Andrew Landeryou reports that the upper house recount for Northern Metropolitan has indeed overturned the shock DLP win and delivered the final seat to Labor’s Nazih Elasmar, putting the upper house numbers at ALP 20, Liberal 15, Nationals 2, Greens 2, DLP 1. However, the roller-coaster ride might not be over yet – Landeryou also reports that the recount in Western Metropolitan, where the provisional result was decided by a 76-vote margin at a vital point in the count, might yet deliver a seat to the Greens’ Colleen Hartland at the expense of Labor’s fourth candidate Henry Barlow. This should be resolved within the hour (for the record, it’s currently 2.46am EST).
UPDATE (4.09am): I’m off to bed, so those seeking the late mail on Western Metropolitan will have to look elsewhere.
UPDATE (12.53pm): I’m awake now, and Colleen Hartland indeed bumped out Henry Barlow after the margin at the key point in the count shifted 100 votes the other way. So the scorecard reads ALP 19, Liberal 15, Greens 3, Nationals 2, DLP 1. Nazih Elasmar’s win notwithstanding, the net effect of the recount is not good for Labor – unless you take the view that what’s good for the Greens is good for Labor (or at least the broader Labor cause), which it seems many do. Before they could have got legislation through with the support of the Greens, the DLP or the Nationals. Now only the Greens or the Nationals can give them more than a blocking majority. Bragging rights go to blogger Aaron Hewett of Urban Creature, who tipped the result perfectly on November 16. I wrongly tipped Liberal 3, Labor 2 in Western Victoria, and Labor 4, Liberal 1 in Western Metropolitan.
Can confirm that scrutineers are now convinced that Henry Barlow has narrowly missed out to the Greens Colleen Hartland.
I imagine there will be a counter challenge- or isn’t that allowed? WMET was a VEC initiative, right? This could get like Irishboy’s example?
It has always been difficult to convince the Greens of the importance and excitement of scrutineering. Might be different now.
Shows the important roll of scrutineers in locating clerical errors.
Radio 774 announced that the recount for Western Metro has confirmed Colleen Hartland (Green) is elected to the fifth spot, edging out Henry Barlow (Labor). The recount affected an exclusion that was decided by less than a 100 votes. This may now be the only seat where Labor preferences elected a Green.
It was also announced that the DLP have their seat in Western Victoria confirmed, and the recount in Northern Metro will be finalised within an hour (about 9am 14/12).
Their is some cirticism of the ALP/DLP deal in today’s age:
“Labor old guard fury over preferences deal
“FORMER Labor premiers and senior union figures have rounded on ALP chiefs after their preference deals helped return the right-wing Democratic Labor Party to the Victorian Parliament for the first time in almost 50 years.
“Premier Steve Bracks was forced to defend his party yesterday against claims Labor had “shot itself in the foot” by preferencing the DLP ahead of the Greens in some key upper house seats. . .
ALP win some and loose some.
The problem however with loosing WMET, however is that they now loose the option to legislate to the centre using the DLP to carry the motion.
Instead, they will be under the control of the watermelon party (The dark Brown seeded Red party with a motley thin Green veneer).
Considering WMET was declared at 4AM and NMET an hour later, it is surprising that landeryou can get one right but not the other. But the error in NMET had already been leaked to parties well before the final button was pushed, so it was not hard to predict the corrected result.
Who would the ALP prefer to negotiate with, in order to get legislation passed? The Greens, or the DLP?
This whole recount seems like a complete debacle, very reminiscent of Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, and most recently, another Congressional seat in Florida. I guess the ALP will now be challenging the new result in Western Metropolitan?
Thanks everyone for the interesting comments – invaluable for someone living in another state who otherwise would get no news on this, although there was a report on last night’s 7.30 Report about the supposed reemergence of the DLP.
Ray, How is the DLP in the Centre? Is it a warped center of the right?
Geoff, We’ve always had a high importance on scrutineering. In fact in South Metro Labor nor Libs had scruits (and when they did they were watching the wrong votes – ATLs) In the past we just didn’t have enough people to do it. Now we have the people numbers to do it.
The web site is currently saying “all results declared Thursday 14th Dec” Is that a prediction or a fact? Writs must be returned 21 days post election.
On a totally different matter, does William have to register this site for election comment, or is this sort of thing outside the scope of the Electoral Act?
Slightly unfair Evan. Problem in those American states was that a re-count was almost impossible because the equipment used to mark the ballots was malfunctioning. In Floridas case, masses of ballots where everyone was arguing over whether a ballot was marked or unmarked.
Here the re-count was done because the result was close and there was evidence of tallying errors. When they went through and checked the actual ballots against what had been entered as a tally, they found errors. Most will just be recording errors. The change in Western met may be nothing more than 200 votes in one booth being tallied to the wrong candidate. 350,000 votes recorded in 200-300 booths can produce tallying errors. What is most importanty is to be able to re-check the votes.
I wouldn’t call it a debacle. More care needed in tallying, certainly. But it isn’t an indeterminate result like the Americans. And a re-count in Western met? Will depend on whether the party scrutineer’s think there is scope. What happened was no different than Ferntree Gully where the result was changed on re-count. The more dramatic difference in the LC is no doubt due to scrutineering really only occurring on the re-count.
OK folks, that’s it, show’s over – time to go and obsess about something else. You should all go and have a cold shower. Read Paul Austin in the Age this morning: “Bracks won, and that’s it.” A very comfortable win in the Assembly, more or less the expected result in the Council. Bad luck Toorak Ted. A few recounts, a Green here, a Grouper there, big deal. It’s only a state upper house, people. And it wouldn’t be a Bracks win without a whinge from Joan Kirner, now would it? Yes, Joan, those horrible rightists have done it again. But I am full of goodwill to all persons, even Joan. This is my last week as a Labor staffer, and in two weeks I will be in sunny Penang. Merry Xmas, happy Hanukka and see you all next election.
The other problem is Antony, when the VEC is opening envelopes of postals, some of the upper house ballot papers are ripped. I was watching as they were trying to figure out which half went with which at some points. Also trying to guess which number was in which box because of the rips. there needs to be different envelopes for postals. this was happening in about 5% of the postals I was watching being counted.
