Saturday evening. This post will be used to follow the final stages of the count for the Senate in Victoria, where at the close of election night counting the third Liberal candidate Scott Ryan has a 1.3 per cent lead over Greens candidate Richard di Natale. Of the remaining five seats, three have been won by Labor and two by Liberal.
Sunday evening. I don’t believe any votes were counted today. What we have so far is all polling booth votes counted for above-the-lines and first preferences from below-the-lines. Hopefully someone will correct me in comments if I’m wrong on either count.
Tuesday 5pm. Still nothing doing. Recent activity as consisted of breaking booth votes down into above-the-line and below-the-line voters. Counting of postal, pre-poll and absent votes will begin shortly. Strong performance by the Liberals here in lower house voting does not bode well for the Greens.
Wednesday 5/12 8pm. Counting of nearly 200,000 pre-polls and 100,000 absent votes have dashed any hope of a late-count upset here, boosting the Coalition vote from 38.9 per cent to 39.2 per cent and cutting the Greens from 8.4 per cent to 8.2 per cent, increasing the Greens’ deficit to an insurmountable 2.1 per cent.
129 Comments
Richard should do very well in the BTL count, but this may be counter-balanced by the Libs doing well in postal votes.The Greens need to be scrutineering the recount of the senate ATL votes out in the divisional offices, as minor party votes often get miscounted in the senate – and they have a bad position on the ballot paper here in Vic. I know we (the Dems) managed to catch a lot of our ATL votes in 2001 that had initially been counted as informal in outer metro seats in Melbourne, so it’s well worth them doing this.
I agree.
In the Victorian State election candidates in positions on election night like Richard di Natale is this morning, ended up elected. I’d suspect he’s a better than 50% chance.
If there is a notably higher BTL than last time, he’s probably in.
This is going to excruciating – does anyone know if the counting continues today (Sunday)?
What about a thread for the Queensland senate as well? The Greens have had someone elected on BTL Pauline preferences before, remember!
Well, this is not a particularly groundbreaking insight: but a higher % of Greens’ supporter vote BTL, compared with other parties supporters.
I find it really surprising that the Greens haven’t been a shoo-in for the 6th spot in Victoria. For that matter as well – that the Coalition has performed equal to Labor in the Senate overall.
this seems to be 2 elections in a row now where the Greens have got a really good vote in Victoria for no result.
i am slightly surprised that the Lib senate vote held up here.
disappointing
ACT Senate Analysis
For the Greens to take power in the ACT the libs need to lose a OVERALL swing of 1% which is very unlikely. This is due to some ALP votes heading towards the Liberals before the greens (under 10% of them) But there still is a chance with 27% of the vote still be counted.
Current votes with 73.19 counted:
Australian Labor Party 40.72%
Liberal Party 34.07%
The Greens 21.91%
Australian Democrats 1.74%
What Women Want 0.58%
Climate Change Coalition 0.53%
Liberty and Democracy Party 0.23%
Nuclear Disarmament Party 0.20%
Needed for Greens to get in: (this assumes that all the swing goes to Labor, if some goes to the greens the libs don’t need to lose as much)
Australian Labor Party 41.71%
Liberal Party 33.10%
The Greens 21.91%
Australian Democrats 1.74%
What Women Want 0.58%
Climate Change Coalition 0.53%
Liberty and Democracy Party 0.23%
Nuclear Disarmament Party 0.20%
Using Anthony Greens Calculator.
73.19% counted so far.
Its going to be very close.
I think Kevin Rudd is the happiest man in Australia this morning.
I think he got everything he wanted from this election.
First, he got a comfortable but not hugely excessive majority in the House.
Second, Howard is gone completely. He doesn’t linger. It is now the Rudd era.
Third, he got exactly what he wanted in the Senate. I think the likely split power in the Senate is perfect for Rudds 2 and 3 term strategy. He (unlike many of us) is in no hurry to change anything.
I think he is rapt that he can now play Labor,Liberal,National,Green,FFP and X all off each other in the Senate.
The Senate is a disappointing result. It is exactly the numbers i hoped wouldn’t occur.
I voted BTL and my vote goes to the Greens long before the majors, so never fear, Greens, di Natale will get in.
I mean, as long as it’s already close. I haven’t actually looked at the figures.
I agree with the 37-32-5-1-1 analysis at this stage; the 6th Vic seat of course assumes immense importance because Di Natale would knock off a Liberal, and thereby change the Senate balance significantly.
HarryH, I’m not sure that Rudd would be so rapt. I agree that he will welcome an opportunity/excuse for caution, and that he would like to be able to play off Greens/FF/X against each other.
But it’s actually more difficult than that – Labor will have to get every one of Greens, FF & X to pass legislation (assuming the Coalition votes against.) If any one of them sides with the Opposition then the Bill will fail, remembering that in the Senate 38-all means the motion fails.
So Labor’s going to have to negotiate very well. Expect a lot of favours and pork for Fielding and Mr X.
Remember that BTL First preferences were counted last night and are included in the AEC (and ABC) figures. What we don’t know yet is:
1. how many votes were BTL
2. where the BTL prefs are going
3. how many of the counted BTLs are actually informal
d
12 The other strategy is working with the Coalition, or wooing National votes with FFP.
Sounding as if Victoria or South Australia will be the place to live – but while they are still counting there is still hope
Not sure about how the btl stuff works, but I’m guessing they’ve only counted above it so far??? That’s probably ok here in the ACT as there’s only 16 boxes below the line so i’m guessing people would be more likely to vote there here.
Anyways i guess we just keep waiting and hoping – hopefully any horse trading won’t involve giving way on moral issues like abortion, stem cell research, banning big brother uncut
Interesting that, going by the senate results on the abc website, when the Democrats are excluded, all of the minor party votes that had been sitting with the Dems are transfered to the Greens leaving the Greens on 0.9529 of a quota before Family First is knocked out giving the Libs their 3rd quota.
It seems with over a 1/4 of the votes to be counted there is a possibility we may see the Greens getting in with the Liberals left stranded, the greens only need a total of 0.0471 quotas from 6 minor parties’ votes that sit with the Dems before exclusion.
Still a very satisfying election result, the greens getting a fourth senate seat would be icing on top of a layer of Bennelong icing on a very large and delicious cake.
Correction: The Dems are sitting on the preferences of 4 minor parties not 6.
With McEwan and Latrobe now trending Labor on absentees and prepolls (after looking like staying Lib on the night), that implies the absentees and prepolls are favouring the ALP.
That in turn suggests they’ll get closer to three quotas in their own right, thus chewing up fewer microparty preferences to get their third guy over the line. They may even have a half-percentage point or so of surplus to help Di Natale along.
