Melbcity: VEC Missing Vote Tally cloaked in a veil of secrecy

The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC)’s Tally for the City of Melbourne shows votes have gone missing.  In spite the City of Melbourne’s Returning Officer. Bill Lang. claiming that the data provided to scrutineers was a complete copy of the below the line votes there are votes missing or added into the count that were not disclosed or included in the information provided to scrutineers.

Under the Local Government Legislation the VEC is required to reconcile the number of votes recorded in the computer database prior to running the execute button.  When requested to provide a copy of the reconciliation report the Returning Officer failed to do so.  We wonder why the secrecy?

In 2006 the VEC stuffed up the Legislative Council Northern Metro and Western Metro counts by entering in the wrong data into the computer, No attempt was made to reconcile the number of ballots recorded on the computer records with the number of ballots received.  It is this sought of sloppy administration and cutting corners that continues to bring the VEC into disrepute.  It is made worst when they seek to cover it up and deny information to scrutineers.

Bill Lang said at the scrutineer/candidate’s meeting that “the scrutiny of the ballot is not important”. Something we strongly disagree with.   The scrutiny of the ballot is just as, if not more, important than the counting of the votes.  Without scrutineers and access to the data there is no way of knowing if the results of the election are correct and that the votes have not been tampered with or that the data-entry is in fact a true record.

Public confidence can only be maintained if the conduct of the election is open and transparent and subject to independent scrutiny.  Something that the VEC has failed to enure is maintained

To highlight the extent of inconsistencies in the VEC’s record keeping

On Friday after the close of the poll the VEC reported they had received back a total of 66432 envelopes

The Official Election results published today reports:

Leadership Team (election of 1 Lord Mayor and 1 Deputy Lord Mayor)

Enrolment: 108514
Formal Votes: 62169
Informal Votes: 2827 (4.35% of the total votes)
Voter Turnout: 64996 (59.90% of the total enrolment)

Councillors (9 vacancies)

Enrolment: 108514
Formal Votes: 63664
Informal Votes: 1407 (2.16% of the total votes)
Voter Turnout: 65071 (59.97% of the total enrolment)
 Anyone viewing this information can tell from looking at the above that ballot papers have gone missing or not accounted for. There is a discrepancy between the Lord Mayors Ballot  (649996) and the Council Ballot (65071) of 75 votes – Presumably they were envelopes that had one ballot paper in them and not the other.

The number of missing ballot papers is greater as not all envelopes that have ballot papers missing would have had Council ballots in them and not the Leadership ballot, Some would have been the other way around.

What is a greater concern is that the number of envelopes reported as being received by the VEC on the Friday was 66432 some 1361 less Council Ballots and 1436 less Leadership ballots. Where did these ballots go?    They could have been ballot papers that were rejected, did not have a signature or no ballot papers were inside the returned envelope.  We just do not know, the VEC failed to provided a reconciliation report as required prior to running the count program.

There are a number of possible errors and faults that can occur with a computer count.  The wrong data can be transcribed and entered into the computers database, as we saw in Western and Northern Metro seats during the 2006 State Election. Votes could be removed from the count or even double counted.  Normally ballots are presorted, prior to counting, into primary votes.  This allows scrutineers to obtain an early primary figure which in turn is then used as a control/check digit to determine if any votes have been left out or mis-recorded.  The Victorian Local Government Act  (Sch 3 cl 11B) requires that votes be sorted into parcels based on the primary vote.  

The VEC sought to cut corners by skipping this very important step in the process of counting the vote and in doing so prevented scrutineers from being able to properly monitor the data-entry and counting process. They were left blind, bamboozled by the claims that the use of computers in the counting of votes was accurate,  But as we know this is not true – like that of a Magic Trick the audience can be readily deceived and distracted.

For the sack of saving $300 to $400 to have staff presort the Council below the line ballot papers into primary votes the VEC undermined and prevented the proper scrutiny of the ballot. The presorting of ballot papers could have been undertaken in parallel with the opening of and the sorting of ballot papers into above-the-line and below-the-line votes. There were only 5500 below-the-line votes – not an onerous task by any stretch..

