Talk:2004 Australian federal election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Timing

If the 3-year term is dated from the first sitting after the previous election, which was in March 2002, why then can the next election be delayed until as late as April 2005? Where does the extra month come from? Can anybody explain this? JackofOz 13:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The answer appears to be as follows:

Section 28 of the Constitution says: "Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first sitting of the House."

Section 32 of the Constitution says: "The writs shall be issued within ten days from the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof."

Section 156 (1) of the Electoral Act says: "the date fixed for the nomination of the candidates shall not be less than 10 days nor more than 27 days after the date of the writ."

Section 157 of the Electoral Act says: "The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the date of nomination."

This parliament first met on 12 February 2002. Therefore it expires on 12 February 2005. The writs must therefore be issued by 22 February. The last date on which nominations can close is therefore 11 March. The last Saturday on which polling can take place is therefore 9 April.

This should probably be incorporated into the article.

Adam 13:36, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Adam, thanks muchly for that very interesting information. However something is not right with the dates you've shown compared with the provisions you've cited. If the parliament first met on 12 Feb 2002, three years later is 12 Feb 2005. Ten days after the expiration is 22 Feb 2005. This gives us the latest possible date of the writ. So far, so good. The nomination date can be as much as 27 days after that, which is 21 March. The poll can be as much as 31 days after that, which 21 April. But that day is a Thursday, so the latest possible Saturday would be 16th April, not 9th April. Is my maths up the pole? In the words of a former celebrity, "Please explain". Cheers JackofOz 02:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right. I miscounted the 27 days from 22 Feb. The last date on which the election can be held is 16 April. Adam

Leaders

Just as regards Bob Brown, I think there's probably a bit of a definitional issue as to what precisely constitutes the "Australian left". I'm perfectly aware that a great many people would not eg. describe Latham as left-wing. But then again, there probably are many who would.

I think I remember reading on the Bob Brown entry itself that he was described as the leader of the "anti-American left" or something like that. Now while I don't think that's great phraseology, I think it expresses that there's a particular segment of the left among which he is undeniably the most prominent member (where previously it might have been Kernot or Stott-Despoja).

I don't know what to do. I think it'd be legitimate to describe him as the most prominent figure in the anti-war movement, but I think that that is probably too narrow a description of his general appeal. Lacrimosus 00:36, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Don't you have a better picture of Bartlett? He's been grey since Adam was a boy. Are you, perchance, a Democrat supporter? :-p Lankiveil 04:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

That is his official photo from the Parliamentary website. Adam 05:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Evolver of Borg, please buy yourself a hat. If the Meg Lees Party ... er ... I mean Australian Progressive Alliance ... wins a seat, post it to me and I'll eat the thing. Seriously, they have no chance. Tannin 08:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd be extemely surprised if Lees gets 5% of the vote, and her other candidates will hardly trouble the scorer. But neither my opinion nor Borg's opinion about these matters belongs in this article. Adam 08:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tables Mark I

I added tables (more or less directly imported from the Candian election page) to liven up the ASCII and make the data more readable. I'm not an Australian, so there may be nuances in the old version that I failed to transfer (e.g., the position of the National Party to indicate a coalition?); screw with it as much as you want. Jxg 22:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can't tell you how hideous I think these multicoloured tables are. The colours are far too strong, they make the text hard to read and they contribute no information. I hate them at the Candian election page, but since I have done no work on that page I didn't feel I had any right to delete them from there. But since I have largely created this page I feel more entitled to resist their inclusion. When the election actually happens we can decide what kind of table format we want. In the meantime I am deleting them. Adam 04:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jxg 18:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Thanks David - i didnt even realise i'd hit rollback - im getting used to a new mouse and keyboard. PMA 12:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Is it worth adding a {{current}} event tag or not, do we think? Lacrimosus 12:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Use of tables

