Call a Double Dissolution NOW!!

The Governor General has an obligation if not a requirement to act on the advice of the Prime minister. A trigger exists and should be used to call a double dissolution.

The government should introduce changes to the electoral act t remove anomalies in the way the Senate vote is counted.

The system in place was designed to facilitate a manual counting process and in doing so has distorted the proportionality of the count.

We need to introduce a weighted transfer system with a reiterative redistribution of preferences where the ballot is reset and restarted on each exclusion.

The guiding principle being that ballot preferences allocated to excluded candidates should be redistributed as if the excluded candidates had not stood.

With a reiterative weighted counting system the government could introduce a representative threshold of 25% TO 33% of the quota.

Above-the-line votes should be equally distributed across all candidates within the group.

The order of exclusion within a group being the reverse order of the candidates in that group published on the ballot paper ballot paper. This would prevent misuse and gaming of the vote by third parties and give each party equal weighted representation. One vote one value

A further issue of consideration should be the abolition of the "Droop Quota (X/(Y+1)+1" and replace it withe a pure proportional (x/y) calculation of the quota.

Following these changes the government should proceed with calling a double dissolution election by the end of the year.

 Posted by: democracyATwork | June 25, 2015 at 11:43 PM

Counting votes, the Wright way: what the AEC should be looking at

Published by Crikey
Casey Briggs | Apr 14, 2014 12:35PM

There’s been plenty of talk on the system of preferential voting in the wake of the Western Australian election rerun. But mathematics masters student Casey Briggs says we should focus on the method of counting itself.

There’s been an awful lot of attention on the Australian Electoral Commission lately. In the wake of entirely unknown candidates getting catapulted into the Senate, Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is currently conducting an inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 election, and every man and his dog has an opinion on what needs to change.
So far most of the attention has been on the method of voting, with a shift to optional preferential voting and getting rid of group voting tickets amongst the popular ideas. But there’s one thing that’s not getting much attention: the method by which Senate votes are actually counted. 

As William Bowe pointed out last week in his analysis of Western Australian Senate results, the transfer value of HEMP votes depends on how early in the count the Palmer United Party is declared elected. On current projections, it is HEMP preferences that push PUP over a quota and get the party elected. When this happens, all votes that sit with PUP are transferred to the next highest preferenced candidate, at a greatly reduced transfer value.

However, if PUP were to collect enough votes to fill a quota and get elected before HEMP is eliminated, then the HEMP votes transfer to Labor at full value. This entirely arbitrary line could mean a difference in the margin between the Liberals and Labor by as much as 3000 votes — possibly enough to change the result.

This weird abnormality comes about because of the way preferences are transferred. When a candidate reaches a quota and is elected, all of that candidate’s votes are transferred at a lower value to the candidate who has the next highest preference on each vote. The transfer value is calculated based on the number of votes by which the candidate exceeded the quota.

Once that transfer has been done, the rest of the count proceeds as though the elected candidate never existed. If a vote is transferred later that happens to preference the elected candidate, the vote simply jumps over that candidate and on to the candidate with the next highest preference, with no change in value.

The fact that votes can have different values based arbitrarily on whether or not they happen to be sitting with a candidate when they are elected runs counter to our idea that all votes should be treated equally and have the same weight.

There are a few methods that treat individual votes more equitably, and often these work by continually reiterating the count of the election. One such method is the Wright system, first proposed by programmer Anthony van der Craats in 2008.

Under the Wright system, when a candidate is elected their surplus is transferred in exactly the same way as is currently the case. However every time a candidate is excluded, the count is reset and restarted as though that candidate had never stood in the first place, with all votes for the excluded candidate transferred to the remaining candidates according to their preferences. The result of this is that every vote has proportionally equal weight.

In the context of the WA Senate count, it means that regardless of when HEMP is eliminated, all votes that preference PUP get transferred at the same value when PUP is elected.

Obviously this would be a laborious count to do by hand, but it can be automatically counted using software quickly. Given that the AEC already enters all Senate votes into a software system to perform the final count anyway, adopting this system would mean no extra work or change to AEC processes.