The conduct of the election count was made worst by the VEC refusing to provide final copies of the computer data-file at the conclusion of the count. Scrutineers were again denied access to crucial information.  Review of the count sheet shows that the results of the election were within 350 votes which could have changed the election outcome.  A wrong figure punched into the computer a 7285 instead of 7825 is all that it would take to produce a different result and no one would know.
The VEC’s administrative processes are not good, they certainly do not meet the high professional standard that is employed by the Australian Electoral Commission. There is no independent oversight or review.  The VEC has not been vetted or certified to meet ISO 2000 quality control standards.  It is an organisation that is left wanting with little desire.  
$35 Million Misspent

The VEC spent over $35 Million Dollars developing software (Most of which was outsourced to India). It is still unclear who owns the intellectual property rights for the VEC’s election software?  

What we do know is that design of software that developed does not meet current IT industry standards. 
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is by far the better and more professional body. 

Given that the AEC already has in place computer systems and administrative procedures used to conduct elections we have to wonder what is it that Victorian Taxpayers get for their investment. 

Why do we have two public electoral authorities with duplicated resources  when we could have just one professional organisation.  

It is up to our parliamentarians (The Electoral matters Committee) to sort this mess out.  They have to act to restore confidence and integrity, put an end to excessive waste, secrecy and incompetence that engulf the Victorian Electoral Commission.  
The first step would be to subject the VEC to independent review by the office of the State Ombudsman and Auditor General.

Melbcity: VEC Missing Vote Tally cloaked in a veil of secrecy

The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC)’s Tally for the City of Melbourne shows votes have gone missing.  In spite the City of Melbourne’s Returning Officer. Bill Lang. claiming that the data provided to scrutineers was a complete copy of the below the line votes there are votes missing or added into the count that were not disclosed or included in the information provided to scrutineers.

Under the Local Government Legislation the VEC is required to reconcile the number of votes recorded in the computer database prior to running the execute button.  When requested to provide a copy of the reconciliation report the Returning Officer failed to do so.  We wonder why the secrecy?

In 2006 the VEC stuffed up the Legislative Council Northern Metro and Western Metro counts by entering in the wrong data into the computer, No attempt was made to reconcile the number of ballots recorded on the computer records with the number of ballots received.  It is this sought of sloppy administration and cutting corners that continues to bring the VEC into disrepute.  It is made worst when they seek to cover it up and deny information to scrutineers.

Bill Lang said at the scrutineer/candidate’s meeting that “the scrutiny of the ballot is not important”. Something we strongly disagree with.   The scrutiny of the ballot is just as, if not more, important than the counting of the votes.  Without scrutineers and access to the data there is no way of knowing if the results of the election are correct and that the votes have not been tampered with or that the data-entry is in fact a true record.

Public confidence can only be maintained if the conduct of the election is open and transparent and subject to independent scrutiny.  Something that the VEC has failed to enure is maintained

To highlight the extent of inconsistencies in the VEC’s record keeping

On Friday after the close of the poll the VEC reported they had received back a total of 66432 envelopes

The Official Election results published today reports:

Leadership Team (election of 1 Lord Mayor and 1 Deputy Lord Mayor)

Enrolment: 108514
Formal Votes: 62169
Informal Votes: 2827 (4.35% of the total votes)
Voter Turnout: 64996 (59.90% of the total enrolment)

Councillors (9 vacancies)

Enrolment: 108514
Formal Votes: 63664
Informal Votes: 1407 (2.16% of the total votes)
Voter Turnout: 65071 (59.97% of the total enrolment)
 Anyone viewing this information can tell from looking at the above that ballot papers have gone missing or not accounted for. There is a discrepancy between the Lord Mayors Ballot  (649996) and the Council Ballot (65071) of 75 votes – Presumably they were envelopes that had one ballot paper in them and not the other.

The number of missing ballot papers is greater as not all envelopes that have ballot papers missing would have had Council ballots in them and not the Leadership ballot, Some would have been the other way around.

What is a greater concern is that the number of envelopes reported as being received by the VEC on the Friday was 66432 some 1361 less Council Ballots and 1436 less Leadership ballots. Where did these ballots go?    They could have been ballot papers that were rejected, did not have a signature or no ballot papers were inside the returned envelope.  We just do not know, the VEC failed to provided a reconciliation report as required prior to running the count program.

