Talk:2016 Australian federal election

Archives	Archive One (pre-election)

Result Source

Can we please agree that only official sources (such as AEC) ought to be used for the election results, and not websites of tv stations or news papers? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one, even though AEC isn't showing two-party preferred counts for some seats like Grayndler. We don't have to be in a hurry to predict ahead of the AEC, that's what news media are for.

The table in section "Results – Overall" matches AEC; is "Divisions in Doubt" based on their Close Seats list? Should we be offering some explanation or summary of the Not yet Determined number?

Pelagic (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC) [edited 01:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)]

Yes, I was going to do that today. --Canley (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it!  :) Here's the section that I was about to commit:

Alternate section

Divisions not yet determined As of midday on the day following the poll, the Australian Electoral Commission listed seven divisions as "not yet determined" [1], pending counting of postal votes and distribution of preferences. Five of the seven divisions were previously classified as "safe seats" (Higgins "fairly safe" and O'Connor "marginal"), and the incumbents of all seven were leading in primary votes. If all seven divisions are held, that would bring the count of parliamentary seats to 73 for Labor and 72 for the coalition. Division Incumbent Leading in vote count Contenders Valid votes counted Postal envelopes to be counted Barker, SA Tony Pasin (Liberal) Tony Pasin 37,740 James Stacey (NXT) 23,689 Mat O'Brien (Labor) 12,458 81,232 5,378 Cowper, NSW Luke Hartsuyker (Nationals) Luke Hartsuyker 42,356 Robert Oakeshott (Independent) 24,214 Damian Wood (Labor) 12,160 91,166 4,343 Durack, WA Melissa Price (Liberal) Melissa Price 25,927 Carol Martin (ALP) 15,590 Lisa Cole (Nationals) 9,938 Ian James (Greens) 6,136 61,363 4,312 Grayndler, NSW Anthony Albanese (Labor) Anthony Albanese 32,571 David van Gogh (Liberal) 16,079 Jim Casey (Greens) 15,100 69,337 4,720 Grey, SA Rowan Ramsey (Liberal) Rowan Ramsey 31,222 Andrea Broadfoot (NXT) 21,376 Scott Martin (ALP) 16,511 75,057 4,934 Higgins, Vic Kelly O'Dwyer (Liberal) Kelly O'Dwyer 33,800 Jason Ball (Greens) 17,317 Carl Katter (ALP) 9,923 65,637 11,403 O'Connor, WA Rick Wilson (Liberal) Rick Wilson 26,013 Jon Ford (ALP) 12,764 John Hassell (Nationals) 11,682 Giz Watson (Greens) 6,579 61,944 4,593 Numbers for each candidate are the count of primary (first-preference) votes.

[I need to put this in a collapsible box when I find out how] Pelagic (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC) [edit: found the {{collapse top}} template, but unsure how to intent it. 03:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)]

Oh, sorry! Great table, not sure if I would be so specific with the vote numbers, I have just listed the ABC prediction, but feel free to adjust or replace if you want. --Canley (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Canley, but your table looks much better. The primary votes will be stable until the postals are counted; I've no idea how long that takes. I'm tempted to include the numbers, but it might make the table too cluttered. Pelagic (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm putting too much emphasis on the postals with the numbers above. I think you're right about leaving them out. Does anyone know why the AEC is withholding two-candidate-preferred numbers for these seats but not for the close seats? They are calling a front-runner now for Grey even though only a handful of polling places have returned TCP.

Thanks for putting in the prediction column, I think it helps the reader to get an idea of where these seat are likely to go. Pelagic (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I see the "divisions in doubt" section has been re-aligned with the AEC close seats, and the explanation about ABC's threshold works well.

One last concern: are we putting too much emphasis on ABC at the expense of other media outlets? The different seat counts being bandied about are confusing, but is that variation notable in itself? Or will nobody care once the results are finalised?

