Jump to content

Talk:2016 Australian federal election

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

Vote Counting Method in Senate

[edit]

Hi, regarding your removal of my comments, I appreciate the need for neutrality, but these are important and relevant facts I was presenting, in particular

  • that the major parties went against their own bipartisan resolutions of 1998 and 2010
  • that this altered the election outcome by giving them an extra seat each after 2019
  • that the media (and thanks to your edits, wikipedia) failed to report on this.

Can you suggest an edit that presents the facts concisely while remaining neutral, or do you consider the facts themselves to be a problem? I think it is highly misleading for the media (and wikipedia) to pass off what the major parties did as "as per convention" as this legitimises a decision that is in no way legitimate.

Oz freediver (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the issue in general, which is worth a mention. The lack of references is a problem, as you say it will be difficult as it hasn't been reported much. The way I would do it is to mention that there were two senate resolutions passed in 1998 and 2010 supporting the section 282 method, which is referenced in Antony Green's post here, in Odgers', or FlagPost. The main problem with your addition in the use of non-neutral language. In less than 50 words, I see the use of "widely reported", "strangely", "universally failed", "breaking these promises" as problematic without the use of references or quoting secondary sources. Avoid assumption about the scope of the media's reporting on the issue (or lack thereof). Don't use opinion based terms like "strangely", "paradoxically", "illegitimate" or "ironically". --Canley (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this:

Labor and the Coalition each gained a six-year Senator at the expense of Hinch and the Greens,[31][32][33] who criticised the major parties for rejecting the standard "recount" method despite supporting it in the past, whereby Senators who would have been elected in a normal half-Senate election are allocated six-year terms.[34][35][36]

There are several factual errors and misleading statements. Hinch did not criticise the decision on that basis. He had his own wacky idea on how it should have been done. I don't think the Greens put up much of a fight either. Not sure why. Also, there is nothing "standard" about the recount method. It is a new method that has never been used before. There are also some technical issues with the definition of the recount method.

Oz freediver (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the description of the recount method as "standard" because it has never been used before. The only reason it gets a mention is the two bipartisan senate resolutions in favour of using it. I have added these back in. I don't think this is the place to define the two vote counting methods, which are technically complex.

Oz freediver (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate Resolutions are facts, not soapboxing

[edit]

Timeshift9 has undone my edit, which was to replace: "As per convention....

with: "This was reported as being 'consistent with convention.' However, an alternative method was available that had been supported by both Labor and the Coalition in two separate, identical, bipartisan senate resolutions, passed in 1998 and 2010. By not adhering to their previous resolutions, Labor and the Coalition each gained one senate seat from 2019."

Please let him know he is wrong. Timeshift has accused me of soapboxing and claimed another user (MelbourneStart) supported his edits, which is incorrect.

They are relevant facts. It is misleading to say it was "consistent with convention" while failing to mention that it goes against two bipartisan senate resolutions agreeing to changing that convention. The only reason for mentioning that it was consistent with convention is to legitimise the decision, especially if you then insist we must not mention the resolutions.

Oz freediver (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the "weasel words" Brisvegas. Now, surely the two senate resolutions are relevant facts that should be added? I also think it is important to point out that the media presented these weasel words but nothing about the resolutions - please see my previous edit. I am hesitant to get into an editing war over this. Those weasel words made their way in to at least half a dozen wikipedia pages, and I am sick of going through and making changes only to have people revert them all.

Oz freediver (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put the change back in at lunch time. Can I assume it is now safe to make the same change to all the other wikipedia pages that Timeshift has reverted back to "as per convention"? If I can do it before other changes are made then I can just hit the undo button, which would be convenient.

