document_title: Electoral system of Australia

question_text: who gets to vote at elections in australia

question_tokens: who gets to vote at elections in australia

text: Electoral system of Australia

text: Voter registration[edit]

text: A person can only vote if enrolled on the appropriate electoral roll.

text: Electoral rolls[edit]

text: The earliest electoral roll in Australia dates to the 1840s, for the then colony of New South Wales.

text: Following federation in 1901, State electoral rolls were used for federal elections until a Commonwealth electoral roll was compiled. A permanent Commonwealth electoral roll was compiled in 1908. For some years afterwards, the States also compiled their own State electoral rolls, but these have now been discontinued except for Western Australia which maintains a separate electoral roll. Since 1984, the Commonwealth electoral roll has been compiled and maintained by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

text: State and local elections are today based upon the Commonwealth electoral roll, maintained under joint roll arrangements.[2] though each state and territory regulates its own part of the electoral roll. The one enrolment application or update form can be used for Commonwealth, state and local rolls (except in Western Australia).

text: The electoral roll is compiled on a state/territory-wide basis, in alphabetical order of surname. Until 1988 electoral rolls were compiled by polling division and sub-division. Lord Howe Island is recorded as part of New South Wales, while the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island are recorded on the Northern Territory roll.

text: Enrolment of electors[edit]

text: Australian citizens over 18 years of age are required to enroll if they have lived at their current address for at least one month. Special rules apply to citizens going or living outside the country,[3] to military personnel and to prisoners, all of which do not reside at their normal residential address for electoral purposes. Homeless people or those otherwise with no fixed address have a particular problem with registration, not having a current address to give. Enrolment has been compulsory for federal elections since 1912. Enrolment is optional for 16 or 17 year olds but they cannot vote until they turn 18.[4] Enrolment is voluntary for residents of Norfolk Island. Residents in Australia who had been enrolled as British subjects in 1984 (ie., are non-citizens) can continue to be enrolled. (These comprise about 9% of the electoral roll.)

text: If a change of address causes an individual to move to another electorate (electoral division), they are legally obliged to notify the AEC within 8 weeks. The AEC monitors house and apartment sales and sends a reminder (and the forms) to new residents if they have moved to another electorate, making compliance with the law easier. The AEC conducts periodic door-to-door and postal campaigns to try to ensure that all eligible persons are registered in the correct electorate.

text: An individual has 8 weeks after turning 18 to register and the 8 week period also applies to update of details. Failure to enroll or update details can incur a fine.[5] However, citizens who later enroll themselves are protected from prosecution for not enrolling in the previous years by section 101(7) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.[6] Nevertheless, about 1.3 million people otherwise eligible to vote had not been enrolled prior to the 2013 federal election, about one-third of which were aged between 18 and 24.[7] At June 2014 there were 14.9 million electors on the roll, and the number not enrolled was 1.2 million, making a "participation rate" of 92.3% (14.9 / (14.9 + 1.2 = 16.1) ).[8]

text: Each state and territory can regulate its own part of the Commonwealth electoral roll. For example, New South Wales has adopted the "Smart Roll" system, introduced in 2009, which draws information from various government departmental sources and enrolls eligible electors automatically on to the state roll, but not the federal roll.[9] A protection in Section 101 (8) exists for offences prior to enrolment (including failure to enroll) for those enrolled in such a way by the Electoral Commissioner. Anyone serving a prison sentence of 3 years or more is removed from the federal roll, and must to re-enrol upon release; but in Victoria, a person is struck off the roll if serving a prison sentence of 5 years, so that a person serving a term of 3–5 years, is removed from the federal roll but not the state roll.[10] The qualification of an elector for local government elections generally do not require that they be Australian citizens.

text: Closing of electoral roll before an election[edit]

text: Federal and state electoral rolls are closed for new enrolments or update of details before each election. For federal elections they are closed about a week after the issue of writs for election,[11][12] which must be issued within 10 days of the dissolution or expiration of the House of Representatives. For the 2016 election, that was 38 days before election day.[12] Historically, most new applications and updates are received after an election is called, before the closing of rolls.

text: In 1984 a change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act allowed for a closing date for the lodgement of changes to the electoral roll before an election. The period during which new enrolments and update of details could be made was set at seven days after an election is called. Many people either enrol or change their enrolment details in this period. For example, prior to the 2004 federal election 423,993 changes to enrolment received before the roll closing date. Of these, 78,816 were new enrolments and 225,314 were changes of address.[13]

text: In 2006 new laws passed in time for the 2007 federal election,[14] reducing the period for new enrolments from 7 days to 8 pm on the same business day as the issue of the writs, and until 8 pm on the third business day after the issue of the writs for the update of address details.[15] To give new voters more time to enroll for the 2007 election, the writs were issued three days after the election was announced. During these three days, 77,000 new enrolment applications were received.[16] On 6 August 2010, the High Court in Rowe v Electoral Commissioner ruled that the 2006 amendment was invalid, extending the close of rolls by one week, allowing additional eligible voters to enroll and vote in the 2010 federal election.[17] Supplementary lists of additional voters were distributed to polling places, and these voters were also contacted by the AEC via postal mail.[17]

text: The closing dates vary for state and territory elections.

text: Public funding of political parties[edit]

text: To receive federal public funding, a political party must be registered under the Electoral Act, which requires that they have at least 500 members. All nominations for party-endorsed candidates must be signed by the Registered Officer of a registered party. The name of registered parties appear on ballot papers. Separate registers of parties are maintained for each state and territory, with their own membership requirements.

text: To receive public funding, a candidate (party-endorsed or independent) must receive at least 4% of the first preference vote in the division or the state or territory they contested.[18]

text: Nomination[edit]

text: Candidates for either house must formally nominate with the Electoral Commission. The nomination for a party-endorsed candidate must be signed by the Registered Officer of a party registered under the Electoral Act. Fifty signatures of eligible voters are required for an independent candidate.

text: A deposit of $1000 is required for a candidate for the House of Representatives, and $2000 for a candidate for the Senate. This deposit is refunded if the candidate gains at least 4% of first preference votes.

text: Conduct of elections[edit]

text: Federal elections and referendums are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

text: State and local government elections are overseen by separate Electoral Commissions in each state and territory, as follows:

text:
New South Wales — New South Wales Electoral Commission
Queensland — Electoral Commission of Queensland
Victoria — Victorian Electoral Commission
South Australia — Electoral Commission of South Australia
Tasmania — Tasmanian Electoral Commission
Western Australia — Western Australian Electoral Commission
Northern Territory — Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and
Australian Capital Territory — Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission.

text: Voting system[edit]

text: Election day[edit]

text: The date and type of federal election is determined by the Prime Minister — after a consideration of constitutional requirements, legal requirements, as well as political considerations — who advises the Governor-General to set the process in motion by dissolving the lower or both houses and issuing writs for election. Some state elections are statutorily determined while others are determined by the respective state premiers. By federal law, state elections cannot take place on the same day as a federal election, which takes precedence if there is conflict. Federal elections have been held on a Saturday since the 1913 federal election.[19] In Victoria elections have been held on a Saturday since the 1927 state election.

text: Compulsory voting[edit]

text: Compulsory voting was introduced for Queensland state election in 1915, at the federal level in 1924, and Victoria introduced it for the Legislative Assembly at the 1927 state election and for Legislative Council elections in 1935.[20] New South Wales and Tasmania introduced compulsory voting in 1928, Western Australia in 1936 and South Australia in 1942.[21] In South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia voting at local elections is not compulsory.[22] Australia enforces compulsory voting.[23] About 5% of enrolled voters fail to vote at most elections. People in this situation are asked to explain their failure to vote. If no satisfactory reason is provided (for example, illness or religious prohibition), a fine of up to $170 is imposed,[24] and failure to pay the fine may result in a court hearing and additional costs.

text: The immediate justification for compulsory voting at the federal level was the low voter turnout (59.38%)[25] at the 1922 federal election, down from 71.59% at the 1919 federal election. Compulsory voting was not on the platform of either the Stanley Bruce-led Nationalist/Country party coalition government or the Matthew Charlton-led Labor opposition. The actual initiative for change was made by Herbert Payne, a backbench Tasmanian Nationalists senator who on 16 July 1924 introduced a private member's bill in the Senate. Payne's bill was passed with little debate (the House of Representatives agreeing to it in less than an hour), and in neither house was a division required, hence no votes were recorded against the bill.[26] It received Royal Assent on 31 July 1924 as the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1924.[27] The 1925 federal election was the first to be conducted under compulsory voting, which saw the turnout figure rise to 91.4%. The turnout increased to about 95% within a couple of elections and has stayed at about that level since. Compulsory voting at referendums was considered when a referendum was proposed in 1915, but, as the referendum was never held, the idea was put on hold.[25]

text: It is an offence to "mislead an elector in relation to the casting of his vote". An "informal vote" is one which has not been filled in correctly or not at all. The number of informal votes is counted but, in the determination of voter preferences, they are included in the total number of (valid) votes cast. Around 95% of registered voters attend polling, and around 5% of House of Representatives votes are informal.[28][29]

text: When compulsory voting was introduced in Victoria in 1926 for the Legislative Assembly, the turnout increased from 59.24% at the 1924 state election to 91.76% at the 1927 state election, but the informal vote increased from 1.01% in 1924 to 1.94% in 1927. But when it was introduced for the Legislative Council in 1937, the turnout increased from 10% to only 46%.

text: Debate over compulsory voting[edit]

text: Following the 2004 federal election, at which the Liberal-National coalition government won a majority in both houses, a senior minister, Senator Nick Minchin, said that he favoured the abolition of compulsory voting. Some prominent Liberals, such as Petro Georgiou, former chair of the Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, have spoken in favour of compulsory voting.[citation needed]

text: Peter Singer, in Democracy and Disobedience, argues that compulsory voting could negate the obligation of a voter to support the outcome of the election, since voluntary participation in elections is deemed to be one of the sources of the obligation to obey the law in a democracy.[citation needed] In 1996 Albert Langer was jailed for three weeks on contempt charges in relation to a constitutional challenge on a legal way not to vote for either of the major parties. Chong, Davidson and Fry, writing in the journal of the right wing think tank the CIS, argue that Australian compulsory voting is disreputable, paternalistic, disadvantages smaller political parties, and allows major parties to target marginal seats and make some savings in pork-barrelling because of this targeting. Chong et al. also argue that denial is a significant aspect of the debate about compulsory voting.[30]

text: A counter argument to opponents of compulsory voting is that in these systems the individual still has the practical ability to abstain at the polls by voting informally if they so choose, due to the secrecy of the ballot. A spoilt vote does not count towards any political party and effectively is the same as choosing not to vote under a non-compulsory voting system. However, Singer argues that even the appearance of voluntary participation is sufficient to create an obligation to obey the law.[citation needed]

text: In the 2010 Australian election, Mark Latham urged Australians to vote informally by handing in blank ballot papers for the 2010 election. He also stated that he doesn't feel it is fair for the government to force citizens to vote if they don't have an opinion or threaten them into voting with a fine.[31] An Australian Electoral Commission spokesman stated that the Commonwealth Electoral Act did not contain an explicit provision prohibiting the casting of a blank vote.[32] How the Australian Electoral Commission arrived at this opinion is unknown; it runs contrary to the opinions of Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, who wrote that voters must actually mark the ballot paper and deposit that ballot into a ballot box, and Justice Blackburn who was of the opinion that casting an invalid vote was a violation of the Act.[30]

text: Tim Evans, a Director of Elections Systems and Policy of the AEC, wrote in 2006 that "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions."[33] Yet, practically, it remains the fact that having received a ballot paper, the elector can simply fold it up and put it into the ballot box without formally marking it, if he or she objects, in principle, to casting a vote. However, the consistently low number of informal votes each election indicates that having attended, had his or her name marked off, very few electors then choose not to vote formally.

