Talk:2008 Lyne by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not standing in opposition seats[edit]

Rather than it stick out like a sore thumb with James Langley, is there a better way to put it that governments usually don't run in opposition held seats, per List of Australian federal by-elections? Timeshift (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of examples where they do though. I think it has to do more with the safety of the seat - neither major party runs in the other's safe seats without a good reason. I'd have to look through a list but there are a number of examples of a government gaining an opposition-held seat at by-election. Indeed, in WA, when both Victoria Park and Peel (government-held seats) were contested by the opposition, the Liberals were criticised - including from amongst their own - for wasting money entering fights they had no chance of winning. Historically, safe seats were often uncontested at by-elections, so the party who safely possessed it could pick the next member and they'd simply take office at the close of nominations. (As a complete aside - are the two uncontested Labor seats in the NT 2008 election the first in this century in Australia?) Orderinchaos 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I believe the last uncontested seats before that were back in the 1980s. Rebecca (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last in WA was in 1983 (Stirling), I wouldn't be entirely unsurprised if we had the last one nationally given how many there were in the 50s and 60s here (in one election in the 60s one short of half of all seats were uncontested :|) Orderinchaos 11:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakeshott - every booth?[edit]

When I checked 2pp by polling booth last night, I couldn't see a booth even remotely near 50% for Oakeshott. Now today I see Dyers Crossing at 49.57% (231 to 235) for Oakeshott! The current next closest is Long Flat on 57%. Are they still counting ordinary votes? Could it still swing the other way? Timeshift (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results table - shouldn't be there[edit]

I don't think we should have a results table until the count and verification process is completely finished. The seat may be declared but results are still subject to change. I believe the way it was, giving a brief rundown of what happened, with a link to the AEC results, should be quite sufficient. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lyne by-election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Lyne_by-election&oldid=1196519576"