Talk:Ohinemuri (New Zealand electorate)

1899 election

To assign party affiliation for the 1890s is certainly not an exact science, but I've never had a case as complicated as the 1899 Ohinemuri election. It's my best guess what you see, and if somebody else would have tried to work this out, chances are the outcome would have been different. So take the party affiliation of the 1899 election results table with a grain of salt. Schwede66 07:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source handy which lists party affiliations of candidates at the time of the general election? Adabow (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. I start with lists published in contemporary newspapers from PapersPast. For that period, they typically use labels like 'G' (government, i.e. Liberal Party), 'O' (opposition), 'I' (Independent), 'P' or more often 'I P' (Independent Prohibitionist). Many newspaper copied each other, but there were certainly journalists who made up the lists in the first place based on their personal reading of the situation, and so you will find different labels in different newspapers for the same candidate. In 1899, 'labour interests' are still included in the Liberal Party and you'll find out about this aspect in contemporary write ups or textbooks (e.g. Gustafson, Barry (1980). Labour's path to political independence: The Origins and Establishment of the New Zealand Labour Party, 1900–19. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press. ISBN 0-19-647986-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). Take, for example, Jackson Palmer, who won the election. The vast majority of the contemporary sources have him as the government supporter. He had been in Parliament before (1890–1893), so he wasn't an unknown quantity regarding his political leanings. Problem is that in the standard work (Wilson, James Oakley (1985) [First published in 1913]. New Zealand Parliamentary Record, 1840–1984 (4th ed.). Wellington: V.R. Ward, Govt. Printer. OCLC 154283103. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)), he's listed as an Independent until 1902, and thereafter as Liberal Party, but that doesn't make sense, as he wasn't in Parliament after 1902. In his bio, it is noted that he was an Independent Liberal. So as you can see, there is a considerable amount of judgement necessary to pick one particular label, and it doesn't get any easier for those candidates less well known. Schwede66 17:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to deal with the borderline cases is to add footnotes explaining the situation. Readers need to know, somehow, that these party affiliations are not as clean-cut as modern-day party lines. Adabow (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added a footnote and referred to this discussion. Thanks for the suggestion. Schwede66 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Can see what you mean. Moss is all over the place listed as opposition, prohibitionist and/or independent. Both McCullough and Deeble are listed as opposition in the majority of cases while De Bakker and Stewart are most commonly shown as government supporters. Drumm on the other hand appears to be a labour candidate, though that would effectively make him a government supporter as well. Just what I could find.Kiwichris (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Crazy, eh? And if you don't know what's going on, Kiwichris, with all your party affiliation experience, who will? Schwede66 06:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)