Oz freediver (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oz freediver - I think the more fulsome explanation is better to a simple "as per convention", which misleads by its omission of the Hawke Gov changes to the Electoral Act and the two Senate resolutions. However, the soapbox concern may be valid to the extent that the wording implies that the ALP and Coalition should not have chosen the method that they did. It would be better to lay out the facts- they chose order of election method to allocate long terms, this meant that the ALP and the Coalition each gained a "long term" Senator at the expense of Rhiannon and Hinch respectively, and that they faced criticism from the affected crossbenchers that it was inconsistent with the two Senate resolutions to use the recount method. However, it may be better to put this full explanation in the relevant section, and just have a shorter "two largest parties agreed on the order of election method for allocating long terms" spiel in the lead. Brisvegas 12:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Brisvegas has the right idea, but it should go in this article only and not the six it was thrown into before. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Thanks for your help Brisvegas. Note that although there was criticism in the media, none of this criticism was based on the major parties abandoning their promises. I have no idea whether Hinch and the Greens refrained from criticising them on this point for some reason. In any case, not a single media article that was written after the August 12 announcement mentions the two resolutions. They all quoted a major party rep with the 'consistent with convention' line. I think this aspect of the media coverage is worth pointing out, either here or in a separate article. The media also did not report at all on the August 31 vote. Both of these are strange, given that they change the election outcome.
Also, there are several other wikipedia articles that contain the misleading 'consistent with convention' line and nothing more - basically making the same mistake as the rest of the media. What should be done with them? The shorter version that I published here most recently?
Also Derryn Hinch does not actually support the recount method. All the articles quoted him putting forward his own method, which is just stupid enough to further legitimise what Labor and the Coalition did.
Oz freediver (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted the changes made by Timeshift9 on four other pages, so they now have the shorter version I posted here earlier. Oz freediver (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this seems fairly stable, I would like to expand on the topic a bit. I think it needs it's own wikipedia article, covering the electoral reform process, the senate resolutions, reneging on those resolutions, and the lazy and incompetent media coverage that (hopefully inadvertantly) legitimised the outcome. Any takers? I would do it myself, but I am stuck on the page title. Oz freediver (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea. In this case, the resolutions were never going to be, and probably constitutionally couldn't be, binding to a future Senate. I don't find this turnabout surprising at all, quite frankly—political history is replete with politicians and parties voting in self-interest, and what advantages a party or parties in one parliament may have the opposite effect in the next. Changing the size of the assembly, "reforms" on preferences, redistributions and gerrymandering—I doubt these motions are ever passed on the basis of "fairness" other than advantage to the majority parties, although often an unanticipated shift in voting patterns such as a rise in votes for minor parties or independents will cause the change/resolution to backfire, and a subsequent group will recant. It's not ideal, it's not particularly ethical, but it's not worth it's own article in my opinion.
While you may have eventually left the POV terms out of the mention in the article, I find it concerning that you so freely fire them out in discussion pages when proposing new and expanded content, and your sole concentration on this topic alone does raise questions about your motivation behind the edits. --Canley (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Details are appropriate in the articles about the 2016 election and the 2016-2019 and 2016-2022 senate membership, but I have reduced it in the Australian Senate article, possibly not by enough. Outcomes specific to the last election should not overshadow the entire history of the Senate, which has whole-senate elections several times through its history. --Scott Davis Talk 04:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine Scott. Drover and Canley, you have brilliantly uncovered my motivation for joining up to wikipedia. You state that this is concerning. Why does it concern you? Are we supposed to be motivated enough to contribute to wikipedia, but also guided by by blind, robotic, disinterested neutrality?
Canley, you also list some cynical views on electoral reform. I do not entirely disagree, but we have been lucky in Australia I think, in that a lot of people who were both intelligent and altruistic (or at least, had very enlightened self-interest) prevailed. In any case, I am not sure why your cynicism regarding the actions of politicians is a sound reason for not documenting the truth on wikipedia. You are correct that the resolutions are not binding, and never will be, unless we have a referendum (a recommendation of the 1983 joint select committee who started this whole thing). This is also important in that it affected an election outcome, will probably have legislative consequences, and threw a long-awaited but important electoral reform out the window. It may well force us to have a referendum. They had two bipartisan senate resolutions already, to indicate how important they think this is. Labor and the Coalition certainly do not trust each other on this. I also think the failure of the media is worth documenting in detail. This is, in my opinion, an even more interesting aspect. It is either a broad conspiracy or lazy, incompetent journalism spanning all media outlets involved. Sorry to any journalists whose toes I am stepping on here, but this is a stuff-up of epic proportions.
I think it is great we can all be friends and get along so well. Oz freediver (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It concerns me because, like it or not, neutrality is a cornerstone (or pillar if you will) of the Wikipedia project, and I don't think is mutually exclusive to interest or motivation in contributing. I'm sorry if I have not assumed good faith in assessing your motivations, but the fact is you do not appear to have edited or spoken about any other topic at all. As the discussion headline states, the previous senate resolutions are facts—myself and several others have offered advice and worked constructively with you to include a mention of this material, but the consensus seems pretty clear to keep it short, simple and neutral, and that any more is stepping over what is factual, and into, yes, soapboxing. --Canley (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read that thing about pillars. Reminds me of Islam too much. But despite not reading it, I can safely say it refers to neutrality of content, not neutrality of contributors. We are not Eunuchs, and wikipedia does not expect it of us. Regarding the rest, I have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate on the rules here, and I thank everyone for their helpful advice. You would have a point if I was suggesting I expand discussion of this issue within the existing articles about the senate. I am not. I am suggesting an entirely new article, full of glorious neutered details that will gently guide readers to the inevitable conclusion of lazy, incompetent journalism allowing greedy, selfish politicians to pull off a coup without the public even noticing. Surely this is something we all want? Oz freediver (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, are there any rules about contributing on or being interested in more than one topic? What are you afraid of here? Oz freediver (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to "gently guide" readers to political conclusions: we are here to write neutral encyclopedia articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself Drover. I am here to gently guide people to the truth with neutral encyclopedic articles. Is this a problem for you? Oz freediver (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that wikipedia does not have an article on section 282 of the electoral act. Even the article on the electoral act does not mention it, despite listing many other reforms from 1984 (an auspicious year to introduce the official registration of political parties don't you think?). This would be a good place to go over the long history of this reform with a neutral, encyclopedic article detailing its buggery by Labor and Liberal and the blind eye turned by the media. Shall I have a crack at it? I think I'm getting the hang of things here. Yours in good faith and strong pillars, Oz freediver (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just published my own very detailed (and I hope, both neutral and encyclopedic) article on this. Feel free to link to it. I don't think I am supposed to tell you where it is. This will free up more of my time to contribute to wikipedia on this issue. Oz freediver (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright before we get it started, can I get some feedback on the page title please? The conventions on this are not real clear. Should I use brackets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_282_Commonwealth_Electoral_Act