text: Compulsory voting has also been promoted for its collective benefits. It becomes difficult for coercion to be used to prevent disadvantaged people (the old, illiterate or disabled) to vote, and for obstacles to be put in the way of classes of individuals (ethnic/coloured; either registration requirements or placement of voting booths) as often happens under other voting systems.[citation needed] The compulsion requirement also needs to be kept in proportion: jury duty and compulsory military service are vastly more onerous citizen's compulsions than attending a local voting booth once every few years. Perhaps the most compelling reason to use a system of compulsory voting is a simple matter of logistics, that is, to facilitate the smooth and orderly process of an election. Every year in countries that do not have compulsory voting election officials have to guess at the numbers of voters who might turn out – this often depends on the vagaries of the weather. Often voters are disenfranchied in those countries when voting officials err and not enough voting booths are provided. Long queues can result with voters being turned away at the close of polling not having had their chance to exercise their democratic right to vote.

text: Preferential voting[edit]

text: Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference. The preferential system was introduced in 1918, in response to the rise of the Country Party, a party representing small farmers. The Country Party split the anti-Labor vote in conservative country areas, allowing Labor candidates to win on a minority vote. The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk. It was first used at the Corangamite by-election on 14 December 1918.[34][35] The system was first used for election for the Queensland Parliament in 1892. It was introduced in the Tasmanian House of Assembly in 1906 as a result of the work of Thomas Hare and Andrew Inglis Clark.

text: Preferential voting has gradually extended to both upper and lower houses, in the federal, state and territory legislatures, and is also used in municipal elections, and most other kinds of elections as well, such as internal political party elections, trade union elections, church elections, elections to company boards and elections in voluntary bodies such as football clubs. Negotiations for disposition of preference recommendations to voters are taken very seriously by candidates because transferred preferences carry the same weight as primary votes. Political parties usually produce how-to-vote cards to assist and guide voters in the ranking of candidates.

text: At some polling places in the Australian Capital Territory, voters may choose between voting electronically or on paper.[36] Otherwise, Australian elections are carried out using paper ballots. If more than one election takes place, for example for the House of Representatives and the Senate, then each election is on a separate ballot paper, which are of different colours and which are deposited into separate ballot boxes.

text: Secret balloting[edit]

text: Secret balloting was implemented by Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia in 1856,[37] followed by other Australian colonies: New South Wales (1858), Queensland (1859), and Western Australia (1877). Colonial (soon to become States) electoral laws, including the secret ballot, applied for the first election of the Australian Parliament in 1901, and the system has continued to be a feature of all elections in Australia and also applies to referendums.

text: The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 does not explicitly set out the secret ballot but a reading of sections 206, 207, 325 and 327 of the Act would imply its assumption. Sections 323 and 226(4) do however, apply the principle of a secret ballot to polling staff and would also support the assumption.

text: Australia and none of the states and territories permit proxy voting.

text: Allocation process[edit]

text: Allocation process for House of Representatives[edit]

text: The main elements of the operation of preferential voting for single-member House of Representatives divisions are as follows:[38][39]

text:
Voters are required to place the number "1" against their first choice of candidate, known as the "first preference" or "primary vote".
Voters are then required to place the numbers "2", "3", etc., against all of the other candidates listed on the ballot paper, in order of preference. (Every candidate must be numbered, otherwise the vote becomes “informal” (spoiled) and does not count.[40])
Prior to counting, each ballot paper is examined to ensure that it is validly filled in (and not invalidated on other grounds).
The number "1" or first preference votes are counted first. If no candidate secures an absolute majority (more than half) of first preference votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded from the count.
The votes for the eliminated candidate (i.e. from the ballots that placed the eliminated candidate first) are re-allocated to the remaining candidates according to the number "2" or "second preference" votes.
If no candidate has yet secured an absolute majority of the vote, then the next candidate with the fewest primary votes is eliminated. This preference allocation is repeated until there is a candidate with an absolute majority. Where a second (or subsequent) preference is expressed for a candidate who has already been eliminated, the voter's third or subsequent preferences are used.

text: Following the full allocation of preferences, it is possible to derive a two-party-preferred figure, where the votes have been allocated between the two main candidates in the election. In Australia, this is usually between the candidates from the Coalition parties and the Australian Labor Party.

text: Alternative allocation methods for Senate[edit]

text: For the Australian Senate, each State constitutes one multi-member electorate. Currently, 12 senators are elected from each State, one half every three years, except in the case of double dissolution when elections for all 12 senators in each State take place. The number of senators to be elected determines the 'quota' required to be achieved for election by quota-preferential voting.[41] For a half-Senate election of 6 places to be filled, the quota in each State is 14.28% (calculated using the formula 1/(6+1)), while after a double dissolution the quota is 7.69% (calculated using the formula 1/(12+1)).

text: The federal Senate electoral system from 1984 to 2013, and those currently used for some state legislatures, provide for simultaneous registration of party-listed candidates and party-determined orders of voting preference, known as 'group voting tickets' or 'above the line voting' which involves placing the number '1' in a single box and the vote is then allocated in accordance with the party's registered voting preferences. The AEC automatically allocates preferences, or votes, in the predetermined order outlined in the group voting ticket. Each party or group can register up to three group voting tickets. This highly complex system has potential for unexpected outcomes,[42] including the possible election of a candidate who may have initially received an insignificant primary vote tally (see, for example, the Minor Party Alliance at the 2013 federal election). An estimated 95% of all votes are cast 'above the line'.[43]

text: The alternative, federally, was to use 'below the line voting' by numbering a large number of individual candidate's boxes in the order of their own preference. To be valid, the voter placed sequential numbers against every candidate on the ballot paper, and the risk of error and invalidation of the vote was significant.

text: Gerrymandering and malapportionment[edit]

text: Malapportionment occurs when the number of voters in electorates are not equal. Malapportionment can occur through demographic change or through the deliberate weighting of different zones, such as rural vs. urban areas. Malapportionment differs to a gerrymander, which occurs when electoral boundaries are drawn to favour one political party or group over others.

text: There is no scope for malapportionment of Senate divisions, with each State constituting one multi-member electorate, though no account is taken of differences in the relative populations of states.

text: For the House of Representatives, members are elected from single member electorates.

text: Australia has seen very little gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, relevant only for the House of Representatives and State Legislative Assemblies, which have nearly always been drawn up by public servants or independent boundary commissioners. But Australia has seen systematic malapportionment of electorates. All colonial legislatures before Federation, and the federal parliament after it, allocated more representation to rural districts than their populations merited. This was justified on several grounds, such as that country people had to contend with greater distances and hardships, that country people (and specifically farmers) produced most of the nation's real wealth, and that greater country representation was necessary to balance the radical tendencies of the urban population.

text: However, in the later 20th century, these arguments were successfully challenged, and by the early 21st century malapportionment was abolished in all states. In all states, electoral districts must have roughly the same number of voters, with variations allowed for rural areas due to their sparse population. Proponents of this concept call this "one vote one value."

text: Examples[edit]

text: The most conspicuous examples of malapportionment were those of South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia.

text: In South Australia, the 1856 Constitution stipulated that there must be two rural constituencies for every urban constituency. By the early 1960s, the urban-rural voter ratio was almost exactly reversed. More than two-thirds of the state's population lived in Adelaide and its suburbs, but the rural areas elected two-thirds of the legislature. This was despite the fact that by this time, rural seats had on average one-quarter as many voters as urban seats. In one of the more extreme cases, a vote in the rural seat of Frome was worth 10 times a vote in an Adelaide seat. The setup allowed the Liberal and Country League to stay in office from 1932 to 1965—the last 27 of those years under Thomas Playford. However, from 1947 onward, the LCL lost by increasing margins in terms of actual votes. It was possible for Labor to win by a margin large enough for a comprehensive victory in most other states and still be locked out of power. Largely because Playford was the main beneficiary, the setup was called "the Playmander," although it was not strictly speaking a gerrymander.

text: This gross distortion came into sharp focus during three consecutive state elections in the 1960s. In 1962, Labor routed the LCL in the two-party vote, but came up one seat short of a majority. However, it only managed a two-seat swing, one short of victory. Playford was able to continue in power with the support of two independents. The Playmander was not overcome until Labor defeated the LCL in 1965. Even then, rural weighting was strong enough that Labor won just barely enough seats for a majority, despite winning resoundingly in the two-party vote.

text: The LCL regained power in 1968, in another case that demonstrated the gross inequities of the Playmander. While Labor won the popular vote with 52 percent to the LCL's 43.8 percent, Labor suffered a two-seat swing, leaving both parties with 19 seats each. Conservative independent Tom Stott threw his support to the LCL. Playford's successor as LCL leader, Steele Hall, was highly embarrassed at the manner in which he became premier, and immediately set about enacting a fairer system. A few months after taking office, Hall enacted a new electoral map with 47 seats—28 seats in Adelaide and 19 in the country. Previously, there had been 39 seats—13 in Adelaide and 26 in country areas. However, for some time the LCL's base in Adelaide had been limited to the wealthy eastern crescent and the area around Holdfast Bay. While it came up short of "one vote one value," as Labor demanded, the new system allowed Adelaide to elect a majority of the legislature, all but assuring a Labor victory at the next election. By nearly all accounts, Hall knew that he was effectively handing the premiership to his Labor counterpart, Don Dunstan, at the next election. As expected, Labor won the 1970 election handily.

text: In Queensland, the malapportionment initially benefitted the Labor Party, since many small rural constituencies were dominated by workers in provincial cities who were organised into the powerful Australian Workers' Union. But after 1957, the Country Party (later renamed the National Party) governments of Sir Frank Nicklin and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen tweaked the system to give the upper hand to their rural base and isolate Labor support in Brisbane and provincial cities. In later years, this system made it possible for Bjelke-Petersen to win elections with only a quarter of the first preference votes. On average, a Country/National seat took only 7,000 votes to win, compared with 12,000 for a Labor seat. Combined with the votes of the Liberals (in Queensland, the National Party had historically been the senior partner in the non-Labor coalition), this was enough to lock Labor out of power even in years when Labor was the biggest single party in the legislature. This "Bjelkemander" was not overcome until the final defeat of the Nationals in 1989. Under new Labor premier Wayne Goss, a revised map was enacted with 40 seats in Brisbane and 49 in the country. Seats had roughly the same number of voters, with a greater tolerance allowed for seats in rural areas.

text: Western Australia retained a significant malapportionment in the Legislative Assembly until 2008. Under the previous system, votes in the country were worth up to four times the value of votes in Perth, the state's capital city, even though Perth contained almost three-fourths of the state's population. On 20 May 2005 the state Parliament passed new electoral laws, removing the malapportionment with effect from the following election. Under the new laws, electorates must have a population of 21,343, with a permitted variation of 10%. Electorates with a land area of more than 100,000 km² (40,000 mi²) are permitted to have a variation of 20%, in recognition of the difficulty of representing the sparsely populated north and east of the state.[44] Large districts would be attributed an extra number of notional voters, equal to 1.5% the area of the district in square kilometres, for the purposes of this calculation. This Large District Allowance will permit large rural districts to have many fewer voters than the average district enrolment. The Office of the Electoral Distribution Commissioners[45] gives the following example: Central Kimberley-Pilbara district has 12601 electors and an area of 600038 square kilometres. The average district enrolment for WA is 21343. Central Kimberley-Pilbara thus obtains 9000 notional extra electors, bringing its notional total to 21601, which is acceptably close to the average district enrolment.

text: A modified form of malapportionment was, however, retained for the Legislative Council, the state upper house, in which rural areas are still slightly overrepresented. According to ABC election analyst Antony Green, the rural weighting in the Legislative Council is still significant enough that a Liberal state premier has no choice but to include the National Party in his government, even if the Liberals theoretically have enough seats in the Legislative Assembly to govern alone.[46]

text: The Parliament[edit]

text: The Parliament of Australia is a bicameral (two-house) Parliament. It combines some of the features of the Parliament of the United Kingdom with some features of the United States Congress. This is because the authors of the Australian Constitution had two objectives: to reproduce as faithfully as possible the Westminster system of parliamentary government, while creating a federation in which there would be a division of powers between the national government and the states, regulated by a written Constitution.

