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The flawed and outdated system of counting the vote was designed to facilitate a manual count, back in the days before calculators or computers.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


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


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.

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.

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.

Green and Bartlett in denial

There is ongoing concern about the flaw in the way the Australian Electoral Commission calculate the surplus transfer value used in counting the Senate vote. the senate uses a system of Single Transferable Voting – Proportional Representation.

The problem with the Senate system is that it was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. The method used to calculate the surplus transfer value is seriously flawed as a result.

Analysis of the 2007 Senate vote indicated that ALP Senator David Feeney could have lost his seat had One Nation preference the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP. Feeney would have lost not as a result of the voters intention but because the system used by the AEC delivered the Liberal/National Party an additional bonus of 7,000 votes.

The formulas used by the AEC divides a candidate’s surplus by the number of ballot papers and does not take into consideration the value of the vote.

Analysis of the NSW ticket votes based on the output of ABC’s Antony Green’s Calculator shows that the Liberal National Party ticket vote increases in value by over 14,000 votes. In a close election 14,000 votes can make a big differences. the system is clearly flawed but no one is trying to fix it.

Disgraced former Queensland Democrat Senator, come failed Green Candidate for Brisbane , Andrew Bartlett, is in denial. Mr Bartlett claims the system is not flawed.

Clearly Mr Bartlett is not as well informed as he thinks he is (Too many stolen red wine bottles)

Electoral Analyst, Antony Green, wrote a paper in 2008 confirming our previous analysis of the 2007 Victorian Election. But even Antony Greens assessment and confirmation is not good enough for Mr Bartlett who still defends the indefensible current Senate voting system.

His blind support could have something to do with the fact that the Greens have been the beneficiary of the Liberal party’s Bonus vote.

Andrew Bartlett does not understand how the vote is counted.

He could be forgiven in part, because Antony Greens Senate calculator is also misleading. The Green Calc does not list out in detail the method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Values.

Antony Green use of terminology such as “Raw votes” and “votes” is also misleading.

Under AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the value of a candidate’s surplus by the number of ballot papers.

For the ill informed such as Andrew Bartlett this sounds reasonable but if your take the time to analyse and calculate the actual surplus transfer value you soon realise that the system is seriously flawed. the reason is simple. Not all votes that dorm part of a candidate’s surplus are of the same value. Some are allocated at a fraction of value and others may be at full value. If you divide the surplus usually based on the number of ballot papers then you are in effect increasing that value of Major Party tickets votes at the expense of minor party primary votes.

If we are to restore confidence in the way the Senate vote is counted then we MUST ensure that the system is an accurate reflection of the voters expressed intention and is fully proportional not semi proportional.

As long as we have misinformed advocates such as Andrew Bartlett hope that the system will be fixed is not looking good

If we can not make the necessary changes and fix the system then we should abandon preferential proportional representation and adopt a party list system.

Missing from Antony Greens Calculator is the calculation of the surplus and the Surplus transfer value. Below is the calculations that demonstrate how the Senate system works

Data presented below is based on output published by Antony Green’s Senate Calculator for the State of NSW 2010 Election

NSW

[Count 1: Initial allocation]

There are 1,584,909 Primary vote ballot papers each having a value of 1 allocated to the LNP #1 Candidate: Total vote 1,584,909

[Count 2: Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (Liberal/National) elected #1]

LNP #1 has a surplus of 1,584,909 – Quota (579,828)
= 1,005,081

Surplus Transfer value = (1,005,081 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.634156914

1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #2 each ballot paper valued at 0.634156914, the total value = 1,005,081 (Above quota)

[Count 4: William HEFFERNAN (Liberal/National) elected #3]

LNP #2 now has a surplus of 1,005,081 – Quota (579,828)
= 425,253

Surplus Transfer value = (425,253 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.268313827

1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #3 each ballot paper valued now at 0.268313827, the total value = 425,253 (Below Quota)

[Exclusion of candidate process]

OK. At this stage the data is the same (But Antony Greens calculator has not published the break down or the formula used in calculating the value of the transfer value and the number of ballot papers held by the candidate. This information is sadly hidden from view – Why is that?)

[The LNP #3 candidate picks up votes from the following exclusions]

[Count 7: Meg SAMPSON (Group K Independents) excluded]

313 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Group K Ticket 1 of 3 Total number of ballot papers 1,584,909 @ 0.268313827 plus 313 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 425,566

[Count 18: Nick BEAMS (Socialist Equality Party) excluded]

1,199 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Socialist Equality Party Ticket 2 of 3. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 1,512 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 426,765

[Count 28: Greg SWANE (Family First) excluded]

38,371 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 39,883 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 465,136

[Count 29: Fiona CLANCY (Australian Democrats) excluded]

5,609 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 45,492 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 470,745

[Count 31: Paul GREEN (Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)) excluded]

79,157 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 124,649 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 549,902.

[Count 32: Jim Gerard MUIRHEAD (Shooters and Fishers) excluded]

95,292 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 219,941 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 645,194. (LNP Candidate #3 elected)

[THE DISTORTION IN THE COUNT]

The LNP#3 Now has
1,804,850 ballot papers (1,005,081 valued at 0.268313827 (value 425,253)
plus 219,941 ballot papers full valued votes) Candidates Total Value 645,194

Candidates Total 645,194

1,005,081 ballot papers at 0.268313827 = 425,253 (65.91% of 645,194)
219,941 ballot papers at 1.00000 = 219,941 (34.09% of 645,194)

Surplus = 645,194 – Quota (579,828) = 65,366

Under the AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the Surplus by the total number of ballot papers

65,366 divided by (1,005,081 + 219,941) = 0.03621686

The LNP ticket vote is worth the value of 57,400 votes (87.81%) of 65,366
The Primary Full value votes are now worth 79,66 votes (12.19%) 65,366

[The LNP ticket vote has increased its percentage of the Total value from 65.91% to 87.81%) and the Primary Full value votes have been devalued from 34.09% to 12.19%]

This represents a Bonus value of:

The LNP Ticket vote

65366 at 65.91% = 43,083
65366 at 87.81% = 57,400

A increase in value of 14,317

The Primary minor party full value vote
65366 at 34.09% = 43,083
65366 at 12.19% = 7,965

[Devalued by 14,317 votes]

14, 317 votes can be the difference in a close election.

This came about as a result of a FLAW in the way the vote is counted. A flaw that Mr Bartlett thinks does not exist. A flaw that inflated the Major Party Ticket vote at the expense of the minor party vote.

  • A flaw in the way the vote is counted that should not exist.
  • A flaw that needs to be corrected not hidden from view
  • A flaw that some seek to hide and some who are ex members of parliament, ex Democrats. No Green Candidates think does not exist.

Green and Bartlett in denial

There is ongoing concern about the flaw in the way the Australian Electoral Commission calculate the surplus transfer value used in counting the Senate vote. the senate uses a system of Single Transferable Voting – Proportional Representation.

The problem with the Senate system is that it was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. The method used to calculate the surplus transfer value is seriously flawed as a result.

Analysis of the 2007 Senate vote indicated that ALP Senator David Feeney could have lost his seat had One Nation preference the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP. Feeney would have lost not as a result of the voters intention but because the system used by the AEC delivered the Liberal/National Party an additional bonus of 7,000 votes.

The formulas used by the AEC divides a candidate’s surplus by the number of ballot papers and does not take into consideration the value of the vote.

Analysis of the NSW ticket votes based on the output of ABC’s Antony Green’s Calculator shows that the Liberal National Party ticket vote increases in value by over 14,000 votes. In a close election 14,000 votes can make a big differences. the system is clearly flawed but no one is trying to fix it.

Disgraced former Queensland Democrat Senator, come failed Green Candidate for Brisbane , Andrew Bartlett, is in denial. Mr Bartlett claims the system is not flawed.

Clearly Mr Bartlett is not as well informed as he thinks he is (Too many stolen red wine bottles)

Electoral Analyst, Antony Green, wrote a paper in 2008 confirming our previous analysis of the 2007 Victorian Election. But even Antony Greens assessment and confirmation is not good enough for Mr Bartlett who still defends the indefensible current Senate voting system.

His blind support could have something to do with the fact that the Greens have been the beneficiary of the Liberal party’s Bonus vote.

Andrew Bartlett does not understand how the vote is counted.

He could be forgiven in part, because Antony Greens Senate calculator is also misleading. The Green Calc does not list out in detail the method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Values.

Antony Green use of terminology such as “Raw votes” and “votes” is also misleading.

Under AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the value of a candidate’s surplus by the number of ballot papers.

For the ill informed such as Andrew Bartlett this sounds reasonable but if your take the time to analyse and calculate the actual surplus transfer value you soon realise that the system is seriously flawed. the reason is simple. Not all votes that dorm part of a candidate’s surplus are of the same value. Some are allocated at a fraction of value and others may be at full value. If you divide the surplus usually based on the number of ballot papers then you are in effect increasing that value of Major Party tickets votes at the expense of minor party primary votes.

If we are to restore confidence in the way the Senate vote is counted then we MUST ensure that the system is an accurate reflection of the voters expressed intention and is fully proportional not semi proportional.

As long as we have misinformed advocates such as Andrew Bartlett hope that the system will be fixed is not looking good

If we can not make the necessary changes and fix the system then we should abandon preferential proportional representation and adopt a party list system.

Missing from Antony Greens Calculator is the calculation of the surplus and the Surplus transfer value. Below is the calculations that demonstrate how the Senate system works

Data presented below is based on output published by Antony Green’s Senate Calculator for the State of NSW 2010 Election

NSW

[Count 1: Initial allocation]

There are 1,584,909 Primary vote ballot papers each having a value of 1 allocated to the LNP #1 Candidate: Total vote 1,584,909

[Count 2: Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (Liberal/National) elected #1]

LNP #1 has a surplus of 1,584,909 – Quota (579,828)
= 1,005,081

Surplus Transfer value = (1,005,081 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.634156914

1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #2 each ballot paper valued at 0.634156914, the total value = 1,005,081 (Above quota)

[Count 4: William HEFFERNAN (Liberal/National) elected #3]

LNP #2 now has a surplus of 1,005,081 – Quota (579,828)
= 425,253

Surplus Transfer value = (425,253 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.268313827

1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #3 each ballot paper valued now at 0.268313827, the total value = 425,253 (Below Quota)

[Exclusion of candidate process]

OK. At this stage the data is the same (But Antony Greens calculator has not published the break down or the formula used in calculating the value of the transfer value and the number of ballot papers held by the candidate. This information is sadly hidden from view – Why is that?)

[The LNP #3 candidate picks up votes from the following exclusions]

[Count 7: Meg SAMPSON (Group K Independents) excluded]

313 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Group K Ticket 1 of 3 Total number of ballot papers 1,584,909 @ 0.268313827 plus 313 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 425,566

[Count 18: Nick BEAMS (Socialist Equality Party) excluded]

1,199 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Socialist Equality Party Ticket 2 of 3. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 1,512 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 426,765

[Count 28: Greg SWANE (Family First) excluded]

38,371 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 39,883 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 465,136

[Count 29: Fiona CLANCY (Australian Democrats) excluded]

5,609 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 45,492 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 470,745

[Count 31: Paul GREEN (Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)) excluded]

79,157 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 124,649 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 549,902.

[Count 32: Jim Gerard MUIRHEAD (Shooters and Fishers) excluded]

95,292 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 219,941 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 645,194. (LNP Candidate #3 elected)

[THE DISTORTION IN THE COUNT]

The LNP#3 Now has
1,804,850 ballot papers (1,005,081 valued at 0.268313827 (value 425,253)
plus 219,941 ballot papers full valued votes) Candidates Total Value 645,194

Candidates Total 645,194

1,005,081 ballot papers at 0.268313827 = 425,253 (65.91% of 645,194)
219,941 ballot papers at 1.00000 = 219,941 (34.09% of 645,194)

Surplus = 645,194 – Quota (579,828) = 65,366

Under the AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the Surplus by the total number of ballot papers

65,366 divided by (1,005,081 + 219,941) = 0.03621686

The LNP ticket vote is worth the value of 57,400 votes (87.81%) of 65,366
The Primary Full value votes are now worth 79,66 votes (12.19%) 65,366

[The LNP ticket vote has increased its percentage of the Total value from 65.91% to 87.81%) and the Primary Full value votes have been devalued from 34.09% to 12.19%]

This represents a Bonus value of:

The LNP Ticket vote

65366 at 65.91% = 43,083
65366 at 87.81% = 57,400

A increase in value of 14,317

The Primary minor party full value vote
65366 at 34.09% = 43,083
65366 at 12.19% = 7,965

[Devalued by 14,317 votes]

14, 317 votes can be the difference in a close election.

This came about as a result of a FLAW in the way the vote is counted. A flaw that Mr Bartlett thinks does not exist. A flaw that inflated the Major Party Ticket vote at the expense of the minor party vote.

  • A flaw in the way the vote is counted that should not exist.
  • A flaw that needs to be corrected not hidden from view
  • A flaw that some seek to hide and some who are ex members of parliament, ex Democrats. No Green Candidates think does not exist.

Green and Bartlett in denial

There is ongoing concern about the flaw in the way the Australian Electoral Commission calculate the surplus transfer value used in counting the Senate vote. the senate uses a system of Single Transferable Voting – Proportional Representation.

The problem with the Senate system is that it was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. The method used to calculate the surplus transfer value is seriously flawed as a result.

Analysis of the 2007 Senate vote indicated that ALP Senator David Feeney could have lost his seat had One Nation preference the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP. Feeney would have lost not as a result of the voters intention but because the system used by the AEC delivered the Liberal/National Party an additional bonus of 7,000 votes.

The formulas used by the AEC divides a candidate’s surplus by the number of ballot papers and does not take into consideration the value of the vote.

Analysis of the NSW ticket votes based on the output of ABC’s Antony Green’s Calculator shows that the Liberal National Party ticket vote increases in value by over 14,000 votes. In a close election 14,000 votes can make a big differences. the system is clearly flawed but no one is trying to fix it.

Disgraced former Queensland Democrat Senator, come failed Green Candidate for Brisbane , Andrew Bartlett, is in denial. Mr Bartlett claims the system is not flawed.

Clearly Mr Bartlett is not as well informed as he thinks he is (Too many stolen red wine bottles)

Electoral Analyst, Antony Green, wrote a paper in 2008 confirming our previous analysis of the 2007 Victorian Election. But even Antony Greens assessment and confirmation is not good enough for Mr Bartlett who still defends the indefensible current Senate voting system.

His blind support could have something to do with the fact that the Greens have been the beneficiary of the Liberal party’s Bonus vote.

Andrew Bartlett does not understand how the vote is counted.

He could be forgiven in part, because Antony Greens Senate calculator is also misleading. The Green Calc does not list out in detail the method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Values.

Antony Green use of terminology such as “Raw votes” and “votes” is also misleading.

Under AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the value of a candidate’s surplus by the number of ballot papers.

For the ill informed such as Andrew Bartlett this sounds reasonable but if your take the time to analyse and calculate the actual surplus transfer value you soon realise that the system is seriously flawed. the reason is simple. Not all votes that dorm part of a candidate’s surplus are of the same value. Some are allocated at a fraction of value and others may be at full value. If you divide the surplus usually based on the number of ballot papers then you are in effect increasing that value of Major Party tickets votes at the expense of minor party primary votes.

If we are to restore confidence in the way the Senate vote is counted then we MUST ensure that the system is an accurate reflection of the voters expressed intention and is fully proportional not semi proportional.

As long as we have misinformed advocates such as Andrew Bartlett hope that the system will be fixed is not looking good

If we can not make the necessary changes and fix the system then we should abandon preferential proportional representation and adopt a party list system.

Missing from Antony Greens Calculator is the calculation of the surplus and the Surplus transfer value. Below is the calculations that demonstrate how the Senate system works

Data presented below is based on output published by Antony Green’s Senate Calculator for the State of NSW 2010 Election

NSW

[Count 1: Initial allocation]

There are 1,584,909 Primary vote ballot papers each having a value of 1 allocated to the LNP #1 Candidate: Total vote 1,584,909

[Count 2: Concetta FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (Liberal/National) elected #1]

LNP #1 has a surplus of 1,584,909 – Quota (579,828)
= 1,005,081

Surplus Transfer value = (1,005,081 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.634156914

1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #2 each ballot paper valued at 0.634156914, the total value = 1,005,081 (Above quota)

[Count 4: William HEFFERNAN (Liberal/National) elected #3]

LNP #2 now has a surplus of 1,005,081 – Quota (579,828)
= 425,253

Surplus Transfer value = (425,253 divided by 1,584,909 ballot papers) = 0.268313827

1,584,909 ballot papers are transferred to LNP #3 each ballot paper valued now at 0.268313827, the total value = 425,253 (Below Quota)

[Exclusion of candidate process]

OK. At this stage the data is the same (But Antony Greens calculator has not published the break down or the formula used in calculating the value of the transfer value and the number of ballot papers held by the candidate. This information is sadly hidden from view – Why is that?)

[The LNP #3 candidate picks up votes from the following exclusions]

[Count 7: Meg SAMPSON (Group K Independents) excluded]

313 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Group K Ticket 1 of 3 Total number of ballot papers 1,584,909 @ 0.268313827 plus 313 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 425,566

[Count 18: Nick BEAMS (Socialist Equality Party) excluded]

1,199 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Socialist Equality Party Ticket 2 of 3. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 1,512 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 426,765

[Count 28: Greg SWANE (Family First) excluded]

38,371 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 39,883 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 465,136

[Count 29: Fiona CLANCY (Australian Democrats) excluded]

5,609 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Family First. Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 45,492 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 470,745

[Count 31: Paul GREEN (Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)) excluded]

79,157 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 124,649 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 549,902.

[Count 32: Jim Gerard MUIRHEAD (Shooters and Fishers) excluded]

95,292 Primary vote ballot papers are transferred at full value on the exclusion of Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Total number of ballot papers 1,586,421 @ 0.268313827 plus 219,941 ballot papers at full value of 1.00000: Total value of votes 645,194. (LNP Candidate #3 elected)

[THE DISTORTION IN THE COUNT]

The LNP#3 Now has
1,804,850 ballot papers (1,005,081 valued at 0.268313827 (value 425,253)
plus 219,941 ballot papers full valued votes) Candidates Total Value 645,194

Candidates Total 645,194

1,005,081 ballot papers at 0.268313827 = 425,253 (65.91% of 645,194)
219,941 ballot papers at 1.00000 = 219,941 (34.09% of 645,194)

Surplus = 645,194 – Quota (579,828) = 65,366

Under the AEC rules the Surplus Transfer value is calculated by dividing the Surplus by the total number of ballot papers

65,366 divided by (1,005,081 + 219,941) = 0.03621686

The LNP ticket vote is worth the value of 57,400 votes (87.81%) of 65,366
The Primary Full value votes are now worth 79,66 votes (12.19%) 65,366

[The LNP ticket vote has increased its percentage of the Total value from 65.91% to 87.81%) and the Primary Full value votes have been devalued from 34.09% to 12.19%]

This represents a Bonus value of:

The LNP Ticket vote

65366 at 65.91% = 43,083
65366 at 87.81% = 57,400

A increase in value of 14,317

The Primary minor party full value vote
65366 at 34.09% = 43,083
65366 at 12.19% = 7,965

[Devalued by 14,317 votes]

14, 317 votes can be the difference in a close election.

This came about as a result of a FLAW in the way the vote is counted. A flaw that Mr Bartlett thinks does not exist. A flaw that inflated the Major Party Ticket vote at the expense of the minor party vote.

  • A flaw in the way the vote is counted that should not exist.
  • A flaw that needs to be corrected not hidden from view
  • A flaw that some seek to hide and some who are ex members of parliament, ex Democrats. No Green Candidates think does not exist.

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.

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.