Talk:2009 Queensland state election

Untitled

I think someone might want to check this list for inaccuracies. Since Brett Raguse, Labor's candidate in Beaudesert in 2006, was elected to federal parliament in 2007, I highly doubt he's decided to give up his federal seat and take another crack at a safe National state seat... Rebecca (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Brett Raguse, lol... Timeshift (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy polls

It's come to my attention that mentions of Galaxy polls are being purged from this page on the grounds that they're "unreliable". For what my opinion is worth, I suggest you let this one go. I've laid out the agency's record over the five years of its existence here. If my opinion doesn't move you, try Antony Green's: "Galaxy has a good record of producing accurate polls, and certainly produced more polls in 2007 that looked like the eventual Federal election result than either Newspoll or AC Nielsen. Yet the Queensland election Wikipedia page refuses to include Galaxy polls because it considers them unreliable." William Bowe (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard on all Australian election pages is to use Newspoll. And FYI both Galaxy and Newspoll had a final prediction of 52-48 for the 2007 federal election. To say that more of the Galaxy polls were closer to what the final result was is meaningless. A poll shows what people think at the time the poll was taken, not who they will eventually vote for at election time. This graph shows that Galaxy was the odd one out, it produced results different to the rest. All polls could be included in multiple tables at the bottom, but it certainly should not take the place of Newspoll in the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whats funny is that you obviously didn't want to use Galaxy cause LNP was ahead. Now the Newspoll shows exactly the same thing. Take that Timeshift! 130.56.71.132 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Take that? You really should WP:AGF. Using Newspoll has always been the standard on wikipedia since 'next election' pages began. Newspoll has also typically been the poll most favourable to the coalition. It's also worth mentioning that polls often have the opposition in front during the term, and during the campaign, but still fail to win the election, eg Howard at every election he eventually won. And 51% for the LNP wouldn't even win them the election based on a uniform swing. But that's all beside the point. Galaxy polls or Roy Morgan polls or ACNielsen polls are not by any means not allowed on these pages, if someone wants to add them to fresh tables where the Newspoll table is - by all means add it. But Newspoll has always been used for the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another factor, Queensland's voluntary voting and previous "just vote 1" campaigns - for example, more than half of minor party votes in past elections have exhausted in some key races - means that "two party preferred" in NSW and QLD state elections is indicative only and doesn't necessarily reflect how many votes the parties end up receiving. "Will your vote exhaust before reaching a major party" is not asked by any of the pollsters. Orderinchaos 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assume good faith but then again you are a WP:Prick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.132 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how Newspoll and Galaxy were both off with the fairies this time, I think the whole argument above made little difference. Orderinchaos 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Both were within the margin of error. Newspoll's last poll was about 1% out on all of the primaries. Timeshift (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So on primaries, Labor will get around 42.5% with the LNP on around 41.5%. Newspoll predicted 42% for both, Galaxy predicted 40% for Labor, 43% for the LNP. I don't think anything further needs to be said. Timeshift (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

live updates

hi all, is anyone down to put the latest info about results as they come to hand tomorow night mattman (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LNP colour

I don't seem to have a problem applying the correct color code to the results table, but the infobox seems to be stuck on the old original colour I used. Can anyone see what i'm doing wrong with this? Timeshift (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's looking here (took me a while to figure that one out, yay for oddness). Orderinchaos 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

2pp note

Note that the literature is very clear on the lack of a notion of statewide 2PP in Queensland elections. 1998 was never calculated because it was a three party race, and 2001 onwards have not been calculated due to optional preferential voting. See [1]. Orderinchaos 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a source for my statement above re 1998: p.593, Political Chronicles (AJPH 44(4), 1998): "Because of the mixed outcome and the number of One Nation seats, no two-party preferred result was possible to calculate." Orderinchaos 01:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It has little if anything to do with optional preferential voting. All seats are decided on a two party preferred (or two candidate preferred) basis, so adding them together for a cumulative 2pp ought to be pretty straight forward. The problem is that not all seats are Labor v Coalition. This is a problem in any state, but especially so in Queensland where One Nation effectively created a three party system in the late 90s. Even with the demise of One Nation, enough independents have stuck around to muck up the two party system. Note that Antony Green has no issue with calculating an overall 2pp for 1992 and 1995 (I'm pretty sure OPV was introduced in Goss's first term). Digestible (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's say the seat count is between an Independent and the LNP. This means that quite a few Labor votes would actually disappear entirely, so votes which have preferred Labor simply *aren't there*. (Same goes if you substitute "Labor" for "LNP" and vice versa.) Under Queensland law (and I've checked) they do not have to publish all investigated avenues in this way. (The comparison is WA, where the Annual Report when they eventually publish it will contain these stats.) Hence the result of adding all of them is actually not going to produce a correct statewide 2PP. As for some of the ones he has calculated, I honestly don't know where they come from - pre-1971 in WA for example none can be calculated as typically one third of the seats weren't contested and many of the ones that were were not traditional two-party races, yet Green's past elections table has figures for every one of them - and the figures for later ones contradict the ones I can get from published sources by the WAEC. The figure I used in the 1995 table came from an equivalent published source, I couldn't actually find one for 1992 although there clearly was one, as the 1995 source noted the 2 decimal place change from the previous election. Orderinchaos 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An LNP v independent runoff throws a spanner in the works whether or not Labor preferences exhaust. I'm not sure what you mean by investigate all avenues. Conduct an indicative LNP v Labor count perhaps? Maybe it is the case that the ECQ does not do that; but it's not OPV that prevents them from doing so. Digestible (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Conduct an indicative LNP v Labor" was exactly what I had in mind, but nothing in the Electoral Act or accompanying regulations requires them to do it, even for the purposes of reporting (i.e. the annual report, as is the case in WA). Orderinchaos 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mirani and Chatsworth

