Talk:2019 Australian federal election/Archive 1

Date format in references
The article has use dmy dates, however some references are displayed with publish or access dates in ISO format. At least one recent edit with the summary "fix" converted several dates from dmy to ISO. Is there an explanation I haven't seen somewhere? Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 07:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Electoral redistributions
The Parliamentary Library has just released a paper on redistributions during the current term of parliament.

Some highlights: --Canley (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Under the review of representation entitlement, the number of House of Representatives divisions will likely be reduced to 149. Population projections suggest the abolished seat will be in South Australia which would be reduced to 10 seats.
 * Redistributions will also occur in the Northern Territory (already begun), Tasmania (deferred from Febuary/March 2016), Queensland and Victoria under the expiration of seven years rule. South Australia was also due but will most likely take place earlier than the late 2018/early 2019 schedule due to the representation entitlement trigger taking precedence, and the proximity to the next election.


 * 150 to 149 seats? *twitch* SA recently lost Hawker/Bonython, and now another? Universally unhappy. By the way, for anyone interested at a state level, see recently added content at South Australian state election, 2018. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, anyone care to guess which seat might get abolished? I would suspect it to be a metropolitan seat yet again as they're far easier to abolish and re-incorporate suburbs in to surrounding seats (for this reason it's impossible that it could be Grey or Barker, not to mention Wakefield is a federation seat), in which case I look straight at Makin which has only been around since 1984, since 2013 is no longer a bellwether, and has surrounding metropolitan non-federation seats. Every other metropolitan seat has a history going back to at least 1949. Adelaide, Boothby and Hindmarsh are also federation seats and we know from history that federation seats are almost never abolished. The only non-federation metropolitan seats that actually touch each other are Port Adelaide, Makin and Sturt. The Advertiser's article for no particular indicated reason seems to think Sturt (Christopher Pyne's seat) could be the target. Port Adelaide's boundaries have been little changed since it was created in 1949 which pushed Hindmarsh south and proceeded to take in most of Hindmarsh's former suburbs, so for whatever reason they don't seem to like changing Port Adelaide as a federal seat very much. Without Port Adelaide, that only leaves Makin and Sturt as the only side-by-side metropolitan non-federation seats. Perhaps The Advertiser and/or sources simply had the same idea when invoking Sturt... everyone knows Pyne, nobody outside of the state knows Zappia. Is it all fitting in to the most logical scenario? Anyone else care to hazard a different theory/logical conclusion? Timeshift (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

South Australia
Quote from article: South Australia is the least-populated state where the number of seats can change, as Tasmania and the territories are constitutionally guaranteed a consistent minimum number of seats regardless of population shifts and quotas.


 * Tasmania can indeed change, upwards. The Constitution guarantees it 5 seats minimum, but says nothing about any maximum.
 * The territories do not have a minimum number of seats. Well, I suppose they have a mathematical minimum of 1 seat, as they're treated separately from any state.  The NT was 1 electorate for a long time; now it's 2.   But even if they were "constitutionally guaranteed a consistent minimum number of seats regardless of population shifts and quotas", that is still only a minimum, not a maximum, and so they can change.
 * The sentence is based on flawed information and should be deleted. Comments? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why delete when the point remains? Clearly it just needs a little technical re-wording. Timeshift (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this really a point worth keeping, though? I don't quite see how it's a useful fact; the amount of syntactical juggling required to make it accurate is a pretty strong indicator that it's not exactly vital information. Frickeg (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as worthy of inclusion. If it were to be reworded and kept, the territories' representation is not derived from the constitution as far as I am aware, so the minimal correct statement would be along the lines of "South Australia is the least-populated state where the number of seats can decrease, as Tasmania's current representation is the minimum guaranteed by the Constitution." --Scott Davis Talk 12:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's of little real value, but I could live with that revised wording. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Article layout is broken
The Senate table layout flows through in to the Retiring MPs/Senators section and all subsequent sections. I've had a look at the article source but can't seem to locate what is causing it. Can someone better with this sort of thing please rectify it? Thank you. Timeshift (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

YouGov poll?
What about the YouGov poll? It uses a replica of the actual ballot paper to conduct the poll and gets the voters to choose their own preferences. Tri400 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Graphical summary
Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary its been a long time since its been updated.Torygreen84 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll see what I can do! Stickee (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Anything. Torygreen84 (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Stickee, I'm sure everyone is grateful for your work, and understandably wants twice as much of it! Tony   (talk)  12:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. The reason for the delay was that I lost some of the files used to produce the summary and had to recreate them. I've learned my lesson and backed them up this time! Stickee (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary. Torygreen84 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Stickee (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary.Torygreen84 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

missing YouGov poll for 7 Aug 2017
YouGov poll is done fortnightly. I tried to add the poll results for 7 Aug 2017, but someone reverted my edit!

