Victoria's "Shadow Puppert Master" Steve Tully, electoral commissioner, has resigned to return back to South Australia from where he came.
Tully was renowned for his monumental stuff up of the 2006 State election and his failure to ensure that public elections in Victoria were open and transparent and subject to proper scrutiny.
Steve Tully's ten year contact was up for renewal in 2015 with many predicting that it would not be renewed. Tully was left with the option of leaving now or face forced retirement in three years time. He choose to leave, taking up an offer to head South Australia's Health Complaints Commission.
The Victorian State Government should this opportunity to review and restructure the Victorian Electoral Commission transferring most of its functions and conduct of Public elections to the Australian Electoral Commission. The Victorian Electoral Commission should maintain a Secretariat that is responsible for policy development and oversight role only. Such a move would save Victoria 100s of millions of dollars in services and infrastructure that are essentially duplicated by the Australian Federal Electoral Commission.
Showing posts with label Steve Tully. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Tully. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Friday, April 15, 2011
Steve Tully's Information revolution under fire
The Victorian Electoral Commission has come under criticism for its management of the electoral role with many citizens complaining that the VEC has made false allegations against citizens in relation to voting irregularities to which the Commission is now seeking to take legal action.
Under Steve Tully, Chief Electoral Commissioner, the Victorian Electoral Commission has become the new stasi of State Government departments. The VEC is renowned for its half baked poor data administration. Crucial data records pertaining to the 2006 State election were deleted and destroyed with no copies or backups recorded.
The VEC administration is in disarray and there is a serious need for a open parliamentary review.
In the lead up to the 2010 State election the VEC, who had been granted access to private and confidential information from a range of government databases, had sent out notices to non-citizens telling them they had to enrol vote.
Steve Tully recently came under fire by Victorian Senator Scott Ryan who described the heavy handed approach taken by the Chief Commissioner in collecting data as the slippery slope for individuals loss of privacy.
Unknown to most and without any oversight the VEC has been compiling a massive database of names and private contact details.
Steve Tully, in what has been described as a fascist lust and zeal for power, has access to vast amounts of confidential private information from the Residential Tenancies bond authority, Vic Roads, Local Council rate notices, Library memberships, Educational Department student records and other sources. the VEC maintain this information on its database where there are little security to protect this information from misuse and abuse. Even private "Silent Enrollment listings are accessed for purposes that are not related to the conduct of the election. There is no record or monitoring who access the data records stored and for what purposes.
Steve Tulley has been given unfettered access to confidential information Information that should not be readily available. The VEC has then processed this information in a rather haphazard manner. there are numerous examples of mismanagement, misuse and abuse of information collected and held by the VEC including allegations that VEC staff have accessed the confidential information held for purposes not related to the issuing and casting of votes.
The recent stuff ups in administration are just the tip of the iceberg
The Attorney General needs to initiate a major audit and review of information technology and the information collected by the VEC.
Steve Tully should resign following the recent outrage
The problem that Steve Tully and the VEC data boffins have not realised is that the address used for electoral purposes does not need to be the same address used for Motor Registration or rental agreements, rate notices etc.
There is only one sources of information that can and should be relied on when determining who should be entitled to vote.
Birth Deaths and Citizenship records.
The only other requirements that the VEC needs to verify is the residential address in order to determine which electorate a person is entitled to be registered.
Questions need to be asked how confidential are you electoral details and why does the VEC need access to the detailed electoral role in the first place.
The Australian Electoral Commission has overall responsibility for the maintenance of the electoral rile. Why has the VEC been granted unfettered access to the rile data including Silent enrolment entitlements.
Under Steve Tully, Chief Electoral Commissioner, the Victorian Electoral Commission has become the new stasi of State Government departments. The VEC is renowned for its half baked poor data administration. Crucial data records pertaining to the 2006 State election were deleted and destroyed with no copies or backups recorded.
The VEC administration is in disarray and there is a serious need for a open parliamentary review.
In the lead up to the 2010 State election the VEC, who had been granted access to private and confidential information from a range of government databases, had sent out notices to non-citizens telling them they had to enrol vote.
Steve Tully recently came under fire by Victorian Senator Scott Ryan who described the heavy handed approach taken by the Chief Commissioner in collecting data as the slippery slope for individuals loss of privacy.
Unknown to most and without any oversight the VEC has been compiling a massive database of names and private contact details.
Steve Tully, in what has been described as a fascist lust and zeal for power, has access to vast amounts of confidential private information from the Residential Tenancies bond authority, Vic Roads, Local Council rate notices, Library memberships, Educational Department student records and other sources. the VEC maintain this information on its database where there are little security to protect this information from misuse and abuse. Even private "Silent Enrollment listings are accessed for purposes that are not related to the conduct of the election. There is no record or monitoring who access the data records stored and for what purposes.
