Antony Green catchs on that WA is a close call election.

It took Antony Green over a week to determine what we identified was going to a close call in WA

Antony Green needs to also factor in FARMER one nation's votes. and the distortion in the way the AEC count the Senate Vote. The method of calculating the surplus Transfer value and the segmentation distribution of excluded candidates. T

Add to this the fact that the AEC is refusing to provide scrutineers with copies for the Below-the-line preference data-entry data-files and the outcome is anyone's guess.  The Senate count is not open or transparent. Without access to the data-entry file it is impossible to scrutinise the election.

It is akin to shopping at a supermarket and scanning your goods but not being given a receipt or a running total of your purchases.

There are serious issues with the lack of transparency, openness and accuracy in the counting and distribution of the senate count.   the extent of the distortion in the calculation of the surplus transfer value alone can add up to the equivalent of over 10,000 votes

The system of segmentation also distorts the outcome of the election. Something Antony Green is in denial, having refused to examine and recount the Queensland 2007 Senate vote .  Try recounting the QLD 2007 Senate vote by excluding  all candidates except the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 LNP and 1 Grn)

Redistributing votes as if the excluded candidates had not stood.

Posted by: demcracyATwork | September 20, 2013 at 08:56 PM

Had Antony Green taken time to review the Queensland 2007 Election he would have soon relised the extent of the flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted.

Antony Green's ongoing censorship of informed public debate on the need for senate electoral reform

You need to also explain that the system of calculating the Surplus Transfer Value (STV) and segmentation distorts the proportionality of the vote

In Western Australia if the Sports Party Preference chain is broken then based on current data the ALP is elected as opposed to the Greens with either LDP or PUP taking Sports Party's seat

The distortion created by the flawed Surplus Transfer Value calculation is showing up to be equivalent to 2000+ votes in WA

Segmentation also distorts the fold up and distribution of preferences.

Votes for excluded candidates should be redistributed as if the excluded candidates had not stood.

This is best achieved by resetting and restarting the count from afresh on each exclusion with a single weighted transaction per candidate. Only surpluses should be distributed on each iteration.

In 2007 The Queensland Election elected the wrong candidate as a result of segmentation.

If you count the 2007 Queensland Senate vote excluding all candidates except the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 LNP and 1 Green) Larisa Waters should have been elected.

Another issue that should be discussed is the use of the Droop Quota. Why divide the cake by seven and throw away a slice when you could divide it by six.

Kindly publish this comment ans stop censoring public discussion and debate on the need for electoral reform


Posted by: demcracyATwork | September 13, 2013 at 07:14 PM

Antony Green's onging censorship of informed public debate on the need for senate electoral reform

ABC engaged in censorship preventing open and informed discussion on our electoral system

The ABC appear to be censoring comments informing the public that Wikileaks with 2-3$ can win in WA. WHY?

The ABC interview with Julian Assange was clearly bias. Other parties such as Clive Palmer and Bob Katter are not subjected to the same focus of attack.

Wikileaks is a threat to the Greens which explains why the Greens are now attacking Wikileaks. Wikileaks is a competitor, not a partner to, the Greens

Group Ticket Preference do not indicate endorsement or an alliance. The Greens have preferenced Clive Palmer in South Australia.

The Droop quota dividing the cake by seven and throwing away a slice distorts the proportionality of the vote. More so than the below the line voting. Most BTL votes tend to follow the general thrust of the party of the voters first preference. Those that don't cancel each other out in a similar way the democrat or Socialist Equality Party slip tickets do.

When you add to this the distortion in the calculation of the surplus transfer vale. the method of segmentation and distribution of votes for candidates that are excluded the proportionality is even more diluted

We need to fix the way in which we count the vote, Droop quota, Surplus transfer and order of distribution of preferences. All of these distortions were introduced to facilitate a manual counting process, including the above the line voting system.

In 2007 Queensland Senate election the system of segmented distribution elected the wrong candidate. if you recount the 2007 QLD vote excluding all candidates except the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3LNP and 1 GRN) Larisa Waters should have been elected.

A preferred method of distribution is to reset and restart the count on each exclusion, distributing each preferences as if the excluded candidate(s) had not stood. with surpluses distributed on each iteration. One transaction/iteration per excluded candidate.