Here are the figures for 3-7 Aug 2017:

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/08/09/yougov-fifty-acres-50-50-2/ Tri400 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
Why is the infobox displayed with two parties per line as opposed to three (as usual), which would be more vertically compact? Mélencron (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is because Australia has two major political parties and a bunch of minor ones - having it as two per line gives proper prominence to the only two parties with any chance of forming government. Frickeg (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Pics in infobox: plain weird
I know this was discussed last year, but it's time to raise the matter again. Whatever rule is used for the inclusion/exclusion of portraits in the infobox, we have:
 * two of parliamentarians who are not even in the House (bizarre and confusing to see "senator" this and that);
 * one of a single member who happens to have registered himself as a party—unlike Cathy McGow, another single-member independent who doesn't choose to embroider herself with party registration.

The numbers are 76–69–1–1–1. There might be more rationale to this allocation of pics if the major parties splintered, and governments formed by post-election negotiations of coalitions, Euro-style. But in the foreseeable future that doesn't appear to be likely.

The current emphasis on crossbenchers who happen to call themselves part of parties is very misleading to anyone who doesn't follow Australian federal politics closely. With numbers like this (76–69–1–1–1), it would be less slanted to keep the PM and the opposition leader pics in the infobox, plus:


 * OPTION A: pics of crossbenchers only if they go into a formal arrangement to support the govt (as in the Gillard 2010–13 minority govt, Windsor, Oakshot, Bandt)
 * OPTION B: no other pics.

In my view, it is appropriate to display down in the main text pics of crossbenchers who are not in a formal arrangement to support the government.

Let's hear your views. An RFC might be necessary, I suppose, but only if there's significant dispute about finding a way out of this.

Tony  (talk)  14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we have the right balance here. A seat in the House of Reps is not a low bar to cross, and it obviously is not feasible to include pictures of independents in the infobox. We give adequate prominence to the two major parties by reserving a single row for them, unlike the usual three-per-row. Infoboxes are not about the formation of government, so the idea of using that as a benchmark would not be a good solution IMO. As for senators appearing, the infobox is for an election for both houses. Honestly it would be better to try and work the Senate into the infobox more, not less, but that's a discussion for another day. For now, I support the status quo. Frickeg (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be inclined to support Tony1, and go a step further and suggest we remove all minor party information from the infobox all together. They have no chance of ever forming government and the main contest is obviously between LNP and ALP. Moreover, the leaders of some of the parties do not even sit in the House of Representatives, making the "Leaders' seat" part look very awkward. Andreas11213 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Retiring MPs and Senators
Should Andrew Bartlett be listed in the Retiring Senators section if he has stated he intends to seek preselection to contest a House of Representatives seat (Brisbane)? I can't remember the convention, but I seem to remember waiting until Clive Palmer confirmed he wasn't running for the Senate before he was added in 2016. --Canley (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, he shouldn't be, since he has indicated he will still be contesting the election (or trying to) so he is hardly retiring. Frickeg (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A third list for members seeking to transfer from one house to the other is probably best. Timrollpickering 11:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, curious about the new format of these lists. I don't hate it, exactly, but I have some concerns we use these lists in a ton of articles so I think it warrants discussion. One concern is that as these lists inevitably get much longer, we will find ourselves with yet another giant table in an article that will already have very many of those. What is the purpose of the changed format? Pinging Frickeg (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I also think it's unnecessary and ugly, for what it's worth. It takes up more space for no reason and the additional "first elected" field is pointless. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Next Australian federal election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160803131428/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-165.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-165.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108212031/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/2008-09/Aust_elections.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/2008-09/aust_elections.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Major SA federal draft redistribution to be released today Friday 13 April 2018
For those interested, heads-up FYI for today's draft release (AEC SA redistribution website link). Featuring a reduction from 11 to 10 seats, "The Australian Electoral Commission will on Friday release a draft redraw of South Australia’s federal seats..." Advertiser article: 12 April 2018. Timeshift (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated the section: Port Adelaide to be abolished and Wakefield renamed to 'Spence'. --Canley (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Spence boundaries... whoa, de ja vu! It's like the ghost of Bonython past! That aside however, the general boundary changes proposed would seem to significantly shore up each seat's 2PP major party leaning - 5 Labor, 5 Liberal (when counting Mayo as Liberal). The particularly strong pro-Labor changes in Hindmarsh, Makin and Adelaide (not to mention Wakefield-come-Spence) would seem to make Port Adelaide worth abolishing! I can't say i'm surprised with the abolishment choice of Port Adelaide though, considering what the AEC have done to the seat of Melbourne Ports. The AEC are certainly on an anti-geographical-name kick... they are heavily against anything "Port" related at the moment. Perhaps they should join us Adelaide Crows supporters :D Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fascinating change of margin estimates at https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/04/13/south-australian-draft-federal-redistribution/ - nine of the ten seats all swinging to Labor! Timeshift (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Avoid speculation, even if from the ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-24/analysis-when-will-the-next-election-or-elections-be-called/9788384?section=politics

