Friday, 20 September 2013

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.



Thursday, 19 September 2013

Scrutiny Denied: AEC reply to request for copies of BTL Preference data-files


UPDATED. See below  

Published in this article is the Australian Electoral Commission's reply to written request for Scrutineers to be provided copies of the Below-the-line preference data-files.

There is nothing in the legislation that prevents this information being made available to scrutineers . It is no different then the publication of the progressive results for the House of representatives.

Without access to this information it is impossible to independently verify the integrity of the elections results.
It is akin to shopping at a supermarket and watching good get scanned, without a receipt and a running balance you have no idea of the costs charged are correct 
The Australian Electoral Commission's failure to ensure that the electronic count is open and transparent brings the conduct of the Senate election into disrepute.

Other parties and States have also requested progressive access to copies of the below-the-line preference data files and been refused.

What does the Commission have to hide that it refuses to publish this crucial information?  

By not publishing this data in a timely fashion and subjecting it to proper independent scrutiny in a timely fashion leaves the Commission open to allegations that the information recorded on the file may have been changed or altered.


UPDATED.  We have sent teh following letter to Mr Jeff Pope APM Australian Electoral Commission. Our request was once again was denied and an application for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is pending

Copy of text dated 23-September-2013





Jeff Pope APM
Australian Electoral Commission and State Manager for Victoria
State Executive
Victorian State Office


Further to your correspondence dated 18 September 2013

Re: Request for copies of the below the line Data-entry records recording the details and preferences in electronic format

The information requested in my previous correspondence falls within the definition of Section 273A(6) (a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the definition of record as outlined in the Acts interpretation Act

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 273A

Computerised scrutiny of votes in Senate election
...
Rights of scrutineers
             (6)  For proceedings under subsections (4) and (5) of this section, the requirements of paragraph 265(1)(c) are met if the scrutineers have access to:
                     (a)  a record of the preferences on the ballot papers that have been received by the Australian Electoral Officer and whose details have been stored in the computer (including informal ballot papers, and formal ballot papers that are not sequentially numbered); and
                     (b)  a record of the ballot papers that are notionally transferred, or exhausted, at each count; and
                     (c)  a record of the progress of the count of the votes, at each count.
  

ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901

Definitions

"document" means any record of information, and includes:
                     (a)  anything on which there is writing;
"record" includes information stored or recorded by means of a computer.


The information requested is the record (s) of the preferences on the ballot papers that have been received by the Australian Electoral Officer and whose details have been stored in the computer.

The Australian Electoral Commission has an obligation to provide this information to scrutineers pursuant to Section 273A(6) of the Act as requested

This information is required in order that Scrutineers can verify the integrity and correctness of information stored in the computer that is used to tabulate and determine the results of the election.  The information requested should be provided in the most cost effective and efficient means possible. The information requested is readily available in electronic format.

I again request that the information sought be provided without delay and that regular updates be provided on a daily basis with certified copies of the information provided prior to the declaration of the poll

Should you require further information I can be contacted via return email or telephone 0403378111

Yours faithfully


Anthony van der Craats
Scrutineer
Australian labor Party

PO Box 254 Carlton South Victoria 3053

 




Friday, 13 September 2013

WA Senate: Analysis of Ticket vote count as of 8:00PM today using reiterative count

WA Senate

Analysis of the results based current Group data using a reiterative count system where the count is reset and restarted on every exclusion. (Only Surpluses are distributed on each iteration). Single Weighted Transfer per candidate no segmentation. distortions in the current outdated Senate Counting system removed. Where:

Votes for excluded candidates are redistributed as if the excluded
candidate had not stood

Produces the following results

Elected ID Candidate Group
1 56 JOHNSTON Liberal
2 52 BULLOCK Australian Labor Party
3 11 WANG Palmer United Party
4 57 CASH Liberal
5 58 REYNOLDS Liberal
6 53 PRATT Australian Labor Party

You can test the system by counting the vote as recorded on the ABC Senate calculator excluding all candidates but the last seven standing  3 LNP, 2 ALP 1 PUP 1 GRN
    
The reason those parties are chosen is that they are the ones left standing at the end of a reiterative count. Sport Party losing out earlier in the count.


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

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

Unfair Advantage delivered to Sports Party in WA

The method of calculating the Surplus Transfer Value in the Western Australian Senate Count has delivered an advantage to the the Sports Party. Liberal Party ticket vote increases in value which in turn delivers a higher then otherwise transfer to Sports Party


An example of the flaw in the senate count can be found in Count 26 of WA Senate with the election of the LNP following the exclusion of the National Party.

Full value votes (Ballot papers) are transferred out at the same value of votes (Ballot Papers) that hold a factional value.

Unfortunately Antony Greens summary does not list clearly the number of ballot papers that make up his vote transfer. This masks the full extent of the distortion in the calculation of the surplus transfer value. The distortion is further masked if all the segmented ballot papers are transferred to a single candidate.

Extract from Antony Greens Senate Calculator

Count 26: Linda REYNOLDS (Liberal) elected #4


  • 7,473 (0.86%) votes (343,771 ballot papers at 0.0217 transfer value) originally from Liberal distributed to Australian Sports Party (Wayne DROPULICH) via preference 15.
  • 5 (0.00%) votes (248 ballot papers at 0.0217 transfer value) originally from Socialist Equality Party (Ticket 3 of 3) distributed to Liberal Democrats (Jim FRYAR) via preference 12.
  • 811 (0.09%) votes (37,317 ballot papers at 0.0217 transfer value) originally from The Nationals distributed to Liberal Democrats (Jim FRYAR) via preference 11.

As shown above there are 343,771 ballot papers that held a fraction of value ( 0.2766) when transferred to Reynolds in Count 4. The National Party (37,317) and SEP (248) votes were full value votes

All Ballot papers are now transferred out at a transfer of 0.217


Another point of distortion arsing from the law in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value occurs  at count 28

Count 28: Wayne DROPULICH (Australian Sports Party) elected #5


  • 6 (0.00%) votes (1,940 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Sports Party distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 27.
  • 3 (0.00%) votes (770 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Voice Party distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 38.
  • 8 (0.00%) votes (2,490 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Rise Up Australia Party distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 29.
  • 1 (0.00%) votes (295 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Stable Population Party (Ticket 1 of 3) distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 31.
  • 1 (0.00%) votes (295 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Stable Population Party (Ticket 2 of 3) distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 31.
  • 1 (0.00%) votes (295 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Stable Population Party (Ticket 3 of 3) distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 31.
  • 8 (0.00%) votes (2,448 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (Ticket 1 of 2) distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 42.
  • 8 (0.00%) votes (2,448 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (Ticket 2 of 2) distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 42.
  • 18 (0.00%) votes (5,442 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Family First Party distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 37.
  • 20 (0.00%) votes (6,210 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from The Wikileaks Party distributed to The Greens (WA) (Scott LUDLAM) via preference 11.
  • 26 (0.00%) votes (7,989 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Shooters and Fishers distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 37.
  • 30 (0.00%) votes (8,964 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party distributed to The Greens (WA) (Scott LUDLAM) via preference 33.
  • 20 (0.00%) votes (6,164 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Animal Justice Party distributed to The Greens (WA) (Scott LUDLAM) via preference 31.
  • 41 (0.00%) votes (12,517 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Sex Party distributed to The Greens (WA) (Scott LUDLAM) via preference 31.
  • 8 (0.00%) votes (2,467 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Independents distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 43.
  • 47 (0.01%) votes (14,133 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Christians distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 18.
  • 3 (0.00%) votes (894 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 38.
  • 10 (0.00%) votes (3,135 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 37.
  • 1,133 (0.13%) votes (343,771 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Liberal distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 17.
  • 99 (0.01%) votes (29,910 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Liberal Democrats distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 11.
  • 4 (0.00%) votes (1,348 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Stop The Greens distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 13.
  • 19 (0.00%) votes (5,716 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Smokers Rights distributed to Palmer United Party (Zhenya WANG) via preference 13.
  • 4 (0.00%) votes (1,269 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Democrats (Ticket 1 of 2) distributed to The Greens (WA) (Scott LUDLAM) via preference 19.
  • 4 (0.00%) votes (1,269 ballot papers at 0.0033 transfer value) originally from Australian Democrats (Ticket 2 of 2) distributed to The Greens (WA) (Scott LUDLAM) via preference 19.

In Count 28: 343,771 ballot papers (that held a fraction of full value) from the Liberal Party Ticket vote along with 118,408 full value votes are now transferred at a value of 0.0033  (disproportionately to the percentage of their original value that contributed to the Sports Party's surplus)

It is something that Anthony Green is often silent about (Conspiracy or just complacency)

The system of segmentation also adds to the distortion in the count results in Queensland 2007 it elected the wrong Senator

In 2007 Victorian Senate Count the value of the distortion in the calculation of the Surplus transfer Value was equal to 70,000 votes…

Saturday, 7 September 2013

Consolidation of vote raises the Titanic of Twerks as campaign comes to a close

As predicted there is a consolidation of the vote in the last week of the campaign with the electorate voting to put an end to minority government

The Senate is no expection, the real winner being Clive Palmer is is estimated to win 4-6% of the ational vote and even higher in Queensland where Palmer United could win a senate seat

Wikileaks whilst in a good position on preferences failed to make inroads against the Greens.  The Greens campiagning hard to ensure they Wikileaks would not eat into their support base.

The ALP is expected to retain 2 seats in each state and one seat in NT and ACT

The latest Morgan Poll shows the extent of the swing to Palmer United Party

Senate prediction last week of campaign

Victoria
LNP 3 seats, ALP 2 seats and Greens 1

NSW
LNP 3 seats, ALP 2 seats and Greens in toss up with Palmer United

SA
LNP 2, ALP 2, XEN 1 and a toss up between the Greens or PUP for the last seat. 

WA
LNP 3, ALP 2, most likely PUP for the last seat in contest with the Greens. 

QLD
LNP 3, ALP 2, The Greens expected to lose out to Palmer United

TAS
LNP 3 ALP 2, GRN 1

ACT
ALP 1, LNP 1

NT
ALP 1, LNP1

Sunday, 1 September 2013

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