Talk:2010 Australian federal election/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Country Liberal colour

Shouldn't the Country Liberals' colour be like an orange-brown colour? Their website isn't blue... --Surturz (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No. It gives a misleading impression; it was an orange-brown colour once, and it made it look like they were Democrats or something. The colour of the main conservative parties in Australia is blue, and it's common to use that; see here, for example. The blue clarifies their position as the Coalition party in NT, and also prevents confusion, which believe me is what we had before. I'd also observe that the ochrey colour is a colour associated with the NT, which could be why they use it on their website. Frickeg (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Debate on the inclusion of the infobox of party leaders on 'next' election pages

See here. Timeshift (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes at Larissa Waters please...

It seems Shiftchange wants to promote OR/SYN by saying that she won because Labor failed on climate change. This is plainly making the decision for readers rather than letting them make their own conclusions. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rudd-Gillard Government#Gillard_Government starting to get out of date

Barely a thing mentioned about her policies from the election campaign or otherwise so far... anyone care to take on updating the page? Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

House of Representative results table

To abbreviate or not to abbreviate?

I want:

House of Reps (IRV) — Counted 93.1% (CV) — Informal 5.6%
  Party Votes % Swing Seats Change
  Australian Labor Party 38.0 −5.4 72 −11
  Liberal Party of Australia1 30.5 +0.8 44 −11
  Australian Greens 11.8 +4.0 1 +1
  Liberal National Party (QLD)1 9.1 +0.6 21 +21
  National Party of Australia1 3.4 +0.1 6 −4
  National Party (WA) 0.3 +0.2 1 +1
  Country Liberal Party (NT)1 0.3 +0.0 1 +1
  Independents 2.5 +0.3 4 +2
  Other 4.1 0 0
  Total     150
Two-party-preferred vote2
  Australian Labor Party 50.1 −2.6 72 −11
  Liberal/National Coalition 49.9 +2.6 72 +7

Zachary Klaas wants:

House of Reps (IRV) — Counted 93.1% (CV) — Informal 5.6%
  Party Votes % Swing Seats Change
  Australian Labor Party 38.0 −5.4 72 −11
  Liberal Party of Australia1 30.5 +0.8 44 −11
  Australian Greens 11.8 +4.0 1 +1
  Liberal National Party of Queensland1 9.1 +0.6 21 +21
  National Party of Australia1 3.4 +0.1 6 −4
  National Party of Western Australia 0.3 +0.2 1 +1
  Country Liberal Party (Northern Territory)1 0.3 +0.0 1 +1
  Independents 2.5 +0.3 4 +2
  Other 4.1 0 0
  Total     150
Two-party-preferred vote2
  Australian Labor Party 50.1 −2.6 72 −11
  Liberal/National Coalition 49.9 +2.6 72 +7

The first one is better because we are abbreviating. It is a results table, brevity is king. Liberal National Party of Queensland? Country Liberal Party (Northern Territory)? How hideously bulky. The abbreviations were up for longer than Klaas' version, so to change to his requires consensus. I believe the former table's party names are vastly superior. Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brevity is king unless people who do not live in Australia are scratching their heads going "what does QLD mean?" Also, saying "National Party" and "National Party (WA)" contributes to the distortion that these two are really the same party, and we've been trying to guard against this all this time. The National Party of Western Australia ran as a different and independent entity, not just a division of the Nationals in Western Australia. Also, what I've presented are the official names of all the parties involved (with the exception of the Country Liberal Party, to which I added (Northern Territory) because that party only runs candidates there). The point of Wikipedia is to provide information, not conceal it unless people already know enough about Australia to make sense out of what's been put there... Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
But yet we'd be expected to know what the two letter US-state abbreviations are? Abbreviating states is fine, people who don't know can hover their mouse over the link, or, click it. And the two lots of National Party are both National parties, there is no escaping this. The (WA) is a complete distinction, and, after all, it is seperate from the National Party of Australia. Not to mention the full "of W A" gives it no extra significance. It's distinctive enough for the Nat parties either way, that's not the issue here. Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If people from outside the US complained they didn't know, for example, that MS means "Mississippi" and not "Missouri", I think changing that to reflect the fact that Wikipedia serves the world would be appropriate. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
But the US do it. It's simply a mouse hover or click away, compared to a bulky, full name including state results box. Input from others appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, input from others. Please. But I do have to respond to "but the US do it". Imagine for a moment that someone...oh, anyone...might respond "I don't care in the bloody slightest what the US does with theirs! Good on the US for doing it the way they do it, that's nice for them, and I'm happy for them." (Sound like a familiar argument, gang? Of course it is - it's Timeshift's from when we were discussing the India and Germany election pages. If those cases would be irrelevant to the discussion, it seems to me that so would this be.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Timeshift, I live in the Canadian province of QC. Know where that is without looking it up? Can you do all ten Canadian provinces without looking them up? And three territories?  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Put a wikilink to the abbreviation so I can hover over or click my mouse on it, and i'd be able to tell you quick smart ;) Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
So, that's a "no"? :D (Yes, we're fighting like cats and dogs, but that last comment of yours did make me laugh, Timeshift...) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Your point was invalid because it was not comparing apples and apples. If i'm not part of the 95% who read this page who are from the same country, I can move my mouse over the party name, or, click on the party, to know what the state abbreviation is. This is alongside the fact there is now an marker to indicate which parties are coalition parties. This is a much better solution than having Liberal National Party of Queensland, Country Liberal Party (Northern Territory), and National Party of Western Australia all crammed in to a results table. Let's wait for the input of others rather than bicker here. Timeshift (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but people from all over the world are looking at this page now...it's been linked to the front page of Wikipedia for days. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
How do I make this any clearer? For those 5% or whatever it is of people who don't know what QLD, WA, or NT is, all they have to do is hover their mouse over it, or, click on it. Timeshift (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, guys! Let's take a big breath here. You both have differing opinions and neither of you wants to back down. I see both points of view and don't have a strong view either way. I just don't think this is a big enough issue worth waging a war of words over.

Personally, I would rather see something like this:

House of Reps (IRV) — Counted 93.1% (CV) — Informal 5.6%
  Party Votes % Swing Seats Change
  Australian Labor Party   38.0 −5.4 72 −11
  Coalition          
    Liberal Party of Australia1 30.5 +0.8 44 −11
    Liberal National Party of Queensland1 9.1 +0.6 21 +21
    National Party of Australia1 3.4 +0.1 6 −4
    Country Liberal Party (Northern Territory)1 0.3 +0.0 1 +1
  Australian Greens 11.8 +4.0 1 +1
  National Party of Western Australia 0.3 +0.2 1 +1
  Independents 2.5 +0.3 4 +2
  Other 4.1 0 0
  Total     150
Two-party-preferred vote2
  Australian Labor Party 50.1 −2.6 72 −11
  Liberal/National Coalition 49.9 +2.6 72 +7

-unsigned by sroc.

That is a massively unwieldy table. It conveys nothing extra that the current table doesn't but takes up about twice as much space. Timeshift (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Timeshift. Tony (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What this is, is a hard decision. There’s no question about that. And on my end, it has been an absolute line-ball, points decision, judgment call, six of one, half dozen of the other. This could not get any closer. Agree with Timeshift. - Cablehorn (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Well that was never twice the space! 8-} I only like it for grouping the Coalition parties together, which (to my mind) helps the reader to understand the "two party preferred" figures (you can easily add the seat figures of the grouped parties to get the Coalition 2PP total) and perhaps aid in recognising them visually (regardless of what wording you use). But if people don't like it, c'est la vie. —sroc (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I like Sroc's. I think we're looking for information here, not condensing things to the point that people wonder what was said. I also think the Coalition votes should go together. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Zachary, I don't think anybody's been condensing. IMO you have been the more logical in your reasoning, and more polite. sroc's is wieldy. I think the "1" superscripts make the coalition thing fairly easy to follow. Your's and Timeshift9's are similar ... You want the names/states in full and Timeshift9 wants it more abbreviated. ... Timeshift9's just looks better ... more compact and less blue. Thanks for all your good work. - Cablehorn (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I prefer sroc's version, with a coalition vote grouping. Calling it "massively unwieldy" is ridiculous, Timeshift. It is very slightly bigger. But per Timeshift, I don't think we need the state names in full.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

*I have to ask whether the colours help or hinder. Are they in accordance with WP:ACCESSIBILITY? The shades of green are going to confuse many readers. I find the second-column colours visually messy. Why not drop the colours altogether and find a better way to present the fractionation of the LNP's vote? Tony (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

House of Reps (IRV) — Counted 93.1% (CV) — Informal 5.6%
Party Votes % Swing Seats Change
  Australian Labor Party   38.0 −5.4 72 −11
  Coalition          
  Liberal Party of Australia 30.5 +0.8 44 −11
  Liberal National Party (QLD) 9.1 +0.6 21 +21
  National Party of Australia 3.4 +0.1 6 −4
  Country Liberal Party (NT) 0.3 +0.0 1 +1
  Australian Greens 11.8 +4.0 1 +1
  National Party (WA) 0.3 +0.2 1 +1
  Independents 2.5 +0.3 4 +2
  Other 4.1 0 0
  Total     150
Two-party-preferred vote2
  Australian Labor Party 50.1 −2.6 72 −11
  Liberal/National Coalition 49.9 +2.6 72 +7

—sroc (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • sroc, it's better, but honestly, who could tell the difference between the shades of dark blue? And green. Does it accord with Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY#Color? I'm not colour-blind, but I know a WPian who is, and he gives me trouble when I use colour. Tony (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I understand your concern, so here's my analysis of the accessibility guidelines:

Articles that use color should keep accessibility in mind, as follows:
  • Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information.
The colours are a visual aid to help recognise the parties, but the parties are also identified by name. Therefore, the colours are not essential to receiving the information that would otherwise be conveyed.
I'm not exactly sure what this is getting at, but I think it may apply to having, say, a Venn diagram with a red circle and a green circle overlapping, as someone with colourblindness may not recognise them as two separate circles. I do not think that this is a problem here. The colours are a minimal aspect of the table and are not at all necessary to interpret the data. For example, a colourblind person may not be able to tell apart the red for Labor and green for Greens, but they will recognise them as separate parties because they are on different lines of the table and have their respective names beside them. In any case, I think that it would be inappropriate to replace the official party colours with an arbitrary colour without good reason.
  • Overriding a link color, especially to red, is confusing and should be avoided.
We are not overriding link colours.
  • Be aware of the contrast of both plain text and the blue link text with the background color and avoid clashes where possible (such as blue writing on a red background).
We are not altering the colour of text or background behind text (except for the light grey behind the table headers).
  • If an article overuses colors, add a tag to the top of the article [...] Use the version that is appropriate for the article's variant of English, i.e. {{Overcolored}} or {{Overcoloured}}.
I do not think that this is necessary for the minimal colour coding being used here.
  • Web pages can be checked on-line with AccessColor, which analyzes the HTML source for a web page and the associated Cascading Style Sheets, and then calculates the color contrast and color brightness between the text and background colors to check that they conform with version 1.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
I ran the check on the current article, returning the following result: "The AccessColor results show that for this page,both color difference and color brightness meet the recommended standard."
We are not altering the colour of text or background, so contrast is not an issue.

Certainly, I don't wish to undermine accessibility issues; they are important and very easy for people who are not directly affected by them to take them for granted. If anyone has another view, please let's hear it! Tony, any chance of asking your friend for input? —sroc (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Moved discussion to #Party colours below. —sroc (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the table is fine as is, status quo. Timeshift (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Status quo isn't an argument when others want change and have expressed cogent reasons for wanting it. If we adopt the format I have most recently set out above: Timeshift, Cablehorn and hamiltonstone get their preference for abbreviated names; Zachary, hamiltonstone and myself get the Coalition grouping that we prefer; and I think Tony may be happy with the colour representations, at least better than before. Everyone wins. Can we all get along now? —sroc (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to change from the status quo, that is, the results table used at all Australian elections. Timeshift (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for consensus over table format

I propose that the results table be amended to the following format:

House of Representatives (IRV) — Counted 93.1% (CV) — Informal 5.6%
Party Votes % Swing Seats Change
  Australian Labor Party   38.0 −5.4 72 −11
  Coalition          
  Liberal Party of Australia 30.5 +0.8 44 −11
  Liberal National Party (QLD) 9.1 +0.6 21 +21
  National Party of Australia 3.4 +0.1 6 −4
  Country Liberal Party (NT) 0.3 +0.0 1 +1
  Australian Greens 11.8 +4.0 1 +1
  National Party (WA) 0.3 +0.2 1 +1
  Independents 2.5 +0.3 4 +2
  Other 4.1 0 0
  Total     150
Two-party-preferred vote2
  Australian Labor Party 50.1 −2.6 72 −11
  Liberal/National Coalition 49.9 +2.6 72 +7

The benefits include:

  • The parties in the Coalition are grouped together, making them easier to identify without having to refer to the small footnote symbols and easier to add the numbers to compare with the 2PP figures;
  • The colours for each party are less obtrusive and, by grouping the Coalition parties together, their subtly-different colours are less confusing;
  • The abbreviated wording preferred by some is retained, therefore keeping the table from being to wide and "unwieldy".

