Talk:1975 Australian federal election

Template:Timeline Australian PM

Chris Watson, Labor, was in office April 27 – August 18, 1904. John McEwen, Nat, was in office December 19, 1967 – January 10, 1968. Watson was in office longer, and in a more important part of our democracy. Unfortunately Watson's colour is not red because his term was within the same year. Is there a way to edit the coding? Timeshift 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Incumbency

Changed article to reflect the fact that when the election occurred, Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMarshall (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Redistribution

The 1975 election produced the most one-sided redistribution of seats since Federation.

I think we all know what this refers to, but the wording is ambiguous. "Redistribution" has a particular meaning; it refers to the AEC redrawing electoral boundaries. And I'm not at all sure about "one-sided". If someone can come up with clearer wording, that would be a wonderful thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it meant to say that the Coalition had the largest proportion of seats of any parliament? Or the largest majority of seats? To say either of those (if true) is probably preferable to what's there now. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, redistribution of seats means geographically - i.e. moving the seats around. I'm not entirely sure which word would be the best to use in its place though. The point it's making is relating to the election itself, not the result - Labor had a swing against it in every single seat, I believe (would have to check my books to confirm that, but I remember reading that.) Orderinchaos 05:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Images of leaders

• Could someone upload a image of Gough Whitlam from that period his current profile image is of him in the 1950's. --Keating 1991Keating 1991 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Liberal failure

Looking at this edit, where HangingCurve talks of the "main non-Labor party" not being able to win an election in its own right for 68 years, it's true, I guess, but it is also very pointy as well as being unsourced. It seems to me to be inserted more as an unjustified dig at the Libs (30 years old at that point) rather than anything actually relevant to the election. Is there any source which makes this point about the uncoalitioned Libs? Or is it something HangingCurve wants to insert? --Pete (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I also get annoyed with tidbit trivia added to election (and seat) pages. The 2013 election saw the lowest Senate primary vote for an incoming govt in Australian history but we don't add that to the article. Timeshift (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous point. The Coalition is for all intents and purposes running as a team, and since they don't contest each other's seats (generally) a win for one is a win for both. It's the same reason I get annoyed at the fallacy when people talk about the Nationals getting so many more seats than the Greens despite the Greens having more votes - the Nationals run in about twenty seats across the country whereas the Greens run in all of them. (I say that despite being far closer to the Greens politically.) Frickeg (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper coverage

There is no mention in this article of Rupert Murdoch's editorial policies, which were apparently very heavily anti-Labor (apparently causing a strike by journalists - refer for instance to this Independent Australia article). It also appears that it is referred to in books about The Australian and about the sacking of the Whitlam government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.43.111 (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

re-election

Would be interesting if the article could add a note telling what fraction of the incumbents were re-elected to their positions. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)