Talk:2014 South Australian state election

Crystall Ball?
How can this article not be a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's common practice across wikipedia to have the next election. Not to mention, the date is already known. Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Weatherill (2 questions)
Since we know Rann will not lead Labor into the next election and we know Weatherill will, should we not change the infobox accordingly? When we do, what date do we use: 20 October, which is when he becomes PM or some earlier date? -Rrius (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Crystal balling. It's Rann until he's no longer Premier (not PM...) Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation at all. There are plenty of sources quoting Rann himself as saying that he is resigning on 20 October and passing off the leadership to Weatherill at that time. Therefore, I repeat my questions. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And if Weatherill is hit by a bus tomorrow...? Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting parallel discussion at Talk:Next Queensland state election... Sorry for the copy and paste, but as of this post, 24 August 2011, Rann remains Labor leader and Premier. Until the changeover, Weatherill could fall ill, get hit by a bus, say something bad enough to destroy his image with voters, or heck, even a state double dissolution which can theoretically happen. Timeshift (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting parallel indeed. Redmond could get hit by a bus tomorrow and wouldn't then lead her party either. The argument for retaining Rann is that it would be awkward to do otherwise. The leader field in the election boxes is meant to be reflective of who will lead in the election, not the current state of the party leadership. Frankly, if you want to be hyper-technical, the correct status for the infobox would be "TBD" for Labor since we know Rann is leaving but Weatherill could die before becoming leader. -Rrius (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Set, game, and match - the infobox is and has since inception in Australian election pages shown the two current parliamentary leaders of both major parties. That is the way it has been and as far as I can see, there is no consensus to say that is no longer the way it should be. :) Timeshift (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Atkinson as speaker?
Um, ok. An eye out for any WP:RS on this would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also as an FYI, Weatherill is also taking treasurer. Timeshift (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we use Antony for the pendulum figures instead of ECSA?
"The state seat of Adelaide will be contested on unchanged boundaries at the 2014 election. Yet the EDBC has adjusted the margin for Adelaide. Where it had a Liberal margin of 4.2% at the 2010 election, the EDBC has adjusted the margin of 3.9%." - can someone explain this to me? If boundaries in a seat are unchanged, how does the margin change...? And can we use Antony's figures? ECSA uses seat-based declaration votes, while Antony and ABC election night figures use booth-based declaration votes. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and gone ahead with the change. Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, I agree with your bold move. It took me a while to understand it, I'm still not sure I do—as both Green and EDBC state, this situation is unique to South Australia. So, as I understand it, there are two issues which are considered by EDBC in addition to the usual elector quota adjustments: the declaration vote issue you mention above, and "substantial demographic changes". Some examples of the demographic factor: the Department of Planning and Local Government (DPLG) submits a voter age population projection to the commission, which estimates/projects the likely change in the population of eligible voters by the time of the next election; another is the construction of residential estates or settlements created around the discovery of mineral resources (mining towns). So, in addition to the usual "votes at booths" methodology of boundary redistribution, the EDBC considers projections and estimates of these other population variables when trying to meet the quotas with a ±10% tolerance. --Canley (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (as I'm a nube), I agree with Antony's margin, it's notional anyway. But we should probably contrast the two figures rather than discarding one of the sources. What do you think? HungryPseph (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seat-based declaration votes are inaccurate compared to booth-based, and it would be hard to make them co-exist anyway. Timeshift (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Bowe is also using Antony's margins. Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV?
The pictures of of the different members appear to differ wildly in style and I feel the difference only serves to add bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.242 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So find better free ones. Timeshift (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I found a free one. I feel your "differ wildly in style" statement would refer to the background of black vs white and non-smile vs smile? If so, the new image would go some way to fixing this. As for quality, i'm not sure if either of the Weatherill photos can claim to be better, apart from the former one has Weatherill generally looking forward. Comments welcome. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up
I've cleaned up/improved the results and more importantly used the ECSA and ABC references. Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ECSA and Antony/ABC percentage differences - why the constant discrepancy?