I believe that a change from previous elections is warranted in this case because:

  • There are now four Coalition parties in play, whereas previously there have been only two or three (see Australian federal election, 2007, for example, which only had the Liberal and National parties in the Coalition listed).
  • Given that there have been four Coalition parties elected this time around and a fifth related party (National Party of WA) which is not treated as part of the Coalition (despite having the name "National Party" which sounds like it should be part of the Coalition), it is particularly important that the parties that are (or are not) in the Coalition are clearly identified, especially given the impact in this close election.
  • I believe that this change helps to do that better than the existing version (which relies on footnotes), and that we need not be bound by the precedents from past elections where there have not been as many Coalition parties in play.

Agree, disagree, or comment? —sroc (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support the last sroc table. ie. abbreviated, coalition indented, narrower colour cells. –Moondyne 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the last sroc table. I'm still not happy about the abbreviations, but I'm licked on that issue. The grouping of the Coalition parties is also important, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree bulkier, is no longer in percentage order, adds nothing in terms of information, is not the same as the rest of the Oz elections. Timeshift (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the new look. But are the numbers right? Did the LNP of Queensland really win 21 seats? Did the Libs really lose 11 seats? I don't generally focus on these tables, but those numbers look way wrong to me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Those MPs elected off a Liberal Party of Australia preselection dropped from 55 to 44 at this election, so yes, -11 is correct. Those via the LNP went from 0 to 22 at this election. Timeshift (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, grouping the Coalition parties together also makes it easier for the reader to understand the swing. The Liberal Party lost 11 seats, but these were largely picked up by the LNP following its formation in 2008; therefore, it is not as much a Liberal Party loss as the seats were rather reallocated to LNP members, keeping it within the Coalition. It is easier to see that when they appear together (rather than separated by the Greens). —sroc (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Maybe we could show the Coalition totals in the table, making it clear its overall seat tally increased by 7. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I assume that will be accepted by this version of the table's defenders (myself included) as a reasonable addition. The point is to provide information, not to conceal it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The 2PP area shows the change in the number of coalition seats. Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that the best place for it? This is actual numbers of seats we're talking about, not anything to do with proportionalised 2PP numbers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by proportionalised 2PP numbers? The number of seats the Coalition gained is the same regardless of whether it appears in the primary or 2PP area. But what the primary area does is show the raw change between parliamentary parties... they are a coalition, not a party. The 2PP area shows how many seats the coalition gained, because here the coalition can come under one column on a 2PP basis - Labor v Coalition. Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is part of the confusion. In the 2PP section, the only new data is the percentages for Labor and Coalition after preferences; the number of seats aren't really a 2PP figures at all, just an addition of the seat numbers for the individual Coalition parties, which ignores the number of seats won by others. It therefore makes more sense to me that the Coalition totals be included in the top section and the 2PP section only list the 2PP votes/swing rather than the seats. However, if this is going to be the sticking point that prevents consensus on the table format as a whole, I'm not going to put up a fight over it. —sroc (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What he said. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, a lot of stuff to go through here. I support the grouping of the Coalition as done in the example above - it clearly helps identify a major part of all Australian elections, and I for one would be more than happy to see it implemented across the board. I also think that having the number of seats for the two major parties in the 2PP area is a good idea, although a clarifying note somewhere could help seeing as there's a possible interpretation that that number includes the notional status of the non-major-party seats. Frickeg (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the change in table format, and over time applying to previous election tables. I've always found it unhelpful in a range of sources when Australian election results are presented in a way that does not make clear, particularly to those not from Australia, that there is a (relatively!) stable coalition. This is absolutely essential information to quickly reading the meaning of these results and I'm surprised there is any argument about it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

*Outside opinion: I was asked to seek out an independent opinion from another WPian (not Australian) who has dealt with colour issues for some time. He says:

"I think the colours are a bad idea. A single colour isn’t the only aspect of the brands, they branding comes with complete logos. The green party uses a triangle, the Liberal Party uses three rectangles, the LNP uses blue or white letters with a yellow wave. The colours don’t even match those that the parties use. Compare the one shown in WP for Australian Greens with the one used by the party itself at:

http://greens.org.au/greens-logos

Do the same for the other parties and you’ll see that the colours are way off.
The colour for the Liberal/National Coalition is shown as blue but the Nationals use blue, yellow and white.
Either use the logos or abandon the attempt to use correct colours. Then you won’t have to solve a colour-vision problem that is wrong even when solved." Tony (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, no, I think colours will continue. I highly doubt there would be any consensus not to use colours in results tables. Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Just so that we don't cloud the issue, may we break the colour discussion into a separate section? —sroc (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See #Party colours below. —sroc (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support the last sroc table. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support final table. I like the Coalition breakout, it's handy for those who don't understand Australian politics. Orderinchaos 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"House of Reps" vs "House of Representatives"

Apparently now we're having a dispute about whether it should say "House of Representatives" versus "House of Reps". Why stop there? Why not put "H of R"? Even less space wasted? Heck, why not write the entire article in a code only Australians can understand? It also doesn't seem to bother Timeshift that he is, at present, the only person defending this particular abbreviation, while two of us are trying to get rid of it. He's still a one-person consensus, I guess. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not a 2-1 majority. It's a table, house of reps is a well known term and fits better, and is used going back to 1901 and has always been like that. Don't expect to be able to change it on one or a handful or all pages without having first formed consensus. Timeshift (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on "House of Representatives" replacing "House of Reps"?

  • Support changing to "House of Representatives". Again, the focus is on being understood by people in countries that don't have something called a House of Representatives. Note, the "just position your mouse over the words" defence doesn't work here because there is no link to position your mouse over. Also note, the "but what about the Americans?" defence doesn't work either because the Americans have a House of Representatives and would understand the abbreviation, it's people in other countries that wouldn't (including where I live in Canada, where we have a House of Commons). Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree, House of Reps is a well known term and fits better on top of the results table, and is and has always been used on federal elections going back to 1901. It doesn't need the full title or a wikilink or an explanation as the full linked term is mentioned multiple times above it! House of Reps is a short identifier for the table, nothing more. I would have serious trouble believing anyone got to that point of the article without first seeing the term beforehand, and left wondering exactly what it is. Timeshift (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Timeshift. Couldn't have put it better myself. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support change. It is the correct title. Whether "House of Reps" is a "well known" term will depend on who you ask; in any case, it is informal and unencyclopedic, which should be discouraged unless there is good reason otherwise. Someone who glosses over the body text might easily skim to the table heading and not understand. The fact that it is mentioned in the body is no reason to use a phrasing which is informal and, IMHO, just lazy. I don't think that it messes up the table, but even if it means that the table ends up being spaced differently to accomodate a few extra letters, I think it's worth it to use the proper wording. I agree with Timeshift that there should be conformity, and as such, the change should be applied to all such instances. —sroc (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support change. I teach high school kids. The ones who will be voting in the next election. The generation which rushes to Wikipedia for information. Currently they have almost no idea. Don't confuse them with abbreviations that are "well known", but not by them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The purpose is to keep the results heading short. The article mentions "House of Representatives" SEVEN times before it gets to the lower house results table. Are you saying these people will then go omgwtfbbq and rock back and fourth in a foetal position because the eighth mention of House of Representatives is written as "House of Reps" (table heading)? Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Support full name. An important and prominent table like this should show the full and correct title. –Moondyne 02:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Support full name. As it is encyclopedic and Wikipedia is just not for Aussies, it for the world so it is important to be correct. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support full name. The abbreviation is not well-known by most readers. Anthony (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support full name. There is no real reason not to have the full name - I tested it and it's still all in one line. Although if different browsers produce a bulky multiple-line heading, then I'd change to oppose. Frickeg (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is one case when the full version isn't unwieldy, and probably more helpful. Orderinchaos 18:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Party colours

Revising the discussion on the inclusion of party colours in the table:

  • I have to ask whether the colours help or hinder. Are they in accordance with WP:ACCESSIBILITY? The shades of green are going to confuse many readers. I find the second-column colours visually messy. Why not drop the colours altogether and find a better way to present the fractionation of the LNP's vote? Tony (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


How about this?

House of Reps (IRV) — Counted 93.1% (CV) — Informal 5.6%
Party Votes % Swing Seats Change
  Australian Labor Party   38.0 −5.4 72 −11
  Coalition          
  Liberal Party of Australia 30.5 +0.8 44 −11
  Liberal National Party (QLD) 9.1 +0.6 21 +21
  National Party of Australia 3.4 +0.1 6 −4
  Country Liberal Party (NT) 0.3 +0.0 1 +1
  Australian Greens 11.8 +4.0 1 +1
  National Party (WA) 0.3 +0.2 1 +1
  Independents 2.5 +0.3 4 +2
  Other 4.1 0 0
  Total     150
Two-party-preferred vote2
  Australian Labor Party 50.1 −2.6 72 −11
  Liberal/National Coalition 49.9 +2.6 72 +7

—sroc (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • sroc, it's better, but honestly, who could tell the difference between the shades of dark blue? And green. Does it accord with Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY#Color? I'm not colour-blind, but I know a WPian who is, and he gives me trouble when I use colour. Tony (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I understand your concern, so here's my analysis of the accessibility guidelines:

Articles that use color should keep accessibility in mind, as follows:
  • Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information.
The colours are a visual aid to help recognise the parties, but the parties are also identified by name. Therefore, the colours are not essential to receiving the information that would otherwise be conveyed.
I'm not exactly sure what this is getting at, but I think it may apply to having, say, a Venn diagram with a red circle and a green circle overlapping, as someone with colourblindness may not recognise them as two separate circles. I do not think that this is a problem here. The colours are a minimal aspect of the table and are not at all necessary to interpret the data. For example, a colourblind person may not be able to tell apart the red for Labor and green for Greens, but they will recognise them as separate parties because they are on different lines of the table and have their respective names beside them. In any case, I think that it would be inappropriate to replace the official party colours with an arbitrary colour without good reason.
  • Overriding a link color, especially to red, is confusing and should be avoided.
We are not overriding link colours.
  • Be aware of the contrast of both plain text and the blue link text with the background color and avoid clashes where possible (such as blue writing on a red background).
We are not altering the colour of text or background behind text (except for the light grey behind the table headers).
  • If an article overuses colors, add a tag to the top of the article [...] Use the version that is appropriate for the article's variant of English, i.e. {{Overcolored}} or {{Overcoloured}}.
I do not think that this is necessary for the minimal colour coding being used here.
  • Web pages can be checked on-line with AccessColor, which analyzes the HTML source for a web page and the associated Cascading Style Sheets, and then calculates the color contrast and color brightness between the text and background colors to check that they conform with version 1.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
I ran the check on the current article, returning the following result: "The AccessColor results show that for this page,both color difference and color brightness meet the recommended standard."
We are not altering the colour of text or background, so contrast is not an issue.

Certainly, I don't wish to undermine accessibility issues; they are important and very easy for people who are not directly affected by them to take them for granted. If anyone has another view, please let's hear it! Tony, any chance of asking your friend for input? —sroc (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


  • Outside opinion: I was asked to seek out an independent opinion from another WPian (not Australian) who has dealt with colour issues for some time. He says:
"I think the colours are a bad idea. A single colour isn’t the only aspect of the brands, they branding comes with complete logos. The green party uses a triangle, the Liberal Party uses three rectangles, the LNP uses blue or white letters with a yellow wave. The colours don’t even match those that the parties use. Compare the one shown in WP for Australian Greens with the one used by the party itself at:

http://greens.org.au/greens-logos

Do the same for the other parties and you’ll see that the colours are way off.
The colour for the Liberal/National Coalition is shown as blue but the Nationals use blue, yellow and white.
Either use the logos or abandon the attempt to use correct colours. Then you won’t have to solve a colour-vision problem that is wrong even when solved." Tony (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, no, I think colours will continue. I highly doubt there would be any consensus not to use colours in results tables. Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Just so that we don't cloud the issue, may we break the colour discussion into a separate section? —sroc (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow the argument. Is there a colour-vision problem or not? The case seems to be that:
  • "A single colour isn’t the only aspect of the brands" — but they are also, more prominently, mentioned by name. Adding logos would be too cumbersome and unnecessary.
  • "The colours don’t even match those that the parties use" — we can change the colours as needed.
If there is a colour-vision problem, then let's hear about it. But otherwise, I think they should stay. One would think that if this were a big accessibility problem that someone might have brought this up before, considering how long the colours have been around? —sroc (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if there is a colour vision problem (and I will say from the outset that I know little about such things and I'm happy to be corrected if my impression is wrong), it is very clear to me that removing the colours will not help anybody. People are saying it might confuse people; well, no more than not having any colours at all, and that's more than outweighed by the (I'd suggest) considerable majority of people for whom they will help readability. Have a look at that table without any colours and you'll see what I mean. The colours are a clear aid to readability, so they should stay. Frickeg (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But won't hinder a soul. I love the way the owners of this article dismiss the arguments I passed on with a wave of the hand, without so much as engaging with the arguments. Until that happens, it is too early to talk of consensus, unless that is just mob-rule. Tony (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, the assumption of good faith might help people to consider your arguments, rather than throwing accusations of WP:OWN and such like around. I attempted to engage with your arguments; I'm sorry if my evidently feeble attempt has failed to impress you. Perhaps you would consider engaging with some others' arguments yourself. What's more, I actually have some difficulty understanding the point of your comment - what "won't hinder a soul"? With regards to the logos and "official colours", towards which I think your comment may be partially directed, most of the significant ones have been the result of some discussion in the past. The LNP one in particular has a long thread in one of the WT:AUP archives. Effort is made to comply with party logos except when there is some compelling reason not to - the Greens logo may be different, but they are still overwhelmingly associated with something closer to the colour we're using. Frickeg (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm partly colour-blind myself (I am almost unable to tell hybrids of blue and purple apart) but the colours work fine for me. I find myself almost entirely in agreement with Frickeg - there seems to have been a lot of POINTy stuff going on in the last 24 hours or so on Australian election articles. Orderinchaos 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Table changed as per clear consensus

I went ahead and changed over the table since it's clear we have a consensus for change on both of the issues being debated.

