Talk:Vanessa Goodwin

Final Results
While Vanessa Goodwin is so far ahead she is unlikely to be caught, she has only 37% of the vote and preferences are going to be drawn out because of the number of candidates - I think some sort of tab should e applied to this article until the results are final but I am not sure which tab Porturology (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the references, particularly Antony's commentary. Goodwin has won, it is next to impossible for Goodwin to lose. Timeshift (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I posted after reading Antony's commentary but is "next to impossible" good enough for an encyclopedia article? In most by-elections we would have the provisional preferences by now and there would be no possibility of an upset but the number of candidates, failure to get to 40% and the parochialism of Tasmania make this next to impossible rather than impossible - in any case I am sure it will all be resolved in 48 hrs Porturology (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on previous elections, next to impossible is good enough until results say otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Porturology. Clearly WP:CRYSTAL. It is NOT for the results to say otherwise, it's for the results to say so. Which at present they do not. Digestible (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Goodwin is so far ahead that no combination of preferences could allow another candidate to catch up. With candidate names randomised, with no how-to-votes, and with only three preferences required for a formal vote, there will be enough drifting and exhausted preferences to ensure that Goodwin wins easily on preferences." - Antony Green. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is speculation. No more. Nor can it be any more when preferences have yet to be examined. Digestible (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly speculation. There isn't a single commentator anywhere who's suggested that the race is still in doubt, and we're simply making stuff up to claim that it is. Rebecca (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentators don't decide elections. It's funny how quickly the Frome by-election has been forgotten. Digestible (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which most people commenting on the initial result were right about, though the Liberals jumped the gun. Rebecca (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While no-one doubts she will be elected, she is not a member of parliament until the count is complete. The wording of the article must not state otherwise. The article clearly states at the moment that Antony Green expects her to win. That is how things should be. Barrylb (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Digestible (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. She's a member retrospectively from the date of the election. Take a look, for example, here, where Damian Hale is listed as beginning his term on 24 November 2007, despite the fact that no one knew the final outcome for Solomon until some weeks later. The date of the election is actually the date that someone becomes an MP; another example is Jamie Briggs, who is listed as beginning his term on 6 November, the date of the Mayo by-election. Or take a look at Geoff Brock here. Frickeg (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, yes members can be said to have been elected on the day polls close, but still no-one can be said to be elected until the votes are counted. Once that is done, we can say she was elected on the polling day. Barrylb (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And problem solved. Frickeg (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She won? I'm in shock. *rolls eyes* Timeshift (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)