Additionally, if this system were adopted in isolation it would mean that voters do not need to change the way they fill out their ballots, and confusion around changes in the voting system can be avoided.
Alternate counting methods do not relate to the controversial success of micro-parties in the last federal election. Nonetheless, any review of the electoral system that seeks to tackle these issues ought to seriously consider alternate, fairer, counting systems as well.

Perhaps the right way for the Senate is the Wright way.

Could NSW be hedging its bets? State vs Federal

Could NSW State federal balance influence their vote?

NSW has persistently played off Labor and Liberal Party in the State and Federally with no party holding on to two terms in both State and Federally at the same time over the last 30 years.

Year		NSW			Federal
2013				**		LIB
2012
2011	*		LIB
2010				**
2009
2008
2007	*			**		ALP
2006
2005
2004				**
2003	*
2002
2001				**
2000
1999	*
1998				**
1997
1996				**		LIB
1995	*		ALP
1994
1993				**
1992
1991	*
1990				**
1989
1991	*		LIB
1987				**
1986
1985
1984	*			**
1983				**		ALP
1982
1981	*
1980				**
1979
1978	*
1977				**
1976	*		ALP
1975				**		LIB
1974				**
1973	*
1972				**		ALP
1971	*		LIB			LIB

WA Senate Recount: Ballot papers worthy of second review

The real contest in WA is between the Australian United Christians and the WA Shooters and Fishers Party.  For Senator Ludlam to hold on to his seat he needs the Christians to out poll the Shooters and Fisherman, Current there is a 14 to 28 vote margin against the Christians Party.  If they can out poll the Shooters then Palmer United will fall behind Sports Party freeing up Party ticket votes that flow the Greens via Palmer United Party.  It will take more than divine intervention for a recount to effect this particular junction unless there is the off misplaced bundle of above-the-line votes.
 
The odds are that the gap between them will widen not swing.

It is estimated that a recount of the WA Senate will costs taxpayers around $100,000

The table below lists some ballot papers that may be worthy of a second glance.  It shows Batch id and ballot paper. A comparison of the batch number to determine the polling place would further highlight which votes are of particular interest

Had the AEC provided Scrutineers access to the preference data-file then these votes would have been the subject of more detailed scrutiny during the initial count and possible avoid the need for a recount


