Flaw in ABC Antony Green’s Election Calculator

There is a noticeable flaw in ABC Anthony Green’s Election Calculator in that he has awarded the seat of Melbourne to the Greens based on the Essential Research quarterly state poll

The Greens only won Melbourne in 2010 because the Liberal Party at the time preferenced them ahead of the ALP. A mistake they are unlikely repeat in September.

In 2010 the State Liberal party fearing a backlash from its supporters placed the Greens below the ALP this allowed then State ALP member Browyn Pike to hold on to the State Seat of Melbourne.

Without LNP preferences the the only way the Greens can hold on to the Seat of Melbourne is if ALP endorsed candidate Cath Bowtell polls third below the Greens and the Liberal Party after distribution of minor party candidates preferences. in which case Cath Bowtell’s preferences will elect Adam Brandt.

LNP supporters will be conscious of this potential outcome and we will most likely see a repeat of the State By-election where LNP voters will fall behind Cath Bowtell in order to prevent the Greens from being re-elected.

All recent  polls including the Essential Research Poll are showing a Statewide drop in Greens support which lends even more to the flaws in Antony Greens Calculations. You can not apply a statewide swing overall to a specific seat such as Melbourne where the 2PP contest is not between the LNP and the ALP.

UPDATE:  It is clear that Antony Green has hard coded in the defeat of  Independent seats as shown by this scenario on his calculator

Team Doyle Disenfranchised: Droop vs Pure Proportional voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.

VEC avoids accountability and disclosure Detailed results of the State Election missing

The Victorian Electoral Commission has responded to our Freedom of Information request seeking copies of the “below-the-line-preference” data files, summary reports and additional information. Information was sent by the Victorian Electoral Commission to the wrong address and not the contact information outline in the Freedom of Information application.

The Victorian Electoral Commission in administering the FOI request has possible breached the provisions of the Victorian Electoral Act and or Privacy Act. A complaint associated with the Victorian Electoral Commissions handling of the application has been forwarded tho The Victorian Privacy Commission for consideration and review.

Access to the information requested is still outstanding.

The Victorian Electoral Commission went to extra-ordinary length and considerable expense in printing out in hard copy most of the information that was provide as opposed to just copying the information and forwarding it in electronic format. Why? we fail to understand but I am sure a few more trees died in vein as a result. We accept no responsibility for the VEC actions in this respect as we had anticipated and expected that the information would be provided in electronic format. Some people would be forgiven in thinking that the VEC provided the information in hard copy format in order to prevent its distribution, collation and data analysis. That might not be far off the mark. It is difficult to say but efficient and cost saving it was not. As the information was sent to the wrong address we have requested that the VEC re-forward copies of their response in electronic format this time. Saving time and money.

The Victorian Electoral Commission had responded to the FOI request in part only they failed to provided copies of all the information requested.

Missing are:

1. Copies of the below the line data preference data files as requested – No response given.

Copies of below the line preference data was provided free of charge during the 1999, 2002 an 2004 Melbourne City Council Elections. This information is readily available and would be no more then 1mb for each electorate and would take approx. 2 mins to copy per file and this information should be published on the Victorian Electoral Commission’s web site.

Without access to the below the line data files it is impossible to effectively scrutinise of verify the results of the election.

The below the line preference data is a public document and precedence has been set in a ruling of the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal requiring that this information be made available.

2. Copies of all summary count sheets. (Although this information has been obtained via a third party – copies published on my web site http://melbcity.topcities.com/) Missing from the VEC responce data are copies of the summary distribution report of the preliminary count.

3. Copies of polling centers return summary results information for the legilsative Council (Upper-house) – similar information detailing polling place results in relation to lower house electorates was published by the VEC on their Internet web site.

The Victorian electoral commission has claimed that the cost of providing this information would be in excess of $600.00 which is very dubious and highly questionable.

The information is stored in electronic format and the cost of copying that information would be less then $2.00.

Polling place data for the Legislative Council is normally available and published on election night and updated through the count.

In the 2006 State Election the Victorian Electoral Commission failed to make this information available instead they only provided an electorate wide summary only. (The AEC provides senate results statistics broken down to polling places)

Access to the polling place summary data is fundamental in providing a check and balance as to the number of ballot papers issued and returned.

There were a number of substantial errors recorded during the conduct of the count of the Victorian State Election that had this information been readily available could have and should have been avoided. A quick summary of the polling place returns should have altered the Victorian Electoral Commission that a number of ballot papers had been missing or overstated prior to the distribution of any preferences. This information is still outstanding.

