Talk:Division of Hasluck

definitionally
Can this word be found in a written dictionary? Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in my spell checker.petedavo (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is indeed the case, then i'll re-remove the word. Timeshift (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe notionally or the seat being made up by two or more distinctly safe Liberal or Labor areas by voting pasterns that by virtue or similar voter numbers cancel each other out thus making this a notionally marginal seat. Etc.petedavo (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I could find the actual reference, but one of the analysts was talking about this subject in a radio interview (was actually relating to a Canadian election) and made the distinction between three types of marginal seat - definitionally marginal, true marginal and non-standard marginal. A non-standard marginal is often issues based, goes with the government of the day, and swings very heavily. Quite a few of these in Queensland. A true marginal is probably best characterised by Chisholm or Isaacs, where the seat is capable of swinging as a whole and the seat as a whole is not distinguishable easily into areas. A definitional marginal is not a real marginal in the sense that it is actually two opposing safe seats which almost cancel each other out, and so swings work differently in it. This in part explains why in every election since 1980 (with maybe one or two exceptions during the Hawke years) Swan has been at the closer end of things WA-wise, and actually doesn't swing much at all, as both ends are at capacity one way or another. A quick check of online dictionaries reveals "definitionally" simply means "by definition", and has 37,800 hits on Google as well as 47 hits on aph.gov.au's search facility. BTW there's some suggestion in today's newspaper that the Swan result may be nullified in the courts, because of some questions about literature distributed by post in Rivervale. Interesting, as that was a "blip" on my map. Orderinchaos 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW notionally would actually make it incorrect, as any seat at any time that happens to have a certain margin is considered "notionally marginal" for the purposes of the next election, which says nothing special about the characteristics of the seat. Orderinchaos 00:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definitionally+marginal%22 - four results. Timeshift (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Swings
Swan View (Hasluck), Bellevue and Gooseberry Hill are the only ones I have listed as swinging back to Lib. The change regarding "some" is correct, as four of the booths (including Gooseberry Hill) were over 60% Liberal. Orderinchaos 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, at closer scrutiny I over generalised. Some of the safe labor areas did do better and got closer to the national average and some Liberal areas didn't get that as close to a 6% swing to Labor except Wattle Grove, but did seem to swing more than the Labor areas overall.petedavo (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking in whole number terms we have:
 * -2 - Gooseberry Hill
 * -1 - Bellevue, Swan Hill (Hasluck)
 * +1 - Hazelmere, Lesmurdie, Koongamia, Maddington North
 * +2 - High Wycombe South, Maida Vale, Kalamunda North, Midland, Middle Swan, Guildford
 * +3 - Caversham, High Wycombe, Kalamunda, Walliston, Forrestfield North, Thornlie (Hasluck), Gosnells South, Gosnells
 * +4 - Forrestfield, Thornlie East
 * +5 - Kenwick, Maddington, Maddington East, Helena Valley (Hasluck), Gosnells West, Gosnells Central, Huntingdale
 * +6 - Wattle Grove, Thornlie West (Hasluck)
 * (Strangely enough two of these figures changed from first night counts! I had higher figures listed originally for Thornlie West and Huntingdale.) On that basis there is actually almost no difference between the Labor and Liberal areas, with Wattle Grove a notable exception, but a huge difference between the south and the rest (with only Helena Valley an exception). Orderinchaos 00:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rottenest count was interesting, tells more about how many schoolies were there and voting Liberal from the last election. Although it might of supported the proximity to water having some influence on voting pattern theory the other swings in Rottenest from Swan put paid to that, unless the Hasluck ones were all on private boats and the Swan ones were ferry travellers, thus supporting your friend's theory about boat ownership.petedavo (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What I miss is when they noted every booth that had any result at all, and you were getting Kalbarri and Dunsborough and everything (this was about 1996 election). Orderinchaos 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I worked the last state election during my holidays up at Claremont Showgrounds processing the absentee votes. It took three weeks, but it'd opened my eyes as to how many people were away from home, on holidays, working away, in jail, in hospital, registered at their Parent's address, etcetera.petedavo (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography
Commendations to Orderinchaos for reorganising the intro and creating the geography split. It might look easy to a novice, but that sort of effort does chew into one's festive time and is always easier to get wrong than it is to get right. Petedavo talkcontributions  03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Boundaries
Note that the boundaries for Hasluck have changed since 2014. Perhaps this page should be updated given there is an election in 2 weeks time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.229.90 (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)