Saturday, September 11
As you may have noticed, I have kind of dropped the ball on following the late Senate count – normally a richly absorbing pastime in the post-election dead zone, but in the past three weeks there have been bigger fish to fry than the precise make-up of a Senate that will clearly have the Greens holding the balance of power. The AEC has pushed the button on the counts in Queensland (three LNP, two Labor, one Greens) and the ACT (one Labor, one Liberal), with the others presumably to follow shortly. There has never been any doubt about New South Wales (two Liberal and one National, two Labor, one Greens), Western Australia (three Liberal, two Labor, one Greens), Tasmania (three Labor, two Liberal, one Greens) and the Northern Territory (one Labor, one Country Liberal Party). Doubt has also faded about the remainder:
Victoria. What at first appeared the quirky prospect of win for DLP candidate John Madigan has firmed. I personally anticipated the resources of incumbency might mean Family First would perform strongly on declaration votes, but they have actually gone backwards: according to the ABC projection, a 0.12 per cent deficit against the DLP at the revelant point in the count on election night has actually widened to 0.22 per cent. The Coalition have also failed to make up the ground needed to overtake the DLP at the penultimate count, with the gap now at an unassailable 0.72 per cent. That leaves us looking at a result of two Labor, one Liberal and one Nationals, one Greens and one DLP.
South Australia. There was briefly the prospect a week ago of an upset win by Bob Day of Family First at the expense of third Liberal candidate David Fawcett, but we now appear to be looking at a vanilla-flavoured three Liberal, two Labor and one Greens result. At the second last count, the ABC computer projects Fawcett to be on 8.89 per cent against 8.16 per cent for Day. With Day excluded, Family First and other right-wing preferences put Fawcett well ahead of the third Labor candidate.
There is thus little doubt that the newly elected Senators will include 18 from the Coalition, (12 Liberal, two Nationals, three Liberal National Party and one Country Liberal Party), 15 from Labor, six from the Greens and one DLP. These will join the state Senators whose terms began following the 2007 election – 16 Labor, 16 Coalition (14 Liberals and two Nationals), three Greens and Nick Xenophon – for a total result of 34 Coalition (26 Liberal, four Nationals, another three from the Liberal National Party including two who will sit with the Liberals and one who will sit with the Nationals, and one Country Liberal Party who sits with the Nationals), 31 Labor, nine Greens, one DLP and Nick Xenophon.
Monday, August 23
Kevin Bonham and GhostWhoVotes in comments note my assessment of Tasmania was mistaken, as it wrongly allocated Liberal preferences to the Greens over Labor like they normally would. There is in fact little doubt the final result will be three Labor, two Liberal and one Greens, meaning the defeat of Liberal incumbent Guy Barnett by Labor’s Lisa Singh, a former state government minister who lost her seat in Denison at the March state election.
Saturday, August 21
A brief and bleary summary of the Senate situation, based on a quick and dirty review of Antony Green’s projections. This will be progressively updated as further results come to hand. The Greens look good for a Senate seat from each state and will hold an unassailable balance-of-power position in the Senate. The best shot for a quirky result is Victoria where the Democratic Labor Party are currently in the hunt – as is incumbent Steve Fielding, despite reports to the contrary.
New South Wales. This looks like a reasonably straightforward result of three Coalition and two Labor, with Lee Rhiannon of the Greens on a 2.5 per cent lead over the third Labor candidate for the final place.
Victoria. It is widely being reported that Steve Fielding has lost his seat, based on assessments of Antony Green’s projection that went no deeper than the predicted final result. The remarkable fact of said projection is the win for the Democratic Labor Party, who would be advised not to count their chickens. Four counts earlier, the DLP emerge ahead of Steve Fielding by the narrowest of margins, resulting in the former receiving the latter’s preferences and vice-versa. The DLP then emerges ahead of the third Coalition candidate and wins the seat on their third preferences, but it could just as easily be fielding who does this. Alternatively, neither could win – Fielding or the DLP could fail to get ahead of the third Coalition candidate, who might end up taking the seat instead. Or they could get ahead, but then fall short of overtaking Labor in the final count, so that Labor wins the seat.
