I assume you are familiar with MEEK and the AEC systems

Meek is an approximation non-linear counting method whist Wright is a linear counting method. Wright is similar to the WA system except that when a candidate is to be excluded the vote is reset and the count starts again as though the excluded candidate had not stood. The method of calculating the surplus transfer value is based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers.

Both Meek and Wright better refect the intention of the voter whilst the AEC system seriously distorts the outcome of the election. The wrong person/Party was elected in QLD. As much as I am pleased the ALP had gained an additional seat I can not say or claim that it did so on the basis of merit. The only reason they won three seats was due to the distortion in the way the AEC counts the vote, Your from QLD you should be concerned about this issue.

2007 Queensland Senate Election
Comparsion Count Summary Report

“ID”,”Canidate”,”Ticket”,”WRIGHT”,”MEEK”,”AEC”

“23″,”MACDONALD”,”J-1″,”348286″,”345559″,”345559″

“24″,”BOYCE”,”J-2″,”349882″,”345559″,”345559″

“25″,”BOSWELL”,”J-3″,”363509″,”345559″,”345559″

“33″,”WATERS”,”M-1″,”351484″,”363089″,”311914″

“38″,”HOGG, O-1″,”348609″,”345559″,”345559″

“39″,”MOORE”,”O-2″,”351059″,”345559″,”345559″

“40″,”FURNER”,”O-3″,”305705″,”328023 “,”372947″

“”,”Non-Transferable”,”",”373″,”Remaining”,”5155″

“”,”Exhausted”,”",”",”",”970″

“”,”Gain/Loss”,”",”",”",”126″

“”,”Sum”,”",”2418907″,”2418907″,”2418907″

IDCanidateTicketWRIGHTMEEKAEC

23MACDONALDJ-1348286345559345559

24BOYCEJ-2349882345559345559

25BOSWELLJ-3363509345559345559

33WATERSM-1351484363089311914

38HOGG, O-1348609345559345559

39MOOREO-2351059345559345559

40FURNERO-3305705328023 372947

Non-Transferable373Remaining5155

Exhausted970

Gain/Loss126

Sum241890724189072418907

My analysis of the vote has been confirmed by three independent analysts including the British Electoral Reform Society, who under took a count using Meek’s method. All Analyses showed that the Greens should have secured the sixth Senate seat. Next you will be trying to justify the calculation in the surplus Transfer value based on the number of ballot papers as opposed to the value of the vote. WA realised that process was seriously flawed which is why they adopted a calculation based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers. All they need to do now is address the flaw in the way preference votes excluded candidates are distributed. With the use of computer based technology there is not justification for the distortion in the count. None.

RE: Double Dissolution

I would like to see your maths on your claim that Labor would do better in a double dissolution at the next election. The Labor Party did better then expected in the last election WHY would they want to hold a double dissolution. Way too risky. Not on the cards.

The Greens got their best ever vote in Queensland, but it still was not enough with preferences from other progressive and left leaning preferences, to build up a quota. There may be some validity in your case for how surplus transfer values are calculated, but it shouldn’t desguise the case that there still isn’t a clear quota worth of votes for progressive/left leaning candidates outside the major parties.

As for your comment on a double dissolution, I’ve stated previously why a double dissolution would leave Labor would a better Senate scenario. The maths alone make this almost inevitable, as the number of Coalition seats would fall further (which not increases the certainty of the cross-benches retaining balance of power, but would make it easier for Labor to only have to negotiate with the Greens to secure passage of legislation). Your suggestion that there is a possibility for the “govenrment to secure a majority in the Senate” is nonsensical – there is no chance of this under either a half- or full-Senate election.

As for your snark about a double dissolution suiting my hopes of a “political resurrection”, firstly I’d have to want to do that, secondly I’d have to find a party that would want me and thirdly I’d have to gain pre-selection. At the moment I’m spending my energy exploring all the things I might find interesting now I am free of Parliament, not directing my attention at how I might get back in there again.

1. The calculation of the surplus transfer value where major party ticket votes are increased value at the expense of minor party supported candidates. The current method calculated based on the number of ballot papers not the value of the ballot paper. (Surplus divided by the number of ballot papers) Problem with the current senate rules is that some ballot papers hold a fractional value that is less then other ballot papers as they are distributed High in quantity but low in value. This can and does work against all parties (Although it favours them indirectly on some occasions). Western Australia recently changed the way they count their upper-house vote introducing what is referred to as the weighted Gregory transfer method (Surplus divided by the candidate’s total value of votes times then value of each ballot paper). One vote one value.

2. The way in which we redistribute preferences allocated to candidates that are excluded from the count. The principle should be that votes for excluded candidates a should redistributed as though that candidate did not stand. BUT again this is not how the system works in the senate.

Analysis of the 2007 Senate vote has shown that the Queensland senate results did not reflect the voters intentions. The system seriously distorted the outcome of the election. If you recount the Queensland ballot on the basis that there is only seven candidates remaining in the count the results are 3 Liberal, 2 Labor and 1 Green.

The current method of counting the Senate election is out of date. It was designed to facilitate a manual counting process.

The Australian Government us currently reviewing the system in place and hopefully they will address these issues. The ITEM has requested the SEC to provide a report. The AEC is fully aware of the shortcoming in the system itself BUT has yet to address the issue. A cone of silence and attitude of you do not mention it no one will know it is broken. A bit like ignoring the need to check you brakes or service your car.

I am sure Bob Brown is concerned about this. BUT as it does not always favour or disadvantage the Greens. Analysis of the Victorian results shows that had One Nation preferenced the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP the Greens would have been elected The method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value gave the Greens an additional 7,000 bonus votes, 7,000 votes that changed the results of the election. 7,000 Votes above and beyond what they should have been allocated.

In the realistic hypothetical outline above the Greens would have been elected in Victoria not on merit but as a result of the distortion built into the system and method of counting the vote.

In Queensland it was the other way around. The Queensland result was decided by the way the AEC distribute preferences from excluded candidates.

More information Change that Counts -click here