I didn't change the seat listing to tables this time, but I think we need to make a decision on what form the listing should take. Fixed-text or tables? I would tend to side with tables, but only if we can integrate more information into them. - Aaron Hill 01:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that these ones [1] look pretty bad. The ones here [2] are a lot better, but could do with some borders (a thin line) and maybe left-aligning the header row. The "tables" as they exist now look like they are a workaround from before wikipedia had any decent table support. -- Chuq 03:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those tables do look good, though maybe the background colours could be less dominant and changed to be more suitable to the parties (consistent with the ABC News colours maybe?)... a column for party logos perhaps as well? I think Adam Carr is strongly against tables and I'd like to hear from him before taking any action, especially as he is reverting any attempt to convert to tables (and considering the current state of the tables proposed, quite correctly). I also think that the tables should have a row combining the totals of the Liberal and National Parties (ala this revision) because it is the easiest way to quickly compare the total of the Coalition majority with the number of ALP seats. - Aaron Hill 03:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not opposed to tables per se. I am opposed to these ugly pseudo-tables which Aaron has been trying to install. I also dislike the obtrusive multi-coloured tables at Canadian federal election, 2004. My choice is the type of tables at Spanish legislative election, 2004, which are both functional and aesthetic. Adam 03:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Woah, calm down, I haven't tried to install anything since you reverted my first and final (thus far) attempt at formulating tables and in retrospect I agree that the fixed text format is the better format at the moment, as I stated in my previous comment. I do agree with you about the Spanish election tables, they are quite good and I prefer the lack of colour, however we need to consider how they could be adapted to Australia's electoral system, especially the two party preferred aspect. I think that the fixed text format should be maintained for the historical seat listings. I'm going to play around with the Spanish tables and try to bring about a positive change, I'll post it here before acting of course. - Aaron Hill 07:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that we decide on which form to display the results soon. Results will be released in just over a week. Xtra 07:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've updated the format of two existing tables. I've left one table for now so you can decide whether it is an improvement. If you have any better ideas, you can take it further, but I think the new format is at least an improvement on the fixed-width alternative. m.e. 12:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) I later reformatted the Senate table the same, and also my suggestion at the end of Aaron Hill's tables. m.e. 09:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aaronhill's proposed tables

Subpage: Talk:Australian legislative election, 2004/Aaronhill's proposed tables

I've added an alternative to the same page. It relies on blank space to format the table. m.e. 09:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Senate there. - Aaron Hill 03:25, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

A Senate table is in the works as well. - Aaron Hill 08:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'Pendulum' images such as the one to the right (from the Spanish page) would be good too - again, if they can be done without looking out of place. -- Chuq 13:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See link in External Links" to the Mackerras Pendulum (per Malcolm Mackerras) that I'd be happy to ask him to have reflected here (see Talk:Malcolm Mackerras) Peter Ellis 02:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) I have since obtained his approval to use his Pendulum data (email: Wed 15SEP04 12:52), and have added the section "Predictions". I also asked whether there is a graphical version of this. Peter Ellis 03:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bob Brown is not "leader"

The Australian Greens don't have a formal leadership. Not sure what you could call him, though... I'm consulting with Party people.

Shermozle

This is correct, Adam has mentioned this in the body of the article - I've edited Bob Brown's caption to match -- Chuq 23:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Why "legislative?"

The election is not just for the legislature (as say is a US Congressional election) but for the executive - ie the actual government of Australia. Can't we have a better title for the page? Thortful 22:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, they are not directly choosing the executive. Granted, the executive is responsible to the legislature and in practice is a subset of it, but constitutionally, they are separate entities. The people of Australia are voting for the legislature, whose composition will determine the executive. David Cannon 22:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the usual convention of classifying elections either as presidential or legislative, although some Users (mainly British) insist on "general elections." The Australian election is clearly a legislative election. The executive in Australia is, strictly speaking, the Crown, although in practice the Crown always acts on the advice of the Cabinet. Adam 00:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Canadians decided on federal. See: Canadian federal election, 2004. Legislative makes sense, if there would be any change at all, it would be to federal as that is what is most commonly used in Australia to refer to the current election. - Aaron Hill 00:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that most Australians refer to the "federal elections" as distinct from state elections. But when I created this article I followed the standard Wikipedia convention. This article is of interest to people other than Australians. Adam 06:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

alternate names

• Federal E.
• National E.
• Commonwealth E.
• as distinct from state Elections.

