Talk:Ann Bressington

The relevant 2006 LC results

In an email from the SEO, I've been told "Ind Nick Xenophon No Pokies group polled 167 594 above the line ticket votes and 8 below the line = 167 602. Nick Z received 23 263 below the line first preferences , Bressington received 32 and Darley 61. Total first preferences = 190 958". So I must correct where I wrote "barely over 200" to 32 :) Donama 07:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that lots of candidates for upper houses don't get many "below the line" votes, including people from major political parties. Unless it's been remarked on in a major newspaper or the like, I think it should be removed. Andjam 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably relevant insofar as that she was running as an independent (and thus making clear that she was elected on Xenophon's preferences instead of on her own back), but it's not a particularly big deal. Rebecca 05:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people were intending to re-elect Nick Xenophon as an independent, and due to many preferencing against him, thought he risked being kicked out, but instead not just returning himself, but inadvertantly electing a conservative woman with some silly policies. I wonder how many people who voted for Xenophon agree with legislation she proposes... one of the downfalls of democracy. Timeshift 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

While this is true, I don't think you can attribute those motives on the part of the voter. It suffices, IMO, to make clear that she was elected on the back of Xenophon's preferences, and had little primary vote in her own right, both of which are quite verifiable based on the figures. Rebecca 05:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"one of the downfalls of democracy"... no, one of the downfalls of above-the-line voting. 20% of people trusted Xenophon enough to let him allocate their preferences (i.e. they voted for Xenophon above the line). If they weren't happy for Xenophon to do that, they should have voted below the line. My ranting aside, I agree with Rebecca's comment on what should be in the article. Rocksong 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Above the line voting, democracy, meh, you know what I mean. I don't think people expected Xenophon to receive 20% of the vote. I too agree with Rebecca incase my views weren't clear. Timeshift 05:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume everyone has the same opinion about Bressington's policies as we do. I sometimes find Raul's razor useful. Andjam 06:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was saying people did have the same view. We were simply stating that it is worthwhile noting the amount of preferential and first preference votes. Timeshift 08:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments above strongly suggested that the voters disapproved of Bressington's policies, and that she should not have been elected. Andjam 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. I said that people inadvertantly elected Bressington. This is true. People were voting for Xenophon. I did express opinion (on talk page, not article) that I believe her policies are silly. I then went on to say that I wonder how many people who voted for Xenophon would agree with her policies - a question. I then said that it is one of the downfalls of democracy (in hindsight I should have been more specific and said preferential above the line voting) that a person who wasn't intended to be elected (in voters minds anyway) was elected - regardless of belief of her policies. It is a hard choice to say whether or not she should have been elected. People tend to vote for parties in which case candidates are candidates to just about everyone, and as long as they follow the party lines they voted for they don't care. Independents typically run on their own, but if they happen to have running mates like Xenophon did, there's always the chance they can get in without voters intending them to. Regardless of my own beliefs, and regardless of her policies, I happen to think it was wrong that the candidate in question was elected, as people were voting for Xenophon. Ask yourself this question - how many people who voted above the line for Xenophon do you believe knew the first thing about Bressington, let alone her policies? Timeshift 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't ask myself the question - that way leads WP:OR. Andjam 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in regards to "I've heard that lots of candidates for upper houses don't get many "below the line" votes, including people from major political parties. Unless it's been remarked on in a major newspaper or the like, I think it should be removed." - can you name one candidate who was successfully elected to the LC in SA's modern political history in the way that Bressington was? Timeshift 11:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's noteworthy, then I'm sure you can find a reliable non-primary source noting it, rather than engaging in original research. Andjam 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that for the first time in modern SA political history, someone unknown was elected to the LC unintentionally, the voters didn't know who she was and whom had no idea what her political leaning or policies were. I'm not fighting for revert or modification of the article, just pointing out what are facts, whether you choose to believe they are facts or not. Timeshift 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, voters are constantly electing people who they have no idea about, other than that the Liberal or Labor party machine likes them. This time, voters elected someone they knew nothing about, except that Nick Xenophon thought she'd be a good member. Granted it's not quite the same thing, because there is Labor/Liberal policy, but even that changes after the election. And then there are members who are elected as a Liberal/Labor and then quit the party and become independents. How many Liberal voters in 1997 knew they would sell ETSA? How many Peter Lewis voters knew they were in effect supporting Mike Rann? How many Queensland Labor voters knew they would elect Mal Colston who would go on and support Howard policies? etc. etc. etc. I guess what I'm saying is, even though her situation is unique in one way, in another way it's not really very different to what happens all the time. Rocksong 03:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. The above is a roundabout way of saying that I agree with Andjam. I like how the article stands: it says her election was a "surprise" (which I agree is true) rather than "inadvertant" or "unintentional" (which is too POV for my liking). Rocksong 03:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But an MLC changing their stance/party/leaning after election is a reflection on them and will be judged appropriately after the time comes for their attempt at re-election. Labor/Liberals quitting and becoming inds reflect on them are are judged accordingly when their time comes for re-election. People voted for Peter Lewis, not someone else. People voted for Xenophon, not someone else (technically not correct, but you know what I mean). What i'm saying is, all members elected have stated their stances and what they believe in, and whether or not they stuck to them or changed their minds etc etc, they are judged at their next re-election. Nobody knew what Bressington supported - people weren't voting for her! Each MLC elected has had a clear position going in to their respective election, regardless of if they changed it during their tenure. Defection is not a valid comparison here. (again, i'm not arguing for any changes to the article one way or another, just debating the merits) Timeshift 05:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're drifting away from the purpose of this talk page (probably my fault). According to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article". So while I think this is an interesting (and civil) discussion, I don't think it belongs here. Feel free to continue it on my talk page if you want. Rocksong 05:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User_talk:Rocksong Timeshift 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