I’ve heard that the ALP candidate in Western Metro has accepted the result. It was 76 votes in his favor before , which is why there was a recount. I’m not sure what the final margin was.
Yes Evan, here the problem here was with counting the ballots which is quite different to the situation in the US – here you can recount the ballots to ensure you have obtained the correct result.
I’m sure a suggestion that will be happily accepted Dinesh.
As Geoff Lambert will remember, the famous 1999 NSW Legislative Council ‘tablecloth’ election caused endless problems. First, the ballot papers were so large they had to widen all the polling screens from 600mm to 900mm. As the ballot was still wider than that, they also provided a table where you could spread the ballot out in full. Everyone could see you vote though.
The the ballot was so large is had to be folded in a specific way to fit in the envelope. Even then, it was so thick the envelope struggled to stay sealed. And then the had to widen the slots on the ballot boxes to put the envelopes in, which meant you could actually put your hand into the ballot box.
They had to hire larger planes and heavier duty fork lifts to move the ballots around. Then there was the hail storm that hit the counting centre and smashed the asbestos roof, with all the (thankfully already counted) ATL votes flooded and moon suits required to access the room because of the asbestos risk.
Sounds like Victoria was realtively straightforward really.
Exactly, there’s no similarity to Florida 2000, where the Supreme Court put a halt to a recount so the official result could never be verified. Nor the recent Florida 13th result, because it was all tallied on a computer with a poor ballot design – different problem.
Ohio 2004 wasn’t especially close in the end. That’s why Kerry conceded the following morning.
The best American analogy would be the 2004 Governor’s race in Washington state, where a full recount did take place and the result consequently reversed.
Whether to ask for a recount would depend upon whether the scrutineers thought further errors had been made, whether there was debate between scrutineers and the DRO about votes, etc. The DRO has to make a ruling when something is challenged.
What happened with the informals, by the way?…. were they re-scrutineered? That can sometimes make a big difference. By rights, the system should, and probably did, check BTLs for formality, there are easy algorithms for this, and the BTLs have to be entered twice anyway. But, as was shown in NSW in 2003, the system cannot use those simple algorithms to check whether a 0 has been entered. This was a computer-guru problem- to them a 0 is the most important number they have, it didn’t occur to them that it was a no-no on a ballot paper, so they failed to check for it.
Thus, most errors occurring in this count would have been of the type Antony described (e.g. keyborad errors, and scrutineers would need to be alert to this possibility
It might take some time for a party to comb through the print-out for potential problem points- maybe not until next week. As I understand it, one can still go to the Court of Disputed Returns even after return of the writs, due Saturday? Writs have to be returned 21 days post election. Declaration is presumably not quite the same thing? It is where the DRO invites the candidates to tea and cakes and reads out a statement. Writ return is where the Electoral Commissioner delivers a piece of paper to the Governor.
Andrew doesn’t understand the election junkie mentality. Recently, I had this exchange with William:
And William said in his/our defence: Geoff, POLITICS is shit. It’s elections that I’m interested in.
For me, the main value of this election was as a warm up for the introduction of new technology- EML/XML computer systems for running all aspects of an election, including reporting to the public. Qld was first off the rank with this. NSW will use it next year, as will AEC. Interested psephologists could look at the OASIS website and the AEC website for how it’s all going to work. There is still some tidying up to be done for the Australian systems, but the VEC’s implemantation of EML worked very well indeed, very especially on election night, where we were flooded with full election updates about every two minutes. They deserve congratulations. None of the recent brouhhaha over counting can be attributable to the use of EML.
When do you start your NSW blog William?
While you might still be reading this Adam, can you revive your 1970 Senate results. I’m interested to check the DLP performance in NSW in 1970. See comments at the end of the Re-groupers column.
And i’m off overseas this afternoon. Hectic year, glad it’s over.
1970 SENATE
NEW SOUTH WALES 2,455,958 enrolled, 2,295,811 (93.5%) voted
=====================================================
Six senators to be elected: Quota for election 294,924
——————————————————————–
Richard Bourke 49,996 02.4 Group A
George Matchett 2,803 00.1 Q:0.179
Diana Ward AP 105,244 05.1 Group B
Gordon Barton AP 5,153 00.2 Q:0.384
George Black AP 2,777 00.1
John Stewart 6,376 00.3 Group C
Michael McCormick 2,727 00.1 Q:0.031
Sidney Sheedy 8,719 00.4 Group D
Wendy Reed 3,806 00.2 Q:0.042
James MULVIHILL * ALP 926,060 44.9 ELECTED 1
James McClelland ALP 9,017 00.4 Group E
Arthur Gietzelt ALP 4,644 00.2 Q:3.186
John Kane DLP 142,228 06.9 Group F
Peter Keogh DLP 1,406 00.1 Q:0.490
Jan Van Der Rijt DLP 910 00.0
Hon Kenneth ANDERSON * Lib 773,814 37.5 ELECTED 2
John Carrick Lib 4,262 00.2 Group G
Thomas Bull * CP 8,153 00.4 Q:2.666
Brian Kilby 6,371 00.3 Q:0.022
——————————————————————–
231,345 (10.1%) informal 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
1. NSW elected six Senators because of the death of Hon Gerald
McKellar, a long-term Senator, in 1970. The sixth Senator elected
filled the remainder of McKellar’s term.
