Talk:2014 Stafford state by-election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Australia: Queensland / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2014 Stafford state by-election is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Issue with Greens candidate?

QldGreens Twitter said on 6 June "Qld Greens will be contesting the Stafford by-election on 19 July. Candidate to be announced this coming Wednesday." but no mention of anything since? Any troubles with their preselection? Timeshift (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing public that I know of, but there's plenty of reasons why a delay might have happened. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...public? Timeshift (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the third candidate in the top right image...? Timeshift (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Peter Jeremijenko, who was the Greens candidate in 2012. I can't find any evidence that suggests he has been announced as the candidate this time. (The ACL usually has pretty good information, though.) Frickeg (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boccabella's the Green candidate. Timeshift (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, the ACL had bad information for once. Or maybe they were just guessing. Frickeg (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 candidates nominated? A little on the low side... Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer sitting out again. I don't know why he keeps doing that; it's not as though he wouldn't have at least a shot of humiliating the LNP guy. (On the other hand, Family First seems to have abandoned their long-held strategy of never contesting by-elections.) Frickeg (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very strange, isn't it? My guess would be is that he thinks he can't win suburban Brisbane seats and doesn't want to risk "Palmer falls short" headlines before what looks like an all-out Palmer assault on Queensland at the next state election. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20% 2pp swing... lol Timeshift (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3.999% Family First vote

I'm not sure if QLD have an electoral vote funding threshold of 4% or not, but on the presumption they do, how would the electoral commission calculate 4%? Family First got 4%, 4.0%, 4.00%, or 3.999% (997 divide 24933). For purposes of electoral funding, did they get 4%? Timeshift (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it would actually have to be at least 4% with no rounding. The issue is moot in this instance, though, since the Qld threshold is 6%. [1] Frickeg (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In a scenario where it was 4%, does 3.999% fall short? (I think you're saying that..) Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but I assume it has to. 3.999% is not "at least 4%", it's just "very very nearly 4%", which I can't imagine qualifies. Frickeg (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, speaking of 4% Family First votes, Electoral district of Fisher in SA. They got 3.982% but the candidate here claims "We got 4% of the vote in Fisher, just enough to get the $3000 nomination fee back from the Electoral Commission". What do people make of that? Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]