Talk:2018 Tasmanian state election

Edit dispute
I don't understand this one. I disagree with Colonial Overlord about his claim elsewhere about the Greens being the opposition, but the edit of his that was just reverted doesn't say that. It says the government faces the opposition, led by Green AND the Greens, led by Booth.

This is completely true and should be unarguable, and is completely separate to the (IMHO dopey) argument about the Greens being part of the opposition. The Tasmanian House of Assembly is a three-party parliament, and excluding the Greens from the lede entirely is being either opinionated or obtuse. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it is described as a three-party parliament in reliable sources. If not, the Greens shouldn't be mentioned in the first paragraph. Certainly, as it stands, the sentence is similar to the ones in parallel articles - there is no mention of the challenge by minor parties. StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tasmania is a different kettle of fish to the other parliaments, and is reflected so in most reliable sources I've ever read. The Greens leader is included in most preferred premier polling, which doesn't happen (or would make sense) anywhere else. They previously held 20% of the seats in parliament, and usually hold full parliamentary party status. If they're excluded from election debates, it makes news in reliable sources. The Greens are not a "minor party" in Tasmania in the same way that they are in other states - they're a third party. This shouldn't be controversial unless I'm arguing with Will Hodgman. This is not "similar to the ones in parallel articles" - this is like having an article on a pre-2009 Queensland election and pretending the Liberal Party was a minor party. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you mentioned preferred premier polling - that is not the view the article takes, nor the source on which it is based. Even if they were a third party, it is not clear they are so any more/at the moment. In any case, please provide reliable sources for your assertion, and don't say things like "unless I'm arguing with Will Hodgman" - that is needlessly politicising the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the election is a contest between Labor and Liberal is bordering on ludicrous. Of the last nine Tasmanian elections since the formation of the Greens, three have resulted in a majority Liberal government, three in a majority Labor government, and three in a Green balance of power. (As a side note, I doubt Will Hodgeman would have a problem with this. In my experience the Liberals generally have no problem acknowledging the existence of the Greens, since they're comfortable on the right of centre and don't really care whether they're facing the Greens or Labor. It's the Labor party that tends to get incredibly offended that everyone on the left of centre doesn't bow down and worship them, and wants to pretend the Greens don't exist. In the 2006 election campaign, for instance, it was the Labor premier, not the Liberal leader, who insisted that the Greens be excluded from the debate.) Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * EMRS has historically included the Greens in their Preferred Premier polling, and has done so for years - I'm not sure why Booth is not included in that specific poll. On the eve of the last election, there was quite a bit of mainstream media discussion suggesting that McKim had a chance of becoming Opposition Leader after the election. I don't know what more than that you want (how does one "prove" that the Greens are a third party when they patently are, and the mainstream media overwhelmingly treats them as if they are?), but as someone who is not a Green and otherwise disagrees with Colonial Overlord StAnselm's stance looks extremely partisan. There's just no leg to stand on apart from either a) personal views about the Greens, or b) ignorance of Tasmanian politics. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - what makes you say I'm not a Green? StAnselm (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you're trying to marginalise the coverage of the party in the article with a rationale that doesn't make sense? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And jumping to conclusions about political affiliations is a personal attack. I suggest that you withdraw the comment. You are not being very civil here, with your needless politicising of the issue, making unfounded assertions about my political affiliation, and making snide remarks about my possible ignorance of the topic. This is not helping us achieve a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, I'm finding it hard to find reference to the Greens being called a third party in reliable sources, whereas they are called a "minor party" here (ABC, before the last election) and here (AFR, immediately after the last election). StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What does what they're called matter? The question is are they are a significant force in elections? Yes they are. How you could possibly argue with that is beyond me. Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm delighted to know that "not a Green" could be considered a personal attack (plus TDW wasn't even using that to refer to StAnselm, but to herself!). I don't think the wording between "third party" and "minor party" is actually much of an issue - it's a semantic difference that, in Australia at least, has no real meaning. I cannot see any justification for excluding the Greens from the lead, given their history in Tasmania and also the electoral system, which gives them a real (if very small) chance of at least forming the Opposition, whereas that is not even a remote possibility in the mainland parliaments.