2. The combined Liberal-CP vote was 38.1%
3. The combined ALP vote was 45.5%
4. The combined DLP vote was 7.0%
——————————————————————–
2nd count: Mulvihill’s 631,136 surplus votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 202 (00.0) 50,198 02.4
Matchett 34 (00.0) 2,837 00.1
Ward 453 (00.1) 105,697 05.1
Barton 45 (00.0) 5,198 00.3
Black 27 (00.0) 2,804 00.1
Stewart 69 (00.0) 6,445 00.3
McCormick 75 (00.0) 2,802 00.1
Sheedy 231 (00.0) 8,950 00.4
Reed 239 (00.0) 4,045 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND 627,409 (99.4) 636,426 30.8 ELECTED 3
Gietzelt 935 (00.1) 5,579 00.3
Kane 857 (00.1) 143,085 06.9
Keogh 170 (00.0) 1,576 00.1
Van Der Rijt 33 (00.0) 943 00.0
ANDERSON * E 773,814 37.5 ELECTED 2
Carrick 228 (00.0) 4,490 00.2
Bull * 68 (00.0) 8,221 00.4
Kilby 61 (00.0) 6,432 00.3
——————————————————————–
> 631,136 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
3rd count: Anderson’s 478,890 surplus votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 158 (00.0) 50,356 02.4
Matchett 21 (00.0) 2,858 00.1
Ward 537 (00.1) 106,234 05.1
Barton 84 (00.0) 5,282 00.3
Black 24 (00.0) 2,828 00.1
Stewart 100 (00.0) 6,545 00.3
McCormick 40 (00.0) 2,842 00.1
Sheedy 59 (00.0) 9,009 00.4
Reed 54 (00.0) 4,099 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND 359 (00.1) 636,785 30.8 ELECTED 3
Gietzelt 41 (00.0) 5,620 00.3
Kane 945 (00.2) 144,030 07.0
Keogh 268 (00.1) 1,844 00.1
Van Der Rijt 59 (00.0) 1,002 00.0
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK 474,693 (99.1) 479,183 23.2 ELECTED 4
Bull * 1,195 (00.2) 9,416 00.5
Kilby 253 (00.1) 6,685 00.3
——————————————————————–
> 478,890 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
4th count: McClelland’s 341,861 surplus votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 44 (00.0) 50,400 02.4
Matchett 6 (00.0) 2,864 00.1
Ward 268 (00.1) 106,502 05.2
Barton 26 (00.0) 5,308 00.3
Black 15 (00.0) 2,843 00.1
Stewart 38 (00.0) 6,583 00.3
McCormick 26 (00.0) 2,868 00.1
Sheedy 71 (00.0) 9,080 00.4
Reed 62 (00.0) 4,161 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT 340,652 (99.6) 346,272 16.8 ELECTED 5
Kane 405 (00.1) 144,435 07.0
Keogh 45 (00.0) 1,889 00.1
Van Der Rijt 26 (00.0) 1,028 00.0
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 479,183 23.2 ELECTED 4
Bull * 137 (00.0) 9,553 00.5
Kilby 40 (00.0) 6,725 00.3
——————————————————————–
> 341,861 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
5th count: Carrick’s 184,259 surplus votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 17 (00.0) 50,417 02.4
Matchett 3 (00.0) 2,867 00.1
Ward 138 (00.1) 106,640 05.2
Barton 14 (00.0) 5,322 00.3
Black 5 (00.0) 2,848 00.1
Stewart 11 (00.0) 6,594 00.3
McCormick 4 (00.0) 2,872 00.1
Sheedy 12 (00.0) 9,092 00.4
Reed 8 (00.0) 4,169 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT 66 (00.0) 346,338 16.8 ELECTED 5
Kane 161 (00.1) 144,596 07.0
Keogh 35 (00.0) 1,924 00.1
Van Der Rijt 29 (00.0) 1,057 00.1
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 183,700 (99.7) 193,253 09.4
Kilby 56 (00.0) 6,781 00.3
——————————————————————–
> 184,259 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
6th count: Gietzelt’s 51,414 surplus votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 667 (01.3) 51,084 02.5
Matchett 13 (00.0) 2,880 00.1
Ward 1,950 (03.8) 108,590 05.3
Barton 35 (00.1) 5,357 00.3
Black 24 (00.0) 2,872 00.1
Stewart 156 (00.3) 6,750 00.3
McCormick 22 (00.0) 2,894 00.1
Sheedy 640 (01.2) 9,732 00.5
Reed 83 (00.2) 4,252 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 46,520 (90.5) 191,116 09.3
Keogh 104 (00.2) 2,028 00.1
Van Der Rijt 83 (00.2) 1,140 00.1
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 781 (01.5) 194,034 09.4
Kilby 336 (00.7) 7,117 00.3
——————————————————————–
> 51,414 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
7th count: Van Der Rijt’s 1,140 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 30 (02.6) 51,114 02.5
Matchett 7 (00.6) 2,887 00.1
Ward 36 (03.2) 108,626 05.3
Barton 8 (00.7) 5,365 00.3
Black 15 (01.3) 2,887 00.1
Stewart 25 (02.2) 6,775 00.3
McCormick 28 (02.5) 2,922 00.1
Sheedy 22 (01.9) 9,754 00.5
Reed 43 (03.8) 4,295 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 195 (17.1) 191,311 09.3
Keogh 542 (47.5) 2,570 00.1
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 137 (12.0) 194,171 09.4
Kilby 52 (04.6) 7,169 00.3
——————————————————————–
> 1,140 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
8th count: Keogh’s 2,570 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 81 (03.2) 51,195 02.5
Matchett 11 (00.4) 2,898 00.1
Ward 64 (02.5) 108,690 05.3
Barton 20 (00.8) 5,385 00.3
Black 13 (00.5) 2,900 00.1
Stewart 38 (01.5) 6,813 00.3
McCormick 53 (02.1) 2,975 00.1
Sheedy 102 (04.0) 9,856 00.5
Reed 130 (05.1) 4,425 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 1,551 (60.4) 192,862 09.3
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull 367 (14.3) 194,538 09.4
Kilby 140 (05.4) 7,309 00.4
——————————————————————–
> 2,570 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
9th count: Matchett’s 2,898 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 1,846 (63.7) 53,041 02.6
Ward 462 (15.9) 109,152 05.3
Barton 250 (08.6) 5,635 00.3
Black 89 (03.1) 2,989 00.1
Stewart 62 (02.1) 6,875 00.3
McCormick 52 (01.8) 3,027 00.1
Sheedy 30 (01.0) 9,886 00.5
Reed 23 (00.8) 4,448 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 37 (01.3) 192,899 09.3
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 31 (01.1) 194,569 09.4
Kilby 16 (00.6) 7,325 00.4
——————————————————————–
> 2,898 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
10th count: Black’s 2,989 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 257 (08.6) 53,298 02.6
Ward 725 (24.3) 109,877 05.3
Barton 1,246 (41.7) 6,881 00.3
Stewart 163 (05.5) 7,038 00.3
McCormick 210 (07.0) 3,237 00.2
Sheedy 55 (01.8) 9,941 00.5
Reed 65 (02.2) 4,513 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 118 (03.9) 193,017 09.3
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 106 (03.5) 194,675 09.4
Kilby 44 (01.5) 7,369 00.4
——————————————————————–