A bit of leakage from the DLP should help too.
william is there something wrong with this thread?
it says 18 posts on the front page but i can only see nine. been like this for hours
william forget post 19. it updated as i posted.
I agree that we should see a thread in Queensland. Obviously it’s more significant in Victoria because it’s a closer race between Richard and Liberal #3 than Larissa vs. Labor #3 in Queensland, and because the loss of a Liberal seat would be more significant for the balance in the Senate, but still.
Labor negotiating with Family First… reaping what they sowed in the 2004 election!
Is ther any way of following the progress count in the VIC senate online?
Went to the AEC Virtual Tally room – but all seems a bit static. No change all day.
yeah same here Lefty E.
how and when do we know the likely final result of Vic and ACT?
I read somewhere it takes two weeks for the postal votes to come in and then they can calculate the final results for the senate.
Actually, what about the ACT Senate race too? Only a 1% swing to Labor/Greens from the Liberals on postals and absentees (which generally favour Labor/Greens) would be enough to overturn the result.
Ive been playing around with the senate calculator on the abc site and it seems that the greens are 0.79% of primary votes below what they need.
If you take the senate results, plug it into the abc senate calculator, add 0.79 to the greens, automatically adjust votes, recalculate, then Greens win the last one at the expense of Libs.
The key seems to be ALP staying in there until FF is excluded.
In the booth I worked in California Gully in Bendigo, I think all the below the line votes were for Richard Ni Natalie, the Greens share of the below the line votes is pretty high.
Postals will be allowed in until Fri 7 Dec, so it’ll take a long time to get them all the votes in. After they’re in, the AEC needs to manually enter all BTL votes into a computer; once that’s done, results can be very quickly processed. The Greens did very well on the absentee votes at the last Vic state election, and also at the last Fed election, but postals always favour the Tories.
After 2004, a lot of Victorian Labor voters (myself included) vowed never to vote above the line again. Assuming that those preferences go to the Greens ahead of the Liberals, Di Natale may be in with a chance. It’ll be interesting to see if the proportion of BTL votes has increased.
MC,
You might also consider using the Victorian Senate calculator to calculate the Senate figures for Victoria.
Sorry your right I cut an dpsted from the wrong State… I have closed the window…
The result is mopre or less the same. Three Labor and three Liberals who top the Greens who are left once again being the wasted quota.
It is very hard to come form a margion of 1.5% and teh Liberal vote will increase with postals.
What the Calculator says
http://www2b.abc.net.au/Elections/View/SenateCalculator.aspx?e=1&ca=vic
SNIP – Melbcity, please don’t use up space like this – thanks, PB.
What you have to remember is that it is not the order of election that counts in a multi-member proportional ballot but the order of elimination. The order is just so we can logically arrive at a result.
Oh and there is a distortion in the proportionality of the vote.
Under the current AEC system one vote does not equal one value. The calculation of the Surplus transfer is based on the number of ballot papers not the value of the vote. This favours the major parties. The other issue is the order of segmentation. I wont get into this here suffice to say that the ballot should be based on the value of the vote and there should be one transaction per candidate. If we adopt optional preferential there should also be a reiterative counting process (You start the calculation again every time you exclude a candidate) All this is possible and desirable under a computer assisted counting system. (This is my best chance to advocate some of these ideas in the hope that someone will change the system used so it is more fair and standardised.)
The PR society has gone to sleep on this one. Sadly…
A Margin of 1.5% is to much to catch up on The postal vote states do not indicate any hope of a turn around. Maybe the Absentee votes is all the Great Victorian Bike Rode vote Green. some how I do not see this happening.
Bob Brown lives in a state of false dreams. (And over representation).
Melbcity, where are you getting postal figures from? I look at http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByVoteType-13745-VIC.htm and see nothing but ordinary unapportioned votes.
Looking at the election calculator, in the final stages its FF votes flowing to libs that gets them across the line.
I doubt many FF votes would vote below the line, sorry FF, but i think your voters are more likely to behave like sheep and all turn up on the day and do what their religious instincts tell them to.
So my hope is that FF vote is down, Labour and Greens vote is up.
Glenn, from what I can tell, BTL first preferences are already counted. What the Greens are hoping for with BTL votes is people who’ve given their first preference to Family First or the DLP or one of the other parties that are preferencing the Liberals ahead of the Greens. So really, if you’re after a Greens senator, you want to be hoping that FF voters have gone below the line and been a little independent.
Ok, my needs are not being met by the VIC Senate coverage!
Where do I go?
At Antony’s ABC site, it says 72% counted. What does that mean? I thought all primaries were counted, even BTLs.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-13745-VIC.htm
Here is the data… It records the first preferences allocated to the group (Including any below the line votes — Most people voting below the line remain within the group of their fist choice) The stats show a consolidation of the vote to the major players. Labor is set to win three seats on its quota with minimal surplus. That leaves a battle for the last place between the liberals and the greens. The other minor parties that normally feed the Green machine just are not there… The liberal Party is expected to increase its position come postals See the AEC postal Votes issued states) Unknown of course is the absentee, provisional and pre-poll (Why the SEC does not publish stats on these votes is anyone’s guess. This information forms part of the pollingplace returns which should be in by now. The number of postals votes to be returned of course takes a couple of weeks BUT we should know how many postals and absentee’s votes have been issued and who many are polls were lodged.
I had asked William to remove posts 31, 32 and 34 which were posted by mistake. He removed the other post which was the correct one.
Plug in the values shown on the AEC stats into Antony Green’s Calc and you see Three Labor and Three Liberals and the Greens fall short by 1.5% I do to expect this will change much. Had the ALP not polled so well then maybe they would have been elected. The ALP surplus does not help the Greens much and there just is no minor party vote showing up to bolster their fortunes.
um melbcity, must we have pages and pages of your bias? what a waste of space.
There are still to be counted votes. The Liberal trend has been going down all the time. Labor and Greens have been going up. If Labor jumps the 3rd quota, the Greens are in with a real chance.
By the way, These are the events that were on election day.
Great Vic Bike ride
Earthcore
Queenscliffe Music Festival
Schoolies…
and on and on….
now can you see many of these people voting in great numbers for the Libs?
Lefty,
the missing 28 per cent are absentees, declarations, pre polls, postals and no shows. Greens do about 40% better from absents and 30% worse from postals. I agree with melbcity that the aec should at least tell up how many of the damn things there are
Cool, so some hope lives on. Thanks Darryl.
It’d be great if the ALP + Greens + Xenophon = 39, rather than 38.
I’d point out that the AEC figures are being fed directly into the ABC calculator at http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/vic.htm. The figures are updated every 15 minutes, though whether the figures change depends entirely on how the AEC counts.
