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.

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)

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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)

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.