Green bias in Flawed ABC Calculator Against Melbourne and Sitting Independents

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

Green wites off Independents

ABC Election Analyst, Antony Green, has written off independents in the forth coming election by hard-coding in their defeat in the ABC Calculator.  There is no mention or  disclaimer of this fact

In review Greens Calculator could have been much better given the amount of money and resources the ABC has thrown out at it.

It should be possible to click on any seat and either display the results of the last election or adust individually each seat. Swings are not even across the country let alone within each state.

In  Green's Calculator he could have determined the success of Independents based on the swing associated with the TCP party. 

The Greens Party chances of holding on to the seat of Melbourne depends on where the ALP falls in the final three.  In 2010 the LNP Preferenced the Greens ahead of Labor, a move that caused considerable angst and upset within the Liberal Party and a mistake that was not repeated in the following State election.  The only way the Greens can hold on to Melbourne without LNP preferences is for the ALP's vote to slump to such an extent the ALP falls behind the Greens and the the LNP into third place.   Given the make of the seat (which covers Richmond, Fitzroy, Carlton, Brunswick, Flemmington, Parkville, Docklands and North Melbourne) we do not see that a likelihood, which begs the question "Why has Green hard coded Melbourne into begin a Green Seat in his Swing Calculator?"

Antony Green has done likewise with the other independent held seats (Denison TAS, Kennedy QLD, Lyne NSW and New England NSW)

Green's unauthorised use of Twitter brings ABC into disrepute

Antony Green, ABC Electoral Analysts, use of Twitter has brought the ABC into disrepute.

According Alan Sunderland, Head of Policy & Staff Development at the ABC,  Antony Green's Twitter account is not an official or authorised ABC account. As such it falls outside the parameters of the ABC charter 

The ABC has a policy on the use of social media which states that "Personal and professional use of social media by ABC staff and contractors must not bring the ABC into disrepute, compromise effectiveness at work, imply ABC endorsement of personal views or disclose, without authorisation,
confidential information"

The policy applies to all ABC workplace participants, which includes: 

all ABC employees  –  including  casual, fixed term and specified task employees, employees on probation, part-time employees, managers,  actors engaged under the  ABC  Actors  Agreement,
employees working from home as well as full-time and ongoing employees; people providing services to the ABC on a contract basis (including ABC artists) or on secondment from or to another organisation, even if they are only working at the ABC on a temporary basis;   

Interactive services, which include social media like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, are part of the ABC’s future as a public broadcaster and increasingly part of the work  and private lives of ABC staff and contractors. 

The ABC encourages use of social media to engage existing and new audiences with ABC content, and to seek and share user‐generated content. Use of social media by staff and contractors  is not limited to the  workplace  and  occurs for  professional  or personal purposes  both  in  and  out of work hours.

Four standards apply to work and personal use of interactive services, with ABC accounts and personal accounts, by staff and contractors, at any time:
1. Do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute.
2. Do not undermine your effectiveness at work.
3. Do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views.
4. Do not disclose confidential information obtained through work. 

The ABC will enforce the four standards as and when appropriate.

The problem is that Mr Greens Twitter account implies that it has been authorised and endorsed by the ABC.

Unlike other ABC Staff members who also hold a twitter account Mr Green's account makes direct reference to the ABC in his twitter id and user profile  @AntonyGreenABC.  Antony Green's Twitter Account is also listed on the ABC website.

No other ABC staff members personal twitter account makes this direct implication. 

Antony Green by implying his account is endorsed or authorized by the ABC and forms part of his employment duties has and continues to bring the ABC into disrepute.  There is no disclaimer or statement of disassociation or non-endorsement. As stated by Alan Sunderland his account has not been authorised and any implication that it has is in direct breach of the ABC policy guidelines and as such falls outside the standards and guidelines of ABC.


Alan Sunderland notes "Many users include disclaimers in the profile section of their accounts making it very clear that the views contained in the twitter feed are personal, Others do not specifically reference such disclaimers, but that in and of itself is not a contravention of policy. Regardless of whether such a specific disclaimer is made, the fact is that such accounts are (a) personal, and (b) subject to the Social Media Policy"

Catch 22

Antony Green continues to use the resources of the ABC mixing his personal and professional interests.

Green's ABC Calculator redundant and useless, Providing false readings

Green's Calculator Missing Cogs.  Information and timing out, in urgent need of repair

Following on from the Liberal Party's bold statement of principle to put the Greens last has made Antony Green, ABC election guru's calculator obsolete.