However, it is true that the Greens are no longer officially recognised as a parliamentary party, having fallen below the requisite four members. In this vein, how about a compromise: reduce the sentence to just "The first-term Liberal government, currently led by Premier of Tasmania Will Hodgman, will attempt to win a second term", and then mention Labor and the Greens separately further down the lead - something like "The Labor Opposition is led by Bryan Green, while the Tasmanian Greens, which lost their official parliamentary party status at the 2014 election, are led by Kim Booth". Frickeg (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've just re-read The Drover's Wife's comment ("as someone who is not a Green and otherwise disagrees with Colonial Overlord StAnselm's stance looks extremely partisan"), and realise that it's ambiguous. Still, I was accused of being partisan. Anyway, I am not opposed to Frickeg's compromise suggestion. StAnselm (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only do I agree with the suggestion, I think it's actually better than my original edit. The government goes into the election seeking reelection in its own right, not "against" anyone in particular. Since there seems to be consensus, I will make the change. Colonial Overlord (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we're done here. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Next Tas state election article name... fixed terms or not?
Doesn't Tas have fixed four-year terms (with exceptions) in the same way SA does? If so, shouldn't this article be named 2018 rather than next, like South Australian state election, 2018? Timeshift (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They do in practice, but it was never legislated as the 2008 Bill was not passed, so technically it could change on the will of the Premier or other factors. For some reason they have been on the same day as the SA election for the last three elections. --Canley (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Polling - consistency, inclusion of Morgan etc
There are a number of issues with the Polling section in its current form.

Firstly EMRS currently issue their headline figure as a figure with undecided voters excluded, similar to how Newspoll publish results. This has been the case for all their polls since the last election, but the current table sometimes uses their old headline format (undecided prior to prompting) and sometimes uses the new one. This is inconsistent and there should be a consistent convention. I would prefer to use the headline format actually used by the company and comparable to other pollsters if consensus is consistent with this.

Secondly not all of the results now listed are EMRS as stated - some are by Morgan. The Morgan series uses very small sample sizes for Tasmania and a method that is not an established reliable method (SMS polling), but does receive some media coverage. Should Morgan results be included (if so many more can be added, but the table will need reformatting to state pollster and sample size to be useful)? I'm far from convinced they should but not everyone may share my opinion that Morgan-SMS is pretty much a junk poll.

Thirdly there are some ReachTEL results that can be added.

Any comments on these issues? If the section is still in need of editing for consistency and correct attribution then I intend to carry out edits in about a month or so (maybe sooner) after allowing time for comments. Therealsleepycat (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have commenced reconstructing the tables. Work in progress, more to be done in the future including adding missing ReachTEL results. I am unsure I can be bothered adding Morgans but do have all those results if this is considered worthwhile.  Therealsleepycat (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

2PP estimation issues
I've removed the 2PP estimates for this article and also 2014 as this is not a valid 2PP estimation method for Tasmanian elections for the following reasons. Firstly, preferencing is semi-optional in Hare-Clark (many voters vote 1-5 or as it soon will be 1-7 for their chosen party and then stop) and as a result the preference flows between parties are always considerably weaker than they are in federal elections, and more like they are in NSW elections, with a substantial flow to exhaust. Secondly, how to vote cards are banned, which is likely to slightly reduce the propensity of Green preferences to flow to Labor. Thirdly, from time to time the "Laborial" dynamic in Tasmanian politics on resource issues seems to drive a weaker preference flow as well, but it varies a lot (eg in 2021 the flow of Greens preferences that didn't exhaust was very strongly to Labor). The issues are most starkly illustrated by the 2010 election. At the 2010 federal election Greens preferences in Tasmania split 79-21. At the state election however 34% of preferences leaving the Greens (some would have come from other candidates) that had an opportunity to flow between the major parties exhausted immediately, and of those that did flow to a major party the split was only 52.6-47.4 in Labor's favour. With the Greens polling over 20% in that election, applying federal flows causes a 2PP error of around 11% compared to the actual votes cast. It is possible - but of debatable value - to construct 2PP estimates for Hare-Clark using the actual preference distributions but federal elections are not a valid model. Therealsleepycat (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)