Talk:2013 Australian federal election/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

JackOfOz's deletions of retiring MPs

It's a little bit frustrating when your (correct) additions are being removed because someone hasn't so much as read the source.

I (correctly) added Trish Crossin to the retiring MPs list, as she had said (and had said in the source I quoted) that she would accept the result and not contest the election. JackOfOz has reverted this as "she has not said whether she will contest the election", which means he obviously hasn't read the article he was removing.

Equally, unless something has changed in the last few hours (I just woke up), Chris Evans was reported to be continuing on until the election, and now his addition to the list is being removed because "oh he'll go earlier than that".

Can we please be a bit bit more diligent in checking our assumptions before removing sourced content from this article? The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Something has changed in the past few hours. Evans said quite clearly at his press conference at 11:30 am today that he was standing down as Minister and Deputy Leader immediately, and would be resigning from Parliament as soon as a replacement WA senator can be organised. Well before the election. Please don't rely on what sources yesterday say someone is going to say today, but rely on what someone actually says today.

But I haven't removed him from the list as you claim. I've put him in alphabetical order of ALP senators, like everybody else. Since he won't ever get the chance to retire - because his resignation will occur before the election - he probably shouldn't be on the list at all, but since the timing is uncertain at this stage, probably best he stays there for now, until we know more.

If I misread the Crossin source, I apologise. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

On reviewing the Crossin cite, I see you're right. She has confirmed she won't be running. I've restored her to the list. But you need to accept some of the responsibility here, too. She was listed here as "lost preselection 28 January 2013", that's all, and as my edit summary made clear, loss of preselection means nothing, legally. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I now see Evans has been removed because he wasn't up for reelection in 2013 anyway. He was last elected in August 2010, his new term starting on 1 July 2011. His 6-year term was not due to end until 2017. How dumb of me to miss that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: JackofOz's point: Patrick Secker is an example of an MP who has lost Liberal preselection (for Barker in March 2012), but as far as I can find, has not announced his retirement, so is not listed here. Antony Green does list him as retiring though [1]. --Canley (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether Green is just assuming he's bowing out, or whether Secker has made it known informally that that is his intention. But I haven't found any statement from Secker to that effect, and that's what we would need here. Members in his position are not required to make any sort of announcement, ever. All a sitting member has to do to retire is simply not nominate for election. There need never be any public statement about it before close of nominations. Parliament wouldn't take any notice of such a statement anyway, because people are entitled to change their minds (witness Malcolm Turnbull). All they care about is whether the member actually renominated or not, and if they did, whether they were re-elected or not. Wikipedia has a different paradigm. We take note of statements made by members about their intentions. Assuming such statements get made. Which is not the case in Secker's case. Not yet, anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. AG's commentary can assume the likely; we can't. -23:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Graph updates

I have updated the raw data on User:GoForMoe/polling for the graph SVGs, but GoForMoe hasn't edited in a while and I have no idea how to deal with the Python/Matiplotlib stuff to actually generate them. Can someone here do it? -Rrius (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I can do this – took me a while stuffing around with Python versions and Matplotlib/Numpy/Scipy but I finally got it working on my Mac. I have an appointment now but I can run these out at around lunchtime and will update the SVG files. --Canley (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've regenerated all the graphs and uploaded new versions over GoForMoe's uploads on Commons. There is something weird going on with the Better PM graph, which seems to keep reverting or caching to an old version, but hopefully that will sort itself out soon. I can manage these from now on if no-one else has a burning desire to do it. I will keep the code etc on GoForMoe's page and will update the data there when new polls are released. --Canley (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding the graph problem at Talk:Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013. - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Craig Thomson's continuing description as a "former ALP member"

We need to have a little talk about this series of edits.

The last straw is that ~~I'm~~ we're "shielding Labor". Sure, everyone knows Thomson's history, the background to these charges, and his association with the ALP. But the point is that he left the Labor Party and has been sitting on the cross benches ever since April 2012. That's ten (10) months ago. To still refer to him as a "former ALP member" but say nothing about his current status as an independent member of parliament is simply ludicrous. Is Bob Katter still referred to as a "former National Party minister in the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland state government", or by his current status as an independent federal member and founder/leader of the Katter Party?

If there's any bias here, it's that continuing identification of Thomson with the ALP in the context of these charges, which never had anything to do with whatever political party he belonged to; they are all entirely about his financial relationship with the union he headed. ~~(b) which he has always strenuously denied; and (c) of which he remains entitled to the presumption of innocence, whatever any of us may think privately.~~ -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Enh. I'm actually pretty ambivalent about this (and I was far more concerned about the hideous grammar). I am wholly unconvinced, though, about the way this "timeline" is being presented. What is the criteria for inclusion? Do we have a summary of every day of the formal campaign? This reminds me of the disastrous article about the 2006 Victorian campaign. I'm not necessarily opposed to articles on the campaigns for elections, but they need to be very carefully written. As it is I find the list pretty unnecessary.

Regarding Thomson: I'd prefer that, if this must be listed (which, I think, is a key problem with this kind of link - how specifically is his arrest connected to the election? Does listing this sort of thing not make it more like a "timeline of Australian politics since the election was announced"?), it said something about him being suspended from the ALP. I feel that anyone who has changed party status since the last election needs their previous status noted: I would think in this article it would be appropriate to refer to Katter as an ex-independent or something similar; in the article on the 2001 election, referring to him as an ex-Nationals independent would similarly be appropriate. But seriously: what is the point of this timeline? Frickeg (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, mention their previous status if it's appropriate. But not just their previous status. Whatever their current status is, surely deserves some mention. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Something along the lines of "Independent Dobell MP Craig Thomson, suspended from the Labor Party since April 2012, is arrested ..." But, still, I don't think this needs to be here at all. Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion basically tracks with Frickeg's. I'm not sure the timeline is actually a great idea, and it seems to invite controversy about what items should actually be listed. Also, the fact that it begins with the announcement of the election seems arbitrary. In the context of the thing existing, Frickeg's language makes sense to me. -Rrius (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've tweaked the wording in accordance with the above. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to read the edit summary again. I said, "but your edit makes it look like we are shielding Labor." That is a far cry from saying you in fact are shielding them. ~~Twisting my words like that is beneath you, and as someone who has defended you in the past, I think I deserve better than that.~~ -Rrius (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Fixed now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Craig Thomson has vowed to vote with the Labor Party, and unlike other politicians who are independent, Craig Thomson still remains a Labor politician. The difference is he is no longer a part of the Labor caucus. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Senate Quotas

Senate Quota in each State in a half-Senate election are as follows:

Quota	Vote	Remarks
1	14.3%
2	28.6%
3	42.9%	Equality
4	57.1%	Majority
5	71.4%
6	85.7%
0	14.2%	Maximum "wasted" votes

Senate Quota in each Territory are as follows:

Quota	Vote	Remarks
1	33.4%	Equality
2	66.7%	Majority
0	33.3%	Maximum "wasted" votes

Senate Quota in each State in a double dissolution are as follows:

Quota	Vote	Remarks
1	7.69%
2	15.4%
3	23.1%
4	30.8%
5	38.5%
6	46.2%	Equality
7	53.8%	Majority
8	61.5%
9	69.2%
10	76.9%
11	84.6%
12	92.3%
0	07.68%	Maximum "wasted" votes

Tabletop (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is good work

I must say, dropping in here for the first time, I'm impressed by the quality of this article. Are Jackofoz and Timeshifter the main authors? Well done.