Pelagic (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If you look at previous federal and state election articles, we have traditionally used Antony Green's ABC election resources as reliable sources, almost always in preference to other media outlets, due to the depth and scope of of his coverage. That said, Green's focus is very much on election night coverage, and projecting the preference distribution and outcomes based on computer models, and that is why I would prefer to use the AEC count data and definitions where possible. Also, Wikipedia does tend to favour secondary sources (ABC) over primary sources (AEC), although both can be used. However the trouble with using media sources for election results at all is that once they have moved on (and this includes the ABC), they stop updating/correcting the data. Some do this either immediately after election night. ABC will usually follow through with the final counting, but even they can't really be used as an archive as errors occur at every election which are never fixed, or the data presented is a simulation which is indicative but not identical to the actual count.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the ABC threshold and seats in doubt is that the AEC threshold is very low, and I just wanted to point out that some of the seats listed as "changing hands" on the list here are still too close to call (as there is already the usual discussion about which new MPs to create articles for)—using a list from a reliable media outlet which had a broader list of seats to watch was preferable to arbitrarily choosing a different threshold. --Canley (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sharkie

I'm not sure when to start writing articles for new members. I have created Draft:Rebekha Sharkie in preparation. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

For anyone certain of election (like Sharkie), they can be mainspace whenever. All members of parliament (including senators) assumed office yesterday; we just don't know exactly who some of them are yet. :) Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, we should start getting articles up now. As Frickeg said, their terms have technically already started, and this kind of situation is precisely the parliament at which people are most likely to be searching for information on these people. I do think some of our calls are a bit questionable and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the closest ones wind up changing, but there is zero chance of someone like Sharkhie losing so an article ASAP would be good. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

AEC accuracy

I have tagged the article for accuracy since we are using AEC figures in the infobox, and Antony Green has come out and said that they're just plain wrong.[2] StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I support the tagging, but not the justification. The numbers aren't "wrong", they are incomplete, and the AEC automated conclusions are misleading, so some of the projected outcomes are likely to be proved wrong in the next few days. It could be worth noting that the outcomes were not all known in the first few days following the election as counting continued. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As Scott says, the AEC figures are not "plain wrong", and that's not really what Antony Green is saying. What the AEC is doing is listing seats where one candidate is ahead for that party, but using a very low threshold for a close seat (which is all discussed above and noted on the page), and only excluding the 6 not yet determined seats with a non-classic 2CP throw. The main reason Antony needed to explain it is that the AEC shows Labor quite a few seats ahead (71–67), but ABC has them one seat behind (67–68). This can be handled with notes and explanations where it isn't already, and will resolve itself in the next day or two as the count progresses and the number firm up. --Canley (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Mal changing the voting rules to his benefit

Is there any information on how much the changing the voting laws to his benefit (by removing minor parties) and or the DD just to extend the benefit of the new laws actually hurt instead of benefited him? --Thelawlollol (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any articles which discuss whether it helped or not? We can't be doing our own original analysis. Stickee (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thats why I asked if they existed! DERP. No can just put in massive swags of claims all over the wikiblog without any reference.--Thelawlollol (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Changing the voting laws to his benefit" - wrong, and never true; a cynical lie. The DD is open to question, but would have to be cited to analysis that I doubt will be available until the Senate count is finalised. Frickeg (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy/"Mediscare" section

