Comments on: Re-Groupers

By: Melb City

Melb City — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:25:45 +0000

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 .

By: Melb City

Melb City — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:01:37 +0000

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.

By: Melb City

Melb City — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:11:46 +0000

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.

By: Peter Fuller

Peter Fuller — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:04:04 +0000

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.

By: Chris Curtis

Chris Curtis — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:10:48 +0000

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.

By: Col Dicker

Col Dicker — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:59:53 +0000

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.

By: Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:01:38 +0000

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

By: Antony Green

Antony Green — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:38:59 +0000

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.

By: Antony Green

Antony Green — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:36:08 +0000

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.

By: Andrew Landeryou

Andrew Landeryou — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:47:56 +0000

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