A question...are we indeed going to calculate overall totals for the Coalition? I support this, and would have implemented this change myself as well, but I'm unclear how we are counting "swing" for the Coalition, given that the National Party of Western Australia ran outside the Coalition for this election despite having been unproblematically part of the coalition in the last election. So I'm leaving this to the people who have been doing the swing calculations for the parties to implement. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It has actually been separate since 2001, by the way. That being said, they only ever ran in one seat before this and they didn't get anywhere near the vote they did on this occasion. Orderinchaos 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We should only add the percentages and swings in that have been calculated by the AEC that make up 100% and seat totals to 150. We should not put combine the coalition vote and seats, that's what the two-party area is for. If we didn't, we'd have a primary total % in the 140s and a seat total in the 220s. The coalition is a coalition not a party, a party receives primary votes (and 2PP, at the bottom) and wins seats. Timeshift (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

New results tables

Unless the 2010 (and 2007) state by state lower/upper and all other federal results tables back to 1901 are changed quickly, i'll be reverting the results table in this article back to the standard consistent format. It's sheer laziness to change one table over with an apparent new consensus only to leave every other single table on the old format, leaving the entire project looking extraordinarily unprofessional. Timeshift (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Give them a bit of time to do this, they may not be up early on a Sunday like us. Now we have consensus for a new look table, would you not need consensus to change the table back? Just throwing the question out there. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If the rest of the results tables aren't changed then there is no consensus for the reasons stated above. People can't scream consensus and then not do the work. What should have been done is leave the table until said person has the time up their sleeves to change at a minimum, the results tables for 2010 and 2007, perhaps back several elections, but really, all of them in a quick space of time. It is absolutely horrible that the summary 2010 results tables were changed, while the state by state tables (and every other federal election table) was not touched. Timeshift (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift, that is a manifestly indefensible point of view from the perspective of either WP standards or common sense. I'd be glad to help change over the other pages. I changed over this one, and it's not that hard. I may not have it done in an infinitesimally small amount of time, but I can get it done in a few days. But if you're just going to revert because you can, after clearly not having consensus to support your version of the table (on any topic except the state abbreviations, which remain), I would hope other people besides me would indicate they have a problem with that as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you're willing to have all 2010, 2007, and all previous federal result tables changed over in the next few days, then although to me it's not preferable, it's acceptable. Timeshift (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I can at least do the House of Representatives tables over. I'm not aware that we had any consensus decision about changing any Senate tables, so I wouldn't change those. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
And this is where problems start. Why would we have two different standards of results tables for the two houses of federal parliament? Consistency, please... Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The House of Representatives and Senate tables were already inconsistent given that the two houses are elected by different means (IRV versus STV). Even in your old versions of the 2010 tables, the breakdown by party was different. In the House of Representatives tables you broke things down by individual party, whereas in the Senate tables you grouped all the Coalition parties into one single line. I'm saying I have no mandate to change the Senate tables for a reason, and unless you want to take charge of some new standard for the Senate tables, then I presume we'll just be leaving them alone. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
For that matter, the state-by-state tables appear not to be consistently done to any specific standards either, so I'll restrict my attentions to the federal House of Representatives tables. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to things like colour spacing for the Senate tables. And what do you mean there's no consistency across state results? Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean there isn't. Check out Victorian state election, 2006, for example - looks nothing like any table that's ever been on this page. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to state by state results on the 2010 and 2007 pages. Different parliaments have different standards, my issue is one parliament having different standards. Please ensure that all federal tables are changed over for consistency, thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, still don't see what you mean. There's a table for seats changing hands, otherwise I don't see any more tables in those articles. I don't see what has to change in the seats changing hands tables, if that's what you're suggesting to change. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you not aware that we have 9 results tables for the lower house and 9 results tables for the upper house for the 2010 and 2007 elections...?
Full national and state-by-state lower house results and maps for the 2010 Australian federal election?
Full national and state-by-state upper house results for the 2010 Australian federal election?
Timeshift (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh. No, I wasn't. Thanks for clueing me in, and yes, I can fix those as well. May be busy for a bit with all that, but can do. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick question - are there any other pages for past elections - like the ones given above by TimeShift9? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did 2007 last election too. But that's it apart from a national table for lower and upper for each federal election going back to 1901. What's it got to do with table format coding consistency? Timeshift (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 09:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I found the pages interesting and informative and I wanted to look at some more but couldn't see a link to any other. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you only just see them now? They've been main article links under the results headings in the article for a while now... well... the lower house one anyway, the upper is new. Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, only just saw them now with your links above. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift:

  • Consensus has been formed to change the format of the results table in this article. This has been done at your insistence that consensus be formed. If you want to change it back, you need to form a new consensus;
  • I have stated reasons above why it can be argued that it is more important in this election than other past elections to group the Coalition parties (i.e., there are more of them, making it harder to follow otherwise), so there is no sense of urgency to change the others;
  • Putting aside the question whether the consensus extends to amending all of the other results tables (as it has not been discussed as length), assuming that it has, this will take some time. It is not for you to set an arbitrary deadline for this to happen with a threat to revert the change and undermine consensus (see Don't demolish the house while it's still being built). If you are so concerned about consistency, why don't you free to help out by implementing the changes yourself instead of criticising and threatening the work of others. If you don't have the time right now, appreciate that others might not have time right at this second either, so sit tight and give others the chance to roll out the changes. Wikipedia does not have a print deadline.

—sroc (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Full results and maps

CanberraBulldog and Zachary Klaas said on this talk page that neither of them were aware of Full national and state-by-state upper house results for the 2010 Australian federal election or Full national and state-by-state lower house results and maps for the 2010 Australian federal election‎, despite both of these being main article links in this article, directly underneath the lower and upper house sub headings. My question is, are other people not noticing these, and if so, why not? How could they be more prominent? Perhaps people are just skimming past the entire article and going straight for the points of interest within the article that interest them? Timeshift (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think these links are fine - up until you brought up these pages in conversation with me, I hadn't really been looking for that information. If I were looking for it, I'm sure those links would have directed me to the information. And yes, Timeshift, people skim Wikipedia. I hope that doesn't come as too huge a shock.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought you'd have memorised every last word ten times over by now :) What about Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010? But seriously, I would have thought the prominence of the links would have exposed themselves clearly to readers regardless of whether they were looking for them. Maybe not. Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tuckey breaks his silence and lets loose on Crook

See here and here. Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Wilson certainly seems likely leave a gap in parliamentary rhetoric stakes. I know nothing of his successor's background, but any fame he ultimately gets is bound to be less controversial than Tuckey's. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope that we've elected someone as entertaining as Wilson this time around; watching him get kicked out was the only interesting part of question time under the last government. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
interesting to me is that it looks like Crook won on ALP and Green preferences. --Surturz (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone not elected on over 50 percent of the primary vote is elected off of somebody's preferences... typically the ones that polled less, by way of eliminating the candidates that polled the least amount of votes until two are left. This tends to be how the system works :) (I couldn't let that Coalition line you gave stand!) Timeshift (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-classic 2PP count resumes...

Non-classic (two-candidate preferred) divisions page has Melbourne, Lyne and O'Connor currently being counted (see respective seat links). Early days but interesting large swings to the LNP so far... but a 2CP vote does tend to muddy the 2PP waters. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The large swings are based on tiny percentages of the vote, and further examination shows these to be the postals/declaration votes which typically favour the Coalition anyway. Orderinchaos 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that, and the WA count is incorrectly Labor vs National, not Labor vs Liberal. Might have to contact the AEC about that. Orderinchaos 13:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM, sources, and "percentage point" vs. "percentage"

Expecting WP's style guidelines to be applied in this respect has earned me personal attacks (Rebecca has plastered all over the place that I have a "fetish"—comments that would result in a block for many editors) and accusations of WP:original research; Timshift has followed up with sarcastic comments on my talk page, and expressed an assumption that WP is a democracy (i.e., the majority rules ... wrong, I'm afraid—see the Pillars.

There are two behavioural problems at issue here, apart from WP:NPA: the first is a strong sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which won't cut the mustard for one moment. The second is WP:OWNERSHIP, in which Timeshift is clearly the owner of this and other articles, and pushes other editors around. While his dedication to the upkeep of this article is admirable (and his good judgement in most cases, too), this does not give him the right to beat up other editors, as I've seen him do—ask and I'll diff you to a good example where he has turned an editor off contributing. He has also been aggressive towards me on this very page (see the archives).

Now, on the matter of percentage points, MOSNUM says:

  • Avoid ambiguity in expressing a change of rates. This can be done by using percentage points, not percentages, to express a change in a percentage or the difference between two percentages; for example, The agent raised the commission by five percentage points, from 10 to 15% (if the 10% commission had instead been raised by 5%, the new rate would have been 10.5%). It is often possible to recast the sentence to avoid the ambiguity (raised the commission from 10% to 15%). Percentage point should not be confused with basis point, which is a hundredth of a percentage point.

A quick search of the SMH site yielded 4232 examples of "percentage point". Although these often concern interest rate changes, they often concern other changes or comparisons of percentage values, such as this article, on 4 September. In clear contrast to the use of "percentage" in the rest of that article, when the value relates to 100 (rather than of an already-expressed percentage), "percentage point" is used to clarify:

It thus took just 15 seconds to confirm that a major Australian source is in accord with what MOSNUM directs for the clarity of our own text. To breach this practice would lead to the untenable situation in which readers would left in the dark: "the ALP's vote of 30% rose by more than 10% (can you tell whether by 3 points, up to 33%, or by 10 points, up to 42.0%?). Often you can work it out with reasonable certainty, but sometimes you can't.

Saying that "Oh, they always mean the latter" is unsatisfactory: sometimes they don't, actually; and readers should be left in no doubt. For example, just what the statement that Rebecca reverted to yesterday in this article means is beyond me: "saw the Nationals' Darren Chester retain the seat with a 6 per cent margin increase". Huh? The "IDONTLIKEIT" mentality that ignores the sources and our very own guidelines, and makes wild accusations of OR, is encouraging this kind of sloppiness.

