We have now seen the first two sitting weeks of the new Senate. Most attention was given to the rejection of the government’s legislation increasing the tax on luxury cars, with Family First’s Steve Fielding joining with the Coalition to knock off the Bill at the Second Reading stage, before any attempts could be made to move amendments to the legislation.
The votes taken on a range of other matters show a wider pattern already emerging. On four occasions, Fielding voted with the Coalition, while the Greens and Nick Xenophon voted on the other side with Labor, leaving the numbers deadlocked. On another occasion, the Fielding/Liberal grouping was joined by Xenophon - knocking out a Schedule of a tax Bill which would have tightened the definition of ‘family’ in family trusts to reduce the scope for these trusts to use tax losses to lower income tax.
A tied vote means the question being voted on is lost. This means government legislation fails to pass, but it also means amendments or motions moved by the Coalition or Fielding also lose. This happened twice, with a Coalition amendment to government legislation repealing Howard era workplace relations and governance protocols on the higher education sector failing on a tied vote, as did an attempt by Fielding to refer a Bill on the Great Barrier Reef to a long Senate Committee inquiry (his latest effort to position himself as a champion of the fishing lobby). The Bill was eventually referred, but only for two weeks rather than the two and a half months Fielding tried for.
Apart from losing the Schedule on family trusts from a Tax Bill and also losing the Luxury Car Tax measure, the government also lost another Bill to a Fielding/Liberal tied vote – which sought to enable wider cost recovery from pharmaceutical companies. This leaves the Labor government already with four packages of legislation knocked back in their entirety by the Senate, including two from the first half of the year. Judging by the large number of dissenting comments from Coalition Senators in a wide range of Senate Economics Committee reports examining other legislation yet to be voted on, it looks like this reject pile is going to get a lot larger yet.
If the government does want to think about the option of a double dissolution election sometime next year, they look likely to have a historically large pile of legislation to justify it. Despite the justified reputation of the Whitlam era Senate as a hostile one, when Gough Whitlam went to a double dissolution election in 1974, seventeen months after he was first elected to office, he’d only built up five valid trigger Bills. Kevin Rudd looks well on track to easily better that by this time next year.
31 Comments
The Coalition rightly blocked the Luxury Car Tax increase bill, a tax binge and class war if there ever was one.
Andrew
I’m doing a bit of research on the Pokies Bill. Any indications where the Greens or the major parties stand on this or NX’s policy of banning ATMs from venues?
Kevin I expect the major parties will not support the banning of Poker Machines or similar policies. The reality is that poker machine revenue sustains most clubs and tens of thousands of jobs, so I think Mr Xenophon is being a tad short sighted.
The Greens will be dead just like The Democrats!
Hard to see how that could occur any time soon, LP of WA. The Greens vote has been going up fairly steadily – including in WA a week or so ago. It might not stay up there forever, but there’s nothing to show why it would disappear.
Andrew you should take another look at the Queensland Senate vote.
I left a message on your other thread “Senate Bashing. Looks like a quirk in the system denied Queenslander’s the right to representation. The democrats did OK in QLD and had they survived Pauline in the count they would have been elected.
The system needs to be changed so as to ensure that the results truly reflect the voters intention. The Queensland result favoured the Labor Party but analysis also shows that all parties are effected by a system that is seriously flawed. The Queensland result is just proof of the outcome.
Here is the link. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/bartlett/2008/09/11/senate-bashing-makes-a-welcome-return/#comment-12
Andrew, do you think it’s likely that there will be a double dissolution? I have to say, I’m really surprised the libs are being so truculent – if there’s a double dissolution, they are _gone_, and Steve Fielding must realise that, too. What are they thinking, or am I way off base here?
re Pokies: Why is it that if you want to install more then four pin-ball amusment machines in a venue you require a planning permit for an amusement parlor but in Victoria if you want to install hundreds of poker mac all you need is a General license and sponsorship by either Tass or TAB and improvement of a gaming licence.Surely gaming venues should be subject to proper and effective planning control. then the local community would have a say where and under what conditions gaming venues are established and applied to have a gaming licence.
patrick – governments call elections, not oppositions. A double dissoution will almost ertainly be an option by next year – it will be up to the government whether they wish to take that option. Short of letting every Bill through, there is no way for the opposiotn to completely remove that option. The best thing they can do to reduce the prospect of an early election is what they should and no doubt will be trying to do anyway, which is weaken the government’s support – whether blocking a bunch of Bills in the Senate helps with that or not is a judgement for them.
Kevin – in regards to your question on the pokies Bill – I am assuming you mean Sen Xenophon’s “ATMs and Cash Facilities in Licensed Venues Bill 2008″ – I have done a separate post on the topic at this link.
Andrew your logic fails me. Why would the Labor Government want to call a double dissolution when it did better than expected at the last Senate election. (Even got one more then expected in Queensland when the sixth seat should have went to the Greens). A half senate election would provide the same result at less risk then a full Senate. Or is this just wishful thinking on your part hoping that you can regain a position in the Senate? One of the problems with the Democrats that I always disliked was their pretence of impartially by producing a split ticket. In reality they implemented a form of optional preferential voting.The democrats did nothing to correct the flaws in the electoral system, flaws that still remain today. The democrats lost their way and you were very much part of their down fall.
Whatever you reckon “‘democracy’ at work”.
The logic is as simple as the maths. Your statement that a “half senate election would provide the same result at less risk then a full Senate” is simply wrong. It would provide a signifcantly different result.
A double dissolution election would undoubtedly give Labor with a better position in the Senate than a half-Senate election where they received the same vote, and it would also get them there sooner.
The potential risk of voter backlash from an early election is obviously a risk factor in weakening their vote, and something they would take into account. It is not something they would or should risk unless they were confident they would be able to convince the electorate the reason/s were justifiable. That’s a judgement Labor will make, and they will access to far more comprehensive polling than I (or you or anyone in the media or the general community) will have to help inform their judgement.
I don’t profess to advise them on whether they would be able to avoid such a backlash and thus use a double dissolution to consolidate their position in the House of Reps.
All I am doing is pointing out the simple mathematical fact that if they did mantain their base vote, their Senate position would be stronger following a double dissolution than a half-Senate election, as well as indicating that is appears almost certain that the conditions enabling a double dissolution to be called will be fulfilled – probably many times over – thus making it a live option by sometime next year.
You are free to make cheap and inaccurate shots at the Democrats (or at me for that matter) if you wish, but it just suggests you don’t have any real interest in making any logical arguments to back your assertions about the actual topic at hand.
Juvenile comments alleging “the Democrats did nothing” to improve the electoral system are just silly. The Democrats – Michael Macklin and Andrew Murray in particular – played an enormous role in making our electoral system far fairer and more open than it was at the start of the 1980s. No doubt they could have tried to do more, but so could everybody else.
A range of people from other parties have also played constructive roles in the area of electoral law over the years – including John Faulkner at present.
I am not interested in partisan party flag waving (or flag trashing) – I find it intellectually sterile and just plain boring. You can do so if you wish, but I am not interested in engaging with it. I might feel the need to defend the Democrats from time to time against false or unfair attacks, or occasionally remind people of some of their historical actions, but I’ve made it very clear in many places that I think there is little chance of that party ever rebuilding a meaningful parliamentary presence. If you think my purpose in writing here or in my past blogging or other commenting anywhere else is to promote the rebirth of the Democrats, you are mistaken.
Your the one making unsubstantiated`claims. You say you have done your maths. Well where is it? Outline the basis of your claims. Your previous comment about the Senate system not distorting the outcome of the election tells me you have little understanding of how the Senate vote is actually counted. You may try and deflect criticism and questions by discussing these issues as cheap shots. But it would be better that you publish the details to backup your claim. You have done the maths I assume. WELL PUBLISH IT!!!
In terms of electoral reform. No I do not think the Democrats did a thing. If they had we would not have the seriously flawed Senate Counting rules…
Please grow up.
If you don’t think the Democrats, or anyone else, have done a ’single thing’ in regards to electoral reform in the last 25 years then you are simply ignorant of the huge number of changes electoral law that have happened over that time.
Given you seem to think there would be no difference in the Senate outcome when there are twelve seats to be filled as opposed to six, you are also seriously lacking in simple maths as well.
I suggest you recount the 2007 Senate votes as if there had been 12 vacancies in each state instead of 6. If you still think the overall Senate numbers would be the same as it is at present, then I suggest you retire from any further public commentry on voting systems.
(hint: I wouldn’t have been elected under that scenario either, so its not about me or the Democrats. Its about reality.)
What is still missing is your maths.
Again I repeat the ALP had it’s best result in 2007 and ITS WORST result in 2004. Its the 2004 lot that are up for re-election next. I fail to see the ALP making significant ground in the senate at the next election above the 2007 result. I have asked around and NO-ONE shares your assessment. The only advantage in calling a double dissolution would be IF the ALP felt they would be able to get some VERY important legislation through a joint sitting.The odss are the numbers will not change be it a half senate or a full senate.
Now if you still beleive I am wrong then publish your maths…But then judging by your comments on the 2007 QLD Senate election … Where the system did deliver the ALP an additional seat above what it won on merit… If that is not a serious distortion in the way they count the vote what is?.. How long were you in office while this distortion remained in place? ATL tickets was Robert Ray’s Initiative. At least they got rid of the random sample distribution. BUT we have had compters doing the count now since 2001? Surely we should have eliminated all the obvious bias/distortion in the count had the democrats beenon the ball. Your response “There is no distortion in the count”. LOL Watch this space Ithinkthe greens will seekto addresthis issue and hopefully the ALP and Liberal Parties also will back the call to end the obvious distortion in the count.
In a full Senate election the ALP and Liberals can expect at a minimum 5 Senate seats in each state. In a full senate the Greens would get one in each state (Forget the Terroritories they do not count). Now which states do you think the ALP will get 6 where they won’t get 3 in a half senate election? WA?? SA?? QLD!!
Publish your maths.
Yes there is potential to gain in those States where the ALP only elected two in 2007. But they would also put at risk those`states where they elected three. Vic NSW and QLD will see no gain but face greater risk. The only real winner in a Full Senate election will be the Greens and Family First. A half senate election should see FF lose representation. FF outpolled the Democrats after prefernces in Queeensland.
I won’t get into the strategic arguments for or against the Liberal parties outcome in afull Senate suffice to say that it is not in the ALP’s interest to have minor parties such as FF having a potential for a decisive infulence. They are not Brian Hardadine.
The Pharmaceutical cost recovery bill will most likely be reintroduced in a similar way to the LCT package once the regs have been considered by the Community Affairs Committee and then will likely be passed.
The maths based on fulll senate quota..:
—————–
ALP 2007 2004
—————–
NSW 5.47 4.73
VIC 5.42 4.70
QLD 5.10 4.11
WA 4.68 4.23
SA 4.63 4.61
TAS 5.23 4.36
The ALP Could be left holding the wasted quota in WA and/or SA andstill onlybhold 4 in total not 5. No chance of winning 6. Risk
By contrast a half senate election can only gain with better odds at winning 3 then 6 in a full.
You are correct to say that “it is not in the ALP’s interest to have minor parties such as FF having a potential for a decisive influence.”
That’s why a double dissolution would benefit the ALP’s situation in the Senate – it might help Family First or another micro party hold a seat or two, but it will seriously reduce their influence.
Your ‘maths’ just show you are missing the key point. It is not how many seats Labor holds that is crucial to the Senate balance, it is how many the Coalition hold. They will clearly go further backwards under a double dissolution than they will under a half-Senate. Contrary to your earlier assertion, your own figures prove that Labor has no hope of winning half the Senate seats – under either a half or a full Senate election. Indeed they, have no chance of even coming close.
Even if they won 3 seats in every state next time, which is highly improbable – and indeed utterly impossible under your (far from certain) assumption that their 2007 Senate vote is their high water mark – they would still fall 2 seats short of a majority.
The Coalition will certainly lose a Queensland Senate seat next time, but there is no guarantee they will lose any other seats in a half-Senate election, which would still leave the Coalition at 36 – and Labor still vulnerable to Xenophon + another minor/micro party lucking a seat in a half-Senate (Family First are very unlikely to do it again in Victoria, but could squeak one in SA or Qld if the cards fall their way). There will be no Xenophon running next time if its a half-Senate, and it was only his presence that caused the Libs to lose their 3rd SA seat (and played a pivotal role in giving the Greens a SA seat as well).
As to my maths of a double dissolution result, under the current counting methods – I detailed what the result would probably have looked like based on the 2007 result here.
It showed a Senate outcome of ALP 32, LNP 33, Greens 8, Others 3. As always, the last seat can be a lottery, especially in a double dissolution, so its impossible to fully predict the final outcome.
“How long were you in office while this distortion remained in place? ATL tickets was Robert Ray’s Initiative.”
ATL tickets were brought in with the support of the Democrats in the 1980s – they significantly reduced informal votes (and thus reduced the number of people being inadvertently disenfranchised). (one of a multitude of examples that your sandpit spit that the ‘democrats did nothing’ on electoral form is simply false). The problem of preference harvesting via a wide array of micro parties was not forseen at the time, and didn’t really become a major distortion (federally at least) until this decade. I think further improvements can still be made, but every system has its pros and cons.
As for the different counting method that you call a ‘distortion’ – you are grossly overstating the case when you talk about the ‘intent’ of the voters being unfulfilled as a result of minor mathematical variences in close contests.
The key factor in the final Senate seat in Qld in 2007 was not your so-called ‘distortion’, it was Pauline Hanson’s decision on where to allocate her preferences. She decided to put Labor ahead of the Greens. If she had done the opposite, the Greens would have won. You might like to overcomplicate and overdramatise it, but it’s really quite simple.
In a half senate election Labor can only improve. There will not be a Full senate election. If you like I will produce the stats from the other side. The only area where there could be any gain is SA and WA. SA is highly unlikey Labour could pickup 5 in as full toss. That leaves WA. Well there is more chance at winning 3 in either TAS VICor NSW then winning that one in WA. The least thing Labor wants is to increase the Green’s representation. Again produce your math. It is your ascertion. No one I have spoken to supports your notion. (Unless there is an important piece of legislation that the party wants passed in a joint sitting it is not on the cards). Pure fantasy.
Re Queensland ‘COUNT THE VOTE’. Labor won because of the system, not Pauline. The method used to distribute preferences from excluded candidate’s seriously distorted the outcome of the election. Queensland is the only state where the result changed as a result of the system applied. The system in place was designed to facilitate a manual count. IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE VOTERS INTENTION.
There are twoissuesofcocncern in the way the AE counts senate votes
The method of calculating the surplus transfer value (As demonstrated by my Hypothetical on the Victorian Vote and verified by Antony Green)
The other being the method of distribution of excluded candidates. It was the second issue that gave labor its third seat. Afact that has been confirmed independently by two other people. We are still waiting on Antony Green to do his analysis. Reprocess the vote with only the last seven standing. This will reflect the voters intentions. The Greenswin the sixh seat. I am confident that this distortion will also effect the Municpal elections and maybe even the ACT election next month.
I wonder if and when the ACT Electoral Commission will publish the detailed preference data file or willl they adopt similar policy of avoidance as shown by Victoria and the AEC who only produced the data after three months and a number of complaints and numerous requests. So much to the notion of an open and transparent electoral process.
Xenophon would elect two in SA in a full toss. In a`half you can expect his endorsement will deliver one. The Greens would win in all other states possible two in Tass with a full and Labor would not gain one. I would not write off FF who in a full senate would fare better`chances then in a half senate. They out polled you in Queensland after preferences. If labor can better their 2007 Result then the half senate is a safer bet. That is a bonus. The key is getting above 39-41% primary. A full senate they would need 44-46% to achive the same result.
Good to see your maths on a double dissolution are in broad agreement with mine. Hence I assume you now agree that Labor’s position in the Senate in terms of being able to pass legislation would be better than after a half-Senate election. Seeing all I was doing was pointing out that basic fact, perhaps we can now discuss other matters.
As for counting methods, to say “Labor won because of the system, not Pauline” is a bit meaningless. The ’system’ is the Electoral Act – everyone who got elected won because of the ’system’. If the system was still what it was for the first half of last century, then there would be no minor parties at all in the Senate.
A part of the current system that has been in place for over 20 years is the requirement for parties/candidates to allocate their preference for Above the Line votes. Pauline Hanson had to allocate them somewhere, and she chose put Labor ahead of Greens. That is why Labor won the last seat, under the system.
As for whether your proposals would be fairer, I trust you have been submitting them to the Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Matters. Calculating surplus value is an important aspect of the count – there a few ways of doing it and I can’t see any in principle problem with your suggestion.
As for your suggested method of exclusion, I don’t really see why it would be seen as fairer than the current approach. It can obviously produce different results, but I don’t see how you can say its or more genuinely representative of the voters’ intentions. There are always different ways of counting votes and transferring the value of the votes of unsuccessul candidates – each have their arguments for and against.
In Qld in 2007, Labor got 2.74 quotas and the Greens got 0.51 quotas. For you to categorically state that it did not reflect the voters’ intention for Labor to win 3 seats, (instead of a result of Labor 2, Greens 1) seems to be be overstating your case, to put it mildly – especially when it can reasonably be said that people who voted for Pauline Hanson (0.29 quotas) were more likely to have prefered Labor over the Greens (given that Hanson herself did)
“As for the different counting method that you call a ‘distortion’ – you are grossly overstating the case when you talk about the ‘intent’ of the voters being unfulfilled as a result of minor mathematical variences in close contests.”
What you claim is of minor mathematical varience represents 50,000 votes difference in the Queensland Results. That’s eqiv. to half a federal seat.
The details have been spelt out in my submission to the JSCEM. The principle is clear. Each vote should be treated the same. When you distribute preferences from excluded candidates it should be done in such a maner as that candidate did not stand. There are two optionsthat fullfil that criteria. Meek and thwe propsed Wright system which uses a reiterative`count. On every exclusion thevote is reset and`recounted from the begging. Bulk exclusion calculations are possible to speed up the count. But essentially it is the same system as used in WA if you had only seven candidates remaining in the count.
You say our maths agree but your conclusion and assessment is way off. There will not be a double because a half senate will provide a better out come with less risk.
A half-Senate election does not produce a better outcome for Labor than a double dissolution, as the Coalition would clearly be worse off – your own calculations show that. It would also produce that outcome quicker.
I understand how the different methods of counting work – what you haven’t explained is why such a method of exclusion is more democratic or better reflects the intention of the voters. Particularly given your categorical claim that the intention of Qld voters was to elect 1 Green and 2 Labor Senators last election, rather than 3 Labor. You can devise all sorts of counting systems which could give that outcome, but that is quite different to saying they would better reflect the intention of the voters.
I did explain. in the post above. It treatsevery ballot paper in the same manner and the votes are distributted as though the excluded candidate hadf not stood. If a second orsubsequent preference is for the Labor Partyor the Liberal party it would be trated asthough it was a primary vote or formed part of that candidates surplus disctribution.In the same way as other ballotpapers. Effectively their should only be surplus distributions. Thge distortion happens in the fold up duestosegfmenation and the fact that ballot papers jump past thosecandidates that have been declared elected at an earlier stage. This allows those ballot papers to be treatedin a seperate manner then other ballots. Again the prinicple is that all ballot papers should be treated equally.
All the “maths” show that there is no advanatge or reason for the Labor Governement to consider a double dissolution. The ALP will not gain any more from a double then a half election. In fact a half senate election will provide them with the best opportunity to maximise their vote. Maybe in the election following the next that will change. Your assumption about a full Senate election is wrong. We can beg to differ BUT no one I have spoken to supports your argument. And they are in a position that counts.
I did explain. in the post above. It treatsevery ballot paper in the same manner and the votes are distributted as though the excluded candidate hadf not stood. If a second orsubsequent preference is for the Labor Partyor the Liberal party it would be trated asthough it was a primary vote or formed part of that candidates surplus disctribution.In the same way as other ballotpapers. Effectively their should only be surplus distributions. Thge distortion happens in the fold up duestosegfmenation and the fact that ballot papers jump past thosecandidates that have been declared elected at an earlier stage. This allows those ballot papers to be treatedin a seperate manner then other ballots. Again the prinicple is that all ballot papers should be treated equally.
The Reason the Greens were/should have been elcetedis duetoyour partiespreferiencing the Greens ahead of labor or the liberal party, The democrats were just a feeder for the Greens. The system that is in place was designed to faciliate a manual count, not fairness of correctness or propotionality. It has no logic or principle that justify’s its use. Other then that it is inplace. If a candidate is excluded then the ballot should be reset and restarted as though they did not stand.
All the “maths” show that there is no advanatge or reason for the Labor Governement to consider a double dissolution. The ALP will not gain any more from a double then a half election. In fact a half senate election will provide them with the best opportunity to maximise their vote. Maybe in the election following the next that will change. Your assumption about a full Senate election is wrong. We can beg to differ BUT no one I have spoken to supports your argument. And they are in a position that counts.
To stay on the topic of the post for a moment, it may be that “no one you have spoken to supports my argument”, but that could well be because you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument.
Simple fact 1: The Coalition would have fewer Senate seats after a double dissolution than they would if it was another half-Senate. (I assume you don’t disupte this).
Simple fact 2: It is the high number of Coalition Senate seats – being so close to the blocking number of 38 – which is making things so difficult for Labor in the Senate.
Combining these two simple facts, Labor’s position in the Senate, in terms of being able to get legislation passed, would be better following a double dissolution than another half-Senate. The fact they would be able to bring it on earlier, rather than have to wait until July 2011, is an added bonus.
To avoid boring other readers (assuming there are any still bothering to follow this thread) I won’t repeat this again – if you can’t grasp what I’m saying by now, you’re not likely to.
As for counting methods – yes, you had explained how it worked. I already know that counting system and many other alternatives. What you didn’t explain is why it would be fairer, let alone categorically show the voters’ “intention”.
You have done so to a degree now. But personally I can’t see why it would be fairer to reset a ballot count as though an excluded candidate did not stand, when the simple fact is that the excluded candidate did stand.
To look at Qld Senate 2007 again, the primary vote of major players were:
Lib/Nat – 2.82 quotas
ALP – 2.74
Greens – 0.51
Hanson – 0.29
Family First – 0.15
Democrats – 0.13
Next closest was Fishing Party on 0.06
Every voter is an individual of course, but I fail to see how you can say that it is a better reflection of the intention of the voters for the Greens to win a seat ahead of the 3rd Labor. Of all the parties excluded below the Greens, only the Democrat vote could be said to naturally favour the Greens ahead of the Labor or Liberal. Hanson, FF and Fishing are all on the right-far right of the spectrum and would more naturally tend towards both majors before the Greens.
I am sure there are ways to count the vote that can produce this result, but to me it would be an example showing such a counting system would be less fair.
If we are really wanting to get as close as possible to reflecting the voters’ intention, we should scrap the pre-allocation of preferences through the ATL. No party is fully a ‘feeder’ for other parties, as voters can decide for themselves where to put preferences, but the ATL encourages people to ‘contract out’ this task to the parties – with the proliferation of micro parties and the greater capacity for preference harvesting off a very low base, this has lead to greater distortions than anything else.
I know there are proposals to change this, and I hope the Electoral Matters Committee takes those proposals seriously.
(although to return to the key point in my original post, Labor still would be in a better Senate position following a double dissolution than a half-Senate, even if a change like this was made)
I do not agree. A double dissolution will not help labor. Wewill not haveone nextelection. The ALP will fare betterat a normal halfsenateelection.
It problem with the`currnt system is that itdistorted the poporionality of the`count. There is no justifaction or klogic behinf theway in which excluded preserencesare dealt. This is not a debate about our preferential voting system. The system you appear to be advocating is a party list system.Iamadvocating treating allthe ballotdequallyand in the same fashion. Ifyourecount the QLD senate with only7 candidates remaining in the countthen the Liberalselect 3theALP2and the greens by amarginof 50,000votes are alsoelected. Each vote treated the same way without distortion in the value of the distribution. It is a more correct reflection of the votersintetntion.ONLYsurplus votes are ever distributed.The last count being the count that elects all vacant positions without need for any further exclusions. NO SEGMENTATION AND NO JUMPING ELECTED CANDIDATES. *Except in a surplus distribution).The greens should have been elected(On your and the Liberal party’s pefernce votes).It does not make me happy saying this as I am a member of the ALPBUT I can not deny as some can that the system distorted the outcome of the voters intention.The Queensland 2007 result was wrong. Both Meek and Wright systems cametothe same result. I have counted the QLD result using the falwedAEC sysetmandIget the same result as the AEC.I used the WAsystemjandtherewassomechange.BUTthe realchange in Queensland cameabout as a result of the way the AEC distribute excluded candidates. There is no logic to backup their method. It was a system designed to assist a MANUAL Countnotrelect the voters intention.The notion of resetting and restarting the countand distributing votes as though the candidate did not stand is the correct approach. It invloves a reiterative count. Be it MEEK or Wright. More http://melbcity.googlepages.com. The ALP became the wasted Quotaand sat below obtaining 3 quotas. Ask Antony Green to do a count with only the last seven standing.(ALPtop3,Lib top 4 Greens number 1) divide the cake seven waysone slice slightly smaller according to the voters express intention and the ALP loses and the Greens win. MEEKS is recognised as being one of the worlds most accurate and fairest counting systems. (itis an approxiamation non-linear conting method and is harder to follow) the Wright system (A linear iteration counting system – easiertofollow) is much more accurate and correct in principle then the current flawed system (Error rate of Wright calcuated at less then 0.03%.).Bothe MEEK and WRiGHT produce the same result.