Talk:1986 Queensland state election

Final Vote After Distribution of Preferences

I had earlier added the follwing edit wich is cited, factual and encyclopedic by nature, it was removed and replaced by a previous uncited version that is only an opinion, not factual in nature I believe. If an editor believs what I have posted is not encyclopedic and factual and should not be here then show proper cause here. The Nationals won a total of 54.1% of the vote after distribution of preferences.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the edit is not faithful to the source. It says that the Coalition, not the Nationals, won said percentage of the two-party preferred vote, and the Liberals won 10 seats (most of them metropolitan ones) outright. The interesting part is that the two-party preferred vote is less than the combined primary vote of 56.1%. Orderinchaos 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ThankYou, then would You kindly state then what is the final prefered vote of the national party in this election? Also, can you prove that the boundaried were changed to suit the government, instead of just adding it to the article like it was a fact? If you cant prove it, then it has no right to be in the article, kind regardsVivaldi27 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to make the article fair and balanced we need to include the final vote after distribution of preferences, not doing so it smacks of bias and an attempt to paint the Nationals win in a negative way and unencyclopedic. So, Orderinchaos if you could come up with wat you think is the final vote after distrubiion of preferences then lets adds it to give a balanced article.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Very simple answer - As the Nationals did not run in every seat, none can be calculated. Trying to "come up" with things which have to be dreamed into existence is original research at its worst - and how would one calculate it? One would have to make assumptions about Labor, Liberal and minor party preferences in seats which the Nationals did not run in. That is why a Coalition one is given, as either the Nationals or the Liberals or both ran in most seats. I have given sufficient proof by citing it to a peer-reviewed academic source, where it is discussed in no less than two pages. One statement from that source reads: "While introduced ostensibly to provide for better representation, the real purpose of enlarging the size of the House was to protect the National Party's electoral base in the rural areas which, demographically, are stable or declining." It then goes into the specific details and mechanics of population growth within the different "zones" and how the seats were allocated. A book which came out a few years later looking at the 1989 election which was co-edited by Colin A. Hughes, a former Commonwealth electoral commissioner and long-serving UQ academic, also mentions it, as do the reports, collectively titled EARC I, of the Electoral and Administrative Reform Commission (which was itself set up by the Nationals) which came out in 1991 and recommended major changes to the boundaries to reflect one vote one value style principles. Orderinchaos 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is ilogical. Queensland at that time operated under a forced distribution of prefernces, whether the nationals ran in every seat or not is irrelevant, and I think in fact they may have run candadates in all seats in that election, though ill need check that. Only putting the primary vote is fully misleading, regardless of your personal wants on that matter. The article in order to be fair and balanced requires a edit showing the final vote to the nationals after preferences. Suggest going to a third opinoon hereVivaldi27 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I say Vivaldi is wrong. I also wanted to laugh at "forced distribution of preferences". It's full distribution. Nobody holds a gun to a voter's head. They can vote informal or not at all if they so wish. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bjelkemander?

Should anything be mentioned about the obvious disparity in votes and seats gained? Labor got more votes but fewer seats. The famous Bjelke gerrymander known as Bjelkemander. Was there any commentary at the time that could be cited? LamontCranston (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)