text: In structure, the Australian Parliament resembles the United States Congress. There is a House of Representatives elected from single-member constituencies of approximately equal population, and there is a Senate consisting of an equal number of Senators from each state, regardless of population (since 1975 there have also been Senators representing the territories).

text: But in function, the Australian Parliament follows the Westminster system. The Prime Minister holds office because they can command the support of the majority of the House of Representatives, and must resign or advise an immediate election if the house passes a vote of no-confidence in their administration. If they fail to do so, they risk dismissal by the Governor-General. All ministers are required to be members of Parliament (although the Constitution permits a person who is not currently a member of parliament to hold a ministerial portfolio for a maximum period of three months).

text: The House of Representatives[edit]

text: The Australian House of Representatives has 150 members elected from single-member constituencies (formally called "Electoral Divisions", but usually called seats or electorates in Australia; see Australian electorates) for three-year terms. Voters must fill in the ballot paper by numbering all the candidates in order of their preference. Failure to number all the candidates, or an error in numbering, renders the ballot informal (invalid).[47] The average number of candidates has tended to increase in recent years: there are frequently 10 or 12 candidates in a seat, and at the Wills by-election in April 1992 there were 22 candidates.[48] This has made voting increasingly onerous, but the rate of informal voting has increased only slightly.

text: The low rate of informal voting is largely attributed to advertising from the various political parties indicating how a voter should number their ballot paper, called a How-to-Vote Card. On election day, volunteers from political parties stand outside polling places, handing voters a card which advises them how to cast their vote for their respective party. Thus, if a voter wishes to vote for the Liberal Party, they may take the Liberal How-to-Vote Card and follow its instructions. While they can lodge their vote according to their own preferences, Australian voters show a high degree of party loyalty in following their chosen party's card.

text: A disinterested voter who has formed no personal preference may simply number all the candidates sequentially, 1, 2, 3, etc., from top to bottom of the ballot paper, a practice termed donkey voting, which advantages those candidates whose names are placed nearest to the top of the ballot paper. Before 1984, candidates were listed in alphabetical order, which led to a profusion of Aaronses and Abbotts contesting elections. A notable example was the 1937 Senate election, in which the Labor candidate group in New South Wales consisted of Amour, Ashley, Armstrong and Arthur—all of whom were elected. Since 1984, the listed order of candidates on the ballot paper has been determined by drawing lots, a ceremony performed publicly by electoral officials immediately after the appointed time for closure of nominations.

text: Lower house primary, two-party and seat results since 1910[edit]

text: A two-party system has existed in the Australian House of Representatives since the two non-Labor parties merged in 1909. The 1910 election was the first to elect a majority government, with the Australian Labor Party concurrently winning the first Senate majority. A two-party-preferred vote (2PP) has been calculated since the 1919 change from first-past-the-post to preferential voting and subsequent introduction of the Coalition. ALP = Australian Labor Party, L+NP = grouping of Liberal/National/LNP/CLP Coalition parties (and predecessors), Oth = other parties and independents.

text:
House of Representatives results and polling

Primary vote
2PP vote
Seats

ALP
L+NP
Oth.
ALP
L+NP
ALP
L+NP
Oth.
Total

2 July 2016 election
34.7%
42.0%
23.3%
49.6%
50.4%
69
76
5
150

28 Jun – 1 Jul 2016 Newspoll
35%
42%
23%
49.5%
50.5%

7 September 2013 election
33.4%
45.6%
21.1%
46.5%
53.5%
55
90
5
150

3–5 Sep 2013 Newspoll
33%
46%
21%
46%
54%

21 August 2010 election
38.0%
43.3%
18.8%
50.1%
49.9%
72
72
6
150

17–19 Aug 2010 Newspoll
36.2%
43.4%
20.4%
50.2%
49.8%

24 November 2007 election
43.4%
42.1%
14.5%
52.7%
47.3%
83
65
2
150

20–22 Nov 2007 Newspoll
44%
43%
13%
52%
48%

9 October 2004 election
37.6%
46.7%
15.7%
47.3%
52.7%
60
87
3
150

6–7 Oct 2004 Newspoll
39%
45%
16%
50%
50%

10 November 2001 election
37.8%
43.0%
19.2%
49.0%
51.0%
65
82
3
150

7–8 Nov 2001 Newspoll
38.5%
46%
15.5%
47%
53%

3 October 1998 election
40.1%
39.5%
20.4%
51.0%
49.0%
67
80
1
148

30 Sep – 1 Oct 1998 Newspoll
44%
40%
16%
53%
47%

2 March 1996 election
38.7%
47.3%
14.0%
46.4%
53.6%
49
94
5
148

28–29 Feb 1996 Newspoll
40.5%
48%
11.5%
46.5%
53.5%

13 March 1993 election
44.9%
44.3%
10.7%
51.4%
48.6%
80
65
2
147

11 Mar 1993 Newspoll
44%
45%
11%
49.5%
50.5%

24 March 1990 election
39.4%
43.5%
17.1%
49.9%
50.1%
78
69
1
148

11 July 1987 election
45.8%
46.1%
8.1%
50.8%
49.2%
86
62
0
148

1 December 1984 election
47.6%
45.0%
7.4%
51.8%
48.2%
82
66
0
148

5 March 1983 election
49.5%
43.6%
6.9%
53.2%
46.8%
75
50
0
125

18 October 1980 election
45.2%
46.3%
8.5%
49.6%
50.4%
51
74
0
125

10 December 1977 election
39.7%
48.1%
12.2%
45.4%
54.6%
38
86
0
124

13 December 1975 election
42.8%
53.1%
4.1%
44.3%
55.7%
36
91
0
127

18 May 1974 election
49.3%
44.9%
5.8%
51.7%
48.3%
66
61
0
127

2 December 1972 election
49.6%
41.5%
8.9%
52.7%
47.3%
67
58
0
125

25 October 1969 election
47.0%
43.3%
9.7%
50.2%
49.8%
59
66
0
125

26 November 1966 election
40.0%
50.0%
10.0%
43.1%
56.9%
41
82
1
124

30 November 1963 election
45.5%
46.0%
8.5%
47.4%
52.6%
50
72
0
122

9 December 1961 election
47.9%
42.1%
10.0%
50.5%
49.5%
60
62
0
122

22 November 1958 election
42.8%
46.6%
10.6%
45.9%
54.1%
45
77
0
122

10 December 1955 election
44.6%
47.6%
7.8%
45.8%
54.2%
47
75
0
122

29 May 1954 election
50.0%
46.8%
3.2%
50.7%
49.3%
57
64
0
121

28 April 1951 election
47.6%
50.3%
2.1%
49.3%
50.7%
52
69
0
121

10 December 1949 election
46.0%
50.3%
3.7%
49.0%
51.0%
47
74
0
121

28 September 1946 election
49.7%
39.3%
11.0%
54.1%
45.9%
43
26
5
74

21 August 1943 election
49.9%
23.0%
27.1%
58.2%
41.8%
49
19
6
74

21 September 1940 election
40.2%
43.9%
15.9%
50.3%
49.7%
32
36
6
74

23 October 1937 election
43.2%
49.3%
7.5%
49.4%
50.6%
29
44
2
74

15 September 1934 election
26.8%
45.6%
27.6%
46.5%
53.5%
18
42
14
74

19 December 1931 election
27.1%
48.4%
24.5%
41.5%
58.5%
14
50
11
75

12 October 1929 election
48.8%
44.2%
7.0%
56.7%
43.3%
46
24
5
75

17 November 1928 election
44.6%
49.6%
5.8%
48.4%
51.6%
31
42
2
75

14 November 1925 election
45.0%
53.2%
1.8%
46.2%
53.8%
23
50
2
75

16 December 1922 election
42.3%
47.8%
9.9%
48.8%
51.2%
29
40
6
75

13 December 1919 election
42.5%
54.3%
3.2%
45.9%
54.1%
25
38
2
75

5 May 1917 election
43.9%
54.2%
1.9%
–
–
22
53
0
75

5 September 1914 election
50.9%
47.2%
1.9%
–
–
42
32
1
75

31 May 1913 election
48.5%
48.9%
2.6%
–
–
37
38
0
75

13 April 1910 election
50.0%
45.1%
4.9%
–
–
42
31
2
75

Polling conducted by Newspoll and published in The Australian. Three percent margin of error.

text: Counting votes in elections for the House of Representatives[edit]

text: The House of Representatives uses full preferential voting, which is known outside Australia by names such as "instant runoff voting" (IRV) and "alternative voting".

text: When the polls close at 6 pm on election day, the votes are counted. The count is conducted by officers of the Australian Electoral Commission, watched by nominated volunteer observers from the political parties, called scrutineers, who are entitled to observe the whole voting process from the opening of the booth. The votes from each polling booth in the electorate are tallied at the office of the returning officer for the electorate. If one of the candidates has more than 50% of the vote, then they are declared elected. Australian politics are influenced by social and economic demographics, though the correlation between "class" and voting is not always simple.[49] Typically, the National Party will poll higher in rural seats. The Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party are not as easily generalised. In a strong seat, the elected party might win up to 80% of the two-party-preferred vote. In the 2004 federal election, the highest winning margin in a seat was 25.1%,[50] with most seats won by a margin of less than 10%.

text: In the remaining seats, no single candidate will have a majority of the primary votes (or first-preference votes). A hypothetical result might look like this:

text:
White (Democrat)
6,000
6.0%

Smith (Labor)
45,000
45.0%

Jones (Liberal)
35,000
35.0%

Johnson (Green)
10,000
10.0%

Davies (Ind)
4,000
4.0%

text: On election night, an interim distribution of preferences called a TCP (two-candidate-preferred) count is performed. The electoral commission nominates the two candidates it believes are most likely to win the most votes and all votes are distributed immediately to one or the other preferred candidate.[51] This result is indicative only and subsequently the formal count will be performed after all "declaration" (e.g. postal, absent votes) votes are received.

text: In this example, the candidate with the smallest vote, Davies, will be eliminated, and his or her preferences will be distributed: that is, his or her 4,000 votes will be individually re-allocated to the remaining candidates according to which candidate received the number 2 vote on each of those 4000 ballot papers. Suppose Davies's preferences split 50/50 between Smith and Jones. After re-allocation of Davies's votes, Smith would have 47% and Jones 37% of the total votes in the electorate. White would then be eliminated. Suppose all of White's preferences went to Smith. Smith would then have 53% and would be declared elected. Johnson's votes would not need to be distributed.

text: Exhausted preferences[edit]

text: The exhausted counts correspond to votes that ought to be informal, if strictly following the rules above, but were deemed to have expressed some valid preferences. The Electoral Act has since been amended to almost eliminate exhausted votes.

text: Section 268(1)(c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 now has the effect of making the vote of any elector that does not preference every candidate on the ballot paper an informal vote as opposed to counting the vote until the voter's preference exhausts.

text: Two-party majorities, swings and pendulums[edit]

text: Since 1984 the preferences of all candidates in House of Representatives seats have been distributed, even if this is not necessary to determine the winner of the seat. This is done to determine the percentage of the votes obtained by the winning candidate after the distribution of all preferences. This is called the two-party-preferred vote. For example, if (in the example given above), Smith finished with 58% of the vote after the distribution of Johnson's preferences, Smith's two-party vote would be 58% and the seat would be said to have a two-party majority of 8%. It would therefore need a two-party swing of 8 percentage points to be lost to the other side of politics at the next election.

