By popular demand, I hereby open a new thread for discussion of the extraordinarily tight three-way race in the Victorian upper house region of Southern Metropolitan. Earlier expectations that the final seat would come down to a race between Labor’s Evan Thornley and the Greens’ Sue Pennicuik have been undone by an unexpectedly strong performance by the Liberals on postals, which has strengthened the hand of their third candidate David Southwick. Remarkably, the current result in quota terms is 3.00 for the Liberals, 1.99 for Labor and 1.00 for the Greens, making it a near-perfect three-way tie in the race for the final seat. The Greens have suffered the worst in late counting, such that the possibility has emerged of the Liberals winning the seat with a tiny surplus that helps elect Thornley, who will receive it as preferences ahead of the Greens’ Sue Pennicuik. The irony of Liberal preferences delivering Labor an upper house majority is being widely remarked upon, though their decision to put the Greens last always meant it was a serious possibility. Antony Green explains in comments that this is a rare occasion where below-the-line votes will prove decisive, so that "the models where you treat below-the-line votes as ticket votes" – such as the calculators at Upperhouse.info – "are too crude in such a close count":
What you need to do now is break the count into above and below the line votes. Add the tickets of Family First and the DLP to the Liberal vote. Add the Democrat ticket to the Greens, and People Power and Group C tickets to Labor’s vote. At this point, none of these three totals reaches a full quota, though the Greens are the closest. The balance is determined by the below the line votes. Unless the relative percentage of Labor, Liberal or Green increases against the other, none of these totals will reach a quota. The real unknown is what happens if enough BTL votes drift to the Greens. If this happens, then the Democrat ticket will elect the Green, and release a small number of ticket preferences for Labor … What Labor needs to win the last spot is for as many BTL votes to drift to the Greens before the Democrat ticket is distributed. Unless the relative %’s of the party change again, on the current count Labor will need a surplus from the Greens to win the last spot.
252 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 6 » Show All
I haven’t entered into the debate for a while but here is my six penneth worth. I agree with Anthony Green about the order the three candidates who will finish in the last two to be elected.
My calculations are that the Green in SM is 1587 under a quota, the third Lib (Southwick) is 1832 under a quota, and the second ALP 3533 under a quota. I think the Green Pennicuik is likely to be elected to the fourth spot unless she gets very few btl votes (which I haven’t counted, other than btl for Pennicuik the first three Libs and the first two ALP). My calculation is that the notional quota is 51468. On the figures displayed tonight I think it will be very difficult for Thornley to get over the line, but not impossible, in the absence of knowledge about most btl votes. Only late votes running towards the ALP atl, Bentley atl, and Mayne atl can save Thornley missing out.
It is possible the last candidate could be elected with less than a quota, but unlikely, as this would require a majority of btl votes to exhaust.
Melb city asked for comments on the election live media coverage. I listened to ABC News Radio and followed the VEC results online. I thought it was the poorest election coverage I’ve heard or read from anywhere in 10 years.
The calling of Caulfield for Family First (based on dodgy VEC figures admittedly) was a great clanger.
Jon Faine kept saying “good morning” and laughing about it.
There was too much hype about the Green vote in the lower house, which remained static anyway, and little analysis of regional peculiarities like Morwell, South West Coast and Gembrook.
As for the upper house, well this post says it all.
I agree. There was far too much waffle and not enough telling us who was polling what where. For those of us who were stuck in polling booths scruntineering, the ABC was the only to know what was going on, and bloody Jon Faine kept giving us his opinions and no facts. It was very annoying. The over-hyping of the Greens was a problem across all the media.
Good call Michael. What did you think of Bill Shortens (Short) presentation. I thought he was good, sharp and too the point.
Re order of preferences. The Act stats clearly votes in an exclusion are distributed the following order.
1) Primary votes for the lead candidate
2) Aggregated secondary primary votes at full value received from any candidate as they all have the same value
3) All other votes aggregated in descending order of value.
It is point 2 above that I strongly disagree with under the current rules. If you are going to have segmentation then every candidates secondary primary vote should be a separate transaction based on the order in which they were received and not lumped together with every other secondary primary vote. At first it makes little to no difference but towards the end it makes a huge difference (over 100 votes or more in value depending where and when the surplus occurs and if its in this aggregated secondary primary distribution, YES it is a big distortion)
With computer based technology there is not reason to justify segmentation. It was designed to off-set the impact of the paper- based surplus formula which was used to simplify the manual counting process.
With computers and the adoption of a value based surplus calculation we could treat each candidate as one single transaction and then calculate any surplus. One transaction per candidate. Remainders could stay with the candidates and their is no needs to maintain a Integer based count. Then the speakers calculator will be more accurate.
