to a table, that information was lost. Were one of us to create the expanded Ramsay-style table, would there be an objection to including that? I assumed at the time that the removal was a technical matter rather than move predicated on an objection to having the information, and didn't bother addressing it since I foresaw the table's deletion after we had results. Since the question is back, I want to be sure of where things stand. -Rrius (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to me like it's based on something very small - the fact that the candidates table did not include any details about the candidates beyond their name and party (and ballot-paper order), which did in fact make it a duplication. Ideally, of course, the table should be there, with the biographical information. I actually prefer lists (like this). A fully expanded article, in my view, could probably dispense with the table/list altogether in favour of a section on candidate selection, which could include brief biographical details, something along the lines of this. The ballot-paper order, for what it's worth, is not something I think necessarily needs to be in the article, although I agree with it being the most logical order if a table/list is used. Frickeg (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Duplication means an exact copy of. The inclusion of ballot paper order in the table means it is actually not duplication, however disputably small the difference is. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on the candidates table! Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Although, is there a reason for the tiny tiny asterisks? Frickeg (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)