Talk:2009 Queensland state election

I think someone might want to check this list for inaccuracies. Since Brett Raguse, Labor's candidate in Beaudesert in 2006, was elected to federal parliament in 2007, I highly doubt he's decided to give up his federal seat and take another crack at a safe National state seat... Rebecca (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Brett Raguse, lol... Timeshift (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy polls

It's come to my attention that mentions of Galaxy polls are being purged from this page on the grounds that they're "unreliable". For what my opinion is worth, I suggest you let this one go. I've laid out the agency's record over the five years of its existence here. If my opinion doesn't move you, try Antony Green's: "Galaxy has a good record of producing accurate polls, and certainly produced more polls in 2007 that looked like the eventual Federal election result than either Newspoll or AC Nielsen. Yet the Queensland election Wikipedia page refuses to include Galaxy polls because it considers them unreliable." William Bowe (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard on all Australian election pages is to use Newspoll. And FYI both Galaxy and Newspoll had a final prediction of 52-48 for the 2007 federal election. To say that more of the Galaxy polls were closer to what the final result was is meaningless. A poll shows what people think at the time the poll was taken, not who they will eventually vote for at election time. This graph shows that Galaxy was the odd one out, it produced results different to the rest. All polls could be included in multiple tables at the bottom, but it certainly should not take the place of Newspoll in the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whats funny is that you obviously didn't want to use Galaxy cause LNP was ahead. Now the Newspoll shows exactly the same thing. Take that Timeshift! 130.56.71.132 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Take that? You really should WP:AGF. Using Newspoll has always been the standard on wikipedia since 'next election' pages began. Newspoll has also typically been the poll most favourable to the coalition. It's also worth mentioning that polls often have the opposition in front during the term, and during the campaign, but still fail to win the election, eg Howard at every election he eventually won. And 51% for the LNP wouldn't even win them the election based on a uniform swing. But that's all beside the point. Galaxy polls or Roy Morgan polls or ACNielsen polls are not by any means not allowed on these pages, if someone wants to add them to fresh tables where the Newspoll table is - by all means add it. But Newspoll has always been used for the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another factor, Queensland's voluntary voting and previous "just vote 1" campaigns - for example, more than half of minor party votes in past elections have exhausted in some key races - means that "two party preferred" in NSW and QLD state elections is indicative only and doesn't necessarily reflect how many votes the parties end up receiving. "Will your vote exhaust before reaching a major party" is not asked by any of the pollsters. Orderinchaos 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assume good faith but then again you are a WP:Prick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.132 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how Newspoll and Galaxy were both off with the fairies this time, I think the whole argument above made little difference. Orderinchaos 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Both were within the margin of error. Newspoll's last poll was about 1% out on all of the primaries. Timeshift (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

live updates

hi all, is anyone down to put the latest info about results as they come to hand tomorow night mattman (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LNP colour

I don't seem to have a problem applying the correct color code to the results table, but the infobox seems to be stuck on the old original colour I used. Can anyone see what i'm doing wrong with this? Timeshift (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's looking here (took me a while to figure that one out, yay for oddness). Orderinchaos 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

2pp note

Note that the literature is very clear on the lack of a notion of statewide 2PP in Queensland elections. 1998 was never calculated because it was a three party race, and 2001 onwards have not been calculated due to optional preferential voting. See [1]. Orderinchaos 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a source for my statement above re 1998: p.593, Political Chronicles (AJPH 44(4), 1998): "Because of the mixed outcome and the number of One Nation seats, no two-party preferred result was possible to calculate." Orderinchaos 01:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It has little if anything to do with optional preferential voting. All seats are decided on a two party preferred (or two candidate preferred) basis, so adding them together for a cumulative 2pp ought to be pretty straight forward. The problem is that not all seats are Labor v Coalition. This is a problem in any state, but especially so in Queensland where One Nation effectively created a three party system in the late 90s. Even with the demise of One Nation, enough independents have stuck around to muck up the two party system. Note that Antony Green has no issue with calculating an overall 2pp for 1992 and 1995 (I'm pretty sure OPV was introduced in Goss's first term). Digestible (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's say the seat count is between an Independent and the LNP. This means that quite a few Labor votes would actually disappear entirely, so votes which have preferred Labor simply *aren't there*. (Same goes if you substitute "Labor" for "LNP" and vice versa.) Under Queensland law (and I've checked) they do not have to publish all investigated avenues in this way. (The comparison is WA, where the Annual Report when they eventually publish it will contain these stats.) Hence the result of adding all of them is actually not going to produce a correct statewide 2PP. As for some of the ones he has calculated, I honestly don't know where they come from - pre-1971 in WA for example none can be calculated as typically one third of the seats weren't contested and many of the ones that were were not traditional two-party races, yet Green's past elections table has figures for every one of them - and the figures for later ones contradict the ones I can get from published sources by the WAEC. The figure I used in the 1995 table came from an equivalent published source, I couldn't actually find one for 1992 although there clearly was one, as the 1995 source noted the 2 decimal place change from the previous election. Orderinchaos 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An LNP v independent runoff throws a spanner in the works whether or not Labor preferences exhaust. I'm not sure what you mean by investigate all avenues. Conduct an indicative LNP v Labor count perhaps? Maybe it is the case that the ECQ does not do that; but it's not OPV that prevents them from doing so. Digestible (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Conduct an indicative LNP v Labor" was exactly what I had in mind, but nothing in the Electoral Act or accompanying regulations requires them to do it, even for the purposes of reporting (i.e. the annual report, as is the case in WA). Orderinchaos 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mirani and Chatsworth

The ABC has called both for the LNP.[2] Their overall prediction is now 51/34/4. Mirani would be a notional gain and the margin has gotten quite wide in late counting.[3] Chatsworth though is still pretty close on actual figures.[4] Digestible (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)