TAS Senate Group Preference flow

It is said that Everybody in Tasmania has a member of the family in public office. It is the most over governed state in Australia. The home of Bob Brown fomer leader and patron of the Greens and maverick Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie.

The Greens are expected to lose support this round but will still remain above quota

The question is will the ALP hold on to three seats or will they lose a seat to an independent group? 

The Liberal Party is expected to retain two senate seats. Prefernce flows are a mixed batch with the ALP having the edge over the Liberal Party.  We expect no change in overall results between 2010 and 2013 

However that is all ways depends on the extent of the swing against the ALP who also holds control of the State Parliament. Family First has a chance.  Had Wikileaks ran in this seat then this State would have been much more interesting to watch.


ABC State Seat Historical voting statistics used as a base in analysis and ABC Senate Calculator

Tasmania

	Candidate	Party
1	Carol BROWN	Australian Labor Party
2	Richard COLBECK	Liberal Party
3	Peter WHISH-WILSON	Australian Greens
4	Catryna BILYK	Australian Labor Party
5	David BUSHBY	Liberal Party
6	Lin THORP	Australian Labor Party

ID	Group Name	Group Preference Flow
A	Country Alliance	ASXP	LP	AFLP	ALP	ODR	FFP	GRN
B	Liberal Democrats	ODR	FFP	ASXP	AFLP	LP	ALP	GRN
C	Australian Labor Party	ALP	GRN	ASXP	FFP	ODR	AFLP	LP
D	Rise Up Australia Party	FFP	AFLP	ODR	LP	ALP	ASXP	GRN
E	Liberal	LP	FFP	AFLP	ODR	ALP	ASXP	GRN
F	Palmer United Party	FFP	GRN	ASXP	AFLP	ODR	LP	ALP
G	Australian Christians	FFP	AFLP	LP	ODR	ALP	GRN	ASXP
H	DLP Democratic Labour	AFLP	ODR	FFP	LP	ALP	ASXP	GRN
I	Pirate Party	GRN	ASXP	AFLP	ALP	LP	ODR	FFP
J	Australian Greens	GRN	ASXP	ALP	FFP	LP	AFLP	ODR
K	Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party	ASXP	AFLP	ALP	GRN	FFP	ODR	LP
L	Shooters and Fishers	AFLP	ASXP	FFP	ODR	ALP	LP	GRN
M	Australian Independents	FFP	ASXP	AFLP	ODR	GRN	LP	ALP
N	Sex Party	ASXP	AFLP	ALP	GRN	LP	ODR	FFP
O	Senator Online (Internet Voting Bills/Issues)	AFLP	FFP	ASXP	ODR	GRN	ALP	LP
P	Katter's Australian Party	FFP	AFLP	ODR	LP	GRN	ALP	ASXP
Q	No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics	FFP	AFLP	ASXP	ODR	ALP	LP	GRN
R	Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party	AFLP	FFP	ASXP	ODR	ALP	LP	GRN
S	Stable Population Party	ASXP	AFLP	FFP	GRN	ALP	LP	ODR
S	Stable Population Party	ASXP	AFLP	FFP	ALP	LP	GRN	ODR
S	Stable Population Party	ASXP	AFLP	FFP	LP	GRN	ALP	ODR
U	The Australian Republicans	ODR	ASXP	FFP	AFLP	LP	ALP	GRN
V	Smokers Rights	FFP	AFLP	ODR	LP	ALP	GRN	ASXP
W	Family First	ODR	FFP	ASXP	AFLP	LP	ALP	GRN

Northern Victoria: The flaw in the system ignored in Antony Green's analysis

What Antony Green's analysis fails to take into consideration is that the ALP ticket vote is inflated in value by 1117 votes as a result of the flawed method used by the VEC in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value and the Greens vote is devalued by 1134 votes.

This in turn inflates Country Alliances vote at the end of the count making it that much closer then it actually is. the other flaw in the counting system is the method of segmentation.

There is no logic in segmenting the count in distributing excluded candidates preferences. All preferences should be distributed in a single transaction.

The system of segmentation was designed to facilitate a manual count and limit the effect of the distortion in the method of calculating the Surplus Transfer value. Both processors are wrong and flawed.

