Talk:2022 Australian federal election

Double dissolution note b

Just wondering if note b in the third paragraph referring to a double dissolution should be removed, as a double dissolution is basically impossible now:

"That means that any double dissolution of the 46th Parliament will have to be granted by 1 January 2022. Allowing for the same stages indicated above, the last possible date for a double dissolution election would be 5 March 2022.[35] This can only occur if a bill that passes the House of Representatives is rejected by the Senate twice, at least three months apart." Jacsam2 (talk)

Removing KAP and CA from the infobox

Clearly time to revisit the infobox inclusion issue given the unusual results of the election, which our usual infobox criteria doesn't anticipate. Including Katter's Australian Party and Centre Alliance in the infobox with their one MP each who are independents in all but name is no longer tenable with the election of many independents. This creates an undue focus on KAP and CA which will be confusing for readers, particularly international readers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with this, even without the results of this election. There is no reason that Katter or Centre Alliance should be more important than independents. They have no chance of forming government, as they are not contesting at least 76 seats. Steelkamp (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've supported the larger infobox in the past, but in the wake of this election I completely agree. CA is effectively defunct given that its incumbent Senator ran on a separate ticket and apart from Sharkie not ditching the branding the party didn't contest the federal election, and KAP (having run much wider and harder in previous years) did much the same and seems to now only be a party outside the Katters at state level. There's no logical reason that I can see to treat Sharkie and Katter any differently from the other independents. That said, I wouldn't be so keen on applying this retrospectively (especially for CA during the Xenophon years). The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

To be Devil's Advocate and play the Contrarian, i think it can be reasonable to still include KAP and CA in the infobox if the Greens remain being represented still aswell. The Greens, whilst having a significantly bigger share of votes, only have so-far claimed 3 seats in the House of Representatives. That is more on par with KAP/CA than the bigger league that the Liberal and Labor parties operate at, yet is still included despite this discussion's conclusion that the election's surprise amount of elected independents makes it redundant to include smaller parties. It would also keep it consistent with every Australian Federal Election Wikipedia Page since the 2013 Election, that includes KAP/CA. Although i agree it introduces less clutter and makes it easier for international readers. 2001:8003:7C88:3700:E10A:E6C8:8475:597D (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference the Greens have is that they run in every seat.

I personally would include every party with at least 1 seat in the house of reps that runs in more than half of the seats.

This way you see parties with national support who have enough support in concentrated areas to get representation. Micmicm (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a better general rule and much better deals with cases like CA/KAP than what we have in the past. It might be a problem if a regional party like CA or KAP actually won more than one seat, but that's a hypothetical for now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that the Greens exceed 10% of the national popular vote. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include KAP and CA followed by a filler that noted ten independents? While independents are not a party, of course, since the goal of an infobox is to summarize an election (per MOS:INFOBOX), it seem odd to hide the fact that many independents were elected. Particularly when a minority or a weak majority government might mean that they have outsized influence.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is also a problem for 2020 Irish general election, where 19 out 160 elected members were independent. We would need to see an example of including independents in the infobox for that to be considered. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

From this we ought remove the Greens if we remove Katter.

It seems wholly arbitrary to say "Well they get 20% of the vote" or "They run in all seats", For the senate we literally show every single independent. That won a seat. Obviously I see issues with having that but for formalised political parties we should be showing this information to readers. Especially groups like Katters Party do have electoral significance in the country, sometimes more so than the greens. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Found the following RfC here on this topic DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Indepedents in infobox

Should independents really be listed under their own heading in the infobox? Doesn't it give the wrong impression that they belong to a single party or are affiliated with each other rather than being, well, indepdendent? RoadSmasher420 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The current infobox reports a net loss of 10 seats. We need some mention of their destination, as they did not fall into a black hole. And a one-person "party" (like Katter) is basically an independent. WWGB (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference is a political party is in some way beholden to something other than themselves, have a platform, are registered as a political party ETC. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

two candidate preferred contest by electorate incorrect

This map has numerous factual errors such as Ryan being a Labor vs Green contest and labeling one of the Labor vs Green contests in Melbourne as Coalition vs Independent. The seat of Forrest is also just left blank. MostlyAO (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Info Box Arguments

It seems clear from all the previous arguments that people are quite split on if KAP should be represented anymore than the greens should.

There seems to have been a constant attack by people trying to make the info box appear more American or something? We have to make sure we are are not giving the same undue weight to the greens and look at this from an unbiased lense.

So the way I see it the options current are either we:

1: Show just the two major party groups.

2: Include only formalised parties and groupings like on other Wikipedia pages such as the Irish elections etc, and only show the letter representation if the leader of the party is not in parliament.

3: Start a new trend of also representing Independents as a separate grouping represented with "IND" as they show up in news articles etc, and expect readers to understand that independents are not a united group that always work together. We can even hammer it home by having "NA" for "Seats to form government" DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Found the following RfC here on this topic DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)