One Vote One Value Implementing Change that Counts

Now where had I heard this story before…

Antony Green, ABC Election WHIZ kid, has just confirmed what we have been saying for years.

To top it up he has also done a detailed analysis based on our hypothetical situation designed to highlight and demonstrate the serious flaw in the way in which the Government counts elections.

Using the 2007 Victorian Senate Election results and the “what if” scenario of One Nation preferencing the Liberal Party before the ALP and then the Greens. Under the Government’s flawed system the Greens would have received an added vote bonus of around 7,000 votes. Affirmative Action for minor parties. This is 7,000 additional votes that the Greens did not win but the system gave them. The Greens Candidate would have been elected in Victoria unfairly instead of the ALP’s David Feeney.

Using a correct proportionally weighted system, as we have been advocating, David Feeney’s election would have been secured.

Clearly there is need for change in the way we count the votes

The problem we identified is exponentially magnified when the system is applied to smaller electorates, such as Victoria’s Local Government Elections. For those municipalities that do not have “Above the line” voting the potential of being disenfranchised by the system is even greater.

Last week we made a plea to the State Parliament to address this issue and implement change before the November Poll.

Western Australia has done it now it is Victoria’s turn.

Rather then just fix the problem with the way in which they calculate the Proportional Surplus Transfer Value were are also advocating a fix for the flawed “Segmentation system“. The system in use was designed for larger electorates (Such as the Senate) and was implemented to assist with a manual count. With the advent and use of computer based technology now is the time for change.

We are advocating the “Wright System” a system using a reiterative counting process where the count is reset and restarted following every exclusion, so there is a top down flow of preferences and not a bottom up bias distibution. The Wright System uses a weighted value of the vote based Surplus Transfer formula and addresses the serious inbuilt shortcomings that Steve Tully and the VEC have ignored. (Prefering to play “Shadow Pupperts” using the EMC’s projector to fixing potential problems)

Extract from Antony Greens submission to the Federal Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters

One Nation had lodged a preference ticket that had Labor ahead of the Liberal Party, with the Greens last. If One Nation had put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor on the ticket, then when Family First was excluded, Labor’s David Feeney would not have reached a quota and the preferences of the Liberal Party’s surplus to quota votes would have been distributed.

What is even more remarkable is that if One Nation had put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor, then the Greens’ Richard Di Natale would have won the final vacancy, not Labor’s David Feeney.

This would have occurred due to the formula used by the AEC to weight votes when determining the preferences of surplus to quota votes. There are different methods in which preferences can be weighted. The purpose of this discussion is to look at the different ways in which votes could be weighted and the impact this can have on a Senate Count.

One Vote One Value Implementing Change that Counts

Now where had I heard this story before…

Antony Green, ABC Election WHIZ kid, has just confirmed what we have been saying for years.

To top it up he has also done a detailed analysis based on our hypothetical situation designed to highlight and demonstrate the serious flaw in the way in which the Government counts elections.

Using the 2007 Victorian Senate Election results and the “what if” scenario of One Nation preferencing the Liberal Party before the ALP and then the Greens. Under the Government’s flawed system the Greens would have received an added vote bonus of around 7,000 votes. Affirmative Action for minor parties. This is 7,000 additional votes that the Greens did not win but the system gave them. The Greens Candidate would have been elected in Victoria unfairly instead of the ALP’s David Feeney.

Using a correct proportionally weighted system, as we have been advocating, David Feeney’s election would have been secured.

Clearly there is need for change in the way we count the votes

The problem we identified is exponentially magnified when the system is applied to smaller electorates, such as Victoria’s Local Government Elections. For those municipalities that do not have “Above the line” voting the potential of being disenfranchised by the system is even greater.

Last week we made a plea to the State Parliament to address this issue and implement change before the November Poll.

Western Australia has done it now it is Victoria’s turn.

Rather then just fix the problem with the way in which they calculate the Proportional Surplus Transfer Value were are also advocating a fix for the flawed “Segmentation system“. The system in use was designed for larger electorates (Such as the Senate) and was implemented to assist with a manual count. With the advent and use of computer based technology now is the time for change.

We are advocating the “Wright System” a system using a reiterative counting process where the count is reset and restarted following every exclusion, so there is a top down flow of preferences and not a bottom up bias distibution. The Wright System uses a weighted value of the vote based Surplus Transfer formula and addresses the serious inbuilt shortcomings that Steve Tully and the VEC have ignored. (Prefering to play “Shadow Pupperts” using the EMC’s projector to fixing potential problems)

Extract from Antony Greens submission to the Federal Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters

One Nation had lodged a preference ticket that had Labor ahead of the Liberal Party, with the Greens last. If One Nation had put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor on the ticket, then when Family First was excluded, Labor’s David Feeney would not have reached a quota and the preferences of the Liberal Party’s surplus to quota votes would have been distributed.

What is even more remarkable is that if One Nation had put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor, then the Greens’ Richard Di Natale would have won the final vacancy, not Labor’s David Feeney.

This would have occurred due to the formula used by the AEC to weight votes when determining the preferences of surplus to quota votes. There are different methods in which preferences can be weighted. The purpose of this discussion is to look at the different ways in which votes could be weighted and the impact this can have on a Senate Count.

The Wright System Advocating change that counts

The current electoral system that is used to elect representatives to the Australian Senate and the Victorian Upper-house is outdated and contains some serious flaws in the way the vote is counted.

The system was designed to facilitate a manual count and in the trade-off has inbuilt distortions in the election process that have the potential to effect the overall outcome.

With the coming November Municipal poll where many councils will for the first time also be adopting the system used to elect the Senate and Victorian Upper-house the potential for the results of the election to be effected by the flaws in the system are increased exponentially

The Western Australian Government has realised the impact of this error and has acted partially to correct the mistakes in adopting a system for its upper-house elections, but the Victorian and Federal Government are yet to follow in the WA steps.

WA has made one step forward but there are more steps that should be taken to improve the system and ensure that the outcome of the election reflects the voters’ intentions.


To try and address the shortcomings of the system in place we have made a submission to both the State and Federal Parliament advocating change. Change that would see the implementation of what we have named The Wright System. (Named after the late Jack Wright author of “Mirror of a Nations Mind” and past President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia.)

The Wright System advocates the use of a formula used in the calculation and distribution of a Candidates Surplus in a proportional representation count based on the value of the vote as opposed to the number of ballot papers .

The system also recommends the adoption of a reiterative count process where the count is restarted and recounted following any exclusion of any unsuccessful candidates whose votes are to be redistributed.

Copies of the submission and rules of the proposed count can be found on our sister site http://melbcity.topcities.com/

The Wright System Advocating change that counts

The current electoral system that is used to elect representatives to the Australian Senate and the Victorian Upper-house is outdated and contains some serious flaws in the way the vote is counted.

The system was designed to facilitate a manual count and in the trade-off has inbuilt distortions in the election process that have the potential to effect the overall outcome.

With the coming November Municipal poll where many councils will for the first time also be adopting the system used to elect the Senate and Victorian Upper-house the potential for the results of the election to be effected by the flaws in the system are increased exponentially

The Western Australian Government has realised the impact of this error and has acted partially to correct the mistakes in adopting a system for its upper-house elections, but the Victorian and Federal Government are yet to follow in the WA steps.

WA has made one step forward but there are more steps that should be taken to improve the system and ensure that the outcome of the election reflects the voters’ intentions.


To try and address the shortcomings of the system in place we have made a submission to both the State and Federal Parliament advocating change. Change that would see the implementation of what we have named The Wright System. (Named after the late Jack Wright author of “Mirror of a Nations Mind” and past President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia.)

The Wright System advocates the use of a formula used in the calculation and distribution of a Candidates Surplus in a proportional representation count based on the value of the vote as opposed to the number of ballot papers .

The system also recommends the adoption of a reiterative count process where the count is restarted and recounted following any exclusion of any unsuccessful candidates whose votes are to be redistributed.

Copies of the submission and rules of the proposed count can be found on our sister site http://melbcity.topcities.com/

The Wright System Advocating change that counts

The current electoral system that is used to elect representatives to the Australian Senate and the Victorian Upper-house is outdated and contains some serious flaws in the way the vote is counted.

The system was designed to facilitate a manual count and in the trade-off has inbuilt distortions in the election process that have the potential to effect the overall outcome.

With the coming November Municipal poll where many councils will for the first time also be adopting the system used to elect the Senate and Victorian Upper-house the potential for the results of the election to be effected by the flaws in the system are increased exponentially

The Western Australian Government has realised the impact of this error and has acted partially to correct the mistakes in adopting a system for its upper-house elections, but the Victorian and Federal Government are yet to follow in the WA steps.

WA has made one step forward but there are more steps that should be taken to improve the system and ensure that the outcome of the election reflects the voters’ intentions.


To try and address the shortcomings of the system in place we have made a submission to both the State and Federal Parliament advocating change. Change that would see the implementation of what we have named The Wright System. (Named after the late Jack Wright author of “Mirror of a Nations Mind” and past President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia.)

The Wright System advocates the use of a formula used in the calculation and distribution of a Candidates Surplus in a proportional representation count based on the value of the vote as opposed to the number of ballot papers .

The system also recommends the adoption of a reiterative count process where the count is restarted and recounted following any exclusion of any unsuccessful candidates whose votes are to be redistributed.

Copies of the submission and rules of the proposed count can be found on our sister site http://melbcity.topcities.com/

Municipal BluesThe VEC sets course for November ship wreck

Electoral reform is back on the agenda.

With the coming of the November municipal poll and both the Australian and Victorian Government undertaking a review of the election system Now is the time to make necessary changes to Australia electoral system and the way we count the vote.

The system that is currently in place is outdated and designed to facilitate a manual count. Analysis of the vote in the last State and Federal election has highlighted some of the inbuilt errors in the system. Whilst Steve Tully, Victoria’s Electoral Commissioner, is in denial and avoidance mode about errors in the way he conducted the last State election the State Parliament continues to probe the facts behind the count that did not tally.

There is growing concern that the November Elections will create mass confusion and rebound on the State Government. At issue is the number of various representative models put in place by the Victorian Electoral Commission. The hybrid systems where there is a mix of multi-member and single member wards and those wards that will elect different number of councillors will all add to the confusion and dissent over the recent Municipal reforms.

The Introduction of proportional representation for Local Government was the correct policy, but its implementation and deployment by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been effective or well managed.

There will be resentment and confusion over the fact that some Municipalities will have a postal voting system and other an attendance poll with both closing on different days. Postal votes elections will close earlier then attendance polls and without doubt many voters will front up on “Polling Day” and be told that they can not vote. There is no provision for absentee voting across Municipal boundaries and Postal vote elections will close on the Friday before the normal Saturday poll. (A better option would have been for postal votes to close on Election Day or if need be the Monday following “Election Day” so that voters are not unnecessarily disenfranchised)

Although most of these mistakes are due to poor administration and management in the VEC. In the end Iit is the State Government that will cop the flack and criticism for the system that has been put in place. A system that could have and should have been better managed in its design and implementation.

Prediction: The November poll will be the first main stumbling block for the State Government which if it is not properly address could be the down fall of what is otherwise a responsible and effective Government. The Chief Commissioner will come under review and his contract will not be renewed but this will be too late.

Municipal BluesThe VEC sets course for November ship wreck

Electoral reform is back on the agenda.

With the coming of the November municipal poll and both the Australian and Victorian Government undertaking a review of the election system Now is the time to make necessary changes to Australia electoral system and the way we count the vote.

The system that is currently in place is outdated and designed to facilitate a manual count. Analysis of the vote in the last State and Federal election has highlighted some of the inbuilt errors in the system. Whilst Steve Tully, Victoria’s Electoral Commissioner, is in denial and avoidance mode about errors in the way he conducted the last State election the State Parliament continues to probe the facts behind the count that did not tally.

There is growing concern that the November Elections will create mass confusion and rebound on the State Government. At issue is the number of various representative models put in place by the Victorian Electoral Commission. The hybrid systems where there is a mix of multi-member and single member wards and those wards that will elect different number of councillors will all add to the confusion and dissent over the recent Municipal reforms.

The Introduction of proportional representation for Local Government was the correct policy, but its implementation and deployment by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been effective or well managed.

There will be resentment and confusion over the fact that some Municipalities will have a postal voting system and other an attendance poll with both closing on different days. Postal votes elections will close earlier then attendance polls and without doubt many voters will front up on “Polling Day” and be told that they can not vote. There is no provision for absentee voting across Municipal boundaries and Postal vote elections will close on the Friday before the normal Saturday poll. (A better option would have been for postal votes to close on Election Day or if need be the Monday following “Election Day” so that voters are not unnecessarily disenfranchised)

Although most of these mistakes are due to poor administration and management in the VEC. In the end Iit is the State Government that will cop the flack and criticism for the system that has been put in place. A system that could have and should have been better managed in its design and implementation.

Prediction: The November poll will be the first main stumbling block for the State Government which if it is not properly address could be the down fall of what is otherwise a responsible and effective Government. The Chief Commissioner will come under review and his contract will not be renewed but this will be too late.

Municipal BluesThe VEC sets course for November ship wreck

Electoral reform is back on the agenda.

With the coming of the November municipal poll and both the Australian and Victorian Government undertaking a review of the election system Now is the time to make necessary changes to Australia electoral system and the way we count the vote.

The system that is currently in place is outdated and designed to facilitate a manual count. Analysis of the vote in the last State and Federal election has highlighted some of the inbuilt errors in the system. Whilst Steve Tully, Victoria’s Electoral Commissioner, is in denial and avoidance mode about errors in the way he conducted the last State election the State Parliament continues to probe the facts behind the count that did not tally.

There is growing concern that the November Elections will create mass confusion and rebound on the State Government. At issue is the number of various representative models put in place by the Victorian Electoral Commission. The hybrid systems where there is a mix of multi-member and single member wards and those wards that will elect different number of councillors will all add to the confusion and dissent over the recent Municipal reforms.

The Introduction of proportional representation for Local Government was the correct policy, but its implementation and deployment by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been effective or well managed.

There will be resentment and confusion over the fact that some Municipalities will have a postal voting system and other an attendance poll with both closing on different days. Postal votes elections will close earlier then attendance polls and without doubt many voters will front up on “Polling Day” and be told that they can not vote. There is no provision for absentee voting across Municipal boundaries and Postal vote elections will close on the Friday before the normal Saturday poll. (A better option would have been for postal votes to close on Election Day or if need be the Monday following “Election Day” so that voters are not unnecessarily disenfranchised)

Although most of these mistakes are due to poor administration and management in the VEC. In the end Iit is the State Government that will cop the flack and criticism for the system that has been put in place. A system that could have and should have been better managed in its design and implementation.

Prediction: The November poll will be the first main stumbling block for the State Government which if it is not properly address could be the down fall of what is otherwise a responsible and effective Government. The Chief Commissioner will come under review and his contract will not be renewed but this will be too late.