Can anyone tell me why since counting began, the primary vote percentages here and here constantly differ? It's not that they've been updated at different times either. They have been consistently mismatching since counting began. I've been updating with Antony/ABC's figures (as he gives swing percentage figures too, unlike ECSA) and hoping they'd come together soon, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Timeshift (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The ABC is calculating projected results, ECSA is displaying actual progressive results. The percentage column on the ABC site says "Projected Percent" and it has a bold "ABC Projection" tag on the summary. I notice Green's election guides seem to have been doing this for a while, this was the problem I had with using the ABC data for the 2013 Senate results—it was based on a modelling of the count and was never updated to display what actually happened in the count. I guess they figure if people want the actual results they can go to the relevant electoral commission website, and presumably for some reason they prefer to model and project the final result rather than just relaying live results? --Canley (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see! Thanks for clearing that up. Should we continue to use Antony's figures? I find them easier to update with because they have the % swing whereas the ECSA doesn't. And nobody's publishing the 2PP figures :( Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see a problem with using Antony's figures, especially as we were using his notional margins anyway. Until the result is finalised, neither an unfinished count or a projected outcome are going to be totally accurate, so long as it gives an indication it should be fine. --Canley (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See here... Q: Hi Antony, can you please advise why the SA statewide primary votes differ significantly on your ABC results vs the ECSA results?. A: Because they are wrong and there is nothing I can do to fix it at the moment. ECSA has the right numbers, as you would expect of an electoral authority. *snigger* Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Antony's fixed it now - ABC and ECSA match. I'd be interested to know why Antony records the independent swing as +0.7 to 3.7 when independents got 4.7 at the last election. Would also love to know where the -8.6 swing for other came from... Timeshift (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you "Fascinated"? :) --Canley (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * -cough- :) Timeshift (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any volunteers to run the results of the 47 seats through a script to add to their respective articles?
Once the results are declared, 2pp revealed, and all results final etc, is there anyone who wants to run a script to add the 47 seat results to the respective articles? In the meantime i'm going to add the new pendulum to the article (and can easily be updated if need be). Timeshift (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm also adding updated maps but the boundaries are based on 2010. Again, if someone better than me with maps could whip some up, that would be great. Timeshift (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Another thing if anyone can be bothered that could be done is adding up either the individual Liberal or Labor 2PP votes in the 47 seats and divide by total formal votes to produce a preliminary statewide 2PP vote. Timeshift (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I should be able to do all that—I've been concentrating on the Tas election and haven't looked at SA at all, but I've been meaning to. I've got the 2014 district maps as well, sorry, you asked me to look at them before but I didn't get round to it... the maps shouldn't take too long though, I'll let you know tonight how I'm going. No doubt ECSA have their data in some non-importable format... oh yeah, they do, PDFs, sigh... I'll see what I can do. --Canley (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added up the 2pp for all seats apart from Fisher, Frome and Mt Gambier and I've come up with a LIB 52.3/47.7 ALP figure (453,207 Labor 2pp votes, 496,817 Liberal of 950,024 votes counted). It'll probably increase about 1% for the Liberal margin after those 3 seats are counted. If that's an agreeable figure I'd be happy to put it in. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I can help out too with the electorate results. I might work from Wright backwards alphabetically so there shouldn't be any overlapping. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Kirsdarke, you can add Heysen to make four. It was Lib vs Grn :) Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. Minus Heysen makes it Lib 52.0/48.0 Labor (Lib 482,198 Labor 444,812 of 927,010 votes). Kirsdarke01 (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice to know, thanks :) Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Antony has done the 2PP - 47.0 to 53.0. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I worked out how to scrape the ECSA site to import the results into a database, I'll work on the output script today and should have something tonight. --Canley (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome :) Timeshift (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kirsdarke01, one thing you could do which would be really helpful is to do the tables for the "non-classic" seats (not ALP–LIB) manually. The script I'm running to generate the tables sometimes has a bit of trouble with these, and it would be great to have another version to check against. --Canley (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's done for those 4 seats. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks, that's a great help! I was working on the maps today so I will run the script tonight to generate the other tables. --Canley (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I ran the script, the output is at: User:Canley/Results of the South Australian state election, 2014. As I thought, the non-Labor/Liberal seats and the new seat Dunstan didn't come out properly but Kirsdarke01 has done some of them. Also the names aren't wikilinked in the TPP breakdown, nor are newly elected MPs, but that should be easy to do when copying them over. And there are some candidates missing, it seems they were listed as CLP in the 2010 election, I'm working on a fix for that, but most of the tables should be usable. --Canley (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like I had a dud candidate list which was missing some of the ALP candidates for some reason, I will check each seat, I'm about halfway through and will finish it in the morning. --Canley (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also suspect if a party ran in 2014 but not in 2010 it's not appearing in the database query, e.g. FREE Australia in Ashford. I'll fix it tonight. --Canley (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be pushy but how are the rest of the result tables going? :) Timeshift (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All the issues above are fixed, I'm just checking the swings for some seats as they are a bit out from the ABC ones (I used the 2CP margins but not the primary margins from Green's calculations). I am halfway through (Kaurna), so that and any above should be fine. It's only taking a few minutes to adjust each one so should be finished very soon. --08:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, all checked. May be some 2PP headings instead of 2CP in some non-classics, and no linking on newly elected MPs, but should be good to go now. --Canley (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone over User:Canley/Results of the South Australian state election, 2014 and made quite a few changes where required. I believe it's all up to where it needs to be now. I've added them to their respective seat articles. Can someone else go over User:Canley/Results of the South Australian state election, 2014 to ensure it's all correct? And we still need to find the 2PP vote figures for the non-classic seats, at the moment we only have the percentages. Timeshift (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for Controversy over redistribution and result