Just a note on what is meant by ‘Unapportioned below the line’ on the AEC site. The total of votes in each group (both ATL and BTL) counted on the night are retained for each booth as a batch total in the AEC system. Post election, all the ATL votes are tallied, entered into the AEC system as a total, while the BTL votes are forwarded to the data entry centre.
The ‘Unapportioned below the line votes’ is the difference between the original booth total and the ATL votes. Once the BTL votes in each booth are entered, the ‘Unapportioned’ value becomes zero in that booth, replaced by the actual total of ATL votes and entered BTL votes.
The ABC calculator simply adds all the votes to a group total, which means the calculator is an approximate of the result only. The closer the count, the more BTL votes have to be taken into consideration.
Antony, or anyone else: where are we at here exactly? Am I right in thinking that ATLs plus BTL first preferences were counted at the booths on Saturday night, and they’re the only figures we have at this point? Will the next step be counting of ATLs plus BTL first preferences for pre-polls etc?
Hi Antony, im still a bit confused, can we look at this example from the AEC site
U TICKET VOTES Australian Greens 4,081 0.17 0.0120
Unapportioned Australian Greens 236,551 9.93 0.6949
Group Total Australian Greens 240,632 10.10 0.7069
So…
‘Group Total’ on the AEC site of 240,632 is what you said is the ‘batch total’ of ATL and BTL.
‘Unapportioned’ on the AEC site looks like it must be still BTL and ABL because of its size.
TICKET VOTES of 4081 means the AEC has processed that many ‘Unapportioned’ votes, its the number thats going to increase as ‘Unapportioned’ decrease ?
I guess ‘Unapportioned below the line votes’ must be on a different page…
Lisa,
If Labor jumps the 3rd quota, the Greens are in with a real chance.
This isn’t quite true. At the moment Labor gets past its quota using preferences from parties which would otherwise be going to the Liberals (1/3 Socialist Equality, LDP and Shooters). If they close the 0.78% they need to get a third quota in their own right, all they will effectively do is transfer 0.78% to the Liberals.
However, it is an uneven distribution getting there. Because the Labor vote completely overwhelms the minor parties, anything over a quota after an exclusion is transferred to the Greens (minus a hundred votes or so). Therefore every vote Labor gets up to the point where they don’t need the Shooters Party (another 0.39%) is good for the Greens, but any extra sets the Greens back 0.23% on where they are now. Given the margin could be somewhat smaller than that, this makes estimating things much more difficult.
For what its worth, Labor can lose another 0.24% before they need One Nation (0.38% – another Liberals before Greens vote), but if they slip further than 0.62% they will potentially miss out.
A note too, on BTL preferences. As they are already counted for the ticket, unless there are substantial numbers of Labor or Liberal BTL votes not distributing to their third candidate, we can safely assume that the votes counted for the ticket are an accurate representation of the numbers before the exclusions start. Further, since they are currently counted as ticket votes, they will only affect the final result if a preference expected to pass to one of the three main parties goes to the other. With that in mind, the relevant percentages of possible changes are:
Liberals: 3.99
Labor: 1.20
Greens: 3.34
The Liberals have the most to lose, but the chance of swinging more than 0.1% on BTL tickets in this contest is pretty minimal.
William,
I don’t think that btl 1st preferences were counted on Saturday night, but I stand to be corrected. Here in Victoria, the various divisional offices counted atl on the night, and separated out btl for entering into the computer (as I understand it, the computer entry takes the form of double entry by two separate computer operators). The count recommences today at the divisional offices, and staff are checking to see if btl are valid and then bundling them up and sending them to the central office in Hawthorn. The postal/absentee and declaration votes are yet to be counted, and that too begins today at the Hawthorn office.
William, the returning officers will slowly be breaking all booth votes into ATL and BTL votes. So the Unapportioned total will decline. Postal, pre-poll and absent votes will now also be added. By the end of this week, or maybe next week, the total will get past 90%, and then the BTL data entry will begin.
Antony
As always a timely injection of information . . . Thank you!
I know a couple of people scrutineering for the Greens at the Senate count, from today in Hawthorn through till at least Friday, so hopefully I’ll be able to get an update at the end of the day.
We’ve (Greens) got scruiteneers starting today in Wangaratta – so let you know if anything intersting shows up.
Does anyone know what the chances of Greens ensnaring the final Senate spot in Victoria is, personal bias’ aside?
Hey Jen, Others,
I was the person dropping in for the Green’s in Wang.
The senate vote from Wang’s prepoll was counted for the first time today. The breakdown was as follows:
Group A. 33
b. 26
c. 53
d.23
e. 5
f (labor). 1017
g. 36
h. (lib/nat) 1674
i. 11
j. 3
k. 69
l. 6
m. 6
n. 37
o. 9
p. 2
q. 1
r. 0
s 4
t. 2
u. 167
v. 1
w. 8
If my basic math is correct, this means the Wang prepoll saw only a 5.23% Green senate vote, compared to 8.2% electorate wide. If we’re relying on an improved Green turnout in prepolling to get us over the line, it aint happening in places like Indi.
Thanks Kieran – obviously,had much better results in some of the booths.
shame!
Do you know what the postal/absentee situation is? (i expect they will favour Mrs Mirraballa of course).
Jen.
nfi. I don’t have time to head back tomorrow, but Trisha might.
Nothing terribly interesting in the informals (that being what I was instructed to watch). A couple of votes from the informal pile where declared formal for the greens, one vote from the green pile was declared formal, and one stray labor vote was rescued from the Liberal pile. Terribly exciting stuff.
I wouldn’t write Richard off, but to offer an opinion in response to Pseph’s question, I think the Green’s chances are slim.
I was observing the checking of the senate count this morning at Moonee Ponds on behalf of the Greens. The AEC team on there were thoroughly competent at their job, and I didn’t pick up anything that they didn’t. They were careful to check btl votes that were in the informal pile, and in the count for one booth they fished out 5 such valid votes for us, as well as a valid green group ticket vote that had been misfiled with the democrats. We had a minor increase for that booth from 67 to 73 valid votes cast.
The predominant error was the misfiling of Liberal and Labor atl votes.
The votes had been bundled into groups of 50 on Saturday night, and almost
every bundle had one misfiled vote, and a lot had two. As a general
comment, I would estimate that the amount of misfiling was easily 2%;
almost all of that was Lib-Lab mix ups, with a surprising number of FFP
caught up in the Lib lot. The false negatives (ie., votes incorrectly
classified as informal) were running at 10%. I was impressed at how carefully the AEC staff were checking those.
Hi folks,
FYI – There’s an unofficial blog (with RSS feed) running at adambandt.com with comments about the count in Melb and the Senate.
