The first two Senate results were determined today, for Tasmania and the Northern Territory. No further results will be decided until at least next week, with the possibility of some having to wait until a week subsequently. This post will review the results as they emerge.
Western Australia (October 2)
The one we’ve all been waiting for: it’s Louise Pratt and PUP, rather than Scott Ludlam and Sports, possibly pending an unprecedented Senate recount. 1. David Johnston (Liberal); 2. Joe Bullock (Labor); 3. Michaelia Cash (Liberal); 4. Linda Reynolds (Liberal); 5. Zhenya Wang (PUP); 6. Louise Pratt (Labor).
The result was decided by a difference of just 14 votes, that being the margin at the key point of the count between Shooters & Fishers (23,515) and Australian Christians (23,501). Going on the ABC computer projection, the margin at that point in the count was 23,395 for Shooters & Fishers against 22,967 for Australian Christians. So below-the-line votes cost van Burgel 534 vote and Bow 120 – not quite enough to make the difference. Had Shooters & Fishers dropped out, their preferences would have gone to the Australian Sports Party, sustaining them at a point in the count where they would otherwise have been excluded. There would then have come a later point in the count where the Palmer United Party would have been excluded on account of being behind the Sports Party, and their preferences would have flowed to the Greens giving Ludlam the seat at the expense of Pratt.
New South Wales (October 2)
As anticipated, 1. Marise Payne (Liberal), 2. Bob Carr (Labor), 3. John Williams (Nationals), 4. Doug Cameron (Labor), 5. David Leyonhjelm (LDP); 6. Arthur Sinodinos (Liberal).
Queensland (October 2)
No surprises here either, except that it’s come sooner than anticipated. 1. Ian Macdonald (LNP), 2. Chris Ketter (Labor), 3. James McGrath (LNP), 4. Claire Moore (Labor), 5. Glenn Lazarus (PUP) & 6. Matt Canavan (LNP).
Victoria (October 1)
1. Mitch Fifield (Liberal), 2. Gavin Marshall (Labor), 3. Scott Ryan (Liberal), 4. Jacinta Collins (Labor), 5. Janet Rice (Greens); 6. Ricky Muir (Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party).
Also confirmed today, and also in line with what all models were projecting.
South Australia (October 1)
1. Cory Bernardi (Liberal); 2. Nick Xenophon; 3. Penny Wong (Labor); 4. Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens); 5. Bob Day (Family First); 6. Simon Birmingham (Liberal).
Confirmed today, with no surprises. More to follow.
Australian Capital Territory (October 1)
1. Kate Lundy (Labor); 2. Zed Seselja (Liberal).
Confirmed this morning. No surprises here.
Tasmania
1. Richard Colbeck (Liberal); 2. Carol Brown (Labor); 3. David Bushby (Liberal); 4. Catryna Bilyk (Labor); 5. Peter Whish-Wilson (Greens); 6. Jacqui Lambie (Palmer United).
Liberal and Labor both scored a clean two quotas off the primary vote (2.63 and 2.30 respectively), with Labor’s surplus enough to ensure election for Peter Whish-Wilson (0.82) after the exclusion of the third Labor candidate, Lin Thorp. The race for the final seat ended up a three-way contest between the ultimately successful Jacqui Lambie of the Palmer United Party, third Liberal candidate Sally Chandler, and Robbie Swan of the Sex Party. The ABC calculator had been giving it to Swan because a strong performance on preferences, including from some unlikely sources, would have helped him stay ahead of Lin Thorp by 15,145 to 14,449 at a key point of the count. However, many of those preferences were perversely to come from conservative parties (Shooters and Fishers, Country Alliance, Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party) whose supporters were not of a mind to direct preferences to the Sex Party consciously (UPDATE: Kevin Bonham in comments points out the Sex Party in fact got more below-the-line preferences than Labor from Shooters and Fishers voters – however, on the ABC calculator projection they were getting all of them). That caused 653 below-the-line votes for those parties to leak away, while below-the-line votes gave Thorp a net gain of 287. The closure of the gap meant the exclusion of Swan, followed by the exclusion of Thorp and the election of Whish-Wilson. At this stage, Jacqui Lambie emerged with a 31,142-29,866 vote lead over the Liberal Democrats, whose exclusion unlocked the flood of preferences which elected her. Had Lambie failed to stay ahead of the Liberal Democrats, her own preferences would have decided the result in favour of Chandler.