Queensland. Three Liberal National, two Labor, one Greens.
Western Australia. A delightfully straightforward result, with the Liberals just over three quotas, Labor just over two (a remarkably low 29.8 per cent) and the Greens almost bang on one.
South Australia. Bob Day of Family First looks like he’s come close to overtaking the third Liberal candidate, but is currently 0.4 per cent behind and likely to lose ground in late counting. That being so, the final seat looks set go to the third Liberal, who looks about 3 per cent ahead of third Labor. Result: three Liberal, two Labor, one Greens.
Tasmania. Not only has Christine Milne been easily re-elected for the Greens, the current ABC projection has their second candidate just 1 per cent short of overtaking the Liberals at the second last count, and then winning the seat at the expense of a third Labor candidate. The exclusion of the second Green instead delivers the latter a narrow win over the third Liberal candidate. However, the unusually high number of below-the-line votes in Tasmania might makes things unpredictable. Realistically, the contest is between Labor and the Liberals to take a third seat, with the former slightly ahead.
The territories. Liberal Gary Humphries has only just cleared a quota (one third) in the ACT, but will be made comfortable by Democrats preference and a high rate of leakage. Equally, Labor wasn’t too far over a quota in the Northern Territory.
[I presume the Libs would choose the replacement senator for Abetz until 30 June 2011 and then they’d do a recount to determine who took the seat from 1 July 2011.]
Again it’s all completely hypothetical since the case is going to fail. But given that the dispute of return applies to the 2010 election and no dispute of return was lodged in time for the 2004 election, I wonder if, even if it did succeed, Abetz’s current term would be affected by it.
Victoria has now been declared with the DLP winning the sixth seat ahead of Liberal Julian McGaurna.
The successful candidates for the six Senate vacancies for Victoria are (in order of their election):
1. Kim John CARR Australian Labor Party
2. Michael RONALDSON Liberal/The Nationals
3. Richard DI NATALE Australian Greens
4. Stephen Michael CONROY Australian Labor Party
5. Bridget McKENZIE Liberal/The Nationals
6. John MADIGAN Democratic Labor party (DLP) of Australia
The Australian Electoral Officer for Victoria, Mrs Jenni McMullan said that the Senate count had involved the keying-in of votes into a computerised system, and today an automated process was used to distribute preferences and determine the six elected candidates.
“As with all aspects of the count, the automated distribution of preferences undertaken today was open to scrutineers appointed by the candidates,” Jenni said.
“Approximately 97% of voters cast their ballot Above-The-Line on the Senate ballot paper while 3% voted Below-The-Line,” she said.
The successful candidates will be formally declared elected at 10.00am 17 September 2010 at:
Central Senate Scrutiny Centre
Ground Floor
568 Collins St
Melbourne Vic 3000
[“As with all aspects of the count, the automated distribution of preferences undertaken today was open to scrutineers appointed by the candidates,” Jenni said.]
This statement is different to the rest. “all aspects of the count” were not subject to scrutiny.
The AEC refused to make available copies of the progressive Below the line preference data file. (The AEC tried to scam $30 saying that the data was only available under FOI.) without access to this information it is impossible to properly scrutinise the counting the computerised ballot. Why the AEC refused to make the information available as requested is any ones guess but in not doing so they have brought into disrepute what has otherwise been an exemplary process. Double entry validation, regular data backup and owners double checking. Something that was missing from the Victorian State Election count.
The failure of the AEC Scrutineers access to the recorded preference data files will be the subject of a review of the Federal Parliament JSEM – As the conduct of elections are no longer open and transparent.
The progressive preference distribution data for the counts in all states and territories, except NSW and Vic, are now available on the AEC website:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateResultsMenu-15508.htm
After all the pondering above about whether Family First had a chance for the final SA seat, and how close it might be, at the last exclusion the 3rd Liberal, David Fawcett, was on 91 657, and Bob Day of Family First was on 79 978.