• Parliamentary Elections.
• Legislative Elections.
• General Elections.

The gay vote

"this issue is gaining traction for the Greens in electorates with large gay and lesbian populations, such as Sydney, Grayndler and Melbourne".

This seems an obtuse statement to me: does this mean there are less gay people in Brisbane and Perth? Just because they hold the Mardis Gras in Sydney doesn't mean, I would say, all the gay people in Australia have moved to live there. Wouldn't the 'gay vote' be roughly the same across Australia, definitely urban areas? Feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong, that's why I didn't edit the article :D

Davedx 05:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it, there are larger gay communities in Sydney and Melbourne than in other areas because they're Australia's biggest cities. And since the electorates within those cities are both more numerous and smaller than elsewhere (say, Brisbane), the gay community within a small electorate will have more clout than one within a larger, more diluted electorate that covers a wider geographic area. There tend to be more gay voters within inner city suburbs than outer suburbs - in some areas, there are what are referred to as gay villages. And Sydney in comparative terms does have quite a sizable gay population; I've heard it referred to as the city with the second largest gay population in the world (outside of San Fransisco). I have no idea if that's true, but at any rate, even if its size isn't so great, its organisation and community linkage are considerable, meaning that gay issues have comparatively wide prominence and influence over votes. At least, so is my understanding, anyway. Lacrimosus 05:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it is generally agreed that if there is an indentifiable gay and lesbian vote (note correct usage) in Australia it is concentrated in inner-city areas, that is in the seats of Sydney, Wentworth and Grayndler (NSW), Melbourne, Melbourne Ports and Batman (Vic), Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. Most of these are safe Labor seats so the g&l vote doesn't have much influence, but Ports, Brisbane and Adelaide it may do. The Dems are running a gay candidate in Ports, and the Libs are running a lesbian in Brisbane (which takes some gall after their marriage bill stunt). The Greens will be looking for g&l votes in Sydney and Melbourne, which they have hopes of winning. Adam 06:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Greens Preferences

Just wondering why the Greens are preferencing Pauline Hanson before Family First and One Nation in Queensland? Why hasn't this been mentioned? I am sure I have heard Bob Brown call Hanson Many unpleasant things over a period of time. Are they be preferencing her over Family First because they prefer her policies, or some other reason? X

This whole preference thing gets rather silly at times. You can't put all the nasty candidates last, and it makes no practical difference whether you preference someone last or second last. In Queensland it is probably a fair call that Hanson, running as an independent, is not quite as odious as One Nation or the FFP or the CEC. But none of this really matters much. Adam 02:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Like Adam said, it makes no difference. Yes, Pauline Hanson's group are ahead of some others in the Green preferences, but they're still preference #40 and #41 out of 50 candidates, behind all of the major parties - only Family First, One Nation, Citizen's Electoral Council and the New Country Party are lower than Hanson. [3] —Stormie 02:59, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Lib/Nat joint/separate Senate tickets

Since I've seen a bit of back and forth as to whether the Liberal and National parties have joint or separate Senate tickets in Queensland - Adam Carr is right, they are definitely separate. The Liberal Party have 4 candidates in Group C, the National Party have 3 candidates in Group M - see [4]. For other candidature questions, see [5] for the list of lists. All the Senate preference allocations are there, too, if you're interested. —Stormie 02:52, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I have put up something that will clarify this for those that dont know for all states in the main page. Xtra

---

Now that both Howard and Latham have given their policy speeches someone should write a section setting out their main policy commitments. I can't do it because I'm too partisan. Adam 05:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Senate holdowver seats.

The numbers in the Senate do not make sense without knowing the numbers of short-term and long-term (holdover) seats. A start has been made to enlarge the table.

Re: Aaronhill's result tables for Senate.

When Aaronhill does a result table for the Senate, can he include two extra columns, one at the beginning for the number of long term (holdover) Senators whose term expire at 30 Jun 2008, and another at the end for the total number of senators.

