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.
76 votes can easily be added unjustly to the system by the distortion in the paper based formula that clearly distorts the one vote one value principal used to calculate the surplus.
Adam is correct. Labor tends to go with known quantities:
Stephen Fielding apparently stood for Labor preselection prior to joining Family First and getting elected. Labor was more comfortable with him than they were with a Greens Senator, but maybe not now after his notable support for Howard’s legislation. But “thats politics”.
Of course they knew the DLP could get elected, as Family First did. Adam is correct on this too – the only thing they care about is political advantage – they worry about the consequences later. And yes, the electorate tends to “get over it” fairly quickly. Most actually remain oblivious to the machinations, and probably still think that “the Greens preference the Liberals because Steve said so”.
Regarding Melb City’s crusade on transparency, I support the proposition that all data associated with the votes and counts should be be published and available. Scrutineering is OK, but only at a point in time. Good to see he is off he Turkish keyboard (not offence intended to Turks).
Take a look at the results site published by the VEC. http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state2006resultbyelectorateUH.html What a disgrace all they have published is the names of who has won. No information on the scores, the count fold up or any below the line data. Add this to the fact that the results of the election seam to change willy nilly and information is missing and most people are left in the dark as to the process. (So much for Tully’s rhetoric about educating the public)
Can you imagine the outrage if the results of the AFL, Tennis or Grand Prix only listed the names of who or what teams won.
re the scrutiny of the count… the only VEC pay lip service to scrutineers and treat them as mere observers. Again without relevant information it is impossible to effectively scrutinise the election. An election that is not open and transparent is open to abuse and corruption. The election MUST be seen to be above board. The miscounts show that the computerised system is not as “fool proof” as we were lead to believe. We have already identified a number of issues related to data quality and accuracy, issues related to security and concern about the VEC illegally access the data files and counting the e-voting centers data prior to the close of the pols and in the absence of scrutineers.; YES a parliamentary inquiry is a must. All aspects of the VEC MUST be under review and the VEC and Tully must be held accountable.
Again WHY has the VEC refused to publish this public document and provide access to the full facts and details surrounding the count?
The VEC has just published first preference data related to the recount. Still missing is the count fold up and the detailed below the line preference data. An open and transparent election demands that this information along with information on polling place results and statistics on postal and absentee votes needs to also be published. This information should have been available prior to the re-count and progressively updates with an explanation of any changes. The poor administration and management of the election seriously undermines public confidence in Victoria’s public elections bring the parliament and the government into disrepute.
It would also be useful if the VEC published the statewide votes by party for the upper house as they have for the lower house to compare them to previous upper house statewide votes by party.
The VEC website shows the statewide lower house vote for the Greens at just over 10%, which is more than they got last time, so that stuff that was being said about a decline in the Green vote were wrong it increased on the late vote. (Was the distribution of votes timings similar last time?).
Tom it would be useful if the VEC published all data but most important is the count sheet and the detailed below-the-line preference data. Why has this information not been published. If you have access to the detailed results you can then analyze the results in what ever way you wish. Without it the public are denied the full facts. The fact that the VEC stuffed up big time in the conduct of the first count raises serious doubt about the conduct of the electronic count. A counting process we were assured was infallible. But then they said the titanic would not sink either. The fact is the system is seriously flawed and wide open to errors. By not publishing the detailed results brings the conduct of the election into further disrepute. IT MUST COME CLEAN, PUBLISH THE FULL DETAILS OF THE COUNT AND PROVIDE AN ELXPLAINATION WHER IT WENT WRONG? The longer they delay in publishing the detailed results the more public confidence is undermined.
In those electorates where there was a change of results there should be an additional recount to ensure that the second result is in fact true and correct. Without access to the detailed preference data it is impossible to verify the correctness of the results. WHY DOES The VEC CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO PUBLISH THE DETAILED RESULTS. IT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
These issues and concerns about the need for the VEC to publish detailed results were raised in the Victorian Parliament two and a half years ago.
If the ALP Government fail to address this issue then the Parliament must take the lead. This issue was previously raised with Rub Hulls and John Lenders who has to date have turned a blind eye and buried thier head in the sand. Hopefully now the ALP has lost control of the upper-house, the Parliament will undertake a review of the VEC and, in the absence of self regulation, legislate ensure that future elections are open and transparent and all information and detailed are made public as a matter of course.