The person who wrote this for the ABC is a nong and a drongo. The voters would be pissed off and irritated by a separate half-Senate election and would treat it like a huge by-election, electing all sorts of obscurities and wackjobs that would have no hope in a regular half-Senate election. The last time a government tried this, in 1970, the DLP won 11.11% of the vote and elected five Senators. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from using talk pages to have a rant about things irrelevant to article content, such as finding something you don't like somewhere else on the internet. No one is arguing to include this article because it doesn't tell us anything that isn't already there, mapping out his obvious options without expressing an option as to what he will actually do. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The graph
I wonder whether we could have an update. I can't remember the name of the hard-working editor who does it. Tony (talk)  06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Referencing for opinion polls / minimum standards for including polls
The ReachTEL poll dated 6 August 2018 is referenced to a twitter blog post (albeit a quality twitter source that is almost always correct: @GhostWhoVotes). I have googled more generally and cannot find any published reference to this poll's national results. However, there are published references to a ReachTEL poll of national voting intention in Victoria at the same time - a poll commissioned by Greenpeace. For example: https://www.greenpeace.org.au/research/poll-victorians-want-renewables/

For me this raises two questions: First, is there (or should there be) a minimum standard of reference for poll (ie. it should be published somewhere) before it is added to the list on the Wiki page on the Next Australian Federal Election. Second, should the list include privately commissioned polls? OldBryan (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I support including a note about who it has been commissioned by. Reliable Twitter and blog sources are fine but primary or news sources are preferred. All reputable polls should be included. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now updated the post on this poll to reference the media statement from the poll commissioners (Greenpeace). OldBryan (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
There seems to be a whole range of views as to who should be included in the infobox and how. I think the most sensible way is to have three in a row and then include all five parties, but if we're only going to have two in a row then we might as well keep it to just Coalition and Labor. We're also able to include the Senate results, there's no reason why we can't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussion, three out of four editors thought two per row was the right decision. I'll add my voice to that mix too. Stickee (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But onto your other point, I'd support your proposal to just limit it to the two main parties/coalitions. Basically only parties that actually have a hope of forming majority. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely two to a row, which gives the two major parties their due prominence. I don't believe Onetwothreeip did propose only two parties in the infobox, and for approximately the billionth time, we hashed that out in a long RfC, and if someone wants to change it they should start a new RfC. Frickeg (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am proposing only one row if consensus holds for two in a row. Yes, I am starting the new request for consensus here, this is what's going on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then start an RfC, with a proper, detailed proposal outlying what the new standard should be and why, and we can have the discussion. Frickeg (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have. I gave my view and I am seeking the opinions of others. I believe you have proposed there be all five parties, two in a row for three rows, but you can clarify that if it is something else. Clearly whatever consensus existed is by now unstable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. An RfC is a formal process for dealing with significant, widespread changes, which is what you're proposing. Here is the last one we had about this. Since whatever is decided would affect all Australian election articles, it should probably be held at the AusPol talk page.
 * But you say above that the template can handle Senate data. It never has in the past, but can it now? If so, that would be big and would mean we might need to re-think the approach - hell, I'll start the RfC on that myself. But I haven't seen evidence that it can? (To be clear, this isn't meant to be a dig at you, but more at my own lack of expertise on templates - I can't see that it's changed, but maybe it has?) Frickeg (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Whatever happens, something needs to be about the current formula. Tony (talk)  10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would intend to move it to the WikiProject page like I've done on other issues but at the moment this is more preliminary, so I'm not suggesting any consensus would change on the basis of what's happened so far. I felt it would be premature to publicise it on a wider scale before having any idea what the proposal would be, given that this issue has already been brought to the project page. I've started the consensus process informally, not the formal process.