Northern Territory
1. Nigel Scullion (Country Liberal); 2. Nova Peris (Labor).
Labor finished just short of a quota with 0.9824, but would presumably have got over the line on below-the-line preferences on any scenario. Even if it were otherwise, the combinations that might have put Nova Peris in jeopardy were not in place. The one party with the potential to absorb the entire non-Labor vote was First Nations, but the combined vote for it and its immediate preference feeders amounted to only 2.18%, giving its candidate no chance of overtaking Australian Independents or Shooters and Fishers as required to keep the snowball rolling. Peris made it to a quota when Sex Party preferences were distributed, and stood to receive the 8.7% Greens vote if the count had proceeded further.
TheSpeaker@78
Strangely I saw The Australian canvassing Peg Putt (former Tas leader) as a possible replacement (alongside Nick McKim). Putt is very much the same as Milne – strident, hectoring, polarising, schooled in the movement’s old ways of conflict – and resigned here when she became unpopular compared to younger leaders for the ALP and Liberals. Also, she’s the same age as Milne, within a month. The Greens would have rocks in their heads to even put Putt in the Senate at all.
@TS… Sorry, wasn’t looking in your direction at all. In fact I’ve been following your methodology with keen interest and commenting Anonymously on your blog (can’t be bothered signing up for anything else) for a week or two.
Indeed all of your analysis has to follow the basic premise that the election will be counted according to the prevailing rules on the day, and not according to any number of alternative systems that produce different or “more democratic” results that what we use today.
I just never get tired of hearing about the #$%&ing cake.
People like Antony Green are saying the Senate system will almost certainly be reformed before the next election. Some commentators are pointing to the NSW Legislative Council system of optional preferential voting above the line.
I suspect that if the Coalition introduces something like the NSW system for the Senate they will be tempted to pair it with optional preferential voting for the House too. It would be the ideal time to do it if they are interested. However, they might need different Senate combinations to pass each measure, and it seems possible it could come down to the WA result and whether PUP get three in total.
If PUP do get three, then Labor+Greens+PUP=38 which is enough to block legislation. PUP, if they vote as a block, may not support OPV for the House as it would make it harder for them to win seats. I’m not sure what the attitude of the other minor parties might be but I’m also not sure they would care very much, so they may be amenable in the end.
Perhaps it may also come down to how the various minor parties that do register lower house support are faring, and where they seem to be drawing their voters from, when the Coalition considers electoral changes.
Compass, there is still the current Senate to work with till 1/7/2014 if they want to go quickly (though getting Palmer’s back up before his senators take their seats isn’t necessarily a smart thing to do).
Triton, I was assuming the Greens wouldn’t buy OPV in which case it wouldn’t happen under the current Senate. I could be wrong but I suspect not.
Looks like the button will be pressed in ACT Monday and Vic, SA and WA Tuesday, judging from the declaration schedules.
It’s a public holiday in the ACT in Monday. Not sure if this is relevant to the button push.
OPV is not the solution. A 4% threshold will be implemented. Above the line voting will stay. What ever is adopted it will be decided by LNP and Labor. The minor parties have never shown an interest in Electoral reform. The Greens should have called for refrom long before now. They did not even seek representation on the JSCEM, Although Bob Brown was on the committee – no one replaced him. When Brown was on the Committee all he wanted was reform of the lower-house and the introduction of multi-member electorates. As if.., Tasmania in my view has it wrong. Wrong house wrong system of voting.
if you are going to introduce OPV then you might as well abolish preferential voting, past the post or a party list system. The Dutch use a Party list system where the party determines where its surplus is allocated.
It would be better to abolish below the line voting and adopt full preferential voting above the line.
If we had optional preferentialm say minimummsix position six preferences, Then each party will nominate six candidates and the ALP will not allocate and preferences. This would stop the Greens in their tracks.
IN Western Metro DLP, Family Fist and the christian groups voted for their candidates and stopped. This had the unintended result of electing the Greens who they were opposed to. Had they continued their preferences the ALP would have been elected and the Greens the wasted quota.
There has been talk of allowing OPV but including some savings rule that allows the Party of first choice to complete the sequence.
I think Farmers votes will mainly flow to the Liberals as many will be reverse donkey votes.
Take a look at count 24
Palmer United Party +4,355 73,651 5.62% 0.3936
Liberal Democrats +13,892 73,537 5.61% 0.3929
This is close 114 votes difference.