Any tips or comments (e.g. of the kind made by Kieran) greatly appreciated – email me at a DOT bandt AT mac DOT com
Adam Bandt
(Greens candidate for Melbourne)
Here’s hoping Richard brings it home, Adam.
Im im touch with some ALP senate staffers who are quietly hoping the same.
No one fancies 3 years of dealing with Family First if it can be avoided.
Adam Bandt, I have been posting at this blog as “Adam” all year. Could I suggest you use another name?
Adam B.
firstly, well done.
Secondly, I am waiting for further info from Greens website, but nothing new.
Is Stephen Luntz putting up his stuff anywhere?
Also, do you know how certain Scott and Sarah’s senate positions are as yet?
Also – Just heard Kerrie Tucker is still in with a chance: not what the MSM are saying.
Just tried your site but only got an email address.
Cheers, Jen
(no2 senateticket).
Re site address:
if http://www.adambandt.com isn’t working, try
http://web.mac.com/apb72
Re other states and official Greens updates:
the latest post is from Tim Hollo on the official Greens blog. A link to it is available from my site, or go there directly:
http://greensblog.org/2007/11/27/a-million-australians-vote-green-in-the-senate/
jen,
you’ve gotta be cautious when you hear Greens talk about “a chance”, I find we tend to wear the most insanely green tinted glasses, seeing ridiculous “chances” everywhere.
Kieran,
I agree – that’s why I’m asking for figures!!
I’m sorry to disappoint Greens, and I’d much prefer a Green BoP Senate after 30 June, as I hate the thought of dealing with Steve Fielding. However, the HoR count in Vic is going strongly to the Libs, with the Libs winning more than 51% of postals on primaries. This trend will no doubt be followed in the Senate, and is bad news for any hope of a 4-2 Left-Right split in Vic; it seems it’s now certain to be 3-3.
ACT may give you Greens more of a chance actually, as the pre-polls counted there so far in the HoR are more pro-Labor/Greens than the ordinary votes. On pre-polls, Libs are at 29%, as compared with 33% on ordinary. No postals counted there, yet, though, but absentees should be more pro-Green.
Lord D, I reckon the ground is too far to make up in ACT, with very little below the greens to be distributed, even if Libs do drop. Best chance (And this is probably what you mean, on reflection) is a strong ALP surplus
VIC is a chance, as at least there’s the random generation of members factor there that comes with substantial small party prefs.
Agree its slim though!
No way. No chance. 3-3.
There’s no bias here either.
In VIC, Lib-Green = about 1.5% the difference.
In ACT, Lib-Green = about 1.5% the difference.
The libs ALWAYS gain from non-ordinary votes for the senate, about 0.3%. Why would this suddenly become a net loss of 1.5%?
BTLs will make no difference, and in the ACT will exacerbate the difference (to about 3%, or 35% to Humphries), since the ABC calculator assumes 100% of ticket votes follow the GVT.
Congratulations to Feeney and Ryan. I declare thee elected. You can officially start celebrating now! I said so.
Lisa you hope spent on te Great victorian Bile ride and other events is misplaced.
Look at the data … The SEC has counted all first preferences voets. (Including BTL preferences) The greens went backwards from 2004. The reported percentages are not going to change that much as the remaining votes to be counted are also for the Liberals and the ALP….. more or less in the same percentages as the polling place results. Do you think that Green voters are all vote postal and absentee and no one else.
Again look at the postal vote application statistics…. you will see that the Liberal party has the lions share…
Goven that all BTL voets for the Greens, the ALP and the Libs are locked in (Apart from the small ALP surplus value 5% of a quota) That leaves the others to feed the Greens. Sorry to disappoint you but if you read t6he data I published and understood it there is not enough minor party votes delivering preferences to the Greens.. They went down from 8.5% to 7% ….There was a major consolidation of votes for the major parties. and yes if having an opinion on the obvious (The numbers do not show a win for the Greens) is bias then yes I guess I am… It is no secret that I am a member of the Labor Party. But the election is over and its all about the count. Are you a Green supporter… they are the only ones that are holding out such hope as the eat Victorian Bike Ride… ALL GREEN VOTERS I AM SURE… lol
BTL preferences will not make a difference . There is not enough BTL that do not get locking to the three main players. Lib. ALP and Greens. It would be quicker and cheaper to do a manual count.. Sort the votes into primaries and then do a three way distribution…
Simple maths is all it takes.
I published the data to sjow this BUT William removed it.
LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF QUOTA PERCENTAGES. REMOVE THE INTEGER FROM THE ALP AND LIBERAL PARTY (Add the ALP surplus to the Greens) then add up all of the minor parties. You can distributes the Above-the0line votes as we know where they go. The Below the line votes for other minor parties (Excluding the Greens BTL which is locked in) can not change the result…
First Preferences for Victoria Liberal / Nationals Australian Labor Party Australian Greens
Quota: 341,434 Enrolment: 3,442,096
Group Votes % Swing Quota
Liberal/The Nationals 932,421 39.01 -5.09 2.7309 0.73
Australian Labor Party 1,011,427 42.32 6.2 2.9623 0.96
Australian Greens 241,117 10.09 1.29 0.7062 0.71 2.40 2.40
D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 23,672 0.99 -0.95 0.0693 0.07
Family First 62,499 2.61 0.73 0.183 0.18
Australian Democrats 38,670 1.62 -0.24 0.1133 0.11
One Nation 9,212 0.39 -0.33 0.027 0.03
Citizens Electoral Council 1,296 0.05 -0.49 0.0038 0.00
Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) 5,076 0.21 -0.13 0.0149 0.01
Socialist Alliance 1,936 0.08 -0.08 0.0057 0.01
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) 1,039 0.04 -0.07 0.003 0.00
The Australian Shooters Party 15,135 0.63 0.63 0.0443 0.04
Carers Alliance 2,422 0.1 0.1 0.0071 0.01
Climate Change Coalition 16,473 0.69 0.69 0.0482 0.05
Conservatives for Climate and Environment 2,880 0.12 0.12 0.0084 0.01
LDP 2,382 0.1 0.1 0.007 0.01
Senator On-Line 2,201 0.09 0.09 0.0064 0.01
Socialist Equality Party 3,287 0.14 0.14 0.0096 0.00 0.00 0.00
What Women Want (Australia) 9,865 0.41 0.41 0.0289 0.03
Group I 0.00
Group P 0.0001 0.00 0.00
Group T 0.00
GroupV
1.017 1.050 0.913
0.29 0.09 0.21
Is that a random number generator!??
Ditto to above conclusions. I have had a look at the 2004 BTL proportions for various parties and I agree that the Greens have no chance whatsoever in Vic barring a very significant primary swing to them on non-ordinary votes (like the one that happened in Tas in 2004).