 * As for including the Senate results, articles for other elections in other countries have included upper house results, either as another row or in the same row as the lower house results. Of course a template can fit another row, the question is whether that's a good idea. If we want to embrace minor parties being a significant part of elections, then surely we would include upper house figures which are far more relevant for them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean like Italian general election, 2018? I'm not sure I like that much, but I'm struggling to think of something better. (Can you link to an example of the "another row" variation?) The lack of Senate/LC results in Australian infoboxes has been a problem for a while, and I do wonder if something imperfect is better than nothing. If so, though, we would need to re-examine the criteria for inclusion, because there would be a legitimate argument for significant Senate-only parties like the Democrats in most of their elections, but on the other hand I suspect we might have to exclude some genuine micros (Motoring Enthusiasts, for example) in the interests of keeping it to a reasonable size. I'm not sure where I'd come down in that discussion at the moment, but it's definitely worth having. Frickeg (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Regular updating of the two poll charts?
I wonder how many of us are technically able to update them? The editor who's been doing this, kindly, for some time, does not always have time to do updates on as regular a basis as will clearly be needed over the coming months. This page will become very popular with the public: let's not disappoint them. Tony (talk)  11:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I used to do these polling charts a few years ago, so I have the interest, data and technical capacity to do them. I'll try and reproduce the methodology as best I can. In the long run it would be great if someone could set up a web service to generate these regularly that anyone could download the chart and import to Commons? Might be a bit beyond my capabilities and time, but I'll keep see what I can do. Another option is to set it up in Excel or similar so that someone can plug in the new data and export the chart. --Canley (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent news, Canley. If I wasn't a tech-dummy I'd volunteer to help. This page is going to be very important! Tony (talk)  01:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've the charts to the latest polls (mid-August). The original ones appear to have been done in Excel. I could not reproduce these, so I wrote some code in R (programming language) to generate them from scratch. What I might do is put the R code and the polling data on Github, so that others can generate, update or modify the charts if needed. If there are any comments or suggestions on the aesthetics such as text or element sizes, let me know and I'll tweak the code for the next update. I'll try to update it every time a poll comes out. --Canley (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've put the code and data to produce the charts on Github here: https://github.com/metacoretechs/wikipedia-aus-poll-charts. I'll put instructions in the README so that anyone can run the script in an R interpreter. I'll keep the polling data updated there too, but if it's not up-to-date, whoever is generating the graphs can add the new poll data to the CSV file. --Canley (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the one updating the graph in the past. I normally did it every 3 months (and the last update was 2 months ago). But I like the new graph's fit function better actually. Stickee (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stickee, I'm glad you approve, and thanks so much for doing all the graphs for the last few years. I've just created SVG versions and updated to last night's Newspoll—it was a pretty quick and easy process and hopefully if you or I can't do them any more someone else can use the code and data to take on the mantle. --Canley (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Crewther Dunkley in Labor?
I don't know enough about the table formatting, but it looks like Crewther and his seat Dunkley is listed as a Labor marginal. Is this because of a redistribution? Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, Crewther is a Liberal but due to the redistribution in Victoria, Dunkley is notionally Labor-held. Sorry, I need to add some notes and references to make that clearer. --Canley (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The seat is Liberal, the margin is Labor. So the seat LIB and Crewther are marked in blue, but the margin is marked in red. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Instant run-off voting lacking source