In Queensland 2007Senate election Larissa Waters was denied representation as a result of the system of segmentation.

If we are to have an accurate and fair electoral system we will need to correct these flaws and introduce a reiterative counting system that minimises the distortion inn the count whilst better reflecting the voters intention.

Posted by: democracyAtWork | December 18, 2010 at 08:01 PM

In Antony Green's breakdown analysis of Northern Victoria Green failed to take into account the distortion in the way in which the Victorian Legislative Council is counted.  Concealed within Green's data is the number of ballot papers and their value attributed to the ALPs second candidate.  As a result of the method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value the ALP ticket vote actually increases in value at the expense of the Greens and other minor candidates full value votes

Vote source	Papers	Papers %	Value	Sum	Value %
ALP #1	104659	77.23%	0.3805	39825	56.41%
ALP (BTL)	749	0.55%	1.0000	749	1.06%
CA	13	0.01%	1.0000	13	0.02%
CDP	26	0.02%	1.0000	26	0.04%
DLP	72	0.05%	1.0000	72	0.10%
FF	63	0.05%	1.0000	63	0.09%
GRN	29548	21.80%	1.0000	29548	41.85%
LNP #1	46	0.03%	0.6560	30	0.04%
LNP #2	96	0.07%	0.3146	30	0.04%
LNP (BTL)	33	0.02%	1.0000	33	0.05%
SEX	212	0.16%	1.0000	212	0.30%
sum	135517	100%		70601	100%
Quota				64946
Surplus				5655	0.0417282
Vote source	Ballot Papers		Paper Based STV	Value Based STV	%	Diff
ALP #1	104659	77.23%	4367	3190	56.41%	1177
ALP (BTL)	749	0.55%	31	60	1.06%	-29
CA	13	0.01%	1	1	0.02%	0
CDP	26	0.02%	1	2	0.04%	-1
DLP	72	0.05%	3	6	0.10%	-3
FF	63	0.05%	3	5	0.09%	-2
GRN	29548	21.80%	1233	2367	41.85%	-1134
LNP #1	46	0.07%	4	2	0.04%	2
LNP #2	96	0.03%	2	2	0.04%	0
LNP (BTL)	33	0.02%	1	3	0.05%	-1
SEX	212	0.16%	9	17	0.30%	-8
sum	135517	100.00%	5655	5655	100.00%

Instead of winning by a margin of 3,532 votes (in a value based count) the VEC paper based formula gives the Liberal Party a reduced margin of 1,407 votes. An overall devaluation of an equivilent 2,125 votes

The following table highlights in more detail the extent of distortion in the method used to calculate the Surplus Transfer Value by showing a breakdown comparison of the count at the point where the ALP  second candidate is elected and the value of the vote following the distribution of the ALP surplus. The first data set shows the number of ballot papers, the second the reuslkts of the VEC paper based formula and the third the results using a weighted value based formula.

Western Metro; The flaw in the system ignored in Antony Green's analysis

The method used in calculating the results of the Victorian Legislative Council is flawed. It is not accurate and is semi proportional at best.

If you applied a reiterative count where the ballot is reset and the votes redistributed on every exclusion with a weighted calculation of the surplus transfer value the results are somewhat different to that which Antony Green has presented.

There are 422588 ballot papers

If you recount the vote excluding all candidates but the last six standing (3 ALP, 2 Liberals and 1 Green) and distribute all the votes based on the order of preferences allocated to continuing candidates .

1205 ballot papers exhaust without expressing a valid preference.

The quota based on the adjusted primary vote is 70229

After redistributing preferences and surpluses using a value based formula in calculating the surplus transfer value

The following are elected with quota
PAKULA, Martin 70229
EIDEH, Khalil 70229
FINN, Bernie 70229
ELSBURY, Andrew 70229

Last vacancy
HARTLAND, Colleen 70237
SMITH, Bob 69419

Exhausted with value 811

The gap between Hartland and Smith is 818 votes not 2012 as is derived using the VEC counting method.

Similar distortions were recorded in the 2007 Queensland Senate which resulted in Larissa Waters denied being elected to the sixth Queensland Senate spot.

