This is an archive of past discussions about 2004 Australian federal election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Failed FAC

Basically, this is an excellent piece of writing. It was written from a highly accomplished author, Adam Carr, and is quite NPOV. It also is quite an excellent overview of the 2004 Australian Federal election. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support. I'd been planning to nominate this myself. It was just about feature-worthy before the election, and has been just about completely rewritten since. Ambi 11:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support. I'm from Australia and followed the elction fairly closely. It looks good Psychobabble
Object. Current event status is a serious hinderance to featured article status in my mind. The results won't be final until around 31 October, plus a week or so to resolve lingering POV, pictures, analysis, grammer etc. Excellent candidate for feature article after 7 November. Fifelfoo 23:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See my response to Aaronhill's comment below. Secondly, if there are problems with lingering POV, pictures, analysis and grammar, where are they? For the objection to be actionable, we need some pointers to where these may indeed be. Ambi 09:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No vote, but should not the article be intituled "Australian parliamentary election, 2004" ? -- Emsworth 00:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- There's been several suggestions. "Australian federal election, 2004" is the most popular alternative, if it was to change -- Chuq 01:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Object. lead section much too long--Jia ng 00:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Slightly object~~ Conditional support for much the same reason as Fifelfoo. To quote: "Current event status is a serious hinderance to featured article status in my mind". The article is still using the provisional results and the dust has still not yet settled on the election. It, after all, was last Saturday and there are still seats in doubt. Predicting the Senate results for sure is still difficult. I guess this is a "yes, but not just yet". This is not to say that the work is not quality, because it is probably one of the best articles available on the election on the entire internet, but it is just not appropriate for featured status just yet. (I guess this would be a partial self-objection :-D) - Aaron Hill 08:22, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- IMO, this shouldn't be a problem. There's very few undecided seats at the moment - it's down to about four in each house, and those are being updated practically daily with the latest details. Ambi 09:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - I do not believe the article is POV or that it has problems with pictures or grammar, I do however think that it is necessary to wait until after the dust has settled on this still current event (the makeup of the senate is still far from certain) for it to be featured on the front page. - Aaron Hill 10:57, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
    - Then don't feature it on the main page for at least two weeks, but don't oppose its nomination either. Ambi 11:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - On that condition, I strongly support the nomination of this article. - Aaron Hill 12:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Object: the lead section is far too long and detailed, and, again, the actual references used need to be stated explicitly. I am also concerned about the provisional nature of the article as it stands. I know no article is never finished, but this is about an event in progress and so is even less finished than the average FA. Probably nominated two weeks too soon. Filiocht 11:14, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

So, we just wait another week, fix up the lead section, quote the references, and voila...featured article. Ambi 01:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Damn right! - Aaron Hill 02:17, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Note, of course, as a current event it has appeared as a link on the Main Page for a week already. Mark Hurd 02:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have inserted a header to make the intro section shorter. I don't follow this suggestion that the article needs more "references." References to what? The article has been mostly written by Australians who have all been close observers of, or (as in my case) participants in, the election process. It is not based on secondary sources and therefore doesn't need references. Adam 02:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So we just reference the AEC and ABC sites a few times, I don't think referencing is really that bigger deal, it just makes the people who don't live in Australia feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that we aren't inept hacks. - Aaron Hill 07:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

It'd probably be good to reference a few more news articles and opinion pieces. Either that or get rid of the section entirely, it does look kinda flimsy at the moment. Psychobabble

It should be easy enough to solve this by slipping in links to a few statistics pages (be they from the ABC, AEC, or Adam's site), where we've made (obvious) conclusions based on those statistics. It might also be nice to add the first paragraph that's now under the "overall result" heading back as part of the lead section, to counter the (likely) objection that the LS is too short. Ambi 13:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the lead paragraph should definately state the results, the swing to the Coalition and the significance of it controlling both houses, if it does so in the end.Psychobabble

I inserted the head because ppl said the lead para was too long. Cd we make up minds about this? Adam 05:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be long but I reckon it should give the important information on the election to someone who isn't familiar with it. Ie, seats won, what the election said about the population's support for the incumbent govt (ie swing) and the potential action the government will take with its 2-house majority (if it gets it). Psychobabble

39 seats?