I did a model where 50% of Farmers votes flow up and the other 50%
flow around the other way to the top down LibDem out poll PUP at this
point
It is very close don’t you think.
Posted by:
democracyATwork | September 28, 2013 at 10:01 PM
WA Notional ticket distribution analysis
Here is the table adjusted to provide a coma delimitation
,,ALP/Grn,Ticket Flow order,,,,,Ballot Papers,,,,,,,Votes value,,,,,
AlphaCode,Group Name,GroupPref,1,2,3,4,5,Ticket,BTL,Unknown,GroupTotal,ALP,GRN,,Papers,Value,Group,TotalValue,ALP-BTL,GRN-BTL
A,Smokers Rights,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,8069,599,16,8684,615,,,8684,0.0531,ALP,461,33,
B,Liberal Democrats,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,44191,600,102,44893,702,,,44893,0.0531,ALP,2384,37,
C,Australian Christians,ALP,PUP,LP,ALP,LDP,GRN,19608,1801,45,21454,1846,,,21454,1.0000,ALP,21454,1846,
D,Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party,GRN,LDP,GRN,ALP,PUP,LP,12658,1214,20,13892,,1234,,13892,0.0531,GRN,738,,66
E,Socialist Equality Party,GRN,GRN,ALP,LP,LDP,PUP,331,53,0,384,,53,,384,1.0000,GRN,384,,53
E,Socialist Equality Party,ALP,ALP,LP,LDP,PUP,GRN,331,53,0,384,53,,,384,1.0000,ALP,384,53,
E,Socialist Equality Party,GRN,LP,LDP,PUP,GRN,ALP,331,53,0,384,,53,,384,0.0531,GRN,20,,3
F,Palmer United Party,GRN,PUP,LDP,GRN,LP,ALP,62604,2621,181,65406,,2802,,65406,0.0531,GRN,3473,,149
G,Shooters and Fishers,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,12565,1019,26,13610,1045,,,13610,0.0531,ALP,723,55,
H,Australian Voice Party,ALP,PUP,LDP,LP,ALP,GRN,1075,55,5,1135,60,,,1135,0.0531,ALP,60,3,
I,Sex Party,GRN,LDP,GRN,ALP,LP,PUP,17783,1660,53,19496,,1713,,19496,0.0531,GRN,1035,,91
J,Secular Party of Australia,GRN,GRN,LDP,ALP,LP,PUP,995,482,3,1480,,485,,1480,1.0000,GRN,1480,,485
K,Australian Independents,GRN,LDP,PUP,GRN,LP,ALP,3664,351,11,4026,,362,,4026,0.0531,GRN,214,,19
L,The Wikileaks Party,GRN,GRN,LDP,ALP,LP,PUP,8121,1624,22,9767,,1646,,9767,1.0000,GRN,9767,,1646
M,Katter’s Australian Party,GRN,PUP,LP,LDP,GRN,ALP,3487,396,7,3890,,403,,3890,0.0531,GRN,207,,21
N,Family First Party,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,8270,472,26,8768,498,,,8768,0.0531,ALP,466,26,
O,No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,1397,90,5,1492,95,,,1492,0.0531,ALP,79,5,
P,Stable Population Party,GRN,PUP,LDP,GRN,ALP,LP,351,104,1,456,,105,,456,0.0531,GRN,24,,
P,Stable Population Party,ALP,PUP,LDP,ALP,GRN,LP,351,104,1,456,105,,,456,0.0531,ALP,24,6,
P,Stable Population Party,GRN,PUP,LDP,LP,GRN,ALP,351,104,1,456,,105,,456,0.0531,GRN,24,,6
Q,Stop The Greens,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,2094,139,3,2236,142,,,2236,0.0531,ALP,119,8,
R,Australian Democrats,GRN,LDP,GRN,PUP,ALP,LP,1625,287,4,1916,,291,,1916,0.0531,GRN,102,,15
R,Australian Democrats,GRN,LDP,GRN,PUP,LP,ALP,1625,287,4,1916,,291,,1916,0.0531,GRN,102,,15
S,The Greens (WA),GRN,GRN,ALP,PUP,LP,LDP,109734,14255,193,124182,,14448,,124182,1.0000,GRN,124182,,
T,Animal Justice Party,GRN,GRN,PUP,LDP,ALP,LP,8942,710,29,9681,,739,,9681,1.0000,GRN,9681,,739
U,The Nationals,ALP,LP,LDP,PUP,ALP,GRN,61755,4339,77,66171,4416,,,66171,0.0531,ALP,3514,234,
V,Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,5498,211,14,5723,225,,,5723,0.0531,ALP,304,12,
W,Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party,ALP,LDP,PUP,ALP,LP,GRN,3645,205,11,3861,216,,,3861,0.0531,ALP,205,11,
W,Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party,ALP,LDP,PUP,LP,ALP,GRN,3645,205,11,3861,216,,,3861,0.0531,ALP,205,11,
X,Australian Sports Party,GRN,PUP,LDP,LP,GRN,ALP,2852,127,8,2987,,135,,2987,0.0531,GRN,159,,7
Y,Rise Up Australia Party,ALP,LP,PUP,ALP,LDP,GRN,3436,382,18,3836,400,,,3836,1.0000,ALP,3836,400,
Z,Australian Labor Party,ALP,ALP,GRN,PUP,LDP,LP,339148,8183,992,348323,9175,,,348323,0.4626,ALP,161134,,