When expressing numerical values, we need to be precise and unambiguous. I suspect that some people here can't quite get their heads around the difference between subtracting and dividing that underpins the crucial distinction between percentage and point. Tony (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the vast majority of Australian reliable sources on this matter in favour of your own personal preferences. You carefully ignore most sources in favour of a selective one that suits your opinion; as even you admit, most of the SMH results for "percentage points" refer to interest rates, where such wording is acceptable, not here, where it is an uncommon usage to say the least. You can attack me all you like, but as I've pointed out previously, Wikipedia's prohibition on the inclusion of original research trumps any style guideline. Rebecca (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, we're not back to this again, are we? We've already had a big discussion on this here, where the consensus was pretty clear - including a quote from Antony Green explaining why it's still correct to use percent. I really can't see much value in going over the same arguments all over again. I'd also like to re-iterate that this is a very minor issue, and is not worth wasting this amount of time over. The matter was discussed, consensus (which does not mean "the majority rules") was achieved, and that should be the end of the matter. Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony: On the first issue, thank you for expressing what I think needed to be said. I, too have seen IDONTLIKEIT and OWNERSHIP, from Timeshift in particular, blocking any change that he/she doesn't like, and insisting on forming CONSENSUS on every detail, sometimes without giving a reason (contravening Don't revert due to "no consensus"; see this discussion). Now, even when consensus has been formed and he/she doesn't like the result, Timeshift is making threats to undo the work to accord with his/her personal views. In this climate, Wikipedia cannot evolve.
Rebecca: Please note that Tony was referring to Wikipedia policy, not personal preferences. Please do not turn this into a personal attack because you don't like the established policy. The policy has presumably been developed over time by people who have given the matter a lot of thought. If you disagree with the policy, discuss in on the policy talk page and give your reasons in an effort to form a new consensus.
Frickeg: Thank you for referring to the earlier discussion, which is more productive that mud slinging.
That said, I note that the word used on the AEC website used as the reference is "swing", so why are we using "margin increase" which creates a certain ambiguity? I suggest the following wording: "...the Nationals' Darren Chester retain the seat with a swing of..." —sroc (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you're incorrect as to policy: what Tony is referring to is a style guideline, whereas what he's in breach of, our prohibition against original research, is a core policy. If there's a collision between the two, the latter wins every time. It's also not a matter of not liking the style guideline or not; I have absolutely no opinion on its general principle, but its application here, where all the reliable sources dictate a different conclusion (as Frickeg has noted) is plain and simple original research. Rebecca (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for mixing my terminiology on "policy" vs "style guideline".
As for original research, the source given (AEC) uses the word "swing", so why are we not using this word? —sroc (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Goodness knows. I have no issues with it, myself - in fact I agree with you that it's better than the clumsy "margin increase". Frickeg (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have revised this to say "...retain the seat, receiving a swing of 6 per cent." This wording also captures that the swing was in Chester's favour (rather than a swing against). —sroc (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone has raised a pertinent issue on my talk page that I think should be dealt with. I make no judgement about it at this juncture, but it's hanging there uncomfortably.
Which would be a preposterous claim that Rebecca and Timeshift9 are sockpuppets of each other. Given they live in different states and I've interacted extensively with both in online and offline modes, and they obviously write differently and think differently, I think we can cut it loose from its uncomfortable hangage (if that's a word). Orderinchaos 17:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Now, Rebecca, rather than assuming that my personal preferences are subjective, artistic, indulgent figments of my imagination, you might assume good faith and take it on trust that my concerns are for the precision, clarity, and accuracy of the text for our readers. I could easily accuse you of pushing your own personal crusade (but I won't do that—it's unproductive). Instead, I ask that you not twist my words around, such as claiming that I am ignoring most of the sources. Usage is inconsistent in the sources, which does little to aid the public's understanding. But when a major source such as the SMH uses "percentage points" correctly (and it is not the only source), it is hardly "original research", as you seem to be hammering. I note that you appear to be pushing your own personal opinions (with what evidence or reasoning?) that percentage points are "acceptable" when expressing changes in some percentages (e.g., interest rates), but not in others. You are basically saying, "we don't do that here, and that's that—so pee orff". Well, I don't buy it. I want clarity for the readers, and we have a style guide to assist us in that purpose. If you think the style guide is loony, why don't you raise it there, at WT:MOSNUM and WT:MOS. They are reasonable people. Tony (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I will simply reaffirm what I've said before - that, whatever you might personally like, we use what the sources say. You cite a small minority of sources which digress from the norm, and then claim that you're justified in ignoring mainstream sources and making things up as you go along on stylistic grounds.
You keep trying to make this about style guidelines, and I'm not going to bite. I don't care about how Wikipedia refers to percentages across the project. What I do care about is that our coverage in this area is accurate and reflects how they are used in reliable sources in this area, and that editors don't resort to original research to try and impose a preference which is not used in this particular area on the content.
I also think that it's a little bit bizarre that someone who keeps claiming that I'm impugning his reputation by pointing out that what he's trying to do is in breach of a core policy then turns around and makes one of the most spurious and bizarre sockpuppet allegations I have ever seen in my time on Wikipedia. Feel free to request a CheckUser, and I will be waiting for your apology. Rebecca (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, you say that I'm in breach of core policy, but I can't quite see that I'm guilty of original research when major sources are in evidence. You say that this is "a small minority". You say they "digress from the norm" (your norm, conveniently established for this discussion?). You say that I'm You maintain that I have made a sock allegation against you (I haven't; someone else has put it on my talk page—do not twist the truth, so I wouldn't need to apologise, would I? Take it up with the user who has raised the query, not with me. Don't blame the messenger.) You say points are fine for interest rates, but we do things differently here.
But more alarming is that you seem to cast yourself as in charge, lord of this page, master of the topic. Do you speak for all here when you say "We use ...", for example? It's behaviour we are used to from someone else, but your language is actually more blatant in that regard. Tony (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that Tony is engaging in original research here. He is not introducing new facts not supported by the reference. He is not contorting facts supported by the reference. He is attempting to present the facts supported by the reference in a clear, unambiguous way. This is a matter of style, not research. Just because it may use different wording from the original source (which is actually a statistical figure from a table) does not make it original research.
Rather than debating semantics, perhaps a compromise can be made to make this clearer another way? What about "...a swing of 6 per cent from X% in 2007 to Y% in 2010." This would unambiguously show that the swing is based on a percentage of the electorate rather than a percentage of the previous vote tally. —sroc (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, no one in his right mind (and, I believe, no one in the real world) uses "50 percent increase" to mean an increase from 10% to 15% of an electorate (because, among other things, the size of the electorate is not constant). There may be an ambiguity about a change from a 10% to a 15% inflation rate, or other ratios reported as percentages. On the other hand, there's no harm in reporting the "percentage point" increase if some source reports on the change. (Again, it's synthesis to report the change if it's from different polls, and possibly from different elections, unless a single source reports on it.) I think Tony may have a point, this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
My opinion (as a mathematician) is that the "percentage point" wording only exists to resolve a specific ambiguity and is not strictly necessary in situations where this ambiguity doesn't arise in the first place. A change of voting results is such a context in which no ambiguity exists. I can understand the wish to use the unambiguous language consistently, even in unambiguous contexts, but I can also understand the wish to use the most idiomatic language, i.e. without mentioning "percentage points". Ultimately this is just another a conflict between prescriptivism and good style. Such conflicts have a tendency to explode because neither side is able to accept the other side's position as even remotely reasonable. Hans Adler 14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a sample of UK guidelines on this matter, in case Rebecca is still shouting from the rooftops that I'm conducting OR:

  • percentage points take care "percentage points take care. If the mortgage rate rises from 8 per cent to 10 per cent, it does not rise by 2 per cent, but by two percentage points. Similarly if a political party's support drops from 50 per cent to 40 per cent in an opinion poll, it has lost ten percentage points or 20 per cent of its support. See per cent."
  • percentage rises "probably our most common lapse into "mythematics": an increase from 3% to 5% is a 2 percentage point increase or a 2-point increase, not a 2% increase; any sentence saying "such and such rose or fell by X%" should be considered and checked carefully"
  • Per cent "There is no such thing as a per cent, so say "a half per cent", not "half a per cent". It is acceptable to use the terms "one percentage point" or even "one point" – mortgages going up from seven to eight per cent show a "one percentage point rise".
  • pdf "Percentages are frequently misused and misunderstood: The Chancellor has shocked industry by raising corporation tax by 10 per cent, from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. That is not an increase of 10 per cent. It is an increase of 50 per cent, or a half if you prefer. It is, though, an increase of ten percentage points, which is not the same thing at all."
  • Note, "if something rises from 10% to 12%, it does not rise 2% but two percentage points, or two points."

There are lots more, if you want. Tony (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Only the first of your usage guides mentions the unambiguous elections context specifically, and I couldn't find any others that do. (I could find some that talk about a margin of errors for election statistics in terms of percentage points. That's something else.) I am looking at that because I am arguing that this context is an exception in which it is acceptable to use the ambiguous language. As general guidance I fully agree with mandating "percentage points". In this specific case I think one can reasonably be more lax, but there is nothing wrong with mandating "percentage points" even for this case. Hans Adler 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony, I have done a little bit more reading of prior discussions now, and I must say this answer is absolutely correct. You have claimed elsewhere that this is a mathematical question with a definite answer. It is not. It is a linguistic question. Hans Adler 15:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, switching language between "per cent" and "percentage points" in one of those rare contexts in which both obviously mean the same has nothing to do with original research, and that argument against you is also invalid. Hans Adler 16:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Very well said, Hans. Tony, this is a writing style issue, not an issue of mathematical or grammatical correctness. Expressing electoral swings in terms of "percentage" and "percentage points" are both correct. Both variations are used by numerous major electoral and media outlets. What is important here is consistency. Can I suggest, as you have done frequently to others, that you discuss this with the WP:MOSNUM folks who, if they agree with your assertions, can add an example to the manual of style recommending consistent use of "percentage points" when referring to electoral swings because the current example of a change in interest rates cannot be unambiguously applied to this situation. --Canley (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hans, in terms of "swings", one can accept that they mean the same thing. But not in other contexts that I've cited above. Wherever there would be doubt, percentage points should be obviously be used, per the many style guidelines I've cited above (and the first major Australian source I looked at) and per our own style guideline. Tony (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"this is a writing style issue, not an issue of mathematical or grammatical correctness. Expressing electoral swings in terms of "percentage" and "percentage points" are 'both' correct." Disagree with the above. This is 'both' a writing style issue, and an issue of mathematical or grammatical correctness. The only reason why some may believe calling a percentage point a percentage is correct is exactly for the reason Arthur and Hans said above – that no person in their right mind would construe one for the other in this context. That does not make it unambiguous nor 'correct', as some would like to have it. Whether the context is interest rates or election results matters not a jot, as the expression derives from mathematical functions (division and subtraction), the usage and the meaning are close enough not to matter. Nor does it make what Tony and the guideline are calling for 'original research'. Surely, if (and that is still a big if in my mind) they are both correct, it cannot hurt to be totally unambiguous, rather than suffer the redundancy of saying something as clumsy as 'the party's support increased 5%, from 37% to 42%' when you can simply say 'the party's support increased from 37% to 42%'. IMHO, Rebecca has been behaving abominably and in a very intimidatory and hypocritical manner – firstly by saying she doesn't care that Tony is 'running around changing these things on most articles; no one else cares as much as you so it doesn't matter', and then bombarding Tony's talk and swiftly reverting all Tony's changes using frankly quite insulting edit summaries. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
While we're discussing this, I questioned in the last discussion Tony's preference to use simply "points" rather than "percentage points" (see here and here). Yes, two of the style references Tony provided above do cite just "points" as acceptable but give the percentages involved so the type of point is implied. In my opinion without the context of before and after percentage figures, just saying "points" is even more confusing and ambiguous than saying "6%". What do others think? (I changed the infobox swing figures in Tasmanian state election, 2010 back for this reason, but changed the mention of the swing in the article from "12.39 points" to "12.39 percentage points"). --Canley (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It would need to be prefixed, unless there is a recent full usage which precedes it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, if we were to go with points or whatever else (which Tony has no consensus for) instead of percent etc (which is of the common use), what are we going to do with all the "x percent margin" quotes and stats in so many articles on wikipedia added by many (including me) in the past and also in the future? Even if a consensus could be formed for Tony which it hasn't and won't be, there will still be all sorts of past and future additions of x percent margin etc. So just on consistency terms it's a no-brainer. Timeshift (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that you may be confusing those decisions which do not require using one's brain with people who don't have a brain, or those who have a brain but don't use it. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
How productive of you. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

:...instead of percent etc (which is of the common use)" -Timeshift

(edit conflict) Surely it's been established by now that neither reporting swings in "percent" nor in "percentage points" is "the" common use? This being an article on Australian politics, per MOS:TIES if either style were standard in Australian reporting, we'd go with that and that would be the end of discussion. But per the Antony Green quote linked previously, and per Tony's and Canley's examples in the previous discussion, no such standard exists; either style is accepted Australian usage. I don't see how quotes are a problem – quotes are even listed as an exception to keeping articles internally consistent at WP:ENGVAR. (And I think it's agreed now, this has always been a question of editorial judgement, not original research.)
"Percent" vs. "percentage points" for swings: I can see disagreement above about whether "percent" is acceptable at all in this context. What I can't see is any valid argument for any advantage of describing a swing in "percent" over describing it in "percentage points". My personal and entirely subjective take: I've seen this as a source of confusion so frequently in science-related articles (see my comment here), that whenever I read a change in two % figures described as a "percent" change I shudder, and question whether the writer appreciates the distinction. So ultimately I agree with Arthur Rubin and Hans Adler: even if, strictly speaking, there's no ambiguity in the context of election swings, there's no harm in mandating the unambiguous language.
"Points" vs. "percentage points": I agree with Canley and Ohconfucius that it should always be explicit that "points" refers to "percentage points" per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and because "points" alone might be confused with "basis points".
Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Percentage point quotes are found more on non-election refs than election refs. The majority of it in reference to elections is not percentage points. Timeshift (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"Percentage point quotes are found more on non-election refs than election refs" is irrelevant. That the majority in reference to elections do not use percentage points I am not disputing; the point is, the Anthony Green quote, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Victorian Electoral Commission collectively show that the "percentage points" style is accepted Australian usage. I think Wikipedia ought to use an accepted style; I don't think Wikipedia is bound to use the more popular of two accepted styles when there are cogent arguments for not doing so. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahem, while we're discussing this, there is another matter of style relating to percentages which I'm not aware Tony has mentioned (though he certainly does use it correctly): using "per cent" instead of "percent" (both forms are used in arguments above). The Australian Government Style Manual and the RMIT Journalism Style Guide both say the spaced form "per cent" is the most commonly used in Australia. The AGMS goes on to say the spaced form is "given priority by both the Macquarie Dictionary and the Australian Oxford Dictionary". Just pointing this out for Australian articles in case we do manage to eke out some consensus here! It should also be noted that "percent" is the dominant form in the United States, and increasingly in the United Kingdom. --Canley (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops! would that be the opening of another can of worms ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that this is not a mathematical question. As a general rule, we mathematicians use language in such a way as to avoid ambiguity. Yet the mathematical literature is full of formulations that would be ambiguous in a vacuum and which only become clear through context. That's because many of us also value elegant formulations. Talking about "percentage points" is not elegant, especially in the absence of ambiguities. Nevertheless I support doing it simply because it doesn't really matter that much and for this project it's better to have a clear and simple rule with no exceptions. But I don't think this has anything to do with Australia. In Australia, like everywhere else, some people talk about "percentage points" in an election context and some don't.