Western Australia BTL Ballot Papers worthy of second review

Batch-id

0004-015	0315-081	0566-010	0977-071	1215-005	1445-017
0008-001	0318-073	0567-085	0981-011	1215-012	1446-114
0015-002	0319-061	0568-107	0986-018	1227-019	1447-034
0017-050	0321-038	0571-023	0988-006	1229-060	1447-058
0023-028	0322-033	0571-041	1003-010	1230-041	1450-011
0027-038	0324-024	0571-042	1005-028	1238-136	1488-019
0027-061	0328-040	0571-154	1007-009	1240-011	1527-058
0028-028	0328-118	0571-202	1016-022	1241-038	1531-011
0032-031	0329-029	0574-046	1086-016	1243-009	1533-077
0041-138	0330-022	0574-048	1088-080	1244-041	1534-009
0041-157	0333-007	0578-016	1090-105	1244-044	1535-027
0041-158	0333-015	0581-014	1093-033	1255-010	1537-033
0045-005	0337-064	0581-024	1095-044	1269-013	1537-069
0058-017	0339-079	0584-029	1099-012	1301-056	1539-086
0058-042	0346-081	0597-020	1100-055	1301-058	1540-057
0060-007	0347-044	0603-067	1100-098	1306-003	1540-062
0060-008	0347-133	0605-052	1101-050	1308-022	1541-046
0072-001	0352-063	0605-094	1101-092	1309-009	1553-068
0072-028	0353-004	0608-008	1102-051	1311-010	1553-074
0103-067	0353-046	0609-012	1105-050	1312-031	1554-019
0106-041	0353-049	0621-061	1105-088	1313-031	1554-033
0106-044	0353-103	0638-005	1106-051	1317-033	1556-048
0111-005	0353-109	0666-022	1108-031	1318-012	1564-004
0111-081	0368-014	0673-078	1109-080	1324-033	1566-011
0115-017	0383-076	0675-025	1113-008	1324-065	1567-028
0115-079	0385-005	0680-006	1115-090	1327-010	1582-050
0121-022	0399-101	0684-011	1117-041	1331-028	1596-001
0122-055	0400-014	0688-046	1119-037	1335-064	1631-024
0124-019	0403-003	0688-062	1121-053	1339-073	1659-022
0129-067	0413-023	0705-032	1122-007	1340-192	1662-001
0132-018	0428-001	0720-024	1123-016	1357-016	1662-002
0134-028	0432-083	0769-048	1123-020	1357-019	1708-012
0172-063	0433-027	0774-019	1132-104	1357-020	1721-003
0174-063	0439-042	0776-017	1138-068	1357-036	1726-003
0201-004	0443-005	0776-032	1139-020	1360-062	1741-011
0216-057	0446-047	0793-059	1150-087	1373-001	1741-031
0218-003	0450-009	0828-028	1150-103	1376-015	1741-058
0219-012	0459-009	0829-007	1150-107	1376-035	1747-084
0229-077	0463-008	0838-004	1165-045	1387-032	1747-098
0231-006	0465-003	0856-001	1168-042	1388-033	1763-015
0233-069	0482-026	0868-016	1181-005	1391-023	1764-073
0235-001	0484-008	0878-007	1195-044	1421-009	1764-082
0238-013	0502-008	0897-028	1200-056	1421-024	1778-010
0238-034	0502-047	0913-003	1206-010	1422-059
0241-026	0517-030	0956-001	1210-016	1422-094
0246-001	0519-042	0965-007	1210-097	1423-096
0256-009	0563-013	0965-018	1210-110	1424-052
0269-017	0563-029	0972-020	1211-037	1432-101
0272-003	0565-011	0973-020	1211-062	1435-062
0315-007	0565-035	0977-030	1212-023	1440-051
0003-049	0032-060	0927-015	1342-043	0815-024	0113-033
0073-028	0368-016	0958-024	1420-065	0032-096	0562-108
0106-026	0764-022	0959-009	1423-086	0223-018	0684-038
0111-080	1360-058	0968-025	1428-022	0232-028	0707-037
0122-053	1579-038	1006-127	1452-001	0992-041	1223-013
0284-015	0001-070	1016-014	1462-008	1220-040	1324-061
0432-008	0118-037	1041-015	1462-009	0234-015	0594-012
0570-057	0119-006	1041-148	1473-023	1431-003	1138-066
0608-015	0146-005	1088-134	1524-050	1433-009	1329-021
0819-036	0146-006	1089-044	1525-008	0004-070	0226-050
0885-008	0158-032	1090-090	1526-032	1525-062	0563-013
0889-033	0187-020	1101-123	1529-038	1311-055
0930-031	0224-015	1108-035	1533-086	0809-007
1091-055	0242-069	1114-064	1542-004	0977-079
1093-003	0270-026	1116-018	1569-003	1736-015
1109-042	0298-008	1118-038	1579-007	1016-035
1150-088	0337-003	1132-087	1778-013	0246-024
1238-117	0367-138	1154-042	0771-008	0977-071
1245-001	0404-001	1165-001	0896-110	1372-023
1299-037	0449-023	1195-040	1136-003	1474-003
1325-041	0456-060	1199-051	1215-033	1664-009
1373-003	0590-008	1216-031	0157-021	0029-062
1428-025	0606-009	1220-083	0816-010	0174-002
1462-012	0677-063	1229-045	1004-038	0339-036
1527-038	0678-004	1241-017	0087-008	0517-016
1609-004	0722-004	1285-011	0127-022	0519-056
1659-042	0767-019	1301-030	1652-004	0623-009
1660-014	0780-041	1307-005	1535-040	1098-062
0437-006	0805-034	1310-088	1580-012	1524-004
0519-019	0811-009	1320-122	0688-046	1531-009