There are a number of possible errors and faults that can occur with a computer count.  The wrong data can be transcribed and entered into the computers database, as we saw in Western and Northern Metro seats during the 2006 State Election. Votes could be removed from the count or even double counted.  Normally ballots are presorted, prior to counting, into primary votes.  This allows scrutineers to obtain an early primary figure which in turn is then used as a control/check digit to determine if any votes have been left out or mis-recorded.  The Victorian Local Government Act  (Sch 3 cl 11B) requires that votes be sorted into parcels based on the primary vote.  

The VEC sought to cut corners by skipping this very important step in the process of counting the vote and in doing so prevented scrutineers from being able to properly monitor the data-entry and counting process. They were left blind, bamboozled by the claims that the use of computers in the counting of votes was accurate,  But as we know this is not true – like that of a Magic Trick the audience can be readily deceived and distracted.

For the sack of saving $300 to $400 to have staff presort the Council below the line ballot papers into primary votes the VEC undermined and prevented the proper scrutiny of the ballot. The presorting of ballot papers could have been undertaken in parallel with the opening of and the sorting of ballot papers into above-the-line and below-the-line votes. There were only 5500 below-the-line votes – not an onerous task by any stretch..

The conduct of the election count was made worst by the VEC refusing to provide final copies of the computer data-file at the conclusion of the count. Scrutineers were again denied access to crucial information.  Review of the count sheet shows that the results of the election were within 350 votes which could have changed the election outcome.  A wrong figure punched into the computer a 7285 instead of 7825 is all that it would take to produce a different result and no one would know.
The VEC’s administrative processes are not good, they certainly do not meet the high professional standard that is employed by the Australian Electoral Commission. There is no independent oversight or review.  The VEC has not been vetted or certified to meet ISO 2000 quality control standards.  It is an organisation that is left wanting with little desire.  
$35 Million Misspent

The VEC spent over $35 Million Dollars developing software (Most of which was outsourced to India). It is still unclear who owns the intellectual property rights for the VEC’s election software?  

What we do know is that design of software that developed does not meet current IT industry standards. 
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is by far the better and more professional body. 

Given that the AEC already has in place computer systems and administrative procedures used to conduct elections we have to wonder what is it that Victorian Taxpayers get for their investment. 

Why do we have two public electoral authorities with duplicated resources  when we could have just one professional organisation.  

It is up to our parliamentarians (The Electoral matters Committee) to sort this mess out.  They have to act to restore confidence and integrity, put an end to excessive waste, secrecy and incompetence that engulf the Victorian Electoral Commission.  
The first step would be to subject the VEC to independent review by the office of the State Ombudsman and Auditor General.

Lord Mayor Vote Stats: 2CP

Based on a sample of 41213 votes (The VEC were unwilling to provide copies of the full data set of preferences, so much for their claim of openness and transparency – Computer based counts are not open or transparent in Victoria)

The following Two Candidate Preferred (2CP) statistics show Robert Doyle the clear winner against all candidates

Doyle 2CPP Split Other
60.50% Doyle/Shanahan (Chambelin) 39.50%
62.26% Doyle/Parkes (Greens) 37.74%
59.42% Doyle/Singer (John So – Melbourne Living) 40.58%
63.30% Doyle/Morgan (Elliot) 36.70%
61.29% Doyle/Nolte (Our Melbourne) 38.71%
67.74% Doyle/Rankin (Forward Together) 32.26%

Preference distribution table (To view – copy table below and past into document landscape mode)



