An area of considerable concern, although not high on the voters list, is the diminishing level of government accountability at the senior administrative level.
Rob Hulls, in his term as Attorney General, did an exemplary job, in all areas of legislative reform, except on parliamentary government accountability.
A Baillieu Government will have to deliver accountability that the labor government had not.
With the possibility of the Liberal Goevrnment securing an absolute majority of the both houses the temptation is to not put in place or dealy the implementation of structure and adminstrative proceedures that will subejct the executive government to held to account.
The role of the Ombudsman had been undermined and structure to hold the government administration to account had not be been put in place.
Officers of the Parliament are currently exempt from independent review and oversight that parliament could not provide.
The Ombudsman should have authority and power to independently review the administration of Parliamentary officers as it does government departments.
In addition to the strengthening of the role of the Office of the Ombudsman the recommendations of the Proust review on the Administration of Government accountability should also be implemented without delay.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Friday, 12 November 2010
Antony Green's confusing flaw explanation explained in more detail by example
In presenting his arguments Green uses quotas, which to some may be confusing and difficult to understand.
The Senate and Victorian formula used to calculate the Surplus Transfer Value is based on the number of ballot papers not the value of the vote and as a result this distorts the proportionality of the election count. In short the system used is not accurate. It was put in place to facilitate a manual counting of the Senate vote, last century, when they did not have computers to assist in the counting of the vote.
To try and limit the impact of this flaw they introduce segmentation - the breaking down of the vote count into parcels or bundles of votes that held a common value. In Tasmania and the ACT they only use the last bundle of votes received to distribute a candidate's surplus. (This has another effect that is equally flawed in principle and its execution - details not covered in this discussion)
The use of a segmented count is akin to dealing from the bottom of the deck in a game of cards. It in itself distorts the outcome of the election as was the case in 2007 Queensland Senate count where Green candidate Larissa Waters was denied representation as a result of this flaw in the counting process.
Western Australia State Government legislated to correct the flaw in the Senate Surplus Transfer Value but they maintained the method of segmented distribution of excluded candidate votes.
With the use of computer aided counting systems there is no need or justification to retain the flawed surplus transfer value calculation and with a value based formula there is no need to retain segmentation either. All votes should be transferred in a single transaction - one transaction per candidate. Pure simple and proportional
Senate and Victorian Legislative Council formula
Surplus transfer value (Stv) equals Candidates surplus value (Csv) divided by the Candidate's total value of votes (Ctv) divided by the total number of ballot papers (Tbp).The problem with the formula is that they use the number of ballot papers as the divisor not the value of the vote at the time it is being distributed . This problem is highlighted when a candidate is elected in a deferred count where the value attributed to each ballot paper is significantly different. The impact of this flaw in the system is it inflated the value of the major party ticket vote and devalue the independent below-the-line Minor Party vote.
The impact of the distorion in the count can be explained by looking more closely at the 2010 NSW Senate count and the distribution of the Liberal National Parties third candidate surplus votes using real numbers not percentage of quotas as in the Green explanation. In NSW the distortion delivered the LNP ticket a bonus value of 14,317 equivalent votes which is enough in a close election to change the result
In 2007 Victorian Senate count the distortion in the calculation of the Surplus transfer value came close to defeating ALP's Senator David Feeney as the LNP ticket gained a "bonus" of over 7,000 votes which was then transferred to the Greens candidate. The 7000 votes effectively "stolen" from Family First, the DLP and one Nation all of which opposed the Greens candidature.
If we counted money and dividends as we count votes our financial system would collapse over night
Facts suspressed by the ABC
The following facts surrounding the 2006 State Election have been suppressed by the ABC's Electrical Analyst, Antony Green.
WESTERN METRO
In 2006 the Greens won Western Metro after a recount.
FACT: 500 votes went missing and unaccounted for between Count A and Count B. Either the VEC double counted in count A or votes were removed. the total number of votes between count A and count B should never change. The Greens won on the second recount by less than 150 votes.
FACT: When the Parliament requested copies of the Count A preference data files for comparison, the VEC claimed that the data had been deleted and overwritten.
FACT: No backup copies were made. This is hard to believe for a professional organisation were this information costs millions of dollars to collate. No audit trail of Count A in comparison to Count B exists.
FACT: The AEC maintain copies of both count A and count B data comparisons. What benefit was there in the VEC duplicating the development of software to count the vote when the AEC already had a better version which could have been used free of cost? Millions of dollars wasted in duplicated software resources.
NORTHERN METRO
FACT: The VEC's lack of due diligence resulted in doggy data being feed into their computerised count.
FACT: There was no check or verification to ensure that the number of votes recorded reconciled with the number of ballot papers issued prior to the calculation of the election results. We are told that the VEC will this election produce a reconciliation report prior to the count but has yet not provide a sample copy of what this report will look like and what information it will contain.
FACT: In 2006 the VEC failed to provided copies of the preference data files to scrutineers. This information was only made available following an FOI application and even then they only provided information related to the final count not the preliminary counts. Data files had been overwritten without backup copies being made. Even though copies of this information had been requested prior to the commencement of the count.
FACT: The State elections cost Victoria over 50 million dollars, costs in duplicating resources that the AEC already provide. Hopefully we will not see a repeat of the mistakes that were made in 2006.
WESTERN METRO
In 2006 the Greens won Western Metro after a recount.
FACT: 500 votes went missing and unaccounted for between Count A and Count B. Either the VEC double counted in count A or votes were removed. the total number of votes between count A and count B should never change. The Greens won on the second recount by less than 150 votes.
FACT: When the Parliament requested copies of the Count A preference data files for comparison, the VEC claimed that the data had been deleted and overwritten.
FACT: No backup copies were made. This is hard to believe for a professional organisation were this information costs millions of dollars to collate. No audit trail of Count A in comparison to Count B exists.
FACT: The AEC maintain copies of both count A and count B data comparisons. What benefit was there in the VEC duplicating the development of software to count the vote when the AEC already had a better version which could have been used free of cost? Millions of dollars wasted in duplicated software resources.
NORTHERN METRO
FACT: The VEC's lack of due diligence resulted in doggy data being feed into their computerised count.
FACT: There was no check or verification to ensure that the number of votes recorded reconciled with the number of ballot papers issued prior to the calculation of the election results. We are told that the VEC will this election produce a reconciliation report prior to the count but has yet not provide a sample copy of what this report will look like and what information it will contain.
FACT: In 2006 the VEC failed to provided copies of the preference data files to scrutineers. This information was only made available following an FOI application and even then they only provided information related to the final count not the preliminary counts. Data files had been overwritten without backup copies being made. Even though copies of this information had been requested prior to the commencement of the count.
FACT: The State elections cost Victoria over 50 million dollars, costs in duplicating resources that the AEC already provide. Hopefully we will not see a repeat of the mistakes that were made in 2006.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Two wrongs do not make a right
In the continuing debate over ABC Electoral Analyst, Antony Green, censorship of public debate we present another example of Green censorship and his imposition of central control to avoiid criticism and disclosure
On Anthony Green's censored ABC blog site Antony Green entertains the debate about segmentation and responds leaving out crucial details and facts
The method of segmentation was devised to facilitate a manual count and minimise the errors that exist in the method used to calculate the surplus transfer value. There is no logic to support it, with computer aided counting there is no longer justification as a computerised count can be performed within ten minutes to three hours depending in the number candidates and number of iterations required
The Western Australia system only fixes the flaw that exists in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value. It does not address the distortion that exist in the segmentation of excluded candidate votes which has been left in place. The distorion in segmenation of the vote resulted in thew rong p[erson being elcted in the Queenland 2007 Senate election. In Tasmania and teh ACT they only distribute the "last bundle" of segmented votes which is even worst as it goves more wieght to one segement of votes then it does to other segments, (IE teh vote is not distributed equally). Both the Senate and Tasmainain/ACT systems distort the proportionality of the count and as such the results of the election.
THE WRIGHT SYSTEM
==============
The Wright system uses a reiterative counting process which seeks to address both of the idenitaled issues with segemnatuon and the flawed caklculation of the surplus transfer value, including issues related to exhausted ballots (Votes that do not express a valid preference for a continuing candidate).
The Wright system distributes only primary votes and surplus distributions in a single iteration. If all position are not filled in a single iteration then the candidate with the lest number of votes is excluded from the count and the count is reset and restarted and preferences votes reallocated as if that candidate had not stood.
The quota is recalcualted following the re-distribution of the primary vote. Any candidates that have a surplus of votes their surplus is redistributed proportionally to the value of the surplus and the value of each ballot paper, using what is referred to as the "weighted inclusive gregory transfer method"- makes some people feel good to use such titles)
The surplus vote is weighted and distributed based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers (As is the case in the Senate and Victorian Upper house counts).
The process of iteration continues for each exclusion until all vacant positions are filled.
This process outlined in the Wright system removes the flaws and distortion that has unnecessarily been built into the Australain voting system over the years.
It does make a difference.
In the 2010 NSW Senate election the LNP group ticket vote increased in value disproportionately by over 14,000 votes as a result of the flaw in the way the Surplus Transfer value is calculated
In 2007 Victorian Senate count the LNP group vote increased in value by over 7,000 votes which could have resulted in the ALPs David Feeney losing out to the Greens who received the bonus 7.000 votes at the expense of One Nation. Family First and the DLP, all who did not support the Greens candidature.
In 2007 Queensland Senate Election Larissa Waters was not elected to office because of the method of segmentation. If you recount the 2007 QLD senate vote excluding all candidates but the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 LNP and 1 Grn) Larissa Waters whould have been elected.
This of course suits the main parties who are sometimes the benefactor of the flawed counting sytem but it comes at the cost of devaluing minor party votes.
If we counted money and allocated dividends, as we count Senate votes, our monetary system would collapse overnight. We argue in court about single member states that are won or lost by less then 10 votes but we blissfully ignore the upper-house system which can be lost by a distortion in the count that represents thousands of votes. A distortion that should not exist and that we must correct.
A fair, accurate voting system is not too much to ask for is it?
