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)