text: Once the two-party majorities in all seats are known, they can then be arranged in a table to show the order in which they would be lost in the event of an adverse swing at the next election. Such tables frequently appear in the Australian media and are called election pendulums or sometimes Mackerras pendulums after the political scientist Malcolm Mackerras, who popularised the idea of the two-party vote in his 1972 book Australian General Elections.

text: Here is a sample of the federal election pendulum from the 2001 election, showing some of the seats held by the Liberal-National Party coalition government, in order of their two-party majority. A seat with a small two-party majority is said to be a marginal seat or a swinging seat. A seat with a large two-party majority is said to be a safe seat, although "safe" seats have been known to change hands in the event of a large swing.

text:
Seat
State
Majority
Member
Party

HINKLER
Qld
0.0
Paul Neville
NPA

SOLOMON
NT
0.1
Dave Tollner
Lib

ADELAIDE
SA
0.2
Hon Trish Worth
Lib

CANNING
WA
0.4
Don Randall
Lib

DOBELL
NSW
0.4
Ken Ticehurst
Lib

PARRAMATTA
NSW
1.1
Ross Cameron
Lib

McEWEN
Vic
1.2
Fran Bailey
Lib

PATERSON
NSW
1.4
Bob Baldwin
Lib

HERBERT
Qld
1.6
Peter Lindsay
Lib

RICHMOND
NSW
1.6
Hon Larry Anthony
NPA

DEAKIN
Vic
1.7
Philip Barresi
Lib

EDEN-MONARO
NSW
1.7
Gary Nairn
Lib

HINDMARSH
SA
1.9
Hon Christine Gallus
Lib

text: Redistributions[edit]

text: The boundaries of Australian electoral divisions are reviewed periodically by the Australian Electoral Commission and redrawn in a process called redistribution.

text: The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 requires that all seats have approximately an equal number of enrolled voters. When the Commission determines that population shifts within a state have caused some seats to have too many or too few voters, a redistribution is called and new boundaries are drawn up.

text: Redistributions are also held when the Commission determines (following a formula laid down in the Electoral Act) that the distribution of seats among the states and territories must be changed because some states are growing faster than others.

text: House casual vacancies[edit]

text: If a member's seat becomes vacant mid-term, whether through disqualification, resignation, death or some other possible reason, a by-election may be held to fill the causal vacancy. A member may resign by tendering the resignation to the Speaker, as required by section 37 of the Australian Constitution, or in the absence of the Speaker to the Governor-General. A resignation is not effective until it is tendered in writing to the Speaker or Governor-General. If a redistribution has taken place since the last election, the by-election is held on the basis of the boundaries at the time of original election.

text: The Senate[edit]

text: The Australian Senate has 76 members: each of the six states elects 12 Senators, and the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) each elect two Senators. The several other Australian Territories have very small populations and are represented by Northern Territory and ACT Senators (for example, Christmas Island residents are represented by NT Senators, while Jervis Bay Territory residents are represented by ACT Senators).

text: Senators for the states serve six-year terms, with half the Senators from each state usually being elected at each federal election. The terms of the territory Senators coincide with the duration of the House of Representatives.

text: The Senate is elected both proportionately and preferentially, except that each state has an equal number of seats so that the distribution of seats to states is non-proportional to the total Australian population. Thus, although within each state the seats proportionally represent the vote for that state, overall the less populous states are proportionally stronger in representation for their population compared to the more populous states.

text: At the 2013 federal election, the Senate election, contested by over 50 groups,[52] saw extensive "preference deals" (legitimate manipulation of group voting tickets), resulting in the election to the Senate of Ricky Muir from the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who had received only 0.5% of first-preference support.[53] This exploitation of the system was alleged to undermine the entitlement of voters "to be able to make real choices, not forced ones—and to know who they really are voting for."[54]

text: Following the 2013 election, the Abbott Liberal government announced it would investigate changing the electoral system for the Senate in order to prevent the preference system being abused. On 22 February 2016, the Turnbull Liberal government announced several proposed changes.[55] The changes had the support of the Liberal/National Coalition, the Australian Greens, and Nick Xenophon − a three-vote majority.[56] The Senate reform legislation passed both houses of the Parliament of Australia on 18 March 2016 after the Senate sat all night debating the bill.[57]

text: The changes abolished group voting tickets and introduced optional preferential voting, along with party logos on the ballot paper. The ballot paper continues to have a box for each party above a heavy line, with each party's candidates in a column below that party's box below the solid line. Previously, a voter could either mark a single box above the line, which triggered the party's group voting ticket (a pre-assigned sequence of preferences), or place a number in every box below the line to assign their own preferences. As a result of the changes, voters may assign their preferences for parties above the line (numbering as many boxes as they wish), or individual candidates below the line, and are not required to fill all of the boxes. Both above and below the line voting are now optional preferential voting. For above the line, voters are instructed to number at least their first six preferences, however, a "savings provision" still counts the ballot if less than six are given. As a result, fewer votes are classed as informal, however, more ballots do "exhaust" as a result (i.e. some votes are not counted towards electing any candidate). For below the line, voters are required to number at least their first 12 preferences. Voters are still free to continue numbering as many preferences as they like beyond the minimum number specified. Another savings provision allows ballot papers with at least 6 below the line preferences to be formal, catering for people who confuse the above and below the line instructions; an additional change to the savings provision will also accept below the line votes with a higher number of sequence errors than previously, treating the sequence as stopping at the first error (missed or repeated numbers).

text: As a result of these reforms, it is now much less likely that a candidate with such a minuscule primary vote as Muir's in 2013 could win election to the Senate. ABC electoral psephologist Antony Green wrote several publications on various aspects of the proposed Senate reforms.[58][59][60][61][62][63]

text: The Senate count[edit]

text: The form of preferential voting used in the Senate is technically known as the "Inclusive Gregory".[64]

text: The system for counting Senate votes is complicated, and a final result is sometimes not known for several weeks. When the Senate vote is counted, a quota for election is determined. This is the number of valid votes cast, divided by the number of Senators to be elected plus one.

text: For example, here is the Senate result for the state of New South Wales from the 1998 federal election. For greater clarity the votes cast for 50 minor party and independent candidates have been excluded.

text: The quota for election was 3,755,725 divided by seven, or 536,533.

text: In this table, the Group number allocated to each list is shown at right. Below that is the number of quotas polled by each list. Thus, "Q:2.7073" next to the Labor Party list indicates that the Labor candidates between them polled 2.7073 quotas.

text: It will be seen that the leading Labor and Liberal candidates, Hutchins and Heffernan, polled more than the quota. They were therefore elected on the first count. Their surplus votes were then distributed. The surplus is the candidate's vote minus the quota. Hutchins's surplus was thus 1,446,231 minus 536,533, or 909,698. These votes are multiplied by a factor (called the "transfer value") based on the proportion of ballot papers preferencing other parties. ABC Election commentator Antony Green believes that this method distorts preference allocation.[64]

text: After Hutchins's surplus votes were distributed, the count looked like this:

text: It will be seen that virtually all of Hutchins's surplus votes went to Faulkner, the second candidate on the Labor ticket, who was then elected. This is because all those voters who voted for the Labor party "above the line" had their second preferences automatically allocated to the second Labor candidate. All parties lodge a copy of their How-to-Vote Card with the Electoral Commission, and the Commission follows this card in allocating the preferences of those who vote "above the line." If a voter wished to vote, for example, Hutchins 1 and Heffernan 2, they would need to vote "below the line" by numbering each of the 69 candidates.

text: In the third count, Heffernan's surplus was distributed and these votes elected Tierney. Faulkner's surplus was then distributed, but these were insufficient to elect Forshaw. Likewise, Tierney's surplus was insufficient to elect McDonald.

text: After this stage of the count, the remaining candidates in contention (that is, the leading candidates in the major party tickets) were in the following position:

text: All the other candidates were then eliminated one by one, starting with the candidates with the smallest number of votes, and their votes were distributed among the candidates remaining in contention in accordance with the preferences expressed on their ballot papers. After this process was completed, the remaining candidates were in the following position:

text: Sutton was then eliminated. 80% of Sutton's preferences went to Ridgeway, giving Ridgeway more votes than McDonald. McDonald was then eliminated, and 93% of his preferences went to Ridgeway, thus giving him a quota and the fifth Senate seat. Ridgeway's surplus was then distributed, and 96% of his votes went to Forshaw, thus giving him a quota and the sixth seat. Oldfield was the last remaining unsuccessful candidate.

text: A final point needs to be explained. It was noted above that when a candidate polls more votes than the quota, their surplus vote is distributed to other candidates. Thus, in the example given above, Hutchins's surplus was 909,698, or 1,446,231 (his primary vote) minus 536,533 (the quota). It may be asked: which 909,698 of Hutchins's 1,446,231 primary votes are distributed? Are they chosen at random from among his votes? In fact they are all distributed, but at less than their full value. Since 909,698 is 62.9% of 1,446,231, each of Hutchins's votes is transferred to other candidates as 62.9% of a vote: each vote is said to have a transfer value of 0.629. This avoids any possibility of an unrepresentative sample of his votes being transferred. After each count the candidate's progressive total is rounded down to the nearest whole number. This means that a small number of votes are lost by fractionation in the final count.

text: When a person is appointed Divisional Returning Officer for a seat, his electoral enrolment will be transferred from the electorate where he lives to the one he administers. Normally he will be precluded from voting at an election, but instead will have two special powers; these are:

text: 1. If during the count there are two candidates with equal lowest votes, he can decide which will be excluded.

text: 2. If at the end of the count the two candidates left have an equal number of votes, he will get to vote in the election by giving a casting vote to the candidate he prefers. This is his personal vote, just like any other elector's, and is awarded at his sole discretion.

text: Senate casual vacancies[edit]

text: If a senator's seat becomes vacant mid-term, through disqualification, resignation, death or other cause, the legislature of the relevant state or territory chooses a replacement senator. A senator may resign by tendering the resignation to the President of the Senate or to the Governor-General, as required by section 19 of the Constitution. A resignation is not effective until it is tendered in writing to the President or Governor-General.

text: Double dissolutions[edit]

text: Under the Australian Constitution, the House of Representatives and the Senate generally have equal legislative powers (the only exception being that appropriation (supply) bills must originate in the House of Representatives). This means that a government formed in the House of Representatives can be frustrated if a Senate majority rejects or delays passage of its legislative bills.

text: In such circumstances, Section 57 of the Constitution allows the Governor-general to dissolve both the House of Representatives and the Senate–termed a "double dissolution"–and issue writs for an election in which every seat in the Parliament is contested. The Governor-general would usually take such action only on the advice of the prime minister.


document_title: Erta Ale

question_text: when was the last time the erta ale volcano erupted

root

text: Erta Ale

text: Geology[edit]

text: Erta Ale is 613 metres (2,011 ft) high, with one or sometimes two active lava lakes at the summit which occasionally overflow on the south side of the volcano.[1] It is notable for holding the longest-existing lava lake, present since the early years of the twentieth century (1906). Volcanoes with lava lakes are very rare: there are only six in the world.[3]

tag: p

text: Erta Ale means "smoking mountain" in the local Afar language and its southernmost pit is known locally as "the gateway to Hell". In 2009, it was mapped by a team from the BBC using three-dimensional laser techniques,[4] in order for the mapping team to maintain a distance and avoid the lakes' searingly hot temperatures.

