Late counting: Legislative Council

A post for ongoing coverage and discussion of late counting for the Legislative Council.

Tuesday, December 15

UPDATE: My paywalled review of the result features in today’s Crikey.

Final result: Labor 14 (down two), Liberal 14 (down four) and Nationals two (down one), the Greens five (up two), and Shooters & Fishers two, DLP one, Sex Party one and Vote 1 Local Jobs one (all previously unrepresented). The tight results favoured Labor over the Country Alliance in Northern Victoria and the Greens over the Sex Party in the South Eastern Metropolitan. The former came down to Labor squeaking ahead of the Greens at the second last exclusion – had it been the other way round, Labor preferences would have decided the seat in the Country Alliance’s favour rather than the Greens’. The latter was contingent upon below-the-line votes, since the ABC projection based on above-the-line preferences had the Sex Party winning a second seat at the Greens’ expense. But clearly the Sex Party suffered from leakage when it received the preferences of Animal Justice and the Voluntary Euthanasia Party. For further detail, we must await the publication of the full preference distributions.

Monday, December 15

The Victorian Electoral Commission will be pushing the button on the results for each region starting from 9:30am tomorrow, a process that should take about 90 minutes in its totality, with results to be officially declared later in the afternoon.

Thursday, December 11

With the lower house done and dusted, the Victorian election still has further entertainment to offer with the conclusion of the upper house count. So I’ve changed the time stamp on this post and provided an updated review of the situation. The count does not look like it will be finalised until late next week, owing to the higher number of below-the-line votes (8% of the total, double that of 2010) and the consequent greater load of data entry work before the computerised count can be conducted.

The best way to get a handle on a complex situation is to consider the many contenders as Left, which I take to encompass Labor, the Greens, the Sex Party, Animal Justice and Voice for the West, and the Right, meaning Liberal, Nationals, Shooters & Fishers, Country Alliance, Democratic Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Vote 1 Local Jobs and Palmer United. Labor plus the Greens land well short of a majority, but the Left will clearly win 19 seats, and the best case scenario for the Andrews government is that they are supplemented by a further three. However, the odds appear against them in two cases, and finely balanced in a third.

The table below shows the state of play, including three categories of “in doubt” seat: those which will definitely go to a party of one ideological side or the other, but where it isn’t clear which one, and the particularly important contests that could go either Left or Right.

Now a summary of the eight regions in order of interest, for which the number of votes in the count has increased by around 60% since my previous overview after election night. Our tools for analysis are the Geeklections simulations and the projected ABC results.

Northern Victoria

IN DOUBT: It is certain that either Shooters & Fishers or Country Alliance will win a Right seat, and there is a strong chance both of them will. If not, the second of the two seats will go to the Left: Labor, the Sex Party or the Greens.

This is diabolically complicated, but the result can be understood as being on the cusp of four Right, one Left and three Right, two Left. In the former case, wins for the Country Alliance and Shooters & Fishers supplement two seats for the Coalition (one Liberal, one Nationals) and one for Labor. Otherwise, the most likely scenario involves the Greens falling behind Labor and dropping out at Count 15, so that their preferences flow to Labor rather than Labor preferences flowing to the Country Alliance, who get them ahead of the Greens.

The odds on this have shortened as the count has progressed, with the Greens’ projected lead at the relevant point shrinking from 0.78% on election night to 0.32% (10.06% to 9.74%). When the preference distribution is properly conducted, it is not clear to me if below-the-line preferences will be a net positive or a net negative for the Greens: their projected vote total includes the 1.78% Animal Justice vote and 0.60% of residue from Palmer United, the Sex Party and Australian Cyclists, some of which will leak.

Other scenarios canvassed at Geeklections involve the Shooters & Fishers dropping out at one of the earlier stages of the count, in which case their seat could go to the Sex Party or the Greens depending on the stage at which it happens. Geeklections also rates as marginal chances other permutations of three Right, two Left, involving various combinations of the aforesaid parties.

Southern Metropolitan

IN DOUBT: A seat might go Right, to the Liberals, or Left, to the Sex Party.

