Dec 12 2006
Re-Groupers
The button has been pressed on the Victorian upper house election, producing a shock result: the DLP has won TWO seats, in Northern Metropolitan as well as Western Victoria. Evan Thornley has just got over the line in Southern Metropolitan. So the final numbers are Labor 19, Liberal 15, Nationals 2, Greens 2, DLP 2. The defeated Labor hopefuls are Elaine Carbines in Western Victoria and Nazih Elasmar in Northern Metropolitan, while Thornley’s seat comes at the expense of the number three Liberal candidate, David Southwick. Hat tip to Antony Green and Andrew Landeryou.
UPDATE (6.25pm): I am informed that the ALP doesn’t think the Northern Metropolitan result looks right and have called for a recount, whatever that might entail.
UPDATE (10.02pm): Andrew Landeryou reports: "ALP strategists are convinced now that the VEC has made a serious error in the northern metropolitan count. It appears that there might be an issue with the calculation of Democrats preferences. VEC sources tell the OC they have hired hundreds of people for re-counting tomorrow".
UPDATE (13/12/06): Alternatively, Antony Green notes the apparent last-minute counting of 8000 above-the-line votes that overwhelmingly favoured the Liberals. This would have increased the quota and reduced the size of the Greens surplus flowing to Labor, leaving them just short of a third quota and allowing the DLP to mop up the remainder.
UPDATE II (13/12/06): Antony Green again, with a potential explanation for those last-minute Liberal votes: "The VEC believes up to 6,000 Liberal votes in Northern Metropolitan may have been double counted. With the integrity of the count in doubt, an entire re-count is being undertaken".
UPDATE III (13/12/06): Via Andrew Landeryou, the following memo to Northern Metropolitan candidates from electoral commissioner Steve Tully:
Following a thorough check of the count sheet for Northern Metropolitan Region, I am sufficiently concerned about the underlying integrity of the Liberal vote in that region to require a recount of all ballot papers.
It is my preliminary view that the Liberal Party vote is overstated by about 6,000 votes and that such an overstatement could have a profound effect on the result.
In order to give parties and candidates time to arrange scrutineers, this recount will commence at 6:00 pm at MECC and will probably conclude around 3 am. The result following the recount will be recalculated.
This recount is in addition to the recounts where arrangements are already in place for Western Victoria and Western Metropolitan Regions.
I have scrutinised the count sheets and ballot paper reconciliations for the other 5 Regions and consider that there are no issues to consider. These will proceed with the current declaration arrangements.
Further, it remains the intention that the recounts will be conducted in time so as not to delay the previously arranged declarations.
Steve Tully
Electoral Commissioner
UPDATE IV (13/12/06): I have heard rumours of a VEC data entry error which saw a 0 entered as a 6, explaining the mysterious late surge in the Liberal vote in Northern Metropolitan; and also of another problem with the original distribution of preferences that had no bearing on the result. However, the ABC reports that "Commissioner Tully has rejected suggestions the Northern Metropolitan result has come from a computer error". But an explanation of some sort is required for those 8000 votes, three-quarters of which went to the Liberal Party, appearing in the count on the final day. The recount is expected to be completed very late this evening, perhaps in the wee hours of tomorrow morning.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:16 am
I think the inverse donkey vote may have assisted the DLP. If I recall early results on the night were showing the DLP was in a winning position. (But at the time at the expense of the Greens not the ALP)
Still no reply from the VEC in regards to supply of the preference data-file which without it is impossible to undertake an effective and proper review/scrutiny of the result. The VEC should be required, in the absence of self regulation, under law to provide this information as part of any declaration of the results of the poll. Copies of the data file must also be available to scrutineers on request.
Leigh Nash its good to hear your input.
Like it or not Tully has a lot to answer for over the conduct of this election.
It is fundamental that any public election remains open and transparent and that the public are properly kept informed. With the development and deployment of the internet there is no excuse for not proving more detailed information. Tully was unable or unwilling and refused to provide information on the number of postal vote applications issued, absentee votes and section votes issued. This information should have been readily available. Along with a more descriptive account of the various stages and changes to the count. Tully’s inability to ensure that the election process was open and transparent has undermined confidence in the overall process.
The other issue of my concern is the refusal of the VEC to publish polling place data for the Upper House. This was previously provided (Both by the AEC in Senate Elections and the VEC is past State elections in this respect the media must share some of the blame)
As mentioned by many posters above, myself included, without access to the detailed preference data-file it is impossible to analysis in detail the results of the election.
I have taken the VEC and the AEC to court in the past to re-assert the right for this information to be public. If need be we will again refer this issue to the courts for judicial review. The failure of the VEC to provide detailed information and reports as requested is an ongoing abuse of process. The more we more towards an electronic voting system the more we need to ensure that our electoral systems and the information provided is open and transparent so that people can make informed decisions maintaining confidence overall in our public elections. Without this half backed notions and ideas such as threshold quotas, Party List systems and god forbid first-past-the-post options will continue to be thrown up for consideration. This is not the solution.
It is quite possible that the result in Northern metro could be a result of the distortion in the calculation of the surplus or segmentation rules. Which as I have demonstrated seriously distort the one vote - one value system. The principle is clear and we must begin to address these issues first and then give further review to other issues such as Optional Preferential voting, Above the line group tickets and the like.
For those advocating a threshold quota I request that they think more about minorities be they christian evangelists or gay activists. The fact remains that the DLP has secured election in a democratic ballot. Thye were the prefered candidate. This is a strength not a weakness of the preferential voting system. The ALP and other parties need to give more attention to upperhouse campaigns. For too long we have seen major parties ride home on the back of the lower house campaigns hoping to also deliver in the upper house. If there is a weakness in the ALP’s strategy it was not their preference deals but their failure to campaign more effectively on the upper house candidature.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:29 am
The DLP have achieved nothing more and nothing less then what the Greens, Family First or People Power were hoping to achieve.
In the United States a president can be elected with 40 percent of the vote with a 40% turnout that means the President of one of the most powerful countries in the world is elected by less then 16% of the people of United States.