WA Senate Recount or just sore loser

 van BURGEL (AUC)Australian United Christians

Papers	Value	candidateID	Group	Candidate
16	0.1489	56	LP	JOHNSTON
17	0.3676	52	ALP	BULLOCK
14	0.5744	56	LP	JOHNSTON
50	1.0000	1	SMK	KATZ-BARBER
3	1.0000	2	SMK	DI RADO
5	1.0000	4	LDP	HAMILTON
21285	1.0000	5	AUC	van BURGEL
168	1.0000	6	AUC	MOSELEY
4	1.0000	9	SEP	SYMONDS
1	1.0000	10	SEP	LOPEZ
1	1.0000	12	PUP	TERBLANCHE
1	1.0000	14	ASP	PARKES
2	1.0000	15	VCE	PARKES
1	1.0000	16	VCE	BUTLER
14	1.0000	17	ASXP	PALMER
3	1.0000	18	ASXP	COLEMAN
1	1.0000	19	SPA	ATKINS
13	1.0000	21	AIN	HIGGINS
6	1.0000	22	AIN	IRVING
25	1.0000	23	WKP	GEORGATOS
4	1.0000	24	WKP	RAJAN
13	1.0000	25	KAP	FELS
191	1.0000	27	FFP	ROSE
22	1.0000	28	FFP	HENG
1407	1.0000	29	TCS	BYASS
13	1.0000	31	SPP	STRACHAN
8	1.0000	33	ODR	FISHLOCK
14	1.0000	35	DEM	FERNANDEZ
3	1.0000	36	DEM	THIEL
3	1.0000	38	GRN	DAVIS
20	1.0000	40	AJP	LOVE
4	1.0000	43	NP	EAGLES
1	1.0000	44	AFLP	EDWARDS
6	1.0000	46	AMEP	HOWLETT
2	1.0000	47	AMEP	YOUNG
154	1.0000	50	RUA	FOREMAN
8	1.0000	51	RUA	BENNETT
3	1.0000	54	ALP	FOSTER
3	1.0000	59	LP	BROCKMAN
3	1.0000	60	LP	THOMAS
3	1.0000	61	LP	OUGHTON
24	1.0000	62	UG	FARMER

BOW (ASP) Shooters and Fishermen
 

Papers	Value	ID	Group	Candidate
3	0.1489	56	LP	JOHNSTON
2	0.1489	57	LP	CASH
8	0.3676	52	ALP	BULLOCK
17	0.5744	56	LP	JOHNSTON
39	1.0000	1	SMK	KATZ-BARBER
3	1.0000	2	SMK	DI RADO
3	1.0000	6	AUC	MOSELEY
3	1.0000	8	HMP	MOYLAN
5	1.0000	9	SEP	SYMONDS
1	1.0000	10	SEP	LOPEZ
3	1.0000	12	PUP	TERBLANCHE
13550	1.0000	13	ASP	BOW
69	1.0000	14	ASP	PARKES
7	1.0000	15	VCE	PARKES
1	1.0000	16	VCE	BUTLER
107	1.0000	17	ASXP	PALMER
6	1.0000	18	ASXP	COLEMAN
16	1.0000	19	SPA	ATKINS
3709	1.0000	21	AIN	HIGGINS
8	1.0000	22	AIN	IRVING
65	1.0000	23	WKP	GEORGATOS
6	1.0000	24	WKP	RAJAN
37	1.0000	25	KAP	FELS
5	1.0000	26	KAP	HODDINOTT
21	1.0000	27	FFP	ROSE
3	1.0000	28	FFP	HENG
8	1.0000	29	TCS	BYASS
25	1.0000	31	SPP	STRACHAN
1	1.0000	32	SPP	BANKS
28	1.0000	33	ODR	FISHLOCK
3	1.0000	34	ODR	KINNINMONT
9	1.0000	35	DEM	FERNANDEZ
4	1.0000	36	DEM	THIEL
1	1.0000	38	GRN	DAVIS
17	1.0000	40	AJP	LOVE
2	1.0000	41	AJP	SUTTON
1	1.0000	43	NP	EAGLES
5599	1.0000	44	AFLP	EDWARDS
9	1.0000	45	AFLP	FINLAYSON
59	1.0000	46	AMEP	HOWLETT
2	1.0000	47	AMEP	YOUNG
2	1.0000	49	SPRT	LACKOVIC
19	1.0000	50	RUA	FOREMAN
2	1.0000	51	RUA	BENNETT
1	1.0000	54	ALP	FOSTER
2	1.0000	59	LP	BROCKMAN
3	1.0000	60	LP	THOMAS
3	1.0000	61	LP	OUGHTON
56	1.0000	62	UG	FARMER