This "Mediscare" issue is clearly one of the deciding factors and is going to be one of the big talking points of this election, especially now as Shorten has admitted/confirmed that Qld Labor sent that infamous "fake Medicare" text message. I feel like this will need its own section to discuss the issue and the fall out. Currently its only mention is in the Bob Hawke ad and the AMA comments, but nothing about the fraudulent text message. Thoughts? Ck786 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it absolutely should be mentioned, and could probably be in a section, but we should just be careful about throwing around terms like "admitted", "fake" and "fraudulent". --Canley (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be discussed in the article, but absolutely not in its own section - rather, in an election issues section. I have particular NPOV concerns about the way Ck786 is phrasing it, because - as many, many commentators have discussed in the last couple of days - the Labor side of that argument (that it amounted to shorthand for fears about recent past (and present) Liberal attempts to dismantle Medicare-as-we-know-it, such as the imposition of forced co-payments) needs to go in if the Liberal side of that story does. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be treated along with the Tories' pumped up lies and distortions about negative gearing, the war on business, etc. Not by itself. Tony (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Liberals? Anti-Medicare? There's nothing in the history of the universe to even suggest such a thing. Surely you jest. To successfully deny an accusation, one has to first have credibility on the subject. No wonder it worked. Every Australian has or is listed on a Medicare card thanks to Labor, health cover which helps millions in their everyday lives in a tangible observable way, and for many people can mean the difference between eating or paying a bill. Time and time again the Liberals just don't care... introducing co-payments being the most recent of many examples. Let's just skip Fraser completely... 1993. Over two decades of sour grapes later and they're still pursuing Fightback! No, just all lies and smear. Now let's flipside this. Boat people? Really? Out of sight, out of mind. Heard of/remember Shaun Micallef's parody of one or more "olympic-size swimming pool(s)" as a unit of measurement? Often now in real life conversations, say something costs $180 million like a referendum, i'll say "that's only six Australian-Cambodian boatpeople"! I've found it to be a razor of a line, goes down so well! AU$30mil to transfer a single person to Cambodia... I wonder how many Australians have been given AU$30mil by their government? Pity the Liberals think that spending is always bad, unless of course it's about the boats, then anything goes. Principles? They have none. :) Timeshift (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Template

What's the deal with this new election template (on articles like Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2016)? It hasn't been discussed that I've seen, the whole series of articles (especially redlinks) don't exist for our extensive coverage of other elections, some of the bluelinks are of very dubious notability, and the results pages (bizarre when seat counting is not even close to done) are at a different title to all other elections. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The articles linked to in the template seem to be promising an incredible amount of content—a combination of results for every division in each state and territory, any seat polling done in that division, and a very lengthy analysis of the campaign at seat level. If the editor has the time and inclination to complete 150 such summaries, then go for it I guess. My only concerns would be that a lot of the material will be duplicated (there is already a list of seat-level polling, I will do results summaries for each state), it requires a lot of updating while the count is underway, and there is a possible technical issue with how many templates MediaWiki can handle on a page, and large states like NSW and Victoria may not save correctly if they include the results tables. --Canley (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Update, now

Just coming from AEC, Coalition and Labor are at par (50.00% each, two party count) 49.200.244.124 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's going all over the place, I'm hesitant to keep updating it or displaying two decimal places as it is so variable. Also: I originally had a note in there saying that the 2PP figures were calculated from classic division counts only, but the AEC put up a statement saying it was from all 150 divisions (which I found very unlikely). They have since reworded the statement, and Antony Green confirms that the 16 non-classics are excluded at this point. I have put the note back—as exciting as it is that it's so close, it will change quite a bit when they finish the main 2CP count and begin the 2PP count. --Canley (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest, then, that the infobox be altered so that it shows that the election is still ongoing. It's better to update it after the end of the count and until then the results, as they come in, can be written in the Results section only. But it's only a suggestion: it might be fine even the way it is right now. 49.200.244.105 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC) PS: Maybe if you didn't understand I mean put the election as it was before the polls, ie. seats needed for a majority, etc.

Infobox and bar graphs

I have removed the number of primary votes, percentages and 2PP calculations from the infobox and commented out the bar graphs. The numbers changing so often and are too specific anyway, they can all be restored when the count is stable, and at them moment every update has to be changed in three places. --Canley (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of bold

I assert that bold formatting for totals is not necessary, and is contrary to MOS:BOLD. In particular, these are not table headers. The only reason I can see for making them bold is for emphasis - but emphasis is one the explicit cases when not to use boldface. So I removed the bold, but Ebonelm disagrees and restored the bold, on the grounds that "Bolding in this manner is standard in election infoboxes".

