Talk:Next Australian federal election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DD last time[edit]

Re this: Why is it necessary or important to state that the 2016 election was a Double Dissolution election? Whether it was or wasn't a DD has no bearing on the next election, does it? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it does. First reason off the top of my head is the consideration of which Senators will be up for re-election. Surely a DD is noteworthy enough to include a simple mention of it in the next election article? Timeshift (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It's very relevant to the Senate because there will be a completely different quota for election in 2019 to in 2016 as a result. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
2019 is an assumption :) Though I do suspect the HoR may just manage to last the full 3 years. Whether Turnbull manages to maintain majority government however is another matter. Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's critical to describe the 2016 double dissolution somewhere in the article. It might well end up in the section that will be written to describe which senators are up for re-election, once we know the answer to that.
The previous incantation of this article had a section on the timing. It would be good to bring that forward and update the dates, to show that while a HOR election could be as late as October 2019 (I think), the half-senate election will be between August 2018 and May 2019, so the HOR could well coincide (unless we have another DD - not sure what the latest date for that could be). Out of scope for this article would be any intervening plebiscite or referendum polls, until such time as they start to influence election timing (e.g. hold one of them with a half-senate but not HoR election).--Scott Davis Talk 03:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to mention this. Senate terms are backdated following a DD. Similarly, since we're writing a reference article, it's worth having the quick explanation of why 76 Senators were elected last election whereas only 40 will be up for re-election. Of course, that assumes that there won't be a house-only election. Vision Insider (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I must be slow, but I do not understand why it is stated that the next half senate election (if there is one) must be held between August 2018 and May 2019. Section 13 of the Constitution provides that after a DD the senate terms will be taken to begin on the 1st of July previous. So the current senators terms began on 1st July 2016, and the short term senators terms will end on 30th June 2019. The section also provides that the half term election shall take place within one year of the places becoming vacant, so doesn't that mean between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019? Writs etc would have to be issued earlier, but the actual election should occur between those dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talkcontribs) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The election starts with the issuing of writs and this has to be within one year of taking office so polling day follows on from it. Timrollpickering 11:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Date format in references[edit]

The article has {{use dmy dates}}, however some references are displayed with publish or access dates in ISO format. At least one recent edit with the summary "fix" converted several dates from dmy to ISO. Is there an explanation I haven't seen somewhere? Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 07:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Electoral redistributions[edit]

The Parliamentary Library has just released a paper on redistributions during the current term of parliament.

Some highlights:

  • Under the review of representation entitlement, the number of House of Representatives divisions will likely be reduced to 149. Population projections suggest the abolished seat will be in South Australia which would be reduced to 10 seats.
  • Redistributions will also occur in the Northern Territory (already begun), Tasmania (deferred from Febuary/March 2016), Queensland and Victoria under the expiration of seven years rule. South Australia was also due but will most likely take place earlier than the late 2018/early 2019 schedule due to the representation entitlement trigger taking precedence, and the proximity to the next election.

--Canley (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

150 to 149 seats? *twitch* SA recently lost Hawker/Bonython, and now another? Universally unhappy. By the way, for anyone interested at a state level, see recently added content at South Australian state election, 2018#2016 draft redistribution. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, anyone care to guess which seat might get abolished? I would suspect it to be a metropolitan seat yet again as they're far easier to abolish and re-incorporate suburbs in to surrounding seats (for this reason it's impossible that it could be Grey or Barker, not to mention Wakefield is a federation seat), in which case I look straight at Makin which has only been around since 1984, since 2013 is no longer a bellwether, and has surrounding metropolitan non-federation seats. Every other metropolitan seat has a history going back to at least 1949. Adelaide, Boothby and Hindmarsh are also federation seats and we know from history that federation seats are almost never abolished. The only non-federation metropolitan seats that actually touch each other are Port Adelaide, Makin and Sturt. The Advertiser's article for no particular indicated reason seems to think Sturt (Christopher Pyne's seat) could be the target. Port Adelaide's boundaries have been little changed since it was created in 1949 which pushed Hindmarsh south and proceeded to take in most of Hindmarsh's former suburbs, so for whatever reason they don't seem to like changing Port Adelaide as a federal seat very much. Without Port Adelaide, that only leaves Makin and Sturt as the only side-by-side metropolitan non-federation seats. Perhaps The Advertiser and/or sources simply had the same idea when invoking Sturt... everyone knows Pyne, nobody outside of the state knows Zappia. Is it all fitting in to the most logical scenario? Anyone else care to hazard a different theory/logical conclusion? Timeshift (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

