Talk:2010 Australian federal election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Protection?

I don't want to bite the newbies but there is a lot of edit-warring over the figures to use. On the one hand, the results are progressively changing; on the other, different editors are switching between AEC, ABC, and perhaps other sources. Is it worth having semi-protection for a few days until the votes are tallied? —sroc (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More about Tony Crook

Seeing as how Tony Crook is being counted as if he were part of the Coalition by most of the news services, isn't the point to include the references I already included about how he regards himself as an independent who could, under certain circumstances, work with Gillard? Many people have been counting him as if it's obvious Abbott will get his vote. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put this back the way it was - the news media is reporting this as if it were a Coalition seat, despite the fact that Crook considers himself outside the coalition and is stating openly that he is making up his mind which of the two to support. If Oakeshott/Katter/Windsor/Bandt/Wilkie are noteworthy because their votes on whom to make Prime Minister are still in play, Crook's name not only has to be added to the list, but it must be made clear that he is currently being counted by most news media as if his seat counted as a Coalition seat. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And i've re-removed it. It's irrelevant to the results, stop sensationalising/news ltd'ing them. Timeshift (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What's sensational about it? The sources are included because Crook has spoken directly to numerous media sources about how his support for an Abbott government cannot be taken for granted...even though the "elections 2010" sites typically count his seat as one that has been "won" by the Coalition. It's also an NPOV addition because I went out of my way to document that Crook also has spoken about how he couldn't support Gillard unless she changes her tune on the mining tax. You know what I think? I think you want no one to question that when ABC counts this as a "Coalition seat", they're doing the right thing. That way, if Abbott goes to the press and says "we've won more seats than Labor", no one will say, "yes, but what about Tony Crook?" Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift a Liberal stooge? Good one! Anyway, I'm actually more inclined to agree with Zachary here. Crook's very openly said he's not necessarily part of the Coalition, and I believe we agreed above to treat the Nationals WA as separate (as has been done here and here). Frickeg (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting post by Antony Green here about why the ABC is counting Crook and his electorate as part of the Coalition. In short, as he was elected as a member of the National Party they're going to assume he'll vote with the Coalition until he tells the ABC that he won't. The same principle seems applicable to Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is why I didn't correct the "71" currently showing as the seat count for the Coalition to read as "70" and add a line for the WA Nationals and have it read "1".  :) But I would not consider this a rationale for deleting the information that he is currently open to being possibly persuaded to jump ship, when he has gone out of his way to let people know that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I continue to fight for a fully-sourced set of sentences indicating that Tony Crook sees himself as an independent rather than a given vote for Tony Abbott. The statements included are his own words establishing that being a member of the National Party does not mean he will necessarily vote for the Coalition candidate, nor does it mean he will support Labor so long as it pursues its mining tax policy. If you kill the sentences (which I think are important), at least have the decency to retain the source references, which establish that his vote is in play and not a given for Tony Abbott. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just watching Tony Crook being interviewed by the ABC about how his vote is in play. Is the ABC being "sensationalist" by interviewing him? Or do we concede it's relevant that he's presenting his support for a government as negotiable? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the transcript of the ABC interview as a reference further demonstrating that Crook considers himself to be in play to negotiate with either side (which is, of course, why he was interviewed in the first place...demonstrating the relevance). Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And i've removed it. You are arguing his case in the results section. This is the place for results, not news ltd sensationalism. By all means detail Crook's page with all the info, but let's keep the results page for just that, results, not arguing partisan cases. Timeshift (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've put it back. Thus far, you're the only one that seems to think that documenting that Crook considers himself an independent is out of line, so I'll keep putting it back. By the way, it is a necessary, documented clarification of "results" that list him as seat #71 for the Coalition, despite the fact that he has repeatedly said Abbott may not get his vote. By the way, what is "ltd"? I've looked for this amongst the WP standards and can't find it. Could you enlighten me on what it means? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Another strawman argument. You know full well I am not saying a note on Crook's independence is out of line - it is still there in the article! What is not acceptable is what I said above. "This is the place for results, not news ltd sensationalism. By all means detail Crook's page with all the info, but let's keep the results page for just that, results, not arguing partisan cases." As a side note, I can't see how Crook's stance is a lot different to that of, say, the Nationals Senators who also said half way during the last term of parliament that they will no longer just follow the party line and that there would be times they would vote against the Coalition. Timeshift (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, could you please tell me what "ltd" means. If I don't understand what you're saying, it's hard to respond to it. Also, just saw your updated attempt. That's getting a little closer...maybe we can work something out. I see you've kept the reference links, which makes me happy. My remaining issue is with the vague phrase "statistics". It is, specifically, the AEC and the ABC which regard Crook as part of the Coalition (as Antony Green said in the source linked above). That needs to be spelled out, because Antony Green was responding to E-mails from all over Australia asking why Crook was so counted when he was telling the media he wasn't really in the Coalition. Personally, I would still like to see quotes from the articles explaining how Crook himself sees this, because otherwise it seems like his vote isn't in play, and reliable sources in Australia clearly are treating him as just as much a crossbencher as the other five MPs "in play". Finally, the relevant difference between the House and the Senate is that crossbenchers in the House help to elect the Prime Minister, and when the two main parties are tied, the crossbenchers have the balance of power. I thought that was obvious. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've updated Crook's page. The results section should steer clear of News Ltd senationalism. Timeshift (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you mean the "News Limited" company. Finally I get it. Thanks for explaining it to me. <sarcasm evident> Anyway, the points about Crook need to be on the election page because his vote is actively in play. Kerry O'Brien didn't interview him because he's just another Coalition MP. Antony Green didn't field dozens of questions about why he was being counted as another coalition MP because he really is one. Clarification as to why a member of the National Party is one of the six MPs being sought after by both the Gillard and Abbott camps must be in the article. Not just links to the references, but words explaining what's going on with him. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the crossbench votes are in play. Each MP's view should be in their article. That said, it is still said in the results section that there is dispute over if he should be considered a part of the coalition, that that Crook has said he will support either side. Extra detail can go on the MP page. But we do not need special attention/favouritism/POV to one in particular. The results section is not the place for it. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Other cases of confusion

At some point a lot of the earlier election articles need to be revisited, together with List of Australian federal elections and the various lists of members of the resulting parliaments. The figures aren't always in line with each other (or with other sources like Psephos) and there are some cases where we're either showing minority governments that didn't happen or the Coalition operating when it wasn't - 1919 & 1931 spring most readily to mind. The problem seems rooted in MPs getting elected with a variety of different labels (including, sometimes, the state party label) and various endorsements (e.g. joint endorsements by the Nationalist and Country parties in 1919), complicated alliances between parties and various splits at state & federal level that aren't always apparent in the table. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps a drive after this election's died down could be useful. Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Seat Change in House of Reps table

Hi all,

just wanted to see what people though of adding seat changes to the table for ALP and Coalition? We have in there all the percentages, seats won, and seat changes for Independent and Greens, just wondering what people thought of adding in (as said above) the seat changes for ALP and Coalition? I know the counting isn't finished but this table is updated all the time with seats in doubt, seats won and percentages. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this wasn't included, so I have. —sroc (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And Timeshift will now explain why I'm wrong again... —sroc (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait a few days until all the seats are declared before adding this - at present the number of seats won, lost and in doubt is fluctuating as counting continues, and this will continue for a while. Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick - I notice this table changes all the time - so if we should wait to put in the changing seats why is all the other info in their when it changes hourly?CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually support removing all the tables of results for now as they're inevitably going to be out of date and inferior to the versions on the AEC and ABC websites. This has not been a normal election! Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, all or nothing and just have a link to AEC and ABC but the Official AEC for sure.CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Having the results table has certainly led to more than a few conflicts over the data to go in. Unless we can agree on what goes in the table, I would support leaving it out altogether. —sroc (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No again! :) Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, I have agreed with you on some questions, but you cannot be persuasive if you do not give reasons. —sroc (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly care. If you want a change, form WP:CONSENSUS. Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what this section is about, forming a WP:CONSENSUS. I am for adding in all information into the table OR deleting it altogether. What do others say? CanberraBulldog (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is hard to understand about not adding seat swings if seats haven't been decided? It simply makes no sense. And you're using this as an excuse to remove the results table alltogether? I suspect this is because the results don't favour your view. Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all (at least, not for me). The issue is that either:

• the seat figures shown in the table (even if they are interim figures) are reliable, in which case we can show the shift as well; or
• the seat figures shown in the table are not reliable, in which case they should not be included at all.

How can they be reliable enough to show the number of seats but not to show the shift in the number of seats? That's inconsistent, and for no good reason that I can see. —sroc (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is hard to understand about this premise? If we are using seats won and not projected, there are four seats still in doubt. Therefore, any seat swing figure is factually inaccurate and incorrect and false, thus unsuitable for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, can some one smart explain the change of seats please? AEC and ABC give different changes and the table here is different? ABC and AEC give Coalition +13 and ALP -15 and -13? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seat swings

People - you can't have a seat swing figure when there are undecided seats. It makes no sense. Timeshift (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your reason for reverting this: "removing swings YET AGAIN, counting is NOT complete". However, the changes are included for Greens and independants, so why not everyone. It is already clear that these are provisional results and the table is constantly updated. By your reasoning, we should not include any results at all. Surely it's all or none? —sroc (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AgreeCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they had no seats in doubt. Simple really. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why list seats for the Coalition or Labor at all? I'm for consistency. —sroc (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on showing interim results

Following discussion above (particularly #Consensus on Seat Change in House of Reps table and #Seat swings, I am seeking to reach a consensus on whether and how results should be shown on the page for Australian federal election, 2010, while votes are still being tallied by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). As I see it, we have the following options:

1. Do not show the results until the final results are declared (i.e., after all votes have been counted by the AEC);
2. Show the interim results (being sure to keep this data up-to-date):

1. Include the number of seats (as determined by the AEC or the ABC) and the shift from the previous House of Representatives;
2. Include the number of seats but do not include the shift;
3. Do not include the number of seats at all until all votes have been counted.

I would be happy to include interim results provided that there is consensus on what results should be shown; otherwise, I would support leaving the results out to avoid further edit conflicts. —sroc (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The table shows seats confirmed by the ABC as being won. As there are seats in doubt, any figure showing seats swung is not a true representation. Both parties will have a bigger seat swing than the reality, as some seats are still in doubt. This is quite clear. It's also clear the results table won't go. Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ABC also shows the seats changed but these are not shown in this table? I am for either adding ALL information or none but not for the way it is now. I'm also for staying neutral. CanberraBulldog (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with the ABC's, and update frequently. This page gets a very high google ranking, and as an unfolding event is good publicity for WP. Tony (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2(1) ABC. -Rrius (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2(1) alsoCanberraBulldog (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter IMHO. Final AEC results will eventually replace whatever interim results are used. Only benefit of putting in interim results is to get the structure prepared for the final results. --Surturz (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

True enough, "Final AEC results will eventually replace whatever interim results are used." However, there is a benefit of including interim results beyond setting up the structure: it provides information, and as Tony has pointed out, this page gets a high Google ranking so presumably many people would come here for information on the subject, even while the results are unsettled. This is not about crystal-ball gazing, but rather what information should be included.

The tide is with 2(1) so far, which I would support. Unless there are new objections from anyone else, and since waiting days for more responses would defeat the purpose, I intend to re-include the swing of seats. —sroc (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The seat swings are only of use if predicted seats are used, however the article uses only seats the ABC classifies as won. Swings are therefore invalid and factually incorrect, therefore unsuitable for wikipedia. If we started to use 'projected' rather than 'won' seats however, then swings could be included. But as it's factually incorrect and therefore unsuitable for wikipedia, it simply cannot stay. I've removed all seat swings (as some were complaining of inconsistency with seat swing numbers for non major parties). Timeshift (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So, we had a consensus BUT we don't have a consensus because one person disagrees! So, what's the point of gaining consensus then? If this is the way it is going to be than it is free for all and we do what we like! I think the whole table should be deleted.CanberraBulldog (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys can edit war all you like over this issue but it will all be moot in a couple of weeks when the final results are declared. Ask yourself whether it is worth spending your valuable edit time worrying about it --Surturz (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

CanberraBulldog you obviously still have no idea what consensus is. Timeshift (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Show the interim results, labeled as such. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your answer doesn't seem straightforward. What is your view? Seats confirmed with seats in doubt, AND a seat swing figure? If we are using seats won and not projected, there are four seats still in doubt. Therefore, any seat swing figure is factually inaccurate and incorrect and false, thus unsuitable for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

List the seat swing with the "in doubt" seats excluded and label the seat swing as incomplete so people know it may change as the final division elections are resolved. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are advocating changing the seats column from seats won to seats predicted? If not, then adding a seat swing is not acceptable to wikipedia as it is factually incorrect and misleading. Readers should not have to revert to notes to understand tables. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Surturz: Of course, this will all come out in the wash. The problem is that this is currently a prominent article in that:

• It is about a matter of national importance and discussion which is ongoing;
• It is featured on the WP:Main Page and has been for days;
• It is featured on the current events portal and has been for days;
• It ranks highly in Google searches on the subject (as noted by Tony above).

We should therefore strive to make this article as complete and accurate as possible, within Wikipedia standards, in order to show Wikipedia in the best light in the meantime.

There is an issue of some debate which is being discussed in order to decide the best outcome. The problem is that one user (Timeshift) has a dissenting view from all of the other users who have commented on the issue, and is taking control in the name of "consensus". —sroc (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Try "factually incorrect", and learn what consensus is. "List the seat swing with the "in doubt" seats excluded and label the seat swing as incomplete so people know it may change as the final division elections are resolved." - ok, a solid if not somewhat confused view. I don't believe that others think in doubt should be removed. If however, people want to change the seats column to predicted rather than won and then include seat swings, and there is consensus for it, I wouldn't argue against it. Timeshift (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be massive consensus for it, or am I missing something? Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere have I actually seen any sort of mass wanting to change from using seats won to seats predicted from the ABC ref. The results have come along so far that we could change, but there are still chances seats could change. If there is a mass wanting to change to seats predicted in the ABC ref, then I have no qualms with this. I also suggest learning what WP:CONSENSUS actually is, and how it works and applies. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Surturz; this is an awful lot of fuss over an ephemeral issue. I tend to think that including an "In doubt" row in the table would essentially solve these problems. Obviously we would not include the votes themselves, but the interim percentages and confirmed seat numbers I see no problem with. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But the issue here is that the in doubt column means we are using won, not predicted, seat numbers. Therefore seat swing numbers (+10 -10 etc) are factually incorrect and cannot be used... that is the issue here. Timeshift (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, obviously leave out the seat changes. Frickeg (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

=) Timeshift (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so what I am reading is that we put in no data/numbers for the changed seats - I agree with that. CanberraBulldog (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Crook dispute

The dispute is over wording here. Some WP:CONSENSUS is needed, and not just from the currently engaged editors. Timeshift (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's not been particularly involved in this little dispute, Timeshift's version is clearly more encyclopaedic. We do not need to mention Abbott and Gillard and their parties in this sentence; that should, surely, be obvious by this point in the article. So we should go with the more concise and encyclopaedic version. Frickeg (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, okay on the elimination of the candidate's given names, but why can it not be emphasized that Crook is notable precisely because he is a "Coalition" MP who is contemplating voting for a non-Coalition Prime Minister. The way Timeshift seems to want it, he's someone who will probably vote for Abbott anyway but the WA Nationals are just a little wonky and he wants to act independent. However, Crook is all over the airwaves and the print media saying straight out that he may not vote for the Coalition's candidate for PM. This is the only reason this otherwise obscure MP is WP:NOTABLE and clearly some acknowledgement that this is why he is being mentioned in this article is required. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Crook is still being mentioned; it's a question of wording. I prefer Timeshift's wording, for the reasons stated in the edit summary. —sroc (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So Frickeg and sroc support my wording. Zachary, please pull away from the POV News Ltd sensationalisms and discuss here rather than continue to engage in warring. Note that all your wanted inclusions are there on Tony Crook. Thankyou. As for who he'd support, if he wants Royalties for Regions and is anti-mining tax as his two platforms, it's pretty clear who he'll end up supporting. But that is not a factor in the neutral non-sensationalist wording required in the results section. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it a factor that Tony Abbott, if he is one seat ahead in the final seat count, will no doubt tell everyone that he has a mandate to govern because of all the Coalition MPs (including Tony Crook, who is not really in the Coalition)? If that happens, you pat yourself on the back for helping Tony Abbott spin a bunch of nonsense. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See the bottom of this thread for my first explanation. Second, it just proves i'm not acting out of partisan intent, because i'm accepting that Crook should be a part of the coalition tally. But his support could go either way, so it deserves a mention, and as such, it is mentioned, that much is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your sensationalist News Ltd style wording. Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What is in dispute is whether it is in the nature of a "Coalition" MP to consider voting for a PM who is running against the Coalition. I have not attempted to change the "71" by the Coalition in the results column...he is being counted officially as a Coalition MP. But that convention does not reflect that he's putting himself out there to Julia Gillard. That is the reason he is notable, not because he's considering Abbott (normal for a "Coalition" MP), but because he's considering Gillard. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems you do not have contributors agreeing with you. We believe his stance is sufficiently outlined in the results section, and in greater detail in his actual Tony Crook article. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My note above was deleted, accidentally I think. There is clear edit-warring going on here. Please read WP:3RR and stop the reversions. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest, then, that Crook be given a "bullet point" just like the other MPs, to show that he is being considered another MP "in play" and not just another Coalition MP? As it stands we have bullet points for the four Independents and the Green, but not for Crook. This suggests that he's meaningfully different, and he's not. He's in play like the other five. People on this page need to see that; hiding it on Crook's page when everyone's coming to see this one is an attempt to conceal. Also, Mkativerata, I'll accept the verdict of this discussion board...although I disagree with what's been posted so far. Swords are being converted to ploughshares on my end. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

He's not being hidden. By WP:RS (AEC and ABC) he is considered a member of the coalition, so he doesn't get a dot point. But due to the clear fact that he is theoretically prepared to support either party, he does get his own explanation, which is outlined in more detail in his own article. Timeshift (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it quite odd to see someone saying that Crook is not "meaningfully different" from the other five. Of course he is; he is a member of one of the Coalition parties. He has said that he does not necessarily intend to sit with the Coalition (and note that he's nowhere said he won't attend the Nationals party room), and this important point is given due consideraton. But the fact remains that whatever he's said, he is still a National, and so I think it's appropriate that some differentiation is made between him and the other five. By all means include him in there, but I think the current format is the best, to be honest. Frickeg (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, Adam Bandt shouldn't get a bullet point. He's said repeatedly he'd prefer to work with Labor, whereas Crook has repeatedly said that Tony Abbott is one of two options he's considering. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nationals are a part of the Coalition. The Greens are not a part of Labor. Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both, leave the wording as is BUT give Crook a bullet. CanberraBulldog (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, was this close to throwing in the towel entirely. :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One person does not make consensus. Try to actually form it before you initiate another edit war. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, CanberraBulldog and I make two people, thanks. Your side has three, which I admit, is a crushingly larger number.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant one other person. And consensus isn't just a matter of numbers, try reading the policy. Three long-term contributors, to you and new user CanberraBulldog (just pointing it out). If you have any hope of your changes you will stop referring to us as sides, stop thinking of it in numbers, and actually start talking here. Timeshift (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know you're violating the spirit of WP:Old dogs and new tricks by that comment about how long other editors have been editing. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I said "just pointing it out". Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, that makes it totally not a slap at us. Gotcha.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In regards to this latest edit, either side of politics is more correct than saying the two major parties - the coalition is a composition of four parties, Labor and the coalition are not "two parties" in the technical sense. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Dissident MPs" in the lead is too News Ltd'ish, there's no need for it. Any MP can be a dissident in the coalition and retain their preselection. It is a silly caveat. Consensus works by, if a change from the status quo is disputed, it is incumbent upon the contributor who added the material to gain consensus, not the other way around. Yet again, I plead, please discuss this on the talk page rather than initiating/engaging in inflammatory edit wars. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder regarding my note above: 3RR applies to reversions of any material. I think 3RR has been breached, or is very closed to being breached, by a couple of editors here. Any further reversions could result in a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I backed off before, and I'm backing off again. Just so we're clear. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Zachary, that's appreciated. My notes are certainly not confined to you. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if, since I'm promising not to revert anything else, if you might assist me by finding some kind of appropriately neutral non-News-Ltd.-ish phrasing that explains that Crook, who apparently is not a "crossbencher" despite recently saying he considered himself one, is as in play as the other five MPs. I'd accept the bullet point solution, but that seems to be gaining no traction. I'd accept the comment that the votes of "dissident MPs" also matter in the formation of a government, but that seems to be gaining no traction. What I'm looking for is some indication that even though he's not formally speaking on the crossbench, he's bloody well on the crossbench. Why is it so hard to get that kind of acknowledgment here? Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify - I agree with Timeshift's wording BUT I agree with giving Crook a bullet. Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood you. I'll accept the wording (very grudgingly), and I still want the bullet point. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Two-party preferred or two-party-preferred?

