Talk:Brindabella electorate

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Brindabella electorate. 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/20090914053314/http://www.elections.act.gov.au/boundaries/electorate_08.html to http://www.elections.act.gov.au/boundaries/electorate_08.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217044100/http://www.legassembly.act.gov.au/education/memlist/memlist.pdf to http://www.legassembly.act.gov.au/education/memlist/memlist.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217044100/http://www.legassembly.act.gov.au/education/memlist/memlist.pdf to http://www.legassembly.act.gov.au/education/memlist/memlist.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brindabella electorate. 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/20081024050953/http://www.elections.act.gov.au/boundaries/electorate_95.html to http://www.elections.act.gov.au/boundaries/electorate_95.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024050948/http://www.elections.act.gov.au/boundaries/electorate_01.html to http://www.elections.act.gov.au/boundaries/electorate_01.html

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) 22:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Election Results - STV
Hello fellow Wikipedians and election enthusiasts,

Because of the lack of election results on the pages for the ACT electorates, and the STV nature of the election I have taken it upon myself to add the election results in an STV format, specifically Template:STV Election box begin2 as used for the Irish elections, for example: the seat of Louth. This representation of an STV vote count allows for the reader to understand how preferences are distributed and how, for example, the Greens got 2 seats in Kurrajong despite getting less primary votes than the Liberals.

Once I have done this for the 2020 election if I can find the results I will do it for previous elections, creating new pages for that purpose.

If anyone has problems with this please raise them here and hopefully we can come to a consensus.

I have copied this message to the other electorate talk pages.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Another NPC (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respond here, but this applies to all five pages. Thank you for checking before going ahead, because we do actually have the results of past elections on pages like Results of the 2016 Australian Capital Territory general election. The big issue with the Irish tables is that they do not include swings, which are a vital and essential part of this data for our purposes, and they also don't give the group totals which are pretty important. (A note also that there a few flaws in the Irish ones' usage - from my understanding in the 2020 Louth example, Counts 2 and 3 are about distributing the surplus of the two elected candidates; in an Australian context, you would represent that by reducing the elected candidates' votes to quota for that count (and generally counts - their votes are still in the count after all).) At the same time, our existing tables do not give any indication of preference flows. There may therefore be an argument for including both tables (I'd be concerned about too much data), but certainly not the Irish one instead of the one we are already using. Frickeg (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I do think that it is necessary for the preference flows to be represented, so to both inform those that come to this page and ensure that people do not need to go searching for the official results (which, btw, are nigh on unreadable), but perhaps this could be done by including the party totals and then having the STV table in a dropdown (i'm not sure about the term; where the table is only revealed by pressing 'show') so it isn't immediately overwhelming.


 * And with your problem with the Irish count, technically the votes of those candidates do remain in the count, they are just removed for visual cleanliness. We could, if we wished, show those candidates votes remaining in the count (although my preference would be to keep with the Irish representation). Not Another NPC 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Although I would be keen to hear others' opinions (I've noted WT:AUP), I think a show/hide option could work well. I think it's non-negotiable to have elected candidates' votes reduced to quota at least once, as otherwise it is unclear that this happens when the surplus is distributed. I wonder if it's possible to merge the subsequent columns into a single one - either saying "ELECTED" or just merged with the quota total. If this is not possible, I would support having the quota total for elected candidates included in each column. Frickeg (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just briefly playing around with it I'm not sure if they is a way to merge the boxes into one. So reduction to quota total it is (with it being bolded so to show that they are elected)


 * What do you think for when it is reduced to the number of candidates +1 (where the candidate with the fewest votes loses and the others are elected) as happens in Brindabella with the final count being Wall:5261, Patron:6527 & Lawder:6605. Should the preference distribution be shown, despite the fact that it is technically unnecessary, or should it be shown? Not Another NPC 07:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I just added the completed table with the preliminary results. I did not make it collapsable because I was unable to figure out how to to that with a template, and two parties could not be displayed as such in the table because the template did not recognize Sustainable Australia or the Australian Federation Party. Also, while it recognized the Animal Justice Party it did not generate a link. If anyone could fix this (or tell me how to) it would be greatly appreciated.


 * I will add the party summary as soon as I get the chance. I will also update both (and, if acceptable) add this to the other electorate pages when the results are finalized) Not Another NPC 10:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I might suggest it's better to wait until the final distribution here. Frickeg (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Righty-o (just to be clear, you mean adding the party totals, not removing the STV distribution?) Not Another NPC (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I think we should wait for the whole thing. I don't think it's particularly useful to have a provisional full distribution, especially since this will update every day until the count is final. Seeing it in place, it is also bloody enormous, so will unquestionably need auto-collapsing. I would also like to wait until we hear some other voices in this discussion before rolling this out. Frickeg (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Not Another NPC 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit late to this! Firstly, I think it would be great to have some kind of presentation of the preference distribution and I appreciate your suggestions and request for feedback—the negatives are the size of the tables, and the possibility they are so complex anyway (even if simplified somewhat from the official results) that they still don't really inform the reader very much.
 * I've experimented with a few things in the past in this area:
 * In the bad old days of group ticket voting, Antony Green used to simulate/model the Senate count based on the registered tickets (example here), and I wrote a program ages ago to translate the Senate count tables from AEC into this sort of presentation. Of course this is absolutely massive with loads of text and a large table for each count, but I found the explanation of the transfer and quota process quite clear in these.
 * For a few by-elections I have done alluvial diagrams of preference flows, such as File:Eden-Monaro by-election 2020 preference flows.png, but these are for two-candidate counts, so wouldn't work very well for Hare-Clark or Senate elections.
 * Better than that though, for a multi-member election I think, is an animated visualisation like the one on this tweet. I can pretty easily do these, I'll do a sample and post it here.
 * So I think include the tables as you have suggested, but to Results of the 2020 Australian Capital Territory general election instead of the electorate pages, and in the meantime I can work on an animated visualisation of the count to complement the table. I can show you how to make them collapsible, but MOS:COLLAPSE is pretty against collapsed-by-default content, so maybe on the results list (which are pretty table heavy anyway), collapsing isn't necessary. --Canley (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We also might need to make some slight adjustments to the template for Australian purposes (i.e. create an Australia-specific version). We don't talk about "valid" or "spoilt" ballots, for example, we talk about "formal" and "informal" votes. Although, if they're going to be accompanying our normal table in any event, perhaps we can omit that final line altogether? Frickeg (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a matter of interest, there is a brilliant simulation of the distribution of preferences etc for the 2020 ACT election at .--Grahame (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)