This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timeshift9 (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 22 November 2007 (→Voting below the line this Saturday?: move to talk page (do not revert others discussion)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:55, 22 November 2007 by Timeshift9 (talk | contribs) (→Voting below the line this Saturday?: move to talk page (do not revert others discussion))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Australia: Politics Start‑class High‑importance   | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.| Archives |
|---|
"Cut & Paste attack"?
A recent addition describes the release of the Tony Abbot video an "attack", and a "Labor party 'cut-and-paste job'". Here's the edit. Is it a Labor attack? Do we need to describe it as "an attack"? Using that kind of wording, anything in the election campaign could be called "an attack". And what is a "cut-&-paste job"? There are other articles which quote Abbott admitting he used the words depicted in the video, and articles quoting the Labor Party denying they doctored the video. I think this section needs a rewrite.--Lester 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cut and paste job is how it was described. Replaced attack with video. Section should be fine now. Timeshift 10:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cut and paste is in inverted commas and is a quote - it should be noted after it that the Labor party contested that version of events, preferably with a quote from them, and then the thing is NPOV. The mission should always be "let the facts tell the story". Orderinchaos 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Infobox poll
What polls are currently being used in the infobox for this page? If it isn't already the case but the infobox simply hasn't been updated, as ACNielsen and Newspoll are the only two to do Preferred Prime Minister as well, in addition to the obvious graphs I propose we have the latest of those two there and disregard the other two, ie: changing the current newspoll 55 to acnielsen 54 and PPM etc. Timeshift (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Robb and the 13 Labor candidates
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22795174-5012863,00.html and http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/libs-predict-candidate-limbo/2007/11/21/1195321822861.html - a QC has even offered an opinion (of approval) over the ALP Wentworth candidate. Is this noteable to the campaign (i'm not sure either way on this) and if so, a bit more balance would be nice. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Territory Senators
There seems to be a little confusion about when Territory senators’ terms start. Section 6 of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973 says: “The term of service of a senator for a Territory commences on the day of his election and expires at the close of the day next preceding the polling day for the general election of members of the House of Representatives next following his election. .
We now have the words "the day of his election", but I think it's a little ambiguous for our article. From some recent edits, some people seem to think it means the day on which the election results are officially announced (some weeks after the election). That’s not true; it’s the day on which the election took place. The terms of ACT/NT senators elected on 9 October 2004 expire on 23 November 2007. Whoever is elected on 24 November, and no matter when the results are announced, their terms commence on 24 November. For example, see Kate Lundy’s terms of service listed in the Parliamentary Handbook here:
- 2.3.1996 – 2.10.1998†;
- 3.10.1998– 9.11.2001;
- 10.11.2001 - 8.10.2004;
- 9.10.2004 –
I believe the only reason for the general phrase "the day of his election" is to cover the circumstance where there's a casual vacancy, in which case the relevant territory legislature now elects the replacement senator. This can happen at any time the legislature is sitting, and they make their own rules about that. Other than that exception, territory senators are always elected on the same day as the general election for the House of Reps. I'm going to change this para to make it clear. The Australian Senate article also contains some errors of fact in relation to this and I'll be changing that too. JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Later thought. We talk about the Lib/Nats possibly losing control of the Senate "immediately" if they lose an ACT Senator. This is slightly hyperbolic when you consider that the first possible time any vote will be taken in the Senate will be whenever it first meets, and that might be as late as 24 February 2008. So nothing will change "immediately" in terms of legislation or in terms of the influence any particular groups of senators may have in the Senate.
- But the terms of service of senators and members are not the same thing as the sitting dates of parliament. If that were not so, whenever the parliament rises for, say, the winter recess (typically June-August), there would be no members or senators at all during that time, which is a slightly absurd proposition. From the moment new members/senators are declared elected following Saturday's election (and there'll be whole swag of different declarations on different dates), new members are entitled to put MP after ther names, new territory senators are entitled to refer to themselves as "Senator Smith", and new state senators, who will start their terms on 1 July 2008, are entitled to refer to themselves as "Senator-elect Smith" in the meantime. Also, all these people are entitled to set up electorate offices as soon as Dept of Finance and Administration (or whatever it might get called after the new government, whichever it is, is sworn in) can organise them. From the moment of their declaration, new members and territory senators are entitled to postage, travel, staff etc at taxpayer's expense, and they're entitled - nay, required - to make representations on behalf of their constituents. They will also be paid their parliamentary salaries with effect from 24 November 2007, and new ministers will be paid their Ministerial salaries from whenever the new government is sworn in. So, they start serving the public immediately, but their parliamentary activity will not occur for some months. Hence, maybe it's worth having a think about what we really mean when we say the Lib/Nats could possibly lose control of the Senate "immediately". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Voting below the line this Saturday?
Plan now. 48 hours to go. Timeshift (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Vote below the line so that you, not the party, decide where your preferences go. But I suspect we're preaching to the converted here. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a stab in the dark and still bet that a lot of wikipedia users vote above the line because they a) can't be stuffed or b) vote for a major party and don't understand fully how preferential STV group voting tickets work and that their preference votes still matter to a much greater extent than lower house preferences. I find this a bit disappointing. Having said that, I still support having both above and below, giving people the choice (it reduced the informal vote dramatically). Just a pity more people don't take it up. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a discussion page for the article, not a forum Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it obvious that I don't care? I made this exception as Australian elections happen once every three years, with a majority not having occured in decades. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Less than 5% of Australians exercise their preferences. Either they don't know how, or they'd prefer someone else to do it for them.--Lester 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Most of them wouldn't know. If heaps of ALP blue collar workers, with social conservative views, knew that their votes would be going to greens, I doubt they would sheep along. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's the same the reverse way! Some small-L Liberals voters may be surprised that their preferences will go to Family First in Victoria and Fred Nile CDP in New South Wales.Lester 01:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Most of them wouldn't know. If heaps of ALP blue collar workers, with social conservative views, knew that their votes would be going to greens, I doubt they would sheep along. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that the Greens Senators will be a part of that majority that gets rid of (the majority of) WorkChoices. Timeshift (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Preferences are bizarre things. The quota is in the early teens for the primary vote, less with preferences. Fielding got in with under two percent of the primary vote. I'm a bit weary of how preferences might change things in SA this election, with the DLP, CDP and CEC making their first appearances. It's interesting to see how the various parties are directing their preferences too. Timeshift (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)