tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post8011492902512875992..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: WA Senate SqueakerKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-72028096360750052092014-02-28T15:54:18.529+11:002014-02-28T15:54:18.529+11:00WA votes on April 5.WA votes on April 5.intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-78347059414990281312014-02-20T22:55:04.333+11:002014-02-20T22:55:04.333+11:00The JCSEM has not finished taking submissions and ...The JCSEM has not finished taking submissions and doing hearings yet and that would be needed before changes can be made. There's a strong view that WA will have to use the same system again.<br /><br />I would expect and even hope that there is a scare campaign against voting for very small parties without knowing a great deal about them at this by-election.<br /><br /> I'm a tad out of the loop while on field work but believe the date will be no earlier than late March, and probably not that much later.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-88253053601541409392014-02-20T15:02:34.061+11:002014-02-20T15:02:34.061+11:00Has there been any movement as to a replacement sy...Has there been any movement as to a replacement system or are the parties waiting until the WA senate election is sorted out (rerun) to get into that discussion?<br /><br />I'm not sure that the new election will substantially change the incoming senate other than around the edges. It may turn out that PUP does not secure a blocking vote as a result; some other random small party may pick up a seat.<br /><br />Of course, everything is cast quite differently this time around as it is in the context of the result that has occurred in the other states. I'm not sure whether the 'off major' vote will increase or decrease. Will see I suppose.<br /><br />Is there a date set?intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-50735610390216359952014-01-21T23:48:17.570+11:002014-01-21T23:48:17.570+11:00Excellent. Article updated above.Excellent. Article updated above.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-20574400547145562332014-01-21T18:02:30.467+11:002014-01-21T18:02:30.467+11:00High Court sitting as disputed returns court in Th...High Court sitting as disputed returns court in The Australian Electoral Commission v. Johnston & Ors documents here: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_c17-2013Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11347403499508703025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-56640162313451779792013-12-12T14:40:00.832+11:002013-12-12T14:40:00.832+11:00I had a fair look online but couldn't find it,...I had a fair look online but couldn't find it, might not be loaded into the database yet. Possibly available from the High Court registrar office.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-21114186443828718042013-12-10T14:31:41.936+11:002013-12-10T14:31:41.936+11:00Anyone know where to get a look at palmer petion l...Anyone know where to get a look at palmer petion lodged with high court and tabled in the senate?<br />http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fjournals%2F20131204_SJ006%2F0024%22Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11347403499508703025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17168088938572373072013-11-18T18:06:16.028+11:002013-11-18T18:06:16.028+11:00http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/aec-peti...http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/aec-petition-wa-senate.pdf <br /><br />is the actual AEC petition. No surprises I can see. Some good detail on the various counts and the logistics at para 34 (pages 9-10). <br /><br />Slightly interesting that the detail of places they've looked for the missing ballots (para 34(f)(ii)) doesn't explicitly include looking among House ballots from the affected divisions, although it might be covered by "inspecting" various premises. And it may well be that the Senate and House ballots were never in the same place such that some could end up in the wrong box?Alarichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187841259314152786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-36478912127497232692013-11-08T14:21:26.254+11:002013-11-08T14:21:26.254+11:00I would be enormously surprised if they placed suc...I would be enormously surprised if they placed such a restriction. There was no such restriction at the Lindsay House of Reps by-election in 1996, caused by the voiding of the original result, which I think is a similar case. Candidates for that by-election included the unsuccessful AAFI candidate for Werriwa at the original poll, and an unsuccessful S+F candidate for NSW Senate at the original poll. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-10797469663471891242013-11-08T14:02:28.610+11:002013-11-08T14:02:28.610+11:00Re your Nov 6 update.
J Assange has already run in...Re your Nov 6 update.<br />J Assange has already run in the 2013 Senate election and been unsuccessful.<br /><br />If the CoDR orders a new election, do you think it is a possibility that they may order that candidates cannot run twice for what is effectively the same election?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11347403499508703025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-91943547735341107002013-11-03T17:22:47.451+11:002013-11-03T17:22:47.451+11:00There are relevant differences with the Vardon cas...There are relevant differences with the Vardon case. <br /><br />The key difference is that at that time the voting system was multiple-vote first past the post. A given seat could thus be voided and sent to a by-election without interfering with proportionality of representation because there was none to interfere with. However the current Australian Senate system seeks to implement PR (albeit making a mess of it, as we have seen at this election) and a by-election for two of six spots would be a violation of the principles of the current system, especially if one of the seats was won by a major party that had not been in the race for the same seats at the main election. <br /><br />This is in sharp contrast to the 1906 SA situation in which nearly every voter would have voted for one or more of the three candidates competing for the disputed seat, and hence there was no injustice caused by the eventual by-election. <br /><br />The court is not bound by a precedent set by itself over a century ago in a different electoral system. It can determine that the precedent is not relevant because the electoral system is so different and hence ignore it. <br /><br />In Tasmania in 1979 when three Labor candidates out of seven elected candidates in the state electorate of Denison exceeded their spending allowance, all seven seats were sent to a by-election, even though four candidates (3 Lib 1 ALP) had been otherwise uncontentiously elected. It's true that in that case legislation was passed to compel the court's decision to have that consequence (something the Abbott government might be in no rush to do now) but that is the fairest way to handle it.