Steve Tulley has been given unfettered access to confidential information Information that should not be readily available. The VEC has then processed this information in a rather haphazard manner. there are numerous examples of mismanagement, misuse and abuse of information collected and held by the VEC including allegations that VEC staff have accessed the confidential information held for purposes not related to the issuing and casting of votes.
The recent stuff ups in administration are just the tip of the iceberg
The Attorney General needs to initiate a major audit and review of information technology and the information collected by the VEC.
Steve Tully should resign following the recent outrage
The problem that Steve Tully and the VEC data boffins have not realised is that the address used for electoral purposes does not need to be the same address used for Motor Registration or rental agreements, rate notices etc.
There is only one sources of information that can and should be relied on when determining who should be entitled to vote.
Birth Deaths and Citizenship records.
The only other requirements that the VEC needs to verify is the residential address in order to determine which electorate a person is entitled to be registered.
Questions need to be asked how confidential are you electoral details and why does the VEC need access to the detailed electoral role in the first place.
The Australian Electoral Commission has overall responsibility for the maintenance of the electoral rile. Why has the VEC been granted unfettered access to the rile data including Silent enrolment entitlements.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
2010 Victorian State Election - Legislative Council - BTL preference data files
We have published a full set of the below-the-line preference data files for the Victorian Legislative Council that Victoria's Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, refused to publish during the progress of the count.
13 Million dollars spent on software development and the VEC is unable or unwilling to make this crucial data available? Why?
Each zip file contains both the preliminary data set and the final data set as supplied by the Victorian Electoral Commission after the completion of the ballot.
In 2006 Steve Tully refused to provide copies of the Legislative Council below-the line data files, (We had to make an FOI application for the data and then he only provided count B data for Western Metropolitan. When requested by the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee to provide copies of the Count A data files, Steve Tully claimed that the data had been destroyed and overwritten and that no backup copies were made, An extraordinary claim given that its costs millions of dollars to collate this information and it is hard to believe that any professional organisation would not have implemented backup procedures of the requested data. At a cost of 13 million dollars in software development it is hard to believe that backup copies were name made or were destroyed.
In 2010 Steve Tully once again refused to provide scrutineers copies of the below the line preference data files, this denying scrutineers the right to properly scrutinise the election. . This data which should have been published on on progressively as the count preceded has been now been made available but not yet published by the VEC.
We believe that this information should be readily available and that the election process must be open and transparent. Steve Tully claims that he is not required to publish this data. There are a lot of things he is not required to do but he does have an obligation and a duty to ensure that our public elections are open and transparent. In not publishing this information live, as was the case with the election night polling place results Steve Tully has and continues to bring the conduct of the State Election into disrepute. There is nothing in law that prevents this information being made public. It is a public document that the public have a right of access to. Copies of the preference data files was made available during the counting of the 2008 City of Melbourne municipal election. Why not the State election?
If Steve Tully cannot self regulate in the interest of maintaining an honest and transparent election he should resign and the Victorian Parliament must legislate to ensure that this information is readily available progressively during the count
13 Million dollars spent on software development and the VEC is unable or unwilling to make this crucial data available? Why?
Each zip file contains both the preliminary data set and the final data set as supplied by the Victorian Electoral Commission after the completion of the ballot.
In 2006 Steve Tully refused to provide copies of the Legislative Council below-the line data files, (We had to make an FOI application for the data and then he only provided count B data for Western Metropolitan. When requested by the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee to provide copies of the Count A data files, Steve Tully claimed that the data had been destroyed and overwritten and that no backup copies were made, An extraordinary claim given that its costs millions of dollars to collate this information and it is hard to believe that any professional organisation would not have implemented backup procedures of the requested data. At a cost of 13 million dollars in software development it is hard to believe that backup copies were name made or were destroyed.
In 2010 Steve Tully once again refused to provide scrutineers copies of the below the line preference data files, this denying scrutineers the right to properly scrutinise the election. . This data which should have been published on on progressively as the count preceded has been now been made available but not yet published by the VEC.
We believe that this information should be readily available and that the election process must be open and transparent. Steve Tully claims that he is not required to publish this data. There are a lot of things he is not required to do but he does have an obligation and a duty to ensure that our public elections are open and transparent. In not publishing this information live, as was the case with the election night polling place results Steve Tully has and continues to bring the conduct of the State Election into disrepute. There is nothing in law that prevents this information being made public. It is a public document that the public have a right of access to. Copies of the preference data files was made available during the counting of the 2008 City of Melbourne municipal election. Why not the State election?