There has been some significant controversy over the result and the redistribution. Perhaps some of the more notable reactions (Weatherill, Marshall, Abbott) could be referenced in a government formation/reaction section (maybe those need to be two sections, but perhaps it could be well-integrated). Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give oxygen to the uneducated reactions of the losers of the election. Timeshift (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't you feign objectivity? Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We last had a 2PP minority form govt in 2010. We last had a hung parliament in 2002. Votes don't decide govt, seats do - it's the westminster system. What's different this time? The level of noise from the losers after 12 years, going on 16 years, of opposition. Please note that if I wasn't objective, I wouldn't have got the 2006 SA election to featured article status. Throwing accusations around isn't helpful. Timeshift (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I recognise the good work you've done on this article. And I'm perfectly aware of the way the Westminster System works, thank you. If you don't want a negative reaction, I would suggest that you not be snippy and dismissive of a good-faith suggestion - and then follow it up with an impressive display of condescension. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was snippy or dismissive or condescending, to you. But if you've taken anything that way then I apologise. I'm always happy to discuss any issue with any editor on a talk page. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a very small section could reasonably be devoted to some discussion of the result and the redistribution. The redistribution was notable as it took an unusual way to fulfil the "fairness" clause. The clause itself is of course an abomination, but much as we might hate it we can't say that! :) But as long as we provide the counterpoint (Antony Green maybe?) then I don't see why there can't be some discussion. It's something a reader might reasonably want to know, considering the difference between the 2PP and the result. Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We do have a redistribution section in the article already. The 'fairness' clause was proposed by the Libs after 1989 and is responsible for the whittling away of popular government MP margins! Perhaps the redistribution section could contain an additional sentence or two, but i'd be very weary as to exactly what is added. I'd be waiting for the inevitable detailed piece from Antony on this to reference. The pendulum piece very lightly touches on it but undoubtedly he would have more to say on this once all is done and dusted. As I said, I wouldn't give oxygen to the uneducated reactions of the losers of the election. We last had a 2PP minority form govt in 2010. We last had a hung parliament in 2002. Votes don't decide govt, seats do. As an aside, playing by the rules, if the Libs didn't campaign in safe Labor seats like Labor doesn't in safe Lib seats, the 2PP would be different. Timeshift (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's take it as water under the bridge then. I think the first thing would be to note the process of forming government, noting Such's illness, the Weatherill agreement with Brock and perhaps whatever Marshall had to say. I realise we've got it in the summary - but one might argue that a summary should summarise what is dealt with in greater depth in the article. I do think that given the controversy over redistricting in light of the result, the article ought to take note of it (though of course, in a balanced manner). I'm sure there's some way to improve the existing redistribution section while addressing the post-vote reaction. It is quite common in election articles to deal with government formation and reactions to the result - and I submit that this is a more interesting result and discussion than many. For the record, I live in a jurisdiction which lacks a similar "fairness" clause in its redistribution legislation, and I see no need for one (and the voting patterns have cost my preferred party government once, so I have an adverse interest) - all of which is to say I don't have a dog in the fight over whether redistribution should be managed to secure a 50% tipping point or not. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're going to get in to commentary, then we also need to expand on other things, like the campaign and promises made, like the 2010 election article has. Timeshift (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Upper house results @ 2pm today
See here. Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Word on twitter confirms seat results are as projected. Awaiting ECSA to update. Timeshift (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014
Due to the change of coding for the result tables for the 2014 election, can someone please do what's needed to get the list of MLCs on the right of the results table at Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014 as per what's done at Full results of the South Australian state election, 2010? I am aware that 'others' needs to be broken down as per the 2010 page too. Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There you go, done. You have to put a two-cell, one-row table around the two tables, and right align the elected list. --Canley (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Labor "Win"?
Obviously Labor were eventually able to form government, albeit a minority government. But I don't think it's accurate to say they "won" the election - they achieved neither a majority of the seats, nor a majority of the votes. Had the Liberals been able to enlist the support of the two independents, they would been able to form government, and although they achieved a majority of the votes, they didn't achieve a majority of the seats either. i.e. They didn't "win" the election either. In short, I don't think either party "won" the election, and I don't think Wikipedia should say that one of the parties did win. What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Labor clearly won the election in minority. They were the party who got the most seats, and formed government - hell, without Such, they were the only party who could form government. This is the same as every other time this has happened here, or every time overseas when a party wins an election but needs coalition partners to gain a workable majority. Did the Conservatives not "win" the last UK election or National not "win" the last NZ election? This is not a very bright argument. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * lol, indeed. Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Labor won the election in minority. - I guess so.
