Talk:Australian federal election, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian federal election, 2007 article.
Article policies
Flag
Portal
 Australian federal election, 2007 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
Archives

Contents

[edit] Some suggested reorganisation

One thing I don't like about the current article is there is no clear and concise explanation of why Labor won, although analysis is pretty unanimous that it was a combination of Workchoices, new Labor leadership, and old Liberal leadership. [1] [2] [3] [4] Also there is duplication between the "Issues" and "Election Campaign" sections. (The "Issues" section was largely written before the official campaign began, and largely contains guesses at what the Issues would turn out to be). So I'd like to suggest the following changes:

  • A section entitled something like "Analysis" which explains the result (according to the WP:RS).
  • The "Issues" section gets merged into the "Election Campaign" section, with much of it going into a "pre-election campaign" subsection.

Peter Ballard (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to state by state results, the lower house page looks good but the upper house page is a bit bare... does anyone think anything is missing? I was thinking about adding a list of senators elected by state to the page, but is there a way to make it look decent rather than a bunch of text? Same for seats that changed hands by state... a compact table might do but i'm not good at designing tables from scratch... Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It should certainly be consistent, naming all elected senators or none except independents. Naming the Greens' and Family First senators, but not the ALP/Coalition senators looks strange. In fact, elected/continuing Senators could be added as extra columns. Might as well fill it out with real information! Also (minor quibble) I removed any mention of "Seats won" from the "Lib/Nat joint ticket" rows. the Otherwise, it looks good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Ballard (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs attention? I'm not sure how one could write an analysis that gives conclusive reasoning why Labor won the election, without going in to WP:OR territory. Timeshift (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We just cite the analysis of reputable commentators. It's fairly easy, because the commentators were pretty unanimous. I gave 4 cites above. (As to why I haven't tried to add it yet: combination of too busy, and plain forgot). Peter Ballard (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Citing individual articles and commentators to form why the election played out the way it did sort of gets in to WP:SYN territory. Timeshift (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've found two essays which may be of use, both are peer reviewed. "Exit Right" by Judith Brett (Quarterly Essay 28, Black Inc, Dec 2007) and "No, Prime Minister" by Strangio & Walter ("Briefings" series, UNSW Press, Sep 2007) both cover in detail a lot of the minutiae - much of it is sourced to other publications or to news reports over 2007. One example is on p14 of the former: "Much of the time [Rudd] behaved as if he were already in government, holding summits and making major policy announcements... at times of his choosing and stealing much of the limelight at APEC. [...] It takes two to have a fight, and with Rudd refusing to fight on the government's terms, Howard and the government seemed more and more like men boxing with an enemy who was the projection of their own ideological imaginations." It then goes into four separate attempts to impugn Rudd's integrity and how and why each failed. There's a lot of other stuff, but just thought I'd share that while it was fresh in my mind. Orderinchaos 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth largest defeat since federation

Why was this changed to fourth and 1975 with a 30 seat swing removed? I realised that it's different in that the election was engineered via the governor general's dissollution, but an election is still an election. Timeshift (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that comparison with the previous election is more relevant than whether or not the party is in government at the time. I'm not sure why the previous wording was considered inaccurate - did it actually suggest that Whitlam was still in government? JPD (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It previously said "fifth-largest defeat of the previously elected government". Why User:Blueboy96 decided it was "more accurate" to change this is probably a mystery only he can answer. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the change. Fraser was the caretaker PM at the time of the election, so the Whitlam government was not incumbent. Orderinchaos 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be going by seats held and not which of them form the "government"? If not, the wording itself should be changed. Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely the point of the statistic is to record where it ranks in electoral swings in Australian history. It makes no sense to bend the criteria so that the biggest swing in Australian history is omitted. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, Fraser - just like an opposition - had to win seats to form government. In terms of "winning seats so he could form a majority in the House when he couldn't before", the swing Fraser achieved is the largest ever; and this article shouldn't be choosing a wording which rules out 1975. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The issue is the number of seats changing hands, not who was in government. I don't think the previous wording was inaccurate in terms of referring to the government, but it might be clearer if it could be said without mentioning being in government at all. Actually, I don't think it's accurate to describe the largest swing as the largest defeat, anyway. It's not clear whether "largest defeat" should refer to the change from one election to another or the difference between the parties at a single election. JPD (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, it all depends how swings are measured. As a proportion of seats, Labor won 17 out of 75 seats in 1910, which is more than 1/5, which is more than 1983, 1996 or 2007. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well Labor did get a 13 percent swing to them ;-) Timeshift (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to "It was the fourth-biggest swing recorded at an election since 1940 (after 1943, 1975 and 1969), and the largest swing to occur in the absence of a recession, political or military crisis", was Australia still in a recession in 1996? Wasn't the economy improving by this time? Timeshift (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

