Talk:Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia

Merging in progress
Current discussion is here: Talk:Double_dissolution AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Merged content from other talk page
From: Talk:Rotation_of_senators_after_a_double_dissolution

Links, refs, and a heap of content to come soon. See Talk:Derryn_Hinch for previous discussion, which might as well continue here from now on. This is an important, controversial and ongoing issue affecting our democracy, the role of the senate, and will no doubt affect the ability to pass legislation from 2019 to 2022 (and again after the next DD election). It is a sad indictment of how little we can trust our senators (I know, but I had to get one little jab in). Unfortunately it has been a bit of a struggle to get the basic facts up on wikipedia, and at the moment they are thinly spread over about 20 different pages, so it is hard for wikipedia's readers to get a basic understanding of what is going on. Oz freediver (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Was there a failed attempt by the coalition to pass a senate resolution in support of the recount method some time between 1987 and 1998? Oz freediver (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Current discussion is here: Talk:Double_dissolution Oz freediver (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge cleanup discussion
I am up to "pragmatism wins". Will continue tomorrow.

I removed a comment about how it is not clear what effect, if any, restricting the recount to 12 senators will have. It will have some effect, because the preferences of all the other excluded candidates are distributed prior to any senators being elected, so the number of nominally first preference votes each of the 12 senators starts with will be different to if it were a normal half senate elections. In the normal half senate election, senators with a full quota are elected first (possibly in a different order) prior to the least popular candidates being excluded and their preferences distributed. The effect is obviously unpredictable, and it is difficult to say how significant it is. Probably less that the difference between the recount and order-elected method, but still enough to give a different outcome for 1 senator occasionally.Oz freediver (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have seen a reference that discussed the effect of the different quota. I think it was Antony Green, but might have been Ben Rau. Still a couple of days before I have time for this, so thanks for getting in to it quicker. --Scott Davis Talk 23:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I split out the pragmatism wins section into the later sections, but each of those 3 sections is now two paragraphs that still need to be combined. Divide and conquer... I moved the table of affected senators back to the top of the section and put in a paragraph I removed yesterday so there is an introduction to the section that gives a better overview of the section. I changed the section title from proposed reform to stalled reform... as per the old page as I think that is a more accurate description. The section is about the actual reform (section 282 CEA) and the fallout from it (the attempts to change the convention) rather than proposed reforms to the constitution.Oz freediver (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

First round of merging is done. Still needs some work no doubt.Oz freediver (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)