text: Erta Ale is centered over the East African Rift system, which is a triple junction setting whose movements are resulting in the formation of a pull-apart basin or rift. The volcano comprises mainly Mafic material which has been brought up to the surface caused by unroofing of the mantle due to this rift formation.[citation needed]

text: There was a major eruption on 25 September 2005 which killed 250 head of livestock and forced thousands of nearby residents to flee.[5] There was further lava flow in August 2007, forcing the evacuation of hundreds and leaving two missing.[6] An eruption on 4 November 2008 was reported by scientists at Addis Ababa University.[7] Another eruption was reported in January 2017.[8]

text: Travel to Erta Ale[edit]

text: Not much is known about Erta Ale and the surrounding terrain is some of the most inhospitable on Earth making travel difficult and dangerous. The Afar region also experiences intermittent ethnic violence due to unification struggles by the native Afar people. On January 16, 2012, a group of European tourists was attacked at Erta Ale. Five tourists were killed, two taken as hostages and seven others wounded.[9] The Afar Revolutionary Democratic Unity Front (ARDUF) claimed responsibility for the attack[10] and released the two kidnapped tourists in March 2012.[11] One travel guide recommends hiring "one or maybe two armed guards or police" as guides to visit Erta Ale.[12] Commercial tour companies offer tours to Erta Ale which are generally accompanied by military escort.

text: In December 2017, a German tourist was fatally shot while descending Erta Ale.[13]

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: The lava lake on Erta Ale was shown briefly during the 2010 movie Clash of the Titans during the journey sequence where Perseus travels to the underworld.


document_title: List of French Open women's singles champions

question_text: who won the french open women's tennis

question_tokens: who won the french open women 's tennis

text: History[edit]

text: The French Open is played during two weeks in late May and early June, and has been chronologically the second of the four Grand Slam tournaments of the tennis season since 1987. The event was not held from 1915 to 1919 because of World War I, and after a one-year lapse in 1940, was unofficially held from 1941 to 1944 because of World War II.[4] The national body that organizes this event is the French Tennis Federation (FFT).

text: The Racing Club de France and the Stade Français of Paris alternated hosting the event before the competition was moved in 1928 to the newly built Stade Roland Garros, where it has been played since. The tournament was reserved for members of French tennis clubs until the first edition open to international players took place in 1925.[5] From 1941 to 1944, the Vichy regime requisitioned the site and held a Tournoi de France, for French players only, won two times by Alice Weiwers and once by Simone Iribarne Lafargue and Raymonde Jones Veber. Those editions are not counted by the FFT in the tournament's history.[4]

text: The women's singles rules have undergone several changes since the first edition. The event has always been contested in a knockout format. Records show that matches have always been played as the best-of-three sets format. The lingering death best-of-twelve points tie-break was introduced in 1973 for the first two sets.[6]

text: The champion receives a miniature replica of the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen (Suzanne Lenglen Cup), named after Suzanne Lenglen. In 2010, the winner received prize money of €1,120,000.[7]

text: In the French National Championship, which was when the tournament was reserved to members of French tennis clubs and French nationals, Adine Masson (1897–1899, 1902–1903) holds the record for most titles in women's singles with five victories. The record for most consecutive titles is four by Jeanne Matthey (1909–1912) and Lenglen (1920–1923), all of whose titles came during the club-members-only era.

text: In the French International Championships, that came after the tournament opened to international competitors but before the open era, Helen Wills Moody (1928–1930, 1932) holds the record for most titles at four. The record for most consecutive titles during this period is three by Wills Moody (1928–1930) and Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling (1935–1937).[4][6]

text: During the French Open, since the inclusion of the professional tennis players, the record for most titles is held by Chris Evert with seven (1974–1975, 1979–1980, 1983, 1985–1986). The record for most consecutive titles during the Open Era is three by Monica Seles (1990–1992) and Justine Henin (2005–2007).[4][6]

text: This event has been won without losing a set in the Open Era by Evonne Goolagong in 1971, Billie Jean King in 1972, Evert in 1974, Steffi Graf in 1988, Arantxa Sánchez Vicario in 1994, and Henin in 2006 and 2007.

text: Champions[edit]

text:
Regular competition

†  French club members only event, which was called the French National Championship

††  Disputed Champions: Not considered a champion by the slam. See Tournoi de France [f][8]

tag: table

text: French Championships[edit]

text:
Year[c]
Country
Champion
Country
Runner-up
Score in the final[4][9]

1897
 FRA
Masson, AdineAdine Masson †
 FRA
Girod, P.P. Girod
6–3, 6–1

1898
 FRA
Masson, AdineAdine Masson †
 FRA
—
Only entrant (no final)[d]

1899
 FRA
Masson, AdineAdine Masson †
 FRA
—
Only entrant (no final)

1900
 FRA
Prévost, HélèneHélène Prévost †
 FRA
—
Only entrant (no final)

1901
 FRA
Girod, P.P. Girod †
 FRA
Leroux
6–1, 6–1

1902
 FRA
Masson, AdineAdine Masson †
 FRA
Girod, P.P. Girod
6–0, 6–1

1903
 FRA
Masson, AdineAdine Masson †
 FRA
Gillou, KateKate Gillou
6–0, 6–8, 6–0

1904
 FRA
Gillou, KateKate Gillou †
 FRA
Masson, AdineAdine Masson
Unknown

1905
 FRA
Gillou, KateKate Gillou †
 FRA
de Pfeffel, YvonneYvonne de Pfeffel
6–0, 11–9

1906
 FRA
Gillou-Fenwick, KateKate Gillou-Fenwick †
 FRA
MacVeagh, VirginiaVirginia MacVeagh
Unknown

1907
 FRA
de Kermel, ComtesseComtesse de Kermel †
 FRA
Catherine d'Aliney d'Elva
6–1, retired

1908
 FRA
Gillou-Fenwick, KateKate Gillou-Fenwick †
 FRA
Pean
6–2, 6–2

1909
 FRA
Matthey, JeanneJeanne Matthey †
 FRA
Abeille Villard Gallay
10–8, 6–4

1910
 FRA
Matthey, JeanneJeanne Matthey †[10]
 FRA
Régnier, GermaineGermaine Régnier
1–6, 6–1, 9–7

1911
 FRA
Matthey, JeanneJeanne Matthey †
 FRA
Broquedis, MargueriteMarguerite Broquedis
6–2, 7–5

1912
 FRA
Matthey, JeanneJeanne Matthey †
 FRA
Danet, MarieMarie Danet
6–2, 7–5

1913
 FRA
Broquedis, MargueriteMarguerite Broquedis †
 FRA
Matthey, JeanneJeanne Matthey
6–3, 6–3

1914
 FRA
Broquedis, MargueriteMarguerite Broquedis †
 FRA
Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen
5–7, 6–4, 6–3

1915
—
None[e]
—
—
—

1916
—
None
—
—
—

1917
—
None
—
—
—

1918
—
None
—
—
—

1919
—
None
—
—
—

1920
 FRA
Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen †
 FRA
Broquedis, MargueriteMarguerite Broquedis
6–1, 7–5

1921
 FRA
Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen †
 FRA
Golding, GermaineGermaine Golding
Walkover

1922
 FRA
Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen †
 FRA
Golding, GermaineGermaine Golding
6–4, 6–2

1923
 FRA
Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen †
 FRA
Golding, GermaineGermaine Golding
6–1, 6–4

1924
 FRA
Vlasto, JulieJulie Vlasto †
 FRA
Vaussard, JeanneJeanne Vaussard
6–2, 6–3

1925
 FRA
Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen
 GBR[i]
McKane Godfree, KittyKitty McKane Godfree
6–1, 6–2

1926
 FRA
Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen
 USA
Browne, MaryMary Browne
6–1, 6–0

1927
 NED
Bouman, KeaKea Bouman
 ZAF
Irene Bowder Peacock
6–2, 6–4

1928
 USA
Wills Moody, HelenHelen Wills Moody
 GBR
Bennett Whittingstall, EileenEileen Bennett Whittingstall
6–1, 6–2

1929
 USA
Wills Moody, HelenHelen Wills Moody
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
6–3, 6–4

1930
 USA
Wills Moody, HelenHelen Wills Moody
 USA
Jacobs, HelenHelen Jacobs
6–2, 6–1

1931
 GER
Aussem, CillyCilly Aussem
 GBR
Nuthall, BettyBetty Nuthall
8–6, 6–1

1932
 USA
Wills Moody, HelenHelen Wills Moody
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
7–5, 6–1

1933
 GBR[i]
Scriven Vivian, MargaretMargaret Scriven Vivian
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
6–2, 4–6, 6–4

1934
 GBR
Scriven Vivian, MargaretMargaret Scriven Vivian
 USA
Jacobs, HelenHelen Jacobs
7–5, 4–6, 6–1

1935
 GER[11]
Krahwinkel Sperling, HildeHilde Krahwinkel Sperling
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
6–2, 6–1

1936
 GER[12]
Krahwinkel Sperling, HildeHilde Krahwinkel Sperling
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
6–3, 6–4

1937
 GER[13]
Krahwinkel Sperling, HildeHilde Krahwinkel Sperling
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
6–2, 6–4

1938
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
 FRA
Adamson Landry, NellyNelly Adamson Landry
6–0, 6–3

1939
 FRA
Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu
 POL
Jędrzejowska, JadwigaJadwiga Jędrzejowska
6–3, 8–6

1940
—
None[f]
—
—
—

1941
 LUX
Weiwers, AliceAlice Weiwers ††
 FRA
Seghers, Anne-MarieAnne-Marie Seghers
6–3, 6–0

1942
 LUX
Weiwers, AliceAlice Weiwers ††
  SUI
Payot, LoletteLolette Payot
6–4, 6–4

1943
 FRA
Iribarne Lafargue, SimoneSimone Iribarne Lafargue ††
 LUX
Weiwers, AliceAlice Weiwers
6–1, 7–5

1944
 FRA
Jones Veber, RaymondeRaymonde Jones Veber ††
 FRA
Patorni, JacquelineJacqueline Patorni
6–4, 9–7

1945
  SUI
Payot, LoletteLolette Payot ††
 FRA
Iribarne Lafargue, SimoneSimone Iribarne Lafargue
6–3, 6–4

1946
 USA
Osborne duPont, MargaretMargaret Osborne duPont
 USA
Betz Addie, PaulinePauline Betz Addie
1–6, 8–6, 7–5

1947
 USA
Canning Todd, PatriciaPatricia Canning Todd
 USA
Hart, DorisDoris Hart
6–3, 3–6, 6–4

1948
 FRA
Adamson Landry, NellyNelly Adamson Landry
 USA
Fry, ShirleyShirley Fry
6–2, 0–6, 6–0

1949
 USA
Osborne duPont, MargaretMargaret Osborne duPont
 FRA
Adamson Landry, NellyNelly Adamson Landry
7–5, 6–2

1950
 USA
Hart, DorisDoris Hart
 USA
Canning Todd, PatriciaPatricia Canning Todd
6–4, 4–6, 6–2

1951
 USA
Fry, ShirleyShirley Fry
 USA
Hart, DorisDoris Hart
6–3, 3–6, 6–3

1952
 USA
Hart, DorisDoris Hart
 USA
Fry, ShirleyShirley Fry
6–4, 6–4

1953
 USA
Connolly, MaureenMaureen Connolly
 USA
Hart, DorisDoris Hart
6–2, 6–4

1954
 USA
Connolly, MaureenMaureen Connolly
 FRA
Bucaille, GinetteGinette Bucaille
6–4, 6–1

1955
 GBR
Mortimer, AngelaAngela Mortimer
 USA
Head Knode, DorothyDorothy Head Knode
2–6, 7–5, 10–8

1956
 USA
Gibson, AltheaAlthea Gibson
 GBR
Mortimer, AngelaAngela Mortimer
6–0, 12–10

1957
 GBR
Bloomer, ShirleyShirley Bloomer
 USA
Head Knode, DorothyDorothy Head Knode
6–1, 6–3

1958
 HUN
Körmöczy, ZsuzsaZsuzsa Körmöczy
 GBR
Bloomer Brasher, ShirleyShirley Bloomer Brasher
6–4, 1–6, 6–2

1959
 GBR
Truman, ChristineChristine Truman
 HUN
Körmöczy, ZsuzsaZsuzsa Körmöczy
6–4, 7–5

1960
 USA
Hard, DarleneDarlene Hard
 MEX
Ramírez, YolaYola Ramírez
6–3, 6–4

1961
 GBR
Haydon, AnnAnn Haydon
 MEX
Ramírez, YolaYola Ramírez
6–2, 6–1

1962
 AUS
Court, MargaretMargaret Court
 AUS
Turner, LesleyLesley Turner
6–3, 3–6, 7–5

1963
 AUS
Turner, LesleyLesley Turner
 GBR
Haydon Jones, AnnAnn Haydon Jones
2–6, 6–3, 7–5

1964
 AUS
Court, MargaretMargaret Court
 BRA
Bueno, MariaMaria Bueno
5–7, 6–1, 6–2

1965
 AUS
Turner, LesleyLesley Turner
 AUS
Court, MargaretMargaret Court
6–3, 6–4

1966
 GBR
Haydon Jones, AnnAnn Haydon Jones
 USA
Richey, NancyNancy Richey
6–3, 6–1

1967
 FRA
Dürr, FrançoiseFrançoise Dürr
 AUS
Turner, LesleyLesley Turner
4–6, 6–3, 6–4

text: French Open[edit]

text:
Year[c]
Country
Champion
Country
Runner-up
Score in the final[4][9]