I've just been through it and made a few trivial edits—no meaning changes. Query the capitalising of "government", "prime minister" and "minister" ... I'm seeking advice on this. "Parliament" is variously capped and uncapped in the article.

I've never been thrilled with "centre-left" and "centre-right" as handles for Labor and the Tories. Labor is about as left as yoghurt; and where's the boundary between centre-right and right? I remember that Malcolm Fraser was pertly described in a November 1975 Le Monde front page story as "du droit". Hmmm. Isn't it all so relative as to collapse, folding in on itself multiple times, this simple left–right labelling? Tony (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. My contributions have been no more than various others, and less than some. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Simplistic labels are for simple people. I wish we could simply do away with them all, and let readers see the parties' respective policies and actions, and decide for themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Labels are devices for saving talkative persons the trouble of thinking" (John Morley, 'Carlyle', in Critical Miscellanies, 1871). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could I, then, propose that we do away with the labels in this article? The only problem is that foreigners will typically regard "Liberal" as "liberal", the mainly US term for centrist; in this context, it would be taken as to the left of the ALP. Any thoughts? Tony (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have rarely, if ever, in Wikipedia, seen an example of Americans going out of their way to explain a language usage unique to them to non-Americans. Why should Australians? Exactly what is Republican about that party? (I'm still not convinced that all the Americans involved in a recent thread about fanny packs even saw the problem with that term for non-Americans, even though it was explained several times.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. Your massive chip against all things American is showing yet again. What on earth do Americans have to do with the Australian federal election, 2013, anyway?

Up above you said you wished "we could simply do away with [labels]". Now you're arguing against Tony's suggestion that we do exactly that. Because the Americans don't? Sheesh. If you despise them so much, you might consider rising above their perceived failings. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It was Tony who brought the US into the conversation, precisely as part of a reason against his thoughts on doing away with labels. I simply responded to his concerns on that front. Yes, I still agree with doing away with simplistic labels. HiLo48 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the feelings of Wikipedians on the matter, if the labels are routinely used in reliable sources, then they should be used in the article. --Nixin06 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The ALP is routinely described as centre-left, and the coalition centre-right. There aren't huge gaps between the positions of the parties on most issues, but that's the norm for modern democracies - especially when voting is compulsory and the parties have to target the centre-ground. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that such labels tell the reader so very little. We're meant to be creating a quality encyclopaedia. They don't add quality. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While I completely agree that modern politic science uses the terms in a vapid and almost interchangeable sense, that is beyond the scope of this article. My advice is to work on Centre-left and Centre-right - from reliable sources - instead of arguing the case here. --Nixin06 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There's another option. Leave the almost meaningless, simplistic labels out altogether. Let readers learn about what the parties really represent by reading a little more detail within the article. Is there a rule that says we must include such useless fodder for simpletons in the Infobox, especially when many of us seem to agree that they add so little and are likely to mislead anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not really a fan of the labels either, I don't think you could dispute that the two parties broadly fit what the average reader would expect from the "centre-left" and "centre-right" labels. The whole point of infoboxes is to provide at-a-glance information for readers if they want it; I've yet to see a simpler way of doing it than with these. Frickeg (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's simple. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits adding the Greens to the main box.

I have reverted the recent edits putting the Greens in such a prominent position in the article. Is this editor serious. Whether we like it or not, this election is basically a two-horse race. The Greens are unlikely to figure highly in the outcome. If we are putting in the Greens, then why not all the other small parties, such as Katter, Palmer, the Shooters and Fishers, and any other Tom Dick or Harry that sets up a party or runs as an independent. The greens haven't been listed yet since the creation of this article, and unless there is significant consensus for them to be there, they should stay removed.--Dmol (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly an argument to be made for the Greens in the infobox, though. It's not as though they're on the same level as the Shooters; they have a House of Reps seat, after all. I do agree that if they end up there, Katter needs to be there too. Frickeg (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing formal or official in Australia's electoral laws saying that it is a two party system. For Wikipedia to act as if there is is simply entrenching one of the media's and the big parties' favourite games, marginalising the minor parties. I wish we could include more than just the two current big ones. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia should be based on what is in reliable sources. It is not a place to push one's own POV in defiance of the media. (If there are significant minority views that the article does not adequately present, that's another matter. But I think it does a good job of expressing the main stream.) --Nixin06 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me what's in reliable sources that tells Wikipedia to only include the photos and details of precisely two party leaders, not more, not less. We use the sources to provide content, not to decide what we provide content on. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree HiLo48 but it is unwieldly to implement so until Greens have a chance at leading government only Liberals should be listed as "the Opposition" Sqgl (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So, we're at the point where "unwieldy" is the reason we include details of precisely two people and their parties. I'm not totally comfortable with that reason. that would be fine if the article was called "Who will win the Australian federal election, 2013", but it's not. It's much broader than that. Is there a policy to guide us here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we're still at the point where opposing "one of the media's and the big parties' favourite games, marginalising the minor parties" is not something that Wikipedia does. You're not just debating on your say-so (which would be bad enough) - you've raised RS as something to actively contradict. The infobox is not just a neutral packaging for content, it's a highlight of the most important information on the subject. Unless you have sources saying (for example) that a major theme is the Greens' challenge to the two party system, putting them there is POV-pushing. --Nixin06 (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Australian politics is effectively a two and a half horse race, with the Greens being the half a horse. There's no likelihood at all that they'll either form government or become the largest opposition party, and all the polls actually have then tipped to go backwoods. As such, there seems no reason to add them to the infbox, as this would be WP:UNDUE. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion comprises a bunch of editors all providing their own ideas on what should be there. I ask again, is there a policy to guide us here? HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The policy is WP:UNDUE. My view is unchanged from the 2010 discussion above, that is, it should be the current PM and current Opposition Leader depicted and no-one else. The Greens are not even part of the Executive government, in any case. --Surturz (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And there's yet another personal view. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK then. The AEC measures Two-party preferred vote: [2]. The two parties since 1949 have been ALP and the Coalition. The AEC is a neutral, non-media source. --Surturz (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a great source for two-party preferred vote, but not for policy on writing Wikipedia articles. Where does the AEC prescribe how to write an Infobox in Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is your source for the Greens campaign being an important part of the election? --Nixin06 (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the policy that tells me your question has any relevance to the contents of the Infobox for this article? HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's still NPOV. Specifically, Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. You're demanding to have the Greens given apparent parity with the main parties. Where is your source to indicate that this is correct? --Nixin06 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You know what? In a clumsy way you may actually be finally answering a question I asked a lot earlier in this thread. I was after the policy that said we only put two people and parties in the Infobox. Nobody has told me yet. You haven't got there yet but you may be on the right track. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the right track, an observation. The main policy for developing articles is consensus. Your method of assuming your view to be correct and demanding that others make a case, rather than doing the least bit of leg work yourself, is the wrong way to build one. To put it another way; if you knew that WP policy backed up your view, you would cite it, and if you had reliable sources framing the election in the way that you do, you would provide them. --Nixin06 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a question that has been argued about over and over again at election articles for different countries over many years, and there is no definitive rule. In many cases, a party is included if it received 5% of the popular vote (for a future election, it is 5% of the vote at the last election). Others take account of whether a party won seats, though they differ on how many seats are necessary for inclusion. Some articles for future elections apply a 5% rule to polling. And yes, some focus on the parties in genuine competition for leadership (or inclusion in) government.