By my calculations the absolute most the Greens could conceivably gain (if anything) relative to the Liberals as a result of anything stemming from the existence of BTLs is about .02 of a quota. That’s less than a quarter of what they need (and even that’s a very extreme estimate of what they might get) so it aint happening.
Good point kev.
But the Greens vote was up 0.43% (final was 0.43 more than ordinary) and the libs vote was down 0.45%.
I don’t think there’d be any chance of this happening in Victoria this time.
But let’s, for an instant, assume it does happen this time.
This would take the “margin” from 1.25 to 0.38%.
Factor in the 0.02 quota above and then it gets close.
But, I dispute that will happen in Victoria, and I dispute that the BTLs will result in any narrowing. Even, for a split secod that both happen, the libs still get up.
Antony’s link (above … keep scrolling …) to the senate results on the ABC site has an extra “.” at the end and so doesn’t quite get you there.
Here it is again:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/vic.htm
Across the nation, thousands of Australians are turning to the AEC’s website, vtr.aec.gov.au to check the counting progress of the recent election.
But, what confidence can we have in the figures?
Take the micro Socialist Equality Party (SEP) which allegedly, polled 1730 of their state’s tally of 3337 votes at the otherwise uninteresting Cairnlea booth at Deer Park Primary School in the seat of Gorton. A simple check reveals that this polling booth, which recorded a total of 2631 House of Reps votes also recorded a whopping 4393 Senate votes. Obviously, these numbers should be same. The difference is almost totally explained by the extra SEP votes. It looks as if this is a keying error by an AEC official, as the ALP vote was 1728 in the Senate and 1733 in the Reps.
Now look at the vote for the micro Senator On-Line (SOL) party which allegedly clocked up a third of its total Victorian vote in the sleepy Frankston High School booth in Dunkley. Did the SOL party really get 1155, or 27.3% of the Frankston HS vote and poll almost the same as Labor and the Liberals? Again, there were 4313 Senate votes and 3154 House votes, the difference being almost totally explained by the extra SOL party votes.
There are potentially errors across the board. Tony Klein’s Group V Independents vote appears confused with the Greens in Thomastown Meadows in Scullin and he SOL vote at the Eildon booth in McEwen looks inflated by about 250 votes too. Note that all of these errors have been made confusing one party with a larger party that is positioned near it on the tablecloth ballot paper.
So, if I can, in an hour, find four genuine and easily observable errors in the AEC’s numbers with a combined discrepancy of over 3000 votes, why could the AEC not pick up these glaring errors before publishing on their website? When Antony Green’s fantastic senate calculator draws numbers from the raw AEC feeds, it makes an assumption that the AEC numbers are correct.
My question for the AEC is simple. When will these errors be resolved? Australian democracy depends on us punters having faith in an independent and accurate election body like the AEC.
Relevant links are:
Cairnlea Reps: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-46536.htm
Cairnlea Senate: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenatePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-46536.htm
Frankston South Reps: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-3600.htm
Frankston South Senate: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenatePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-3600.htm
Thomastown Meadows Senate: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenatePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-4864.htm
Eildon Senate: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenatePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-4320.htm
Jarrah O’Shea –
Great work! Scary, huh?
The largest error (Cairnlea) has been fixed but the others have not. Funny what shining a torch in the dark corners does to democracy!
Anyone who’s been keeping an eye on the Senate should be watching today, lots of counting going on around the country. No big surprises, though in Vic now the 3rd Lib is elected before 3rd Labor making the position worse for the Greens.
None of the Senate races look close enough to me for there to be any deviations from the results given by Antony Green’s calculators anyway.
NSW?
I would be interested to see if the LDP in NSW can get eliminated later than round 15. Their pref deals in that state were pretty good, it would be interesting to see them “shoot up” if they can get 0.05% and over take Carers Alliance. Not my state or my party, but interesting!
I haven’t paid too much attention to NSW, I figured that the primaries for the majors are close enough to 3 quotas each to shut out anyone else.
It would be one hell of a preference harvest for the LDP to get elected on 0.2% of the vote! They are a couple of thousand behind the Carers Alliance when they get eliminated so I don’t think anything there will change. Even if they got ahead of the Carers there still wouldn’t be enough for them to get above the Greens (who get CCC and WWW preferences). Also the 1.25% from the DLP goes to the Libs.
If everyone below the Greens preferenced LDP above GRN, LAB, LIB then it could be a different story (as it is they pick up preferences from a pretty diverse bunch!)
Stu,
I wouldn’t agree that the ALP going backwards in Vic is bad for the greens.
Yes, it looks to me that the Greens are closer to over taking labor than they were overtaking libs. Still, it’s a long shot.
Oops, it’s toggled again this morning!
Yes, that was a mistake on my part about Victoria. The order of election has been switching a bit but it doesn’t make too much difference.
Labor will get Liberal preferences. Dinatale will not get elected. 3-3.
OldTimeHack that is simply wrong. Check the group voting tickets.
The order of election plays little. The fact is as we had expected the Liberal vote was going to increase was and when the declaration votes are counted. Problem is we and the AEC have no idea as to how many ballot papers have been issued and how many are outstanding or waiting to be counted. The AEC is still reporting more ballot papers received then issued. Without accurate statistics on how may ballot papers have been issued there is no way of properly determining the outcome of the election. it has become a hit and miss affair.
How ever based on patch return data (The AEC has published three reports each one giving a different quantitative sum (More like Quantum physics then reality)
The problem facing the Greens is that there is a significant drop in support for minor parties and of the minor parties that there are they do not fold up in favour of the Greens. the Greens can not expect to be the benefactor of surplus and preferences.
The ALP looks set to either elect three straight up or fall 4% short of a quota. If they fall short then the Greens do not benefit from the ALP surplus. They sit there at around 92% of a quota. They are left standing on the dance floor without a partner.
The Greens seem to expect that they are the natural alternative to the non major party vote. BEEP… Wrong.
Family first will see home the Liberal party vote. The Liberal Party are better placed in terms of minor party preferences then the ALP as long as the ALP stays above the 41.6% of the vote they outcall the greens and are secured a third place. By my calculations there is not enough votes in the system (Difficult to determine due to the dodgy figures published by the AEC).
If the liberal vote goes up then the ALP vote is expected to take a dip but the slide will not be enough to see the Greens overcome their current shortfall.
All votes for Labor. Liberals or the Greens are accounted for and locked in. the only votes that are on the move will be the other minor parties,. Most of which are above the line voters so we know in what direction they will travel. Of the below the line minor party votes they tend to also follow the same general direction as the main ticket so I would not expect a vast unexpected swing to the Greens.