In reply to Lyle re WA local government, I interviewed the new minister John Bowler this week and he won’t be reversing the government’s decision to introduce proportional preferential voting for council elections.
In typical unprofessional standards the results published by the VEC do not match the results of the latest XML file.
Whilst Steve Tully tries to make excuses for the poor conduct of the election, blaming it on the long staff hours. I do not except this excuse.
The VEC should have known before the count button was pressed how many ballot papers had been issued and how many were returned. This is the exact information that we had sort from the VEC prior to and following the November Poll. Information that Tully refused to provided. A quick tally of the recorded data-entry primary votes should have halted the computer program with a warning that the total tally does not match the recorded results. This would have provided a clear indication that the VEC staff had made a serious data entry error. The fact that they had to work late in the night to determine the extent and cause of the error is difficult to excuse. Had teh VEC commisisoner provided the information we requested it would have been plain to anyone where the location of the problem lies. This was the reason we had requested this information and the reason why this information is normally provided but not in this election. this information provides a quick check digit that the data recorded is in within expected limits. In accounting terms it is a trial balance.
It was incompetenace and ego that brought teh conduct of Victioria’s electoral system into disrepute .
The problem is not in the system but the management and refusal of the Victorian Electoral Commissioner to provide necessary vital information that ensures that the election is open and transparent and subject to effe`ctive scrutiny. Steve Tully can try and find excuses in an attenpot to obsolve himself from any responsibility for the biggest stuff up in Victorian electoral history. in spite his claims the fact remains he is responsible and is the main cause and he should be held accountable. His refusal to provide access to the requested information warrants a parliamnetay review and his resignation.
`
`
am curious. Where exactly did the VEC make this monumental error of stupidity? The age newspaper http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dlp-loses-seat-in-recount/2006/12/14/1165685825280.html reports that the mistake was in a data entry error instead of 40666 they recorded 46666 votes to the Liberal Party. Limited information published by the VEC shows that the Liberal Party received an above-the-line vote of 81000 + votes. Where exactly was the requirement for the VEC to enter in 40666 votes?
Again without access to detailed election results there is no way to independently verify or analysis the election result. What is clear is that the information published by the VEC just does not add up.
Hang on a minute. Assuming that the conservative bloc of Libs, Nats, Groupers will vote together, and that we won’t see a Barnaby Joyce-like figure rise out of the Labor caucus, doesn’t this mean that effectively the Greens have the balance of power? Why is this fact not being shouted from the rooftops given the veritable orgy of speculation around it before the election?
Why do you think the DLP will vote with the ‘conservative bloc’?
Kavanagh has said he will support the government:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dlp-survivor-to-back-bracks/2006/12/14/1165685801866.html
Oh ye grizzlers and whingers, get ye to the Sunday Age and read Jason Dowling’s piece on the Extreme Cunning of the Great Braxy, who hath wrought the Legislative Council into a genuine house of review and at the same time hath also smote the Liberals hip and thigh, yea unto 2010 and beyond. This explaineth why a little judicious help to the DLP was a worthwhile investment for the longterm security of the Labor government. Forgettest thou not that Saint Braxy is a Ballarat Catholic and thus represents the Real Presence of the 1955 split in His sacred person. Far from being an enemy of Labor, Brother Kavanagh is the Prodigal Grouper, returning to the ample breast of the One True Faith.
Adam,
Jason Dowling, the political journalist and, from my reading of the article to which you refer, obviously not the grandson of Frank Dowling, twice describes the current DLP as ‘ultra-conservative’ and informs us that any ‘extremist proposals’ it might put up could be ‘blocked or modified by the “mainstream†Bracks Government’ (“Labor seizes the centreâ€, The Sunday Age, 17/12/2006). I am so relieved. I do not know what ‘ultra-conservative’ means, but I am relieved to know that the Bracks Government is ‘mainstream’ and that its 19 votes will be sufficient in a house of 40 to block anything ‘extremist’ from the DLP. I hope those 19 votes are also magic enough to block anything ‘extremist’ from the 15 Libs, the three Greens and the two Nats, or will the ALP need the one DLPer to do that? Someone should run a sweep on how often the two Labor parties vote together. I pick 70 per cent.
