Talk:2024 Tasmanian Legislative Council periodic election

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: Tasmania / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2024 Tasmanian Legislative Council periodic election 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Registered voters[edit]

@Totallynotarandomalt69: The number of registered voters is an important data. You can't have the turnout without it. It's been provided by the electoral commission in all past election, there's no reason to exclude it. Aréat (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you that much but the fact is you'd struggle to find other infoboxes that inclde it (excluding ones for uncontested races) and as such it's better to remove for consistency

You can open up something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics if you want Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree. First the consistency should be with previous pages, which include it. Secondly, there's no reason not to include such important election data on a page that is about the very election. Seem to me that not including registered data and turnout is a very american thing. There's quite a large amount of pages about election in nearly two hundreds countries, and outside US they all always include registered data whenever we have a source providing it.--Aréat (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the US is it? Look at long-standing seats like Electoral results for the district of Hawthorn, Electoral results for the Division of Melbourne - they do not have it.

I'm not even particularly opposed to including it in future but we need consistency and as I said, raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, look at previous Tasmanian Legislative Council periodic election. They have registered voters in the tables. The consistency here is to have them.
And even if previous pages didn't have them, what's with consistency being used to delete an important data? This is an election page. The number of registered voters is essential as an election data to calculate the turnout. Election data doesn't need further argument to be included in the very own page they're about. If other pages doesn't have them, which again is the vast minority on the wiki, it's those pages which need to be updated, not the other way around. An opinion, @Number 57:?--Aréat (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to see the consistency argument against including it, given that it is included in previous election articles. But even if it wasn't included in previous ones, it's such an obvious improvement that continuing to omit it for "consistency" would be a very weak argument. Number 5 7 00:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly would prefer it to be included, what I meant by consistency was almost all other Aus election articles omitting it

Just, again, wondering if putting it on the WPAusPol talk would be worth it and maybe it can start to be included as a standard across all elections Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary given it is quite minor and an obvious improvement – WP:BEBOLD would apply to stuff like this – just go ahead and do it, and only actively seek/gain consensus if there is actually any opposition to it. A similar case would be replacing old results tables with {{Election results}} – I've done this on thousands of articles and only ever been reverted a couple of times because it is such an obvious improvement. Number 5 7 00:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello. In the Hobart election, when looking at the detailled source, it show "CAMPBELL, HAYNES, and VOGEL excluded". Why all at once instead of one after another, and according to what rule ? I really tried to, but couldn' find the part of the electoral law explaining what happened here when countings ballots. Does anyone know ? Cordially. Aréat (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is only guesswork but I think this is also the case in Ireland; it is because Campbell, Haynes, and Vogel's vote share combined together would still be less than the candidate with the next-most vote share, which is Burton, in this case. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to distribute preferences individually since all three of them would be eliminated regardless of what happens. Hope this helps. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]