User talk:Fanx/NZ election

Checklist of by-elections

By trawling through historic electorate and ex-MPs I've found many more by-elections - some listed, some implied (by dates that didn't accord with general election). So far only covered known early electorates (some election pages do not list electorates) and only up to 1890. Dates struck through indicate by-elections in List of New Zealand by-elections, dates post-1890 election not yet checked. Fanx (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed list as all by-elections to 1890 now listed. FanN | talk 08:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi there, I've just referenced the by-elections during the 1st Parliament. Scholefield has entries for each politician for each parliamentary term, so each by-election would need two references:

• for the incumbent, as that gives the reason for the vacancy, and
• for the newly elected member, as that gives the by-election date

Would you concur that this is the way to go about it, i.e. have two refs, and attach them to the politicians' names? I'm quite happy to trawl through the list Parliament by Parliament. Is the list, as far as you can make it out, complete up until 1890? Schwede66 06:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I count over 220 by-elections (including supplementary elections) in the pre-party era alone, and if we disregard those few members that resigned then contested the same seat we would have well over 400 references to a page number in a book that the vast majority will never see. If Scholefield were the only source for some of the data then there may be a case for it, but as the data is already sourced from other works or old newspapers at paperspast (which are themselves referenced) then I can't see much benefit in referencing every MP at every by-election they were either an incumbent or elected at. This article could forseeably grow to 650 references and while that may make it the best ever referenced article on wikipedia it would be too unwieldy to ever be a good article. I suggest a section on sources may be appropriate, including how they are sometimes unreliable. The list is, as far as my sources go, complete up to 1890 election, it even includes my latest find, Dunedin and Suburbs South, Saturday 20 June, 1863 - which didn't previously appear on wikipedia, and for which I can find rationale, nomination & date of poll, but no official (or paperspast) result.FanN | talk 02:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wairarapa and Hawkes Bay by-election, 1858

I can't quite make sense of the 1858 Wairarapa and Hawkes Bay by-election entry:

• The entry from the source used by Fanx says that this by-election was held on 27 July.
• The entry in Scholefield says that the by-election was held on 22 July.
• The writ dated 12 July 1858 published in the Hawke's Bay Herald on 24 July talks about a nomination date of 22 July (i.e. the nomination must have already happened), and an election date of Thursday, 29 July.

So these three sources are at variance with one another. It's unlikely that 22 July is the correct date, because the writ wouldn't have been published two days later in the local newspaper if the nomination meeting had produced a winner. That leaves 27 and 29 July as possible election dates. Schwede66 09:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the nomination had already happened by the date of the notice being posted in the Hawke's Bay Herald doesn't surprise me - it was posted as an advertisement, and I've seen several other such notices posted after the fact - vagaries of colonial press I suppose. I have referenced it now, and 22 July was Nomination day (John Valentine Smith (resigning member) nominated his successor) and as there was only one nominee he was declared elected. The writ only made allowance for a presumptive poll if it was demanded by any nominee and I presume any discrepancy in the reported date of a non-existent election was a 7/9 transcription error - in any case, both Scholefield and McRobie got it wrong. FanN | talk 02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Media reported that a Mr Carter was also in the running [1][2]. He must have pulled out. Schwede66 02:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)