I wish to draw attention to this thread requesting comments over a dash between party and preferred. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Further Crook discussion

I am actually looking for a compromise here. We need more than we have, and I'm sure we can find some way to properly represent that Crook is as much in play as the other five MPs. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If Crook can't be included in a bullet list of people who are considered "crossbenchers", then we need some term for describing that he is nevertheless as in play as the others. If it's not "dissident MP", then what do people suggest? As written now, the suggestion is made that only the behavior of those considered "crossbenchers" by the AEC/ABC definition will decide the next government. No. Tony Crook's decision will also decide it. That's what I'm trying to capture. I sincerely am asking for help on how to do this. Timeshift annoys me, but I'm not here to ruffle feathers, I'm here to get something important properly represented in this article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are looking to implement what you want. If others are happy with a bullet point, then so am I. But until then, please make no further changes in this area without prior discussion as edit warring gets us nowhere. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If I was looking to implement what I want, there would already be a bullet point. You've shown I don't have consensus (all I really wanted you to do in the first place), so I've backed off. Or is it too much to imagine I might actually respect the other editors?  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that you're willing to respect us by coming on to the talk page to form consensus rather than edit war without even so much as popular support for it, I might be willing to respect you. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I could say the exact same thing for you, seeing as how you reverted me several times before bringing the case here. But hey, let's just pretend that this solves everything and bury the hatchet. 'Kay? 'Kay.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary told you to take it to the talk page. It is incumbent upon the person adding disputed additions to gain consensus. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, one's view that another editor has added content without consensus is not an exception to the 3RR rule. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get consensus going. We've got to a point where all parties acknowledge this. I don't intend on violating wikipedia guidelines. Let's just "move forward" now that everyone is on the level. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking over Timeshift's changes to the Tony Crook page, I note that Timeshift concedes that Crook is sitting as a crossbencher. Given that his alleged lack of "crossbencher" status is why he's not getting a bullet point with the other five MPs, I ask that people consider this in their deliberations about what's proper. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Crook is unique so he gets his own specific mention in the results, we all concede that. He even gets this in the lead "Four independent members, one member of the National Party of Western Australia and one member of the Australian Greens are widely expected to hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives" which i'm a bit uncomfortable with, but not worth arguing over. One might question why you're pushing Crook so hard. However, in regards to crossbencher, I just pretty much copied and pasted your entire wanted material on his status from the results section of the election article, to Crook's article. You can argue over your pedantic wording there. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been completely straightforward about why I'm watching this. I'm worried an Australian government might be formed on the mistaken assumption that the Coalition won more seats than Labor when one of the "Coalition" MPs has not resolved to vote for Tony Abbott. Both blocs will spin that they have a mandate to govern if they get more seats than the other, but only the Coalition has a "seat" that's not really theirs. If Wikipedia doesn't clarify the matter, people who otherwise would know this from reading the article would not know this. But maybe it's a matter of waiting until this situation actually presents itself. Maybe the major news media will clue in on this at that point and write a whole bunch of "What about Tony Crook?" articles to prove that this distortion in the seat results is as important as I'm saying it is. I'm kind of naive in that I think we should deal with these issues because people trust Wikipedia to give them a clear picture. (Whether they should or not, they do.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats... why... he... has... his... own... paragraph... after... the... crossbenchers... Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Crook...says...he...is...a...crossbencher... It's a comment like that which worries me further. Abbott will tell people Crook is not a crossbencher and be believed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I can see we are not getting anywhere. I've eliminated everything but the dot points this time, that way Crook now has his own. Are you happy with the changes i've made? Timeshift (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am, actually. Very happy with the article now. Thanks. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also neutralised all crossbenchers bar Bandt to say "open to negotiating with either side to form government". "Either party bloc" indicates Labor has a bloc with another party, I hope you're not confusing the Greens as an arm of Labor. Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Nice to see agreement. I hope no one minds if I shorten the ridiculously long title, makes the TOC rather unwieldy and also takes up a ton of room on people's watchlists. Frickeg (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the coalition in the two party area be reduced one seat to account for Crook not yet having come to a decision? Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Should Crook be seperated from the Lib/Nat Coalition total?

I've actually seperated the WA Nats out alltogether (EDIT: addition removed, see diff), admittedly they did win their own seat without any coalition agreement. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question - but I'd only do it if the Official AEC do it and I notice that do not show the WA Nationals. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is dispute, but we can get a reliable WA Nat figure by taking the raw WA nat lower house vote and divide by the total number of federal formal votes. It is still using WP:RS sources. As it has been pointed out by numerous people, Crook is a "crossbencher" and there is no coalition agreement in WA. Therefore I think it is a bit churlish to add him to the Liberal/National Coalition total. I see you have already reverted the change. I'm happy to hear other views though by all means and see if people want it or not. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The AEC is a great source of course, but sometimes we have to disagree with it. If you looked at the 1996 tally room results, Pauline Hanson would have been counted as a Liberal, since she appeared on the ballot as such. Likewise in 2010 with the disendorsed Family First candidate in ?McEwen. Crook has explicitly said he and the WA Nationals are not part of the coalition, and as such his statement trumps the AEC. Frickeg (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I think this is a (rare) case of WP:IAR. Timeshift (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But that table is going by the ABC and the AEC and the ABC for seats have it Coalition 72. So with consensus being reached before about that table I think it (crook) should stay as one of the 72. Is Crook's statement Official WA Nationals policy? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The Nationals WA independence is part of their policy, they are not a part of the coalition. So to include them in the Lib/Nat Coalition row really is incorrect. Timeshift (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Crook's statement might not be, but Brendon Grylls made the same point in a Sunday Times article on 8 August 2010, and the state president Colin Holt (also an MLC in WA) made the same point the day after the election. Orderinchaos 12:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if that is the case then he should be separate. What happens to the table that we use for the Lower House, does that mean that is incorrect because we have been using AEC and ABC sources for that and what about ABC, are they correct or incorrect? I think we should get some more users inputs before we make a change BUT what you are saying Timeshift sounds correct so if so, I'm all up for your changes after a bit more discussion. CanberraBulldog (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If Crook is willing to give his vote of support to either side and he calls himself a crossbencher then he is not part of the coalition. Frickeg agrees and you pretty much have. I'm re-adding it based on above events, by all means if there are objections from others then take it out. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is that the ABC site has him with the Coalition and on 72 seats and that table is based on the ABC site - but I like the look of the table so I am happy either way. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal view - yes they should be shown separately. The guy himself and the head office of his party have made perfectly clear that they have, and I quote, "filed for irreconcilable differences" with the federal Nationals and have poor relations with its leader, Warren Truss. [1] In Julia Gillard's press conference today, she stated she'd been in talks with Tony Crook who had said he was not part of the "Truss Nationals" (which she said were his words). [2] Therefore I think it should be treated much as the Country Liberals in NT are - an affiliated (that is not in doubt), but separate party. The fact the AEC groups them together is in my view a mistake. Orderinchaos 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(As an aside, a mutual friend of Timeshift's and mine who was formerly very active in the WA Nationals would likely find the amount of discussion on this page on the topic rather amusing.) Orderinchaos 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Until some media outlets separate him from the Coalition total, Crook should remain. The ABC and Sydney Morning Herald state that the Coalition has 72 seats and The Australian gives them 73. Nick-D (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, should treat this guy the way the media are doing. I think its also questionable if they guy deserves to be mentioned in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The media are increasingly treating Crook as in play. News.com.au talks about the six men who could hold the key to Australia's government, for example. It's important to realise that Crook's easy victory was a bit of a shock result (like Wilkie's, in a way), so the media weren't exactly prepared for him and (apart from the WA media) don't know much about him or the WA Nats. He has made it abundantly clear that he is not part of the Coalition, however, and that should be good enough for us. Frickeg (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to shock everyone by saying I actually don't care about this.  :) I long since accepted that the current AEC/ABC convention is to represent his vote as being counted as a Coalition seat - what I was fighting about was that we needed to demonstrate strongly that Crook isn't really Coalition, and after last night, I feel confident we've done that. I personally wouldn't object to the WA Nationals getting their own line, since they did run Crook knowingly as a candidate who would act independently of the coalition. But I actually don't care about this issue. I think we've done what we need to do at this point. Either solution would satisfy me. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I do approve of the textual clarification that it wasn't only Crook but also the WA National Party that is open to negotiation with either party bloc. That's been true since the get-go...perhaps the reason we had such acrimony on this issue was that people didn't fully understand that until now? Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Three remaining in doubt seats

I've added margin and counted percentages to the seat movement table. Is this ok or do people think it will get out of date too quickly? Maybe just the margin only? I like both. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's a good idea. I notice Labor hasn't given up on Denison yet, either. Frickeg (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Denison is still a possibility, but Antony seems rather certain Wilkie has won. If it's what the AEC and ABC have, I guess we work on that until we hear otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Complete seat numbers?

Is it still true, as the article currently says, that seats the ABC considers "decided" are being represented in the seat totals table? If so, and if we are counting the WA Nationals as a separate entity, the Coalition total at present should only be 71. The ABC appears to have not called Brisbane, where the LNP is only considered to be "leading". Perhaps when they do, the 72 will be correct, but if we're only showing "decided" seats, this wouldn't be right. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I read Timeshift's comment, and the AEC does appear to have everything decided, but the article says that we are using ABC's seat count, and they haven't called Brisbane. Shall I go ahead and change the sentence to reflect we're actually using the AEC count? If we are, then the information we're showing is correct. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to be align with one particular WP:RS to the letter. If we know certain things are true then we do it. WP:IAR. Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get the Changed Seats section, as mentioned before, this article's table is different to the AEC's and the ABC's and they are different to each other - is someone able to explain please? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to stick to reference formulas to the tee - we never have. We attempt to use the same consistent methodology for elections going right back to 1901. Which particular part of the table do you feel is incorrect or not referenced? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the ABC still has them counting votes in Brisbane and has not called the seat, so there does seem to be some issue about whether it's official that the Coalition has that last seat. That would mean that the current seat count for the Coalition should be 71 (by our system, which counts the WA Nationals as separate) or 72 (by the ABC's system, which counts them as part of the "Coalition"). If Brisbane comes in for the Coalition, that would make our current totals correct showing 72 for the Coalition, 1 for the WA Nationals; but the ABC's version of seat accounting will say the Coalition has 73, and Tony Abbott will go around saying the Coalition has more seats than Labor on that basis, probably. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The ABC says 73 as they are including Crook in the coalition total, which we've already established on this talk page is incorrect as he is not a part of the coalition, therefore we have agreed to use the rare WP:IAR on this one. As for Brisbane, the LNP are 0.5% in front at a late stage in the count, and the AEC have taken it off of their close list, Brisbane has gone ALP->LNP. This won't change, there's no point putting it back in doubt on this page. The figures are correct. Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the ABC says 72 because they are counting Crook as Coalition, but they haven't called Brisbane. They will say 73 if they call Brisbane for the Coalition. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct, even though the ABC is not correct in saying 73 coalition. As far as Brisbane goes, the ABC might not have called it but the AEC seem to have dropped it from theirs. Postal votes are coming in and are favouring Gambaro, her lead is increasing, she is now at a lead of .5 percent, there's no way Brisbane could swing back that much, this far in - coalition gain. 72 all, 1 WA Nat, 1 Green, 4 indies. Timeshift (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Read - s11.4 - National WA

Hi all, this is interesting - after reading this I think the WA National's should be grouped with the Coalition. What do you think?

11.4. FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION

134. The National Party of Australia (WA) shall be affiliated with the National Party of Australia unless and until such affiliation is terminated by a majority decision of a General Conference.

134.1 While such affiliation exists, the Party shall seek to implement items of Federal policy through the Federal Parliamentary Party or the Federal Council of the National Party of Australia.

134.2 In the event of the National Party of Australia (WA) ceasing to be affiliated with the National Party of Australia, State Council shall draft rules for the guidance of West Australian Federal Parliamentary Members in conjunction with such members. Such rules will be confirmed at the next General Conference of the Party.

http://www.nationalswa.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-F1bTTudNG4%3d&tabid=99

Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Being in affiliation does not mean you are in coalition. Two very different things. The WA Nats are not in coalition. Crook has called himself a crossbencher, he will sit on the crossbenches in parliament, and he is open to negotiating with either side to support the formation of the next government. So quite obviously there is no coalition. It's already been agreed here on the talk page too. Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion on this, but I thought I would mention ABC election analyst Antony Green's comments on The Drum the other day. He said that he was contacted by Crook or the WA Nationals (I don't recall that important detail) asking not to have Crook counted in the Coalition total. Green said that the only way for him to exclude Crook from the Coalition was to exclude the entire WA Nationals from the Coalition, and they did not want that, so Green has left them (including Crook) in the Coalition totals. —sroc (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

CanberraBulldog, trump card time:

He urged me to consider my position and said to consider that I am a member of the Nationals. But I highlighted to him that although we are a federated body, the WA Nationals are an autonomous political organisation, he said.

Mr Crook said he had been disappointed by media coverage of the hung parliament, which has included his seat of O'Connor in the number of seats won by Mr Abbott's Coalition.

In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be, he said.

Mr Crook's separation from the Coalition puts him at odds with Nationals MPs from the eastern states, who have formed a united coalition with Mr Abbott's Liberals.[3]

"I'm clearly an independent. I can sit on the crossbenches quite comfortably," he said.[4]

Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC

Gee, this quote seems familiar. Is that the one I kept re-adding to this page because I thought people would miss that Crook wasn't really a member of the Coalition? (*sorry, just couldn't help myself*) Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You kept re-reverting/re-adding it despite the fact it sounded POV and a self-promotion in it's entirety. We've come together and made this article very good now. Wikipedia's results are far more succinct and to the point, all on the one page, than any other online source. Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just finding it interesting how you needed this "sensationalist" quote to make your point just now.  :) But I agree, the page is shaping up nicely now. Good job for all concerned (including you, Timeshift.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

72 all, 1 WA Nat, 1 Green, 4 indies. That wraps up this election's tally folks! Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TimeShift, why so aggressive, where you beaten as a small child? No where in this section I have been aggressive or argued a/my point or tried to trump you or anyone. I just put some interesting reading out there and asked what people thought of it, so back off and don't be so aggressive and trying to be correct all the time - it's not a competition. I am happy for the WA Nats to be by themselves or with the coalition which ever one is correct. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You call it aggression, I call it excitement :) Sorry if you took that much of an exception. Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, Another interesting read on Tony Crook and the Nationals WA - this is from Antony Green:

August 25, 2010 Is Tony Crook, new Nationals MP for O'Connor, a member of the Coalition?

Since election night I have received more than 50 e-mails from members of the public wanting to know why I have included Tony Crook, the new Nationals MP for O'Connor, in the total of seats for the Coalition.

Mr Crook, like every other WA National candidate, was nominated under the umbrella of the Federally registered National Party. He appeared on the ballot paper with the party affiliation of 'The Nationals', as did all National Party candidates in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. As far as party registration with the Electoral Commission is concerned, Mr Crook is in the same party as National MPs from other states.

If after the election Mr Crook or the WA Nationals no longer wish to be treated in this way, I can say on behalf of the ABC we are prepared to consider instructions from Mr Crook that he does not wish to be included in the total of seats for the Coalition.

If we receive such instruction to remove Mr Crook from the total of Coalition seats, we will take such action and ensure that it receives appropriate news coverage.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/index.html

Oh, P.S - i read that the ALP have not given up Boothby. This is from the ABC:

From the seat of Boothby in South Australia comes this twist according to our South Australian political reporter.

Twitter - nickharmsen: Ok this gets weirder folks. ALP refusing to concede Boothby. Claiming irregularities with ballot box. Promising to take to court. ALP SA Secretary says both Lab and Lib scrutineers witnesses an AEC official improperly dealing with 3000 votes. He says AEC has admitted to a problem. Libs have claimed victory with a 1400 vote lead

CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh Boothby! Also, from pollbludger:

There has been talk of a legal challenge, or at least the possibility of one, against the election of Coalition candidates Russell Matheson in Macarthur and Natasha Griggs in Solomon, on the basis that their position as councillors runs foul of the archaic constitutional requirement that candidates not enjoy “office for profit under the Crown”.

Timeshift (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting times ahead - I read that Brendan 'Bear' Grylls said that they should be counting Crook not in the Coalition but as an Independent - straight from the boss that he shouldn't be in the coalition count of seats.CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

More interesting reading on the WA Nationals and Crook saga:

From the ABC, Antony Green Blog: COMMENT is from Antony Green.