AA,Liberal,ALP,LP,PUP,LDP,ALP,GRN,507353,6206,1063,514622,7269,,,514622,0.0531,ALP,27326,386,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,27078,24865,,,,,,3128,3315
I have trialled a new method of estimating BTL votes in WA – thoughts welcome! It shows that the “calculator” lead of the Shooters of 413 votes is actually a l36 vote lead considering
– “locked in votes”
– BTL estimated flows using transition matrix methodologies.
D@W:
1) LDP stand zero chance of finishing ahead of PUP in WA – they’re 1800 behind on locked in votes
2) I don’t know what your last post was all about. I doubt most do. I recommend posting this on your own blog in a format that’s more understandable with commentary around what the data means.
Democracy at work is wrong above at 108. The Greens had a bill in the Senate to reform the Senate electoral system, relating to above the line voting and this was part of their government agreement with the ALP. Also Senator Rhiannon was on the JSCEM.
I also don’t see why he talks about the 4% threshold as a fait accompli.
While truth seeker estimated that the greens will win a seat in sa. It was off very very optimistic estimated green vote He estimated the combined green alp votes to be 38% instead of the actual 29%. 38% would suggest that x does not take any vote from the left and almost draw votes from the right
With alp/green 2pp at 47%. It was always going to be 3 right/2 lef/1 x split. I do not think many people through the left split would be 1alp 1 green. The rest of the estimate was very good
Re senate reform the only party that benefits from a 4% threshold in the greens/pup the alp / liberals are quite happy to work with many minor parties and do not have to rely on the greens. Any reform will be to stop the snowballs and name confusions (the name confusion in nsw actually end up costing the left their 3rd seat
The 4% is what all the players have been talking about, It is the same percentage as the threshold on public funding. It is also the figure used elsewhere (It does vary from 3 to 5% sometimes higher) used in It will be the the value adopted.
The table above (Coma delimited) its the national distribution value based on the registered tickets.
LDP is most likely place to catch the inverse donkey vote.
The only place where the Greens can be back in the hunt is if the Christians out poll the Shooters and Fishers and make up the difference from the below-the-line vote from the following parties (Still a big ask)
98% of BTL votes stay within the group of their first choice candidate. The question is where do these voters go after filling in their chosen group.
Where for the 417 Farmer votes go? Are they a core One Nat6ion group or is a large percentage of them a reverse donkey vote. Most likely the later i which case they are caught up with the Liberal party surplus build
There are few within this list that would favor the Christians who are not already party of that ticket flow anyway
The Christians are early in the inverse don’t flow but not sure if this is enough to make up the 400 odd votes needed
One factor you have not taken into account is the increase in value of the Liberal and National Party ticket vote and the point of segmentation when the Liberals 3=rd candidate is elected and either PUP/LDP and SPRTS I would not right of the LDP just yet)
Either way the only way the Greens can survive is if Sports is back in play in the last quarter I can only see that happening if the Christians have a miracle and they turn fishers into votes and Shoot down the Shooters and fishermen.
The Greens are also more likely to lose votes from leakage than the ALP.
I suggest you do some stats on the potential for the Christians to out poll the fisherman making up the 400 odd votes required to break ticket flows.