> 2,989 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
11th count: McCormick’s 3,237 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 354 (10.9) 53,652 02.6
Ward 282 (08.7) 110,159 05.3
Barton 229 (07.1) 7,110 00.3
Stewart 1,439 (44.5) 8,477 00.4
Sheedy 379 (11.7) 10,320 00.5
Reed 221 (06.8) 4,734 00.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 168 (05.2) 193,185 09.4
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 82 (02.5) 194,757 09.4
Kilby 83 (02.6) 7,452 00.4
——————————————————————–
> 3,237 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
12th count: Reed’s 4,734 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 242 (05.1) 53,894 02.6
Ward 461 (09.7) 110,620 05.3
Barton 109 (02.3) 7,219 00.3
Stewart 403 (08.5) 8,880 00.4
Sheedy 2,753 (58.2) 13,073 00.6
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 422 (08.9) 193,607 09.4
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 195 (04.1) 194,952 09.4
Kilby 149 (03.1) 7,601 00.4
——————————————————————–
> 4,734 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
13th count: Barton’s 7,219 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 952 (13.2) 54,846 02.7
Ward 4,531 (62.8) 115,151 05.6
Stewart 695 (09.6) 9,575 00.5
Sheedy 267 (03.7) 13,340 00.6
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 302 (04.2) 193,909 09.4
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 340 (04.7) 195,292 09.5
Kilby 132 (01.8) 7,733 00.4
——————————————————————–
> 7,219 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
14th count: Kilby’s 7,733 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 734 (09.5) 55,580 02.7
Ward 1,044 (13.5) 116,195 05.6
Stewart 700 (09.1) 10,275 00.5
Sheedy 747 (09.7) 14,087 00.7
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 1,158 (15.0) 195,067 09.4
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 3,350 (43.3) 198,642 09.6
——————————————————————–
> 7,733 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
15th count: Stewart’s 10,275 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 1,760 (17.1) 57,340 02.8
Ward 3,782 (36.8) 119,977 05.8
Sheedy 3,077 (29.9) 17,164 00.8
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 1,039 (10.1) 196,106 09.5
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 617 (06.0) 199,259 09.7
——————————————————————–
> 10,275 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
16th count: Sheedy’s 17,164 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Bourke 2,225 (13.0) 59,565 02.9
Ward 7,784 (45.4) 127,761 06.2
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 5,577 (32.5) 201,683 09.8
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 1,578 (09.2) 200,837 09.7
——————————————————————–
> 17,164 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
17th count: Bourke’s 59,565 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
Ward 55,753 (93.6) 183,514 08.9
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
Kane 2,294 (03.9) 203,977 09.9
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 1,518 (02.5) 202,355 09.8
——————————————————————–
> 59,565 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
18th count: Ward’s 183,594 votes distributed
——————————————————————–
MULVIHILL * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 1
McCLELLAND E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 3
GIETZELT E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 5
KANE 131,836 (71.8) 335,813 16.3 ELECTED 6
ANDERSON * E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 2
CARRICK E 294,924 14.3 ELECTED 4
Bull * 51,678 (28.1) 254,033 12.3
——————————————————————–
> 183,594 2,064,466
——————————————————————–
The terms of Mulvihill, Anderson, McClelland, Carrick and Gietzelt
began 1 July 1971 (but see Appointments for McClelland). Kane’s term
began 21 November 1970. Mulvihill, Anderson, McClelland, Carrick and
Gietzelt elected for a term ending 30 June 1977. Kane elected for a
term ending 30 June 1974 (remainder of Hon Gerald McKellar’s term).
Continuing senators (term to end 30 June 1974): Hon Robert COTTON
(Lib), Joseph FITZGERALD (ALP), Douglas McCLELLAND (ALP), Lionel \
MURPHY (ALP).
——————————————————————–
Senator Douglas Scott’s term ended and Kane’s term began on 21
November 1970 because Scott had been appointed to the remainder of
Senator Hon Gerald McKellar’s term in 1970. Scott did not contest
the 1970 election. Since McKellar’s term was technically unexpired,
Kane was held to have replaced Scott from the date of the election.
——————————————————————–
> Kenneth McColl Anderson (1909-85): Elected 1953, 1958, 1964, 1970
Minister for Supply to 2 August 1971
Minister for Health from 2 August 1971
> Thomas Louis Bull (1905-76): Elected 1964. Defeated 1970
Died 11 August 1976
> John Leslie Carrick (born 1918): Elected 1970
Born: 4 September 1918, Sydney
Career: Educated state schools, University of Sydney. Military
Service 194-45. Research officer, NSW Liberal Party 1946-48, General
Secretary NSW Liberal Party 1948-71.
> Robert Carrington Cotton (born 1915): Appointed 1965. Elected
1966, 1967
Minister for Civil Aviation
> Joseph Francis Fitzgerald (1912-85): Elected 1961, 1967
Fitzgerald retired in 1974.
> Arthur Thomas Gietzelt (born 1920): Elected 1970
Born: 28 December 1920, San Francisco, United States of America
Career: Educated state schools, Sydney. Employed in family business.
Military Service 1941-46. Sutherland Shire Council. Office-bearer,
NSW ALP.
> John Thomas Kane (1908-88): Elected 1970
Born: 23 July 1908, Burraga, NSW
Career: Educated catholic schools, Lithgow, NSW. Coalminer. Vice-
President Transport Workers Union 1952-56. Assistant General
Secretary NSW ALP 1952-55. Expelled from ALP 1955. General Secretary
NSW DLP 1956-71, Federal Secretary DLP 1957-71.
> Douglas McClelland (born 1926): Elected 1961, 1967
> James Robert McClelland (1915-99): Elected 1970
Born 3 June 1915, Melbourne
Career: Educated Catholic schools, University of Melbourne. Clerk in
Victorian Railways. Military Service 1943-46. Studied law, barrister
in Sydney and Wollongong, NSW. Leading labor lawyer.
