Talk:2012 Northern Territory general election

Consensus re: Country Liberal Party abbreviation

The abbreviation of the titles of the distribution of seats is becoming an issue for myself and another user. The abbreviation of the Australian Labor Party has usually simply been 'Labor' or 'ALP' where as the Liberal Party of Australia has been 'Liberal' or 'Lib'/ 'LPA'. The abbreviation for the Country Liberal Party however is confusing when every mention of the party in the article is 'Country Liberal' or 'CLP' and it states on a fairly prominant table of the distribution of seats as 'Liberal'. The Country Liberals may be endorsed as the preferred Territory party for the Liberals however the two parties are not affiliated in the Federal Parliament nor in policy direction (for what I can see). The Liberal and Country Liberal parties are two different Australian political parties. Any suggestions for how the Country Liberals can be abbreviated to be differentiated from the Liberal Party of Australia from the usual Country Liberal/ Liberal abbreviations? GJGardner (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - the CLP is not the Liberal Party, and unlike the LNP is not registered with the AEC as an affiliated party. Obviously they are affiliated, but as far as I'm aware they're not often called the Liberals in the NT itself. "CLP" or "Country Liberal" are both fine by me. However, I think a more important issue is the table itself - it's utterly useless. It needs to become a pendulum - I'll do this myself when I have time, if someone else doesn't do it first. Frickeg (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of putting the margins in as we speak, around two to three hours I'll have it done. GJGardner (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pendulum

Just looking at the Pendulum, shouldn't the seat of MacDonnell be considered as nominally Labor and therefore be very unsafe as basically 'negative unopposed'? In the normal case of a party shift wouldn't the pendulum be listed negatively because the party would need a swing towards them to retain; in this case the seat would need an infinite swing to come back from a Labor unopposed election to a CLP retain. Obviously it's an odd situation, but so is unopposed election in modern Australian politics, it might be worth covering the issue in some way, either in this article or the general one for the LA, especially in relation to the likelihood of the ALP contesting the seat and the reasons for the CLP not declaring a candidate (you'd think every election in the country could find at least two people seeking the post?) --GoForMoe (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Party table

There are only five parties running endorsed candiates, so in the interests of impartiality they should all be listed in seperate columns in the table shouldn't they? To lump the ASP in with the independants seems rather dismissive. If I knew how to do it I would have a go, but I don't. Djapa Owen 14:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Another point about the table, as discussed above the Country Liberal Party is nominally separate from the Liberal Party, and their party colour is an ochre orange to match the Northern Territory flag, not blue like the Liberal Party. Djapa Owen 14:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There have been previous discussions which have led to the CLP having a blue colour. Using the ochre is generally confusing, especially with other parties (the Dems, the Sex Party) using a similar colour; using the blue communicates their relationship with the Libs. Regarding the ASP, the NT is always a difficult issue. Normally a party running in more than half the seats would get its own column, but in the NT only the major parties do that. First Nations was a borderline case, and I'm happy to move them into the Others column if people feel that would be more appropriate. As for the ASP, a separate, mostly empty column for them would make the table unworkable in certain resolutions (and they're running in less than a quarter of the seats). Frickeg (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think in fairness, FN should be moved to other. If they happen to do particularly well, then we have justification and can add them back in retrospect. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For fairness we should be recognising all parties registered as such with the electoral commission as parties, not making value judgements about how major or minor they are just because they might be smaller than the parties we follow. I accept the argument about the CLP colour choice, but I think the FNPP definately has to be recognised as a party and to shove them into the other pile is not taking a NPOV stance. Djapa Owen 12:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

POV has nothing to do with it. If they are moved into the Others column, they will still be identified by their party label. It's basically about making the table easy to read - largely empty columns don't help anyone. (You can sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).) Regarding the issue, FN does have only two candidates fewer than the Greens - an awkward distinction. Since they're debutantes (as are ASP) I'm happy to move them sideways, though. Frickeg (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There would be nothing POV about having Labor/CLP/Green. Each of these parties throughout Australia have been around for decades and have won dozens of seats or more. Each of these parties get primary vote polled by various polling companies throughout Australia. How do they compare to FN/ASP...? Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered Groups

If we are identifying one One Nation candidate then we should identify both: http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/peter-bussa-one-nation-candidate-for-hughes/1914132.aspx Djapa Owen 08:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that; his name rang a bell but Antony Green wasn't identifying him. Frickeg (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Frickeg, I can see that section needs tidying up, but a candidate can only be endorsed by a registered party and One Nation is not registered for this election. The detail is here- http://www.ntec.nt.gov.au/NTEC%20Forms%20and%20Documents/Forms%20and%20Handbooks/LAF2B_A4-nom_bulk_%20Endorsed.pdf

Not being endorsed means they are not identified with their party on the ballot paper, I don't know if that is intentional or coincidence. Djapa Owen 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