South Australia[edit]

Quote from article: South Australia is the least-populated state where the number of seats can change, as Tasmania and the territories are constitutionally guaranteed a consistent minimum number of seats regardless of population shifts and quotas.

  • Tasmania can indeed change, upwards. The Constitution guarantees it 5 seats minimum, but says nothing about any maximum.
  • The territories do not have a minimum number of seats. Well, I suppose they have a mathematical minimum of 1 seat, as they're treated separately from any state. The NT was 1 electorate for a long time; now it's 2. But even if they were "constitutionally guaranteed a consistent minimum number of seats regardless of population shifts and quotas", that is still only a minimum, not a maximum, and so they can change.
  • The sentence is based on flawed information and should be deleted. Comments? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Why delete when the point remains? Clearly it just needs a little technical re-wording. Timeshift (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this really a point worth keeping, though? I don't quite see how it's a useful fact; the amount of syntactical juggling required to make it accurate is a pretty strong indicator that it's not exactly vital information. Frickeg (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not see it as worthy of inclusion. If it were to be reworded and kept, the territories' representation is not derived from the constitution as far as I am aware, so the minimal correct statement would be along the lines of "South Australia is the least-populated state where the number of seats can decrease, as Tasmania's current representation is the minimum guaranteed by the Constitution." --Scott Davis Talk 12:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's of little real value, but I could live with that revised wording. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Graphical summary[edit]

Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary its been a long time since its been updated.Torygreen84 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll see what I can do! Stickee (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Anything. Torygreen84 (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Stickee, I'm sure everyone is grateful for your work, and understandably wants twice as much of it! Tony (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. The reason for the delay was that I lost some of the files used to produce the summary and had to recreate them. I've learned my lesson and backed them up this time! Stickee (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary. Torygreen84 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Stickee (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Can somebody UPDATED the Graphical summary.Torygreen84 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Article layout is broken[edit]

The Senate table layout flows through in to the Retiring MPs/Senators section and all subsequent sections. I've had a look at the article source but can't seem to locate what is causing it. Can someone better with this sort of thing please rectify it? Thank you. Timeshift (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

YouGov poll?[edit]

What about the YouGov poll? It uses a replica of the actual ballot paper to conduct the poll and gets the voters to choose their own preferences. Tri400 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Why is the infobox displayed with two parties per line as opposed to three (as usual), which would be more vertically compact? Mélencron (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is because Australia has two major political parties and a bunch of minor ones - having it as two per line gives proper prominence to the only two parties with any chance of forming government. Frickeg (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Pics in infobox: plain weird[edit]

I know this was discussed last year, but it's time to raise the matter again. Whatever rule is used for the inclusion/exclusion of portraits in the infobox, we have:

  • two of parliamentarians who are not even in the House (bizarre and confusing to see "senator" this and that);
  • one of a single member who happens to have registered himself as a party—unlike Cathy McGow, another single-member independent who doesn't choose to embroider herself with party registration.

The numbers are 76–69–1–1–1. There might be more rationale to this allocation of pics if the major parties splintered, and governments formed by post-election negotiations of coalitions, Euro-style. But in the foreseeable future that doesn't appear to be likely.