"In an email to the ABC, the WA Nationals have indicated they believe Mr Crook should be considered an independent..."

Is that enough for you to flick him to independent, or is his anti-mining tax stance still effectively pinning him on the coalition side as a guaranteed vote (at this point)?

COMMENT: The request was made to me. When I explained that it would be achieved by creating a seperate WA National Party that was not associated with the Federal National Party and would therefore not be part of the Coalition, the request was withdrawn.

and

Hi Antony, with the ABC reporting that the WA Nationals have written in asking to not be counted in the Coalition column, will you now take him out?

COMMENT: After some discussion on options about how that could be achieved, the National Party withdrew the request.

So, are the WA Nats still 'Officially' part of The Nationals and the Coalition or not? Wonder what Antony Green would say if he read this Article? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that unlike the other states, Crook and the WA Nationals have no coalition agreement, therefore it is churlish and plain wrong to describe them as part of the Liberal/National "Coalition". He has said he is a crossbencher. The mining tax, one policy, does not turn someone from a crossbencher to someone who is part of a party/group of parties. He remains his own person. Read Tony Crook. As the WA Nats are not in coalition, and his vote is not guaranteed and remains independent either way at voting on policy, but also votes of confidence, it is factually incorrect that he comes under the coaltiion total. Crook specifically says not to be included. We are, however, not following his request nor obliged to. We are following common sense. Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But, as Antony Green pointed out '......the WA Nationals have written in asking to not be counted in the Coalition column.....After some discussion on options about how that could be achieved, the National Party withdrew the request.' and 'In an email to the ABC, the WA Nationals have indicated they believe Mr Crook should be considered an independent....The request was made to me. When I explained that it would be achieved by creating a seperate WA National Party that was not associated with the Federal National Party and would therefore not be part of the Coalition, the request was withdrawn.'

So in reading this and all other information does this mean the Nationals WA is still part of the Federal Nationals but Tony Crook may act as a crossbencher if he wants? What Antony Green is pointing out is that the WA Nationals withdrew their request and are therefore still part the Federal Nationals and the Coalition? That's what I think is coming out of all of this... what do others think, has this article jumped the gun in placing the WA Nationals by themselves in the House of Reps table? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm very satisfied that this article has The WA Nationals (Crook) in the correct place in the House of Reps table. This is from his Policy Director, '....are correct, you can not count Tony's seat as a Coalition seat because at this point in time the Coalition have not agreed to support our policy position. Tony has campaigned on this message and he is simply following through on his promise to his electorate during his campaign. Tony will negotiate to get the best deal for O'Connor and the State of Western Australia.' CanberraBulldog (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I already said, - we are not following his request nor obliged to. We are following common sense. He is a crossbencher, the WA Nats are not in coalition, and his vote remains independent either way at voting on policy and also votes of confidence. It is factually incorrect that he comes under the coalition total, so we are not doing so. Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspoll reliability...

Just a reminder to keep in mind the last Newspoll of the campaign... ALP 36.2%, LNP 43.4%, GRN 13.9%, OTH 6.5%, 2PP 50.2% ALP. There's a 2% trade gap between the Green and Labor vote (can be expected that a couple will fall back from Green to Labor between polling phonecall and polling booth), but apart from that, it's pretty much spot on, bearing in mind the 2PP will keep sliding a bit further... Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this is dumb luck. All the major pollsters got the election result within their margin of error so it was a dead heat in statistical terms. Newspoll just happened to be lucky enough to have produced headline results which came the closest to the actual result (though an much larger than normal sample size and running the poll over the two nights prior to the election obviously helped). There's no magic to Newspoll, and they get their share of rouge polls like all the others do (which is only to be expected in statistical terms; the usual margins of error the pollsters aim for mean that about one poll in 20 will be rouge). Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The 2007 result was extremely close too. Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First party, second party

I was wondering why Labor is the first party, when it received the lowest primary vote of any incumbent government since the 1970's? Also, labor lost about 11-13 seats.Enidblyton11 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it goes on the two-party preferred (2PP) first. Labor is about 87,000 votes in front on the 2PP so that is why, apparently. I am no expert but that is what I have read. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

??? Where is a first party and second party mentioned? HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

top of the page, right hand corner Enidblyton11 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This may well change, depending on who manages to form a government, I suppose. At present, I'd say Labor should remain shown in the first position because Gillard is still the PM, and the tradition in Westminster systems is that sitting PMs are given the first crack at forming governments in a minority parliament situation. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Enidblyton11. So we are yet again victim to slavish adherence to the dumb behaviour of someone's idea of a template that will work in all situations. My experience is that they never do. The heading "First party Second party" is completely unnecessary. Without it, side by side pictures and short details of each party would be perfect. No apparent bias at all. Can anyone fix this dumb template please? HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second that. I'm also uneasy about photos of two parliamentarians, when the article is about a multi-party parliamentary democracy. Anthony (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Brisbane now called

The election in Brisbane has now been called by the ABC for the Coalition. That means our numbers are in fact correct on the seat totals. I also take some satisfaction in noting that, although the ABC election site does still follow the convention of counting Crook in with the Coalition, there is a very prominent disclaimer underneath the seat totals indicating that Crook intends to sit on the crossbench. Whether Wikipedia had anything to do with the ABC's decision or not, I don't know. I imagine it was the intercession of Crook himself that made them put the disclaimer there. But if it was related to our determination to get the story right, I must say I'm proud of us for getting it right. Now Australians will know that, after the election, the two main party blocs are on an equal footing, and neither has any more "mandate", according to the seat totals, than the other. We've done our part to defuse a possible spin based on a debunkable falsehood.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ABC may put the disclaimer about Crook, but they give the coalition 73 rather than 72 as do a number of other news organisations. It should follow that process including Crook in the coalitions numbers with a note. The coalition won thank goodness. Although i do see SkyNews Australia does the 72 each. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

All I ever cared about is the disclaimer, and we can already see that Tony Abbott is taking a different route than saying "we got more seats"...his talking point is now "I don't think anyone seriously thinks Crook will support Labor". That comment is, in my opinion, in-bounds and involves no distortion of the facts. I'd like to think Wikipedia helped Mr. Abbott say something fair instead of something unreasonable. (That is, he was wise enough not to say "The Coalition won, thank goodness." The Coalition has done no such thing. The crossbenchers will decide.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Although possibly what you meant is "thank goodness, they won Brisbane", which would be factually accurate, though the sentiments might be contrary to my own point of view.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

lol they have won the election, its only a matter of time now before Tony is Prime Minister. If labor stay in power it will prove beyond doubt the unfairness of the voting system in Australia. I am not even Australian but i will be disappointed and annoyed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please state that as "I believe after the crossbenchers take their positions, the Coalition will have won the election", because otherwise you are factually wrong. No one's won anything yet. I know you're just stating your opinion about things, but we need to stay clear on what is factual here. Neither of the major party blocs have any more seats than the other (regardless of ABC's convention for representing the seats) and no one has formed a government, which is what it means to "win" the election. Also, I remind you that Labor has a majority of the 2PP vote. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In the situation of a hung parliament, it makes no sense for either party to claim they've won the election. The result is absolutely moot; that one side may end up with more seats than the other makes not a jot of difference to that, because the side with the greater number of seats (or indeed the higher 2PP vote) may still end up being the opposition. A perfectly possible and legitimate outcome under our system. It all depends on the cross-benches. Neither side will ever be able to claim they "won" this election, no matter who gets to be the next government. Which is why I raised a question 6 days ago at Talk:Australian federal election, 1940: it also says that the incumbent UAP/CP coalition "narrowly defeated" Labor - it most certainly did not! Neither side "won" that election. There was a hung parliament, and the coalition continued to hold power only with the support of two independents. Had they gone the other way, as they later did anyway, Labor would have been the government. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, see my rant at User:Timeshift9. Abbott has zero claim to power. Timeshift (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As a VIctorian, I'm also getting a little sick of the Libs claiming things like "Australians all over the country have shown that...." We rejected BOTH the big mobs! It was a very non-uniform swing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Only two out of eight states/territories had a minority of Labor seats - QLD (Rudd) and WA (even in 2007 WA was pathetic). Vic, SA, and Tas even swung TO Labor! Every govt since federation was able to carry NSW... At this election in NSW, Labor won 26, coalition won 20. :) Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we please use this space to discuss improvements to our article, not to make cases for or against either side. There are plenty of other places where you can do that to your heart's content. BUT NOT HERE. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course, JackofOz. POV is inappropriate in the article. I just think it's important that, as the dust settles, we need to work into the article a little more about the unevenness of the swingS across the country. I think it's really interesting. And important. I suspect that, in time, many others will too. I'm sure the wiser heads within the parties are already looking at this with thoughts about next time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that for all the blatant racist chest beating Abbott did, trying to milk asylum seekers for all they're worth, the most media speculated seat of the campaign, Lindsay, doesn't even suffer as a Labor loss. :) Sorry jack, i'll stop. Timeshift (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

LIB/NAT/LNP/CLP - whose seats go in to whose pages infoboxes...?

Easy enough for Labor as they're united... but whose seats do we add to whose party pages infoboxes for LIB/NAT/LNP/CLP? Timeshift (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we just use the AEC webpage: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ ? Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That might be the best idea. Thoughts from others? Timeshift (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I notice the first preferences are including an LNP swing, which I assume is from the added percentage of the Libs and Nats in Queensland last time. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed as much as I can, but the LNP page needs fixing, and i'm stuck as to what to do with Senate numbers and colour coding. Can someone help out/fix? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WA NATS SWING?

Hi Timeshift, don't know where else to ask you this (we can delete it after)? How did you get the WA Nat swing - I can only see 2.46? Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at the swing on a state level, not a nationwide level. Timeshift (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am too, silly me, how did you (mathamatically) work out the WA Nat swing? I'm not sure how to work it out - coffee hasn't kicked in yet! CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The national WA Nat vote is currently 0.03553something%. In WA, the Nat vote was 3.60%, an increase of 2.46%. Half of 3.6% is 1.8%, three quarters of 3.6% is 2.7%. The swing so far is 2.46%. So the WA Nat vote increased approximately four fold. This is closer to a national 0.3% increase rather than a 0.2% increase for a total national vote for the WA Nats of 0.4%. I'm sure there's a more mathematically correct way to figure it out, but obviously it would still come to the same figures i've calculated. Timeshift (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks heaps for that - my maths isn't the best at times! Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot

[5] [6]

Antony Green says,

"The Australian Constitution provides a framework for government in Australia. However, that framework is bare of flesh on how to deal with the current impasse." [7]

One side needs (at least) four:

• Katter, Oakeshott, Wilkie, Windsor, (Bandt & Crook) !

Who would've thought a bullet point could be the decider.

The most interesting times be with us.

- Cablehorn (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all media sensationalism. There's really no issue. Gillard is the incumbent PM, if the GG was called upon to decide without opinions of independents, she'd let Gillard remain PM until a majority in the House pass a motion of no confidence. It's fairly typical westminster stuff. Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but it well beats the fish-filleting and pie-eating (Australia decides) the media was feeding us prior the election. Cablehorn (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

People get the government and media they deserve. TV was the worst thing to ever happen to politics. Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not sure if I deserve that government! HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny cut and paste from a couriermail.com.au article...

Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia, already lists Ms Gambaro as the "Member for Brisbane since 2010".

"I'd still like the AEC to declare it," Ms Gambaro said.[8]

Timeshift (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

National 2PP

Apologies if this is a bit offtopic, but why is the National 2PP count relevant? Also, given that there are a sizable number of independents, isn't the national 2PP count a bit misleading? Should it not be a table of how many votes each party/independent "commands" after preferences? --Surturz (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The final figure will include the notional figures for the "non-classic" divisions, i.e. another preference count in those divisions will be done between Coalition and Labor. So in New England, for example, they'll distribute Windsor's preferences to whoever they went to and get a figure for the national count from that. They did this last time too (here's New England - notice it swung to the Coalition!). As the 2PP is being used as a factor as to which party should govern, on this page more than any it is of vital importance. Frickeg (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's not really relevant here, is it? 2PP is relevant in each seat in order to determine who gets the seat. It's not relevant in the overall results because it comes down to who the individual candidates side with, not a 2PP basis — the MPs don't give second preferences. —sroc (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant cause we're in a preferential system and we have the national 2PP on every page? Timeshift (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean in the article for every election? Why is this? Would you group Greens and independents with Labor or the Coalition, and on what reasoning? The make-up of the House is based on the parties of the individuals, not the 2PP preferences of the electorates that voted for them. —sroc (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, it's not relevant? It's absolutely vital - it shows which of the two major parties the country as a whole preferred. At Australian federal election, 1998, for example, the fact that Labor won the national 2PP is one of the best-known things about it. Equally, for this election it's one of the closest in Australian history. We have a preferential voting system in Australia, and as such our articles should reflect that. Anyway, it's misleading without it; people would ask, "Why is this even close when the Coalition is so far ahead?" The 2PP answers that question. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get your point now. However, it's not really part of the formal result insofar as the 2PP doesn't count towards who forms goverment — the majority of seats does. Wouldn't this be better placed in a separate para rather than in the results table? —sroc (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

N... O... :) Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a good post by Peter Brent on why the 2PP vote is the better measure than primary votes in the Australian system here. It's worth stressing that the 2PP figure is going to keep bouncing around for the next few days until counting is completed. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift: it would be nice to have some reasoning rather than a conclusion, please?

Nick-D: noted that the leaders may argue over which case is more persuasive in convincing the crossbenchers that they have a better claim for some sort of mandate, and Peter Brent can have his opinion, too.

My point is that 2PP is used to determine who wins each seat; it is not used to determine who wins government. While it merits discussion, I am not convinced that it is appropriate to include in the table of official results. I would welcome more discussion on this. —sroc (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See here... the official AEC results site. Oh, look at that! 2PP figure comes BEFORE the primary figures!! And why is that? Because each seat is won and lost on the 2PP vote, not the primary vote. It's called two party preferred for a reason. Read instant-runoff voting. This is now settled, the end, finished. The 2PP will not be removed from election pages in every federal election page back to 1901, and state elections... they have always been there and for the foreseeable future always will be... though i'm sure some would love to see the back of it. Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have always seen the 2PP figures from polls used in the media to predict a likely outcome, but election night always comes down to a count of the seats, not the 2PP vote. Nonetheless, you have made your point and I won't put up a fight over this. —sroc (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we remove the National 2PP count from any article. As Shifty says, it is published by the AEC and used extensively by the media, so it is definitely WP:N. That said, I fail to see why (for example) Green votes in the seat of Melbourne should be allocated to either Labor or the Coalition in the National 2PP count. More useful would be a table of party votes after final preference distribution. --Surturz (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the 2PP count handles seats with both Liberal and National candidates? There have been cases of people prefing Labor between the two parties - does the 2PP go with whichever candidate is the last one standing or something else? And what would be done if both parties contested a seat where the final two were Labor vs Independent? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

AEC website:

Two party preferred (TPP) refers to a distribution of preferences where, by convention, comparisons are made between the ALP and the leading Coalition candidates. In seats where the final two candidates are not from the ALP and the Coalition, a notional distribution of preferences is conducted to find the result of preference flows to the ALP and the Coalition candidates.

I'd assume that the AEC count 2PP as whichever party (ALP or Coalition) the voter preferences first on the ballot paper, ignoring other parties. If so, then some votes that ended up being counted as two-candidate-preferred (2CP) ALP votes in the seat of Melbourne would be counted as LNP in the national 2PP (e.g. if the voter marked 1 Lib 2 ALP 3 Green). Likewise, a lot of the Green vote in that seat would be counted as ALP for National 2PP, even though they ended up as votes AGAINST the ALP. IMHO reporting the 2PP for this election is misleading, a summary of the 2CP results would be better. Here's an article which also casts doubts on 2PP --Surturz (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective. It highlights the fact that in looking at a 2PP vote, one is, in fact, taking a POV position. It requires one to take the view that those candidates who are not ALP or Coalition don't really count. As the Greens, any other party, or even informal votes, gain increasing shares of the overall totals, that's an increasingly meaningless thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have said above, "2PP is used to determine who wins each seat; it is not used to determine who wins government." And as Timeshift has said, in disagreeing with me, "each seat is won and lost on the 2PP vote, not the primary vote" (my emphasis). While the national 2PP figure may be an interesting discussion point, it is not relevant to the final outcome and so I have queried whether it belongs in the table of results. The only outcome that actually matters is the number of seats. —sroc (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be a little pedantic; each seat is won or lost on the "2 Candidate Preferred (2CP)" vote, which is the shortcut way of calculating the full preference distribution. I've no argument with that count; the numbers represent the final allocation of each elector's transferable vote. The "Two Party Preferred" (2PP) vote however is the national count of preferences, where votes for parties other than Coalition and ALP parties get "notionally distributed". It is this count that I have issue with, since it essentially ignores the minor parties that make it to a 2CP count, and furthermore counts some votes as neither their first preference nor their final allocation. I also suspect in some "non-classic" seats there would be ALP votes being counted as Coalition and vice versa. The national 2PP is definitely discussed in the media when talking about who should form government. --Surturz (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tidy-up

I think this sentence in the intro is a bit awkward-

"On the crossbench, four independent members, one member of the National Party of Western Australia and one member of the Australian Greens hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives."

Maybe it could start something like - "The six remaining seats ..." or "Holding the balance of power ..." something like that. ?

BTW - The ABC has a note re Crook - "Note: The Coalition's total of 73 seats includes Tony Crook from the WA Nationals, however he has indicated he intends to sit on the crossbenches." [9]

Good work all. Cablehorn (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Maybe the "House of Representatives opinion polling" section could be summerised and/or archived. It's cluttering-up the otherwise good-looking page. Again, good work all. Cablehorn (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Imo, the ABC has no right to include Crook in the Coalition's numbers (even if they sort of exclude him by way of a footnote). One may say that he would generally support the Coalition so he may as well be counted there. One could just as well say that Adam Bandt will generally be supporting Labor, so he may as well be counted as a win for Labor. Rubbish. Crook is - officially and unofficially - NOT a part of the Coalition, so for the ABC to count him as a Coalition member is very much OR on their part. Tony Abbott doesn't get to overrule someone and decide they're in the Coalition despite their public statements to the contrary. And the ABC should not be dancing to his tune. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some media are getting it right... 72 all. As for the polling section, it was cut down drastically. It only goes back to late last year now. And considering the quick changes in dynamics and how polling went, I think it's more important here than in any other recent federal election to have them. Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I just heard the commercial radio station that tries for a serious image in melbourne, 3AW, declaring that it was 73-72. But that is probably more an indication of the normal political leaning of the station, probably combined with an element of ignorance on this occasion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this in second para of intro:

Labor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150 seat House of Representatives, four short of the requirement for majority government, resulting in the first hung parliament since the 1940 election. The remaining six crossbenches hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives, consisting of four independent members, one member of the National Party of Western Australia and one member of the Australian Greens. [1] [2] [3] [4]

- Cablehorn (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just more or less done it. Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's Antony Green's explaination re Crook on Lateline last night. [10]

He says, regarding (the ABC I assume) counting him as an independent;

"Perhaps that's what we should be doing, but it's up to Mr Crook; he's an individual member of Parliament."