In te past with a manual count a reiterative distribution was prohibitive., With computer aided counting this is no longer the case. A reiterative count reflects the voters intentions .
In Europe they have a representation threshold of 3-5%. and instead of preferences that use the party list. If we can not fix the preferential STV voting system then system then maybe we should just adopt the party list system.

I trust that this comment will be published and not censored as past comments have and the ABC facilitates open and informed discussion on our voting system

Posted by: demcracyATwork | 01/09/2013 1:59:45 PM

Question to Antony Green on Droop Quota used in the Senate Count

Why is the quota for the Senate calculated by dividing the total number of votes by seven and not six.

 This unfairly denies up to 14% of the voters in having a say who represents them as their vote is discarded.

In last years City of Melbourne Municipal election Robert Doyles Team had 38% of the vote and elected 3 positions on the Council. the remaining 8% was not counted. The Greens with just 14% elected two positions. Had the cake been divided by 9 as opposed to 10 and a slice thrown away the Team Doyle surplus would have elected a community based candidate instead of the Greens second candidate Rohan Leppert.

http://melbcity.net.au/2013/02/team-doyle-disenfranchised-droop-vs-pure-proportional-voting/

The use of the Droop quota distorts the proportional of the count.

Posted by: Melbcity | 20/08/2013 9:04:50 AM

Clarifying ABC Antony Green's FAQ explaination

Reference: ABC Election Blog

"A below the line vote is exactly the same as a vote in the lower house"

This is incorrect and somewhat misleading as the method of distributing and counting the vote the Senate is different.

Surplus Transfer Value 

The calculation of the surplus transfer value is not proportional to the value of the vote., The system that is in use was designed to facilitate a manual count and the surplus transfer value is calculated by diving the surplus value by the number of ballot papers This distorts the outcome of the election as some votes increase in value and others are reduced in value disproportionally to their original value.

This can add up to to the equivalent of 70,00 votes

Distribution of preferences from excluded candidates

Another issue is the method of redistributing votes form Excluded candidates. A vote from a minor candidate that preference a major party is often ignored and transferred to a candidate lower in the voters nominated choice of preference. The order of distribution has a significant impact on the results of the election and in Queensland 2007 elected the wrong candidate as a result of the order of preference distribution.

The guiding principle of a preferential count being that votes from an excluded candidate should be redistributed and counted as if the excluded candidate had not stood.

A preferable option would be to rest and restart the count a fresh on each exclusion, thus giving expression to the voters intentions. Full value votes should always be allocated to the first available candidate that has not been excluded from the count. If I vote one for Joe Black and second preference to the LNP or ALP number lead candidate then my vote should form part of their surplus on exclusion of my first chosen candidate.

The reason this is not done is that in a manual count the time and effort to do a reiterative count would be prohibitive. However this is no longer the case as votes are now counted and redistributed electronically with the aid of computers.

Remainders

Whilst the current system excludes remainders from a division there is no reason, with the use of computer technology, why the remainder value can not stay with the value of the vote.

Calculation of the "Droop" Quota

The use of the "Droop Quota" is another aspect that distorts the proportionality and accuracy of the vote. There is no overriding justification to divide the total number of votes by the number of vacancies plus one. Its a bit like dividing a cake by seven and throwing away a slice to serve six people.

The system in use is out-dated and is in need of serious review and reform

Posted by: demcracyATwork | August 19, 2013 at 10:16 PM

ABC Green Tea Leaf Reader leaves a bitter taste

ABC Electoral Analyst continues to come under fire and criticism for his lack of professionalism in dealing with electoral comments with one commentator correctly highlighting Antony Greens breaches of the ABC charter

@antonygreenabc Antony, in the interests of #ABC impartiality and to comply with the charter, shouldn't you change your surname?
— Chris Kenny (@chriskkenny) February 20, 2013

It appears that Antony Green is actively censoring comments that are critical or not in line with his political assessment. This has and continues to bring both t6he ABC and himself into disrepute. We have had to lodge a number of complaints over the last few years.  Note to Antony Green you work for the ABC a public funded media organisation. You are not a private contract employee.  You have obligations and responsibilities that go beyond your personal interests.. Attempts of political selective  censorship undermine and damage the reputation of the ABC as an impartial broadcaster.

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

"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 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?

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:

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.