ID#
Candidate
To
Team                                                          Preference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
1438
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
635
417
100
72
80
47
45
41
3
TEAM DOYLE
413
596
87
68
58
56
69
91
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
80
85
842
105
81
89
81
75
5
OUR MELBOURNE
84
92
136
572
390
69
49
45
6
THE GREENS
49
68
71
380
535
114
103
117
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
85
75
81
106
123
557
80
330
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
48
51
70
61
102
415
584
107
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
44
54
51
74
69
91
427
625
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
344
1924
482
425
373
322
199
118
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
4187
3
TEAM DOYLE
696
492
1801
288
234
141
205
329
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
340
349
375
333
1847
302
301
335
5
OUR MELBOURNE
1963
474
486
501
311
262
117
70
6
THE GREENS
362
312
311
326
437
1846
262
325
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
308
337
336
1877
388
489
277
172
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
73
160
230
261
323
491
2312
334
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
101
139
166
176
274
334
514
2482
3
TEAM DOYLE
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
1182
15671
2180
1759
1466
1302
1003
775
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
15593
2277
1920
1571
1328
1028
1079
541
3
TEAM DOYLE
25342
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
2744
1436
1898
1360
14232
1214
921
1508
5
OUR MELBOURNE
1059
1747
1820
2737
2289
14538
777
349
6
THE GREENS
1164
1031
1150
1268
2075
1578
1397
15629
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
2729
1747
1308
14409
1318
1992
1085
748
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
426
807
14189
1300
1546
1973
3534
1563
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
445
626
877
938
1088
1717
15546
4101
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
275
495
780
696
698
3387
441
265
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
517
841
738
685
510
446
3135
167
3
TEAM DOYLE
1514
638
446
316
304
281
318
3217
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
7039
5
OUR MELBOURNE
3358
664
673
845
680
434
232
133
6
THE GREENS
317
3133
445
450
616
566
501
1003
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
754
741
3233
488
496
636
402
289
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
146
296
399
3174
540
719
1204
559
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
158
231
325
385
3195
570
806
1368
5
OUR MELBOURNE
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
202
263
278
285
1079
239
185
137
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
1107
340
317
243
231
229
152
51
3
TEAM DOYLE
283
322
244
231
183
201
202
1000
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
249
940
251
256
255
217
236
260
5
OUR MELBOURNE
2670
6
THE GREENS
378
203
200
214
260
974
187
250
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
254
328
1017
246
237
317
164
106
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
83
148
225
1003
225
298
473
215
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
114
126
138
192
200
195
1071
633
6
THE GREENS
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
318
539
691
989
4766
916
530
446
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
541
701
892
4612
891
677
636
244
3
TEAM DOYLE
826
619
567
496
454
642
775
4815
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
338
404
512
633
790
4315
990
1209
5
OUR MELBOURNE
647
700
650
804
852
890
4213
398
6
THE GREENS
9196
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
1547
4446
766
545
452
692
461
280
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
4200
1076
701
570
531
584
947
584
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
779
711
4417
547
460
480
644
1156
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
466
762
921
885
970
4619
595
495
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
3195
924
993
1041
1935
684
671
267
3
TEAM DOYLE
1431
913
668
1729
3161
558
484
763
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
704
737
1888
3511
947
731
568
618
5
OUR MELBOURNE
519
1991
3614
1049
1066
741
513
211
6
THE GREENS
2136
3214
673
553
569
941
707
912
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
9714
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
939
615
473
487
591
770
1526
4306
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
324
558
484
459
475
670
4650
2093
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
116
160
166
140
147
134
136
523
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
74
133
186
572
165
175
152
66
3
TEAM DOYLE
125
130
523
133
125
155
172
160
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
62
100
106
180
211
569
138
154
5
OUR MELBOURNE
86
127
148
224
593
179
92
72
6
THE GREENS
154
556
148
102
117
122
164
157
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
296
193
99
88
79
113
563
91
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
1523
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
610
124
147
84
86
76
106
288
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
72
81
103
103
143
119
93
345
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
44
315
110
151
117
115
170
37
3
TEAM DOYLE
47
62
61
70
95
179
326
218
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
47
57
87
94
204
297
134
138
5
OUR MELBOURNE
96
117
114
432
106
92
73
29
6
THE GREENS
426
100
187
70
40
96
65
75
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
100
198
311
82
75
96
127
70
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
227
129
86
57
279
65
71
144
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
1059

 

Lord Mayor Vote Stats: 2CP

Based on a sample of 41213 votes (The VEC were unwilling to provide copies of the full data set of preferences, so much for their claim of openness and transparency – Computer based counts are not open or transparent in Victoria)

The following Two Candidate Preferred (2CP) statistics show Robert Doyle the clear winner against all candidates

Doyle 2CPP Split Other
60.50% Doyle/Shanahan (Chambelin) 39.50%
62.26% Doyle/Parkes (Greens) 37.74%
59.42% Doyle/Singer (John So – Melbourne Living) 40.58%
63.30% Doyle/Morgan (Elliot) 36.70%
61.29% Doyle/Nolte (Our Melbourne) 38.71%
67.74% Doyle/Rankin (Forward Together) 32.26%

Preference distribution table (To view – copy table below and past into document landscape mode)



ID#
Candidate
To
Team                                                          Preference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
1438
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
635
417
100
72
80
47
45
41
3
TEAM DOYLE
413
596
87
68
58
56
69
91
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
80
85
842
105
81
89
81
75
5
OUR MELBOURNE
84
92
136
572
390
69
49
45
6
THE GREENS
49
68
71
380
535
114
103
117
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
85
75
81
106
123
557
80
330
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
48
51
70
61
102
415
584
107
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
44
54
51
74
69
91
427
625
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
344
1924
482
425
373
322
199
118
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
4187
3
TEAM DOYLE
696
492
1801
288
234
141
205
329
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
340
349
375
333
1847
302
301
335
5
OUR MELBOURNE
1963
474
486
501
311
262
117
70
6
THE GREENS
362
312
311
326
437
1846
262
325
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
308
337
336
1877
388
489
277
172
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
73
160
230
261
323
491
2312
334
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
101
139
166
176
274
334
514
2482
3
TEAM DOYLE
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
1182
15671
2180
1759
1466
1302
1003
775
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
15593
2277
1920
1571
1328
1028
1079
541
3
TEAM DOYLE
25342
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
2744
1436
1898
1360
14232
1214
921
1508
5
OUR MELBOURNE
1059
1747
1820
2737
2289
14538
777
349
6
THE GREENS
1164
1031
1150
1268
2075
1578
1397
15629
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
2729
1747
1308
14409
1318
1992
1085
748
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
426
807
14189
1300
1546
1973
3534
1563
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
445
626
877
938
1088
1717
15546
4101
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
275
495
780
696
698
3387
441
265
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
517
841
738
685
510
446
3135
167
3
TEAM DOYLE
1514
638
446
316
304
281
318
3217
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
7039
5
OUR MELBOURNE
3358
664
673
845
680
434
232
133
6
THE GREENS
317
3133
445
450
616
566
501
1003
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
754
741
3233
488
496
636
402
289
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
146
296
399
3174
540
719
1204
559
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
158
231
325
385
3195
570
806
1368
5
OUR MELBOURNE
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
202
263
278
285
1079
239
185
137
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
1107
340
317
243
231
229
152
51
3
TEAM DOYLE
283
322
244
231
183
201
202
1000
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
249
940
251
256
255
217
236
260
5
OUR MELBOURNE
2670
6
THE GREENS
378
203
200
214
260
974
187
250
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
254
328
1017
246
237
317
164
106
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
83
148
225
1003
225
298
473
215
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
114
126
138
192
200
195
1071
633
6
THE GREENS
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
318
539
691
989
4766
916
530
446
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
541
701
892
4612
891
677
636
244
3
TEAM DOYLE
826
619
567
496
454
642
775
4815
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
338
404
512
633
790
4315
990
1209
5
OUR MELBOURNE
647
700
650
804
852
890
4213
398
6
THE GREENS
9196
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
1547
4446
766
545
452
692
461
280
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
4200
1076
701
570
531
584
947
584
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
779
711
4417
547
460
480
644
1156
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
466
762
921
885
970
4619
595
495
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
3195
924
993
1041
1935
684
671
267
3
TEAM DOYLE
1431
913
668
1729
3161
558
484
763
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
704
737
1888
3511
947
731
568
618
5
OUR MELBOURNE
519
1991
3614
1049
1066
741
513
211
6
THE GREENS
2136
3214
673
553
569
941
707
912
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
9714
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
939
615
473
487
591
770
1526
4306
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
324
558
484
459
475
670
4650
2093
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
116
160
166
140
147
134
136
523
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
74
133
186
572
165
175
152
66
3
TEAM DOYLE
125
130
523
133
125
155
172
160
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
62
100
106
180
211
569
138
154
5
OUR MELBOURNE
86
127
148
224
593
179
92
72
6
THE GREENS
154
556
148
102
117
122
164
157
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
296
193
99
88
79
113
563
91
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
1523
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
610
124
147
84
86
76
106
288
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
1
FORWARD TOGETHER
72
81
103
103
143
119
93
345
2
SHANAHAN CHAMBERLIN FOR MELBOURNE
44
315
110
151
117
115
170
37
3
TEAM DOYLE
47
62
61
70
95
179
326
218
4
MORGAN ELLIOTT – PROSPERITY FOR LIVEABILITY
47
57
87
94
204
297
134
138
5
OUR MELBOURNE
96
117
114
432
106
92
73
29
6
THE GREENS
426
100
187
70
40
96
65
75
7
GARY SINGER – JOHN SO MELBOURNE LIVING
100
198
311
82
75
96
127
70
8
COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
227
129
86
57
279
65
71
144
9
PUT PUBLIC FIRST
1059

 

The Pain of Mayne: What to do with Stephen

Now that Steven Mayne is elected to the Melbourne Council the powers that be are trying hard to decide how best deal with him,.  Mayne has no friends in Council apart from a loose alliance with the Greens and the possibility of influencing Jackie Watts who was elected on the back of Gary Morgan’s ticket.

Whats not well known is that Stephen Mayne is also beholden to Morgan.  Mayne does not live in the City of Melbourne, his enrollement entitlement on the Municipal roll is recorded as

Mayne Stephen David Part Mezzanine 401 Collins Street Melbourne

401 Collins Street is of course the address for Roy Morgan Research.  Mayne appears to have a desk located somewhere on the Mezzanine.

No doubts there are some people looking closely at Stephen Mayne’s entitlement and his eligibility to become a City Councillor.  If a challenge to Stephen Mayne’s election  was successful then his number two candidate,  Michele Anderson, would be next in line to be elected.  We suspect that Mayne will survive any  entitlement challenge but it is unclear if he will win any real influence at the table in negotiations. Mayne will not be trusted. Mayne’s  history like a a lead weight will slow down his influence or grab for power.

We can expect Mayne to be on the outer, but good media copy, as he tries to pry open the inner workings of the Council’s dirty linen closet.  Attempts to try and win over Mayne by offering him a role in the Council Chamber would be like replacing the household cat with a Hyena  or a Skunk.

Victoria’s Proportional Voting System Not Accurate

Victoria’s Municipal Election Voting System is not proportional. At best it is only “semi proportional”.

Distortions in the way the vote is counted,  methods introduced as a means of assisting a manual counting process, seriously impact on the accuracy and results of the elections.

With the use of computer technology there is no justification or merit ion maintaining the current system.

The method of calculating the Surplus Transfer (Surplus divided by number of ballot papers) increases the value of ticket votes at the expense of individual votes. the Surplus transfer value should be based on teh value of the vote not the number of ballot papers.  Some ballott papers have a lesser value then others yet under the current rules they are disproportionally transferred at the same value

To add to the flaws in the system  ballot papers are segmented, grouped together by their transfer value and transferred in seperate transactions skipping candidates already elected and only to be allocated and counted at a higher value than if they have been transferred in a single transaction and allocated to the next candidate according to the voters nominated preference.

The principle that should apply is that a vote for an excluded candidate should be transferred as if the excluded candidate had not stood.  This is best achieved by resetting and restarting the count from scratch on every exclusion.

The Quota for election also distorts the proportionality of the vote in that the method of calculating the quota is determined by dividing the total number of votes by (the number of vacancies plus one)  (x/(y+1).  In a true proportional count it should be  just x/y.

These distortions were introduced into the system to facilitate a manual counting process.,  They are not accurate and do not reflect the voters intentions.

A plea for pure democracy and an accurate voting system

With a computerised counting system there is no justification or reason to maintain the current flawed counting procedures.  The system can and should be accurate.

  • The quota should be x/y. 
  • The method of calculating the surplus transfer value should be based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers 
  • There should be one transaction per candidate without segmentation.  

 If the number of vacancies has not been filled in a single iteration count then the candidates with the lowest votes should be excluded and the ballot reset and votes  redistributed according to voters nominated order of preference as if the excluded candidate has not stood.  One transaction per candidate redistributing all votes at the same time.

More information The Wright System

VEC – IT Election Results Under Review

Victorian Ombudsman Review has raised concerns about Government IT contracts

Vic govt IT agency ran ‘sham contracts’

  • By Melissa Jenkins and Melissa Iaria
  • Published Herald Sun – October 24, 2012 4:25PM

THE body that provides information technology services to the Victorian government ran sham contracting processes underpinned by nepotism and awarded up to $4 million worth of work without competitive processes, the ombudsman has found

It’s a pity that the Victorian State Ombudsman is prevented from undertaking a simmilar review of the Victorian Electoral Commission’s $35 Million  Software ware development.  Sowftware that is effectively a duplication of data-services provided by the Australian Electoral Commission.

The Victorian State Ombudsman is prevented from inquiring into the operation and administration of the Victorian Electoral Commission. The only body that can review the VEC is the Parliament itself.

If last weekends Local Government elections are anything to go by there are major questions that need to be addressed as to the quaility and benefit delivered to Victoria Tax payers as a result oif the expenditure,

Information provided to us indicates that the software whoihc was developed in house is only partially certified.  What is clear its design is not the best nor does it meet common IT industry standards.  There is a noticlble lack of transoparency in the process.

It is also unclear who owns the intellectal copyright of the software paid for the State Government.  The contract and technical specifcaitions have not been made public with the VEC claiming commercial confidentiallity. 

The lack of transparency and secrecy behind last weekends elections results further undermined confidence in Victoria’s democratic processes.  Information was not readily available.

Scrutineers had requested copies of data-files for independent analysis and review only to find that the information provided was not what was requested. The VEC staff claiming that the request was not clear.  Something we find hard to believe given that we have sought access to this data at every election since 1996 and even had to take the City Council to VCAT to gain access to the data. 

The detailed results of the election should be readily available during the count and accessible via the internet. Those who witnessed the sham of a computerised count where left in the dark as to what was going on behind the cyber wall. The computer screen provided no information other than the names of candidates who were provisionally declared elected or excluded form the count.  Even ABC Antony Green’s counting program provided more information and better results of the election on his summary screen.   The VEC claimed they had to “slow down” the display of the results to add to its appeal.

Who ever designed the software should be sacked.  Most likely the problem was with the Client “The VEC” and their inability to oversee or manage the Software  specifications and development contract.

$35 Million for what?  Software that the AEC already has…

The State Parliament needs to seriously review the operations and function of the VEC.  The first step would be to give the State Ombdsman authority and oversight over the VEC making it accountbale for its adminsitration and operations.

The next step is to scale down the VEC  and had over responsibility for the conduct of elections to the Australian Electoral Commission saving Hundreds of millions of dollars in duplicated services. 

Election Results: Preliminary Analysis

The preliminary Analysis of the Melbourne City Council 2012 elections results indicate that incumbency and name recognition is the biggest winner. 

The Singer John So campaign failed to attract support with Gary Singer’s team polling the same percentage as they did in 2008.

The Greens vote also did not increase, although they have won two seats this time, primarily as the number of councillors had increased and, as a result, the quota  for election was less than in 2008. Down from 12.5% to 10%,

Incumbency and voter recognition was without doubt the main factor.  Robert Doyle had been on the news everyday you could not shut him up. Team Doyle outspent every other team combined.  It is estimated that they spent over $15,000 for every percentage point of the vote they received (approximately $30 a vote).

The winner was  Stephen Mayne, in the absence of an endorsed Labor Candidate and the power of the band names of John So, the Greens and Gary Morgan/John Elliot, was the next candidate highest candidate with a recognition factor.  Mayne polled 6% of the primary vote, 2 % more than expected, was the benefactor of a 2.5% surplus delivered to him by the Morgan/Elliot group (10.325%) which elected Jackie Watts and Gary Singer (12.5%), This  boosted Mayne’s primary vote to 8% placing him with a vote on par with the Greens surplus plus the allocation of preferences from the African Community Business group.

Team Doyle polled a strong 39% with a surplus of 9% (1% more than expected) after electing three candidates, placing Carl Jetter on a higher transfer vote than community candidate Kevin Chamberlin who had polled just below 6%.

Carlton identity and pharmacist David  Nolte team was boosted by support from “Stop the Rorts: Residents First group placing his lead candidate Richard Foster also in the 8% ball park.

Kevin Chamberlin was unable to pickup any preferences of real value and was excluded earlier than expected. Chamberlin’s preference vote when redistributed elected Stephen Mayne and the Greens second candidate, Rohan Leppert. Leaving Team Doyle’s fourth candidate, Carl Jetter, on the table with the wasted quota.

The results of the C9 Council election would have been different if the the system was pure proportional and did not use the Droop Quota system.  Droop Quota is derived by dividing the total number of votes by the number of vacant positions plus one (x / (9+1) = 10%).  A pure proportional system would have a quota calculated by dividing the total vote by the number of vacant positions (x / 9 = 11.11%)  That one percent was crucial in deciding the outcome

Election Results: Preliminary Analysis

The preliminary Analysis of the Melbourne City Council 2012 elections results indicate that incumbency and name recognition is the biggest winner. 

The Singer John So campaign failed to attract support with Gary Singer’s team polling the same percentage as they did in 2008.

The Greens vote also did not increase, although they have won two seats this time, primarily as the number of councillors had increased and, as a result, the quota  for election was less than in 2008. Down from 12.5% to 10%,

Incumbency and voter recognition was without doubt the main factor.  Robert Doyle had been on the news everyday you could not shut him up. Team Doyle outspent every other team combined.  It is estimated that they spent over $15,000 for every percentage point of the vote they received (approximately $30 a vote).

The winner was  Stephen Mayne, in the absence of an endorsed Labor Candidate and the power of the band names of John So, the Greens and Gary Morgan/John Elliot, was the next candidate highest candidate with a recognition factor.  Mayne polled 6% of the primary vote, 2 % more than expected, was the benefactor of a 2.5% surplus delivered to him by the Morgan/Elliot group (10.325%) which elected Jackie Watts and Gary Singer (12.5%), This  boosted Mayne’s primary vote to 8% placing him with a vote on par with the Greens surplus plus the allocation of preferences from the African Community Business group.

Team Doyle polled a strong 39% with a surplus of 9% (1% more than expected) after electing three candidates, placing Carl Jetter on a higher transfer vote than community candidate Kevin Chamberlin who had polled just below 6%.

Carlton identity and pharmacist David  Nolte team was boosted by support from “Stop the Rorts: Residents First group placing his lead candidate Richard Foster also in the 8% ball park.

Kevin Chamberlin was unable to pickup any preferences of real value and was excluded earlier than expected. Chamberlin’s preference vote when redistributed elected Stephen Mayne and the Greens second candidate, Rohan Leppert. Leaving Team Doyle’s fourth candidate, Carl Jetter, on the table with the wasted quota.

The results of the C9 Council election would have been different if the the system was pure proportional and did not use the Droop Quota system.  Droop Quota is derived by dividing the total number of votes by the number of vacant positions plus one (x / (9+1) = 10%).  A pure proportional system would have a quota calculated by dividing the total vote by the number of vacant positions (x / 9 = 11.11%)  That one percent was crucial in deciding the outcome

City Council Election Results: A Disaster for the Community: Four more years of frustration

The results of the Melbourne City Council could not have been much worst.  The loss of community based candidate Kevin Chamberlin and the election of Stephen Mayne and two Green Candidates will be strongly felt.

Stephen Mayne is the strongest performer of those elected but he is a lone wolf and his howling will echo through-out the Town Hall.

The two Green Councillors  lack experience and know how and will need to fall back on Stephen Mayne to provide direction and guidance.  Jackie Watts, who is the least experienced candidate will be without direction or guidance, she will have to follow along with the rest of the pack as a lost sheep.

Stephen Mayne, former City of Manningham Councillor, will continue to push his own political maverick agenda but this time backed up by the media appeal and resources of the Melbourne City Council.

With Stephen Mayne leading the “Opposition team” there is little hope that confidence or representation will be restored. Stephen Mayne lives in Templestow not the City and as such residents of Melbourne and small business will be struggling to have a voice at the table.

Liberal Party Member, Councillor, Ken Ong, will hold the balance of power and will find himself being forced to side with Team Doyle to provide stability and leadership to the City.  Councillor Ong is probably the Council’s best hope of delivering stable and effective government.

The other independent voice at the table will be Richard Foster.  Foster, who is the President of the local ALP Carlton Branch, is new to Council and without the experience and guiding voice of Kevin Chamberlin will be struggling to find his voice and role in Council. Foster is unlikely to side with the Greens on a number of issues but may be forced to form an alliance if Team Doyle seeks to cut him out of the picture.

Richard Forster will not necessarily side with Stephen Mayne but they could find some areas of common agreement if not on style on policy related to governance and accountability which could force them to form a working alliance and mutual dependency. Much depends on how Team Doyle decide to run the show. This will certainly be a test of Doyle’s leadership ability.  If he role of opposition leader of to go by, anything could happen.