Talk:2013 Australian federal election/Archive 3

Fairfax margin from 7 to 20 but not in media?
AEC updated from 7 to 20 today. I can't find any news articles for it though. I've seen other news articles stating unprecedented and Fairfax and final result still 2 weeks away. Timeshift (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's odd, late yesterday afternoon the margin was 6 votes, after being stuck at 7 votes for many days. Maybe they've stopped arguing about individual ballots and are actually counting again? --Surturz (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be useful, though Antony Green says nothing to report --Surturz (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And now the margin is 29. Longest wait for a final election result in the history of the universe? At least the AEC can take the piss out of themselves... one vote counted, ah ah ah! Timeshift (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do the number of challenged ballots seem high to you? I've only ever done election-eve scrutineering but I've rarely seen more than a dozen challenged votes (out of say 1500). In a close race of course you would expect more challenged ballots during the recounts. But PUP seem to be challenging a third or more. --Surturz (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen some news reports and Twitter/blog posts suggesting that this is the highest-ever proportion of votes to be challenged in an individual seat. William Bowe has stated that the PUP is "apparently challenging any vote that doesn’t go its way, thereby requiring it to be sent for determination by the state electoral officer in Brisbane". Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per William Bowe's remark above. Maybe the PUP scrutineers are trying to draw out the caviar and champagne :P Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ludicrous. How does he hope to claim any legitimacy from an election process he is methodically trashing? --Surturz (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Courier Mail story certainly illustrates the differences between a serious political party and a billionaire's plaything... Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't support Palmer or his actions, but I reckon it's slightly dramatising to say he is "methodically trashing" the election process. He's only working within the rules, just like Sports/Motoring. I'd call it manipulating rather than trashing. I'm more concerned in conflicts of interest not quite seen in Australian parliament before... "Mr Palmer's Mineralogy has an unpaid carbon tax bill of around $60 million" per Courier Mail article. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Palmer has been making allegations of electoral fraud as well as misconduct by the AEC since election night, while not providing any serious evidence for these claims. I think that goes well beyond manipulating the rules. Nick-D (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When it comes to his allegations, I mostly agree with you, but he does make a couple of good points around things like ballot location/security and limited scrutineering of ballots. Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Palmer is intentionally undermining faith in the AEC and the electoral process. Irresponsible and potentially dangerous. As Nick-D says, he's gone beyond mere gaming of the rules, claiming a military conspiracy and corruption. --Surturz (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I mostly agree. But if the AEC and/or parliament review/change a process or two, then there may be some benefit after all. As for "military conspiracy", I Google News'd the term, the only thing I can find with that wording is one article - "suggesting there could be a military conspiracy secretly pulling the strings". Could is a lot different from is. Palmer exaggerates everything, it's not confined to the AEC. But again i'm not defending Palmer, far from it. NOTE: Margin now 36. I wonder if LNP votes that PUP have disputed and that have been sent off to the electoral officer get temporarily excluded from the count, which might potentially be artificially inflating the current margin? Just a thought. Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Palmer made the military conspiracy claims on qanda (one of the few times I had drunk enough booze to reduce my IQ enough to watch qanda) . You could be right about the challenged ballots being temporarily excluded. This is the third time the ballots are being counted, isn't it? I wouldn't expect it to fluctuate so much. --Surturz (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The AEC tends to update counts at irregular periods and not always with representative collections of ballots, so the virtual tally room pages need to be read with a bit of caution. The situation with Fairfax is also not very conductive to day to day monitoring: if large numbers of ballots are being shipped off to Brisbane to be examined while lawyers circle then what's being counted may not be representative. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Can everyone please imagine I'm witty enough to make a really funny twerking joke right here? Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No :) Now as for Q&A, typical right-wing slander of a quality show. What's your equivelent? Bolt? I'm not arguing Q&A is perfect, but if you want to keep up with OzPol via TV, it's Q&A and Insiders. Anything else is just non-analytical fluff, or worse (enter Bolt etc). Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insiders is good - it's still typical ABC-left-biased, but at least the Right usually get one out of the four presenters. Cassidy goes too easy on ALP interviewees though. Qanda is too superficial for my liking, and the audience is always stacked Left. --Surturz (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessments but regardless they're still miles ahead of non-analytical fluff. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Margin now 39. Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Margin now 52. FYI - Palmer challenges every second vote... "More than half of the 89,176 votes cast in Fairfax for the federal election have been challenged since the recount of the seat began"... OK that's an abuse. It's also holding up the nationwide TPP! Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Margin now 67. Timeshift (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Something of interest - "Rechecking of over a million above-the-line votes has inevitably turned up anomalies, most notably a bundle of several hundred votes that were wrongly assigned to the informal pile, eliciting a predictably hyperbolic response from Clive Palmer." Timeshift (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Margin now 53 and final. Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool, I will run out the results tables tonight. --Canley (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd probably wait... Timeshift (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

