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
Showing posts with label Voting reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voting reform. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 September 2013
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
Droop distortion vs Pure Proportional Representation
Why do we continue to use the "Droop quota" and in the process disenfranchise a significant percentage of voters?
In the past the adoption of the Droop quota allowed us to reach a conclusion in the count without having to distribute preferences to the Nth degree and count every vote. However with the use of computer based technology this justification no longer applies.
By calculating the quota to be "x(/y+1)-1", as defined by Droop, we are ignoring up to a quota of voters which results in a large percentage of votes being locked up in what is referred to as the "wasted quota".
The effect of the Droop quota can be seen by clearly by analyzing the 2012 City of Melbourne Council vote. In this case Team Doyle received around 38% of the vote and elected 3 positions yet 8% of voters (It's surplus) was ignored. If the system was a pure proportional count the quota would have been 11.11% instead of 10% and the outcome of the election would have been more representative.
Under the Droop quota the Greens managed to elect 2 positions with just 14% of the primary vote and community candidate Kevin Chamberlin on 6% miss out being elected. If the count was pure proportional without the distortion of the Droop quota Kevin Chamberlin would have been elected with the support of Team Doyle’s surplus preferences.
Why should Team Doyle’s voters be disenfranchised and ignored by being lockup in the discarded quota, why should not the system be fully proportional and each vote of equal value. The current system using the Droop Quota at best can only be described as semi proportional.
The system using the Droop quota becomes even more distorted under the Victorian Local Government count-back rules as the vote that has been left on the table is not taken into account when calculating who or which candidate fills the casual vacancy.
The Victorian State Parliament Electoral Matters Committee to date has not scheduled a review of the Local Government elections, it is unclear if they will even though it is within their terms of references and they have an obligation to do so.
Will the Melbourne City Council take up this issue? Most likely not. The Greens benefited from the distortion in the proportionality of the count so they will not see any benefit in reform. The only team that did not was Team Doyle and Kevin Chamberlin. But the principle is clear if you believe in proportional representation then all votes should carry equal weight x/y is the purest means of calculating a quota not x/(y+1)-1
2012 City of Melbourne Primary Preference count (9 Councillors to be elected)
..
In the past the adoption of the Droop quota allowed us to reach a conclusion in the count without having to distribute preferences to the Nth degree and count every vote. However with the use of computer based technology this justification no longer applies.
Droop = x/(y+1)-1
Pure Proportional = x/y
By calculating the quota to be "x(/y+1)-1", as defined by Droop, we are ignoring up to a quota of voters which results in a large percentage of votes being locked up in what is referred to as the "wasted quota".
The effect of the Droop quota can be seen by clearly by analyzing the 2012 City of Melbourne Council vote. In this case Team Doyle received around 38% of the vote and elected 3 positions yet 8% of voters (It's surplus) was ignored. If the system was a pure proportional count the quota would have been 11.11% instead of 10% and the outcome of the election would have been more representative.
Under the Droop quota the Greens managed to elect 2 positions with just 14% of the primary vote and community candidate Kevin Chamberlin on 6% miss out being elected. If the count was pure proportional without the distortion of the Droop quota Kevin Chamberlin would have been elected with the support of Team Doyle’s surplus preferences.
Why should Team Doyle’s voters be disenfranchised and ignored by being lockup in the discarded quota, why should not the system be fully proportional and each vote of equal value. The current system using the Droop Quota at best can only be described as semi proportional.
The system using the Droop quota becomes even more distorted under the Victorian Local Government count-back rules as the vote that has been left on the table is not taken into account when calculating who or which candidate fills the casual vacancy.
The Victorian State Parliament Electoral Matters Committee to date has not scheduled a review of the Local Government elections, it is unclear if they will even though it is within their terms of references and they have an obligation to do so.
