Talk:Next South Australian state election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Next South Australian state election 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.

[edit] Workcover

Is it worth mentioning this as it would appear to be the biggest issue (albeit at less than two years) moving toward the election? Timeshift (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably original research to start developing issues sections until the parties themselves actually start running with specific issues. The ACT election is this October, and I can pretty much tell what the major issues are likely to be, but since neither party has actually started campaigning in earnest, any section would be more the work of my informed opinion than a real coverage of actual election issues. Rebecca (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely though there must be something to indicate why Labor has dropped from 61 percent to 53 percent on 2PP, yet the preferred premier rating from july 2007 onward when 2pp really took a dive, remained pretty much the same. The polling is not moving on preferred premier because the opposition supports the government's WorkCover changes, so it isn't a vote changer - the decreased 2PP would therefore simply be a protest at the changes. I do think that in some way WorkCover should be noted, whilst I agree with you on OR, how else can the polling be explained? Timeshift (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be possible to do that without it becoming OR if you can cite political commentators/academics arguing that that was the case. Otherwise, I'm afraid it'd be stretching into OR.
More broadly, though - even in terms of explaining polling - I think it's too early to be talking about an election campaign so far out. There's no guarantee that the polling will be the same when the election rolls around, and there's no guarantee that the issues being talked about now will have much relevance at all in two years time. In the ACT, which I've been working on - and where we are in an election year - the issues are quite different from those of two years ago (and there were some pretty big ones then).
I think there isn't much that can really be said (beyond preselections) up until a few months before the election, at least until the parties go into campaign mode - otherwise it really is OR, as anyone would be kind of picking out the issues based on their own opinion, which may or may not be borne out. I'm still not comfortable doing that with the ACT - while some of the issues are fairly clear (especially what the minor parties are running on, because they're noisy and make the news), it really isn't clear what sort of issues the Labor-Liberal battle will come down to in October.
Two things you could definitely do, though: I know the Liberals have completed their preselections, so those details could go in the article. It might also be worth getting a list of retiring MPs going (since there are some who've already made their intentions clear - Gunn comes to mind). Rebecca (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polling

I'm not so sure if (at this stage at least) it's worth the space. Roy Morgan has been proven time and time again to be super unreliable, and we already have the latest newspoll with a link to all previous historical newspolls as the reference. Timeshift (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing Roy Morgan. Timeshift (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR or not?

I was going to add:

The two party preferred swing of 12.1 percent required by the Liberals is the mathematical uniform swing required to gain 9 Labor seats to form a majority government. Swings are seldom uniform, although differences between varying swings tend to cancel each other out.

Is there any WP:OR in that, but furthermore should any of the non-alp/lpa members get a mention. The SEO final redistribution report in 2007 states 'Given that the evidence before the Commission suggested that those four members generally vote with the government, this means that in practical 14 terms, Labor governs with 32 seats, a majority of 17 on the floor of the House.' ([1], page 13). I was of the understanding Maywald would side with Liberal over Labor if the seats fell in such a way, however there's many things in there to indicate otherwise.

And should Mt Gambier be mentioned, because assuming the Liberals pick up Mt Gambier (Perryman controversially beat Gandolfi for preselection[2] so who knows) that pegs 9 back to 8, and a uniform swing of 10.2 rather than 12.1 Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do much without straying into WP:OR isn't it? I think it's now safe to say that the Libs can expect to win Mount Gambier even with a 0% swing, and so they can get the 9 seats they need with a 10.2% (assuming we're not double counting Mt. Gambier). We should also mention that if the Liberals win 6 to 8 seats, balance of power would be held by indepedents Karlene Maywald, Bob Such and Kris Hanna. Hanna would almost certainly support the ALP, while Such and Maywald are harder to predict, but I don't think we should say that without a cite. (Maybe Hanna has publicly stated he would back Labor?). Peter Ballard (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Anything like "tend to" or "is likely to" is pretty much WP:OR. Keep in mind for example the 1987 federal as a counterpoint where the Labor party decreased in 2PP but gained several (4 I think?) seats from the Coalition. Orderinchaos 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)