Antony Green is not a constitutional lawyer nor is he qualified in migration law.
Section 44 would not apply to Julian Assange. Contrary to Antony Green's assertion Julian Assange is not a subject or citizen of
Ecuador. He still retrains his Australian Citizenship.
Assange could
also benefit from the a possible LNP surplus and/or the preferences from
other minor parties. Many would consider putting Wikileaks Party Ahead of the Greens.
The Greens will have no choice but to preference
Assange. Failure to do so would damage the Greens chances of being elected. Assange would fair better in Tasmania or Victoria.
Assuming his party can secure a seat, if he is unable to take up his
position the party would nominate an alternative candidate in his
absence., If and when Assange returns to Australia the alternative
candidate can resign and the party again nominates Assange to fill the
vacancy.
The big question is the allocation of party above-the-line
preferences. If he can secure a favourable preference distribution and a
substantial primary vote to remain in the count then yes he could win a
Senate seat, if not at the next election the one that will follow, which will
most likely be a double dissolution
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Rally for Assange
Julian Assange is expected to be extradited to Sweden following a decision By the UK Supreme Court that decried a public prosecuted to be a Judicial Authority. Person can be red red to anther state on the as of a public prosecutor issuing a writ seeking extradition in order to question the person named. There is no right of judicial review or evidence to support the application for extradition.
The judgment of the UK Court has major implications for all sovereign states.
A rally in support of Julian Assange will be held throughout Australia. Thusday May 31, 2012 at the Office of te Departmnet of Foreign Affairs. 12 noon There will be speakers between midday and 2pm. The main rally will be at 4:30 http://justice4assange.com/
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.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Hansard: Victorian State Parliament Electoral Matter's Committee
Victorian State Parliament - Electoral Matters Committee
Extract from Hansard dated August 23, 2011
The CHAIR — Are you appearing in a private capacity or representing an organisation? If so, which organisation?
Mr van der CRAATS — I am a member of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia and of the Australian Labor Party, but the evidence that I give is of personal opinion.
The CHAIR — I ask you to begin your verbal submission, and we will take it from there.
Mr van der CRAATS — Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Parliament. I do so with some reluctance, mainly because the last time I gave evidence to this committee I was subjected to what I consider to be harassment, intimidation and vilification by the chief electoral commissioner. It is a matter that I raised before with this committee, or the previous committee, and it failed to respond or to properly act. It is my belief that the actions taken by the chief electoral commissioner constitute contempt of Parliament, and I would like that this committee give further consideration to the complaints that I forwarded to the committee on previous occasions with the view of having the matter properly dealt with by an appropriate authority. I will raise this later in my submission, particularly with respect to item 4 and in relation to the role of the Ombudsman and the electoral commission as it is the Ombudsman that I believe is the appropriate body to review such complaints. However, this committee has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the parliamentary process, that the committee process is intact and that witnesses are not subjected to some form of harassment or intimidation as a result of evidence given that may be detrimental to or critical of the conduct of the election’s process.
Extract from Hansard dated August 23, 2011
The CHAIR — Are you appearing in a private capacity or representing an organisation? If so, which organisation?
Mr van der CRAATS — I am a member of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia and of the Australian Labor Party, but the evidence that I give is of personal opinion.
The CHAIR — I ask you to begin your verbal submission, and we will take it from there.
Mr van der CRAATS — Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Parliament. I do so with some reluctance, mainly because the last time I gave evidence to this committee I was subjected to what I consider to be harassment, intimidation and vilification by the chief electoral commissioner. It is a matter that I raised before with this committee, or the previous committee, and it failed to respond or to properly act. It is my belief that the actions taken by the chief electoral commissioner constitute contempt of Parliament, and I would like that this committee give further consideration to the complaints that I forwarded to the committee on previous occasions with the view of having the matter properly dealt with by an appropriate authority. I will raise this later in my submission, particularly with respect to item 4 and in relation to the role of the Ombudsman and the electoral commission as it is the Ombudsman that I believe is the appropriate body to review such complaints. However, this committee has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the parliamentary process, that the committee process is intact and that witnesses are not subjected to some form of harassment or intimidation as a result of evidence given that may be detrimental to or critical of the conduct of the election’s process.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
NSW: Upper House Preference Results Analysis - Meek and Wright Methods
Analysis of the NSW March 2011 State Legislative Council Ballot based on the detailed preference data published blatantly by the NSW Electoral Commission on August 3, 2011 indicated the following candidates are elected. (OpenSTV - Source Data)
| Count after transferring surplus votes. Keep factors of candidates who have exceeded the
| threshold: GALLACHER Mike, 0.081266; GAY Duncan, 0.088605; PEARCE Greg, 0.097127; CLARKE
| David, 0.107637; COLLESS Rick, 0.120694; MacDONALD Scot, 0.137060; CUSACK Catherine, 0.158742;
| MACLAREN-JONES Natasha, 0.188697; PHELPS Peter, 0.232255; BLAIR Niall, 0.302617; JOHNSTON
| Sarah, 0.432234; ROOZENDAAL Eric, 0.163670; DONNELLY Greg, 0.195524; SHARPE Penny, 0.242614;
| PRIMROSE Peter, 0.320513; KELLY Tony, 0.469467; FERGUSON Andrew, 0.870859; SHOEBRIDGE David,
| 0.335056; BARHAM Jan, 0.503748; and BROWN Robert, 0.919975. Candidate GREEN Paul has reached
| the threshold and is elected.