I would suggest that Australian election articles, especially for federal elections, have developed a rather high threshold for including third parties. The Greens are included in Tasmanian articles (where they are typically a major force) and the ACT (where they have been a significant factor and currently hold the balance of power). KAP is included at Queensland 2012, but there does not appear to have been any discussion.

Speaking of KAP, including the Greens does not necessarily require including KAP in the infobox during the pre-election period. When Bandt was elected in 2010 he won as a Green, the party taking 11% of the vote. Katter was elected as an independent and only formed his party later. The only way you include Katter is if you decide that any party with an MP now is automatically included. Even adding the requirement that a party have elected an MP at the previous election would mean Katter not being included.

As there does seem to be a cross-article norm, I would suggest that if we seek to change it, we do so in a way that encompasses all of the Australian, or at least all of the federal, election articles.

If we are going to go down that road, I suggest a party be included if it meets any of the following:

It wins 15% on primary votes
It wins 10% primary + 1 seat
It wins 5 seats, regardless of primary voting
It single-handedly holds the balance of power in a hung parliament

On this basis, the Greens would be included for 2010 (and this article at least until the election), but not for any previous articles. -Rrius (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The importance of the Greens as a large minor party is essential to the election, particularly with the surge in number of political parties and growing dissatisfaction with the main two. 12% of Senate seats would constitute applicability of the third position in election infoboxes, as this is remarkably similar to the first few elections in Australia. Azirus (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Poll commentary

Do we need it? Is there an overarching need for it, something that isn't displayed in the numbers? Adding commentary to poll numbers is a very subjective thing, even with 'reliable sources'. If we used every RS available, we could put down every poll movement to every single event or non-event. Not to mention, the place for this would be, and is, coverage of polls in government articles, ie Gillard Government. Per the process, let's get consensus before re-adding disputed content. Timeshift (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not averse to a little more text in the polling section, but I don't think the proposed additions are the sort of thing we really need. The stuff about Rudd and Turnbull clearly belongs elsewhere, while we do not need the last paragraph about the Coalition's long-held lead or the recent "narrowing" since they are just spelling out what's already in the charts. Frickeg (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