Will the Melbourne City Council take up this issue? Most likely not. The Greens benefited from the distortion in the proportionality of the count so they will not see any benefit in reform. The only team that did not was Team Doyle and Kevin Chamberlin. But the principle is clear if you believe in proportional representation then all votes should carry equal weight x/y is the purest means of calculating a quota not x/(y+1)-1
2012 City of Melbourne Primary Preference count (9 Councillors to be elected)
| QUOTA | ||||||
| 1st Preferences | Group | Droop | x/y | |||
| 1 | % | 10.00% | 11.11% | |||
| FOSTER, Richard | 3805 | 5.98% | ||||
| D'CRUZ, Emily Lee | 63 | 0.10% | ||||
| RUBBO, Mark Dattilo | 72 | 0.11% | ||||
| SYME, Wendy | 5 | 0.01% | ||||
| EDWARDS, Jason | 8 | 0.01% | ||||
| 3953 | 6.21% | 0.62 | 0.56 | |||
| MAYNE, Stephen | 3808 | 5.98% | ||||
| ANDERSON, Michele | 20 | 0.03% | ||||
| 3828 | 6.01% | 0.60 | 0.54 | |||
| DOWNING, Luke S. | 1895 | 2.98% | ||||
| CRAGG, David | 34 | 0.05% | ||||
| 1929 | 3.03% | 0.30 | 0.27 | |||
| CHAMBERLIN, Kevin | 3607 | 5.67% | ||||
| DUTTA, Roshena | 58 | 0.09% | ||||
| PARISI, Nick | 8 | 0.01% | ||||
| MACDONALD, Alex | 13 | 0.02% | ||||
| 3686 | 5.79% | 0.58 | 0.52 | |||
| RAHAMAN, Azeezur | 678 | 1.06% | ||||
| FISCHL, Leesa | 589 | 0.93% | ||||
| 1267 | 1.99% | 0.20 | 0.18 | |||
| ANDERSON, Gerard | 522 | 0.82% | ||||
| NORRIS, Maree | 6 | 0.01% | ||||
| 528 | 0.83% | 0.08 | 0.07 | |||
| OKE, Cathy | 9886 | 15.53% | ||||
| LEPPERT, Rohan | 14 | 0.02% | ||||
| RHODES, Lachlan | 8 | 0.01% | ||||
| PODESTA, Jennifer | 13 | 0.02% | ||||
| THIEL, Philip | 21 | 0.03% | ||||
| 9942 | 15.62% | 1.56 | 1.41 | |||
| LOUEY, Kevin | 23759 | 37.32% | ||||
| WOOD, Arron | 29 | 0.05% | ||||
| PINDER-MORTIMER, Beverley | 11 | 0.02% | ||||
| JETTER, Carl | 12 | 0.02% | ||||
| SHEN, Harvard | 16 | 0.03% | ||||
| SWEETMAN, Fiona | 10 | 0.02% | ||||
| WEI, Hope | 27 | 0.04% | ||||
| 23864 | 37.48% | 3.75 | 3.37 | |||
| WATTS, Jackie | 6073 | 9.54% | ||||
| KENNEDY, Michael | 16 | 0.03% | ||||
| KINSELLA, Marie | 9 | 0.01% | ||||
| O'BRIEN, Sue | 16 | 0.03% | ||||
| 6114 | 9.60% | 0.96 | 0.86 | |||
| ONG, Ken | 8263 | 12.98% | ||||
| PAGANO, Carlo | 7 | 0.01% | ||||
| HEWITT, Sally | 17 | 0.03% | ||||
| SMITH, Leona | 17 | 0.03% | ||||
| 8304 | 13.04% | 1.30 | 1.17 | |||
| VISA, Moti | 123 | 0.19% | 123 | 0.19% | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| LOH, David | 11 | 0.02% | 11 | 0.02% | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| van der CRAATS, Anthony | 115 | 0.18% | 115 | 0.18% | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| TOTAL | 63664 | 100.00% | 63664 | 100.00% | 10.00 | 9.00 |
Thursday, 17 November 2011
ABC Antony Green's Selective Analysis of Green's Peferences
Antony Green, ABC Electoral Analyst, has produced another article on Green preferences in his blog but had failed to address the issue of optional preferential voting and the method of counting the Senate vote
As a Party the Greens can not direct preferences in the lower house, in the upper-house yes, but only thanks to the above-the-line voting system, below-the-line voting they have no say.,
What is untested and a real potential problem, not just related to the Greens but for all parties including the ALP and the LNP is optional preferential voting. What happens if a party advocates to not preference anyone, and the voter only preferences the candidate/party of their choice without expressing a continuing preference? The system becomes by default a first-past-the-post ballot.
Analysis of the 2010 Victorian State upper-house vote shows that a number of exhausted BTL votes from the party votes does have a significant impact on the election outcome. IN Western Metropolitan for example Bob Smith lost his seat because a significant number of Family First, DLP and Liberal party votes exhausted and did not flow on to other parties, This gave the Greens a hidden advantage in that these votes did not flow on to the ALP as was the case with Ticket ATL votes
The Senate vote and party preferences
The other issue that also is a considerable concern is the method of counting the Senate vote., The System itself disports the outcome of the election and voters intentions.