Antony Green’s Senate calculator had the final gap as 89 949 to 82 298, so as predicted by Antony (and some others), Family First lost quite a bit of ground due to leakage from the below the line votes.
Another triumph for the Senate calculator, correctly showing the results in all states.
That’s an interesting point, Kevin @201. My guess would be that his seat would still be declared void, even though it wouldn’t be as a result of a dispute in the election. It would simply be as a result of his having been found to ineligible to be a Senator under the Constitution.
The case where Jeannie Ferris resigned and was re-appointed to her own seat suggests this. There was no dispute about the validity of her election, but because she worked in an Office of Profit under the Crown while she was a Senator-elect (after the election but before her term started), there was an unresolved question about whether that might her ineligible to hold office (even though she resigned from that position before her term formally started and she was sworn into the Senate.
When the question was raised about whether this might have made her ineligible, to avoid the risk of an adverse Court finding, she resigned her seat and was re-appointed to fill her own vacancy.
And on another minor statistical matter, the AEC preference distribution data for the AEC shows that Gary Humphries was forced to preferences (with 32.96%), but was pushed over a quota on below the line votes from his Liberal running mate (after first getting a small number from the BTL part of Kate Lundy’s surplus and a few BTL votes from the Democrats Number 2). Given an ungrouped Independent candidate got 1.12%, Humphries would probably have needed to be pushed below 32% to lose (had the Democrats not preferenced him with their ticket vote).
Victoria
Count 263
McGauran (LP) 247,341
Madigan (DLP) 261,811
Thow (ALP) 409,461
McGauran Excluded
Thow (ALP) 420,254
Madigan (DLP) 497,268 (Elected)
[The progressive preference distribution data\
The information published in only the summary count sheet. The AEC has not published the detailed preference data file. They refused to subject the preference data file to roper scrutiny. It took the AEC over three months and numerous emails before they published the details of the election. Of course without access to the preference data you can not independently verify or validate the results. It was only after they published the data in December 2007 that were were able to determine that the Greens Candidate Larissa waters should have been elected. (She was not due to a flaw in the Senate counting system that distorted the proportionality of the count and denied a true expression of the voters intention. But Hey it was a Green candidate so no one cared least of all the Greens themselves. They do not even recognise the flaws in the system,, even when everyone else’s does. They obviously are wearing Green coloured glasses 🙂 and can not see Red.
Repeating a myth, a lie or a smear does not make it any more true ‘D’@W – no matter how many times you repeat it, how incoherently you express it or how obnoxious, obtuse or offensive you attempt to be.
Thanks for publishing the preference count at the point of exclusion. It suggests that the Libs made up about 10 000 on Below the Line vote leakage.
As mentioned, the progressive preference distribution data for the all the other Senate counts are on the AEC site. The NSW and Vic ones will no doubt appear over the next few days.
This might help explain what D@W is on about.
On the election of Larissa Waters, Labor ticket votes worth 18,180 votes made up 5% of her quota. However, these votes represented 710,366 Labor ticket ballot papers, totally distorting the distribution of Waters’ 6,506 vote surplus. Labor votes were 5% of the Green total but ended up as 67% of the Green surplus because the Senate calculation is done on ballot papers, not votes.
This didn’t change the result, but one of these days it will. You can read how this works at
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/09/distortions-in-the-queensland-senate-count.html
Antony, having read your article, would the change need to occur legislatively?
Yes, it’s in the electoral act.
[Antony Green’s Senate calculator had the final gap as 89 949 to 82 298, so as predicted by Antony (and some others), Family First lost quite a bit of ground due to leakage from the below the line votes. ]
Gap increased by just over 4000 votes, which is interesting to know for future similar situations. Bit more than I expected, I knew the 438 he had up was not enough but I incorrectly suggested that if Day notionally led by a few thousand he should be OK. As it turned out 3000 would not quite have been enough.