1968
 USA
Richey, NancyNancy Richey
 GBR
Haydon Jones, AnnAnn Haydon Jones
5–7, 6–4, 6–1

1969
 AUS
Court, MargaretMargaret Court
 GBR
Haydon Jones, AnnAnn Haydon Jones
6–1, 4–6, 6–3

1970
 AUS
Court, MargaretMargaret Court
 FRG[k]
Niessen, HelgaHelga Niessen
6–2, 6–4

1971
 AUS
Goolagong, EvonneEvonne Goolagong[l]
 AUS
Gourlay, HelenHelen Gourlay
6–3, 7–5

1972
 USA
King, Billie JeanBillie Jean King
 AUS
Goolagong, EvonneEvonne Goolagong
6–3, 6–3

1973
 AUS
Court, MargaretMargaret Court
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
6–7(5–7)[g], 7–6(8–6), 6–4

1974
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
 URS
Morozova, OlgaOlga Morozova
6–1, 6–2

1975
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
 TCH[h]
Navratilova, MartinaMartina Navratilova[j]
2–6, 6–2, 6–1

1976
 GBR
Barker, SueSue Barker
 TCH
Tomanová, RenátaRenáta Tomanová
6–2, 0–6, 6–2

1977
 YUG
Jaušovec, MimaMima Jaušovec
 ROU
Mihai, FlorențaFlorența Mihai
6–2, 6–7(5–7), 6–1

1978
 ROU
Ruzici, VirginiaVirginia Ruzici
 YUG
Jaušovec, MimaMima Jaušovec
6–2, 6–2

1979
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
 AUS
Turnbull, WendyWendy Turnbull
6–2, 6–0

1980
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
 ROU
Ruzici, VirginiaVirginia Ruzici
6–0, 6–3

1981
 TCH[h]
Mandlíková, HanaHana Mandlíková
 FRG
Hanika, SylviaSylvia Hanika
6–2, 6–4

1982
 USA
Navratilova, MartinaMartina Navratilova[j]
 USA
Jaeger, AndreaAndrea Jaeger
7–6(8–6), 6–1

1983
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
 YUG
Jaušovec, MimaMima Jaušovec
6–1, 6–2

1984
 USA
Navratilova, MartinaMartina Navratilova
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
6–3, 6–1

1985
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
 USA
Navratilova, MartinaMartina Navratilova
6–3, 6–7(4–7), 7–5

1986
 USA
Evert, ChrisChris Evert
 USA
Navratilova, MartinaMartina Navratilova
2–6, 6–3, 6–3

1987
 FRG[k]
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
 USA
Navratilova, MartinaMartina Navratilova
6–4, 4–6, 8–6

1988
 FRG
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
 URS
Zvereva, NatashaNatasha Zvereva
6–0, 6–0

1989
 ESP
Sánchez Vicario, ArantxaArantxa Sánchez Vicario
 FRG
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
7–6(8–6), 3–6, 7–5

1990
 YUG
Seles, MonicaMonica Seles
 FRG
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
7–6(8–6), 6–4

1991
 YUG
Seles, MonicaMonica Seles
 ESP
Sánchez Vicario, ArantxaArantxa Sánchez Vicario
6–3, 6–4

1992
 YUG
Seles, MonicaMonica Seles
 GER
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
6–2, 3–6, 10–8

1993
 GER
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
 USA
Fernández, Mary JoeMary Joe Fernández
4–6, 6–2, 6–4

1994
 ESP
Sánchez Vicario, ArantxaArantxa Sánchez Vicario
 FRA
Pierce, MaryMary Pierce
6–4, 6–4

1995
 GER
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
 ESP
Sánchez Vicario, ArantxaArantxa Sánchez Vicario
7–5, 4–6, 6–0

1996
 GER
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
 ESP
Sánchez Vicario, ArantxaArantxa Sánchez Vicario
6–3, 6–7(4–7), 10–8

1997
 CRO
Majoli, IvaIva Majoli
  SUI
Hingis, MartinaMartina Hingis
6–4, 6–2

1998
 ESP
Sánchez Vicario, ArantxaArantxa Sánchez Vicario
 USA
Seles, MonicaMonica Seles
7–6(7–5), 0–6, 6–2

1999
 GER
Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf
  SUI
Hingis, MartinaMartina Hingis
4–6, 7–5, 6–2

2000
 FRA
Pierce, MaryMary Pierce
 ESP
Martínez, ConchitaConchita Martínez
6–2, 7–5

2001
 USA
Capriati, JenniferJennifer Capriati
 BEL
Clijsters, KimKim Clijsters
1–6, 6–4, 12–10

2002
 USA
Williams, SerenaSerena Williams
 USA
Williams, VenusVenus Williams
7–5, 6–3

2003
 BEL
Henin, JustineJustine Henin
 BEL
Clijsters, KimKim Clijsters
6–0, 6–4

2004
 RUS
Myskina, AnastasiaAnastasia Myskina
 RUS
Dementieva, ElenaElena Dementieva
6–1, 6–2

2005
 BEL
Henin, JustineJustine Henin
 FRA
Pierce, MaryMary Pierce
6–1, 6–1

2006
 BEL
Henin, JustineJustine Henin
 RUS
Kuznetsova, SvetlanaSvetlana Kuznetsova
6–4, 6–4

2007
 BEL
Henin, JustineJustine Henin
 SRB
Ivanovic, AnaAna Ivanovic
6–1, 6–2

2008
 SRB
Ivanovic, AnaAna Ivanovic
 RUS
Safina, DinaraDinara Safina
6–4, 6–3

2009
 RUS
Kuznetsova, SvetlanaSvetlana Kuznetsova
 RUS
Safina, DinaraDinara Safina
6–4, 6–2

2010
 ITA
Schiavone, FrancescaFrancesca Schiavone
 AUS
Stosur, SamanthaSamantha Stosur
6–4, 7–6(7–2)

2011
 CHN
Na, LiLi Na
 ITA
Schiavone, FrancescaFrancesca Schiavone
6–4, 7–6(7–0)

2012
 RUS
Sharapova, MariaMaria Sharapova
 ITA
Errani, SaraSara Errani
6–3, 6–2

2013
 USA
Williams, SerenaSerena Williams
 RUS
Sharapova, MariaMaria Sharapova
6–4, 6–4

2014
 RUS
Sharapova, MariaMaria Sharapova
 ROU
Halep, SimonaSimona Halep
6–4, 6–7(5–7), 6–4

2015
 USA
Williams, SerenaSerena Williams
 CZE
Šafářová, LucieLucie Šafářová
6–3, 6–7(2–7), 6–2

2016
 ESP
Muguruza, GarbiñeGarbiñe Muguruza
 USA
Williams, SerenaSerena Williams
7–5, 6–4

2017
 LAT
Ostapenko, JeļenaJeļena Ostapenko
 ROU
Halep, SimonaSimona Halep
4–6, 6–4, 6–3

text: Statistics[edit]

text: Multiple champions[edit]

text: Competitions prior to 1925 opened only to French tennis club members and French nationals

text:
Player
Amateur Era
Open Era
All-time
Years

 Evert, ChrisChris Evert (USA)
0
7
7
1974, 1975, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1986

 Lenglen, SuzanneSuzanne Lenglen (FRA)
6
0
6
1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1926

 Graf, SteffiSteffi Graf (GER)[k]
0
6
6
1987, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999

 Masson, FrançoiseFrançoise Masson (FRA)
5
0
5
1897, 1898, 1899, 1902, 1903

 Court, MargaretMargaret Court (AUS)
2
3
5
1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1973

 Gillou, KateKate Gillou (FRA)
4
0
4
1904, 1905, 1906, 1908

 Matthey, JeanneJeanne Matthey (FRA)
4
0
4
1909, 1910, 1911, 1912

 Wills, HelenHelen Wills (USA)
4
0
4
1928, 1929, 1930, 1932

 Henin, JustineJustine Henin (BEL)
0
4
4
2003, 2005, 2006, 2007

 Krahwinkel Sperling, HildeHilde Krahwinkel Sperling (DEN)
3
0
3
1935, 1936, 1937

 Sánchez Vicario, ArantxaArantxa Sánchez Vicario (ESP)
0
3
3
1989, 1994, 1998

 Seles, MonicaMonica Seles (YUG)
0
3
3
1990, 1991, 1992

 Williams, SerenaSerena Williams (USA)
0
3
3
2002, 2013, 2015

 Scriven Vivian, MargaretMargaret Scriven Vivian (GBR)
2
0
2
1933, 1934

 Mathieu, SimonneSimonne Mathieu (FRA)
2
0
2
1938, 1939

 Osborne duPont, MargaretMargaret Osborne duPont (USA)
2
0
2
1946, 1949

 Hart, DorisDoris Hart (USA)
2
0
2
1950, 1952

 Connolly, MaureenMaureen Connolly (USA)
2
0
2
1953, 1954

 Haydon Jones, AnnAnn Haydon Jones (GBR)
2
0
2
1961, 1966

 Turner Bowrey, LesleyLesley Turner Bowrey (AUS)
2
0
2
1963, 1965

 Navratilova, MartinaMartina Navratilova (USA)[j]
0
2
2
1982, 1984

 Sharapova, MariaMaria Sharapova (RUS)
0
2
2
2012, 2014

text: Champions by country[edit]

text: ¤  Former country

text:
Country
Amateur Era
Open Era
All-time
First title
Last title

 France (FRA)
29
1
30
1897
2000

 United States (USA)
14
15
29
1928
2015

 Great Britain (GBR)
7
1
8
1933
1976

 Australia (AUS)
4
4
8
1962
1973

 Germany (GER)[l]
1
4
5
1931
1999

 Russia (RUS)
0
4
4
2004
2014

 Yugoslavia (YUG) ¤
0
4
4
1977
1992

 Belgium (BEL)
0
4
4
2003
2007

 Spain (ESP)
0
4
4
1989
2016

 Denmark (DEN)
3
0
3
1935
1937

 West Germany (FRG) ¤[k]
0
2
2
1987
1988

 Netherlands (NED)
1
0
1
1927
1927

 Hungary (HUN)
1
0
1
1958
1958

 Romania (ROU)
0
1
1
1978
1978

 Czechoslovakia (TCH) ¤[h]
0
1
1
1981
1981

 Croatia (CRO)
0
1
1
1997
1997

 Serbia (SRB)
0
1
1
2008
2008

 Italy (ITA)
0
1
1
2010
2010

 China (CHN)
0
1
1
2011
2011

 Latvia (LAT)
0
1
1
2017
2017

text: Notes[edit]

text:
a Known as the Les Championnats de France (1891–1924) then Les Championnats internationaux de France (1925–1967) during the Amateur Era.[3]
b The tournament entered the Open Era with the 1968 edition, allowing professional players to compete alongside amateurs.[4]
c Each year is linked to an article about that particular years draw, with the exception of pre-1925 years.
d Unchallenged champion (only entrant into the final challenge round, thus declared a champion without a contest).
e The tournament was not held from 1915 to 1919 because of World War I.[3]
f The tournament was not officially held from 1940 to 1945 because of World War II.[3][4] The champions listed are disputed, but are listed by a few sources, which means they are not included in the statistics charts because the slam does not consider them champions. They are listed here as a historical note.
g Set score in parentheses indicates a tiebreaker score.
h Czechoslovakia (TCH, 1918–1992), does not include the totals of Czech Republic (CZE, 1992–present) and Slovakia (SVK, 1992–present).
i No wins by a player from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922), plus many wins by a player(s) from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922–present).
j Martina Navratilova was born in Czechoslovakia, but she competed as an American after the US Open in 1975 because she sought asylum in the United States, which made her have to relinquish her Czechoslovakian citizenship.
k FRG is West Germany, but after reunification with East Germany became Germany (GER) in 1990.
l Evonne Goolagong became Evonne Goolagong Cawley after her marriage to Roger Cawley in 1975, however at the time of her winning the 1971 French Open she was single.

tag: ul


document_title: List of largest stars

question_text: what is the biggest star in the milkyway

text: List of largest stars

text: Caveats

text: Complex issues exist in determining the true radii of the largest stars, which in many cases do display significant errors. The following lists are generally based on various considerations or assumptions that include:

text:
Largest stars are usually expressed in units of the solar radius (R☉), where 1.00 R☉ equals 695,700 kilometres.
Stellar radii or diameters are usually only approximated using Stefan–Boltzmann law for the deduced stellar luminosity and effective surface temperature;
Stellar distances, and their errors, for most, remain uncertain or poorly determined;
Many supergiant stars have extended atmospheres and many are embedded within opaque dust shells, making their true effective temperatures highly uncertain;
Many extended supergiant atmospheres also significantly change in size over time, regularly or irregularly pulsating over several months or years as variable stars. This makes adopted luminosities poorly known and may significantly change the quoted radii;
Other direct methods for determining stellar radii, rely on lunar occultations or from eclipses in binary systems. This is only possible for a very small number of stars;
Based on various theoretical evolutionary models, few stars will exceed 1,500–2,000 times the Sun (roughly 3,715 K and Mbol = −9). Such limits maybe also depend on the stellar metallicity.[2]

text: Extragalactic large stars

text: In this list are some examples of more distant extragalactic stars, which may have slightly different properties and natures than the currently largest known stars in the Milky Way:

text:
Some red supergiants in the Magellanic Clouds are suspected to have slightly different limiting temperatures and luminosities. Such stars may exceed accepted limits by undergoing large eruptions or change their spectral types over just a few months. Humphreys et al., for example, calculates the maximum size for a Magellanic cloud star as ~2,600 R☉.[citation needed]
A survey of the Magellanic Clouds has catalogued many red supergiants, where more than 50 of them exceed 700 R☉ (490,000,000 km; 3.3 AU; 300,000,000 mi). Largest of these is about 1,200-1,300 R☉.[3]

text: List

text:
List of the largest stars

Star name
Solar radii
(Sun = 1)
Method[a]
Notes

Orbit of Saturn
1,940–2,169

Reported for reference

UY Scuti
1,708 ± 192[4]
AD
Margin of error in size determination: ±192 solar radii. At the smallest, it would have a size similar to VX Sagittarii (see below)

WOH G64
1,540[5]–1,730[6]
L/Teff
This would be the largest star in the LMC, but is unusual in position and motion and might still be a foreground halo giant.

RW Cephei
1,535[7][8]
L/Teff
RW Cep is variable both in brightness (by at least a factor of 3) and spectral type (observed from G8 to M), thus probably also in diameter. Because the spectral type and temperature at maximum luminosity are not known, the quoted size is just an estimate.

Westerlund 1-26
1,530-1,580[9] (–2,550) [10]
L/Teff
Very uncertain parameters for an unusual star with strong radio emission. The spectrum is variable but apparently the luminosity is not.

KY Cygni
1,420–2,850 [2]
L/Teff
The upper estimate is due to an unusual K band measurement and thought to be an artifact of a reddening correction error, and is thought to be against stellar evolutionary theory. The lower estimate is consistent with other stars in the same survey and with theoretical models.

VY Canis Majoris
1,420 ± 120[11]
AD
Humphreys et al previously estimated the radius of VY CMa to be 1,800 R☉ to 2,200 R☉; a size so large that places it outside the bounds of stellar evolutionary theory.[12] Improved measurements have brought it down to size.[11][13] This star is a red hypergiant, although Massey et al. considered it as a normal red supergiant with a radius of only 600 R☉.[14]

AH Scorpii
1,411 ± 124[4]
AD
AH Sco is variable by nearly 3 magnitudes in the visual range, and an estimated 20% in total luminosity. The variation in diameter is not clear because the temperature also varies.

VV Cephei A
1,400,[15] 1,050[16]–1,900[2]

VV Cep A is a highly distorted star in a close binary system, losing mass to the secondary for at least part of its orbit. Other estimates give a range from 1,200 R☉ to 1,600 R☉.[2][17]

RSGC1-F02
1,398[18]
L/Teff

RSGC1-F01
1,335[18]
L/Teff

HR 5171 A
1,315 ± 260,[19] 1,575 ± 400[20]
AD
HR 5171 A is a highly distorted star in a close binary system, losing mass to the secondary, and is also variable in temperature, thus probably also in diameter. Traditionally, it is considered as the largest known yellow hypergiant, although the latest research suggests it is a red supergiant with a radius 1,490 ± 540 R☉.[21]

SMC 18136
1,310[3]

This would be the largest star in the SMC.

PZ Cassiopeiae
1,260-1,340,[22] 1,190-1,940[2]
L/Teff
The largest estimate is due to an unusual K band measurement and thought to be an artifact of a reddening correction error. The lowest estimate is consistent with other stars in the same survey and with theoretical models, and the intermediate ones have been obtained refining the distance to this star, and thus its parameters.

Mu Cephei (Herschel's "Garnet Star")
1,260[23]

Reddest star in the night sky.[24] Other recent estimates range from 650 R☉[25] to 1,420 R☉[2]

LMC 136042
1,240[3]

BI Cygni
1,240[2]
L/Teff

Westerlund 1-237
1,233[10]
L/Teff
Calculated from an effective temperature of 3,600 K and a luminosity of 230,000 L☉.[10]

SMC 5092
1,220[3]

S Persei
1,212 ± 124[26]
AD & L/Teff
A red hypergiant localed in the Perseus Double Cluster. A large radius of 1,230 R☉ is due to an unusual K band measurement and thought to be an artifact of a reddening correction error. A small radius of 780 R☉ is consistent with other stars in the same survey and with theoretical models.[2]

LMC 175464
1,200[3]

LMC 135720
1,200[3]

RAFGL 2139
1,200[27]

RAFGL 2139 is a rare red supergiant companion to WR 114 that has a bow shock.

SMC 69886
1,190[3]

NML Cygni
1,183[28]
L/Teff

RSGC1-F05
1,177[18]
L/Teff

EV Carinae
1,168[29]-2,880[30]
L/Teff

RSGC1-F03
1,168[18]
L/Teff

LMC 119219
1,150[3]

RSGC1-F08
1,146[18]
L/Teff

BC Cygni
1,140[2]-1,230[23]
L/Teff
Other recent estimates range from 856 R☉ to 1,553 R☉.[31]

SMC 10889
1,130[3]

VX Sagittarii
1,120 - 1,550[32]
L/Teff
VX Sgr is a pulsating variable calculated to vary in size from 1,350 R☉ to 1,940 R☉.[33]

LMC 141430
1,110[3]

LMC 175746
1,100[3]

RSGC1-F13
1,098[18]
L/Teff

RT Carinae
1,090[2]
L/Teff

RSGC1-F04
1,082[18]
L/Teff

LMC 174714
1,080[3]

LMC 68125
1,080[3]

SMC 49478
1,080[3]

SMC 20133
1,080[3]

V396 Centauri
1,070[2]
L/Teff

SMC 8930
1,070[3]

Orbit of Jupiter
1,064–1,173

Reported for reference

HV 11423
1,060–1,220[34]
L/Teff
HV 11423 is variable in spectral type (observed from K0 to M5), thus probably also in diameter. In October 1978, it was a star of M0I type.

CK Carinae
1,060[2]
L/Teff

SMC 25879
1,060[3]

LMC 142202
1,050[3]

LMC 146126
1,050[3]

LMC 67982
1,040[3]

U Lacertae
1,022[35]
L/Teff

RSGC1-F11
1,015[18]
L/Teff

LMC 143877
1,010[3]

KW Sagittarii
1,009[4]-1,460[2]
AD & L/Teff
Margin of possible error: ± 142 solar radii (Torres 2013).

SMC 46497
990[3]

LMC 140296
990[3]

RSGC1-F09
986[18]
L/Teff

NR Vulpeculae
980[2]
L/Teff

SMC 12322
980[3]

LMC 177997
980[3]

SMC 59803
970[3]

GCIRS 7
960 ± 92[36]
AD

Betelgeuse (Alpha Orionis)
955 ± 217[37]
AD
Other recent estimates range from 887 ± 203 R☉[38] to 1,180 R☉[39]

SMC 50840
950[3]

RSGC1-F10
931[18]
L/Teff

S Cassiopeiae
930[40][41]

IX Carinae
920[2]
L/Teff

HV 2112
916[42]
L/Teff
Most likely candidate for a Thorne-Zytkow Object.

RSGC1-F07
910[18]
L/Teff

LMC 54365
900[3]

NSV 25875
891[28]
L/Teff

LMC 109106
890[3]

RSGC1-F06
885[18]
L/Teff

LMC 116895
880[3]

SMC 30616
880[3]

LMC 64048
880[3]

V437 Scuti
874[28]
L/Teff

V602 Carinae
860[2]-1,050[43]
L/Teff & AD
Margin of possible error: ± 165 solar radii (Torres 2015).

V669 Cassiopeiae
859[28]
L/Teff

SMC 55681
850[3]

SMC 15510
850[3]

LMC 61753
830[3]

LMC 62090
830[3]

SMC 11709
830[3]

V1185 Scorpii
830[28]
L/Teff

Outer limits of the asteroid belt
816

Reported for reference

LMC 142199
810[3]

LMC 134383
800[3]

BO Carinae
790[2]
L/Teff

LMC 142907
790[3]

SU Persei
780[2]
L/Teff
In the Perseus Double Cluster

RS Persei
770[44]-1,000[2]
AD & L/Teff
In the Perseus Double Cluster. Margin of possible error: ± 30 solar radii (Baron 2014).

AV Persei
770[2]
L/Teff
In the Perseus Double Cluster

V355 Cepheus
770[2]
L/Teff

V915 Scorpii
760[45]
L/Teff

S Cephei
760[46]

SMC 11939
750[3]

HD 303250
750[2]

V382 Carinae
747[47]

The brightest yellow hypergiant in the night sky, one of the rarest types of star. Achmad (1992) calculates 600 R☉ to 1,100 R☉ or 700 ± 250 R☉.[48]

RU Virginis
742[46]

LMC 137818
740[3]

SMC 48122
740[3]

SMC 56732
730[3]

V648 Cassiopeiae
710[2]
L/Teff

XX Persei
710[49]
L/Teff
Located in the Perseus Double Cluster and near the border with Andromeda.

TV Geminorum
620-710[50] (–770)[2]
L/Teff

HD 179821
704[51]

A yellow hypergiant, although most authors consider it as a supergiant, a protoplanetary nebula or a post-AGB star with a luminosity of only 16,000 L☉.

LMC 169754
700[3]

LMC 65558
700[3]

V528 Carinae
700[2]
L/Teff

The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison.