<br /><br />There are complications in the Vardon case too because while the petitioner originally asked for the voiding of the whole election to be considered as an option, they later asked for that option to be restricted to Vardon. So there was no-one actually petitioning for a full voiding. In my view the AEC should petition the CDR for the whole Senate election in WA to be declared void in the interests of the proportionality of the Senate. <br /><br />I would expect PUP to petition for their candidate to be declared the winner or failing that for the whole election to be declared void, since PUP would have no use for a two-seat by-election.<br /><br />I'd expect the court to consider the question of whether to just declare two seats void but I think it would be a bad decision to go that way if in any way avoidable. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-61801318695781287432013-11-03T15:42:40.765+11:002013-11-03T15:42:40.765+11:00What every commentator seems to be overlooking is ...What every commentator seems to be overlooking is that should the CDR declare the election void it will be so only for the last two Senate spots as the first four have been clearly elected. There is a precedent for this in the 1907 South Australian Senate vote where three candidates were declared elected, but the third candidate's election (a Mr Vardon) was challenged at the CDR on grounds that ballot papers for the Division of Angus had been accidentally destroyed. The Court after hearing the petition made an order declaring that the election was absolutely void in respect of the return of Vardon. The subsequent Senate election was only for the one vacancy (Blundell v. Vardon 4 C.L.R. 1463.). <br />In light of this precedent should the CDR declare the election void, it is highly probable that it will be for only for the last two Senate spots.<br />This would mean that in a new election the outcome would probably be one seat for the Liberals and one for Labor.Polltalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00207127023719212816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-71042918863613377852013-11-02T17:28:02.617+11:002013-11-02T17:28:02.617+11:00Press release is up confirming Dropulich / Ludlam....Press release is up confirming Dropulich / Ludlam.<br /><br />http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2013/e11-02.htm<br /><br />Doesn't mention the war.Alarichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187841259314152786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-81962713770700591392013-11-02T16:33:54.304+11:002013-11-02T16:33:54.304+11:00Ta. It was brainfade on my part - wrote "exc...Ta. It was brainfade on my part - wrote "excluded" when I meant "included", fixed now. Yes I am expecting the same thing. Assuming that the inclusion or exclusion of the missing votes does indeed make the difference, it's a mess that the AEC is apparently not allowed to have the flexibility to declare the result that *might* survive challenge (though I rather doubt it) and instead is forced to declare a result that is unsound from the start.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-65874501250101248302013-11-02T16:17:25.162+11:002013-11-02T16:17:25.162+11:00One of the Truth Seeker “Anonymice” here. My post...One of the Truth Seeker “Anonymice” here. My post there maybe unclear or I may be mis-reading your use of “without” and “excluded”. In any event, the position I was trying to convey was Dropulich/Ludlam if the missing ballots are not in the count (i.e. they remain missing and are not re-included based on the original count) and Wang/Pratt if they are in the count (they magically get found or are re-included based on original tallies). <br /><br />I expect the AEC to declare the first outcome but then to refer it to Court of Disputed Returns themselves as obviously unsatisfactory.Alarichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187841259314152786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-66044616174769698192013-10-28T22:55:04.550+11:002013-10-28T22:55:04.550+11:00Not convinced Waggrakine is sorted yet. Still a 7...Not convinced Waggrakine is sorted yet. Still a 71 vote discrepancy between expected votes (ATL + informal from original count) and votes accounted for this time around?Alarichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187841259314152786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-28358651415340232752013-10-11T01:31:02.670+11:002013-10-11T01:31:02.670+11:00Hi Kevin
A number of us psephs have raised a numb...Hi Kevin<br /><br />A number of us psephs have raised a number of issues with the AEC regarding the count to date, but also to the recount and how that will progress and what the AEC must look for.<br /><br />I hope I speak for the general pseph community in sending them an email regarding the following issues:<br /><br />1. Waggrakine Discrepancy<br />2. Fernandez additional vote<br />3. Senate vs House <br />4. Recount mechanics<br />5. Below the Line non-numerical data<br />6. Below the Line Zeros<br />7. Software availability<br /><br />The whole email text is available here:<br />http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/open-letter-to-aec.html<br /><br />I wonder how long a response will take from them?Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272077261033925542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-33757558291970610042013-10-02T21:08:45.727+10:002013-10-02T21:08:45.727+10:00I will have a long post canvassing this question u...I will have a long post canvassing this question up sometime soon, but for me this is the most crucial thing of all: above-the-line preferencing, in which a single 1 becomes a fully completed ballot directed by a party, must be abolished.<br /><br />There are a range of alternative systems being suggested. Some of them involve abolishing ATL voting completely and having either optional or semi-optional preferencing on what is now the BTL section. Under optional preferencing a voter could just vote 1, or could direct as few or as many preferences as they liked. Under semi-optional a voter would have to number a certain number of spaces for a valid vote. <br /><br />Some of them involve retaining ATL voting for parties (again, either optional preferential or semi-optional) but making it so that an ATL vote exhausts rather than being passed on once it has been through all the numbered parties.<br /><br />At the moment I lean towards some form of full OPV (with or without ATL) but having this accompanied by strict how-to-vote card reform. I don't really mind so long as group ticket voting is done away with. <br /><br />Actually I would like to see how-to-vote card reform for both houses whatever other reforms do or don't happen. How to vote cards should be required to carry a standard prominent disclaimer that the card provides advice only and that votes will not become informal should the voter choose to direct their own preferences. <br /><br />I'd also get rid of the Inclusive Gregory system for surpluses - there are many better systems - Weighted Inclusive Gregory and Wright to name but two.<br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-61024759599531843852013-10-02T20:43:15.275+10:002013-10-02T20:43:15.275+10:00Thanks Kevin. What's your recommendation to f...Thanks Kevin. What's your recommendation to fix the Senate electoral system?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12508575675985301657noreply@blogger.com