The calculations Antony Green has relied on are no longer valid.  Like wise his upper-house assessment of the Party Group voting tickets are based on the 2006 election results.  Green would have been better applying the Senate calculations to his analysis.  The problem is his Senate figures are also out as they do not include postal, absentee and pre-poll votes.  Green needs to go back and rethink and rework his predictions.  The ABC also must pull the calculator from its website until Green has made the necessary adjustments.  To leave it unfixed will just bring the ABC into further disrepute.

Facts suppressed by the ABC

The following facts  surrounding the 2006 State Election have been suppressed by the ABC's Electoral Analyst, Antony Green.


WESTERN METRO

In 2006 the Greens won Western Metro after a recount.

FACT: 500 votes went missing and unaccounted for between Count A and Count B. Either the VEC double counted in count A or votes were removed. the total number of votes between count A and count B should never change. The Greens won on the second recount by less than 150 votes.

FACT: When the Parliament requested copies of the Count A preference data files for comparison, the VEC claimed that the data had been deleted and overwritten. The equivent of an electronic whiteboard.

FACT: No backup copies were made. This is hard to believe for a professional organisation were this information costs millions of dollars to collate. No audit trail of Count A in comparison to Count B exists.

FACT: The AEC maintain copies of both Count A and Count B data comparison. What benefit was there in the VEC duplicating the development of software to count the vote when the AEC already had a better version which could have been used free of cost? Millions of dollars wasted in duplicated software resources.


NORTHERN METRO

FACT: The VEC's lack of due diligence resulted in dodgy data being feed into their computerised count.

FACT: There was no check or verification to ensure that the number of votes recorded reconciled with the number of ballot papers issued prior to the calculation of the election results. We are told that the VEC this election will produce a reconciliation report prior to the count. The VEC has not provide a sample copy of what this report will look like and what information it will contain.

FACT: In 2006 the VEC failed to provided copies of the preference data files to scrutineers. This information was only made available following an FOI application, even then they only provided information related to the final count not the preliminary counts. Data files had been overwritten without backup copies being made. Even though copies of this information had been requested prior to the commencement of the count and the Electoral Act requires the VEc to maintain all election material and documentation realted to the conduct of the election.

FACT: The State elections cost Victoria over 50 million dollars, costs in duplicating resources that the AEC already provide. Hopefully we will not see a repeat of the mistakes that were made in 2006.

Green breached ABC charter

ABC Electoral Analyst, Anthony Green, continues to edit out and censor discussion and debate on our electoral system, leaving him and then ABC open to allegations of bias and failing to fulfil the ABC charter and responsibilty to provide free open discussion of public interest.

More examples of information that Antony Green refuses to publish. All factual and all of public interest

Segmentation was designed to facilitate a manual count.

There is no rational or logic supporting the continuation of segmentation of the vote.

If a candidate is excluded from the count then their votes should be redistributed as of that candidate had not stood.

This is best achieved by restarting the count and redistributing all the votes on teh excludion of any candidate from the count.

The only distribution should be primary votes and surplus distributions.

If all position are not filled in a single oetraton of the count then the candidate with the lowest vote should be excluded and the count reset and recounted. (the Iteration) the process of oternation continueing until all positions are fillied in a single iteration.

A reiterative count also allows for a reduction in the quota as a result of exhausted ballot papers. (Votes that do not record a preference for a continuing candidate) as the quota is recalculated. The method of segmentation seriously distorts the proportionality and results of the election.

If you recount the Queensland 2007 Senate vote excluding all candidates other than the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 LNP and 1 Grn) then Larrisa Waters would have been elected. The reason she was not elected is due to the method of segmentation. It is outdated an not necessary. With the aid of a computer count a reiterative count is easily.

with the aid of a scomputerised countomng system there is no excuse for not implementing a reiterative counting system. It is simpler, more accurate and more refective of the voters intentions.

Antony Green thinks that the public is too stupid and cannot digest this information and as such he prevents this issue from being openly debated.

It is not the role in the ABC or antony Green to decide what should be discussed and what should be restricted information. I thought we lived in a free democratic society) The ABC is there to facilitate public debate and open discourse. there is not justofcation for the ABC to prevent the publication of this information.

Information should be freely available and the reader and public should then be able to make an informed decision.