Group Names of those excluded before the Christians on the notional flow
Australian Voice Party
Socialist Equality Party
Stable Population Party
Secular Party of Australia
Stop The Greens
No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
Rise Up Australia Party
Katter’s Australian Party
Australian Independents
Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
Australian Democrats
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
Smokers Rights
Family First Party
The Wikileaks Party
Animal Justice Party
Sex Party
ABC Insiders expose and discussion on the Greens is spot on.
It demonstrates much of what is bad about the Greens and in the words of SHY they have elected a leader and heading for a slow death.
The Greens will go backwards in opposition weighted down by increasing irrelevance.
Truth at 111
At the pivot point of LDP and PUP the following Group lead candidates have been excluded.
Where do you see votes flowing that give PUP a clear lead bearing in mind that LDP have poll position BTL inverse donkey vote. Can you kindly outline where you think LDP can not out poll PUP?
What are you classifying as locked on votes?
This is academic and at this stage we should not be guessing based on reverse engineering but should have access to the BTL data entry files?
WHY IS IT THAT THIS INFORMATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY REVIEW AND/OR PUBLISHED?
ID,Candidate,Value,Group Name
15,PARKES,1135,Australian Voice Party
9,SYMONDS,1152,Socialist Equality Party
31,STRACHAN,1368,Stable Population Party
19,ATKINS,1480,Secular Party of Australia
33,FISHLOCK,2236,Stop The Greens
29,BYASS,2627,No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
50,FOREMAN,3836,Rise Up Australia Party
25,FELS,3890,Katter’s Australian Party
21,HIGGINS,4026,Australian Independents
44,EDWARDS,5723,Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
35,FERNANDEZ,6680,Australian Democrats
46,HOWLETT,7722,Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
1,KATZ-BARBER,8684,Smokers Rights
27,ROSE,8768,Family First Party
23,GEORGATOS,9767,The Wikileaks Party
40,LOVE,13513,Animal Justice Party
17,PALMER,20976,Sex Party
5,van BURGEL,22946,Australian Christians
48,DROPULICH,37075,Australian Sports Party
7,BALDERSTONE,47424,Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party
,,,
3,FRYER,73537,Liberal Democrats
11,WANG,73651,Palmer United Party
democracy@work@108
This is what happens in Tas but in practice a lot of voters keep voting after their chosen ticket. About (very roughly) two-thirds of Green voters and one half of ALP/Lib voters continue when the last candidate in their ticket is out of business. The rest exhaust. So semi-OPV does have a preferential component here, just a reduced one. Perhaps in other states less used to the system the rate of continuity would be lower.
@D@w
Instead of spamming this site with meaningless data I have put all my vote flow estimates on my blog. Excluding BTLs, PUP is about 1800 ahead of LDP in WA.
The reverse donkey is worth approx 1% of total vote for ungrouped candidates. That will clearly reduce the margin of 1800… By about 4 votes.
ltep@112
This is what was in the Labor-Green agreement:
“d) The Parties note that Senator Bob Brown will reintroduce as a Private Members Bill the Commonwealth Electoral (Above-the-Line Voting) Amendment Bill 2008. The ALP will consider the Bill and work with the Greens to reach reforms satisfactory to the Parties.”
I can find no evidence the bill was reintroduced.
Incidentally JSCEM recommended against the bill largely because they claimed it would drive up the informal rate (probably true) and they claimed the high use of ATL demonstrated popular support for it (certainly false given the impracticality of voting all the way BTL).
democracy@work@117
LDP had effective pole (!) position for normal donkey or normal part-donkey votes in Tas and it did them no good in their contest with PUP. PUP in fact increased their lead over LDP by about 600 compared to the “locked-in” (ATL and a fair share of own party’s minor candidate BTLs) votes.
The rates of pure and inverse pure BTL donkeying are negligible. There’s probably a partial donkey factor (from voters who fill in so many boxes and donkey the rest in either direction) but that may even be drowned out by the impact of what I call “proximity voting” – that a preference is more likely to flow to a candidate nearer to its source than further away on the ballot paper, creating a disadvantage at either end of a large ballot.
In Tasmania the proportion of pure donkey vote BTLs as a percentage of all votes was at most 0.039%.
There is no reason to believe LDP should outpoll PUP when the calculator position is relatively even. In Tas the LDP had a calculator lead over PUP of 1469 but were excluded by PUP by over a thousand.