I notice that Psychobabble has just reinserted the prediction that the coalition is likely to hold 39 seats. I thought the 39th seat (in Queensland) was still very much up for grabs. It was the last time I heard, anyway. Has anything changed, or am I missing something? David Cannon 10:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It hasn't. Barnaby Joyce has slipped ahead again in counting, after falling behind late last week, so he's still the favourite to win the seat. But there's every chance that Drew Hutton could come back - and there's still every chance that regardless of who wins, the result could be disputed in the High Court. We won't really know until Wednesday. Ambi 10:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify things, Ambi!David Cannon 03:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yesterday's Age had an article strongly predicting a National win. I was going to reference it on the page but the article is pword protected [1] (dailykos/dailykos works). PS. What's with the HC challenge?

Greens allege irregularities. Nationals also threatening to allege irregularities if they lose. For the current status of things, see this article. It still seems a little too close to call, though Joyce remains the favourite. Another thing of note in that article is it looks like the Democrats are headed for another leadership challenge. Ambi 00:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That article didn't have anything about irregularities or court challenges, maybe you linked the wrong one. As for the Democrats, I know the leader of the young Democrats in Victoria and he reckons the party will go into liquidation soon, it's got massive debts and no real prospect of recovery. That's just his opinion though. Psychobabble

Sorry, I linked to that article just to show the current status of the counting. This article refers to the Greens' threatened challenge. This article is a couple of weeks old, but in it, Joyce suggests much the same line of action if he loses. Ambi 00:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Joyce loses he will have very good grounds for complaint, since the AEC deprived hundreds (at least) of farm families of their votes by screwing up the postal vote delivery, which clearly disadvanted the Nats. I don't know what grounds the Greens would have for complaint. Adam 05:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

Does anyone else find the following

The National and Liberal Parties won the fifth and sixth seats respectively in Queensland, thus giving the Coalition 39 seats and outright control of the Senate. Labor won the final seats in New South Wales and South Australia, giving it 28 seats. The Greens won the final seats in Western Australia and Tasmania.

confusing? If someone isn't paying attention, could someone think that the Coalition won every seat in Queensland? Andjam 02:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is confusing. The reference is to Senate seats only and should clearly state that - or a have a subheading to that effect Peter Campbell 04:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

POV about preference deal

The Democrats in turn did a preference deal with the Family First Party, despite the great ideological differences between the two parties.

Apart from VSU, and religious issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc), it could be argued the two parties are not that different. They're pro-reconciliation, ambivalent about IR changes, opposed the Iraq war but supported subsequent peacekeeping. I guess people thought FF would be a proxy for the Coalition, but they've since opposed a lot of their legislation. Maybe it should be re-worded to say that some people viewed the deal as a cynical deal, especially if any notable politicians denounced it thus. Andjam 02:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think this is particularly POV. The religious differences here are major' ones. It's not just things such as abortion and gay marriage either - the gulf between Don Chipp and Steve Fielding on issues of censorship couldn't be broader. Ambi 02:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Which aspects of censorship are you referring to? Censorship of "immoral" stuff (eg porn) in particular, of censorship in general? Aren't the Democrats in favour of anti-vilification legislation, as well as "truth in political advertising" legislation? (Another possible example of different perceptions of similarity of parties could be that some would regard the Australian Democrats as being different to One Nation, while one person called a Democrat a Pauline Hanson with a Degree (PhD)) Andjam 03:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How am I editorialising? I've changed an opinion into saying that some people hold that opinion. Andjam 09:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you've dismissed it as a view held by "left-wing people", which is blatantly POV. Ambi 09:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to use it in a dismissive manner. Some Democrat supporters envisage the party as being a left-wing one and other supporters envisage it as a centrist one. If nothing else, it should be noted that it's the Democrats supporters who were annoyed, not the FF supporters. (Given that many of those annoyed at the Democrats weren't going to vote for them anyway, Democrats supporters may be a slight misnomer, but...) Andjam 09:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The FF supporters were hardly likely to be offended at another party preferencing them, seeing as they happily courted Labor too. While I see where you're going with this, I don't think it's an unreasonable generalisation to say that this is how it generally went down. Ambi 10:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What I meant by "not annoyed" was that FF supporters weren't offended by FF giving preferences to a party that supports gay marriage and the like, not that they were not offended by the Democrats giving them preferences. (Double negatives? I ain't using no double negatives!) Andjam 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Who were the Democrats being preferenced over that opposed gay marriage? Ambi 10:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what their preferences were (it's only partially mentioned in the article), but the Democrats are more supportive of gay marriage than Labor and the Coalition. I'm assuming that the Democrats are ahead of the majors, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a deal. Andjam 11:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Would my change be less offensive if I said the deal was criticised by "Democrats supporters" rather than by left-wingers? Andjam 11:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Analysis of Latham

This galvanised Labor's base but many commentators felt that Latham's policies and personality alienated middle class voters. In retrospect Labor's forests policy was a major miscalculation, costing two seats in Tasmania.

Wouldn't Latham's forests policy be an example of Labor galvanising middle class voters at the expense of Labor's "base", ie the opposite of the first sentence? Andjam 10:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice catch - the two sentences are completely contradictory. They're both quite true, but putting it that way is odd, to say the least. Ambi 10:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Labour's forest policy did not cost them two seats in Tasmania - they would have lost these seats in any case - but this is a commonly held perception. I will look for a reference on this. Peter Campbell 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's been the conclusion of just about every political commentator I've read on the subject, including the likes of Antony Green. Ambi 10:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That is the popular belief - and may well be the case for Braddon which had a large and unexpected swing, but I don't think the same claim can be made or verified for Bass - which was one of the most marginal seats in the country. The "forests costs seats" line is POV from some logging-affiliated unionists. The ALP is lost primary votes across the board Peter Campbell 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the melee, I'm somewhat doubtful that Latham did better with Labor's "base" (what is Labor's base anyway?). This blog post suggested that in a WA electorate, "Doctor's wives" swung towards Latham (especially compared to the overall average) but "battlers" swung towards Howard. Andjam 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think Howard has been taking votes of the "ALP core" as more "workers" prosper, own homes and have mortgages - hence the interest rates & economic credibility scare run by the Coalition. Some of the "Liberal core" is undoubtedly going elsewhere (to Greens & ALP) as per "doctors wives" and general discontent about Howard's lack of substantive action on environment/climate change etc AND on treatment of asylum seekers. Howard successfully stopped some of this drifting vote by running the "extreme kooky greens" scare campaign. For every action there is a reaction. Peter Campbell 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was FF that ran the kooky greens campaign. Andjam 02:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob Brown analysis

Bob Brown had been a Senator and the informal leader of the Australian Greens since 1996. By resolutely opposing Australia's participation in the Iraq War he established himself as the most prominent figure of the Australian left and gained a high reputation for integrity.

Other parties also opposed the Iraq war. Is the difference that the Greens opposed them unconditionally? Andjam 11:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Victorian senate analysis

Family First were elected in Victoria after receiving 1.88% of the vote, despite the fact that the Greens had the largest minor party share of the vote with 8.8%. In Australia, 95% of voters vote "above the line" in the Senate and do not access preference allocation listings, so they are therefore unaware of where their vote may go. The end result was one Family First, three Liberal and two Labor Senators elected in Victoria.

Is the claim that 95% of voters are unaware of where their vote goes verifiable? How about replacing it with "the Greens ought to have won the bloody seat"? Andjam 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of preferences for the senate were available from the AEC website weeks before the election and should have been available at all polling places. It was not something that was hidden. If people wanted to know where their preference went, they could have easily checked. Thus, it is assumed that people voted for who they wanted to be elected, and in the order of preference that they wanted that person elected. Why else would 5% or over 500,000 people make the effort of filling in all 100 (+/-) boxes. Xtra 12:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the point that needs to be made, rather than saying that people didn't know where their vote went, is the difficulty in tracking where your vote goes under the system. I remember Antony Green saying once that he was unable to predict where a particular vote would go before the election, and in large states it can be nigh on impossible to fully understand what those sheets say. It certainly isn't user-friendly. Braue 13:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only it user-friendly, but it's hardly surprising that most people don't check. Hell, I watch politics fairly closely, but the only way I knew that a vote for the ALP was a vote for Family First was because some of the media (such as Crikey) started kicking up a stink about people being mislead on this very point. People check the box of the party they like, and assume that that party is going to preference according to the policies of that party - this is precisely why Labor's decision was controversial. Ambi 13:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This all sounds interesting, but we need verifiable statements, and saying 95% of people are unaware of what happens to their preferences is unverifiable. Andjam 22:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not what that sentence says at all. What is says is that 95% of voters vote above the line, which I assume is verifiably true - and that many of these don't know precisely where their vote goes. Ambi 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi. I agree with you in some respects, but (just as an aside) When you do contract law, you will learn that when you sign off on something, the law assumes that you have read all the fine print. Also, I dissagree that the senate HTV cards were hard to understand (except the democrats who split their vote 3 ways). Xtra 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's still hardly controversial that the vast majority of people don't know where their preferences go when they vote above the line - hell, the only reason I knew where a small handful of my preferences were going is because the press told me. Ambi 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement " In Australia, 95% of voters vote "above the line" in the Senate and do not access preference allocation listings, so they are therefore unaware of where their vote may go." says that 95%

Vote above the line (verifiable)
Do not access prefence allocation listings (unverified)
Are unaware of where their vote may go (unverified)

How about saying "95% vote above the line in the Sentate, and many of them do not access preference allocation listings, so are unaware of where their vote may go." Also, I think there a large incidence of below the line voting in some senate elections to avoid preferencing FF. If we can quote a respectable analyst, it might be useful for the article. Andjam 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The 95% above the line data comes from Antony Green [2]. I agree with the above clarification Peter Campbell 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just had a thought. How could people not be aware where their preferences were going, given the media attention. Any assesment that claims that FF was elected mistakenly is just plain wrong. Xtra 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There was very little media attention on the ALP & Democrat deals with FF prior to them getting up in Victoria. Antony Green predicted it, but there was very little coverage or discussion on this topic. Very few ALP voters knew that their Senate preferences were going to FF - as evidenced by the backlash after it became clear that this was what happened - eventually causing the resignation of the Vic State Secretary (Erik Locke), who fell in his sword over this issue - as reported by Crikey. Peter Campbell 05:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Antony Green's submission to the joint committee on electoral matters (PDF) contained extensive reference to the problems inherent in the above-the-line system as it currently stands - particularly the extensive degree of gamesmanship that is involved in preference allocation. ALP preferences going to FF was essentially a gamble that went awry - but plenty more of such deals do occur on a regular basis and don't gain media attention.

Eric Abetz was going on about extensive reform to the Senate voting system at one point as well - including the introduction of compulsory preference allocation above the line - but it appears that someone has shut him up. As an aside, I don't think anyone could construe a ballot as a legally binding contract. Slac speak up! 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Subheadings for Campaign section?

I think some subheadings within the Campaign section would make more readable and flow better. Comments? Peter C Talk! 00:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It reads like a Melbourne Cup commentator - and they're off! michael ^talk 07:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnaby Joyce and Control of the Senate

A recent edit by User:JSIN removed the reference that Barnaby Joyce's election gave the Coalition control of the Senate. This is contrary to the bulk of electoral, media and political commentary on this topic. See [3] for John Anderson's views. I think this edit should be reverted. Also note that User:JSIN is politically affiliated. Peter C Talk! 05:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't assume things. Although I, like most people, have political beliefs, I am not politically affiliated at all. Joyce didn't even win the last seat, so I don't see how he, alone, one out of 39 Coalition Senators, can deliver a majority. The site to which you have linked does not say that Joyce caused the Coalition control of the Senate. The heading is "NATIONALS DELIVER CONTROL OF THE SENATE" and in the text: "I am delighted that The Nationals, in their own right, have been able to deliver control of the Senate to the Coalition". Anderson congratulates Joyce for winning the fifth seat, but he also mentions Fiona Nash. However, no mention of his giving the Coalition control of the Senate. JSIN 06:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Joyce's was the last seat undecided. If it went to Joyce, as it did, the government would have a majority. If it went to the Greens, as was the alternative, the government would not have a majority. Thus Joyce's victory did give the government a majority in the Senate. That Russell Trood was technically the last elected is irrelevant - due to the distribution of preferences, it was Joyce's backside on the line, not Trood's. Ambi 07:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rather rude to dismiss other people's contributions as "[n]onsense". Joyce's seat was not the only that relied on the distribution of preferences. And if any of the other 38 Coalition Senate seats went to any other party the Government would not have a majority. Some people might reason that it was Joyce who gained the Coalition's majority in the Senate, stating that as a fact is POV and readers should be allowed to decide for themselves. Respectfully, JSIN 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is of course true that the Coalition controls the Senate because it holds 38 seats, and each of them is as important in that sense as any other. However what gave control of the Senate to the Coalition was their unexpected success in winning four seats out of six in Queensland. The question therefore is, which Senator was the unexpected winner of the fourth seat? My view is that it was not Joyce, because most commentators expected the Nationals to regain the seat they lost to One Nation in 1998. The real surprise was the Liberals winning three seats, and so it was Trood's election which gave the Coalition its majority. Adam 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether winning 4 seats is unexpected is a matter of opinion. Some people may be equally surprised that the ALP won any seats at all. I guess it depends on how you define the "mainstream" for mainstream opinion. Out of curiosity, what odds did the bookies give for a 4th coalition seat in QLD? Andjam 10:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a very intelligent comment. It was unexpected by all the parties and commentators. Adam 10:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not very CIVIL. Andjam 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While not saying which scenario is correct, the simple fact that a user has registered disagreement with a subjective statement written as if it's a fact shows that it was POV. JSIN 09:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Joyce did not give control to the coalition, he was one of many elected from the coalition to the senate. He was neither the first elected nor the last. Xtra 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See Russell Trood, the true giver of the majority to the coalition if you can even define a person as that. Xtra 10:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Try a Google search on "Barnaby Joyce delivers coalition senate control" - you get over 10,300 hits and at a quick glance the first 30 are all relevant to Joyce. Then there was Boswell crowing when the count was finalised and ringing Howard with his famous quote when Joyce unexpectedely won the fifth seat[4].

NARDA GILMORE: Nineteen days after his election victory, John Howard has another reason to celebrate.

RON BOSWELL, NATIONAL PARTY: Prime Minister, you just have control of the Senate.

NARDA GILMORE: A computer in Brisbane delivered the verdict on the deciding Senate seat and the National Party's Senate leader Ron Boswell wasted no time in letting the Prime Minister know the Coalition had won an outright majority.

RON BOSWELL: You've got it open, OK.

NARDA GILMORE: Ron Boswell insisted that didn't mean open slather, a prospect John Howard's been quick to play down.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: It's a very good outcome, but I want to assure the Australian people that the Government will use its majority in the new Senate very carefully, very wisely.

CHRIS EVANS, OPPOSITION SENATE LEADER: I'm fearful the Government will abuse their power.

Power unchecked is generally power abused.

NARDA GILMORE: The deciding Senate seat in Queensland went to the National's Barnaby Joyce.

From July next year the Coalition will hold 39 seats in the Senate, Labor keeps its 28, the Greens have four, the Democrats four, and Family First one.

There are dozens more references along these lines. Content must be verifiable.

I think it is clear what happened, and am very surprised that this is disputed. I favour a revert. Peter C Talk! 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You favour a revert to something that is factually incorrect? See [5] the last person elected from Queensland was Trood not joyce. Xtra 11:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Joyce getting the 5th seat is not in dispute - the article clearly states this is the case. The text that was removed was "with Barnaby Joyce providing a Senate majority for the Liberal/National Coalition". So it was either Joyce's "unexpected win" of the 5th seat, or as Adam points out, perhaps Trood's "expected win" of the 6th seat. Either way, the outcome in QLD (and its timing) delivered the coalition the seats that gave them full control of the Senate. Peter C Talk! 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because media taking heads say something is true doesn't make it so. The expected outcome in Qld was 2 ALP, 2 Libs, 1 Nat, one other. What happened was 2 ALP, 3 Libs, 1 Nat. So the unexpected Senator was Trood, and it was the extra Lib that gave the Coalition the 38th seat. Adam 11:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter whether the psephologists underestimated the number of National seats or the number of Liberal seats? They got it wrong either way. If they all thought the coalition would only gain 3 seats as said above, then it suggests they've got a groupthink problem. Andjam 11:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not what we are discussing. Adam 12:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

What was wrong with the name 'Australian Federal Election 2000' ? The problem with 'Australian legislative election' is that suggests the election only involved the legislative arm (i.e.: the House of Representatives, not the Senate). Otherwise, the word 'legislative' sounds redundant Kransky 14:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the title of the article is a bit bizarre. All elections in Australia are "legislative", there is no such thing as a non-legislative election, there is no direct election of judges or the executive. In response to Kransky, both the House of Reps and and the Senate are legislative, the reason the election affects the executive is because the numbers in the House of Reps determine who is Prime Minister, ie the winner of the election. The term "General Election" is widely used, so the full title of the article should be "Australian General Election 2004"LimitedNews 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention is to class elections as either legislative or presidential. "General election" is in any case a British term not an Australian one. Strictly speaking the 2004 election was an election for the House of Reps and half the Senate. You won't get any support for changing the title. Adam 08:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Can someone put the old leader infobox under the current results infobox without stuffing up the layout? I don't know how to fix it. Brisvegas 10:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm at pains to see how you can format such boxes so they don't, at least occasionally, ruin someone's page. With respect, I don't think they're really that helpful either. screenshot Netvegetable 22:31:25, June 28, 2007 (UTC)