I have added a link here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Electoral_Act_1918#1984_amendments

Oz freediver (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is little precedent for an article about a single section of an act, and your article as it stands does nothing to inspire the need for it in this case. I suggest either merging into Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918#1984 amendments or, if you have a lot of material to add, branching out a subarticle at Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1984 that covers all of the changes. I'd stick with expanding the original article unless it reaches the point that section dominates the article. --Scott Davis Talk 09:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it will dominate, but happy to merge for now. Oz freediver (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to speedy delete it under WP:G7, WP:A7 or WP:A10 once you have captured the content to the main article as you are the only substantial contributor. --Scott Davis Talk 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section (5 December 2016)

[edit]

The lead section is too long for readers to read. It needs better skimming; some details should be pushed down to body. There was a proposed lead seen in #Lead section (30 July 2016), but it seems dated. --George Ho (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian federal election, 2016. 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) 05:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map Graphic Error

[edit]

The map of the South Brisbane divisions shows the Division of Brisbane as having been won by Labor, when in reality the seat was held by the LNP candidate Trevor Evans. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.126.92 (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note for the mapper on Wikimedia Commons. --Canley (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has the AEC amended the election results in 2017?

[edit]

I saw on my watchlist that an editor had adjusted the Palmer United Party national vote on this page (from 26,210 to 26,230) with the comment "Corrected data via AEC", so I quickly checked the AEC National Senate results and reverted it, as the table on that page (which is marked "These results are final") matched the Wikipedia tables. Just to double-check I also looked at the corresponding download files, such as this one and found there are some significant differences, including the 20 extra votes for PUP, and the largest change being 1,260 fewer votes for Family First. The text/CSV downloads say they were updated on 11 May 2017, while the summary table was dated 9 August 2016 (which is when the results were declared). The national total is the same, but it appears the AEC has two differing sets of "final" data, and the earlier one has been used by Wikipedia and Psephos.

If the more recent download files are accurate, all the Senate results tables will need to be updated... Can someone else have a look and see if you think the same, or am I missing something obvious? I haven't even looked at the House of Reps results but hopefully there's no discrepancies there... --Canley (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Australian_federal_election&oldid=1243059778"