Jump to content

Talk:2018 Victorian state election: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Turnout: reply to Canley about the turnout and count.
Line 33: Line 33:
Why was the 2018 turnout so low compared to 2010 and 2014? I know that there were lots of pre- and early and absent polls. And it may have been a cold and rainy day. --[[User:EuropracBHIT|Bronwyn Gannan]] ([[User talk:EuropracBHIT|talk]]) 02:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Why was the 2018 turnout so low compared to 2010 and 2014? I know that there were lots of pre- and early and absent polls. And it may have been a cold and rainy day. --[[User:EuropracBHIT|Bronwyn Gannan]] ([[User talk:EuropracBHIT|talk]]) 02:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
:At this stage, the number in the Turnout box means the count progress, it will keep going up until the count is finalised. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] ([[User talk:Canley|talk]]) 06:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
:At this stage, the number in the Turnout box means the count progress, it will keep going up until the count is finalised. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] ([[User talk:Canley|talk]]) 06:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
::Thank you, Canley! That does clarify things. It's not been usual for me to check the state election articles so early - at least until the counting is done. --[[User:EuropracBHIT|Bronwyn Gannan]] ([[User talk:EuropracBHIT|talk]]) 06:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC).


==Pre-emptive calls==
==Pre-emptive calls==

Revision as of 06:54, 26 November 2018

A RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes which may affect the infobox of this article. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Victorian state election, 2018

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Victorian state election, 2018's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Morgan":

  • From Western Australian state election, 2017: "Baird Government drops behind for first time in NSW; Barnett in trouble in Western Australia while Andrews Government still riding high in Victoria despite CFA union dispute". Roy Morgan Research. 10 October 2016.
  • From South Australian state election, 2018: [1]

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Registered parties

There are currently 21 parties listed in this article. The ref, (Victorian Electoral Commission), last updated 14 August, lists only 20. The anomaly is Rise Up Australia Party. Can editor/s on VEC mailing list pls confirm Rise Up should be removed? Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Rise Up, still not appearing on VEC registered parties list, JennyOz (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout

Why was the 2018 turnout so low compared to 2010 and 2014? I know that there were lots of pre- and early and absent polls. And it may have been a cold and rainy day. --Bronwyn Gannan (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, the number in the Turnout box means the count progress, it will keep going up until the count is finalised. --Canley (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Canley! That does clarify things. It's not been usual for me to check the state election articles so early - at least until the counting is done. --Bronwyn Gannan (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Pre-emptive calls

We need to be extremely careful about calling races where there are elimination order issues due to it being unclear which candidates will finish in the final two. If the VEC didn't choose the correct top two candidates on election night (and in several races we don't even know who the correct candidates are now), it isn't based on actual votes (because there is no 2CP count) but on the ABC computer's estimates.

Prahran is another example of this - the ABC computer called it multiple times on election night but any human commentator was well aware that, like last election, no one would have the faintest idea who the winner was until it was finalised who had finished third.

Melton has also been pre-emptively called because of the same error, and there is another five seats where one might possibly call it with the understanding that it's still possible for independents to win on current figures.

We should absolutely not be making calls here in these races where actual human commentators say it's still up in the air purely because the ABC computer has called it on an estimate. This is why we've always relied on human experts, not the ABC computer, to determine which races are still in doubt at every election ever on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Benambra and Melton, at the very least, are very clearly in doubt. Probably we should also be listing Pascoe Vale and South-West Coast as well. We have learned from long experience that we should not treat seats as called while serious commentators (which for us means basically William Bowe and Kevin Bonham, as the only people who do serious post-count analysis) are treating them as doubtful. Frickeg (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you bring it up, I think it would be a good idea to list Pascoe Vale and South-West Coast given Bonham's commentary on those races. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well (about Pascoe Vale and South-West Coast). --Canley (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Drover's Wife, and others. I should have been more detailed in my explanation regarding Benambra. It has indeed been called by the ABC and Antony Green. It's important to note that this is not simply a computer automated process. Seats which have unnecessary VEC preference counts are being overridden and placed in the "seats in doubt" category, such as Prahran. The ABC computer would treat Prahran as a clear Greens retain, but this has been overridden manually. This is not the case for Benambra, which has not been overridden, so it's not simply a case of an automated process marking something as retain when it shouldn't be. Apologies if this has caused any confusion.
Regarding overall, we could rely on Bonham and Bowe as reliable sources, but they have both indicated that their updates are going to be irregular if at all, where the ABC is more instantaneous. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: In the last half an hour or so, Benambra has been overridden and placed into doubt by the ABC now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, this doesn't explain reverting my edits which had nothing to do with Benambra. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]