Talk:2012 Australian Labor Party leadership spill

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

Australia: Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal 2012 Australian Labor Party leadership spill 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Politics

	Politics portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Page started

↔I've started this new page, please improve! - Theaussieeditor

Only one candidate?

The article title says it's about an election. At this stage, there's only one candidate, making the title look a little silly. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, you can have an election with one candidate - the result is called an acclamation. The fact is Gillard called an election, it's yet to be seen if additional candidates come forward but it seems likely, based on his comments, that Rudd will declare once he's back on Australian soil. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of an acclamation in politics. Please just ease back a little on all of this. You (and others) have clearly been swept up by the media hype. We must only report what is actually happening, not what the media speculates is happening. Guessing what Rudd WILL do is speculation. It must never appear in articles here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've never heard of an acclamation? Here's one Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2009. The fact is a leadership election has been called for Monday at 10 am. Saying it's not an election because at the moment there's only one candidate is just pedantic. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly you playing pedantry. If there are no more candidates there will be no election. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that "acclamation", in the sense of a unanimous or uncontested vote, is a usage peculiar to Canada. I think "uncontested election" is the generic term in most varieties of English. Why are you so sure that there would be no election in the absence of a second candidate? Uncontested votes happen all the time, especially within political parties. LANTZY ^TALK 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised the term "acclamation" wasn't used for uncontested elections outside of North America (I'm pretty sure it's used in the US as well). Next you're going to tell me no one outside of Canada knows what a riding is? ;) Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not peculiar to Canada, and it is not used in the US. It is used in Canada and the UK; I think it was used in Australia 100 years ago, but has fallen into disuse (I'm fairly sure I saw it while reading through House of Representatives Journals from the first session). As for the US, if a person runs for office unopposed, there is still an election on the ballot. Keep in mind that in the United States many offices (federal, state, and local) are held at the same time and, as a general rule, on the same ballot paper. So there is no election by acclamation in the US, and the terminology is "running unopposed", not "uncontested election". -Rrius (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rudd has publically stated he will participate and it is impossible for Gillard to lose unopposed. Azorrez (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If true, that's a major development. Were's the source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much for references but I think this will satisfy: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/kevin-rudd-resigns-as-foreign-minister-condemns-julia-gillards-silence/story-fn7x8me2-1226278811641 Azorrez (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not good enough. We would need a reliable source (so careful with the Hun) telling us that Rudd has declared that he will stand. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one also seems to re-affirm: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/julia-gillard-calls-leadership-vote-as-kevin-rudd-states-his-case-for-a-return-as-pm/story-fnccyr6m-1226279143768 Azorrez (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's all about what Gillard said. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald Sun story actually says "Mr Rudd said he would declare his future when he returned to Australia". Rudd's comments on this have been limited to two press conferences, and in neither one has he actually stated that he's going to nominate for the leadership. It seems likely that he will, but he's yet to actually confirm this (he may not have even made up his mind). Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has declared that he will soon challenge the leadership. If not Monday, certainly in 2012 (as the title agrees) as declared by Rudd. Azorrez (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you actually have a source where it says that Rudd said that? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources only speculate. Surely we can add Rudd as a speculated candidate until he confirms? Azorrez (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Look at WP:SPECULATION HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, you keep ignoring the fact that a leadership spill has been called for Monday at 10 am. That means the Labor Party leadership is technically vacant and will be filled by a vote at that time. Whether there is only one candidate or 30 doesn't change the fact that there is an election happening regardless of your desire to pretend otherwise. When an election is called, an election is called - it doesn't only become an election once candidates register. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article about the phenomenon. Legally an uncontested election is still an election, whether or not it satisfies our sense of what elections are "for". LANTZY ^TALK 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're also forgetting that Australian Labor Party leadership election, 2010 had only one candidate. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can accept that it can be called an election. But let's be 100% clear that Rudd has not, at any stage, challenged Gillard for the leadership. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, Gillard has in effect called for a vote of confidence in herself. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a procedural point, it looks really stupid to list the supporters of K Rudd, but not list him as a candidate. Technically, as he hasn't announced his intention to seek the leadership, should we not remove this information? Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 19:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks stupid because this is a really pointless article until there actually is a formal challenge. It's built on speculation, something that we shouldn't ever do on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation that recieved a hell of a lot of public and media attention. I'd say it definitely had political and historical encyclopaedic value. Anyways, he's challenged, so it's a moot point now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.5 (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]