The article claims the election uses "full-preference instant-runoff voting in single member seats for the lower house, the House of Representatives" but I could not locate this information on the source given. If anyone could locate a source for that claim I'd appreciate that. Mateussf (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It isn't like information on Australia's voting system is very difficult to find. Some things would be better Googled than complained about. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's not called that in Australia. I'll update it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the real problem here. In over 50 years of watching Australian elections I've never heard the term "full-preference instant-runoff voting" used to describe the process. I wonder how it got into the article? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A note about Kevin Hogan and the party seat tally
Hogan has moved to the crossbench, but is still a member of the Liberal/National coalition parties. The Coalition has lost two seats in this term of parliament, but the government has lost three. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Hogan should not be classified as coalition
He is seated on the crossbench, But gives the gov confidence and supply, Hes in the Nationals, But does not sit with them, he does not sit with the gov, So therefore the coalition should be classified as having 73 seats not 74. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1AEF:DF00:34D7:DD3:FE8E:8574 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He is in the Coalition but not the government. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no. He is in the National Party, but specifically does not sit in the Coalition party room, so he is not in the Coalition. Frickeg (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? There is no Coalition party room to sit in. He does sit in the Nationals party room. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not right, there is a Coalition joint party room when the Liberals and Nationals meet together: McCormack confirmed that the Nationals will have five cabinet ministers and the same number of ministers, despite the fact Kevin Hogan is going to sit on the crossbench (ie, in the Nationals party room but not the joint Coalition party room). (The Guardian). Unless you mean "party room" as a dedicated physical room only for joint Coalition meetings not the Liberal Party room where the Nationals join later—when the Coalition parties meet together, that is the Coalition party room in the sense of a meeting of the parliamentary party or parties regardless of the physical location. --Canley (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is another case where either is a valid answer depending on how you're defining your terms - I've seen figures both including and excluding Hogan. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a room where both parties meet but there isn't a separate designation for Coalition other than being in the Liberal or National party caucus. There isn't really a function of a room of Liberal+National MPs so I think we're pretty much in a completely unknown area as to how we deal with Hogan. So being in the Nationals should be enough to consider him to be in the Liberal/National Coalition, but not the Coalition government. I understand that most sources include Hogan as Coalition generally though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not unprecedented, because Tony Crook was in the same boat - he joined the National party room late in his single term, but not the Coalition one. I don't know where the idea of there being no joint party room comes from - there is, and it is a major thing; Tony Abbott famously used it to thwart progress on same-sex marriage in 2015, and it's always played a role.
 * But I also don't really agree that there is a distinction between the "Liberal/National Coalition" and the "Coalition government". Both are governed by the Coalition agreement between the parties, which includes allocation of ministries as well as election strategy. You can't leave one without leaving the other.
 * None of that solves the issue of this page, though, which is whether to include Hogan in the "Liberal/National" total. I don't think there's a clear solution, but my suggestion would be to include both - something like "74 (73)" with an explanatory footnote. Frickeg (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Essentially because the Coalition is perpetually existing, even in opposition. Hogan would have to leave the National Party to leave the Coalition as a coalition of the two parties. The precedent of Tony Crook doesn't solve much either, it's not clear how to deal with that case. My understanding is that the Western Australia branch is not part of the Coalition, but the NSW branch is. For anyone else curious, there's something similar going on in the Northern Territory where three Labor MPs are expelled from caucus but not the party. There doesn't seem to be a purely logical solution, it's really whatever we think is more relevant. Given that his move to the crossbench is more of a stunt than sincere independence (like Julia Banks), we ought to consider him as close to the Coalition as possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Frickeg's suggestion is a good one, and agree that it's not really possible to split hairs about the Coalition in that way. Crook sat on the actual crossbench (and so was more clear cut) at least until he joined the National party room, at which time (assuming that he didn't join the Coalition one, I can't remember) it's equally complicated as here. I also think this approach might work for the equally unique Northern Territory situation as well. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