> Gerald Colin McKellar (1903-70): Elected 1958, 1964
Minister for Repatriation to 12 November 1969
Died 13 April 1970 (see Appointments)
> Alister Maxwell McMullin (1900-84): Elected 1951, 1953, 1958,
1964. Retired 1970.
President of the Senate to 30 June 1971
Died 7 August 1984
> James Anthony Mulvihill (born 1919): Elected 1964, 1970
> Lionel Keith Murphy (1922-86): Elected 1961, 1967
> James Patrick Ormonde (1903-70): Appointed 1958, 1964. Retired
1970.
Died 30 November 1970 (while still a Senator: see Appointments)
——————————————————————–
Request for 1970 Senate counts.
Within one hour, it is produced by Adam Carr.
Please take holiday. Do not pass go.
And as for Moaning Joan, who never actually won an election herself and whose buddy then ALP State Secretary Jenny Beacham’s financial mismanagement nearly had the Victorian branch in receivership, I think her criticisms as Adam correctly points out need to be considered in context.
And the context is she was a dud, while in electoral terms at least, Steve Bracks is a stud.
After an all-nighter, I must now have my eighth coffee for the morning.
Thank you Adam. I’ve e-mailed it to London so I can check it there.
The 6th seat at that election is critical and therefore why it isn’t necessarily comparable to a VIC LC election.
In WMET there were dozens of ALP ATL votes which were actually valid BTL votes, including BTL for Greens. And I also found at least 15 votes allocated to ALP ATL which were in fact LIB ATL votes (they were in group B and C respectively). Many of the ALP ATL votes were actually informal, as they also showed a 1 against DLP. I guess some people hedged their bets and selected both the labor parties. On the other hand, a large number of greens BTL votes were informal cos many people can’t seem to be able to count to 5.
What has happened to the numbers from the latest Vic upper house results on the VEC website? As interesting as the result is, the numbers are pretty fun too.
NSW Election : 99 Days to go.
I can’t wait.
What are the chances of a challenge in Western Victoria?
As I was the person who originally mentioned the 1970 New South Wales Senate result I’ve decided to get in first before Antony Green looks at the figures in London. Anthony wants to look at the figures to see why they are not necessarily comparable to a VIC Legislative Council election, and I agree with the implied point he is making that there are differences between this count and the Victorian LC count, but there are also similarities.
I’d like to thank Antony for his contributions, which are normally spot on. These are the important differences, which I’m sure Antony will agree with.
These are that there was then no ATL voting, which didn’t exist in the Senate until 1984, and there was compulsory marking of preferences for all candidates, in that election in 1970 there were 19 candidates. This still exists for the Senate, but btl in the Vic LC it is only necessary to mark 1 to 5 btl for a vote to be valid.
There were also six vacancies to fill rather than at that time the normal five vacancies, courtesy of a quirk in the Consitution that was written at a time when almost all elections in Australia were conducted by simple majority (although in the first election of the Australian Parliament in 1901 the 5 Tasmanian House of Reps members and the six Tasmanian Senators were elected by proportional representation. The PR Society web site will have details on this for anyone who is interested). Gerald MacKellar, a Country Party Senator from NSW with a term due to expire on 30 June 1974, died in April 1970 and the election of the sixth Senator was to fill his vacancy for the remander of his unexpired term. The Sixth Senator elected took office on the date of the declaration of the poll, rather than on 1 July 1971 in the case of the other Senators elected at that poll. The Costitution was changed in 1977, and Senators are appointed to fill a vacancy by the parliament of the State concerned for the remainder of the unexpired term, not until the next election, a sensible change by the Fraser government as governments can be disadvantaged, or sometimes advantaged, by an accidental death, and that happened when the Menzies government I think had a majority after the 1958 election because a sixth Senator resulted in the replacement of a Labor by a Liberal Senator, but I’m not sure of that.
These points above are mentioned for the interest of readers but are not crucial to the point I will make later.
At that election in 1970 the quota was 294,924 and there were 2,064,466 valid votes.
Three ALP (Mulvihill, McLeland and Gietzelt) and two Liberals (Anderson and Carrick) were elected on first preferences and after the distribution of surpluses from the top two ALP candidates and the lead Liberal.
Gietzeld (ALP) was the fifth candidate elected and 46,520 votes from his surplus of 51,414 went directly to Jack Kane, the lead DLP candidate who, after that distribution, had 191,116 votes.
At the point of final exclusion thre candidates remained, and their votes were
Kane (DLP) 203977
Bull (Country Party) 202355
Ward (Australia Party) 183514
This means that excluded preferences from candidates after the distribution of Gietzelt went
Kane 12861
Bull 8321
Ward 74924
Of these an unknown number of votes that ended up with Ward, in second place on the ballot paper, would have been donkey votes from Democratic Party candidate Richard Bourke, with 49996 primary votes at first position on the ballot paper. Ward received 55753 votes transferred from Bourke, but many of these would have been votes received by Bourke during previous exclusions.
Kane was now elected on preferences from Ward at her exclusion. These went Kane 131836 and Bull 51678.
The final count was
Kane 335813
Bull 254033
I was probably wrong in suggesting that had the ALP preferenced Ward rather than Kane that Ward would have been elected. I now feel the most likely outcome would have been the election of the Bull on Kane’s preferences, for Kane would have been in third place at the final exclusion had the ALP Gietzelt surplus votes of 46520 that went to Kane had gone to Ward.
The 1970 NSW vote was clear cut, and there were no points at which a small difference in the vote at some point of exclusion could have changed the result, as was the case in each of Western Victoria, Western Metropolitan and Northern Metropolitan, although the latter was caused by a mistake which is easy to make, and as a Returning Officer I’ve made errors myself which have changed the result when they have been picked up, generally before the declaration of the poll as scrutineers can usually pick mistakes up and that is their job. It is, as the Greens are finding out, important to have good scrutineers.
I now feel the ALP in hindsight were correct in preferencing the DLP in NSW in 1970, although in that election there was no horsetrading and the decision was ostensibly made in the interests of ease of marking. In this case what we now call proximity voting may have resulted in the DLP win. The DLP were no doubt reminded of this many times in the Senate. This had consequences fo the Whitlam government, and the DLP in the period they controlled the Senate during that government from 1972 until 1974 at least supported Labor most of the time. The Coalition after 1974 certainly did not and the result is history.
