Talk:Results of the Victorian state election, 1958 (Legislative Assembly A-K)

Proposed merge with Victorian state election, 1958

For ease of reading, should the election result be moved to the election article itself? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For every other election in this project, the results have been put onto a separate page because there are more than 60 tables to put in (80 once the Upper House results get done). For consistency, they have been kept separate so that the election article can be devoted to general information about the election. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Candidates

Where did you get candidates' given names from? They're not in Hughes and Graham and they're not in The Age. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Two-party preferred

Also, I notice you have given two-party preferred figures for all seats. In seats where preferences were not distributed, because the winning candidate had more than 50% of the vote, this must be an estimate. What is the source of these estimations? If they are your own, this is Original Research and contrary to Wikipedia's rules. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Candidates' given names and the two party preferred figures were obtained from the Australian Data Archive. The sites are here: https://www.ada.edu.au/social-science/01028-vicla and here: https://www.ada.edu.au/social-science/00152-v1 .Kirsdarke01 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The two-party preferred tables need to be sourced and it needs to be explained that they are estimates. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I now also see that the data you refer to is in a closed archive to which readers do not have access, so that the two-party preferred estimates you have given cannot be verified. I suspect that means they should be deleted, but I'm not the Wikipolice so I won't pursue that. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? As far as I can tell those records are not closed. The first has a caveat that the original author (Hughes) be informed, but does not say that he would restrict use; the other, as far as I can tell, has no restrictions on use. They're not available online, sure, but anyone could go to the archive themselves and verify them. Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The two party preferred votes are available for anyone to download in the "related materials" tab, which is the 5.88MB codebook. This is a PDF file with 2pp estimates for all state and commonwealth seats between 1949-1982. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. But the article needs to note that these are only estimates, and to say whose estimates they are. (And since I presume this article is part of a series, so do they all.) Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are they estimates, though? Like Mr Toad, I was under the impression that preferences were generally not counted to completion where the winner had more than 50% of the primary vote until the 80s and 90s, but these are exact figures being quoted and nowhere does it say anything about them being estimates (or the methodology used); in fact, the wording in the description rather implies the opposite. Did they perhaps just not publish them with the general results or something? Frickeg (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am relying on Hughes and Graham, which is listed as the primary source for this article. They show that preferences were distributed only where necessary to determine a result. So, in Albert Park in 1958, only Little's preferences were distributed, and since they gave Sutton a majority no further distribution was done. I have in the past looked at some of the official returns as published after each election, which are now (mostly) in the State Library, and I'm pretty certain that's what they show, but I can't be 100% certain since I don't have one in front of me. I am however reinforced in my view by looking at the "codebook" you kindly referred me to. It shows the same process has been adopted for federal elections. To take the first example, for Banks in 1949 it gives a purported two-party vote of 15,591 to 26,519. I know for certain that this is an estimate, because I have used the original published federal returns extensively and I know that preferences were not distributed in Banks in 1949, since Labor polled 58% of the primary vote. This shows definitely that the author of this work has done estimates of the federal two-party vote, and I assume therefore they have done the same for Victoria. Like you, I was struck at the use of exact numbers to express notional two-majorities. This is ridiculously pedantic, and in fact quite misleading. Malcolm Mackerras, in calculating notional two-party majorities for his books about federal elections before 1984, allocated DLP preferences 80% to the Liberals and Communist preferences 90% to Labor, but he always acknowledged that these were only rules of thumb, since in practice they fluctuated within a fairly wide range. He only expressed his estimates as percentages, not as purported exact numbers. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC) And I now see that the "codebook" gives exact two-party majorities in Queensland back to 1950. Queensland didn't introduce preferential voting until 1962, so these must all be estimates. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, good pickup with Qld there. And I am inclined to agree with you - unless there was some sort of secret full preference count done, to give exact numbers seems hugely misleading. I wonder if it would be possible to contact Hughes and enquire about his methodology? As for what we should do - when I did the federal results I just plonked in Adam Carr's estimates, but now I am inclined to think we should probably leave them out altogether where a full preference count was not done (ideally one day each of these tables would be accompanied by a prose summary of the contest; the estimated margins could be included there). If a partial count was done, we can include that (i.e. to three candidates, etc.). Frickeg (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, so long as the estimates stay as they are (and described as so) until the prose is actually added. While they are estimates, they provide a quick glance at how strong the winners' lead actually is. For example a 50 ALP / 35 LIB / 15 DLP result would be around 52/48 TPP while a 50 LIB / 35 ALP / 15 DLP would be around 62/38 TPP estimated. As the prose for each electorate is likely years or even decades away from being added (especially for elections this early), it would be better to leave them as is, with perhaps a note under each district that has an estimated 2PP saying they are so. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that for now. We definitely need to distinguish them, though; at least with the federal ones you could tell because they were just percentages not actual votes, but here I think a note is necessary. Frickeg (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What if we removed the exact vote count, and left the percentages? I think having the percentages is helpful and can be clearly marked as an estimate, but having a vote count for something that is complete guesswork, in a context where (even with a footnote) most of the other data is direct from the Electoral Commission is quite misleading. I thought Mr Toad was being querulous at first, but as this discussion has gone on I think he has a point. I also think we should not be listing 2PP counts in any form in elections where preferential voting was not used because that is hugely hugely misleading. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Querulous? Moi? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)