These are my concerns. Can GoForMoe please return to the status quo and remove the disputed contribution until there is consensus? I'm not going to violate 3RR. Timeshift (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What is an opinion poll if not subjective? We are presenting figures with no information for the reader to interpret them - polls that show drastic moves and variation, as well as the extremely unique situation of both leaders having extremely negative net opinion polling heading into an election - making the leadership point very relevant. As a point of comparison, a randomly chosen date before the last UK election - [3] - it has a detailed section of analysis of how the opinion polling has trended since the previous election and the rest of the main article text focuses more on background than anything. The current state of this article instead is a procedural article about the fact an election will occur this year and how it will be conducted, which could be and was lifted almost word for word from 2007. Articles should be informative in their own right, not just expecting that someone has read the whole Gillard Government article (which is only wikilinked in passing) and thus perfectly understands what the polling figures mean, if the text I added isn't sufficient for that purpose, improve on it. The polling section should be removed entirely otherwise - the raw numbers are hardly less subjective than the analysis and the events leading up to the election. --GoForMoe (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The numbers are mathematical statistics. They are not subjective in themselves. Opinion and commentary - interpretation of the numbers - invariably is. I again ask that you remove it until there is consensus. Timeshift (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#STATS 'In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.'GoForMoe (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They use the US election articles for examples, not a very good comparison. I would dispute that the polls did not have sufficient text prior to what you added. I'm not quite sure how what you added would in any case give a sufficient explanatory text... if editors were to decide it needed more of one. As it stands, your disputed contribution needs to be removed until consensus is achieved. Timeshift (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the example of a good article on the UK elections implementing a polling section, the point still stands - the polling section presents numbers with no detail about them - that doesn't change from the US to the Australian context. I don't consider the equivalent of 'elections have frequent opinion polls' is explanatory. I agree it needs expansion to be effective, but if it's this much of a hurdle to get a few lines in, why bother contributing more? The same polling section is duplicated across about three articles at the moment, such is its broad lack of direct relevance to this article as it stands. --GoForMoe (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing the entire polling section is starting to get beyond the pale. Nobody is advocating removing polls. We have had polls on every election page for every fed/state parliament for years. Can you please just leave it as it was, as you should be doing, until discussion concludes? Timeshift (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the polls should remain - as Timeshift9 notes, they're standard for articles of this type, and they're clearly (though regrettably IMO) an important aspect of modern Australian politics. I do agree that analysis of the polls should be kept to an absolute minimum in this article - the material on the long term trends which is currently there seems appropriate, but we don't want to get into the bizarre poll-by-poll analysis the Fairfax papers and The Australian are into (especially as much of the short term movement in the polls turns out to be statistical noise). You both have crossed the threshold of edit warring where an uninvolved admin could block you BTW, so please knock it off. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at 3RR, and I actually didn't realise this: 'Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert'. I was under the mistaken impression that it was more than 3 reverts of the same contribution. Sorry. Timeshift (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note also that admins don't have to wait for the fourth revert before blocking if they judge earlier intervention to be justified. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles of this type either have a detailed section of analysis like the UK example, or the polling is split into its own article and just crossreferenced in the main article like the US one or the recent NZ election article - I can't think of any election article that includes a polling section with no information beyond the presentation of statistics, because Australia seems to have had bad articles in that regard in the past doesn't mean that practice should continue, which seems to have been the only past justification for its previous removal --GoForMoe (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A seperate article for the polling might be a good idea, especially if accompanied by regularly updated graphs here. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't stand the polls in the first place. They are so fickle, transient, and irrelevant in the long term. Adding some inevitably biased commentator's opinion on them is ridiculous. (Note that word "opinion"?) If they end up hidden away in another article, that's all good. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How would you explain the polls outside of commentator's opinion while they remain though - one of the justifications for including them is that the last Newspoll before the last election almost exactly got the result correct (which obviously says nothing about the polls this far out) - I want the article to be able explain to readers the abnormal thing the current polls show - a huge lack of faith in the leadership of both parties, yet the more unpopular leader's party outpolls the other in 2PP. Things like detail on Abbott's campaign of negativity, that would explain some of the depths of Labor's polling, the post-carbon price 'the sky didn't fall in' effect to slowly improve Labor's figures - even if that's mostly links back to other articles that go into the detail. Otherwise, is anyone against the polls going into an 'Opinion polling of the Australian federal election, 2013' article with it linked to in the see also section, with perhaps a graph of the primary vote and 2PP included somewhere in the main of the article? --GoForMoe (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And that post proves my point. It's chock full of your speculation on why the polls are saying what they say. Few of the commentators can do any better. (In fact, you're just regurgitating what they say.) The commentary AND the polls are largely meaningless. So, no I would rather we didn't use them at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So what to do if there's not consensus for their removal? I don't particularly care if the polls stay in or are removed - but I certainly think that if they aren't removed they can't stay in their current form. On the assumption that the polling section stays, how would you put context to them outside of what you consider regurgitated commentary? Obviously if the section is removed there's no issue as to commentary, but if it remains, the section still needs improving. --GoForMoe (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Do nothing. When they first come out most of the public hear about the polls with no commentary, or minimal commentary, or shallow commentary that depends on the political slant of the media outlet they hear it from. Don't treat our readers like idiots. Don't tell them what to think. Let them draw their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion on this, but if polling commentary were to be included, I think the pundit should be named for each statement. e.g. "Antony Green attributed the drop to blah blah". Also, we should only include commentary from pundits that have some psephological expertise - Mackerras, Green, Bowe etc. --Surturz (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The readers aren't all people who have followed each poll result - I cited earlier an example of the previous UK election article prior to that election, which had quite a detailed section of polling analysis that put the information we can get out of polls into a useful thing for the article's readers - you need to give something for the readers to build their own conclusions from, even if that's as little as looking at the major changes in the polls and the parliamentary events leading up to them. The effect of polling on the actions in elections - particularly before the last election on leadership - is not speculation as a whole. We have sections in the article on the current state of parliamentary numbers, the procedurals of when the election will be held and the retiring members, and polls. We have nothing on the issues that will be at play in the election, nothing on the party platforms leading into the election and nothing on what the polling reflects. --GoForMoe (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Poll commentary ey? Here's a little commentary! Have you seen the polls yet? Both give a Labor majority of seats. What utterly terrible media reporting, but really, that's par for the course in this term of parliament. Bearing in mind swings aren't equal (but if we're having to say that then something's changed)... if you believe ReachTEL, on a state-by-state basis Labor comes out with a "slight majority" of seats. If you believe Roy Morgan, state-by-state can be easily calculated[4][5][6] - Labor loses 3 in NSW, 3 in Vic (borderline 4), gains 9 in QLD, 0 change in WA, SA, Tasmania. Most likely 1 gain in NT, but that's irrelevant, cause we can all do 3+4-9. Timeshift (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Leadership Box and Election Date

Should we still have Gillards picture there? At the moment there is literally zero certainty as to who will be Labor leader at the election. Also, there is no certainty as to the election date so we should stop reporting that as fact. 58.164.14.84 (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, Julia Gillard is the leader, and 14th Sept is the date. If/when they change the box can be updated but for now they are fine. --Dmol (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd get rid of Gillard's pic, but not replace it by Rudd's pic until he gets the commission. Tony (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rudd is now leader and will be taking Labor to the election; that's all that matters for the box. The details of commissions have no bearing here. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if the GG declines to commission him as PM (which seems unlikely at this point), he'd remain the leader of the ALP. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Election date speculation

At the risk of getting a bit off-topic, this article by Katharine Murphy in The Guardian does a good job of pointing out that no-one actually knows when the election will be held, and if Rudd has picked a date then he could change his mind at any time before this is announced. IMO, the take-away for this article is that we should try to not buy into the speculation that's in the media at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is where I apply my ten year rule. What will be important for this article to contain in ten years time? Yes, ultimately we will record the date the election happened, but nobody then will care about speculation today. Similar speculation seems to happen before every election. We should ignore it. Record the date once the writs are issued. Don't mention it any more now. HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I like for the ten year rule to be applied to current events. The way I look at it, is that people come to this page to get information about the coming federal election. For some, it is to find out when the election is likely to be ie. earliest possible date, latest possible date, dates which might be in and dates which are out. This speculation is relevant to the article. When the date is finally known, the article can be amended to reflect that. Finally, when the election is over & the results are known, it is then that we should look to applying the ten year rule. Mrodowicz (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawal of candidate

I've mentioned the withdrawal of Stephanie Banister as a candidate in the timeline as it's generated some international media attention, including a Wikipedia article that is currently the subject of an afd discussion. I hope that is ok. Politician gaffes tend to end up in British election timelines (like this one), although I'm never sure whether or not they should strictly be there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in the main election timeline. We can cover it in the former candidates section of the candidates page, currently userfied here. Frickeg (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'll move it over there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Party policy ordering

In the interests of neutrality, I have sorted Australian federal election, 2013#Party policies for the 2013 election alphabetically by party name (excluding leading "The") as per the Australian Electoral Commission's list of Political parties registered for the 2013 federal election. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with this, or with the ordering of retiring MPs. To me it seems that we have a perfectly logical order to follow - government, opposition, Greens, Katter, DLP, and then anyone else. In fact I don't think we should be including anyone else, because otherwise why aren't we including all 54 or however many there are? I mean, Senator Online? Socialist Equality? The Democrats? Frickeg (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"I don't agree with ... the ordering of retiring MP"
I suggest that the ordering of retiring MPs should be discussed in a separate section. I'll limit my comments here to the party policy ordering.