news.com.au external links

This article contains several external links to the news.com.au site. Please be aware that news.com.au links disappear after a month or so. Better to use abc.net.au links, which seem to stay around forever. Rocksong 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

cite required

"she has stated that her policies are anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and against the legalisation of prostitution." Can anyone provide a cite for that? (I've already dropped a note on the Talk page of the original contributor). The anonymous editor deleted it a couple of times. Rocksong 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that she's stated it in those terms, but she has made it fairly clear that she's against all three. Perhaps a rewording more along the lines of "she has these views on these issues" than "these are her policies" (which kind of implies that she's single-issue) would be appropriate. Rebecca 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording

Inhouseinfo, please do disregard Timeshift's comment (administrators are editors the same as everyone else unless they are utilising their tools), but try to avoid such sardonicism in your edit summaries. I think we can compromise on claim/state, but it ought to be pointed out that as an encyclopædia using formal language, we do not refer to persons by their first names. I still object to the inclusion of "recovery based", and cannot understand your persistence with it. It is redundant market-speak.--cj | talk 12:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice noted. For the purposes of the record; 'recovery-based' denotes an addiction rehabilitation service that as part of it's treatment program does not include the use of drug substitution and/or pyschiatric medication. I felt it important that it be included in Ms Bressington's Wiki as it signifies her personal beliefs on how to approach addiction treatment, as she was a founder of DrugBeat. Inhouseinfo 14:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

~30 primary votes

I don't know who took the issue with this being noted, but I just heard on stateline and thought it noteable to add that John Darley got double that! Food for thought. Timeshift 10:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean "notable" for the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't. People 2nd, 3rd etc. on the Liberal + Labor tickets also get a tiny number of votes. It probably depends on how many family + friends they have! Peter Ballard 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I think it is OK to mention Bressington's 30 votes if it is phrased appropriately (i.e. we point out that it's like anyone else 2nd on a ticket), but I see no point in making a point of the fact that Darley got 30 more votes than Bressington. That is totally insignificant (as Darley himself said in a radio interview). Peter Ballard 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the part of Ann Bessingtons page where it states

she stated that the response from parents has been "overwhelmingly positive and supportive

the only evidence i see is the link from a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper which on numerous occasion has printed inaccurate articles, false truths and many more

I suggest not not suggest that we completely review her whole page we can not have people believing that one person from what i have read in Parliament has said that quote overwhelmingly positive and supportive is not entirely true okay so if no one agrees with me i wish to remove certain section and have an open discussion about it peace..

That is what she claims, so I have put in the word claims. Timeshift (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory beliefs

I believe her belief in various conspiracy theories is noteworthy enough for inclusion. What do others think?Benvenuto (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC) you bet it is! do it!!!Polyphon255 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ann Bressington. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213090332/http://www.drugbeat.org/shay_louise_house.htm to http://www.drugbeat.org/shay_louise_house.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820204331/http://www.ancd.org.au/about/members/bressington.htm to http://www.ancd.org.au/about/members/bressington.htm

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) 16:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)