 * So if the Liberals had then formed (been able to form) a coalition government, would that still mean "Labor won the election in minority"? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As for This is not a very bright argument, your pov isn't any sort of argument at all, it's simply a statement of your pov. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As for lol, indeed - Indeed what?
 * However, I asked for your thoughts. Thank you for your thoughts. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Did the Conservatives not "win" the last UK election or National not "win" the last NZ election? Whoever forms government, wins. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know, and don't care. I'm asking about a South Australian state election. (i.e. Once again, I don't see how your question is relevant). And as to "Whoever forms government, wins", I'll point out: That is/was the whole point of my question. So, indirectly, and after a certain amount of bad manners and bad faith on your part, you have indirectly responded to my request. So once again, thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We are pointing out that, by your argument, the current conservative governments in the UK and NZ, who both hold office comfortably, didn't in fact win their respective elections. Heck, by your argument, the current Canadian government is the first one to win an election since I was a child, and Colin Barnett didn't really win the election where he became Premier. The UK government, the NZ government, the past umpteen Canadian governments before this one, and Colin Barnett in his first term didn't win an outright majority of seats, and had to negotiate with other parties to form government, and nonetheless indisputably won their respective elections. I think if you tried to argue that all of these people did not in fact win the elections at which they won office most people would think you were being very silly. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Precisely. If the Liberals had been able to form government and had done so, they would have won the election (just as their counterparts in the UK and NZ did when they were unable to form government alone). This idea that "winning an election" involves umpteen other things besides actually winning an election is a peculiar recent creature of Australians who don't understand their political system, and doesn't seem to really exist anywhere else I can find. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! Something useful. Thank you!
 * This idea ...  - Uh hum. Totally irrelevant, but never-the-less, interesting. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So, just to clarify, in your opinion, the result of the vote is irrelevant - the only thing that's relevant is whether someone can form government or not, and if they can, then they are the winner. Yes/No? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If yes, that's pragmatically logical. It's quite different from what you first said above, but yes, it's pragmatically logical. Is that your defining opinion?
 * i.e. I'm confused by you adamantly offering two quite different opinions (which are inconsistent with each other) as being definitive. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If no: Sorry, I don't understand. Please clarify/explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not different. If you form government after the election, you win the election. If you go into opposition after the election, you lose the election. This is the way every country on earth does this. The idea that other things matter is a post-Gillard, Australian-only rhetorical tool to try to make your opponents look illegitimate. I added the point that the Liberals didn't actually win enough seats to be capable of forming government to point out that the argument you're making was especially silly in the case of South Australia. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. Clearly, you're not interested in discussing the topic - only interested in pushing your point of view and being right. Never-the-less, I asked for your thoughts, and I got them. So once again (third time I think) I thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that the very first line of my response says: "Labor won the election in minority. - I guess so." You seem to have ignored that.
 * From amongst all your self-righteous self-opinionated diatribe I extracted: "In your opinion, the result of the vote is irrelevant - the only thing that's relevant is whether someone can form government or not, and if they can, then they are the winner", and I asked you to confirm whether my understanding of your opinion is consistent with that.
 * You still haven't. Don't bother - you've exceeded my attention span. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Drover's Wife is absolutely correct. A government comprising a Labor party Premier and a majority Labor cabinet has been formed and holds executive power, therefore Labor has won the election, as it did in 2002, 1989 and 1975 and as the conservatives did in 1997, 1968 and 1962. That's all there is to it. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, that isn't quite right. Labor won because they won a plurality of seats. You can win fewer seats (and votes) than another party and still form government in the Westminster system, but it would be difficult to argue that such a party "won" the election. I think we can acknowledge that in substantially losing the popular vote and not gaining a majority of seats, the Labor "win" was less clear-cut than in most cases. Gabrielthursday (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So Colin Barnett and Steve Bracks both lost the elections they first won government at? Or at least didn't win them? *raises eyebrow* The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In both Barnett's and Brack's cases, they won a plurality of votes, if not a plurality of seats, so I wouldn't quibble with a claim that they won those elections. That said, minority parliaments are a difficult thing to describe at times. One can win a plurality of the vote and a plurality of seats and yet not be able to form government. All I'm saying is that it's difficult to make such hard and fast rules about "winning" and "losing" elections in the Westminster system (and in many proportional systems as well) - though, again, I'm not disputing the use of the term in this article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Statewide lower house informal vote?
