Talk:Victorian Legislative Assembly

Fixed four-year terms
We need to say something about the change to fixed four-year terms that took effect in 2003 (?). Also, is there any circumstance whatsoever under which a state election could be held on a date other than the date fixed by the legislation? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it four years terms? Need to mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themggsdogshow (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Current distribution of seats
I believe that the box above is a more accurate depliction of the distribution of seats. The bottom box is misleading because it promotes Labor as the biggest and therefore in control of the Assembly. I also think the Percentage of Assembly column are unnecessary. Purrum (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I too, prefer this grouping of the Coalition for the Legislative Assembly. Романов (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How does "biggest" mean "control of the Assembly"? Timeshift (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also because alphabetically Labor are listed first can mean Labor are number 1, top dog etc Purrum (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * and it doesn't visually show that the Libs and Nats are in coalition Purrum (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the Victorian Legislative Council, visually  and politically clear as mudPurrum (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Now compare it to this Purrum (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's your own naive view. Others don't assume Labor is in control. It is a listing of seats from highest to lowest by party as it has always been. Nothing more, nothing less. Timeshift (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Same applies here. Placing the Coalition, as the governing parties together reduces confusion and is the more sensible option. Романов (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We never did groupings state or federally before. I also note that the UK House of Commons article doesn't group the governing parties. This is not a results box. It simply gives the numbers of seats by party from highest to lowest. Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because the English have it that way doesn't make it the right way to display it. I'm not that naive to blindly follow the leader. If I can improve an article I will. This is definitely a change for the better. Purrum (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That requires WP:CONSENSUS from a lot more than just two editors. Timeshift (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it requires WP:CONSENSUS, It your job to go out and get it. Purrum (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * lol that's funny. Learn the rules. A change from the status quo requires consensus. Not to keep the status quo. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you agree to the change, then we have consensus. Purrum (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How presumptuous. Two editors does not equal a consensus change of a globally used standard. Timeshift (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure
The structure I am proposing is currently the only one available. I am happy with it. If you are unhappy with it, please, make a better one. All I am saying is that until that happens, we should at least add the only available structure. Andreas11213 (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)