IF we must adopt segmentation the FIFO (First In First out) should be the what is required. I would not go so far as to recommend the Meeks system but it would be preferable to the current secondary aggregated primary distribution. (It does not matter if no one is elected on this distribution but it does if they are) Technical but I am sure there are those out there that understand what I am talking about.
The calculation of a candidates surplus on the value of the vote as opposed to the the number of papers MUST also be changed as it favours major parties ticket votes whose value is increased at the expense of the supplementary below the line votes. The principle of a paper based calculation is wrong and in close election such as Western Victoria it does and will make a difference.
I am told that only a hand full of votes exhaust and no where near as much as 20% as suggested. More like 1% of the BTL I think. But that can make a difference in a very very close election as we are witnessing here. History in the making. (Thank god and the ALP we do not have random sampling in Victoria)
Putting aside the issues of poilitics its an exciting race but lack the detail. I am all for online real time counting statistics. Much more could be done to make the process much open and transparent and accountable
The befallen Demo gods did not hand out a split ticket this time. Any Idea why? How many of the Democrats BTL vote will split and flow to the Liberal Party or the ALP before the Greens. Same for PP and all the other minor parties BTL votes.
Again look at my count sheet. http://melbcity.topcities.com (note no www.)
Yes percentages are count but percentages are calculated from the numbers and we are already beyond the single decimal place percentage and well into two decimal and maybe even the third decimal place. (But then we have an integer based system also. The is a significant remainder issue when its this close.
Lyle: As of last night the quota was 5149. I am sure you should be able to read my count sheet. Knowing full well you experience and interest in PR overall. The ALP is use to dealing with proportional counts as it uses PR in its internal voting system. John Lenders in particular is a killed PRist. Its the quirky rule issues that make it QUIRKY not the principle behind proportional representation. It most certainly is a good reflection of the electorate and in my view well suited to upper-houses.
Ahh I am not counting the indendent votes. Sorry Lyle your right. I might crate a three way split ticket for him… and brng it via the minor parties and the Democrats/PP.
John Myers, whoever he is, votes might be crucial in this election.
If there is a legal challenge related Southern Metropolitan and in all probibility it will most likely get to court with all parties challenging the results, I wonder how much the e-voting system will stand up to the legal scrutny with a clear indication that the VEC accessed the data files prior to the close of the ballot. Copies of the data have not been made available to scrutineers. I can see a lot if issues that are open for discussion. Even if Thornley or Southwick scapes across the line the litigation that will follow will delay Their appointment for some time. If I recall it goes first to the magistrates court then to VCAT (Or is that only the case in municipal elections) I could involve all three (or even four) of our state courts. Mr Tully will be baptised by fire over this one. I better start pulling my documents and emails together… This is going to be a long long wait. I am sure this site might even become embroiled in a possible legal bun fight.
Who is John Myers and where does his 245 votes go… do they reverse donkey vote or does he have a distinct support base and his vote is disciplined.
Has anyone noticed that in the most recent 1.26% of the vote released yesterday afternoon, the trend for the ALP’s lead over the Greens to be eroded, accelerated sharply? With several percent of the vote still to be counted, I put the ALP vote for the last seat to be 8.92%. The Greens vote, with Socalist Alliance prefrences at 8.60%. This represents a .22% improvement for the Greens in one sixth or so of the remaining votes. If the trend continues, won’t the Greens outpoll the ALP for the last seat?
Took a closer look at the ABC election analysis and it means nothing really. Antony you need to start producing BTL candidate data of some sort. I think it is faro to say that a vast majority of BTL will stay within the group of their first preference. Any vote for a lead candidate will get stepped up in the ATL ticket transfer as it is first preferences not tickets that are transferred. Te ticket is only a way of allocating a first preference to the lead candidate and preferences down the group and beyond. The ABC results model goes out the window when it is this close. a lot more what if’s need to be considered. Bary Myers vote is potentially crucial to the outcome and does not show up in any current analysis including mine. I am working on it. Hopefully backed up by scutineers information. This could a reversed dokey vote or a very small sectional interest group. Does it has a focued direction is the question.
I susspect that teh drift away from teh main players will have a greater effect then Myuers but again you need to start making some allowance for teh BTL votes in gerater detail then your current analysis.