1375 WA Senate votes missing
And now 1375 WA Senate votes have gone "missing" (AEC statement) and cannot be found and all hell is about to break loose. I maintain that despite Palmer as the vehicle for this, a review of how we conduct elections is a good end. Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very unhelpful that the AEC has dropped the ball on this one, given the closeness of the result and Palmer's allegations of AEC corruption. I'm guessing this will blow up enough for the episode to warrant its own article. Perhaps we can start a new section in this article first and export it out (to Australian senate election, 2013?) when it gets big enough. The alternative is to leave it as a major section of this article. The oz election articles tend to be "Almanack"-style articles full of facts and figures, but I suppose there is no reason we can't also have a big section describing the election as a historical episode. --Surturz (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In time I agree but at this stage let's see how it all plays out before rushing to create new articles. Timeshift (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This'll go to a by-election now, though, surely? Which will lead to a new article that can detail all the kerfuffle over there. Frickeg (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We suspect it will, but as we're in unchartered waters, it would be crystal-balling until we know more. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with you. Too early for a new article. --Surturz (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile... longest. 2PP. ever. :( Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I just threw up a current event notice, seeing the WA section is up-to-date for now, but the situation will probably evolve over the next 24-48hrs. Helenabella (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unwarranted. If they can't even be used on election days then I fail to see how the present situation warrants it. Timeshift (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Useless template IMO. What's the point of it? --Surturz (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To give warning there's an increased chance of edit conflicts occurring. Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For if/when someone wants to expand on the WA Senate fiasco... the AEC/Keelty report explicitly states CC - "The licence for this work is under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence". Timeshift (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Also electoral commissioner Ed Killesteyn is under pressure to quit... ugh. Timeshift (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

HoR seating plan
Have they done this in previous parliaments? Quite useful. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a 2007 one on australianpolitics.com. I've got a few saved on computers somewhere, not sure how far back but I think there were some Howard era ones. --Canley (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I thought, there are some more archived on Pandora/Trove: 2005, 2004. --Canley (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Coalition subtotals
To reduce some confusion and to make the article where it pertains to results as more comprehensive, I have added subtotals for the Coalition's election results. Unlike other coalitions, the Liberal-National coalition has been formed prior to the election. Coalition votes would be presented as a group of votes while being distinct from party votes.