- Cablehorn (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And we make our own judgements on wikipedia accordingly. Timeshift (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. IMO that's Green's subtext - (for all media). -Cablehorn (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it accurate to refer to all of the crossbenchers as having the balance of power? If only some pledge their support to the eventual government (i.e., based on either side's 72 seats and the support of four or five crossbenchers), the other one or two will not really have the balance of power, will they? —sroc (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We have to unless some declare support and therefore we know which remaining group holds the balance. Since we know nothing yet (except, arguably, for Bandt supporting Labor), we have to treat the entire group as holding the balance. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The latter article gives the following definition:

"In parliamentary politics, the term balance of power sometimes describes the pragmatic mechanism exercised by a minor political party or other grouping whose guaranteed support may enable an otherwise minority government to obtain and hold office. This can be achieved either by the formation of a coalition government or by an assurance that any motion of no confidence in the government would be defeated. A party or person may also hold a theoretical 'balance of power' in a chamber without any commitment to government, in which case both the government and opposition groupings may on occasion need to negotiate that party's legislative support."

The crossbenchers (other than Bandt, perhaps) have not declared any "guaranteed support" for either side yet, so do they really fit this definition? Or is the definition flawed? —sroc (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's precisely because they haven't jumped either way that they're regarded, as a bloc, as having the balance of power. Whichever side they choose to support will become the next government. That's assuming most of them go the same way. If they split ... well, let's cross that bridge if we come to it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That definition - guaranteed support to enable a minority government to hold office - is not the common usage in Australia. Because we haven't had a hung federal parliament since 1940, few of us have any memory of that situation. Rather, the term has come to describe those non-aligned Senators who had the freedom to swing either way when controversial legislation passed their way. The Senate doesn't (normally) make or break governments in Australia. We are now facing a new usage of a term which already has already another meaning in Australia. No precedent. So don't look backwards for a meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Then should balance of power (parliament) not be updated to reflect this? Any suggestions? —sroc (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. This is sort of like debating the definition of liberal, which in Australia means a variant of conservative politics, in the US means almost the same thing as social democracy, and in Europe means a kind of centrism. The fact that different places use the term in different ways doesn't mean that we can't follow all the meanings. Likewise with balance of power. Most parliamentary systems use that term in the sense of "X has the balance of power if their votes will cause one side or the other to form the government." Obviously there's the Australian meaning of "X has the balance of power if their votes will put one side over the other in passing legislation in the Senate." There's also the geopolitical sense of the term along the lines of "X has the balance of power if they can lend their support to one power bloc or another and thereby assert their influence." Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oakeshott

Katter and Windsor were pre-existing, Oakeshott was elected at the 2008 Lyne by-election.

Do we really need to make this distinction between Oakeshott and the others? As far as the 2010 election was concerned, Oakeshott was just as much "pre-existing" as anybody else. So his service in the parliament is shorter; so what?

If we have to have this, can we get rid of the term "pre-existing", please? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose to do it? The point of it is to indicate Oakeshott is counted as an independent gain/Nat loss since the last general election. Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is important to have, since if a reader was going from election page to election page there would otherwise be no explanation for Oakeshott's sudden presence. Having said that, "pre-existing" is an awful term, and I think perhaps removing Katter and Windsor from the sentence altogether would help (perhaps "The number of independents increased from two to three when Rob Oakeshott was elected at the ..."). Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(@ Timeshift) Oh. That message didn't come thru to me at all. Not at all. Just saying that someone was elected and when, without saying who they replaced or whether and how the party balance changed as a result, gives the reader no evidence that anything has changed except the name of the incumbent member.

(@ Frickeg) Doesn't your idea then have us backtracking and talking about what happened in 2008? This is supposed to be about the 2010 election. Is this the place to be updating readers about Vale's resignation, the by-election, and Oakeshott's win? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, yes, a general election page should advise readers of any changes since the last general election. Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what the Background section's all about. It's well covered there, it doesn't need to be repeated. But if we do think it bears another mention, it has to effectively communicate the story. As it stands, it fails that test quite badly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to take words out like pre-existing and make it sound better, that much I have no issues with. Timeshift (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Is this the place to be updating readers ...?" Yes, of course, to explain the discrepancy between the 2 Independents in 2007 and the sitting 3 in 2010. This is a logical place to do this for readers. Frickeg (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Australian news media have fairly uniformly been referring to all three (Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott) as the "incumbent independents", which is true. It doesn't hurt to have one sentence indicating that Oakeshott wasn't elected at the last general election, but he was elected before this election, and that counts for incumbency. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I concede. The revised wording is acceptable to me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Voting WA Nat 1, Labor 2, Liberal 3 - who gets the 2PP preference?

Liberal/National Coalition or Labor? Timeshift (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume Coalition. The WA Nats did not formally run as a separate party but as part of the federal National Party which is part of the Coalition, hence the AEC (who are only concerned with who gets elected, not what they will do afterwards) including them in the totals. I doubt any Labor vs Liberal 2PP will be done for O'Connor.

What's more unclear is when the Nats or Libs don't get into the last two and votes leak to Labor over the other Coalition party. The 2PP seems to work on the basis of who gets to the last two and doesn't break down totals from there. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is a Wikipedia editing question, I'd say we can't make a judgment on that. Isn't it the Australian legal system's call? I suspect no one's ever asked the question before. If this election were a typically decisive election, the vote counters would probably count it as Coalition and no one would care. It only is a question burning to be resolved when the composition of the government hangs in the balance. I mean, hell, even 1975 didn't resolve the question about whether the Senate can block supply or not - Australians like to leave these questions hanging if they can. :D Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

flag at top of infobox

I can't understand what it means, with the arrow moving to the left (to "2007"). In any case, the flag is problematic anywhere in thumbnail versions, since it is almost indistinguishable from the NZ and Fiji flags. Tony (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this as yet another problem with the Election Infobox template, as I highlighted in the "First party, second party" section above. I MUST learn more about templates so I can fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That is following the method used on many country election articles (like United States Presidential Election 2008 and United Kingdom General Election, 2010). the only problem is there should be a -> 2013 linking to the next future federal election article. One does not appear to exist yet and probably will not be created until the outcome of this one is known. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better presented as a chronology such as "Previous election: 2007" and "Subsequent election: ..." (or whatever wording), the type used with discographies, etc.? —sroc (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ive added link to the previous members elected in 2007. The current setup of the template looks fine once the future article is added but it does look strange when its just got the past one. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Right from dot the election pages have had a back and forward feature for the election years there. A members link confuses things and unnecessarily bulks it up. Let's keep it the same as the other election pages please? Timeshift (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it was designed in the template, and its used on other articles like New Zealand general election, 2008 and United Kingdom general election, 2010. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On a range of matters we don't necessarily do what other countries do. There is no rigidity we are required to follow. Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the year of the next election is not determined until it is declared. We can only speculate that a full three-year term will be seen (despite the leaders' stated intentions, there's every possibility that a double-dissolution may occur, a vote of no-confidence may be sustained, or that Australia may go back to the polls if a government cannot even be formed). —sroc (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, the table would look a bit one-sided without including who the PM at the next election would be, e.g.:

Previous election		Next election
2007	2010	To be called
Previous Prime Minister	Prime Minister-elect	Next Prime Minister
Julia Gillard	To be determined
Labor

First table ever. Can you tell? —sroc (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• So, let me get this right: the flag equals "2010 federal election", does it? This is an eccentric piece of iconography. I doubt Australian readers will fathom what it means, let alone foreigners. Why is it there? It wasn't there a few weeks ago. Tony (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the placement of the flag between the years is awful, IMHO. However, I suggest raising this as an issue at Template talk:Infobox election to see if we can fix this at a global level rather than spiking off into a separate template just for Australia (which would not evolve with future improvements of the global template). —sroc (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm no expert at templates, but I have knocked up an alternatve format that has a flag up top with the previous/next elections underneath. It's still glitchy when applied to other versions (around the world) depending on what information is given, so I would probably ask for help to have this work on a global scale, but you get the idea. Thoughts? —sroc (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sroc, that's much better than the current, bizarre ?New Zealand flag-as-semitrailer moving towards 2007. But why do we need a NZish flag there at all??? Is this article a vehicle for nationalism? Tony (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can tell the difference with the NZ flag: one less star, for starters. Anyway, it's just that the template for elections used globally (or a lot, anyway) has a flag. We could leave it out, but then we'd need to remove it from the article for every other Australian election article, and why be different from the rest of the world? —sroc (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Coalition to muscle in on Tony Crook today...

Tony Crook, the incoming member for the seat of O'Connor in Western Australia, has indicated he intends to sit on the crossbench and will face tough questioning about his allegiances at today's meeting.

"I am sure Tony will tell us what his reservations are, if any. He was elected as a National. I am sure he is a proud National," Paul Neville, the returning Nationals member for the Queensland seat of Hinkler, said.

"We in the eastern states have always supported our colleagues in the west and I am sure they will understand how important it is for us to have new numbers in the Parliament and I have no reason to believe that they'll be anything else but supportive."[11]

Funny stuff. Abbott still wants to claim his 73rd even though the WA Nats and Crook want nothing to do with the coalition. Will be interesting to see what changes, if any. Timeshift (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is funny. One article I read on the ABC's site says the Nationals consider themselves to be a party on the crossbenches...so all the Nationals are like Tony Crook, I guess. This seems to be a deliberate attempt to undercut Crook's claim that his vote truly could go either way, as we know who the other Nats are going to vote for. But if the Nats are serious about this claim (*tongue firmly in cheek here*) should we give the entire National Party its own line and say there is no Coalition? And then how many seats would Abbott's side have? Would it be 44 (just the Liberals)? Or 65 (for the Libs and Lib-Nats of Queensland)? :P Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the ABC article where the Nats leadership says they're crossbenchers, too. What they actually said was the following:

Nationals Senator John Williams says his party will play a vital role if the Coalition forms a minority government, and he has his own demands. "A lot of people have been talking about the three independents having the balance of power," he said. "Well, if we can't be [in] government, the 12 House of Reps Nationals also would be in a position of the balance of power."

Note the spin - now there are only three independents (not six), but the 12 Nats are just like them in terms of being a balance of power between Labor and the Coalition (which they're in). Weird logic, hm? Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2PP not important??

If 2PP isn't important, why does the 2PP get a mention and primary votes are left out at http://vtr.aec.gov.au ? Seats here are decided on a preference vote not a primary vote. It's like telling the UK not to include primary votes because it's not relevant. What utter hogwash. Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Then how does the situation with the Greens' win in Melbourne fit with 2PP? HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're dabbling in to WP:OR. Why should this have any affect on whether we display the 2PP? We always have. And per above, the VTR obviously thinks it is more important than the primary vote - which it is, because preferences decide seats, not the primary vote! Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not dabbling. Just curious. Are the 2 Ps for Melbourne a different 2 Ps than for other seats? What happens with the independents who don't belong to a party but win anyway? Which 2 Ps do we look at then? HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As you have said, "Seats here are decided on a preference vote..." (emphasis added). The government, however, is decided by the number of seats, not by a national 2PP figure. I reiterate, again:

As I have said above, "2PP is used to determine who wins each seat; it is not used to determine who wins government." And as Timeshift has said, in disagreeing with me, "each seat is won and lost on the 2PP vote, not the primary vote" (my emphasis). While the national 2PP figure may be an interesting discussion point, it is not relevant to the final outcome and so I have queried whether it belongs in the table of results. The only outcome that actually matters is the number of seats.

This is not to say that it is not important from a political commentary perspective or that it shouldn't be mentioned; it probably should. The point is that it is not decisive of the government to be formed; therefore, it should not be presented as though the 2PP figure at a national level is determinative in the result. —sroc (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

By that logic we should have no votes, just seats. Lots of earlier elections even had many seats where only one party contested it, but we still have a 2PP figure. I would have thought the obvious thing to do if you're so concerned about seats like Melbourne, is add a 2PP note/ref advising which seats a 2 party p wasn't calculated in. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Shifty is right in that WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". But I found this!! aec link:

The TPP vote count figure is a summation of the TCP vote count figures from all seats where the two TCP candidates are from the ALP and the Coalition. It excludes TCP vote count figures for either the ALP or the Coalition from seats where one, or both, of the TCP candidates is not from either the ALP or the Coalition – in the 2010 election these seats are Batman, Denison, Grayndler, Kennedy, Lyne, Melbourne, New England and O'Connor. TPP figures for these divisions will not be available until a 'scrutiny for information' is done after vote counting is finalised. In a scrutiny for information each of the formal ballot papers is allocated to either the ALP or Coalition candidate depending on which candidate got the highest preference on the ballot paper.

So it looks like Melbourne etc are not currently being counted in TPP. I checked the AEC TPP CSV download, and Melbourne's TPP has all zeroes. The seat of O'Connor (a Nat vs Lib seat) is also all zeroes for TPP. Might be worth a mention in the article.

(off-topic - TPP difference is down to about 5,000 votes!) --Surturz (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The note is an excellent idea, i've modified it slightly to add non-classic and what that is, whilst maintaining brevity. The idea by some of getting rid of the 2PP figure was a plainly silly idea, sorry. Timeshift (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful, Shifty, that's almost a compliment :-O FWIW I've never been suggesting that we shouldn't include 2PP results. I've just been a bit concerned about how the non-classic seats affect the 2PP count. BTW I think non-classic actually means "a seat where the TCP is not ALP vs Coalition", it's a bit hard to explain in a pithy way though. --Surturz (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing trend towards those non-classic seats. We probably need to find clear ways of dealing with it quickly. Next state election is less than 3 months away. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Surtz, it was an excellent idea from me... "I would have thought the obvious thing to do if you're so concerned about seats like Melbourne, is add a 2PP note/ref advising which seats a 2 party p wasn't calculated in." :) Timeshift (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't suggesting removing the 2PP results, either; I have made comments on the way these figures were presented. —sroc (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

However, Crook attended the Nat conference...

This contrib really does start debating the point, there's no getting around that. It's too POVy for the results section which has purposely been kept factual without debating the point... well, as little as possible while still explaining Crook's position - but this contrib further debates the point. Why can't this be added to Crook's page? Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, i've tried but stumble with awkward wording... how can we say that the WA Nats were/are open to forming govt with either side as their stated policy both prior to and after the election? At the moment it makes it sound a little like now there's a BoP situation, that they've decided they are willing to go with either side. Timeshift (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the observation that Crook attended a conference. It has no bearing on which of the two PM candidates he will vote for. It can be here or Crook's page. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think it has a great bearing. First, he makes a big thing of how the ABC and AEC have misclassified him as a Coalition member - the details of which we're happy to mention. Then, he attends the Nats party room as if he were the very thing he's just been at pains to deny he is - a Coalition member - and is welcomed with open arms. A starker difference between a person's words and their actions I have yet to see. In life, when someone's actions are markedly different from their words, always go with their actions as a truer indication of their real position. Or maybe I'm making too much out of it. Maybe he was just there as an observer, gathering information. If that's the case, he ought to also attend Labor's and the Liberals' party rooms, as an observer. But would they let him? Almost certainly not. And he knows that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, probably.  :) But whether it has bearing or not, the reader can decide. I think it has very little. (The only way we'll know for sure, of course, is if Crook votes for Gillard. If he ends up voting for Abbott, we'll never know how "independent" he really was because that's what the Libs and Nats said he'd do all along. But let's see what he does.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see the confusion is rooted more in the nature of the National Party than Crook. As I understand it the National Party is actually the least national of the parties in Canberra, with the state branches having a huge degree of autonomy, as most obviously seen in the very different relations with other parties in different states (NSW: ongoing Coalition, VIC: on & off Coalition, QLD: merger with the Liberals and MPs & Senators can choose which party to sit in, WA: independent third force in non-traditional small-c coalition, SA: sole MLA was sitting in a Labor cabinet until she lost her seat this year, NT: joint party with the Liberals with MHRs sitting with the Liberals and Senators with the Nationals). You also had the confusion in the last parliament with the National Senators sitting for a period as crossbenchers but still being part of the National party room. It seems a great deal of disagreement is allowed within a single tent, most obviously in the federal party nominating both pro and anti-Coalition candidates.

Crook's comments in the run-up to the election seemed to be not that he was going to be an independent but that he and any other WA Nats elected would ideally sit with the rest of the Nationals if they could get the federal Nationals to put an end to the formal Coalition and adopt a more independent position similar to that the WA Nats have back in their state. If the WA Nats couldn't achieve this then they would sit as crossbenchers themselves as voters have sent them to Canberra to do more than just argue inside the National & Coalition partyrooms.

There have been cases in other countries where MPs have sat in the same parliamentary party despite being divided over support for a broader coalition and how far this is tolerated has much more to do with how power is distributed within the party and how far such dissent tolerated than about whether things are clear to the outside world. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Matheson and Christenden possible by-elections

Just to complicate things, it looks like there is a real possibility that two newly-elected Coalition members may be forced to face by-elections before they can take office, under section 44 (iv) of the constitution. A Crikey article states that George Christensen (politician) and Russell Matheson failed to resign from public service positions before the election, putting themselves at risk of high court action. Theory is that, given the 2PP margins for these two are apparently slim, Labor might actually have more seats than the current 72 in the final washup. Donama (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The other destabilising element is the coming High Court challenge to two new Coalition MPs who foolishly failed to resign their positions on local councils before being elected.

Former Campbelltown mayor Russell Matheson, the new Liberal member for Macarthur, is even promising to stay on Liverpool council despite serving in the Federal Parliament.

And George Christensen, the new CLP member for Dawson, only formally quit the Mackay Regional Council last week after it was clear he’d scored a political promotion.

Both these chaps could fall foul of section 44 (iv) of the Constitution which prohibits anyone enjoying an office of profit under the crown from nominating for Federal Parliament.