In Melbourne Peter Costigan received 40% of the local vote topping the poll. Although he had 40% of the vote 60% of voters did not want him and he lost the election. (He was latter elected in the following election only to be sacked due to a non functioning City Council and poor guidance from the administration whose conduct was highly questionable but they escaped any accountability or responsibility)
December 13th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Question whay is there non information about the counting and results on the VEC web site? Surley much more information should be published and available along with the below-the-line preference data file. A count sheet is not sufficent.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:40 am
For what it is worth I have updated my count sheets
http://melbcity.topcities.com.
Whilst the analysis tab shows that it is possible for the DLP to win the seat the notional results based on the registered ticket vote indicates that Labor should have one the fifth spot. I am sure a recount will be called for but again without access to the preference data file it is impossible to ascertain or verify the results of the election. the role of a scrutineer is much more then that of an observer.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:43 am
Surprise surprise the VEc is still reporting not all booths counted… And some think this is a professional responsible organisation…. think again
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state2006resultbyelectorateUH.html
December 13th, 2006 at 6:00 am
I see the Victorian result as showing Hare-Clark working well.
Like the NSW Legislative Council, a number of microparties brings a situation where a government can mix and match parties to get a majority. It can be expected that the government will usually only fail to get enough support when its legislation is highly partisan or ministerial actions are indefensible. That seems to me to be better than the alternatives, which are a government majority rubber stamp, opposition majority obstruction, or too much power yielded by a single balance-of- power party. It also brings in a breath of fresh air - unconventional, non-professional politicians.
The deal-making is a bit manipulative, many DLP voters were probably confused intending ALP voters, and I would support making it easier for voters to avoid following the party ticket. Nevertheless, the system does facilitate the election of parties that are centrist enough to build up wide support from a range of other parties. For that reason, the system suited the DLP this time because it offered some social justice to attract the left and and some social conservatism for the right. In contrast, the Greens were not able to build support from other groups.
There is an excelent introduction to Hare-Clark, Ste-Lague, d’Hondt, and other systems published by the Parliamentary Reserach Service:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RB/2005-06/06rb10.pdf
December 13th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Re the 8,000 mystery votes…. did these appear after the XML was updated at about 4pm? At that stage, the vote in NMET had climbed by only 70 and the % counted was second-lowest for the 9 Regions, at 91%. 8,000 votes would have boosted that to 93%, in line with most other Regions.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Having had a look at the count sheets, it appears that North Met has come about because almost all the last ATL votes added on Tuesday (and not in the Monday figures on the VEC site) were for the Liberals. I’m sure there are some questions being asked exactly what these votes were.
South Met is interesting. Southwick did no better than Thornley with Mayne preferences. Thornley did better on the Democrat third and above preferences distributed after the Green was elected but before the Green surplus was then distributed. The Green surplus put Thornely far enough ahead of Southwick to prevent Southwick winning on Family First and DLP preferences.
South Met quota was 60301. Thornley finished on 59905, Southwick (LIB) 58369. Thornley elected by 536 votes but with less than a quota.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:30 am
RECOUNT: The result is “indeterminant” neither major party candidate achieved a quota because of the number of BTLs that exhausted. I wonder what the result would have been if those exhausted votes were returned to the voter to get them to vote between the major parties.
ALP by the look of it. but we will never know for sure what the will of the people really was.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Thanks Antony for posting some figures - its a bit pathetic the VEC web site still lists figures from Monday afternoon. I reckon the closeness of the result in SMet, NMet and WVic all mean non-display of GVTs could have influenced the results. The Proportional Representation Society (Victoria-Tasmania) inc. wrote to the VEC before the election raising concern about whether that section (73A) of the electoral act would be followed (for Senate elections the similar provision, section 216, has been repeatedly violated by the AEC). Tully assured us everything would be ok, which turned out to be false.
Antony, do you know if People Power preferences were indeed influential in NMet? The reason why I raised it last night was that for other tickets (Lib, FF, etc), voters would reasonably have expected and wanted DLP to be ahead of ALP. However, your comment about Mayne preferences in SMet supports my suspicion that many PP voters would have preferred the ALP.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:07 am
NMET: If up to 8,000 votes did materialise after the final posting to the XML site just before 5 pm yesterday, and they were mostly LIb, this would explain it all. A simulation along these lines shows this clearly. For a start, it would increase the quota and reduce the GRN surplus by over 1,000 votes and this, and other things would change the sequence of the exclusions. The critical ALP/DLP “fork in the road” would not then be reached, and the DLP would be elected on the LIB cut-up instead of the ALP cut-up.
Antony, is this the way it happened?
In SMET, the quota from the web-site (Mon) was 60,035, on the XML (Tue) it was 59,983 (i.e. lower than the web) and on the count it was 60,301.
In NMET, the quota on the web-site (Mon) was 59,741, on the XML (Tue) it was 59,814 (i.e. higher than the web) and on the count it was ??,???
Seems to be a bit of jitter. Primaries would show jitter 6 times higher. Where the jitter is larger than the margins, our simulations will be of no use. So, it’s true- the only poll that counts is the one on the night.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Re: previous assertions that the job of the ALP is to maximise the number of ALP candidates elected.
Above the line voting *minimise* representation of major parties whereas Robson Rotation maximises it, and the parties know this. So why did they opt for the above the line/GVT system rather than RR? Its because under RR the voters have more power and the party operators have less. The “factional warlords” like having the power to divvy up the seats, and they prefer to sacrafice the odd seat (and upper house majority) rather than lose this power. The Constitution Commision which looked into reform of the Legislative Council didn’t recommend RR, but did mention the possibility of it being considered in the future. Now would be a good time!
December 13th, 2006 at 9:20 am
The VEC updated its web-site a moment ago, with the notional result of the cut-ups. They make comments:
NMET: * The VEC is expecting a submission in relation to a recount for the Northern Metropolitan Region.
WMET: *Recount – While the margin between 5th and 6th candidates is significant, an earlier critical exclusion could affect the result.
WVIC: *Recount – While the margin between 5th and 6th candidates is significant, an earlier critical exclusion could affect the result.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:41 am
The problem here is not the lack of a threshold, it’s ticket voting. Chris Curtis said that people are responsible for their own votes. While that should be the case, it’s patently clear that it isn’t the case with a ticket voting system.
