Talk:2018 South Australian state election

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

Australia: South Australia / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2018 South Australian state election 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Draft redistribution - half of Walkerville up in arms!

It would seem Rachel Sanderson has managed to get half of Walkerville to submit objections to the boundary changes... seven pages worth. It's very amusing to see what reasons they provide, apart from Sanderson's boilerplate content. I've never seen so many submissions before, it is almost as though Sanderson has spearheaded abuse of the submission process. Timeshift (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital format redistributed boundary data now available for map creation

See http://edbc.sa.gov.au/news/54-revised-digital-boundaries-available.html Timeshift (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On it! --Canley (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! On a side note, today marks less than six months until the election...! Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more detail, I've nearly finished setting up an analysis suite for redistributions, which can generate all the updates needed for Wikidata and Wikipedia from the GIS data. It was actually based on one I did at the 2014 SA election (at your request), which I completely forgot I had done! I'm going to work on Queensland first, then SA, but they'll be ready to go well before the writs are issued. --Canley (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've generated a list of localities which have changed electoral districts in the most recent redistribution: User:Canley/Redistributions/South Australia 2018. It's mostly Adelaide suburbs, and I'll do some of the larger rural districts manually. I've started updating each locality article—there's only about 300 articles to change so I should be finished in the next day or two. It looks like some haven't been updated since 2010! When that's done, I'll update the lists of suburbs and localities in the district articles themselves. --Canley (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-redistribution now hidden

The pre-redistribution pendulum is pretty useless, given the election will be fought on the new boundaries and there is already a section of the article dedicated to a pendulum on those boundaries. I've hidden the pre-redistribution text, it probably should be removed. Jono52795 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The pre-redistribution pendulum belongs, if anywhere, on the 2014 page. Frickeg (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redistribution section

I've had some concerns about this section for a while; it is indisputably waaaay too long, includes a whole lot of WP:OR, and also has a lot of irrelevant stuff about previous elections. Unless anyone has major objections I'd like to take a bit of a hatchet to it and get it down to something reasonable (more specific proposals outlined here). Frickeg (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think a month is long enough to wait. I have taken the hatchet to this section, removing everything that was uncited, a lot of stuff that drew conclusions that weren't in the source material, and some other stuff that heavily slanted towards one side of the debate. Happy to look at reworking some of the stuff taken out to remove the issues with it. Frickeg (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seat change

I thought usual practice and precedent was to count the seat change from the previous election, not from the notional holds. See 2016 federal election: three NSW Liberal-held seats were notionally Labor, but Coalition seat change is 76−90 = −14. Victorian state election 2014: "Labor also retained four of the five Labor seats which were made notionally Liberal by the 2013 redistribution."—seat change is +4 instead of +8. --Canley (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Though, to show why the Liberals only won 1 seat in 'seats changing hands' instead of 5, the 'seats changing hands' section needs the extra table for redistributed seats, eg at Victorian state election, 2014#Seats changing hands and Queensland state election, 2017#Seats changing hands. Would you be willing to do me a solid and add it in? Timeshift (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'll do it now. --Canley (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the lower house figures coming from?

Looking at https://results.ecsa.sa.gov.au/hoa (and http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/sa-election-2018/results) there are no informal or total votes cast figures, only total formal votes. For those updating this article's results regularly, where are they getting informal/total votes cast from? Timeshift (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ECSA's results pages are using a JSON data feed here: https://results.ecsa.sa.gov.au/data/summary_3.json so I've been adding up the informal votes for each district in the informal_ballot_papers field. I am using the same feed to generate district results tables here: User:Canley/Results of the South Australian state election, 2018 if you want to have a look. I have to do some corrections with the independent candidates and turn on the two-candidate distributions which ECSA are finalising tonight, so don't use these yet, but it should be ready tomorrow morning. --Canley (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Can you please add the tallies of informal votes/votes cast to South Australian state election, 2018#Results? Also FYI, i'm not sure if it was the data feed that did it, but the turnout swing of was +1.9 was incorrect so I corrected it to -0.9. Also FYI, the final results (final distribution of preferences) for individual electorates is now available at https://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/voting/distribution-of-preferences-for-house-of-assembly-districts so you may wish to double check User:Canley/Results of the South Australian state election, 2018. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The turnout swing was my error, thanks for correcting. Yes, I'll turn on the distributions later tonight and it will pick up the latest data from the final distributions. Still 7 not published though. --Canley (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results output should be OK now, might need some manual adjustment for the 4 or so seats yet to be distributed. --Canley (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is King's 2PP swing 0.7% rather than 0.8%?