The real question with which we are faced is this: WP:MOSNUM#Percentages is not clear enough for application in an election context. (In such a context no ambiguity needs avoiding, so it is not clear whether the following applies. There is no example with the same problem.) We need to discuss at WT:MOSNUM whether we want to recommend for or against "percentage" points in unambiguous cases, or whether to leave it to the local editors' discretion. But this is not a sufficiently central place for that discussion. Let's move the party! Hans Adler 11:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So are we inching towards a resolution? It appears that:
  1. swings and margins might be acceptably expressed as either percentages or points, and that they probably should not be changed from one to the other for the sake of it; and
  2. changes and comparisons of percentage values should generally be expressed in points, which is acceptable practice in Australian political text and demanded by many style guides, including our own.
It is fundamentally misleading to quote that the winning candidate boasted:

As a reader, I have no way of working out whether the ALP's last share of the 2PP vote was less than 25% (i.e., 25% + 25 points = 50%), or less than 40% of the vote (i.e., 40% × 1.25  = 50%). Subtraction versus multiplication: please don't confuse the reader; please make it clear. So, having confirmed that the previous vote was less than 25%, the following solution is called for to disambiguate the quotation for our readers:

Or, if the other meaning had been intended, this is one possible solution:

It is a slippery slope to allow vague expressions to creep in, because it asks editors to examine every context for ambiguity. That is impractical, I think, and is the reason the style guides, and major publications such as the SMH et al, have solid rules about it. Best to be safe and conservative on this one. Tony (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you in this example, but what's wrong with fixing MOSNUM first? Hans Adler 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've missed it: what's wrong with MOSNUM? Tony (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Results inconsistent with AEC

The results in the Australian federal election, 2010#House of Representatives section are not consistent with the Virtual Tally Room of the Australian Electoral Commission. This article says that both Labor and the Coalition have won 72 seats, but the AEC gives Labor 71 seats and the Coalition 73 (44 for the Liberals, 21 for the LNQ, 7 for the Nationals and 1 for the Country Liberals). The National Party of Western Australia has won one seat according to this article, but the party is not mentioned by the AEC tally. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The National Party of Western Australia won one seat. We are representing this in a different way from the AEC after much debate on these talk pages. That is why we represent the Coalition as only having one 72 seats, because the National Party of Western Australia is not committed to the Coalition, and we have marshaled numerous reputable sources to substantiate this point. As for the figure of 71 for Labor, the AEC still has not decided on the division of Corangamite, where the ALP candidate is ahead with 95.4% of the vote in. Perhaps some others can indicate their justification for considering this seat called for Labor; the major Australian news media, however, have called the seat for Labor. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely in elections no source is more reputable and reliable than an electoral commission? If the electoral commission has not declared a winner in that Division, who are we to do so? And if the electoral commission says that the Coalition has won 73 seats, who are we to say that the commission is wrong and that the Coalition has in reality won only 72 seats? 83.84.195.88 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair point - maybe we need to re-discuss this now that the caretaker/election/government period is in it's 9th week? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We have already agreed to use ABC seats rather than AEC seats, as the AEC put any seat in to the undecided pile if the margin is less than 0.5 percent. The margin is something like 0.45 percent with 95 percent of votes counted. Nobody seriously thinks the Libs could potentially win Corangamite. It doesn't matter what the AEC has, if we say different due to common sense, then so be it. WP:IAR. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the difference for the Coalition. Why would we give the Coalition 72 seats when the AEC has 73? Who is more reliable and authoritative than the AEC? 83.84.195.88 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Because the AEC choose to include Tony Crook in the coalition totals. But if you read the article it clearly states with WP:RS why he is not a part of the Coalition. Again the community has the last say, not the AEC, and again in this case we have chosen to WP:IAR. Tony Crook was elected as an independent Nationals WA MP and remains one after the election too. Timeshift (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Where is the consensus? I've looked through this page and the two archives, and I've come across an awful lot of discussion, and a lot of arguments both ways. Even you at one point "[accepted] that Crook should be a part of the coalition tally". But I haven't seen a consensus either way about Crook. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There was a lot of discussion, I find it odd you cannot find it, but I'm not going to read through a thousand paragraphs. But any regular editor, such as CanberraBulldog and Zachary Klaas above, will tell you in no uncertain terms that consensus was formed. Have a read of the article, even Crook himself says ""In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be"... read the article! I have a favourite quote from this election... "no, you (the Liberals) have 44 or something, your coalition partners total another 28 and the guy you keep trying to claim as your 73rd seems to want nothing to do with you" - gold! Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Good grief...a point of agreement with Timeshift!  :) Yes, this is a consensus position, and any people who were working on this page should be able to tell you that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No, good grief, TWO points of agreement within hours of each other! One of our wikipedia accounts has been hijacked, surely... Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for clearing everything up. So just to be clear: this article has awarded one seat to Labor that the AEC hasn't formally awarded yet (which explains the 72 instead of 71), whereas one member who has been included in the Coalition by the AEC is treated as a separate member in the article (which explains the 72 instead of 73). Correct? 83.84.195.88 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The AEC hasn't formally awarded quite a few seats yet. There is a difference between that, and seats no longer classified by the AEC's silly "in doubt" rules (we are not obliged to use AEC if we have substantial reason to the contrary). We have WP:RS for everything that is said. Do you disagree with a WP:RS such as this, or the top left section here? 72 all. Read Australian federal election, 2010 in full, and the references. Hopefully you'll get the picture. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a clarification that the AEC considers Corangamite still "in doubt", but the numbers in the tables shouldn't change unless the Australian media similarly changes their tune on whether Labor got the seat or not. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I would, the ABC no longer considers Corangamite in doubt. We have already agreed in prior discussions that we would use the AEC source for percentages and the ABC source for seats, because of the AEC's silly rule. If there's one vote left to be counted and a candidate has 50.49 percent of the two-candidate vote, that seat would be listed in doubt by the AEC. You will not find any single media organisation putting forth a case that Corangamite could still potentially be picked up by the Libs. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion wouldn't break with that. I'm saying it's reasonable to mention the AEC and the ABC disagree about this. I'm still advocating using the ABC seat count (with the proviso about Crook). Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably not the only reader with these questions, so I would definitely recommend a footnote explaining why the table differs from the AEC tally. Even if there are good reasons to do it the way it's done, they're not obvious to the unsuspecting reader. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the situation on the floor of the house was made abundantly clear with the lead/intro of this article (even just the first bit where it says both major parties won 72 seats each and a reference link directly after that, with an article titled 72 all!), not to mention the state by state results, pendulums, corangamite not being in the seat swing table, tony crook's bit in the crossbench section... I am left to wonder whether you had a genuine issue understanding it or whether you were more in the mindset of trying to challenge it... Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
83.84.195.88, It's explained, referenced and footnoted to death. Please see here, and see footnote [nb 1] there, and footnote [nb 1] in Intro. The WA Nats say they are not part of the Coalition. Crook says he is not part of the Coalition, and says he'll be sitting on the crossbench. Re: Corangamite see. - Cablehorn (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So instead of answering a reasonable question with a simple footnote, you want readers to sift through a 62kb article and its subpages, in the hope that they come across something that might help them? That's just not reasonable. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
@Timeshift: Only if you know what you're looking for, you may find a clue in one (!) of the 65 footnotes in the article that Corangamite is the 72nd Labor Division, the one that the AEC hasn't awarded yet. But that's my point exactly, it's totally unclear to the unsuspecting reader why the table differs from the AEC tally. You can't expect someone to sift through 62kb and subpages of information, it should be clear straight away. There's not a single mention of Corangamite's status in this article, it's not in Full national and state-by-state lower house results and maps for the 2010 Australian federal election, Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010 or Division of Corangamite. Why not add a small footnote to the table explicitly stating that the ABC has awarded the Division of Corangamite to Labor, but that the AEC hasn't done so yet? 83.84.195.88 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Update: Footnote has been added. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's because Corangamite is a formality. It's only on the AEC's in doubt list because the Tally Room is formatted so that any seat with a margin under 0.5% is automatically in doubt. However, the primary count is definitely done (and I think the 2PP count as well), and they're just doing full preference distribution now, so the seat is actually not in doubt at all. Frickeg (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe we've actually just added a sentence about Corangamite. Anal to the extreme. I suppose we should add notes for every seat not yet officially declared by the AEC? It's so silly I don't think I even care enough to revert it/waste time on it. Timeshift (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph immediately above the table reads:

Vote percentages shown below are progressively updated using AEC statistics.

That is all. In the absence of anything to the contrary, I read this as implying that all of the results in the table are AEC figures, including seat numbers, albeit that vote percentages are still being revised. It used to say that seat figures were based on ABC figures, but this was removed, which I assumed was because the seat figures were now being taken from AEC data instead of the ABC. If this is not the case, then the above paragraph needs to be amended to reference the ABC (or whatever other source) is being used for seat figures. A footnote is not enough to qualify the misleading impression created by the above statement on its own. —sroc (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The ABC bit was removed when the ABC and AEC had no seats left in doubt, and before Corangamite was readded. Be as picky as you want, I actually don't care enough about something so silly to make a stand. Timeshift (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Then I hope no one will be offended if I re-instate this wording:

Vote percentages shown below are progressively updated using AEC statistics. The seat numbers are figures calculated by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

—sroc (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In state-by-state results, should we have a Coalition header in QLD/SA/Tas/ACT/NT too??

See here. I don't think we should have the same coalition header for the state results that do not have more than one coalition party. The coalition header already groups the parties at the top of the page, keeping it in QLD/SA/Tas/ACT/NT results when there's only ALP and Lib is just bulky and weird. Comments? Timeshift (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of things we should debate about how that page's tables should look (check out Talk:Full national and state-by-state lower house results and maps for the 2010 Australian federal election‎ for my views on that, rather than me write them all out again). However, this issue Timeshift is bringing up isn't one of the things we should change, in my opinion. The whole point of grouping together the Coalition parties is to see at a quick glance which parties contribute to the Coalition seat totals. If you look at the state-by-state page, you'll see at a glance, because of the way the tables are organised, that there are, for example, two parties contributing to the Coalition totals in New South Wales and Victoria (the Liberal Party and the National Party), as opposed to only one party doing so in South Australia or Western Australia (the Liberal Party) or Queensland (the Liberal National Party) or the Northern Territory (the Country Liberal Party). Quickness of information is better than brevity. People can look at these tables and instantly glean the relevant information. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is incorrect to list the SA Libs or the WA Libs or the Tas Libs as in a coalition. The coalition status is already represented in the full Australia results at the top of the full results page. There is no Coalition as such in non-Coalition states so those particular states should not have a Coalition header. Others opinions appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is - otherwise why did Antony Green (and the rest of Australia) have no problem with listing the seats won by those state-level parties along with the "Coalition" total? Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Because the parties themselves are in coalition. But on a state level, it is silly to list a one party coalition, there is no second party at the state level. Perhaps it's harder to understand the nuance not being from Australia and all... Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is why you're incapable of explaining it, because you are from Australia and all?  :) These are results for a national election, what matters is what the parties are with respect to the national party system. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And as such, the coalition parties are grouped as a coalition in the Australian table. But on a state by state basis, there is no Lib/Nat/other party coalition grouping in the majority of states... it is silly to have a one party coalition listing. Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems irrelevant whether a coalition exists at state level. This was a national election and a coalition exists at the national level. Jmount (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Except that a state branch of a party has the option to ignore the arrangements between the federal leaders and have their own, which is exactly what has happened with the Nationals in WA and SA. In Tasmania and the ACT there is no Nationals, in Queensland and the NT quite separate parties (LNP and CLP) exist in both parties' place. The NT one, just to confuse matters, caucuses with the federal Nationals, not the Coalition as a whole, but because of this fact is regarded to be in coalition. The LNP MPs make an individual choice as to who to caucus with, but must do so with either the Nationals or the Liberals - 5 have gone with the former and 16 with the latter. Orderinchaos 14:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The National Party of South Australia elected no members to the House. If they did we would have treated them as we did the National Party of Western Australia, as outside the Coalition. The current representation on the state-by-state page is of one party, the Liberals, returning members for the Coalition. That is accurate. Since the Nationals won none, we did not list them. This was in keeping with what was already on the state-by-state page. If you would like to go in and add a line for the National Party of South Australia, outside the Coalition, returning no seats, be my guest. The rest of the statements you make don't seem to be relevant to how the tables are presented, unless I'm missing some other "nuance" of your argument, Canadian that I am. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Bit hard to add a National Party of SA column considering they didn't contest the 2010 federal election... :) Timeshift (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
So don't add one then. There isn't one now. There wasn't one before. You're just setting up a straw man. Can we confine our comments to what the page actually says? Or is it just beat up on Zak because he's changing over your tables day? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I was pointing out the (yet again) flaw in your logic. If you want to get all pissy about it that's your choice. Timeshift (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In other words, yes, it is just beat up on Zak because he's changing over your tables day. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
They are not my tables. Your lack of good faith disturbs me. You have interestingly gone from playing the ball to playing the man... i'll let others draw their own conclusions. Timeshift (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just surprised that you are willing to spend so much time and energy on this issue, to be honest. I've found this is always the way - somebody will argue over split infinitives or a line or a word or the placement of an image on a table and then embark on a crusade until it is "fixed" (read: matches their personal vision of how it should be.) The sad part is while these silly, time-wasting debates occur, all other progress on the article tends to come to a screaming halt. And I do not regard and have never regarded them as "Timeshift's tables" - they are in use in all Federal articles and they convey quite readily the information needed. Orderinchaos 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Easy to explain, there isn't a "national party system". Each party is a fusion of quite independent state branches who through affiliations and conferences call themselves parties in Federal Parliament. The National Party in WA and SA have chosen not to have a formal relationship with the Nationals in other states, but are jointly affiliated ("of the same colour", if you will, but not "of the same blood".) Orderinchaos 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also asked for opinions (and have included table examples) here. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first "Votes" header be "Primary votes", to contrast with the 2PP votes box immediately below? The first box is headed "Turnout % (CV) — Informal %". This seems to be irrelevant to what is in the table (i.e., it gives extra information per se—very odd—when you'd expect it to summarise what is in the table. In the second example, it's confusing that the 2PP heading has grey background and the first heading doesn't. Tony (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If there were any doubts about Boothby...