The most likely scenarios here remain three Liberal, one Labor and one Greens, or two Liberal and one each for Labor, the Greens and the Sex Party. For the latter to happen, the Sex Party will need to get ahead of the Liberal Democrats at Count 17. The chances of this have been weakened as the count has progressed, with a Liberal Democrats lead of 6.92% to 6.62% on election night widening to 7.47% to 6.69%. Furthermore, a much higher share of the Sex Party total is in the form of preferences, so they stand to suffer more from below-the-line leakage. Marginally possible scenarios contemplated by Geeklections are the Liberal Democrats winning the seat instead of the Sex Party, and the Sex Party instead taking a seat at the expense of the Greens.

Western Metropolitan

IN DOUBT: A seat might go to the Right, most likely the DLP or theoretically possibly the Liberal Democrats, or to the Left, namely Voice for the West, although the latter seems unlikely.

The ABC projection is Labor, Liberal, Labor, Greens, DLP, which I rated a certainly after election night. However, counting since election night has seen the DLP vote drop from 2.76% to 2.56% and the Liberal Democrats go from 4.55% to 5.52%, and Geeklections is allowing for the possibility of the Liberal Democrats winning the seat if they stay ahead of the Liberals at Count 16, or Voice for the West doing so if they get ahead of the Sex Party at Count 13. Both look rather unlikely to me: in the former scenario, the Liberal vote is almost entirely their own, and thus not susceptible to leakage, and the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to be a magnet for below-the-line preferences; in the latter, a bigger share of Voice for the West’s vote comes from preferences in comparison with the Sex Party, and the higher profile of the latter suggests it is more likely to attract below-the-line preferences.

Western Victoria

IN DOUBT: A Right seat will go to Vote 1 Local Jobs, Shooters & Fishers or Palmer United.

It is clear that the first four seats have gone Liberal, Labor, Liberal, Labor, but the last is a lottery which Geeklections rates in order of likelihood as Shooters & Fishers, Vote 1 Local Jobs, Palmer United, DLP and the Greens, with the latter two particularly long shots. The ABC projection presently has it with Vote 1 Local Jobs, who supplanted Shooters & Fishers on the first day after the election. Shooters & Fishers have been harmed by a 0.36% boost for the Liberal Democrats as counting has progressed, putting them some distance behind (2.59% to 2.27%) at their point of exclusion at Count 14. The Palmer United scenario is contingent on the Coalition doing more strongly than the projection suggests, so that Vote 1 Local Jobs is excluded ahead of them at Count 16 or Count 17.

South-Eastern Metropolitan

IN DOUBT: A Left seat will go to the Sex Party, the Greens or Animal Justice.

Two Labor and two Liberal seats stand to be augmented by a third seat for the Left, which Geeklections rates in order of likelihood as Greens, Sex Party, Animal Justice and Labor. The Sex Party has emerged as a show through the course of counting due to an almost 1% drop in Labor’s total, putting them in danger of exclusion at a point where previously they were staying ahead of the Sex Party. A Sex Party victory is indeed what the ABC is presently projecting, although Geeklections rates the Greens an equal likelihood. The seat would instead go to Animal Justice if they stayed in the hunt in Count 11 and Count 12 by getting ahead of Palmer United, which they presently trail 1.98% to 1.86%, with neither total including any preferences. At this stage though that would appear unlikely. Even less likely is a third seat going to Labor, although Geeklections has it at the margins.

Eastern Metropolitan

The result here has always looked like Liberal, Labor, Liberal, Liberal, Greens. Geeklections has been rating a sizeable possibility of the last seat instead going to Labor, but I’m struggling to see how. The ABC projection has them leading 17.12% to 12.01%, and while 6.64% of that Greens total comes from preferences and is thus subject to leakage, that shouldn’t make more than about 0.5% of difference.

Eastern Victoria

Liberal, Labor, Nationals, Shooters, Labor.

Northern Metropolitan

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Labor, Sex Party.

