Brumby's Loss: An election that was theirs to win on preferences

It was always going to be hard fro the labor government to win a consecutive fourth term. It ha a number of issues working against it. Myki, the drought, public transport and a perception of time.   But the truth is Labor lost the election due to administrative error in the campaign and the process leading up to the election.

It's greatest failure was not negotiating better preference deals with the DLP and Sex party.  Had the ALP manged to secure a better deal from the DLP and Sex Party alone it would have retained office and the upper-house.

The ALP lost focus and control in negotiating preferences.  Its only support came from the Greens who were the ALPs main competitor in the inner city region.  The ALP was always going to attract 80% of the Greens preferences but it was no assured of securing preferences from other minor parties.  Parties that could have helped Labor retain office .  Labor could have traded off support to the DLP in Western Victoria in exchange for support else where.  if it had secure bits DLP and Sex Party support in Southern Metropolitan, or DLP support in Northern and Western Metropolitan the ALP would have won three extra upper-house seats.  The ALP did not even take into consideration the upper-house.  A fatel mistake.  It could have traded off support for teh DLP for support in teh lower hosue. It would have also retained Bentleigh had it had managed to secure DLP preferences.  Support from the DLP came at a price but the party would have retained government. without it they lost all.

The decision to introduce Optional Preferential; voting and the VEC's failure to encourage voters to fill in all squares played a significant part in the ALPs loss in Western Metropolitan but this was not the reason the ALP lost in Northern Metropolitan or Southern Metropolitan. It lost because it had no support from other players and poor preferences

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

Preliminary Analysis shows that the ALP fell short by one percent of the quota.

In a good example that demonstrates the distortion in the way the VEC counts the vote Preliminary analysis of Western Metropolitan vote shows that had a more accurate and proportional counting system been used Greens candidate Colleen Hartland would have won the seat with three votes above quota and the ALP falling short by one percent of quote just over 700 votes.

This is a stark contrast with the method used by the Victorian Electoral Commission as outlined in the legislation which at best can only be described as semi-proportional.

In our analysis we used the Wright system which included a weighted value method to calculating the surplus transfer value and on every exclusion the ballot was reset and the count restarted and votes redistributed as if the excluded candidates had not nominated. The quota for election was adjusted to accommodate votes that existed throughout the count. The Weight system uses a single transaction without segmentation and only surplus votes are distributed in a single iteration of the count. The process of iteration continues until all vacant positions are elected. ION analysis of Western Metro the vote progressed until there were only six candidates remaining in the final iteration count.

Similar results were shown using the Meek method of counting.

what this demonstrates yet again the need for the state government to abandon the outdated distorted and accurate system currently in use. Had the number of voters not exhausted their ballot papers or Victoria had retained a full preferential voting system the outcome of the election may have been different.

In 2007 the Queensland Senate election which uses the same flawed system of segmentation as exists in Victoria Greens candidate Larissa Waters missed out in being elected. Had a reiterative counting system been used instead Larissa Waters would have been elected.

The current system was designed to facilitate a manual count and with the use of computer based technology is no longer warranted or justified.

Wright System Reiterative Count - Value based Surplus Transfer - Single transaction per candidate Final Iteration  422588 Ballot papers minus 1205 ballots which exhausted with-out value expressing no preference for any continuing candidate
ID	Candidate	Group	01-001 Primary	01-002 Surplus PAKULA, Martin	01-003 Surplus FINN, Bernie	01-004 Surplus EIDEH, Khalil	01-005 Surplus ELSBURY, Andrew	01-006 Elected HARTLAND, Colleen
3	PAKULA, Martin	ALP	196632	70229	70229	70229	70229	70229
4	EIDEH, Khalil	ALP	1242	126653	126653	70229	70229	70229
5	SMITH, Bob	ALP	1411	1736	1761	57929	69419	69419
15	HARTLAND, Colleen	GREENS	69582	69987	70124	70181	70237	70237
20	FINN, Bernie	LIBERAL	151299	151299	70229	70229	70229	70229
21	ELSBURY, Andrew	LIBERAL	1217	1250	82015	82015	70229	70229
	Sum		421383	421154	421011	420812	420572	420572
	Quota		70229
	Exhausted	with value		229	372	571	811	811

Western Metro Greens Hartland elected on below quota vote VEC instructions and optional voting rules under review

The Greens have been elected to the last position in Western Metropolitan Region with 130 votes less than the quota required.

The Australian Labor Party and former Legislative Council President, Bob Smith, more than 2,000 votes behind the Greens' Colleen Hartland primarily due to the optional preferential rules.

Many Liberal Party and DLP supporters who were opposed to the Greens candidature exhausted their preference allocation and in doing so allowed the Greens to be elected by default.

The VEC has also come under criticism for not providing clear instruction to encourage others to fill in all preferences. The instructions on the ballot legislative Council papers encouraged voters to only preference on to 5. The VEC should have been more proactive in encouraging voters to maximise their vote by fulling in all preferences. As a result of the VEC failure many voters were disenfranchised as a result.

As a result of the optional preferential rules that were introduced for the first time this year Labor has lost a third seat in Western Metropolitan.

The conduct of the count was further marred by the fact that the VEC failed to provide scrutineers copies of the below-the-line preference data. Copies of the preference data should have been published on line and in real time as the vote is counted.

Western Metro Break Even Analysis

In an attempt to determine the likely breakdown of the Western Metropolitan Region we have allocated below the line preferences into two categories.

Full preference flow based on the allocation of preferences of the above the line ticket registration and the optional preferential flow where votes exhaust after five preferences. We believe that you can allocate percentages to these tables to determine the likely data flow. The values we have indicated result in a tied vote between Bob Smith (ALP) and Colleen Hartland (Greens). Both Sex Party and FF have to reference a second Party for their vote to be valid. We have included a most likely what if of FF flowing to the DLP and exhausting.

The Liberal Party Ticket vote will increase in strength as a result of the flaw in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer value which is based on the number of ballot papers not the value of the vote

What is also interesting with this breakdown is that if you applied a reiterative count without segmentation Bob Smith is elected where the method of segmentation gives an unfair advantage to the Greens and other minor parties.

The main player and unknown quantity is where do the Sex Party preferences flow. Many will follow the Sex Party Ticket flow to the Greens where they may exhaust as the instructions given on the ballot paper encourage optional voting as opposed to a full preference distribution. The ALP is expected to pick up a greater share of Sex Party preferences then they did in the August Senate ballot due to the position of the ALP group being next to Sex Party (The donkey vote). There will be some votes that will cross groups but they can be accommodated by selecting and allocating their vote to one of the other records in the table presented depending on which group (ALP,Greens or Liberals) they end up at.  


#1 For clarity sake we have allocated Sex Party BTL Full ticket vote within the Optional Preferential Sex Party to Greens list as it is unlikely to travel beyond the Greens.

On distribution of the below preference allocation the result is within 50 votes between Smith and Hartland

Current Group Vote Tally for Western Metropolitan

		ATL	BTL	TOTAL	%
A	SEX PARTY	18088	1946	20034	4.74%
B	AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY	192774	5354	198128	46.86%
C	FAMILY FIRST	14464	825	15289	3.62%
D	D.L.P. - DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY	12097	1236	13333	3.15%
E	AUSTRALIAN GREENS	45835	4884	50719	12.00%
F	LIBERAL	121630	3656	125286	29.63%
	Sum		17901

Breakdown allocation of BTL preferences

Below the Line Distribution Allocation
	Full Tickets		Ballots		%
	SEX PARTY #1		0		0.00%
	AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY		535		10.00%
	FAMILY FIRST		206		25.00%
	D.L.P. - DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY		309		25.00%
	AUSTRALIAN GREENS		1221		25.00%
	LIBERAL		731		20.00%
Optional Preferential (Stop at 5)
	SEX PARTY -> GREENS		778		40.00%
	SEX PARTY -> ALP		681		35.00%
	SEX PARTY -> LIBERALS		487		25.00%
	AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY		4819		90.00%
	FAMILY FIRST -> DLP		619		75.00%
	D.L.P. - DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY		927		75.00%
	AUSTRALIAN GREENS		3663		75.00%
	LIBERAL		2925		80.00%
	Sum		17901

Optional Preferential ballot paper. VEC Instructions misleading

The instructions on Victoria's upper-house ballot paper may have mislead voters by encouraging voters to not complete all of the below the line preference data.  This may end up effecting the outcome of Western Metropolitan Region

The instructions for below-the-line voting encourages voters to just place the numbers 1-5 in the boxes below.  This minimises the effectiveness and value of the voter's ballot as many below-the-line votes will exhaust and end up on the Votes-without-value pile.

Instead of advising voters to place the number 1 to 5 to indicate the candidate of your choice the VEC should have said "Indicate in order of preference a minimum of 5 candidates of your choice.  In order to maximise your vote you should number each square sequentially in the order of your choice corresponding to each candidate" or something similar.

The instructions given give the impression that you should only number 5 boxes.

There is no logic to support placing a minimum number of five on a ballot paper.  If your going to adopt optional preferential you might as well introduce optional voting as opposed to compulsory voter registration.

Many parties, knowing that they could not elect all, nominate five candidates per group.  This not only has the effect of inflating the number of candidates but it also devalues the vote as many voters will just choose the group they wish to support and their vote will stop there and never go beyond. This has the effect of turning our preferential voting system into a de-facto party list system

If we are to continue to maintain an optional preferential ballot then we will have to consider adopting a reiterative counting system, such as the Wright system, that takes into consideration exhausted ballots and recalculates the quota on each iteration. A reiterative counting system would do way with the distortion that arises from the segmentation of the ballot and more accurately reflect the voters intentions.  On exclusion of candidates from the count the ballot is reset and votes distributed as if the excluded candidate(s) had not stood.  Each iteration will only include distribution of primary votes and surplus votes.  The process of iteration continues until all vacant positions are elected in a single iteration. One transaction per candidate. One vote one value.

Missing Candidate

Wham bam thank you ma'am

Just went shopping at the Prahran Market and was kinda expecting to see Clem Newton Brown, his bicycle and his mum out there saying, thanks.  But sadly or gratefully he was not there.

ALP may be done in by Optional Preferential voting: Working one to five

The Australian Labor Party may be done in by the system of optional preferential voting that they introduced for the first time this election.  Under previous elections voters had to preference all candidates, under the new rules voters had to only number one to five.  The instructions on the ballot paper stated number one to five.

There is no logic behind the new rules.  Why just allow five  If a large number of voter's preferences stop at five then the ballot paper exhausts and many voter's unknown to them will be throwing way their ballot paper.

If everyone or a large number of people preference just five candidates our system of voting will be come a de facto first-past-the-post voting system or a party list system. by default

The VEC should have issued a statement that you should number five or more preferences and that in order to maximise your vote you should number every square.

In Western Metropolitan there is now concern that a large number of ballot papers will in fact exhaust.  Sex Party and Family First had nominated only two candidates so their voters will have to make a choice as to who they will vote for beyond their Party.  Evey other party including the Liberal Party, the DLP, Greens and Labor all stood a full team of five candidates.  This means that most of their voters could opt to just preference their party and no more.  Analysis of the August Victoria Senate election indicates that the number of Sex Party below-the-line voters who preferenced the ALP directly after was less then 14%. The number who preferences the Greens directly after Sex Party was 27%. The remaining 59% had opted to preference another party before either the Greens or the ALP.  This will most certainly add to the unknown in Western Metro where every preference will count.  What is in ALPs favour is that it is the group to the right and many Sex Party voters will tend to preference the ALP next before stopping at five.  This could be the ALP best chance at surviving the optional preferential count

UPDATE: Further Analysis in existing data indicates that Bob Smith will fall short by 50-300 votes mainly due to the optional preferential voting.  It is anticipated that many FF/DLP and Liberal votes will exhaust before being transferred to the ALP.  Whilst the ALP will pickup the lions share of SexParty Below the line Preferences it is insufficient to make up the short fall that is needed from FF, DLP and the Liberal Party transfers. To have a chance of winning Bob Smith will need 50% of Sex Parties 3,4 and 5 preferences before the Greens to make up the short fall from FF/DLP and Liberal optional prefernital votes.  This may be to much to achieve. The ALP will live to reget its decsion to introduce optional prefernetial ballots. Its woprst then issuing a split ticket above the line.

Tthe winning candidate will have less then a quota. creating another distortion in the way the ballot is counted.  In a more accurate proportional system system the quota would be adjusted to accommodate the dropping quota as ballot exhaust through-out the count.  with a reiterative count model the ballot is reset and all votes are redistributed after any exclusion  as if the candidate excluded had not stood..  A new quota is calculated at the end of the primary distribution in each iteration of the count automatically adjusts as the count as it progresses. It is much more accurate and better reflects the voters intentions.

Western Metro and the Victoria's Optional Preferential vote

One of the unknown factors in the Western Metro ballot is the effect of the optional preferential ballot.  Under new rules introduced in this election is that for a below the line vote to be valid the voter must number one to five candidates of their choice.

There is no logic that justifies a five minimum Optional Preference but it makes the politicians that introduced it feel good. In fact it may end up working against them.

All parties, except Sex Party and Family First, have nominated a full team of five candidates. (None would ever elect all five - they just fill up the ballot paper and minor parties make a contribution towards consolidated revenue in lost deposits) the Optional Preferential rules means that voters can just preference their group and then exhaust.  This has the likely impact of working against the ALP as Family First voters are more likely to exhaust after preferencing the DLP or Liberal Party.

DLP and Liberal Party can exhaust within their own group and the DLP vote will not travel beyond.

In the Liberal Party's case below-the-line votes picked up in the count that do exhausts with the Liberals number two candidate will be picked up in part and carried on by the Liberal Ticket vote which increases in value at the expense of any non-Ticket vote it receives along the way. This is due to the formula used to calculate the Surplus Transfer value which increases the value of the party Ticket vote disproportionately as it moves forward. (Similar inflation of the ALP and Liberal Party tickets also occur in the election of the Parties previous candidates. In most cases it will go unnoticed as most votes travel in the same direction but the increase is there and can provide a winning margin in a close election as we are potentially seeing unfold in Western Metro)

Sex Party, as with Family First, must preference beyond their own Party in order for their vote to be considered valid. They could preference three of the already excluded or elected candidates in the race at the time Sex Party's vote is distributed, in which case the vote will exhaust carrying its value with it.  An exhausted Sex Party vote reduces the Greens chances of reaching quota in the same way that a DLP or FF exhausted vote reduces the ALPs overall vote. If a Sex Party vote lands on Labors third Candidate or the Liberal party second candidate it will move Labors chances forward or if it land on the Greens add to the Greens total,.

The Greens need 90% or more Sex Party's below the line preferences to remain in the contest

The unknown question is how many below-the-line votes will exhaust and will it play a decisive role in who is elected?if this is the case then the system will take over and not the voter and as explained earlier teh advantgae is with the major Ticket votes. If the Greens are elected in fourth place then it is all academic.

The better alternative

in order to limit the system providing an advantage to one group or anopther the best option is to adopt a weighted Surplus trabfer value foirmula and do way with segmentation and have one transaction per candidate.

In a reiterative count, such as applies in the Wright System, the ballot is reset and restarted on every exclusion. the quota is recalculated following the distribution of the first available preference. It avoids the need for segmentation of the vote.  An optional preferential vote could land on one of the previously declared elected candidates and form part of their surplus if it has no place to go it would just fall off the table and be considered in the same was as an informal ballot. Overall a reiterative count best reflects the voters intentions in the preference nominated.  It treats each ballot paper equally and when a candidate is excluded form the ballot the vote is distributed as if the excluded candidate had not stood.

In 2007 the distortion in the segmentation of the vote denied the Greens candidate, Larissa Waters, a Senate seat. (If you recount the 2007 Queensland Senate count excluding all candidates except the last seven standing (Three ALP, 3 LNP and 1 GRN) Larissa Waters should have been elected.