The AEC Commission is conducting an inquiry into an incident at an early voting centre in Boothby, where an electoral employee is believed to have broken the seals on a number of ballot boxes - without scrutineers present - to consolidate the votes into a single ballot box, which was then resealed. As a result, the commission has excluded 2977 votes cast at the Oaklands Park prepoll voting centre in Boothby. The sitting Liberal MP Andrew Southcott is currently 1275 votes ahead of Labor on the two-candidate preferred count ... The AEC has released figures showing that Mr Southcott secured 50.3 per cent of the first-preference votes from the excluded votes.[1]

So either way, Labor would not have won what has always been a Liberal seat (on current boundaries... Sturt areas were a part of Boothby prior to 1949). Timeshift (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Standardisation of tables across Australian federal elections

I just made changes on the 2007 federal election page to standardise the tables according to the format we agreed upon. Timeshift had impressed upon us all the absolute necessity of doing this across all Australian elections from 1901 onwards, because standardisation is so important.

Imagine my surprise when I got to the 2004 federal election page to find out that the results were reported on that page and the preceding ones according to a completely different standard than had been used on the 2007 or 2010 pages. ("Oh yes, standardisation must be done right away, or I'll delete all your changes." What a phony argument!)

Since the standard we agreed upon here condenses the election information by use of an "Other" category to cover the small parties, and the standard used on the 2004 page and earlier ones does not condense the information and lists results for every party, I'm going to refrain from making any more changes until I get some more guidance from the group. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The reality is on most areas on Wikipedia that, due to anything after 2004/5 being "Wikipedia era", they have taken on a life of their own whereas older ones tend to be substantially more stable. I've experienced this when updating state elections as well (my speciality is actually historical politics so it frustrates me when I hit that barrier and suddenly have to deal with a wide range of random innovations. But them's the breaks on a user-driven encyclopaedia, I guess.) Orderinchaos 01:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, that's when the change seems to have occurred. The ones around the Bob Hawke years and before appear to go back to the format we had here. I could possibly change all of those to the new format. But that still leaves the question about what to do about the ones after that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like an influence of recentism. —sroc (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's my opinion too. I wrote most of the articles for historical QLD and WA elections, but I wouldn't endorse the last couple for either. Orderinchaos 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Way to dismiss standardisation! Because another (small) part isn't of the standard then that invalidates the standard used on the vast rest of the elections? I'm pretty sure someone actually came along and made those edits at some point and I didn't see it. I would know - I created every single bloody election page prior to 1996! :) Timeshift (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you create every election page prior to 1996 or every election table prior to 1996? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have created election pages without results tables... Timeshift (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
We're trying to do the standardisation now, are we not? What do people want to do? The ones that use the old standard format, should I go ahead and replace the tables? What should be done with the years that don't use the standard format? Perhaps the short form could be used while the "every party that contested the election version" could be used elsewhere on the page, or on another page? Please, give some guidance about what you want done, rather than pick apart the efforts of the persons who are making the changes after the fact... Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
All that needs to be done for standardisation is to code the tables the same - coalition grouping, colour width, etc etc - the things you wanted changed. Whether or not we condense non-seat parties in to other is irrelevant to the coding standardisation issue. Timeshift (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll gladly own up to the edits uncondensing non-seat-winning parties from 1993-2004. They're condensed on the 2007 and 2010 pages because those articles have dedicated subpages for results. I'd be happy with a similar format for past elections, but until we do have those pages I think it's important to keep that information. Frickeg (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, couldn't we create a "full results" page for those elections that show the full results, so the information could be preserved, and then standardise the main page? Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If you care to then go ahead, but all that has been asked of you till this point is that you do not leave the rest of the federal election result table coding in the old format. Please change the coding over. Other parties is an issue that is seperate from this and there is no reason the coding cannot be fixed now. You said a few days. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe "a few" is optimistic. When I do this, little things have to be tended to here and there that I didn't anticipate. I did 2004's House totals today. Will try and do a few more in the next few days. Eventually I'll get 'em all.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Will Crook always have been a non-coalition National WA candidate and MP at the 2010 election?

It's interesting to see Truss attempt to woo Crook back in to the coalition. Can I clarify, even if he is wooed back in, whatever he says from hereon has no bearing on this 2010 election page? What he does in future will be irrelevant to what happened at this election the outcome of the election. He went in to the election as a candidate of of the non-coalition WA Nationals, and came out as a WA Nationals MP who:

"won the seat of O'Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. There was dispute over affiliation, with some classing Crook as a member of the Coalition and including him in their Coalition totals. This was subsequently clarified by the WA National Party: "The Nationals WA as an independent political party are not bound by the rules of a coalition agreement". Crook says, "In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be". There is no federal Coalition agreement in Western Australia; Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government. On 6 September Crook declared his support for the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench."

So obviously on the "next election" page and the "current pendulum", and the seat's and Crook's page, this could all be updated. But as for the 2010 election and the results table, he will always remain as he currently is, that is, not part of the Coalition? I am trying to pre-empt potential future changes, when it clearly would be incorrect. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. If he does resign from the WA Nats and join the Greens, future reporting will always say, "... elected as a WA Nat at the 2010 election ..." - Cablehorn (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity: why do the media include Crook in the Coalition? Surely it can't be based only on the name of his party. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Some do, some don't. A lot of the media are making the distinction - this article has many references of this type. If you notice the ABC election website, they are also no longer including Crook in the coalition totals. Timeshift (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
@ 83.84.195.88, You are being overcautious in your considerations. IMO the problem is rooted in inexact pre-poll assumptions / algorithms fertilising post-poll "realities"; (conveniently) germinating ~ political parties' / media's ~~ expedience / self-interest / propaganda. The pre-poll assumption / algorithm is manifested by this conversation [2]. Our ABC's Antony Green says, "... he [Crook] nominated as a National and we [our model] didn't have any distinction before election day that the Nationals in WA were not part of the national National Party. We don't have a category called Nationals in the Coalition and Nationals out of the Coalition... [but] ...Perhaps that's what we should be doing." The pre and post-poll confusion re our ABC was sorted by a communication from The Nationals WA [3]. Be adventurous and consider the evidence less gingerly. You'll sleep more easily. - Cablehorn (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well put Cablehorn. It's just a pity we have someone like Abbott leading the Liberals who will always distort the truth, and the idiotic media goes along with it. I do agree with Zachary Klaas that wikipedia was the catalyst for the widespread recognition that Crook is seperate. It's a pity Abbott still hasn't heard his Coalition only has 72 seats. From my recollection, when we implemented a bunch of changes to differentiate the WA Nats (still present in the article), the ABC/Antony Green made their own clarification/distinction (only second to the AEC in Australian electoral authority... apparently anyway) with a note next to the coalition total number the very day after (he/they do read us, he has posted comments before on wikipedia, not to mention this article has a massive hitcount)... but still included him to make 73. Now they've amended that too. Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
But it's also a pity that Crook himself muddied the waters by attending the Nats' post-election party-room meeting, was warmly welcomed as a member, and said nothing to disabuse anyone of the notion that he's for all intents and purposes a member of the Coalition (except when it might suit him to say otherwise). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing media coverage re: 2PP

by late yesterday the Australian Electoral Commission had Labor nearly 30,000 votes ahead. Perhaps the AEC has outsourced its counting to those shonks in Treasury.[4]

I've just had a thought... has anyone actually ever seen a news article that stated what's going on with the 2PP, which is that non-classic seats (those that didn't return a two party result) are excluded? Is this out of ignorance, or something with a bit of malice? The Australian media continues to excel in idiocy... Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that so far the 2PP result is not including those 'non-classic' seats. I think the final count will include those seats as happened in 2007 [5]. But your point is well made about the media reporting. The whole concept seems to be beyond their comprehension. Cheers Matt5AU (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The 2PP dropped to 50-50 when the AEC removed the non-classic divisions. Since then they have been slowly re-adding them back in (note the ALP jump to 50.4 percent). But no media outlets are reporting it right. They all screamed out when the coalition apparently "hit the 2PP lead" (they may have by the counting process but they never actually led the 2PP, the coalition will have always got a minority of votes at the 2010 election, Labor got the majority of votes), they didn't say why they "hit the 2PP lead", and have not reported on it coming back to Labor, and any that have, haven't said why. Shonks in Treasury? Idiots. We have only the media to blame for the state of modern politics. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, "Strewth" is a semi-humorous sketch-type column, not really presented as "news", in the opinion section of The Australian (who have published far more disappointing bias masquerading as news). Also, that quote is a bit out of context: it seems to be having a go at Andrew Robb for continuing to claim the Coalition was ahead on 2PP votes despite the large Labor lead apparent on the AEC site—and suggesting that if the Coalition's numbers are incorrect, he may want to blame Treasury again. --Canley (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
That'll teach me to skim! But my point stands. Is there a SINGLE news article out there that explains why Labor's 2PP lead was far closer (and sometimes in the minority) than it really was? I haven't been able to find one. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a good commentary piece here: Two-party preferred count is a two-card trick by G. Campbell Sharman, published in The Australian. --Canley (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I love it how The Australian and other right-wing media outlets trash the 2PP idea. They are happy to go on about primary votes, yet primary votes do not win seats, so why should it apply to the overall election? Do they think nothing of the fact that more people preferenced one of the feasible party choices, Labor, for goverment above the other, the coalition, who got a minority of votes/preferences? I also find it interesting that they say it somehow obscures how Australia voted. Results tables should have primaries, 2PPs, and seats... this is giving more information, not less... obscure? Oh please. And it doesn't matter how much they do trash it now anyway, because Abbott fell in to a massive trap when the 2PP numbers happened to fall his way due to non-classic divisions being removed - he tried to use the 2PP as a further attempt to legitimise his case for government. So if Abbott also thinks that much of the 2PP... well! Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I love the reflexive anti-academic comments by News Limited readers whenever some "eminent professor" is quoted or has a commentary piece published! --Canley (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And it looks as though Antony was correct. By my calculations of the AEC website, 6,162,224 2PP votes to Labor and 6,076,160 2PP votes to the coalition (86,064 2PP vote lead to Labor), with a 164,010 discrepancy between the formal primary vote total and the 2PP total. If this were a seat it would no longer be in doubt. Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary votes DO matter - look at the seat of Melbourne. Actually, look at the seat of O'Connor - as far as I can tell Tony Crook got in on ALP and Green preferences[6], but the TPP will probably tell a different story. When there are so many seats that aren't a contest between ALP and Coalition, the National TPP is not relevant to who forms government. In the seat of Melbourne, a vote that was 1) Liberal 2) ALP 3) Green will be counted as an ALP vote for TCP in the seat, but as a Coalition vote for TPP. Makes no sense at all. --Surturz (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Melbourne TCP — Greens 50,107 ALP 39,220; Melbourne TPP - Coalition 23,854 ALP 65,473. How is it that 56.09% of the electorate voted AGAINST the ALP, yet the ALP claims 73.30% of the TPP vote? --Surturz (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I never said (or meant) primary votes don't matter. 2PP/2CP is equally as important as primary votes, if not more, because seats in our lower house are decided preferentially. How could one argue that one should look at the primary vote nationally when at a seat level the decider is not the primary vote? And 2PP is the assumption of Labor versus a Coalition party. It's a concept. And it (2PP, not 2CP) could very well struggle to survive should a third party or coalition be judged feasible enough to form government, ie: won more than several lower house seats (on a side note, the 2PP orthodoxy is highly unlikely to be challenged for two reasons. a) The parties, Labor and anti-Labor/the conservatives, have entrenched themselves in people and families for over a century, and b) Parties that could feasibly form government need geographical areas of support like the Country/National Party or the Labor Party, especially pronounced in their early formative days. Modern minor parties like the Greens/Democrats/DLP/whomever, typically generate votes through discontent. Support for these minor parties is not in specific areas like mining/agracultural/etc that major parties previously won lower seats through, and the Nats still do. The general spread of support stops minor parties from winning more than a few/several seats at most). 2CP (two candidate preferred) applies to every seat, because it's always two candidate preferred, but not always two party preferred (though it is still calculated for the purposes of seeing who prefers which feasible choice of govt over the other feasible choice of govt). If one was to look at elections that have a 2PP (last 50 years), one would observe that the party that won the most seats/formed government also won the 2PP far far more times than it won the primary vote. Crook got in on Labor prefs, Bandt got in on Liberal prefs. That's how preferential works, eliminate the candidate with the least amount of votes, redistribute their preferences, keep going until two are left, normally Labor v Coalition, but not always. We're just in a Labor v Coalition 2PP mindset because they are the feasible choices of government. But the generic of 2PP is 2CP. Why are the redistribution of eight non-classic seats in to Labor v Coalition not relevant? It finds out which devil the electorate hates the least - welcome to politics. As for your last question, the two party vote as explained earlier finds out the feasible choices of government's level of support. Bandt does not come in to the equation. So they re-distribute all prefs to Labor v Liberal instead. Anyone who votes Bandt has to then choose Liberal or Labor as their next option. The vast majority went Labor. There is very little Liberal support in Melbourne. Rather than not understand how all this works and whinge about the validity of preferential instant-runoff voting like so many Coalition voters do (note the UK are looking at moving from plurality to our system), try doing some soul searching like defeated governments and parties have to do, which the Coalition has still failed to do... question why the Coalition cannot win convincingly. People judge the Labor government on it's merits, they also remember Abortion "WorkChoices" Abbott well (50% dissat rating, gotta love poll questions independent of the other side). I might also mention the AEC's national 2PP figures are for informational purposes only. It shows that when it comes down to Labor and Coalition parties, who the majority of Australia ended up choosing. It's a moral majority, not something that the AEC use in any way to decide seats on the floor of the house... a majority of MPs decide who becomes the government. But informational nevertheless! Lesser of two evils - two party preferred - welcome and enjoy. Rant over. :) Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear Surtz, no reply! White flag time? :P Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Final 2PP is 50.12 to Labor! - but a new Crook dilemma!

