Talk:Swing (Australian politics)

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: Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Swing (Australian politics) 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Similar to British "swing"?

I really do not see this as being very different from Swing (politics), which itself already has two definitions. The only key difference is the point in the count where the swing is measured. But the calculation is the same, namely the swing from B to A is

( ( Party A %share in election 2 − Party A %share in election 1 )
− ( Party B %share in election 2 − Party B %share in election 1 ) )/2

If the two %shares in each election are constrained to add to 100% (as in the Australian or British Steed systems) then this simplifies to either of:

Party A %share in election 2 − Party A %share in election 1
Party B %share in election 1 − Party B %share in election 2

So might these be merged? --Rumping (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swing (Australian politics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090120203204/http://www.news.com.au:80/adelaidenow/story/0,27574,24926699-2682,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,27574,24926699-2682,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]