It would be quicker and cheaper for the AEC to undertake a manual count as opposed to a data-entry count. below the line votes could be manually distributed into three piles. Labor’s #3 Liberal’s # 3 and The Greens #1. All other parties have no chance of surviving the count. So its a three horse race with the Greens missing out and once again becoming the wasted quota. Nothing has changed. I expect the greens to end up at 92% of a quota. With Labor beoing elecetd follwoing teh elimination of teh hsoorters party or One nation and the Liberals being elected with the exclusion of family first at which statge there is no more votes to be distributed. The ALP and Liberal surplus making up the remainder of the 92% of the Greens lost quota.
At least this time teh count shoudl be staright forward and we will not see the didgy counting practices that existed in the Western Metropolictan count undertaken by the VEC where votes went missing between count A and Count B (the total number of votes – Not the allocation of preferences went down between count A and Count B). The VEC refused to publishs the detailed results of the first count in what is seen as a coverup of the disatserous counting practices adopted. The VEC uses a random sampleling qquailitive control (Seriously flawed system) where the AEC uses a double entry verifaction system of data-entry,. Without access to the datafile in western Victoria we were denied the right and opportunity to analysis the full exent of the VEC stuff up. It is rightly argued that there should have been a third count to verify that the VEC has not screwed up on the second count. Either way the VEC still has an oblgation to published the full statitsical data
Although the AEC data does not show the correct number of ballot papers issued there counting practices are far more preferable then those adopted by the VEC.
Now 41 votes in Bowman.
And Maxine’s back up to 2306 in Bennelong . . .
Apologies all – wrong topic . . .
I would prefer the Greens to get the last slot than Labor or Liberals. But I have to say that I didn’t like it when after the last election when Greens supporters on the internet went around saying that Fielding had “stolen” “their” seat. It doesn’t matter if you get 90% of a quota. If the other 109.999% of the remaining quota want someone else then that someone else should get it. The result otherwise is a disaster (Bush v. Gore + Nader anyone?).
I don’t think they said any such thing. They just made people aware of the fact that the ALP had gifted the last seat to Fielding instead of doing something more practical with their surplus. The greens have never had a senate seat in victoria and have never claimed any seat is “theirs”.
Read the strangely title section “The effect of preference deals on Senate outcomes” in the 2004 Australian election wikipedia article. It’s clearly written by cranky Greens – every state is written from the perspective of the Green who nearly missed out or “just” got in…
Assuming you are right, if it wasn’t written from a minor party perspective then what would be the point of writing it at all? Obviously the impact of minor party preferences in the past couple of elections has been to impact of the ability of the Greens to attain, or just miss attaining, a seat.
It is hardly interesting or useful to write a piece on the effect of preference deals on senate outcomes from the perspective of the Liberal party or Citizens Electoral Council.
Melb city is calling it as over for the Greens – is he right?
It’s hard to see Richard getting a seat this time; I was holding out to see just how many btl votes Jacinta Collins gets, but she’s not getting anywhere near enough to help Richard. If 50,000-odd unapportioned Labor votes suddenly transmute into btl votes for JC we might be in with a chance. Barring that, I’m calling it as over for Richard too.
bugger.
How on earth do more Jacinta BTL votes HELP Richard? 6th seat is between Greens and Labor, not Greens and Libs.
Labor won’t make it to 3 quotas; Liberal excess to elect Richard.
You heard it here first!
Currently, 1.2 million voters are recorded as expressing their first preference for Labor. As Jacinta Collins is the lead candidate and has far exceeded the quota (approx 435,000 votes) she will duly be elected. Her surplus vote thus flows to the 2nd preference of those 1.2 million voters, albeit with a lowered transfer value. In the event that all these electors voted above the line, it would be reasonable to assume that Labor would elect its second senator easily. If instead a substantial portion of the electorate voted below the line for Jacinta, then the likelihood that the 2nd preference lies outside the Labor party increases. This favors the Greens in two ways:
(1) Increased chance that a Jacinta voters 2nd (or subsequent) preference ends up at the Greens earlier;
(2) Decreases the Labor opportunity to attain a quota.
Hence my earlier post. In the absence of a large btl vote for Jacinta, it’s hard to see how Richard is going to get up. I find it equally hard to fathom that the Labor party (with 2.92 quotas) won’t get 3 seats.
Greens supporters wanting a high vote for Jacinta Collins! HA! What next, Bob Brown out campaigning for Bill Heffernan?
Karl, yes I see — didn’t think of that. How many of the 106,000 or so “unapportioned” do you expect will go to Jacinta BTL?
Not Telling!
You’re missing the point of the unapportioned. Votes that are ALP 1 will stay within the ALP group. There will be a very small proportion of votes that stray outside the ALP group after being used to elect at least 1 ALP candidate.
For example, in the last federal election, the election of Kim Carr resulted in a surplus of 650887 votes, 650172 of which went to the 2nd ALP candidate, 304 went to Labor candidates 3 & 4, and 376 went to all other candidates combined. (The balance of 35 were exhausted (10) or fractional votes lost in transfer (25)).
It is worth noting that 376 out of 3000000 votes is 0.01% or 0.0009 quotas.
Even if you take the denominator as the total number of ALP BTL votes instead of total ALP votes, you still get 376/14598=0.026. So only 1 vote in 40 ALP BTLs will start ALP but go to another party before leaving the ALP group.
As ALP is 7000 votes over quota, this 300 odd votes is NOT going to make a difference. The assumption that AG’s calculator makes of having all votes stay within a group is still 99.99% valid.
On another note, there are two ways of looking at the remaining votes to be counted in the Senate.
The difference in the votes between the (almost) complete House scrutiny and the incomplete Senate scrutiny is as follows:
Ordinary votes: 2320 extra senate votes remain to be counted
Absent votes: 29489 extra votes remain
Provisional: 1220 more votes have been counted than the House. (WTF?!?)
Pre-poll: 39155 extra votes remain
Postal: 25865 extra votes remain
Since Lib votes go to the Greens, any extra Lib or Greens votes will end up with the Libs and any extra Labor votes will stay with Labor. The noise generated by the other minor parties is insignificant and can be safely ignored.
So, what is the CURRENT margin (ALP – Green vote), according to the ABC calculator? 40750 votes. (Pre-liberal surplus distribution)
Well, the Libs are 25867 over quota and about 91% of this will go Green, and the balance will go Labor. This halves the margin to 19800.
Extra votes:
Ordinary: 0.7% weaker (than total) for libs, 0.55% stronger for Labor and 0.14% stronger for the Greens. Net extra labor votes: 0.7%+0.55%-0.14%=1.11%*2320=25 votes. Labor margin now 19825
Provisional: There’s more than there should be, so let’s leave this well alone.