Sunday overnight

Simulations by Geeklections suggest that a) the Greens seat in Eastern Metropolitan is no foregone conclusion after all, and that Labor might yet win a second seat there, b) the seat in Northern Metropolitan which I have as either the Sex Party or Family First is all but certain to go to the former, c) there is an outside chance that the Shooters & Fishers seat in Northern Victoria will instead go to the Greens or the Sex Party, d) the three Labor, two Liberal possibility in South East Metropolitan is a slight one, and there’s a slightly higher chance of the Greens seat going to Animal Justice rather than third Labor; and e) there’s a slight chance of the micro-party winner in Western Victoria being Palmer United, but Vote 1 Local Jobs is more likely and Shooters & Fishers rather more likely still.

Sunday 3pm

A revised review of the situation, with more care taken to consider alternative scenarios. I see five seats out of 40 in doubt, the remainder going Coalition 15, Labor 13, Greens four, Shooters & Fishers two and DLP one. Shooters & Fishers might get to three, or the third seat could go to Vote 1 Local Jobs instead. The Sex Party might get two, or the two seats in question could instead go Liberal and Family First. Country Alliance might win a seat, or it could go to Labor instead. And there’s a race between the Greens and Labor for the last seat in South Eastern Metropolitan.

First the regions with doubtful seats:

Western Victoria. Since last night, and as intimated might happen below, the ABC has switched its prediction for the last seat from Shooters & Fishers to Vote 1 Local Jobs. That makes two Liberal, two Labor and Vote 1 Local Jobs, with the last seat to be determined by Count 14 and whether Shooters & Fishers (currently 2.27%) can get ahead of the Liberal Democrats (currently 2.28%).

Northern Metropolitan. The current read here is two Labor and one each for Liberal, Greens and Sex Party. But the Sex Party win is contingent on them staying ahead of Labor at Count 22, which is currently 10.62% to 8.73%. Otherwise, the unlocking of the Sex Party bundle causes Family First to win owing to some unlikely types directing them preferences ahead of Labor: the Basics Rock’n’Roll Party, Animal Justice and Australian Cyclists, together with Shooters and Fishers and the Liberal Democrats.

Northern Victoria. Currently a very striking result with two micro-parties elected: two Coalition (one Liberal, one Nationals), and one each for Labor, Shooters & Fishers and Country Alliance. This is because Labor’s surplus of over half a quota is set to flow to Country Alliance ahead of the Greens. However, this will change if the Greens fall behind Labor at the last exclusion, Count 15, at which the Greens are on 10.27% and Labor is on 9.50%. If so, the Greens will be excluded and their preferences will decisively flow to Labor over the Country Alliance, making the result two Labor, two Coalition, one Shooters & Fishers.

South Eastern Metropolitan. Currently a straightforward result of two Labor, two Liberal, one Greens. But if the third Labor candidate gets ahead of Rise Up Australia at the last exclusion, Count 17, where it’s currently Rise Up 10.79% and Labor 9.08%, Labor wins the last seat instead of the Greens, for a result of Labor three, Liberal two.

Southern Metropolitan. Currently a status quo result of three Liberal, one Labor and one Greens – but the third Liberal might yet lose to the Sex Party if the latter stays afloat at Count 17, where the Liberal Democrats currently lead them by 6.96% to 6.64%. The Sex Party would then absorb the big Labor surplus, which otherwise stands to go untouched because the present projection has the second Labor candidate staying in the race until the final count, at which point he loses to the Liberals.

Now the straightforward ones:

Eastern Metropolitan. Liberal 3, Labor 1, Greens 1.

Western Metropolitan. Labor 2, Liberal 1, Greens 1, DLP 1.

Eastern Victoria. Coalition 2 (Liberal 1, Nationals 1), Labor 2, Shooters & Fishers 1.

Close of Saturday night

Another freakish upper house result, with the present ABC projection being Liberal 14 and Nationals 2; Labor 13; Greens five, winning seats in each of the metropolitan region, including gains in South Eastern Metropolitan and Eastern Metropolitan; three for Shooters and Fishers; and one each for Family First, Country Alliance and the Democratic Labor Party. As I shall shortly explain, there are a few results I don’t think are locked down:

Eastern Metropolitan. Nearly half counted, and it’s looking like the Greens have gained a seat from Labor: enter Samantha Dunn, exit Brian Tee.

Eastern Victoria. As was widely anticipated, it appears Shooters and Fishers have gained a seat at the expense of the Coalition. Result: two Coalition (one Liberal and one Nationals), two Labor, one Shooters and Fishers (Jeff Bourman).

