Talk:Elections in Australia

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 High‑importance

	Australia portal Elections in Australia 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Top-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.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Importance[edit]

I dropped it back a notch. High is enough, I would have thought. Fred 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)→[reply]

Hi, Alec,

My reference for the 1961 result in the electorate of Moreton is the Bartlett Diaries, edited by Senator Andrew Bartlett, which can be found at http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1286.

I know from personal experience that Bartlett is correct, as I remember it when it happened. The figure s can also be obtained from the Electoral Office, but not as easily as from Bartlett.

Election timing[edit]

The House of Representatives lasts no more than three years after it first meets, but may be dissolved earlier. After the House is dissolved, the next House must meet within 140 days. The maximum period between elections is therefore 3 years, 140 days, and the minimum approximately a month.

Is there a cite for the highlighted words? Because I dispute them.

It's true that the next House must meet no more than 140 days after the old House was dissolved, and it's true that a House cannot exceed three years. But that does not mean that the maximum period between elections is therefore 3 years 140 days. By my calculations, it's 3 years 175 days.

An election must occur no less than 33 days after dissolution, and no more than 68 days after.
The period between the election day and the meeting of the next House can therefore be as great as (140 - 33 =) 107 days.
Say one election was held as early as possible, 33 days after dissolution, and the next election was held as late as possible, 68 days after dissolution; and say the house ran for its maximum 3 year period. That means the period between the two elections can be as great as (107 days + 3 years + 68 days =) 3 years 175 days.

Now, for the mimimum period between elections. Say the new House was dissolved on the very day it first met. The new election could be held no less than 33 days after that. The period since the previous election is not possible to say precisely, but we'd have to allow a minimum of about three weeks for the detailed results to become clear in closely contested seats, and then allow for recounts (say another week). The writs could be returned ASAP (say 3 days realistically), and the new parliament could be summoned to meet within about another 3 days, I guess (the maximum period between return of the writs and the meeting of the parliament is 30 days, but it can happen sooner than that). That makes it about 67 days between elections, absolute minimum, not "approximately a month". It's fuzzy because the only constraint is the maximum 100 day period between the issue of the writs and the return of the writs. Within that 100 days (or less), the nominations close between 10 and 27 days after issue of writs, and the election day is between 23 and 31 days after close of nominations, but the 2 cycles are not otherwise connected. Source for all this detail is House of Representatives Practice (see Table: The Election Process). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of representitives, not house.[edit]

In Australia, it is the 'House of Representitives', not 'house'. Apart from being informal, it is an American abbreviation which should not be applied to countries outside of America who don't use that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.123.184 (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be 'House of Representatives'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of territory senators[edit]

Someone's got it into their head that the territory senators have three-year terms, and has inserted this "information" in various places. They DO NOT have three-year terms. Unlike the state senators, their term is not fixed to any precise period AT ALL. Their terms commence on election day for the House of Representatives and come to an end on the next election day for that House. That's it - see Commonwealth Electoral Act, ss 40-44. Those Reps elections can be as close as two and a half months or as far apart as 3 years 175 days (see above). See Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice for more detail. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Electoral Commission Election Summary 1901-2010 section[edit]

Should the Australian Electoral Commission Election Summary 1901-2010 section be removed. It is now outdated, its not clear or written in prose. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely in favour of it's removal. It's meaning is not clear! The impression it gives is that the ALP wins most elections. 118.208.91.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 Oct 1998 election[edit]

Why is this coloured against Labour when it was coalition that won? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.44.177 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It highlights the party that got the highest percentage of votes. In 1998, that was Labor, even though they got fewer seats than the Coalition. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elections in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502161248/http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/news-from-australia/news-in-australia/donations-a-dilemma-of-modern-democracy.htm to http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/news-from-australia/news-in-australia/donations-a-dilemma-of-modern-democracy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instant run-off voting[edit]

Should this article mention that the system used is the instant-runoff voting system? Mateussf (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having just learnt what it is by clicking on the link, I guess we could mention it, but having never heard the term used to describe Australian elections in over 50 years of watching, I'm wondering what it will achieve. The article doesn't tell me, but is the term truly commonly used anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Election timing - federal or state or both?[edit]

The section on "Election timing" does not mention the scope. The lede sets that scene that overall article covers both levels: it talks about the processes "to elect the legislature of the Commonwealth of Australia, as well as for each Australian state and territory" etc. But this section on Timing reads as though it refers to federal elections only, and its references are only federal, though I can imagine that it could perhaps refer to state as well. Can we specify which it is, or that it covers both? If it is purely federal, can we add the state timing information as well?--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Liberal Party from National Party[edit]

I'd like to see that chart with the Liberal Party's (and its precedent's) votes separated from the National Party's (and its precedent's) to give a clearer picture of support for the Liberal Party itself, and occasions where if the National Party (or its precedent) could have crossed the floor and formed Govt with the ALP, as a genuinely independent party might have, as opposed to a gerrymander driven artifice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.201.221 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]