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.
3 comments:
You really are a pathetic little creature, 'Democracy'@work.
I comprehend perfectly well the points you are trying to make. I think there are a number of ways our voting system could be improved.
There are a range of alternatives to how the Senate vote could be counted - from my point of view, the distortion created by the bulk allocation of preferences combined with the large expansion of micro-parties creates a far larger distortion to the actual results than variations in the counting system.
The fact that I assess Senate results based on how our electoral law does not mean I believe it is the best of all possible systems. It means that I believe it is false and misleading to continually assert that the counting of the vote is 'flawed', when it is conducted according to how our law stands - and conducted very thoroughly.
Having been on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters over a number of years, I have read submissions from many people suggesting changes or improvements.
Perhaps if you tried to stop expressing your views in a manner consistent with a petulant fifteen year, and also stopped repeatedly verballing and misrepresenting other people along the way, people might be more inclined to consider your views.
As I said elsewhere, repeating myths, distortions or lies about people doesn't make them true, no matter how often or how insistently you want to keep repeating them.
You can write your next post all in BOLDED CAPITAL LETTERS and go nyah-nyah-nyah with a raspberry on top - it won't make it any less dishonest.
Anyway, I'll leave you to keep playing in your sandpit. Feel free to send me your submission to the upcoming Electoral Matters Committee inquiry in our electoral system, and I'll see which priorities you have for really making our electoral laws more democratic and better able to represent the views of the voters.
More personal belittling insults and abuse from Mr Bartlett.
Here is a quote from an article worth reading Mr Bartlett's modus operandi...
And then there was the time ...
Andrew Bartlett has raised the ire of his party colleagues before. Speaking to the ABC in July last year, he managed to call fellow Democrat Senator Andrew Murray gutless, pathetic, stupid, childish, completely beyond redemption, warped, off the planet, juvenile, politically inept, deliberately treacherous and possibly a liar. The outburst came in a late-night radio interview from Brussels.
Little wonder why you are singled out as being the main cause for the demise of the Australian Democrats.
Having been on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters over a number of years, I have read submissions from many people suggesting changes or improvements.
You did not achieve much in your time on this committee other then attending meetings and junkets.
The fact that I assess Senate results based on how our electoral law does not mean I believe it is the best of all possible systems. It means that I believe it is false and misleading to continually assert that the counting of the vote is 'flawed', when it is conducted according to how our law stands - and conducted very thoroughly.
The problem is with the LAW.
The fact that it is LAW does not make the flaws any less only worst. You continue to fail to recognise the facts when they are staring you in the face.
It was your "NEW" party that lost out in Queensland (Mine was the benefactor) as a result of the flaw in the system and your denial of the facts brings into question your liability to their success.
What's worst is your inability to recognise the flaws in the current system let alone act on them.
The first step towards addressing a problem is recognition of the problem. Denying it will not resolve it.
YES THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES BUT THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THE FAILING OF THE LAW IN THIS ISSUE.
THEY SHOULD BE FIXED.
Until then are your part of the problem not the solution.
LOL - more of your usual schoolyard smears and nonsense. The more you babble, the more you display both your ignorance and your contempt for politicians (including from your own party) elected via this democracy you claim to be so fond of.
The Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is really famous for its junkets. Perhaps you'd care to name just one? (no, I didn't think you could - just another baseless blanket smear)
Actually, what the Committee is well known for is solid and often non-partisan work which has generally resulted in a continuing improvement in our electoral laws*, and helping to keep our election process one of the best run in the world.
The Committee is also well known for taking into account the well argued views of people with expertise in electoral matters. No surprise it's taken little interest in yours. When it comes to both analysing Senate counts, and assessing the impact of different methods for calculating preference flows in the distribution of surpluses, I would go with Antony Green over you every time. But if it makes you feel better to keep repeating your myths, keep at it - but you really should be aware it only makes people take you even less seriously.
*(The Howard government's self-serving amendments to the Electoral Act when they had control of the Senate didn't come from the Electoral Matters Committee, but from the Coalition's political self-interest)
Post a Comment