Seems this is the last piece that hasn't been released yet...? Timeshift (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to my database it's 32,503 informal votes (3.1%, change –0.2%), but yeah I'd rather ECSA or even ABC publish an official figure. --Canley (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, if your database has added up the informal votes from the 47 seats and divided by the number of statewide votes, that's good enough for me. Good to see informal went down in both houses at this election. Timeshift (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It matches the figures that are on ECSA's site, so should be accurate: total formal votes 1,017,856; percent counted/turnout I have as 91.8%, ECSA says 92% but they seem to have rounded up to a full percentage point. Yes, it's always nice to see the informal vote go down... :) --Canley (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you be dividing informal votes by total votes, not just formal? Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 32,503/1,050,359 = 3.1%. I just mentioned the formal total as ESCA have that on the website and it matches what I have as the formal total. I notice ABC says 91.9% counted/turnout, but I get 91.8%... I will investigate. --Canley (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 91.9% is correct, I had a digit wrong in two enrolment figures. I will check the turnout percentage in the tables for those seats (Adelaide and Light). --Canley (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Adelaide was fine, but the turnout figure in Light was very wrong, and was showing as a 7.9% drop in turnout – actually only a 0.4% drop. Whew! I fixed in full list and in the district article. --Canley (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Electoral district of Adelaide party affiliations
Bardolph, Dale and George. Ind Labor, Labor, Labor according to the article. Labor, Unknown, Unknown according to Parl SA. What's right and what's wrong? Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The second last document on this page confirms the Ind Labor, Labor, Labor designations. I've found the Parl SA biographies pretty dodgy, generally. Frickeg (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is actually incorrect - Bardolph and Dale, at least, were members of Lang Labor, and Dale later also a member of a splinter Lang Labor party. The whole South Australian Labor Party blew itself to sh*t in 1933, splintering into at times up to four factions (official Labor, the Premiers Plan/Ministerial Labor when official Labor expelled the entire ministry, Lang Labor (Bardolph), and later also Lang Labor (anti-Bardolph)), and separately contesting the 1933 election before (mostly) reuniting the following year. It's something covered really surprisingly badly in modern sources (it really should be the subject of a book one day because it's a really interesting period), and basically the only way you're going to get sources for what party anyone in SA Labor circles was actually in in that period is to hit up Trove. Unfortunately some sources (such as the above) have decided they couldn't be stuffed and just ignored the fact there were actually four formal parliamentary Labor parties in this period. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We're only talking post-1938 here, though. (The above source does give three separate Labor parties for 1933.) Wasn't the split mostly resolved by then? (Not that I really know anything about the SA situation.) The Bardolph entry in ADB declares the 1938-1941 period "Independent Labor" as distinct from the Lang Labor groups. As an aside, do you happen to know if any of this carried over into the federal sphere? The 1934 candidature seems pretty normal, but looking at 1937 there seem to be multiple Labor candidates for most SA seats and twice the required number for the Senate. Frickeg (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad! No idea about 1937, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was related to growing pains from re-accomodating everyone after the split - like it was with Bardolph getting kicked out again around the same time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Should "Independent Labor" be classed as "Independent"? Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, not for this period. If we have reliable sources saying Ind Labor (and we do), then go with that. The federal parliamentary handbooks routinely use the "Independent Labor", "Independent Country", etc., labels for this period, and it was commonly used to describe them. Most publications also consider them separately. Frickeg (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm sure it's incorrect somehow and/or overly simplistic so if anyone wants to expand Douglas Bardolph please feel free! Timeshift (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Davenport 2014 result - can anyone explain?