Kevin, the bill was indeed reintroduced, in September 2010. (http://tinyurl.com/jwlsw7d) Like a lot of the government agreement, it really seemed little to no effort was put into implementing it or pursuing it. I noted with amusement the Government’s commitment to resolve the issue of the meaning of appropriations for the ordinary annual services of government in the Constitution, which, of course, came to nothing.
In any case, I’m just presenting my opinion that d@w’s assertion that the Greens have never been interested in electoral reform and that they didn’t appoint anyone to JSCEM is incorrect.
ltep@122
So it was reintroduced and then nothing happened, it wasn’t even voted on? That would explain why I could not find it as a rejected bill.
Truth trumps semi-informed opinion any day of the week . Great sleuthing ltep and KB
Kevin @121
I am mealy making an observation. Without having access to the below the line data file it is impossible to extrapolate where the BTL vote may go.
My question remains WHY IS THE AEC refusing to subject the BTL preference data file to independent scrutiny and WHY is it refusing to publish this data
Whether it is LDP or PUP is not that relevant. The main concern is with the Christians and the shooting Fishing Party. I do not see the Greens out polling the ALP in a fold up unless Christans can out poll shooters
I try to reverse engineer the outcome based on what information is available. There is not much value in the below the line vote attributed to the ALP. The method of calculating the surplus transfer value gives the ALP an edge. A value weighted surplus transfer with segmentation would be in the Greens favour. Remove the segmentation and the tide swings in the ALP favour
If the AEC published the BTL file then we would be able to monitor it and the count would be much more open and transparent.
We should be all calling on the AEC to publish the data file without delay.
Count 21 ABC Calculator
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/wa/
If Sports Party do not survive than I do not see the Greens climbing out of the Wasted Quota bucket. In fact I would expect that the Greens vote will leak more than the notional ALP vote.
You really are like a stuck record democracy@work. You can quote that calculator all you like but it is just a dumb automated process that treats all votes as ticket votes. I designed it so I know its limitations, as does everyone else commenting on the Senate count except you its seems.
Read my blog, or read Truthseeker’s blog, and see a more detailed cut-up of above and below the line votes to get a real picture of what’s going on at that point of the count. Don’t just quote the calculator.
You did the same for days about the PUP-LDP race before collective opinion finally got it through your head that the calculator output at this point misses entirely the substantial lead that PUP has with ticket votes.
As you say at 125, “Without having access to the below the line data file it is impossible to extrapolate where the BTL vote may go.” But if you bother to look at the break up of below and above the line votes that the AEC does publish, you will get an infinitely better picture than just repeatedly quoting my ABC Senate Calculator.
btw, I was quizzed by Bob Brown about his bill in JSCEM after the 2010 election. He had moved it in the previous Parliament and JSCEM did a report on it at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=em/elect07/report3.htm It’s not one of their best enquiries.
It was a Green amendment to the government’s legislation changing the NSW LC voting system in 2000 that first introduced above the line preference voting, the basis of the bill Brown moved in the Senate and one moved by Green MLC Mark Parnell in the SA Parliament.
The fact the bill didn’t go anywhere in the last parliament is not surprising. Labor and the Coalition weren’t the least bit interested and there were plenty of other legislation the Greens had to keep a watch on.
mmmm, describing someone as a stuck record ages me.
AG @ 129
[mmmm, describing someone as a stuck record ages me]
Stuck MP3 then, but thanks for saying what everyone else has been thinking!
Antony GREEN@129
An elderly acquaintance with an interest in attempting to understand modern music once loaned me a Brian Eno record among a stack of records he wanted me to give an opinion on. I took them home and put them on. The Eno record became stuck at a certain point and it took me several minutes to notice that it was in fact repeating.
truthe seeker
[The reverse donkey is worth approx 1% of total vote]
Given that there are apparently a creative few donkeys that exercise their minds with not just a number sequence but a reverse number sequence on a Senate ballot, and these are detected and counted by the AEC, I wonder if there are any that use an interlace pattern or something more complicated to test out the AEC. (I can think of a prime number wrapping method that they’ll never figure out!)
To clarify, in the TAS 2010 Senate election, 1% of all votes for the ungrouped candidate were reverse donkeys. That is, 11 votes altogether (approx 1% of the 1000 votes for the ungrouped candidate, or approx 0.003% of the total TAS vote)
These figures were not published directly by the AEC, rather it was inferred by me analysing the full BTL data file.