I suggest that MOS should take priority and that the "standard in election infoboxes" should change to comply with MOS. Other editors' opinions are sought, along with any reasons why MOS should not apply here. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD clearly needs quite a re-write. The practice of bolding of in this way is standard across infoboxes for nearly all countries, for example: Germany, France, Turkey, Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom, and of course across the Australian federal election articles including 2013, 2010, and 2007. The 2010 article particularly demonstrates the reason why we use bold as sometimes the winner of the most seats and the winner of the popular vote are not the same, we may well end up with a situation like that in this instance too (though increasingly it looks like Coalition will have more seats and the largest share of the popular vote but you never know). I'm not really seeing a reason why the use of bold is an objectivly bad thing it adds to the article and makes it clearer to the reader. Ebonelm (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That it might be "standard" in infoboxes is irrelevant. Mitch Ames' edits were not to the infobox, they were to tables, and were in accordance with MOS:BOLD, well mostly. If you need to emphasise something, use italics. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have partially self-reverted. The reason why I initially reverted was because the infobox bold was removed which as I showed above is standard. I didn't realise that other parts of the page were changed as well. The infobox had been bolded and then unbolded a couple of times before and I misread the purposes of the rest of the edit. I trust the bold in the infobox will be retained. Ebonelm (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Focussing on the infobox now, I notice that {{Infobox election}} includes the use of bold formatting (''') in the Usage section of the documentation but then is not consistent with the use of bold for winners' counts/percentages in the examples. I still assert that the use of bold here is contrary to MOS:BOLD, and I've raised the matter at Template talk:Infobox election#Use of bold formatting for the winner's figures. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement Mitch, it's clear their shouldn't be boldface as per the MOS. Stickee (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would also repeat your support at Template talk:Infobox election#Use of bold formatting for the winner's figures. Ultimately it is reasonable that this article follow the usage and examples sections of the template documentation. If it is to change, such change needs to happen in the template first.

Likewise I invite other editors (including those who disagree with me) to continue the discussion on the template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for seats to be declared

This discussion is relevant to this page and connected pages. Frickeg (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Division results tables

As per last election, I've scripted an output of results tables for each division by state/territory based on the AEC data as of last night (Sunday 10 July). As in 2013, although many seats will be declared in the next week or so, the AEC does not mark the results as final until about a month after the election. Updating the data from AEC and regenerating the tables only takes a few minutes so I can keep them updated for interest's sake fairly regularly, and then produce the final output for placement in division articles, results lists and state summaries.

There are still a few fixes I need to do, such as adding wikilinks for all winners, if anyone spots any errors other than count updates, please feel free to edit the page in my userspace or mention them below, and I'll pick it up in the history and fix it in later outputs.

The tables are in my userspace here:

• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/Australian Capital Territory
• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/New South Wales
• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/Northern Territory
• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/Queensland
• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/South Australia
• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/Tasmania
• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/Victoria
• User:Canley/Australian federal election, 2016/Results/Western Australia

--Canley (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Layout of the article

I don't know why the results is below the introduction and the background section is pushed down. Can someone explain why? Why not change the layout? --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it is because readers are much more likely to be looking for current results than background detail like the constitutional basis for the polling date or by-elections. The results were moved chronologically to the end of the article last week, but the article was so long they were hard to find, and someone moved it back. Previous articles in the series have the results at the top after the intro as it is one of the key items of information. --Canley (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Vote counting photos

The AEC has published some media photos of the count at http://www.aec.gov.au/media/image-library/dec-votes.htm under CC-BY-3.0 so they should be suitable for use on this article if required. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

Nothing against the current state of the introduction section. However, MOS:LEAD encourages using very few inline citations (and some rewrite). Nevertheless, I don't know how controversial the topic is to introduce to readers unfamiliar with the topic. The whole body has citations already, so having inline citations in lead makes lead look probably silly to read, or I don't know how to put it. Maybe cut out a lot of inline references? Otherwise, what are other suggestions? --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Senate estimates

It is going to be a long time before the Senate is finalised and the results are going to be sensitively dependent on preference flows. Maybe we should just leave the Senate tables blank until it is announced in full. Reporting projections by pundits is not the role of an encyclopedia. Ordinary Person (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really agree, although I see your point. We do have a certain amount of information, based on quotas - we can guarantee a certain number of seats. I see the main issue being this second table that has cropped up, which doesn't really agree with the first at all, and is definitely making some very dubious calls; it should probably go, or at the very least be dramatically reconfigured and made a lot less bullish about its calls. I do think keeping the first table is reasonable, though - I don't see anything on there that is reasonably in doubt. Frickeg (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably omit the "Likely" column. Ordinary Person (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My view is to leave the predictions table as is. Why? Most people who view the Senate results count, will have no idea of what it all means. The table nicely captures the range of possible outcomes, and is useful until the final outcome becomes known. --Mrodowicz (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that in the WA, one seat is marked as in doubt. As far as I am aware, that seat is contested by the Greens and Nationals. However, the tally notes remarked that both the Greens and the Coalition is in contention for that last seat. I think this is in error. The WA Nationals are not in coalition with the federal Liberal-National Coalition and therefore should not be lumped together with them. 119.56.116.178 (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-classic divisions and the 10-week delay of the national 2PP result, 2CP, etc.

I expanded the 2PP note for much needed clarity. 2016 "non-classic" (2CP) seat link here - tried adding it as a ref within the note ref but wouldn't let me. Further... I viewed the last 500 edits to the previous election and found this from User:Canley to see how long it was between election day and the national 2PP calculated from all 150 electorates... based on what I could see it was 10 weeks, but the AEC link says last update was the start of November 2013, not end of November 2013. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look at the AEC Media Feed for the 2013 election, and they stopped the regular feed (updated every 15 minutes) on 12 November. They then did one more update on 27 November, which was to add the 2PP figures for the non-classic seats, which was what prompted me to check the 2PP by State page and see that it was marked as final. I don't know why the date says it was last updated 4 November. --Canley (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Canley, do you have an URL for that 27 Nov 2013 update? Timeshift (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Here it is: ftp://results.aec.gov.au//17496/Standard/Light/aec-mediafeed-Standard-Light-17496-20131127195653.zip . To see all the updates go to ftp://results.aec.gov.au//17496/Standard/Light . --Canley (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you... as I said I can't add a ref within a note ref so I won't add the link, but should it come under question this will be here. Thanks again! Timeshift (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New state results articles

Not sure how many have seen the new 2016 election sidebar infobox yet, but aside from many outdated, missing or just plain wrong information in articles (to be expected at some level), it's a new way of doing it and I reckon it needs more eyes, discussion and ultimately consensus. I mean, how many editors think George Brandis and Penny Wong belong in an infobox for Australian federal election, 2016 (Northern Territory)? My 2c - I much prefer how we did it prior to 2016 - ie: Results of the Australian federal election, 2013 (House of Representatives). Timeshift (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

See the section titled "Template" above. My preference would also be for the state-by-state results tables and summaries without the commentary and infoboxes for each division. There is just too much content proposed:

• Infoboxes for every seat (when the winner is clear from the results table anyway)
• 500 or more words of commentary on each division (it's all written in the future tense so will need to be substantially re-written already). In NSW, only Banks and New England have a commentary at the moment so it is very unbalanced and I suspect no more will be done to fill in the gaps.
• Seat-level polling was only done in some key marginals, and I thought was already included in the polling article.
• The results tables will need to be updated and finalised, and this is being done piecemeal (and with several errors).

As I said above, if editors are willing and able to keep this enormous amount of content updated, then good luck—but I suspect this was over-ambitious and will not be expanded, updated or rewritten much further. I will produce the same state results tables as for 2013 when the AEC declares them final, I guess we can see then how these articles are progressing.

--Canley (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds perfect Canley :) Timeshift (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo for two candidates

Three partys with one seat get a Photo and are on the result list , why the two independents are missing , unfair 188.22.248.167 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Independents aren't a party. Quite simple. Frickeg (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Quiet Plain.Are there all guy like that ?Shouldnt be that article objectv and not subjective ?? 62.46.248.125 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)