DD last time
Re this: Why is it necessary or important to state that the 2016 election was a Double Dissolution election? Whether it was or wasn't a DD has no bearing on the next election, does it? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. First reason off the top of my head is the consideration of which Senators will be up for re-election. Surely a DD is noteworthy enough to include a simple mention of it in the next election article? Timeshift (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very relevant to the Senate because there will be a completely different quota for election in 2019 to in 2016 as a result. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2019 is an assumption :) Though I do suspect the HoR may just manage to last the full 3 years. Whether Turnbull manages to maintain majority government however is another matter. Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's critical to describe the 2016 double dissolution somewhere in the article. It might well end up in the section that will be written to describe which senators are up for re-election, once we know the answer to that.
 * The previous incantation of this article had a section on the timing. It would be good to bring that forward and update the dates, to show that while a HOR election could be as late as October 2019 (I think), the half-senate election will be between August 2018 and May 2019, so the HOR could well coincide (unless we have another DD - not sure what the latest date for that could be). Out of scope for this article would be any intervening plebiscite or referendum polls, until such time as they start to influence election timing (e.g. hold one of them with a half-senate but not HoR election).--Scott Davis Talk 03:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is important to mention this. Senate terms are backdated following a DD. Similarly, since we're writing a reference article, it's worth having the quick explanation of why 76 Senators were elected last election whereas only 40 will be up for re-election. Of course, that assumes that there won't be a house-only election. Vision Insider (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I must be slow, but I do not understand why it is stated that the next half senate election (if there is one) must be held between August 2018 and May 2019. Section 13 of the Constitution provides that after a DD the senate terms will be taken to begin on the 1st of July previous. So the current senators terms began on 1st July 2016, and the short term senators terms will end on 30th June 2019. The section also provides that the half term election shall take place within one year of the places becoming vacant, so doesn't that mean between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019? Writs etc would have to be issued earlier, but the actual election should occur between those dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The election starts with the issuing of writs and this has to be within one year of taking office so polling day follows on from it. Timrollpickering 11:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't the election be made only on the return of the writs? --Scou3821 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Article size
Even though the election hasn't even been called yet, this article is already approaching the size of the 2016 article and has exceeded the 2010 and 2013 articles (almost double the size of 2010). Once we add the campaign info and results it's going to be absolutely gargantuan and very difficult to read. Could we consider spinning out some sections into separate articles? We have a separate National opinion polling for the 2019 Australian federal election, but we still list every opinion poll in the main article. We go into quite a lot of depth about the redistribution, perhaps this could be a separate article along the lines of Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. We have listed every change in parliamentary composition since the last election, but this is a total duplicate of information found at 45th Parliament of Australia and at the lists of MPs and senators articles. None of the previous election articles have this list. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree - but I think the biggest problem here is the bloat in most sections that really needs a succinct rewrite. Not including the lede or the changes during the term, we have 661 words on the last election result - it takes that long to get to 2016 in an article about something in 2019! This is not the only section that is way too long/too detailed for its relevance here - a lot of the article has that problem. As for the specific issues you raised - I think it's fairly commonplace these days to have a separate article for opinion polling in elections with lots of polling (see 2015 Canadian federal election and 2017 New Zealand general election). I think we do need some reference to/summary of of all the parliamentary changes (because there were so many) (not necessarily in its own section), but we don't need it in a massive blow-by-blow table. I don't know about spinning off the redistribution - I feel like this is probably about as much as would ever need to be said in a redistribution article. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's unusual for the opinion polling to be included entirely in this article. It's 61,000 of the 130,000 bytes this article uses, so it's only necessary to split that, at least for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Good call with removing opinion polling, and I would also agree with removing the full table of parliamentary changes (possibly with a see also link). I agree with trimming the background section, and also honestly the election date section too, which will mostly become irrelevant when the election is called in any case (even so, we don't need five paragraphs and a blow-by-blow of the Constitution on that). Frickeg (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually I find the information in the election date section interesting. In fact it's the reason I am looking at the article today.  However, (i) I would not mind the establishment of a separate article about details of choosing/setting election dates in Australia — probably including federal elections, and state & territory elections — in general, and (ii) I certainly expect the material discussing different date options to become more succinct once a date has actually been set — but that doesn't mean that it should be cut before the date is set.
 * In regard to (i), if such a 'general' article is set up, I'd be interested to know what should happen if the PM simply 'sits on their hands' and doesn't call an election. The article states that the GG has the power to "dissolve" the House of Rep's.  Does that imply that an election automatically follows?  That is not precisely what happened in 1975. And what is the situation with regard to the Senate?  Can the GG also "dissolve" the Senate?
 * —DIV (1.144.109.203 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC))