V354 Cephei
690[35]-1,520[2]
L/Teff

Antares A (Alpha Scorpii A)
680[52]
AD
This star appears to vary its size by 165 R☉. Older estimates have given radii over 800 R☉,[53][54] but some are likely to have been affected by asymmetry of the atmosphere and the narrow range of infrared wavelengths observed.[52] Other recent estimates range from 653 R☉[55] to 1,246 R☉.[56]

CE Tauri
587–593[57] (–608[58])

Second reddest star in the night sky.[24] Can be occulted by the Moon, allowing accurate determination of its apparent diameter.

R Leporis (Hind's "Crimson Star")
400[59]–535[60]

Margin of possible error: ± 90 solar radii.

Rho Cassiopeiae
400-500[61]

Yellow hypergiant, one of the rarest types of a star.

Inner limits of the asteroid belt
412

Reported for reference

Mira A (Omicron Ceti)
332–402[62]

Prototype Mira variable. De beck (2005) calculates 541 R☉.[28]

V509 Cassiopeiae
400–900[63]

Yellow hypergiant, one of the rarest types of a star.

CW Leonis
390–500,[64] 700[65]–826[28]
L/Teff
CW Leonis is one of the mistaken identities as the claimed planet "Nibiru" or "Planet X", due to its brightness as it approaches 1st magnitude.

V838 Monocerotis
380 (in 2009)[66]

A short time after the outburst V838 Mon was measured at 1,570 ± 400 R☉.[67] However the distance to this "L supergiant", and hence its size, have since been reduced and it proved to be a transient object that shrunk about four-fold over a few years.

S Doradus
100-380[68]

Prototype S Doradus variable

R Doradus
370 ± 50[69]

Star with the second largest apparent size after the Sun.

IRC +10420
357[70]–1,342[28]
L/Teff
A yellow hypergiant that has increased its temperature into the LBV range.

The Pistol Star
340[71]

Blue hypergiant, among the most massive and luminous stars known.

La Superba (Y Canum Venaticorum)
307[28]-390[72]
L/Teff
Referred to as La Superba by Angelo Secchi. Currently one of the coolest and reddest stars.

Solar System Habitable Zone
305

Reported for reference

Orbit of Mars
297–358

Reported for reference

Alpha Herculis (Ras Algethi)
284 ± 60[73]

Moravveji et al also gives a range from 264 R☉ to 303 R☉. At an estimated distance of 110 parsecs from the Sun, this corresponds to a radius of 400 ± 61 R☉.[73]

Sun's red giant phase
256[74]

The core hydrogen would be exhausted in 5.4 billion years. In 7.647 billion years, The Sun would reach the tip of the red-giant branch of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. (see below)
Reported for reference

Eta Carinae A (Tseen She)
250,[75] 60–800[76]

Previously thought to be the most massive single star, but in 2005 it was realized to be a binary system. Other estimates gives 85 R☉ to 195 R☉.[77]

Orbit of Earth
211–219

Reported for reference

Deneb (Alpha Cygni)
203 ± 17[78]

LBV 1806-20
200[79]

Formerly a candidate for the most luminous star in the Milky Way.

Orbit of Venus
154–157

Reported for reference

Epsilon Aurigae A (Almaaz)
143-358[80]

ε Aur was incorrectly hailed as the largest star with a radius 2,000 R☉ or 3,000 R☉,[81] even though it later turned out not to be an infrared light star but rather a dusk torus surrounding the system.

Peony Nebula Star
92[82]

Candidate for most luminous star in the Milky Way.

Rigel A (Beta Orionis A)
78.9[83]–115[84]

Margin of possible error: ±7.4 solar radii.

Canopus (Alpha Carinae)
71 ± 4[85]

Second brightest star in the night sky.

Orbit of Mercury
66–100

Reported for reference

Aldebaran (Alpha Tauri)
44.13 ± 0.84[86]

Polaris (Alpha Ursae Minoris)
37.5[87]

The current northern pole star.

R136a1
35.4[88]

Also on record as the most massive and luminous star known.

Arcturus (Alpha Boötis)
25.4 ± 0.2[89]

Brightest star in the northern hemisphere.

HDE 226868
20-22[90]

The supergiant companion of black hole Cygnus X-1. The black hole is 500,000 times smaller than the star.

VV Cephei B
13[17]-25[91]

The B-type main sequence companion of VV Cephei A.

Sun's helium burning phase
10

After the red-giant branch the Sun has approximately 120 million years of active life left.
Reported for reference

Sun
1

The largest object in the Solar System.
Reported for reference

text:
Jump up ^ AD: radius determined from angular diameter and distance
L/Teff: radius calculated from bolometric luminosity and effective temperature

tag: ol


document_title: Big Mouth (TV series)

question_text: who does the voice for the hormone monster in big mouth

text: Big Mouth (TV series)

text: Summary[edit]

text: The series follows 7th grade best friends Nick Birch and Andrew Glouberman as they navigate their way through puberty, masturbation, and sexual arousal. Acting as sex-based shoulder angels are the hormone monsters Maurice, who pesters Andrew and occasionally Nick and Jay, and Connie, who pesters Jessi and occasionally Missy. Throughout the series, the kids interact with people and objects who are personified in one way or another and offer helpful, albeit confusing, advice in their puberty-filled lives including the ghost of Duke Ellington, a French accented Statue of Liberty, a pillow capable of getting pregnant, and even Jessi's own vagina.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Nick Kroll[2] as:

Nick Birch, a preadolescent boy, with a mother named Diane who babies him and father named Elliot who overshares. He also has an older brother Judd and a sister named Leah.
Maurice the Hormone Monster, a wild thing-type monster who follows Andrew around and is responsible for his brooding sexual desires, which frequently occur at inappropriate moments.
Coach Steve, the middle school gym class teacher, who is incompetent and overly talkative, often trying to get his colleagues - or even the students - to hang out (often to no avail). It is heavily implied that the coach may be mentally disabled.
Kroll also voices Lola, Lady Liberty, a ladybug, Joe Walsh, the ghosts of Picasso and Richard Burton, and Sylvester Stallone.

John Mulaney[2] as Andrew Glouberman, a young Jewish boy, who spends much of his time furtively masturbating.

Mulaney also voices Mint, Grandpa Andrew, Babe the Blue Ox, and a detective.

Jessi Klein[2] as Jessi Glaser, a sarcastic and smart girl. Her father, named Greg, is an unemployed stoner and her mother, named Shannon, is secretly dating another woman. She gets her period for the first time on a school trip to the Statue of Liberty.
Jason Mantzoukas[2] as Jay Bilzerian, a boy who is obsessed with magic and sex. He has sex with a pillow that he made into a sex toy. His mom is mentally ill, his dad is a divorce lawyer, and his two older brothers are named Kurt and Val. He is obsessed with Nick's mother and father and wishes for a loving family.

Mantzoukas also voices the ghost of Socrates and Guy Bilzerian.

Jenny Slate[2] as Missy, a girl who is nerdy and kind. Her father is black and her mother is mexican.
Fred Armisen[2] as Elliot Birch/Ghost of Antonin Scalia/Bus Driver/Stavros
Maya Rudolph[2] as Diane Birch/Connie the Hormone Monstress/Bath Mat/Ghost of Elizabeth Taylor/Ghost of Whitney Houston
Jordan Peele[2] as the Ghost of Duke Ellington/Ghost of Freddie Mercury/Atlanta Claus/DJ/Cyrus/Patrick Ewing

text: Also starring[edit]

text:
Paula Pell as Barbara Glouberman, Andrew's mother and a Jewish wife stereotype.
Richard Kind as Marty Glouberman
Andrew Rannells as Matthew
June Diane Raphael as Devin
Jak Knight as DeVon
Neil Casey as Detective
John Gemberling as Security Guard
Joe Wengert as Caleb
Seth Morris as Greg Glaser
Emily Altman
Jessica Chaffin as Shannon Glaser
Rob Huebel as Mr. Lizer
Kat Dennings as Leah Birch
Jon Gabrus
Kristen Bell as Pam the pillow/Uninterested Girl
Jess Harnell as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Mark Rivers
Heather Lawless as Jenna Bilzerian
Chelsea Peretti as Monica
Mark Duplass as Val Bilzerian/Clerk
Paul Scheer as Kurt Bilzerian
Nathan Fillion as himself
Anna Graves
Kristen Wiig as Jessi's genitalia
Nasim Pedrad as Fatima
Carlos Alazraqui as Gustavo
Alia Shawkat as Roland
Mae Whitman as Tallulah Levine
Zach Woods as Daniel
Jon Hamm as Scallops
Jack McBrayer as Nick's pubic hair #1
Craig Robinson as Nick's pubic hair #2
Jon Daly as Judd Birch
Rosa Salazar as Ms. Benitez
Michaela Watkins as Cantor Dina Reznick
Gil Ozeri
Ashley London

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date

1
"Ejaculation"
Joel Moser
Nick Kroll & Andrew Goldberg & Jennifer Flackett & Mark Levin
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

As Andrew falls under the spell of the Hormone Monster, Maury, his buddy Nick becomes obsessed with the lack of changes in his own body. The gang go to the school dance.

2
"Everybody Bleeds"
Bryan Francis
Kelly Galuska
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

A field trip goes from awkward to mortifying as Jessi is pressured into being Nick's girlfriend, then gets her first period -- inside the Statue of Liberty.

3
"Am I Gay?"
Mike L. Mayfield
Joe Wengert
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

A trailer for a new movie starring The Rock leaves Andrew questioning his sexuality. Jessi and Nick's budding romance turns ugly fast.

4
"Sleepover: A Harrowing Ordeal of Emotional Brutality"
Joel Moser
Jess Dweck & Victor Quinaz
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

While the boys head to Jay's for a testosterone-fueled sleepover, Jessi throws a party of her own and gets caught up in mean-girl drama.

5
"Girls Are Horny Too"
Bryan Francis
Emily Altman
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

A steamy novel making the rounds at school inspires Jessi to explore her own sexuality -- and leaves the boys totally confused about what girls want.

6
"Pillow Talk"
Mike L. Mayfield
Peter A. Knight
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

Nick drags Andrew into the city to visit an old camp crush, but the day doesn't go as planned. Jay embarks on an emotional journey with his pillow.

7
"Requiem for a Wet Dream"
Joel Moser
Duffy Boudreau
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

Andrew struggles to keep the Hormone Monster in check as he works with Missy on a science fair project. Jessi and Matthew have fun at Jay's expense.

8
"The Head Push"
Bryan Francis
Emily Altman & Jennifer Flackett & Mark Levin
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

When Leah hosts a party for the high school drama crowd, Nick wrestles with a romantic dilemma, and Andrew and Missy witness a disturbing scene.

9
"I Survived Jessi's Bat Mitzvah"
Mike L. Mayfield
Kelly Galuska
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

Family blowups, secret liaisons and an unflattering dress make Jessi's bat mitzvah a night to remember.

10
"The Pornscape"
Joel Moser
Gil Ozeri
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)

Andrew tries to drown his sorrows in a sea of porn, only to become hopelessly addicted. Coach Steve becomes a suspect in a murder spree. Also, Jessi and Jay run away together.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Big Mouth has received critical acclaim since its official release. On Rotten Tomatoes, the series has an approval rating of 100% based on 17 reviews, with the critical consensus reading, "Big Mouth's simplistic animation and scatalogical humor belie its finely sketched characters and smart, empathetic approach to the messiness of adolescence."[5] At Metacritic, the show currently holds a rating of 80 out of 100, based on 6 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[6]

text: Vox described the show as sharp, and as jarringly depicting the awkwardness of pubescence, postpubescence and prepubescence.[7]

text: Awards and nominations[edit]

text:
Year
Award
Category
Nominee(s)
Result
Ref.

2018
Annie Award
Best General Audience Television/Broadcast Production
Big Mouth
Nominated