"... a perfectly logical order to follow - government, opposition, Greens ..."
Why is it perfectly logical - what is the rationale behind it? The article is about the election, for which all parties should be treated equally, not biased by their existing number of seats held. One might be tempted to list them in order of the number of seats contested, but if the major parties contest all seats, you still need to decide on an order. Also, to avoid claims of bias, you might need to provide references to support the ordering. So far as I can see, the only neutral way to order them is the same way the AEC (generally considered an independent body) does.

"In fact I don't think we should be including anyone else ... why aren't we including all 54...
If we list any, we should list them all, because all of them are running for seats in the election, and so all of them should be treated equally.

Actually, I think the best approach would be to delete the whole section. It might be appropriate to list all of the parties/candidates contesting seats - and not their policies - but (as you point out) there are quite a few. The external link "Political parties registered..." does the job - leaving the maintenance (and ordering) to the AEC.

So, I propose deleting the entire "Party policies for the 2013 election" section. Comments anyone? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I vote to leave them in (& BTW who really cares about the order!). It just makes sense for there to be a party policy section - and it's not like it'll take up a huge amount of space. --Mrodowicz (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a better idea - turf them. We do not need 54 links clogging up the external links section. The relevant policies (and not every party's policy is relevant, because not every party is relevant) should be written in prose in the main article.

On a note that doesn't really matter if we delete them - of course it's rational to have government, then the opposition, then the minor party with most seats. We can't treat every party equally, for the same reason we don't include every party in the infobox - they aren't equal. We aren't the AEC, and we're required to take the facts of the current political situation into account. But anyway, the point is moot if we delete the section. Frickeg (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete it. We provide plenty of other pointers. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the list. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed this section has been deleted. There are voters interested in comparing the policy platforms of each party (see [7]). A 11x5 table would easily accommodate all 54 links. --Surturz (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Informing voters of policy differences among a bunch of no-hopers is not our job. They all have a link to their website on their page. Frickeg (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete (swing states)

Apparently Labor is hard pressed and needs Queensland as the swing state. We need to add that here. An dif possible perhaps opinion polls by province./"state"(Lihaas (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)).

"Swing state" is an American term. Labor needs to gain seats in Queensland, yes, but no one is calling it a swing state. As for polling - I guess maybe we could be covering it here, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Frickeg (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's actually a misunderstanding of an American term. "Swing state" refers to presidential elections, where there are essentially 51 electorates (50 states plus Washington, DC). In that context, a swing state is a swinging electorate, so the equivalent for this article would be which are the swinging electorates. Given that there are a number of divisions outside the marginal category, we'd need to find some sources to build such a list. -Rrius (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Australian equivalent is a "Marginal seat", defined as a seat where the swing to lose the seat is less than 6%. This information is linked to in the "Pendulum" section (Pre-election_pendulum_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2013), but perhaps some explanation would be worthwhile for non-Australian readers. --Surturz (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I chose my words carefully because that 5%, bright-line definition of a marginal seat isn't really equivalent, and isn't responsive to what Lihaas is talking about. The marginal seat definition you are talking about is not about any expectation of what will happen at this election, merely what happened at the last one. It provides a (usually) helpful assessment of how many seats will fall on a uniform swing, but since swings aren't uniform, it has major limitations. When you talk about swing electorates, you are talking about either the ones that tend to swing back and forth over the course of several elections (the pure definition), or the electorates that are actually in danger of switching at this election regardless of where they sit on the pendulum (which is, I think, what we are talking about here). None of the Tas seats is a Lab/Lib marginal, yet two look like they are gone according to seat polling and Franklin and Lyons (on 11 and 12%) are in danger. Simply talking about marginals under the AEC definition and going on to talk about the pendulum would completely miss this. But as I said before, it would be hard to create a list of seats based on reliable sources encompassing the seats at risk each way. -Rrius (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

endorsements

Only the sunday papers should be there currently. The weekday editions have not made their final election editorials yet. Those on the page currently are either just normal editorials (not election endorsements) or the sunday edition editorial incorrectly attributed to the weekday edition (they are separate papers with different editorial staff) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.165.103 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Clive Palmer article name

There is a move request tangentially related to the election at Talk:Clive Palmer (businessman). Participate in the discussion there if you care. — AjaxSmack 14:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

STV in Australian Senate elections - rarely used

Australians can vote 'above the line' for a party list or 'below the line' for individual candidates in preferential order. 95% plus of Australians vote party list not STV when given the choice. STV v List in Senate(Coachtripfan (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

STV not used by more than 95% of Australians in Senate elections(Coachtripfan (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

We can also vote both below and above the line and if that below the line vote turns out to be informal for whatever reason, it then reverts to the above the line choice. I also brought a numbered copy with me using this handy tool - one of several similar tools now available. I reckon the number of BTL votes rose at this election. Timeshift (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, an above the line vote is still STV. It's just STV where the party decides the direction of preferences rather than voters. Frickeg (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Please change Divisions changing hands "Barton, NSW Labor Robert McClelland 6.90 6.90 0.10 Nickolas Varvaris Liberal" to "Barton, NSW Labor Robert McClelland 6.80 6.80 0.00 Incumbent Unknown"

as the Australian Electoral Commission has not yet confrimed Results for this Division see following link http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseCloseSeats-17496-NAT.htm Paul.domoney (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Official reference for when Rudd and the other ALP office holders leave their roles

As the issue of end dates always comes up in Australian political articles during transition periods, it's worth noting that the Governor-General's office has today released the correspondence between Rudd and the GG in which he tenders his resignation and she asks that he and his ministers continue to serve in a caretaker capacity until the new ministry is sworn in. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

Page was won by a National Party Candidate, not Liberal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.246.64 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. A lot of changes on the AEC site this arvo. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

TPP inconsistency?

