Talk:2015 Canning by-election

2pp history

It's good to include it. It's been there for ages so it has implicit consensus. Orderinchaos, if you wish to change it please discuss here. The table is labelled 2pp history of Canning. Not 2pp history using Canning's current boundaries. All seats get redistributed. It's a wonk of an argument. Perhaps you could help improve the article by adding rather than removing - how about a compromise like adding another row for 2pp swing %? Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No "implicit consensus" at all, it's a low traffic article which only now would be starting to attract attention.

I have removed the 2CP history as it wantonly misleads viewers. The seat that until 1980 was known as Canning became the seat of Division of O'Connor, this was very clear in the 1980 report redistributing the seats in WA - which can be found in most state libraries and some uni libraries - where Canning was renamed O'Connor. The name "Canning" was almost abolished but there were many submissions which eventually swayed the AEO (as it then was) to use the name for another seat. According to my information, 25% of the present seat of Canning was within the boundaries at that time, representing 20% of its population, with most of the rest now being in O'Connor (Beverley, Katanning, Williams subdivisions) or Brand (Kwinana, Rockingham subdivisions).

The seat was then based in the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Perth for two decades from 1980 to 2001 (no part of the present Canning was within its borders during this time), until the creation of the seat of Hasluck, when Canning moved in to take territory off Brand, Forrest and O'Connor (Brand became an entirely suburban seat due to population growth on the coast). There would be some case for having this information from 2001 onwards, but there are complications due to a Labor-voting part of Mandurah being added in 2010, and the massive population growth over that period. Orderinchaos 00:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Also worth reading WP:OWN. Just because one editor puts it there and likes it doesn't mean it needs to stay. A positive case for including irrelevant data that has nothing whatsoever to do with the present electorate would have to be made. Orderinchaos 00:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't WP the regulars Orderinchaos, you should know this more than most. Low traffic doesn't change implicit consensus. The table was not added yesterday. All seats get redistributed. The table is not labelled "2pp history on current Canning boundaries". If you feel that strongly about it for whatever reason, it can all be fixed with a compromise of adding a "2pp swing %" row to clear up what change comes from swing and what comes from redistribution. Do you care for a compromise or are you forcing an all or nothing view? But I do suggest to wait for more editors to contribute. WP:BRD... you changed it, i reverted it, now we discuss it. Again, you know this more than most. Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "implicit consensus". If it's factually wrong, it gets removed. I have made a case for removing it. Now make a case for including it - noting that 1980-2001 is in fact Hasluck and parts of Pearce and Swan, and nothing to do with this by-election. Even swing means nothing as it was 100% a different seat. Orderinchaos 00:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is very valuable background that should be added to the Division of Canning article, as that is where it belongs. Including references, of course. Schwede66 00:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the reason for removal, he would disagree with that. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I was actually going to rewrite the Canning article about 5 years ago and gathered sources for it, but like many Wiki priorities it got set aside. It certainly helps in understanding the figures. Orderinchaos 02:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Which 2PP vote was incorrect? None were factually wrong, each margin was the margin of Canning at each listed election. Stop your forced rubbish interpretations on us please. Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Breaks all rules and can't even wait for a discussion before forcing their own view on the article with no consensus. VERY un-admin-like. Very displeased at today's events and subsequent bullying and steamrolling. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue here is you're too proud to admit you shouldn't have dived in with an edit war and instead go through the talkpage. I hope someone on here, an admin would be nice, would have the balls to call out Orderinchaos (an admin) for his incendiary actions after reviewing the flow of events. Far from admin-like. Very far. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeshift, if you allow me to comment, your tone is rather uncivil. Maybe it is you who should take some time out, let things calm down, before commenting further. Schwede66 01:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil was thrown out the window at the start. I'm very disappointed and will keep this going until it gets the attention it deserves no matter how much noise I have to make for justice. Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems pretty straightforward to me. It's fine to include it from 2001, especially since that's when Randall assumed the seat. Going further back than that is unnecessary anyway (election results from twenty years ago are hardly relevant to a by-election being held now), and considering the history of the seat ridiculously inappropriate. As an aside, and not meaning to get into anything, but I would like to place on the record the fact that I disagree with the idea that because something has been in one article for a certain amount of time without challenge (in this case under a month!!) means it has "implicit consensus". That isn't how things work. Frickeg (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Background stuff