I received campaign literature from Barry Myers the day after the poll, on a Sunday, as I now live in Southern Metropolitan Region. Obviously he paid someone to distribute and they did it late. Probably didn’t have much influence on his vote. The pamphlet was woeful. Mr Myers says he was narrowly defeated by a Labor candidate once for Kew Council. By a Labor candidate in Kew? No person in his or her right mind would admit to being an ALP member standing for the old Kew Council, and the same for a Liberal Party member in the old Northcote Council like Anglea Kotsiras, a good Councillor and lovely person, and the wife of Nick, Liberal MLA for Bulleen and a good bloke. Angela stood as an Independent, like ALP members with any brains now do in Boorondara, other than in the Ashburton area where Labor normally polls OK.
Mr Myers also tells us his religion, and that is not normally a good idea unless you are running in an area full of Mormons (if you are one, like in Utah. No disrespect intended to adherents of the LDS religion). The DLP was heavily populated with Catholics yet never claimed that it was. It had many non-Catholic members, like its leader Robert Joshua and Senator Jack Little. The old DLP would not have supported the privatisations of both major parties, and, although morally conservative and anti-Communist, it was in many ways socially progressive. Australians don’t like their political parties to have religious affiliations, by and large.
Mr Myers vote may be crucial, as Anthony you correctly point out. I suspect it will go all over the place. A certain number of voters vote at random. It is also possible he has a lot of friends, but friends don’t always vote the way they say they will vote and their preferences cannot be predicted. Only scrutineers can probably give us some idea. On election night I disappointed Evan Thornley’s campaign office at not being able to give them some idea of how btl preferences were going. My eyesight is failing and I needed new glasses (which I bought yesterday) and just wasn’t able to look at btl votes closely enough. I used to be able to do it in Council elections and could get it correct most of the time, but this one is much harder. Also my polling booth, which voted Liberal in the lower house, may not have been typical for the region which, while overly conservative, does have Labor pockets.
Living in Sydney, I was able to watch ABC TV’s election night coverage on the ABC2 Digital Channel. A very professional job from the ABC, as always, and I love the computer graphics/swingometer. Also, a good panel consisting of John Brumby and Robert Doyle.
I don’t think election night programs on radio work quite as effectively.
According to today’s Australian: the ALP is confident of retaining Mt Waverley and Gembrook, and for the first time, they’re ahead in Ferntree Gully. Nothing on the Upper House.
And, if you believed Michael Brissenden’s report on ABC TV’s Stateline last night, the numbers in the caucus favour a Rudd victory on Monday.
Has anyone noticed that in the most recent 1.26% of the vote released yesterday afternoon, the trend for the ALP’s lead over the Greens to be eroded, accelerated sharply? With several percent of the vote still to be counted, I put the ALP vote for the last seat to be 8.92%. The Greens vote, with Socalist Alliance preferences at 8.60%. This represents a .22% improvement for the Greens in one sixth or so of the remaining votes. If the trend continues, won’t the Greens outpoll the ALP for the last seat?
Lyle: I know you are a very good scrutineer, I am sorry to hear about your eyesight. We are all getting older. For the record Lyle was a strong supported and campaign for electoral reform. Lyle what booth were you scrutineering at?
I understand that if the result of the election is comes down to a few bundles there will most certainly be a legal challenge although it is possible that if Labor loses the Government might think it unwise to challenge the result as there would be a backlash against the government if fresh elections would be called. The cost of holding fresh elections would be considerable. There is also the unknown question as to weather all five vacancies would have to re-run. If Southwick is the loser then you can count on a legal challenge. All parties are bracing themselves and collecting data and information on various issues of concern related to the conduct of the election. Looks very much like we could be seeing another Nunawading in the making. Early days but its a possibility. Anyone with information on polling day problems and complaints about the VEC can leave comments on my blog. (Issues ralated to the e-voting system are already under question) Any comment marked confidential in the first line will not be published. Names and contacts protected.
While weait in suspension for mor information which in all probability will not come until next week. What are the issues and percentage of outcomes for each of the minor party/individual candidates moving off tickets and where would you suggest they go. I have the democrats splitting 40% Green ALP 30% Lib 20% Libs? People Power might jump straight to the ALP or again split three ways, likewise with the DLP but its hard to know. Family First I expect will hold ticket.. What percentage do you think will exhaust?
Any comments and suggestions? We can create split tickets and pump in the results and see what direction and outcomes might emerge.
At this stage of the count I see even at a strong disadvantage but then I am told there is more votes expected form where who knows. Not enough information available from the VEC (Very Elusive Corporation).
I don’t think there will be a move off ticket from the DLP to the Greens. If there is, it is my guess that it would be 3-5% at most. The only way it is likely to happen is if someone who would normally vote Green votes for the DLP because they know the candidate. There is too much difference in the party stances otherwise.
DLP to Labor and DLP to the Liberals? We really need all three…
I’ve just cleared a bunch of comments out of moderation – sorry for the delay.
