Rise Up Australia: The Battle for the Balance of Power in the Senate

The Greens can lose a seat in Victoria, under threat by Wikileaks Party

Whilst the ALP has directly preferenced the Greens in the Victorian Senate this does not guarantee the Greens a seat. The Greens would have ot poll above 9% primary support to benefit from an estimated 4-5% ALP Surplus.

Analysis of the registered above-the-line ticket votes shows if Wikileaks are able to peg back the Greens to below 8% and can secure 4% primary vote they can come from behind and force the Greens into becoming the wasted Quota. The ALP is expected to poll around 32% with a minimal surplus to transfer to the Greens. Wikileaks collects preferences from all other groups and outpolsl the Greens who become the wasted quota.


It is also possible for the Raise Up Australia Party or Family First in Victoria to win a seat from the Liberal Party. In 2010 the LNP polled 34% The LNP need over 39% to win a third senate spot

Rise Up Australia and Family First are well placed in preferences of the registered tickets to come from a low base of 2-3% and win the sixth seat on the back of Liberal Party Surpluses and support from the other christian religious based ground. Traditionally the Christan lobby represent around 405% of the overall vote.  With Gay marriage an issue there support will be consolidated. They are a well organized and motivated network and have shown they are capable of manning the polling booths. Being placed first on the left hand side of the ballot paper also gives Rise Up Australia marginal advantage with the donkey vote

An more likely alternative possible outcome is Family First to replace  Rise Up Australia in winning the sixth last seat on the back of LNP preferences


Posted by: demcracyATwork | August 20, 2013 at 02:02 AM

 

Candidate	Group
FIFIELD, Mitch	Liberal
MARSHALL, Gavin	Australian Labor Party
RYAN, Scott	Liberal
COLLINS, Jacinta	Australian Labor Party
ASSANGE, Julian	The Wikileaks Party
NALLIAH, Daniel or FENN, Ashley	Rise Up Australia Party Family First

Analysis of Above the Line Group Tickets
Victoria

VIC-Ticket Analysis

Percentage	Group	Group Name	Ticket
0.03	Group A	RISE UP AUSTRALIA PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.0007	Group D	SENATOR ONLINE (INTERNET VOTING BILLS/ISSUES)	Ticket 1 of 1
0.35	Group E	LIBERAL/THE NATIONALS	Ticket 1 of 2
	Group E	LIBERAL/THE NATIONALS	Ticket 2 of 2
0.001	Group F	HELP END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (HEMP) PARTY	Ticket 1 of 3
	Group F	HELP END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (HEMP) PARTY	Ticket 2 of 3
	Group F	HELP END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (HEMP) PARTY	Ticket 3 of 3
0.02	Group G	FAMILY FIRST	Ticket 1 of 1
0.001	Group H	COUNTRY ALLIANCE	Ticket 1 of 1
0.0011	Group I	SECULAR PARTY OF AUSTRALIA	Ticket 1 of 1
0.0007	Group J	NO CARBON TAX CLIMATE SCEPTICS	Ticket 1 of 1
0.002	Group K	BANK REFORM PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.001	Group L	STABLE POPULATION PARTY	Ticket 1 of 3
	Group L	STABLE POPULATION PARTY	Ticket 2 of 3
	Group L	STABLE POPULATION PARTY	Ticket 3 of 3
0.0015	Group N	AUSTRALIAN FISHING AND LIFESTYLE PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.015	Group O	SHOOTERS AND FISHERS	Ticket 1 of 1
0.0015	Group P	BUILDING AUSTRALIA PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.0008	Group Q	AUSTRALIAN VOICE PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.002	Group R	AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENTS	Ticket 1 of 1
0.08	Group S	THE GREENS	Ticket 1 of 1
0.001	Group T		Ticket 1 of 1
0.003	Group U	STOP CSG	Ticket 1 of 1
0.01	Group V	KATTER'S AUSTRALIAN PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.01	Group W	PALMER UNITED PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.005	Group Y	ANIMAL JUSTICE PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.001	Group Z	AUSTRALIAN MOTORING ENTHUSIAST PARTY	Ticket 1 of 2
	Group Z	AUSTRALIAN MOTORING ENTHUSIAST PARTY	Ticket 2 of 2
0.035	Group AA	THE WIKILEAKS PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.0049	Group AB	AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS	Ticket 1 of 2
	Group AB	AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS	Ticket 2 of 2
0.035	Group AC	SEX PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.33	Group AD	AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.001	Group AF	DRUG LAW REFORM	Ticket 1 of 2
	Group AF	DRUG LAW REFORM	Ticket 2 of 2
0.001	Group AG	BULLET TRAIN FOR AUSTRALIA	Ticket 1 of 1
0.007	Group AH	AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIANS	Ticket 1 of 1
	Group AI	CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL	Ticket 1 of 2
0.0007	Group AI	CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL	Ticket 2 of 2
0.001	Group AJ		Ticket 1 of 1
0.0032	Group AK	SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY	Ticket 1 of 3
	Group AK	SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY	Ticket 2 of 3
	Group AK	SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY	Ticket 3 of 3
0.02	Group AL	PIRATE PARTY	Ticket 1 of 1
0.02	Group AM	DLP DEMOCRATIC LABOUR	Ticket 1 of 1

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

Australian Electoral Commission to deny open transaparent scrutiny of the Australian Senate election computer count

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has indicated that it will deny scrutineers the right to properly scrutinise the conduct or the Senate election by not providing copies of the below-the-line preference data-files.

Information of preferences stored on the AEC's computer database is used to electronically count the results of the election.

Providing copies of the preference data-file as the data-entry progresses is the only way to ensure that the results of the data match the information transcribed from the ballot papers.

Whilst scrutineers are allowed to observe the data-entry process they are denied a means of ensuring the integrity of the data stored on the computer.

By way of analogy: You monitor the scanning of goods bought at a supermarket but the supermarket refused to provide a copy of receipt docket that allows you to verify your purchases

There is no justification or reason for the Australian Electoral Commission to deny access to this information. This information is readily available. Copies of the preference data-files should be provided so that scrutineers can  monitor the progress of the count and the integrity of the election results. Without access to copies of the data-files, progressively as the vote is being recorded, it is impossible for scrutineers to monitor or independently verify the overall results of the election..

The refusal of the Australian Electoral Commission in 2010 to provide scrutineers copies of the Senate Below-The-Line preference data-file undermined the confidence and integrity of the conduct of the election and was the subject of submissions made to the Federal Parliament Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. (JSCEM) In all other respects the conduct of the scrutiny of the ballot was exemplary  

Copies of the Senate preference data-files were made available after the period in which the election could be challenge.

Pauline Hanson is back in the fryer and mix of batter fishing for votes

ABC Election Analyst Antony Green's take on the Hanson factor


Missing from Antony Green's analysis commentary is the impact of Julian Assange's Wikileaks Party and the flaws in the way we count the Senate vote

Analysis of the 2007 Victorian Senate count shows that had Pauline Hanson - One Nation preference the LNP before the ALP ahead of the Greens David Feeney would have been defeated and the Greens would have been elected. This is primarily due to the distortion in the way the Senate vote is counted.

The Australian Senate voting system is an approximation proportional vote count. Its not pure proportional.

It's method of counting the vote is outdated with flaws in the calculation of the transfer vale and segmentation of excluded candidates vote

The system needs reform. A weighted transfer value and a reiterative count where the count is reset and restarted on every exclusion as if the excluded candidate had not stood. In the past such a model was prohibitive to count manually, With the use of computer aided counting and "above the line" voting a reiterative count with a weighted transfer value would better reflect the voters intentions.

Consideration should also be given to abolishing the Droop quota where the cake is divided by 7 and a slice thrown away. A system that inflates the value of some votes denying up to 14% of the electorate the right of representation of a candidate of their choice.

Posted by: democracyATwork | June 04, 2013 at 06:04 AM

The nomination fee for the Senate from $2000 to $5000 per candidate with a deposit refund available for every 4% to one candidate not all candidates for each party/group that polls over 4% This will reduce the number of candidates and groups that have no real chance of being elected seeking nomination.

Optional preferential should be a saving provision only. Optional preferential voting distorts the proportionality of the vote. In 2010 Victorian Upper-house (Western Metropolitan Region) Family First/DLP voters who voted 1 to 5 below the line elected by default a Green candidate as a result of optional preferential voting. Had they preference through to the ALP Colleen Hartwell would not have been elected.

Yes "Above the line" ticket voting in the Senate has increased the value of minor party votes as they are able to direct preferences. under normal circumstances minor parties can preferences scatter. The Greens, Sex Party and the like can not normally direct preferences. Ticket voting gives them this power.

The above commentary by Antony Green fails to consider the impact of the Assange Wikileaks Party. Recent claims that up to 24% of the electorate will vote Wikileaks

Add to this issues such as the Droop Quota (The wasted quota), segmentation in distribution and the method of calculating the surplus transfer value and our system of proportional representation no longer reflects the voters intentions.

We need urgent electoral reform


Odds are the LNP will not control the Senate and a early election is most likely to follow in 2014 

Posted by: democracyATwork | June 04, 2013 at 08:09 AM 

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.

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.

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

..

Julian Assange to run for the Senate

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