4. The Victorian Electoral Commission has provided limited information on the certification of software used to conduct the Victorian State Election count. Copies of certification certificates have been provided (but not yet received – due to the VEC mistake in addressing their response) for the electronic ‘Kiosk’ voting centres and the algorithm used in the calculation of the proportional representation results.

Missing is the detailed supporting certification documentation, reports and certification of the actual software related to the data-entry, front end, data storage and reporting software that utilises the algorithm used. Either the software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been fully certified of the Victorian Electoral Commission has withheld access to this information.

In summary

The Victorian Electoral Commission again is seeking to avoid open and public disclose of the detailed results of the 2006 Victorian State Election.

A number of serious errors in the counting of the election have occurred and questions related to the discrepancy in the number of total votes record between the preliminary count and the recount in Western Metropolitan region have north been fully explained or verifiable based on the public documentation provided.

We are informed that copies of the below the line data files were not made available to scrutineers.

There is a discrepancy of over 450 ballot papers between the preliminary count and the recount. Without access to the polling place return data and the below the line preference data files, as requested, it is impossible to verify the results of the election .

It is fundamental that our public elections are open and transparent and subject to independent review and analysis.

With the utilisation of electronic computer based technology all relevant information and data files must be readily available to scrutineers and the public.

One can only ask

“WHY IS THE VICTORIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION RELUCTANT TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO GO TO SUCH EXTENTS TO AVOID DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY”.

The actions of the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the Victorian Electoral Commission continues to bring 2006 Victorian State Election into disrepute.

VEC avoids accountability and disclosure Detailed results of the State Election missing

The Victorian Electoral Commission has responded to our Freedom of Information request seeking copies of the “below-the-line-preference” data files, summary reports and additional information. Information was sent by the Victorian Electoral Commission to the wrong address and not the contact information outline in the Freedom of Information application.

The Victorian Electoral Commission in administering the FOI request has possible breached the provisions of the Victorian Electoral Act and or Privacy Act. A complaint associated with the Victorian Electoral Commissions handling of the application has been forwarded tho The Victorian Privacy Commission for consideration and review.

Access to the information requested is still outstanding.

The Victorian Electoral Commission went to extra-ordinary length and considerable expense in printing out in hard copy most of the information that was provide as opposed to just copying the information and forwarding it in electronic format. Why? we fail to understand but I am sure a few more trees died in vein as a result. We accept no responsibility for the VEC actions in this respect as we had anticipated and expected that the information would be provided in electronic format. Some people would be forgiven in thinking that the VEC provided the information in hard copy format in order to prevent its distribution, collation and data analysis. That might not be far off the mark. It is difficult to say but efficient and cost saving it was not. As the information was sent to the wrong address we have requested that the VEC re-forward copies of their response in electronic format this time. Saving time and money.

The Victorian Electoral Commission had responded to the FOI request in part only they failed to provided copies of all the information requested.

Missing are:

1. Copies of the below the line data preference data files as requested – No response given.

Copies of below the line preference data was provided free of charge during the 1999, 2002 an 2004 Melbourne City Council Elections. This information is readily available and would be no more then 1mb for each electorate and would take approx. 2 mins to copy per file and this information should be published on the Victorian Electoral Commission’s web site.

Without access to the below the line data files it is impossible to effectively scrutinise of verify the results of the election.

The below the line preference data is a public document and precedence has been set in a ruling of the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal requiring that this information be made available.

2. Copies of all summary count sheets. (Although this information has been obtained via a third party – copies published on my web site http://melbcity.topcities.com/) Missing from the VEC responce data are copies of the summary distribution report of the preliminary count.

3. Copies of polling centers return summary results information for the legilsative Council (Upper-house) – similar information detailing polling place results in relation to lower house electorates was published by the VEC on their Internet web site.

The Victorian electoral commission has claimed that the cost of providing this information would be in excess of $600.00 which is very dubious and highly questionable.

The information is stored in electronic format and the cost of copying that information would be less then $2.00.

Polling place data for the Legislative Council is normally available and published on election night and updated through the count.

In the 2006 State Election the Victorian Electoral Commission failed to make this information available instead they only provided an electorate wide summary only. (The AEC provides senate results statistics broken down to polling places)

Access to the polling place summary data is fundamental in providing a check and balance as to the number of ballot papers issued and returned.

There were a number of substantial errors recorded during the conduct of the count of the Victorian State Election that had this information been readily available could have and should have been avoided. A quick summary of the polling place returns should have altered the Victorian Electoral Commission that a number of ballot papers had been missing or overstated prior to the distribution of any preferences. This information is still outstanding.