See here. Obviously we wouldn't use it as a ref though. But they do produce rather an amusing list of people who said the Lib/Natgs won the 2PP - thanks for reinforcing the fact that the 2PP counts in a moral legitimacy context! Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, another Crook dilemma! If the WA Nats aren't part of the coalition, and someone votes WA Nat then Labor then Liberal, that counts as a Liberal/National Coalition 2PP vote! See the article above for their view on this. What to do? We've seperated Crook out of the primary total but not the 2PP total? Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No white flag, I only saw your comment today. I think you are mistaking my position. I don't think the Coalition or the ALP can claim any sort of moral authority from the National TPP, a 0.2% difference in votes is not enough of a difference to matter. Furthermore I don't think the AEC should have published the TPP while it was inherently biased against the ALP due to the exclusion of the non-classic seats. Third, I don't think the current calculation of National TPP is useful, because with a significant number of non-major-party candidates being elected, it is misleading.
I think a National summary of the TCP counts would be far more informative, because it would show how an elector's vote was actually counted. Practically, there was no difference between a ballot paper that was marked 1) Sex Party 2) ALP, and a ballot paper that was marked 1) ALP. However, there was a big difference between a ballot paper marked 1) Green 2) ALP and a ballot paper marked 1) ALP if you were in the seat of Melbourne. In the seat of Melbourne, a Green vote was a vote AGAINST the ALP and it makes no sense to consider it a vote FOR the ALP on the National TPP - a Green vote in Melbourne, nationally, is a vote for the Greens. You crow about how Tony Crook votes should not be counted as Coalition TPP votes, yet you are happy for Melbourne Green votes to be counted as ALP votes for the National TPP - this just shows how biased and inconsistent you are.
You seem to think that the TPP gives the ALP some legitimacy. Completely incorrect. I know leftist philosophy is one of the majority bullying the minority, but in actual fact the government is elected to govern for all citizens, not just those that voted for them. They are to govern for those that don't vote (e.g. children) and also those that voted against them. No serious democrat would support the tyranny of the majority as you do.
--Surturz (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Your reaction sounds like I hit a sensitive spot :) Um, one would have thought you'd prefer to think of a 2.6 percent 2PP swing instead of a measily 0.8 percent Lib and 0.6 percent LNP swing? This is off the back of a 5.4 percent swing away from Labor... pathetic. Labor had a minority of seats in only two states - Rudd/QLD, and WA which was at any rate status quo to the 2007 election anyway. Pffft. Two thirds of voters who left Labor, went to the Greens instead of the Coalition, that is awful and an indictment upon the modern conservatives. You say "You crow about how Tony Crook votes should not be counted as Coalition TPP votes, yet you are happy for Melbourne Green votes to be counted as ALP votes for the National TPP - this just shows how biased and inconsistent you are." - um, no. If someone votes Green then Lib then Labor, it should count as a Lib 2PP vote, as it does anywhere else. And one point i'll make, if it has no moral authority, you'd better tell Abbott who, when he thought the Coalition were leading the 2PP, seemed to think it did! Bazinga!!! :) One last thing, I don't support the tyrranty of the majority, but I do think the 2PP is a moral victory, it's a majority of Aussies versus a minority of Aussies that chose to pref one major party above the other - what I support is 76 MPs giving confidence as per the Westminister system...! Timeshift (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
no sensitive spot, if you look in the talk archive, I was doubting the usefulness of the TPP count pretty soon after the election, when the TPP was I the Coalition's favour. The real issue is that non-primary votes are nowhere near the same value as primary votes. Votes for the Greens are ALP votes up to the point where they lose the seat to the Greens. --10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I fail to see the point you're making in the second half of your comment. Is anything I have said above incorrect? No. Timeshift (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How bizarre is this?

The Australian Electoral Commission is conducting an investigation into how hundreds of confidential polling forms from the federal election ended up strewn over a main road in Darwin ... The forms were pre-polling declarations from Alice Springs and contained people's names, dates of birth and signatures ... The AEC's Robert Pugsley says a secure courier was hired to transport the documents ... "It appears that it was shipped on an open ute and one of the boxes has fallen out of the ute and gone onto the roadside," he said ... Mr Pugsley has demanded a detailed explanation from the courier company.[7]

Uh, fell off the back of a truck? Sure. I could put my tinfoil hat on, but I won't... Timeshift (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There were several other incidents involving improper handling of votes that lead to quite a lot of votes not being counted in marginal seats. The AEC put out media releases about incidents in Boothby [8] and Flynn [9]. It will be interesting to know what the handling errors were in these cases (though some are inevitable given the vast scale of the AEC's activities and the fact that they depend heavily on staff engaged for the day). Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what happens when you outsource matters of vital national interest to the private sector: corruption and incompetence stumbling along hand-in-hand. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Corruption? Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How to work out the WA Nats to two decimal places?

Until this point, to work out the WA Nat primary % on a national level, I divided the total number of WA Nat votes by the total of formal votes throughout the nation, to get 0.34something, and with their vote tripling, this would have been a swing of around 0.2, which means the Nat total throughout Australia that had a swing of 0.2 was completely off the back of the WA Nat vote (more or less). Moving to two decimal places, how would people extrapolate it? We need to work out a WA Nat and Nat vote, and WA Nat and Nat swing, to two decimal places. Hmm. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oakeshott/speaker

Oakeshott has confirmed that if he is nominated he will accept the speaker's position. This means he will not have a deliberative vote, which basically takes a vote away from him and gives it to a Labor MP who would normally be speaker. This means that Labor will only need three votes from the crossbench. How do we propose to add this information when the time comes that Oakeshott becomes speaker? Timeshift (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is still debate underway as to what the speaker's rights to vote would be if Oakeshott became speaker. Whether that is just politicking or real uncertainty about what the constitution allows is hard to tell. But I suggest we wait until some advice arises from people who really know what they're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
True, the article I read was from Sky News, and i'm sure Pyne whom they quoted has his reasons for screaming hystericals. I wonder when the Coalition will realise they lost... it's like 1974 all over again. I'll continue to look here for something more definitive. Interesting headline I note, some journalist seems a bit bored! - "Last independent speaker died on the job" (Holder, first speaker) Timeshift (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for information and debate purposes, i'll quote Pyne here:

But the manager of opposition business in the lower house, Christopher Pyne, says the independent's vote isn't able to be counted when he is in the chair during divisions. 'The speaker does not have a deliberative vote, under the constitution the speaker only has a casting vote,' he told ABC Radio on Thursday. Earlier this month, Labor, the coalition and Mr Oakeshott agreed to a series of parliamentary reforms, including pairing' the speaker for votes - meaning whichever party they belonged to wouldn't lose a vote when divisions were called. But Mr Pyne said pairing was only relevant for the deputy speaker and others that occupied the chair. 'The issue of pairing only comes up with the deputy speaker and other members of the speakers panel, all of whom have a deliberative vote,' he said. 'There is no other possible reading of the agreement if you read it in conjunction with the constitution of the country.'[10]

Hmm. Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding pairing, with Oakeshott as speaker, the margin would be 75–74, still in Labor's favour, no? If someone from the Labor camp obstained, Oakeshott would get casting vote which would again make the margin 75–74 in Labor's favour (assuming that he sides with Labor on the particular matter). This whole pairing business (and the very idea of "pairing" an independent with someone from the "other" camp) seems to over-complicate matters. —sroc (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'd ever willingly agree with Chris Pyne about anything, but on this score he seems to have it right. Section 40 of the Constitution says: "Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be determined by a majority of votes other than that of the Speaker. The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall have a casting vote". I can't see any room for debate there. It seems absolutely clear to me that he does not, under any circumstances, have a deliberative vote. The founding fathers wrote it that way quite deliberately. I'm sure the constututional experts could go on for 50 pages about it, but the bottom line would be as I've said.

Pairing an independent is a contradiction in terms, unless he's paired with an independent who generally favours the Coalition. But pairing only ever applies to members who have a deliberative vote, and that definitely excludes the Speaker, whatever political colours or non-colours he or she may happen to sport. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so he a casting vote, but is that explicitly defined anywhere? I had some vague impression that it meant somehow supporting the status quo, but it's too vague an impression for me to present it all that seriously here. What are the rules/conventions re casting votes? HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? Casting vote is an ordinary expression which simply means a vote that is cast to break a tie (i.e., if the vote amongst everyone else is equal, the Speaker casts the deciding vote). This expression does not need to be defined in the Constitution as it simply takes its ordinary meaning. Moreover it is evident that this was the intention from the drafting of that provision, as quoted above, i.e.:

The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall have a casting vote.

How much clearer can it be? —sroc (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If the meaning is that simple, what's the problem? If Labor needs his vote (i.e. numbers are otherwise equal) he will vote with Labor as he has promised. Why are we talking about this at all? I'm not sure it's that simple. HiLo48 (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Writs returned, all final... or are they?

The writs have been returned for the 2010 federal election with the government winning the two-party preferred vote by the narrowest of margins. Labor secured 50.12 per cent of the two-party vote against the coalition's 49.88 per cent. The returning of the writs means all the polls have now been declared for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. "The election, as it were, is formally concluded," Australian Electoral Commission spokesman Phil Diak said. However, the commission is still finalising the full distribution of preferences for information purposes. This occurs in seats where the contest wasn't between the two major parties or the result was determined on primary votes. "(But) any changes in the two-party preferred statistic would be quite marginal," Mr Diak said. For example, it changed by just one vote on Friday afternoon as counting continued. Mr Diak said the definitive result would be "locked off" in around a week's time. Some 93.21 per cent of eligible voters - or 13.13 million Australians - voted in the 2010 federal election.[11]

Huh? I thought the writs could only be returned once all counting was complete, information purposes or not? Either way, apart from 2PP figures, everything else is final. Editors, begin editing! Timeshift (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Farr in the Daily Telegraph informs us that this is merely "the latest poll count" which places Abbot "just 30,000 preference votes behind Labor". I think I'll go with the AEC's views on the status of the election ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
All News Ltd articles (IMHO) are a pile of crap... this one isn't too bad...