One of the strongest Labor swings was in this seat - Belair actually voted Labor!! Other nearby booths also swung at around 5% 2PP to Labor. Does anyone know of any local factors at play here? Timeshift (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Google suggests the Labor candidate was a barely out of high school uni student who wasn't on the party's website a month before the election, so that's a very odd result alright. I have no clue. Maybe people are just really starting to hate Iain Evans? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This blog (Idiot's Guide to SA Election 2014) suggested (pre-election) that Lock-Weir, a second-year university student, "might receive a few votes from some young guys who like the look of her, but Evans will increase the Liberals margin here". That's the only commentary I have read on this, but I think it's unlikely that the candidates' looks were responsible for such a not-insubstantial swing. --Canley (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "National MP Karlene Maywald who helped the Labor Party take government in the 2002 hung parliament" - not a very accurate blog. And their predictions were all over the place. :P Timeshift (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it just happens. Chaffey, Flinders, Goyder, Hammond, Heysen, Schubert and Unley all swung to Labor by similar amounts. Most of these seats had disproportionately huge Liberal swings last time, so I think it's probably a correction. Frickeg (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, a majority of Liberal seats (12 of 22) swung to Labor: Adelaide, Dunstan, Davenport, Unley, Heysen, Waite, Goyder, Kavel, Schubert, Hammond, Bragg and Chaffey (Flinders did not swing to Labor). Of Labor seats (4 of 23) that swung to Labor: Ashford, Mawson, Ramsay, Croydon. But it was all in the range of 0-3%. So there is definately a strange pattern here. The standout for me is Davenport on a measley 8% margin and a 5% swing in various booths and Labor winning Belair off an 8% swing. They came to within 5% of winning Belair in 2006. Labor shouldn't be winning Belair. That really struck me. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake about Flinders. Who knows, really. I suppose you'd assume the Liberals put approximately zero effort into these seats (for all the good it did them), so maybe that's got something to do with it. Maybe lots of Labor-voting people from around the electorate happened to be in Belair that day. Or, as TDW says, maybe Iain Evans said something stupid at a local meeting or something. Or I wonder if there's some feeling that the SA Libs could use a little renewal. In short, I have no idea. Frickeg (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say the Libs put approximately zero effort toward Labor in seats like Davenport at any election. Davenport doesn't have any Labor-voting booths whatsoever. I don't buy the idea that booths aren't reliable as local indicators. Every booth gets voters that aren't their closest so IMHO it gets more or less cancelled out. Not to mention, it appears that all booths swung toward Labor in Davenport. The largest swing was in Hawthorndene with 8.3% to Labor. I guess this could explain why Antony's computer was giving Davenport to Labor (!) very early in counting if the first booths reported were Belair or Hawthorndene. Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And now Evans is resigning from parliament within a year which will trigger a by-election. Do we still add retiring MPs to the next election article if it's an upcoming by-election? I've added him to South Australian state election, 2018 but now wondering what past precedent is. Timeshift (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not, because they're not retiring at the election. It can be noted in the "changes since the previous parliament" section, if there is one. Frickeg (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done some more research. Heysen also saw some booths swing up to 8% 2pp to Labor, while some Bragg booths saw up to 12%! And in Marshall's seat of Dunstan/Norwood, in 2010 there was just one St Peters booth - St Peters, with a Lib 2pp of 70.4%. In 2014 there was St Peters and St Peters West, with Lib 2pps of 55.5 and 56.0 percent - a 15% swing! Please explain! Timeshift (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"Survey of Martin Hamilton-Smith’s electorate reveals huge opposition to his defecting to Labor government"
That's the headline for this article. Tell me, how can one reconcile that headline with the poll results showing for "should there be a by-election in Waite", 41% say yes, 43% say no, and "do you feel betrayed by his decision", 42% say yes and 46% say no..........? Am I just dumb? Timeshift (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Come now, it's the Advertiser. You can't expect intelligent reporting from them. Frickeg (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But i'm not sure i've ever quite seen it this overtly. It's one thing to gloss up their results, it's another to outright lie. I would have thought they'd just not run the story upon seeing these unfavourable (to them) poll results. Even i'm surprised by the poll results. Timeshift (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Hamilton-Smith - input appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Davenport by-election article
Can I start creating one now? If so, would Davenport state by-election, 2015 be appropriate? The article can always be moved should the need arise, but based on Evans' "within 12 months" it is logical. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd wait until he actually resigns. There's plenty of precedent for politicians changing their mind in this kind of situation, and I'd say anything before that violates WP:CRYSTAL. Frickeg (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good enough, done :) Timeshift (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Unley tidbit
"The 1973 election saw an unusual protest in Unley, when several local activists complained about the quality of candidates by nominating the improbably named Susie Creamcheese on behalf of the Happy Birthday Party. Creamcheese polled 6% of the vote." Timeshift (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hammond primary vote swings incorrect
With Electoral district of Hammond results, Antony doesn't display the results on his Hammond article. In other areas of his 2014 SA election info, it does indicate a 3.1% swing against the Libs on a 64.6% 2PP after a redistribution took it from 69.2% to 67.7%, a 1.5% change. The primary vote swings however appear to have been calculated from the 2010 percentages which is obviously incorrect. Without Antony, how else can we get the post-redistribution primary vote swings for Hammond...? Timeshift (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's strange, why doesn't the ABC Hammond page have the 2014 results?
 * I found a file on my laptop which said the notional primary percentages (post-redistribution) calculated by Anthony Green were:

Party               Notional  Election Labor Party    ALP  24.3      23.0 Liberal Party  LIB  60.1      61.8 Greens         GRN   8.4       8.0 Family First   FFP   7.3       7.1
 * I guess a crude swing could be calculated from that? I'm not sure why I used the 2010 election figures for that seat as the other electorates seem to be using the notional estimates, or why the results aren't on the ABC site now. --Canley (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See here... "I don't know why the result for Hammond keeps disappearing. It is some technical issue to do with the content management system. The results publishing system has been turned off". I'll change the Hammond result now with the crude swing. Better than the current. Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. --Canley (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I found maps for 1989
Pages 18 and 19 here. I found it rather interesting. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So what was the metropolitan 2PP?