If Steve Tully cannot self regulate in the interest of maintaining an honest and transparent election he should resign and the Victorian Parliament must legislate to ensure that this information is readily available progressively during the count
Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies
Steve Tully's refusal to provide copies of the below-the-line preference data files to scrutineers and his failure to publish this information had prevented scrutineers from properly scrutinising the Victorian Legilsative Council election.
There is no excuse or reason why this information was not made available. Similar complaints and concerns had been made about the Victoria's previous state and municipal elections.
In 2006 The Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish copies of the preference data-files. When the commission was asked for copies of the data-files by the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Commission, Steve Tully said that the data files pertaining to the primary count A for Western Metropolitan had been deleted. overwritten and that there were no backup copies available. The Commission failed to ensure that this data was protected and copies available in spite the fact that this information had been requested prior to the conduct of the count.
The Chief Electoral Commissioner has demonstrated for a second election in a row that he is incapable of self regulating or ensuring that our electoral process in Victoria is open and transparent.
Parliament must now act to ensure the integrity of the electronic counting system is maintained and that scrutineers have access to this crucial data in real time.
There are no technical or procedural reasons why this data cannot be made available and published on line as and when it is recorded. In the same way that polling place results are published on line as the count progresses.
The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) has just published a white paper on which it addresses some of the growing concerns about about fraud in electronic elections. One of the issues raised is the need to ensure that the election process is open and transparent and that the tallies of electronic counting systems are subject to proper scrutiny and audit by political parties and the need for publication of elections results to be progressively made available during the count.
December 2010
As the topic of electoral fraud has gained prominence in the media and the international discourse, IFES is releasing a series of three white papers introducing a groundbreaking framework for deterring this corrosive practice.
Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies: A Basic Conceptual Framework, the first paper in the series:
There is no excuse or reason why this information was not made available. Similar complaints and concerns had been made about the Victoria's previous state and municipal elections.
In 2006 The Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish copies of the preference data-files. When the commission was asked for copies of the data-files by the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Commission, Steve Tully said that the data files pertaining to the primary count A for Western Metropolitan had been deleted. overwritten and that there were no backup copies available. The Commission failed to ensure that this data was protected and copies available in spite the fact that this information had been requested prior to the conduct of the count.
The Chief Electoral Commissioner has demonstrated for a second election in a row that he is incapable of self regulating or ensuring that our electoral process in Victoria is open and transparent.
Parliament must now act to ensure the integrity of the electronic counting system is maintained and that scrutineers have access to this crucial data in real time.
There are no technical or procedural reasons why this data cannot be made available and published on line as and when it is recorded. In the same way that polling place results are published on line as the count progresses.
The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) has just published a white paper on which it addresses some of the growing concerns about about fraud in electronic elections. One of the issues raised is the need to ensure that the election process is open and transparent and that the tallies of electronic counting systems are subject to proper scrutiny and audit by political parties and the need for publication of elections results to be progressively made available during the count.
---
Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies:
A Basic Conceptual Framework
By Rafael López-PintorA Basic Conceptual Framework
December 2010
As the topic of electoral fraud has gained prominence in the media and the international discourse, IFES is releasing a series of three white papers introducing a groundbreaking framework for deterring this corrosive practice.
Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies: A Basic Conceptual Framework, the first paper in the series:
- discusses the importance of focusing on fraud in new democracies;
- provides a definition for fraud (as opposed to corruption or malpractice);
- sheds light on the different agents who can perpetrate fraud and why it can be difficult to identify them; and
- assesses how international democratic standards intersect with the prevention of electoral fraud
Monday, December 13, 2010
Button Day show: Tuesday December 14
Tomorrow the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully will press the button to reveal the outcome of the preliminary declaration of the Victorian Legislative Council and the eagerly awaited results for Western Victoria.
Whilst the counting process has been a marked improvement on the events of 2006 where ballot papers went missing between count A and Count B and the Commission failed to maintain backup copies of crucial below the line preference data files for Western Metro. Over 500 Ballot papers were unaccounted for, double entered or removed from the count. Steve Tully can not afford another stuff-up repeat
Already the count has been marred by the refusal of the Commission to provide copies of the below the line data files to scrutineers as the cont progresses. Why this information was not published on line is any one's guess.
"Ladies and Gentlemen watch me pull an election result out of my hat"
Presumably Steve Tully wants to make a show and dance of the event and bask in then lime light of media as the computer pumps out the results as he puts his ego ahead of maintaining a open and transient election.