4. The Victorian Electoral Commission has provided limited information on the certification of software used to conduct the Victorian State Election count. Copies of certification certificates have been provided (but not yet received – due to the VEC mistake in addressing their response) for the electronic ‘Kiosk’ voting centres and the algorithm used in the calculation of the proportional representation results.

Missing is the detailed supporting certification documentation, reports and certification of the actual software related to the data-entry, front end, data storage and reporting software that utilises the algorithm used. Either the software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been fully certified of the Victorian Electoral Commission has withheld access to this information.

In summary

The Victorian Electoral Commission again is seeking to avoid open and public disclose of the detailed results of the 2006 Victorian State Election.

A number of serious errors in the counting of the election have occurred and questions related to the discrepancy in the number of total votes record between the preliminary count and the recount in Western Metropolitan region have north been fully explained or verifiable based on the public documentation provided.

We are informed that copies of the below the line data files were not made available to scrutineers.

There is a discrepancy of over 450 ballot papers between the preliminary count and the recount. Without access to the polling place return data and the below the line preference data files, as requested, it is impossible to verify the results of the election .

It is fundamental that our public elections are open and transparent and subject to independent review and analysis.

With the utilisation of electronic computer based technology all relevant information and data files must be readily available to scrutineers and the public.

One can only ask

“WHY IS THE VICTORIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION RELUCTANT TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO GO TO SUCH EXTENTS TO AVOID DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY”.

The actions of the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the Victorian Electoral Commission continues to bring 2006 Victorian State Election into disrepute.

VEC avoids accountability and disclosure Detailed results of the State Election missing

The Victorian Electoral Commission has responded to our Freedom of Information request seeking copies of the “below-the-line-preference” data files, summary reports and additional information. Information was sent by the Victorian Electoral Commission to the wrong address and not the contact information outline in the Freedom of Information application.

The Victorian Electoral Commission in administering the FOI request has possible breached the provisions of the Victorian Electoral Act and or Privacy Act. A complaint associated with the Victorian Electoral Commissions handling of the application has been forwarded tho The Victorian Privacy Commission for consideration and review.

Access to the information requested is still outstanding.

The Victorian Electoral Commission went to extra-ordinary length and considerable expense in printing out in hard copy most of the information that was provide as opposed to just copying the information and forwarding it in electronic format. Why? we fail to understand but I am sure a few more trees died in vein as a result. We accept no responsibility for the VEC actions in this respect as we had anticipated and expected that the information would be provided in electronic format. Some people would be forgiven in thinking that the VEC provided the information in hard copy format in order to prevent its distribution, collation and data analysis. That might not be far off the mark. It is difficult to say but efficient and cost saving it was not. As the information was sent to the wrong address we have requested that the VEC re-forward copies of their response in electronic format this time. Saving time and money.

The Victorian Electoral Commission had responded to the FOI request in part only they failed to provided copies of all the information requested.

Missing are:

1. Copies of the below the line data preference data files as requested – No response given.

Copies of below the line preference data was provided free of charge during the 1999, 2002 an 2004 Melbourne City Council Elections. This information is readily available and would be no more then 1mb for each electorate and would take approx. 2 mins to copy per file and this information should be published on the Victorian Electoral Commission’s web site.

Without access to the below the line data files it is impossible to effectively scrutinise of verify the results of the election.

The below the line preference data is a public document and precedence has been set in a ruling of the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal requiring that this information be made available.

2. Copies of all summary count sheets. (Although this information has been obtained via a third party – copies published on my web site http://melbcity.topcities.com/) Missing from the VEC responce data are copies of the summary distribution report of the preliminary count.

3. Copies of polling centers return summary results information for the legilsative Council (Upper-house) – similar information detailing polling place results in relation to lower house electorates was published by the VEC on their Internet web site.

The Victorian electoral commission has claimed that the cost of providing this information would be in excess of $600.00 which is very dubious and highly questionable.

The information is stored in electronic format and the cost of copying that information would be less then $2.00.

Polling place data for the Legislative Council is normally available and published on election night and updated through the count.

In the 2006 State Election the Victorian Electoral Commission failed to make this information available instead they only provided an electorate wide summary only. (The AEC provides senate results statistics broken down to polling places)

Access to the polling place summary data is fundamental in providing a check and balance as to the number of ballot papers issued and returned.

