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.
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.