Andrew Bartlett repating adnuseum that the system is not flawed only demonstrates your inability to understand how the system works. You were on the JSCEm how many years and you still are unaware of its flaws. Even though Antony Green is refusing to call a spade a spade the fact is he kns that the system is flawed. The LNP ticket rate increases in value as a result of the flaw in the system. In NSW the LNP Ticket vote gains over 14,000 votes. Yes it has not made a difference in the outcome of t6eh election BUT IT WILL., It is only a matter of time. SNIP: Shouty bit deleted – The Management.
THE AEC has began to publish the Below the line data files. For those that are interested they can di a few what ifs such as calculating the results based on different counting systems or even the outcome of a double dissolution. Disappointedly the AEC has not included the primary data entry only the second confirmation data. This means we can not produce stats on the data error rate. Over all the data-entry process implemented was exemplary only flared by the AEC’s refusal to provide copies of the data file progressively durring the count. This has prevented the proper scrutiny of the ballot, and has caused the election count to no longer be one and transparent. The AEC also needs to review its procedures in keeping track of ballot papers issued, returned and counted. The data published does not tally. In some cases more votes have been received and counted then issued.
But overall the process put in place have been good,=. Much better then the Victorian Electoral Commission. One has to ask why the VEC had spent millions of dollars duplicating services and software already in place. This is an issue that will hopefully be looked at the the State Auditor General.
I’ve only given it a fleeting thought since, like Kevin I think the case is weak.
But if the High Court went really strict or troppo and ruled Abetz unduly elected, the present Senate would be morally bound to concur and rule him disqualified to sit (or refer it to the High Court for an equivalent order). Even if Fielding blocked that motion a citizen vpcan bring a common informer action and pocket a couple of hundred dollars a day till Abetz resigns. But the Libs would simply appoint their 3rd placed Senate candidate until such time as Abetz regularized his affairs with a quick trip to Berlin and the Tas parliament would have to rubber stamp that.
Oh. the flaw in the system that Bartlett denies exists fell just short of tipping out Senator Feeney, and failed to elect Larissa Waters in 2007.
Those wanting to down load the BTL vote you can do so here…
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-TAS.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-SA.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-WA.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-QLD.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-ACT.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-NT.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-NSW.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-VIC.zip
No why this data was not made available as the count progressed is anyone’s guess. As a minimum, it should have been available to scrutineers. At least you do not have to pay $30 as the AEC legal officer tried to solicit in his efforts to prevent the data being released.
The weakest link in the system was the central data collection computers. A corrupt electoral official could readily alter the data files. By providing progressive online access and copies of the data would go a long way to restoring confidence in the electronic counting system. If and when we move to direct online voting then we need to ensure the system is much more transparent then it currently is.
All states except for Victoria have published the Below-The-Line data files. For some unknown reason the AEC has included the same data one in a coma delimited csv format and a copy in fixed length txt format.
The data provided has been filtered. Only the final formal “Second data-entry record” vote preference data has been published. (This prevents analysis of the quality of data-entry validation).
Missing is the batch no to voting centre reference (Data can not be cross matched to reconcile with voting centre returns)
Also missing is the informal votes recorded as part of the AEC data-entry system (This prevents further independent analysis of the informal vote) Clearly the AEC does not welcome independent review and scrutiny of the vote.
Technocrats at work.
Many secondary teachers will find this data to be of interest in teaching students about the electoral system and or data processing. Its a valuable resource that will hopefully help educate those who do not understand how our senate system actually works.
Victoria has declared its Senate but still has not published its below the line preference data. The Only state left outstanding.
Analysis of the SA results bases on a 12 member (Double Dissolution) Election elects the following (It needs to be noted that Nick Xenophon did not run and that in 2007 he would have elected two senators based on his quota. It can reasonable be assumed that FF and or The DLP candidate might not be elected in a Double in SA
Elected ID Candidate group_name
1 5 GALLACHER, Alex Australian Labor Party
2 8 FISHER, Mary Jo Liberal
3 22 WRIGHT, Penny The Greens
4 6 McEWEN, Anne Australian Labor Party
5 9 EDWARDS, Sean Liberal
6 7 WORTLEY, Dana Australian Labor Party
7 10 FAWCETT, David Liberal
8 23 MONTGOMERY, Sandy The Greens
9 11 SALU, Peter Liberal
10 24 MILLER, Jeremy John Scoular The Greens
11 39 DAY, Bob Family First
12 14 RUSSELL, Paul D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party
So Labor wins TPP vote?
I wont hold my breath for the media to report it with screaming headlines like they did for the Tories a few weeks back.
All senate positions have been declared and the Writes returned
[The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) announced today that it had returned the writs for the 2010 House of Representatives elections, and for the Senate elections in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to Her Excellency, Ms Quentin Bryce, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Writs for Senate elections in all states have been returned to the State Governors.]
Close of Business, Writes returned and the AEC still has not published the BTL preference data for the Victorian Senate. All other states have been published.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-VIC.zip
The AEC’s refusal to provide copies of the progressive the BTL preference data files and reconciliation data files and Mr Paul Pirani response to scrutineers request that copies of the BTL data would require payment of $30 and a FOI application as marrhed what has otherwise been an exemplary counting process.
The double entry-data verification, onsite and off site backup twice daily, retention of the primary and secondary preference data and manual checking of reported forced entry and inconsistent data-entry records go a long way towards addressing concerns that were highlighted in the 2006 Victorian State election.
Unliek in Victoria votes did not go missing between count A and count B and crucial data files were not deleted as was the case in 2006 Western Metro count.
Of course this begs the question WHY has Victoria spent Millions of dollars duplicating software development and process when they could have just utilised the professional services provided by the AEC?
Millions of dollars wasted by the State government that could have been better spent on health, education, roads or other services.
Seams no one is monitoring the expenditure and waste in supporting multiple electoral authorities. Double counting, Numerous junkets undertaken by the administration and the pollys with no accountability. You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours, MUMS the word.
It is time for a re-think and the establishment of a single independent electoral authority and tiime to put an end to the waste and duplication.
[Analysis of the SA results bases on a 12 member (Double Dissolution) Election elects the following (It needs to be noted that Nick Xenophon did not run and that in 2007 he would have elected two senators based on his quota. It can reasonable be assumed that FF and or The DLP candidate might not be elected in a Double in SA
Elected ID Candidate group_name
1 5 GALLACHER, Alex Australian Labor Party
2 8 FISHER, Mary Jo Liberal
3 22 WRIGHT, Penny The Greens
4 6 McEWEN, Anne Australian Labor Party
5 9 EDWARDS, Sean Liberal
6 7 WORTLEY, Dana Australian Labor Party
7 10 FAWCETT, David Liberal
8 23 MONTGOMERY, Sandy The Greens
9 11 SALU, Peter Liberal
10 24 MILLER, Jeremy John Scoular The Greens
11 39 DAY, Bob Family First
12 14 RUSSELL, Paul D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party]
The problem with this analysis is that you are just using the listed candidates for the half-senate election, for which there are only three Labor candidates listed. So when the third Labor candidate is elected in your simulation a massive Labor surplus of way over a DD quota leaves the ticket.
In a DD election this would obviously not happen as Labor would have more candidates. Therefore the above projection showing 3 Labor, 4 Lib, 3 Green, 1 FF, 1 DLP at a double dissolution is misleading and useless.
If the same vote %ages were repeated with the same party preferencing pattern at a double-diss for SA then there would certainly be 4 Labor, 4 Liberal, 1 Green on primary votes alone and then there would be a four-way race for the final three seats between Labor, Liberal, Green and Family First. On my calculations Labor gets up for 5 crossing the line on Democrat preferences and who misses out from the other three is too close to call and depends on BTLs.
You just can’t use exactly the same candidate mix even with the BTL data to project a DD result correctly because the number of candidates at a DD is different and this would even impact on the proportion of voters voting BTL in the first place and hence on the BTL leak rates. But for a more realistic *attempt* at such a model, give each major extra notional candidates for a team of six each, and start them each on zero BTLs.
thanks Antony
As you say (@211) the count has occurred according to our Electoral Act (i.e. according to out law, not wish or whim) and (@209) counting it differently wouldn’t have changed the result in Qld.
I know I should just ignore “D”@W as just another barely coherent troll, but having served on Parliamentary Committees looking at pretty much every aspect of our electoral system imaginable, I know how damaging it can be when allegations suggesting there is something dodgy with our electoral system are left unchallenged.
I understand what ‘D’@W is trying to highlight – unfortunately the repeated allegation that he/she/it makes (ever so bravely under the cloak of anonymity) that others “don’t understand how the system works” (see @213, along with the literally hundreds of other similar instances polluting a multitude of otherwise informative and rational comment threads on this and many other websites) continually creates the impression that the AEC counts the Senate ballots in a mistaken or flawed way (not to mention the regular inference that the AEC also somehow tries to cover this up by refusing to let people see how the ballot count is conducted).
The very deliberate efforts of the Liberals to assert mistakes, flaws, rorts or ‘secrecy’ in this area were used very effectively to justify the changes they made to the Electoral Act which were blatantly aimed at advantaging them.
It is one thing to make an academic argument about how a different counting system might be more democratic or representative. It is a completely different thing to repeatedly assert that having the votes counted according to the method enshrined in our Electoral Act is producing the “wrong result” and that other people “should” have won.
(and that’s leaving aside the fact that the main example used to assert that someone else “should” have won doesn’t even produce such a result based on most other PR multi-member counting systems)
Anyway, all the votes have been counted, all the surpluses and preferences have been distributed, and all the results declared.
And I should say again, Antony Green’s Senate calculator (combined with his occasional extra insights both here and elsewhere) has proved its worth yet again.
Now … back to looking at what those people who have been elected actually do.
If there is any further trolling from “D”@W below, please refer refer back to the start of this comment – I shall not return.
Fargo61:
[According to my spreadsheets and sore eyes, the 2010 vote repeated at a DD would give:
TAS – ALP 5 – LIB 4 – GRN3 (Shooters & Fishers stranded on apx .81)]
I concur with this. I was interested in this one as it’s my home state so I thought I’d check it. Actually it took me less than a minute to confirm your result. Labor would have 5.4 primary quotas, Lib 4.3 primary quotas, Green 2.64 primary quotas. So 11 quotas in the big three parties, the Labor prefs go to Greens, the left feeders go to Greens ahead of Labor (already knew this from pre-election modelling) and therefore the Greens would get a third when Labor went out.
Kevin Bonham
[In a DD election this would obviously not happen as Labor would have more candidates. Therefore the above projection showing 3 Labor, 4 Lib, 3 Green, 1 FF, 1 DLP at a double dissolution is misleading and useless. ]
Yes that is true. The abvpve was a straight count using published reference data from the 2010 election based on a 12 member quota. (1/13).I could add a candidate or two to the ALP party list to make allowance for this.
[4 Labor, 4 Liberal, 1 Green on primary votes alone and then there would be a four-way race for the final three seats between Labor, Liberal, Green and Family First. On my calculations Labor gets up for 5 crossing the line on Democrat preferences and who misses out from the other three is too close to call and depends on BTLs.]
Exactly (but you need to also take into consideration the Xenophon factor)
The fact is Labor will do better at a DD then at a half Senate election. In 2010 there was no advantage the ALP but at the next election it will be advantageous birth for the ALP and the LNP to have a DD.
The Green vote will drop and the number of Green senators will be limited
NSW Double Dissolution based on the 2010 election results
Elected ID Candidate group_name
1 59 FIERRAVANTI-WELLS, Concetta Liberal
2 46 FAULKNER, John Labor
3 69 RHIANNON, Lee The Greens
4 60 HEFFERNAN, William Liberal
5 47 THISTLETHWAITE, Matthew Labor
6 61 NASH, Fiona Liberal
7 48 HUTCHINS, Steve Labor
8 62 HUGHES, Hollie Liberal
9 49 MURNAIN, Anne Labor
10 63 DENNIS, Joe Liberal
11 50 SEATON, Fiona Labor
12 77 DRUERY, Glenn Liberal Democrats (LDP)
NOTE: the number of ALP and LNP candiates did not effect the outcome of this simulation.
NSW 2PP/Pcp based on the Senate vote
FIERRA VANTI-WELLS (LNP) 2,039,560 49.10%
FAULKNER (ALP) 2,113,953 50.90%
William. Not only dud you change the dat but did you also not change the text
[Victoria. What at first appeared the quirky prospect of win for DLP candidate John Madigan has firmed. I personally anticipated the resources of incumbency might mean Family First would perform strongly on declaration votes, but they have actually gone backwards: according to the ABC projection, a 0.12 per cent deficit against the DLP at the revelant point in the count on election night has actually widened to 0.22 per cent. The Coalition have also failed to make up the ground needed to overtake the DLP at the penultimate count, with the gap now at an unassailable 0.72 per cent. That leaves us looking at a result of two Labor, one Liberal and one Nationals, one Greens and one DLP.]
Ah yes … you did change the text of the post not just the date…
Original
[Victoria. It is widely being reported that Steve Fielding has lost his seat, based on assessments of Antony Green’s projection that went no deeper than the predicted final result. The remarkable fact of said projection is the win for the Democratic Labor Party, who would be advised not to count their chickens. Four counts earlier, the DLP emerge ahead of Steve Fielding by the narrowest of margins, resulting in the former receiving the latter’s preferences and vice-versa. The DLP then emerges ahead of the third Coalition candidate and wins the seat on their third preferences, but it could just as easily be fielding who does this. Alternatively, neither could win – Fielding or the DLP could fail to get ahead of the third Coalition candidate, who might end up taking the seat instead. Or they could get ahead, but then fall short of overtaking Labor in the final count, so that Labor wins the seat.]
New
[Victoria. What at first appeared the quirky prospect of win for DLP candidate John Madigan has firmed. I personally anticipated the resources of incumbency might mean Family First would perform strongly on declaration votes, but they have actually gone backwards: according to the ABC projection, a 0.12 per cent deficit against the DLP at the revelant point in the count on election night has actually widened to 0.22 per cent. The Coalition have also failed to make up the ground needed to overtake the DLP at the penultimate count, with the gap now at an unassailable 0.72 per cent. That leaves us looking at a result of two Labor, one Liberal and one Nationals, one Greens and one DLP.]
🙂
NSW – the flaw in the current Senate calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value
Fiona Nash is elected with a total value of 651614
The surplus is 58397
Number of ballot papers = 1837844
The Senate Transfer value is calculated by
[dividing the surplus by the number of ballot papers]
58397/1837844 = 0.031774732
Problem is that has the effect of inflating the LNP ticket vote (Adds an additional 14,000 votes to the LNP Ticket) which is valued at a fraction value and devalues (-14,000) from minor party primary votes which are full valued at 1.
In my book this is a serious flaw in the way the Senate system is counted. Some might think this is not a flaw. (Thank god they are not managing my super)
The correct calculation of the surplus transfer value should be based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers
[Surplus divided by Candidate’s total value]
58397/651614 = 0.089619008
This “new” Surplus Transfer Value is applied to the current value of each vote/ballot paper deriving a new value and then the votes/ballot papers are distributed to the next available preference and the revised value of the votes/Ballot papers are added to the “new” candidates total.
This retains the correct mathematical proportionality (ie no distortion in the value of the Party Ticket vote. No flaw.