There were a number of substantial errors recorded during the conduct of the count of the Victorian State Election that had this information been readily available could have and should have been avoided. A quick summary of the polling place returns should have altered the Victorian Electoral Commission that a number of ballot papers had been missing or overstated prior to the distribution of any preferences. This information is still outstanding.

4. The Victorian Electoral Commission has provided limited information on the certification of software used to conduct the Victorian State Election count. Copies of certification certificates have been provided (but not yet received – due to the VEC mistake in addressing their response) for the electronic ‘Kiosk’ voting centres and the algorithm used in the calculation of the proportional representation results.

Missing is the detailed supporting certification documentation, reports and certification of the actual software related to the data-entry, front end, data storage and reporting software that utilises the algorithm used. Either the software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not been fully certified of the Victorian Electoral Commission has withheld access to this information.

In summary

The Victorian Electoral Commission again is seeking to avoid open and public disclose of the detailed results of the 2006 Victorian State Election.

A number of serious errors in the counting of the election have occurred and questions related to the discrepancy in the number of total votes record between the preliminary count and the recount in Western Metropolitan region have north been fully explained or verifiable based on the public documentation provided.

We are informed that copies of the below the line data files were not made available to scrutineers.

There is a discrepancy of over 450 ballot papers between the preliminary count and the recount. Without access to the polling place return data and the below the line preference data files, as requested, it is impossible to verify the results of the election .

It is fundamental that our public elections are open and transparent and subject to independent review and analysis.

With the utilisation of electronic computer based technology all relevant information and data files must be readily available to scrutineers and the public.

One can only ask

“WHY IS THE VICTORIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION RELUCTANT TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO GO TO SUCH EXTENTS TO AVOID DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY”.

The actions of the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the Victorian Electoral Commission continues to bring 2006 Victorian State Election into disrepute.

Tully’s Tally doesn’t Tally VEC’s creative accounting under review

The conduct of the Victorian State Election and its management by the VEC is under review, amidst concern that the VEC tried cutting corners and in the process screwed up big time bringing the State Election and the VEC into disrepute.

Victoria’s Chief Commissioner, Steven Tully, is ultimately responsible for the stuff-up and many questions are being asked as to how this monumental stuff-up could occur.

Public Information and results doesn’t tally

To help you gain some perspective into the extent of the stuff up take a look at the following summary statistics:


Summary of upper house statistics latest Data

(published December 14, 2006 06:19)
Region Formal Informal Total Updated Difference
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32 0
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55 0
Northern Metropolitan 360149 21730 381879 14-12-2006 06:19 -6454
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03 0
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23 0
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45 0
Western Metropolitan 374411 25075 399486 14-12-2006 03:57 -478
Western Victoria 394478 14588 409066 14-12-2006 05:03 268
Summary of upper house provisional count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 19:45)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55
Northern Metropolitan 366605 21728 388333 12-12-2006 18:22
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45
Western Metropolitan 374982 24981 399964 12-12-2006 18:03
Western Victoria 394556 14242 408798 12-12-2006 17:31
Summary of upper house count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375390 12679 388069 -57
Eastern Victoria 378374 13030 391404 -422
Northern Metropolitan 358877 22496 381373 -6960
Northern Victoria 363962 16654 380616 -201
South Eastern Metropolitan 363814 21640 385454 -293
Southern Metropolitan 360202 13464 373666 441
Western Metropolitan 373842 25773 399615 -349
Western Victoria 392893 15590 408483 -315
Summary of lower house statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 372625 15588 388213 87
Eastern Victoria 375024 16382 391406 -420
Northern Metropolitan 362715 20475 383190 -5143
Northern Victoria 365794 15520 381314 497
South Eastern Metropolitan 366008 19631 385639 -108
Southern Metropolitan 361292 12378 373670 445
Western Metropolitan 372518 25361 397879 -2085
Western Victoria 391684 16550 408234 -564

At issue here is the number of total votes. Votes have gone missing and have not been accounted for. Normally all the number of ballot all papers are accounted. Each polling place returning officer is required to prepare a tally sheet that outlines exactly how many ballot papers have been issued.

The latest published summary information above shows to what extent the VEC stuffed up – Big time

A voter is supposed to be given two ballot papers, one for the lower-house and one for the upper-house. The number of lower-house ballots should match the number of upper-house ballots. The returning officer then includes this information in their return statements along with the number of ballot papers received and the number of unused ballot papers.

The electoral commission should have tallied up this information and ideally should know in advance prior to the final count how many ballot papers have been issued and how many have been returned. If there is a discrepancy then alarm bells should have rung. BUT this is not what has happened. The total number of ballot papers keep changing and the VEC failed to provide information that would have allowed a proper cross check to occur. (see previous posts on the VEC below).