I have removed what was essentially a collection of links to any political story since the by-election was called, which is so very much not what we are about. I am fairly dubious about the content under "polling issues" and "voter age groups" as well - the latter should be in a single paragraph if at all, and the former I don't think does a great job of explaining its significance (and seems to highlight a few issues for no apparent reason?). Would appreciate further input on this. Frickeg (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the list does not belong in the article. The criteria for inclusion in such a list should be a reliable source that a federal political issue is likely to affect voting preference in the electorate, such as local opinion polling. As it is, it's essentially a random and indiscriminate collection of political events with no evidence that any of them will affect the outcome in Canning. The local issues such as crime rate and the roads funding have been covered in local media quite extensively and specifically in relation to the by-election, so I think they could stay. --Canley (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree the list is WP:NOT and also against WP:EL. However as this is a federal election, there should be a section on federal issues, so rather than removing the current content, it should be replaced with an encyclopaedic summary. --ELEKHH^T 12:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank you for your comments and corrections. I compliment you on how you have introduced, expanded, and redacted the section under POLLING ISSUES. As suggested, I have moved the 'Timeline of political issues' to the section under OPINION POLLS. Here, the timeline issues may be understood in the context of the opinion polls tabled above. Pls note, the timeline relates to the major federal political issues current during the by-election. It is intended to highlight what is relevant now as well as what was happening when read historically. VOTER AGE GROUPS was added to itemize voter demographics. More could be done here and I will review how to expand and model this better. The current information is useful to readers for a statistical understanding of the electorate. Meanwhile, I am more than happy to undertake any tasks you suggest on the by-election, and I look forward to your input and advice regarding areas I have added to the page. --Saint Lucy (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just saw your changes on VOTER AGE GROUPS to VOTER DEMOGRAPHICS. Great summary. Thanks!! --Saint Lucy (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Candidates unable to vote

Per the weekend West Australian, neither the Labor candidate nor the Liberal candidate are eligible to vote in the by-election, as they have not been residents of the electorate for the required time (one month). Is this worth putting in the article, or is it a bit too trivial? IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Group Tickets

Does anyone know where to find group tickets (preferencing arrangements for each candidate) for the Canning by-election (for example, on the AEC website)? Perhaps the article could have a link to this information on the AEC website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.195.148 (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The term "group tickets" usually refers to Senate voting, as parties have multiple candidates in groups, and can direct preferences where the elector votes above the line. In the lower house (House of Representatives), preference ordering is the choice of the voter, so they are generally called "how-to-vote cards" which recommend how the candidate/party suggests preferences be ordered. The AEC doesn't have a requirement that HTV cards be registered with them like the Victorian Electoral Commission does, so they don't publish them on their website. If you live in Canning, you will probably only see HTV cards in the post or on election day. --Canley (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Liberal candidate has a how-to-vote card published on his campaign website; I can't find one for Labor as yet. No great surprises, and the only how-to-vote card that could possibly affect the election is the Greens' one. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the Liberals are immediately preferencing right-wing parties like the Australian Christians and Family First- like you said, no surprises there.

https://palmerunited.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PUP-How-to-Vote-card.pdf

The Palmer United Party seem to be preferencing the Liberals, but after other small parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.212.14 (talk)

Yep, I hear a radio ad a couple of times a day about how "Palmer United is preferencing the Liberals, so only a vote for Labor will count" (which is of course complete nonsense as voters can preference how they like). Antony Green has just put up an an interesting blogpost on the subject. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

title

Per WP:NCE:

• When the incident happened.
• Where the incident happened.
• What happened.

Examples of "when", "where" and "what" titles

• 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
• 1993 Russian constitutional crisis

@The Drover's Wife: is there any compelling reason not to move?

-- Callinus (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Every single election on the entirety of Wikipedia is at "jurisdiction-type-election, year". I'd call that a compelling reason, short of a consensus to move the other umpteen-thousand affected articles. I'd probably start at getting a consensus for moving US presidential elections before trying to boldly move an article on a random Australian by-election. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with The Drover's Wife. Schwede66 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. Frickeg (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And etc. This thread doesn't deserve the space. Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Fourthed. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canning by-election, 2015. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151022074956/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-18126-236.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-18126-236.htm

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) 07:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)