What has Stonnington got to hide? Over 2000 unused votes excluded from Municipal Count back

Preliminary analysis of the City of Stonnington has indicated that the count-back system deployed is seriously flawed with over 2000 unused votes excluded from the count.

WHAT HAS THE CITY OF STONNINGTON GOT TO HIDE

Mr Anthony van der Craats, Senior Systems Analyst and Life member and former National Secretary of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia  has called on the Stonnington City Council to publish the details of the preference data files for independent analysis and review.  The Stonnington City Council has refused to date to publish copies of the preference data files.  This information should be readily available but the City of Stonnington is refusing to release it.

The Proportional Representation Society is aware of the deficiency in the legislation yet has failed to have this matter addressed.

The rules as they currently stand are applicable to a different system and should not be applied to the current system in use.  If the system was a pure proportional system (IE no Droop Quota) the existing rules would work fine.  But under the Droop Quota system they distort the proportionally of the count and do not reflect the voters intention. 

Without access to copies of the preference data files it is impossible to independently verify the integrity and accuracy of the count.

The Stonnington City Council in refusing to make copies of the preference data files readily available is trying to hide and prevent review and analysis of the system which needs to be change if public confidence in the system if to be maintained.

Other Municipalities, State and Federal Government have published copies of the preference data files used to determine the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections.  Why not Stonnington?

Further Information

Anthony van der Craats

Senior Systems Analyst (ICT)

Life Member of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia 

0403378111

Team Doyle Disenfranchised: Droop vs Pure Proportional voting

Why do we continue to use the "Droop quota" and in the process disenfranchise a significant percentage of voters?

In the past the adoption of the Droop quota allowed us to reach a conclusion in the count without having to distribute preferences to the Nth degree and count every vote.  However with the use of computer based technology this justification no longer applies.

Droop = x/(y+1)-1
Pure Proportional = x/y

By calculating the quota to be "x(/y+1)-1", as defined by Droop, we are ignoring up to a quota of  voters which results in a large percentage of votes being locked up in what is referred to as the "wasted quota".

The effect of the Droop quota can be  seen clearly by analyzing the 2012 City of Melbourne Council vote.  In this case Team Doyle received around 38% of the vote and elected 3 positions with 8% of voters (Team Doyle's surplus) was ignored. 

If the system was a pure proportional count the quota would have been 11.11% instead of 10% and the outcome of the election would have been more representative.

Under the Droop quota the Greens managed to elect 2 positions with just 14% of the primary vote and community candidate Kevin Chamberlin on 6% miss out being elected. If the count was pure proportional without the distortion of the Droop quota Kevin Chamberlin would have been elected with the support of Team Doyle’s surplus preferences.

Why should Team Doyle’s voters be disenfranchised and ignored by being lockup in the discarded quota, why should not the system be fully proportional and each vote of equal value.  The current system using the Droop Quota at best can only be described as semi proportional.

The system using the Droop quota becomes even more distorted under the Victorian Local Government count-back rules as the vote that has been left on the table is not taken into account when calculating who or which candidate fills the casual vacancy.

The Victorian State Parliament Electoral Matters Committee to date has not scheduled a review of the Local Government elections, it is unclear if they will even though it is within their terms of references and they have an obligation to do so.

Will the Melbourne City Council take up this issue?    Most likely not.  The Greens benefited from the distortion in the proportionality of the count so they will not see any benefit in reform.  The only team that did not was Team Doyle and Kevin Chamberlin. But the principle is clear if you believe in proportional representation then all votes should carry equal weight x/y is the purest means of calculating a quota not x/(y+1)-1

2012 City of Melbourne Primary Preference count (9 Councillors to be elected)

Doyle's supporters disenfranchised, denied representation

Analysis of the October 2012 Municipal polls shows that the Lord Mayor's Robert Doyle's "Team  Doyle" was disenfranchised by distortions in the electoral system.  Over 8% of the electorate had no say in who represents them. Team Doyle polled 38% of the vote yet only managed to elect three Councillors disproportionate to their support.

The problem arises in the way the City  Counts the vote.  The method of  calculating of the quota used in the election is is not proportional. With nine vacancies the quota used to determine the outcome of the election is calculated by dividing the total number of votes recorded by (the number of positions vacant plus one - referred to as Droop Quota).  In the City of Melbourne's case the total vote was divided by 10 ... not 9. The quota instead of being 11.1% is reduced to 10% with up to 10% of the electorate denied representation.

By comparison the Greens, who polled just 15.5% (Less than half of that polled by Team Doyle), managed to increase their representation disproportionally, elected two Councillors - not based on merit but only due to a distortion in the proportionality and method used in counting the vote.

The reason why the method used to calculate the quota was adopted was to facilitate a manual counting process.  It allowed the outcome of the election to be decided early without having to fully count all ballot papers.

Plea for pure democracy

With the use of computer based technology in counting the vote there is no justification or merit in disenfranchising voters. The system should be pure proportional, not semi proportional, with the quota equaling the  total number of votes divided by the number of positions (i.e. x/9 in the case of the City of Melbourne)

Team Doyle's surplus of 8% should have been counted and their supporters should have had a say in who represents them.  This is an issue that the Lord Mayor should take up and call for a review of the current electoral procedures in 2013.

x/y Pure Proportional Representation - minus the flaws

Analysis and recounting of the City of Melbourne "C9" Council elections produces a different result.

If we remove all the distortions that arise though the segmentation, wrong calculation of the surplus transfer value and the method of calculating the quota that was introduced last century back in the times of the typewriter when computer technology was not readily available we would have a true proportionality election. If we divided the number of votes by the number of vacancies (x/y) and allocated each vote a value of one and proportioned out the value of the vote with one single transaction per candidate, no segmentation the results of the election would have been

Order	Candidate	Group
1	LOUEY, Kevin	TEAM DOYLE
2	OKE, Cathy	THE GREENS
3	ONG, Ken	GARY SINGER - JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
4	WOOD, Arron	TEAM DOYLE
5	PINDER-MORTIMER, Beverley	TEAM DOYLE
6	MAYNE, Stephen	STEPHEN MAYNE
7	WATTS, Jackie	MORGAN ELLIOTT- PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
8	FOSTER, Richard	OUR MELBOURNE
9	CHAMBERLIN, Kevin	SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE

Greens candidate, Rohan Leppert would have been excluded.

The system that is currently in place is semi proportional at best and as a result of the method of calculating the surplus transfer value (based on the number of ballot papers as opposed to the value of the vote) the value of some votes increase at the a expense of others. It distorts the proportionality of the vote and does not accurately reflect the voters intentions.

The Greens received 15.62% of the primary vote which in pure proportional terms equates to 1.41 quotas.

After the distribution of preferences the Greens second candidate fails to reach quota and is excluded from the count.

If Victoria is to maintain public confidence in the electoral system the results of the election MUST be accurate and MUST reflect the intentions of the electorate. It must be proportional to the vote. Each vote must equal one value.

The flawed and outdated system of counting the vote was designed to facilitate a manual count, back in the days before calculators or computers. With the aid of computer technology and a more accurate method of counting the vote there is no justification to maintain the existing electoral systems.

If we calculated dividends or interest paid on financial transactions the way we calculate the vote our financial system would collapse over night.

Group Name	ATL	BTL	Total	%	Quota %	Quotas	Remainder
OUR MELBOURNE	3,414	539	3,953	6.21%	0.56	-	0.56
STEPHEN MAYNE	3,148	680	3,828	6.01%	0.54	-	0.54
RESIDENTS FIRST:STOP THE RATES RIP-OFF!	1,703	226	1,929	3.03%	0.27	-	0.27
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE	3,242	444	3,686	5.79%	0.52	-	0.52
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP	561	73	634	1.00%	0.09	-	0.09
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP	560	73	633	0.99%	0.09	-	0.09
FORWARD TOGETHER	475	53	528	0.83%	0.07	-	0.07
THE GREENS	8,989	953	9,942	15.62%	1.41	- 1.00	0.41
TEAM DOYLE	22,915	949	23,864	37.48%	3.37	- 3.00	0.37
MORGAN ELLIOTT- PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY	5,598	516	6,114	9.60%	0.86	-	0.86
GARY SINGER - JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING	7,596	708	8,304	13.04%	1.17	- 1.00	0.17
Ungrouped			249	0.39%	0.04	-	0.04
Sum	58201		63664		9	5	4
Quota					7074

Melbourne's Electoral System Seriously Flawed

Melbourne's electoral system is seriously flawed an in need of urgent review.

The system in place provides an unfair disadvantage to unaligned  independent candidates and the method of calculating the surplus transfer value and distribution of preferences is tainted and not accurate.

Mr van der Craats, who is running as an unaligned candidate said "that the above-the-line voting system should be scrapped and the method of counting the votes revised to address the anomalies in the system that make the system unfair".

Voters who wish to support  independent candidates or those that are not included on group tickets have to vote below-the-line. Above-the-line voters in most cases do not know where their votes or preferences are allocated or aware of the impact they have on the outcome of the election. A team or party vote locks in voters preferences which are then allocated according to the groups ticket.

The City of Melbourne is the only Municipality in Victoria that uses an above-the-line-voting system

As a team vote is able to be directed this provides an unfair advantage in the preference deals that decide the election. Un-grouped candidates are placed at the bottom of the ballot paper and denied the same rights as ticket votes in that voters have to vote below-the-line to cast a first preference vote for them. 

Most candidates running on group tickets have little to no chance of being elected and are only listed to bolster the groups appearance or to direct preferences to support other candidates.  A lead candidate on a team ticket can be elected with less than half a quota (>5% of the total vote) where an un-grouped independent candidate would require 9% or more below-the-line primary votes.

Melbourne's Council election is already decided as a result of predetermined preference deals. It is a question of magnitude and only 11 candidates are placed to have a chance of being elected.

Victoria's voting system is additionally flawed by the way in which the vote is counted.  The system of "proportional representation"and the method of calculating the surplus transfer value (The number of votes that a candidate receives that is over the 10% quota)  is not proportional. Ticket/Party votes are inflated in value at the expense of  minor parties and independent candidates.

The system used is, at best, semi-proportional and is not accurate.

Add to this technical issues related to the distribution of preferences from excluded candidates where votes are segmented and distributed in such a manner that they do not apply equally to all votes.

The principle that a a vote for an excluded candidate should be distributed in order of the voters preference as if the excluded candidate had not stood does not apply to Local Government elections. Votes skip candidates and are allocated to other candidates at a higher value than they would otherwise be had they been distributed according to the order of preference indicated by the voter. The system in use is akin to dealing from the bottom of the deck and giving higher value to some votes at the expense of others.  These distortions in the way we count the vote came about as a result of trying to ease the manual counting of votes. With the use of computer-based technology there is no justification or need to maintain the flaws in the way our votes are counted.  


If we calculated financial dividends the way Victoria calculates the vote our financial system would collapse overnight with a loss of confidence.  



In addition: The method of filling causal vacancies by count-back is also flawed in that the system does not include votes that retain a value and are left unused on the table. In the City of Melbourne count-back that was held last year over 6000 unallocated votes were ignored and voters disenfranchised.  The wrong candidate was elected to fill the casual vacancy. 

Successive Labor and Liberal Government's have failed to review the system in place and address these issues. 

The Victorian Parliament's "Electoral Matters Committee" has responsibility and oversight of Victoria's local government electoral system.  whilst they have reviewed the State election they have not reviewed the system as it applies to Local Government.

Anthony van der Craats is the National Secretary and a Life member of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia

2008 Under the 2012 model

We decided out of interest to apply the 2008 vote under the new proposed model of nine Councillors.

It should be noted that this is indicative only. For the sake of the exercise we excluded Peter Clark from the count. He was replaced by Jackie Watts. (This time she was elected in her own right)

Elected	Candidate	Group
1	JETTER, Carl	JETTER
2	OKE, Cathy	GREENS
3	LOUEY, Kevin	McMULLIN
4	ONG, Ken	TEAMMELB
5	SHANAHAN, Brian	SHANNAHAN
6	KANIS, Jennifer	FOWLES
7	BINI, Luciano	JETTER
8	LEPPERT, Rohan	GREENS
9	WATTS, Jackie	MORGAN

* Results indicative only

Victoria's Count Back System of Shame

The City of Melbourne has concluded the count back of the 2008 Municipal Election ballot to determine who will fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Councillor Peter Clarke.

The successful candidate was Jackie Watts (Peter Clarke’s number 2 on his ticket).

Over 6,000 votes that should have been counted were excluded from the count.

Raising further concern about the system of Proportional representation used in Victoria’ municipal elections.

Whilst the result of the count back are not brought into question the method used in the count back is very much questioned..

Under the system adopted there are seven councillors elected to the Council with a quota of just under 1/8 of the total vote. The total vote divided by (the number of vacant positions plus one) minus one. Of which Peter Clarke represents one eighth.

Peter Clarke was not elected on the primary vote and relied on the distribution of preferences from other candidates. Clarke's surplus votes were also distributed on assisting the election of other councillors who were elected later in the count.

Peter Clarke had a primary vote of 5511 votes at full value (1.000)

He received an additional 3205 votes at full value and 18 fractional value votes following the distribution of preferences from excluded candidates and other candidates surpluses. Total value 8734

The quota for election was 7415. Clarke’s surplus of 1319 which was distributed to other candidates, remaining in the count, according to the voters nominated order of preference.

Under the VEC rules the recount only took into consideration the votes that formed Clarke's original quota, they failed to take into consideration other unused residual votes that remained on the table, effectively a full quota of votes was ignored in the recount. Votes which could have determined the outcome of the recount and the candidate who filled the casual vacancy.

By only considering Clarke's original set of ballot papers that were used to elect him the system has double counted some votes and excluded other votes which legitimately should have been counted.

The formula that should have been used should have proportioned Clarkes original set of ballot papers so that they together equal quota (Quota divided candidates total value of votes) times the value of the each vote.

This value should have then been added to any remaining residual value that had not been used at the conclusion of the original count brining the count to its final conclusion. In a full preferential ballot this should equal two quotas minus one. (Taking into consideration and exhausted votes that failed to express a valid preference for any continuing candidate.

All unelected Candidates should have been reactivated and include in the recount and value of the votes outstanding redistributed according to the voters nominated preference until a candidate has reach the original quota value.

This is not the process that the VEC or the legislation applied. They only considered the ballot papers that made up Clarkes original quota votes that when combined with the other residual votes could have produced a different result. But excluding the residual votes from the count these voters have been denied equal representation.

By Way of a theoretical analogy

The ALP number 3 Senate Candidate Jacinta Collins may have been elected on the back of preferences from the DLP who preferenced Jacinta Collins then preferenced Family First or some other candidate ahead of the ALP’s other candidates. The DLP vote when they were excluded from the Count continued on to elect Collins in the original election.

If Collins position subsequently became vacant and count back was used to fill the casual vacancy, under the VEC rules the ALP’s number 4 candidate would be elected but not on merit or on in accordance with the voters chosen candidate. The DLP vote would have been transferred to the Family First Candidate not the ALP and this vote could have resulted in Family First reaching quota before the ALP number 4 candidate. In a fair accurate system Family first’s Steve Fielding should be elected on the count back.

The City of Melbourne count back has highlighted some serious flawed in the system of proportional representation that has been adopted.

Flaws that were introduced by poor legislation drafting and designed to facilitate an outdated manual counting process. With the use of computer based technology it is possible and highly desirable that the system is reviewed and the rules amended to reflect more accurately the voters choice. Our system of Proportional representation and the count back rules, as they currently exist, is not really proportional but semi proportional at best.

If we cannot fix the system so that it accurately reflects the voters choice then we might as well do away with preferential voting which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to count and adopt a similar cheaper party list system as is used in Europe.

If we are going to retain the preferential voting and the associated expense of counting it then it should be accurate.

Greens set to be elected in Victorian Senate

The Australian Greens is set to elect a Senator in Victoria on the back of One Nation preferences to the Liberal party ahead of the Australian labor Party.

All being equal, analysis of the 2007 Victorian Vote using the 2010 ticket allocations has shown that the Greens will receive an additional bonus value arising from a flaw in the way in which the Senate vote is counted. The distortion in the proportionality gives the Liberal Party a bonus of over 7,000 votes derived from minor parties who are excluded from the count. This inflates the Liberal Party ticket vote and when transferred to the Greens tips them over the line and denying the labor Party a third senate seat.

Under the current rules a candidates surplus transfer value is calculated by dividing the surplus value by the number of ballot papers, disproportionately to the value of the vote. This inflated the value of the Liberal Party ticket vote which before being transferred represents only 20% of the surplus but under the AEC paper based formula the new transfer value carries 80% of the value of the surplus.

The Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Electoral matters, which Melbourne Port's Micheal Danby as a member, was aware of this flaw in the system but failed to act to correct the system. ABC Electoral Analyst, Antony Green,m independently confirmed my analysis of the 2007 Victorian Senate election.

By failing to act to correct the flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted the ALP has already lost a Senate seat and the Greens are the beneficiary of Bonus votes that the system delivers at the expense of other minor parties would oppose the Greens platform.

Victoria takes one step forward on the path of reform Federal Government held in shame

The Victorian Parliament Electoral Matters Committee has recommended that the electoral act be modified to adopt a more fairer and accurate calculation of the results of the upper house elections

Recommendation 8.1: The Victorian Government considers introducing the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method of counting votes for the Legislative Council

The proposal brings Victoria in line with Western Australia which had also adopted similar changes earlier in the way votes are counted.

The reforms proposed by the Victorian Parliament will have its greatest impact in the Local Government sector including the City of Melbourne. (Assuming that the same policy will flow through to Local Government). Analysis of past elections has shown that the results of the City of Melbourne Elections would have changed had this reform been in place at the time.

The recommendation of the State Parliament has flown in the face of the Australian Federal Government who earlier this year rejected calls for similar reform to the Australian Senate System. The Australian Government, increasingly seen to be at odds with the states on electoral reform, remains stuck in the 19th century clinging on to an outdated and discredited counting system.

Analysis of the 2007 Senate election has indicated that ALP Senator David Feeney could have lost his seat as a result of the distortion on the Senate Counting system, a system that would have delivered the Greens an additional 7,000 "bonus votes" above and beyond the number of actual votes received.

The recommendation of the State Parliament Electoral Matters Committee is a step forward in improving the accuracy and public confidence in Victorian elections.

The Parliament now needs to consider further the other anominally and error in the Senate Upper House election system, namely the way in which votes allocated to excluded candidates are redistributed.

The order in which votes for minor candidates are distributed seriously effects the outcome of the senate elections. The system currently in place unfairly resulted in the Greens Queensland Senate Candidate "Larissa Waters" missing out in the right of representation in 2007 . The ALP unfairly won a third Senate spot as a result.

With the advent of computer assisted election counts, both the Australian Parliament and State Governments, should consider adopting a re-iterative counting system (Wright System) or the use of Meeks Method of counting the vote as the next step for electoral reform

One Vote One Value - Change that Counts

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by melbcity | Upload your own presentation

Queensland the stolen election

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by melbcity | Upload your own presentation

See no evil, Hear no evil , Speak no evil. Electoral reform denied

The Australian Parliament fails to act to correct errors in the way votes are counted in Australia.

The Australian Labor Party forsakes its reputation on electoral reform to perpetuate a distortion in the way in which Senate votes are counted in Australia.

Three issues had been identified as needing attention and correction.

1. The method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value and
2. The methods used in distributing preferences of excluded candidates.
3. The need to publish detailed electronic preference data files in a timely fashion so as to ensure the proper scrutiny and open and transparency of computerised election counts.

Surplus Transfer Value

The method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Values seriously distorts the one vote one value principle and as demonstrated by the analysis of the 2007 Victorian Senate vote (hypothetical) could have unfairly denied the Australian Labor Party's David Feeney a third Senate seat. David Feeney would have lost the election to the Australian Greens' Richard Di Natale, who would have been the beneficiary of the distortion in the value of the vote. A distortion that would have given the Greens a bonus value of 7,000 additional votes tipping the results of the election in favour of the Greens Candidate. (The analysis and hypothetical was independently confirmed by ABC media electoral analyst Antony Green).

Western Australia was the first State Government to address this the errors and correct the formula currently used to take into account the true value of the vote when calculating the Surplus Transfer Value. Under the current rules votes belonging to major political parties are inflated at the expense of minor parties. This gives an unfair advantage to one party above the other as the final result of the election does not accurately reflect the outcome or intention of the voters.

The proposed change in the way the vote is counted and the calculation of the surplus transfer value is minimal and could be readily implemented for less then $10,000.

The issue of calculation of the Surplus Transfer value is a time bomb ticking. One that will and can effect both major parties come time in the future. Western Australia State Parliament acted to correct this issue but the Australian Government and Opposition Parties failed to act.

The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee in its final report on the 2007 Federal Election failed to act to correct this obvious error. Preferring instead to turn a blind eye to the flaws in the way the Senate vote is counted

The Australian Greens, represented by Senator Bob Brown, also has turned a blind and covered their mouth to prevent the correction of the the in the way the Senate vote is counted. Primarily because the Greens are the beneficiary of the current distortion. The failure of the Greens to address this issue in a their dissenting report demonstrates that the Greens hold no moral ground when it comes to electoral reform.

Method of Distribution of preferences

The second issue is just as important in ensuring that the Senate electoral system accurately reflects the voters intention.

Analysis of the Queensland Senate Election has shown that the results of the election did not accurately reflect the intention of the Queensland voters.

The method used in determining the order and transfer of preferences denied the Australian Greens the right of representation.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) failed to give due and proper consideration to the issues raised.

In supporting the argument for no change the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, backed up by a false and fallacious argument presented by the Australian Electoral Commission opted to deflect attention and criticism that the results of the election did not reflect the voters intentions.

The AEC falsely claimed that they were not in a position to verify the results of the analysis of the Queensland election in which the Greens Candidate, Larissa Waters, was denied the right of representation.

The AEC claimed that analysis of the election results would have required the development of software that was not readily available. This argument is false as the flaw in the counting system can be readily identified using existing software and existing procedures in the count.

The election of Larisa Waters was not dependent on the changes required to the way in which the Surplus Transfer Value is calculated as outlined above.

The results of the recount would have shown that Larisa Waters should have been elected and highlights the problem in the way preferences from excluded candidates are distributed.

All the AEC had to do to demonstrate and verify the error in the way the elections are counted was recount the electronic ballot excluding all candidates from the count except the last seven candidates left standing (Three Liberal, Three ALP and the greens Larisa Waters).

This requires no modifications to existing software and analytical tools are readily available to the AEC. The AEC could have also called on the expertise of other electoral authorities (Members of IDEA an international association of electoral authorities to which the AEC is a member) to help assist in the analysis of the other electoral system such as the "Meek method" (The time required to process the electronic data is less then three hours)

The AEC by failing to undertake a proper and detailed analysis of the method of election had compromised its professional independent standing.

Respected ABC Electoral Analyst Antony Green also failed to undertake a proper and detailed analysis of the Queensland results and the method used in the distribution of preferences .

Antony Green went to considerable effort to verify the identified issues raised in relation to the Surplus Transfer Value calculation (See Antony Greens supplementary submission and analysis of the hypothetical in relation to the Victorian Senate Vote) however Anthony Green was unable or unwilling to undertake analysis on the method of distribution of preferences from excluded candidates. Given the significance of the outcome one can only wonder and question why the Antony Green failed to review the results in detail. Had Antony Green analysed the result of the Queensland count he would have been better informed and aware of the distortion in the way the ballot is counted.

Antony Green like the AEC turned a blind eye to the errors in the system count and the fact that the Greens were denied the right of representation due to the method used. A method that is not accurate and was original designed primarily to facilitate a manual count not accuracy.

The JSCEM and the AEC put forward the false argument that the alternative method proposed could not be verified by a manual count and as such should not be used. If needed a manual count could readily be undertaken using the alternative proposals .Given that we now have use of computer based technology the system used should be changed to take full advantage of the new technology.


Open and Transparent computerised counts

The AEC should be congratulated by the fact that they published the detailed preference data for the Senate elections. However there is ongoing concern at the delay taken by the AEC in making this information available for independent analysis and subject to proper scrutiny. With the introduction of computer based counting systems it is fundamental and important that public elections and the results of the election are open and transparent.

Without publishing this data the computerised count and results of the election can not be independently verified or properly scrutinised. The lack of transparency and accountability and accuracy in the computersied count undermines overall public confidence in the electoral process.

The parliament needs to change the regulations and procedures so as to ensure that copies of computerised electronic preference data files are readily available for scrutiny and public review. As a minimum copies of the preference data files should be readily available to scrutineers though-out the count and official certified copies published as apart of the procedures related to the declaration of the poll - not three months after the declaration.

The JSCEM, disappointingly, failed to properly address these issues.

Queensland Senate Count Wrong candidates elected

An international team of experts have confirmed that the Queensland Senate Count had elected the wrong persons. The fault lies in the system used to determine the proportional results. Analysis performed by the OpenSTV project team has indicated that Greens Candidate, Larisa Walters, should have been elected to the Senate instead of ALP's third candidate. The OpenSTV count confirms the early analysis we had performed using a reiterative counting system such as Wright or Meek.

The Australian Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) is currently considering issues surrounding the method of counting proportional votes in Australia to make it more accurate.

The Australian Electoral Commission was asked by the JSCEM to report back to the committee to confirm the different outcome in the Queensland Results.

Whilst the AEC had the facilities and contacts to undertake detailed analysis they failed to provide the committee with the information requested. Instead the AEC provided a lame excuse to do nothing claiming that the system proposed has not been tried before and that all systems in use can provide a different outcome.

Whilst this is true it is still no excuse for the AEC to not undertake a full analsysis and review of the system currently in place. It has opted to keep the JSCEM in the dark in order for it to not act to correct tthe mistakes in the system. If Australia waited for an alternative system to be used somewhere else Australia would not have adopted preferential voting in the first place or above the line voting. Innovation and professionalism is lacking in the top end of the AEC administration.

The current system used to elect Australia's Senate, Victoria's Upper House and Local Council elections is seriously flawed in that it does not reflect the voters intentions. The counting system thats currently in place was designed to facilitate a manual count, a system that was a trade off between accuracy and simplicity.

With the advent and use of computer based technology there is no longer an excuse to maintain the outdated flawed counting system.

The AEC should not wimp out and provide a feeble excuse to do nothing. Clearly the system is flawed and must be changed. Innovation not complacency is required.

The AEC is normally a very professional and responsive organisation but in this instance the AEC has failed in its duty to the Australian People.

The JSCEM must again request the AEC to do its job and report in detail the proposed alternatives that should be implemented.

Keeping State Secrets VEC under review

The Victorian Electoral Commission has been the subject of intense reviews by VEXNEWS this week. The review follows on from a number of complaints and growing disillusionment of VEC management and the culture of avoidance, corruption and cover up.

Victoria's public elections are no longer open and transparent and the Chief Commissioner Steve Tully has gone to extraordinary steps to avoid accountability.

A large number of complaints have beeN received across the state that the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make available copies of the detailed election results record on computeR. Candidates' scrutineers have reported that they were denied access to copies of the preference data files which are used to determine the results of the election in spite the fact that this information is a public document and subject to FOI the Commission is refusing to publish the preference data files.

The returning officer for the City of Hume wrongfully informed one candidate that the information was not available. Without access to this data scrutineers are denied the opportunity to scrutinise the count of public elections, there is no reason why this information is not made public.

In 2006 Steve Tully came under criticism for a botch up computerised count where wrong data had been recorded and over 250 votes went missing between count A and Count B in the Western Metropolitan region. The results of the election changed bwteeen counts with a difference of less then 150 votes. Without a copy of the crucial preference data-files, independnet analysis and review of the data-entry quality can not be made.

Steve Tully when requested by the Victorian Parliament Electoral Matters review committee to provide copies of the data file for booths counts claimed that the crucial information for Count A had been destroyed and the data overwritten.

This has raised serious concern over the practices and security of data held by the VEC. Some think that Steve Tully has deliberately mislead the Parliament in an attention to cover-up what was clearly a botched election count.

Simon Hancock and Glenda Fraser are responsible for the VEC computer count and many IT professionals consider it unlikely that there were no backups of such an important data-entry exercise, costing Victoria millions of dollars. To not have in place risk management and backup of data would be considered negligent and leave the Commission open to allegations of fraudulent coverup of mistakes made during the count.

There are accusations that Steve Tully has compromised the professional standing of his senior staff by implying that the administration of the VEC IT system is shonky at best.

Steve Tully has engaged in a campaign of harassment and lies, designed to seek revenge and intimidation of witness to the parliamentary enquiry into the VEC botched elections processes.

His disgraceful false accusations against Labor Strategist Ray Collins late last week is a sign of a desperate man who will stop at nothing to avoid criticism and review.

Submission have been made to the State Parliament to have the Ombudsman empowered to review the administration of the Commission. The VEC is specifically excluded form the review under the current terms of the Ombudsman Act.

VEC denies opportunity for proper scrutiny of the Lord Mayor ballot Another Candidate calls for a manual or more open and transparent count

Another candidate has written to the VEC requesting a manual count and or presorting of the ballot papers prior to computer data-entry of preference votes.

Any savings in time by not presorting the ballot into primary votes(Which is debatable) come at the expense of the scrutiny of the electronic ballot denying candidates the right to an open and transparent count.


-- Copy of open letter to Bill Lang --

To: "Bill Lang"
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:39 PM
Subject: Count of Lord Mayoral vote


Bill,

After consultation with Shelley Roberts we would like to support a manual count of the Lord Mayoral vote. We believe that this will enable a more open and transparent process than the proposed computer only count. We can understand the usefulness of a computer system in the more complex councillor ballot (but even here the presorting, checking and manual count of primary votes would be appropriate). We believe that the straight forward preferential nature of the simpler Lord Mayoral ballot (the same as state and federal lower house ballots) lends itself to a manual count with easier scrutineering. If it is your decision to proceed with a computerised count,we would request that the ballots be at least sorted, checked and counted according to primary vote prior to any data entry.

Nothing in this request should be taken to reflect on or infer in any way a want of confidence in you and your dedicated staff, rather we have a preference for a simple manual count which would avoid any inadvertent mistakes during data processing and allow scrutineers to undertake their role in the more tried and true fashion.

Yours sincerely,

Garth Head
on behalf of Shelley Roberts.
Candidate for Lord Mayor City of Melbourne

VEC's contempt Bill Lang refuses to ensure that the conduct of the municipal election is open and transparent

The Victorian Electoral Commission is set to repeat some of the mistakes they made in 2006.

Bill Lang, Melbourne City Council’s Returning Officer, has refused calls for the Lord Mayor's election to be counted manually. There is no justification for a computerised data-entry count. A number of candidates in the election have supported the call for the count to be open and transparent.

If the computer count is to proceed then the VEC should presort ballot papers prior to batching them ready for data-entry.

Whilst there is nothing in the legislation that requires a presorting of the ballot, other then the obligation to ensure that the election is open and transparent, there is nothing that prevents the VEC from presorting ballot papers into primary votes, as is the case in Senate elections.

The election of Lord Mayor of Melbourne is expected to be close and the presorting of ballot papers would significantly assist in the orderly scrutiny of the ballot whilst maintaining an open and transparent counting of the ballot.

Without presorting of the ballot it is impossible to effectively scrutinise a computerised data-entry count of the election.

The Victorian State Parliament in its report on the Conduct of the 2006 Victorian State election had recommended that ballot papers be presorted prior to data entry. (See comments below for copy of extract from the Parliamentary Inquiry)

By refusing to initiate a presorting of the ballot papers the VEC has thumbed its nose at the State Parliament demonstrating its level of contempt and inability to self-regulate the conduct of the election in order to maintain an open and transparent electoral process.

A complaint has been forwarded to the Minister, Richard Wynne and the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Review Committee.

Your vote is in the mail Calls for review of Victorian Municipal election system

Ongoing public concern has been expressed at Victoria's Municipal Postal voting system and its susceptibility to voter fraud. Herald Sun Ian Royall


Mayoral candidate Gary Morgan said the current system was open to manipulation.

Signatures, names and addresses on the back of ballot papers are checked by election officers, but there is no way of verifying signatures, he said.

Claims of people collecting bulk ballot papers dogged the city election in 2004, but nothing was proven.

Calls for an electoral review for the City of Melbourne fell on deaf ears this year. The council thrice rejected such motions, and the State Government was unmoved.

Cr Ng, who voted against a review, yesterday said she supported an inquiry into the current system.

The Melbourne Business Council has also said the city should return to attendance voting.


Melbourne City Councillors had thrice called for a review of the Council's electoral system and thrice John So and his team , including Lord Mayor candidates Catherine Ng and Gary Singer, rejected a review preferring to leave the system wide open to abuse.

A number of candidates have taken up the issue of Melbourne governance but many have been silent.

Governance is what the Council should be about. It is what prevents the Council from being corrupt. The electoral process is a fundamental part of governance,

There is no need for a Postal voting system. A vaste majority of electors live within the state of Victoria and with the implementation of a single "election day" it should be possible for every Victorian to cast a ballot for their Local Council.if they do not live in the municipality they should be entitled to cast an absentee vote anywhere in Victoria. Electoral officers should be able to verify the identity of the person claiming to vote and in the process prevent voter fraud. Those persons who reside outside of Victoria or who are unable to attend on election day should have the opportunity to either cast a pre-poll ballot or a postal vote.

Many voters will be disenfranchised as a result of the system put in place by the Victorian State Government

Voters are expected to attend a voting center expecting to cast an absentee vote only to discover that the ballot has already closed. Not enough has been done by the Victorian Electoral Commission to ensure that voters are made aware of the different closing dates.

Under the current system voting in Municipalities that have adopted a postal voting system will close on Friday, November 28 where Municipalities that maintain attendance voting will close on Saturday November 29. Australia normally goes the polls on a Saturday and the early closing of postal ballots will result in a significant number of Victorian being disnefranches and their vote not counted. the Victorian Electoral Commission should have advocated for postal votes to close on the Monday following the Saturday Election date not one day before.

The State Government have known of the potential problems that will arise on voting day but have done little to nothing to address the issues. Much more could have and should have been done.