Done. I still cringe when I look at my tables, but they'll do the job. - Aaron Hill 03:26, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

The Senate results table with the holdover seats looks very good. Thank you for the effort.

211.30.76.7 07:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Result Tables

I guess its now time to vote on the tables as seen on: Talk:Australian legislative election, 2004/Aaronhill's proposed tables. Alternatives are still welcome of course. Voting ends on Friday, October 8 at 6:00 PM AEST (8:00 AM, October 8 in UTC) . Voting is first past the post (ie. choose only one option).

It seems to be Aaron Hill ... m.e. 09:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aaronhill's tables

1. Aaron Hill 09:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
2. but can't use the quota box in the senate as different for each state Xtra 11:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
   1. Whoops! That was from when I was playing around with doing a different formatt... Fixed now - Aaron Hill 12:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
3. Aaron's tables are nicely structured. Adam 13:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Ambi 09:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

M.e.'s tables

1. I suppose I should support my own tables (as reformatted). They are structured the same as Aaron's, but I think they are easier to read. m.e. 09:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Family First was added to the table - Aaron Hill 08:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Senate

• Anyone know whats the predictions for the Senate? PMA 12:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Coalition will win exactly half the senate, Greens +1, possibly hanson or another independant or another green, possibly family first in vic or sa, democrats lost all seats up for re-election, labor with the rest Xtra 14:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Neither Pauline Hanson nor the One Nation candidates will be winning in QLD. From what I've seen, Family First will not be winning in SA.

Greens and Family First

This article's tone seems very "nice" to Family First, and very downplaying toward the Greens. The Greens are now the third largest party in Australia, yet they are described in a paragraph which begins with "minor parties generally polled poorly." In that same "minor parties polled poorly" paragraph, Family First is mentioned as polling "better," despite having a swing comparable to the Greens (and a primary vote nowhere near the Greens).

The Senate seat Family First may have won was the result of very unusual preference deals in Victoria, yet it is mentioned twice, in very redundant tone: "may have a working majority with the support of the conservative Family First Party, which may win a Senate seat," followed soon by "The Family First Party did better, possibly winning a Senate seat." This strikes me very much as "playing up" Family First. One (yet to be confirmed via preferences) Senate seat does not warrant so many mentions; or at least, not while the Greens are so downplayed.

It's also worth noting, I'd imagine, that this election seems to mark the "death" of One Nation. One Nation experienced a negative swing near-exactly equal to the positive swing recieved by the Coalition. On the same "One Nation doing badly" note, Pauline Hanson's bid for Senate made no impact on the election whatsoever. The Democrats were also wiped out, but this is already mentioned in the article.

I'm willing to discuss edits before I make them.

The reason why the tone is "nice" to Family First is probably because of excessive self-checking of the main editors' biases (which if I am correct, are mostly Labor/Green). I include myself in this. I'm going to go back and fix it up a fair bit but this is not an issue that many people here would advocate on the side of the far right. - Aaron Hill 04:23, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Noted; I wouldn't know the authors' backgrounds, that's appreciated. This is also the first Wikipedia article I've ever considered contributing to that is long enough to warrant checking with the discussion page before making edits. Is there any special "discussion page protocol" I should know about?

Only the indentation that you can see, starting new headings for new topics and putting ~~~~ at the end of your comments.

There's probably a page that I should point you to, but I'm not sure I've read it myself.

Mark Hurd 08:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found that page [6], thanks Mark. Shem 08:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron to some exent. The editing reflects both editors (including me) taking great care not to be nasty about Family First, and the fact that although the Greens improved their position, they did not live up to expectations before the election. They may in fact only gain one Senate seat, they lost Cunningham, and they fell well short in Sydney and Melbourne. Family First, on the other hand, exceeded expectations, coming from nowhere to snatch a Senate seat (I am told by experts that this is nearly certain, thanks to the Democrats' rotten preference deal.) Once the dust has settled we can write a more balanced text. Adam 05:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Understood. I suppose I tend to shy from placing tone in an article based upon "expectations." The media here (QLD), for example, is already painting Family First as "surging" (despite lackluster primary votes and only one seat gained by a rubbish preference deal); all I hear of the Greens in the news is that "they didn't do as well as expected" (despite that they are now easily the third-largest party in Australia). I prefer to write based upon the numbers, and usually avoid trend-guessing unless it's clearly reflected (as with the One-Nation-to-Liberal effect, and the Democrats dive). When votes are all counted, preferences shifted, I'll come back around. Thanks for the clarification and help (both of you).

