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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)