I'm not too sure about this. "Endorsed" isn't really an official term - anyone can endorse someone. Leaders endorse preselection candidates all the time, and independents endorse other independents to succeed them. One Nation doesn't have to be registered to endorse someone, they have to be registered to have them identified as a One Nation candidate officially. (The link isn't working for me - can you copy across the relevant sentence(s)?) The Australian Electoral Commission says that registered parties can "have the party affiliation of their endorsed candidate printed on ballot papers" - it doesn't preclude other people or groups from endorsing people too. Frickeg (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That logic makes the term totally meaningless. On that basis every independant candidate would be endorsed as they have to have the support of (in the NT six) members of the public. I have found the Commonwealth statute: COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 287A, "endorsed candidate" means a candidate who is endorsed by a registered political party. I have not got time to find the NT statute, but in electoral law it is a specific term. Your edit made sense, except for that one word. Isn't there another way of putting it? "So&so and so&so from One Nation are running as independant candidates" perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what the word "endorsed" means, though. In relation to the Electoral Act, that part (which, for other readers, is here) is specifically referring to terms used in the Act (as in, "to save us saying 'endorsed candidate of a registered party', take the term 'endorsed candidate' in this Act to mean ..."), not defining their official use in regards to electoral commissions. The nomination form for the House of Reps makes the specific statement "endorsed by a registered political party", thus showing that "endorsed" is not an exclusive term. But this misses the point - we're not looking at an official term here. The section specifically says that they are unregistered parties and groups, but that doesn't mean that the candidates are unendorsed, it only means they're not endorsed by a registered party. Individuals can endorse others, as Stephen Mayne was at the Melbourne by-election by Nick Xenophon. The attempted compromise is appreciated but I still think using "endorsed" is clearer. Perhaps some outside input would help - I might put a note on WT:AUP. Frickeg (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To come back to this, the current wording is factually wrong. They're not running as independents - in fact they both opted against having "independent" next to their name - they're running as One Nation candidates, and One Nation's lack of registration prevents that being noted on the ballot paper. That means they are "endorsed". Frickeg (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for the outside help you asked for above, as I am not sure I have a solution. You are correct that the NTEC website does not have Independent next to their names, but nor does it have One Nation. Their advertisements clearly used the same template, but they do not mention One Nation either. Peter Bussa's advertisement describes him as "your independent for Johnston". Do you have any reference for any kind of endorsement from One Nation? Perhaps we could just say two One Nation members stood without mentioning endorsement or independent status? Would that be more accurate? Does anyone else have an opinion? Djapa Owen 07:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Whoa, Peter Bussa described himself as "your independent"? That changes everything. Do we have confirmation that he is still a member of One Nation? If neither he nor One Nation described him as a "One Nation candidate" or "One Nation endorsed", then I agree with you - and we possibly shouldn't mention his connection to ON at all. (Kearney, on the other hand, seems to have definitely run with One Nation support.) I still think it's a good idea to resolve the principle, though, because it applies to lots of other articles. I still prefer endorsed as the most appropriate word where an unregistered party has candidates that are explicitly representing them; I'm just not sure what other words we could use. Frickeg (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Their advertisements appeared together in the Darwin Sun of 22 August 2012, and obviously used the same design template. This implies that the same person designed both ads, they were booked for page two of the paper presumably as one transaction and neither ad mentions the party. I think this is an exagerated example of Labor's 'dont mention the brand' strategy, but that they are still operating as part of the organisation. If we accept that Kearney was operating as part of the party, and he is their only office holder according to their website, then Bussa was also. Perhaps we could refer to them as One Nation identities and state that they stood without party identification on the ticket? Would that cover the situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, provided the word "unendorsed" doesn't appear. The current wording looks fine to me. Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsments

The Australian has backed the CLP. I don't know the NT News or the Financial Review or others. I don't know how to make a table. Could someone do that? Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Should be pretty easy to replicate from previous election tables. Crikey is telling me that the NT News gave Labor a fairly lukewarm endorsement, hoping Wood holds the balance of power. Frickeg (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

When is an election no longer ongoing?

I'm not sure the swearing in of the Chief Minister means the election is no longer ongoing. In technical terms, I would have thought it would be when the writs are returned, or results are final. Neither have occurred yet. Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically I believe you are right, the writs are due on Monday. However, we now know the result, so the detail is accademic isn't it? Djapa Owen 02:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

While there are seat(s) in doubt, I respectfully disagree. As of the update half an hour ago, Arafura remains in doubt. To say the election is no longer ongoing is a very US-centric view and a misinterpretation of Australian parliamentary westminster democracy. Timeshift (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this really matter? The writs are to be returned on Monday anyway. Frickeg (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it does, because it will happen again at future elections. In the theoretical sense, at what point do we stop edits by IPs in the hours and days after the election? Timeshift (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Arafura first count has been completed [1] with CLP taking 51% two party preferred. As the question of whether the election is ongoing is not really that important we might as well opt to leave it marked ongoing until the writs are actually returned (10:00 AM Monday). Djapa Owen 03:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

The first count is really irrelevant... that was ages ago. Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)