PrePoll: 2.24% stronger for libs, 1.29% weaker for labor, 1.07% weaker for Greens. Net extra labor votes: -2.24-1.29+1.07=2.46%*39155=-963 votes. Labor margin now 18862 votes
Postal: 8.64% stronger for libs, 4.53% weaker for Labor, 3.27% weaker for greens. Net extra labor votes: -8.64-4.53+3.27=9.90%*25865=-2561 votes.
Margin now 16301 votes. That’s equivalent to 0.5%.
What chance is there of a swing of 16301 votes when there’s only 95000 votes remaining? Pretty low. Not zero, but approximately zero.
Sure you can assume weird stuff with the BTLs going 1 Collins, 2 Green, 3 Feeney, but there’s not going to be more than 300 of those. If anything, you could assume more Lib BTLs going to Labor before the greens.
SO, as said above, 3-3. Not certainly but very likely. Libs prefs going to Greens not Labor as previously assumed makes a difference, but not significant enough to switch the result.
Numbers correct as of now.
Future research would look at the individual electorates in which these votes remain to be counted and repeat the above 4-step process, but, frankly, I can’t be bothered!
Sorry, I think I meant to ask something like “how many of the unapportioned will leave Labor after Jacinta or after Jacinta and Gavin?”… but I’m a bit slow on the numbers game.
And your point about the tiny proportion of votes that stray from ALP1 or ALP2 isn’t lost on me, though the Kim Carr example you cite is difficult for me to believe at first glance — so only 376 out of the total number of ALP BTL voters strayed from the first 2 candidates in their 3rd preferences? That’s… um… not many.
Are you telling me that my hope-in-the-face-of-all-odds is better invested in something else? Say, a freak earthquake that swallows entire Divisional offices whole?
Hang on, I’ve got a better one; Antony Green’s senate calculator is adding weight to the ALP vote due to an inbuilt glitch on ABC computers (as is apparently compulsory in all ABC departments) and the reeeeeeeeeal margin is actually in the Greens’ favour. (What’s that? A straw? CLUTCH IT! CLUTCH IT!)
Revised prediction:
Richard by 6. (That’s even more than Fran Bailey!)
You heard it here first. Again.
NT
NT:
Spot on with the bias comment.
As for the 376, relooking at the numbers, I suppose you could increase it, as that’s 376 stray for Carr and an additional stray of 123 from Conroy. Also note that Ristrom only got 191 of this 499, and that some of this stray balance (308) could have easily come back to Labor via a minor party.
Note that this is approx 600 ballots each time but that gets reduced to 376 and 123 respectively due to the transfer values of the ballots following the election of the top 2 candidates (TVCarr=0.60, TVConroy=0.21)
I suppose these are an underestimate in that voters could have gone ALP1, ALP4, Green, although I reckon there’d be less than a dozen of these that go from an elected ALP candidate to an excluded ALP candidate, and then to elsewhere. Multiply these dozen by a 0.6 or a 0.2 TV and you’ve got a not-very-clutchable straw! (an additional 2 votes – not even enough to switch McEwen!)
The download for the 2004 Distribution of preferences is at:
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/External/SenateDopDownload-12246.zip
Can someone please check my logic? Ta.
(As at 4.30pm.)
Below: Party, quotas on primaries + quota collection from micro parties assuming assuming 100% ATL votes = total, respectively:
Labor, 2.9162 + 0.0452 = 2.9614
Coalition 2.7747 + 0.3376 = 3.1123
Green 0.6990 + 0.2222 = 0.9212
i.e. Senators elected so far = 3 Lib, 2 ALP.
So, 0.1123 Lib (and Lib-contributing micro party) excess to be distributed, of which Greens need 0.0788, or 70%. My estimate is that 90% of the excess will go to the Greens.
Ergo, Richard is not out of the race yet.
Obviously this doesn’t account for BTL votes, but there is still room to move, non?
Be nice to me. I’m new to this number-crunching thing.
NT
Antony Green’s Senate Calculator says, with the 4.30pm votes entered, that Labor reaches their 3rd quota after Family First’s preference distributions (which see One Nation’s votes which originally went to FF go to Labor), with 0.0107 quotas extra.
0.0107 quotas is 4,735 votes. That’s bugger all — and it is most likely less than this, surely — my thinking:
- the senate calculator assumes 100% ATL voting, but some BTL Labor voters may have gone [1] Collins [2] DiNatale or [1] Collins [2] Marshall [3] DiNatale. There is no way of knowing how many people did this, but let’s assume that it’s ever so slightly higher than last time due to the media scrutiny of Labor preference deals that the Family First 2004 deal brought on. Does anyone want to hazard a numerical guess?
- other BTL voters from minor parties are more likely to go to the Greens before 2 major parties than go the way the group ticket went.
If, for any reason, Labor DOESN’T score these 4,735 votes, when the Liberal excess is distributed, the Greens will receive about 90% of these, overtaking Labor. Both Labor and Greens will finish over a quota after that distribution, but the Greens will score more, securing them the last seat.
I just don’t know how to get a detailed fix on the likelihood of those 4,735 votes not actually being there in reality.
Thoughts?
NT
When will they press the button to work this all out for once and for all?
Re 108:
There IS a way to determine (or at least, get a feel for) how Collins btl voters have tended to vote with their 2nd and subsequent preferences.
In fact, there are two.
The first way is to scrutineer the recount at the AEC divisional offices, and note where Collins btl voters are sending their preferences.
The second way is to head out to Hawthorn and watch the data entry.
I have done the former, but not the latter. I think a higher proportion of Collins btl voters have preferenced the Greens in a 2nd or 3rd spot, compared to Carr btl voters in 2004. OldTimeHack points out that about 1 in 40 btl strayed from Labor in 2004. As a guesstimate, I would put the figure around about 1 in 25 this time; maybe 1 in 20. Still, there just aren’t the VOLUME of Collins btl votes necessary to influence the outcome.
I don’t want Labor beaten; it’s a pity you Greens couldn’t beat the Libs, and get us a 4-2 Left/Right Vic Senate split.
I have no fingernails left.
When will we know?
Sorry Jen, I’ve got no idea! On another matter while we wait, are you in a position to explain why the Greens put up 6 candidates for election in Victoria? The only other parties that did so are the DLP and Family First. Doesn’t it make more sense to just have 3 candidates (or even two)?
I’m with Jen, when will we know? Just put us out of our misery so we can get on with x-mas. Then again, if the Greens get up, it will be a very, merry x-mas indeed!
Karl,
there was much discussion re: putting up 6 candidtes and not all were in agreement ( i thought it was unnecessary to have more than 3).
However the rationale was that each candidate attracts a personal vote which preferences the no.1 candidate, and every vote counts as we know!
In the post-election review all these matters will be discussed and all opinions welcome, so go for it.