I think the lesson of 1970 is that the correct allocation of preferences is crucial, and the ALP in Victoria were pragmatically correct, whatever some ALP members think of the DLP.
The principal lesson ought to be learned by voters. In Victoria they have the opportunity to vote below the line and if they do not like the way their preferred party allocates preferences above the line they should not accept that and should vote below the line.
Just as an historical anecdote Jack Kane was sued by Wilfred Burchett, the left wing author, over claims Kane made that Burchett was a Soviet agent. Kane defended the action, and a jury found in his favour and awarded costs against Burchett, which were probably never paid.
I would like to be able to claim bragging rights for predicting – in a comment on another thread – that the Greens would get up in Western Metropolitan, but in all honesty I can’t because that prediction was based on a misreading of the DLP’s GTV which Antony Green picked up and corrected. I always prefer to be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons.
Joan Kirner must have some interesting Christmas dinner conversations with her son Dave, who’s an official of the forestry union.
In my previous posting I referred to the DLP controlling the Senate. I was in error. The DLP never controlled the Senate, for they never held more than five out of sixty Senators. The DLP held the balance of power, for neither the ALP nor the Coalition held a majority of Senators for much of the time the DLP was able to elect Senators.
This posting may appear twice so apologies for that.
Chris Curtis wrote about the DLP victory in Gordon NSW in 1974 last week.
In Crikey which I’ve just received in my inbox Malcolm Mackerras has an expanded article on the same subject.
What the hell, let’s reprint it. I’m sure they won’t mind.
where can a breakdown of figures, complete with a distribution of the eliminated votes, for the upper houses be found? the vec website is close to useless
Antony…(You’re probably on your way to London as I type this.)
In the previous thread you stated that you were mystified that I would want to abolish GVTs. My partisan comment would be that it has worked well to elect parties I would support, but my non-partisan comment is that it may deliver results that do not reflect the electorate’s will (although in this election where the preference arrangements were reasonably aligned with ideology, I suspect it delivered the right result).
If we could find a way to remove GVT’s without increasing the informal vote, then I am all for it. I believe there is a way that this could be done with minimal impact on informality, by smarter design of the ballot paper. Just the removal of GVTs itself would limit the number of parties, as many may be in it hopeful of winning the harvest lottery; or even worse, as a front party solely to be used as a harvest source for another party.
If the left half of the ballot paper listed the party/groups and the right side listed the candidates within these groups, then the ballot will have a similar look and feel to the lower house. I believe this is similar to the WA ballot paper.
The instructions would be to number ALL groups on the left OR number ALL candidates to the right. The former option would deliver the preferences to the candidates in list order within the group; the latter option is available for those who wanted to arrange their own order of preference of the candidates. In this way CPV applies equally to the lower house as it does the upper house. This consistency would limit one source of informality in the lower house at least.
I understand the reasons for your aversion to CPV, but my concern is that OPV may distort the intent of the voter also, if he does not understand that just meeting the minimum requirements for formality may not give an adequate reflection of his total preference, and that his vote may therefore be discounted in the determination of the ultimate winner.
In this election there were a maximum of 12 groups. I think that most Australian voters can count to a dozen. There may be more on some state Senate tickets, though as stated, with GVTs removed this would be far less attractive and registration requirements could be made tougher. (I don’t think you would need to tip the booth attendant as he hands you your roll before you enter the booth to “use†your ballot paper.) As we move towards electronic voting, voter input could be validated for formality, thus eliminating the informality concern in the longer run.
Hare-Clark gives a true reflection of the voters’ preference, and I would much prefer that to the divisor method suggested by the Speaker. (We wouldn’t want all the effort he put into his Fortune Telling Calculator to be wasted.)
Comments on this proposal anyone?
Mackerras is wrong. Harrold quit the DLP after the Gair affair and contested the 1976 election as an independent.
Adam,
Something now makes sense to me after 30 years. In January 1976, as I was leaving a session of the DLP federal conference in Sydney, I heard Jim Brosnan say to Kevin Harrold words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry. We’ll give you support in the election.’ By ‘we’, he meant the Victorian DLP. Given that the rest of the country was at that stage ready to shut up shop and the Victorians wanted to keep going, I took his statement to mean that, as Kevin Harrold would not be getting any support from the about-to-be non-existent NSW DLP, the Victorian DLP, which would fight on, would do so even in NSW. (Shades of 1955!) The aspect of this that does not make sense is: what was Kevin Harrold doing at the 1976 DLP federal conference of the DLP if he had resigned from the party in 1974? His contesting the 1976 election as an independent could simply indicate that there was no DLP banner under which to contest it.
A similar situation to this will happen in a years’ time when there are no Democrats Senators and Sandra Kanck is the last MP standing.
Maybe we will see them make a comeback in thirty years time too ?
The DLP, like the ALP from which it sprang, was a federal party with autonomous state divisions. The NSW Division shut down sometime after the 1975 election, which was the last one Kane contested, leaving Harrold an MP without a party. So I may be wrong in saying he resigned from the DLp – maybe it just dissolved around him. In any case he stood as an independent in 1976. The Victorian Division of the DLP, which was of course much the strongest, contested the 1977 federal election, and was then dissolved. The “new” DLP was formed soon after.
I doubt the Democrats will linger very long once they lose their Senators next year. Prediction: Natasha S-D will wait a decent interval then join the ALP. She’s still young enough to have a whole new career. She’s the only one of the recent Democrat Senators I’d want to bother finding a seat for.
Adam,
I wouldn’t hold your breath. I would hope Natasha would have some knowledge of the internal workings of the ALP. And besides, I don’t think she wants to be remembered for being another Cheryl. And dare I say it she might be too left for Labor tastes these days…
A big problem for the Democrats was their lack of a base volunteer group. Even in their heyday when the Greens had very little representation (none in Victoria), the Greens could match or better Democrat volunteers.
The Democrats were in effect a top down party. They will have trouble registering 500 members in Victoria if Lyn Allison is defeated.
‘if’?
NSD has been in Canberra long enough to have a very realistic view of the ALP and its deeply lovable nature. She is also not a total flake like Kernot. And she is actually very moderate these days. If Garrett can do it so can she.