The system in place does not accurately reflect the voters intention.

The distortion in the count arises from the method of calculating the surplus transfer value and the method of segmentation in redistributing excluded candidates votes.

The system was designed to facilitate a manual count. With the use of electronic counting there is no justification or merit in maintaining the flawed counting system. A reiterative weighted count such as the Wright System or Meek produces a much more accurate reflection of the voters intentions.

Posted by: democracyAtWork | December 18, 2010 at 04:38 PM

Western Metro: BTL Vote Stats

Table showing primary vote and distribution party of second preference

ID	Candidate	Primary	SEX	ALP	FF	DLP	GRN	LIB
1	MURRAY, Joël	1378	881	306	63	28	82	18
2	DAVIS, Merinda	536	277	127	44	15	42	31
3	PAKULA, Martin	2686	109	2073	169	132	157	46
4	EIDEH, Khalil	679	27	503	53	59	23	14
5	SMITH, Bob	557	23	443	37	29	19	6
6	REES, Llewellyn	723	17	551	25	29	72	29
7	SPINNER, Claudine	652	11	499	39	29	62	12
8	MUMBY, Daniel	635	24	65	410	63	37	36
9	GARAY, Lisa	142	6	31	59	21	16	9
10	FARRELL, Mark	631	23	38	39	458	49	24
11	MAZZARELLA, Stephanie	274	7	28	21	179	26	13
12	BYRNE, Georga	121	4	14	7	76	17	3
13	NOTARO, Samuel	89	1	4	4	64	7	9
14	KAVANAGH, Marguerita	113	3	13	3	79	10	5
15	HARTLAND, Colleen	3439	99	272	30	62	2883	93
16	HUMPHREYS, Robert Allan	428	21	39	5	28	312	23
17	INGHAM, Liz	595	23	49	10	22	478	13
18	CRAWFORD, Simon	199	8	12	3	10	155	11
19	GALE, Owen	205	4	12	11	9	161	8
20	FINN, Bernie	2051	38	56	82	79	115	1681
21	ELSBURY, Andrew	386	9	14	16	13	18	316
22	FAIRBAIRN, Victoria	603	12	20	26	20	65	460
23	BARTH, Jeremy	269	11	4	15	7	27	205
24	KENNY, William	309	9	9	9	10	15	257

Table showing number of ballot papers from each primary vote distributed to last remaining party candidates

ID	Candidate	Primary	SEX	ALP	FF	DLP	GRN	LIB	Exhaust
1	MURRAY, Joël	1378	1378
2	DAVIS, Merinda	536	308	45	58	10	36	25	54
3	PAKULA, Martin	2686	127	1958	155	135	204	31	76
4	EIDEH, Khalil	679	27	473	43	29	27	18	62
5	SMITH, Bob	557		557
6	REES, Llewellyn	723	32	471	39	17	111	17	36
7	SPINNER, Claudine	652	19	457	40	16	78	6	36
8	MUMBY, Daniel	635			635
9	GARAY, Lisa	142	10	16	65	16	10	10	15
10	FARRELL, Mark	631				631
11	MAZZARELLA, Stephanie	274	7	12	28	148	23	12	44
12	BYRNE, Georga	121	3	7	12	69	16	2	12
13	NOTARO, Samuel	89	3	9	6	47	8	5	11
14	KAVANAGH, Marguerita	113	8	7	5	69	11	6	7
15	HARTLAND, Colleen	3439					3439
16	HUMPHREYS, Robert Allan	428	26	21	13	10	314	14	30
17	INGHAM, Liz	595	31	14	18	8	493	8	23
18	CRAWFORD, Simon	199	17	12	14	4	127	13	12
19	GALE, Owen	205	13	9	16	7	144	8	8
20	FINN, Bernie	2051	44	18	101	67	101	1676	44
21	ELSBURY, Andrew	386						386
22	FAIRBAIRN, Victoria	603	26	9	42	9	37	438	42
23	BARTH, Jeremy	269	15	7	25	5	12	196	9
24	KENNY, William	309	10	7	16	9	5	250	12