Emma Husar
Should she be listed with the retiring members? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox rows (Greens top row or not top row?)
There seems to be good reasons for both options, the Greens in the infobox being in either the first or the second row. We should be able to figure out how we want it before election day, and we don't need to rely on what we have decided previously. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notifying recent editors Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Bottom/middle row (i.e. as it is now). The two parties with a realistic chance of forming government should have the top row alone. Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think in the interests of discussion it would be helpful if you outlined why you think the top row should only be parties who can form government. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is pedantic. Does it really matter? All that matters is it’s correct. If I had to say, I’d agree with Frickeg because that way the box isn’t too wide taking up space for text in the lede. Global-Cityzen (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the infobox showed Senate seats it would make sense to have the Greens higher than KAP and CA. However, since the infobox is centred around only the lower house, it is, in my opinion, unreasonable to place the Greens above them. The Greens, KAP, and CA all have one seat and are all equal in legislative power in the lower house. The Greens should be moved to the second row alongside the other minor parties but placed first of all the minor parties due to its voting share. To be honest, due to the Senate having effectively the same legislative power as the lower house (except without the ability to legislate with regard to money), the Senate should be mentioned in some way in the infobox. It's insane that parties with more influence than KAP, such as One Nation, aren't represented. Catiline52 (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is laughable to place The Greens on the same level as Labor and the Coalition. They have no hope of forming a government in their own right. The Greens belong on the second tier. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The amended infobox will look like this: . WWGB (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to keep the infobox narrower. I see no reason that the Greens need to be presented as "just as important" as Coalition and ALP, since it clearly isn't. I would have thought that ranked by importance, Centre Alliance might be in front of Katter, too. --Scott Davis Talk 03:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we really should consider placing the Greens and One Nation on the second row, and omitting Centre Alliance and Katter. Reliable sources are not giving consideration to CA or KAP as national parties, but are giving more weight to Greens and PHON. The implicit criteria can be one that includes either polling results, or Senate results from the previous election, as well was House of Representatives results. If the Greens only had one seat in the lower house and about 2% of the popular vote, I doubt they would be included in the infobox. It seems we're only including Katter and CA because they meet the same lower house seat threshold as the Greens, but that is not the reason why we do or should include the Greens in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We're finding an issue where there isn't one. Put aside subjective views on which parties are more important than others. Put the Greens in the second row along with KAP or CA, and have a third row for whichever of the two latter parties are not placed alongside the Greens, for purely presentable reasons. We literally squeeze the lead becomes by having a row of three in the box. As for talk of including parties with only Senate representation and/or a presence in the polls, that would set a terrible precedent. Six parties have Senate representation going into this election, but no seat in the House. Including One Nation (which has 2 Senate seats and a statistical presence in the polls) invites partisans to demand that other parties with representation in the Senate get in the infobox. Parties with representation in the House, before and/or after the election, should belong there. That's been the de facto standard in all election articles on wiki. Why fix what ain't broke? Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Centre Alliance has more seats across both houses than PHON does.That demonstrates that changing "the rules" will lead to all sorts of interpretations to pick between. We have a current objective measure, let's keep it to not let the infobox grow too wide. --Scott Davis Talk 07:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a separate problem to which row the Greens should be placed, which I think consensus is deciding the second row is appropriate. Likewise, the status quo invites editors to "demand" that One Nation (which had four senators after last election) be included in the infobox when parties of lesser importance are included. Including Katter and Centre Alliance sets a terrible precedent. Just as the infobox shouldn't be too wide, it also shouldn't be too long. The strongest argument by far is that One Nation and the Greens are getting the most coverage of any non-major party by far, and if readers are to be given a summary of information in the form of an infobox, it should include those two parties and the major parties. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly I really don't see a problem with most of this, (I have always preferred Template:Infobox legislative election but I feel that most people would refuse to use it) it is just I think that that how many the first row has is the maximum, i.e. if the first row has two then the second row must have two. Otherwise, the layout looks clunky and like it has not been formatted correctly. JDuggan101  talk. &#124;  Cont. 13:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Greens shouldn't be on the list at all. I think people should take a step back and consider what the point of the box was and its history - it was clearly to show an overview of the election to highlight the credible candidates who will be leading government. We seem to all agree that a indepedant is not credible to PM, but for some reason a party with 1 seat is? Why? Makes no sense. It also makes zero sense at all to show the leader of the party - rather than the leader of the lower house. Richard from the Greens cannot be PM, the GG would never let someone from outside the lower house, not answerable in question time, to be a PM. So he is a not even a practical candidate to lead government. I notice that if you view history of these pages there was pretty much consensus over it being a 2pp box with leader of the lower house.... until greens won that 1 seat in melbourne, and since they just demand to be shown everywhere. Just look at the history of the 2009 2013 2016 election pages. Once the greens won that one seat, someone went around and added the Greens box as the '3rd' party, even though other 3rd parties had won seats before. We need to revert this because the box is frankly ridicuolous. The way the 2013 box was retrospectively changed to add the Greens senator is even more absurd since greens had no seats at time of the election!
 * Think about it: If someone from a party other than the 5 on the current box wins a seat, we now go and change the box to include them? Does that make any sense to anyone? That they suddenly retrospectively become an important leading candidate? We should remove anyone/party who is not credible to win government PM position. See the USA federal election box. Don't include anyone unless they have a credible way to at least gain as many seats for their party as their are cross benchers. Dacium (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Someone went around and added the Greens" - no, we had an RfC about the criteria to use and agreed that, in common with the vast majority of articles on national elections (including Canada, UK, NZ, etc.), we would use lower house representation (either before or after the election) as the threshold for inclusion in the infobox. The US is obviously an unsuitable comparison as they have no minor parties that win seats at elections. Frickeg (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "even though other 3rd parties had won seats before" In my opinion, minor should be added to the infobox of early elections too. Historical minor parties are often overlooked in the perspective that Australian political history was mostly between Labor and a Liberal-like party. The revenue-tariff party, western australian party, country party, etc are overlooked. Every other country has minor parties included in the election infobox if they win seats. The only time they're not all included is when the list of minor parties gets too long and then they create a cut-off point. The UK, for example, lists 6 parties with the highest seat numbers.

Promotional section: 'newspaper endorsements'
I just removed this as it appeared to be promotional. Please discuss if there is some justification for it or reliable third party sources which discuss this. The sources cited were partisan. --Last intellectual (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At this stage of proceedings, I am inclined to agree. Once the major newspapers start endorsing people, they can be included, but I see no reason to include fringe publications like this. Frickeg (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tony (talk)  09:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

New MPs and Senators
To whoever it may concern, I've been compiling a list at User:Onetwothreeip/Candidates_2019 for candidates with a significant chance of winning who do not yet have Wikipedia pages, though I make no claims of completeness. There are some existing articles of people with the same name, but some of these are small and very unpopular articles which can easily be moved to make way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Campaign, issues?
This article has a lot of technical details, but seems to be lacking information about the election campaign, or policies presented by the parties, if there were any. See 2017 United Kingdom general election for an example. ghouston (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is normal for Australian political articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The was a 2016 Australian federal election section for the previous election which is a bit interesting. Still not much on policies though. ghouston (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Full moon
Is this the first federal general election held on a full moon? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That would explain a lot.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Actually, no.  My researches reveal the following elections were all held on full moons: 1963, 1969, 1987, 2007.  And 1914 was the day before a full moon.  Given that there've been 46 elections, and full moons happen every 28 days, chance would suggest 1, maybe 2 would have landed on full moons.  But we have 5 (or 6 if you count 1914).  I suspect sinister forces are at play.  Who will ScoMo appoint as Astrologer-General, I wonder?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe that explains why there's no Science Minister.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox: new protocol for who's included?
After the dust settles, I do suggest we revisit this issue. In particular, foreign readers are likely to get a false impression by seeing a raft of independents' thumbnails and names in the infobox. Tony (talk)  09:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Independents wouldn't be shown in the infobox even by current standards, they're not a party and legally have no chance of getting more than one seat. If they were, there'd be Cathy McGowan, Keryn Phelps and Andrew Wilkie already in the infobox. I do agree that there should be set rules though instead of the informal system we have now, it'd help with standardising historical elections. Catiline52 (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've previously looked at infoboxes over a wide range of different countries' elections. There are no rules consistently used across all of them. However, it is probably commonest to include all parties who won seats, listed in order of how well they did. Bondegezou (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, the main contendors are included, here the smaller parties won 1 seat each and that's probably why they were. Doesn't make much of a difference except for people keeping a head count without realizing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Declaration of Result
There is nothing in the article to clarify that currently all of the figures as provisional, until the AEC returns the declaration of results to the Governor General, and State Governors for the Senate. Gnangarra 09:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Senate parties
I'm just wondering, what are the criteria for showing parties in the senate results table? HEMP, SFF, and Animal Justice all got higher results than Democratic Labor but aren't in the table. I understand parties like Centre Alliance due to their sitting senators, but I'm confused about why the DLP gets included over other minor parties.Catiline52 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is where the party held/holds a seat between 2016 and 2019, so yeah, DLP should probably go. There's been a few attempts to add FACNP, but as you say, HEMP, SFFP and AJP have polled higher than them and are not likely to win either. If inclusion is based on vote percentage but we still want to include former and likely seat holders such as Lambie and Centre Alliance, then there will be 28 rows in the table which is probably too much for the summary, but I can do that if it's wanted. --Canley (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view we should continue to limit the national summary to those parties who won or lost senators, ie Lambie stays on because of the small quota in Tasmania while drop the DLP & UAP off the national list. The extended list of every party would be on the Results of the 2019 Australian federal election (Senate) when it is created, same as for 2016 Find bruce (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed DLP. Lambie won a seat in 2016 then got pinged by Section 44, so I think should be kept for that reason. UAP was included as holding a seat since 2018 via Brian Burston (but if we're comparing seat change to the last election, then maybe it's not clear why they'd be on there). And as you say, every party will be on the national summary. --Canley (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although, is there a reason why Results of the 2019 Australian federal election (House of Representatives) only shows the shortened version for the federal results? It'd be good to keep the two sections standardised. Catiline52 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can replace the transclusion of the shortened table with the full one tonight, I think it was just a temporary measure until the full table was done. --Canley (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I transcluded the summary as a quick way to include an updated table. Happy for the summary to be replaced by a complete list whenever you have time. Find bruce (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarity
The summary is too cluttered. For foreign readers like me it takes a while to even figure out who won? Could the summary be more crisp?


 * It's spelt out at the start of the 2nd paragraph,and again at the end. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's really difficult to summarize it well. For starters, the Liberals are the conservatives, and it all goes downhill from there. EllenCT (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Blue line that many readers might take as a minus sign
I wonder why the zero isn't enough in the tables. The minus sign is confusing. Tony (talk)  11:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a look at a few other elections (such as 2019 European Parliament election) and it looks like they show the but not the zero (as is in the infobox here). Makes sense, I'll do it in the next updates. --Canley (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements
has twice made edits  to state that the Sunday Age "leaned towards Labor and Greens policies". I have twice reverted the edit as it is not supported by the source cited. --Find bruce (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)