Northern Metropolitan. Only a third counted, but Family First projected to take a seat from the Liberals, and I don’t see any narrow cut-off points that might thwart them (UPDATE: I spoke too soon: in an interesting reversal, the seat is now projected to go to the figurehead of the Sex Party, Fiona Patten).

Northern Victoria. Two micro-party winners projected here: Country Alliance, which I figured, and Shooters and Fishers, which I didn’t. But what happens if the Greens drop behind Labor at Count 14?

South Eastern Metropolitan. Looks like the Greens have poached a seat from Labor for a result of 2-2-1. Although there are some close cut-off points there, for which I’ll shortly get to experimenting with alternative outcomes.

South Metropolitan. Status quo result of 2-2-1.

Western Metropolitan. The DLP are back, taking a seat off the Liberals.

Western Victoria. Two Liberal and two Labor, but the third Coalition seat (the Nationals) seemingly to be dropped to Shooters and Fishers (Nicole Bourman, presumably related to Jeff). But there are a lot of close cut-offs late in the count which warrant a closer look. (UPDATE: Areaman notes in comments that the Shooters and Fishers win is contingent upon them keeping their head above water at a point in the count where they are nearly level with the Liberal Democrats. If they fail to do so, the seat looks likely to go to James Purcell of Vote 1 Local Jobs, whose chances were being spruiked by a number of close observers based on his tight preference arrangements.)

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

213 comments on “Late counting: Legislative Council”

Comments Page 2 of 5
1 2 3 5
  1. @38

    Sex preferences going to S&F would seem to be the major issue in N and W Vic. Although as you note ALP prefs to CA are also relevant in N Vic.

  2. @47

    If it makes you happy to say that the ALP need either Greens+ or Nats+ or Libs, fine. I’m not sure many people would think the Nats+ added much to that.

    Obviously needing Greens+ is worse for the ALP than just needing Greens.

  3. It is still early days but initial review of the LC results indicate that the disproportionate distortions in the way the vote counted has contributed to the election of minor parties in SE and Northern Metro.

    The calculation of the Surplus Transfer value, Segmentation of the count and the hop skip and jump in the distribution of preferences from excluded candidates and the disproportional Droop quota have all contributed in the inflation of minor parties votes


    Sadly rather then fixing the serious flaws in the way the vote is counted the parties will instead apply a band=-aid solution in the form of a 5% threshold. This will not address the underlying issues or flaws that have been introduced to facilitate a manual count. Optional Preferential voting also adds to the distortion.

    With a computerised counting system we should be applying 1. A weighted surplus transfer value;
    2. A reiterative distribution system where the cont is rest and restarted in every exclusion.
    3. Scrap the Droop Quota and adopt a pure proportional quota. (x/y) not (x/(y+1))
    4. Apply above the line votes equally across all members of the group with the group maintaining the right to nominate the order of exclusion within the group.

    The system MUST be modified so that when a candidate is excluded form the cont the votes is counted as if the excluded candidates had not stood.

    One single transaction distribution per candidate. The reiteration continuing until all positions are filled.

    Pure proportional preferential voting.

    If this can not be done then we should adopt a party list system

  4. If I vote for Candidate A and then preference Candidate B and Candidate B has not been excluded then my vote should be added to Candidate B’s total and if need be form part of his/her total or surplus. It should not skip and jump past my chosen candidate and then land on Candidate C at full value or worst still under an optional preferential voting system exhaust with full value.

    The system is disproportionate.

    If we counted dividends and interest payments the way we count the Upper-house vote our financial system would collapse overnight

  5. The Greens and other parties quibble over 200 votes but the system distorts the proportionality of the count to the tune of 10’s of thousands of votes. It is hidden from view and very few people are paying attention or expressing any concern.

  6. The VEC MUST make available copies of the below-the-line preference data file as the count progresses, Without access to this veto information it is impossible to properly and due diligently to scrutinize the upper-house count.

    It is akin to scanning a trolly full of goods at the supermarket checkout and not being given a receipt or running total. You have no idea if you have been charged the correct amount or if there are goods missing or added twice. You just ho0e for the best and pay the bill.