Independent Phil Cleary and Liberal Jacqui Kelly both faced by-elections after coming a cropper in court challenges relying on this constitutional provision, but the High Court has never been asked whether this includes councillor stipends. (source)

Is Crikey a WP:RS? --Surturz (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this the only source you're seeing making this claim? If so, I would guess we shouldn't use it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle if Crikey was the only source for some fact then not to use it. Still, not sure what makes Crikey non-mainstream apart from how long it's been around compared to News Ltd and Fairfax. In this specific case though, the Crikey article combines information from a bunch of other reliable sources (the constitution, a high court precedent, details of the two politicians concerned from other mainstream news articles) to make a point. So I don't think the reliability of the information is in question, but whether it's important or not. Donama (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My question was genuine, not pointed. Is Crikey an WP:RS? --Surturz (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsement = rubbish

Newspapers don't endorse anyone. Certain journalists may support a particular party, but this does not mean the paper as a whole does (this is why you always see the small print which usually reads: the opinions of X does not reflect those of Y). Also, whatever company owns the newspaper is also irrelevant.Davez621 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper endorsement is not done by individual journalists stating their opinion but by an editorial which is the official opinion of the paper as a whole. It's a long established concept and not rubbish by any means. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If a clarification is thought to be necessary that it's the editorial board of the paper which is making the endorsement, I think that's a reasonable change. I don't see any reason for dispensing entirely with the editorial endorsement listing, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent part of this article. It shows how much the endorsements were along partisan lines. Timeshift (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what that means. I presume you mean that the newspapers have pre-existing loyalties to particular parties? Otherwise, your statement has no content. Endorsements of political parties have to be done, by definition, along partisan lines. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers DO endorse parties. There is a long established tradition in Australia (I imagine we inherited it from the Brits) that in their editorials on the Friday before federal and state elections they tell their readers who to vote for. I doubt that many voters pay any attention at all, but it does happen. Interesting aspects of this are that, despite being seen by some as left leaning, the SMH and The Age have generally supported the Libs (not the Nats). In this most recent election, they supported the ALP. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That confirms what I thought people were saying...the interesting thing is not that the papers endorse parties along partisan lines (because by definition there isn't any other way to endorse parties), but that certain papers are presumed to support particular parties, but may not have chosen those parties for this election. This is somewhat like the UK election just held where The Guardian, long presumed to be supportive of Labour, backed the Liberal Democrats this time around. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Crook continued...

After all is said and done and everything comes out in the wash, will we still display Crook in the results as seperate from the Liberal/National Coalition? I just wanted to clarify, as WA has no federal Coalition agreement, and Crook/the WA Nats went in to the election as such. After the election, he continued to maintain this. Regardless of who he chooses to support, as with any other crossbencher, he should remain seperate, correct? Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

He's saying he should be regarded as an independent WA Nat, and not a member of the coalition. Without him saying anything to the contrary, we'd be crystal-balling. We don't know what either side may be offering him. -Cablehorn (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Minority government?

Isn't it true that any government that holds 76 or more seats in the House of Reps is not a minority government? For example, if the new government should consist of 72 Coaliton MHRs, 1 WA National and 3 independents, that's a majority government because all 76 are part of it - isn't it? Grassynoel (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I live in Canada, which has had minority governments now since 2004, so I think I can field that question. If, in your example, you're saying that 72 Coalition, 1 WA Nat and 3 independents agree to form a government, then it's a majority government. But when I say that, I understand you to mean that the 1 WA Nat and 3 independents have agreed to vote with the government not just on matters of supply/confidence, but on all matters covered by a formal coalition agreement. In other words, you're suggesting the current Coalition will expand, according to a brand new agreement, to include not only Libs and Nats, but WA Nats and the "gang of 3" as well.

But it is also possible that the WA Nat and the 3 independents may agree not to block supply or vote against confidence, but will vote as they darn well please on other issues. In this case, what you're describing is a Lib-Nat Coalition minority government, supported on supply/confidence by the WA Nat and the 3 independents. In Canada, minority governments at the federal level tend to be informal; that is, there's no written agreement that other MPs won't vote against supply/confidence. However, at the provincial level we've had the Lib-NDP pact, which was a written agreement that the socialist New Democratic Party of Ontario wouldn't bring down a Liberal Party of Ontario government for two years from the date of the agreement. In the UK, the Lib-Lab pact was a similar guarantee, whereby the small Liberal Party propped up a minority Labour government. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If Labour decided to proceed without guaranteed support from 76 MPs they would be forming a minority government which would try to stay in power by either making case by case or short term deals with crossbenchers or the official opposition to avoid defeat on a confidence motion. In such a scenario, the Coalition would be unlikely to be given an opportunity to form a minority government unless the Labour government resigned in the period shortly after the election since the more time that has elapsed before a government is defeated the more likely it is that the GG would grant the PM's request for an election (which she is likely to do if defeated in a confidence vote). Of course, if Abbott secures a firm, preferably written, agreement from a sufficient number of cross benchers that they would support his government for a significant period the GG is likely to ask Abbott to form a government, particularly if Gillard is defeated on the throne speech or another confidence vote in the first year of her mandate (and in particular if she's defeated in the House at the first opportunity MPs have to vote on confidence and supply). This happened in Australia in 1941 when Curtin was asked to form a government after the Conservatives were defeated and in Ontario in 1985. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true, it would take Abbott getting something in writing to bypass the Westminster convention that the sitting PM gets the first crack at forming a government. Gillard could say she's going it alone and go for as long as she can before someone votes against a supply or confidence motion. Abbott as the non-incumbent would not have that right, but if he has a "pact" agreement in writing with at least 76 members signing on, the GG would be hard-pressed not to name him the new PM. Of course, Gillard could also make such an agreement. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think Gillard gets the first crack at forming government anyway (unless she decides the fix is in and resigns) or rather the right to convene parliament and test the confidence of the house but if she's defeated later on then a signed agreement would be probably be needed to avoid an election. To have the confidence of the house Gillard does not have to have a majority of MPs agree to back her for ever more, she just has to not lose a vote of confidence. Since the independents don't want another election anyway (why would they, they'd risk losing their seats and they are at the apex of their power now) she could survive by simply making day to day deals or just not pissing them off to the extent that they decide the hell with it and vote to defeat the government. Of course, if Abbott gets the needed number of independents on board and has them agree to defeat Gillard immediately then the GG would ask him to form a government. My point is Abbott needs a firm deal with x number of Independents to form a government. Gillard doesn't need to make her own deal (though obviously it would be better for her if she did) she just needs them not to have a deal with Abbott. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're basically in agreement. I think what would actually happen in the scenario you're describing if there were known to be such a signed agreement is that the GG would summon Gillard, ask her if she could form a government, and if she knows she can't and the other side can, she would say no. Then the GG would offer the keys to Abbott. But yes, of course you're right that Gillard would have the option to actually convene the House and test her strength. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The OP's question is based on a false premise. If the 3 independents and the WA National were given positions in the government such as ministries, and were required to adhere to the same Cabinet solidarity as all the other ministers, then yes, the PM could claim they were leading a majority government. A majority coalition government. But I very much doubt that's what's going to happen. The independents will agree to support a particular side, in exchange for some negotiated outcomes and in exchange for them not doing anything unacceptable down the track. That is a minority government that happens to have enough cross bench support to enable it to at least temporarily control the House of Representatives - it is not a majority government. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Greens back Labor

The ABC says, "Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens have signed a formal deal to join forces as Labor tries to secure a parliamentary majority." [12]

They also say, "The deal will draw the Labor bloc level with the Coalition in the House of Representatives, with 73 seats each." and have "Labor 73 (72 + Bandt) - Coalition 73" as their result so far on their news' main page. [13] -Cablehorn (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The ABC now has confusing caveats → Labor 73 (72 + Bandt), Coalition 73 (73 including Crook).[14]

IMO this gives more vindication of our 72 - 72, + (6 non-Labor / non-Coalition) position. -Cablehorn (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should at this stage, but should we say Labor now has 73 seats? Am I imagining right that the top info box has gotten too wide? - Cablehorn (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Labor and the Coalition have and will always have had 72 MPs elected at this election. The rest is irrelevant to election results. The outcome and what comes after the election is another story. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Just because the Greens and Labor have shaken hands does not mean that Melbourne is suddenly considered a Labor seat. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Top of aticle infobox - who turned it in to a failed abortion and why?

Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I updated the Infobox election template after much bug-fixing and cross-checking with various samples and the only difference in the template should be the placement of the flag. What's wrong with it? —sroc (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The AEC have created an LNP swing!

See here. They've also put a proper Nat swing. Should we change the primary votes to Liberal and their Coalition parties like we have done at previous elections? Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that the Coalition is now more complicated is no reason not to list them all individually. Frickeg (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that the Coalition is now more complicated ..." - is good reason to uncomplicate it and "list them all individually." _ Cablehorn (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Every Australian election on wikipedia has the coalition parties as seperate primary votes, as does the official AEC results. The 2PP area is where it has Lib/Nat Coalition and their number of seats. Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Counting process and updating the 2PP vote...

Based on the last election, final results should be with us either late this or early next week. While the 2PP remains meaningless without the 8 non-classic Labor-leaning-in-total divisions, let's keep the 2PP to 50/50. It's silly to keep going .01 or .02 one way or the other when it means absolutely nothing. The count is 88.4% complete, it will rest around 91–92 if it was like last election, and should be done soon. Obviously though, if one 2PP has the statistical lead at that point, they can be put ahead of the other in the 2PP section of the table. Is this fair enough? Timeshift (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank god the shipping-container-like flag has been moved up. I agree entirely with Timeshift. In fact, The Australian today is citing 50% each, with no decimal point. This is very sensible and uncharacteristically fair, since the AEC figures are a work in progress. Making it seem as though a tenth of a point matters is also pandering to the notion that it's a knock-down race; this is not the case. Tony (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is Abbott labelled "PM-elect", with a link to PM? He's the Leader of the Opposition at the moment. Tony (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not labelled anything or linked to anything. Yes he is leader of the opposition. Timeshift (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll claim the credit for moving the flag. I edited the template so it's rolled out to all election infoboxes globally, so, Tony1, you can take solace in your comment having made a difference.

As for the 2PP figure, (especially) if the figure is not statistically accurate to the latest results, would it not be better to take this out of the table and simply have a paragraph underneath stating that the 2PP vote is 50%–50% and tie in with the existing note about what's not included. —sroc (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions about AEC and the House of Reps table

Is this article following the AEC to the letter or does the article and authors take what they consider correct from the AEC and add it to the article and leave out the rest?

I'm just noticing that the House of Rep table is not reflecting the true state on the AEC. For example, ALP has 71 seats and the WA Nat is in with the Nationals - I know this has all been discussed but days have passed and info and updates have changed. I just wanted to raise this to see what others though? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not have to follow anything to the letter. Timeshift (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the AEC have only declared one (yes, one) seat. It is impossible for us to be entirely accurate or precise at this stage. Sweating over Corangamite or whether Tony Crook should be counted as a member of the Coalition at this point in time is a bit of a waste of time. Moving forward, we should wait until it is all decided before taking direct action. --Surturz (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The AEC is listing Corangamite as a "close seat" which is why they now have Labor as 71 seats. ALP still ahead and nearly 95% counted which is probably very close to being declared, so I don't think it's worth changing at this stage unless it does actually change hands. --Canley (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only because the 2PP is within 0.5%, a silly AEC guide, as said by others before in discussion here. Labor has 50.4% of the 2PP with a counted figure of 95% - and it never gets to 100, it always stopa at the turnout figure, and at 95%, it's about done. The seat is Labor's. Timeshift (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Seat change/seats needed in the infobox

The "seats changed" has been removed from the infobox; "seats needed" remains. Isn't one pointless without the other? —sroc (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an automatic function of the ongoing yes/no line in the infobox. People above thought it should be ongoing. Timeshift (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

First party no longer labor

The first party is no longer labor on two party preferred votes. Please see link http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ and http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/coalition-ahead-on-twoparty-preferred-20100830-147gq.html does anyone know how to change first party, second party at the top right?Enidblyton11 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here come some more attempts to spin the Coalition as the winner. Change the section where the 2PP votes are shown and list the Coalition as being ahead (the source linked above says they've counted 80% of the votes, so represent that as well). But leave the top right alone, as Gillard remains the PM until someone forms a government. When a government is formed, then make the change. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not spin it's facts. Dickhead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.101.194 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I said list them first in the 2PP vote section. (We're doing that, I see.) But the Coalition still only has 72 seats, we don't know how the 2PP vote will ultimately play out if they're still counting votes and it's _that_ close, and Gillard is the sitting PM. No one's ignoring any facts here. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are obviously a Labor supporter. But, according to the AEC the Coalition are ahead on the two-party vote. How can Labor still be the first party I note the comments of 144.136.101.194Enidblyton11 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I would prefer Gillard doesn't make me non-neutral. But reporting the vote in a way that indicates that it is a final count when it is not does strike me as non-neutral. I can accept that Labor shouldn't be represented as the "first party", but these results do not make it clear that the Coalition is the "first party" either...especially since they have the same 72 seats that Labor has (or will you spin that 73 nonsense as well?) I'm amenable to deleting "first party" and "second party" for the moment, but not for showing Abbott's picture first, because he has not just become the PM. And I suppose by "noting the comments" of our anonymous poster that you are also personally slamming me the way that poster did? Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, the infobox no longer identifies a "first party". But Gillard is still the PM, and I'll be watching to see if people try to sneak Abbott up to the front so the Coalition can be portrayed as winning. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree with Zachary that the positions in the infobox should not be changed before a new government is formed.
2. I don't like the "First Party", "Second Party", etc., wording regardless of timing.
3. I'm not convinced that the positions should be changed even after the result. Perhaps the incumbent should always be listed first. I suppose that's an argument for another day. —sroc (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• The anon poster is going to be blocked soon if there's any more abuse from it. Tony (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sroc, the convention on Wikipedia, I believe, is to show the winner as the left-most box, so I'd accept that would be appropriate if Tony Abbott does become the PM. Just not yet. Tony1, thanks. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zachary. I am not using spin as you call it, simply saying Labor is not the first party. You admit to being a Labor supporter, I admit to being a swinging voter. I do not condone personal insults, I just noticed the comments. Thanks for changing first party, second party.Enidblyton11 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I admit to being well-disposed to Gillard. I'm not Australian, so I can't vote. But you being a swinging voter does not make you more neutral. This is a point a lot of people on Wikipedia don't seem to get. Sometimes a "centrist" claim is not factually supported. Sometimes a "left-wing" claim is. (There are even some cases where a "right-wing" claim is...I spent a few weeks being slagged as a right-winger on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page for raising annoying points about the claim to legitimacy of Manuel Zelaya. Anyway, you said I was pro-Labor as if that were proof that I'm wrong, and that's a specious claim. Thanks for rejecting the personal insult, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From pollbludger: Yesterday, the Australian Electoral Commission performed an act which in a rational world would have excited no interest. Since last weekend the commission has featured a “national two party preferred result” on the front page of its Virtual Tally Room, which has assumed tremendous psychological interest as Labor’s margin has steadily eroded from 0.6 per cent to 0.4 per cent. However, the tally had a flaw which biased it in Labor’s favour: there were no Labor-versus-Coalition figures available from strongly conservative Kennedy, Lyne, New England or O’Connor, where the notional two-candidate preferred counts conducted on election night involved independents. This was only balanced out by left-wing Melbourne, where Labor and the Greens were correctly identified as the front-running candidates for the notional count. For whatever reason, the AEC decided yesterday to level the playing field by excluding seats where the notional preference count candidates had been changed since election night, which in each case meant left-wing seats where the Liberals had finished third to the Greens (Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (Denison). The result was an instant 0.4 per cent drop in Labor’s score, reducing them to a minuscule lead that was soon rubbed out by further late counting. In fact, very little actually changed in yesterday’s counting, which saw a continuation of the slow decline in the Labor total that is the usual pattern of late counting. The media, regrettably, has almost entirely dropped the ball on this point. Mark Simkin of the ABC last night reported that Labor’s lead had been eradicated by the “latest counting”, as opposed to an essentially meaningless administrative decision. Lateline too informed us that Labor’s two-party vote had “collapsed”, and Leigh Sales’ opening question to Julie Bishop on Lateline was essentially an invitation to gloat about the fact. Most newspaper accounts eventually get around to acknowledging the entirely artificial nature of the 50,000-vote reversal in Labor’s fortunes, but only after reporting in breathless tones on the removal of votes that will eventually be put back in.

So Labor looks to still win the 2PP anyway. Yawn :) Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I second the yawn.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just goes to show that the National TPP count is misleading, as I've been saying. I'm a bit disappointed in the press, they really have not analysed the issue in any detail. Antony Green's finally blogged about it [15]. But not even he is suggesting a summary of the TCP as a superior alternative. A bit of WP:OR - by my calculation, the Greens received about 1 million first preference votes, but only 100K of them were actually effective votes - ie. only about 100,000 of them ended up in the TCP of various seats. --Surturz (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Smacked down by Antony Green. Ouch!! :-) --Surturz (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You made it sound like AG smacked down wikipedia. Which bit of his article are you pointing out as of interest? Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant AG smacked down my suggestion of using national TCP totals. I'm pointing out the comment (my comment) that I've linked. I'm surprised he says that national TCP are not interesting... they are where the votes actually end up. The Greens are abysmal at turning first preferences into TCP votes... about 8% of their votes stay with Green candidates in the reps. The other 92% get distributed to other candidates. --Surturz (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here's a table comparing First preferences to Two-Candidate-Preferred votes. I think it shows that if you vote Green, you're actually voting for someone else! :-) --Surturz (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not in Melbourne, or the Senate HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying:

The national 2-party preferred vote is a sidelight to the real job of the Electoral Commission, which is to return the writs stating the names of members elected to each electoral division. That is the legislated job of the Electoral Commission. [...]

To determine the winning member, the AEC tallies the votes and distributes preferences. [...]

After this count is completed and writs returned, the AEC does a second 2-party preferred count in all electoral division[s] that did not finish as 2-party contests. However, this count has nothing to do with electing a member for each seat, and is done entirely for information purposes.

And:

So while yesterday's change to the AEC's 2-party preferred vote has excited comment, two things need to be remembered. [...]

Second, the formation of government depends on the numbers in parliament. The first preference or 2-party preferred vote might provide a talking point, but both are constitutionally irrelevant to the formation of government.

My emphasis added.