The ABC has called both for the LNP.[2] Their overall prediction is now 51/34/4. Mirani would be a notional gain and the margin has gotten quite wide in late counting.[3] Chatsworth though is still pretty close on actual figures.[4] Digestible (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Later update: Both seats now revised to "LNP ahead". Digestible (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why have Labor's seats been upped from 51 to 52?

They've actually fallen behind in Gaven since yesterday, and remain behind in Mirani, Chatsworth, Cleveland and Redlands. At the moment 50 looks a more probable figure. Digestible (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Was keeping it inline with the ABC, which said 52 for a fair bit of today then reviewed to 51. Orderinchaos 13:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chatsworth is ahead for the ALP now, and Redlands is narrowly behind, but all of the others right now look lost to Labor, considering the natural conservative leaning of postal votes (as is being evidenced by the changes in the overall % for Labor and LNP statewide). Orderinchaos 03:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Greens held a seat

Why should we go by the previous election and not the by-election for Ronan Lee? If it's good enough for Antony, it's good enough for us... Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no response, i've readded -1 to Greens. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree although I won't contest it. The counterargument is that the seat was never won for the Greens at a by-election or anything, it was just simply a member changed allegiance. He could have joined the Daylight Savings party and the result would be the same. At (I think) the 1998 federal election a Liberal-turned-CDP member in the Queensland seat of Macpherson had a similar situation. The other thing is that we have to have a reliable, sourced way for indicating changes at elections, and once you go back past the internet age this becomes very difficult if we're going to use a "pre-poll parliament" figure rather than an "at last election" figure, as determining the former may be nigh impossible due to lack of acceptable sources. Hence you get inconsistencies. Orderinchaos 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Antony Green considers the Greens lost a seat here. Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then again, he isn't the Messiah - his is one opinion amongst many. Doing it this way does put this article out of whack with all our others - eg Australian federal election, 1998; Western Australian state election, 2008. Orderinchaos 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be adjusted then? The election should show the state of the parliament after the election as opposed to before the election, not the previous election IMHO, and it seems Antony would agree, who is a reputable source even if he isn't *the* source. Timeshift (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He isn't a "source". The AEC et al are sources. And getting the information to "adjust" those others is, as I said, nearly impossible - I'd like to see you try and seriously argue over at Australian federal election, 1998 that the CDP lost a seat - despite it being exactly the same situation as we find here. Orderinchaos 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Did the CDP hold a seat prior to the election? And Antony is a WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he isn't - a person cannot be a WP:RS, read that guideline very carefully. And yes, they did - see Division of McPherson. Orderinchaos 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of WP:RS says the ABC Antony Green site isn't WP:RS? And yes, I think the CDP should be -1 in 1998. Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno how you plan on doing the pre-WWII elections with such an unscientific approach, though - allegiances were fairly fluid back then and in some elections, entirely uncertain. I prefer consistency throughout, based on published figures - the only argument I could see is if the person's views were well known and they flipped across pretty much right after the election, as happened with a fair number of Country Party candidates in WA elections who would run as an Independent to oppose the endorsed Country candidate, then join the CP themselves within weeks of their election and be endorsed for further elections. (The preselection process has pretty much murdered that option in the modern day...) But yeah, random proclivities of MPs don't really factor into how people vote, in many cases especially with a major party, their decision to jump ship is entirely random - we had 8 independents in our last (WA) parliament for instance and one or two talking with or joining Family First or trying to start new parties. All but one of these new "independents" lost - the other two that won had been, and had always been, elected as independents. Therefore the WA election shows "+1". As for RS, Antony Green's election site, while useful, is a self-published source and basically a blog, and full of errors (this is even acknowledged by its creator who produces it on a very tight timeline at times.) Orderinchaos 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there's three choices for the basis of comparison:

a) The party breakdown at the 2006 election (ALP 59 Nat 17 Lib 8 Ind 4 ON 1)

b) The party breakdown at the dissolution of parliament - i.e. after by-elections and party switches (ALP 58 LNP 25 Ind 4 ON 1 Grn 1 or possibly 58/24/5/1/1, depending on when exactly Copeland switched allegiance.)

c) The party breakdown in post-redistribution terms (ALP 62 Nat 15 Lib 8 Ind 4)

The problem it seems to me with the ABC and Antony Green is that their classifications are a muddled combination of (b) and (c). That creates inconsistency. Burdekin, Clayfield, Glass House and Mirani get classified accordingly to the 2006 election results (readjusted for the new boundaries). But for Indooroopilly a completely different standard is adopted, because voters in Indooroopilly in 2006 certainly didn't vote Green.