and the largest - the 1996 swing was smaller than the 2007 one or any of the other above three. Orderinchaos 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there are so many measures of defeat (% swing, % 2PP swing, number of seats, proportion of seats, do we only count elections that unseat a government, do we count elections that unseat a caretaker government, etc.), I propose that any "fourth largest defeat", "fifth largest defeat" etc. claims be sourced. The "fourth largest 2PP swing since 1940" is OK because it has the Mackerras/Steketee source. But the one which originally began this discussion "fourth/fifth largest defeat of a sitting government since Federation" is unsourced, so I suggest we can avoid the whole silly argument by deleting it. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No counter-argument, so I'm deleting it. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macquarie

Doesn't matter, the seat changed from Bartlett to Debus. Should be included. Timeshift (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a very different seat in 2007 to the one in 2004. The election didn't change it from Bartlett to Debus. The redistribution did. You can't count both Parramatta AND Macquarie. Bush shepherd (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think they should both be included, as one went from notional Liberal to Labor, and another had a changing member from Liberal to Labor. Timeshift (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
So if any sitting Liberal MP chooses to contest a Labor seat, and loses, that counts as a Labor gain? Bush shepherd (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The seat was notional Liberal prior to the election. It's a bit like Flynn which was notionally National. It notionally changed parties at the redistribution, then notionally reverted at the election. I don't see where the sitting MP comes in to it. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Macquarie was a notionally Labor seat. [5] You say the sitting MP doesn't come into it. Good! I agree! Have we reached a consensus? Bush shepherd (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant I don't see how the sitting comes in to it in your example. Macquarie was held by Bartlett during the election campaign, and held by Debus after the election. It changed hands. Timeshift (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
He "held" it only in the sense that he won it in 2004. He did not in any sense hold the vastly redrawn seat of Macquarie. It is standard psephological practice to take the redistribution into account when determining gains. That's why Bowman is not counted as a Liberal gain for 2004. Bush shepherd (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Macquarie was held by Bartlett during the election campaign, and held by Debus after the election. I'll let others contribute from this point. Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
So if the seat had been renamed, that would make all the difference? Bush shepherd (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush shepherd has a point (and I thought this was resolved ages ago anyway) - it was not "won" by Labor, it was actually already on the Labor side of the ledger before polling day. Strangely, Parramatta, despite being a Labor-held seat, was won by Labor as it had moved to the Liberal side of the ledger by losing some of its more Labor areas to Reid. Orderinchaos 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a concurrence with me then? Bush shepherd (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If your point is that Macquarie did not switch whilst Parramatta did, then yes. Orderinchaos 08:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was "won" by Labor is debatable. What isn't debatable is that Macquarie changed hands from Liberal Bartlett to Labor Debus as a result of the election. Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. It changed hands as a result of the redistribution. The election reinforced the status quo with regards to Macquarie; it didn't alter it. If you're going to be consistent with your flawed methodology, then you ought to remove Parramatta from the table since Owens was the member for Parramatta before and after the election. Bush shepherd (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes we are going around in circles - I think they should both be included, as one went from notional Liberal to Labor, and another had a changing member from Liberal to Labor. Timeshift (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is precisely the problem. You're applying two different and contradictary standards as to what qualifies as a seat changing hands. Bush shepherd (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If a seat changes parties at an election, or changes notionally, I think both should be included - inclusionist, not contradictory. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's contradictary. You're either comparing it to the previous election, or you're comparing it to its post-redistribution status. The table as it stands is a walking contradiction: it lists both Parramatta and Macquarie as Liberal seats prior to the election. Bush shepherd (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It clearly shows the reality via the sitting member, and the swing be it positive or negative, with notional added etc etc. I'm comparing it to what it was the day before the election. One was notionally Liberal with a sitting Labor MP, the other was notionally Labor with a sitting Liberal MP. Both went to Labor, both should be included with a distinction to what happened, and they do. Minus, notional, etc. Timeshift (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If we were to apply this rather artificial standard, though, it would confuse the issue - for example in 1990, Moore shifted into the northern coastal suburbs of Perth and has ever since been a very safe Liberal seat. It was held by Cec Blanchard, a Labor member, until that election where it was won by Liberal Paul Filing. This was a redistribution as significant as the recent one to Greenway in Sydney, which has lost all of its Labor voting areas and