Jump to content

Talk:2009 Mount Albert by-election

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


Issues?

[edit]

The main issue that seems to be being talked up by the parities and the media is the highway tunnel. Should it be mentioned? - SimonLyall (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. F (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
all politics is local, and it seems to me that it's pretty much the deal breaker in the byelection. needs mentioning. plan 8 (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Using the 2008 candidate votes is an even worse idea because you have a totally different slate of candidates. There was a large amount of split voting at the last election. The party vote is a better indication of party support. F (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Because Clark had such a large majority, it was considered safe. Now, with no incumbent, the party support seems more relevant than the personal votes. How about both votes being in the table?
Adabow (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because they're not casting party votes in the byelection. it's an fpp election for an fpp seat, and it'd be just like if it happened before 1996. Party votes tend to be drastically different to constituency votes, and it probably confuses more than it clarifies to compare them to each other. plan 8 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but because Clark has so much support, she was returned with a great majority. With potentially new, new and backbench MPs contesting, the party vote is, in my opinion, more relevant. Anyway, not many (if any) of the candidates stood in Mt. Albert in 2008, so there are new candidates in the electorate and new voters for the candidates. Do you get what I mean? Adabow (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the big thing is that we're looking for numbers that somehow accurately represent the political situation on the ground in Mount Albert. I can understand that, but I have to say that it's all still the comparison of apples and oranges - while Shearer might not be in line for 59% of the vote, 5.4% of the vote in Mt Albert went to parties that aren't contesting the by-election, meaning that a candidate:candidate comparison can show the swing as it is, and a candidate:party vote comparison automatically contains a 5% swing that doesn't really exist. I do think it's important to put in a backgrounder about the electoral habits of Mt Albert, about Clark being more popular than Labour and National being more popular than Musuku. plan 8 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also, while I think about it, byelections return bloody strange results anyway, so comparison is sometimes moot. When else is Tariana Turia going to get 90% of the vote in her seat? when else is ACT going to come second in Taranaki-King Country? when else is the Alliance going to come within a bulls roar of winning Tamaki? a by-election is the political equivalent of 'only in America'. plan 8 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean. But, then, do we include any past results? Also it needs to be clear what the results are for (ie candidate or party's previous candidate).Adabow (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

I've just uploaded 3 photos of billboards to commons:

I also got a photo of the ACT candidate John Boscawen:

They should be useful in the article somewhere. Let me know if you need any others, I can probably wander along next weekend if somebody knows where candidates will be. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Can you find the "Get more muscle vote Russel" billboard? Also, is there a place where there are lots of billboards from different parties together? F (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do take more photos, can you please focus more on the billboard; advertisements for Chinese acupuncture don't seem to add to them:). Good work though!Adabow (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was the best angle I could get :) . My editing skills suck so feel free to edit any of the photos for inclusion - SimonLyall (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively-elected MPs

[edit]

There are several incumbent list MPs standing for this election. Would it also make sense to look at the party lists, to see who would be the actual new MP introduced to parliament if their party wins this by-election? See for example this analysis. Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a line being added to each such candidate's section, saying "If x wins the by-election, y will become a list MP because they are the next person on their party's list". Ideally that would have a reliable source for each one. If y doesn't already have an article, this is not a justification for writing one until such time as they actually become an MP.-gadfium 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head they are Cam Calder for National, David Cleedon (sp?) for Greens and not sure who is #6 on the ACT list Mattlore (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Done, but please edit wording if you find necessary - Adabow (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who gets in if Lee wins?

[edit]

Now that Richard Worth has resigned, who would get in if Melissa Lee wins? Cam Calder or Conway Powell? F (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conway Powell. Cam Calder will become an MP (assuming he doesn't decline to) because Richard Worth has now resigned. --Lholden (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to [1], Calder doesn't seem likely to decline.-gadfium 08:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink background for list MPs

[edit]

Since I put in the templated results, I can't figure out how to make the background of the list MPs pink. Is this possible? If so, could someone do this? Ta,
Adabow (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's possible with the templates you used. The template for normal MMP elections is {{MMP election box candidate list}} which applies 'style="background-color:#FDD"' to the line, but that template is not suitable for by-elections where there is no party vote. Before the by-election results were announced, the table used a custom format, not template based.-gadfium 06:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand MMP

[edit]

I've edited your mistake many times and you keep reversing it. Don't you understand the MMP electoral system? The electoral seats DO NOT alter the total number of list seats in parliament.

The seat allocations are based on the party vote of the election. I.e. from the 2008 election, National has 58 seats, Labour has 43 seats, Greens have 9 seats, Act has 5 seats, Progressive has 1 seat and United Future has 1 seat. The Maori party were entitled to 3 seats, but because they won 5 electorate seats, there was an overhang, hence why there are 122 seats in parliament.

To allocate seats to people, first they look at the electorate seats. Then they fill the remainder of the party's allocation up with list seats. For example, National won 41 electorate seats. Therefore they got 17 list seats (i.e. 58 - 41 = 17).

If Melissa Lee won, she would become an electorate MP. Therefore National would have 42 electorate seats and are therefore entitled to only 16 list seats (i.e. 58 - 42 = 16). Since Melissa Lee would have given up her list seat for her electorate seat, the number of list MPs would fall from 17 to 16, which is exactly what National would have been entitled to (if Melissa Lee won).

