Talk:2010 Australian federal election/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This article should be AfD'd
Per other past examples, we should not be creating an article for election so far away. AfD? Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was nominated; the result of the discussion can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election, 2010. As you can see, the result was to keep the article. The article was renamed as a result of the discussion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- At least some of the information (eg. footers) is duplicate of Elections in Australia. Merge? --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the link from Mattinbgn shows, there was an extremely thorough discussion as to what to do with the article, only about 3 weeks ago, and the result was keep. I don't think anything major has changed since then. About the only thing I can think of is that the date of the first sitting of the parliament is now known - this only makes the article more viable. -- Chuq (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Election campaigns can be up to 68 days/10 weeks...
Is it just too late and not reading the article correctly? 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."? Timeshift (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct; As it says at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn04.htm "The time allowed from the expiry or dissolution of the House to polling day is therefore not less than 33 days and not more than 68 days." Barrylb (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Opening paragraph - dissolution or expiry
The next Australian federal election will elect members of the 43rd Parliament of Australia and must be held on or before April 16, 2011. The election will be called following the dissolution of the current Parliament.
- This will almost certainly be the case. However, it will not necessarily be the case, and we’re not a crystal ball. Section 28 of the Constitution says: "Every H of R shall continue for 3 years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General". That is, the default position is that the house expires after 3 years, without any intervention. The GG can dissolve it earlier, and this has almost always been what has occurred – almost, but not quite. The 3rd Parliament first sat on 20 February 1907. It was never dissolved by the GG and it expired on 19 February 1910 [1].
- It’s possible this could happen with the current parliament. We've giving 16 April 2011 as the last possible date of the election, which is correct, but the only way that day could be election day is if the parliament is not dissolved by the GG but continues for the full 3 years and expires on 12 February 2011 simply by the operation of s.28.
- I’m changing the sentence to "The election will be called following the dissolution or expiry of the current Parliament". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.. a few of the dates may be off by one, based on the 1907-1910 example. Article current says "first meet on February 12, 2008. Therefore it expires on February 12, 2011" but it looks based on the example above, it actually expires a day earlier. Barrylb (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good pick-up, Barrylb. I've made the corrections in the article. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Early election prediction
Commentators such as David Barnett from The Canberra Times predict the election will be called early and .....
Is it enough to report these predictions, or do we need to explain what is meant by "early"? Given that all but one of the 41 completed parliaments have been dissolved early, it's hardly an earth-shattering prediction, unless it's given some meat in terms of specific time periods. In any case, where's the cut-off point between "early" and "not early"? Constitutionally, if the parliament is dissolved a week before it was due to expire in February 2011, or even a day before, this is nevertheless still "early". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the article Barnett reckons the election is "more likely in two years' time rather than three" so we should probably reflect that, since I don't think we can define "early". Barrylb (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Margin and seats needed for victory
Probably WP:OR, but I think winning nine seats (Braddon, 1.44%) will be enough because the two independents are more likely to be in government with the coalition. Guy0307 (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The format has always been the number of seats needed for majority, not minority government. 76 of 150 seats. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
half-senate
Per this, it needs rewording as it covers both seperate half-senate and full elections, but says that less than instead of more than half are voted in which for full elections is incorrect. Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, it does need rewording. But it's a bit complicated. If there's a separate "half-Senate" election - unlikely but possible - half of the 72 state senators will be involved, and only them. That's 36, slightly less than half of 76. But if the "half-Senate" is elected on the same day as the House of Reps election, then the territory senators become involved, pushing the number up to 40, slightly more than half of 76. Either way, it’s never exactly half, so some explanation is required if we use the “half-Senate” terminology. I think the solution is not to use it. How about:
- A Senate election must be held before 30 June 2011 but it will probably be held in conjunction with the House of Representatives election. In this event, half (36) of the 72 state senators and all 4 of the territory senators will face election. There are precedents for holding a separate Senate election, but the last time this occurred was 1970. If this were to occur, however, the only senators to face election would be the 36 state senators referred to above.
