Talk:2011 New Zealand general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion[edit]

I believe this article should not be deleted because according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball : Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. This event is almost certain to happen (unless the martians or the australians invade by then). The article mentions that it is extremely rare for an election to be held outside the normal 3 year pattern. Spacebar265 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Should this article be renamed Next New Zealand general election? We are only assuming that it will occur in 2011, a new general election could be called at any time. Mattlore (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current title is fine, only three snap elections according to that article, only one before the scheduled year - historically 98% in the scheduled year? It would also break the naming pattern, and "next" is not precise / a moving target, would require renaming the page again after the election. It's no problem to move it later if required. XLerate (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with XLerate. From a current perspective, a snap election is incredibily unlikely with National only increasing in support. If there is a snap election called next year the title of the article would be the least of our concerns, :) Kiwiteen123 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that its incredibly unlikely - it just seems encyclopedic and crystal balling to have the article at the current name when its not 100% confirmed. Other nations without a fixed election date seem to use the Next format, for example Next Australian federal election and Next United Kingdom general election. Mattlore (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Mattlore. I was about to raise this discussion but I see I am 3 months behind. All other countries use the "Next...election" format, so why shouldn't we? The election could take place in 2010, 2011 or 2012; there is no making sure that it will be next year. Adabow (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we move it to Next, it is easy enough to move it back once the writs are issued Mattlore (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Next" is the title for 17 of 137 listed at Category:Future elections, the others (88%) use the year, for example United States presidential election, 2012. XLerate (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in that example the year of the election is fixed, it has to be in 2012. In New Zealand the election has to be sometime in the three years after the last one, there is no fixed date. Your statistics are flawed. Mattlore (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the best example, but the statement "all countries use next" is untrue, most countries use the year. Elections in New Zealand says "New Zealand law requires elections at least once every three years and two months, though elections are often held after three years, traditionally in November."

And the evidence backs this up - every election since 1951 has been three years later.

I think the current title is fine, on the basis a snap election this year is improbable. If the timing (year) was more uncertain, I'd agree renaming would make sense. XLerate (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that after the 2011 election, we turn the current Next New Zealand general election redirect into an article for the next election (possibly to be held in 2014, but who knows), and we'll see how it goes. Schwede66 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"New Zealand law requires elections at least once every three years and two months" - does anybody know where in the law it says that? I've had a search in the Electoral Act 1993, but wasn't able to find this detail. Am I not looking in the right spot? Schwede66 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Constitution Act 1986. "The term of Parliament shall, unless Parliament is sooner dissolved, be 3 years from the day fixed for the return of the writs issued for the last preceding general election of members of the House of Representatives, and no longer." Mattlore (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. And it's all nicely written up in this article and referenced. I've had a look what that means for the next general election and have replaced the redirect with an article. Schwede66 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive party replaced with United Future?[edit]

Since Jim Anderton had announced his retirement and the progressives are winding up(won't be contesting the next election), shouldn't Progressives be replaced with United Future as the sixth party, as there is a very likely chance they will be contesting the election in 2011. Or maybe replaced with NZ1st? I know they won no seats last election but considering their comparatively high party vote percentage and deserve a mention.

Also I think poll numbers need to be updated 203.79.117.138 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Alex[reply]

That's a good point. I'd say that United Future is more appropriate for the then empty spot than NZ First, given that they are currently in Parliament. And if anything needs updating and you have time & know how to go about it, feel free - it's a wiki! Schwede66 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Botany by-election[edit]

I think to conclude that the Botany by-election sets the earliest election date is wrong. It is correct that a by-election must not be held within 6 months of a general election. But if the date for the general election hasn't been set yet, then having a by-election doesn't mean that the general election will be at least six months out. Schwede66 08:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your interpretation - by setting the Botany by-election date the government has not restricted the Governor General/PM's ability to call an early election! Mattlore (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Election Night map[edit]

It looks like the election night map from 2008 will be hard to modify for 2011; the colours are blurred. I've created an svg of the electorates in a similar form, which is more readily colourable; unfortunately, it hasn't uploaded correctly to wikimedia. I'll see if I can figure out what is wrong.

New Zealand electorates seats won in the 2011 general election (empty)
New Zealand electorates seats won in the 2011 general election (conjectured)

The electorate boundaries are approximate, but close enough for the purpose of an information graphic like this. If anyone knew how to get an svg of electorates, these files would be redundant, but I've not had any success finding high-resolution or vector electorate maps.

