Activity at this site will be pretty light in the coming month or so, as I will be hard at work on my guide to the March 24 New South Wales election (among other things). I will at some point knock together a preview of the by-election to be held for the Western Australian state seat of Peel on February 3. For those seeking an overview of the recent Victorian election, you could do a lot worse than this effort by Nick Economou of Monash University, brought to you by the good people at Democratic Audit.
Andrew, I presume the data will be included in the Statistical Returns document, when they get around to publishing it – it was for the 2002 election. So I’m a bit surprised that they haven’t been more helpful with you.
Andrew Steven Tully comes from SA. I think he was the Commissioner there last year. Clearly in the absence of self regulation Governments will have to legislate. I can assure you this issue is of concern to a number of members of State Parliament and not just the Labor Party. I have not met one person who can justify Tully’s position. A lot of people are asking questions about his performance.. William You are referring to SA In victoria this information has previously been provided during and at he conclusion of the count.
Sorry I may have made a mistake with with name. She is on tyhe five doillar note I think. She was an advocate for electoral reform and was related to Clarke and in Hare Clarke. I thought her name was Helen Spence.
Spence had become an enthusiast for electoral reform in 1859 when she read J. S. Mill’s review of Thomas Hare’s system of proportional representation. In 1861 she wrote, printed (at her brother’s expense) and distributed A Plea for Pure Democracy. Mr. Hare’s Reform Bill Applied to South Australia, but she commented, ‘it did not set the Torrens on fire’. Though she later claimed that the system had been her life’s major cause, she ignored it between 1861 and 1892, except to inject a discussion of it into Mr. Hogarth’s Will and visit Hare when she was holidaying in Britain in 1864-65. She had initially presented Hare’s scheme as a means of ensuring representation of minorities by men of virtue, learning and intelligence, which was seen as conservative support of privilege. In 1892 she propounded the modified Hare-Spence system as the only way of attaining truly proportionate representation of political parties, an argument well suited to the current political climate of the colony.
I am not sure what here relationship with clark was. But she certainly made a positive contribution to Australia Politcs in her life. Sadly they redistributed an electorate that was named after her.
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A060190b.htm
I do not claim to be a historian but I was first introduced to her by Jack Write, Author of a book titled A Mirror of the Nations mind. Some twenty odd years ago.
Jack was a significant in my learning more about electoral reform and in proportional representation as was Geoff Powell, Geoff Goode, Robert Ray and John Lenders.
At the time I was a strong advocate for the rules of proportional Representation as outlined in Jack’s book, adopted by the Proportional Representation Society and published in Nick Renton’s guide to meetings.
I have since abandoned support for the PR Societies rules as they have become outdated and superseded with the introduction of computers.
My very first computer programme was a PR count sheet written under Lotus 123. Jack Write and the PR Society advocated the last bundle with a value based transfer.
I maintain support for the value based surplus transfer but have abandoned the last bundle in favour of a single transaction per candidate and the retention of any remainder, pure proportional representation. computers based technology now make that a viable alternative.
I am totally opposed to artificial quotas other then the quota derived to determine the election threshold. Sadly I think an arbitrary minimum quota threshold will be introduced, reducing our electoral system more akin to a party list system then pure preferential proportional representation. Hopefully not in my life time.
I welcome the multitude of political parties in the Victorian Legislative Council and am fully supportive of the Alp’s preference deals. I do have reservations about then current ATL system along with optional preferential voting. If we continue with an optional preferential system then I think we should adopt a reiterative counting system based on the value of the vote and by default a floating quota. I am not that fussed by Robson Rotation and likewise Meeks system of distribution.
Keep it sweet keep it simple but make sure it is proportional.
Totally opposed to the paper based surplus transfer system and current method of segmentation both are outdated, necessary and contrary to the one vote one value principle. Again computer technology has made these systems necessary and redundant. But with the introduction of computer aided count we must adopt more open and transparent accountability top ensure that the system is not open is abuse and misuse. the publication of data-files and detailed election results including the number of ballot papers issued and recorded is a mandatory requirement.
I welcome beat on these issues an oppose anyone that tries to prevent the details of an election being made public, including the media.
Correction computer technology has made these systems unecessary and redundant.
In undertaking a preliminary comparison of the provisonal Count and the recount I have noticed the following:
Provisional Count
Formal 374982
Informal 24982
Total 399964
Recount
Formal 374411
Informal 25075
Total 399486
Difference
Formal -571
Informal 93
Total -478
The fact that the total number of votes has changed concerns me. The VEC has lost votes. That means they either lost them or they double counted some votes. Hmmm..
There were 93 votes that we declared informal and they were later considered formal in the recount. That makes sence.
BUT the fact that the total number of votes is different shows that the VEC did not, once again, do a comparison with the polling place return data which would have produced a check digit that the VEC should have balanced to.
It looks like they did not even do a proper manual count of the ballot papers and a proper data-enry error. Which begs the question how many ballot papers where issued and how many where returned and why was a check not done before the data-entry process and the pressing of the button to ensure that the two matched and that all ballot papers were accounted for.
More explainations are required. Without the BTL prefernce data and the publication of the ATL ticket number (The VEC has not updated the xml files.) It difficult to determine where the error was exactly.
The xml file does not match the provisonal results so it is only of llimited use for a comparison
The xml file shows.
Total Formal 373843
Informal 25786
Total Vote 399629
What I find extordinary which could be explained by a double count is that Madden’s primary vote droped by -614 votes. (How many of these were ticket votes and how many BTL votes?)
Eideh’s number of ballot papers increased by 35 primary votes but the number of ballot papers recorded in the transfer is -761 that would indicate that around -132 came from where? A change in the BTL vote.
Yes it would appear that the VEC double counted some votes but they failed to check the number of ballot papers issued. Which is eactly the informaton we tried to obtaiin prior to and immediately after the ballot. As we did not have polling place data in the XML file and the VEC failed to provide the number of postal votes issued and returned prior to the ballot we could not do this check.
I can only assume that they had lost votes or double counted which ever way you look at its not just a BTL data-entry error. I do not belive the data-entry process can produce that many errors let alone change the increase the number of ballots papers…. Yes there was something wrong with the management of the count.
Its late and I am tired but can someone look at this and provide an explaination?
Did anyone take a screen snapeshot of the provsional tally before it was removed? I can only go off the xml data file last updated on the 12th 16:55 and the provisonal count sheet that was provided and dated 12/12/06 18:00.
Anyone have the total vote tally of the lower house seats that make up the western metro province?
I can understand that a number of votes that were initially recorded as being above the line but were actually BTL but not 6-700 for one candidate and its the variance in the total number of votes that makes me think they double counted or lost votes. Where was the checks and balance in the first count? In the old days of a manual count that was one of the first we use to look for. How many votes were issued and how many returned?
I am begining to understand now why Tully does not want the details of the count made public? Your thoughts and commenst?
Ray, thanks for pointing out the links to the VIC LC results are still on the ABC website. I’d asked for them to be removed, but they didn’t remove all the links. I’ve asked again.
The count wasn’t finalised before I left the country. The VEC e-mailed all the distribution of preferences to me here in London, but there is nothing I can do with them until I return to Australia in mid-January and I have access to my xml tools again.
And anyway, I’m on holiday and have better things to do.
Antony nwhen you say all the prefernec distribnutio are you refering to teh detailed prefernce data file or the summary count sheet. I think we all have the summary count sheet by now..
Below is my estimate of the vote tally based on the District vote reorded in the latest published xml data feed Now that most certainly does not match the information in the VEC summary data sheets.
Anyone have any explainations?
Region, Formal, Informal, Total
Eastern Metropolitan Region, 372625, 15588, 388213
Eastern Victoria Region, 375024 16382, 391406
Northern Metropolitan Region, 362715, 20475, 383190
Northern Victoria Region, 365794 15520, 381314
South Eastern Metropolitan Region, 366008, 19631, 385639
Southern Metropolitan Region, 361292, 12378, 373670
Western Metropolitan Region, 372518, 25361, 397879
Western Victoria Region, 391684, 16550 ,408234
The XML files indicates that all the results for the lower house had been finalised. In my book that would mean that the total number of ballots should tally. It still leaves the question as to why did the total vote of the provisional not tally with the total vote of the recount which does not tally the total vote of the xml data or the districts?…
The VEC stopped updating the XML about 4 days after the election. When I asked them to resume the updates so we could update the ABC’s website with lower house counts, they informed me that the LC counts would not match the actual count. The reason was the XML was produced from the election night reporting system which was not integrated with the LC data entry system. The xml file is wrong and has generally been wrong ever since LC data entry began. The election reporting system and the LC data entry system were seperate systems so there are discrepencies. Known problem. The question is, what manual documentation is available to account for the discrepencies.
What about the descrepancy between the two counts and the LA totals. This is the isse we first raised with the VEC wich refused to provide information on the number of ballots issued and returned. Tully’s Tallys DO NOT TALLY. Poor management and poor reporting?
The XML file has a date stamp of 12/12/06 16:55 The first provisional count was on 12/12/06 18:03 OK I will give them that data would be added BUT why then change and discrepancy with the Lower house which had been finalised. Given that the results was within 100 votes and Tully refused to provide the information we first requested. (Number of postals issued, etc) I believe a detailed explanation for the discrepancy is most certainly in order. If they had this data they should have known that the data-entry in Northern Metro was wrong. Did the have this information and if so why was it not checked before they pressed go? Sorry too many unknowns and more questions raised then answers. Fact is they screwed up big time. Nothing they have published Tally’s (except their pay checks).
“Tully’s tallies do not tally” sounds like “Peter picked a pickled pepper”…
One observation – would it be possible to integrate some of your VEC-related comments into one big comment, maybe daily or a few times per day? I understand that you have an issue with the VEC (and in your situation I might well do as well) but it breaks the flow reading 10+ comments in a row, some posted quite close together in time, about the same subject. I’m speaking only as a fellow user of the site with no other claims, but yeah, just an observation.
I’m afraid that I can no longer tarry for Tully’s tallies to tally.
I’m off for my Christmas break.
Thanks William for this excellent site.
Thanks all participants for your engaging discussions on the pros & cons of various electoral models. We will all have to wait until next year to get the data to assess the veracity of the model that applied in the VIC election.
Merry Christmas to you all.
Catherine Helen Spence was a South Australian feminist and an advocate of electoral reform. She was the first Australian woman to stand for public office (for the Constitutional Convention of 1898, I think). Andrew Inglis Clark was the Tasmanian Attorney-General who introduced proportional representation, and Hare-Clark is named after him and the English electoral reformern Thomas Hare, who invented it (may he burn in hell). Clark was also one of the co-authors of the Constitution, although Sam Griffith wrote most of the final draft. I don’t believe Spence and Clark were related, although I am happy to be corrected. Spence was a maiden lady, as they said in those days.
Ray I understand tyhat BUT it does not provide an epliasintion as to why tyhe tallks vary. Ecah poolling place is issued a cetain number of ballot papers. And the Ro is required to add uop teh number on the role and the number of ballotg papers returned. Normally we are provided with a polling place breakdown which allows you to see wghere and if thetre is any descepancy. In this count the polling place retuens were not published (Thanks Antony). As each person is issued two ballot ppaers one for the LC and one for the LA the summary total of the LA and the LA should tally. Votes do go missing but not that often. Again it depneds where they went missing. As I undersatnd the Polliong Place votes are rechecked and this is the adjustment we saw come though in the XML Data Again we were denied the benefit of knowing where the adjustments were occuring. I idd raise this concern in my objection that then VEC was not publishing polling place data for the LC.
But for there to be a discepancy ion the total tally between the provsiionsal count and the recount indicates either a massive mistake in the rechek or somone did not check that the first provsion count tallies with the numbver of votes epeceted and theer was for some reason a double entry/double count. or they lost ballot ppaers betrween th counts..
The only reaqson I have issue with the VEc is that they refused to provide information and data when requested and the published rersulst do not tally. This is of real concern. I have not seen such discepancies in a count before in my life. If you gutys are not interested thats up to you buty teh explainations we have been given is most ceratinly not satisfactory. In teh past we would understand all changes and discrepancies and they would not have been this great. We would have had access to this information, Polling place breakdown are very good for this sourght of analsysis and check. It is the fact that this information has not been provided raises more cause for concern then what might normally be the case. unrtil the data is provided. And I would want the BTL prefernece data for both provisonal and recount opkus a copy of teh polling place return summaries.
With this number of discepancies Barlow should have asked for a recount.
Antony Green states: “The VEC stopped updating the XML about 4 days after the election.”
That is not true as the results in the XML file was updated with each generation publication up until they stopped on the 12th of December That’s two weeks after the election. Nice excuse but.. stil does not explain the descepancies in the retuns and the between the provsion and recount. The polling place returned should have been published.
Below is a consolidated summary table based on the published information
Summary of upper house statistics latest Data, , , , ,
(published December 12, 2006 16:49), , , , ,
Region, Formal, Informal, Total, Updated, Difference
Eastern Metropolitan, 375947, 12179, 388126, 12-12-2006 17:32, 0
Eastern Victoria, 379201, 12625, 391826, 12-12-2006 18:55, 0
Northern Metropolitan, 360149, 21730, 381879, 14-12-2006 06:19, -6454
Northern Victoria, 365391, 15426, 380817, 12-12-2006 19:03, 0
South Eastern Metropolitan, 365547, 20200, 385747, 12-12-2006 18:23, 0
Southern Metropolitan, 361805, 11420, 373225, 12-12-2006 19:45, 0
Western Metropolitan, 374411, 25075, 399486, 14-12-2006 03:57, -478
Western Victoria, 394478, 14588, 409066, 14-12-2006 05:03, 268
Summary of upper house provsional count statistics, , , , ,
(published December 12, 2006 19:03), , , , ,
Region, Formal, Informal, Total, ,
Eastern Metropolitan, 375947, 12179, 388126, 12-12-2006 17:32,
Eastern Victoria, 379201, 12625, 391826, 12-12-2006 18:55,
Northern Metropolitan, 366605, 21728, 388333, 12-12-2006 18:22,
Northern Victoria, 365391, 15426, 380817, 12-12-2006 19:03,
South Eastern Metropolitan, 365547, 20200, 385747, 12-12-2006 18:23,
Southern Metropolitan, 361805, 11420, 373225, 12-12-2006 19:45,
Western Metropolitan, 374982, 24981, 399964, 12-12-2006 18:03,
Western Victoria, 394556, 14242, 408798, 12-12-2006 17:31,
Summary of upper house count statistics, , , , ,
(published December 12, 2006 16:49), , , , ,
Region, Formal, Informal, Total, ,
Eastern Metropolitan, 375390, 12679, 388069, , -57
Eastern Victoria, 378374, 13030, 391404, , -422
Northern Metropolitan, 358877, 22496, 381373, , -6960
Northern Victoria, 363962, 16654, 380616, , -201
South Eastern Metropolitan, 363814, 21640, 385454, , -293
Southern Metropolitan, 360202, 13464, 373666, , 441
Western Metropolitan, 373842, 25773, 399615, , -349
Western Victoria, 392893, 15590, 408483, , -315
Summary of lower house statistics, , , , ,
(published December 12, 2006 16:49), , , , ,
Region, Formal, Informal, Total, ,
Eastern Metropolitan, 372625, 15588, 388213, , 87
Eastern Victoria, 375024, 16382, 391406, , -420
Northern Metropolitan, 362715, 20475, 383190, , -5143
Northern Victoria, 365794, 15520, 381314, , 497
South Eastern Metropolitan, 366008, 19631, 385639, , -108
Southern Metropolitan, 361292, 12378, 373670, , 445
Western Metropolitan, 372518, 25361, 397879, , -2085
Western Victoria, 391684, 16550, 408234, , -564
The first table is the VEC’s final results including the recount of Northern Metropolitan, Western Metropolitan and Western Victoria Regions
The second table records the summary statistics folling the VEC’s dodgy provisional count (Note the difference in the total number of votes )
The third table is the published summary data provided in the VEC’s xml data feed.
The fourth table is the comparative lower house votes as reported in the VEC xml data feed – These are the final results (Again note the difference in the total number of votes)
WHY DID THE VEC NOT ASCERTAIN HOW MANY BALLOT PAPERS WERE ISSUED AND RETURNED BEFORE PRESSING THE BUTTON? WHY WAS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTS (PROVISIONAL AND RECOUNT) ?
VOTES HAVE GONE MISSING BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTS AND THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. DID THEY NOT DO A CHECK TALLY WITH THE RETURNS?
Oh please Adam, he made a statement, he didn’t vote. Look at the policies of the party. I’m sure his party will toe him into line. Yes the ALP are still pretty stupid for electing right wingers. What he said doesn’t excuse the ALP for stuffing up (Neil Cole’s words, not mine). Last I checked he was one of yours.
* Dinesh, you may not be aware that the ALP has a faction called the Old Left Whingers, or colloquially the Moaning Joans, who complain about everything the Right does, including win two successive elections with record majorities. I don’t how we can make them happy – collectivise agriculture perhaps. Neil, fine fellow though he is in some respects, is a card-carrying member.
* Nothing was stuffed up. We won 19 seats out of 40 with 42.3% of the vote, which is about what we were entitled to. Would you rather we had rigged the system so we won a majority of seats with a minority of votes?
* Re Kavanagh, we will just have to wait and see. Yes he only made a statement, but it was not the statement of an extreme right-winger, now was it? I doubt Cardinal Pell would agree with it.
* For the Nth time, the preference deals were done to maximise our chances of winning seats. Some of them came off, some of them didn’t – that is the nature of preference deals. I have no apologies to make either for the principle of preference deals, which are a necessary part of elections in a preferential system, or for the particular deals that were done. I saw our glorious State Sec the other day and he said he would do the same deals over again without hesitation.
* I’ve already said this several times here, but I will say it once more just for you: the ALP is not a party of the left, it is a party of the broad centre, based on the broad labour movement. It is not Labor’s business to help the Greens, or any other party, win seats. If it’s in our interests to preference Greens, we will. If it’s not, we won’t.
* Anyway, I really don’t know what the Greens are complaining about. They won 3 seats out of 40 with 10% of the vote, which is a fair outcome. The DLP won one seat with 1.9%, which is not far short of a quota (2.4%). So they were a little lucky, but not outrageously so. The party that was really dudded was Family First (3.8%, no seats). If you want more seats, persuade more people to vote for you.
Adam hear hear.. Full support. The preference deal was good. Its better to have more minor parties in the legislative council then one extreme “radical” left remnants. It allows the government to negotiate with all parties to secure support for its legislation. Nothing worst then being held to hostage by a radical left party. Yes the ALP has the likes of Jean McLean, Joan coxhedge, and co (Not to forget Dianne). The ALP is a broad church. It is the fact that it has claimed the middle ground that it is so successful in winning public support. Steve Brack, John Brunby and john lenders deserve most of the credit for the State ALP Parliamentary party’s success. The Greens by all accounts should not have won a third seat in Western Victoria. Where a recount produces a different overall result they should be required to undertake a further recount to verify that they did not screw-up again. Votes are missing and unaccounted for in their published data.
Question is or was not one of the Greens a staff member or director of going solar?
The DLP and Family first vote effective merged together. If it was not for Family First the Greens would not have won a seat in Western Metro. A cruel twist of fate and doggy count practices.
Melb City said:
Its better to have more minor parties in the legislative council then one extreme “radical†left remnants. It allows the government to negotiate with all parties to secure support for its legislation. Nothing worst then being held to hostage by a radical left party.
I’m assuming you mean the Greens here, even though there are maybe 50 radicals in a party of at least 1000.
I would think that a radical right party is at leat as bad, if not worse. Or maybe you would prefer 3 Nazis to 3 Greens.
I have updated my web page to include the summary statistics on the various published count sheets and xml file data. It worth noting that the ALP lost around 600 primary votes in the Western Metropolitan recount and the total number of votes is -478 votes from the provisional count. Where did the other votes go and does the revised tally match the polling place returns. Return Statistics were not published. Normally they are.
http://melbcity.topcities.com
You should call a demo about it – call it the Tully Tally Rally
About the Legislative Council results.
10% of 40 is 4 not 3.
19/40 is 47.5%. 43% is between 17/20 and 18/20.
When I first visited France, I wanted to send a postcard home, so I went looking for a red mailbox, but I couldn’t find one – because they were not red. I had assumed that mailboxes throughout the world must be red because that was all I had known. When I finished school, Australia had full employment (which isn’t 5 per cent unemployment by the way). I did not think that I would get a job rather than be unemployed. The idea of being unemployed had not entered my head. If anyone had ever asked me, “Do you think you will get a job?â€, I would not have understood the question. The Greens seem to have a sense of entitlement to ALP preferences which is so hard-wired into their brains that they cannot take in the arguments as to why this is not so.
There is no natural affinity between the ALP and the Greens. There are some policy similarities, just as there are with the DLP, but there are differences too. The DLP has been falsely maligned since its formation so effectively that I guess many of its maligners actually believe what they say. So, when I say the DLP is a moderate social democratic party with a Labor tradition, there are some who are simply unable to believe me because their hard-wired brains believe all mailboxes are red.
As for where delegates sat in the French National Assembly of more than 200 years ago, the ALP of today is to the right of the DLP of my day.
The ALP did not want to be dependent on the Greens. It developed a preference strategy to protect itself from that fate. As a consequence it has gained 19 MLCs in its own right and a DLP MLC who will generally support it, and, when it comes to issues like abortion, it will find its own MLCs not supporting it as well as the DLP one. It will do the same sort of preference deal next time around. It was not a mistake this time. It will not be a mistake next time. But the same voices will call it a mistake in 2010 because their brains are hard-wired to believe that all mailboxes are red.
ALP strategists are not disappointed that there is one DLP MLC. They are disappointed that there are not two.
Tom, no electoral system can deliver exact mathematical proportionality in a 40-member House. We might have got a more exactly proportional result from state-wide list voting with no threshold, but then again we might not have, depending on preference flows. It is possible to over-stress exact representationism – look at the situation in Israel – which is why I favour a threshold. The point I was making was the outcome was broadly fair to all parties (except Famiy First).
Chris, I agree with most of what you say. Except that from what we have seen so far Kavanagh seems rather more pro-Labor than Mulholland would have been had he got up.
Could someone tell me why we have state electoral bodies. Can’t the AEC conduct state elections as well as Federal?
The AEC have a dispersed office network around the country. They employ full-time staff and have a local presence. I have always found Federal elections to be very transparent and very efficient. AEC staff seem to know their stuff. Afterall they should, they are full-time.
To my knowledge state electoral bodies have a tiny core of full-time staff in each state CBD. All their returning officers are not full-time but are casually contracted. How shabby is that?
No wonder you get stuff ups. These state elections are done on the cheap with “amateur” staff, no offence to the casual staff who do their best.
Why not abolish these mickey mouse state electoral bodies. Give the job to the federal professionals. Then you won’t have the disgraceful stuff ups like the reversed results in 2 upper house regions, and the confusion with the count in Ferntree Gully where the TCP count had the ALP winning but the final count after the distribution of preferences had the liberals winning.
Work that out?
Gaynor: Fully agree. There should be one single professional public election authority, with State Electoral Commissioners members of the Board of Directors. It would save millions of dollars and ensure we have a professional outfit running elections. in the past it was argued that the AEC could not run state elections as they could conflict with a Federal Election. Fixed terms is the solution to that problem. I have been arguing this could be the case for some time now. See my blog. http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com
Adam Tully Rally (lol) I agree with your assessment of this being a fair outcome. Remember there is always the wasted quota.
Not to forget that the Greens were elected in Western Metro because votes went missing and thanks to Family First preferences.
PS We will be holding a Tully Rally outside the house when the Parliamentary Elections Committee meets to review Tully’s Tally.
Looking at the results and my early predictions based on the Senate vote and the opinion polls my assessment was right. If the 2004 Senate vote was repeated in Victoria the Liberal/NP Party would win absolute control of the upper house. Which goes to show you how fair and representative the overall system is. (Although it could be improved with a revised rules in relation to the calculation of the surplus transfer and segmentation – One vote one value)
The “Tully’s Tally doesn’t Tally Ralley” lol
Gaynor: The real issue and problem with Ferntree Gully is the quality of public information. I can not think of one pubic election conducted by the VEC where a mysterious bundle of votes has either appeared or vanished. This is the reason why we had requested statistical information on the number of ballot papers issued. Information that Steve Tully refused to provide. Although I have managed to obtain copies of the summary count sheets from scrutineers Tully and his team still have not officially provided me with copies in spite the fact that I have lodged a number of requested for this information (Including detailed preference distribution/allocation data files). The VEC’s lack of professionalism and Tully’s management has little to desire. I have been informed that Steve Tully does not enjoy the support and confidence of his staff, They have expressed concern about his refusal to publish the detailed data. After all they are the ones that are having to bare the brunt of public criticism as well as Tully himself. The AEC have always provided information, when requested, in timely fashion. Any review of the 2006 State Election should also include consideration of the creation of a single professional independent Australian Electoral Authority.
The money state governments spend on their own electoral bodies is a waste. If they pumped that money directly into the AEC, and if the AEC used that money exclusively to beef up their staffing and resources at the local office level, then there would be no reason why the AEC couldn’t run state and federal elections simultaneously.
Of course there would have to be some assurance that beauracratic bean counters within the federal department didn’t decide to unilaterally cream the money off the top rather than to invest in additional permanent resources in the local offices. Otherwise the AEC wouldn’t have the ability to do the job properly. I’d be amazed if that happened. I’m sure they’d like to conduct all elections.
Double the AEC staffing at the local level with legislative protection, then they could run all elections. Fancy that, a professional and skilled electoral body that could conduct all elections with adequate resourcing. Sounds revolutionary.
Of course it won’t happen. State governments won’t give up their powers and the state electoral bodies will be trying to protect their own jobs. A pity really because the recent Victorian election proved that state electoral bodies are an anachronism from an indulgent past. Any voter rocking up to a polling place could have told you that, not to mention the tallying problems after election day.
Gaynor fully agree. The VEC has spent millions of dollars developing software that duplicates the AEC’s efforts. The idea of having a single authority is not new. Now that we have fixed terms of office and in voice of the VEC stuff-ups maybe there will be some review and consideration of creating a more professional organisation. This is not an area where there needs to be competition. More important is professionalism and accountability. A single independent Australian Electoral Authority (AEA) would provide a better outcome. That’s nine authorities rolled into one. The AEA could also conduct public company elections and publicly funded organisations. It would allow hopefully for effective standardisation of the electoral rules. Proportional representation for multi member electorates and preferential for single member electorate. (In fact the one system would work for both as they both use the same formula for calculating the quota only exception is above the line voting) In any event a single authority does not prevent differences in the rules if required.
Australia could and should be advocating its system of preferential voting abroad. It would save millions of dollars for those countries that have two-round ballot systems.
A new Australian authority could fulfill the task of providing assistance and consultancy to developing democratic Nations.
Gaynor: Can I suggest you make a submission to the State Parliament electoral review committee. I have been told who the new committee chairperson will be but am sadly not at liberty to disclose this information as it has not yet been announced. But5 I am lead to believe they will be undertalking a serious revioew of all issues realted to the conduct of the election. the liberal party also are not impressed with the VEC’s management.
If ALP strategists really wanted a second DLP member of MLC, they could have waived the need for a recount of NMET.
Major parties won far more seats from preference allocations than do minor parties, so when it is claimed that the greens ought not complain too loudly when they are not given higher priority for ALP preferences, this is an inversion of reality. It is the ALP that won seats off Greens preferences, not visa versa. it was the ALP that went ballistic in accusing the greens of failing to preference the ALP in some seats, not visa versa. Rudd has no hope of becoming prime minister if the greens do not direct preferences to the ALP in lower house marginals. So when the greens accept and act on the “red letterbox theorum”, it will be interesting to see which party squeals the longest.
Having the AEC run all elections would not be such a good idea if Nick Minchin and co are able to realise their dream of bringing in voluntary voting for the Commonwealth after the next federal election. What would be good would be all federal, state and territory elections on the same day every four years. Won’t happen though.
Steve Tully did OK as SA electoral commissioner, even presiding over a half-decent redistribution (given the impossible task of trying to ensure that the party gaining more than 50% of the vote win the next election!)
One of his predecessors did less well. Voting for the Riverland seat of Chaffey was tight. In the end the Liberal member was declared the winner by a couple of hundred votes. Some weeks later a large bundle of votes was found in a country roadhouse, where they had been delivered by a bus driver. The local returning officer rang his boss in Adelaide to ask what he could do, only to be told: “You’ve got a fire, haven’t you?”
Damn straight Sean!
The ALP was not going to give upo a seat to the DLP. No ones suggesting that. The Greesn were elected in Wetsren Metro on ALP preferences thanks to Family First’s prefernce alloction. So are the Greens going to vote for the Liberal Party?
Sean,
ALP strategists did not prefer a second DLP MLC to a twentieth ALP MLC. They preferred a second DLP MLC to dependence on the Greens. A result of 20 ALP and one DLP would have suited them even better than 19 ALP and one DLP (thus the recount in Northern Metropolitan), but 19 ALP and one DLP is better for them than 19 ALP and no DLP. If anyone has trouble getting the point, I will make it explicit that they are also pleased that it is not 19 ALP, one DLP and 20 Liberal.
The preferencing strategy was not motivated by hatred of the Greens but by the desire to re-elect a Labor Government which could implement its program. The re-invigorated hatred of the DLP seems to come from a misunderstanding of what the DLP is all about and a focus on a few issues of the day to the exclusion of everything else.
As Melb City points out, it is to the credit of the Labor Government that it made the Legislative Council democratic. The Liberals promised to do this in 1973 in return for DLP preferences, but then broke their promise. We can argue over the details of the PR system, but it is far superior to what it replaced. Even from the point of view of the Greens, they are in the Victorian Parliament for the first time, and that is due to a Labor Government being willing to put its own control of the Legislative Council at risk. This shows that the Victorian Labor Governemnt is a far more decent one than the Tasmanian Labor Government which ganged up with the Liberal Opposition to try to shut the Greens out of the Tasmanian Parliament.
Merry Christmas to you all… and hopefully all the PC crap in this world doesn’t destroy such a joyous and wonderful time of year.
I must say taking a holiday did help me ease the frustration of waiting for the results. 😛 Well done to Steve Bracks, he well and truly earnt the win and in its size to. 19 Labor MLC’s aint bad at all. This keeps Brack’s flexibility to bargain with different parties up due to the representation of the current make up of the LC. But Labor did deserve to loose their majority after squandering it last term, even though, some credit goes to them for sacrificing them. And a more ‘democratic’ LC is definitely the way to go.
This will definitely keep Bracks in check, but I’m sure he will do a good job. Should some piece of legislation be really bad for ‘Victoria on the whole’, then all other parties can block it, and force committees to keep Bracksie in check, just like what happened in WA recently where Labor again is 2 short of a majority. [To note- this is prob the best results for a govt and the relative jurisdiction as a whole, as it gives a govt a realistic chance of passing most legislation while at the same time allowing room for a block or amendment should the need be, the true role of the LC.]
Now can’t wait until the Peel by-election as an appetitiser for the beginning of the big 2 next year, NSW in my home state and the Federal election.
[A note to Evan and my other fellow Berowra-ites, the Liberals won the first of 2 by-elections to be help in C-Ward. Of note, Frank Colletta was running as an independent, host of the weather on Channel 10 news when Tim Bailey isn’t doing it.]