BTW, HiLo48, preferences in the Senate are counted by proportional representation, an entirely different process. —sroc (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, STV is not so much a "proportional representation" system as a system which provides more results that typically are more proportional than first-past-the-post. It is possible to have an STV election which does not demonstrate proportionality, given that STV is usually done in multimember constituencies (in the Australian case, the constituencies are the states) - the results may be proportional within the states but could at the same time not demonstrate proportionality with respect to the nation. But this is a minor point...I just didn't want to let the comment pass without responding about this issue. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

-elect

-elect applies to the person who has been voted to be president, prime minster, etc. but has not yet started work. Why is Tony Abbot described as Prime Minister-elect in this article? Forgive me if this has been covered in the above wall of words. Anthony (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that? The infobox lists "Prime Minister-elect" as "To be determined". It just so happens that Abbott's photo is on the right in the infobox per current practice to have the incumbent (in this case, Gillard) listed first until a result is declared, but this does not imply that Abbott is elected. —sroc (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And yes, this has already been mentioned. —sroc (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So that's two people who've asked this question on this talk page. It sure looks like you're calling him the Prime Minister-elect (to be determined), whatever that means. Sorry. it does. Sorry to criticise what appears to be a much loved generic infobox. Anthony (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This template certainly implies to a casual reader that he is. Anyhow, we dont vote for PM so why is does it get such prominence there? The election was for parliamentary members. Perhaps just have the party leaders and drop the bottom bit off to save confusion. –Moondyne 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as recent history makes plain, we don't elect prime ministers, we elect parliamentarians and they elect the PM. I disapprove of photos of two parliamentarians at the top of the article. It's going to mislead readers about what the election is for. Seriously. Anthony (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The box at the upper right is the same as is used on pretty much all parliamentary election pages on Wikipedia. Compare and contrast and you will see that Abbott is not being identified as the Prime Minister-elect. I think perhaps we can solve this problem by putting "To be determined" in a red font or something so people can see more clearly that there is, as yet, no Prime Minister-elect from this election. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand it's used elsewhere. It could work well here if the correct fields were employed. Including all that info on the leaders is misleading. This is not, despite the impression you might get from newspapers etc, a prime ministerial election. This would be a much less fancy, but much more accurate use of the template, for now. Anthony (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why have an infobox at all, then?! Of course, the infobox is a simplification. It is what it is. It makes a lot of assumptions and leaves a lot out. The Greens are not represented. It doesn't account for independents or the Tony Crook situation. It doesn't tell you everything. That's what the rest of the article is for. I don't understand why people are jumping to the conclusion that Abbott is the "PM-elect" when the "PM-elect" clearly says "To be determined"; how can you not know what that means? If those words are ambigous, change the words; putting them in red causes new problems (confusion with links to non-existent pages) and doesn't solve this one (if there is one). —sroc (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Would people prefer this version with the "PM-elect" section blanked out entirely? This can obviously be filled in when (if) there is a result. —sroc (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, to address the side-issue that has been brought up here, although the parliamentary system enshrined in the Constitution does not recognise "Prime Minister" or "Opposition Leader" as formal titles, this does not mean that they are not relevant to the political system. I believe you will find that most Australians consider the identity of the Prime Minister to be important (at least in political/governmental terms, if not everyday life). Therefore, it is notable, and it is not beholden on Wikipedia to omit the information for the benefit of the "casual reader" who does not read the infobox properly. —sroc (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You could just as easily argue to omit references to parties, as they aren't mentioned in the Constitution either. Where would that leave us? A list of individual MPs and the reader can work it out for themselves. Not a very encyclopaedic approach, I would venture. —sroc (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with the "blank" approach as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@ sroc: Our job is to inform and educate, not imply this is a prime ministerial election, especially if most people think it is. And you don't need to understand why people misread the "info"box; just try to understand that they do. Anthony (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Anthony: I didn't think that anyone was implying that this was a "Prime Ministerial election" in that the people directly elect a Prime Minister. The article refers to parties (Labor, the Coalition, etc.) and only mentions the leaders in the infobox (as "Leader") and the lead (as "...led by..."). That said, people do commonly recognise the parties by their leaders, so it is appropriate to include them, as is common practice.

I recognise your point that "you don't need to understand why people misread the "info"box; just try to understand that they do." In fact, it does help to understand why in order to try to resolve the issue. I have proposed (and implemented) a change that tries to overcome the issue that you have raised about an implication of declaring a "PM-elect" without sacrificing relevant information. Zachary Klass has agreed with this. Does this satisfy your concerns? If not, can I dare to ask why not so as to better understand where your concern lies? —sroc (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's much better! Thanks. To clarify, my problem with the inordinate emphasis on the presidential candidates Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott in a federal election article is that it parrots the impression created by the parties (having one spokesperson makes campaigning safer and more effective) and the media (it simplifies and dramatises the narrative), but we are an encyclopedia. This is an election of a parliament. A picture of new parliament house, or the chamber would be appropriate in the lead. Anthony (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made a comment at Template talk:Infobox election suggesting that the infobox template be amended so that the "next leader" be blanked until the actual data (i.e., the winner's name) is included. Feel free (everyone!) to comment there if you have an opinion on whether my proposal should be adopted uniformly. Please do not go into commentary specifically about the Australian parlimentary system there, though, as that is not an issue for the global template. —sroc (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We must be very careful about any suggestion that this was a prime ministerial election. That matter itself was actually an election issue. The Coalition and many of its less well informed supporters have used the ALP's replacement of Kevin Rudd as leader as a negative, arguing that the party overode what Australians had decided. Just yesterday I heard Derryn Hinch arguing that the ALP replaced the person Australians had voted for. It's a legally wrong view. Wikipedia should not be encouraging it in any way. I wish the photos weren't there either. HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the MPs could do something weird like settle on a compromise candidate that isn't Gillard or Abbott, but they were the party leaders during the election and it is normal practice for the party leader for a victorious party in a parliamentary election to become PM. I don't think any of this is misrepresented on the page at present. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The template assumes something that can't be safely assumed to be true, anywhere in the world as far as I know. In the Westminster system, the only person who's ever described as a "Prime Minister-elect" in a general election context is a current Opposition Leader. An incumbent PM who leads their party into an election that they win, remains PM throughout the election period, and then continues as PM. They're never at any time called PM-elect. Even in a US-style presidential election, the person elected is not always called President-elect. Obama was so called after November 2008, becuase he was going to be replacing Bush in January 2009 but was not able to be called President until then. But if he seeks a second term in November 2012 and is successful, he won't be called President-elect then. But his opponent would, if they defeated him. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The template defaults to "[title]-elect" but this can be tailored to whatever we want it to say. If not Prime Minister-elect, how about "Incoming Prime Minister" or "Prime Minister-designate"? I have a problem with "Prime Minister-in-waiting", as the opposition is perpetually regarded as the "government-in-waiting", which could give rise to further confusion. —sroc (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But as I said above, we can't apply a general term to this. The incumbent PM may well continue being the incumbent PM, and she would not correctly be described as anything other than "Prime Minister", except maybe "caretaker Prime Minister" until the result is finalised. Should Abbott get up, there would be a very small sliver of time - maybe half a day maximum - between the moment that result becomes clear, Gillard advises Bryce to commission him as the PM, then he turns up at Government House and is sworn in. During that half day, he might be called various things, but it's hardly worth our effort to find a label for him for a circumstance that may never eventuate, and if it does, would apply for a vanishingly small period of time anyway. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro needs help

I don't mean to create a brouhaha like ("-elect" above), but I think the 'voting system' in the intro is a bit long-winded (for an Intro) and scary, and would be better as a simple overview like this, with the erudite 'in-depth' part in the Background section like this.

Timeshift9 reckons it's "... critical to overseas readers ..." the "... status quo ..." remains. (see article history 07:08 (UTC), 1 September)

I think "overseas readers" could find their way to the 'Background' section.

Any opinions or WP:CONSENSUS ?

- Cablehorn (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you other Aussies using overseas realise that it may be a foreign term to foreigners. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep, especially considering the circumstances of votes, seats, and the general outcome, it is essential for anyone not familiar with Australia's electoral system. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Trim down Stating what systems are used is handy at the outset (especially for a country that different systems at federal and state level), but details like when the various factors were introduced, the number enrolled to vote and who does the counting are not necessary for the introduction. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Should the portraits of Gillard and Abbott be removed from the lead of this article?

Comments: Remove or keep?

• Remove This is not a prime ministerial election, it is an election of the federal parliament. Having those two up there simply reinforces the misconception that this is a presidential/prime ministerial election. Anthony (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The UK has them, the rest of the elections on wikipedia have them, all the prior Aus elections and state elections on wikipedia have them where available. The images stay. Full stop, end of story, thankyou come again. Timeshift (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a universal Wikipedia standard. Even the US Senate elections have them, and they're even less about leaders. The fact is that, whatever the constitution says, in reality the leaders are hugely important to our elections, so having them up there reflects that. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - whether we like it or not elections in Australia are as much about the leaders as anything else. Only a small proportion of people can name their local federal MP let alone which Division they are registered to vote in (we are in our third one in three elections and we haven't moved.) Wp is not about social engineering or what should be but what is. Silent Billy (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons given above. In particular, although the electoral system does not choose the PM per se, the public generally associates general elections with electing the PM. Moreover, there are people out there who can identify the leaders but honestly don't know which party they represent, so identifying them (by name and photo) in fact helps people to identify which party is which. In any event, the identity of the leaders is certainly notable and, in my view, their inclusion is not misleading. The electoral process is accurately explained in this article (and in more specific articles on the subject of the electoral systems in play) at any rate. —sroc (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep While I am personally antipathetic to "presidential" elections, it is pretty clear that the leaders play a big part in Australian election campaigns and this article should reflect that sad reality. --Surturz (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The parliamentary elections template (not the presidential one) is the one we are using. The vast majority of parliaments, Australia's included, run known candidates for PM (usually the party leader at election time), and everyone in Australia knows that Gillard and Abbott are the candidates for PM. Yes, it's always possible someone else might be elected when parliament meets, but really... Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Replace with photo of Bob Katter Seriously, Keep it's standard for articles on elections and there can be almost no doubt that the leaders utterly dominated each party's campaign Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Absolutely standard for other articles on parliamentary elections in both Australia and the world over. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove unless photos of Warren Truss and Bob Brown are included there. Tony (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

The arguments for "Keep" so far:

1. The template says it so we have to. No we don't.
2. Everybody knows the leaders' names and most don't know that of their local member. So?
3. Wp is not about social engineering or what should be but what is, and the leaders play a big part in Australian election campaigns and this article should reflect that sad reality. This article is meant to be describing the 2010 election, and the iconic image for that would be the four independents. Julia and Tony should appear somewhere in the body of the article. You're allowing the content of the article to be determined by a generic template.

Anthony (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Anthony: That is not a fair summation of the arguments in favour of keep (which represent a 5–1 majority at this point). To paraphrase you: you don't need to agree with other people's opinions; just try to respect that they have them. —sroc (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't understand. What did I miss? As far as 5-1 goes, I'm trying to engage in rational argument here, not arithmetic. Which of your arguments did I not account for? Anthony (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that your argument has no basis, and is not a wanted outcome by anyone. Shall we move on, or continue to bang heads against brick walls? Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying my argument has no basis is not the same as countering my argument. But it is clear I lose the vote. Move on. Anthony (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Tanner reversion

I've reverted because ministerial status and dates are completely irrelevant to which seats changed hands at this election. It belongs in his article if anywhere. Timeshift (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent ABC PM article explaining the swing variations

See here. It gives an excellent overview of what happened between the states at this election. Can it somehow be woven in to the article without making it look like a brief editorial amongst all the results? Suggestions welcome. Timeshift (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Tony (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The main info-box ain't pretty

Am I right in saying fiddling-about with the main info-box template can and has affected the rest of the planet? ..... But, I'm seeing it as far too wide, making it skew-whiff. Abbott and Gillard aren't centered (ha) and the bold descriptors in the box are way off to the left, leaving a big grey-space in the middle-left .

If anyone has the smarts and/or guts to fix it it'd make this obseessive happy.

Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're saying the infobox is skewiff. It looks fine to me. The width defends on the content, so the width of the photos forces the width of the infobox. The photos aren't meant to be centred in the infobox: they're positioned above the columns of data for each party/coalition. The descriptors don't look way off to me.

If you can show how it looks to you and/or explain what you think is wrong, I'll have a look. —sroc (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's dreadful, as usual. Why the hectares of grey space to the left of the pics? Tony (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the size of the photos to reduce the width of the infobox (see here). Does this help?

And you can see other examples of how the infobox works in various other cases. —sroc (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the punishment you all deserve and must now suffer for treating this as a presidential style election and placing too much emphasis on the leaders. We don't elect them. We shouldn't have their pics there. This quality encyclopaedia should stick to facts and ignore the mass media hype and the big party desires. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should have them there, for the reasons discussed and agreed above. I still think that if anyone can fix the standard infobox (used at pages like United Kingdom general election, 2010) to cater for Australian needs, i.e. two-party-preferred and such like (my own template skills are not up to the task), that should hopefully make everyone happy. Frickeg (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that any discussion concerning the format of the Infobox election template should be made on the Template talk:Infobox election page. Any changes to the template don't just affect the infobox on this election or Australian elections but elections worldwide, so we should seek comment/consensus from others who may want a say. I have already included discussions there about the positioning of the flag icon, format of the previous/next election links and omitting the "(title)-elect TBD" until a name is inserted, so if you don't like the format of the infobox (and ideally if you have suggestions on how to improve it), then please feel free to have the discussion there. —sroc (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, you've been outvoted. Though, the winning argument - "other people do it like this" - seems to be lacking something. An argument, maybe. Anthony (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I take HiLo's point precisely: WP is playing into the hands of those who want to see a US presidential-style system—and where is Bob Brown? It is not neutral. I'd prefer to see a pic of the parliament, frankly. Tony (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Anthony, you have acknowledged that the vote is in favour of keeping the photos and decided to move on, yet you still seem to feel like everyone else's opinions are not based on logic because you disagree with them, so just to re-cap:

1. Wikipedia articles on other elections, including those based on the Westminster system (and others) that do not directly elect leaders, include photos of the leaders in their infoboxes. This isn't just an "everyone else does so we should to" argument; more significantly, it is indicative of a more widespread consensus on a larger scale, otherwise it would have changed already or be more widely debated.
2. Election campaigns in Australia are characterised by the leaders (like it or not). This election was certainly no exception, as much was made of Gillard as the face of Labor (particularly as she was new as leader) and Abbott as the face of the Coalition. Many Australians refer to voting for Gillard or Abbott by name, rather than the name of the party or the name of their local candidate; many (perhaps most) don't know the name of their local candidate; some don't even know which party is which but they know which leader represents the policies they support. Even though the electoral system under the Constitution does not technically provide direct election of the PM, that's how many people see it. It's not just the "party machines" or the "media", but the public generally. Moreover, the public effectively does elect the PM insofar as convention dictates that the leader of the party that ultimately wins the election will be the PM. All of this makes the leaders notable and therefore they are worthy of inclusion in the article.
3. The inclusion of the leaders' names and photos may help readers to recognise the parties/coalitions that the data relates to. This is certainly the case for readers who recognise the leaders better than the parties/coalitions. Moreover, the photos provide a prominent visual cue to help interpret the data without relying on the words alone.
4. The electoral process is accurately explained in this article: the article generally refers to the parties by name, rather than the leaders; the lead and infobox mention Gillard and Abbott as the leaders of Labor and the Coalition respectively, but there is no suggestion that people directly elect the PM. Moreover, there are other articles devoted to the electoral processes in more detail for readers who are interested.
5. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution either, but they are as ingrained in the political process as the positions of PM and Opposition Leader. We mention the leaders for much the same reason that we mention the parties: they help the reader to understand the article.
6. Wikipedia is not a place to omit pertinent information (the identities of the leaders) in order to push a particular viewpoint (that the election does not directly-elect the PM, even though many act as though it does). Wikipedia is a place to public information accurately and in an informative way (which this article does more effectively by including the identities of the leaders than it does without them).

In the face of all of the above arguments, the argument that you have put forward to remove the photos is that the PM is not directly elected and that mentioning the leaders somehow plays into "social engineering". In my view, this is not a strong argument and it certainly does not outweigh the above points. Of course, my view is no more important than yours. What is significant is that a vote has been taken and, even counting HiLo48 and Tony as "remove", the majority here have voted for "keep".

You have also argued that the independents have a better claim to having their photos in the infobox in this election because of their sway. In my view, as the independents only count for one seat each, their inclusion in the infobox would not be particularly helpful to the reader. Certainly, if a minor party gains enough seats in the House of Representative, they may be worthy of inclusion; if the Coalition breaks up, the individual parties (i.e., Liberal and National) may be included separately; but indepedents, by the nature of them being single numbers, do not provide enough meaningful data for inclusion in an infobox (which is meant to be a tidy summary). Discussion of the independents is better left to the text of the article where their influence can be better explained in full context. That said, if you want to include (free) photos of the independents in the body of the article, I certainly think that it would be notable to do so. —sroc (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I briefly wanted to correct that, when I referred to notability (which really only refers to the policy on whether a topic should have its own article), I should instead have referred to not giving undue weight to the leaders. I think that it is clear from the point enunciated above that the leaders are important and their mentions (in passing in the lead) is certainly not giving them undue weight. For that matter, Bob Brown and the Greens could also get a mention, but only having one seat in the House of Representatives does not give then a lot of weight to justify this; photos of Bandt and/or Brown in the article proper may well be justified.

I also wanted to acknowledge that summarising arguments put forth by others (as I did above) is frought with danger as those people may feel that their opinions have been summarised inaccurately, unfairly, or even unheeded altogether. Indeed, I chided Anthony for what I suggested was not a fair summary of the arguments earlier, so I readily admit the hypocracy of me attempting to do the same. I sincerely hope that the people whose opinions I have tried to represent feel that I have done them justice in my summary. —sroc (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, sorc. I hope I'm doing justice to your arguments here.

1. Other people do it like this, so it must be right and anyway, we have to.
2. The press treats it as a presidential campaign and that's how many people see it, so we should show them what they expect to see.
3. Huh?
4. "There is no suggestion that people directly elect the PM." Depicting these two party leaders in the "info" box of an article about the election of many parliamentarians from many parties is misleading.
5. We mention the leaders for much the same reason that we mention the parties. You mention only 2 leaders and 3 parties in the infobox.
6. Wikipedia is not a place to omit pertinent information. Can't argue with that.

The infobox should look like this. Anthony (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In some forums where I play, where opinion is the go, rather than reliably sourced material, there is a line I regularly use - Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. OK, it's meant to stir people up a bit, and I would never use it here to convince people I was right, but telling me that I've been outvoted won't ever convince me that I'm wrong. As well as it being technically wrong to imply that we elect the leaders, via the infobox, a major problem this time round was that the ALP's replacement of Rudd by Gillard was actually (and probably still is) an election issue in itself. The Libs and their supporters, particularly among shock jocks, used it as a weapon against the ALP with dishonest and incorrect lines like "Labor sacked the leader we had all voted for". By leaning in the direction of a presidential style election, the crappy infobox we are acting as if we are forced to use is actually putting a POV position on the article. It is supporting the Libs and the shock jocks in their misleading tactics. (PS: I didn't vote ALP either, but I hate shock jocks!) HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, loudest voice wins? I don't think so. Can't you see the rampant POV in the current pics? Tony (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Anthony: No, you are not doing the arguments justice. I have spent considerable effort to set them out in detail to help you understand them. The only reason you have attempted to summarise them is to re-write them in a contorted way to support your bias. Just because you don't understand or agree with the arguments does not make them invalid. By the way, they are not only my arguments; they are the arguments put forward by several people. Your suggested infobox is obviously ridiculous.