I've noticed it for a while so I don't think it's a typo from the AEC... if the ALP 2PP was 50.12 in 2010, and the current ALP 2PP at time of writing is 46.85, shouldn't the swing be 3.27, not 3.35? Timeshift (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a note below which may explain it: "The progressive national two party count represents the aggregation of counts from 140 of 150 divisions, which currently excludes the divisions of Batman, Denison, Durack, Fairfax, Fisher, Indi, Kennedy, Mallee, Melbourne and O'Connor."—so while the two-party percentages from 2010 are based on all 150 divisions, the AEC is excluding the non-classic divisions from the progressive count, and is calculating the swing by comparing to the two-party percentages in only those 140 divisions (which will be different). Give me a few minutes, I will work out the percentages for only the 140 classic divisions... --Canley (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course! I knew I was missing something. I don't think we need to work out the 140 division 2PP. Timeshift (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The experience of the 2010 election suggests that not too much attention should be paid to the AEC's TPP figures until all counting is complete (remember the day-by-day too and fro over whether the ALP or Coalition had come out ahead on this measure in the days after the election?). Given the unusually large number of parties which stood in many electorates this time around, I imagine that working towards the final TPP tally is also unusually complex. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick calculation excluding the non-classic seats from the 2010 results, and got another swing figure of 3.50. However, looking at the AEC Media Feed, they seem to be using the notional 2PP to calculate swings after the SA and Victoria redistributions. Normally wouldn't affect a national aggregate, however because some Vic electorates are excluded from the progressive count it's probably a combination of these two factors. But I agree, no point in working it out in mid-count, and it's too complicated! --Canley (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Seats in doubt

Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not include seats in doubt in the list of seats changing hands. According to the ABC website, that includes Dobie, Eden-Monaro, Fairfax, Indi, Petrie and Reid. St Anselm (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It isn't crystal balling when you use references to indicate close seats of less then 0.5 percent and state that is the case. The AEC is the latest, the ABC follows. They should be re-added and changed if needed. Timeshift (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead keeps changing, so do the sources. Wikipedia is not a contemporary site to be constantly updated. We don't need to be first with the news, that's why we have media. No harm in waiting until an outcome is called. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There's a difference between close seats and seats in doubt. The AEC doesn't make any predictions - it just says who's ahead. The ABC makes predictions on the data. Clive Palmer is well ahead, but the ABC isn't committing itself to a prediction, because the distribution of preferences is relatively uncertain. St Anselm (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you really do need to look at the AEC - Fairfax - Palmer 52.93% 2CP with majority of preferences counted. Must we wait for Antony. We've always updated results as they've happened. Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The link you posted says nothing about who is going to win. St Anselm (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well if we're taking it to your level, no seats have been declared yet. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. So why are you adding entries to the "changing seats" list? St Anselm (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have that table at all if no seats are declared? Maybe we should have no results until all are declared? *rolls eyes* Timeshift (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, after the ABC referred to Mirabella as a Labor MP the other night, now Antony has Mirabella on a 48.2% 2CP vote but yet somehow "ABC Prediction Liberal Ahead" still. Regardless of ABC prediction, Liberal is not ahead by any stretch of the imagination. Point is, the table specifically stated which seats were still close and subject to change, and I was using the more updated AEC. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"The lead has fluctuated wildly over the course of this afternoon". St Anselm (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's put it this way. What if we had a table in this article reflecting seats in doubt? Purely factual. And how is it any different from including it all in the one table, indicating which are still in doubt, also purely factual? No WP:CRYSTAL here. Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, a separate table is the way to go. We shouldn't be pre-emptively calling results still in doubt, or implying that we are doing so (which is what having them in the "changing hands" table is doing). Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's proceed with a second table. Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

More Antony errors... claims Lyons and O'Connor as "Likely LIB retains"... lol! As for the new table, i'm thinking we can leave "Other divisions in doubt but with the incumbent party ahead are: Barton, Capricornia, McEwen, Parramatta and Solomon." as is? Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'd pop them in there for now. The table is called "seats in doubt", not "seats in doubt where the incumbent party is behind". Incidentally Kennedy should be in the seats changing hands table. Dobell should be coloured and designated Labor with a note about Thomson. Frickeg (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that the incumbent party is ahead at any given moment (or perhaps at the moment the table was created) doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. The table should point out which seats are in doubt. It also doesn't make sense to treat it as a way station for seats heading to the Changing Hands table. Take Dobell as an example. Currently, the table creates the impression that it is in doubt because of a battle between Craig Thomson and and the Liberal, when it is in fact between the Liberal and Labor candidates. The table should provide the reader with information as to which parties are in the hunt, and that information is far more important than who held the seat before (in Dobell and Fairfax). -Rrius (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I asked:- did David Wirrupu...

1.127.85.79 posted this comment on 9 September 2013 (view all feedback).

I asked:- did David Wirrupunda when his National Party seat for the senate in the Pilbarra Western Australian . Voting 08/09/13???

No, he was excluded at Count 25 [8]. WWGB (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Location of results section?

User:Lihaas has moved the results section back to the bottom of the article claiming that that is where they are always located. Not the case at Australian federal election, 2010 among others where they're at the top. Where should we be locating the results? - Nbpolitico (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion: keep it at the bottom for now while the count is proceeding and the results are in flux. When the results are finalised and declared, I agree it should be moved to around the top as per 2010, instead of placed chronologically as it is probably the section readers will most want to look at. --Canley (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Previously it's been at the top during counting as well. Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with it at the top. Seems to be one of the first things a reader would want to see. Frickeg (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be at the top. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Barton

Liberals are ahead in Barton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.246.64 (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

By 14 votes! I have moved Barton to the In Doubt table. --Canley (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the Australian voting process here?

How can a party with 0.02% get a senate seat? How can there be a 15 +/- seat change on only 5% of the votes? 37.123.149.65 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See Proportional representation and Single transferable vote for starters. A candidate with only 0.02% of the vote is in no different a position than one with 95% of a quota on the first count. Both will need preferences from other candidates to win a quota and be elected. It all depends on who directs preferences to whom; whether voters adhere to the candidates' recommendations or do their own thing, as is their democratic right; where the different candidates appear on the ballot paper, the order of which is randomly chosen; whether people vote above or below the line; how many people voting below the line use the donkey vote; etc -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a good (but lengthy) explanation of the Senate election system at How Senate Voting Works. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Mackerras pendulum (and Antony Green's Election Calculator which is based on such a pendulum) is a good way to visualise how a seemingly small electoral swing can result in a disproportional number of seats changing hands. --Canley (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Senate, there are several suggestions going around as to how so-called "micro-parties" can achieve a Senate quota/seat on a very small primary vote. Firstly, the number of parties and candidates (97 candidates in Victoria, 110 in NSW) makes below-the-line voting (filling in each square) difficult and unwieldy. Secondly, there is some suggestion that some parties have colluded to transfer preferences to each other—in some cases the same person or group administers several parties, or advises and coordinates the group voting tickets amongst several small parties in what is called "preference harvesting". Thirdly, the name of the party and the position on the ballot paper can harvest some donkey votes or confusion due to similar names—this is being suggested as the reason for the Liberal Democratic Party getting a high primary vote: they were drawn at Group A (the first party on the NSW Senate ballot), and the word "Liberal" in the name may have confused people intending to vote for the Liberal Party. Lastly, there is probably an element of dissatisfaction with the major parties at play, which increases the minor party vote and is amplified by the preference/group voting arrangements. --Canley (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Antony Green has just published an article about the Senate election on ABC's The Drum. --Canley (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Australian Electoral Commission also publishes information on the nuts and bolts of the voting process at [9] Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Capricornia

