A fact from 1919 Australian federal election appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 May 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
1919 Australian federal 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
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
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
These are rare, and I just realised that 37 of 75 is one short of a majority. I assume the Independent Nationalist was all too ready to help out? Is he noteable? Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Psephos has Nationalist 40, Labor 25, Country parties 10. [1] Remember the Country Party hadn't formed as a united entity at this stage and I don't think there were yet party names on ballot papers. It's possible that we have either:
One or more candidates successfully standing in a division against a party's official candidate, and then sitting as a member of that party in parliament. The compulsory preferential system makes this very easy to do.
One or more of the state Country parties at this stage electing Nationalists supportive of their aims rather than separate members. (Something similar happened in Canada a few years later with the Liberal Progressives.)
I've done a bit of research here, and I've come up with Nationalist 41, Labor 25, Country 7, Independent Nat 1, Independent 1. The definite Country Party seats are Cowper (Earle Page) in NSW; Corangamite (William Gibson), Echuca (William Hill), Grampians (Edmund Jowett), Indi (Robert Cook) and Wimmera (Percy Stewart) in Victoria; and Swan (John Prowse) in WA. I suspect that the way other counts are ending up with extra Country Party members is because some sitting Nationalists were re-elected with joint endorsement - that is, they received endorsement from both the Nationalist Party and their state Country Party. I've found 5 of these seats: New England (Alexander Hay), Riverina (John Chanter) and Robertson (William Fleming) in NSW; Moreton (Arnold Wienholt) in Qld; and Dampier (Henry Gregory) in WA. Generally these seats are listed as Nationalist seats. Of the five members, the members for New England, Robertson and Dampier joined the Country Party when it formed (hence giving Psephos' 10). The members for Riverina and Moreton did not join the Country Party. The Independent Nationalist was Frederick Francis, who had joined the Nationalist Party by 1922. The Independent was Michael Considine, who (at the other extreme) had joined the Industrial Socialist Labor Party by 1922.. A final tally is therefore:
Nationalist 36
Labor 25
State country parties 7
Nationalist & Country 5
Independent Nationalist 1
Independent 1
Not sure how we should show the result, but the current way we're doing it is definitely wrong. Frickeg (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it should be as it was at the election itself, with by-notes indicating what happened thereafter. (Good bit of research there, too - I'm impressed.) Orderinchaos 07:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