Surely the reason for running 6 is to gain extra exposure?
As it’s so hard to find any particular party the “stand out” effect probably makes it worth it.
Now… Let’s look at the ABC calc….. I’ll be back!
NT 107:
Your numbers seem a bit wrong when compared to the ABC senate calculator (as at now) with the split being:
Labor:1.0134
Lib:1.0557
Grn:0.9307
Note that these numbers almost but not quite add to 3.000.
So after the distribution of the Lib surplus, it is impossible for both Labor and the Greens to be over 3, since the libs will retain their 1 and distribute their surplus and the total live surpluses will be a tad less than 2.
(On the other hand it is technically possible, but extremely unlikely for both Labor and the Greens to both end with less than 1 quota (0.9999 to 0.9998) and in that case, the Act says the leading party is elected.)
In terms of the BTL impact, IMHO this effect will favour Labor rather than disadvantaging Labor. I reckon there’d be more people voting BTL Lib but then giving their preference to Labor for ideological reasons rather than to the Greens who share almost nothing with Libs policy-wise.
Assume a worst case scenario (for Labor) where there is an increased Labor drift and a decreased Liberal drift. The extra impact this would have is in no way going to exceed 500 votes, or 0.001 quotae.
As for minor party votes going Green before the majors, you’re right there. But don’t discount extra Lib votes heading Labor’s way before going green.
Karl, I don’t doubt your observations, but unless they’re backed up numerically (eg 40 of 1000 votes I saw drifted) I am always hesitant to accept as truth. I have an extensive scrutineering background and always tried to get samples to back my observations. Remember, that just like the polls, there is always a margin of error, and if you observe 4/100, then there will be an associated MOE too.
OK, with the updates indicating a slight swing away from the Greens again, I’ll concede what hope I had left and call it 3-3.
A healthy skepticism makes for a good watchdog! OldTimeHack: I accept, and concur, that my observations should be backed up numerically. Once I’ve completed my report on my scrutineering to the Greens, I’ll upload some numbers, but that won’t be until next week.
OldTimeHack and Jen:
Thanks for your comments re: numbers of Senate candidates. I can’t say I have an opinion one way or the other at this stage. Just curious.
Late counting in the Vic Senate is flowing to the ALP away from the Libs. Small changes only. But with maybe 1.7-2% of the vote to go, the trend could see the 5th and 6th places swap over again between Lib and ALP. That could be interesting.
I would be surprised if 5 and 6 swapped. The gap is 20000 votes, and 2% to go is 60000 votes. That’s a 30% swing!
Karl, I suppose you could argue that those whose fans that vote BTL who are more likely to stuff it up (ALP?) should have a responsibility to make it as easy as possible to vote BTL by running less candidates, whereas those who are committed, have spare time and are passionate (greens?) can get away with making it harder to vote BTL! But I think that any such effect would be outweighed by the extra exposure and increased noticibility having 6 candidates would get you….
Let’s just hope Ruddy calls a double dissolution. That would be so much fun for amateur psephs like me! I might even run as a senate candidate with 11 mates and hope to get a harvest
Quota <8%
Karl, I eagerly await your numbers (if they let you publish)
OldTimeHack:
I believe they increased the candidate fee this election to $1000 for senate candidates … so if you and your 11 mates want to have a go you’re looking at a cool $12k! Ah, the price of democracy…
On election night I was scrutineering for another party in an inner Melbourne seat and whilst my colleague and I were focused on the House of Reps, being new to scrutineering I watched some of the senate votes being counted mainly out of interest.
I was surprised by the number of Greens votes that were informal due mainly to the fact that many Green voters voted below the line and didn’t complete their vote correctly. Whilst this is only speculation I can’t help wonder if the result might have been different if more Greens had taken the above the line option. I have always voted below the line out of principle, but next time I think I’ll go above the line unless I’m not happy with the preference deal.
AEC Hidden Secret – You can do both. If both above and BTL votes are formal, the BTL counts. Also, standard rule of thumb is that a vote is valid (at least in Victoria) if at least 90% of the boxes are filled and formal and a clear intention can be made. Handy little trick I forgot to use last month.
125
Kruscica . . . the 90% rule holds true nationally. And it’s also possible to exhaust your vote by repeating the same preference more than once (provide you have a single 1st preference indicated). The rule is that as long as by replacing no more than three wrongly-stated (gaps in sequence, repeated numbers, etc.) preferences a valid BTL vote could be registered, the paper is formal. But all preferences expressed after the last correctly indicated sequential preference (i.e. from and following the break, repeat, etc.) exhaust and are not counted.
I am certainly not advocating this practice, for two reasons – one practical, one legal – a) it’s all too easy in the fast flow of the examination/count for the vote to be wrongly set aside as informal; and b) the act of advocating such a vote is illegal (it’s a sort of mini-Langer vote)
Hey Dembo, long time no see.
$12k, eh? Could I claim it as a tax deduction if I were a staffer? (Not that OTH has ever held any full-time or part-time job for any MP union or consultancy)
Dyspnoeia is spot on. In elections with at least 10 (or is it 20?) candidates, if you would have completed at least 90% of the boxes had no more than 3 numbers be changed, then your vote is counted. There’s only a small chance it would not get counted because it would almost certainly be manually entered rather than being set aside as informal.
Just make sure you vote for a weird candidate at a small polling booth (as did OTH) and then you can see that there has been “1″ vote for this BTL candidate, proof that your vote has been counted.
And as kruscica says, just vote a 1 above the line as well, so if you do happen to stuff anything up, then it will revert to an ATL vote.
OTH approves of this method, but would never encourage anyone to vote 1-2-2-2-3-4-5-….-58-59, which actually would have been an accepted vote in Victoria with 68 candidates.
dyspnoeia – are you sure the act of advocating such a vote is illegal? Until recently, I thought it was illegal to advocate an informal vote, but such a vote is not technically informal anyway, and on checking I found that S.329A (regarding which Langer was prosecuted for contempt following an injunction not to breach) was abolished in 1998.
I would quite like to know what the actual legal situation is, as lack of knowledge of it was about the only thing that stopped me publicly endorsing Fat Cat for Denison this time round.
Thanks Dyspnoeia
I don’t advocate leaving ballot spaces blank as a rule, just pointing it out that it can still be valid as a corollary to the validity of Senate papers, as another little-realized thing in the counting rules, and no, I most certainly wouldn’t advocate doubling up on numbers 1-2-2 or 1 … 57-57. It is disturbing though to recall the Langer case…
On another note, as a longtime lurker with now two posts to my name, thanks to all who’ve participated over the long period, offered morsels for edification, and to William for setting up the site, husbanding it, and marshaling with a light touch.