LNP is ahead in Capricornia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.246.64 (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to the table. --Canley (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Compulsory opt-out?

Australian federal election, 2013#Electoral events timeline says:

... the Coalition releases a policy document announcing the implementation of a compulsory opt-out Internet filter.

If you can opt out, it's not compulsory. Some rewording is required. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I removed the word "compulsory". --Canley (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I am interested in how many ...

118.210.160.158 posted this comment on 10 September 2013 (view all feedback).

I am interested in how many Australians were eligible to vote? How many did not vote? How many did not vote for various reasons? How many donkey votes were identified? (I assume a donkey vote is defined as one in which a voter has clearly made their vote insensible?) How many votes were wrongly submitted as opposed to those who deliberately voted but made their votes redundant? What are the comparisons over previous years?

Any thoughts?

Nhajivandi (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In Australia, voting is mandatory which means you have to vote or you get fined. As of in terms of elegable, its anyone over 18 and im not sure how may in terms were elegable. Hope that helps.

Please sign/date your posts using 4 tildes (~).

Nhajivandi, a vote that is "insensible" or incomprehensible is one variety of informal vote. A donkey vote is completely formal. It occurs where the voter starts at the top, or the left, and votes 1 for the first listed person, 2 for the next, 3 for the next, and so on till the end. It's a perfectly valid vote, because the voter may really have thought about their choice long and hard and just happened to favour the candidates in the exact order they appear on the ballot paper. But it's generally assumed that it's more an indication of absolutely zero thought and that the voter couldn't care less who wins or loses. Why they don't just drop a blank ballot paper into the box escapes me, but there it is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Eligibility: Australian citizens aged over 18 are eligible to vote in Australian elections, and are required to register on the national electoral roll maintained by the Australian Electoral Commission. There is also a section of the Electoral Act which permits British subjects on the electoral roll as of 26 January 1984 to remain on the roll and vote (this was about 100,000 people in 2007 and has been declining). There are 14,712,799 people on the electoral roll for this election. The AEC has estimated that 7.6% of people (about 1.2 million people) are eligible to vote but are not on the roll.

Turnout and informal votes: The results published here and by the AEC will contain the figures for the turnout, and the percentage and number of informal votes (a vote that is in some way blank, spoiled, illegible or did not follow the instructions). However, because the ballot is secret, I don't think it would be possible to work out how many ballots were deliberately or accidentally informal. Maybe some kind of exit poll and subtract the deliberates from the informal votes to estimate the accidental ones? As of this posting, the informal votes are 713,259 (5.95%, which is about 0.4 percentage points higher than the 2010 election). --Canley (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

LNP had 73 seats after the 2010 election

Then Slipper was dropped from the LNP, but the tally board should show the 73 as at 2010. KymFarnik (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tony Crook of the WA Nats was not part of the Coalition pre or post 2010 election, he later joined and Slipper changed from Lib to Ind. So at 2010 and 2013 it was 72. Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tony Crook was NEVER an Independent, he was (and still is) a member of the National Party of WA. Clearly part of the coalition (along with the Country Liberal Party of NT and Liberal National Party of Qld).

Only Labor Party activists take the line that Tony Crook wasn't part of the coalition to obfuscate the reality that the Labor Party was not only a minority government (in a formal alliance with the Green Party MP for Melbourne), but also held fewer house seats than the Coalition.TeddyTesseract (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That is objectively false. Tony Crook made it very clear after the 2010 election that he was not to be considered part of the Coalition. See, for example, here, where he declares support for Abbott but also his intention to sit on the crossbenches. Frickeg (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This is objectively a confused mess. The National Party is a federation of state & territory parties with strong autonomy and this can result in candidates with different positions on the Coalition standing under the same banner or sitting in the same party room - there was a similar mess in 1987 with the "Joh for Canberra" debacle when the Queensland National MPs left the Coalition but stayed in the party room. Crook was an official National Party of Australia candidate as much as any other and part of the problem was that Crook and the WA Nats seemed to want an option that wasn't available of the whole of the Nats being an independent body and also wanted the results tallied a different way. He was eventually forced to clarify between sitting as a National in Coalition or sitting as a solo crossbencher but neither of these was his first choice. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a mess, all right, but this particular point is not. Crook was not a member of the Coalition, period. He did not sit in the Coalition party room. In fact, he never did - he joined the National party room, but never the Coalition one. [10] Frickeg (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Results tables

I have written a PHP program which generates the wiki markup for all the House of Representatives result tables based on the latest results feed from the AEC, so hopefully that will save some time rather than doing each one manually. I will do a run tonight and put it in my userspace for comment, checking and correction (I might have missed some wikilinks or name styles), but I'll leave it until the results are final before generating the tables for placing in the Division articles, and the results-by-state articles (I think this was about a month after the 2010 election).

The AEC has just started to declare some divisions (Warringah and Bass at this time), but the VTR says the results are not final.

--Canley (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool! - Nbpolitico (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done two small ones so far (ACT and TAS). Some of the links and colours for the party names aren't coming out—either I have the wrong name or there is no entry in the election box templates for them. Any party, wikilink or name amendments I can fix in the database for later runs. I also have not got the party gain/hold part working, but should be able to finish that soon.