In Queensland 2007 Larrisa Waters should have been elected to the Senate, the only reason she was not was due to the method of segmentation in the way the votes is counted., a system that was designed to facilitate the manual counting of the vote.
In Victoria 2007 David Feeney could have lost his seat, not because of the voters intention, but due to the method used in calculating the surplus transfer value.
Had Pauline Hanson's One Nation preferenced the Liberal Party, before the ALP and ahead of the Greens, David Feeney would have been defeated, contrary to the voters intentions. The system having delivered an additional value of 7000 votes to the Liberal Party ticket vote which favoured the Greens ahead of the ALP.
The value of the minor parties (The DLP, Family First and One Nation) was devalued and the Liberal party vote increased disproportionally). The system used to count the Senate vote is in need of serious overhaul. We no longer need to take short cuts to facilitate a manual count, short cuts that make the system inaccurate and unfair.
Whilst Antony Green has agreed with the analysis of the Victorian 2007 Senate count he continues to avoid undertaking a review of the 2007 Queensland Senate count. If you recount the 2007 Queensland vote and exclude all candidates except the last seven candidates remaining in the count and redistribute the preferences accordingly, Larrisa Waters should have been elected ahead of the Labor Party's 3rd Candidate. The reason she was not was due to the method of segmentation in the way the vote is counted.
If you use the the same procedural methods that apply to the lower hose single member preferential count, and on exclusion of a candidate from the count and restart the count afresh the method of segmentation does not distort the outcome of the election result. A re-iterative counting system is more accurate and with the aid of computer technology should be implemented.
As a Party the Greens can not direct preferences in the lower house, in the upper-house yes, but only thanks to the above-the-line voting system, below-the-line voting they have no say.,
What is untested and a real potential problem, not just related to the Greens but for all parties including the ALP and the LNP is optional preferential voting. What happens if a party advocates to not preference anyone, and the voter only preferences the candidate/party of their choice without expressing a continuing preference? The system becomes by default a first-past-the-post ballot.
Analysis of the 2010 Victorian State upper-house vote shows that a number of exhausted BTL votes from the party votes does have a significant impact on the election outcome. IN Western Metropolitan for example Bob Smith lost his seat because a significant number of Family First, DLP and Liberal party votes exhausted and did not flow on to other parties, This gave the Greens a hidden advantage in that these votes did not flow on to the ALP as was the case with Ticket ATL votes
The Senate vote and party preferences
The other issue that also is a considerable concern is the method of counting the Senate vote., The System itself disports the outcome of the election and voters intentions.
In Queensland 2007 Larrisa Waters should have been elected to the Senate, the only reason she was not was due to the method of segmentation in the way the votes is counted., a system that was designed to facilitate the manual counting of the vote.
In Victoria 2007 David Feeney could have lost his seat, not because of the voters intention, but due to the method used in calculating the surplus transfer value.
Had Pauline Hanson's One Nation preferenced the Liberal Party, before the ALP and ahead of the Greens, David Feeney would have been defeated, contrary to the voters intentions. The system having delivered an additional value of 7000 votes to the Liberal Party ticket vote which favoured the Greens ahead of the ALP.
The value of the minor parties (The DLP, Family First and One Nation) was devalued and the Liberal party vote increased disproportionally). The system used to count the Senate vote is in need of serious overhaul. We no longer need to take short cuts to facilitate a manual count, short cuts that make the system inaccurate and unfair.
Whilst Antony Green has agreed with the analysis of the Victorian 2007 Senate count he continues to avoid undertaking a review of the 2007 Queensland Senate count. If you recount the 2007 Queensland vote and exclude all candidates except the last seven candidates remaining in the count and redistribute the preferences accordingly, Larrisa Waters should have been elected ahead of the Labor Party's 3rd Candidate. The reason she was not was due to the method of segmentation in the way the vote is counted.
If you use the the same procedural methods that apply to the lower hose single member preferential count, and on exclusion of a candidate from the count and restart the count afresh the method of segmentation does not distort the outcome of the election result. A re-iterative counting system is more accurate and with the aid of computer technology should be implemented.
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.
Saturday, 11 September 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)