Western Australia 93% Counted Analysis: Greens Traped in the Wasted Quota

There is not enough value in the BTL votes to allow for the Greens to be elected. The Greens would have to poll over 50% of the notional ALP BTL preference allocations Most of which have past through the the Liberal Party and are at a lower value

This is a seat where the potential for for a different outcome could have been influenced by system of Surplus Transfer Value calculation and the Segmentation distribution of excluded candidates.

I preferred method of counting the vote would be to use weighted transfer calculation and implement a reiterative distribution count, where the vote is reset and restarted on each exclusion. One singe transaction, surplus distributions only per iteration.

I expect the out come to be
Liberals 3
ALP 2
and either Palmer United or Liberal Democrats

If the AEC provided scrutineers copies of the BTL preference data filea we would know exactly the outcome. the fact that the AEC has not subjected copies of the BTL preference files to independent scrutiny has and continues to bring the election into disrepute.

Posted by: democracyATwork | September 28, 2013 at 08:32 AM

The AEC "Big Bang" Side Show:

Denying open and transparent Scrutiny of the ballot for a side show of pressing the Button

It will very interesting to see if the below the line vote will make any difference to the projected outcome in WA. For one there is over 360 votes attributed to One Nation’s Robert Farmer (Most of these will be reverse donkey votes.)

When the AEC get around to publishing the BTL preference data files, which copies have been denied to scrutineers as it takes the Big bang away from the AEC pressing of the button show and allows room for any last minute twigging of the votes as no one knows what is contained in the data file, leaving it open to possible corruption. Scrutineers prevented from being able to verify the contents of the data-file during the count.

The refusal of the AEC to subject the count to a full open and transparent scrutiny undermines confidence in the overall process.

The preference data-files are eventually published, months after the election has been declared and the crowd and public attention has dissipated. This adds a whole new meaning to “secret ballot” when scrutineers are denied access to copies of crucial computer data-files that are used to determine the results of the election just so the AEC can have maintain an element of surprise and leave open a window for preference data to be tweeked

Had these data-files been published progressively during the count then you would have been able to include them in your Calculator's analysis
It would also be possible to highlight the impact in the flaws in the way in which the Senate vote is counted

Analysis of the WA Sent votes based on registered group voting tickets using three different system to count the vote

Model A

If you count the vote using AEC Senate rules with a non-weighted (Surplus Transfer calculated by dividing Surplus value by number of ballot papers) segmented distribution (distributing votes in segments based on their value, stopping mid stream of a exclusion distribution, skipping candidates remaining in the count and transferring the remaining votes at a higher value then would be the case if they were transferred as a single transaction)
 

PUP and ALP take the last two spots in WA

Model B

If you use the Western Australian Weighted (Surplus Transfer Value based on the value of the vote spot the number of ballot papers) with segmented distribution of excluded candidates votes (as described above)

PUP and Greens in the last two spots

Model C
“The wright System”

If you weight it (Surplus value based on the value of the vote) and apply a reiterative count removing the segmented distribution by resetting and restarting the count on each exclusion only distributing surpluses on each exclusion, one single transaction per candidate.

PUP and ALP win the last two seats.

Model C (Wright System) being the preferred method as it reflects the voters intentions where first preferences from excluded candidates are distributed as if the excluded candidates had not stood

The other alternative model is Meek which in 99.98% of the time produces the same result as the Wright System

Posted by: democracyATwork | September 25, 2013 at 07:28 PM