@HiLo48: No, this is not just a numbers game. Did you happen to see the list of rational arguments in favour of keeping the photos? We aren't just saying it to frustrate you. We have our reasons; you have yours. No one is "right". But, since this has to be resolved one way or the other and there is no independent arbiter to decide: (1) there are more people who support keeping than removing; (2) the detailed arguments in favour of "keep" have not been rationally refuted; (3) the status quo is for "keep". Get over it.

@Tony: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be loud. Several people (especially Anthony) didn't seem to "get it" so I tried to explain for their benefit what had actually been said. I didn't mean to go overboard. I have better things to do. Having photos of the only two people who might become PM is not POV. —sroc (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not in itself, but that comment completely ignores my point about the presidential style thing actually creating an election issue this time round, and thus being POV. While I have made what I see as a valid point, and no-one else has even attempted to discuss it, sorry, I won't just get over it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are exactly two people who might be PM as the result of the election: Gillard and Abbott. It is not POV to have the photos of the two potential PMs in an article about the election. Australia does not directly elect the PM insofar as the Constitution does not have provision for identifying the PM or how they are selected; however, Australia does elect the PM insofar as the people vote for individual candidates who ultimately, either along party lines or as independents, support either PM. The photos are in every election article: they are not included just to support a particular POV. —sroc (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite correct. Either party could, at any time, change its leader. They could do it today. And that is again part of my point. In repeating yourself you have ignored my main point. While my new suggestion is unlikely, could you address that possibility? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, anything could happen, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. They are the leaders now, and that's all that matters. If the parties change leaders to adopt a different PM, there would be an outcry (you have already noticed that there was a bit of an outcry when Labor replaced Rudd with Gillard), but if it happens, then the article can be updated. The mere possibility that something might theoretically happen is no reason to omit the photos, in the same way that Australia might be taken over in a military coup is no reason to re-write the article on Australia just in case. —sroc (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well. Thank goodness. While you previously ignored my main point, you have now made (at least part of) it yourself. I'm pleased you have finally noticed. Yes, there was an outcry about the ALP replacing Rudd. And it was made into an election issue by the other side. They fed the uniformed masses the "scandal" of the change of leader, without feeding them the fact that, unlike in a presidential system, it's how our system works. It's because it was an election issue, and hence POV, that we should be doing all in out power to downplay it here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP is not a crystal ball? Well why is it crystal-balling about the two current leaders of the biggest parties? And why is the leader of the minority coalition party not pictured? This binary statement frames the entire article in terms of a two-party leader-focused system, while the other anglophone countries, (with the notable exception of the US, where the parties don't matter anyway) have moved on from that. Tony (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about everything. I didn't mean to open that old wound. Maybe we should regard the Gillard, Abbott pics as a motif, symbol, metaphor or whatever. It does add colour and real easily-identifiable symbols for the election. Some may say, we recognise this as the election symbol because the media created it, or is the media simply reflecting us, and there's your catch 22. We can argue the nature of the 'Westminster system and the Australian Constitution', and how it should be symbolised till cows come home.

NASA had no problem using an imaginary 'person' (as a motif, symbol, metaphor or whatever) for the anything but fictitious and highly complex 'Spirit Rover'. [16]

PS Thanks sroc for making the thing a bit better ("You tried your best and failed miserably." - Homer) Ha.

Regards - Cablehorn (talk)

Parties in the House of Reps

I don't disagree in principle to splitting up the parties so that, instead of "Liberal/National Coalition", it reads the results for the individual parties in the Coalition (i.e., the Lib-Nats of Queensland, the WA Nationals as well as the Libs and the Nats). However, the colours shown to represent the parties needs to be explained to me. Are there officially recognised party colours in Australia? Is the colour of the Lib-Nats of Queensland actually different from that of the Liberals or the Nationals? Are the party colours of the WA Nationals actually exactly the same as those of the National Party generally? If this isn't true, we need to represent what is true. But even if it is true, this strikes me as a kind of surreptitious way of making the claim that the WA Nationals were really in the Coalition all along (an easier claim to make now that Tony Crook's made up his mind, but since he still says he'll vote independently of the Coalition whip on issues besides confidence and supply, it's still a distortion.) There was no question that the Lib-Nats of Queensland were in the Coalition the whole time, and it's still an open question, even after Crook's declaration, whether the WA Nats are fully inside the Coalition. Can we find another way to represent this? Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I'd oppose any attempt to do so, actually. First of all, the LNP colour is an attempt to match the main colour used in their logo; there's a discussion about this in the archive somewhere. Regarding the WA Nats - yes, their colour is the same, and in my opinion it needs to stay the same. We've done quite a lot by separating them out, actually, especially since the AEC counts them as part of the federal National Party - and in fact if you look at what's happened since, they are part of the federal National Party, just not part of the Coalition. As the colours imply an entirely factual relationship (and are accompanied by a great deal of explanation regarding Crook), I think it's very appropriate - almost essential - to keep the colours the same. Frickeg (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise position: We go back to representing the Coalition as a uniform entity, we list the WA Nats separately (because of the Crook controversy) but put them as the same colour as the Coalition (since Crook ultimately supported it). Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, alternative compromise (I'm not sure if this is doable table-wise, but we can try): we have a Coalition subtotal, with the four Coalition parties directly above it, and the WA Nats below. That way we still get the separate parties, but we also have a total for the Coalition and emphasise the WA Nats' crossbench status. Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like it might be better. Though I would think the bloc should be above and the parties should be below (since the bloc will have more seats than the individual parties comprising it do). Otherwise, I could back that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Check out the results tables from the 2009 German election or 2009 Indian election as to how this might look. As it is I think the table is very misleading -- the parties that were known in advance of the election to be part of the coalition ought to be grouped together in the table. --Jfruh (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the original. On wikipedia we rank everything in results tables based on percentage except other/independent. This is how it is done on all prior federal elections, and state elections. Timeshift (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

But that isn't true, as the examples posted by Jfruh clearly show, and it irons out what would otherwise be a serious distortion. I'd like to see some discussion of this before we decide the matter. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's true. Every Australian federal and state election ranks in order of %. I don't care in the bloody slightest what India does with theirs! Timeshift (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Indian Wikipedia". There's a Hindi Wikipedia, did you mean that? If you meant the English Wikipedia's coverage of the Indian election, then that's the same Wikipedia we're editing. If you're going to insist on the % order, though, then I think we'd have to go to the initial compromise solution I suggested, which is to report the Coalition as the Coalition and not the individual parties. We were doing that until a few days back, and frankly I'm not sure why we stopped. If people want to show all the registered parties, that's fine, but if we do that, I really think they have to be grouped so people know what they're really looking at. That's the reason the German and Indian election pages do this the way they do. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can get a consensus for either of the compromise solutions, I'd be for implementing them immediately. What do people think? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The % order will remain, just like every other Australian federal and state election. Good on India and Germany for doing it the way they do it, that's nice for them, and i'm happy for them. Timeshift (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on the dispute above?

Please? Can I hear from someone else besides Timeshift? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Government formation

In articles for elections where the result is not immediately clear, a discussion of the formation period is often included. In at least one case, this had led to the creation of a new article, but I doubt that will be necessary here. I haven't been following the aftermath enough to create such a section myself, but I have followed it enough to know the brief treatment in the lead is insufficient. Do others agree? Is anyone willing to put something together? -Rrius (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think a separate section in this article would be good. The text under the house of reps results table would be a good start. The policy concerns of the independents would be a good addition. --Surturz (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Text of election writs

Does anyone have a link to the text of the writs that authorised the election in each division? Grassynoel (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

-elect (again)

I have "fixed" the infobox on this article to say "Prime Minister following election", which seems to me to be neutral terminology not to offend anyone. (Better than having a blank space above Gillard's name, anyway.) If anyone has preferred alternate wording, please suggest it here to form some sort of consensus before launching an edit war, please. —sroc (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked your version to be less wordy and in line with others I've seen. I ignored your appeal to wait because, frankly, there was no more reason for me to delay than for you to do. -Rrius (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I only avoided the usual "-elect" to avoid more debate. I won't argue.

FYI, you could just blank that line in the infobox as it defaults to "(title)-elect" anyway. —sroc (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it really the first hung parliament since the 1940 election?

/sarcasm

What I really want to know is whether 11 citations are necessary for the proposition. If there is something you are trying to hammer down, mention it. In any event, it seems appropriate to drop 9 or 10 references. -Rrius (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't seen that. You're right, of course. One (maybe two) refs are quite sufficient. Frickeg (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure where the perceived controversy was, if any, so I don't want to be the one to make cuts. -Rrius (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Medium-size lock needed

Could someone put a bit of a lock on this artice. All hell may break loose re vandalism later in the evening. Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)]] (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't protect an article pre-emptively (see WP:PP). This article might get lucky and avoid vandalism, although if it gets on T:ITN it won't last.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but we're already getting this type of stuff - [17] → "Labor won 76 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives." -Cablehorn (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Labor Wins

Its official. All the major channels announced that Labor has majority seats with support of the Greens member and three of the independents. 114.77.205.172 (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing that groundbreaking revelation. —sroc (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

However, is it technically true to say that Labor has "defeated" the Coalition? They got the same number of seats - that's no defeat. Labor got less votes than the Coalition - that's no defeat. I'm sure all Labor supporters are happy that Labor got the chance to continue being the government, and to them it must feel like a "win", just as the Coalition supporters feel they've effectively "lost". But can WP say that? I'm open to arguments either way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Labor has/will have defeated the Liberal/National Coalition on the floor of the house. Defeat is defeat is defeat. But I do know what you're getting at. I just don't feel it's worth the effort. Timeshift (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, on reflection it's a hair-splitter. Whatever the actual numbers may be, one side (ultimately) gets to be the next government and the other side doesn't - and that's all that really matters in the end. How tenuous the winning party's hold on government may be is not the point here. Scrub it. (Jack of Oz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is where the existence of a pre-existing Coalition in Australia muddies the waters. One way of looking at what we now have is that a coalition of the ALP, a Green, and three independents has defeated a coalition of the Coalition (of Libs and Nats) and two independents. The ALP happens to be the major partner of the first mentioned coalition, so it will provide the PM and most of the ministers. Arguments about who got the most votes are confused by the pre-existing Coalition, which tried to expand itself to a coalition in government, and failed. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory newspaper endorsements

There is contraditction with the Sunday Tele over their endorsement. In this article, it's supporting Labor but in the Sunday Tele article; it's supporting the Liberals. It's obvious that the Sunday Tele would support the Liberals. Can someone please correct this? Thanks --TUSWCB (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the Sunday Telegraph endorsed Labor for a second term. I'll add a cite though. Frickeg (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The cite is good but can changes be made to the Sunday Telegraph article? Thanks --TUSWCB (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about The Daily Telegraph (Australia), the Wikipedia article? Or the editorial? If you're asking whether the newspaper can change its endorsement, no. Frickeg (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha of course I'm talking about the Wikipedia article. I used the word 'article' in my first post. Anyway I don't understand how that contradiction could be left ignored for so long. --TUSWCB (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That article is talking about the Daily Telegraph, not the Sunday Tele, when it comes to endorsements (because they both have the same page). So it's correct, but it could probably do with notes regarding the Sunday Tele's endorsements, so feel free to add them. Frickeg (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok good. As you know, I thought the table in the Australian federal election, 2010 article was wrong and I didn't know how to make changes to tables. If I had known that The Daily Telegraph (Australia) was wrong then I probably would've just made changes to it. Thanks for straightening this out! It was bugging me for days! --TUSWCB (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Support wording

Katter is supporting the coalition? Really? The wording needs to be improved. Are ALL of the crossbenchers giving ONLY supply and confidence votes to their respective choices? If so this needs to be made clearer. Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that whilst Katter may be backing the Coalition, he will not block supply or vote no confidence in Labor. So really, it's 77-73. Timeshift (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Katter's made no agreement with Gillard to that effect. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said he has to, overseas reader? Timeshift (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, who says it's relevant if I'm an overseas reader? We have a parliament where I live, too, and I know how they work. If you represent on this page that Katter is backing Labor, despite what Australia's news media have reported to the contrary, people editing this page will predictably go nuts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At no time did I say Katter is backing Labor. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You said 77-73, and that's a crock. At some point there will be a test of the new government in the House. If Katter votes with the government there, then you have something. Otherwise, absolutely no one is reporting his vote as supporting Labor, and I expect no one on this page will either. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At any point did I argue for the page to say Katter supports Labor? No. Timeshift (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Names in infobox

Why change "Julia Gillard" > "Gillard" in the infobox? This seems unnecessary and inconsistent with other uses. I'm reverting. If anyone has a reason to change this, could you please explain? —sroc (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Margin

I wanted to note that Labor has a 76–74 margin over the Coalition with the support of the crossbenchers, which is what allows a minority government to be formed. I think this margin is notable and certainly worth mentioning explicitly, rather than relying on the reader to do the maths. Also, it is more correct to say that this margin is what allowed Labor to form government, not Oakeshott and Windsor on their own.

Timeshift reverted my edit because I used the word "alliances". Call it "support" or whatever you like, but can we put this reference in, please? —sroc (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording we have now does cover things without getting into a fight over words. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And all after I ignored the lesson givne to me by Cablehorn: never try. —sroc (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Crook! HA!

See Antony's new tally here. He's now conceding a 72 all outcome with six crossbenchers. For the lulz! Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been like that for days. The table contradicts that bar graph and has the Coalition at 73. Not that it matters, all 150 MHRs have the balance of power now. --Surturz (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

76-74... one or two votes away from defeat?

This says on the numbers, Labor is one vote away from losing power. But on 76-74, if one changes then it's 75-75, but I thought a motion of no confidence required a majority, ie: 76? So isn't it correct that two crossbenchers would have to move from Labor to Coalition to bring the government down? Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaker only breaks ties. So normally the 149 would be 75-74. If one crosses the floor, it's 74-75 and the govt loses the confidence of the house. --Surturz (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In the jargon, the Speaker has a "casting vote" but not a "deliberative vote"ref. It's why Gillard offered the Speaker's role to Oakshott - it would make it hard for him to vote against the govt. If you want to maintain the fiction of an independent speaker, it makes sense for the Speaker not to have a deliberative vote. --Surturz (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Also if there is a By-Election and the Coalition wins, etc.CanberraBulldog (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Way to answer a question that wasn't asked! :) Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL - I was just practsing being a Pollie. I was just throwing in how else they can/could lose Power. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A by-election could also strengthen Labor's grip on power. I can see the NBN being a real winner. Timeshift (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true that it could give them an extra seat but could also make it 75-75 but this is all hyperthetical - Labor won.

The NBN is a huge winner if they deliever it correctly, not like the Home Insulation - so it could also bring them down. The biggest challenge is the Resource Tax on Minerals. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Green's Formal Agreement

I know I'll cop some flak for this, but given that Labor has formed Government partly through a formal agreement with the Australian Greens, should this not be mentioned in the lead? The Independents have not formalised agreements, while the Australian Greens have. If we are to fairly report on the outcome of this election, Timeshift and Zach will need to be prepared to try some balance on for size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomshanahan1983 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the contribution in question. The Greens have not agreed to Labor's agenda, but like the rest, Bandt will support confidence and supply. There are links to the agreement in the crossbench section just below the lead. There is an agreement signed to by both parties, but it is not a coalition or alliance, and to put it in the lead is not WP:NPOV. Additional wording could be appropriately added to the crossbench section after consultation here, but it would have to be in a more neutral fashion than you have proposed. Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift's view sounds reasonable. Tony (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tomshanahan1983, what you want is well covered. See citation 23. An exact and full copy of the Labor/Green agreement is available there. And as you say, "... Labor has formed Government partly through a formal agreement with the Australian Greens ...". There's no need to clutter the intro with one of many negotiations in the government's formation. - Regards -Cablehorn (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I'm for what you're suggesting, don't talk smack about me not being balanced when I'm going to support what you're claiming.  :) There is a formal Labor-Greens written agreement, what's the harm of saying so in the lead? I'd avoid the word "alliance" since it does seem to be something that will likely be challenged, but my point of view on the subject is that it is an alliance, because there is a written document. It's similar to the UK's Lib-Lab pact or Ontario's Lib-NDP pact. As for the independents, there is an agreement, but it's verbal, so that's a bit more of a stretch to claim a formal alliance...though if Oakeshott becomes a minister, I'd say there's more of a reason to call it one. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To hyphenate or not to hyphenate

The item "two-party-preferred vote", currently the title of the WP article on this topic, has been the subject of debate about whether it should be hyphenated. I sought advice from User:Noetica on this. His response is on my talk page, collapsed. I'd be pleased to receive feedback. Link Tony (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While not referring to this particular phrase, the Australian Government Manual of Style does state that "adjectival phrases preceding a noun" should be fully hyphenated and gives some three word examples. Sorry, I didn't think of checking that publication until today. --Canley (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a reliable source to me! With that and with Noetica's admirably detailed research, I for one have no problem with the page and related links being at the fully hyphenated version. Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the exact wording wrong: the Commonwealth Style Manual says "Compound adjectives that consist of short adverbial phrases are always hyphenated." --Canley (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have split off the next election article

Next Australian federal election --Surturz (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I fear that it may be more than a placeholder article within the next 18 months... Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of these incoming links will now need to be fixed. Melburnian (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that a placeholder article is at risk of WP:SPEEDY, notwithstanding that it may become more useful over time. If it is to stay, a link should be added to the infobox on this article, as is consistent on other articles, and no doubt there will be several categories to add as well. —sroc (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed all of those "links here" articles that seem to need it.

I also came across List of Australian federal elections which needs to be updated for this election. —sroc (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link fixes sroc.Melburnian (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On the speedy issue, these next X election articles are sometimes nominated, but are always kept. -Rrius (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Crook Text

* Tony Crook won the seat of O'Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. While some class Crook as a member of the Coalition and include him in their Coalition totals, there is dispute over the classification.[26] Crook says, "In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be".[27] There is no federal Coalition agreement in Western Australia; Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government.[28][29][30] On 6 September Crook said he will support the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.[31]

Can this text be trimmed? I was thinking something like:

Tony Crook won the seat of O'Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. On 6 September Crook said he will support the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.[31]

I think the longer text was to justify not counting him as a Coalition member. This is beyond doubt now, so I think we should be okay with the shorter text? --Surturz (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think something should be said about the WA Nats as well to clarify that this isn't a case of a maverick going it aloe but a state party's position. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is already included in a reference (currently footnote [15]) in relation to the results table:

"Note: Tony Crook and the WA Nationals are not part of the Coalition, therefore their figure has been separated out of the Coalition totals."