    By making copies of the data-file available for scrutiny scrutineers can run queries across the data set and identify votes of interest that may require further scrutiny. This maintaining an open and transparent electoral system.

  7. ‘The formal alliance between the Liberal and National parties in Victoria could be dumped after a disastrous performance by the Coalition in the regions….

    ‘…One Coalition source said the formal Coalition agreement was unlikely to last the week.

    ‘One source said the loss of Shepparton represented a “bitter blow” for the party. According to one scenario, the party could make a special case to the incoming Labor government for party funding if it does lose party status, but not if it remains in coalition with the Liberal Party.’
    (Nationals could lose party status after disastrous showing, The Age online, 30/11/2014)

  8. 58

    Official Party Status in Victoria is actually 10, not 11 as the article says. There is likely to be pressure to reduce the party status requirement bellow 10 anyway, now that the Greens are bigger. Party status in the, significantly larger, Commonwealth Parliament is 5.

  9. I was wondering if anyone else had thoughts on the design of the ballot paper? They made it smaller by spliting the parties into two rows of parties under the line instead of just one

    It would be interesting to know if parties on the lower row were disadvantaged at all – it certainly took a little mmore hunting around to find who I wanted to vote for

    Go Sexy Green 🙂

  10. Counting has recommenced, keen to see the differences between early votes and election day, it felt different to me, and the polls where also significantly different days before.

  11. What’s all this enthusiasm for the Sex Party? Do we really need a party that was established as a political vehicle for Australia’s pimps and sleaze merchants? Whatever you may say about Family First, the DLP, etcetera, none of them have anything to do with pimps.

  12. I’m sure I’d have much more in common, politically, with a legal sex worker than I would with one of the charismatic Christian nutters who funds Family first.

  13. On the ABC tally it seems some of the regions are saying no results as less than 5% count.

    What does that mean? Prediction turned off and basing on raw data now?

  14. They’re rechecking (I assume now they’ve got all the ballots together in the same place). Those percentages are based on the number that’s been rechecked.

  15. The ABC now has the ALP getting a second seat in Northern Vic (over the country alliance) with the Labor party about 1000 votes ahead of the greens when it matters.

  16. Taking the most likely outcomes from Geeklections at the moment gives 14 Labor, 16 Liberal/National, 5 Green, 2 Sex Party, and 2 Shooters and 1 DLP on the right. If that’s how it finishes, Labor could pass legislation with a rough left bloc of Lab+Greens+Sex.

    The regions where Geeklections still sees significant chances of a change to the left-right split are Northern Vic (2nd Labor could lose to Country Alliance) and Southern Metro (3rd Liberal could lose to Sex Party). There are other seats that are uncertain on Lab vs. Green, Lib vs. DLP, Green vs. Sex etc., but however those turn out, it wouldn’t affect whether Lab+Green+Sex get a majority.

  17. Some of the geekLections results are looking a little strange right now, perhaps a result of the upper house rechecking? The corresponding ABC sites aren’t showing a count because the percentage counted is too small.

  18. @73: Geeklections doesn’t display what share of the vote the model is based on. Quite possibly it’s working off small numbers of rechecked votes and getting spurious results.

    @74: I think it’s an unhealthy codependent relationship.

  19. areaman,

    So you would be fine if your daughter hung out with pimps??? Nowhere on the Sex Party website does it mention who they actually represent. What are their names? No doubt it’s far too embarrassing. And now Fiona Patten reckons she wants to introduce ‘age appropriate sex education.’ I dont want any legislation endorsed by the Sex Party to be within light years of my teenage daughters.

  20. Desert Fox,

    This completely isn’t the place, being the late counting thread, but your claims are laughable. The core of the Sex Party are the EROS Foundation, who are essentially the business lobby for adult *shops* (the people who sell you sex toys and cheap lingerie), added on to a bunch of people who support their social policies. Suggesting that they are or support “pimps” is wrong and defamatory: their politics on sex work are in lock-step with sex *workers*, not brothel owners.

  21. Plus use of the terms like “pimp” and “sleaze merchant” don’t do make you seem very open minded (or as previously stated nor very well informed).