The Greens performed very well in this election in terms of primary votes in the House of Representatives, sometimes with 10% of the vote. From what I could see on my quick perusal of the AEC online tally room, it looked like their increased primary vote came mainly from former Labor supporters, while the Coalition absorbed the deflating One Nation and Democrats support base. Unusual, when you think the Democrats are closer in policy to Labor than Liberal. Either way, the Family First party do deserve a mention because they were virtually unknown to the people in the lead-up to the election. - Mark 07:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In no way was I suggesting that Family First did not deserve mention. Just working to avoid a presentation of "Family First did well, and the Greens didn't do as well as expected." Both statements are true if standing alone (Family First did do well to perhaps gain a Senate seat in their debut, regardless of preference circumstances; the Greens did not reach the solid 10% they had hoped for), but paint a rhetorical picture which is not present. I do lean toward Labor-Democrats-Greens in the Australian scene, I won't pretend otherwise, but I'd like to think that my concerns about the post-result presentation (based upon media coverage here in QLD, again) aren't a matter of editorial bias.

If Family First does indeed gain that Victoria seat, it is very much "big news," assuming they cast their vote with the Coalition (which so far as right-left goes, they most likely would). The article already covers this, and rightfully should.

I'm very satisfied with the edits/additions that've been made since my initial comment, though. So long as the article is not written in a manner that unjustly downplays (or "up-plays," as well) what's happened to any of the third party results. And again, the dust hasn't settled yet. Can't say as I have much else to add until all votes are in (and preferences set in stone). Shem 08:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring of Results and Commentary

The current "section 0", prior to the first heading should be put under a heading so that it is easier for people to edit. I'd be bold but it is a current event and so should quickly give the newsworthy information at the moment. If someoneelse want's change it now, a way to edit just that secion is to start editing section 1 (using whatever way your preferences allow you to) and then change the URL from ...&section=1 to ...&section=0 .

If there's a simpler way, with monobook, can someone tell me?

Mark Hurd 11:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason we don't want a heading at the start of the article is that that would bring the ugly and obtrusive TOC box up to the top of the article. Personally I would abolish TOC boxes, or at least give editors the ability to decide where to put them, but since we have them we have to structure articles so they appear well down the page. Adam 13:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I note that there is a NOTOC marker available for just that scenario.

But it seems to get FAC, it needs my suggested edit...

Mark Hurd 02:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CLP Seat

the reason why the AEC website says that liberals only have 71, is because they don't factor in the seat held by the country liberal party (which realy is just a division of the liberal party) Xtra 13:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Turnout

There doesn't seem to be any mention of turnout. Going by the article on the 2001 election, it seems to be down, and all the parties except the Greens seem to have lost votes - unless some votes haven't been counted yet. Can anyone add information on turnout as a proportion of the electorate, and the swing in this? -- Gregg 00:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Turnout in Australian elections is usually pretty good, given that voting is compulsory in Australia and non-compliance is punishable with a fine. Alex.tan 07:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah. So... why does turnout appear to have fallen from 11.4 million to 9.5 million, since the last election? Or are there still two million odd votes to be counted? -- Gregg 10:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

only 75% of the votes have been counted Xtra 10:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks. -- Gregg 10:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also there was an unusually high postal/pre-poll vote this election, possibly due to school holidays in several states. - Mark 11:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bush Victory

It seems to me that this is a poltical victory for George W. Bush - He's retained a faithful ally for Iraq, and Australians have rejected the message of John Kerry's sister.

Kerry has a sister?! I think you misunderstand how little most Australians care about American politics. We can barely raise enough interest in our own elections! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article already mentions John Howard's apparent vindication of involvement in Iraq. I see no reason to suggest that it is a "victory" for George W. Bush or John Kerry, as both supported Howard over Mark Latham. Regardless of who wins the U.S. election, they'll have to clean up a mess in Iraq. John Kerry needs a cooperative partner in Iraq just as much as President Bush, hence why he stated opposition to Mark Latham's plans to withdraw troops. -Shem 203.214.148.234 08:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whilst it could be played in the US as a win for Bush; Iraq or even the FTA that appears to have come about as our "reward" for support, didn't seem to play any role in the election at all. Maybe something should go into the US election article about how the result could be spun to be supporting of Bush, I don't believe anything should go into this article unless the spin is used.Steven jones 02:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Labor had made a big election issue over hammering the Coalition for their actions with regards to supporting Bush in Iraq, and the results had gone the same way, then maybe you could spin this as a vote for Bush. But that didn't happen. —Stormie 03:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Iraq was hardly mentioned as an issue once the campaign began. But the damage to Latham was done back in March with his off-the-cuff "out by Xmas" comments to Mike Carlton. That produced an immediate dip in the polls and he never recovered his earlier standing, not so much because of the issue itself but because of the impression it gave of policy-on-the-run. But it was economic issues that cost Labor the election. Adam 04:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to the chorus, Iraq was a non-issue in the election. I've seen a number of right wing blogs spin the election as something of a referendum on Bush's war but that couldn't be further from the truth. It was a remarkably (perhaps sadly) domestic-based election. Psychobabble

Malcolm Mackerras' prediction

Okay, folks. Here is where I draw a line in the sand: Historical accuracy. Over a few months now I have several times inserted and later seen removed the mention of Malcolm Mackerras' prediction in January 2005 about the election. Whether you like him or not, he predicted it. It happened! He deserves recognition.

As of right now, the Mackerras Pendulum image is still there but the paragraph has been removed, thus losing the sense and historical importance of the pendulum/image. (The paragraph morphed after the link to User:Adam Carr's pendulum was added, and it remains.) The Mackerras entry went in the edits at 23:43, 11 Oct 2004 by 202.154.105.254.

If it is unacceptable to record the historically quite accurate prediction in the body of the entry, as it seems from people's censoring of the mention of Mackerras' prediction, then I imagine that no-one will complain if I create a separate section for the history of predictions about this election. Other people's predictions can then be documented, too. I await your advice and, if no-one objects, will do this late in the weekend. Peter Ellis 03:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have the Mackerras piece ("Nothing for certain in landslide danger zone," Australian, 5 January 2004) in front of me and he does not predict the election result, or even attempt to do so. In fact he said: "I have no idea how the Australian people will divide their votes and nor does anyone else." He posits a 3% swing to the coalition as a hypothesis, but further down the column he posits a swing to Labor of 4%. Mackerras does not in general make election predictions. I do not appreciate being accused of censorship. Research should precede accusation. Adam 04:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam, please do not be touchy. (I realise that you have opinions about how people in Wikipedia are behaving at the moment, and I am almost certain from what I can read that I'm on your 'side'.) Notice that I made the point that the edits in which the Mackerras matters were removed were by 202.154.105.254 and not you. As for the prediction, have I mis-attributed the prediction to the article rather than the list/pendulum he has on his web site? If so, I'll correctly attribute it to his site. (See the predicted situation/pendulum as recorded in detail at the Malcolm Mackerras entry and in the image of the pendulum.) I think that most folk would call saying something will occur in a particular way 10 months and 4 days ahead of time a prediction; I'll call it a prophecy if that is clearer. Peter Ellis 05:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That link is dead. If the pendulum is the same as the one in the Australian, it makes no prediction. Adam 05:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Seems to me Malcolm Mackerras is more famous for the consistent inaccuracy of his predictions than anything else. He's been getting it wrong for 30 years to my knowledge - when will he ever learn that the past is no predictor of the future, particularly in political contexts? Why are his predictions, or anybody else's, of any real interest to Wikipedia? I can predict anything I like, and the fact that I have made such a prediction then becomes a part of world history, but that doesn't mean it's of any interest or value to anybody but me. Cheers JackofOz 07:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mackerras is a good statistician and deserves credit for inventing the pendulum and the idea of the two-party vote and the two-party swing (in Australian General Elections 1972), but when he ventures into political commentary and prediction he is a bit of a dill. In the article cited above his only actual prediction was that Labor would win Wakefield, which it didn't. Adam 08:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Family First/Greens in Tas Senate