Ok To outline in further detail how the segmentation systems works
If we take the Democrats vote for example
The last Democrat candidate standing is the Democrats number one.
When they are excluded all the Primary votes directly attributed to the number one spot (That’s the Democrats Ticket and any BTL votes that the no one held) are distributed as a single Transaction. The ticket vote travels in one direction and the BTL votes may or may not follow.
This could put a nother candidate just below quota with only a marginal number of percentage points to cross the line.
Its the next segmentation that I take issue too.
Under the rules of the Victorian System after the distribution of the Candidates first primary vote all other votes are bundled up and distributed based on the value of the vote. i.e votes of teh same value make up one single transaction.
All of the secondary primary (Full value votes) that came to the Democrats Number one are bundled up into one parcel and then distributed as one single transaction (This Transaction can be bigger then the Democrates original primary vote as we have seen with the DLP after it keeps collecting on its way.) Votes from People Power and any other below the line vote that has a full value attached to it that came to teh democrates on the way to elect a candiadte still in the race .. This is and can be a huge transaction often much bigger then the transaction before it and one that should be broken down into smaller transactions.
If a Candidate is elected on this segment, and there are still remaining candidates to be elected, then the surplus that this transaction can create is huge. The candidate elected may have a very large number of votes with very small value but now their value is increased above and beyond their original value. All of a sudden they are given extra value because under the VEC rules the quota is calculated on the number of papers not the value of the vote received. Votes that may have had a small value are all of a increased in value and full value votes decrease to a below value vote. All votes in the surplus are now transferred at equal value even though some were worth full value and other a fraction of full value.
This seriously distorts the one vote one value system
Segmentation was introduced to try and offset the paper based surplus calculation flaw, which itself was introduced to ease manual counting (A case of two wrongs trying to make a right) Whilst this exact scenario is not the case in Southern Metro it is never the less an issue of principle that MUST be addressed sooner rather then later.
If segmentation is to remain then this secondary full value vote pile bust be further segmented and not lumped together into one transaction.
Its this bundling up of secondary primary votes and treating then as a single truncation that’s of concern. If we are going to retain segmentation (and I argue get rid of it) we must 1) adopt a value based surplus calculation and 2) segment all primary votes based on the original parcel of first preferences. Each one being a single transaction.
I am not sure if this has made the issue clearer or if some readers are still confused.
Above the line voting reduces the likely impact of this but it still exists and the votes of the main parties can substantially increase as a result.
Analysis of the Victorian Local Government elections clearly shows this to be the case.
MelbCity says: I am not sure if this has made the issue clearer or if some readers are still confused.
Put me in the latter category. Perhaps it would be clearer if you rewrote the above using the more usual terms of “parcels” or “packets” and “transfers”. Antony, correct me if I’m wrong, but a “transfer” would normally consist of a number of “parcels”. Within every transfer, the parcels are dealt with in the order in which the candidate received them and as a unit. The wording of most Acts is a little hazy- they say that if, during a transfer, a candidate becomes elected, that candidate shall receive no more votes. On the other hand, they say that such an elected candidate shall not have their surplus distributed until the transfer is complete. So it is a little unclear whether an elected candidate ceases to receive votes at a “parcel boundary” or a “transfer boundary”. This was a question raised during the 2001 Vic Senate count and it was clear when examining the cut-up print-out that the latter was meant. That is why candidates can be elected on a distribution with rather large surpluses by this process.
On the progress in West Vic, I am informed that the process of entering BTLs is very slow. Many bundles have not even left the Assembly Electorate Offices yet. No BTL data appears to being entered into the computer yet: the verified BTLs are being bundled up and taken to the computer hall, but no entries are being made. The estimated time for pressing the buttons is next Wednesday week. In West Vic, many Carbines BTLs leave for the Greens. No absentee votes seemed to have shown up anywhere yet, but the Greens’ scrutineers report that The Greens % Absentee vote in The Assembly in the area is twice that of the “Ordinary”.
Clarification: I said No BTL data appears to being entered into the computer yet.
By this I mean the cut-up computer, where the images of the ballots are entered. Vote count data is, of course being entered.
These observations come from the Greens scrutineers. They say that there are very few srutineers from other Parties in the West Vic counting room. On one day this week, scrutineers (and counters?) waited around for some time to receive BTLs, but they gave up and went home.
Geoff: From my reading of the VIC Act, there is one difference between the Victorian rules and the Senate. In Victoria, the full value votes are split into two bundles. The first bundle is the primary votes for the excluded candidate. The second bundle is the full value preferences received by the excluded candidate. From my reading of the Commonwealth Act, these two bundles would be distributed in the same bundle.
As MelbCity points out, at the exclusion of the Democrat candidate, the Democrat primary votes will be distributed first. This will include all the Democrat ticket votes. If the Greens are close enough to a quota to be elected, then this bundle will elect the Green and create a small surplus. This surplus will consist mainly of Green and Democrat ticket votes and flow to Labor. However, Labor would like this surplus to be as large as possible. The size will depend on how many BTL votes leek to the Greens before the Democrat is excluded.
If the Democrat bundle does elect the Green, the small Green surplus is distributed, then the next bundle is the votes received by the Democrats as preferences. This includes the People Power preferences flowing to Labor and all the BTL preferences. None of these can flow to the Green at this point as the Greens have already filled their quota. It would have been better for Labor’s chances if these had gone into the surplus electing the Green, as this would have resulted in Green and Democrat tickets going into the surplus, effectively replacing BTL votes.
If the Democrat ticket does not get the Green over the line, then it will be the bundle of full value preferences received by the Democrats that will be distributed. This will include all of the People Power ticket votes that will flow to Labor. The question is then where the BTL votes go. If enough flow to the Greens to get them over the line, then this bundle will produce a very small surplus. Labor would certainly have preferred that these votes were distributed at the same time as the Democrat ticket votes, as it would have maximised the size and the number of Green ticket votes in any surplus.
The effect that MelbCity is talking about is that when votes at a reduced value are transferred to a candidate causing them to go above the quota, the current method used to calculate the surplus is based on a procedure that is better suited to a manual count. Any reduced value votes go back to full value in the calculation of the surplus. This can lead to some votes increasing in value, and can weight the votes in a manner that is certainly not optimum.
However, I disagree this will matter in the case of the Greens reaching a quota. The reduced value votes are nearly all locked into the Liberal and Labor tickets, not with the Greens. When the Green surplus is calculated, there will be reduced transfer value votes included, but their numbers will be very small and will not create much of an impact.
It may matter if the Liberals reach the third quota before the Greens. It would result in a tiny number of David Southwicks’s preferences being distributed first, then a number of full value preferences including the Family First and DLP preferences being distributed, before the Liberal ticket votes in the third bundle. You can try to take account of this, but again, it all depends on the BTL preferences.
Whether the Liberal or Greens reach a full quota first, it is in Labor’s interest that the surplus be as large as possible when they reach the quota. You can try and model this break-up of the votes, but in the end the point is it depends on the BTL votes, which we really don’t know a lot about.
Ummm guys have you not considered which electorates Absentees/ prepolls have been counted so far?
As far as I know Albert Park and Prahran are yet to be counted. If that is so, these are heavy Green Areas. Remember our lower house vote was 30% in some of these booths. On the night, our upper house votes were roughly 2% over the lower house vote in these seats.
Yes and no. First it is not a group vote that is distributed it is always the candidates vote. People forget this fact.
1. The first transaction consists of primary votes belonging to the candidate. If the candidate is the number one within the group then they hold the ticket vote as their first preference
3. The second transfer consists of all other full value preferences.
This includes primary votes from preferences within the the group that can to the candidate via an earlier exclusion PULS and other votes form any other candidate (I refer to this as a secondary or second hand Primary vote at full value.
3. The subsequent transfers are bundled up on the basis of their value and transferred in order of their value.
Note: (Transfers 2 and 3 are listed in the act as being the same based on the order of value of the vote but I have separated them a bit to try and make it more clearer.)
If a subsequent candidate is elected on the first transfer above then its the normal FIFO process, BUT if the First transfer 1 above happened to just bring a subsequent candidate just below quota then it is the next transfer that begins to seriously distort the system. The secondary (second hand) primary vote is the largest transfer as it includes the ticket vote plus and other non ticket full primary vote that was received in all previous transfers. This is can be a very huge bundle and gets bigger and bigger as the transfers consolidate
Most systems of segmentation break the primary full valued vote down into small parcels and more transactions. I am taking all this from my experience with the City of Melbourne count which is the same system used by VEC in this case.
It took me by surprised when I realised they were not segmenting further the Secondary primaries… I was in shock when I looed at teh VEC count sheet it sent be back to the legislation having thought there was a serious error in the VEC programe and then I realised the error was in the legislated requirements.
This distortion mainly comes into effect when there is a delayed election of the fourth candidate in a five member electorate. (It can some into effect in 3 or more member electortes but not so common when you have above the line voting which ony Melbourne City Council and the State Government have at present.)
You can have a situation where after the first transaction above a candidate who is the beneficiary a from a major ticket already elected has a lot of very small valued ballot papers in some case it be as low as 0.1 and they are sitting just below quota and whack this huge value of collected secondary full value votes lands on them and they are way way over over a quota. The candiadtes surplus is divided equally by all the ballot papers including the 25,000 full preferences just recived and the 100,000 small valued preferences . If and when this situation occurs the surplus of say 20,000 votes is divided equally by all 125,000 votes…
Having said this I am highlighting a flaw in the system and in most cases this does not eventuate because of the disciplined manner of the ABTL voting system (it skipps this particular segmentaion) but it can and will happen in an election if not this election in some future election.
It’s the major flaw in the current segmentation system adopted by the VEC. As I said I was shocked when I realized it was happening as I am use to each primary vote being broken down into smaller transactions but this is not the way it is done I am afraid. Which is why I am opposed now to segmentation. If it was broken down in smaller FIFO transactions I would not be so fussed. the grouping together of smaller valued votes of the same value I have no problem with. I can even except the idea of changing the order based on the highest to lowest value BUT I CAN NOT ACCEPT AGGREGATED DISTRIBUTION OF SECONDARY (SECONDHAND) PRIMARY VOTES AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION.
The best way of showing this is and if it happens. Often a subsequent candidate is pushed over the line by the first transaction of an exclusion BUT IT IS WHEN THEY ARE PUSHED OVER THE LINE BY THE SECOND TRANSCATON ABOVE THE PROBLEMS BECOMES WORST.
Having sounded the alarm over this serious flaw in the system I do not think it will apply in Southern Metropolitan but if it does then the flow on effect is considerable indeed. Segmentation meets surplus flaw.
If the surplus is calculated on the value of teh vote as opposed on the number of ballot papers then segmentation does not matter you could do away with it all together and transfer all of the candidates votes in one transaction. A value based forumla is by far the best and more democractic. one vote one value.
Data entry I am told starts next week. Monday is the dealine for postals to be received.
In reply to Upperhouse Expert. December 1 9:07 PM (Your post was delayed in moderation) I agree with your assessment and yes this puts Evan Thornley in the wasted quota basket. My count sheet, whilst not as spelt out as Antony’s is, in more detail as it shows the various segmentations that will apply. There will be more segments due to drift of BTL.
No counts over the weekend. It looks like the VEc is only updating its web count tally at 11:30 and 5PM. Still teh booth results have not changed since election night so I assume they have fogotten to update this page.
I have added an alanysis page on my spreedshet web page BUT it does not match the distribution because the distribution order takes into account the distortion of the paper based surplus formula and segmentation order which is crucial to the result.
Remeber also that the BTL votes for the ALP and the Liberal Party are locked on and except for a handfull of votes they will stay with the group.
The nuber one and two of teh liberal party groups BTL voets form part of the Liberal Quota and as do the ALP number one votes below the line for Lenders which are absorbed into Lenders quota. Monday we should begin to know more. Last day for postals to arrive. Still know idea of what is expected. We have to wait to the train to arrvive at the station. No timetable and no map to assist in knowing when..
Antony said: Geoff: From my reading of the VIC Act, there is one difference between the Victorian rules and the Senate. In Victoria, the full value votes are split into two bundles. The first bundle is the primary votes for the excluded candidate. The second bundle is the full value preferences received by the excluded candidate. From my reading of the Commonwealth Act, these two bundles would be distributed in the same bundle.
Umm, I’m not so sure the Senate is like that…. but maybe it IS different in an AEC computer count. In manual days, ballot papers were never actually moved around, “counting cards” with numbers written on them were moved around. As a candidate received a bundle of votes, either a card was written out and placed face-down on the stack, or a card from another candidate was transfrred to the stack. There would be one card for every bundle of votes held by a candidate. This business about transferring cards rather than ballot papers is not written into the Act nor the Regulations. Tasmania first used it, and the AEC adopted it. The only place it ever seems to have been mentioned is in the Senate Scrutiny Handbook, which I believe the AEC still cites as an explanation of the method.
When the exclusion took place, the stack of cards would be turned face up and the cards would be dealt out one-by-one from the top of the stack to the next available candidate. Thus, I believe that an excluded candidate with their own and other peoples’ full-value votes (N cards in total), would be dealt seriatum and the N full-value cards would not be transferred simultaneously. I don’t think the computerisation changed this principle.
I think it did Geoff. All votes are distributed as a single count for votes of equal value. Where once there would be dozens and sometimes hundreds of individual counts with each exclusion, now there is only 4 or 5, one for each transfer value.
At the 2006 Tasmanian election, equal transfer value counts were used for the first time. Instead of votes being moved in individual bundles, all bundles of equal value went out at the same time. So in Bass at the 2006 election, there were only 44 individual ‘counts’ to complete the distribution of preferences, where previously there were hundreds.
South Australia is the only state that retains individual counts for each bundle, the FIFO system that MelbCity keeps referring to.
Hey Dinesh, where did you get the info about overseas ballots from?
The problem comes towards the end when the number of secondary primary (Full Value) votes is huge. This pile should be broken down. Better still adopt a value based surplus formula and then you can have a single transfer one per candidate. The current rules are plain and simple unfair.
In discussion I am tld that if Evan Thornley wins the seat there will be a court challenge. If Evan loses and Southwick wins be it by the smallest margine the ALP can not afford the outcome of a challenge. It is the Government and it is in a winning position and if there is a court challenge and fresh elections are called then the ALP will most certainly lose out as the swing againt the governbment in a by-re-election or fresh electon would be much higher then last weeks State Election.
If Evan Thronely scapes in and crosses the line then the Liberal Party have nothing to lose and can only gain, they will challenge the election in court.
Are you doing this from the beach, Antony, or are you such a pathetic psephoholic that you have given up your weekend?
I have to hit the road guys. Sadly I can not hang around much longer waiting for the VEC to get its act together. Will try and look in on the election as time progresses but not sure if I will have an internet connection. Have e-fun.
Oh. I found out more about John Myers. He is a Doctor who has been caught up in a fight with the medical profession and the establishment. He is campaign for the Guardianship Act to be amended so as to separate physical from mental disability in its administration. There are elderly people out there that would prefer to spend there last days at home but their family do not want the burden and responsibility and prefer they are cared for in a hospice. Whilst I can not comment with any authority I think he may have a real and valid grievance. His votes are not directed towards any one but his campiagn is against the government and their unwilliness to review and admend the Guardianship Act.
Below is his campaign letter…
Dear Fellow Citizen, Southern Metropolitan Region,
Election time is the time to check and audit for quality assurance. The reason I am standing for election is to ensure that everyone has the right to a choice of their own to ensure their own happiness.
At present this is being denied to many, especially the elderly. frail or disabled, by decisions made in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) who appoint administrators, such as State Trustees. or other agents of government to manage your finances, or Guardians appointed from the Office of the Public Advocate’s who tell people where they can and can’t live, whom they can .associate with, who they can see for medical treatment and when they can see them and they restrict legal access as well, against their wishes. This is “abuse” by government. It is an issue that politicians run away from rather than address. Threats, intimidation and reprisal are aimed at those who have principles and who object. The Ombudsman is not able to do anything about it by an Act of Parliament. According to a letter from his office. the Attorney General has no immediate plans to review the Guardianship and Administration Act, 1986, which is where the problem lies.
By voting for me you will give a message that is at the heart of democracy and your own independence. I will not be getting voting preferences from other candidates, but you can and must distribute mine by electing at least four other candidates to exercise your full choice in this election. Party politics is only part of it. Happiness, your own shared and hope is the rest.
Remember voting Myers, John Barry, 1, ensures your independence and your preferences, numbered from 2. 3, 4, 5 or more below the line on the ballot paper.
The recent document “strengthening Victoria’s response to Elder Abuse” excludes the government from the definition of abuse and aims to target families, where relationships exist. If’ adopted. as intended after the election by Labour, this would give further strength to the government to continue this abuse, but little or no chance for anyone to challenge the system. All that is required is that the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 is amended, so as not to lump physical disability with .mental disability. Disability does not determine competence in real life, but is does according to the Act. Disability is not the same as a person’s capacity. The latter means that a person can still make choices. This is denied them on the basis that a physical or mental disability (not incapacity) exists.
This is an ageing population. Will the resolve and attitude of those who seek to restrict our freedoms change? We have to strengthen our position to continue to lead, to innovate, to show compassion and understanding. Each one of us has to bring this about.
Every candidate in the lower and upper house must be focused enough to do something about this. I am standing in this election to make you aware of this. because it is an issue of concern to everyone of us, young and old. It is an issue that is above party politics.
By voting 1 Myers, John Barry, and for at least four other candidates numbered in sequence from 2 to 5 below the line, you will be sending a message to Government
that we the citizens of this State care about one another enough to put party politics and local State issues aside for a moment in order to stop these ongoing abuses.
We are mature fellow citizens of Victoria. Australians.
We recognise that happiness is shared. We will no longer put up with these ongoing abuses.
We vote to stop abuse by changing the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 and powers of VCAT, and support the award of costs and damages as compensation and as a check on abuses by agents of government.
We vote to stop those who wield power for the sake of it.
We expect that this will be done. Vote Myers, John Barry. I. and for at least four other candidates, by numbering your choices from 2 onwards in sequence below the line.
And in addition to augment the above:
intend to introduce an air of freedom rather than ongoing enforcement into our lives and to strengthen the good in government.
I support the youth, school children and school leavers. university study and apprenticeships, and give credit wherever credit is due – to mothers and fathers, to families and singles who lead productive lives.
I support more neighborliness in our region. Respect for the environment as a community resource that increases our standard of living, reduces depression and adds meaning to our lives.
Other Policies and attitudes:
Traffic and Police: Engage police – make the law enforcers aware they are citizens’ resources – by introducing merit points to promote safer driving. For every one “caught” speeding. give the same amount of merit points to the next three drivers not speeding to encourage safer driving practices. 12 merit points in 3 years equals $20 FREE PETROL from the Government.
2. Roof water strategy
3. Global energy in your own backyard – stop lopping, start growing
4. Possum project in schools – making houses for possums. Free as a gift to people to place safely in tall trees.
5. Seek capital gains bonuses from the Federal government for investors up to $50.000.00 (fifty thousand dollars) as a percentage of profit, for saving mature trees and incorporating innovative design in all projects.
6. Recognise friendly solutions to noise pollution and lighting disturbance.
7. Support economically sustainable policies of benefit to the community put forward-by government
8. Regard intellectual growth as the basis of future growth and development and at the same time reward productivity and craftsmanship.
9. Acknowledge innovation in a harmonious environment
10. Promote public trusts, i.e. Citizen groups, to review the decisions of government agencies and to promote arbitration as opposed to confrontation, to settle disputes, thereby increasing people’s say in their own governance.
11. To be open to your views and ideas and to address these in Parliament.
12. And to thank you for your support, this fine day.
MAINTAIN YOUR INDEPENDENCE and YOUR STRENGTH VOTE 1. MYERS John Barry and in sequence for at least four other candidates numbered from 2 to five, placing all the numbers carefully below the line on November 25 2006 • 5767
Authorised by John B Myers 39 Balaclava Road Balaclava 3183 – Printed by Avlon Printing 1a Viking Court Cheltenham North 3192 – Registered by the Victorian Electoral Commission
On the front page he says he is Jewish, and lost an election to Kew Council by four votes against a labour (sic) candidate about twenty years ago. He was born in South Africa and he became an Australian citizen in 1978. His children attended Camberwell High School and now attend the University of Melbourne.
I agree with John comletely. I have a physical disability and have run into many problems with the two types being combined as they are now. As far as I’m aware only the Greens and PP were campaigning to seperate these, so people voting on the basis of his letter are most likely to preference one of them. Probably Sue, she has been big on disabilty while Stephen highlights gambling more as the important issue. So my very uneducated guess is that most of his vote will go to Sue
Statement above sent but delayed in moderation
I want to wait until more votes come in before I comment further but I think Melbcity’s counting sheets show how difficult it will be for ET to win unless he gets the benefit of the Greens getting fourth spot and a big above the quota. I suspect this to be unlikely.
John Myers raises your platform a week after the election was finished!!
Mate your talking rubbish if you think State Trustees abuses the Disabled, if anything they are the ones whom save the disabled from the abuse.
The Guardianship & Administration act is a very clear and easy act to follow, I suggest if you have any proof of abuse, and I seriously doubt it, take it to VCAT, that’s what its there for.
I would advise that the Disabled deserve better than your muck racking. as I said VCAT and the Act are very open and easy to access.
By the way the Election ended last week.
bmwofoz, I didn’t say the State Trustees abuses us, I said the system is very bad. If you can find 5 people who are part of the system (disabled or carers) who are not very dissatified with how they are treated, I will stop using a wheelchair.
If the election has finished, then why don’t we have all conclusive results? Do you know something we don’t?
Londoner,
I wasn’t talking about the London votes.
I was talking about absentee and pre-polls and postals for the upper house in electorates of Albert Park and Prahran.
Rud in Beazley out. hello next prime minister
Hi Guys,
But I think Western Victoria is becoming interesting again with the Greens set to overtake the ALP and hence giving the last seat to the DLP! Fancy, the Greens helping the DLP. Interesting days ahead
Maybe time for some Labor humble pie in relation to the Greens. Is lenders the best LC leader in this position?
Latest update for SOuth Metropolitan. If you do the assume all votes are ticket vote, Thornley wins the last spot by 440 votes. If you take the three party totals plus assured ticket votes, then the Liberals are 1418 short of a quota, Labor 2519 and the Greens 547. There are 4,480 minor party BTL votes that decide the outcome. Bit only 78.13% counted. Clearly lots more votes to be entered that could change the relative %’s.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 6 » Show All