Lyn Allison will barely trouble the scorers next year. The only question is whether her seat will go to the ALP or the Greens. (In theory it could of course go to FF again, but I am confident the ALP primary vote will rise, which will prevent that happening even if the preference deal is repeated.)
Will the VEC be publishing the below-the-li9ne data. Overall the conduct of this election was appalling the error demonstrating that there were serious deficiency.
Whilst Antony Green seeks to provide an apology for the VEC by falsely claiming that the election is subject scrutiny. Yes and no. The fact remains you can not effectually scrutinise and electronic count would access to the detailed electronic data-file. So called Scrutineers are effectively nothing more then observers. There is much more to scrutineering then observing the count. Its like watch a con man and the three shells and a pea underneath one. The con man shuffles the halls and asks the scrutineers to nominate which shell the pea is under. He lifts up the selected shell and shows that the pea is not there but he refuses to show whats under the other shells.
Vital information related to the number of ballot papers issued, polling booth results and below-the line preference data was not provided. IN not providing this information the Chief Electoral Commissioner has denied a op-en and transparent election . Much more can and must be done to ensure that our elections are open and transparent and that the public are properly informed. the refusal of Steven Tully to provide this information when requested undermines public confidence in his ability to provide an honest open and transparent election. The system as it stands is widely open to abuse and mistakes.
This election if anything highlights the inefficiency of the VEC and demonstrates that much more needs to be done to ensure that electronic counted elections are open and transparent. The VEC needs to undertake a serious review of its policy and obligations to ensure that the results of our elections are open and transparent.
Hopefully in the future the media will not circumvent the need for the VEC to publish details of the count.
If anything the yo-yo “fly by the wind” approach to the election must not be repeated.
We will again request that the information be published and if the VEC refuses to make this information available we will again take them to court to ensure that the elections results are published in detail.
The Chief Commissioner continues to abuse his position by not making this information readily available. If he cannot fulfill his obligation to provide an honest open and transparent election then he should resign or be replaced. Given the extent of errors in the VEC administration of the count and the fact that they had accessed the e-voting results illegally prior to the close of the poll on November 25 warrants a recount and review.
Given the disgraceful and poor quality of the election count. The VEC should be required to undertake a recount of Western Victoria until it has confirmed the same result at twice. Anything short of that would leave the VEC open to questions of doubt as to the integrity, quality and professionalism of their conduct of the election . I have been actively involved in scrutiny of public elections for over 30 years and this would have to be the the worst unaccountable conduct of an elections I have ever seen. Steve Tully must be held accountable along with the VEC’s senior staff. Its time we seriously consider having one single independent professional electoral authority as opposed to this current group of amateurs. Tully MUST resign.
There has been an extraordinary wailing and gnashing of teeth at the DLP’s winning a seat in the Legislative Council. There are still people who think the ALP made a mistake. It did not. It knew exactly what it was doing. It gave us the most representative Upper House we have had. It allowed minor groups direct representation in the parliamentary process. It almost allowed Labor to govern without needing support from the Greens.
I am certain that hard-headed, intelligent ALP operators would not have needed even a nonosecond to prefer an Upper House in which DLP support would be enough to carry government legislation. Probably 90 per cent plus of the ALP platform would have DLP support.
But we can’t let facts get in the way of an opportunity for indignation, can we? Journalists keep making simple factual errors:
‘Geelong MP Elaine Carbines was also narrowly defeated by DLP candidate Peter Kavanagh in the seat of Western Victoria largely because of her party’s preferences to the DLP.’ (Farrah Tomazin, “Christmas session to pass promisesâ€, The Age, 15/12/2006)
So the ALP candidate would have miraculously won if her preferences had gone to, say, the Greens, despite the fact that she was the candidate being excluded and her preferences were the ones being counted. How?
As I said in a so far unpublished letter to the editor of the Herald Sun:
‘The whinging over the results of the election is ridiculous. The result is just. Voters are free to vote below the line for any candidates in any order they like. If they choose not to, they have to accept the deals negotiated by the various political parties.
‘The Legislative Council is now more representative of the way people voted than it has been in any past post-war multi-party election. It is to the everlasting credit of the Bracks Government that it reformed the Upper House after the Liberals broke their 1973 election promise to do so.
‘The combined vote of the two Labor parties can still defeat any Opposition moves, even though they cannot carry any legislation without the support of the Greens, the Nationals or the Liberals. This represents the way people actually voted and will be no more than a minor hindrance to the Labor Government.
‘Yours sincerely,
Chris Curtis
(Vice President, Victorian DLP, 1976-78)
‘e-mailed to hsletters@heraldsun.com.au
as Labor still carries the day’
Melb City : The Result in Western Victoria has been counted twice, and a DLP win the result both times, did you mean West Metro ?
I’m sure the ALP would call for another recount if they thought they still had a chance.
You do know that Garrett is a social conservative. He would have been wrong in the Greens. Also watch out for if he has to push some anti-environment stuff like opening up more uranium mining.
Natasha, is happy leaving politics. The ALP must be very thin on talent to always try for mps and ex mps from other parties and “celebrity candidates”.
It’s probably true that ALP preference negotiators understood the consequences of the DLP preference deal. Conservative minor parties work for a dominant ALP government, as opposed to a weakened ALP opposition federally which clearly hasn’t been helped by Family First being elected.
But that just makes it even more shameful that the ALP would align with the DLP.
Ah Dinesh. When the ALP preselects people from within our own ranks, we are accused by all and sundry of promoting “factional hacks” and “union bosses”. When we preselect people from outside our own ranks we are accused of “celebrity hunting.” From exactly where are we supposed to recruit our candidates? At random from the phone book?
I have no personal knowledge of NSD’s intentions, but I have worked in Parlt House for four years and have seen a fair bit of her. I don’t think she is sick of politics. She has been distracted by motherhood and illness, but she is a professional politician and I don’t think she would want to walk away from that when she is only 37 and has loads of talent. Since the Dems are defunct she has to choose between Labor and the Greens. My suspicion is that she has seen enough of crossbench politics and would like to join the main game. I may be quite wrong.
Tony Lamb, the former ALP MHR during the Whitlam era who now lives in Canberra, has a letter in The Age this morning supporting the introduction of a threshold like he says they do in Europe to keep minor parties from being elected. He suggests five per cent.