However, we may have to consider, such as the case in WA, that some votes for the National Party have been against votes for the Liberal Party. Azirus (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We've been through this before. Totals should add to 100%. Under your theory, should the 2010 election have Labor and Green with a total aswell? The Nationals were always seperate and never put together with the Lib primary vote until the LNP came along then polling firms began to combine the primary vote. Primary votes should not be combined. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern. I believe the totals still do add up to 100% since making Coalition subtotals in Italic separates them from the total. No, the 2010 election should not include Labor and the Greens since the sole Green MP voted to supply confidence to Labor after the election; beyond the fact that an actual coalition between Labor and the Greens to ever exist as the Greens have been sitting in the crossbenches, and it has been demonstrated so in relevant articles. For the election, the Liberal and National parties have been combined as a single entity containing two separate caucuses and four separate parties, but nonetheless they have represented one coalition throughout the election and its campaign. If you would like the Coalition subtotals to have some note that indicates it as a total among Coalition parties, then that would suffice and I would encourage that. We have shown in images for example that the LNP, CLP and National Party has been grouped together with the Liberal Party, so we should have some way to indicate combined totals as if they were one entity, while establishing that they are indeed four entities. Azirus (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If the number is there then it goes over 100%. Italicising it does not change that, nor does a note. But anywho, it's very arbitrary to say what level of coalition should be combined in italics making it go over 100%. It is not a primary vote. It is a combination of primary votes. It's neither a primary vote or a two-party vote. It shouldn't be there. We've been through this before. Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Then why have the Coalition listed among a list of parties when they are not a party? And why group all independents together as one either? If italicising the numbers does not make it clear these are not part of the primary totals, then surely a note will. A note that makes it clear the Coalition subtotal represents the total of four coalition parties. There is precedent to combine votes such as with United Kingdom general election, 1987 that combines the votes of the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party. However, Australian elections are different and the parties can still be separate and united in their totals. As to being "very arbitrary to say what level of coalition should be combined", there is only one coalition that was present before and during the election, not to mention that Labor and the Greens never had a federal coalition, of the LNP, CLP, National and Liberal parties. Azirus (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We should definitely have the Coalition subtotal. I think the italics and the parentheses make it clear that it is not part of the total at the bottom. It's a useful figure, especially for swing (the individual swings are pretty meaningless, really. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure we haven't been through this before. Frickeg (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We have been through this before, somewhere in the talk archives of 2010. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really, Timeshift9. Regardless, it's being brought up now that there should be greater comparison between Labor, Coalition and other parties by the fact that the Coalition parties are in a coalition before and during the election at hand. We already group Coalition parties together, simply adding totals from these parties doesn't affect the structure of the table. There is already precedent to do so, and it is simply one step further. These subtotals can still be seen as independent from the full total, it can be made as blatant as possible. Azirus (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this discussion, Timeshift? Because that's the closest I can find. I remember discussing the Coalition grouping, but I don't remember the concept of a subtotal coming up. I genuinely think Coalition subtotal is an important figure to have, especially now that the LNP is being counted separately, especially for the swing figures. (As an aside - was the swing to the Coalition as a whole and the swing to the Liberal Party really identical?) I think the italics and brackets adequately convey that the number is not being counted towards the total at the bottom. Perhaps we could have a note above or below the table to reinforce this point? Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone doing a candidates page as the WA Senate paper draw has been done?
See here for candidates/draw. Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

State-level infoboxes
Just wanted to raise a discussion on the infoboxes LordFixit has added to the state level result lists in the last few weeks, for example, at Results of the Australian federal election, 2013 (Western Australia). It does break the layout because it pushes the summary table to the left and squishes up the top of the article, but I can fix that. But are they necessary or useful? They seem a bit confusing to me, and redundant to the full results table and the main election article infobox—don't get me wrong, I love infoboxes, this seems to have a mix of national and state level information. If there is consensus to include them, I think they could be simplified a lot—I guess some sort of simple state-level summary is interesting, but the national information such as the Rudd/Abbott photos and details could go. --Canley (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not meant to be confusing and don't include national results. They include number of seats contested in WA, seats won per party and votes won by party. Check out the infobox here 2010 United Kingdom general election results in London or here 2010 United Kingdom general election result in Glasgow or here United States presidential election in New York, 2012. LordFixit (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't just break the layout, they detonate it. What's wrong with the summaries we already had, which include all the information LordFixit listed above? Frickeg (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know they're not meant to be confusing, and I don't mean national results, I mean things like the party leader information, photos and seats, before/after PM, which end up looking really noisy. I think a quick state based summary could be useful—although the information is in the table it's a bit easier to scan an infobox summary. Also, the infobox mentions the Senate seats but the article does not mention the Senate outcome. With the WA one, I've moved the summary table and removed the national-level information (leaders, PM before/after) and it looks a lot cleaner. Thoughts? --Canley (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So what happens to the 2013 Senate results table once the WA Senate re-election has come and gone?
As it's a re-election for an election declared void, rather than a by-election, i'm of the opinion that the 2013 Senate table should include the Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014 result within it, and perhaps a footnote advising of the void result. As those who were declared elected in the Senate in WA last year will never have sat, it seems pointless to use that as a reference for the next 2.5 years. So, does anyone have an issue with changing the 2013 Senate result table as needed to reflect what will be in the Senate come 1 July 2014? The only issue I see is that the state percentages would need to be incorporated in to the national vote somehow. Timeshift (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty unique event. However, the closest analogy would be what happens when a candidate dies during the writ period.  In Canada and Britain (and I assume Australia as well but correct me if I am wrong), the election in the electorate in question is cancelled and a by-election is held shortly after the election.  In Canadian and British election articles, this is treated in the way you describe - it is treated as part of the broader general election.  I believe the table should be updated to reflect the totals both in seats and votes when accounting for the WA special election, with a footnote explaining what occurred and who the preliminary winners were before the election was nullified. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That is indeed the case in Australia too, but I absolutely disagree that we should change the table in any way. Obviously there should be a note about the WA situation, but the difference with the cases where a candidate dies (quite apart from the fact that they reflect a very small, statistically insignificant change in the results) is that we actually have the original data for this election; it was run, unlike those cases. Although it hasn't happened in a while, very close results were routinely voided in the House of Reps in the early days, but we keep the original (voided) result as part of the general election in which it occurred. Frickeg (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A third option would be to exclude WA from the table altogether in recognition that the original results were deemed void and the Senators-elect never took office or sat in the Senate; and that the subsequent re-vote many months later reflected changes in the political climate over that relatively long period of time. The six WA seats should be listed in the table as vacant/not elected with a footnote explaining what occurred and a link to the special election article. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion:
 * The official result of the WA Senate election in 2013 is "void" and that is what the results table should show.
 * There should be a separate section discussing the WA Senate election in gory detail, including the original result, and recount results, etc. and the court ruling
 * The 2014 re-election is not a re-run of the 2013 failed election because it has different candidates, different electoral roll, etc.
 * This is a historical article. We do not keep updating federal election pages with by-elections, resignations etc. so we should not include the 2014 re-elections results in this page, though I think it makes sense to include names of the Senators ultimately elected in 2014 in the WA Senate election section. ie. we should have a summary of the 2014 result, but not all the vote counts etc.
 * Obviously, we should include lots of wikilinks to the 2014 re-election article and other relevant articles.
 * --Surturz (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Surely the result of the 2013 WA Senate election is simply "Void". Nobody was actually elected. The results have no legal standing. While I'm sure those who miss out this time round would like to see their names recorded, I'm not sure what it achieves. To me it makes little sense to tell the world the completely meaningless result of a void election. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a defensible argument, though I think some readers would be interested in the voided results so they can work out swings in the vote, etc. We include opinion polling in this article - think of it as a high-quality opinion poll. --Surturz (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on record as opposing the inclusion of opinion polling in these articles anyway, so to me that's not very convincing argument, but I am simply one voice here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm of the same view as Surturz and Frickeg here. The result should be recorded and coded up but it should also be prominently noted that it was subsequently voided and a link to the 2014 Senate election in WA on a separate article. The information is of use to those trying to compare apples with apples. Orderinchaos 02:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As for names of elected senators is strikethrough a possibility or would that look messy? Orderinchaos 02:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible table
What Surturz has said supported by Orderinchaos aligns well with my third option above, here is what such a table might look like:

The biggest problem here is what to do with the "change" columns? Do we compare it to the previous election (not really apples to apples as it is not the whole country) or to the previous election less WA which seems a bit confusing. Thoughts? - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Surturz and Orderinchaos are actually saying the same thing. (I think Surturz is suggesting WA be removed from the table, while Orderinchaos is agreeing with me that the table should include WA as normal results - I hope they correct me if I'm wrong.) Anyway, I still strongly oppose any attempt to remove WA from the table or separate WA results in any way. Obviously there will need to be a prominent note, but removing a whole state result because of a couple of thousand votes is absurd and contrary to past practice. Frickeg (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that the result was nullified. That would also be contrary to past practice.  This has simply never happened before.  Zero senators were elected from WA.  It is as if the election never happened from a legal standpoint. - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Elections have been nullified or declared void before, heaps of times. Not in the Senate perhaps, but there have been several federal and state by-elections triggered by a Court of Disputed Returns declaring the previous results void—and that does not mean the results in the voided election have been removed as if the election never happened. The last House of Reps one was Ballaarat by-election, 1920—the Australian federal election, 1919 article still incorporates the Ballaarat results, as does Electoral results for the Division of Ballarat. --Canley (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nbpolitico and support the table shown above. The WA Senate results were voided by the CODR. Currently WA has no new Senators until the re-election results are finalised. The rolls were different between the two elections - someone that moved out of WA between the elections would be disenfranchised in the Senate, while someone that moved into WA in between would have had two votes counted for the Senate. I have updated the above table with what I think the "Change" column should look like. I disagree with Canley - the official result of the WA Senate election in 2013 is "void". You cannot say that this or that Senator was elected (even in summary), because they were not elected. Once the CODR handed down its decision, WA had no replacement Senators. --Surturz (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I see it there are two issues: results of the election, and the election of senators. I agree with the assertion that no Senators were elected; Dropulich and others declared elected in 2013 but not in 2014 should not be listed as Senators-elect... However, a Senate election took place in WA in 2013, it was declared, and I think the results of that election should be published here, as long as it is clear to readers that the results were voided by the CODR.
 * Is anyone else doing this? Are the AEC and ABC going back and retrospectively revising their national and WA results tables to remove the 2013 WA results? I just don't think this is such an unprecedented, extraordinary occurrence that it warrants retrospective revision and removal of an election's results, regardless of the later legal status of those results, considering that similar voiding of a constituency's election results by a court has not previously seen its results removed or separated from the federal aggregates. --Canley (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the WA senate counts being tabulated in a separate section devoted to the WA Senate count, recount, and CODR ruling. But the above table should show the final result of the election, taking into account all the available references. We should not be simply be regurgitating out-of-date information from AEC and ABC websites - we are editors, not copiers. Reviewing and summarising all the available info is what we are meant to do. Otherwise, how would we choose which results to show? The original count? One of the recounts (which had a different results)? The only practical option here is to show the final result - six seats left empty, and all the WA Senate votes void. --Surturz (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the last person who's going to cry "Original research!" about doing calculations or deriving and publishing data based other published data (I've done it many times), but I'm a bit wary about doing too many almost unverifiable calculations and variations that aren't published or used anywhere else. For example, I see the swing column has been left empty in the example table—should it be omitted entirely? The reason I ask is, if we're calculating a swing from the 2010 WA Senate election percentages, should these also exclude the 2010 WA Senate results? (almost like calculating swings from notional margins after a redistribution, where the redrawn "electorate" is Australia minus WA). If so, it's getting very complicated; if not, to include a swing could be a little confusing and misleading. --Canley (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems little for me to say here except to concur with Canley's points, especially the one about results being voided. (And I would have said Lindsay 1996 was the most recent example, but I suppose that was a candidate eligibility matter.) Not only will removing WA skew the results so as to make swing figures, etc., essentially meaningless, this is (as far as I can tell) not practiced in any reputable publication. Now, Surturz points out that everything here is fairly recent, but if we turn to those previous voided results, I don't see any later publications excluding them from the nationwide totals. As for which count we should use, obviously the one the AEC is displaying. Furthermore, I do think we can say that the senators-elect were "elected", but then that that election was later voided. Dropulich may never assume his seat, but he was still a senator-elect and he was still declared elected to the Senate. To use the Ballaarat example, Edwin Kerby's election was voided, but he was not retroactively declared never to have been an MP. Frickeg (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC happening over infobox at Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014
See here over whether to include an infobox. Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why have you posted this here? LordFixit (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because without this article, the other article wouldn't be there. Not everyone who is interested in the 2013 election will have the 2014 special election on their watchlist. Like you, i'm requesting comment from anyone who wishes to contribute. Wouldn't you be happy with more opinions, not less? Timeshift (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What image is better?
Which one? I'm trying to get the best photos for both sides from 1983 onward. With the addition of the good Beazley pic i'm rather happy with them, sans 93 Hewson of course. Still waiting. Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