If anyone has any suggestions or improvements, let me know or manipulate the files. Ridcully Jack (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When saving in Inkscape, I use the save as Plain SVG option, not sure if you've tried that. Statistics NZ has high-res vector boundary data here, it says previous year files include Electoral Districts. I don't know if the Statistics NZ boundaries are ok for copyright (could ask at WP:MCQ), and if they have the latest changes (detailed here). XLerate (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information - hadn't been able to find that data on Statistics NZ website. I won't bother making new Plain SVG files just yet; I'll see if I can get SVG files working from the Statistics NZ data. The conditions of supply of the data say that reuse without adjusting or generalising is acceptable. Ridcully Jack (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! That's a lot of lovely data. Got access to a good viewer and some nicer SVG files are underway. Any suggestions on improving this image?
It still needs to contents of the circles, obviously, but I think that's about it. The text, lines and regions would be coloured with the correct meta-colours; haven't made a mock-up yet.
Christchurch Central should be changed to National. [1]124.197.26.231 (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete "election night" results map

Ridcully Jack (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A first draft is now in place above. Below is a partial image, to give an idea of what it will look like 'in progress' on the night.

Ridcully Jack (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

In my opinion, the infobox is supposed to provide the main information at a glimpse. Therefore it has to simplify and cannot inform in detail. It is generally accepted that NZ has 2 dominant parties. Thus, I propose to only include the two major parties in the infobox. Besides, the present choice of parties seems to be arbitrary: if even minor parties are considered, what is the reason to exclude NZ First? Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No government in New Zealand has consisted of only a single party since the first election under MMP in 1996, so the smaller parties have relevance to the formation of the next government. The infobox shows those parties which gained the most seats in Parliament in the last election. NZ First gained no seats. I think there is a case to be made for dropping Dunne from the box as he is the only MP for his party, and other single-MP parties are not listed, but on the other hand he is part of the current government.-gadfium 22:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just my thoughts, Gadfium. The claim of there being just two major parties might have held true for a few elections prior to the introduction to MMP, but even there I would like to have this discussed further before we change infoboxes around. Schwede66 22:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progess Stamp[edit]

It is nice to have the progress stamp "Preliminary, with 11.8% of polling places counted".

Could we have the date/time as well?

Tabletop (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added section: Changes in Leadership[edit]

This is current news as a direct result of the 2011 election, and is worth noting. Phil Goff, it seems from hints he gave during press interviews after his speech, may tender his resignation during the Labour Party caucus meeting Tues 29 November, or he might be rolled. There is also a possibility that Labour might decide to keep him on as leader until a proper leadership challenge is mounted, so I have left out Goff's leadership until things become clearer. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List Results[edit]

User:Lcmortensen has been bold and changed the format for the table of elected list MPs. I would prefer for consistency sake that we use the format that has been used on all the other MMP elections. If we do decide a simpler table without the unsuccessful candidates is to be used then I think they should be listed by party rather than alphabetical as this is much more useful information. Mattlore (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the list by party more useful, and I would prefer to see the unsuccessful candidates also listed.-gadfium 07:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem is the old table is a bit clunky and messy having all the unsuccessful candidates listed, especially considering there are over 300 of them and most of them are non-notable. It also seems out of place because we don't list every single unsuccessful electorate candidate on the main page: only the runner up.
The successful-only table was sortable by party, but maybe default sorting by party and then alphabetically would be better (and easier to read straight off the Electoral Commission's results page).
In the interim, I'll tidy the successful candidates up a bit within the existing table. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the unsuccesful candidates list was causing problems with browsers by overspanning, so I have removed them to solve the problem.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned the list to the old format used in previous elections, rather than the three column format that was causing the problem, this should solve the issue while keeping the information. Mattlore (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer listed by party/list position for successful list MPs only, with link/text to full party list article. The vast majority of unsuccessful list candidates' only notability will be no more than a name on an old election leaflet and the 2011 party lists article - to give them two mentions in this one context seems excessive.
The point that we should strive for consistency by using the previous election format doesn't hold up too well if we consider the previous format for review. I'm all for consistency, but I don't believe we should be held to an unwieldy layout just because that was the way it was done before. FanRed XN | talk 12:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Zealand general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on New Zealand general election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_New_Zealand_general_election&oldid=1196595715"