furthermore acquired the most solidly Liberal bits of Macquarie. Noone in their right mind would argue Labor held the new seat of Moore - it was clearly already a Liberal seat when Filing won it. This sort of thing has happened many times in history. Orderinchaos 08:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Was the seat held by a Labor MP before the election and Liberal MP after the election? Or notionally another party's? If so I believe it should be included, and with a rather large minus margin rather than a tiny one. Timeshift (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said Moore was Labor-held before the 1990 election (for several terms) as it included heavily Labor districts such as Midland. Macquarie, the situation was it lost Richmond and Windsor, a solid Liberal area in part because of a nearby military base, and gained Lithgow from Calare which is one of the most Labor-voting areas in New South Wales outside Sydney. The core of the seat was now split between a weak Liberal area in the eastern Blue Mountains (eg Springwood), a Labor-Green area in the western Blue Mountains (particularly Katoomba) and a strong Labor around Lithgow, with some smaller Liberal rural areas which made little difference to the overall picture. So the seat wasn't even the same seat as the one run at the 2004 election. Same with Greenway, although it had already switched in 2004 - it lost Blacktown and all the Labor areas in its south and gained the aforementioned Richmond-Windsor area. Orderinchaos 09:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What point are you trying to make? The seat changed parties at the election, thus it should be under seats changing parties. The uniqueness is explained by the small (or large) negative margin. Timeshift (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm making the point that the seat did not "shift", as at the time of the election it was defined as a Labor seat. The only swing relevant is from the post-redistribution figure to the election figure - this is the opposite to what occurred in Parramatta, where a Labor person holding a Liberal seat had to win it for Labor. Orderinchaos 09:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And if it didn't "shift", it shows in the negative margin that the seat was held by. But it still changed parties at the election, Liberal MP before, Labor MP after, or vice versa. The fact it was notional shows. Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) *sigh* Going in circles. It did not change parties at the election - being held by one party before the election and another after means nothing when such a major change occurred to its boundaries that it's demographically no longer the same seat. Misportraying the facts on Wikipedia articles makes us look like irresponsible journalists rather than a credible encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 09:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hardly. If the sitting MP is different to the margin, which is notional by 20 percent due to a redistrib, then it should be there with the sitting MP, and the margin in minus. This shows it is not notionally held by the sitting MP. I fail to see where this falls over. Timeshift (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective your explanation above works perfectly for Parramatta (where it was not notionally the member's but the member managed to win the seat), but not for Macquarie (where it did not notionally belong with the member and the member failed to gain it at election). My view is that when the seat is no longer notionally held by the member, the member is now simply a candidate for a seat at election rather than any special status. Orderinchaos 10:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I disagree as the seat is held by the member until the election and perhaps beyond depending on a swing, so where to from here? Timeshift (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said last time we discussed this, the table should contain either Macquarie or Parramatta, but not both. Having both would stop it being a sensible indicator of anything in particular, and simply make it a list of seats where something changed at some point. As long as it is made clear what the table does and doesn't include, I don't think it is worth arguing over which criteria is used (particularly in this case). JPD (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As I also said before, including Macquarie logically suggests that Gwydir should also be included in some way. JPD (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But Gwydir was abolished, there was no notional change pre-election nor a different party MP after the election. And I wouldn't quite level it down to "simply make it a list of seats where something changed at some point", specifically seats that were a different party, notional or otherwise, prior to the election. Timeshift (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Either we are talking about changes in sitting members, comparing the new house with the old one (which clearly includes the member whose seat no longer existed), or looking at seats won at the election, comparing results with the notional results, treating redistribution changes as something separate which happened before to the election. You could lump all the different scenarios together in terms of "a different party, notional or otherwise", but then the value of the table format in providing clarity is reduced. At the very least, the accompanying text should explain this, but I think it's better to choose one or the other and explain the other changes in the text. JPD (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Both seats have been explained now. Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Having both in the table is still misleading. Orderinchaos 00:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
When one has a negative margin/opposity party mp and the other has notional written there, with above explanations, it is not misleading. Timeshift (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Your latest edit completely ignores the core objection to your original change.

Macquarie was redistributed to a notionally Labor seat, and was a Labor gain at the election.

Labor cannot 'gain' a seat that was already theirs. Bush shepherd (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But they can notionally gain a seat that they notionally lost at the redistribution. Timeshift (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, again, that applies to Parramatta. But not Macquarie. You can't gain something you've already been given. Orderinchaos 02:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in Macquarie, they actually gained a seat that they had notionally gained at the redistribution. I think have both in the table is either misleading or confusing, depending on howmuch attention people pay to it. JPD (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: I propose to use the text under the seats changing hands to mention the redistribution changes (Parramatta, Macquarie, Gwydir, Flynn) and to use the table list only the commonly ascribed "gains". This would be consistent with the 2004 layout where Bowman and McMillan are mentioned only in the text, and not listed in the table. Bush shep (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Orderinchaos 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How does that differ from the previous way? It doesn't. Timeshift (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That was the consensus last time we discussed it. It does make the most sense. JPD (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Yes it's a restoration to the way it was. Seeing as we couldn't find any common ground, I think it's only sensible to go with the majority viewpoint. Note also too that the one cited source, the ABC, does not include Macquarie as a Labor gain. Bush shep (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calare

The ABC doesn't include this as a "gain" either. In Antony Green's words, "Calare has been re-classified as a notional National Party seat." There might be some objection to this, that's why I'm putting it up for discussion. If Calare is to be included in the table it needs to be presented better than it was: the incumbent party was independent but the margin was NATvALP. Bush shep (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know we reached consensus. Oh that's right, we didn't. Reverted. Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have already noted, we tried to reach a consensus but none could be reached. I proposed a solution which had two concurrences and only one objection. I defend my action as the sensible course to take. You on the other hand, arrogantly insist that in the absence of a consensus your opinion trumps everything else.
I protest in the strongest terms your outrageous and bullish editing. Bush shep (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Calare was made into a safe National seat by the boundary changes. Prior to this, Calare had been a Labor-National balance, with the 70% Labor booths around Lithgow and the 50%+ ones around Bathurst offsetting the rest - this is one reason it was precisely suited to its independent character. Orange, which is Andren's home base, has moved from being at the centre of the electorate to one far end of it. Even Andren had concluded he was unable to win the new seat, although had supported Gavin Priestly's campaign with TV ads in the area. Every reliable source I read (including Mackerras, Green and the AEC) had it marked as a Nats seat. Orderinchaos 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, so Calare's in the same basket as Macquarie. At what point does Timeshift lose his right to veto any change made to this section? Bush shep (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's not the way Wikipedia works - fact is that he holds one opinion and you and I hold quite a different one. Ours is validated by AEC, Mackerras and Green - probably the three most prominent authorities on this - while there is a philosophical consistency to his argument (although not his insistence on including *both* in the table) and in a historical (or even state) sense where information is less available than it is for the present, it holds well. However, I think at least back to 1977 where, mainly thanks to Mackerras (and if I recall cited by Adam Carr as well) we have that data, we should be using it as it can be cited to a reliable source. Orderinchaos 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, cave in to the most militant editor. Bush shep (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - we should fix it. Orderinchaos 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Been there. Done that.
(cur) (last) 22:27, 21 April 2008 Timeshift9 (Talk | contribs) (100,396 bytes) (Undid revision 207117968 by Bush shep (talk))
(cur) (last) 14:11, 21 April 2008 Bush shep (Talk | contribs) (100,112 bytes) (→Seats changing hands: removed Macquarie and Calare from table, see discussion) (undo)
Bush shep (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
After having it pointed out to me that even the source material cited in the table itself disagrees with maintaining Calare and Macquarie in the table, I've re-removed them, and added a sentence to the paragraph preceding the table. Orderinchaos 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upper house results tables

Does anyone know how to align the Senators elected tables to the right of the results rather than below, as is the style for the maps on the lower house results page? Timeshift (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean but did NSW as a test - feel free to revert if I misunderstood :) Orderinchaos 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes like that, but all the way to the right, like the maps are on the lower. Is it possible? Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. (The maps were done a different way as they're images, but this seems to work for text). [6] Orderinchaos 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McEwen

I'm trying to figure out where this is up to, the only recent article I can find is this which doesn't say much at all, except that whilst the ballot papers can be viewed "in some way", legal representatives can't gain access to the ballot papers. Wah? Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Giving access to the parties is the last thing a court would want to do in a contestable situation - they should be kept in neutral hands and eyes as far as is possible. Orderinchaos 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Court proceedings will recommence next month. [7] It seems a safe bet a by-election will take place. By the way, I don't know what you've got planned for the table, but I think the number of Liberal seats should remain at 55, regardless of the by-election outcome. Bush shep (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Incumbency was identified as a huge factor at the last poll, where people were voting for John Howard and continuity. With that removed from the equation and a Liberal opposition plumbing record lows and unable to form an effective or audible policy response to the new Government, I think McEwen would be a fairly safe gain for Labor. Will be interesting to see if it does, what that says for the 5 marginal WA seats in 2010. Orderinchaos 21:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will be adding McEwen to the Labor result. As Orderinchaos agreed, it is all part of the original 2007 election. Future by-elections (ie gippsland) wouldn't count, but as the mcewen by-election replaces the 2007 election result, it is counted in the 2007 election. So the table would become 84 to 54. Thanks :-) Timeshift (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's where I diagree. The result has been declared, the writs have been returned and Bailey has taken her seat. It's not a "replacement" election, it's a by-election. Bush shep (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If the court rules that a by-election must be held, it is because of the discrepancies of the counting. It fell to Labor then to Liberal, and for the court to rule it invalid and call a by-election means neither previous result was valid. Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if the court rules the result invalid, it doesn't change the fact that the Liberal Party won it at the election. (The fact that there was a recount is a bit of a red herring.) Bush shep (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If the court rules that the original declaration was invalid due to a flawed couunting process, then the Liberal Party won't have won it at the election, whoever wins the by-election will have won it at the 07 election. Timeshift (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The election is done and dusted. Here's the results for McEwen. There's a reason it's called a by-election. Bush shep (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The election in McEwen is done and dusted until a court rules that the results for it were invalid. Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a difficult one. How was Mundingburra in Queensland 1995 and Lindsay in Fed 1996 handled? That may be instructive... (I would look myself but I'm not on a regular machine) Orderinchaos 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Lindsay was won by the same party. Mundingburra saw the ALP's seats reduced from 45 to 44. Antony Green records their original 45. [8] Bush shep (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Antony Green has done many things that we haven't. If the court rules the result invalid, then the Liberals didn't win McEwen. Guy0307 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As the official election return and most reliable sources will note the original and not the final result, it seems that having the correct result as certified in early December, with footnotes on the numbers, is probably the best way to deal with it. If Antony Green is not courageous enough to make such changes, I don't think we on Wikipedia should be pioneers. Orderinchaos 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If the 07 result is ruled invalid, then we are not hostage to Antony Green or anyone else except consensus. But I think this is rather pointless until it happens anyway so how about we let this rest until we have to cross the bridge. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We are, however, hostage to policy. Orderinchaos 03:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bellwethers

Is it noteable to add that Leichhardt wasn't mentioned by commentators like Eden-Monaro was in terms of being a Bellwether? I would suspect it is because Entsch held it with a 10 percent margin prior to the election. Both have the same bellwether credentials in modern electoral times - correct since 1972. Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll leave that sort of thing to the opinion columns of the newspapers - it really has no place on an encyclopaedia. Even if one takes the idea that Eden-Monaro is a bellwether, Leichhardt is not as it has no demographic similarities to the rest of the country - it's basically holiday resorts, a regional city and a huge number of Aboriginals - and so its shifts over and above the 50 line over various elections (affected by almost constant redistribution as with every Queensland seat) are largely coincidental. Eden-Monaro, on the other hand, contains urban, provincial and rural areas and a mix of age groups. That being said, none of this is remotely encyclopaedic as the relationship is not in any sense causative. Orderinchaos 03:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the definition of a bellwether? Yours sounds quite selective... Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is there is no definition - it's a pop notion, it certainly doesn't appear in any reputable publications. I've been following a number of Wikipedia's major disputes recently and the importance of using reliable sources and avoiding dud science cannot be overestimated. Orderinchaos 03:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And if that definition comes from news articles that state EM is a bellwether for falling to the governing party since 1972? That would be a pop notion contained within a WP:RS wouldn't it. But that is a contradiction in terms... Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Opinion pages of a newspaper are not RS - this has been argued out before elsewhere. Otherwise we'd have to start calling Andrew Bolt or Piers Akerman a reliable source. News articles are not, in any sense, academically sound publications - they don't go through anywhere near the level of peer review or fact checking that academic journals and papers do, nor do they have the same purpose (they aim to sell copy, not promote the growth of knowledge). This article is probably going to be extensively reworked once the sources become available (at a guess June), many of them are still in the review stage as we speak. Orderinchaos 03:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So this is WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not from the point of view of creating new concepts, no. That's generally left to the political scientists, not the journalists with whatever qualifications they may hold (not all even hold a BA, for the record). Orderinchaos 08:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
How does that explain excluding EM being a bellwether since 1972 coming from WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

‹ 2004 Flag of Australia Next ›
Australian federal election, 2007
All 150 seats to the Australian House of Representatives
24 November 2007
Government Opposition
Leader Kevin Rudd John Howard
Party Labor Liberal/National coalition
Leader since 4 December 2006 30 January 1995
Leader's seat Griffith Bennelong
Last election 60 seats 87 seats
Seats won 83 65
Seat change +23 -22
Popular vote 6,545,759 5,874,104
Percentage 52.70% 47.30%
Swing +5.44 -5.44
PM-Elect
Kevin Rudd
Labor

I got this from United Kingdom general election, 2001. Is it a good idea, and can the remains be fixed up? Timeshift (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think John Howard should look quite so happy, and you know my views on that earwax-chewing photo of Rudd. I also note that this was not an election for Prime Minister. We've had previous elections where no party gained a majority and who became PM was up to the MPs. --Pete (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting comments for the infobox itself. It wasn't an official but a defacto election for the Prime Minister, and is exactly what the UK election pages have, with a similiar electoral system. What about previous elections where no party gained a majority? I'd say it would look more or less like it is now with a Liberal/National tally. Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly needs to be adapted, but is the best I've seen so far of any of the proposals. Orderinchaos 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The UK system is very different to ours. We're federal with an elected upper house, for starters. Not to mention cumpulsory preferential voting, which the Poms don't have.
My own preference is that this particular template sucks. It's too big, for one thing. I'm not against a template per se, but I think we can do better. How about we make a really good one and then force it on the Poms? --Pete (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The lower house decides govt, not the upper. As OIC said, it can be adapted anyway. What about compulsory voting? It's indicated in the results tables... Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was an election for the HoR and half-Senate. We can't ignore the Senate results. For one thing, this election saw the demise of the Democrats, a fairly significant event in federal politics. --Pete (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't that the 2004 election? (Unless you mean their final removal from Parliament) Orderinchaos 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The 2004 election returned no Democrats, but there were still Dems sitting and they stood for re-election, as well as having a swag of ever-hopeful candidates. None were elected this time. In a couple of months, when the Senate term ends and the newly-elected class take their seats, for the first time in decades there will be no Democrats. This is a direct result of the 2007 election. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure i'm happy with having Labor as the government and the coalition as the opposition. Howard was not leader of the opposition directly before or after and Rudd/Labor only became the government a week after the election. It should be the Government/Opposition as they were when the election was held. 58.110.149.65 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point actually - hadn't noticed that one. It should be the state on the day of the election - i.e. before votes from the election itself are counted. Orderinchaos 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed on main page. Orderinchaos 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - the point of adding incumbent and PM-elect was to stop the confusion, as per what they did on the UK pages. Now you have John Howard and 65 seats bolded! Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically what the thing wasn't saying was "The Government went to an election. It lost." The bolding is neither here nor there - it seems to me like a design flaw in the template. If we choose to adapt it this would be one thing I'd look at (another one is that "popular vote" and "2PP" are quite different animals). Orderinchaos 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What's this "PM-elect" nonsense? This election wasn't for a Prime Minister. It was for 150 members of the House of Representatives and 40 Senators. Not one of whom selects or appoints the Prime Minister. The only person capable of choosing or appointing a Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and I can think of at least five times when he has selected a Prime Minister who did not command majority support in the Lower House. In four of these cases the Prime Minister went on to be appointed. The Prime Minister does not have to be a member of the House of Representatives, and this has occurred at least twice, nor does he have to be elected at all, which has occurred once, and could happen again (although unlikely, the provision remains in the Constitution, and one can imagine a situation in which a senior political party figure, appointed to the Senate through a casual vacancy, becomes Prime Minister).

The ignorant may think, through the increasingly presidential style of election campaigns, that this is an election for Prime Minister, but as an encyclopaedia we should not be reinforcing ignorance. We should present the facts, even if some editors appear to be unaware of what is fact and what is popular myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs)