should this article adopt the Palmer/Sports changes at Australian Senate?
I'm not sure I agree with the changes there but if we're having it there should we have it here? Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Main Election Infobox -- Inclusion of Greens
Discussion of whether or not Greens should be included in main election infobox given presence in house of representatives and importance of party in the Senate (across previous two electoral cycles in particular).

I contend that they should be included, given practices in other countries e.g. New Zealand.

Apart from space, or past history, I can't see any reason not to allow Greens (or Palmer or even Katter inclusion).

Should Palmer United Party also be included given this?


 * No, only the two main parties with a chance of forming government. New Zealand has quite a different electoral system. Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why include Katter? He only holds one seat. I could see an argument to include the Greens if they were the soul holders of the balance of power in the House of reps. But until that happens it should only include Labor and the Coalition.
 * I could see an argument to include the Nationals in past elections in the 80s when they tried to compete with the Liberals. But that's it.The Tepes (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was about to agree, but then I had a look at the template and realised it didn't include Senate seats at all - which is pretty bad since the top of the template explicitly identifies the elections as for the Senate as well. The template is actually all set up for a "leadership style" election, which is really not what we have. I wouldn't get rid of any information that's there at the moment, but I would like to suggest a bit of a reorganisation to include some stuff that is actually quite important in Australian elections. Once that is done, I would actually weakly support including all parliamentary parties (or at least House of Reps ones). I don't think "chance of forming government" should be the benchmark here. Frickeg (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Frickeg, for what it's worth. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * At least need some reasonable benchmarks. Formation of government is not the only thing that matters. Surely percentage of the vote matters more than any other benchmark. I suggest a minimum of 5%. Not the minor parties' faults that the electoral system is harder for them than in NZ or Germany.