You say that Conway Powell would enter parliament. Therefore, using your incorrect logic, there would still be 17 list MPs (including Conway Powell), plus 42 electorate MPs (the original 41 electorate MPs plus Melissa Lee). Therefore National would have 59 seats (i.e. 17 + 42 = 59). This would violate the MMP electoral system since the party vote only allocated 58 seats to National (not 59). This would increase the total number of MPs to 123 when there was no need for an additional overhang (an overhang only happens when a party wins more electorate seats that their party list entitlement).

This analysis can be done for the Greens and ACT as well (because Lee, Norman and Boscowen were all incumbent list MPs). So as you can see, your analysis of MMP is wrong. So I'm going to correct this article once again and PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE IT AGAIN to your incorrect analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzclogger1 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it wrong. If Lee had won, she would have vacated her list seat, allowing Conway Powell to take up her list seat, while she took Helen Clark's former seat off Labour. National's proportion would've been keep constant. Since David Shearer replaced a sitting Labour MP, there was no additional MP for Labour. --Lholden (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mistake there: I meant that National's proportion of list seats would've been kept the same, although the party would have overall 1 more seat. --Lholden (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party votes allocate the TOTAL proportion of seats - it doesn't relate to the proportion of list seats. List seats are just the difference between the electorate votes and the total allocation of seats. You have even admitted that under your incorrect theory that National would gain one seat. This cannot happen because the party votes have only granted a TOTAL of 58 seats to National. National cannot have 59. Labour are entitled to 43 seats from the party vote. Melissa Lee couldn't have made Labour go down to 42. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzclogger1 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Nzclogger1's analysis would seem to make sense, in the spirit of proportionality, it is in fact not the way it works in New Zealand and is incorrect. This argument however is rather pointless as neither of you have provided any sources, although I must say earlier in the year I was pretty disappointed because I could not find the relevant information regarding this issue on the election.org.nz website. How is this for a source [2] "If Ms Lee wins the byelection, the next person on National's list, Cam Calder, will enter Parliament.", or alternatively try question 3 on the advanced quiz [3]. Mattlore (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source: http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/two-ticks-too-easy.html Look under: How do party votes turn into seats?

It says: A party's share of seats is filled first by any of its candidates who win electorate seats and then by taking other candidates from the party list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzclogger1 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what happens at a general election, not at a by-election - see section 127 of the Electoral Act 1993. In other words, list seats are only allocated following a general election, so if there's a subsequent by-election there doesn't have to be a nationwide party vote to maintain overall proportionality. --Lholden (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, thats right in a general election but after list seats are assigned then proportionality is ignored in a way. In a by-election the concept is that the party (in this case Labour) has re-signed one seat and therefore goes down to 42 seats. Then if they win they go back up to 43. If they lose however the party who wins the by-election gains another seat REGARDLESS OF ITS PERFORMANCE at the last election. If this seat is won by a list MP then the list MP can re-sign before they are sworn in as an electorate MP and a new list MP is elected, increasing the parties total by one. Thus if Melissa Lee had won Mt Albert she would have re-signed as a list MP, been declared an electorate MP, and Cam Calder would have been declared a list MP, increasing National's total. This scenario has never occurred in NZ before but trust me, this is the way it works. As well as the evidence I presented above, I have seen comments from Helena Catt that confirm this. Mattlore (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(apologies this was written before I have read Lholden's comment)

OK then you win :). I didn't realise that the seat allocations were different in by-elections. That is probably why the parties are so concerned about winning winning the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzclogger1 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought, to prove that your theory is correct, in the Te Tai Hauauru by-election in 2004, Tariana Turia of the Maori Party won. She resigned as an MP of the Labour party, so the Labour party decreased by one seat. When Tariana Turia won the seat, she won it as a Maori party MP and Labour didn't get another MP to keep their total number of seats the same. So this situation has happened before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.201.96 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Albert by-election, 2009/archive1. (edit | history)

Mount Albert by-election, 2009

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, in my opinion, it has most of the information it can include now, and would like tips to raise the class of the article. One thing I have thought about is merging sections 4.12, 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:- The article looks to be in a very incomplete state, with mini-banners indicating areas still being developed. It seems somewhat premature to carry out a full review at this stage, but I can offer some suggestions on what needs to be done.

  • When the text is complete it will be necessary to rewrite the lead as a summary of the whole article
  • Overall structure needs a rethink. At the moment there is far too much emphasis on the candidates and far too little on the election campaign itself. Information is scattered about the article in seemingly random fashion; this needs to be properly organised. You also need to get rid of the mini-lists and bullet-points.
  • More background information would be helpful. For example it would be useful to know the numbers of parliamentary seats held by the parties at the time of the by-election.  Done Adabow (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candidate information should be summarised much more succinctly. The many minor/fringe candidates aren't worth the space you give them Green tickY second half done Adabow (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a Campaign section, which summarises the main events of the by-election campaign from the close of nominations to polling day. Opinion poll information could be included here, at least so far as the main parties are concerned. The two polls that you cite are not particularly helpful, since no dates are given. Also information on debates, and on any other activities of the main candidates
  • I'd suggest that the logical sequence of sections in the article should be something like:
    • Background
    • Candidates
    • Issues
    • Campaign
    • Result
    • Aftermath
  • Some of your online references lack access dates. These dates should be in a single consistent format - at the moment two different formats are used. Done Adabow (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swing: this is the average movement in percentage votes between two parties. In this election Labour's vote rose by 4.02%, National's fell by 11.93. That's a swing to Labour from National of 7.97% (average of + 4.02 and -11.93).  Not done - See this discussion. Adabow (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you complete the article's development, and then bring it back for a full review. I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, so if you have queries arising from this review, please use my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mount Albert by-election, 2009. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 15:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Albert by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Mount_Albert_by-election&oldid=1196547379"