Talk:October 2013 Australian Labor Party leadership election

Deputy leadership

Is the deputy leadership also up for election at the moment or does that only happen if Albanese is elected leader (and thus has a price tag on his candidature) or is the deputy only elected by the caucus? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Took me a while to find it, but this story says the deputy will still be elected just by the caucus. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Spill?

This article seems to be misnamed. First, a spill is when the leadership is declared vacant. That is not the case here. There is always a leadership election after an election by rule; Rudd is simply not contesting an election that was always going to happen. The other point is that this election is so very different from a spill because of the inclusion of rank-and-file members. In reality, all of the articles should be moved to the less slangy/jargony "election", but this one just doesn't fit as a spill anyway. -Rrius (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I came here to make precisely the same point, and so, not surprisingly, I agree 110% with Rrius, at least about this article.

Also, I question the wisdom of dating this contest at October. The process started on 13 September, and 72% of the period until 7 October falls in the month of September. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that "election" is the more appropriate word for these series of articles, and is clearly the better choice for this article given that the leadership is not being "spilled" as it is currently vacant. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever its technical use the term "spill" seems to get used for all leadership contests regardless of how they've come about. Unless the Democrats' past membership contests attracted a lot of independent coverage (and there's the confusion over just what was elected) then Australia is probably into new territory with this one and the terminology may take a while to become clear. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines spill as "the declaring of several political jobs vacant when one higher up becomes so". Media reports have referred to this variably as a "contest" and a "ballot". This certainly does not meet the definition of a primary election. One might refer to it is an election, as a leader will be elected. However, that was also the case in previous instances when Australia political parties elected their leaders by spill. I cannot find any reference to this as a "leadership election" or "primary" in the media, or on the Labor website where it is referred to "the ballot for the election of the Leader". As there seems to be no other consensus term and this contest does meet the dictionary definition of "spill", I would argue spill is the right term. Failing that ballot and then election would seem to be the most logical alternatives, in that order. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Still unsure about how this works

So the two votes are given equal weighting. Does this mean that they look at the percentage of the vote, not at the raw numbers? By that I mean if Shorten wins 75% of the caucus vote and Albanese wins 65% of the "grassroots" vote, Shorten becomes leader even though there are less people voting in the caucus (as far as I know)? Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you work it out, please let Chris Bowen know :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have adopted a system similar to that used by the British Labour Party. They have a three section electoral college (the third are affiliated trade unions) with each secton carrying equal weight and you can get cases where a candidate's lead in one or two sections are cancelled out by the others.

Have a look at Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010#Results for a case where the leader was the minority 2PP choice of the caucus and the ordinary members but got in thanks to the trade unions. Note the vote of the 266 MPs & MEPs had the same weight as the 135,000 odd ordinary member. If I understand that one correctly, abstentions, spoils and non-returns are ignore in the percentage distributions.

Something similar to that UK table may be the best way to present the results in each section. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, that article was rather interesting. I haven't been following British politics so was unaware that's how the Labour party elected its leader. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Another case is New Zealand Labour who again have a caucus-members-affiliates split. They've just used it for the first time and also have a leader who had minority support in caucus. How does everyone about the British and New Zealand tables as a basis for the full result? Obviously there's only two sections for the ALP but the British tables offer a model that can handle future elections with more candidates and are preferential friendly. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Campaign to replace Rudd or Bowen?

There is a disagreement among editors as to whether this is a campaign to replace Kevin Rudd - the outgoing permanent leader - or to replace Chris Bowen the temporary leader that is holding a place for whomever of Albanese and Shorten wins this contest. I recognize that the idea of an interim leader and a quasi-popular election of a new permanent leader are new in Australia, but in Canada we've been doing this for many, many years and the UK has had a go as well. Generally, history quickly forgets interim leaders and campaigns are viewed as a replacement of the previous permanent leader. This is fairly easily explained in the prose of the article, but it is a bit less clear as to how to treat it in the infobox. I suspect few would answer the question "who did Ed Milliband succeed as UK Labour leader?" with "Harriet Harman", though she was the interim leader he replaced. Most would say Gordon Brown. There will likely be a similar effect here as time wears on.

There does not seem to be consistent treatment of this. The Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 lists Harman in the infobox, not Brown. Canadian articles use a different template that references the "resigning leader" and ignores the interim leader: Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013, New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012.

I would argue that my solution of listing Kevin Rudd with Chris Bowen (denoted as interim leader) in a smaller font below is the best solution to this issue. How do others view it?

- Nbpolitico (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I think: Bowen replaced Rudd on an interim basis. Albanese/Shorten will replace Bowen on a permanent basis. The analogy here is when Harold Holt disappeared and John McEwen was appointed PM, but only until such time as the Liberal Party could elect a new leader (Gorton). McEwen was not just an acting PM, he was the PM for the time being, and he is counted as such. That he was there on an interim basis had no bearing on his holding the position. Same with Bowen. He is the leader of the ALP at the moment, by decision of the caucus. He is not the acting leader, because it's not like Rudd is still there but sick or something. But Bowen is the interim leader because he has indicated he will not be contesting the election. However long that takes, Bowen is currently the alternative Prime Minister. Albanese/Shorten will replace Bowen and not Rudd. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Again this is new ground for Australia and conventions may not have emeged yet. Yes there were stop gap Prime Ministers but they were in somewhat different circumstances. Without full knowledge of the detail of the new ALP rules I'm not sure precisely how Bowen's role is defined, but interim appointments are increasingly standard in Westminster system parties as a way to balance the length of time leadership elections take with the desire for the outgoing leader to be gone quickly, and in terms of partical politics they have far less influence & effect. And effectively Bowen's appointment is part of the leadership contest (whereas the British Labour cases are existing deputies stepping up).

The problem may be with the label "Incumbent Leader" - previous contests have used "Leader before election" which is a little clearer and could better accomodate both Rudd and Bowen, but ultimately this is a contest to succeed Rudd whoever's minding the shop in the meantime. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is moot unless parliament is convened before the ALP leadership is determined. If parliament sits, then Bowen will be the Opposition Leader in the House, and (I think) should be ranked among Beazley, Crean, et al as a true ALP Leader. As others have noted, this is new territory for Auspol, and we really should wait for reliable sources to work it out instead of trying to hammer out a consensus here. --Surturz (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence, but not with the preceding ones. Whether someone is the Opposition Leader has nothing to do with whether Parliament is in session or not. It's a decision of the party, not of the parliament. If the old rules still applied, we'd now have a permanent Opposition Leader, and nobody would be saying he has to wait for Parliament to meet for his status to be ratified. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The APH website actually lists Bowen as "Acting Leader of the Opposition"[1]. To be honest I don't think it matters too much. --Surturz (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Members vote in infobox

The infobox is misleading because right now it says that Shorten got "55 out of 86" and then lists the percentage as "52.02%" (which is the caucus and members vote combined). I was going to add the members vote, but I'm not particularly sure how to (do I just add "vote_type2" or something?). Anyone want to add this for me? WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Somebody added it. I don't know if they saw this message or not, but thanks. WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Vote values

• 86 caucus members: 50% / 86 = 0.58% per vote
• 30,426 party members: 50% / 30,426 = 0.00165% per vote
• 1 caucus vote equivalent to 354 party votes
• Albanese would have won if he had gained 4 more caucus votes, or ??? party votes --Surturz (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

1,229 more party votes, by my calc.

But I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. You don't intend to include these figures in the article, surely? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was considering it. And please don't call me Shirley :-) --Surturz (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)