On the Dr Bludger Green Tea web site Bartlett made a few comments that need exposure and clarification.
I see with 72.39% of the vote in North Metro now counted, Stephen Mayne has now moved ahead of the Greens (using the Antony Green calculator which is ATL only of course) by 341 votes, which then easily cascades him to eventual victory – which would hold the Lib/Nats to 20 seats and give him and the 2 or 3 Greens balance of power.
After 91.2% of the vote in West Metro, Colleen Hartland from the Greens has a quarter of a toenail over the line for a quota (by about 45 votes).
If they stay that close then BTL and exhausts will decide the final result – given the larger number of candidates and exclusion points in North Metro that one is a bit harder to pick, (and with a sizable vote still to count, I don’t think Labor could be ruled out for that one yet either). If I had to punt I’d go with the Libs (although I’d personally I’d prefer Stephen Mayne)
West Metro looks so close that I guess we’ll just have to see what pops out when the button is finally pushed.
Andrew Bartlett
dgh1
I’m agreeing with (or relying on) Antony (or his Upper House calculators anyway).
Thanks – I hadn’t noticed the overall statewide increase – from memory that’s up about 0.6% from election night. The Green vote often goes up a bit with absentee and to a lesser extent pre-poll votes, although is usually lower with postals. I haven’t been following the VEC site closely enough to see whether there are mainly absentees or postals left in the Upper House counts.
Increased primary vote from the remaining count is the main thing the Greens need in West Metro, as they’re only getting preferences from the Sex Party and need some buffer for BTLs. (although ironically if the Green vote goes up much in Metro North, it will mean the seat probably ends up with the Libs rather than Stephen Mayne).
In another irony, after being put dead last by the Libs everywhere, it looks like Greens preferences will be crucial in ensuring the Libs win the final seat in Northern Victoria region ahead of the Country Alliance.
The fact is in Northern Victoria the Greens vote is used to inflate the ALP ticket vote which kept Country Alliance in the race much longer then they should have been due to a flaw that Andrew Bartlett denies exists. Even Antony Green has acknowledged this flaw when analysing the 2007 Victorian Senate and 2010 Queensland Senate vote. In Northern Victoria Reguion the Greens vote drops in value the same extent that the ALP ticket vote increases in value thanks to the flaw used in calculating the surplus Transfer value. As it turned out the Liberal party vote increased as the count progressed, outweighing the distortion in the method of calculating the Surplus Transfer value.
The other aspect that Bartlett still does not understand is that the order and method of distribution of excluded candidates does affect the outcome of close elections. In 2007, in Bartlett's home state of Queensland, Greens Senate candidate, Larissa Waters, was denied a Senate seat as a result of the flawed distribution system where votes are distributed from the bottom of the deck skipping elected candidates and landing on continuing candidates at a higher value then they should be. If you recount the Queensland 2007 vote excluding all candidates except the last seven standing Larissa Waters would have been elected. This simple exercise demonstrates the extent of the flawed system of Segmentation of the vote. The system of segmentation is outdated and should be abolished -with the use of computerised counting system we no longer need to maintain this illogical and unfait system. Something that Bartlett does not understand
All indications are that the method of Segmentation will play a significant role in the outcome of Western Metro, where the results of the election are very much decided by below the line ballot papers and the impact of Victoria's new Optional Preferential rules. Another compelling reason why Victoria should adopt a reiterative counting system, In a reiterative counting system on each exclusion of a cnciate from the count the ballot is reset and restarted, redistributing all preferences as if the excluded candidate has not stood. With a weighted Surplus Transfer value and the use of computer technology there is no need for Segmentation as all votes can be distributed in a single transaction. The process of reiteration continues until all vacant positions are filled in a single iteration following the distribution of any Canidate's surplus votes. The same process and rules would also apply to single member electorates.
Under a reiterative counting system the quota is adjusted after the primary distribution, taking into account any ballot papers that may exhaust. If a vote for a minor party then preferences a major party that vote would be transferred to the candidate of the voters choice and form part of that candidates surplus which would later be transferred at a lower value. Under the current rules the vote is applied to a lesser preferred candidate at a higher value. In a fair and equitable counting system each vote should be treated equally and distributed according to the voter's intention.. Either Meek or Wright fulfil these principles. Meek being a non-linear counting system where as Wright is refinement of the existing Senate rule and is liner in process.
Andrew Bartlett befroe losing his seat was a member of the Parliamentary "Joint Select Committee for Electoral Matters" (JSCEM) and he still does not understand how the system, with its inbuilt flaws, works. Too much drink and not enough research.