Winners are GALLACHER Mike, GAY Duncan, PEARCE Greg, CLARKE David, COLLESS Rick, MacDONALD Scot,
CUSACK Catherine, MACLAREN-JONES Natasha, PHELPS Peter, BLAIR Niall, JOHNSTON Sarah, GREEN Paul,
ROOZENDAAL Eric, DONNELLY Greg, SHARPE Penny, PRIMROSE Peter, KELLY Tony, FERGUSON Andrew,
SHOEBRIDGE David, BARHAM Jan, and BROWN Robert.
Likewise we under took analysis of the published data by excluding all but the last 22 candidates (Including Pauline Hanson) simulating the count using the Wright System. The results are the same - Detailed OpenSTV sheet sheet results.
To help you understand more how the system and method of counting the vote can and does distort the outcome of the election take a closer look at the 2007 Queensland Senate count.
In 2007 Green's Candidate, Larissa Waters, was wrongfully denied representation. The reason she was not elected was due solely to the distortion in the method of segmentation that is used in counting the Senate vote. A fact that Antony Green, ABC Electoral Analyst failed to understand or review.
More information including count sheets using Meek and Wright methods of counting the vote.
Likewise we under took analysis of the published data by excluding all but the last 22 candidates (Including Pauline Hanson) simulating the count using the Wright System. The results are the same - Detailed OpenSTV sheet sheet results.
To help you understand more how the system and method of counting the vote can and does distort the outcome of the election take a closer look at the 2007 Queensland Senate count.
In 2007 Green's Candidate, Larissa Waters, was wrongfully denied representation. The reason she was not elected was due solely to the distortion in the method of segmentation that is used in counting the Senate vote. A fact that Antony Green, ABC Electoral Analyst failed to understand or review.
More information including count sheets using Meek and Wright methods of counting the vote.
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Victoria’s Count Back System of Shame
The City of Melbourne has concluded the count back of the 2008 Municipal Election ballot to determine who will fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Councillor Peter Clarke.
The successful candidate was Jackie Watts (Peter Clarke’s number 2 on his ticket).
Over 6,000 votes that should have been counted were excluded from the count.
Raising further concern about the system of Proportional representation used in Victoria’ municipal elections.
Whilst the result of the count back are not brought into question the method used in the count back is very much questioned..
Under the system adopted there are seven councillors elected to the Council with a quota of just under 1/8 of the total vote. The total vote divided by (the number of vacant positions plus one) minus one. Of which Peter Clarke represents one eighth.
Peter Clarke was not elected on the primary vote and relied on the distribution of preferences from other candidates. Clarke's surplus votes were also distributed on assisting the election of other councillors who were elected later in the count.
Peter Clarke had a primary vote of 5511 votes at full value (1.000)
He received an additional 3205 votes at full value and 18 fractional value votes following the distribution of preferences from excluded candidates and other candidates surpluses. Total value 8734
The quota for election was 7415. Clarke’s surplus of 1319 which was distributed to other candidates, remaining in the count, according to the voters nominated order of preference.
Under the VEC rules the recount only took into consideration the votes that formed Clarke's original quota, they failed to take into consideration other unused residual votes that remained on the table, effectively a full quota of votes was ignored in the recount. Votes which could have determined the outcome of the recount and the candidate who filled the casual vacancy.
By only considering Clarke's original set of ballot papers that were used to elect him the system has double counted some votes and excluded other votes which legitimately should have been counted.
The formula that should have been used should have proportioned Clarkes original set of ballot papers so that they together equal quota (Quota divided candidates total value of votes) times the value of the each vote.
This value should have then been added to any remaining residual value that had not been used at the conclusion of the original count brining the count to its final conclusion. In a full preferential ballot this should equal two quotas minus one. (Taking into consideration and exhausted votes that failed to express a valid preference for any continuing candidate.
All unelected Candidates should have been reactivated and include in the recount and value of the votes outstanding redistributed according to the voters nominated preference until a candidate has reach the original quota value.
This is not the process that the VEC or the legislation applied. They only considered the ballot papers that made up Clarkes original quota votes that when combined with the other residual votes could have produced a different result. But excluding the residual votes from the count these voters have been denied equal representation.