Looking at Electoral district of King (South Australia) and http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/sa-election-2018/guide/king/ i'm trying to figure out how the two-party swing can be 0.7%. If Antony's post-redistribution notional Labor margin was an estimated 0.1%, then presumably it wasn't calculated using raw vote numbers, so to three decimal places it would be 0.100%? Then, if the Liberal 2PP raw vote outcome was 12,328, divided by a raw total formal vote of 24,299, it gives a 2PP vote of 50.734%, or a margin of 0.734%. So wouldn't that make the swing 0.834%, or, 0.8%? Timeshift (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Green's redistribution calculations are here. If you look at King (page 35), he has the estimated two-party preferred vote as Labor 11,500 / Liberal 11,497 – a mere 3 votes, which is a 0.007% margin (you can also see this further down the page in the "2014 Result (Post-redistribution)" table). 2018 results are LIB 12,328 / ALP 11,971 = 0.735%. Using those raw vote figures, the swing is +0.728 to Liberal, so 0.7%. As to why the ABC page says the margin is 0.1 I have no idea, maybe his system can't handle zeroes? --Canley (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so it is indeed exactly 0.007% rather than an estimated 0.1%. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if Green always rounds up to 0.1 rather than display "0.0" for very small margins. The only examples I could think of were Bowman, Herbert and McEwen in the 2010 federal election, and in that pendulum they were displayed with two decimal points, so I'm not sure why it says 0.1. --Canley (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In seats changing hands, I had changed the new vacant seat of King's post-redistribution notional Labor margin from 0.1 to 0.0, but then I thought that technically 0.0 is nothing rather than something, so i've changed it to <0.1 (less than 0.1). Acceptable? Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's a good idea. --Canley (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone willing please update the outdated suburbs/areas in all Electoral district of <seat> articles?

Can someone willing please update the outdated suburbs/areas in all Electoral district of <seat> articles to reflect their current boundaries? Nearly all 47 of them still list their outdated 2014 suburbs/areas in their (mostly) lead paragraphs. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, nearly all 47? I did at least 21 of these in early March. Possibly some of the rural ones are out of date due to the number of localities, but all the Adelaide metro ones should be up-to-date. --Canley (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see User:Canley/Redistributions/South Australia 2018 for the infobox updates. --Canley (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... in that case, my apologies. I just noticed that Electoral district of Mawson's opening paragraph still had the 2014 suburbs/areas and after a quick look at one or two more electorates which seemed to be unchanged, I thought nearly all of them needed updating. Timeshift (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the regional ones now. Someone else was working on them, but they might have given up. --Canley (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Electoral district of Reynell hadn't been updated (so I updated it) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Which pages have been updated?

Adelaide	Badcoe	Black	Bragg	Chaffey	Cheltenham
updated	new	new	updated	no change	updated
Colton	Croydon	Davenport	Dunstan	Elder	Elizabeth
updated	updated	updated	updated	updated	new
Enfield	Finniss	Flinders	Florey	Frome	Gibson
updated	updated	updated	updated	no change	new
Giles	Hammond	Hartley	Heysen	Hurtle Vale	Kaurna
updated	updated	updated	updated	new	updated
Kavel	King	Lee	Light	MacKillop	Mawson
updated	new	updated	updated	no change	updated
Morialta	Morphett	Mount Gambier	Narungga	Newland	Playford
updated	updated	no change	new	updated	updated
Port Adelaide	Ramsay	Reynell	Schubert	Stuart	Taylor
updated	updated	updated	updated	updated	updated
Torrens	Unley	Waite	West Torrens	Wright
updated	updated	updated	updated	updated

I might be the "someone else". I made the articles for the new electorates, but if I updated old ones it was ad hoc, not a concerted effort to fix them all. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the table, I have marked the ones I updated. Some of the larger rural and regional districts I think we should just link the LGAs as ECSA does at least in the interim. --Canley (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. If the source says "all of the council areas of X, Y and Z" then it's appropriate that is what we write in Wikipedia. Thanks for the efforts to update the plethora of town/locality articles to get the links right. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they're all done. --Canley (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two-party notional counts

Ooh, ECSA just released the notional two-party counts for all districts! --Canley (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user, help needed

Can I please get a hand with this user's disruptive edits? They are also blanking their talk page. Timeshift (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for when upper house final results will be published

For those interested - according to the Dignity Party, the Leg Co final results initially were to be published by the electoral commission "after next Wednesday, 18th April", but in the past 24 hours they have now said: "Friday 20th April or even next week, Monday 23rd April". Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results final and article 'complete'!

Now that all results are final as of 23 April, South Australian state election, 2018 and its several sub-articles have had their last results updates, and to the extent a wikipedia (election) article can ever be so, all these articles are now complete and looking good - well done to all involved! On we go to South Australian state election, 2022...! Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

Why can't I find canadates and information about them for up and coming south Australian elections.? Can anyone help me please? 1.147.13.188 (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]