- We could go further and explain why it varies:
Polling
63-37% 2pp and 73-7% ppm are new records for Newspoll. Noteable for the article? Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If that is notable so is the 6.5% swing in the Gippsland byelection. If that was traslated to a full election Labor would be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.101.3 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Or a 10% 2pp swing to Labor in 2001? Ryan by-election, 2001. By-elections don't mean a thing, keep looking at the Newspolls for an Australia-wide barometer. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- And they are now at 55% to 45%... so your point was? Personally I would be concerned as a Labor supporter that they can only convert a massive 65 to 14 lead in PPM to a 55 to 45 lead in the TPP. What happens when the Liberals get Turnbull in (no one believes for a second Nelson will be there in two years time). The fact that the Liberals are staying within 10% with a leader who is frankly unelectable should be very worrying to most Labor supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.19.74 (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- That Howard would have done anything to be on 55% 2pp half a year to a year after the 1996 election? And he got 11 years. Take a look at the newspoll 2pp link... Rudd has had the highest consistent 2pp since Newspoll began, and at 55% is still more than Howard was able to consistently achieve... around 50/50 for most of his government's life. They polled 52% 2pp just before the election as well. Also look at the satisfaction/dissatisfaction ratings of both leaders, which is better as a barometer when the other guy is vastly unpopular... Rudd has sky high satisfaction ratings. His polling average on any count has and continues to be higher than his predecessors. One term governments in federal politics never happen, the last was the 1929-1932 government where the Labor Party split three ways - not likely to happen. And Turnbull will have as much luck as Nelson... if the Liberal right majority don't shoot their own feet first with him in charge. Timeshift (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think by-elections should be noted. Polling IMHO is a barometer only, but not always a good one, e.g. it largely missed the anti-Labor swing at the Australian federal election, 2004. By-elections are another barometer and deserve inclusion also. Plus they probably generate more news than an individual poll. Ryan by-election, 2001 is a poor example because it was before MV Tampa - Labor really would have won had an election been held on that day, rather than after Tampa and 9/11. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I missed that... but it's only a passing reference, with no mention of the 6% swing or the commentators who said it saved Nelson's skin. My point is by-elections (and their swings) should have a more prominence, comparable to the polling. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree they should have more prominance, as you said prior to the Tampa etc Labor were going to win, and the by-election matched it. This by-election didnt, polls continue to run very well. How can you say Gippsland is a better barometer than 1100 selected randomly around Australia each fortnight? Also, what we forget to take in to consideration is those liberals who would vote for Labor before they vote National, and with this election voted Liberal for the first time in a long time as they had the option this time. Timeshift (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- How can I say a by-election is a better barometer than a newspoll? Because people actually have time to think about their vote and its consequences, rather than giving a gut reaction. In any case, I didn't say it's a better barometer, just that it was another barometer. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- What consequences? By-elections are notoriously hard to predict - people know that they aren't voting their preferred party in to power, it isn't a general election. And regarding Ryan, to have a swing of 10 percent was way more than the polls, prior to the Tampa etc, predicted. Timeshift (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The consequence of choosing your member and/or sending the government a message. Again, I agree they are not perfect indicators, but they are interesting and can have political consequences. Anyway, I've resisted the urge to make by-elections a separate section, and just noted the Gippsland swing. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"it largely missed the anti-Labor swing at the Australian federal election, 2004"... Newspoll had them 50/50 when the final result was 52.7/47.3... still within the margin of error. And there's always this lovely slice I like to whip out when people question the accuracy of polls :) Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, that just means the polls were right in 1996 and 2007. They were off the mark in 2004 (and 1993 and 1980 for that matter). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- When was the last time a party was voted out of office federally unconvincingly? You'd have to go back to 1949 on 51/49, but the seats tell another story. The point is that when people have had enough and want the government out, people, and the polls, already know. Those who couldn't see it coming last year, or 1996, etc etc. It's one thing to be 50/50 with a 3% margin of error, it's another to slump significantly in one direction or the other. Has it really been two years since the federal coalition won their last opinion poll from NP/AC/RM? Boy does time fly. Timeshift (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I made a reply, but decided it was a bit much of a soapbox comment, so moved it to User talk:Peter Ballard. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oi Timeshift... still such a cocky wanker after the 9% swing in the NT election? I thought not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ronan.evans
- You're acting as if somehow the territory election is a reflection on federal Labor? Thanks for the biggest laugh i've had all year :) Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- And what was that, the 25th? 26th? loss in a row for a state or territory Liberal/coalition party. It's gotta let up at some point! Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a loss yet mate. In fact as I recall a UFO spotting chicken farmer may hold the balance. I think that scares both of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.72.59 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fannie Bay won't fall to the CLP. Labor will win 13-11-1. Mark my words :-) Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm Mackerras's track record
Psephologist Malcolm Mackerras is "convinced" a double dissolution will occur.
I wonder if this adds any value. Mackerras is renowned for making bold predictions, many of which don't come about. He then tends to have a detailed explanation of why they didn't happen the way he predicted they would; which is all very well in hindsight, but doesn't do much for his predictive powers. Even if his track record were a lot better than it is, it's still only one person's opinion of what's going to happen, and WP is not a crystal ball. I have similar concerns about David Barnett's, or anyone else's, predictions. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are other commentators who are also sure a DD will occur, perhaps it needs to be rephrased? Either way it should somehow mention that a DD has a higher chance of occurring, with some commentators convinced a DD will occur, as the balance of power shared between three interests + Labor. That part isn't rocket science. But any WP:NPOV or other issues can and should be addressed. Do you agree? Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly with the NPOV bit, Timeshift, but I'm not sure about the commentators' opinions. I think it's sufficient to convey that a DD is more likely with the makeup of the new Senate as compared with the old Senate. As you say, it's not rocket science; more to the point, it's simple mathematics, and what commentators have to say about it doesn't change the odds. We can make meaningful statements about this without relying on the opinions (however educated they may be) of commentators (however politically impartial they may be or claim to be or we think they are). At the end of the day, a DD may happen and it may not, and we'll all know soon enough. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Polling
Changed 2PP column name to Coalition rather than Liberal as that is how it is presented by Newspoll. 211.27.5.190 (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
First Costello-Rudd polling matchup
Kevin Rudd is preferred to Peter Costello head-to-head 53 per cent to 27 per cent.[2] Timeshift (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow... big news... the incumbent Prime-Minister is ahead in a poll against an opposition back-bencher. You must be so proud. Aussie.power (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)