Triton
[Given that there are apparently a creative few donkeys that exercise their minds with not just a number sequence but a reverse number sequence on a Senate ballot, and these are detected and counted by the AEC, I wonder if there are any that use an interlace pattern or something more complicated to test out the AEC. (I can think of a prime number wrapping method that they’ll never figure out!)]
for what its worth, I always reverse donkey BTL, however my pattern is right to left, and bottom up.
and I try to get my actual voting intention to reveal in the last 25% of the ballot. Keeps the AEC employed, and I figure it also gets more of them + scrutineers to read my write in slogans.
Antony Green. I understand fully the limitations of your Calculator and identified many of the potential pivot points ahead of you.
I use a number of calculators as I am interested in what the difference is if you remove the distortions from the way the vote is counted.
I am also of the view that the AEC should be publishing the below the line preference data file as and when data is recorded. Had it done so then we would bot be left in the dark as to what the trend line is.
The AEC’s refusal to publish this data and provide scut5ineers copies of the data has brought the conduct of the election count into disrepute. A number of parties (myself included) have officially requested that this data be made available and subject to independent review.
I note that t5he NT preference data file is published but Tasmania and the other states are not.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateDownloadsMenu-17496-csv.htm
One Nation’s Robert Farmer has 417 votes. he is the last on the ballot paper. What percentage of his vote do your think are reverse donkey votes? I would think most.
I have just checked some of the stats from the Western Australian State election 50% to 66% of first preference votes for the last candidate were reverse donkey votes. I can check previous senate elections for you if you like. Where did you come up with the 1% estimate?
101
However, while I am not saying that the Greens should put Putt in, when she was Greens leader in Tasmania the Green vote went up but when Milne was leader it went down.
A third of the previous Green vote was a vote against the Majors, they were clearly not supporting the Greens per say
In this election they lost most of the non core Green vote.
People are beginning to see though the Green veil and they do not like what they see.
I would think that Western Australia will go to a recount as a number of crucial pivot points fall within 500 votes or less than 1% of the value of preceding Below-the-line votes.
A miscount in the above the line vote, a missing or incorrectly recorded bundle of votes in the wrong pile, a transcription gone wrong or someone tapering with the recorded data files.. (The fact that they AEC has not published the BTL preference data files make it impossible to verify the integrity of the count without having access to all the ballot papers to verify that the fail is in fact correct. if they published the data file progressively then there would be an open public audit trail and any changes would be need to be explained.
If you have any doubts about the lack of security in the counting system talk to some of the University academics who have done extensive research question of data security in electronic election counts.
The best defense is an open and transparent counting system
When the AEC refuses to provide scrutineers access to copies of crucial data files and tabulations you have to ask why? Apart from the theatre of pushing the bottom copies of the below-the-line data files should be readily available as the count progresses.
The VEC produced copies of the data files for local government elections as the count progresses.
The AEC even published them but after the count and when it is impossible or extremely difficult to go back and review the crucial votes.
It is not asking much to require that the system is open and transparent. One would have thought that the AEC would rightly seek to ensure that the system is open to proper independent scrutiny. Sadly this is not the case.
Tom the first and best@139
Yes this is true although Putt had the advantage of the Liberal Opposition at the time being absolutely hopeless. The Green vote went up lots in their first election under her but fell back (though not to Milne levels) in the second.
The Green vote went up mainly as they were seen as an alternative to the ALP and LNP. Not because of Green policies. The Greens in opposition have no responsibility in Government they are a liability. Voters are begging aware that ten green are not a solution,the media need to place te Greens under the spot light. I suspect they will become irrelevant more and more, They only hold the ‘balance” as long as the LNP and ALP have not reached agreement.
Tasmania is not a real government it is the size of a municipality or a territory that depends on hand outs and subsidies to remain economic.
We should trade off subsidy for statehood.
It’s last bundle electoral system is outdated, even worst than the Senate.
Antony Green still has not provided an explanation or justification why the AEC has not progressively published copies of the BTL data files and why Scrutineers are also prevented copies. If this data was available then all this discussion on hypothetical would be much more relevant.