Copies of the data-files were available during the 2008 City of Melbourne Municipal election count why weren't available during the State election? We can monitor the polling booth results on election night as they are reported why not watch live the tabulation of the below the line preference votes. Does the commission have something to hide?
In not providing access to the data-files the Commission has denied scrutineers the ability to verify the integrity of the data file used to tabulate the results. It is also impossible to know if the data files has not been altered in anyway. Had copies of the preference data-files been made available or published on line it would have allowed members of the public to maintain a watching brief to ensure that the data record had not changed without validation or appropriate authority.
Steve Tully claims that he is not required to make copies of the data available. Whoever he does have an obligation to ensure that the conduct of the election is open and transparent. Whilst there is no specific regulatory statement that says he must make this data available the reality is there is nothing that prevents or phlebitis him from doing so. In not providing access to this data he has prevented scrutineers from scrutinising the election.
In the absence of self regulation the State Parliament will have to regulate to restore public confidence and ensure that this information is readily available during the next round of elections due in 2008.
Steve Tully has promised he will make copies of the data-file including both the preliminary data-entry and the recheck data-entry verification files immediately after the conclusion of the count.
If as expected Western Metropolitan Region is within 250 votes we can expect a possible recount in which case the Commission must make copies of the the data available as and then data is recorded. already both the green and the ALP have signaled that they will be requesting a recount of the result is close.
Given the history of the VEC under Steve Tully's stewardship anything under 500 votes is worth looking at a second time.
Whilst the counting process has been a marked improvement on the events of 2006 where ballot papers went missing between count A and Count B and the Commission failed to maintain backup copies of crucial below the line preference data files for Western Metro. Over 500 Ballot papers were unaccounted for, double entered or removed from the count. Steve Tully can not afford another stuff-up repeat
Already the count has been marred by the refusal of the Commission to provide copies of the below the line data files to scrutineers as the cont progresses. Why this information was not published on line is any one's guess.
"Ladies and Gentlemen watch me pull an election result out of my hat"
Presumably Steve Tully wants to make a show and dance of the event and bask in then lime light of media as the computer pumps out the results as he puts his ego ahead of maintaining a open and transient election.
Copies of the data-files were available during the 2008 City of Melbourne Municipal election count why weren't available during the State election? We can monitor the polling booth results on election night as they are reported why not watch live the tabulation of the below the line preference votes. Does the commission have something to hide?
In not providing access to the data-files the Commission has denied scrutineers the ability to verify the integrity of the data file used to tabulate the results. It is also impossible to know if the data files has not been altered in anyway. Had copies of the preference data-files been made available or published on line it would have allowed members of the public to maintain a watching brief to ensure that the data record had not changed without validation or appropriate authority.
Steve Tully claims that he is not required to make copies of the data available. Whoever he does have an obligation to ensure that the conduct of the election is open and transparent. Whilst there is no specific regulatory statement that says he must make this data available the reality is there is nothing that prevents or phlebitis him from doing so. In not providing access to this data he has prevented scrutineers from scrutinising the election.
In the absence of self regulation the State Parliament will have to regulate to restore public confidence and ensure that this information is readily available during the next round of elections due in 2008.
Steve Tully has promised he will make copies of the data-file including both the preliminary data-entry and the recheck data-entry verification files immediately after the conclusion of the count.
If as expected Western Metropolitan Region is within 250 votes we can expect a possible recount in which case the Commission must make copies of the the data available as and then data is recorded. already both the green and the ALP have signaled that they will be requesting a recount of the result is close.
Given the history of the VEC under Steve Tully's stewardship anything under 500 votes is worth looking at a second time.
Friday, December 10, 2010
More questions raised about Steve Tully's 2006 Western Metro Count
A number of question have been raised about the data quality and accuracy of Th 2006 Victorian State - Western Metropolitan Region election results.
In 2006 the Victorian Electoral Commission recorded a win for the ALP following the first preliminary count of ballot papers. In the recount there were 500 less ballot papers recorded then the first count and the ALP lost by 127 votes. What was also of interest was that there were 250 ballot papers less than that recorded for the corresponding lower house districts.
The number of total votes should never change between counts. The only reason they could is if there was a mistake in the tabulation of the number of votes or votes went missing between the two counts.
What was of even greater concern is that the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish a copy of the below-the-line preference data-file for the primary count. A copy of the file was requested by the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee to which the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, in giving evidence to the committee responded by stating that the file and been overwritten and there were no copies or backup data files available. Steve Tully was only able to present a copy of the final count data file.