  22. Rebecca,

    I’m not apologizing. Robbie Swan is on record as saying that one of his motivations for starting the Sex Party was the treatment of Garion Hall, the scumbag who runs Abby Winters, now happily in Holland, a long way from Australia. I’ve asked Patten on a number of occasions who Australia’s sleaze merchants are but she refuses to say. The way the media covers Fiona Patten and co is sycophantic at best. Her interviews are always of the ‘aren’t you fantastic’ variety.

    Newsflash Rebecca, if you legalize prostitution, you also legalize pimping. Please show me a happy, healthy, mentally sound woman from a loving family who turns to prostitution. Just one will do. (BTW – I have no sympathy for their clients either. If you have to pay for it tur hen there is something wrong with you. It’s not that hard to use your charisma, intelligence and charm to get laid.

    If your daughter Rebecca said she wanted to be a prostitute would that be okay with you???

  23. [Whatever you may say about Family First, the DLP, etcetera]

    I’d say they are a bunch of narrow-minded bigots whose reason for entering politics is to try to enforce their personal morality with no regard to the suffering they cause by encouraging hate and discrimination against gay people, by making abortions more dangerous, the drug trade less controlled and sex workers more vulnerable all so they can stand up on Sunday and feel like their sky friend is not going to send them to the naughty corner with all of the bad people.

    That should just about do it.

  24. 77,78,79
    Yep, my thoughts too. Pimps set to be worse off with Sex Party influence, better off with Fox’s moral enforcement ideology which has proven time and again to fail.

    Mind you, the sex party are pretty promiscuous politically, sufficiently so to get prefs from some of the moral enforcers out there.

  25. Desert Fox, the world would be a better place if people talked about their own values rather then attempting to judge people they dont understand.

    This thread would certainly have been better off.

  26. A progressive majority of ALP + Greens + Sex party would be a good outcome for Andrews and perhaps more than the ALP deserved after playing games with the preferences.

  27. Desert Fox: I’m happy to discuss this with you further if you do it the Victorian general thread, rather than derailing the late counting thread.

    Work To Rule: I agree. I think they’d all be a bit of a check on each other. Looking forward to seeing the updates from today’s counting.

  28. Northern metro: Large percentage of Below-the-line votes will exhaust. Most Greens Votes Below the line go to the ALP before Sex Party.

    Family First are not in a winning position as they become the wasted quota.

    If we had a pure proportional system and a quota of 20% (x/y) then the ALP would elect 3. Liberals 1 and Greens 1.

    The Droop quota distorts the proportionality of the count and the method of distributing preferences also impacts on the results as some votes increase in value as a result of the method of calculating the Surplus Transfer value.

    There is a lot of talk of introducing a 5% threshold but this should only be done if the fix and remove the other distortions in the way they count the vote.

    If Above-the-line voting is retained then they should distribute the primary vote equally between all candidates within the group.

    A reiterative counting system where the vote is reset and restarted following every exclusion would adjust the quota to take into account those votes that exhausts would remove the distortion in the distribution of preferences to reflect the voters intentions. Votes for excluded candidates would be redistributed as if the candidates excluded from the count had not stood.

    The current system was designed to facilitate a manual counting process., It is seriously flawed in in need of review bot just another band-aid Threshold patch.

  29. d@w 86

    I would rather fix the GTV or get rid of it than put a 5% threshold.

    I’d like to see your alternative system calculate the other regions too.

  30. A threshold is on the cards. Like it it Not,


    Antony Greens Calculator MOST CERTAINLY does not reflect the outcome of the election. He treats all the below the line votes as ticket votes. He would be better off treating them as the first five preferences in a ticket vote as scrutiny of the Below the line shows that most (A large percentage) just vote five and stop. They tend to stick on ticket at that point. Although those parties that have nominated just 2 candidates and then go to the a party that climbs the stack most likely will not not hold. They tend to either flow through to one of the Majors or exhaust by preferencing a similar minor party. in teh case of the Greens they tend to flow though the Labor Party then stop.

    The Christian groups just preference what I call the Holly Trinity and stop. This had a significant impact on the 2010 election as it ended up electing the Greens in Western metro by default not by voters intentions.