--Canley (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I've put Two-candidate-preferred by default, but I should be able to work out whether it's two-party or two-candidate here once I fix the gain/hold row. --Canley (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some of the new parties will need new templates. In addition, I notice it's cutting of zeroes in some cases (i.e. 7.9 rather than 7.90) which will need to be fixed. Frickeg (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Frickeg, I've fixed the decimal places issue and added some of the wikilinks from the candidates list. I'll import the feed and run all the pages out tonight. --Canley (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've imported the results as of tonight and run out each state. Results are still not final, but let me know if anyone spots any issues:

--Canley (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Great job. Minor issues: in the past we haven't used "Country Labor", and I'm not sure we need to given the term is essentially meaningless. And in cases where the two final candidates have changed (e.g. Fisher), it's better to have the party that remains in the count showing the swing against it on 2PP with the other having the whole thing as a +. (That is, for Fisher for example, showing the swing for/against LNP and then the PUP as +45% or whatever.) Also Kennedy is a KAP gain from Independent. Other than that looking really good. Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Very nice, can you do the same for state-by-state results (ie: 2010 lower/upper)? Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find they're already done. Frickeg (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm can you link me please? Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this the kind of thing you were thinking of? Kirsdarke01 did pages for each state; they're all linked from the main article and in the navbox. Frickeg (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sort of, but 2013 results in the format of the ones I linked, for use with the national tables on the 2013 election article per the 2010 election article. Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, good suggestion. Frickeg (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for the wikilink additions and disambiguations, I have updated them in the candidate database so they should be OK in the next output. The Country Labor thing was due to how the AEC had four of the NSW candidates listed (CLR), but they don't list them separately in the party representation lists, so I will just merge them into Labor (otherwise they will probably be accidentally omitted in from the Labor totals in the summary tables). Same with the 2CP summary where the parties are different from 2010 (which I noticed on the Indi table): that is how the AEC data lists it (during the count anyway). I should be able to tweak it to calculate the swing against the previous margin. And lastly, once all the final data is released, I can certainly generate all the summary tables of party vote by state and so on. --Canley (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sport and the Australian federal election, 2013 - AfD?

Sport and the Australian federal election, 2013 - AfD? Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good call - I was meaning to do that one myself. Frickeg (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, isn't it amazing what people will create articles on? Probably the most telling sentence in the article is the final one in the first paragraph of the lead - "During the election, there was little debate between the major parties over sport policies." Yep. So why have an article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the only relevant thing with sport and the 2013 election was the fact a Sports Party got a Senate seat - 0.02 percent of the national Senate vote, in WA coming 21st out of 27 candidate groups with 0.23 percent of the vote but harvesting preferences all the way to 14.3 percent. What would the Gallagher Index have to say. But even that's not article-worthy in itself. Timeshift (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Even that's not certain though. The Sports Party has a number of dicey exclusions to survive early in the count to get the ball rolling; if they lose, then Palmer wins (and Ludlam also loses to Pratt, since he can never receive Palmer's preferences). Frickeg (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but all we can do is go by Senate calculators. Looks like PUP could only get one in QLD with the Sex Party(!) now winning the sixth seat in Tas according to Antony's current calculator predictions! Timeshift (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Bonham has a good rundown of the situation in Tasmania. Antony also runs down the dynamics of both races. (Do you want to start the AfD or shall I?) Frickeg (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I was about to say you've been reading Bowe. On the AfD, i'm gonna keep my powder dry considering my current userpage squabble. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Voila. And yes, sockpuppet number ... what are we up to now? Frickeg (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've lost count. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Move some of the important information to Sport in Australia then delete?Auspolitics1 (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Senate Recount in WA

Should a mention be made about the recount to ATL and informal votes for WA? Since there is mention of the recount in Fairfax, and given that this is a quite rare occurrence (the only other one in 1980, strangely enough for WA also in the Federal Election) it may be worth noting it. AEC Media Release Pizzagreen (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

AEC VTR Results are final (except 2PP)

The AEC has switched the notes on the 2013 election Virtual Tally Room to "These results are final". I have entered the vote counts and totals in the tables and infobox, and I'll run out all the state results summaries tonight. --Canley (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont see how they can categorically state results are final when 2PP results for the non-classic 11 of 150 HoR seats and thus the nationwide 2PP remains outstanding. On non-classic 2PP... I noticed this a week ago, according to the AEC, non-classics should have been done mid to late last week. But now, from Peter Brent/Mumble The Australian on 16/11/13... "Grapevine sez 2 more weeks til AEC publishes the 11 absent 2pps and preference flows for all 150". Really? More than 3 months, a quarter of a year, after an election? In 2010 it took a month. Sigh. And not just that, why the 2-week change in 2PP ETA? More lost ballot papers we're yet to be told of...? /conspiracy Timeshift (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the final 2PP results are out as of a few hours ago. The AEC has not updated the Virtual Tally Room site with these (still excludes the non-classic divisions), just transferred it to the results.aec.gov.au site with the full 2PP count on that site. --Canley (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yay!! Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

All looks updated now. My god but that took a long time. Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

Liberal Party of Australia +14
Liberal National Party (QLD) +1
National Party of Australia +2
Country Liberal Party (NT) +0

This only adds up to 17. Where did the other seat come from? Anoldtreeok (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If the comparison is with 2010 then at a glance I think the problem is O'Connor and the WA Nats (again) Crook joined the Nats party room but not the Coalition - if you the Nats party room as key and add him to the Nats' starting position then the individual party numbers match up but if you take his sitting out the Coalition as the key determinant then the Coalition have gained the seat. I'm not sure we've ever really got a consistent position, or implemented it, to handle cases where MPs are in the same party but taking different stances on (potential) governments but annoyingly these cases crop up quite a bit. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"The ALP could only win 72 seats but the Coalition could not better that number when the WA National, Tony Crook, chose to sit on the crossbench."[11] Timeshift (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We probably need a note about this somewhere. Thankfully for us the WA Nats appear to have hit their high-water mark and, provided neither Rick Wilson or Melissa Price turn out to be raving nutcases, I doubt we'll have this problem again. Frickeg (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Oh, that Tony Crook. He just had to come along and make everything complicated, didn't he. :p Anoldtreeok (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As if it wasn't complicated enough when the LNP muddied the Liberal/National/CLP waters. Just become the Conservative Party of Australia already :P Timeshift (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Coalition has ALWAYS been like this, though, from the very beginning of the non-Labor parties. I'm thinking of the LCL in SA, of the Tasmanian Nationalists deciding that United Australia Party was a stupid name (or something to that effect), of the various messes the Country Party and its successors have got into (Queensland going National a few years early, for example). For a federal system we sure have a messy party system. At least Labor only has a counter-intuitive spelling. Frickeg (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite - the LCL and Nationalists didn't see 3 or 4 incarnations in the same coalition. It was usually just 1 or 2. Timeshift (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)