I do not see the Greens making up the notional shortfall in the WA senate count. I have taken into consideration the locked in preferences and the BTL votes notionally allocated to the ALP/LNP Most of the votes allocated to the ALP either form part of the LNP/PUP surplus before being allocated to the ALP. The percentage of those that would break “ticket” and back the Greens ahead of the ALP is unlikely. I can not see FF or the Christian groups backing the Greens at best I would assume 10% of votes would switch. The Greens are not in a close position unless Sports Party survives the count.
The system also inflates the value of votes that are filtered through the LNP/PUP giving potentially the ALP a 10,000 vote bonus a factor that “Truth” has not built into his stat tables
I reverse engineer the results. I allocate th locked in ticket vote and those BTL votes that are also locked in behind elected candidates.
I think allocate a notional dostr5ibutioon for BTL votes and play around with the preference distribution to ascertain the tipping points and percentages of each group required to effect change in the outcome base on educated guess, past statical breakdowns and Truth stat tables. I then run that through my calculator model to determine the outcome.
If I had access to the BTL preference data files this would make it that much more easier to home in on the thresholds required to active change in the distribution result.
If the AEC published the BTL data files as the count progresses then the ABC calculator would be a much more useful tool. I use it mainly as a point of reference but not as my main analytical tool
BUIT teh ABC tool does show the incease in the value fo teh vote as a result of the method of calculating the surplus transfer value. What it does not show is the impact of the system of segmentation. Not does Truth stat tables. if it was a value based surplus and a reiterative distribution count then the stat tables would apply.
In the end you have to put your data through a count to test the hypothesis.
I again ask where do you see a change in BTL vote allocation that puts the Greens ahead of the ALP in WA?
democracy@work
[The AEC’s refusal to publish this data and provide scut5ineers copies of the data has brought the conduct of the election count into disrepute. ]
You have told us this so many times now that it has become effectively concreted into my brain, never to be dislodged. There’s no telling the extent of loss of other memories as more and more neurons have had to be switched to dedicating themselves fully to this task. Please stop.
Cake! The slices are getting bigger the more you eat!!! Yum. I wish the AEC went into the catering business. They could team up with the marketing people that give us “a packet of Tim Tams that never run out”
I am currently analysing the WA 2013 election results to look for a reverse donkey. Can’t find it. What’s your source?
D@W
The AEC is set up to conduct elections, and both the Liberals and ALP and Greens and PUP have people scrutinising the vote. The votes are being counted and re-counted, that is why the results had not been released yet.
I am not surprise that the AEC have not release their results yet, since the count had not finished, and the majority of the public (99.99%) do not care whether the Australian senate has an ALP/Green/Sport guy/ PUP in it
Dovif
Sorry but this issue has not been addressed.
It not about the results it is about the scrutiny of the ballot. This information is published and provided to scrutineers by the VEC, Why has the AEC not provided scrutineers access to this data?
This information should be published as the count progress. Not just at the end of the count.
They have finished Tasmania and still they have not published this data.
Who cares if 99% care about the Senate,. I most certainly do. And I want the system to be fair and representative. No distortions. We could not count money or calculate the dividends of shareholders in the way we count the vote.
re reverse Dnley
I looked at the WA State election results for a break down of the percentage of votes attributed to the last candidate that were reverse donkey votes., It not 1% more like 25% to 50% or more. This pattern is common in most preferential elections I have looked at. So where are you getting your 1% figure from?
ps. we need to make sure that our election process us open amd transparent. It most certainly is not open or transparent to date. if it was we would have access to this data and we would not be making wild unfounded guesses anout hypothetical that do not match the outcome. Also by publishing the data it limits the opportunity for tan0ering with the data itself. Scrutineers most certainly do not get the opportunity to scrutinise the data0enetry proceess, As mentioned it is akin to watching goods at a supermarket being scanned and not being given a receipt or running total
I am not the only one seeking access to this data. Other scrutineers have requested it along with official requests form party officials.
If the AEC is incapable of self governing and ensure that scrutineers have access to this data then it is incumbent of the Parliament to legislate. There already is provision in the act that covers this issue but the AEC had opted to interpret it in the most narrow of interpretations. It certainly has not acted in good faith or in the interest of open governance.
D@W
Reverse donkeys:
Tas 2010: 11
WA 2010: 3
This is the ACTUAL number of reverse donkey votes that follow all the way through. Obviously there are a number of other partial reverse donkeys and partial donkeys.
For example, in the WA 2010 contest, 10 votes made it through to #18 in the reverse donkey stakes before deviating.