Tony Lamb, to introduce a bit of history, is the son of Hamilton Lamb, who was a Country Party MLA in Victoria. He held the seat of Lowan, the seat now held for the National Party by Mary Delahunty’s brother Hugh.He died as a pow of the Japanese in WW2, being captured while serving in the Australian Army. He was the only member of an Australian parliament to die an active service during WW2. Tony Lamb was criticised by Margaret Tighe on ABC radio on one occasion when he was an ALP candidate. Mrs Tighe said he and David McKenzie were most unsuitable to be members of the federal parliament. In other words she opposed their views on abortion. David McKenzie took this endorsement by Mrs Tighe as a compliment. I don’t know how Tony Lamb felt about it.
Tony Lamb is really advocating a party list system of PR. This has been used (admitedly with variations) in the ACT and SA in Australia, and in both cases was replaced with a version of the single transferable vote.
I do not support Tony Lamb’s views on this. I do not support a threshold. The solution is for voters to vote below the line if they feel the decision of party organisations who advocate a vote atl is not to their liking.
There has been a reshuffle of portfolios in the WA government. The local government Minister has been replaced after a disgusting and dishonest advertising campaign by the WA local government association, using money that really comes from residents and ratepayers of local government areas.
The use of simple majority voting is the matter at issue. The new local government minister is more to the likeing of theWA lg assn but let’s hope he doesn’t fall for their propaganda. PR in WA lg is desirable, as it is in those Victorian councils at present elected by single member wards.
Sorry I was in transit having left Istanbul.
Yes I was referring to Western Metro results not western Vic although I think given the monumental stuff up in Northern Metro the VEC if requested should recount any disputed result. It seems to me that if the result is different then the VEC if requested should recount the vote until the result has been confirmed at least twice.
I strongly disagree with Antony’s apologist remarks defending the VEC. Clearly he has a personal and commercial bias. The conduct of this election and the lack of information and accountability was appalling and can not be justified (Unless you are the beneficiary of keeping everyone else in the dark).
It is impossible to properly scrutinise the results of an electronic count election without access to
1. The number of ballot papers issued.
2. The breakdown of the initial count by polling place
and 3. (most important with electronic counts) Access to the btl preference data.
Yes the manual voting system does allow for a recount but unless scrutineers can verify the data that is being entered into the computer which means that they must have access to the btl preference data file then they can not verify that the results are true and accurate. The onus is on the VEC to publish the btl preference data file. It isua public document and there is no reason why it should not be readily available.
I have already established the public’s rights of access this information having taken the City of Melbourne and the AEC to VCAT and won hands down. The City Council having spent over $60,000 trying to falsely argue that the secret ballot provisions prevented the disclosure of the detailed results of the election.
The fact that the VEC has not published this data and made it readily available when requested leaves the question WHY? Why has the VEC not provided this information? What is it they are trying to hide?
The VEC clearly made monumental stuff up in Northern Metro and there are issues with their count in Western Metro. Analysis of the limited published data indicated that the VEC had incorrectly entered the above the line data or that there is a serious flaw in the VEC computer system.
I note with concern that the VEC has withdrawn from publication the breakdown of the first preference data results. WHY?
With the results of our elections now determined in e-space it is fundamental that the VEC and its Chief Commissioner, Steve Tully, publish the detailed election results including the below the line preference date files.
I have been campaigning for 10 years now that this information and copies of the data files must be readily available for public review.
Previously we were told that this information would be made available. But in spite numerous requests Mr Tully has refused to make this information available. WHY? Without this data it is impossible to properly scrutinise and independently verify the results of the election.
It is fundamental that public elections are open and transparent.
If Mr Tully is unable to provide an open and transparent electoral process then Mr Tully should resign or be sacked.
Publish the BTL data and the detailed count sheets NOW… if not then expect another application to VACT and a request for costs against the VEC for abusing the FOI system and teh right of the public to have access
Sorry I was in transit having left Istanbul.
Yes I was referring to Western Metro results not western Vic although I think given the monumental stuff up in Northern Metro the VEC if requested should recount any disputed result. It seems to me that if the result is different then the VEC if requested should recount the vote until the result has been confirmed at least twice.
I strongly disagree with Antony’s apologist remarks defending the VEC. Clearly he has a personal and commercial bias. The conduct of this election and the lack of information and accountability was appalling and can not be justified (Unless you are the beneficiary of keeping everyone else in the dark).
It is impossible to properly scrutinise the results of an electronic count election without access to
1. The number of ballot papers issued.
2. The breakdown of the initial count by polling place
and 3. (most important with electronic counts) Access to the btl preference data.
Yes the manual voting system does allow for a recount but unless scrutineers can verify the data that is being entered into the computer which means that they must have access to the btl preference data file then they can not verify that the results are true and accurate. The onus is on the VEC to publish the btl preference data file. It isua public document and there is no reason why it should not be readily available.
I have already established the public’s rights of access this information having taken the City of Melbourne and the AEC to VCAT and won hands down. The City Council having spent over $60,000 trying to falsely argue that the secret ballot provisions prevented the disclosure of the detailed results of the election.
The fact that the VEC has not published this data and made it readily available when requested leaves the question WHY? Why has the VEC not provided this information? What is it they are trying to hide?
The VEC clearly made monumental stuff up in Northern Metro and there are issues with their count in Western Metro. Analysis of the limited published data indicated that the VEC had incorrectly entered the above the line data or that there is a serious flaw in the VEC computer system.
I note with concern that the VEC has withdrawn from publication the breakdown of the first preference data results. WHY?
With the results of our elections now determined in e-space it is fundamental that the VEC and its Chief Commissioner, Steve Tully, publish the detailed election results including the below the line preference date files.
I have been campaigning for 10 years now that this information and copies of the data files must be readily available for public review.
Previously we were told that this information would be made available. But in spite numerous requests Mr Tully has refused to make this information available. WHY? Without this data it is impossible to properly scrutinise and independently verify the results of the election.
It is fundamental that public elections are open and transparent.
If Mr Tully is unable to provide an open and transparent electoral process then Mr Tully should resign or be sacked.
Publish the BTL data and the detailed count sheets NOW… if not then expect another application to VACT and a request for costs against the VEC for abusing the FOI system and the rights of the public to have access to the detailed results of the election