On Anthony Green's censored ABC blog site Antony Green entertains the debate about segmentation and responds leaving out crucial details and facts
"If all votes were distributed at once, a candidate could end up with a sizable surplus and from ballot papers at different values, and this would make the distortion from the transfer value calculation even worse. Breaking the votes into smaller bundles attempts to limit the distortion, as does doing the distribution in order of descending transfer value."Two wrongs do not make a right.
The method of segmentation was devised to facilitate a manual count and minimise the errors that exist in the method used to calculate the surplus transfer value. There is no logic to support it, with computer aided counting there is no longer justification as a computerised count can be performed within ten minutes to three hours depending in the number candidates and number of iterations required
The Western Australia system only fixes the flaw that exists in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value. It does not address the distortion that exist in the segmentation of excluded candidate votes which has been left in place. The distorion in segmenation of the vote resulted in thew rong p[erson being elcted in the Queenland 2007 Senate election. In Tasmania and teh ACT they only distribute the "last bundle" of segmented votes which is even worst as it goves more wieght to one segement of votes then it does to other segments, (IE teh vote is not distributed equally). Both the Senate and Tasmainain/ACT systems distort the proportionality of the count and as such the results of the election.
THE WRIGHT SYSTEM
==============
The Wright system uses a reiterative counting process which seeks to address both of the idenitaled issues with segemnatuon and the flawed caklculation of the surplus transfer value, including issues related to exhausted ballots (Votes that do not express a valid preference for a continuing candidate).
The quota is recalcualted following the re-distribution of the primary vote. Any candidates that have a surplus of votes their surplus is redistributed proportionally to the value of the surplus and the value of each ballot paper, using what is referred to as the "weighted inclusive gregory transfer method"- makes some people feel good to use such titles)
The surplus vote is weighted and distributed based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers (As is the case in the Senate and Victorian Upper house counts).
The process of iteration continues for each exclusion until all vacant positions are filled.
This process outlined in the Wright system removes the flaws and distortion that has unnecessarily been built into the Australain voting system over the years.
It does make a difference.
In the 2010 NSW Senate election the LNP group ticket vote increased in value disproportionately by over 14,000 votes as a result of the flaw in the way the Surplus Transfer value is calculated
In 2007 Victorian Senate count the LNP group vote increased in value by over 7,000 votes which could have resulted in the ALPs David Feeney losing out to the Greens who received the bonus 7.000 votes at the expense of One Nation. Family First and the DLP, all who did not support the Greens candidature.
In 2007 Queensland Senate Election Larissa Waters was not elected to office because of the method of segmentation. If you recount the 2007 QLD senate vote excluding all candidates but the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 LNP and 1 Grn) Larissa Waters whould have been elected.
This of course suits the main parties who are sometimes the benefactor of the flawed counting sytem but it comes at the cost of devaluing minor party votes.
If we counted money and allocated dividends, as we count Senate votes, our monetary system would collapse overnight. We argue in court about single member states that are won or lost by less then 10 votes but we blissfully ignore the upper-house system which can be lost by a distortion in the count that represents thousands of votes. A distortion that should not exist and that we must correct.
A fair, accurate voting system is not too much to ask for is it?
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Antony Green analysis exposed
ABC Electoral Analyst, Antony Green, has been exposed publishing false and misleading information, In doing a comparison analysis between the 2010 Senate and the Victorian upper-house statistics Antony green excluded from his calculation pre-polling and postal votes. This omission has the effect of inflating the ALP and the Green preferences and underestimating the true value of the Liberal Party vote.
UPDATE: Antony green has made some partial corrections to his initial data analysis but he still is a few percentage point overall out. The ALP and Greens are short 0.5% each and the LNP 1-2% points undervalued - Still missing is the breakdown of the method used in proportioning out the absentee. pre-poll and postal votes which could explain further the discrepancy in his data set. The other missing aspect of his analysis is he has not undertaken a distribution, allocation of the below the line vote. The Sex Party did much better then he has suggested. Bias or just careless? The same issues appeared in his failure to properly examine the Queensland 2007 Senate vote. Addition, It need to be noted that Antony Green was prepared to speculate on the ALP changing its preference allocation in Western Victoria but shied away form considering the Greens issuing a split ticket and the effect that that would have on the outcome of the election. I wonder why he has attributed one option but discounted the other. - come sunday all will be revealed.
In responding to our question Antony Green stated:
Well it does make a difference and the margin between the ALP winning a second seat and the Liberal party winning three seats is much closer as a result. If the Greens, as has been suggested here and on numerous other web sites, issue a split ticket they will be giving the Liberal party a heads up The analysis provided by Anthony Green of ALP 2, LNO 2. Gen 1) is wrong.
Well Sunday is a bit late the public need to be properly informed. Antony Green in not publishing in more detail the margin for a change in outcome has mislead the public. On comparing the Southern Metro to Senate vote the margin is within 1-2% and a split Green ticket would favour the Liberal Party. Anthony Green should know this to be true but he committed to mention this fact. Why? He makes all kinds of predictions after all is not the swing chart a prediction based on statistical data? To publish an incomplete data set is another issue that only compounds the omission.
Further there is concern that Antony Green has politically censored comments published on his web site. Edited out are the following comments on Victoria's Upper house regions. (Published here in full)
SOUTHERN METRO
------------------------
The ALP and Green data has been inflated and the LNP under valued. If you run a simulation count based on the 2010 preference distribution, including the below the line vote , for Southern Metro and then add in a split ticket or have the Greens Preference the Liberal Party in their above-the-line group voting ticket then the results most certainly do change.
The Greens can not direct preferences for the lower house BUT they can direct preferences for the upper-house, Most above the line voters will not know where the preferences are allocated and how they will play out in the count. Only 3% of all voters vote below-the-line. Add to that the distortion on the proportionality of the count arising from the flawed non weighted calculation of the Surplus Transfer value and the method and order of distributing preference data from excluded candidates and the election results are very much on a knifes edge.
UPDATE: Antony green has made some partial corrections to his initial data analysis but he still is a few percentage point overall out. The ALP and Greens are short 0.5% each and the LNP 1-2% points undervalued - Still missing is the breakdown of the method used in proportioning out the absentee. pre-poll and postal votes which could explain further the discrepancy in his data set. The other missing aspect of his analysis is he has not undertaken a distribution, allocation of the below the line vote. The Sex Party did much better then he has suggested. Bias or just careless? The same issues appeared in his failure to properly examine the Queensland 2007 Senate vote. Addition, It need to be noted that Antony Green was prepared to speculate on the ALP changing its preference allocation in Western Victoria but shied away form considering the Greens issuing a split ticket and the effect that that would have on the outcome of the election. I wonder why he has attributed one option but discounted the other. - come sunday all will be revealed.
In responding to our question Antony Green stated:
GREEN COMMENT: I stand by figures. I have allocated all polling places by which region they lie in, including splitting electorates that lie in more than one region. I didn't include the pre-poll and postal votes because it rarely makes a massive difference.
Well it does make a difference and the margin between the ALP winning a second seat and the Liberal party winning three seats is much closer as a result. If the Greens, as has been suggested here and on numerous other web sites, issue a split ticket they will be giving the Liberal party a heads up The analysis provided by Anthony Green of ALP 2, LNO 2. Gen 1) is wrong.
GREEN COMMENT: Why should I allocate a split Green preference ticket? You assert the Greens will do this. If the Greens do issue a split ticket, we will know on Sunday and it will be the biggest story of the election campaign. I see no reason to start off analysis by assuming a flow of preferences that has never happened.
Well Sunday is a bit late the public need to be properly informed. Antony Green in not publishing in more detail the margin for a change in outcome has mislead the public. On comparing the Southern Metro to Senate vote the margin is within 1-2% and a split Green ticket would favour the Liberal Party. Anthony Green should know this to be true but he committed to mention this fact. Why? He makes all kinds of predictions after all is not the swing chart a prediction based on statistical data? To publish an incomplete data set is another issue that only compounds the omission.
Further there is concern that Antony Green has politically censored comments published on his web site. Edited out are the following comments on Victoria's Upper house regions. (Published here in full)
SOUTHERN METRO
------------------------
The ALP and Green data has been inflated and the LNP under valued. If you run a simulation count based on the 2010 preference distribution, including the below the line vote , for Southern Metro and then add in a split ticket or have the Greens Preference the Liberal Party in their above-the-line group voting ticket then the results most certainly do change.
The Greens can not direct preferences for the lower house BUT they can direct preferences for the upper-house, Most above the line voters will not know where the preferences are allocated and how they will play out in the count. Only 3% of all voters vote below-the-line. Add to that the distortion on the proportionality of the count arising from the flawed non weighted calculation of the Surplus Transfer value and the method and order of distributing preference data from excluded candidates and the election results are very much on a knifes edge.
WESTERN METRO
----------------------
The Greens won Western Metro after a recount. 500 votes went missing and unaccounted for between Count A and Count B. Either the VEC double counted in count A or votes were removed. the total number of votes between count A and count B should never change. The Greens won on the second recount by less than 150 votes.
When the Parliament requested copies of the Count A preference data files for comparison the VEC claimed that the data had been deleted and overwritten. No backup copies made. This is hard to believe for a professional organisation were this information costs millions of dollars to collate. No audit trail of count A in comparison to count B exists.
The AEC maintain copies of both count A and count B data comparisons. what benefit was there in the VEC duplicating the development of software to count the vote when the AEC already had a better version which could have been used free of cost? Millions of dollars wasted in duplicated software resources.
NORTHERN METRO
------------------------
The VEC due to a lack of due diligence resulted in doggy data being feed into their computerised count. There was no check or verification to ensure that the number of votes recorded reconciled with the number of ballot papers issued prior to the solution of the election results. we are told that the VEC will produce a reconciliation report prior to the count but has yet to provide a sample copy of what this report will look like and what information it will contain. In 2006 the VEC failed to provided copies of the preference data files to scrutineers., This information was only made available following an FOI application and even then they only provided information related to the final count not the preliminary counts. Data files had been overwritten without backup copies being made. Even though copies of the information had been requested prior to the commencement of the count
The elections costs Victoria over 50 million dollars and hopefully we will not see a repeat of the mistakes that were made in 2006.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
De-educating the electorate: Australia's Voting System Undermined
It is all in the way you ask the question
The Australian Government has done a poor job in promoting the Preferential voting system, Apart from the way they calculate and count Senate elections Australia's voting system is one of the most democratic on offer. The Alternative vote - preferential voting system gives voters a choice and ensures that who is elected has the support of a majority of voters.