I also predict that, no matter how often Peter Kavanagh votes with the ALP, come the next election, the same anti-DLP venom will be sprayed all over the body politic, the same sort of preference deals will be done and, should they be successful, the same people will still think that of the result as a dreadful, unintended mistake and travesty and wonder why Labor hasn’t learnt from its successes. Thank God for déjà vu.
I have been fascinated by the outpouring of bile on the DLP’s victory. It brings back such memories. So much hatred for so little gain! But I do wonder why I, whose membership of the DLP ended when the party disbanded in 1978, have more to say on the subject than all of the current members put together.
Bile does no-one any good.
Adam, The article is a bit simplistic don’t you think? By the way … your views seem to be moving to the right at every breath.
Chris, Like Family First DLP will not get preferences form Labor again. Remember Labor stamped “no deal” with family First all over it’s ads in the Gay press.
Labor desperately needs the gay vote to keep it’s Green marginals (former safe Labor seats). The DLP’s election through Labor preferences gives the Greens the best weapon against Labor next time around. Let’s see Bronny whining her way out of this one on JoyFM.
Dinesh you continue to overeasimate the gay vote. People do not vote based on sexuality. You continue to make this claim but have failed to backup it up with any facts. You think Gays vote Green ALP and not copnservative. Far from it. Maybe the gay movement you hang around. thew cfatr is unless there is a major civil rights issue the Gay communities vote each way. I rember Josheph Riley and when I met5 woth him in Sydney I realised then that he was not going top win Prahran. In the same way that I do not vote based on a candidates sexuality. I loook first at teh candiadte then I consider the party they belong to, the social connections and what is mosty likely going to infulence their vote. In most cases decisons aree made by the party not the individual. The question is what can the individual bring to the party? I certiasnly do not vote for someone based on their sexuality. You contonue to demonstate and unrealistic fixation. Please dear get real.
Come to think about it one of my good friends who was gay was also catholic and his family always voted DLP… he also… Gosh compared to Dinish you would think all gays would vote Green. And I thought the Lib that was a drunk driver was gay/ was he really Green … 🙂 Adam what are your thoughts do the gay vote, vote Green or on block? I think not.
“Labor desperately needs the gay vote to keep it’s Green marginals (former safe Labor seats). The DLP’s election through Labor preferences gives the Greens the best weapon against Labor next time around. Let’s see Bronny whining her way out of this one on JoyFM.”
What quantum does the gay vote comprise? And does a voter’s sexuality mean anything in relation to how they vote?
Did segmentation really matter in South Met?
There was a lot of debate about “segmentation†here in the last fortnight. I might still have this wrong, but “segmentationâ€, as the term is used here, seems to refer to the practice of dealing with full-value primaries and full-value received votes in 2 batches at a cut-up. The Senate system doesn’t separate the two batches. Both systems otherwise cut up votes with the same-value each in a single batch. This can affect how big a surplus a receiving party may receive when the cut-up occurs.
Below are two simulations, using known ATL and BTL votes (not finals- they have not been published separately?). The left-hand data is WITHOUT segmentation and the right-hand data is WITH segmentation. I simulated the BTL based on scrutineering results. The results are shown as progressive totals for the competing candidates, following counts 25, 26 and 27- 25 is the DEM/PPV exclusion. LIB and FFV are still in the race too, but they don’t matter.
In the end, the result is barely perceptibly different. With segmentation, at count 26, the GRN have a smaller surplus and the ALP has a larger progressive total than without segmentation. The difference in each case is about 650 votes, attributable to the different way the PPV BTL vote goes in each case. At the next count (GRN surplus distribution) this largely reverses, but not completely. The result is that the ALP has a surplus of 1216 WITHOUT segmentation and a surplus of 1222 WITH segmentation.
DEM ALP GRN SURPLUS | DEM ALP GRN SURPLUS
25 10383 52264 58642 | 10383 52264 58642
26 0 56487 64802 4768 | 0 57155 64134 4100
27 0 61225 60034 1216 | 0 61251 60034 1222
So what was the crucial change to the exclusion in Western Metro that Colleen Hartland elected on the recount?
