Talk:Sarah Hanson-Young
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Article needs work
This reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. Peter Ballard 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It could also use to be updated. I believe she won her election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.250.105 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Free-use image
If someone could message the user of this photo to remove 'nc' out of his cc-sa license, that would be a freely useable image on wikipedia rather than use the non-free image currently being used. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What got SHY elected?
Considering the lack of movement in the primary vote in the Greens in SA, whose preferences were the main contributor? Xenophon? Labor? Timeshift (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know you found a reference attributing it to Nick Xenophon preferences,[1] but I believe the reference is wrong. Xenophon got 1.0346 quotas, so only 0.0346 of a quota (at most) flowed on to Hanson-Young. So the Xenophon preferences were a small (I would suggest insignificant) part of the equation. I did some analysis suggesting the biggest factor was the Democrats, who preferenced Family First ahead of the Greens in 2004. I'll post something later. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah Hanson-Young was elected on Labor preferences. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmapoliceman (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've corrected the information and added the ABC site as a more authoritative reference. ajdlinux | utc 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yeah but why is it that in 2004 Greens preferences elected the 3rd Labor member, but in 2007 Labor preferences elected the Greens member? Especially since the Greens and Labor primary vote was virtually unchanged since 2004? The answer is that Greens did better in preference flows than in 2004, while Labor did worse. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)