A Newspoll. published in the Australian and Herald Sun and promoted by the Liberal Party think tank "Institute of Public Administration" pushes the false notion that Australia wants a first-past-the-post voting system, but does it?
The question being asked should be rephrased in the terms
“Do you support a candidate with less than the majority support being elected or should they have 50% or more support?
You would find that the most supported answer would be "50% or more". The highest polling candidate is not the most supported candidate nor does it represent the majority. In fact it is, more often then not, the minority that has the highest vote as we saw in the UK elections.
In 1996 Melbourne City Council Candidate, Peter Costigan, received 40% of the primary vote. He was the highest polling candidate in his electorate, the second highest primary vote candidate had 36%. Costigan later lost the vote due to the distribution of preferences. Costigan having lost the election jumped on to the Radio and claimed that as he was the highest polling candidate he should have won the election. Problem for him of course was that 60% of the electorate did not support his election to office.
It is also interesting that the published article promotes the British and USA first-past-the-post voting system whilst in the UK there are moves to have this system replaced with the Australian preferential model.
Our system of democracy is under challenge, not just as a result of the flaws in the way we count the Senate vote but primarily due to the poor level of education and government support and the extent of tinkering at the edges that undermine the effectiveness of our vote.
The Australian government needs to do much more to promote the Preferential voting system. Not just in Australia but also internationally.
A preferential voting system would save France, which has a two round presidential ballot, 100s of millions of Euros - The cost of holding a second round ballot should the first round ballot not deliver a candidate with majority support (50% or more votes).
Preferential voting ensures that the person elected to office has the support of a majority of electorate without the need for second ballot. Under the the US or British first-past-the-post voting system a candidate with as little as 34% support can be elected to office (some times even less).
It is this lack of understanding, lack of government education, lack of promotion that has contributed to the misinformation and push to see Australia revert back to the undemocratic first-past-the-host voting system.
Optional preferential voting will only make it worst in years to come.. I for one would prefer to see compulsory voting abolished long before abandoning the preferential voting system.
The Australian Government has done a poor job in promoting the Preferential voting system, Apart from the way they calculate and count Senate elections Australia's voting system is one of the most democratic on offer. The Alternative vote - preferential voting system gives voters a choice and ensures that who is elected has the support of a majority of voters.
A Newspoll. published in the Australian and Herald Sun and promoted by the Liberal Party think tank "Institute of Public Administration" pushes the false notion that Australia wants a first-past-the-post voting system, but does it?
The question being asked should be rephrased in the terms
“Do you support a candidate with less than the majority support being elected or should they have 50% or more support?
You would find that the most supported answer would be "50% or more". The highest polling candidate is not the most supported candidate nor does it represent the majority. In fact it is, more often then not, the minority that has the highest vote as we saw in the UK elections.
In 1996 Melbourne City Council Candidate, Peter Costigan, received 40% of the primary vote. He was the highest polling candidate in his electorate, the second highest primary vote candidate had 36%. Costigan later lost the vote due to the distribution of preferences. Costigan having lost the election jumped on to the Radio and claimed that as he was the highest polling candidate he should have won the election. Problem for him of course was that 60% of the electorate did not support his election to office.
It is also interesting that the published article promotes the British and USA first-past-the-post voting system whilst in the UK there are moves to have this system replaced with the Australian preferential model.
Our system of democracy is under challenge, not just as a result of the flaws in the way we count the Senate vote but primarily due to the poor level of education and government support and the extent of tinkering at the edges that undermine the effectiveness of our vote.
The Australian government needs to do much more to promote the Preferential voting system. Not just in Australia but also internationally.
A preferential voting system would save France, which has a two round presidential ballot, 100s of millions of Euros - The cost of holding a second round ballot should the first round ballot not deliver a candidate with majority support (50% or more votes).
Preferential voting ensures that the person elected to office has the support of a majority of electorate without the need for second ballot. Under the the US or British first-past-the-post voting system a candidate with as little as 34% support can be elected to office (some times even less).
It is this lack of understanding, lack of government education, lack of promotion that has contributed to the misinformation and push to see Australia revert back to the undemocratic first-past-the-host voting system.
Optional preferential voting will only make it worst in years to come.. I for one would prefer to see compulsory voting abolished long before abandoning the preferential voting system.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
John Lenders, Honour Awarded
John Lenders, Leader of the Government in the Victorian Legislative Council, was last night awarded Honorary Life Membership of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia, a non partisan organisation concerned with the promotion of democratic electoral reform in Australia .
In putting forward John Lender's citation for Honorary Life Membership the Executive gave recognition to John's commitment and contribution to electoral reform in Victoria and in particular the role he played in bringing about reform of the Victorian Legislative Council which was introduced following the State Government's re-election to office in 2002 in which it had won control of both houses.
John was actively engaged in the formation and implementation of the Labor Party's policy, from its conception to birth. As assistant and later State Secretary of the ALP going far back as 1985 when the ALP first adopted a policy of reform in preference to policy seeking abolition of the State upper-house. The Government's preferred model when it was first introduced was for the State to be divided into five regions (two rural and three urban) with seven or nine members each.
Whilst the ALP had the opportunity to introduce electoral reform back in 1985 in the period between the State election and the Nunawading by-election it did not do so as it fell short of a constitutional majority to introduce other reforms such as restricting the rights of the upper-house to block supply.
In 2002 the Labor Government headed by Steve Bracks won control of both houses of the State Parliament and in doing so was in a position for the first time to implement Labor’s policy for reform to Victoria's State Constitution. As part of its commitment to the three independents who supported Steve Bracks election as Premier in 1999 the government set up a Constitutional Commission to consider in detail recommendations that were to be implemented. In the process of securing support and acceptance for the reforms the model was changed to eight regions each with five members elected. The reforms included removal of the power to block supply and entrenched into the constitution the method of election which can only be changed by referendum or with the support of 60% of both houses. John Lenders was pivitol in oveseeing this process. Without John Lender's imput and committement to reform it is unlikely Victoria would have a democraticly representative upper-house.
A motion to support Johns lenders being granted Honorary Life Membership was supported unanimously by the Society.
In discussion that followed concern was raised about the adoption of the Australian Senate rules in the counting of the vote in particular the method of calculating the Surplus transfer value and the segmentation and distribution of preference votes form candidates excluded in the count. John lenders recognised and supported the need for further reform. At the time of adopting the constitutional changes that were put in place in the lead-up to the 2006 State election it was felt important that the election be consistent with the Senate rules for its introduction.
John Lenders indicated his support for further voting reform that included a weighted surplus transfer value, which was adopted by the Western Australia State Parliament, and the idea of a iterative counting system which would be necessary with the adoption of optional preferential voting.
Whilst these changes will not be in place in time for the November State Election they will be considered by the Electoral Matters Commitee in the new Parliament.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
AEC pays out over 52 Million in public funding to political parties and candidates
2010 federal election payment to political parties and candidates
Updated: 21 September 2010
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has authorised the first payment to political parties and candidates for votes received at the 2010 federal election.The total of the first payment is $52,411,291. Payments have been made to 10 parties and 17 independent candidates.
This first round of payments is based on the progressive vote count as at 10 September 2010. The AEC has paid up to 99% of the funding entitlements calculated at that date.
A second and final round of payments of all outstanding funding entitlements is to be made once vote counting is finalised.
Funding Entitlements are calculated using an indexed sum per first preference vote. At the 2010 federal election, each first preference vote was worth 231.191 cents.
In order to be entitled to election funding a candidate must obtain at least 4% of the formal first preference vote.
The following table shows a breakdown of the first payment of election funding for the 2010 federal election.
2010 FEDERAL ELECTION FIRST PAYMENT TO POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES AS AT THE END OF COUNTING ON 10SEPTEMBER 2010
| Parties | Amount ($) |
|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 20,935,323.18 |
| Liberal Party of Australia | 20,819,820.08 |
| Australian Greens | 7,086,053.13 |
| National Party of Australia | 2,441,843.88 |
| Family First Party | 403,122.45 |
| Country Liberals (Northern Territory) | 177,617.04 |
| Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) | 17,407.51 |
| Australian Sex Party | 11,197.72 |
| Liberal Democratic Party | 11,116.80 |
| Shooters and Fishers Party | 10,527.26 |
| Independent candidates | Amount ($) |
| Tony Windsor (New England, NSW) | 129,099.25 |
| Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, NSW) | 91,691.26 |
| Bob Katter (Kennedy, Qld) | 87,383.75 |
| Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Tas.) | 31,557.85 |
| Louise Burge (Farrer, NSW) | 21,400.20 |
| John Clements (Parkes, NSW) | 20,933.28 |
| John Arkan (Cowper, NSW) | 19,326.39 |
| Michael Johnson (Ryan, Qld) | 17,284.98 |
| Matthew Hogg (Riverina, NSW) | 11,710.96 |
| Alan Lappin (Indi, Vic.) | 11,239.33 |
| James Purcell (Wannon, Vic.) | 10,564.25 |
| Charles Nason (Maranoa, Qld) | 10,427.85 |
| Paul Blanch (Calare, NSW) | 9,364.37 |
| Katrina Rainsford (Wannon, NSW) | 9,200.23 |
| Brad King (Blair, Qld) | 7,353.01 |
| Deidre Finter (Lingiari, NT) | 4,511.67 |
| Kenny Lechleitner (Lingiari, NT) | 4,213.44 |
| Total | 52,411,291.12 |
Media contacts
Phil DiakDirector, Media and Communication Strategy
Canberra
02 6271 4415
0413 452 539
Saturday, 18 September 2010
Andrew Bartlett still in denial
There are those that deny climate change and then there are those that deny flaws exist in the Australian senate counting rules.
Andrew Bartlet, failed Green's Candidate for the seat of Brisbane (Ex Democrat Leader and Queensland Senator) continues to deny the FACTS that the system used in the counting of the Australian Senate elections is seriously flawed.
Mr Bartlett, who served on Parliamentary Joint Select Committee for Electoral Matters failed to identify the flaws in the counting system.
