Talk:Electoral district of Eyre

Redefinition of Mining and Pastoral

I take issue with the following:

Due to the redefinition of the Mining and Pastoral Region at the 2007 redistribution, Eyre is centred further south and west than its previous incarnations

It wasn't the expansion of M&P that placed Eyre where it is, it was Eyre's placement that expanded M&P. And Eyre was placed where it is because the 1V1V reforms meant that rural seats had to expand. I've reworded this accordingly. Bush shep (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it was a parallel change? What parallel change? I repeat: the expansion of the five most remote seats caused the expansion of M&P. Not the other way around. Bush shep (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. The whole issue was the definition of the regions, and I remember some *very* heated debates about it involving senior officeholders in the National and Labor parties in particular - essentially the complaint from both being that the Liberal proposal for the boundary was being followed rather too closely by the commissioners. The region was going up from 5 to 6 members so this was the consideration. As the upper house situation was merely a case of general electoral reform related to 7-5-5 becoming 6-6-6, and didn't establish one-vote one-value, I think it's a bit misleading to link the two. Orderinchaos 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one linking the two. I'm saying the placement of Eyre had NOTHING to do with Mining and Pastoral. The fact is that the one vote one value legislation meant that rural seats had to expand: this is why Eyre is stretched further west than it used to be.

Nothing to do with the new LC numbers either. Agricultural region also went up from 5 to 6 members, yet that region has gotten smaller. Bush shep (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mining and Pastoral, though, had the smallest enrolment. The LDA has led it to "overtake" Agricultural, but the disparity was much greater before the changes. As for "linking the two", your edit said: "Due to the impact of the one vote one value reforms" ... due to implies causality, which from my recollection of the debates and horsetrading going on, didn't exist. The boundaries of the regions were relatively fixed (in part a consequence of the 1987 reforms which were trying to deal with the almost random changes in province boundaries prior to that time) and the boundary commissioners' decision to change it at all was immediately controversial the moment it was announced. Orderinchaos 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

1. The commission didn't care too much about equality of numbers as far as the regions are concerned. They weren't required to. Otherwise, they wouldn't have drawn SW to contain eight seats.

2. 1v1v meant the expansion of rural seats. That is inescapable.

What's not inescapable is the claim that considerations about the upper house regions impacted on the drawing of the lower house seats. There is no evidence whatsoever that that was the case.

Bush shep (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To be frankly honest, I am busy at the moment and have no time to continue this utterly silly argument. I'm hitting three libraries (Battye + UWA + Murdoch) today for another research trip, and I need to know what I need to look up before I go. My main priority with the seats is the copyvios that still remain, there's way too many of them. Orderinchaos 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my edit but now you consider the argument "utterly silly"? :-( I agree that it's a minor point, but I feel quite passionately that wikipedia articles should contain only factual information. I'll repeat my points one more time. If you've really given up then I shall restore the sentence to how I believe it ought to read.

1. What guides the drawing of seat boundaries is the strict numerical criteria laid down by the legislation.

2. The area of upper house regions doesn't come into it. On the contrary, the regions are flexible enough that they can be redrawn to suit the placement of seats.

Bush shep (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not in any way given up, I have real-life time pressures. I agree they should contain factual information, that is why I modified it. I said it's utterly silly because we are sitting here arguing about one line in an article which is largely OK while we're not doing anything about the 30 or so copyvios which are completely not OK. Orderinchaos 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios aren't my concern. The accuracy of information in articles I contributed to is. I'd like to convince you on this point. The five remotest outback seats were collectively under quota. Even once you add in the LDA. So collectively they HAD to expand. Esperance and Raventhorpe was a logical place for that expansion. I think that's a pretty straightforward explanation. Bush shep (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Anyway, I don't think we will. I don't want to say anything I would regret in response to the above, in relation to other articles. Orderinchaos 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted! Which part of that explanation do you take issue with? Should I dredge up the numbers to prove they were under quota?? Bush shep (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this debate is going in helpful directions, we're both getting frustrated as the other cannot "see" our point of view. Classic case of a non-productive argument. Orderinchaos 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped the first part of the sentence, for its at least a questionable assertion. Bush shep (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Either way, we're making an assertion the other cannot support, and it's far from the best use of our time arguing about it with the election so close upon us, so I think the compromise is a fair one. Orderinchaos 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)