I have some sympathy for that view. However, even if they are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, the prime minister has since at least the 1920s has been undisputably the leading Government minister and the public face of their government. This is an ideological issue that has very little to do with the infobox - it's the role of the article (and especially the lead) to explain and elaborate these sorts of things. Orderinchaos 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Prime Minister is, of course, the head of government. That's undisputed. My point is that a federal election is not an election for Prime Minister. It's not even an election for the people who will elect the Prime Minister. --Pete (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at similar countries which use this template (UK, India and Canada) they're all in the same position as us, and like us have Westminster systems where the prime minister is chosen by an obtuse method particular to their party, so it's really an academic argument. What we've got with this template is way better than any of the manual or partially-templated predecessors and allows for easy maintenance and rapid generation. Orderinchaos 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not an academic argument at all. The people don't choose or elect the Prime Minister. Neither do party members or MPs. They might vote for the person they want to be PM, but nobody elects the PM because he is chosen and appointed by the Governor-General. It's not even particularly rare - about 20% of Australian Prime Ministers were appointed without having won an election and without commanding majorities in the Lower House. "PM-elect" is just plain wrong. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I revert the infobox to the old one alltogether? Because the infobox was designed to get around the issue of who was who at the election. It has a section for incumbent and PM-elect (PM-elect term valid per all the WP:RS at the election), but as a result we now have John Howard and 65 seats bolded as the winner? Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say Howard won, it says he was leader of the government going into the election, which is entirely correct. Orderinchaos 09:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is Howard and 65 seats bolded? It is designed for the winner, see the template being used. You are too used to old thinking with the old template, the new template is designed to show which party took government in the election, and indicates what they were via incumbent and PM-elect. Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In which case the hardcoding in the template needs to be parameterised. Orderinchaos 09:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't like this at all. It seems to imply that John Howard was/is Leader of the Opposition. Agree with ip above, should be the Government/Opposition at the time of the election Jmount (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is United Kingdom general election, 1997 wrong then? This is how the election infobox is designed, it has the majority of seats bolded (not the minority, it doesnt work like that), the swings, and who the incumbent and pm-elect were. Can anyone advise of any other countries on wikipedia where their election infoboxes have an opposition going to incoming government as being in the opposition part of the infobox? It is rather amusing of the view I advocate now considering I defended keeping Labor in the opposition box with the previous infobox version, rather ironic. Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" is a very good Cranberries album, but sadly not a sound modus operandi, especially when the result defies common sense. My philosophy is always that one should do whatever makes the most sense, and if something is broken, we fix it. At the end of the day the infobox is not worth this much fuss - if it really is so problematic that the numbers are bolded on the wrong side, then we can use ParserFunctions to create a variable which switches them. The contents of the article (and especially its currently rather bland lead paragraph) deserve more of our attention. Orderinchaos 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't patronise with the sofixit tag, suffice to say that people seem to be inclined to have a talkfest about it but not actually give examples like the one above, and are prepared to leave the page incorrect. It would be great if we can discuss a proposal with an example at hand, ensuring that whatever is on the page is right. But again, how does it defy common sense? If everyone else is doing it, there must be a reason for doing so. I believe that's why the incumbent and PM-elect were added to this infobox design, to accommodate the situation for which you are concerned of. Timeshift (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found in a lot of cases in Wikipedia that the reason everyone else is doing it is everyone *else* is doing it, and noone can ever figure out what the original reason was, assuming there even was one. However, the sensible reason is that the top left says "Government", the top right says "Opposition", and the only government on election day is the one whose term expires that day, even though it is in caretaker mode at that point. To tell visitors otherwise is to confuse the heck out of them, and it doesn't bother me that I'm challenging a completely faulty British precedent on that one. Orderinchaos 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So the coalition was the caretaker government on election day? Timeshift (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, and even after it for about a week if I recall. Orderinchaos 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I note the word government. Timeshift (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see your point - you appear to be making mine. Orderinchaos 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We could, of course, think outside the square... Timeshift (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox should be a) talk page version - show government as winner with incumbent and PM-elect listed per United Kingdom general election, 1997 or b) article version - show government prior to election as government, with incumbent and PM-elected listed?
User: A B
Timeshift
Orderinchaos
Jmount
Total people supporting: 1 2

I don't think it's a big deal whether the incumbent or the "winner" is shown first - the point is that sensible labels are used. If they are labelled "Government" and "Opposition", then the government should be the incumbent (especially since we are showing the leaders at the time of the election). If we wish to put the winners first, tehn they should be labelled as "Majority" or something like that. JPD (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another label could be used, i'm not against that. You could also take the view that whilst Howard was voted out of his seat and didn't return in any form, Rudd/Labor was voted in to govt while Howard/Liberal was voted in to opposition. Nelson/Liberal and the rest is irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)