Has he tried recounting the 2007 Queensland Senate vote? (Excluding all candidates except the least seven standing - 3ALP, 3LNP and 1 Grn) Obviously not. Unless Mr Bartlet does recount the vote he is not in a position to make an informed decision, but that does not stop him from denying the facts.
FACTS that Mr Bartlett fails to comprehend.
Andrew Bartlet, failed Green's Candidate for the seat of Brisbane (Ex Democrat Leader and Queensland Senator) continues to deny the FACTS that the system used in the counting of the Australian Senate elections is seriously flawed.
Mr Bartlett, who served on Parliamentary Joint Select Committee for Electoral Matters failed to identify the flaws in the counting system.
Has he tried recounting the 2007 Queensland Senate vote? (Excluding all candidates except the least seven standing - 3ALP, 3LNP and 1 Grn) Obviously not. Unless Mr Bartlet does recount the vote he is not in a position to make an informed decision, but that does not stop him from denying the facts.
FACTS that Mr Bartlett fails to comprehend.
- FACT The method of calculating the Surplus Transfer Value is seriously flawed. it increases the value of the Major Party Ticket vote in a situation where there is a delayed election. In 2010 The Liberal National Party (LNP) NSW ticket vote increased in value byover 14,000 votes as a result of the flaw in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value. 14,000 votes is a huge bonus and potential winning margin in a close election.
- FACT In 2007 David Feeney came close to losing the Victorian Senate election as a result of a "Bonus 7,000 votes" added to the Liberal Party Ticket vote. (Even Antony Green. ABC Electoral Analysis has acknowledged this flaw)
- FACT Larissa Waters, Green's Senate Candidate in 2007, failed to win a Senate seat due to the flaw related to the method of segmentation and distribution of excluded candidates preferences.
- FACT Western Australia recognised the flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted and legislated to change the method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value. WA did not correct the flaw in the distribution of excluded candidate's preferences.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Writs Returned - Mission accomplished
All Senate positions have been declared and the Writs returned
Close of Business, Friday September 17, Writs returned and the AEC still has not published the Below-the-Line (BTL) preference data for the Victorian Senate.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-VIC.zip
All other states have been published.
UPDATE: (Sept 19) THE AEC HAS PULLED THE PUBLICATION OF THE BELOW-THE-LINE PREFERENCE DATA. THE LINKS BELOW PREVISOULY WORKED NOW THEY DON'T (We have published copies of the data-files here)
Update: (Sept 20) Files are back up and can be accessed via the main menu page. Victoria's BTL data still missing http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateDownloadsMenu-15508-csv.htm
Loctation of data-files available
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-NSW.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-OLD.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-TAS.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-ACT.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-NT.zip
The AEC’s refusal to provide scrutineers access to copies of the progressive BTL preference data files, reconciliation data files and the AEC Chief Legal Officer's, Paul Pirani, response to scrutineers request that copies of the BTL data would require payment of $30 and a FOI application has marred what has otherwise been an exemplary counting process.
The double entry-data verification, on-site 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.
Unlike 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 time to put an end to the waste and duplication.
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, Friday September 17, Writs returned and the AEC still has not published the Below-the-Line (BTL) preference data for the Victorian Senate.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-VIC.zip
All other states have been published.
UPDATE: (Sept 19) THE AEC HAS PULLED THE PUBLICATION OF THE BELOW-THE-LINE PREFERENCE DATA. THE LINKS BELOW PREVISOULY WORKED NOW THEY DON'T (We have published copies of the data-files here)
Update: (Sept 20) Files are back up and can be accessed via the main menu page. Victoria's BTL data still missing http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateDownloadsMenu-15508-csv.htm
Loctation of data-files available
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-NSW.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-OLD.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-TAS.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-ACT.zip
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateBtlDownload-15508-NT.zip
The AEC’s refusal to provide scrutineers access to copies of the progressive BTL preference data files, reconciliation data files and the AEC Chief Legal Officer's, Paul Pirani, response to scrutineers request that copies of the BTL data would require payment of $30 and a FOI application has marred what has otherwise been an exemplary counting process.
The double entry-data verification, on-site 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.
Unlike 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 time to put an end to the waste and duplication.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Queensland - AEC misleading declaration
The Australian Electoral Commission has come under fire for publishing false and misleading information on its media release announcing the results of the Queensland Senate election
The Australian Electoral Officer for Queensland, Ms Anne Bright 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," Ms Bright 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 AEC refused to provide scrutineers access to copies of the below-the-line preference data-files during the preference data-entry process. Without access to this information scrutineers can not verify the accuracy or validation of the below the line preference vote count.
In what has otherwise been an exemplary count the AEC's refusal to maintain an open and transparent counting system has undermined confidence in electronic computerised counting of the ballot.
The Australian Electoral Officer for Queensland, Ms Anne Bright 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," Ms Bright 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 AEC refused to provide scrutineers access to copies of the below-the-line preference data-files during the preference data-entry process. Without access to this information scrutineers can not verify the accuracy or validation of the below the line preference vote count.
In what has otherwise been an exemplary count the AEC's refusal to maintain an open and transparent counting system has undermined confidence in electronic computerised counting of the ballot.
Monday, 13 September 2010
Slipping back to the past. - Optional Voting under review
If we adopt optional preferential voting we will by default be reintroducing a First-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. A backward step in my view.
First-past-the-post is an outdated and undemocratic voting system. It needs to be relegated to the history books and kept in a museum along with a stone tablet, a type writer and a PDP11.
Australia's preferential voting system is one of the best in the world.,
Both the UK and Canada have been debating scraping FPTP voting and adopting a preferential voting system. The UK is expected to do so sooner rather then later.
Under a FPTP or Optional Preferential voting system a candidate can be elected in a single member electorate with less then 50% support, They can be elected with as little as 34% of the vote.
Preferential voting is by far preferable to the other alternatives.
First-past-the-post voting is used in many European counties such as France and Ukraine to elect their head of state, however to prevent the head of state being elected by the minority they have adopted a two-round voting system. The two round voting system simulates what we have here in Australia but costs twice as much as two rounds of voting is required.
If they adopted our preferential voting system they could save 100s of Millions of Dollars by only holding one round and they would achieve the same result.
Australia is the envy of the democratic world. We should be proud of our preferential voting system and resist calls to water it down or make it ineffective.Yes it has problems but Optional preferential is not the solution. Education and maintaining an open and transparent and accurate voting system is the way forward
First-past-the-post is an outdated and undemocratic voting system. It needs to be relegated to the history books and kept in a museum along with a stone tablet, a type writer and a PDP11.
Australia's preferential voting system is one of the best in the world.,
Both the UK and Canada have been debating scraping FPTP voting and adopting a preferential voting system. The UK is expected to do so sooner rather then later.
Under a FPTP or Optional Preferential voting system a candidate can be elected in a single member electorate with less then 50% support, They can be elected with as little as 34% of the vote.
Preferential voting is by far preferable to the other alternatives.
First-past-the-post voting is used in many European counties such as France and Ukraine to elect their head of state, however to prevent the head of state being elected by the minority they have adopted a two-round voting system. The two round voting system simulates what we have here in Australia but costs twice as much as two rounds of voting is required.
If they adopted our preferential voting system they could save 100s of Millions of Dollars by only holding one round and they would achieve the same result.
Australia is the envy of the democratic world. We should be proud of our preferential voting system and resist calls to water it down or make it ineffective.Yes it has problems but Optional preferential is not the solution. Education and maintaining an open and transparent and accurate voting system is the way forward
Scrutiny denied
The AEC has responded to scrutineers request for copies of the below the line preference data files to be made available for proper scrutiny.
Mr Pirani in his telephone conversation on Friday falsely stated that to do so would nessiate the delay and stopping of the data-entry process. This is not the case. According to information provided by AEC staff, Ballot paper preferences are data-entered on stand alone computer terminals located in the counting room and the information and data is then copied on to a numbered USB drive and transferred to a central database terminal which is networked and connected to the Internet. Networked computer terminals are set up that provide limited "Read Only" access to each ballot paper data record. The information that is available is limited by the method of access one record at a time. Copies of the data files can readily be produced and the integrity of the count is not compromised, nor is the secrecy of the ballot, as there is no means of identifying the voter.
Without copies of the data-files being progressively made available there is no means of monitoring the quality and integrity of the data stored or any means of ensuring that the information has not been tampered with over night. In expressing these concerns we are not implying that the AEC staff have in any way acted illegally, to the contrary, in all other aspects the conduct of the count of the election is exemplary, but it has been marred by the AEC's refusal to not subject the full details of the count to proper scrutiny.
There is no legal limitation that prevents access to the data files requested, in spite Mr Pirani's assertions that there is an "implied limitation". This information was freely provided after the 2007 Federal Election (be it some three months after the declaration of the the poll). Mr Pirani stated that the information would only be made available on application under the provisions of the freedom from information Act and payment of $30 fee. (Something we consider to be an abuse of process given that this information should be readily and freely available)
It would have taken the AEC less then 3 minutes to make a copy of the requested data files, much less then it would have taken for Mr Pirani to espouse and pen the reply below.
I refer to your letter that was faxed to me after the close of business on 10 September 2010 and your email below.
I am instructed by the Australian Electoral Officer for Victoria (AEO) that AEC staff are still engaged in entering details from the Senate ballot papers into the AEC computer system and are yet to finalise the verification of that data. It is only after the conclusion of this process that the AEO will proceed with the running of the computer program to undertake the Senate count in accordance with the requirements of subsection 273A(5) of the Electoral Act.
The legal rights of a scrutineer to access information during the conduct of central Senate scrutiny (which is the process that is taking place now at the premises in Melbourne) are set out in subsection 273A(6) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act). This subsection provides that:
Implicit in the above is that the Parliament has determined that the duties of a scrutineer can be properly performed at this stage of the scrutiny process by a person only having access to the above information. Accordingly, there is no right for a scrutineer to demand access to all or any information that may be in the possession of the AEC as you appear to imply in your email and letter.