The writs for the federal election were returned yesterday, with the government winning the two-party-preferred vote by the narrowest of margins. Labor secured 50.12 per cent of the two-party vote against the Coalition's 49.88 per cent. The result represents a swing of 2.58 per cent against Labor. On election eve, a Newspoll survey in The Australian predicted Labor would win 50.2 per cent of the two-party vote to the Coalition's 49.8 per cent. The returning of the writs means all the polls have now been declared for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, the Australian Electoral Commission is still finalising the full distribution of preferences.[12]

Newspoll was only 0.08 percent off. I really see no point having to back up Newspoll as the authoritative poll in Australia... and it's one of the few things ol' Tone (Abbott) and I agree on! :D Timeshift (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm ... before we add election results, I'd prefer that we wait until the "these results are final" thing is up, otherwise there are going to be annoying tweaks and things ... Frickeg (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The AEC's main job in counting the votes is to finalise the count of preference in order to definitively determine the results in each seat of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They have now done this, and have therefore returned the writs.
They are also easily able to determine the 2PP figures across all of the House of Representatives seats between a Labor and Coalition candidate based on the figures that they have already counted, so they provide this information even though it is not actually required for the return of writs. However, the counting that they have done does not consider the 2PP allocation in the handful of other seats between a Labor or Coalition candidate and another candidate, because this was not their priority. The priority is always to finish the formal count and return the writs. Now that that is out of the way, they can take the time to complete the calculation of 2PP in the remaining seats, which will only affect the 2PP figure.
To be clear, the figures for the votes for and seats won by each party are final. Only the 2PP is subject to change, which is likely to be minimal. —sroc (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Two-Candidate Preferred

Once all primary votes have been finalised in the count for an electorate, the candidate with the lowest total is excluded from the count and their ballot papers examined to determine the next valid preference for a candidate continuing in the count. This process is repeated until only two candidates remain in the count. At this stage, primary votes from all other candidates have been distributed to their preferred candidate of the two remaining in the count. These final totals are referred to as the two-candidate preferred count or totals. Where these two-candidates represent the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party Coalition, this vote is also referred to as the two-party preferred count. In most seats, the two-candidate and the two-party preferred totals are the same. In a seat where an Independent or minor party candidate finishes first or second, the two-party preferred must be determined by a separate count. Note that only the two-candidate preferred count is the actual result for an electorate. It is common to reduce election contests to a two-party contests between Labor and the Coalition, but in seats that were not two-party contests, such a count is a bookkeeping device. A distribution of preferences is only required in electorates where no candidate achieves 50% of the vote. However, the Australian Electoral Commission conducts a full distribution of preferences in every electorate for information purposes.

Two-Party Preferred

In most seats, the two-party preferred result for an electorate will be the same as the two-candidate preferred result. Australian elections are mainly conducted between the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party Coalition. In most seats, the final two-candidates after preferences will represent Labor and the Coalition. This was the case in 146 of the 150 electorates at the 2004 election. In the four electorates that were not two-party contests, the Electoral Commission conducted a secondary two-party distribution. Two-party preferred counts allow all electorates to be ranked on the scale from very safe Labor to very safe Coalition, and for nationwide two-party totals to be accumulated. Two-party preferred counts are the basis of the familiar electoral pendulum. However, the party that wins the majority of the national two-party preferred vote will not necessarily win the majority of seats, as was shown when the Howard government was re-elected in 1998 with 49.0% of the two-party preferred vote.

[13] —sroc (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Those guidelines depend on an assumption that only two "parties" have a chance of forming government. At the moment Australia has a third party, The Greens, gaining an increasing share of the vote at a number of elections in a row. At what point does the system decide that the whole election is no longer a two party competition? HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If/when the Greens start seriously challenging Labor in the lower house, and when WP:RS says so. An excerpt from my rant above: the 2PP orthodoxy is highly unlikely to be challenged for two reasons. a) The parties, Labor and anti-Labor/the conservatives, have entrenched themselves in people and families for over a century, and b) Parties that could feasibly form government need geographical areas of support like the Country/National Party or the Labor Party, especially pronounced in their early formative days. Modern minor parties like the Greens/Democrats/DLP/whomever, typically generate votes through discontent. Support for these minor parties is not in specific areas like mining/agracultural/etc that major parties previously won lower seats through, and the Nats still do. The general spread of support stops minor parties from winning more than a few/several seats at most). 2CP (two candidate preferred) applies to every seat, because it's always two candidate preferred, but not always two party preferred (though it is still calculated for the purposes of seeing who prefers which feasible choice of govt over the other feasible choice of govt). Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The best election ever ?

Tied at full-time! Tuckey and Fielding sent off! Tied after extra-time! Decided with a penalty shoot-out! - Cablehorn (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tied after extra time? Pretty sure 76 MPs including Oakeshott and Windsor stopped that from occurring :) Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I found parts of it very dull and boring. The playing styles of the two side were very similar, and not much promise shown at all. But as always, the sledging was worth paying attention to. HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh in terms of the two choices Australians were presented with, I won't disagree with you there one iota. Timeshift (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Penalty shoot-out: Bandt scores for Labor, Abbot misses for Coalition, Wilkie scores for for Labor, Crook scores for Coalition, Gillard misses for Labor, Katter scores for Coalition, Windsor scores for Labor, Joyce misses badly (almost an own goal - in a penalty shootout!) for Coalition, .... Vuvuzelas going stupid ... Oakeshott scores for Labor! ... GOAL!, GOAAAAAAL! GOAAAAAAAL!, GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL! .... And it was all live! - Cablehorn (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
lol. That Oakeshott "golden goal" took seventeen minutes of showboat play :-) --Surturz (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Labor Minority and supporters section with Coalition supporters

I know that the Labor govt is not in a coalition with the Greens and the 3 Independents. However, I think it would help make more obvious that Labor "won" the election if somewhere we have a box that shows the government support and the opposition support. So even though no Independent or Greens member is in the Labor caucus it shows how they got 76 in a visual way. For example something like: 

-Labor and support : 76
-Labor 72
-Greens 1 
-Independents 3 

-Coalition and support :74
-Coalition: 72
-Liberal 44
-LNP 21
-Nationals 6
-Country Liberal 1
-National Party (WA) 1
-Independent 1

Notes: 

Confidence and supply ONLY
Initially the National (WA) mp backed Coaltion for confidence and supply
before Labor had enough backing to form a government, 
but now states that he will strictly be independent now

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fielding's defeat in the lead

In the lead we have recently had this added...

"Family First Party Senator Steve Fielding was defeated."

I think it's the only comment in the lead on an individual being defeated. When I first saw it I thought it looked anomalous. Senate wins and losses are detailed later in the article.

For it to be there it probably needs to be packaged in words that explain why it's important. Either that, or deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a re-wording, but I think the fact Fielding (or Family First's Senator, who cares) was the only non-major party Senator to be defeated is as noteworthy for the lead as Madigan/the DLP winning. Timeshift (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The way it's sitting there on it's own is probably what led to accusations of POV, as if you picked out FF to gloat about the loss. You say it's not that, so try to put those words around it, and it may look OK. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's sitting there as it's own sentence because a certain user decided the form I added it in was unacceptable. I'm always happy to discuss. Suggestions? Timeshift (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there's nothing wrong with it, actually. The paragraph is dealing with changes in the Senate makeup; Fielding's defeat is undoubtedly part of that. If it's a huge problem, it could always be tacked on to the previous sentence about Xenophon and Madigan ("... while Family First Senator Steve Fielding was defeated"). Frickeg (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a possibility. It's also important for the fact that if Madigan didn't get up, Fielding may have. Both were running for and in contention for the last Senate seat in Victoria in a field of three remaining candidates. The "while" bit may be what people will be satisfied with. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Having "The only non-major party Senator to be defeated was Family First Party Steven Fielding." ... in the intro is plain silly. I'll go with the status quo and leave him out. - Cablehorn (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
With respect, that's ridiculous. The paragraph is about the changes in Senate representation. The fact that Family First lost one seat is just as relevant as every other change, and being a crossbencher it makes sense that we mention Fielding just like we mentioned Xenophon and Madigan. The article is about the election, not the new parliament, and Fielding was as much a part of the election as everyone else running as a candidate. As the only representative of a party, it's clearly relevant. No one's suggesting we go into as much detail as your quote, but to not mention it is a significant and unwarranted omission. Frickeg (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Xenophon and Madigan are there so the reader can understand why 9 + 31 + 34 does not equal 76. So I put "The two remaining seats will be occupied by South Australia's incumbent independent Nick Xenophon and Victoria's Democratic Labor Party candidate John Madigan." Putting Fielding into the mix makes it almost as messy as the original edit:
In the Senate, the Greens will gain the balance of power on 1 July 2011 with nine seats after winning one seat in each state.[12][13] The Coalition will be reduced from 37 to 34, Labor will be reduced from 32 to 31. Victorian Family First Party Senator Steve Fielding was defeated, whilst Victorian Democratic Labor Party candidate John Madigan was successful. Independent Nick Xenophon will be up for election at the next federal election.[14]
"With respect, that's ridiculous." - Cablehorn (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's rediculous to state the changes to the Senate...? With HiLo's proposal, 3 to 1. I feel consensus beginning to build Cablehorn :) Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on no more input from anyone, i'm going to call consensus on this. Timeshift (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Coalition vote was actually unchanged.

The Coalition's vote rose only by the barest margin. In 2007, 38.3 per cent of enrolled voters voted for John Howard. In 2010, a virtually unchanged 38.4 per cent voted for Tony Abbott. Instead, those deserting Labor voted Green, voted informal, or stayed at home.

The Great Turnoff. An interesting read. Timeshift (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

that article's main point is that a lot of the informal vote were at the expense of Labor. --Surturz (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Numbers as figures or words

See Wiki-style - Numbers ... "Render comparable quantities, mentioned together, either all as words or all as figures (5 cats and 32 dogs, or five cats and thirty-two dogs; but not five cats and 32 dogs)." - Cablehorn (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. Five dogs and 32 cats is the correct method. Singular numbers are words, more than singular is a number, unless the number starts at the beginning of a sentence in which case it's always a word... at least that's what I was always taught. Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TimeShift CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Most style guides agree with Cablehorn. Timeshift is right that it should be There were five monkeys and We had 32 umbrellas, but Cablehorn is right that when both are used together, as in She had 400 hats and 4 ribbons, it should be one or the other (usually figures). -Rrius (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wiki-style - Numbers ... "Render as words numbers that begin sentences. However, it is often better to recast the sentence so that it does not start with a number." ....... The reason for style being - using the numeral 39 as 'majority' number is easier to read/scan/comprehend/calculate. That is, (39 ... 34 ... 31 ... 9) in a group is easier to read/scan/comprehend/calculate than (Thirty-nine ... 34 ... 31 ... 9) ....... e.g. Coalition (34 + 9 = 43) [majority!] ... Labor (31 + 9 = 40) [majority!] - Cablehorn (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Labor formed a minority government with the support of an Australian Greens MP and three independent MPs. Labor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, 4 short of the requirement for majority government

So we have "three independent MPs" and "4 short of the requirement". Ugh. This looks awful, at least to me who grew up learning that singular numbers are words while non-singular numbers are numbers, unless it's at the start of a sentence. I don't particularly care for that MOS. But a MOS is a MOS so it needs debating. IMHO we either go back to what we did, or, convert ALL singular numbers in to numbers rather than words so the article doesnt flow from 4 to four. But I don't particularly like the idea of all singulars being a number instead of a word either. Sigh. Discussion, please. Timeshift (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

with a total of 9 seats, after winning one seat in each of the six states

...*cringe* Timeshift (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like this to stay. "A majority requires 39 seats. The Coalition will have 34 seats, the Labor will have 31 seats, giving the balance of power to the Australian Greens with 9 seats." The original "nine" was camouflaged amongst the numerals. The numeral 9 reads more clearly amongst the 31, 34 and 39. - Cablehorn (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I renounce my previous comment. The "nine' looks better. - Cablehorn (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Slipper Lib MP may give his vote to Labor...

"There is growing concern within Liberal ranks that one of its own backbenchers, Peter Slipper, may be prepared to do a deal with Labor over the Deputy Speaker's job. Mr Slipper has not turned up today to either a Liberal partyroom meeting or the joint Coalition party room. Some Opposition MPs are concerned Mr Slipper has been approached by the Government to effectively give up his vote in return for being appointed Deputy Speaker. Mr Slipper has not responded to calls for comment."[14] Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

'late this afternoon Mr Slipper released a statement saying he would be happy to serve as Deputy Speaker but not on the basis of pairing his vote or guaranteeing confidence and supply to the Government.

He says reports that he had done a deal to that effect are incorrect.

"My not being at the party room was for matters entirely unassociated with the matter of the deputy speakership," he said.' [15] Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn! Timeshift (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can undamn now - [16] HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Might have to undamn that undamn

'It appears Mr Slipper has not agreed to any arrangement with Labor on a pairing deal.

Yesterday he ruled out such a deal and after this evening's vote he reiterated his position.

"I have not given any commitments with respect to my role as Deputy Speaker," he told the Parliament.

But he says he is supportive of the concept of parliamentary reform.

"I'm very passionate about the institution of Parliament, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with you, Mr Speaker, and also my very good friend and colleague, the Member for Maranoa, as Second Deputy Speaker," Mr Slipper said.' [17] CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Australian_federal_election/Archive_4&oldid=1142749738"