Perhaps this might be separated out as a separate footnote (note rather than ref), which could be also linked from the discussino on Crook? —sroc (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm for keeping this as it was, because Crook remains on the crossbench. He has indicated since the election result in favour of a Gillard government was resolved that he will be voting on issues independently of the Coalition whip. He's still on the crossbenches and should be treated that way. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO as long as Abbott et al is forcing the line "We got more votes and won more seats than Labor" (as per HiLo48 below) and repeating it 'till it moves from folklore to "truth", we should keep most of the Crook tome. Remember the ABC has published him as part of the Coalition until very recently.

Surturz says, "I think the longer text was to justify not counting him as a Coalition member. This is beyond doubt now ..." is partly correct in that ... "the longer text was to justify not counting him as a Coalition member ..." but, "This is beyond doubt now ..." is not true as far as the casual public reader is concerned.

IMO we need to keep the tome for a while especially the (from the horse's mouth) statement, "Crook says, In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be."

Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Political hype about seats and votes

Since yesterday afternoon's announcement I have heard Abbott and two other Coalition pollies stating what seems to be their official mantra on the situation. It has almost identical wording each time and goes like this...

"We got more votes and won more seats than Labor."

Our article says little about total votes at this stage, and hasn't really resolved the two party preferred figures. It does say that seats were equal. Is this just a case of pollies "harmlessly" stretching the truth, or will it eventually lead to statements in reliable sources that we should take notice of, even if they're not the truth?

HiLo48 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

When they say "votes" they mean "primary votes". --Surturz (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, presumably, but is it a realistic claim? We already disagree about the "more seats", and the "more votes" can only be worked out by adding up numbers for the Coalition. Given that Labor is now effectively in coalition wIth the Greens, in testing such a claim, should not the Coalition's total vote be compared with the "other" coalition of ALP plus Greens? HiLo48 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because the ALP and Greens are not in coalition in the same way that the Libs, Nats, LNP etc are. The Greens aren't going to be in cabinet, nor have the Deputy Prime-Ministership etc. --Surturz (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you hear Christopher Pyne say that the Lib/Nat Coalition got more primary votes than Labor did, then went on to accuse Labor and the Greens of being in a coalition? I then think it was Bowen from Labor who replied, well if you claim we're in a coalition then surely our coalition primary vote would be higher than your coalition primary vote? Then Pyne went red in the face, choked, and said if Labor wants to consider themselves in coalition with the Greens then that's a startling revelation to our viewers, or something to that effect. HA! Bottom line is, the Coalition are completely and utterly lying, not just stretching the truth. The bottom line is, Labor got the highest primary vote, highest 2PP vote, and the seat numbers are level on 72. The Libs have 44, the LNP and Nats make 72, and the 73rd guy they're trying to claim as theirs wants nothing to do with them. We cannot do much more with votes until results are final. The seat numbers are well referenced, and the percentages are up there and up to date. Timeshift (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Did Labor get more of the primary vote? The AEC has Labor at 4,700,000+ and the Coalition at 5,350,000+ or am I looking at it incorrectly? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A primary vote is for a party, not a coalition. If you're going to combine primary votes, that's what a 2PP is for. Labor won both. In 2007 the coalition consisted of the Libs and Nats, in 2010 it consists of the Libs, Nats, LNP, and CLP. If they wish to be that complicated then that is their problem. The official AEC states it as it is, media organisations tend to group the coalition parties as a primary vote because they tend to dumb things down. Re-read my point above. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to count all the votes for The Coalition, we need to realise that Australia now has what the rest of the world would more normally recognise as a coalition, the one in government, the one made up of Labor, Greens and some independents. It doesn't matter that some don't want want it described that way. It would be in Europe. Our Coalition (that's big C) is a very weird animal. It exists while in government, when campaigning, but often doesn't sem to exist when we're a long way from elections and the Libs are in opposition. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Coalition is the party, just depends on the state/territory a person is in. The Coalition/Party has been around for many, many years so people now what the Coalition is BUT I see both of your points and agree. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Table Clarification

I live in the United States. Most people here are barely aware that an election was held in Australia. Certainly none of us knows the four parties in the Coalition. And the "party colours" really confuse the issue, since one of the Coalition parties uses green as do their political opponents. So I added a column to explicitly identify the parties of the Coalition. I also moved the section heading since the table definitely shows numbers. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, before anyone comes in and deletes what you've done (I hope they don't), I'd like to point out I emphatically support your change. I support it for the following reasons: (1) this retains the percentile ordering that Timeshift claims is so important and consistent with the other Australian election pages; (2) because the colours for the National Party of Australia and the National Party of Western Australia are shown as the same, indicating through the use of a text identifier that only one of these two entities had or maintains a formal link to the Coalition is crucial, otherwise the reader may not understand that the NP of WA is different than the rest of the National Party. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is we do not have this on any other Australian election. At the bare minimum, the coalition column (saying the word Coalition?!) was ugly and unsightly, there are far better ways to achieve what Nwbeeson wanted. Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given this another shot by using Liberal/Labor colours in a small box to the left of the party colour box. This matches the infobox. Couldn't find a useful label, but I hope the intent is clear enough. Feel free to change it. twilsonb (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks even worse. We do not have this distinction for any other Australian elections. Please form WP:CONSENSUS before making such changes. Perhaps create a sandbox draft. I'm sure there are much cleaner ways to do it. Timeshift (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, just to add to this conversation, can we also add two digits behind the decimal point with percentages and swing, as with the 2PP? I don't think rounding up or down truely reflects the parties outcome. I'm happy to keep updating from the AEC website. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We've always done to one decimal place only until the result is final. It reduces the number of update edits. And at this stage, two decimal places carries a less than zero meaning. Timeshift (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied up the footnote references, which were just ugly. I hope no one is offended.

Meanwhile, why are the parties in the Coalition not grouped together? Surely this would make it easier to follow? —sroc (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift's objection seems to be that this is not done on the other Australian election pages...but I think it should be, on this and all the other Australian election pages. Australia has had this Coalition for numerous elections, and they've always acted as a bloc (like Germany's CDU-CSU, for example). Representing these parties as if they have nothing to do with one another when they act in concert every single time is a distortion. It's only really come up as important in this election because it was so close, but it's been a distortion the whole time. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, we've never resolved why exactly the two or three letter representations of Australian states/territories are preferable in the House of Reps table (on a page not only Australians read) rather than writing out the names of the states/territories as words. Especially since in two cases, the official name of the party has the name of the state in it. Is the point of the table to be confusing to non-Australians? Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Australian announces that it wants to “destroy” the Greens

Until today, I’d never seen a national broadsheet with pretensions to fair and balanced reporting actually admit that it wasn’t just biased against a party supported by 14% of the country, it wanted to “destroy” it. But that’s just what The Australian did in its editorial today:

Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box. The Greens voted against Mr Rudd’s emissions trading scheme because they wanted a tougher regime, then used the lack of action on climate change to damage Labor at the election. Their flakey economics should have no place in the national debate.[18]

Interesting. Timeshift (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oy! Could somebody who knows the details please, please update Liberal-National party merger?

The section about Queensland in particular appears to be way, way out of date. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister - elect

I changed Prime Minister-elect in the infobox to Subsequent Prime Minister but was reverted by User:Sroc. My reason for changing it is that the Prime Minister is not elected, but holds office on commission from the Governor-General. Furthermore, it adds to the incorrect belief some have that people directly vote for the Prime Minister, when they do not, this article is about an election where Australians voted for an MP to represent them in the House, and Senators for the State/Territory in which they reside, there wasn't voting for anything else, yes - as a result of the election the government is decided, but the PM is not elected, only voters in two Divisions saw Julia Gillard or Tony Abbot on the ballot paper. I believe it should be changed from Prime Minister-elect to something which does not imply what doesn't actually happen (the PM being elected) such as Resulting Prime Minister (e.g at New Zealand general election, 2008), Subsequent Prime Minister (e.g at United Kingdom general election, 2010), or Prime Minister-designate (e.g at Canadian federal election, 2008). --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The other Australian pages all use the term Prime Minister-elect, and it seems the point of the change is to indicate somehow that the people do not elect Prime Ministers. If that were true, the GG could appoint whomever she darn well wants to, and we know that's not the case - it would cause a constitutional crisis if the GG appointed anyone but Gillard under these circumstances. So, that's why I'm resisting the change, because it implies the GG has a power which it is beyond convention for her to exercise. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But it is true. The PM is not elected. It is simply that whoever holds the confidence of a majority of the House of Representatives is appointed PM by the Governor-General. The position of PM is not even mandated by the Constitution. The GG can (but obviously won't) appoint anyone at all to be PM for three months, and if longer, anyone in the House of Representatives or the Senate. Of course, that will not happen, and under the current circumstances the Governor-General will continue to let Gillard be PM. I'm just saying that the line Prime Minister-elect should be changed to something which does not imply that the PM is directly elected, because he/she is not. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The standard the GG uses is whether the PM can command a majority of the votes in the House. If you are bent on changing this, though, I think "-designate" would be more appropriate, because the voters play a role in this "designation". It is the fact that Gillard is the leader of the Labor party (and was elected by the Labor caucus to be so), and the fact that the voters elected the members in that Labor caucus, and the fact that 76 members are supporting a Gillard-led government, that is responsible for Gillard being the PM. It is not an arbitrary decision on the GG's part. I think "-elect" is appropriate, but "Subsequent Prime Minister" makes it seem like the people had no role in Gillard being the PM, which is nonsense. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's "Prime Minister-elect". We thoroughly thrashed this out in 2007 when Rudd beat Howard. It's not literally, pedantically accurate, given that the Australian voting public do not directly elect the PM. But like it or not, it IS THE TERM that is very widely used, by the media, by commentators, in Wikipedia - everywhere. There are many instances in the English language where a term does not literally mean what it purports to say, and this is one of them. It is the jargon of Australian politics, and likewise we have Premiers-elect, not Premiers-designate or anything else.

But given all that: the term is only actually used in the case where an opposition leader beats an incumbent Prime Minister. It refers to a person whose term as PM has not yet commenced. Had Abbott won, he would have been the PM-elect from the moment Windsor and Oakeshott made their announcement, to the moment he was sworn in by the Governor-General (which would have been at most a few hours later, and so it's hardly worth arguing over anyway on this occasion; granted, in a "normal" election where the incumbent government is defeated and the result is clear on election night, there can still be up to 6 days before the new PM is sworn in, and so he/she gets to be "PM-elect" for that length of time). But Gillard was already the Prime Minister; at no time was she ever going to be called the PM-elect, because her term commenced in June, and continued in a caretaker capacity throughout and beyond the election. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard is the Prime Minister. At no stage has she lost her commission. She is NOT the Prime Minister-elect - to refer to her as that is factually wrong. I changed it to remove the 'elect' then someone reverted it and threatened that changing it back would be a violation of some Wikipedia policy. Presumably a policy on presenting facts as calling her 'elect' is fantasy and made up, and is another example of the false rubbish some people put on Wikipedia.Newtaste (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to view "Prime Minister-elect" as a portmanteau. Like "electrocution" is a combination of "electricity" and "execution". So "Prime Minister-elect" is a combination of "Prime Minister" and "post-election". "Prime Minister-elect" makes more sense to the casual [esp non-Aus] reader. Regards -Cablehorn (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what some people might think makes more sense. Gillard was and is PM. NOT PM-elect. We should aim for facts here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons already stated, it should not be "-elect". Previously, its use was a weakness of the infobox template. Since the template now allows for an alternative, we should use one. United Kingdom general election, 2010, the only election article I can think of off the top of my head that has been decided since the change, uses "Subsequent Prime Minister". That works for me. -Rrius (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rrius, but "Subsequent Prime Minister" will get you into trouble re Gillard. "Since she was, and is, subsequent is stupid, and we should stick to the facts" etc etc etc.

HiLo48, there's a difference between "the facts", and communicating "the facts" so others understand. ... That's why we have schools. That's why schools have teachers. That's why teachers are trained at universities with whole depatments of education.

If I said, "After sunset there'll be a half-moon", you'd understand what I meant. But, I could bang-on about the sun not actually setting but talk in terms of the Earth's rotation, and the Moon's actually been there for half the day anyway ... and you may not understand wtf I was on about. So take your pick ... We relate the facts/ideas/concepts in a way others understand, or we 'blind them with science'.

And guess what. The AEC says this, "Although close contests may depend on the distribution of preferences or require recounts, it is usually possible for the Prime Minister elect to claim victory on the night of the election. Counting for the Senate continues for several weeks." [19]

Regard - Cablehorn (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if they gave a definition too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. There no more trouble saying "Subsequent Prime Minister" than there is saying "Previous Prime Minister". Was she or was she not prime minister subsequent to the election? My own preference was "Resulting Prime Minister", but whatever the choice, some editors are going to have to realise that the only people likely to think there was a gap in service when the info box says the same person was the "Previous Prime Minister" and the "Subsequent [or similar qualifier] Prime Minister" are so stupid that they would be incapable of reading the infobox. Therefore, we need not worry overmuch about them. This "was and is" business is simply being taken too far. The same thing applies for any leader returned to office whether it be Gillard, Howard, or George W. Bush. So, if we're going to throw around the word "stupid", your argument against it is stupid. -Rrius (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, When I said, "Subsequent Prime Minister" will get you into trouble re Gillard. "Since she was, and is, subsequent is stupid, and we should stick to the facts etc etc etc." I was making a comment an imaginary pedant may say. (goto next para)

I was meaning you'll get just as much flack with "Subsequent Prime Minister", "Previous Prime Minister" or "Resulting Prime Minister". Read all four paragraphs of my post. I wasn't calling you stupid. Also I think we need to keep in mind the title of this article - "Australian federal election, 2010". It isn't "The Gillard Government". Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I never thought you said I was stupid; I said what I thought you meant. I hope that ugliness is behind us. Second, I still find that contribution confusing. Your argument appears to be that some people will object on painfully pedantic grounds, but then advocate using "-elect", which has far more reasonable arguments against it. I may have that wrong, but it's the best I can do. In any event, "Prime Minister-elect" annoys people familiar with parliamentary democracies, whether they are Australian or (as I am) American. "Subsequent" and "resulting" simply do not have the same problem as "-elect", and they are equally as understandable for the casual reader. -Rrius (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, whatever the intrinsic merits of that argument may be, the fact is that you're proposing to replace an existing piece of terminology that has been widely accepted and used in Australia for a very long time, with one that you in your wisdom consider more appropriate. With respect, isn't that virtually the definition of arrogance? Would you propose to rename the officers known as "whips", because they are not actually made of leather and are not actually long and thin? Would you prefer nobody called the Boston Tea Party that, because they didn't actually sit down at a table and drink cups of tea? I could go on forever with such examples. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What a marvelously disingenuous bit of rhetoric that is. Skipping over virtually all of it, what you fail to understand is that "-elect" is far from universally accepted in Australia, so using another alternative is preferable. Even were that not the case, it is still odd to call sitting PMs like Gillard "Prime Minister-elect", so it makes sense to use something else: something that applies equally well to new and continuing PMs. I hope you in your wisdom have in your pocket an argument that isn't flummery. -Rrius (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's completely wrong to call the continuing PM the 'Prime Minister Elect' as they never stopped being PM and don't even need to be sworn into the position again. Howard wasn't the 'PM elect' in the periods after the 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections, and neither is Gillard. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick is completely right. This whole discussion is ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that, if it had been Abbott who'd got up, he would have been PM-elect. Some here are saying that, even in that circumstance, we shouldn't call him PM-elect because PMs are not directly elected by the people. Pedantically true; but usage trumps pedantry every time. Where it's appropriate to use it (and that doesn't include current circumstances), the term "Prime Minister-elect" does have its place in the Australian context. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking into consideration all the arguments put forward by users above, I propose to use Resulting Prime Minister (an example can be seen at New Zealand general election, 2008). This neither implies that the PM is directly elected nor that the PM has changed after this election. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length. There seem to be essentially two issues at play:

1. The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public (although they lead their party during the campaign, the public expect the leader of the winning party to become PM and the Governor-General will always act accordingly by convention, so they are indirectly elected);
2. The terminology "-elect" is not appropriate for PMs who are re-elected.

In both cases, there is no reason why elections in Australia should be treated any differently from the UK, New Zealand, or other such parliamentary systems where the PM is not directly tied to public votes. Certainly in the latter case, there is no reason why elections in Australia should be treated any differently from any other electoral system that allows the same leader to win multiple terms.

If this is an issue that requires a change to the wording used in the infobox for elections in Australia, IMHO, such a change should be applied as the default in the Template:Infobox_election so that everyone can take advantage. This being the case, this discussion should be had at Template talk:Infobox election so that the rest of the world can join in the discussion. —sroc (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is used for more than just parliamentary elections. As such, in many cases "-elect" is appropriate. The issue of prime ministers was discussed at Template talk:Infobox election, resulting in the ability to vary from the default. -Rrius (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox template has different options for different types of elections. The default text can be tailored (e.g., use "(title)-elect" for presidential elections or "Resulting (title)" for parliamentary elections). We can tailor the infobox on every Australian election individually if we want to, but I do not think that that is a solution. I do think that, if there is an issue with the wording, it affects more than just Australia and we should strive to gain consistency with other nations if possible. As such, I encourage discussion on the Template talk:Infobox election page to get a wider engagement and consensus. Thanks, Rrius, for your contribution there so far. —sroc (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a bizarre scenario presented in the infobox. Gillard's commission as prime minister never stopped; she was never "re-appointed" and certainly never re-elected. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

She most certainly was re-elected. She has the confidence of the majority of the House, and in Westminster democracies, that's how you become Prime Minister. It's precisely this kind of distortion we need to be guarding against. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, having the confidence of the House of Representatives doesn't mean she was elected. Was Julia Gillard "elected" when she became Prime Minister after becoming leader of the federal Labor party? She held the confidence of the House back then. Yes, in Westminister democracies; in Australia that is how you become Prime Minister, by having the confidence of the House, but you aren't elected by the House to be Prime Minister, and most certainly not directly elected (as was clearly proven when Gillard first became PM), you are appointed by the Governor-General when you prove you have the confidence of the House. It's the current Prime Minister-elect line which distorts the facts by making it seem like the PM is directly elected, when she/he is not. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but, as I said, it also gives the impression there was a break in Gillard's commission from the governor general; as though it ended when the election was called and a new one issued after the election eneded, Australia having been without a government during the in-between. That was quite obviously not the case. ZK's confusion is the perfect illustration of the total misunderstanding of the Westminster parliamentary system that results from an education based almost totally on American-centric, lazy media reporting. I can't at all see why Wikipedia should be aiding this degredation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)