The current emphasis on crossbenchers who happen to call themselves part of parties is very misleading to anyone who doesn't follow Australian federal politics closely. With numbers like this (76–69–1–1–1), it would be less slanted to keep the PM and the opposition leader pics in the infobox, plus:

  • OPTION A: pics of crossbenchers only if they go into a formal arrangement to support the govt (as in the Gillard 2010–13 minority govt, Windsor, Oakshot, Bandt)
  • OPTION B: no other pics.

In my view, it is appropriate to display down in the main text pics of crossbenchers who are not in a formal arrangement to support the government.

Let's hear your views. An RFC might be necessary, I suppose, but only if there's significant dispute about finding a way out of this.

Tony (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we have the right balance here. A seat in the House of Reps is not a low bar to cross, and it obviously is not feasible to include pictures of independents in the infobox. We give adequate prominence to the two major parties by reserving a single row for them, unlike the usual three-per-row. Infoboxes are not about the formation of government, so the idea of using that as a benchmark would not be a good solution IMO. As for senators appearing, the infobox is for an election for both houses. Honestly it would be better to try and work the Senate into the infobox more, not less, but that's a discussion for another day. For now, I support the status quo. Frickeg (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be inclined to support Tony1, and go a step further and suggest we remove all minor party information from the infobox all together. They have no chance of ever forming government and the main contest is obviously between LNP and ALP. Moreover, the leaders of some of the parties do not even sit in the House of Representatives, making the "Leaders' seat" part look very awkward. Andreas11213 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


missing YouGov poll for 7 Aug 2017[edit]

YouGov poll is done fortnightly. I tried to add the poll results for 7 Aug 2017, but someone reverted my edit!

Here are the figures for 3-7 Aug 2017:

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/08/09/yougov-fifty-acres-50-50-2/ Tri400 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Retiring MPs and Senators[edit]

Should Andrew Bartlett be listed in the Retiring Senators section if he has stated he intends to seek preselection to contest a House of Representatives seat (Brisbane)? I can't remember the convention, but I seem to remember waiting until Clive Palmer confirmed he wasn't running for the Senate before he was added in 2016. --Canley (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, he shouldn't be, since he has indicated he will still be contesting the election (or trying to) so he is hardly retiring. Frickeg (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
A third list for members seeking to transfer from one house to the other is probably best. Timrollpickering 11:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, curious about the new format of these lists. I don't hate it, exactly, but I have some concerns we use these lists in a ton of articles so I think it warrants discussion. One concern is that as these lists inevitably get much longer, we will find ourselves with yet another giant table in an article that will already have very many of those. What is the purpose of the changed format? Pinging @JDuggan101: Frickeg (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I also think it's unnecessary and ugly, for what it's worth. It takes up more space for no reason and the additional "first elected" field is pointless. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Next Australian federal election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Major SA federal draft redistribution to be released today Friday 13 April 2018[edit]

For those interested, heads-up FYI for today's draft release (AEC SA redistribution website link). Featuring a reduction from 11 to 10 seats, "The Australian Electoral Commission will on Friday release a draft redraw of South Australia’s federal seats..." Advertiser article: 12 April 2018. Timeshift (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the section: Port Adelaide to be abolished and Wakefield renamed to 'Spence'. --Canley (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Spence boundaries... whoa, de ja vu! It's like the ghost of Bonython past! That aside however, the general boundary changes proposed would seem to significantly shore up each seat's 2PP major party leaning - 5 Labor, 5 Liberal (when counting Mayo as Liberal). The particularly strong pro-Labor changes in Hindmarsh, Makin and Adelaide (not to mention Wakefield-come-Spence) would seem to make Port Adelaide worth abolishing! I can't say i'm surprised with the abolishment choice of Port Adelaide though, considering what the AEC have done to the seat of Melbourne Ports. The AEC are certainly on an anti-geographical-name kick... they are heavily against anything "Port" related at the moment. Perhaps they should join us Adelaide Crows supporters :D Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating change of margin estimates at https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/04/13/south-australian-draft-federal-redistribution/ - nine of the ten seats all swinging to Labor! Timeshift (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Avoid speculation, even if from the ABC[edit]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-24/analysis-when-will-the-next-election-or-elections-be-called/9788384?section=politics

The person who wrote this for the ABC is a nong and a drongo. The voters would be pissed off and irritated by a separate half-Senate election and would treat it like a huge by-election, electing all sorts of obscurities and wackjobs that would have no hope in a regular half-Senate election. The last time a government tried this, in 1970, the DLP won 11.11% of the vote and elected five Senators. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages to have a rant about things irrelevant to article content, such as finding something you don't like somewhere else on the internet. No one is arguing to include this article because it doesn't tell us anything that isn't already there, mapping out his obvious options without expressing an option as to what he will actually do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The graph[edit]

I wonder whether we could have an update. I can't remember the name of the hard-working editor who does it. Tony (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Referencing for opinion polls / minimum standards for including polls[edit]

The ReachTEL poll dated 6 August 2018 is referenced to a twitter blog post (albeit a quality twitter source that is almost always correct: @GhostWhoVotes). I have googled more generally and cannot find any published reference to this poll's national results. However, there are published references to a ReachTEL poll of national voting intention in Victoria at the same time - a poll commissioned by Greenpeace. For example: https://www.greenpeace.org.au/research/poll-victorians-want-renewables/

For me this raises two questions: First, is there (or should there be) a minimum standard of reference for poll (ie. it should be published somewhere) before it is added to the list on the Wiki page on the Next Australian Federal Election. Second, should the list include privately commissioned polls? OldBryan (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I support including a note about who it has been commissioned by. Reliable Twitter and blog sources are fine but primary or news sources are preferred. All reputable polls should be included. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I have now updated the post on this poll to reference the media statement from the poll commissioners (Greenpeace). OldBryan (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

There seems to be a whole range of views as to who should be included in the infobox and how. I think the most sensible way is to have three in a row and then include all five parties, but if we're only going to have two in a row then we might as well keep it to just Coalition and Labor. We're also able to include the Senate results, there's no reason why we can't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, three out of four editors thought two per row was the right decision. I'll add my voice to that mix too. Stickee (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
But onto your other point, I'd support your proposal to just limit it to the two main parties/coalitions. Basically only parties that actually have a hope of forming majority. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Definitely two to a row, which gives the two major parties their due prominence. I don't believe Onetwothreeip did propose only two parties in the infobox, and for approximately the billionth time, we hashed that out in a long RfC, and if someone wants to change it they should start a new RfC. Frickeg (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I am proposing only one row if consensus holds for two in a row. Yes, I am starting the new request for consensus here, this is what's going on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Then start an RfC, with a proper, detailed proposal outlying what the new standard should be and why, and we can have the discussion. Frickeg (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I have. I gave my view and I am seeking the opinions of others. I believe you have proposed there be all five parties, two in a row for three rows, but you can clarify that if it is something else. Clearly whatever consensus existed is by now unstable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
No, you haven't. An RfC is a formal process for dealing with significant, widespread changes, which is what you're proposing. Here is the last one we had about this. Since whatever is decided would affect all Australian election articles, it should probably be held at the AusPol talk page.
But you say above that the template can handle Senate data. It never has in the past, but can it now? If so, that would be big and would mean we might need to re-think the approach - hell, I'll start the RfC on that myself. But I haven't seen evidence that it can? (To be clear, this isn't meant to be a dig at you, but more at my own lack of expertise on templates - I can't see that it's changed, but maybe it has?) Frickeg (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens, something needs to be about the current formula. Tony (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I would intend to move it to the WikiProject page like I've done on other issues but at the moment this is more preliminary, so I'm not suggesting any consensus would change on the basis of what's happened so far. I felt it would be premature to publicise it on a wider scale before having any idea what the proposal would be, given that this issue has already been brought to the project page. I've started the consensus process informally, not the formal process.
As for including the Senate results, articles for other elections in other countries have included upper house results, either as another row or in the same row as the lower house results. Of course a template can fit another row, the question is whether that's a good idea. If we want to embrace minor parties being a significant part of elections, then surely we would include upper house figures which are far more relevant for them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You mean like Italian general election, 2018? I'm not sure I like that much, but I'm struggling to think of something better. (Can you link to an example of the "another row" variation?) The lack of Senate/LC results in Australian infoboxes has been a problem for a while, and I do wonder if something imperfect is better than nothing. If so, though, we would need to re-examine the criteria for inclusion, because there would be a legitimate argument for significant Senate-only parties like the Democrats in most of their elections, but on the other hand I suspect we might have to exclude some genuine micros (Motoring Enthusiasts, for example) in the interests of keeping it to a reasonable size. I'm not sure where I'd come down in that discussion at the moment, but it's definitely worth having. Frickeg (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Regular updating of the two poll charts?[edit]

I wonder how many of us are technically able to update them? The editor who's been doing this, kindly, for some time, does not always have time to do updates on as regular a basis as will clearly be needed over the coming months. This page will become very popular with the public: let's not disappoint them. Tony (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I used to do these polling charts a few years ago, so I have the interest, data and technical capacity to do them. I'll try and reproduce the methodology as best I can. In the long run it would be great if someone could set up a web service to generate these regularly that anyone could download the chart and import to Commons? Might be a bit beyond my capabilities and time, but I'll keep see what I can do. Another option is to set it up in Excel or similar so that someone can plug in the new data and export the chart. --Canley (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Excellent news, Canley. If I wasn't a tech-dummy I'd volunteer to help. This page is going to be very important! Tony (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I've the charts to the latest polls (mid-August). The original ones appear to have been done in Excel. I could not reproduce these, so I wrote some code in R (programming language) to generate them from scratch. What I might do is put the R code and the polling data on Github, so that others can generate, update or modify the charts if needed. If there are any comments or suggestions on the aesthetics such as text or element sizes, let me know and I'll tweak the code for the next update. I'll try to update it every time a poll comes out. --Canley (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I've put the code and data to produce the charts on Github here: https://github.com/metacoretechs/wikipedia-aus-poll-charts. I'll put instructions in the README so that anyone can run the script in an R interpreter. I'll keep the polling data updated there too, but if it's not up-to-date, whoever is generating the graphs can add the new poll data to the CSV file. --Canley (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I was the one updating the graph in the past. I normally did it every 3 months (and the last update was 2 months ago). But I like the new graph's fit function better actually. Stickee (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Stickee, I'm glad you approve, and thanks so much for doing all the graphs for the last few years. I've just created SVG versions and updated to last night's Newspoll—it was a pretty quick and easy process and hopefully if you or I can't do them any more someone else can use the code and data to take on the mantle. --Canley (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Crewther Dunkley in Labor?[edit]

I don't know enough about the table formatting, but it looks like Crewther and his seat Dunkley is listed as a Labor marginal. Is this because of a redistribution? Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Crewther is a Liberal but due to the redistribution in Victoria, Dunkley is notionally Labor-held. Sorry, I need to add some notes and references to make that clearer. --Canley (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Canley The seat is Liberal, the margin is Labor. So the seat LIB and Crewther are marked in blue, but the margin is marked in red. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Instant run-off voting lacking source[edit]

The article claims the election uses "full-preference instant-runoff voting in single member seats for the lower house, the House of Representatives" but I could not locate this information on the source given. If anyone could locate a source for that claim I'd appreciate that. Mateussf (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't like information on Australia's voting system is very difficult to find. Some things would be better Googled than complained about. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably because it's not called that in Australia. I'll update it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
That's the real problem here. In over 50 years of watching Australian elections I've never heard the term "full-preference instant-runoff voting" used to describe the process. I wonder how it got into the article? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)