The rights contained in subsection 273A(6) of the Electoral Act are exhaustive as to what information a scrutineer is legally able to access and the timing of that access. When this is combined with the present fact that not all of the Senate ballot paper “details have been stored in the computer” at this time, this raises doubts as to a scrutineer’s legal right to access any of the data sets specified in your email and letter at this time. In relation to the timing of access, I am instructed that the AEO has not agreed to provide you with access to any data stored in the AEC computer until after the count has taken place.
Further, I note that there is no legal right or obligation placed on the AEC to provide any scrutineer with access to the information you are seeking in an electronic format. The AEC is only required to provide a scrutineer with access to “a record” of the three data sets specified in subsection 273A(6) of the Electoral Act.
Accordingly, I seek your specific response to exactly how each of the data sets to which you are claiming to require access to as a scrutineer falls within the scope of subsection 273A(6) of the Electoral Act.
While I am aware that following the 2007 general election, the AEC agreed to provide you with access to a CD Rom that included an electronic version of the verified “record of the preferences” stored in the computer and the details of each count, this was done as a private citizen with interest in electoral matters. I am currently instructed that the AEC is prepared to repeat this action following the return of the writs for the 2010 general election.
Yours sincerely
Paul Pirani
Chief Legal Officer
Legal and Compliance Branch
Australian Electoral Commission
T: (02) 6271 4474 F: (02) 6271 4457
UNCLASSIFIED
Mr Paul Pirani, AEC legal Officer's, response (extract below) is a clear indication that the AEC is unwilling and incapable of self management in order to maintain an open and transparent electoral process. Without access to the preference data-files it is impossible to properly scrutinise the conduct and counting of the election results.scru·tiny
[skroot-new]
Show IPA
–noun, plural -nis.
- a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.
- surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding
- a close and searching look.
Mr Pirani in his telephone conversation on Friday falsely stated that to do so would nessiate the delay and stopping of the data-entry process. This is not the case. According to information provided by AEC staff, Ballot paper preferences are data-entered on stand alone computer terminals located in the counting room and the information and data is then copied on to a numbered USB drive and transferred to a central database terminal which is networked and connected to the Internet. Networked computer terminals are set up that provide limited "Read Only" access to each ballot paper data record. The information that is available is limited by the method of access one record at a time. Copies of the data files can readily be produced and the integrity of the count is not compromised, nor is the secrecy of the ballot, as there is no means of identifying the voter.
Without copies of the data-files being progressively made available there is no means of monitoring the quality and integrity of the data stored or any means of ensuring that the information has not been tampered with over night. In expressing these concerns we are not implying that the AEC staff have in any way acted illegally, to the contrary, in all other aspects the conduct of the count of the election is exemplary, but it has been marred by the AEC's refusal to not subject the full details of the count to proper scrutiny.
There is no legal limitation that prevents access to the data files requested, in spite Mr Pirani's assertions that there is an "implied limitation". This information was freely provided after the 2007 Federal Election (be it some three months after the declaration of the the poll). Mr Pirani stated that the information would only be made available on application under the provisions of the freedom from information Act and payment of $30 fee. (Something we consider to be an abuse of process given that this information should be readily and freely available)
It would have taken the AEC less then 3 minutes to make a copy of the requested data files, much less then it would have taken for Mr Pirani to espouse and pen the reply below.
I refer to your letter that was faxed to me after the close of business on 10 September 2010 and your email below.
I am instructed by the Australian Electoral Officer for Victoria (AEO) that AEC staff are still engaged in entering details from the Senate ballot papers into the AEC computer system and are yet to finalise the verification of that data. It is only after the conclusion of this process that the AEO will proceed with the running of the computer program to undertake the Senate count in accordance with the requirements of subsection 273A(5) of the Electoral Act.
The legal rights of a scrutineer to access information during the conduct of central Senate scrutiny (which is the process that is taking place now at the premises in Melbourne) are set out in subsection 273A(6) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act). This subsection provides that:
(6) For proceedings under subsections (4) and (5) of this section, the requirements of paragraph 265(1)(c) are met if the scrutineers have access to:
(a) a record of the preferences on the ballot papers that have been received by the Australian Electoral Officer and whose details have been stored in the computer (including informal ballot papers, and formal ballot papers that are not sequentially numbered); and
(b) a record of the ballot papers that are notionally transferred, or exhausted, at each count; and
(c) a record of the progress of the count of the votes, at each count.
Implicit in the above is that the Parliament has determined that the duties of a scrutineer can be properly performed at this stage of the scrutiny process by a person only having access to the above information. Accordingly, there is no right for a scrutineer to demand access to all or any information that may be in the possession of the AEC as you appear to imply in your email and letter.
The rights contained in subsection 273A(6) of the Electoral Act are exhaustive as to what information a scrutineer is legally able to access and the timing of that access. When this is combined with the present fact that not all of the Senate ballot paper “details have been stored in the computer” at this time, this raises doubts as to a scrutineer’s legal right to access any of the data sets specified in your email and letter at this time. In relation to the timing of access, I am instructed that the AEO has not agreed to provide you with access to any data stored in the AEC computer until after the count has taken place.
Further, I note that there is no legal right or obligation placed on the AEC to provide any scrutineer with access to the information you are seeking in an electronic format. The AEC is only required to provide a scrutineer with access to “a record” of the three data sets specified in subsection 273A(6) of the Electoral Act.
Accordingly, I seek your specific response to exactly how each of the data sets to which you are claiming to require access to as a scrutineer falls within the scope of subsection 273A(6) of the Electoral Act.
While I am aware that following the 2007 general election, the AEC agreed to provide you with access to a CD Rom that included an electronic version of the verified “record of the preferences” stored in the computer and the details of each count, this was done as a private citizen with interest in electoral matters. I am currently instructed that the AEC is prepared to repeat this action following the return of the writs for the 2010 general election.
Yours sincerely
Paul Pirani
Chief Legal Officer
Legal and Compliance Branch
Australian Electoral Commission
T: (02) 6271 4474 F: (02) 6271 4457
UNCLASSIFIED
Saturday, 11 September 2010
Politics is the art of compromise - all things are possible
The next Federal Election will be a double dissolution. Neither the ALP or the LNP will want half senate election to take place.
The longevity of this parliament will very much depend on the ability of the Greens to compromise and gain balance in its policies. Past indications are that they will not. (The CTS for example). Should the Greens not be in a position to accept compromise or moderation of its demands Australia will go back to the polls within 18 months.
Come July 1 Tony Abbott will up the pressure on the government, warranted or not he is in a strong position and within a heart beat of bringing down the current minority government. As long as the LNP with the support of Steve Fielding (Family First) holds the balance of power Abbott will bide his time chipping away at the governments claim to be a legitimate government (Even though it rightly so).
Gillard is without any doubt the most capable member of the ALP caucus to lead a minority government. Her style of leadership and ability to negotiate is the ALPs greatest strength. Gillard is a very competent and skilled player in that respect.
Having the constitutional right to call a double dissolution would be in the interest of both the ALP and the LNP.
Whoever calls the next election will be in the best position to win it. If the election is forced by Tony Abbott he will be the most likely to win. The same could be the case for Gillard.
The slogan “This time I will vote Green” will soon become “Last time I voted Green, I will not make the same mistake next time”
The main concern about the outcome of a double dissolution is that analysis of the Victorian and South Australian countsindicates that Family First will be re-elected assuming preference fold ups remain the same. In Victoria Family First at a double dissolution would be elected in place of the DLP.
In discussion with LNP scrutineers on Friday it as clear that they were having second thoughts about preferencing the Greens ahead of the ALP. I am sure they will think twice before making that mistake a second time. The outcome of the Federal election has also raised questions and doubt whether then LNP will preference the Greens in the Victorian State elections scheduled for November 27.
At the next Federal Election we can anticipate that the Green vote will drop significantly back to below 10%
As long as minor parties continue to cross preference each other and the Christian parties (Family First, DLP and Fred Nile) support each other they will remain ahead of the pack with a strong chance of securing representation in the various upper house elections that will follow. Above the line voting giving strength and cohesion to their vote.
The longevity of this parliament will very much depend on the ability of the Greens to compromise and gain balance in its policies. Past indications are that they will not. (The CTS for example). Should the Greens not be in a position to accept compromise or moderation of its demands Australia will go back to the polls within 18 months.
Come July 1 Tony Abbott will up the pressure on the government, warranted or not he is in a strong position and within a heart beat of bringing down the current minority government. As long as the LNP with the support of Steve Fielding (Family First) holds the balance of power Abbott will bide his time chipping away at the governments claim to be a legitimate government (Even though it rightly so).
Gillard is without any doubt the most capable member of the ALP caucus to lead a minority government. Her style of leadership and ability to negotiate is the ALPs greatest strength. Gillard is a very competent and skilled player in that respect.
Having the constitutional right to call a double dissolution would be in the interest of both the ALP and the LNP.
Whoever calls the next election will be in the best position to win it. If the election is forced by Tony Abbott he will be the most likely to win. The same could be the case for Gillard.
The slogan “This time I will vote Green” will soon become “Last time I voted Green, I will not make the same mistake next time”
The main concern about the outcome of a double dissolution is that analysis of the Victorian and South Australian countsindicates that Family First will be re-elected assuming preference fold ups remain the same. In Victoria Family First at a double dissolution would be elected in place of the DLP.
In discussion with LNP scrutineers on Friday it as clear that they were having second thoughts about preferencing the Greens ahead of the ALP. I am sure they will think twice before making that mistake a second time. The outcome of the Federal election has also raised questions and doubt whether then LNP will preference the Greens in the Victorian State elections scheduled for November 27.
At the next Federal Election we can anticipate that the Green vote will drop significantly back to below 10%
As long as minor parties continue to cross preference each other and the Christian parties (Family First, DLP and Fred Nile) support each other they will remain ahead of the pack with a strong chance of securing representation in the various upper house elections that will follow. Above the line voting giving strength and cohesion to their vote.
Senate counting system delivers a bonus 14,000 votes to the LNP in NSW
Preliminary analysis of the 2010 NSW Senate results using information published by ABC electoral Analyst, Antony Green, has indicated that the method of counting the vote used by the Australian Electoral Commission has inflated the value of the Liberal/National Party Ticket vote by over 14,000 votes disproportionately to their support.