    The votes exhaust with value and the quota is not adjusted, This is where a reiterative count “Reset and restart on every exclusion” would come in handy. It also more accurately reflects the voters intentions as a full value vote would always land on the first available non-excluded candidate, without skipping and jumping them.

    A single transfer no segmentation would also maintain the proportionality of the vote.


    Allocate the ticket vote equally across all members of the prime group. This would restore balance to the Majors and remove the disproportionate advantage that minor parties have.

  31. Another alternative would be to get rid of below the line voting and allow preferential voting above the line. IE you allocate preferences to groups which then flow down the group in order of the above the line preference.

    This would still need to address the flaws in the way the vote is counted and ideally remove the Droop quota

    The other option of course is to adopt a Party List system as advocated by William.

    But I would say a threshold option is 99% guaranteed after this one. only the Luddites in the PRSA want to keep the flaws in the way the count is undertaken. “Its the way it has been always done” attitude no longer holds sway.. It has to be fixed, Confidence in the system is non-existing.

    Robson Rotation is not going to fix the underlying flaws in the way the vote is counted. Just mask it,

    It is worth noting that the PRSA itself as a n organisation does not elect it own National Executive by a system of PR. They have resisted calls for reform.

    If STV PR is not good enough for the PRSA National Executive, how can they sell the message that it should be adopted by others?

  32. guytaur 551 on federal thread

    “@AntonyGreenABC: There’s been a doubling from 4% to 8% of below the line votes in the LC. Some of those preference deals might come apart #vicvotes”

    Now that is interesting.

  33. And a majority of those stop at 5 and exhaust. The design of the ballot paper in Northern Metro was confusing. People did not know where the below the line began and ended. Even the experienced electoral staff where commenting on this issue.

    Anthony Greens Calculator is misleading as it assumes that all primary votes are a ticket vote.

    When a below the line vote exhaust they still hold their value. The quota is not adjusted.

    With a reiterative count the quota is recalculated on each iteration. Reset and restart is the best option on every exclusion. The System is broken and needs fixing.

    Antony Green is part of the Problem not the solution.

  34. Wmble @60

    Experinced VEC staff also expressed concerns at the design of the Northern Metro Ballot paper. and I agree It was confusing, Many only voted on the bottom row. Most just voted 5 and stopped, Many go Green then ALP and stop, Many do not touch the Majors and they will exhaust. The Holly Trinity have not learnt, They voted Christian and stopped. This gave Sex Party and the Greens a leg up as their competition are not supported.

    As mentioned above the system of counting is in urgent need of review. It is outdated and gull of inappropriate pa

  35. 92

    The double-decker ballot paper, causes by the number of groups contesting, was far from ideal (confusing, unwieldy and uses lots of paper). Removing group voting tickets and allowing above the line preferencing would reduce the incentive for micro parties to run and thus reduce ballot paper size.

  36. Surprised to see that Sandell’s swing in Melbourne is 7%. A big contrast to the Monday after the election where the “victory” was in doubt.

  37. Northern metro 52% counted.

    Both the ABC calculator and my analysis Shows teh Greens falling below quota on Primary votes whihc delays their election. Sex Party as a result falls below Labor and when excluded elect The Greens and Family First

    This is a case where the Droop Quota and the distortions in the way the vote is counted effects the outcome.

    In a distributed pure-proportional reiterative counting system such as the Wright system the ALP would elect 3 Greens 1 Liberals 1. The distortions in the way the vote is counted gives minor parties a distinct advantage,


    I suspect a similar situation exists in SE Metro.

    The Government needs to correct the method of counting the vote in time for the 2016 Victorian Municipal Elections as a matter of urgency/

  38. Victoria would have been better served is the State was divided into five regions as opposed to the existing eight. (2 rural divided by the Hume highway, 2 outer Suburban and 1 inner city region or three urban fanning out from the city)

    Greens would have been relegated to one seat (two at an outset).

  39. On Geeklektions, the DLP chances of winning Western Metro has reduced from 100% to something a bit less. They still look like a surebet, but now it is also showing Lib Dems or Voice for the West showing a small chance of getting a seat instead.

Comments Page 2 of 5
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *