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.
189 Comments
Wow, who would have predicted that? Thornely gets over the line, and the DLP wins 2 seats. If the numbers stay as they are currently, the ALP obviously will need the support of either the DLP or Greens to pass legislation.
I wonder if the DLP has a chance of winning seats in next March’s N.S.W election?
William, thanks once again for your tireless work on this site.
All amateur and professional psephologists are eternally grateful!
I’m not surprised about North metro may be re-counted. On Monday’s figures, Labor was 3,200 votes ahead on guaranteed preference tickets and there weren’t a lot of free BTL votes floating around. A DLP victory would only occur if the Green’s achievement of a quota was significantly delayed by leakage of BTL votes out of their ticket. Sounds like that counting report will be well and truly poured over.
The DLP has no chance of winning election to the NSW Parliament because it is not a registered party and there are no preferences to provide a helpful leg-up. Registration of parties for the NSW election closed in March this year.
That’s pored over, not poured over.
Before everyone gets too worked up, this result has very little practical significance. Labor and the Greens have 21 seats, so the Opposition and DLP won’t be able to cause Bracks any major problems. If Bracks wants to legislate “to the left”, he will have the support of the Greens.
The result does however reinforce my view that elections for multi-member seats with preferential voting need a 5% threshold to prevent microparties preference surfing in this way.
Unbelievable. The ALP has done it again.
First Steven Fielding and Fundamentalists First, and now two DLP nutcases.
People! Please stop voting 1 above the line for the ALP! You never know where your vote will go…
The DLP doesn’t exist in NSW, only Victoria. Likewise, Family First is practically nonexistent in NSW, comparatively, and won’t be running. But maybe it’s an encouraging sign for other far-right parties in NSW like the CDP.
And I guess this proves wrong those people who said the ALP couldn’t be stupid enough, after electing Steven Fielding, to do it again. You set the standard for intelligence lower and lower for the ALP, and they continue to beat it. Now that is impressive!
In NMET the critical point would come when the cut-up had to decide beween DLP and ALP. If all votes had been tickets, the gap here between the two would have been about 3,800, with ALP ahead. That’s the number of BTLs that must have leaked.
There were about 23,300 BTLs all told. Of these, about 10,300 were for candidates where their party’s ticket vote placed the ALP ahead of the DLP. Of these, the ALPs BTL, principally for their #1, would be diluted from 7,200 to about 4,500 by prior election, meaning that fewer than 8,000 aberrant BTLs must have done it. Thus, the aberrany rate seems to have been rather high- near 50%. But, this is not uncompatible with what the scrutineers reported for other parties’ BTLs in other seats.
Do we get to see the numbers soon?
It occurred to me that this would be an ideal thing to watch live on the web- a bit like watching the BOM’s rain radars (only if it takes more than a few minutes, but).
Ben, Fielding was elected because both the ALP and the Democrats chose, for perfectly sound tactical reasons, to do preference deals with Family First by which they preferenced FF ahead of the Greens. Both the ALP and the Greens polled fewer primary votes than they expected, allowing FF to get ahead and be the beneficiary of the deal.
This is not what has happened in North Metro. The Greens have got their seat, and Labor has missed out on 3 seats, despite having 2.9 quotas, because the DLP got 0.3 of a quota in primaries, then got 0.2 from FF prefs and 0.4 from the Libs. I don’t see how this can be ascribed to ALP stupidity. What really got them up was left-to-right donkey vote.
Adam, I’m sure you’re smart enough to know Ben was talking about Western Vic where the ALP cost the Greens yet another seat and gave it to a party that’s pro-nuclear weapons and anti-abortion.
I’d also counter your suggestion that the ALP and Democrats did a preference deal with FF for perfectly sound reasons. Sure, if your ONLY goal is to get as many ALP people elected as possible, then they are perfectly sound reasons. But if you have a secondary goal which is to get as many other (like-minded) progressive people elected to parliament, then it’s certainly not perfectly sound.
Mullholland must be in a pickle – actually getting people elected rather than the usual “Harold Stassen”-type result.
Adam, if people won’t countenance optional preferential voting, a threshold quota is what the major parties will agree on and introduce, because that advantages them and disadvantages everyone else. This result is going to push the major parties to do something like a threshold quota, which means they can continue with silly games with preferences, but secure that they cannot reverse, as occurred at the 2004 Federal election with Family First and in Western Victoria with the DLP. Northern Metro is a slightly different case, as the DLP victory is just produced by stacking party results, not through the unexpected reversal of a preference deal. Though it is still a result that could not be produced by any other system.
So, chalk this one up as another election when the outcome doesn’t express the will of the electorate, but reflects deals done between the parties. Bring in Optional Prefential Voting I say. If parties are forced to campiagn for votes, force them to campiagn for preferences as well, and not rely on these obscure backroom deals.
There isn’t another electoral system in the world that could have converted the DLP’s 2.6% in Western Victoria into a seat in Parliament. The DLP is elected on the preferences of Family First, National Party, Liberal Party and Labor Party, all parties that easily outpolled its vote. Odd don’t you think?
Ben did not say which seat he was talking about.
Yes, the only goal of the ALP is to get ALP candidates elected. The ALP has no interest in helping the Greens win seats. It is a matter of indifference to me which non-Labor parties win which seats. If the Greens want seats they can do the work to get the votes to win them, just as we do.
In 2004 the deal with FF was the best tactic to win three Senate seats. It fell through because the public didn’t like our federal leader and as a result we didn’t get enough primary votes (and nor did the Greens). If in 2007 it seems that the best way for Labor to win three Senate seats is to do another deal with FF, I would support doing the deal again.
And lets add, Labor may have got the DLP up in Western Victoria, but what was the other leg of the deal? Labor got a fourth seat in Western Metropolitan on DLP preferences. The Greens miss two seats, the DLP get 1, Labor gets 1.
And, yes, Antony, I would also support an agreement with the Libs to bring in a threshold to prevent microparties fluking seats.
Yes, but what threshold? A quarter of a quota? Half of a quota? I’m sure the major parties will make it as high as possible.
Then you set up dummy parties to split a minor party’s vote in the hope of pushing them below a quota.
And another point. The DLP polled 1.17%, 1.07% and 0.89% in the three regions where they were to the right of the Labor Party on the ballot paper. In the five regions where they were to the left of Labor on the ballot, they polled 5.14% (with donkey in NMET), 2.64, 2.13, 1.55 and 1.16. Interesting.
Something is a miss about Northern Metro.. Will the VEC be publishing the below-the-line preference data? If not then the conduct of the election will again be held in disrepute. I am totally opposed to the introduction of an undemocratic and just artfical quata system. You mifght as well bulid in a 25% quota and lock the greens out also. The fact ios that it is the all parties and teh voters that have decided to elect a party that comes from behind. An artifical quota barrier is discrimatory and unjust. If introduced iut would be a blight on then Australian political system and the end
to the ideal of a fair go mate. Fix the distortions in the voting ssystenm first and foremost. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Anthony
I don’t know why some people refer to the DLP as a far right party. I haven’t looked at their policies lately, but growing up in the Latrobe Valley and attending a Catholic school I knew quite a few DLP people and their views were mainstream or left wing except on social issues.
I think it’s actually a good result for Labor. They will get nearly all of their legislation through the upper house with either Greens or DLP support depending on the issue.
I would support a 5% threshold as I have said several times. A party which can’t crack 5% in a multi-member seat doesn’t really deserve representation. 5% is less than a third of a quota so it can’t be said to be excluding parties with real public support.
Yes of course you are right about the left-right donkey vote. We tried in 1955 to stop the DLP using the word “Labor” but we lost in the Supeme Court and we are stuck with it. Blame Doc Evatt for that. The only solution is to have rotating ballots like they do (I believe) in Tasmania (or is it the ACT?), but of course that would push the informal vote up to 10% in working class seats so we are not going to do that.
MelbCity, the question at the moment is actually about the ATL tickets and whether the counting system has an error. As of 9:30 tonight, the parties will be given CD-ROMs containing the detailed counts in each region. The full reports are huge and produced by a particularly un-web friendly report program. One thing you can be sure of, the Labor Party has its best LC people on standby to dissect North Metro.
Adam you say “the ALP and the Democrats chose, for perfectly sound tactical reasons, to do preference deals with Family First by which they preferenced FF ahead of the Greens”.
Was it perfectly sound to risk giving Howard control of the Senate via Fielding ? Howard’s subsequent IR reforms, VSU & cross media legislation are a direct result of this deal. Labor is directly responsible for the situation that let them happen.
Now we see Labor do again – and yes, they said “it couldn’t happen”. Labor preferences elected no Green, but the Greens elected Labor at least in SM, possibly in WM too. Golly gosh, it really is a one way street, and not at all representative of voter intentions.
The DLP get elected with 2.64% primaries and the Greens don’t with 8.58%. I think the Greens would do well to consider not dancing with devil(s) and just running split tickets across the board.
And we need to reform the ATL system so that these sort of grubby deals can’t happen. This is a travesty of democracy.
It should be noted that the DLP did get 5% in North Metro, so my threshold wouldn’t have stopped Mulholland winning a seat.
So you’re saying that the ALP is more interested in making itself bigger rather than ensuring better legislation (i.e. no VSU or Media/Comms legislation) for Victoria and Australia? By extending that, it sounds as if you’re suggesting the ALP is there to exist for itself rather than for the people. That may be the case (and if the ALP wants that as its modus operandi it’s welcome to it) but if a political party no longer exists for the people, the people may in turn may no longer exist for that political party.
Honestly, I do struggle to think that, given the option, you’d choose another FF deal over repealing the VSU and Media/Comms legislation. If that’s the general feeling in the ALP, then it truly has become a machine.
I have written to the VEC requesting a copy of all the below the line preference data files. Only with this information can the results of the election be verified. The data-file is a public document and there is no reason why this information is not published and made available for public scrutiny and review without delay.
It’s both.
Adam, not a fixed %. Go for a part quota. 5% for a Senate contest might be OK, but at a double dissolution would be more than two-thirds of a quota.
Mind you, one problem of a threshold in Hare-Clark style voting is at what point do you exclude all the other candidates. Say one party gets 2.95 quotas and the other gets 2.2, and all the excluded parties had directed preferences to the first party. You bulk exclude the minors, that first party gets it’s third quota, then all the minor party preferences elect the second party who they did not direct preferences to. Perverse.
The only solution is to exclude them before anyone is elected, to effectively top up the major party votes before starting to elect people. Well, why bother with Hare-Clark and preferences if you do that. South Australia had a system like that in the 1970’s, D’Hondt with one preference. It’s the Group Ticket Votes that create the problem and the way the parties behave. Fix that, don’t change the rest of the system to avoid the problem.
I believe the cause of the Australian people is best served by having one broad centre-left party, and that that party can only be Labor. Fringe parties to our left only do us harm and Labor has no interest (in either sense of the word) in helping them.
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.
(Show Off Mode On)
I tipped a possible DLP win in West Vic on the 16/11:
http://www.upperhouse.info/ArchiveView.aspx?EntryHeadId=71
I get it wrong so often I have to take these opportunities to show off when they’re available.
(Show Off Mode Off)
The new MLC for West Vic posted a comment in the thread if anyone is interested.
Antony, OK, it could be expressed as a % of a quota. Say a quarter of a quota.
I’m not nearly as across the technicalities of this as you are. My assumption is that you would declare those with a quota on the first count elected, then distribute their surpluses, then declare those elected by that surplus elected, and so on, until no-one has a quota. THEN you would exclude all lists that didn’t have a quarter-quota and distribute their votes. What’s wrong with that?
My example above has some inaccuracies but explains how much of problem it is to fit a threshold onto Hare-Clark.
Remember this, all of the European PR systems that have a threshold use D’Hondt, Saint-Lauge or some variant. None of those PR systems use a quota. They are divisor based systems, so depending on how the vote divides up, a party can get elected on a very low vote. That’s why a threshold is used, to cut out this vagarie that can elect parties on very low votes.
But a threshold on a quota based system? I’ll stand corrected but not sure I can immediately think of one.
And furthermore I won’t be lectured on political purity by Greens, who are quite happy to do deals with the Libs when it suits them. That is of course their prerogative, but please spare us the blushing-virgin acts.
Antony your example assumes that the introduction of a quota would have no effect on the behaviour of parties or voters, but of course it would. It would force minor parties to merge or rejoin the larger parties, thus prevention the scenario you set out. And people would know that by voting for microparties they were wasting their votes, so many fewer would do so.
PeterP … Please get your facts right. Fielding voted against Howards IR reforms and has voted with Labour on most impoetant legislation.
That’s “important” not “impotant”
If we’d used a divisor based system similar to Europe the result would have been:
ALP 17, Liberal 14, Greens 4, Nationals 2, Family First 2 and DLP 1
This is a very close fit with the views of the electorate and there is little room for complaint.
“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.”
Right on the money mate – didn’t Garret leave the NDP ’cause Marxists had decided to colonise?
Ah yes Adam. I appeared before the JSCEM arguing the case for a minimum quota, along the lines you suggest. When I suggested that in states like WA, if the system worked against the Democrats and the Greens because they split a similar vote base, they didn’t like that.
I’ll repeat the biggest problem with a threshold quota. If it wasn’t for group ticket voting, you wouldn’t need it, because without group ticket voting, the odd results that have elected two DLP members would hardly ever occur. Get rid of the group ticket voting or modify it in a way that causes parties to be more circumspect in who they give preferences to.
Best case for me is abolish GTV, but allow optional preferential voting above the line. Force parties to encourage voters to direct preferences by filling in the boxes above the line, as occurs with the new NSW Legislative Council system.
# Antony Green Says:
As of 9:30 tonight, the parties will be given CD-ROMs containing the detailed counts in each region. The full reports are huge and produced by a particularly un-web friendly report program.
Would this be the same format as for the Senate?- 1 “page” per “count”, with all votes carried by a candidate lumped together in the tables, followed by the number received at a cut-up and the number resulting? (and other things, incl. TV) The ones I have seen don’t have any dissection of the antecedents of the votes being transferred at any one stage, so it’s very hard to tell whose votes are on the move.
Adam, unfortunately the Australian people currently have zero broad centre-left parties. Possibly why the environmental movement HAS gone from a mass movement to a political party.
Additionally, if you’d learned you history from lectures rather than ALP spin, you’d know that historically the Liberals have preferenced the Greens in the inner city because it made the ALP work harder for the seat. You’d also know that the Greens have historically had a penchant for running open/split tickets regardless of any *deal*.
Perhaps you could remind me what a divisor based system is.
As I said the other night, my preference would be for statewide party-list PR with a 5% threshold. That would have produced the following result:
ALP 19, Lib 15, Green 4, Nat 2
(I have allowed the Nats to sneak up from 4.8 to 5.0, as I think they would in a statewide vote).
Geoff, the reports published after an election are always an abbreviated version of the detailed count. I’ve seen the various versions of the detailed count and they extend to many hundreds of pages and break down each individual count, not the aggregated distributions published as part of the official return.
jh, i learn my history from being there. I was in Qld in 1995 when Drew Hutton did a preference deal with the Libs in the hope of winning Mt Coot-tha. He didn’t win because the good folk of Mt Coot-tha wouldn’t wear him (and who can blame them?), but his rotten deal did bring down the Goss government and put those well known tree-huggers the Qld Nats back in power.
Adam!!! Don’t start on the statwide lists systems here. There are so many variants of divisors!
Just humour me and explain what a “divisor system” is please.
Adam: The PR System we use (STV) is very rare. I think Australia, Malta and the powerless Irish Upper House use it ?
Simple Divisor System (no threshold):
- 100/40 Seats = 2.5% per seat.
- Get party percentage, divide by 2.5%.
- Round to nearest whole number.
Many, many, countries use variants of this technique – and this is for forming government!
Oh so it just means non-preferential PR, like the Netherlands or Israel?
Well let’s get this right.
Labor destroyed an entirely sensible, rational way of electing the Legislative Council and turned the process binto an electoral lucky dip.
This lucky dip delivered two DLP acolytes (and loyal Australian citizens) rather than another two ALP pot plants of the likes of Elaine Carbines.
ALP citizens now whine like rogue hounds at a result (and essentially a system) that has delivered two people that, whatever their merits, don’t deserve to have the letters MLC after their names.
Well I say too bad. The ALP rammed this absurd, fundamentally flawed sstem down the throats of victorian electors. Let the charming fool Evan Thornley earn an honest quid for once in his miserable life and let him negotiate Labor’s agenda with the DLP.
The ALP deserves this ridiculous result. They destroyed the State’s elctoral system, now they should enjoy the fruits of their labour.
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. What a mess!" Could it be that the VEC has failed to take the Democrats’ split ticket into account?
Instead of a quota for election, a system of divisors is used. The idea is to have a system where based on the number of votes each party receives, the party elects enough MPs so that each MP represents roughly the same number of voters. Quota based systems have the problem that it is easy to elect MPs for the full quotas, but how do you resolve the partial quotas.
You put all the votes for each party in a table, and say I am using divisors 1,2,3,4,… (which I think is D’Hondt). Set up one line for each divisor, and the elements in each line are filled by dividing the total votes for each party by the divisor. Once this table is filled, you allocate the seats in order of the largest values in this table. Sounds hideously complex, but it effectively is an iterative process that works out the allocation of MPs so each MP ends up representing roughly the same number of voters, whatever their party.
For technical reasons, the divisors (1,3,5,7, …) are more commonly used, as it is better at averaging votes. (I think this is Saint-Lague) For technical reasons, the D’Hondt method favours minor parties slightly over larger parties, and so Saint-Lague is used.
Even more common is Modified Saint-Lague, which uses the first divisor 1.4 to make it slightly harder for a party to elect its first MP.
This alls sounds hideously complex, but is in fact considerably easier than a Hare-Clark or Senate count, and is much much more widely used. It is the system used in New Zealand, Germany, Europe and nearly everywhjere that uses PR.
These divisors mean there is no quota. The D’Hondt system that labor tried to implement in the ACT was in fact a complete hybrid, bastardised in the Senate. Both preferences and a quota were grafted onto thew system, which was why it took several months to count.
Sorry, all confusing I know, but I’ve had to do that off the top of my head. I’m sure I’ve spelt Saint-Lague wrong.
Andrew: I also hear it may be to do with the Democrat split ticket. The computer has allocated it to the DLP when the Liberal was excluded. Software bug. But that’s why party’s scrutineer counts, to find errors.
I don’t recall any ALP whining, Isabella. I am the ALP member here and on the whole (as I have said several times), I am reasonably happy with the result, although it may well be that the North Metro count is flawed. The government has won a third term with a slightly reduced majority, and has an upper house that won’t cause us any real problems. You’re the one that’s doing all the complaining as far as I can see.
Antony, I think I prefer the Speaker’s explanation on the whole. Just tell me – is the Netherlands an example of what you are describing?
I could understand to some extent people crying foul if the preference “deals” done in this election were totally across idealogical boundaries. But they weren’t. I think everyone is forgetting that the Labor party gave birth to the DLP. They share the same “surname” and their “Christian” name is “Democratic”, which the Labor party is not when it comes to traditional family and moral values. Witness the expulsion of Brian Harridine from the party. However, they do share all of Labors hard fought social justice positions.
As someone on this blog said. Labor needs both wing to fly. This result delivers them both in balance, and will allow the discriminating issues to be debated demactratically by the Parliament instead of by “faceless men”.
The fact that the DLP got elected on a small primary count is evidence of the fact that the conservative leaning parties preferred the DLP to the left. Is someone going to tell me that this would not reflect the will of the majority of conservative voters. And fortunately because CPV applied to the majority of the votes through the conservative tickets, that will was expressed.
Of all those crying foul about this result, how many voted for a conservative party?
The speaker’s explanation is wrong. He is actually calculating a quota first and then allocating seats. His ’rounding to nearest number’, or the alternative ‘largest remainder’ method, cause problems in the average number of MPs each party elects given its level of vote, which is why Quota systems have generally been abandoned and divisor systems used.
Adam : Yes and South Africa, Iraq, Austria, Italy etc
France uses some sort of top-up system to ensure governments get a majority.
Antony: You object to the party list system ?
Ummmmm, if they gave birth, it was a pretty violent birth, and it won’t take long for others to toss in extremely colourful metaphors which I’m too tasteful to air.
Flash: Seems problem might be 8,000 ATL votes that appeared very late, of which 6,000 were for the Liberals.
Antony I still don’t know what a divisor is.
In the Netherlands there are 150 seats and they are allocated to the parties so that each party has as near as possible the same % of seats as they get % of votes. Is that a quota or a divisor? Does it matter?
Point of order, Mr Speaker – France had single-member constituencies the last time I looked.
Adam, that’s right, but they use divisors to allocate the seats to create the proportionality, not a quota to work out the number of seats for each party. The efect of this is there is no minimum quota for election. How the seats get allocated depends on how the vote is split up between parties. There’s a whole literature on the subject almost unknown in Australia, because everyone has grown up here with ‘quota preferential’ methods to resolve the partial quota problem.
“And another point. The DLP polled 1.17%, 1.07% and 0.89% in the three regions where they were to the right of the Labor Party on the ballot paper. In the five regions where they were to the left of Labor on the ballot, they polled 5.14% (with donkey in NMET), 2.64, 2.13, 1.55 and 1.16. Interesting.”
As Mr Green said – interesting – why do we not eliminate this by printing ballot papers which evenly distribute poll position, so to speak. A statistical anomaly at 1.17%, but a considerable distortion at 5.14%?
Antony, does that mean that 8000 legitimate votes have been belatedly counted, and that the DLP win therefore still holds?
That seems a totally metaphysical distinction Antony. If there are 150 seats then the quota is 0.67% of the vote (assuming no threshold), so if you get 6.7% of the vote you get 10 seats. And looking at the recent Dutch election that’s exactly what happened. I don’t see the complexity you seem to want to drag into the explanation.
If the DLP does win North Metro, does that mean that John Mulholland will finally (it’s been so long) have the cash to move out of his mum’s house?
Adam, the ALP has not been even remotely left-wing since Witlam with most policies. As for the Greens being colonised by the far left, most of them left years ago. And the Greens have NEVER preferenced the Libs over the ALP. Had a split or open ticket, yes, but never directt preferences.
I don’t know. If what I reported is correct, there will be some very interesting questions being asked tomorrow.
Adam, because it’s easy with 150 seats. try it with 15 and its not hard to find examples where proportionality is distorted. As I said, that’s why divisors are used. That’s how list PR systems work in most countries.
Bernice, because that would destroy the effectiveness of the how-to-vote card, and produce an informal vote of 10% or more in working-class and migrant areas, which would grossly disadvantage Labor. That doesn’t happen in the ACT or Tasmania because they don’t have wide class or ethnic disparities. But in Victoria where we have a class-and-ethnically-polarised electorate, it would have a huge political effect.
Dave, you are wrong. The Greens preferenced the Libs AND the Nats in key seats in Qld in 1995, thereby electing the Borbidge Govt. Am I not right, Antony?
Dave, before Adam jumps on you, you should realise the Greens haven’t preferenced the coalition in Victoria, but have in other parts of Australia (Qld 95, not sure if it was any other time, though).
The NMET result is a bit of a mystery without seeing the figures. It seems to me (based on the out VEC web site figures which are from Monday), that the DLP must have got over the line helped by the People Power GVT (despite PP being second on the ALP GVT ). I wonder how many of those PP voters really preferred the DLP candidates to the ALP ones. Similarly, in WVIC, I wonder how many ALP voters preferred DLP to Greens. There is probably good grounds to contest these results because (on the evidence available to me), 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 Commission”. Voters had no idea who they were voting for but had this section been complied with, at least some of them would have had more idea how ATL votes translated and may well have voted BTL.
Re: quotas: Please, no! The problem is GVTs – just get rid of them. They were introduced to reduce informal voting in the Senate, but we don’t have the crazy Senate formality rules in the Legislative Council (thank goodness). Of course the parties (and particularly the factions) love GVTs. Ironically, if we had had Hare Clark (by that I mean Quota-Preferential counting + Robson Rotation like in Tasmania and the ACT) the ALP would have most likely won instead of the DLP (or Greens) in WVIC. Their votes would have been more spread out over their candidates and three of them may well have had more votes than the Greens, leading to the Greens being excluded and 3 ALP seats. Similarly, without regimented voting for non-ALP parties, leakage would very likely have got up a third ALP candidate in NMET.
Oops, too late, he got in just before me.
Adam, I’d contend that reducing (or destroying) the effectiveness of HTV cards isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
BTW I am talking about Vic Greens, not the other branches, we dont influece each other. So maybe Drew did pref the Libs, I have never agreed with a lot of the things the QLD branch does.
If you want to disfranchise up to 10% of the electorate, fine. I don’t.
Adam,
I can’t believe some of the things you say here… Seriously I thought you would have had a few more scruples.
You don’t have to give up all your principles when you join the ALP… you can retain some you know.
Dave, the only reason the Greens and the Libs didn’t get into bed this time was that they couldn’t agree on who was going to be on top. If the Libs had promised you prefs in Melbourne and Richmond you would’ve given them whatever they wanted, but they wouldn’t commit so the deal fell through. And let me repeat I have NO OBJECTION to that. All parties do deals that suit them, and the voters judge them accordingly. It’s this pious hypocrisy I object to.
Dinesh, which principles have I given up? So far I have opposed disenfranchising working class people and defended the right of all parties to do whatever deals they like to maximise their vote.
PeterP get your facts straight. Senator Fielding voted against the IR laws, and he only has the casting vote when Senator Joyce crosses the floor.
No one complained when Senator Brown was first elected with only 26,830 votes. Senator Fielding got 56,376 primary votes. No one suggested the Greens or Tasmania was over represented back in 1996.
The rules are the same for all parties…..get over it.
Anyway, enough about saving Adam’s soul.
Oh Adam, I didn’t think you’d get into butch and bitch name calling!
I don’t know about you Antony, but I always like to know who is going to be on top. And if I was dating Julian Cheezle I’d want it all in writing first.
Adam, can you tell me if above where you said “I won’t be lectured on political purity by Greens, who are quite happy to do deals with the Libs” if you made a mistake and meant the singular “deal” (i.e. Qld 95) or if there are other deals the Greens have done with the Libs that I’m not aware about (this is a distinct possibility as most people on here would know more about the Greens history than me). At least you’ve finally agreed that they didn’t actually do a deal with the Libs this time.
Instead of disenfranchising 10% of the electorate, you’re happy to disenfranchise 40% (or whatever the ALP primary vote is REALLY up to at the moment) by helping elect FF and the DLP.
Who’s Julian Cheezle, or am I showing my age? I’m not up on boy bands.
State Director of the Liberal Party
Sheezel (Lib boss)
Ah! Sorry, it’s too late at night for humour. Time for bed.
Let me repeat: I have no objections to any party doing any deals with any other party to maximise their chances, provided they do it openly so voters know what they are voting for. The deal with FF in 2004 was the best way of electing three ALP Senators, which was the ONLY consideration the Vic ALP had any right to take into account. Had the federal Caucus not had a temporary fit of insanity and elected Latham as leader, the deal would have come off and there would be no criticism. It is in the nature of preference deals that they sometimes don’t come off, but political parties nevertheless have to run that risk. As I said before, if the same calculations produce suggest that the same deal will work in 2007, I am all for it. If Labor voters don’t like it, they can always vote BTL.
“the ALP and the Democrats chose, for perfectly sound tactical reasons, to do preference deals with Family First by which they preferenced FF ahead of the Greensâ€
Have they never heard of ‘risk assessment’? We all know that hindsight is 20-20, but *everyone* knew that outright control of the senate was on the table after the 2001 half senate results and the ALP (and the Dems) adopted a tactic that could easily assist the Coalition have a practical majority. You say above that ‘the only goal of the ALP is to get ALP candidates elected’ which on the face of it is absolutely true and should be extended with the corollary ‘and if ALP candidates can’t get up, they don’t care what happens to the country.’
As for the history you learned form ‘being there’ (is it unkind of me to be thinking of a certain movie when I write that?) there’s a couple of things you’ve perhaps forgotten about 1995, not least of which is just how hard the Goss government worked to destroy the support it enjoyed in post-Fitzgerald Qld.
The defining issue in SEQ in that election was the Goss government’s determination to build a second southern freeway through a bunch of marginal seats they *had* to win and through the most significant koala habitat in SEQ. They were absolutely bloody-minded in their refusal to respond to the views of local residents or environmental groups – which rarely goes down well.
On the day, there was a primary vote swing of 5.8% against the ALP leaving them with 42.9%. The Greens polled 2.9% state-wide and directed preferences against Labor in 5(?) out of 89 seats. A proverbial drop in the bucket, but when a government is as on the nose as Goss was, every drop counts I guess. Labor’s 2pp result was 46.7% (-7.8%) and a majority of one which was lost on a re-election, and the government fell when the sole independent supported the Coalition, which after all had won 53.3% of the 2pp. In hindsight, I think an argument could be made that it was (to borrow a phrase) ‘a sound strategic decision’ by the Greens.
As for Hutton in Mt Cootha, he got over 24% of the primary vote which remains to this day the best result for a Green in a Qld election.
d
The Greens never even considered preferencing Lib in Inner Melb no matter what was offered. Just because the ALP will sell its vote to the highest bidder doesn’t mean everyone else will. At least with the Libs you know where your prefs will probably go.
Oh and Familyman, Bob Brown actually got a decent percentage of the vote, at least 10% I think, and people did complain, (and still do). As thhey also did about Brian Harridene. And Christine Milne. Try checking your facts first.
Sorry to get all non-empirical etc. on this blog, but I’d also ask if you think the ALP’s goal at each election is to get as many people elected at that election only, or if they should also take future elections into account? Some people would argue that the ALP will lose voters at the next federal election because of the FF deal (I’m not saying whether they will or not) even if it did maximise their chances at the previous election.
The correct spelling for his name is Julian Sheezel. You will find it on the “A vote for the Greens” leaflet attacking (and misrepresenting) Greens policies that he authorised, if you look very carefully.
I find it interesting that both Labor (with their lies about “Greens preferencing the Liberals”) AND the Liberals (with their leaflets) both attacked the Greens for doing deals with “the other party”.
It just goes to show they are both taking the Greens seriously and doing everything they can to reduce their primary vote. But in spite of this, the primary vote held up. What will they try next? More of the same I suspect.
94% of the electorate did not vote for either Family First or the DLP. Labor is disenfranchising a clear majority of voters with their preference deals electing right wing parties. Not unexpected for the Liberals, but a bit harder to understand from Labor. What deals will Labor be prepared to do with the DLP? Maybe they will line up on not decriminalising abortion?
Tomorrow’s newspapers will be interesting reading, as will the public reaction over the coming days.
I’m all for OPV, on the grounds that a well-down-the-list preference that has to be coerced by the threat of informality of an otherwise formal vote isn’t likely to be a deeply considered or informed preference and the vote exhausting at that point is probably a more accurate reflection of the voter’s real intention. I also think people should have the right to not allocate their preferences when they get to the point where they cannot stand any of the candidates. (Though for me, going all the way through and deciding who to put dead last is the most enjoyable bit!)
I rather like it how it is here in Tassie’s lower house – rotated ballots, optional preferencing once you’ve filled out the number of positions to be elected, no threshhold for election, no backroom preference deals, no how to vote cards. The only thing I would add is very large signs in every polling booth (or on the top of every ballot paper): “NUMBERING ALL THE SQUARES MAKES YOUR VOTE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE”, or something of that kind.
Gees can’t you guys fight this out somewhere else ?
The position on the ballot paper was of double importance in Western Victoria. The ballot paper had a fold between rows F & G. With the DLP at row D and ALP at row I. Whilst all issuing clerks were instructed (at ALP insistence) to unfold ballot papers when they were issued, it can be reasonably assumed that busy clerks did not always do so, and that papers refolded themselves when being carried to the booth. Seeing as the result is so close, a reasonable dispute could be made that the fold caused voter confusion. People looking at only the front of a folded paper would only see “Labor” once, and that would be the DLP, not the ALP. Whilst the ballot draw does have an effect, it is something everyone has learned to live with, a decision at the printer which hides one party on the back of the ballot however, is a different story, and not foreshadowed in the legislation.
Would this case win at Disputed returns?
The Speaker: would you prefer we posted 173 times in a row about segmentation and bringing Tully to account?
)
Segmentation yes, Tully no
“As I said before, if the same calculations produce suggest that the same deal will work in 2007, I am all for it. ”
Doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result. There’s a word for that isn’t there? :^)
Speaking of Tully, I suspect when our friend MelbCity wakes up he’s going to have many words to say about him if there has been a mix-up in North Metro.
Anyway since it seems only Queenslanders are still online (ie Me and Darryl Rosin – Greens candidate for my local electorate) I might go to bed and dream of elections and preferences.
The ALP falsely claimed that the Greens had preferenced the Liberals, when of course they did not. No Liberal got elected because of any Greens preference decisions. On the other hand, Greens preferences to the ALP helped elect at least 13 ALP members. ALP preferences helped elect one DLP member, two Nationals members, and no Greens Both Greens won without any assistance whatsoever from ALP or Liberal preferences.
Neither the ALP, Liberals or Nats gave the Greens any assistance at all. The Greens don’t seem to sell their souls entering into machiavellian preference deals like the ALP and DLP do.
1. People are responsible for their own votes. If they do not take the trouble to vote below the line or to find out what a No. 1 above the line means, they just have to live with the result – as does everyone else who doesn’t like it. All you had to do in 2004 to know that the ALP was preferencing Family First was to read a newspaper.
2. List systems give too much power to party machines. Under STV, the voter has the power to choose between individual candidates in any order. If the voter does not exercise that power, see 1. Even though above the line voters hand this power to the party machines, it is better to keep the power available rather than make it impossible for the voter to choose. I believe that Tasmanian voters have long had the independence of mind to choose which individual candidates they want from their parties.
3. List systems do not have preferences, so those who vote for small parties can be excluded from any say in the result, surely an unacceptable result in these days of inclusiveness.
4. Setting a threshold seems to my non-technical mind to devalue the order of preferences of voters in that candidates with low initial scores would be excluded even though they are, overall, more highly preferred than others whose initial score is higher than theirs.
5. There is a case for a smaller number of regions with a larger numbers of MLCs each to lower the quota and improve the representativeness of the system. The Liberals blew their chance to do this in 1973, 1985 and (I think) 2001. How possible this is now given the entrenched nature of PR reform I do not know. Given the Tasmanian experience in which both major parties ganged up on the Greens to lower the size of the House, I am certain self-interest will come into play.
6. The system basically works to the extent that voters want it to work.
7. Don’t forget the DLP is a Labor Party. I had a conversation with a past president of the DLP yesterday whose recollection is that the DLP MLCs voted with the ALP more often than with the Liberals from 1955 to 1958. I am sure that the ALP would prefer a majority in its own right, though there are advantages to a government in not controlling the Upper House in that it can moderate the demands of its own more uncompromising supporters. The ALP can negotiate with the Greens or the DLP, and life will go on.
8. The DLP will have to prove itself. It held the balance of power in the Senate for much of the 1960s and early 1970s. After 1972, it failed to properly differentiate itself from the Opposition parties and thus lost all its seats in 1974.
Am intrigued by Adam’s apparently simultaneous concern over disenfranchisement caused by rotating ballots and his defence of the most cynical of preference deals. Surely in an electorate where 10% of the voters require a map to find the box with their party’s name next to it, the fact that preference deals are public isn’t going to prevent a lot of voters inadvertently contributing to the election of candidates whose views are the opposite of the party they attempted to vote for.
I like the optional-preferential above-the-line option system as a means of allowing voters to distribute preferences without going BTL.
Am wondering if ballots rotated on a booth-by-booth basis might work to reduce the donkey issue wthout disenfranchising? I figure the parties should be able to handle the logistics of multiple versions of their how-to-votes if the booth-by-booth ballot orders were determined at the same time as the single order is currently drawn…
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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!).
“ALP doesn’t think the Northern Metropolitan result looks right”
No, you really did preference the DLP.
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.
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.
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
Just to let people know, the “Austin” above is not me
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”.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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…
VEC confirms a recount will occur in northern metro.
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?
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
For a report on how computer counts can go pear-shaped, see:
link
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.
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?
Must be Western Vic, not Western Metro.
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.
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.
The incompetence of the Victorian Electoral Commission is plain for all to see: what a complete mess!
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry yes should read ALP
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
VEC data entry at work
http://tinylink.com/?Go89Ndyy3m
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .