Tully’s up and Tally goes astray Chief Electoral Commissioner oversees Victoria’s biggest electoral management stuff up and avoids accountability

Steve Tully, Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner in a article published in the Age Newspaper seeks to dismiss responsibility for the biggest stuff up in Victoria’s electoral management. Mr Tully has tried to shift blame on the long hours worked by VEC staff and in doing so Mr Tully seeks to avoid and deny any accountability or responsibility.

Steve Tully and the VEC had poorly managed the election and the VEC made a serious error in the data-entry of the ballot papers by over inflating the result of the election and the Liberal Party vote by 6,000 votes. Mr Tully subsequently provisionally declared that the last position of Western Metropolitan Region was won by the DLP lead candidate candidate, John Mulholland.

The fact remains is that had the VEC done its job properly this monumental stuff up would never have eventuated.

We had prior to the November election and immediately following the ballot requested information on the number of ballot papers that had been issued and received by the VEC. Information that the Chief Commissioner Steve Tully refused to provide. WHY?

Had this information been provided and accounted for, as requested, the Electoral Commission should have and would have known before they pressed the run button that there was a serious flaw in the VEC data-entry process. A quick tally of the number of primary votes and the number of informal ballots would have alerted the VEC that something was wrong . This is the exact reason why we had requested this information in the first place. In accounting terms it provides a trail balance, a check digit that ensures that all votes recorded are account for. In previous Victorian elections this information was previously available.

The fact that Mr Tully refused to provide this information, as requested, undermines the integrity of the election and prevented effective scrutiny of the ballot. It also raises questions as to the integrity of the software in use. The VEC has spent millions of dollars in software development and basic checks and balance were not in place to avoid the error that inventuated.

The problem is Steve Tully and his refusal to ensure that Victoria’s electoral process is open and transparent. His refusal to provide information on the number of ballot papers issued and detailed eloection results can not be excused.

This election has been one the worst managed elections on record. The VEC still has not provided the details of the election results and electoral commission continues to refuse to make the details of the election results public. In doing so Mr Steve Tully continues to bring Victoria’s State election into disrepute.

There is no excuse for the Chief Electoral Commissioner to not publish the detailed results, including the full count sheet and the transcribed below-the-line preference data files.

Without access to this information it is impossible for the electronic election results to be effectively scrutinised or verified, denying the public the right of independent review and analysis.

The detailed election results are a public document and legal precedence already exist requiring the electoral commission to make the data readily available for independent review and analysis. The VEC should and MUST publish this information on its web site without delay.

If necessary we will make an fresh Freedom of Information (FOI) application to ensure that the election results are readily available. The necessity of having to make a FOI application is itself an abuse of process and one that should be of concern to the Minister and State Attorney General, Rob Hulls, who is the Minister responsible for both FOI legislation and the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission. Mr Hulls office has been made aware of the deficiency in the VEC’s management of the election.

The Chief Commissioner’s actions and the identified problems with the conduct of the November State Election warrants a parliamentary review and the Mr Tully’s resignation.

Tully’s up and Tally goes astray Chief Electoral Commissioner oversees Victoria’s biggest electoral management stuff up and avoids accountability

Steve Tully, Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner in a article published in the Age Newspaper seeks to dismiss responsibility for the biggest stuff up in Victoria’s electoral management. Mr Tully has tried to shift blame on the long hours worked by VEC staff and in doing so Mr Tully seeks to avoid and deny any accountability or responsibility.

Steve Tully and the VEC had poorly managed the election and the VEC made a serious error in the data-entry of the ballot papers by over inflating the result of the election and the Liberal Party vote by 6,000 votes. Mr Tully subsequently provisionally declared that the last position of Western Metropolitan Region was won by the DLP lead candidate candidate, John Mulholland.

The fact remains is that had the VEC done its job properly this monumental stuff up would never have eventuated.

We had prior to the November election and immediately following the ballot requested information on the number of ballot papers that had been issued and received by the VEC. Information that the Chief Commissioner Steve Tully refused to provide. WHY?

Had this information been provided and accounted for, as requested, the Electoral Commission should have and would have known before they pressed the run button that there was a serious flaw in the VEC data-entry process. A quick tally of the number of primary votes and the number of informal ballots would have alerted the VEC that something was wrong . This is the exact reason why we had requested this information in the first place. In accounting terms it provides a trail balance, a check digit that ensures that all votes recorded are account for. In previous Victorian elections this information was previously available.

The fact that Mr Tully refused to provide this information, as requested, undermines the integrity of the election and prevented effective scrutiny of the ballot. It also raises questions as to the integrity of the software in use. The VEC has spent millions of dollars in software development and basic checks and balance were not in place to avoid the error that inventuated.

The problem is Steve Tully and his refusal to ensure that Victoria’s electoral process is open and transparent. His refusal to provide information on the number of ballot papers issued and detailed eloection results can not be excused.

This election has been one the worst managed elections on record. The VEC still has not provided the details of the election results and electoral commission continues to refuse to make the details of the election results public. In doing so Mr Steve Tully continues to bring Victoria’s State election into disrepute.

There is no excuse for the Chief Electoral Commissioner to not publish the detailed results, including the full count sheet and the transcribed below-the-line preference data files.

Without access to this information it is impossible for the electronic election results to be effectively scrutinised or verified, denying the public the right of independent review and analysis.

The detailed election results are a public document and legal precedence already exist requiring the electoral commission to make the data readily available for independent review and analysis. The VEC should and MUST publish this information on its web site without delay.

If necessary we will make an fresh Freedom of Information (FOI) application to ensure that the election results are readily available. The necessity of having to make a FOI application is itself an abuse of process and one that should be of concern to the Minister and State Attorney General, Rob Hulls, who is the Minister responsible for both FOI legislation and the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission. Mr Hulls office has been made aware of the deficiency in the VEC’s management of the election.

The Chief Commissioner’s actions and the identified problems with the conduct of the November State Election warrants a parliamentary review and the Mr Tully’s resignation.

Tully’s up and Tally goes astray Chief Electoral Commissioner oversees Victoria’s biggest electoral management stuff up and avoids accountability

Steve Tully, Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner in a article published in the Age Newspaper seeks to dismiss responsibility for the biggest stuff up in Victoria’s electoral management. Mr Tully has tried to shift blame on the long hours worked by VEC staff and in doing so Mr Tully seeks to avoid and deny any accountability or responsibility.

Steve Tully and the VEC had poorly managed the election and the VEC made a serious error in the data-entry of the ballot papers by over inflating the result of the election and the Liberal Party vote by 6,000 votes. Mr Tully subsequently provisionally declared that the last position of Western Metropolitan Region was won by the DLP lead candidate candidate, John Mulholland.

The fact remains is that had the VEC done its job properly this monumental stuff up would never have eventuated.

We had prior to the November election and immediately following the ballot requested information on the number of ballot papers that had been issued and received by the VEC. Information that the Chief Commissioner Steve Tully refused to provide. WHY?

Had this information been provided and accounted for, as requested, the Electoral Commission should have and would have known before they pressed the run button that there was a serious flaw in the VEC data-entry process. A quick tally of the number of primary votes and the number of informal ballots would have alerted the VEC that something was wrong . This is the exact reason why we had requested this information in the first place. In accounting terms it provides a trail balance, a check digit that ensures that all votes recorded are account for. In previous Victorian elections this information was previously available.

The fact that Mr Tully refused to provide this information, as requested, undermines the integrity of the election and prevented effective scrutiny of the ballot. It also raises questions as to the integrity of the software in use. The VEC has spent millions of dollars in software development and basic checks and balance were not in place to avoid the error that inventuated.

The problem is Steve Tully and his refusal to ensure that Victoria’s electoral process is open and transparent. His refusal to provide information on the number of ballot papers issued and detailed eloection results can not be excused.

This election has been one the worst managed elections on record. The VEC still has not provided the details of the election results and electoral commission continues to refuse to make the details of the election results public. In doing so Mr Steve Tully continues to bring Victoria’s State election into disrepute.

There is no excuse for the Chief Electoral Commissioner to not publish the detailed results, including the full count sheet and the transcribed below-the-line preference data files.

Without access to this information it is impossible for the electronic election results to be effectively scrutinised or verified, denying the public the right of independent review and analysis.

The detailed election results are a public document and legal precedence already exist requiring the electoral commission to make the data readily available for independent review and analysis. The VEC should and MUST publish this information on its web site without delay.

If necessary we will make an fresh Freedom of Information (FOI) application to ensure that the election results are readily available. The necessity of having to make a FOI application is itself an abuse of process and one that should be of concern to the Minister and State Attorney General, Rob Hulls, who is the Minister responsible for both FOI legislation and the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission. Mr Hulls office has been made aware of the deficiency in the VEC’s management of the election.

The Chief Commissioner’s actions and the identified problems with the conduct of the November State Election warrants a parliamentary review and the Mr Tully’s resignation.

Thornley expected to win Southern Metro Latest data from the VEC limited reporting indicates The ALP will secure the fifth spot

Latest counting reported by the VEC has placed the ALP Evan Thornley in a winning position with a lead of over 1,000 votes. Whilst the VEC continues its appalling lack of transparency in reporting the progress and results of the election count.

Analysis details can be found here

For reasons not fully explained David Southwick, based on results published Monday December 11, showed, went backwards in the actual count and the ALP and Greens moved forward over the weekend.

Counting in Western Victoria has the ALP below the Greens and the DLP who picked up minor party preferences above the National Party. As a result the fifth position in Western Victoria will go to the DLP with ALP Elaine Carbine missing out in being elected to the Victorian parliament.

Labor will hold 20 seats, the Liberal Party 15, NP 2, Greens 2 and DLP 1.

Thornley expected to win Southern Metro Latest data from the VEC limited reporting indicates The ALP will secure the fifth spot

Latest counting reported by the VEC has placed the ALP Evan Thornley in a winning position with a lead of over 1,000 votes. Whilst the VEC continues its appalling lack of transparency in reporting the progress and results of the election count.

Analysis details can be found here

For reasons not fully explained David Southwick, based on results published Monday December 11, showed, went backwards in the actual count and the ALP and Greens moved forward over the weekend.

Counting in Western Victoria has the ALP below the Greens and the DLP who picked up minor party preferences above the National Party. As a result the fifth position in Western Victoria will go to the DLP with ALP Elaine Carbine missing out in being elected to the Victorian parliament.

Labor will hold 20 seats, the Liberal Party 15, NP 2, Greens 2 and DLP 1.

Thornley expected to win Southern Metro Latest data from the VEC limited reporting indicates The ALP will secure the fifth spot

Latest counting reported by the VEC has placed the ALP Evan Thornley in a winning position with a lead of over 1,000 votes. Whilst the VEC continues its appalling lack of transparency in reporting the progress and results of the election count.

Analysis details can be found here

For reasons not fully explained David Southwick, based on results published Monday December 11, showed, went backwards in the actual count and the ALP and Greens moved forward over the weekend.

Counting in Western Victoria has the ALP below the Greens and the DLP who picked up minor party preferences above the National Party. As a result the fifth position in Western Victoria will go to the DLP with ALP Elaine Carbine missing out in being elected to the Victorian parliament.

Labor will hold 20 seats, the Liberal Party 15, NP 2, Greens 2 and DLP 1.

Who is John Barry Myers With Southern Metropolitan heading towards a photo finish every vote counts

History in the making with a close race heading to a photo finish

Southern Metropolitan is shaping to create another historical election event for Victoria with the contest for the last two positions being a close race. A race between the Titans. The best analogy we can come up with is a Yacht race or maybe a long distance marathon. Much depends on who can maintain the momentum as the count continues and who cross the line first.

With an election this tight every vote counts and the two biggest issues are “where does the below-the-line vote go once it leaves the group associated with their first preference vote” and “Who is John Barry Myers” the unaligned independent candidate who is currently on a total of 245 votes.

With a margin of less the 50 votes John Myers‘s votes (as is the case of every other vote) will play a potentially significant role in the makeup and control of Victoria’s future Parliament.

Heading to the courts

All ready we see the contest for Southern Metropolitan heading to the courts, as each main party starts documenting every aspect of the election in anticipation that who ever loses the election will mount a challenge in the courts.

Questions will be asked about the roles and conduct of the Victorian VEC, the lack of information, openness and transparency in the conduct of the election.

All these issues, including our concerns about the Victorian Electoral Commission staff accessing the result of the e-voting polling booth data prior to Saturday’s poll (Something Mr Steve Tully, Chief Commissioner, has emphatically denied taking place in spite evidence to the contrary) along with concern about Mr Tully’s refusal to provide relevant information to candidates, campaign managers, staff, scrutineers and members of the public in a timely fashion preventing appinted scrutineers and others from monitoring and properly scrutinising the conduct of the election. All issues will be subjected to judicial review.

This could be a repeat of the 1985 Nunawading challenge where Bob Ives was denied a seat in Parliament following a court ruling that called for the election to be rerun. If this was the case then all five positions would have to face re-election leave the ALP without its leader in the upper-house. This would depend on wheather a court injuction would prevent any candiadte form taking office pending the outcome of any court challenge in 1985 Bob Ives was allowed to take up his seat but soon lost it when teh court declared the results inconclusive and callwed for fresh elections. Maybe the losing side will opt to save the public millions of dollars in the cost of a legal challenge and the cost of having to hold fresh elections in Southern Metropolitan Region but that would be asking too much when so much is at stake.

It’s too early to speculate with certainty on the immediate aftermath of the election result. The vote is still continuing and there are an estimated (No one seams to know exactly) 30-50,000 votes to be brought on the table (where from who knows certainly not the public). VEC’s lack of openness and transparency in the conduct of this election has little to be desired.

Who is John Barry Myers With Southern Metropolitan heading towards a photo finish every vote counts

History in the making with a close race heading to a photo finish

Southern Metropolitan is shaping to create another historical election event for Victoria with the contest for the last two positions being a close race. A race between the Titans. The best analogy we can come up with is a Yacht race or maybe a long distance marathon. Much depends on who can maintain the momentum as the count continues and who cross the line first.

With an election this tight every vote counts and the two biggest issues are “where does the below-the-line vote go once it leaves the group associated with their first preference vote” and “Who is John Barry Myers” the unaligned independent candidate who is currently on a total of 245 votes.

With a margin of less the 50 votes John Myers‘s votes (as is the case of every other vote) will play a potentially significant role in the makeup and control of Victoria’s future Parliament.

Heading to the courts

All ready we see the contest for Southern Metropolitan heading to the courts, as each main party starts documenting every aspect of the election in anticipation that who ever loses the election will mount a challenge in the courts.

Questions will be asked about the roles and conduct of the Victorian VEC, the lack of information, openness and transparency in the conduct of the election.

All these issues, including our concerns about the Victorian Electoral Commission staff accessing the result of the e-voting polling booth data prior to Saturday’s poll (Something Mr Steve Tully, Chief Commissioner, has emphatically denied taking place in spite evidence to the contrary) along with concern about Mr Tully’s refusal to provide relevant information to candidates, campaign managers, staff, scrutineers and members of the public in a timely fashion preventing appinted scrutineers and others from monitoring and properly scrutinising the conduct of the election. All issues will be subjected to judicial review.

This could be a repeat of the 1985 Nunawading challenge where Bob Ives was denied a seat in Parliament following a court ruling that called for the election to be rerun. If this was the case then all five positions would have to face re-election leave the ALP without its leader in the upper-house. This would depend on wheather a court injuction would prevent any candiadte form taking office pending the outcome of any court challenge in 1985 Bob Ives was allowed to take up his seat but soon lost it when teh court declared the results inconclusive and callwed for fresh elections. Maybe the losing side will opt to save the public millions of dollars in the cost of a legal challenge and the cost of having to hold fresh elections in Southern Metropolitan Region but that would be asking too much when so much is at stake.

It’s too early to speculate with certainty on the immediate aftermath of the election result. The vote is still continuing and there are an estimated (No one seams to know exactly) 30-50,000 votes to be brought on the table (where from who knows certainly not the public). VEC’s lack of openness and transparency in the conduct of this election has little to be desired.

Who is John Barry Myers With Southern Metropolitan heading towards a photo finish every vote counts

History in the making with a close race heading to a photo finish

Southern Metropolitan is shaping to create another historical election event for Victoria with the contest for the last two positions being a close race. A race between the Titans. The best analogy we can come up with is a Yacht race or maybe a long distance marathon. Much depends on who can maintain the momentum as the count continues and who cross the line first.

With an election this tight every vote counts and the two biggest issues are “where does the below-the-line vote go once it leaves the group associated with their first preference vote” and “Who is John Barry Myers” the unaligned independent candidate who is currently on a total of 245 votes.

With a margin of less the 50 votes John Myers‘s votes (as is the case of every other vote) will play a potentially significant role in the makeup and control of Victoria’s future Parliament.

Heading to the courts

All ready we see the contest for Southern Metropolitan heading to the courts, as each main party starts documenting every aspect of the election in anticipation that who ever loses the election will mount a challenge in the courts.

Questions will be asked about the roles and conduct of the Victorian VEC, the lack of information, openness and transparency in the conduct of the election.

All these issues, including our concerns about the Victorian Electoral Commission staff accessing the result of the e-voting polling booth data prior to Saturday’s poll (Something Mr Steve Tully, Chief Commissioner, has emphatically denied taking place in spite evidence to the contrary) along with concern about Mr Tully’s refusal to provide relevant information to candidates, campaign managers, staff, scrutineers and members of the public in a timely fashion preventing appinted scrutineers and others from monitoring and properly scrutinising the conduct of the election. All issues will be subjected to judicial review.

This could be a repeat of the 1985 Nunawading challenge where Bob Ives was denied a seat in Parliament following a court ruling that called for the election to be rerun. If this was the case then all five positions would have to face re-election leave the ALP without its leader in the upper-house. This would depend on wheather a court injuction would prevent any candiadte form taking office pending the outcome of any court challenge in 1985 Bob Ives was allowed to take up his seat but soon lost it when teh court declared the results inconclusive and callwed for fresh elections. Maybe the losing side will opt to save the public millions of dollars in the cost of a legal challenge and the cost of having to hold fresh elections in Southern Metropolitan Region but that would be asking too much when so much is at stake.

It’s too early to speculate with certainty on the immediate aftermath of the election result. The vote is still continuing and there are an estimated (No one seams to know exactly) 30-50,000 votes to be brought on the table (where from who knows certainly not the public). VEC’s lack of openness and transparency in the conduct of this election has little to be desired.

Southwick Heads South The Southern Metropolitan Region has just produced a change of fortune for ALP dot.com millionaire

UPDATE: (December 1 17:00) There was some residual counting left over from yesterday and Thornley has taken the lead once again as the three main players race to the finish line. Its neck and neck and anyone can come out of this race the winner.

At the crucial conjunction point the vote was ..
GRN 46863
ALP 46814
LIB 41714
FF 9696
DEM 9197

People Power had just been eliminated and they top up the Democrats who are marginally below Family First.

The Democrats votes flow to the Greens who on the Democrats ticket first preferences cross the line with minimal surplus. (This is the segmentation order at play) The Democrats still have another 4,387 votes to distribute (that came to it as second preferences + their below the line volts to their lower candidates). The Green surplus (256 votes) is then distributed to the ALP.

The Democrats remaining votes are then distributed to the ALP pushing Thornley over the line a head of Southwick. with a margin of less then 20 votes.

You begin to see how close this race is. Those 20 could easily disappear in the exhausted pile or drift from the below the line voters. The Democrats and People Power preferences are keeping the Greens in the race but Labor and the Liberals are catching up fast.

http://melbcity.topcities.com/ for latest analysis count sheet..

(November 30: 1700) Latest election counting has put David Southwick in the lead for the fifth spot in Southern Metropolitan: shattering ALP dot com millionaire Even Thornley’s hopes of entering parliament and with t the ALP’s dominance of both houses.

The long expected 7000 + postal votes have been counted and Southwick has received the lions share. It’s literally with 0.04% less then 150 votes.

This will certainly go to a recount and may even go to court. There were a number of irregularities in the count with the Victorian Electoral Commissioner refusing to provide detailed information relevant to the conduct of the election. This would have to be one of the worst conducted counts in recent memory.

Already questions are being asked on a number of issues. The main issue appears dissatisfaction with the ALP decision to preselect a candidate in Western Metropolitan with close ties to Syria which has alienated Melbourne’s Jewish Community who in turn dumped the ALP and voted on mass for the Liberal Party.

With the adoption of optional preferential voting Labor’s fortune are expected to decline even further as many of the Green votes are expected to exhaust reducing Evans chance with them.

Update:

Andrew Landeryou has posted on the Other Cheek a real possibility that if the vote continues to unfold as it has in the last 24hrs ,where the Greens have been losing ground, there is realistic possibility that Evan Thornley could overtake the Greens and be elected on the back of a small surplus delivered to the ALP but the Liberal Party.

For each vote added to the table the quota changes. 2/3rds of each vote is absorbed in the existing four quotas.

Problem is we do not know how many ballot papers have been issued. We tried to get this information from the VEC but the Chief Electoral Commission was unable to unwilling to provide any statistics on the number of postal votes that had been issued. This information is normally readily available but for some reason Steve Tully refused to provide the data prior to Saturday’s poll.

As a result it is difficult to ascertain. Certainly if there are more votes to be counted and the Greens percentage is declining then YES the Greens could lose out and could fall below Evan Thornley in which case Evan will cross the line first. Again its like walking around in the fog without necessary information. Another issue that needs to be examined is the impact of optional preferential voting. I am waiting to hear feedback from Scrutineers. Hopefully they will be able to secure a copy of the preference data file because without that there is no way they can properly scrutinise the election in this round without it. again this information use to be made available but Mr Tully has to date refused to make it available. With this election being close he will have to reconsider or face a court challenge.

Southwick Heads South The Southern Metropolitan Region has just produced a change of fortune for ALP dot.com millionaire

UPDATE: (December 1 17:00) There was some residual counting left over from yesterday and Thornley has taken the lead once again as the three main players race to the finish line. Its neck and neck and anyone can come out of this race the winner.

At the crucial conjunction point the vote was ..
GRN 46863
ALP 46814
LIB 41714
FF 9696
DEM 9197

People Power had just been eliminated and they top up the Democrats who are marginally below Family First.

The Democrats votes flow to the Greens who on the Democrats ticket first preferences cross the line with minimal surplus. (This is the segmentation order at play) The Democrats still have another 4,387 votes to distribute (that came to it as second preferences + their below the line volts to their lower candidates). The Green surplus (256 votes) is then distributed to the ALP.

The Democrats remaining votes are then distributed to the ALP pushing Thornley over the line a head of Southwick. with a margin of less then 20 votes.

You begin to see how close this race is. Those 20 could easily disappear in the exhausted pile or drift from the below the line voters. The Democrats and People Power preferences are keeping the Greens in the race but Labor and the Liberals are catching up fast.

http://melbcity.topcities.com/ for latest analysis count sheet..

(November 30: 1700) Latest election counting has put David Southwick in the lead for the fifth spot in Southern Metropolitan: shattering ALP dot com millionaire Even Thornley’s hopes of entering parliament and with t the ALP’s dominance of both houses.

The long expected 7000 + postal votes have been counted and Southwick has received the lions share. It’s literally with 0.04% less then 150 votes.

This will certainly go to a recount and may even go to court. There were a number of irregularities in the count with the Victorian Electoral Commissioner refusing to provide detailed information relevant to the conduct of the election. This would have to be one of the worst conducted counts in recent memory.

Already questions are being asked on a number of issues. The main issue appears dissatisfaction with the ALP decision to preselect a candidate in Western Metropolitan with close ties to Syria which has alienated Melbourne’s Jewish Community who in turn dumped the ALP and voted on mass for the Liberal Party.

With the adoption of optional preferential voting Labor’s fortune are expected to decline even further as many of the Green votes are expected to exhaust reducing Evans chance with them.

Update:

Andrew Landeryou has posted on the Other Cheek a real possibility that if the vote continues to unfold as it has in the last 24hrs ,where the Greens have been losing ground, there is realistic possibility that Evan Thornley could overtake the Greens and be elected on the back of a small surplus delivered to the ALP but the Liberal Party.

For each vote added to the table the quota changes. 2/3rds of each vote is absorbed in the existing four quotas.

Problem is we do not know how many ballot papers have been issued. We tried to get this information from the VEC but the Chief Electoral Commission was unable to unwilling to provide any statistics on the number of postal votes that had been issued. This information is normally readily available but for some reason Steve Tully refused to provide the data prior to Saturday’s poll.

As a result it is difficult to ascertain. Certainly if there are more votes to be counted and the Greens percentage is declining then YES the Greens could lose out and could fall below Evan Thornley in which case Evan will cross the line first. Again its like walking around in the fog without necessary information. Another issue that needs to be examined is the impact of optional preferential voting. I am waiting to hear feedback from Scrutineers. Hopefully they will be able to secure a copy of the preference data file because without that there is no way they can properly scrutinise the election in this round without it. again this information use to be made available but Mr Tully has to date refused to make it available. With this election being close he will have to reconsider or face a court challenge.

Southwick Heads South The Southern Metropolitan Region has just produced a change of fortune for ALP dot.com millionaire

UPDATE: (December 1 17:00) There was some residual counting left over from yesterday and Thornley has taken the lead once again as the three main players race to the finish line. Its neck and neck and anyone can come out of this race the winner.

At the crucial conjunction point the vote was ..
GRN 46863
ALP 46814
LIB 41714
FF 9696
DEM 9197

People Power had just been eliminated and they top up the Democrats who are marginally below Family First.

The Democrats votes flow to the Greens who on the Democrats ticket first preferences cross the line with minimal surplus. (This is the segmentation order at play) The Democrats still have another 4,387 votes to distribute (that came to it as second preferences + their below the line volts to their lower candidates). The Green surplus (256 votes) is then distributed to the ALP.

The Democrats remaining votes are then distributed to the ALP pushing Thornley over the line a head of Southwick. with a margin of less then 20 votes.

You begin to see how close this race is. Those 20 could easily disappear in the exhausted pile or drift from the below the line voters. The Democrats and People Power preferences are keeping the Greens in the race but Labor and the Liberals are catching up fast.

http://melbcity.topcities.com/ for latest analysis count sheet..

(November 30: 1700) Latest election counting has put David Southwick in the lead for the fifth spot in Southern Metropolitan: shattering ALP dot com millionaire Even Thornley’s hopes of entering parliament and with t the ALP’s dominance of both houses.

The long expected 7000 + postal votes have been counted and Southwick has received the lions share. It’s literally with 0.04% less then 150 votes.

This will certainly go to a recount and may even go to court. There were a number of irregularities in the count with the Victorian Electoral Commissioner refusing to provide detailed information relevant to the conduct of the election. This would have to be one of the worst conducted counts in recent memory.

Already questions are being asked on a number of issues. The main issue appears dissatisfaction with the ALP decision to preselect a candidate in Western Metropolitan with close ties to Syria which has alienated Melbourne’s Jewish Community who in turn dumped the ALP and voted on mass for the Liberal Party.

With the adoption of optional preferential voting Labor’s fortune are expected to decline even further as many of the Green votes are expected to exhaust reducing Evans chance with them.

Update:

Andrew Landeryou has posted on the Other Cheek a real possibility that if the vote continues to unfold as it has in the last 24hrs ,where the Greens have been losing ground, there is realistic possibility that Evan Thornley could overtake the Greens and be elected on the back of a small surplus delivered to the ALP but the Liberal Party.

For each vote added to the table the quota changes. 2/3rds of each vote is absorbed in the existing four quotas.

Problem is we do not know how many ballot papers have been issued. We tried to get this information from the VEC but the Chief Electoral Commission was unable to unwilling to provide any statistics on the number of postal votes that had been issued. This information is normally readily available but for some reason Steve Tully refused to provide the data prior to Saturday’s poll.

As a result it is difficult to ascertain. Certainly if there are more votes to be counted and the Greens percentage is declining then YES the Greens could lose out and could fall below Evan Thornley in which case Evan will cross the line first. Again its like walking around in the fog without necessary information. Another issue that needs to be examined is the impact of optional preferential voting. I am waiting to hear feedback from Scrutineers. Hopefully they will be able to secure a copy of the preference data file because without that there is no way they can properly scrutinise the election in this round without it. again this information use to be made available but Mr Tully has to date refused to make it available. With this election being close he will have to reconsider or face a court challenge.

Scrutinising elections in e-Space Ongoing of concern about the conduct of electronic voting and the need for information to be readily available

The conduct of the 2006 Victorian State election had little to be desired, with the Victorian Electoral Commission again proving that it is the lesser of the two public authorities responsible for the conduct of public elections in Victoria.

The refusal of the VEC to publish detailed polling booth data for the Legislative Council and its failure to provide statistical information on the number of ballot papers issued prior to Saturday’s election has denied Victorians the right of an open and transparent election.

We are told that the reason that polling booth data was not provided is that the ABC
thought that the information was unnecessary for their purposes. If the provision of relevant data was too much for the ABC then the VEC should have produced two separate data files and left it up to the ABC what they wanted to report on.

The VEC has an obligation that goes beyond information the media. It is about maintaining open and transparent process.

Question: Will the polling booth data and below-the line-preference data be readily available after the declaration of the poll or do we have to FOI them again?

In future hopefully those in the loop will not only recommended but insist on full disclose of detailed election results and that includes producing data on the number of postal votes, pre-poll ballots issued along with electronic votes being identifiable from ordinary manual votes.

The issue of the VEC accessing the e-voting data before the close of the poll raises a number of issues of ongoing concern about the security of the electronic voting voting system that’s been implemented. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the results are true and accurate and subject to independent, effective and proper scrutiny?

The recent mid term elections in the USA also highlight a number of issues.

The world was told that Florida’s elections were a true and accurate account, but there was no way to independently verify the fact.

Our system is a little different. We have a a preferential voting system, one of the worlds best and most democratic. With preferential voting the need to provide the preference data used to calculate the results is crucial. Even more so when it involves a third-party data-entry process.

Whilst there are some mechanisms in place to limit some data-entry transcription problems the system is still is open and susceptible to errors.

In previous election counts the VEC refused to do a preliminary manual throw of preferences, preferring to jump in and start the random data-entry process. This resulted in nightmare as it made it extremely difficult and close to impossible for scrutineers to monitor the accuracy of the computerised data-entry count. Another check digit removed.

A preliminary throw of the below-the-line votes not only helps with analyzing the outcome of the election but it also assists in the data-entry and scrutiny of the ballot. Scrutineers can decide which votes are of interest and devote resources accordingly. (We had the absurd situation, during the Melbourne City Council and other municipal elections, where if there was 20 candidates and 20 data-entry personal up to 400 scrutineers would have been required to properly scrutinise the data-entry process) Without a preliminary manual distribution scrutineers were denied the right to effectively monitor the various processes.

Unlike the VEC the AEC also provided information on the informal votes which was included in the data-set the AEC provided. This was very interesting and useful as votes of interest could be identified, pulled out and rechecked.

In providing copies of the preference data-set, Scrutineers are afforded the opportunity of undertaking independent analysis of the data as the count unfolds. Various electronic data queries could be run against copies of the data, queries that would not normally be undertaken by the electoral office, highlighting again votes of interest that could then be subject to a secondary glance and review.

Most of the issues discussed above diminish if and when we remove the third-party data-entry process altogether and voters record their electronic vote directly. As we move closer an closer to a time when voters will use computer technology to record their votes directly in real time new and additional issues of concern begin to rise . Issues such as the electorate office undertaking a preliminary count of the vote prior to the close of the poll. (As appears to have been the case in this election)

Electronic voting machines MUST be fitted with write once read only recording devices so that we can be confident that the data has not been hacked into from a central location out in cyberspace. Copies of this data and backup disk must be made available to scrutineers at the close of the poll. Each unit must also be stand alone and not be reliant on a central data connection. The last thing you want is someone with access to this data recording information, unknown to others misusing that data by either changing a few preferences or selling the information to interested parties (Political and commercial). At the conclusion of the count a certified and digitally signed data copy of all votes and preferences MUST be published on the Governments Internet site as part of the declaration procedures.

The issues that have been identified in America are the same here and world wide. The more elections move into e-Space the greater the significance in the provision of data in order to ensure that the election process remains open and transparent and is subject to independent public scrutiny. Without this information, as has been evident in this count, the public and scrutineers are left in the dark.

In previous elections polling booth data and the number of ballot papers issued were available and should have been in this election.

Scrutinising elections in e-Space Ongoing of concern about the conduct of electronic voting and the need for information to be readily available

The conduct of the 2006 Victorian State election had little to be desired, with the Victorian Electoral Commission again proving that it is the lesser of the two public authorities responsible for the conduct of public elections in Victoria.

The refusal of the VEC to publish detailed polling booth data for the Legislative Council and its failure to provide statistical information on the number of ballot papers issued prior to Saturday’s election has denied Victorians the right of an open and transparent election.

We are told that the reason that polling booth data was not provided is that the ABC
thought that the information was unnecessary for their purposes. If the provision of relevant data was too much for the ABC then the VEC should have produced two separate data files and left it up to the ABC what they wanted to report on.

The VEC has an obligation that goes beyond information the media. It is about maintaining open and transparent process.

Question: Will the polling booth data and below-the line-preference data be readily available after the declaration of the poll or do we have to FOI them again?

In future hopefully those in the loop will not only recommended but insist on full disclose of detailed election results and that includes producing data on the number of postal votes, pre-poll ballots issued along with electronic votes being identifiable from ordinary manual votes.

The issue of the VEC accessing the e-voting data before the close of the poll raises a number of issues of ongoing concern about the security of the electronic voting voting system that’s been implemented. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the results are true and accurate and subject to independent, effective and proper scrutiny?

The recent mid term elections in the USA also highlight a number of issues.

The world was told that Florida’s elections were a true and accurate account, but there was no way to independently verify the fact.

Our system is a little different. We have a a preferential voting system, one of the worlds best and most democratic. With preferential voting the need to provide the preference data used to calculate the results is crucial. Even more so when it involves a third-party data-entry process.

Whilst there are some mechanisms in place to limit some data-entry transcription problems the system is still is open and susceptible to errors.

In previous election counts the VEC refused to do a preliminary manual throw of preferences, preferring to jump in and start the random data-entry process. This resulted in nightmare as it made it extremely difficult and close to impossible for scrutineers to monitor the accuracy of the computerised data-entry count. Another check digit removed.

A preliminary throw of the below-the-line votes not only helps with analyzing the outcome of the election but it also assists in the data-entry and scrutiny of the ballot. Scrutineers can decide which votes are of interest and devote resources accordingly. (We had the absurd situation, during the Melbourne City Council and other municipal elections, where if there was 20 candidates and 20 data-entry personal up to 400 scrutineers would have been required to properly scrutinise the data-entry process) Without a preliminary manual distribution scrutineers were denied the right to effectively monitor the various processes.

Unlike the VEC the AEC also provided information on the informal votes which was included in the data-set the AEC provided. This was very interesting and useful as votes of interest could be identified, pulled out and rechecked.

In providing copies of the preference data-set, Scrutineers are afforded the opportunity of undertaking independent analysis of the data as the count unfolds. Various electronic data queries could be run against copies of the data, queries that would not normally be undertaken by the electoral office, highlighting again votes of interest that could then be subject to a secondary glance and review.

Most of the issues discussed above diminish if and when we remove the third-party data-entry process altogether and voters record their electronic vote directly. As we move closer an closer to a time when voters will use computer technology to record their votes directly in real time new and additional issues of concern begin to rise . Issues such as the electorate office undertaking a preliminary count of the vote prior to the close of the poll. (As appears to have been the case in this election)

Electronic voting machines MUST be fitted with write once read only recording devices so that we can be confident that the data has not been hacked into from a central location out in cyberspace. Copies of this data and backup disk must be made available to scrutineers at the close of the poll. Each unit must also be stand alone and not be reliant on a central data connection. The last thing you want is someone with access to this data recording information, unknown to others misusing that data by either changing a few preferences or selling the information to interested parties (Political and commercial). At the conclusion of the count a certified and digitally signed data copy of all votes and preferences MUST be published on the Governments Internet site as part of the declaration procedures.

The issues that have been identified in America are the same here and world wide. The more elections move into e-Space the greater the significance in the provision of data in order to ensure that the election process remains open and transparent and is subject to independent public scrutiny. Without this information, as has been evident in this count, the public and scrutineers are left in the dark.

In previous elections polling booth data and the number of ballot papers issued were available and should have been in this election.

Scrutinising elections in e-Space Ongoing of concern about the conduct of electronic voting and the need for information to be readily available

The conduct of the 2006 Victorian State election had little to be desired, with the Victorian Electoral Commission again proving that it is the lesser of the two public authorities responsible for the conduct of public elections in Victoria.

The refusal of the VEC to publish detailed polling booth data for the Legislative Council and its failure to provide statistical information on the number of ballot papers issued prior to Saturday’s election has denied Victorians the right of an open and transparent election.

We are told that the reason that polling booth data was not provided is that the ABC
thought that the information was unnecessary for their purposes. If the provision of relevant data was too much for the ABC then the VEC should have produced two separate data files and left it up to the ABC what they wanted to report on.

The VEC has an obligation that goes beyond information the media. It is about maintaining open and transparent process.

Question: Will the polling booth data and below-the line-preference data be readily available after the declaration of the poll or do we have to FOI them again?

In future hopefully those in the loop will not only recommended but insist on full disclose of detailed election results and that includes producing data on the number of postal votes, pre-poll ballots issued along with electronic votes being identifiable from ordinary manual votes.

The issue of the VEC accessing the e-voting data before the close of the poll raises a number of issues of ongoing concern about the security of the electronic voting voting system that’s been implemented. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the results are true and accurate and subject to independent, effective and proper scrutiny?

The recent mid term elections in the USA also highlight a number of issues.

The world was told that Florida’s elections were a true and accurate account, but there was no way to independently verify the fact.

Our system is a little different. We have a a preferential voting system, one of the worlds best and most democratic. With preferential voting the need to provide the preference data used to calculate the results is crucial. Even more so when it involves a third-party data-entry process.

Whilst there are some mechanisms in place to limit some data-entry transcription problems the system is still is open and susceptible to errors.

In previous election counts the VEC refused to do a preliminary manual throw of preferences, preferring to jump in and start the random data-entry process. This resulted in nightmare as it made it extremely difficult and close to impossible for scrutineers to monitor the accuracy of the computerised data-entry count. Another check digit removed.

A preliminary throw of the below-the-line votes not only helps with analyzing the outcome of the election but it also assists in the data-entry and scrutiny of the ballot. Scrutineers can decide which votes are of interest and devote resources accordingly. (We had the absurd situation, during the Melbourne City Council and other municipal elections, where if there was 20 candidates and 20 data-entry personal up to 400 scrutineers would have been required to properly scrutinise the data-entry process) Without a preliminary manual distribution scrutineers were denied the right to effectively monitor the various processes.

Unlike the VEC the AEC also provided information on the informal votes which was included in the data-set the AEC provided. This was very interesting and useful as votes of interest could be identified, pulled out and rechecked.

In providing copies of the preference data-set, Scrutineers are afforded the opportunity of undertaking independent analysis of the data as the count unfolds. Various electronic data queries could be run against copies of the data, queries that would not normally be undertaken by the electoral office, highlighting again votes of interest that could then be subject to a secondary glance and review.

Most of the issues discussed above diminish if and when we remove the third-party data-entry process altogether and voters record their electronic vote directly. As we move closer an closer to a time when voters will use computer technology to record their votes directly in real time new and additional issues of concern begin to rise . Issues such as the electorate office undertaking a preliminary count of the vote prior to the close of the poll. (As appears to have been the case in this election)

Electronic voting machines MUST be fitted with write once read only recording devices so that we can be confident that the data has not been hacked into from a central location out in cyberspace. Copies of this data and backup disk must be made available to scrutineers at the close of the poll. Each unit must also be stand alone and not be reliant on a central data connection. The last thing you want is someone with access to this data recording information, unknown to others misusing that data by either changing a few preferences or selling the information to interested parties (Political and commercial). At the conclusion of the count a certified and digitally signed data copy of all votes and preferences MUST be published on the Governments Internet site as part of the declaration procedures.

The issues that have been identified in America are the same here and world wide. The more elections move into e-Space the greater the significance in the provision of data in order to ensure that the election process remains open and transparent and is subject to independent public scrutiny. Without this information, as has been evident in this count, the public and scrutineers are left in the dark.

In previous elections polling booth data and the number of ballot papers issued were available and should have been in this election.