Without access to the primary count data-file there is no means of independently analysing the validity of the election ot the quality of the count. A comparison of the two data files would have shown in detail where and what had changed. The fact that the VEC had not back backup copies of the data raised a number of serious concerns as to the professionalism of the VEC's IT support. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars to collate the election results and it is extraordinary that there was no disaster recovery plan in place. - Something that no Professional IT service would miss.
To add to the questions and uncertainty of the 2006 elections result the number of ballot papers recorded for 2010 Western Metropolitan Region election in comparison to its associated lower-house districts is currently less than 50 votes difference. So just how accurate was was the total vote count in 2006? Has the VEC cooked the books or have they just been more diligent this time around then they were in 2006? We will never know the answers to these questions, without access to the vote preference data files.
This time round there is no excuses. Steve Tully has promised to publish both sets of preference data-files (Why the delay? They should have been available in real time and publihsed live as the count progresses adnas was the case on election night) One file for the primary count and one for the recheck. If there is to be a recount in Western Metropolitan (Which is looking most likely) then hopefully the VEC will also publish the final set of data.
What is clear is that Victoria needs to be vigilant and much more needs to be done to ensure that our electoral system is open and transparent., currently it is not.
In 2006 the Victorian Electoral Commission recorded a win for the ALP following the first preliminary count of ballot papers. In the recount there were 500 less ballot papers recorded then the first count and the ALP lost by 127 votes. What was also of interest was that there were 250 ballot papers less than that recorded for the corresponding lower house districts.
What was of even greater concern is that the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish a copy of the below-the-line preference data-file for the primary count. A copy of the file was requested by the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee to which the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, in giving evidence to the committee responded by stating that the file and been overwritten and there were no copies or backup data files available. Steve Tully was only able to present a copy of the final count data file.
Without access to the primary count data-file there is no means of independently analysing the validity of the election ot the quality of the count. A comparison of the two data files would have shown in detail where and what had changed. The fact that the VEC had not back backup copies of the data raised a number of serious concerns as to the professionalism of the VEC's IT support. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars to collate the election results and it is extraordinary that there was no disaster recovery plan in place. - Something that no Professional IT service would miss.
To add to the questions and uncertainty of the 2006 elections result the number of ballot papers recorded for 2010 Western Metropolitan Region election in comparison to its associated lower-house districts is currently less than 50 votes difference. So just how accurate was was the total vote count in 2006? Has the VEC cooked the books or have they just been more diligent this time around then they were in 2006? We will never know the answers to these questions, without access to the vote preference data files.
This time round there is no excuses. Steve Tully has promised to publish both sets of preference data-files (Why the delay? They should have been available in real time and publihsed live as the count progresses adnas was the case on election night) One file for the primary count and one for the recheck. If there is to be a recount in Western Metropolitan (Which is looking most likely) then hopefully the VEC will also publish the final set of data.
What is clear is that Victoria needs to be vigilant and much more needs to be done to ensure that our electoral system is open and transparent., currently it is not.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Scrutineers denied access to preference data during count
Victoria's Chief Electoral Commissioner, Mr Steve Tully, has refused to provide copies of the below-the-line preference data-files to scrutineers during the conduct of the count. As a result scrutineers have been denied the opportunity to review and verify the integrity of the recorded data-files.Copies of the preference data-files will only be provided after the count has concluded.Copies of preference data-files were available progressively though-out the data-entry process for the 2008 City of Melbourne Municipal Election.
It is impossible to properly scrutinise an electronic count without access to the preference data-file. Elections in Victoria are no longer open and transparent. There is no reason or justification in refusing to make this data available on request. in fact it should be available on line in real time.
In another extraordinary revelation the VEC does not tabulated the number of ballot papers printed, issued and returned for each voting centre. Steve Tully has indicated that a number of ballot papers have gone missing from the count.
Without access to the voting centre returns it is impossible to determine how many ballot papers were not included or may have been omitted from the count
The VEC has spent Millions of dollars developing software duplicating resources that are provided by the Australian Electoral Commission and they have not provided a means of recordeding voting centre declarations electronically. Each district has a number of computer resources and it would not be difficult or costly to have the returning officers transcribe and record the polling place returns into a central database.
The VECs reconciliation report does not include the number of ballot papers printed, issued and receive but only the number counted. Ballot Papers that go missing are not reported to scrutineers.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tully's Tally Lacking Transparency
After much debate and numerous requests Steve Tully has responded indicating that he will be providing copies of the below the line data-files and a summary of votes required per polling place following the completion of primary count.
Whilst this is welcomed it is nevertheless unsatisfactory as the information he has offered to provide is not the tabulation of the polling place returns that record the number of ballot papers printed, issued and received back. It is only a tabulation of what the VEC has recorded as being counted.
Providing copies of the below-the-line performance data-files at the end of the count limits opportunity for the scrutiny of the ballot. Copies of the below the line preference data should be progressively made available in real time or as a minimum every hour or when requested by scrutineers. By progressively publishing the data provides a means of ensuring that the data has not been altered or changed during the count by someone who has gained access to the database. Without this data scrutineers will have no point of reference or means of ensuring the integrity of the data-file. This information was readily available during the during the 2008 City of Melbourne Election, which begs the question "Why is the VEC refusing to do likewise during the State election were the stakes are much higher"
Steve Tully has an obligation to ensure that the conduct of the election is open and transparent. He must ensure that:
- The polling place returns outlining the number of ballot papers printed, issued and returned are tabulated and published as a matter of course.
- Copies of the Below-the-line preference data files MUST be made available on request during the data-entry process and not just at its completion.
- The reconciliation report that compares the polling place returns with the data data and results recorded in the VEC electronic database must also published prior to the completion of the preliminary count .
Anything short of these requirements would continue to bring the VEC counting process into disrepute and undermine public confidence in the validity of the election count.
Maintaining an open and transparent electoral system is fundamental to good governance and public confidence
Posted by: | 07/12/2010 8:12:39 PM
Tully's non Transparent Tally
More and more reports are coming in that the Victorian Electoral Commission is refusing to provide crucial information and statistics on the election count. Keeping scrutineers and candidates in the dark. The VEC is unable to provide information as to the number of ballot papers issued and pretend. They also will not provide copies of the coral below the line preference data files. Without access this information the validity of the election can not be ascertained. Steve tully appears to have something to hide as the conduct of Victoria's election is no longer open and transparent. Hidden away in cyberspace.
Comment from Scrutineers include:
In 2006 Steve Tully falsely claimed that no one has requested access to this information. This is clearly not the case in 2010. The information requested should have been readily available and in not providing it the VEc has once again brought the conduct of the election into disrepute. Without access to this data it is impoossbile to scrutinise an electronic count
Comment from Scrutineers include:
- "Trying to get the information. VEC refusing to provide access to copies of data files. No information on the number of ballot papers issued"
- "There were no data files available upon repeated requests, VEC were not going to hand anything over"
- "Trying to get hold of Nick Rees now"
In 2006 Steve Tully falsely claimed that no one has requested access to this information. This is clearly not the case in 2010. The information requested should have been readily available and in not providing it the VEc has once again brought the conduct of the election into disrepute. Without access to this data it is impoossbile to scrutinise an electronic count
Missing Tally. VEC under review for missing data
The VEC has failed to provide scrutineers and candidates with a list of the number of ballot papers issued for each polling place/voting centre.
Amidst concern that ballot papers may have gone missing or worst still added into the count. Each polling place is required to fill in a declaration return which out lines the number of printed ballot papers they had issued and the number of ballot papers returned. In theory the number of ballot papers issued and the number returned should match. Of course come ballot papers do go missing but this should be recorded on each polling place.
The number of ballot papers issued and returned for the lower house should also match the upper-house as each voter is entitled to two votes.
The VEC should be collecting and collating the information this information which should have been available on the Sunday following the close of the polls. The only unknown quantity is the number of ballot papers that are in the post. (Had the VEC implemented a barcode tacking system available by Australia Post they should also know the number of postal votes)
In the past a scrutineer would have the right to inspect the voting centre return declaration.
In 2006 the VEC failed and refused to make this information available. A copy of the polling place returns requested under FOI was not provided by Steve Tully, Victorian Chief Electoral Officer.
In Western Metropolitan, 2006 the preliminary count showed labor winning the election and a recount was requested. The recount changed the results of the election with the Greens winning a seat at the expense of Labor's fourth seat. One issue that was of considerable concern in the recount was that the second count recorded over 500 less ballot paperswere then was recorded in the primary count. That's 500 ballot papers that were data-entered in wrongly or had gone missing between the two counts. No satisfactory detailed explanation as to where the error had occurred was provided by Steve Tully.
Without access to the tabulated voting centre returns it was impossible to ascertain independently how many ballot papers had been issued and how many returned.
The VEC had been requested to provide a copy of the below the line preference data file for both counts (Count A and Count B) Steve Tully refused to make this data available during and immediately following the count. Copies of the below-the-line preference-data-files were only made available for Count B pursuant to an FOI application. The VEC failed to provide a copy of the data-file recorded for the primary Count B.
Similar problems existed with the 2010 Victorian Senate election, where the AEC refused to provide copies of the below the line preference-data-file to scrutineers. Without access to this data it is impossible for scrutineers to verify the validity and correctness of the data-entry process. The AEC legal officer, Paul Parani, in what was considered an abuse of process, tried to solicit payment of an FOI fee from scutineers in order to gain access to the data-file. Parani tried to claim that the data was only subject to an FOI application. This was not true. This information is a public document and goes to the heart of Australia's electoral process and the need to ensure that the conduct and counting of the election is open and transparent. In not providing this data the electoral process itself is brought into question and disrepute.
There is no legal issue that prevents the publication of of this data. In fact then AEC published the below the line preference data files soon after the declaration of the poll. And in the case of the City of Melbourne election copies of the data files was progressively provided to scrutineers through out the data-entry process
So the question is "why is this data not being made available and what does the Chief Electoral Commision have to hide that he refuses to provide copies of the information requested?"
In the review of the 2006 State election the Victorian Parliament requested that the VEC provide copies of the below-the-line preference data-files and a copy of the polling place return summary. Mr Steve Tully in his evidence given to the Parliament stated that the data for Count A had been deleted and the data overwritten. No back up copies were made and as such he was unable to provide a copy of the data requested. This in spite the requirement of the electoral act that all documents pertaining to the conduct of the election had to be preserved. The fact that the VEC did not make backup copies of the data raised a number of additional questions as to the professionalism and quality of the system put in place. It costs millions of dollars to collate this information and the VEC had no disaster recovery backup process in place.
In 2010 were are seeing the same mistakes being made. The VEC has failed to ensure that the electoral process is open and transparent.
The requirement for an open, transparent and honest election is not too much to ask for. In fact it is expected.
The fact that the VEC is unable to indicate how many ballot papers have been issued and how many returned to date, two weeks after the election, is alarming. The fact that the commission is once again refusing to make available copies of the below-the-line preference-data-files to scrutineers for a second state election in a row brings the electronic counting procedures and tghe VEC into disreputel. It undermines public confidence in our electoral system.
If Steve Tully can not provide copies of the number of ballot papers issued and returned along with copies of the below-the-line preference-data-files to scrutineers then he should be sacked.
Amidst concern that ballot papers may have gone missing or worst still added into the count. Each polling place is required to fill in a declaration return which out lines the number of printed ballot papers they had issued and the number of ballot papers returned. In theory the number of ballot papers issued and the number returned should match. Of course come ballot papers do go missing but this should be recorded on each polling place.
The number of ballot papers issued and returned for the lower house should also match the upper-house as each voter is entitled to two votes.
The VEC should be collecting and collating the information this information which should have been available on the Sunday following the close of the polls. The only unknown quantity is the number of ballot papers that are in the post. (Had the VEC implemented a barcode tacking system available by Australia Post they should also know the number of postal votes)
In the past a scrutineer would have the right to inspect the voting centre return declaration.
In 2006 the VEC failed and refused to make this information available. A copy of the polling place returns requested under FOI was not provided by Steve Tully, Victorian Chief Electoral Officer.
In Western Metropolitan, 2006 the preliminary count showed labor winning the election and a recount was requested. The recount changed the results of the election with the Greens winning a seat at the expense of Labor's fourth seat. One issue that was of considerable concern in the recount was that the second count recorded over 500 less ballot paperswere then was recorded in the primary count. That's 500 ballot papers that were data-entered in wrongly or had gone missing between the two counts. No satisfactory detailed explanation as to where the error had occurred was provided by Steve Tully.
Without access to the tabulated voting centre returns it was impossible to ascertain independently how many ballot papers had been issued and how many returned.
The VEC had been requested to provide a copy of the below the line preference data file for both counts (Count A and Count B) Steve Tully refused to make this data available during and immediately following the count. Copies of the below-the-line preference-data-files were only made available for Count B pursuant to an FOI application. The VEC failed to provide a copy of the data-file recorded for the primary Count B.
Similar problems existed with the 2010 Victorian Senate election, where the AEC refused to provide copies of the below the line preference-data-file to scrutineers. Without access to this data it is impossible for scrutineers to verify the validity and correctness of the data-entry process. The AEC legal officer, Paul Parani, in what was considered an abuse of process, tried to solicit payment of an FOI fee from scutineers in order to gain access to the data-file. Parani tried to claim that the data was only subject to an FOI application. This was not true. This information is a public document and goes to the heart of Australia's electoral process and the need to ensure that the conduct and counting of the election is open and transparent. In not providing this data the electoral process itself is brought into question and disrepute.
There is no legal issue that prevents the publication of of this data. In fact then AEC published the below the line preference data files soon after the declaration of the poll. And in the case of the City of Melbourne election copies of the data files was progressively provided to scrutineers through out the data-entry process
So the question is "why is this data not being made available and what does the Chief Electoral Commision have to hide that he refuses to provide copies of the information requested?"
In the review of the 2006 State election the Victorian Parliament requested that the VEC provide copies of the below-the-line preference data-files and a copy of the polling place return summary. Mr Steve Tully in his evidence given to the Parliament stated that the data for Count A had been deleted and the data overwritten. No back up copies were made and as such he was unable to provide a copy of the data requested. This in spite the requirement of the electoral act that all documents pertaining to the conduct of the election had to be preserved. The fact that the VEC did not make backup copies of the data raised a number of additional questions as to the professionalism and quality of the system put in place. It costs millions of dollars to collate this information and the VEC had no disaster recovery backup process in place.
In 2010 were are seeing the same mistakes being made. The VEC has failed to ensure that the electoral process is open and transparent.
The requirement for an open, transparent and honest election is not too much to ask for. In fact it is expected.
The fact that the VEC is unable to indicate how many ballot papers have been issued and how many returned to date, two weeks after the election, is alarming. The fact that the commission is once again refusing to make available copies of the below-the-line preference-data-files to scrutineers for a second state election in a row brings the electronic counting procedures and tghe VEC into disreputel. It undermines public confidence in our electoral system.
If Steve Tully can not provide copies of the number of ballot papers issued and returned along with copies of the below-the-line preference-data-files to scrutineers then he should be sacked.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Keeping candidates in the dark: Tully's ultra secret ballot an abuse of process
Victoria's Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steven Tully, has responded to Nathan Murphy's request for a tabulation list of ballot papers. Information requested is not available. The Electoral Commission's failure to provide this data has brought the conduct of the election into disrepute as the counting is no longer open and transparent. It is unclear if Mr Tully will make available copies of the below-the-line preference data-files as the data-entry of below the line ballot papers progresses. This information was readily available during the conduct of the City of Melbourne count.
Without access to this information it is impossible for scrutineers to verify the data recorded or undertake a proper scrutiny of the ballot. It is like running a marathon blind folded without knowing the direction or where the finish line is.
There is nothing in the legislation or the requirements to maintain a secret ballot that prevents this information being made available and open to public scrutiny. This information is normally available to scrutineers. Its been over one week and the Commission is still in the dark as to how many ballot papers have been issued and received. Without this information who would we now if ballot papers have not been added or removed from the count. We don't know, The system used is not transparent or informative.
Mr Tully's failure to make provide the information requested has raising ongoing concern over the conduct of electronic counting of the the election with reports that a large number of ballot papers are missing from the count.
In 2006, Western Metropolitan Region, over 500 ballot papers went missing between Count A and Count B. No proper or detailed explanation has been given as to what happened to these votes. The Commission refused to make copies of the below-the-line preference data files for each count available.
When copies of the preference data-files pertaining to Count A were requested by the State Parliament's Electoral Matters Committee Steve Tully claimed that the data had been destroyed and overwritten and that no backups of the data were made.
The fact that no backups were made raised a number of concerns as to the professionalism of the conduct and management of the electronic count. It cost 100,000's of dollars to collate this information and the Commission failed to make backups of the crucial data files. In not providing access to this data there was no means of verify the accuracy of the record entered by the Victorian Electoral Commission. In 2006 Western Metropolitan Region the results of the election changed between Count A and Count B with a winning margin of just 127 votes.
There is nothing in the legislation or the requirements to maintain a secret ballot that prevents this information being made available and open to public scrutiny. This information is normally available to scrutineers. Its been over one week and the Commission is still in the dark as to how many ballot papers have been issued and received. Without this information who would we now if ballot papers have not been added or removed from the count. We don't know, The system used is not transparent or informative.
Mr Tully's failure to make provide the information requested has raising ongoing concern over the conduct of electronic counting of the the election with reports that a large number of ballot papers are missing from the count.
In 2006, Western Metropolitan Region, over 500 ballot papers went missing between Count A and Count B. No proper or detailed explanation has been given as to what happened to these votes. The Commission refused to make copies of the below-the-line preference data files for each count available.
When copies of the preference data-files pertaining to Count A were requested by the State Parliament's Electoral Matters Committee Steve Tully claimed that the data had been destroyed and overwritten and that no backups of the data were made.
The fact that no backups were made raised a number of concerns as to the professionalism of the conduct and management of the electronic count. It cost 100,000's of dollars to collate this information and the Commission failed to make backups of the crucial data files. In not providing access to this data there was no means of verify the accuracy of the record entered by the Victorian Electoral Commission. In 2006 Western Metropolitan Region the results of the election changed between Count A and Count B with a winning margin of just 127 votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)