Antony’s ABC website still shows Henry Barlow elected: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/vic/2006/results/wmet.htm
Was it the People Power or Family First exclusion that changed?
Does this mean that Henry Barlow was the last excluded and his Labor preferences elected a Green? If so, was this the only place where the Green-Labor deal worked in the Greens favour (given that it had no effect in NMET, SMET and WVIC)?
Guys and Gals we have requested that the VEC come clean and published the detailed results including the below-the-line preference data. The VEC has failed to respond to the request to date. It is fundamental that our elections are open and transparent. This information MUST be published and the VEC must be held accountable.
For those interested we have also published the Dodgy preliminary results count sheet that the VEC refused to make public!!!
Yes Tully’s folly… We have also called for a Parliamentary review of the overall conduct of the election. There are many questions asked that need answers such as why was the information requested on the number of ballot papers issued not provided? Why was there no verification that the number of primary votes plus the number of informal votes checked to see that they tallyed with the number of votes issued and received back .
It is in our view that the VEC should also undertake a final recount in Western Victoria to confirm the results. The count should produce the same overall result in at least two counts.
Those that want a copy of the VEC dodgy results summary sheet can down load a copy here http://melbcity.topcities.com/VEC-Dodgyresults.zip
The VEC results have been every which way in the same way as the VEC results are dodgy. Without access to detailed information (Polling Place breakdown, below the line preference data etc) it is impossible to provide a proper and detailed analysis.
I have also not been able to find the 46666 data entry that the VEC claimed it had keyed-in in by mistake. Could be that the media has been conned and they have failed to verify the facts behind the monumental stuff-up. Honestly there is no excuse. The number of primary votes plus the number of informal votes should have equalled the number of ballot papers issued and received back. Its a pretty basic check and one that is normally undertaken. This is the exact reason why we had requested from the VEC statistics on the number of ballot papers issued and returned. information that Steve Tully refused to provide. Information that the VEC should have made public. Too many people here are letting the VEC off the hook on this one and worrying way too much about the gay pride then the pride in a fair and honest, open and transparent election.
It is also worth taking a look at the the Surplus transfer value of the elected candidates and you begin to see the value of votes that had already been counted and formed a p[art of a previous surplus increase in value and the primary votes of full value decrease in value disproportionally to their original value. So much for the one vote one value principle.. Segmentation was designed to ease the manual counting of the ballot and to minimise then effect of the distortion in the calculation of the surplus transfer value. It is the grouping together of all the secondary primary votes that is of considerable concern. If a value based transfer calculation was adopted then you could do away with segmentation altogether and have one transaction/distribution per candidate with reminders remaining with the candidate. The system was well and truly outdated before it was adopted.
Geoff do you have access to the below-the-line prefernce data? You should run a count with a value based surplus formula and a then a count based on the current paper based formula and you will see the reuslts change again. The paper based forumula inflates that party vote considerable. Depending where the election of the firth candidate occurs (If it is in the secondary oprinary distribution) the result change due to how you segment will be change significantly also in a close race it could easily produce a different result. I have not been raising this issue for no valid reason. Its a clear principle and a serious flaw in the system adopted. It is worst where there is no above-the-line voting such as in local government elections.
The VEC figures on the website (all that I have available) are older than Antony G’s, so that makes any response to your questions speculative.
I think that the answer – by inference – is that there was significant leakage of BTL votes which Antony had assumed would go to Labor rather than the Greens (or specifically to Henry Barlow, as he benefited from an idiosyncratic DLP preference to him but not to the other Labor candidates). Antony’s estimates have the margin of Barlow over Hartland as almost 3,000 votes, prior to the final exclusion. So this margin had to be over-turned to produce the result.
The only other possible explanation is that AG’s calculations were based on 92.65% of the count, so that Hartland (and the Democrats who preferenced her) may have surged in the final votes, and that plus leakage from Labor eliminated this 3,000 vote advantage.
Then, as you say, Labor would have been excluded and pushed Hartland beyond a quota at the expense of the Liberals’ 2nd candidate, Reynolds.
The Greens would point out that, despite the outcome, the Western Metro deal was no more favourable for the Greens than elsewhere, as the Labor allocation followed a similar pattern – PP-DLP-Democrats-Green. The difference was that the DLP polled poorly in Western Metro and didn’t stay in long enough for ALP prefs to help them.
It doesn’t seem that the order of exclusion of Democrats-DLP-PP-FF nattered, as it was always going to finish with Reynolds (Liberal), Barlow (Labor) and Hartland (Greens) contending for the final spot.
MelbCity said:Geoff do you have access to the below-the-line prefernce data? You should run a count with a value based surplus formula and a then a count based on the current paper based formula and you will see the reuslts change again.
Doh… do you mean Weighted Inclusive Gregory versus Plain Vanilla Inclusive Gregory?
The only way we can get access to the BTL data , at a distance, is by listening to what the scrutineers tell us.
The Gay vote in Melbourne metro is significant. Indeed the Greens best vote comes from these areas. I’m not just making a claim. I have been working on this issue for ten years as a Green. ALP also knows this. This is why they spent a hell of a lot of time with ministers on JoyFM and other glbti media outlets.
For the first time the GLBTI voters aren’t taken for granted. Don’t forget that after the Liberals decided to preference the Greens in the inner city marginals, Labor announced $250,000 for JoyFM (for which they got to go on JoyFM whenever they liked it – seemed like) and $100,000 recurrent funding for Midsumma.
re Joseph, Joseph didn’t win for a lot of reasons, one of the many being The Labor hierachy’s lack of support as he was going to intro a Private members bill on Euthanasia that had Bracks spitting chips. There were other factors, one of which was Leonie Burke a seasoned and very good campaigner who managed to door-knock the electorate well. I’m not just saying that, I was the campaign manager of the Greens first candidate in Prahran that election and saw it all on the ground.
It’s not the candidates sexuality that matters, actually. It’s the policy and the willingness to stand by the community. Somehow The ALP over the last ten years has lost that to the Greens.
Indeed ask a couple of glbti voters how they vote and you may be surprised. Or listen out for the cheer at Pride. 🙂
Dinesh you may be interested to know that Joseph is now a Green also. I have Spoken Sternly to him about this but you know what a stubborn little bugger he is.
http://www.josephoreilly.com/about/
I predict: 1) the DLP will vote with the other Labor Party in the Legislative Council 70 per cent of the time because they both come from a Labor tradition; 2) this fact will make no difference to the labels applied to the DLP over the next four years because the labelling comes from deep inside the psyche of those doing it; 3) the ALP and the DLP will do a preference deal for the next state election because it is in the obvious interests of both parties; 4) if the DLP wins a seat in that election, the same voices from 2006 will persist in, not only calling it a ‘mistake’ and a ‘travesty’, but also in genuinely believing it is because they are unable to stand back and look at the situation rationally. The next four years will tell if I am wrong or right, and I look forward to returning to this forum in 2010 to say ‘told you so’ or ‘sorry, I got it wrong’.
Adam, he has joined the UK Greens, a party that has several differant policies to the Victorian and Australian Parties.
Yes, I believe they are in favour of phasing out electricty and the internal combustion engine over two or three years rather than banning them outright. And they are a bit lukewarm on giving the vote to fish.
The VEC uses a paper based formula to calculate the surplus transfer value. (Value of the surplus divided by the number of papers)
This increases the value of the vote that already been distributed as part6 of a surplus transfer. IE A candidate might have 400 full value votes
worth 1 and then receive a bundle of votes say 2000 each worth 0.25 votes this could produce a surplus of 400 full value votes based on a quota of 500. under the VEC formula the surplus is divided by the total number of ballot papers (not the value of each vote) 400 / 2400 = 0.167..
The value of the full value votes have been devalued disproportionally whilst the lower value votes have increased in value proportionally.
A better formula is to divide the surplus value 400 by the total value of the vote 900 (0.444) and then multiply that by the value of each vote i.e 400 * 1 * 0.444 and 2000 * 0.25 * 0.444
Its a simple calculation and if adopted you could abolish segmentation altogether and have one transaction per candidate. Simnel and clean and proportional. One vote – one value. If segmentation is to be retained then it must be FIFO and the secondary full value primary voices must be distributed in the order in which they were received.
Its one of the issues Antony Green has not got his head around and an issue that the proportional representation Society MUST address.
The problem is worst where there is no above-the-line voting system or there is a significant number of below-the-line votes. the problem with segmentation as it currently applies is when a candidate is elected on the transfer of the huge number of secondary primary votes that have been accumulated as the count progresses. With the paper based surplus transfer formula the problems is magnified again.
http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com/2006/10/one-vote-one-value-calculating-transfer.html
The VEC still has not replied to our request for a copy of the below the line preference data. What is it that they and the Government are trying to hide? This information should be publish and must be made available for independent public review and analysis. Our electoral system Must be open and transparent. This information isda public document and there is no excuse for the Government or the electoral commission to deny access to this information. The Chief Commissioner, Steve Tully, in refusing to publish this information continues to bring the electoral process into disrepute. There is an overwhelming need for a Parliamentary enquiry into the conduct of this election. Will the Government and the opposition plus minor parties call for an enquiry or will they continue to not hold the VEC to account for its monumental stuff up and mismanagement. What is the Greens policy on this? Or are they more concerned at trying to secure more jobs and lakes and perks? An inquiry is in order and must be held if confidence in the electoral system is to be restored.
Geoff: There other issues/situations that you have not taken into consideration in relation to segmentation. With above the line voting most of the votes travel in pretty much the same direction. Where there is no above-the-line voting such as in local government elections and where there is a huge below-the-line vote and the election of the second last candidate occurs as a result of a secondary primary vote transfer that top up tens of thousands of lessor minor valued votes the problem is significant. As you example shows it can change the order of the election.
Although I can not confirm it until we3 have access to the full count including the below the line votes I expect that This would have been an issue in Northern Victoria and western Metropolitan, It difficult to say. But I have done analysis on previous City of Melbourne elections and the overall results of the election changes depending on which system you used, The fact is a value based transfer system is more proportional and the paper based system distorts the one vote one value principle.
The principle and execution of the current system of segmentation is also seriously flawed. The two (Surplus transfer calculation ad segmentation) are intertwined. Segmentation was designed to offset and limit the distortion of the paper based calculation. Both were introduced to aid a manual counting system. Both are wrong in their application.
Geoff said
[QUOTE]
The only way we can get access to the BTL data , at a distance, is by listening to what the scrutineers tell us.
[/QUOTE]
It should be published by the VEC. It is a public document.
[QUOTE]
Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City of Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)
[/QUOTE]
The VEC has an obligation to make this information available, Without this information it is impossible to verify the results of the election. Try writing to the VEC and you member of parliament and insist that the detailed results are published.
If need be we will FOI the VEC but this would be an abuse of the system by the VEC and the Chief Commissioner if the VEC refused to publish the below the line preference data. There is no way the election can be properly scrutinised without access to this information.
Whats interesting is that Rob Hulls is the Minister for FOI and the Minister responsible for overseeing the VEC. Will Rob hold the VEC to account? This issue is also reviewable by the Ombudsman and if need be will request that the Ombudsman also review the VEC and its refusal to provide this data. A Parliamentary inquiry is defiantly warranted, and if the VEC continue to act irresponsibly and is incapable of self rer4gulation then clearly Government will have to legislate to ensure that our elections are open and transparent.
hehehe Good on him. Pity I didn’t catch up with him while I was in London for the last three years. He would have made a fantastic MP for Labor. But probably way too small l liberal for Labor at the moment. pro gay rights, Pro-womens choice and pro-euthanasia… No wonder Bracks had a problem with him. And you had the saltshakers leafletting the area Prahran (which probably helped him).
It would be interesting in the next four years though, as the Greens will push these issues to votes in the LC. So Labor will have to make some decisions on these issues or look very sheepish.
On another note… if the Greens in England did a (gasp) deal with the Lib Dems (who wont want the Greens to get a foothold, so it wont happen), they would win the seat of Brighton and Hove. Indeed it will fall to the Greens in about ten years. The Scottish Greens and the Welsh Greens (from memory) already have seats in their respective parliaments.
Adam, yeah you know that thing about water that the Greens talked about Decades ago…and Labor and Liberal scoffed? Funny how apparently now is the time to act on water according to both parties advertising. So the Greens are about a decade or two in front of the old parties in terms of policy. 🙂
Lets not forget that People Power – The dummy Green feeder party who along with the dodgy Democrats helped get the Greens and the DLP elected. The DLP received more primary votes then the ALP/Liberal second and third elected candidates. if they are entitled to receive preferences from above why should a party or candidate not be entitled to receive votes from below. They received less then the suggested threshold quota.
Ukraine, which uses a part list system, had a 4% threshold quota in its Mar5ch 2006 Parliamentary elections. Over 22$ of voters were disenfranchised as a result. On candidate received over 4% of the formal vote but fell just short of 4% of the overall vote (including informal votes). As a result her party and their supporters was denied representation. the 4% barrier was arbitrary. Whats worst is that the 22% of the electorate who were disenfranchised had no say in where there votes were allocated. Each of the major parties that were above the 4% threshold had their representation entitlement increased by 22% above and beyond their percentage of support. So I guess if you support the imposition of a aribiary threshold then it should also apply to all major party non lead candidates. I most certainly do not support artificial thresholds. Australia has a preferential voting system and it is one of the fairest in the world and we should be protecting it. If need be scrape the ATL voting or optional preferential voting. Alternative permit voters to allocate preferences above the line which would be translated into voting for all candidates of each group in order of the above the line preferences.
The Greens ran five candidates in each upper-house region. Why? They were never going to secure more then one representative let alone five. Could it be thatte optional preferential requirement encourages parties and groups to over nominate and thus pad out the ballot paper? Why is it that parties that manage to get one candidate elected are refunded the nomination fee for all of their candidates? An another issue who should also consider should we not have a count-back process to fill casual vacancies. If the Green candidate that was elected in Western Metropolitan was struck down by a falling tree under the current rules the Greens would be entitled to nominate a replacement even though the voters would have not voted for their replacement. I am not sure if the replacement rules apply to the Greens in this case as the Greens in the State Parliament will not be considered as a Parliamentary Political Party but as independents. I any event should not the voters have a say in fulling and casual vacancies? Why not adopt a count-back process?
Hi I have just undertaken a preliminary analysis of the VEC’s Northern Metro dodgy count and the excuse the VEC gave does not tally. What is clear is that the system should have highlighted the problem and prevented it from proceeding with the initial count. The total number of formal votes between the two accounts certainly do not match the number of total number of ballot papers received. this could have been known before they entered in the data and pressed the button. The system should have been able to check the balance before proceeding which raises concern and issues related to the quality of the VEC software.
the Liberal vote has been inflated by 6143 votes. the excuse provided by the Vic and published in the media was that they entered in 46666 instead of 40666. This does not gel. there is no where in the count where the liberals would have been allocated 40666 or 46666 votes. (Unless they segmented/broke down the above-the-line count into smaller parcels which does not make much sence) Presumably the only spot where such a data entry error can occur is in the recoding of the above-the-line votes. the number of above the line votes received by the Liberal party was well over 70,000. So where exactly was the error? yes there is a 6,000 discrepancy but it is not where or what we were told. again more reasons why the detailed results need to be published.
It also interesting to see that there is a progressive accumalted distortion in the results of the election arising from the calculation of the surplus transfer value. The full impact if this can only be determined if and when the VEC publish the detailed below the line preference data. What is it that they have to hide that they refuse to publish this information.
Copies of the dodgy provisional count sheets can be found on http://melbcity.topcities.com
Dinesh, why would you assume the Green vote would continue to grow? I checked the figures for Brighton Pavillion and, if you add the Green and LibDem vote together, you get 38.5% which would have been enough to elect a Green had all that vote gone there. The assumption being that all LibDem voters would be willing to vote 1 the Green (or even vote that all – the perils of voluntary voting).
Whilst the Greens have excellent environmental credentials (with many of their policies in this area now becoming mainstream) they themselves will not become a mainstream party as long as they remain schackled to elements of the far left. There are many economic and social policies that many Greens (the ‘red’ variety, I suppose) that I and many others cannot support and I’d rather keep my vote with Labor instead. That is what will ‘cap’ the Green vote and invalidate your assumption that it will continue to grow. We saw some evidence of this at the Victorian election where the Green vote remained static (or went backward slightly) in both houses.
Melb City – I had a thought that one could institute a threshold (say 4%) but also have preferences so that all the votes going to parties that win less than the threshold are reallocated to whichever party the voter preferences that receives more than the threshold. This way votes don’t completely disappear from affecting the makeup of the parliament and these voter’s votes are still in the mix.
So a party/individual can only be elected if they receive a certain % of the primary vote, and votes for other parties are reallocated (if people so preference) to parties winning a threshold of votes.
The Green vote in Victoria went up from 9.73% to 10.04% despite more minor parties running.
If introducing a preferencial list system with threshold then why wouldn`t one below threshold party be able to give its preferences to another below threshold party that got more votes and if the threshold is met then the second party be elected?
ATL preferences still give too much power to the Party machine Tasmanian style Hare-Clarke gives a choice among candidates and so parties could not just parachute in factional hacks to safe seats.
Melb City Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
The VEC uses a paper based formula to calculate the surplus transfer value. (Value of the surplus divided by the number of papers)
This increases the value of the vote that already been distributed as part of a surplus transfer. i.e. a candidate might have 400 full value votes worth 1 and then receive a bundle of votes say 2000 each worth 0.25 votes- this could produce a surplus of 400 full value votes based on a quota of 500. under the VEC formula the surplus is divided by the total number of ballot papers (not the value of each vote) 400 / 2400 = 0.167.. The value of the full value votes have been devalued disproportionally whilst the lower value votes have increased in value proportionally.
It depends.
It depends on what the two TVs were. If the 2nd TV is higher than the first, this will happen. But it won’t happen if things are the other way around.
In the particular case of SMET, the important votes which might have passed through two surplus distributions were the BTLs for candidate 1 of the ALP and Candidates 1&2 of the LIB, and which were ultimately destined for GRN1 instead of staying inside their own party. These are going to have high TVs (0.465, 0.640 and 0.280) at the first distribution. When they take part in the GRN surplus distribution, their new TV is going to be about 0.062.
There certainly could be a situation where the reverse was true…. But SMET was not it.
As for availability of the BTL data set, the Commonwealth Act can probably be interpreted as establishing a right to it (but this is arguable and the only test case failed), but there doesn’t seem to be anything equivalent in the Victorian Act. The Commonwealth legislation (an amendment) was enacted at the time they went over to a computer cut-up. The AEC interpreted this clause as saying that there should be full access to the progressive count-sheets, rather than the BTL data-set. It is my understanding that the VEC did provide the count-sheets on CD.
Melb City says:
The Greens ran five candidates in each upper-house region.
The Greens didn’t run 5 candidates in Northern Vic
Tom, yes the Green vote in the lower house rose slightly, but in the upper house the Green vote dropped from 10.87 to 10.58, which is very curious given that this was first time that the Greens actually had a chance of winning seats there. One possible explanation is that Family First stole some of the floating protest vote from them, despite the ideological disparity, just as the floaters happily moved from DLP to Democrats in the 1970s.
Adam Says:
December 19th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Tom, yes the Green vote in the lower house rose slightly, but in the upper house the Green vote dropped from 10.87 to 10.58, which is very curious
One Nation’s disappearance? The number of times voters arriving at a booth say things like “I can’t make up my mind whether to vote for Pauline Hanson or Bob Brown” is both baffling and alarming.
I would do the analysis myself if I had the data, but it would be good if you could complete the VIC LC analysis based on the final figures.
If anyone has access to the data, I would be very interested to see how many of the BTL votes exhausted and what potential impact this had on determining some of the close calls.
eg. I expect there would have been a number of votes from conservative BTL voters in West Met that exhausted because voters did not see the relevance of distinguishig between the Greens and the ALP. These would most likelyhave both been on the bottom of their ticket if fully elaborated under CPV. This would certainly have tipped the delicate balance back in favour of Barlow.
ray I have published a copy of the dodgy VEC count sheets copies can be found on http://melbcity.topcities.com
I have submitted an FOI request for the detailed results including the BTL preference data. This information should have been published and readily been available for public review and analysis. The requirement to have to submit an FOI application to obtain this information is an abuse of the system on behalf of the VEC. It is a public document.
The fact that the VEC has failed to published this information is shameful and brings the conduct of the election into further disrepute. This election if anything demonstrates that previous advice related to the the computerized election count and its accuracy was false.
The conduct of the election and the management of Steve Tully warrants a parliamentary review.