Talk:2016 Australian Capital Territory general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Australia: Canberra / Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2016 Australian Capital Territory general election is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

If the assembly size changes...[edit]

There's been indications that the assembly may be enlarged to twenty-five seats in five member divisions. If so then this impacts on the seats needed field on the infobox. Do we:

a) Calculate the total gains needed from the 17 member result? b) Look for authoritive notionals on how the 2012 election would have gone with the new size & boundaries? c) Ditch the field altogether? d) Some other solution?

Timrollpickering (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think somewhere it should be indicated that with 7-member Molonglo to cease, with five 5-member seats, it will be harder for minor parties to gain representation. On the flipside, a minor party that might get to a quota in each seat would benefit with an extra 2 seats. It may be obvious to us but perhaps not to a casual reader. No doubt Labor and Liberal were both happy with this arrangement. Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tim's question, it might be best to wait to see how reliable sources (such as the electoral commission and Anthony Green) present this. From memory, the ACT Greens were also happy with the expansion of the Assembly (they were somewhat unlucky to get as few seats as they did in the last election). Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were the ACT Greens advocating more-than-5 members per seat in their support of an enlarged parliament? Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Greens voted against it - I believe they wanted three seven-member electorates or something similar (I can't remember the details). I had missed Tim's original question completely, but: I think we should go on the number of seats they need from their present total to reach a majority, which is how I changed the infobox (before I'd seen this discussion). I definitely don't think we should be doing any sort of complicated calculation to expand the 17 to 25. Frickeg (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Times endorsement[edit]

It seems CT supports a Liberal-led government this election. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Andrew Barr 2016.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]