Without the precise 2PP vote tally in Fisher (yet), the only way to do this is to add the metropolitan (excluding Light, including Heysen, per ECSA) seat 2PP figures and divide by the total number of metropolitan seats. With approximately an equal number of voters in each seat, it is a reasonable approximation. It works out to Labor 53.3/46.7 Liberal. And the metropolitan population makes up three quarters of SA's total population. So yeah. Just another tidbit :) Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How Labor won despite losing the two-party vote
From the looks of it, it seems that Labor was able to hold onto office by winning 23 seats in Adelaide to the Liberals' 12. I figure that can be noted in the article. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 14:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Labor won 21 seats in Adelaide, not 23 - Giles and Light are classed as rural. Before that you were adding the Liberals won 11 metro seats but you weren't including Heysen which is classed as metro. The issue is you're adding information without a ref to demonstrate how the factoid is relevant and noteable. The other issue is that there's no good section to place it in. It's not a need-to-know fact to understand who formed government and how so where it was being placed looked odd. There's ways to make factoids look extra factoidy and where you added it certainly achieved that. It's one thing I notice with you HangingCurve. You're a great editor but you seem to have this obsession with adding unreferenced factoids of questionable relevance and noteability all over australian politics articles and then making them stick out like a sore thumb, especially seat articles. Please take it as constructive criticism :) Timeshift (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough ... but can it least be said that the Liberals made a near-sweep of the rural seats, while all but two of Labor's wins were in Adelaide? HangingCurveSwing for the fence 02:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the issue is you're adding information without a ref to demonstrate how the factoid is relevant and noteable. And when was the last time Labor won more than two non-metro seats? You make it sound like it was a change to the norm. Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Got map skills? Looking for something to contribute to?
Something i've wanted for a long time now but don't have the skills to do is create maps for SA election articles from 1985 to 2002. 1993-2002 articles are using 2006 boundaries but the actual boundaries are available here. For 1985-1989, here. Ideally, before 1985 would be great too but i'm not sure what the chances are of us getting our hands on earlier boundary maps. A very well done though to Kirsdarke01 who creates articles like Results of the South Australian state election, 1973 (House of Assembly). I do enjoy observing the ever-moving expansion of wikipedia to become the most comprehensive online source of information available on SA elections. Timeshift (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those sources are tricky to use as they are bitmap formats (even though they are contained in mostly vector PDFs), so to apply colour fills, clean up the text and so on they should be traced into a vector format. Software like Adobe Illustrator can do bitmap-to-vector tracing but the function is not really ideal for such fine, precise linework and to get a usable map it would probably need to be traced by hand, or even hand-drawn using the gazetted descriptions, which would be very time-consuming. An easier, quicker way to do it would be to paint the fills over the bitmap image in Photoshop, but there could be copyright issues with using the original image in such a direct way. I know The Tally Room had some vector KMLs going back to 1997, so that's probably as far back as can be easily mapped. --Canley (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aww :( Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article could do with a section regarding the 2PP
There doesn't seem to be much WP:RS out there. It would be good to have a fair and balanced view in the article, and not the hysteria we get from News Ltd. This article is pretty good but still an article. Does anyone know of any good sources that a section could be created from? Because at the moment, IMHO the article does an injustice in not explaining why Labor legitimately retained government, unlike the conservatives during the Playmander days. Timeshift (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're going to really struggle with this because it's so widely misunderstood: I know way too many well-educated political wonkish types who genuinely think South Australia has a gerrymander because the reporting is so bad. Like, this myth is so prevalent I've had to explain the 2PP situation to local doctoral students in related fields. I know of someone doing a thesis in this area, and that might be a useful source when it's done, but otherwise I think tackling this in a balanced way would be quite a challenge. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added something at South Australian state election, 2014. I've used facts and withheld potential opinion to demonstrate to some extent what the situation is. I hope it's of use to the less-knowledgeable. Timeshift (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I came across this... it's decent but who is it written by? Some Adelaide Uni student, or Professor John Williams (Adelaide Law School) and Professor Clement MacIntyre (School of History and Politics)? The wording is awkward. Timeshift (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Libs outspent Labor 50 to 1 in safe seats, caucus told: InDaily 23 February 2016 - very interesting article covering various aspects, especially ''InDaily revealed yesterday that some members of a 1990 parliamentary inquiry – which also included senior Liberals Stephen Baker and Bruce Eastick – had serious misgivings about the “fairness clause” they nonetheless recommended, even urging a semi-proportional “top-up” system to be reconsidered after the 1993 election; it never was... Dean Brown, who became premier in the 1993 landslide, rejected responsibility for ignoring the top-up option, saying “it had already been rejected” before the poll. “The issue was dealt with by the parliament at the time, and it was agreed back in ’91 that they wouldn’t pursue the top-ups… I was not in the parliament at the time,” he said.'' Though Brown starts to waffle about pro-Lib top-up reform after that... he and the Libs seem to think SA isn't unique, when in fact SA has the most highly centralised population out of all of the states, and the metropolitan area 2PP has been won by Labor at every election since 1993 and is very rarely won by the Liberals, while the outer rural areas are very heavily Liberal. 2014, on a state-wide 47.0% ALP v 53.0% LIB 2PP, saw an average 50.3% ALP v 49.7% LIB 2PP in the 34 metropolitan seats, compared to the 13 rural seats on an average 33.3% ALP v 66.7% LIB 2PP. Average was worked out by adding 2PP vote % of each seat and dividing by number of seats. As 2014 metro came out so close on 50.3% ALP 2PP, I did a more thorough calculation - I used the ECSA 2014 stats ref to add up the number of Labor 2PP votes in all 34 metro seats which gave a total of 380662 formal metro Labor 2PP votes, added the number of Liberal 2PP votes in all 34 metro seats which gave a total of 357861 formal metro Liberal 2PP votes, added them together to get a total of 738523 formal metro 2PP votes, then divided 380662 by 738523 to get the true metropolitan 2PP percentage - 51.5% ALP v 48.5% LIB 2PP in the 34 metro seats for 2014. Now, given that more than 75% of South Australians live in the metropolitan area now (1.3mil metro, 1.7mil total), it's completely fair and balanced for the party that wins Adelaide wins government. Since the post-1989 electoral reforms, when Labor has won government, they have also won the metropolitan 2PP, while when the Libs have won government, they have also won the metropolitan 2PP, the sole exception being 1997 and the Lib minority govt where Labor won the metro 2PP vote. Far better than the state-wide 2PP as an indicator. This is not a coincidence. You can't argue with more than three-quarters of the population. The state-wide 2PP seems quite meaningless and distorted now if Labor is spending money only in marginal seats while the Liberals continue state-wide campaigns. If Labor isn't spending money in any safe seats on either side, they are not winning a substantial number of votes they could have otherwise received. Labor campaigns to the current single-member system while the Liberals seem to campaign to a multi-member or top-up system which doesn't exist. The Libs are moving in early on pro-Lib top-up reform in attempts to ensure neutral multi-member reform doesn't get off the ground. The Libs don't want to reform the electoral system out of good intentions, they selfishly want a pro-Lib top-up system. They are hoping to unlock the concentrated Liberal rural areas again through a top-up as they know multi-member would not work as well to unlock them - multi-member would still recognise the metropolitan area is 75% of SA's population which almost always votes Labor, while an artificial top-up would not and conveniently ignores this unique situation. SA used only one system, multi-member, from the inaugural 1857 election right up until when? The introduction of the Playmander in 1936. Single-member since... the one remaining vestige. The change to single-member rendered a state-wide 2PP meaningless and distorted throughout during the Playmander, times after, and in the 21st century - for various reasons. Go back to multi-member like we used to have, and we'll rightly get state-wide campaigns, a real and meaningful state-wide 2PP, and a system that could not be perceived as advantaging either side. Lastly, it is an "impossible challenge" for the ECSA's current-day redistributions to comply with the Lib-instigated post-1989 electoral changes, per Clem MacIntyre. One vote, one value is democratic and not a malapportionment, unlike the Playmander. We have some information about the history and modern effects of the 2PP in article sections such as here and here but a lot of the above would be noteworthy in this and/or other articles, however the issue is that most of the above could be considered subjective and all sentences would need their own WP:RS, which is a big task. Timeshift (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What on earth is the Danig Party...?
ECSA SA register indicates a "Danig Party of Australia (SA Division)" is registered. Nothing on google or google news... at all. Keeps coming up with Danzig. What on earth is the Danig Party...? Asking here, main discussion here. Timeshift (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass disambiguation changes needed
Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch) and Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division) have been created. I've done a vast amount of disambiguations already, however there are a few areas that still need updating that readily come to mind: Members of the South Australian [chamber], 1989–1993 articles and earlier, List of South Australian House of Assembly by-elections and the by-election articles, some current and all former electoral district articles, and articles of all state MPs who aren't current or weren't a major party leader. Additionally and preferably, new disambiguated template party codings need to be added for several types of templates, for example "| after_party = Australian Labor Party (SA)" for the "{{Infobox election" template. Does anyone have a bot/script they can use to speed all of this up? Timeshift (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)