There are still questions outstanding as to the accuracy of the poll and many believe that the VEC should be required to undertake a second recount in Western Victoria until they have at least managed to obtain the same overall result twice.

Steve Tully is under scrutiny with reports that many politicians, from all sides of the political divide, are not happy in with his performance and the way that he had conducted the election.

As previously reported “Tully’s Tally” will come under review when the State Parliamentary Elections committee meets next year.

In the meantime Tully’s team will be looking at undertaking some creative accounting to justify this stuff-up and hold on to their job. We think it is time to consider having a single independent professional Electoral Authority with Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner under the auspice of the Sate Auditor General and as an executive member of the new Australian Electoral Authority.

More information http://melbcity.topcities.com

Tully’s Tally doesn’t Tally VEC’s creative accounting under review

The conduct of the Victorian State Election and its management by the VEC is under review, amidst concern that the VEC tried cutting corners and in the process screwed up big time bringing the State Election and the VEC into disrepute.

Victoria’s Chief Commissioner, Steven Tully, is ultimately responsible for the stuff-up and many questions are being asked as to how this monumental stuff-up could occur.

Public Information and results doesn’t tally

To help you gain some perspective into the extent of the stuff up take a look at the following summary statistics:


Summary of upper house statistics latest Data

(published December 14, 2006 06:19)
Region Formal Informal Total Updated Difference
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32 0
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55 0
Northern Metropolitan 360149 21730 381879 14-12-2006 06:19 -6454
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03 0
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23 0
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45 0
Western Metropolitan 374411 25075 399486 14-12-2006 03:57 -478
Western Victoria 394478 14588 409066 14-12-2006 05:03 268
Summary of upper house provisional count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 19:45)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55
Northern Metropolitan 366605 21728 388333 12-12-2006 18:22
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45
Western Metropolitan 374982 24981 399964 12-12-2006 18:03
Western Victoria 394556 14242 408798 12-12-2006 17:31
Summary of upper house count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375390 12679 388069 -57
Eastern Victoria 378374 13030 391404 -422
Northern Metropolitan 358877 22496 381373 -6960
Northern Victoria 363962 16654 380616 -201
South Eastern Metropolitan 363814 21640 385454 -293
Southern Metropolitan 360202 13464 373666 441
Western Metropolitan 373842 25773 399615 -349
Western Victoria 392893 15590 408483 -315
Summary of lower house statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 372625 15588 388213 87
Eastern Victoria 375024 16382 391406 -420
Northern Metropolitan 362715 20475 383190 -5143
Northern Victoria 365794 15520 381314 497
South Eastern Metropolitan 366008 19631 385639 -108
Southern Metropolitan 361292 12378 373670 445
Western Metropolitan 372518 25361 397879 -2085
Western Victoria 391684 16550 408234 -564

At issue here is the number of total votes. Votes have gone missing and have not been accounted for. Normally all the number of ballot all papers are accounted. Each polling place returning officer is required to prepare a tally sheet that outlines exactly how many ballot papers have been issued.

The latest published summary information above shows to what extent the VEC stuffed up – Big time

A voter is supposed to be given two ballot papers, one for the lower-house and one for the upper-house. The number of lower-house ballots should match the number of upper-house ballots. The returning officer then includes this information in their return statements along with the number of ballot papers received and the number of unused ballot papers.

The electoral commission should have tallied up this information and ideally should know in advance prior to the final count how many ballot papers have been issued and how many have been returned. If there is a discrepancy then alarm bells should have rung. BUT this is not what has happened. The total number of ballot papers keep changing and the VEC failed to provide information that would have allowed a proper cross check to occur. (see previous posts on the VEC below).


There are still questions outstanding as to the accuracy of the poll and many believe that the VEC should be required to undertake a second recount in Western Victoria until they have at least managed to obtain the same overall result twice.

Steve Tully is under scrutiny with reports that many politicians, from all sides of the political divide, are not happy in with his performance and the way that he had conducted the election.

As previously reported “Tully’s Tally” will come under review when the State Parliamentary Elections committee meets next year.

In the meantime Tully’s team will be looking at undertaking some creative accounting to justify this stuff-up and hold on to their job. We think it is time to consider having a single independent professional Electoral Authority with Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner under the auspice of the Sate Auditor General and as an executive member of the new Australian Electoral Authority.

More information http://melbcity.topcities.com