The method used in calculation of a candidates Surplus Transfer Value is derived by dividing the surplus of votes by the total number of ballot papers and not the value of the vote. This has the effect of increasing the LNP ticket vote and devaluing full valued primary votes of minor party candidates.
The Australian parliament and the AEC are aware of the flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted but to date has failed to act to correct the mistakes.
The problem with the Senate system is that it was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. The method used to calculate the surplus transfer value is seriously flawed as a result.
In analysis of the 2007 Victorian Senate Election Labor Party Senate candidate David Feeney could have been not elected as a result of a 7,000 bonus votes that would have been generated by the system currently in use. The analysis is based on a realistic hypothetical of One Nation preferencing the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP and ahead of the Greens.
Western Australia was aware of the flaw in the Senate counting rules and has legislated to correct it, Victoria's parliament has yet to address this situation which could effect the outcome of the Victorian State election to be held in November this year.
If we are to restore confidence in the way the Senate vote is counted then we MUST ensure that the system is an accurate reflection of the voters expressed intention and is fully proportional not semi proportional.
If we can not make the necessary changes and fix the system then we should abandon preferential proportional representation and adopt a party list system.
Below is the calculations that demonstrate how the Senate system works
Data presented below is based on output published by Antony Green's Senate Calculator for the State of NSW 2010 Election
NSW
[Count 1: Initial allocation]
There are 1,584,909 Primary vote ballot papers each having a value of 1 allocated to the LNP #1 Candidate: Total vote 1,584,909
[Count 2: Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (Liberal/National) elected #1]
LNP #1 has a surplus of 1,584,909 - Quota (579,828)
= 1,005,081
Surplus Transfer value = (1,005,081 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.634156914
1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #2 each ballot paper valued at 0.634156914, the total value = 1,005,081 (Above quota)
[Count 4: William HEFFERNAN (Liberal/National) elected #3]
LNP #2 now has a surplus of 1,005,081 - Quota (579,828)
= 425,253
Surplus Transfer value = (425,253 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.268313827
1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #3 each ballot paper valued now at 0.268313827, the total value = 425,253 (Below Quota)
[Exclusion of candidate process]
OK. At this stage the data is the same (But Antony Greens calculator has not published the break down or the formula used in calculating the value of the transfer value and the number of ballot papers held by the candidate. This information is sadly hidden from view - Why is that?)
[The LNP #3 candidate picks up votes from the following exclusions]
[Count 7: Meg SAMPSON (Group K Independents) excluded]
313 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Group K Ticket 1 of 3 Total number of ballot papers 1,584,909 @ 0.268313827 plus 313 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 425,566
[Count 18: Nick BEAMS (Socialist Equality Party) excluded]
1,199 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Socialist Equality Party Ticket 2 of 3. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 1,512 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 426,765
[Count 28: Greg SWANE (Family First) excluded]
38,371 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 39,883 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 465,136
[Count 29: Fiona CLANCY (Australian Democrats) excluded]
5,609 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Austrralian Democrats. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 45,492 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 470,745
[Count 31: Paul GREEN (Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)) excluded]
79,157 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 124,649 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 549,902.
[Count 32: Jim Gerard MUIRHEAD (Shooters and Fishers) excluded]
95,292 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Shooters and Fishers. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 219,941 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 645,194. (LNP Candidate #3 elected)
[THE DISTORTION IN THE COUNT]
The LNP#3 Now has
1,804,850 ballot papers (1584,909 valued at 0.268313827 (total value 425,253) plus
219,941 ballot papers at full value)
Candidates Total 645,194
1,584,909 ballot papers at 0.268313827 = 425,253 (65.91% of 645,194)
219,941 ballot papers at 1.0000000 = 219,941 (34.09% of 645,194)
Surplus = 645,194 - Quota (579,828) = 65,366
Under the AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the Surplus by the total number of ballot papers
65,366 divided by (1,584,909 + 219,941) = 0.036217
The LNP ticket vote is worth the value of 57,400 votes (87.81% of 65,366)
The Primary Full value votes are now worth 79,66 votes (12.19% 65,366)
[The LNP ticket vote has increased its percentage of the Total value from 65.91% to 87.81%) and the Primary Full value votes have been devalued from 34.09% to 12.19%]
This represents a Bonus value of:
The LNP Ticket vote
65366 at 65.91% = 43,083
65366 at 87.81% = 57,400
A increase in value of 14,317
The Primary minor party full value vote
65366 at 34.09% = 43,083
65366 at 12.19% = 7,965
[Devalued by 14,317 votes]
14, 317 votes can be the difference in a close election.
This came about as a result of a FLAW in the way the vote is counted. A flaw that Mr Bartlett thinks does not exist. A flaw that inflated the Major Party Ticket vote at the expense of the minor party vote.
The method used in calculation of a candidates Surplus Transfer Value is derived by dividing the surplus of votes by the total number of ballot papers and not the value of the vote. This has the effect of increasing the LNP ticket vote and devaluing full valued primary votes of minor party candidates.
The Australian parliament and the AEC are aware of the flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted but to date has failed to act to correct the mistakes.
The problem with the Senate system is that it was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. The method used to calculate the surplus transfer value is seriously flawed as a result.
In analysis of the 2007 Victorian Senate Election Labor Party Senate candidate David Feeney could have been not elected as a result of a 7,000 bonus votes that would have been generated by the system currently in use. The analysis is based on a realistic hypothetical of One Nation preferencing the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP and ahead of the Greens.
In fact if you apply the 2010 Party Ticket preferences to the 2007 results David Feeney would not have been elected.The Greens candidate Di Natali would have been elected on the back of One Nation, Family First and DLP preferences, even though they opposed the greens election. Their vote was reduced in value inflating the value of the LNP ticket vote. The same situation has occurred in NSW where the system has delivered a 14,000 "unfair" vote bonus to the LNP ticket.The potential for the system to elect the wrong person was confirmed independently by Antony Green in his submission to the Australian parliament's Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters in 2008.
Western Australia was aware of the flaw in the Senate counting rules and has legislated to correct it, Victoria's parliament has yet to address this situation which could effect the outcome of the Victorian State election to be held in November this year.
If we are to restore confidence in the way the Senate vote is counted then we MUST ensure that the system is an accurate reflection of the voters expressed intention and is fully proportional not semi proportional.
If we can not make the necessary changes and fix the system then we should abandon preferential proportional representation and adopt a party list system.
Below is the calculations that demonstrate how the Senate system works
Data presented below is based on output published by Antony Green's Senate Calculator for the State of NSW 2010 Election
NSW
[Count 1: Initial allocation]
There are 1,584,909 Primary vote ballot papers each having a value of 1 allocated to the LNP #1 Candidate: Total vote 1,584,909
[Count 2: Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (Liberal/National) elected #1]
LNP #1 has a surplus of 1,584,909 - Quota (579,828)
= 1,005,081
Surplus Transfer value = (1,005,081 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.634156914
1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #2 each ballot paper valued at 0.634156914, the total value = 1,005,081 (Above quota)
[Count 4: William HEFFERNAN (Liberal/National) elected #3]
LNP #2 now has a surplus of 1,005,081 - Quota (579,828)
= 425,253
Surplus Transfer value = (425,253 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.268313827
1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #3 each ballot paper valued now at 0.268313827, the total value = 425,253 (Below Quota)
[Exclusion of candidate process]
OK. At this stage the data is the same (But Antony Greens calculator has not published the break down or the formula used in calculating the value of the transfer value and the number of ballot papers held by the candidate. This information is sadly hidden from view - Why is that?)
[The LNP #3 candidate picks up votes from the following exclusions]
[Count 7: Meg SAMPSON (Group K Independents) excluded]
313 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Group K Ticket 1 of 3 Total number of ballot papers 1,584,909 @ 0.268313827 plus 313 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 425,566
[Count 18: Nick BEAMS (Socialist Equality Party) excluded]
1,199 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Socialist Equality Party Ticket 2 of 3. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 1,512 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 426,765
[Count 28: Greg SWANE (Family First) excluded]
38,371 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 39,883 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 465,136
[Count 29: Fiona CLANCY (Australian Democrats) excluded]
5,609 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Austrralian Democrats. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 45,492 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 470,745
[Count 31: Paul GREEN (Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)) excluded]
79,157 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 124,649 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 549,902.
[Count 32: Jim Gerard MUIRHEAD (Shooters and Fishers) excluded]
95,292 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Shooters and Fishers. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 219,941 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 645,194. (LNP Candidate #3 elected)
[THE DISTORTION IN THE COUNT]
The LNP#3 Now has
1,804,850 ballot papers (1584,909 valued at 0.268313827 (total value 425,253) plus
219,941 ballot papers at full value)
Candidates Total 645,194
1,584,909 ballot papers at 0.268313827 = 425,253 (65.91% of 645,194)
219,941 ballot papers at 1.0000000 = 219,941 (34.09% of 645,194)
Surplus = 645,194 - Quota (579,828) = 65,366
Under the AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the Surplus by the total number of ballot papers
65,366 divided by (1,584,909 + 219,941) = 0.036217
The Primary Full value votes are now worth 79,66 votes (12.19% 65,366)
[The LNP ticket vote has increased its percentage of the Total value from 65.91% to 87.81%) and the Primary Full value votes have been devalued from 34.09% to 12.19%]
This represents a Bonus value of:
The LNP Ticket vote
65366 at 65.91% = 43,083
65366 at 87.81% = 57,400
A increase in value of 14,317
The Primary minor party full value vote
65366 at 34.09% = 43,083
65366 at 12.19% = 7,965
[Devalued by 14,317 votes]
14, 317 votes can be the difference in a close election.
This came about as a result of a FLAW in the way the vote is counted. A flaw that Mr Bartlett thinks does not exist. A flaw that inflated the Major Party Ticket vote at the expense of the minor party vote.
- A flaw in the way the vote is counted that should not exist.
- A flaw that needs to be corrected not hidden from view
- A flaw that some seek to hide and some who are ex members of parliament, ex Democrats, now Green Candidates think does not exist.
Australia's Electoral Secret - No longer open and transparent
Elections in Australia are no longer open and transparent with the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to subject information pertaining to the conduct of the electronic counting of the ballot to proper scrutiny.
Scrutineers have been denied access to copies of the Senate count reconciliation and below the line preference data files
Mr Paul Pirani, Chief Legal Officer for the Australian Electoral Commission in response to a request for access to this information claimed that copies of the data files could only be obtained through the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the payment of a 30 dollar fee. It was unclear on what or whose authority or direction Mr Pirani was withholding access to this vital information.
Without access to copies of the preference vote data-files and reconciliation reports it is impossible for scrutineers to conduct a proper and comprehensive scrutiny of the ballot. A formal request for copies of the data has been made in writing, but this is of not much value to the scrutiny of the ballot after the count or the horse has bolted.
Access to copies of the preference data files as the count progresses was made available during the 2008 Victorian Municipal Elections and copies also made available for the 2007 Federal election, although three months after the declaration of the poll.
There is no suggestion that the conduct of the election has been fraudulent. We have not seen a repeat of the disastrous mistakes made in the counting of the 2006 Victorian State Election where data entry errors and a lack of due diligence by the Victorian Electoral Commission had necessitated a full review of counting the upper house votes in Northern and Western Metropolitan Regions.
The processes put in place by the Australian Electoral Commission, apart from the Commission’s inability or unwillingness to provide access to the data requested has been exemplary. It's double data-entry validation system is significantly better system then the one used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in 2006.
The problem never the less remains in that the Commission has denied access to vital information pertinent to the proper and open transparency of the conduct of the election.
Elections today are counted in cyberspace, and the outcome of the election can only be determined if the quality and integrity of the data is maintained. by refusing to make this data available during the counting process the Electoral Commission has compromised the openness and transparency of the count. The independent scrutiny and validation of the election results can be ascertained.
The centralised electronic data collection process and the reconciliation of this data is the weakest link.
The suggestion by Mr Pirani that Scrutineers can only gain access to this data though an application under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the payment of $30 is an abuse of process.
It prevents Scrutineers from independently verifying or scrutinising the quality of the data collected. There is no legal grounds that this information should be withheld, in fact if we are to maintain an open and transparent electoral process access to this data must be readily available.
Mr Pirani in claiming that to provide access to a copy of the data files would necessitate delays in the count is false. A well designed and secure data collection process should allow access to this information at any time.
The centralised data collection accesess this data as part of the normal processes. To make a copy of the data would take no more than 5 mins and would not prevent or delay the counting of the ballot. The Victiorian Electoral Commission provided copies of the information during the 2008 municipal elections.
So the question is why is the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to provide access to the crucial and important information?
This issue will now be a subject of a further parliamentary inquiry.
Scrutineers have been denied access to copies of the Senate count reconciliation and below the line preference data files
Mr Paul Pirani, Chief Legal Officer for the Australian Electoral Commission in response to a request for access to this information claimed that copies of the data files could only be obtained through the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the payment of a 30 dollar fee. It was unclear on what or whose authority or direction Mr Pirani was withholding access to this vital information.
Without access to copies of the preference vote data-files and reconciliation reports it is impossible for scrutineers to conduct a proper and comprehensive scrutiny of the ballot. A formal request for copies of the data has been made in writing, but this is of not much value to the scrutiny of the ballot after the count or the horse has bolted.
Access to copies of the preference data files as the count progresses was made available during the 2008 Victorian Municipal Elections and copies also made available for the 2007 Federal election, although three months after the declaration of the poll.
There is no suggestion that the conduct of the election has been fraudulent. We have not seen a repeat of the disastrous mistakes made in the counting of the 2006 Victorian State Election where data entry errors and a lack of due diligence by the Victorian Electoral Commission had necessitated a full review of counting the upper house votes in Northern and Western Metropolitan Regions.
The processes put in place by the Australian Electoral Commission, apart from the Commission’s inability or unwillingness to provide access to the data requested has been exemplary. It's double data-entry validation system is significantly better system then the one used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in 2006.
The problem never the less remains in that the Commission has denied access to vital information pertinent to the proper and open transparency of the conduct of the election.
Elections today are counted in cyberspace, and the outcome of the election can only be determined if the quality and integrity of the data is maintained. by refusing to make this data available during the counting process the Electoral Commission has compromised the openness and transparency of the count. The independent scrutiny and validation of the election results can be ascertained.
The centralised electronic data collection process and the reconciliation of this data is the weakest link.
The suggestion by Mr Pirani that Scrutineers can only gain access to this data though an application under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the payment of $30 is an abuse of process.
It prevents Scrutineers from independently verifying or scrutinising the quality of the data collected. There is no legal grounds that this information should be withheld, in fact if we are to maintain an open and transparent electoral process access to this data must be readily available.
Mr Pirani in claiming that to provide access to a copy of the data files would necessitate delays in the count is false. A well designed and secure data collection process should allow access to this information at any time.
The centralised data collection accesess this data as part of the normal processes. To make a copy of the data would take no more than 5 mins and would not prevent or delay the counting of the ballot. The Victiorian Electoral Commission provided copies of the information during the 2008 municipal elections.
So the question is why is the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to provide access to the crucial and important information?
This issue will now be a subject of a further parliamentary inquiry.
Thursday, 12 August 2010
The Gillard Factor
If the Greens increase their support from 10% to 14% and the Liberal Party falls below 38% then there is a possibility that the Liberal Party will only secure two Senate seats, ALP three and the Greens one. This is dependent on the ALP securing three quotas in its own right as the ALP and the Liberal/National party falling below 38%.
Early polling undertaken in July by Morgan research had shown this as a outside possibility but with a 2.0% marigin of error this outcome is unlikely. At best the ALP can expect to hang on to the vote it received in 2007 but will still fail to elect three Senators due to a flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted which will deliver a bonus 7,000 votes to the Greens. The Liberal party will pickup votes from One nation. DLP and Family First. Family First, Steve Fielding, coming in at 8th will not win a second term.
Antony Greens Calualator
Elected Candidates
| Candidate | Party | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kim John CARR | Australian Labor Party |
| 2 | Michael RONALDSON | Liberal Party |
| 3 | Stephen Michael CONROY | Australian Labor Party |
| 4 | Bridget McKENZIE | The Nationals |
| 5 | Richard DI NATALE | Australian Greens |
| 6 | Antony THOW | Australian Labor Party |
Detailed Results
- Quota: 456,093 votes
Count 1: Initial allocation
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 1,340,918 | 42.00% | 2.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 1,165,640 | 36.51% | 2.5557 | |||
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,009 | 2.60% | 0.1820 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 52,678 | 1.65% | 0.1154 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 32,884 | 1.03% | 0.0720 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| The Climate Sceptics | 0 | 638 | 0.02% | 0.0013 | |||
| Secular Party of Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 | |||
| Building Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 |
Count 2: Kim John CARR (Australian Labor Party) elected #1
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal/National | 0 | 1,165,640 | 36.51% | 2.5557 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | -456,093 | 884,825 | 27.71% | 1.9400 | |||
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,009 | 2.60% | 0.1820 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 52,678 | 1.65% | 0.1154 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 32,884 | 1.03% | 0.0720 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| The Climate Sceptics | 0 | 638 | 0.02% | 0.0013 | |||
| Secular Party of Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 | |||
| Building Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 |
Count 3: Michael RONALDSON (Liberal/National) elected #2
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 884,825 | 27.71% | 1.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | -456,093 | 709,547 | 22.22% | 1.5557 | |||
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,009 | 2.60% | 0.1820 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 52,678 | 1.65% | 0.1154 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 32,884 | 1.03% | 0.0720 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| The Climate Sceptics | 0 | 638 | 0.02% | 0.0013 | |||
| Secular Party of Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 | |||
| Building Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 |
Count 4: Stephen Michael CONROY (Australian Labor Party) elected #3
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal/National | 0 | 709,547 | 22.22% | 1.5557 | |||
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | -456,093 | 428,732 | 13.43% | 0.9400 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,009 | 2.60% | 0.1820 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 52,678 | 1.65% | 0.1154 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 32,884 | 1.03% | 0.0720 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| The Climate Sceptics | 0 | 638 | 0.02% | 0.0013 | |||
| Secular Party of Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 | |||
| Building Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 |
Count 5: Bridget McKENZIE (Liberal/National) elected #4
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 428,732 | 13.43% | 0.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | -456,093 | 253,454 | 7.94% | 0.5557 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,009 | 2.60% | 0.1820 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 52,678 | 1.65% | 0.1154 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 32,884 | 1.03% | 0.0720 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| The Climate Sceptics | 0 | 638 | 0.02% | 0.0013 | |||
| Secular Party of Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 | |||
| Building Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 |
Count 6: Darren EVANS (Building Australia) excluded
- 319 (0.01%) votes originally from Building Australia distributed to Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia (John MADIGAN) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 428,732 | 13.43% | 0.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 253,454 | 7.94% | 0.5557 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,009 | 2.60% | 0.1820 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 52,678 | 1.65% | 0.1154 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | +319 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| The Climate Sceptics | 0 | 638 | 0.02% | 0.0013 | |||
| Secular Party of Australia | 0 | 319 | 0.01% | 0.0006 |
Count 7: John Leslie PERKINS (Secular Party of Australia) excluded
- 319 (0.01%) votes originally from Secular Party of Australia distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 428,732 | 13.43% | 0.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 253,454 | 7.94% | 0.5557 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,009 | 2.60% | 0.1820 | |||
| Australian Democrats | +319 | 52,997 | 1.66% | 0.1161 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| The Climate Sceptics | 0 | 638 | 0.02% | 0.0013 |
Count 8: Chris DAWSON (The Climate Sceptics) excluded
- 638 (0.02%) votes originally from The Climate Sceptics distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 428,732 | 13.43% | 0.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 253,454 | 7.94% | 0.5557 | |||
| Family First | +638 | 83,647 | 2.62% | 0.1833 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 52,997 | 1.66% | 0.1161 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 | |||
| Australian Sex Party | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 |
Count 9: Fiona PATTEN (Australian Sex Party) excluded
- 1,596 (0.05%) votes originally from Australian Sex Party distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 6.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 428,732 | 13.43% | 0.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 253,454 | 7.94% | 0.5557 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 83,647 | 2.62% | 0.1833 | |||
| Australian Democrats | +1,596 | 54,593 | 1.71% | 0.1196 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Citizens Electoral Council | 0 | 1,596 | 0.05% | 0.0034 |
Count 10: Doug MITCHELL (Citizens Electoral Council) excluded
- 1,596 (0.05%) votes originally from Citizens Electoral Council distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 446,972 | 14.00% | 0.9800 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 428,732 | 13.43% | 0.9400 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 253,454 | 7.94% | 0.5557 | |||
| Family First | +1,596 | 85,243 | 2.67% | 0.1868 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 54,593 | 1.71% | 0.1196 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 | |||
| Socialist Equality Party | 0 | 2,553 | 0.08% | 0.0055 |
Count 11: Patrick O'CONNOR (Socialist Equality Party) excluded
- 851 (0.03%) votes originally from Socialist Equality Party (Ticket 1 of 3) distributed to Liberal/National (Julian McGAURAN) via preference 5.
- 851 (0.03%) votes originally from Socialist Equality Party (Ticket 2 of 3) distributed to Australian Greens (Richard DI NATALE) via preference 3.
- 851 (0.03%) votes originally from Socialist Equality Party (Ticket 3 of 3) distributed to Australian Labor Party (Antony THOW) via preference 5.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | +851 | 447,823 | 14.03% | 0.9818 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | +851 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | +851 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 85,243 | 2.67% | 0.1868 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 54,593 | 1.71% | 0.1196 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 5,746 | 0.18% | 0.0125 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Socialist Alliance | 0 | 2,554 | 0.08% | 0.0055 |
Count 12: Margarita WINDISCH (Socialist Alliance) excluded
- 2,554 (0.08%) votes originally from Socialist Alliance distributed to Group B Independents (Joseph TOSCANO) via preference 4.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 447,823 | 14.03% | 0.9818 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 85,243 | 2.67% | 0.1868 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 54,593 | 1.71% | 0.1196 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Group B Independents | +2,554 | 8,300 | 0.26% | 0.0181 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Senator On-Line | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 |
Count 13: Glenn R SARGENT (Senator On-Line) excluded
- 3,192 (0.10%) votes originally from Senator On-Line distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 447,823 | 14.03% | 0.9818 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 85,243 | 2.67% | 0.1868 | |||
| Australian Democrats | +3,192 | 57,785 | 1.81% | 0.1266 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 33,203 | 1.04% | 0.0727 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 8,300 | 0.26% | 0.0181 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 | |||
| Liberal Democrats (LDP) | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 |
Count 14: Ross CURRIE (Liberal Democrats (LDP)) excluded
- 3,192 (0.10%) votes originally from Liberal Democrats (LDP) distributed to Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia (John MADIGAN) via preference 10.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 447,823 | 14.03% | 0.9818 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 85,243 | 2.67% | 0.1868 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 57,785 | 1.81% | 0.1266 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | +3,192 | 36,395 | 1.14% | 0.0797 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 8,300 | 0.26% | 0.0181 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 | |||
| Group U Independents | 0 | 3,192 | 0.10% | 0.0069 |
Count 15: Stephen MAYNE (Group U Independents) excluded
- 1,596 (0.05%) votes originally from Group U Independents (Ticket 1 of 2) distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 3.
- 1,596 (0.05%) votes originally from Group U Independents (Ticket 2 of 2) distributed to Australian Greens (Richard DI NATALE) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | +1,596 | 449,419 | 14.08% | 0.9853 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | +1,596 | 86,839 | 2.72% | 0.1903 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 57,785 | 1.81% | 0.1266 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 36,395 | 1.14% | 0.0797 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 8,300 | 0.26% | 0.0181 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 | |||
| Carers Alliance | 0 | 3,830 | 0.12% | 0.0083 |
Count 16: Christopher MONTEAGLE (Carers Alliance) excluded
- 1,915 (0.06%) votes originally from Carers Alliance (Ticket 1 of 2) distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 5.
- 1,915 (0.06%) votes originally from Carers Alliance (Ticket 2 of 2) distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 5.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 449,419 | 14.08% | 0.9853 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 86,839 | 2.72% | 0.1903 | |||
| Australian Democrats | +3,830 | 61,615 | 1.93% | 0.1350 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 36,395 | 1.14% | 0.0797 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 8,300 | 0.26% | 0.0181 | |||
| Christian Democratic Party | 0 | 7,023 | 0.22% | 0.0153 |
Count 17: Vickie JANSON (Christian Democratic Party) excluded
- 7,023 (0.22%) votes originally from Christian Democratic Party distributed to Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia (John MADIGAN) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | 0 | 449,419 | 14.08% | 0.9853 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 86,839 | 2.72% | 0.1903 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 61,615 | 1.93% | 0.1350 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | +7,023 | 43,418 | 1.36% | 0.0951 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 | |||
| Group B Independents | 0 | 8,300 | 0.26% | 0.0181 |
Count 18: Joseph TOSCANO (Group B Independents) excluded
- 5,746 (0.18%) votes originally from Group B Independents distributed to Australian Greens (Richard DI NATALE) via preference 4.
- 2,554 (0.08%) votes originally from Socialist Alliance distributed to Australian Greens (Richard DI NATALE) via preference 7.
- Richard DI NATALE (Australian Greens) provisionally elected.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Greens | +8,300 | 457,719 | 14.34% | 1.0035 | |||
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,583 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 86,839 | 2.72% | 0.1903 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 61,615 | 1.93% | 0.1350 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 43,418 | 1.36% | 0.0951 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 |
Count 19: Richard DI NATALE (Australian Greens) elected #5
- 1,586 (0.05%) votes (446,972 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Australian Greens distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 7.
- 3 (0.00%) votes (851 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Socialist Equality Party (Ticket 2 of 3) distributed to Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia (John MADIGAN) via preference 11.
- 6 (0.00%) votes (1,596 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Group U Independents (Ticket 2 of 2) distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 9.
- 20 (0.00%) votes (5,746 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Group B Independents distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 25.
- 9 (0.00%) votes (2,554 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Socialist Alliance distributed to Australian Labor Party (Antony THOW) via preference 18.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | +9 | 429,592 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | +6 | 86,845 | 2.72% | 0.1904 | |||
| Australian Democrats | +1,606 | 63,221 | 1.98% | 0.1386 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | +3 | 43,421 | 1.36% | 0.0952 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 | |||
| One Nation | 0 | 13,409 | 0.42% | 0.0293 |
Count 20: Rosalyn TOWNSEND (One Nation) excluded
- 13,409 (0.42%) votes originally from One Nation distributed to Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia (John MADIGAN) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,592 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 254,305 | 7.97% | 0.5575 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 86,845 | 2.72% | 0.1904 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 63,221 | 1.98% | 0.1386 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | +13,409 | 56,830 | 1.78% | 0.1246 | |||
| Shooters and Fishers | 0 | 21,390 | 0.67% | 0.0468 |
Count 21: Peter Maxwell KELLY (Shooters and Fishers) excluded
- 21,390 (0.67%) votes originally from Shooters and Fishers distributed to Liberal/National (Julian McGAURAN) via preference 3.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,592 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | +21,390 | 275,695 | 8.64% | 0.6044 | |||
| Family First | 0 | 86,845 | 2.72% | 0.1904 | |||
| Australian Democrats | 0 | 63,221 | 1.98% | 0.1386 | |||
| Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia | 0 | 56,830 | 1.78% | 0.1246 |
Count 22: John MADIGAN (Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia) excluded
- 32,884 (1.03%) votes originally from Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 12.
- 319 (0.01%) votes originally from Building Australia distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 7.
- 3,192 (0.10%) votes originally from Liberal Democrats (LDP) distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 28.
- 7,023 (0.22%) votes originally from Christian Democratic Party distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 6.
- 13,409 (0.42%) votes originally from One Nation distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 19.
- 3 (0.00%) votes (851 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Socialist Equality Party (Ticket 2 of 3) distributed to Australian Democrats (Roger HOWE) via preference 14.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 0 | 429,592 | 13.46% | 0.9418 | |||
| Liberal/National | 0 | 275,695 | 8.64% | 0.6044 | |||
| Family First | +53,316 | 140,161 | 4.39% | 0.3073 | |||
| Australian Democrats | +3,514 | 66,735 | 2.09% | 0.1463 |
Count 23: Roger HOWE (Australian Democrats) excluded
- 52,678 (1.65%) votes originally from Australian Democrats distributed to Australian Labor Party (Antony THOW) via preference 18.
- 319 (0.01%) votes originally from Secular Party of Australia distributed to Australian Labor Party (Antony THOW) via preference 20.
- 1,596 (0.05%) votes originally from Australian Sex Party distributed to Australian Labor Party (Antony THOW) via preference 23.
- 3,192 (0.10%) votes originally from Senator On-Line distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 15.
- 1,915 (0.06%) votes originally from Carers Alliance (Ticket 1 of 2) distributed to Australian Labor Party (Antony THOW) via preference 11.
- 1,915 (0.06%) votes originally from Carers Alliance (Ticket 2 of 2) distributed to Liberal/National (Julian McGAURAN) via preference 11.
- 319 (0.01%) votes originally from Building Australia distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 16.
- 3,192 (0.10%) votes originally from Liberal Democrats (LDP) distributed to Family First (Steven FIELDING) via preference 34.
- Antony THOW (Australian Labor Party) provisionally elected.
- 1,586 (0.05%) votes (446,972 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Australian Greens distributed to Liberal/National (Julian McGAURAN) via preference 31.
- 20 (0.00%) votes (5,746 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Group B Independents distributed to Liberal/National (Julian McGAURAN) via preference 50.
- 3 (0.00%) votes (851 raw votes at 0.0035 value) originally from Socialist Equality Party (Ticket 2 of 3) distributed to Liberal/National (Julian McGAURAN) via preference 34.
| Party | Transfer | Total Votes | % Votes | Quotas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | +56,508 | 486,100 | 15.23% | 1.0657 | |||
| Liberal/National | +3,524 | 279,219 | 8.75% | 0.6121 | |||
| Family First | +6,703 | 146,864 | 4.60% | 0.3220 |
Count 24: Antony THOW (Australian Labor Party) elected #6
- The last vacancy has been filled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)