Adam (I think) showed exactly the reasons why we shouldn’t have a threshold when he arbitrarily upped the vote for the Nationals from 4.8% to 5% for his hypothetical list electoral system.
Thresholds are arbitrary. If the threshold is 5% for a 16.7% quota, who is to say that 4.9% is too low, and 5.1% is high enough? The principle of preference voting is that in such a case it is the preferences of voters that matter.
4.9% is quite a lot of votes. It is very different to someone getting elected on 1%. So where do we draw the line?
If you introduce non-ticket ATL voting like in NSW, you eradicate the problems of ticket voting without introducing an arbitrary threshold.
Firstly, preferences must be shown on how-to-votes, to prevent the hidden preference deals which elected DLP (in Western Victoria) and Family First federally, and also gives voters the clear choice to change their preference sheet.
No party’s preference flows are going to go 100% to one party or another. Ticket voting will always result in some preferences flowing against the voter’s choice.
Because many voters will choose their own preferences, preferences cannot be channeled between parties so effectively without ticket voting, preventing the possibility for microparties to win.
It also has the added advantage of generally decreasing the purpose for microparties.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I seem to remember reading somewere the it was the ALP in Qld that in the 40`s to harm the electoral chances of the then new Liberal Party introduced the split up of the state into Zones with a set number of seats for each zone.
Is this correct?
All lower houses should have Hare-Clarke.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Tom,
I think you are talking about malapportionment of single-member electorates. The “zones” still consisted of single-member seats, it just meant that they weren’t all the same population. I think it disadvantaged the Liberals because the Liberals were city-based and the zones in the country had fewer people per electorate.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:45 am
“I also believe that the environmental movement has made a fundamental mistake in turning themselves from an effective mass movement and lobbying force into an ineffective fringe political party, which has been colonised by all the leftovers of the 1970s far left and serves mainly to discredit environmentalism.”
The environmental movement has done nothing of the sort. The major environmental organisations such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and the various State environmental peak councils, and the very numerous non-institutionalised environmental campaign groups and networks, have continued to exist, campaign and lobby independently of the Greens. The relationship which exists between the ALP and the trade union movement does not exist between the environmental movement and the Greens, despite the misconception which some posters on this thread seem to entertain.
The Greens are a political party of individual members who have joined for a range of reasons of which concern for the environment is an important one, but not the sole one. As an example, of the two Green MLCs in Victoria, one (Greg Barber) has a background primarily in the environmental movement but in other movements as well, whilst the other (Sue Pennicuik) has a background in the trade union movement as the Environmental Projects Officer with the AMWU and an OHS organiser with the ACTU (in which capacity she shared an office and responsibilities with Bob Richardson, organiser of the Country Alliance!).
December 13th, 2006 at 10:47 am
“ALP doesn’t think the Northern Metropolitan result looks right”
No, you really did preference the DLP.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I do not get why all the Greens are complaining about the election of DLP candidate instead of Greens candidates, it all just sounds like sour grapes to me.
Quite simply, Labor did the right thing, instead of having Greens control the balance of power, they now share it with the DLP. And the DLP were once part of the Labor party, it can be easily argued that they are much closer to the Labor party than the Greens are.
And most Labor party people remember when the Greens last held a lot of influence in a state, the Tasmanian Labor party definitely remembers.
And for those obsessed with Stephen Fielding – Get over it, even if Stephen Fielding did not get elected, the Liberal and National will still have the Senate majority.
While the Greens might disagree, it is always better, if the party holding the balance of power is not an extremist party.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I heard Lyle Allan on 3LO this morning talking about the DLP. He said basically it was a party of Catholics of Irish descent and that it was anti-Communist but is now concerned with moral issues and is really a party of Labor principles unlike Family First which is really a dummy party for the Liberals. He doesn’t seem too upset about the DLPs election. I seem to recall Lyle writing something about the DLP in a labour history journal in the 1980s.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:20 am
The ALP could have prevented the Coalition from getting a Senate majority if they had preferenced Len Harris of One Nation before they preferenced the National Party. The ALP put One Nation last, with consequences such as the sale of Telstra which Len Harris would not have supported. I’m not advocating support for One Nation, but I think One Nation candidates should have been looked at on an individual basis rather than just preferencing them last, a practice that used to be adopted towards the Communist Party
December 13th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Just to let people know, the “Austin” above is not me
December 13th, 2006 at 11:57 am
dovif: really? You think most ALP voters (and People Power voters) would be in favour of: abolishing the family court; no IVF for single women or lesbians; an end to affirmative action for women; strong anti-pornography (for the kiddies, of course); no funding for abortions or stem-cell research; enforcement of the criminal abortion laws; establishing an Advocate for the Unborn Child; HIV is to be considered a “homosexual disease”; making divorce much harder. These are all DLP policies. And while with two votes they can’t pass them themselves, they can either cut deals Harradine-style to push some of them, or at least use the loud megaphone that they’ve been given by the ALP.
Ironically, given how their election in NMET can be at least partially ascribed to the donkey vote and being before the ALP on the ballot (they got position #1) their policies also include:
Ballot papers in elections to be printed in batches listing the names of candidates and party groups in a variable or rotated order to ensure that no candidate or group gains advantage from the proverbial “donkey vote”.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Chipping in a bit late here since the point has already been made by others but anyway - I agree that a threshold is not the answer. I have no problem, in principle, with someone getting elected on a small primary vote under the preferential system, since I see it as a fair representation of the preferences of the voters … assuming that the votes accurately represent the preferences of the voters - and this is the problem. GVTs mean that it is likely that many ballots do not represent the actual views of voters, and what’s more it makes people cynical and distrustful of preferential voting and or proportional representation, which are not the source of the problem.
One more thing, for those suggesting that the DLP are pretty similar to the ALP anyway, look into some of their policies - they seem pretty close to FF on some issues.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
If people truly believe that the ALP is closer to the DLP then the Greens, that’s fine. Well it’s obviously not fine but you can’t argue against that preference decision. But I don’t believe the DLP and ALP have any similarity at all. The DLP fit quite clearly on the right of the spectrum, much closer to Family First, and many policies far beyond the Liberals.
I’d be interested to find out in any seats where BTL preferences from ALP voters were distributed between DLP and Greens, to see how they flowed (such as Western Victoria).
December 13th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
I had no idea the DLP supported Robson Rotation! Had I known it, I might have voted for them ahead of the ALP. It must surely be the greatest irony.
BTW, “Austin”, the ALP did preference the DLP in NMet but it didn’t influence the result. Early in the counting it looked like it might, by knocking out the Greens, who had less than a quota. I liked your comment anyway.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Those attacking the ALP for doing a deal with the DLP have obviously never read the policy manfesto of the Greens.
The ALP (or at least moderate, sensible elements of the party) has far more in common with the DLP than with the lamentable gang of enviro-thugs/communists/private school rebels that run under the banner of the Greens. The DLP’s view on abortion is probably to the right of most mainstream Victorians. Their views on most other issues however could fit quite comfortably with the moderate Bracks Labor regime.
The rantings and footstamping of the bedwetting Green MLC who outrageously claimed the ALP had caused the election of ‘right-wing nutters’ simply goes to prove that both the ALP and the Liberal Party should always place these filthy malcontents last. They are a blight that oozes such arrogance that they refuse to even accept the people’s verdict.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Antony Green Says:
I’m a bit late to this debate, but I agree with this.
Thresholds exist in other systems exist to block out parties with low levels of support. But it’s simply not necessary under our system where the quota already has that function.
If a party can build up their vote to a quota, even on preferences, then that’s indicative of widespread support. Unless of course, there’s something fishy about how those preferences were attained…
December 13th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
VEC confirms a recount will occur in northern metro.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
A friend in Victoria tells me that apparently at the critical exclusion point the 4th Labor candidate in Western Metro beat the Greens candidate by only 76 votes, and there will be a recount. Any thoughts on that?
December 13th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
I find all this discussion very interesting. In the Lower House seat of Ivanhoe an ex local Mayor, who is also a J. Mulholland polled almost 10% as an independent. It would be interesting to see if a large number of votes went to the Upper House DLP J.Mulholland from Ivanhoe?
December 13th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
“ALP cost the Greens yet another seat and gave it to a party that’s pro-nuclear weapons and anti-abortion.”
Clearly that’s what they meant to do… given that large numbers of the ALP “leadership” are pro-nuke and anti-abortion. It’s about time we realised this.
Sooo… tell me is the ignoring of Isabella organised or is it just a mark of the fact she is the most stupid commenter. Ever.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
OK everyone, here’s the news. The VEC believes up to 6,000 Liberal votes in Northern Metropolitan may have been double counted. With the integrity of the count in doubt, an entire re-count is being undertaken.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Ntbts, I see the ALP’s preferencing the DLP into the Upper House as a stuff-up rather than a conspiracy - although in the light of Fielding’s election in 2004 it could best be described as a case of Proverbs 26:11.
Talking about proverbs, there is an Irish one which explains why I am not responding to Isabella.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Antony, OC readers - and that’s everyone right? - had that news an hour ago.
But in other weirdness, it seems the count sheets reveal that there was a misallocation of the Democrats votes. Not an error with any impact on the result it seems though but still a bit disturbing that a few thousand votes are incorrectly counted.
I think the “computer count” in the way the VEC does it has been rather seriously discredited by this whole exercise. I suspect the government will take a more active interest in such things from now on.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
The Greens are closer in closer ideologicaly to many labor voters than the acctual Labor party, what with the government`s PPPs and suport for privatly run and owned public transport and policy to cut bussiness red tape by 25% (regulations are there for a reason).
The Greens could increase their vote in the traditional labor voting areas but making as point of this.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
“Tom”, Labor voters actually support the Labor Party - unlike the Greens and many of the Tomato Left they are not trapped helplessly sometime in the 1960s-70s.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
In relation to How to vote cards, I believe in Tasmania, you cant hand them out in State Elections, which apart from rotation and hare/clarke affects the results
Maybe in future elections the party symbol should be on the ballot paper as well as the name
Finally the list system in New Sealand and Scotland, correct me if I am wrong, but you can only vote above the line (in NZ its a simple tick). Therefore you cant vote below the line even inside a party’s ticket.
Personally,I still believe in abolition of the upper house and having a lower house with a / some PR and single member electorates.
I note in NZ and Scotland you can run for both the list and an individaul seat. If you get elected to both you chose (or must take the single member seat?)
To those that think the ALP and DLP are a natural fit, I’d suggest you talk to those ALP members who went through the split or were involved in the labour movment afterwards. The fact that families were tor apart, people lost jobs will never be forgotten by a lot of older aged ALP members.
Following on from Andrew Landeryou’s comments, does this change your veiw Andrew on computer voting elections?. AS you know I always opposed you, but I seem to remember you proposing it at university
December 13th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
For a report on how computer counts can go pear-shaped, see:
link
December 13th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
For Labor supporters to bewail the rise of the Greens is like complaining about globalisation. Their rise was inevitable eventually. The event that initiated their breakthrough was the 2001 election and Labor’s response to the Tampa. At the time Labor’s response was hailed as brilliant hard-headed realism that kept many Labor MPs in parliament (until they lost their seats in 2004) and saved them from a life of desperate post-election poverty and distress. Sometimes doing the right thing turns out to be the politically pragmatic strategy in the longer term.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
And, how about this, which I just received in an e-mail:
You might be interested to know that the Vic Greens are trying to get out 160
scrutineers to go to the tally room because of the Western Metro upper
house seat. It seems that the Greens lost it by 76 votes.
Apparently the recount is starting in 16 minutes from now, and will
go on till midnight.
Did we lnow about this?
December 13th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Must be Western Vic, not Western Metro.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
No, it’s WMET alright. It started at 1:30 pm apparently, expected to finish at midnight.
If Group Votes were Ticket votes, the ALP-GRN gap at the fork in the road would be about 3,000 votes. There are 8,000 ALP BTLs. Given that an ALP scrutineers report from one booth on the Sat night said 50% of ALP1 BTL was going to GRN1, no wonder it was close.
There is a recount going on in WVIC too, though.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
I used to be a scrutineer and numbers man for the Irish Labour Party (3rd party by size) and have been involved in many, many, many recounts. One went for 2 weeks. It was the last seat in a 5 seat constituency, and it went back and forth between 3 candidates by 2-4 votes on the 23 count. The winner decided if the government had a majority or not.
Just so I understand. All the votes are typed into a computer, for BTL votes operators enter the preference orders? Why bother, it is simple enough just to group them in batches and count the batches. You need a bit of room but not that much. It is then much easier for the scrutineers to challenge the validity of votes (which is why Irish recounts can take a while, we love a good argument over if a ballot paper stamp is correctly applied or is that one really a seven or isn’t that person dead while at the polling booth, etc.). Usually the majority of our seats are counted by the end of following day.
December 13th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
The incompetence of the Victorian Electoral Commission is plain for all to see: what a complete mess!
December 13th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
“Maybe in future elections the party symbol should be on the ballot paper as well as the name”
I’m all for this suggestion of Peter Mitchell’s - people who are functionally illiterate would benefit from this (particularly in the upper house voting above the line).
Lee Naish also makes a valid point - “it seems the VEC did not comply with Section 73A(1) of the Electoral Act 2002 - “(1) If a group voting ticket is, or group voting tickets are, registered for the purposes of a Council election, the Commission must cause the ticket or tickets to be prominently displayed at the election day voting centres in a manner determined by the Commissionâ€.” - people at the booth where I was handing out HTVs were asking to see the group tickets, and I was telling them that they could see them inside as they had to be displayed - until a lady came back out and informed me that they were NOT on display. I had to go inside and ask for them - and the guy running the booth couldn’t find them. It was only because I insisted that he eventually went through boxes and dug them out - after which he did show them to anyone who asked, but they were not displayed.
I also wondered (as I scrutineered) how many of the informal votes that were obviously meant to be formal (as opposed to the ones where people have written something stupid or not filled anything in at all) were done by people who had refused to take any HTVs - and wondered whether maybe the VEC should do their own HTVs showing what a formal vote and what an informal vote look like, and whether people should have to take one if they don’t take any others.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Well, before everyone goes spare, it is important to remember that scrutineers are part of the counting system. If an error has occured, it is always important that sufficient documentation exists that it can be located and corrected. If an error has occured, and they can occur, that’s what scrutineers are there for, to look for errors. If Electoral Commissions were omnipotent and incapable of error, there wouldn’t need to be scrutineers.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
I find this is all taking its toll on the old ticker! So when do we know? Tonight, next week or is this another Palm Beach, Florida. I felt that poor old Steve Bracks looked very much like Al Gore.
But seriously, when do we know?
December 13th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Tomorrow morning by the sounds of it.
It’s interesting that at 3pm the ABC reported Tully as rejecting the idea that there had been an error in North Metro, yet apparently by that time he had already changed his mind and ordered a recount.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
My concern about the emergence from nothing of groups like Family First and this time the DLP is that it’s unclear what the full range of their policies will turn out to be - irrespective of what might appear on their website. For example, how could any voter at the time of the 2004 election know what Steve Fielding was going to do on media changes. He didn’t know himself it seems virtually up to the time he spoke on the bill, with one of the lamest-ever speeches in the Senate.
I don’t think that the two DLP Legislative Councillors are likely to have much in common with the DLP Senators, 1955-74, other than the name. They will be able to make it up as they go along, which places an enormous amount of trust in their integrity and political judgement.
I also noted that Paul Kavanagh (WVic) was claiming his success as an anti-abortion mandate. Since he and Family First, unequivocal anti-abortion votes represented about 5% of the vote, I think this is a contestable claim. Other candidates whose preferences pushed Mr. K. over the line would I suspect have vaired views on this issue, while most voters would regard the abortion issue as peripheral if not irrelevant to their concerns. Of course, he’s entitled to use spurious “mandate” claims as much as the Prime Minister, the Premier or any other party; however, we’re entitled to treat such claims circumspectly.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Peter, I don’t think there will be two DLP MLCs, but even if there are, won’t make much difference to anything. The ALP and Greens will have 21 seats between them, so no DLP bill to bring back the Spanish Inquisition will get passed. The Bracks government is not to change the abortion law or legislate for assisted suicide, legal cannabis or same-sex marriage, so the DLP won’t get a chance to block these even if it could. If the DLP knock us off in West Vic and North Metro, that’s sad for the candidates concerned, but it doesn’t actually mean very much. Labor never expected to retain control of the Council at this election, and Labor governments live quite happily with upper houses they don’t control in four states already. As it happens, I don’t think the DLP will win North Metro, so we will have 20 seats, a blocking majority. On top of only losing seven Assembly seats, that’s a very good result for a government seeking a third term.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
I think there is something wrong here. I spent mpore time looking back at the published results and all indications are rthat there is data-entry/configuration problem. Again the VEC should publihsed the below the line data as it is the only way that the results of the computeriused election can be verified.
If in deed it does turn out to be q flaw in the VEC system then more questions will be asked about the conduct of the election.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Based on the results published by the VEC The Greeens should be over quota with the distribution of the Greens below the line votes. This would meadn that the Democrats ticket vote should flow direct to the DLP which would leave the ALP just below quota and only requiring a small leakage of othert below-the-liine votes.
I have updated my count sheet and analysis page.
http://melbcity.topcities.com
December 13th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Further to Adams point. Regardless of the result in NMET the ALP+DLP will be 21 seats. So they will be able to not be influenced by the Brown controlled Reds in the Greens.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I am pleased more and more people are beginning to wake up to what I have been saying all along. The VEC is in need of serious review. If the result in Northern Metro indeed turns out to be a computer error then a lot more questions will be asked including calling on the VEC to publish its software certification documentation.
Any computerized counting system must be more transparent and all relevant data including the BTL preference data MUST be published. the Buck stops at Tully who has given cause on more then one occasion for serious doubt about his ability to manage the election process and to ensure that it is open and transparent.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
This like a reunion of ALP true believer hacks here. To answer Peter’s question, I think what I’d like to see is a full implementation of computer voting (where the voter actually votes on a touchscreen). For safety’s sake a paper printout could be made as a backup and stored in the machine which would be called the Van Der Craats 3000.
William’s rumour about an error in the data entry is interesting. If true it confirms long-held concerns about the process.
Clearly a system which uses paper ballots and then keying them in manually is the worst of both possible worlds.
Local council elections I have observed have shown that many times. It makes a scrutiny of the count nearly impossible.
This situation confirms it, either use paper and count it manually OR have it all done electronically with a paper back-up in case it’s hacked or something.
But this neither fish nor fowl arrangement is a joke. The best of people and intentions - and I have no doubt the VEC folk mean very well and are doing their best in trying circumstances - have created an A-grade, rolled gold farce.
BTW, I’m rarely brave enough to make predictions on the OC, so I’ll make one here. Elasmar will win northern metro and it won’t even be close.
While I’m at it, in Western Elaine Carbines deficit is seriously narrowing, now as few as 30-40 votes apparently. THis is the lower house equivalent of 3-4 votes, so I suspect another recount might be in order.
And in Western Metro Henry Barlow, known as Ned Flanders to his friends, appears to be reasonably safe.
Will update with any developments as the evening’s counting progresses either here or at the OC.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Melbcity, your post 7:22pm I’m assuming has a typo where you say the Democrats ticket vote will flow to the DLP. The Dems ticket vote goes to the ALP not the DLP.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
News at hand is that the problem definately lies with the Tully Management and the VEC computer system. Without a copy of the belwo the line data file it is impossible to verify the results of the election. I took the AEC and the City fo Melbourne to court in 1999 over this extact issue. I won my case hands down. It is fundamental that the electoral office provide this datafile. All indocation is that the VEC has stuffed up in teh configuration of the database. Millions of dollars spent on soaftware developmenrt that is seriously flawed. At first the VEC claimed that teh software could not export data. A Lie. I had to complain to the State Parliament and soon after the VEC released a export data option. An option that we were orginally told did not exist. the VEC must be held accountable and Tully must share the blame a responsibility for this momumental stuff up.
Chances are that the VEC screwed up in the data input of the above the line votes value.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Sorry yes should read ALP
December 13th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Andrew so far as I know I am the only ALP true believer hack (TBH) here, and I have been blamed for everything from rotten preference deals to the Hundred Years War. Perhaps you could advertise at your website for more TBHs to come to my aid.
As Andrew indicates, it still possible that Labor’s rotten preference deals (RPDs) will pay off and we will get 21 seats and the Party of God will get 0. I will expect some apologies if that happens.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
the ZDemocrats have a split ticket but in each case their preference go to teh ALP before the DLP. If you add the ALP vote and the Democrats ticfket vote teh ALP should be over quota. Again I refer to my count sheet and the analysis page. … Tully has an obligation to come clean and admit teh stuff uo and publish all the data. We need to put an end to this technocratic secrecy coverup. Spending thousnads of dollars in re entering the data is not the solution if teh problem is in the data-entry of above the line data. Again look at the published collated primary votes results…
If Tully does not act responsibly and publish the data then there should be an enquiry into the VEC managment of the election. There are way too many issues that need to review. Tully should resign or be sacked.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Adam as a member of the ALP (over 28 years) I fullly support the preference deals as they offered a realsitic outcome. It is also worth noting that the DLP had a higher primary vote then many members of parliament elected in the lower house. They also had a higher primary vote then the ALP third candidate. Both have a right to be elected. We have a preferential voting system and it works from above and below. It is one of the best voting systems in the world. There is room for improvement but the fundamental principle is sound even if the detailed execution is flawed.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Further in response to Andrew, experience in the US so far with computer voting has been very bad. The 13th District of Florida debacle, which cost the Democrats a House seat, is the latest example. I move we stay with paper and pencil until the alternative is proved to work every time.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
William said: UPDATE IV (13/12/06): I have heard rumours of a VEC data entry error which saw a 0 entered as a 6,… “Commissioner Tully has rejected suggestions the Northern Metropolitan result has come from a computer error”.
Ahhh the dreaded zero-sum error. One of the major problems with the NSW LC count in 2003, was the practice by partially-trained operators of entering zeros where an error had occurred on a ballot paper (some errors are allowed- the Saving Provisions). But the zeros caused the computer to reject the papers as exhausted. Hansen Technologies had to rewrite the software to get over the problem.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
I note with ongoing concern that the VEC has withdrawn the published first preference results and printed a summary of the election results. Victoria is fast becoming the laughing stock of the world eclipsing Florida USA. This whole election has been poorly managed from day one. First there was the refusal of Tully to provide postal votes statistics then there was revelations that the VEC had access the polling results of the e-voting system illegally before the close of the polls on Saturday November 25.
This has been folled up by the VEC refusing to release the detailed data-files. (Previously the VEC said that this information would be released.)
All this undermines public confidence in the VEC and Tully’s leadership and inability to deliver a honest open and transparent electoral system. Whilst some of the responsibility lies with middle management and technical staff the fact remains that the buck stops at the top. If the result is flawed as expected then Tully must accept responsibility and design or be sacked.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Geoff, it was even more bizarre than that. NSW is the only state where if you make an error and cross out a preference and write the number next to the square, the preference will not count. Due to an strange court ruling at a by-election years ago, the number must be within the square to count. A zero was entered in for these cases as an interim measure, it hadn’t apparently been thought through before hand and mucked up when they tried to transfer the formal ballots from the data entry machine to the counting engine.
Thankfully, that silly provision has removed from the electoral act in time for the 2007 election.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
IrishLad said: for BTL votes, operators enter the preference orders? Why bother, it is simple enough just to group them in batches and count the batches. You need a bit of room but not that much.
Well, with N squares to fill, potentially there are N! permutations. If you allow any N from 5 to the maximum, it’s worse. In NVIC, the total possible number of BTLs is in excess of 5e44 (5 followed by 44 zeros). [What’s the quota for that, then?]
In reality, it’s probably no slower to key in the numbers than it is to sort the papers by eye into batches. Imagine what it’s like under Robson rotation.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
VEC data entry at work
http://tinylink.com/?Go89Ndyy3m
December 13th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Again for all those who would cry foul at the election of the DLP candidates, take note of this.
Assuming the result is upheld on recount in NMET, the DLP achieved their quota without the help of the ALP preferences.
In WVIC they almost got there (.94 *quota) without ALP preferences. In fact they would only have needed ~2% of the total ALP vote to achieve quota. I can’t believe that there would be any less than this at the right of the ALP who would prefer DLP over the Greens.
So get over it guys. The arguments about the election not reflecting the preferences of the people are wearing a bit thin.
The DLP will support many more of Labor’s initiatives than that of the conservative opposition. They will just serve to moderate many of the nasty social excesses of the Greens.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
This was more the result of partisan interference. The Congressional race was difficult to locate on the machines in the Dem-leaning county; whereas there were no such problems Rep-leaning counties.
So the blame shouldn’t be laid at the feet of computer voting, more the rotten political culture that prevails in the US.
Whatever the faults of the VEC (and they have their critics in this thread!), their impartiality is not in question.
And I’m not necessarily proponent of computer voting. But I believe it has worked just fine in the ACT.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
I will stand corrected on this, but the GTV system is the ONLY, repeat ONLY system in the world that is capable of delivering the fifth seat in either Western Victoria or Northern Metropolitan. The DLP’s victory would not have been possible under any other form of proportional representation, and that includes Tasmanian Hare-Clark where voters give their preferences, or even under a Hare-Clark system that had compulsory preferences and allowed how to vote cards. The victory is only possible because of GTV.
That’s why I’m mystified you are so keen to ablish GTV Ray.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Ray,
Ray,
Social excesses of the Greens? hmmm let’s see, even the AMA see sense in the Greens drugs policy (as well as several European countries and the Labor party a couple of years ago). In terms of same sex law reform… how is that an excess? Human rights an excess?
Greens policy sounds a bit mainstream to me.
Adam, I think it’s great that some Laborites will defend the preferences (Good news for the Greens as more people wake up to the real ALP). I know some ALP members (including former ministers) who are absolutely mortified at the result.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:06 am
In 1970 in NSW Jack Kane was elected to the Senate from the DLP. There was no group voting then. Voters had to mark a consecutive number for every candidate. Kane was elected for much the same reason that John Mulholland is ahead, although this may change. Kane got a fairly low percentage of the total votes, but got preferences from everybody else, including the ALP. Had the ALP directed preferences to Diana Ward from the Australia Party she would have won.
The abolition of GVT does not mean the DLP would not have won, if they do win. John Mulholland gets preferences from everyone, including the ALP, except the Greens who don’t count as they are just over a quota and their surplus is worthless. Mulholland got above Nazih Elasmar because he got everyone’s preferences and was high enough intitially to benefit from preferences of candidates below him.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Hi folks,
I have greatly enjoyed reading all of your pre and post election posts. It has been most informative and entertaining, and also bewildering.
I would like to take the opportunity to point out that as far as the counting of Legislative Council votes goes, here in Queensland there is never any confusion, and it literaly takes no time at all.
Best wishes to all for a safe and happy Chritmas & New Year.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:14 am
“Is that a quota or a divisor? Does it matter? ”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Hare-Clark, D’Hondt and Sainte-Lague will all agree on the number of candidates elected who (in Hare-Clark) get quota in their own right. So in this sense you can start D’Hondt and Sainte-Lague counts by applying a quota initially. (Actually this quota is not exactly the same as the Hare quota, but in real examples there is a vanishingly small probability of the difference making a difference.)
The difference comes in how you elect candidates to the non-filled quota positions. Divisor systems do this from primary votes alone; Hare-Clark of course uses preferences to fill quotas. All three can give quite different results for these final seats.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:37 am
John Cain has already spoken out in disgust about the possability of siding with the DLP in ANYTHING, something about he would rather lose the next election to the coalition then work with the DLP. And yes I know he is only a former premier, but apparently he still has influence.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:54 am
In 1965-66, the DLP senators voted with the government 36.4 per cent of the time and with the ALP 46.4 per cent of the time; in 1967, the figures were 66.3 per cent and 21.3 per cent. (Malcolm Mackerras, The Australian Senate 1965-1967: Who Held Control?)
If the current Democratic Labor Party’s 2 would-be MLCs survive the recount, I expect that they will vote with the Australian Labor Party more often than they will vote with the Liberals. The Victorian Liberal Party of today is far more right wing than was the Liberal Party of the 1960s. The ALP has also moved to the right over the last 40 years.
Lionel Murphy worked with the DLP to set up the Senate committee system, something the Democrats now falsely claim credit for.
Jacinta Collins has the No. 1 spot on the ALP Senate ticket, so I would not expect the 2007 ALP/DLP/FF preference deal to be the same as the one in 2004.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:06 am
With the death of communism and the embrace of the US alliance by the ALP, I would regard the two Labor parties as a ‘natural fit’. I keep in touch with five former presidents of the Victorian DLP. I would categorise four of them as Labor supporters, though to my knowledge only one actually joined the ALP, while the fifth actually joined the Liberals - and became disillusioned.
PS Adam,
I have been called a true believer - once - but never a hack - and I’m here - but not for much longer.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:11 am
The loathing which John Cain expresses for the DLP springs from a host of events,and he shares that revulsion with a multitude of Labor voters.
Dave…You may not know much Victorian history,but in 1955 the founders of the DLP destroyed a Vic. Labor Government led by John Cain Senior,in a split which kept the Conservatives in power until Whitlam won despite the DLP in 1972.
In all those years DLP preferences kept the Liberals in power in Canberra,and in Victoria too,and those in the present Vic. ALP whose brokered the deal with the DLP should be ashamed to spit on the memory of older Labor activists who defeated the DLP.
Today the DLP are a politicaL wing of the Right to Life.linked as always to Right Wing Catholic groups like Opus Dei.
So that’s way they are loathed for the bigots they are…as John Cain said tonight “they are a Sectarian snake” as they always were !
December 14th, 2006 at 2:47 am
I’ve updated the OC with the latest goings on. Appears that Nazih Elasmar was elected after all, although Western Metropolitan may elect a Green rather than Labor’s Henry Barlow in the fifth spot. The DLP still looks like winning the last spot in Western Victoria with a candidate who appears one of the most qualified of all. Check out his bio, most impressive:
http://www.dlpforwestvic.org/pages/biography.html
December 14th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Well, in 1970, the DLP got 7% in NSW, three times the Western Vic vote and 2% higher than Northern Met, and Labor polled a lower vote of 45.5%, further away from the quota than Labor’s northern met vote.
Unfortunately, Adam Carr’s website is down for the 1970 election so I can’t check the rest of the count. I’ll take a guess and bet it had something to do with ballot order, as in those days parties used to produce how-to-vote cards with a simple left to right ordering to cut down on informal votes.
I’ll have to leave Adam to say how that the 1970 result occuured. As I said, I’ll stand corrected, but if it is as I’m guessing the 1970 result had something to do with ballot order, I’m happy to modify my statement to say that the DLP could only have been elected based on group ticket voting, or by a system based on compulsory preferential voting where parties issue how-to-vote cards based on minimizing the informal vote rather than ideology.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Martin B, no, the quota you are talking about is only an approximate of D’Hondt or Sainte-Lague. All the seats are filled by divisors. Using a quota allows you to approximate the result but only with the approximate number of seats.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Thanks Andrew for the answer.
Adam your claims at being the only ALP person here is nice but not true.
Van der Craats 28 years, Andrew Landeryou over 20 years, myself 23 years
December 14th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Guess I’m one of those people who march to the sound of a different drum.
I’m not saying anything dodgy is going on, but first the government does
not get the result it wants in the upper house, gets a recount, surprise!, a
better result for the government. And there seems to now be a sense of
arrogance and contempt from people, towards those who do not agree with
their point of view, from both sides of the spectrum, and people seem to
forget the faults of their preferred side, whilst finding every little fault with
the opposition. In our democracy, we’re supposed to see the good from
all sides and ditch the bad, but alas that does not seem the case, and I guess I’ll be castigated somehow over this.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Col Dicker,
I don’t do castigation, but I do think you have misread the situation.
The government has not done better as a result of the recount. It still has 19 seats. They are just a different 19. The government is in fact worse off because before the recount, with two DLP MLCs, it could get legislation passed by the combined votes of both Labor parties. Now it cannot. The DLP’s single MLC can join with the ALP to defeat any Opposition move, but for the government to get legislation passed it will need the support of the Greens. However, this will turn out to be only a minor problem, and life will, as ever, go on.
The main point is that the current Legislative Council is the most representative we have had since the modern multi-party system developed. That the government cannot automatically have its proposed laws passed is no bad thing. It is to the everlasting credit of the Bracks Government that it reformed the Upper House, knowing that it would put its own majority at risk. It is to the everlasting shame of the Liberals that they stopped this reform in 1973 (by breaking a election promise they themselves had given), 1985 and c2001 because they wanted a system that almost guaranteed their side of politics a majority forever.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Further to Andrew’s, Adam’s and Peter Mitchell’s posts, I had better come clean also. The Victorian Branch of the ALP have sentenced me to life (41 years and counting). However I’ve never held a job with the Party or any MP, so I’m not sure if that disqualifies me from the honorary title, TBH.
I’m not particularly happy with the DLP getting a leg up from Labor preferences, but I think it’s a least worst outcome of the “deal”. Deals can rarely be completely one-sided, so it’s hard to envisage how the ALP could have turned 42-44% of the vote in particular regions into three quotas, or 58-59% in Western Met into four quotas, without deals. So, on balance, I think Stephen Newnham- if he’s the one to be praised or blamed - has done pretty well with his dealing.
I understand why John Cain would feel particularly aggrieved about the DLP’s revival - even though I think this incarnation of it is only vaguely connected (if at all) to the McManus-Little-Chris Curtis party.
I also think it’s quite erroneous of Joan Kirner to conflate the deplorable factional games which shafted Elaine Carbines with the deals with the DLP. I can’t see how Elaine was further disadvantaged by dealing with the DLP, nor how she would have been advantaged by refusing to deal with them, and preferencing the Greens, given her precarious spot on the Labor ticket.
December 16th, 2006 at 9:11 am
I am curious. Where exactly did the VEC make this monumental error of stupidity? The age newspaper http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dlp-loses-seat-in-recount/2006/12/14/1165685825280.html reports that the mistake was in a data entry error instead of 40666 they recorded 46666 votes to the Liberal Party. Limited information published by the VEC shows that the Liberal Party received an above-the-line vote of 81000 + votes. Where exactly was the requirement for the VEC to enter in 40666 votes?
Again without access to detailed election results there is no way to independently verify or analysis the election result. What is clear is that the information published by the VEC just does not add up.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:01 am
In viewing the various counts sheet I fail to see where in the count the VEC was required to enter in a 406666 let alone 466666 as we were told by the Vic. There is much more wrong with the count then that. It looks as thought the VEC did not undertake what is normal practice a check that the total number of votes recorded tallied with the number of ballot papers issued. without polling place breakdowns and the statistical information we had requested from the VEC but was refused by Steve Tully its impossible to properly scrutinise the count. may question and very few answers. Steve tolland the ten operations of the VEC will come under review when the Parliamentary Elections committee meets next year.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:25 am
In viewing the summary count sheet related to the provisional and red count the data-entry problem was with Giby Mathews (Liberal) and not the democrats as previously reported. The stupidity of it all is that if the VEC did basic check, which is normally done, to ensure that the number of votes recorded match the number of votes received then they would have known in advance, before pressing Go that there was a major mistake in the count. A quick tally check with the VEC published XML file would have even shown that.. Incompetent management and poor designed software. the VEc spent millions of dollars duplicating software that the AEC had in place. sure the AEc software needs an upgrade uop the duplication of costs can not be justified or explained unless someone connected to the VEC is getting a kickback., Another reason or explanation as to why the VEC may have withheld public information on the details of the results of the election .