But I concede that's simply my opinion, when what we need is a reliable source. It was Frickeg who made the change. I'd like to hear his opinion. Digestible (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much in agreement with that view myself. The basis for the "notionals", for example - ESPECIALLY when they're talking 0.01 or 0.1 or whatever (even switching party) based on votes at the last election - in some cases relies on assuming that a booth when switched to another electorate will vote the same way. Let's say the booth is a local school which happens to be 200m from a large regional shopping centre. You're going to have a lot of people from around the electorate voting there - they will actually be split quite unevenly if the booth moves to another electorate (and that is if the votes of an electorate 2km away are even considered to be booth votes and not absentee). My suburb (single booth) was split at the WA election in 2008 in quite an odd fashion, and the result was a demographic split - although both sides of the suburb swung heavily, one appeared to swing much more - only the ABS can make sense of that one, there was an $80 per week difference in the average income and the bit that swung more to the Libs was obviously the higher end bit. Also, booths are not always the same from one election to another, and the postal/absent/etc vote of ~20% which cannot be geographically pinned down due to disclosure rules also impacts. So it's an imprecise science. Orderinchaos 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well actually I wasn't arguing about the methodology of accounting for redistributions. I think we just have to accept that it is—as you correctly say—not a perfect science. What I'm saying is that once you go down that track, then you're explicitly allocating seats according to the way voters cast their ballot at the last election. And in the case of Indooroopilly, a majority of voters cast their ballot for the Labor Party.

P.S. Suburb split in an odd fashion...? Digestible (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Indooroopilly - agreed. And yes. :) Orderinchaos 00:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry. :-) Digestible (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. I missed this somehow. (Tsk!) I'm sorry to be pedantic about this, but I am strongly against having "-1" in the Greens column. This indeed becomes impossible to police in the pre-WWII period, and it's ridiculous to suggest that the Greens would not have "gained" Indooroopilly had they won it. They won no seats in the previous election, and they won no seats in this one. There was no by-election in between. Therefore, Indooroopilly was an LNP gain from Labor. Using this logic, we would have to have Corio (and even Franklin) as Labor gains from Independents at the last federal election, while seats like Lockyer would be One Nation gains from the City Country Alliance in 2001 Queensland. Obviously the case is different when a party changes name (it would be ridiculous to suggest that the LNP did not hold all the previous Liberal/National seats). Antony is actually inconsistent here - he didn't have Corio down as an Independent seat federally, for example, which is the same thing. And if we were going to have -1 Greens, we'd have to adjust the Independents and the LNP for Stuart Copeland as well. Frickeg (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To add a little something to the bottom of this, what about One Nation? If we're doing post-redistribution figures, they didn't hold any seats. Dalrymple would certainly have been a gain for Rosa Lee Long, and a loss for the LNP. Frickeg (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. At the moment the box figures are drawing a comparison to the 2006 election [see (a) above] rather than to the post-redistribution map [(c)]. Digestible (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of marking numbers of members, that's probably a good thing in my opinion; marking One Nation as not having had an MP going to the election is going to imply to most people that they, in fact, did not have an MP in parliament. (This is different from the Greens in that Lee long was elected in 2006.) Rebecca (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But are we doing members, or seats? If we're doing members, then we shouldn't take account of the redistribution - in which case, -1 One Nation is fine. But if we're doing seats, and we are taking account of the redistribution, then -1 One Nation is misleading, since in terms of seats Dalrymple was not "held" by them. Frickeg (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaven

Labor's Phil Gray has conceded. [5] Digestible (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In doubt seats

The LNP has taken Redlands and Cleveland and Labor has taken Chatsworth, results reflect this change. Australia2world (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exhausted votes?

Are they published anywhere? Timeshift (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queensland state election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219004052/http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au:80/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/E/ElectoralA92.pdf to http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/E/ElectoralA92.pdf&url_caller=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2009 Queensland state election/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The section in question has no problems in regards to neutrality. To link references would be ridiculous as a simple search on QLD health, infrastructure and the economy shows a body of opinion supporting that there is massive pressure on the incumbent government to address the noted issues in the context of an election campaign.

Last edited at 03:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 03:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queensland state election, 2009. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120317154331/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/timetable.html to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/timetable.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120317154331/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/timetable.html to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/timetable.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)