 * I would agree with a benchmark of 5%. I do agree with the arguments made by Frickeg.The Tepes (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Greens as opposition
Regarding this edit, which I made. I don't quite think the ABC counts as a "tabloid": see here http://abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/ Indeed wikipedia is literally the only place I've ever seen it said that the senate has an 18 member cross bench.

Moreover, I struggle to see the objection to calling the greens part of the opposition when they have opposed more government legislation than labor has. Of the main pieces of controversial legislation introduced by the Abbott government, labor has supported at least three (repeal of gambling reforms, the debt levy, changes to the migration act) while the greens have supported only one (abolition of the debt ceiling).

And finally, the page Tasmanian Parliament has the greens as part of the opposition. Either that should be changed or this page should.Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia is the only place you see the Greens being referred to as part of the crossbench, I really have to wonder what you're reading. The Tasmanian Parliament is a different story; the Greens are a far larger presence in the lower house there and there was serious talk before the last election that they had a chance of becoming the Official Opposition.


 * Yeah, the Greens definitely aren't part of the opposition, they are part of the crossbench. I understand that sections of the media has taken to referring to the "other eight" as the crossbench, but that's not really accurate at all, and plenty include them anyway; there was plenty of talk about how it was the biggest crossbench in history, by which they meant "18" not "8". Support on pieces of legislation is irrelevant. Out of interest I wouldn't mind a link to where the Tasmanian Parliament classifies the Greens as opposition, but clearly as they are a significant and long-lasting presence in the lower house there it is a different situation. Frickeg (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

8% 2PP swing toward Labor in Division of Fowler in 2013?
I came across this and was wondering if anyone knew of any local factors at play? Timeshift (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was an article about this in the Sydney Morning Herald. The Liberal candidate, Andrew Nguyen, said the party treated ethnic candidates (such as himself, Jaymes Diaz and Martin Zaiter) as "second-class citizens" and that they were forbidden to speak to the media (this was probably a reaction to Diaz's interview). The Liberals said Nguyen was a "dud candidate" who couldn't even win booths in Vietnamese areas of the electorate. I also wonder if Nguyen's age was a factor—he was 74 at the time. --Canley (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That was an eye opening read I have to say! It reeks of racism and I just wonder if there's a way that could be incorporating into the Liberal Party article on Wikipedia, given the now defunct push over Section 18C in the Racial Discrimination Act. BritainD (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Two % columns in results tables..?
When did this sneak in? An initial results table % should be for the vote, not the proportion of seats won by various parties. It looks quite messy and I don't think it belongs in those tables. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice this change or your comment from months ago—I agree it is confusing and not really relevant (particularly in the Senate table), so I boldly removed it, but happy to discuss with the editor if they disagree. --Canley (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

2PP swing
I note that the infobox only displays primary vote swings. However, in the vast majority of seats these are not considered particularly meaningful given the preferential system that is used. Moreover, when swing is referred to by the media and the public, generally what is meant is 2PP swing. In light of that, it would probably be appropriate to mention it in the infobox, like so: 1.93 (primary vote) 3.61 (2PP)
 * It used to show the 2PP swings but recently there was a consensus reached to include all seat-winning parties (Greens, Katter, etc.) and the vote breakdown was changed to primary vote percentages. There is only one swing parameter in the infobox so this was also changed to the primary vote swing, however the 2PP swing is mentioned in the lede paragraphs and the results summary table. --Canley (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that there's only one swing parameter, but it would not be difficult to put two pieces of information in one cell. After all, it seems possible for the "last election" parameter, which indicates both seats won and vote share in the same cell. Moreover, I think that merely mentioning the 2PP swing in the lede paragraph and results summary table is not sufficient given that the infobox is most readers' first point of reference, and that 2PP swing is probably the most critical variable apart from seats won in light of the way that our electoral/political system works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.174.82 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I used the blank fields parameters to put the 2PP swing in the infobox. --Canley (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Australian federal election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120126053504/http://news.ninemsn.com.au:80/article.aspx?id=8408499 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8408499
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100927083727/http://www.canberratimes.com.au:80/news/local/news/general/lib-speaks-for-himselfdefies-gag-by-abbott/1951905.aspx to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/lib-speaks-for-himselfdefies-gag-by-abbott/1951905.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)