By Way of an theoretical analogy
The ALP number 3 Senate Candidate Jacinta Collins may have been elected on the back of preferences from the DLP who preferenced Jacinta Collins then preferenced Family First or some other candidate ahead of the ALP’s other candidates. The DLP vote when they were excluded from the Count continued on to elect Collins in the original election.
If Collins position subsequently became vacant and count back was used to fill the casual vacancy, under the VEC rules the ALP’s number 4 candidate would be elected but not on merit or on in accordance with the voters chosen candidate. The DLP vote would have been transferred to the Family First Candidate not the ALP and this vote could have resulted in Family First reaching quota before the ALP number 4 candidate. In a fair accurate system Family first’s Steve Fielding should be elected on the count back.
The City of Melbourne count back has highlighted some serious flawed in the system of proportional representation that has been adopted.
Flaws that were introduced by poor legislation drafting and designed to facilitate an outdated manual counting process. With the use of computer based technology it is possible and highly desirable that the system is reviewed and the rules amended to reflect more accurately the voters choice. Our system of Proportional representation and the count back rules, as they currently exist, is not really proportional but semi proportional at best.
If we cannot fix the system so that it accurately reflects the voters choice then we might as well do away with preferential voting which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to count and adopt a similar cheaper party list system as is used in Europe.
If we are going to retain the preferential voting and the associated expense of counting it then it should be accurate.
The successful candidate was Jackie Watts (Peter Clarke’s number 2 on his ticket).
Over 6,000 votes that should have been counted were excluded from the count.
Raising further concern about the system of Proportional representation used in Victoria’ municipal elections.
Whilst the result of the count back are not brought into question the method used in the count back is very much questioned..
Under the system adopted there are seven councillors elected to the Council with a quota of just under 1/8 of the total vote. The total vote divided by (the number of vacant positions plus one) minus one. Of which Peter Clarke represents one eighth.
Peter Clarke was not elected on the primary vote and relied on the distribution of preferences from other candidates. Clarke's surplus votes were also distributed on assisting the election of other councillors who were elected later in the count.
Peter Clarke had a primary vote of 5511 votes at full value (1.000)
He received an additional 3205 votes at full value and 18 fractional value votes following the distribution of preferences from excluded candidates and other candidates surpluses. Total value 8734
The quota for election was 7415. Clarke’s surplus of 1319 which was distributed to other candidates, remaining in the count, according to the voters nominated order of preference.
Under the VEC rules the recount only took into consideration the votes that formed Clarke's original quota, they failed to take into consideration other unused residual votes that remained on the table, effectively a full quota of votes was ignored in the recount. Votes which could have determined the outcome of the recount and the candidate who filled the casual vacancy.
By only considering Clarke's original set of ballot papers that were used to elect him the system has double counted some votes and excluded other votes which legitimately should have been counted.
The formula that should have been used should have proportioned Clarkes original set of ballot papers so that they together equal quota (Quota divided candidates total value of votes) times the value of the each vote.
This value should have then been added to any remaining residual value that had not been used at the conclusion of the original count brining the count to its final conclusion. In a full preferential ballot this should equal two quotas minus one. (Taking into consideration and exhausted votes that failed to express a valid preference for any continuing candidate.
All unelected Candidates should have been reactivated and include in the recount and value of the votes outstanding redistributed according to the voters nominated preference until a candidate has reach the original quota value.
This is not the process that the VEC or the legislation applied. They only considered the ballot papers that made up Clarkes original quota votes that when combined with the other residual votes could have produced a different result. But excluding the residual votes from the count these voters have been denied equal representation.
By Way of an theoretical analogy
The ALP number 3 Senate Candidate Jacinta Collins may have been elected on the back of preferences from the DLP who preferenced Jacinta Collins then preferenced Family First or some other candidate ahead of the ALP’s other candidates. The DLP vote when they were excluded from the Count continued on to elect Collins in the original election.
If Collins position subsequently became vacant and count back was used to fill the casual vacancy, under the VEC rules the ALP’s number 4 candidate would be elected but not on merit or on in accordance with the voters chosen candidate. The DLP vote would have been transferred to the Family First Candidate not the ALP and this vote could have resulted in Family First reaching quota before the ALP number 4 candidate. In a fair accurate system Family first’s Steve Fielding should be elected on the count back.
The City of Melbourne count back has highlighted some serious flawed in the system of proportional representation that has been adopted.
Flaws that were introduced by poor legislation drafting and designed to facilitate an outdated manual counting process. With the use of computer based technology it is possible and highly desirable that the system is reviewed and the rules amended to reflect more accurately the voters choice. Our system of Proportional representation and the count back rules, as they currently exist, is not really proportional but semi proportional at best.
If we cannot fix the system so that it accurately reflects the voters choice then we might as well do away with preferential voting which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to count and adopt a similar cheaper party list system as is used in Europe.
If we are going to retain the preferential voting and the associated expense of counting it then it should be accurate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)