I reverted Xtra's change of 19 Oct - see the commentary on the ABC site:

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendTAS.htm under "Antony Green's Analysis" -

If all votes are assumed to be ticket votes, then the final vacancy in Tasmania goes to Jacquie Petrusma of Family First ahead of Christine Milne from the Greens. However, the final margin of victory is only 4,300 votes. In 2001, one in five Tasmanian votes, or around 60,000 ballot papers, were cast below the line. Christine Milne is a well known political figure in the state, and it is quite likely that many below the line votes from the Labor, Liberal and Australian Democrat tickets will leak to Milne. The final result in Tasmania will now be known until all below the line votes are entered into the computer counting system, and the button is hit to distribute preferences.

The "results" shown on that page are for an "all votes are above-the-line votes" scenario. -- Chuq 12:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ok. will wait for declared results for that. Xtra 13:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Electoral fraud and complaints

During this election there have been a number of reports and complaints made to the AEC regarding activities and material which may constitute electoral fraud. I think we should include a small section on this, with focus on those incidents which can be confirmed (i.e. those reported to the AEC) and obviously being careful with the NPOV and defamation (in other words, just because it may have benefited one particular party, does not necessarily mean it was the work of that party).

Anyone have any particular views on this front before I start adding a new section? Also, if anyone has relevant URLs available, it would be appreciated. -- BenM 02:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There have been several press reports about the use of misleading how-to-vote cards, such as the "Green Liberal" card in Melbourne Ports. I would not call this "electoral fraud," although it might be found to breach s329 of the Electoral Act. Adam 06:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

apparantly it was reported on the internet today on The Australian that larry anthony was complaining about dodgy how to votes Xtra 06:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dodgy HTVs have a long and glorious history in Australian politics, and MPs who lose their seats by very narrow margins (like Anthony, who is a nice bloke but a political dud, and lost his seat all by himself) often find them a convenient excuse. It's never been proved that they really have much effect, although the Melbourne Ports one certainly cost the Greens some votes. I don't know who was behind the Richmond one. Richmond is a pretty feral area these days. Adam 07:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so should we leave it out or just include a small section of those issues reported to the AEC? If the latter we could then include the allegations of bribery made by that independent MP against the Nationals at the start of the campaign (the trade the seat for a diplomatic post thing). -- BenM 02:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

that could cause defamation problems if the claims turn out to be unfounded. the AEC puts out a report after each election including all these type of occurences. could we take it from that when it comes out. Xtra 08:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title

Excuse my ignorance to the technicalities, but as a title, "Australian legislative election, 2004" is rather cumbersome. Would there be any merit in moving this to 2004 Federal election, Australia/Australia Federal election, 2004, or the like? Something more memorable or accessible? Dysprosia 12:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the answer to accesibility is to have the article well linked to articles about australia, australian politics/politicians etc. The "cumbersome" problem can be fixed by creating articles with those names and rediricting them to this. Xtra 13:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's not quite the point, but Aaron Hill answered the question. Dysprosia

Refer to the conversations to do with this above, it is to do with the wikipedia standards meaning that election pages must be named "legislative" or "presidential". - Aaron Hill 14:07, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Dysprosia 22:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Qld Senator #6

the last senate spot in qld is very interesting to watch. it is extremely close between the nationals and the greens. added to this are the legal threats of both the nats and the greens to have the election overturned if they don't get their way. most importantly though is that if the nats get joyce up, the coalition will have a majority in the senate. however, this may not mean absolute control to howard, as the qld nats have made it clear that they are under no binding obedience to the coalition. at the moment, after the nats were trailing by a few hundred votes on friday, they are now ahead. there is every possibility that the qld nats will become the balance of power in the senate. this may be commentworthy. Xtra 10:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)