LIVE Federal Election Coverage 2016

[telsor]

Very different situation here as to what occurred with the WA Senate in 2013. There the AEC publicly admitted to losing 1300 votes, given the way preferences worked then and the cut of for winning or losing was the matter of some 200 votes it was also going to a by-election. Here there are no missing votes. If people chose not to vote that is not grounds for a by-election, so really can't see them being successful. An appeal will just further weak the government and get the Senate more hostile.

I doubt the senate will give a crap. Only the ALP would have their nose put out, and they're going to be voting against almost every time regardless, and it's unlikely the other senators would nearly enough of a crap about a HoR seat for it to affect their voting intentions in the slightest.

As for WA, that was just an example, but 1300 votes over there is <0.1% of the vote. If the Libs can show ~100 voters had unreasonable trouble voting (especially from a group like the military, who would be more likely to vote LNP), that would be an equivalent proportion. Hell, if there were even 38 missing they'd have a case...After all, the High court (as CofDR) ruled that in WA because the missing votes exceeded the margin, that the only acceptable remedy was to have another vote.

As I said before the election the Senate was always going to be more hostile after a DD. What is clear now is that the shift away from major parties has continued. Those who voted for Palmer last time have been looking elsewhere this time, so where did the Palmer vote go:

Qld - One Nation. Hanson picked up most of it, but it is also worth noting that between Liberal Democrats, Glenn Lazurus & NXT they got 5% too.
Tas - Lambie retained it.
Vic - Darryn Hinch picked it up, plus some. Will be interesting if he gets a 6 year term where this goes, because despite him having a party it is very much a personal vote.
NSW - One Nation got the biggest slice, but spread across a number of minors.
SA - swing back to the major parties oddly enough.
WA - refer NSW.

Agree, but it's not just PP voters looking for a new 'home', LNP, ALP & Green all got fewer senate votes, so it was a general drift away. (in HoR, they got fewer collectively).

 

[telsor]

Wilkie has not given any assurance of confidence or supply. He's said something like that he'd only support a motion of no confidence if it was warranted.

He's my local member and been very clear on this.

Wilkie would be quicker to vote against LNP on such a thing than ALP/Greens. I'm sure for him cause for it to be considered 'warranted' would be very easily found.

 

[Pessimistic]

ALP will probably support more than 80% legislation as has been the custom from both sides in opposition

The disputed returns in interesting If they say a group of people wanted to vote but could not - can that ruling then be disputed in other seats?

I don't think the ALP will be quite as constantly mischevious as the abbot pyne pair were. wouldn't even do pairings to attend funerals etc

 

[Slax]

I doubt the senate will give a crap. Only the ALP would have their nose put out, and they're going to be voting against almost every time regardless, and it's unlikely the other senators would nearly enough of a crap about a HoR seat for it to affect their voting intentions in the slightest.

As for WA, that was just an example, but 1300 votes over there is <0.1% of the vote. If the Libs can show ~100 voters had unreasonable trouble voting (especially from a group like the military, who would be more likely to vote LNP), that would be an equivalent proportion. Hell, if there were even 38 missing they'd have a case...After all, the High court (as CofDR) ruled that in WA because the missing votes exceeded the margin, that the only acceptable remedy was to have another vote.

Think it is a bit of a dummy spit but in the end nothing will eventuate.

Agree, but it's not just PP voters looking for a new 'home', LNP, ALP & Green all got fewer senate votes, so it was a general drift away. (in HoR, they got fewer collectively).

Greens actually did very well in the HoR with a total swing of 1.58% to them (213k votes) so I'd even exclude them from the big two as they are really only a side player in the HoR.

Voters are definitely look for a third option, its just that they are different choices in each state. A third option is clear in Qld, SA, Vic & Tas (Wilkie holds 1 of 5 seats) so its a question of can anyone emerge in WA and NSW where the same level of discontent is evident.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

WA Senate finalised: 5 Liberal, 4 Labor, 2 Greens, 1 One Nation.

 

[telsor]

Think it is a bit of a dummy spit but in the end nothing will eventuate.

I think it's mostly just the press reporting the bleeding obvious because they can.

A margin of 37 votes will always be looked at closely, even more so in a close election, and all they're reporting so far is that the LNP is looking at it...Of course they are!

Greens actually did very well in the HoR with a total swing of 1.58% to them (213k votes) so I'd even exclude them from the big two as they are really only a side player in the HoR.

Yes/No. They're on the cusp of being a major...I think the electorate in nuanced enough to recognise where votes can matter, so voting Green is still a protest in the HoR (except for a few seats), making them a 'minor' party there, but in the senate where they're a 'fixture' and votes for them matter, they're considered part of the 'establishment' and thus a major party and consequently votes were lost.

Voters are definitely look for a third option, its just that they are different choices in each state. A third option is clear in Qld, SA, Vic & Tas (Wilkie holds 1 of 5 seats) so its a question of can anyone emerge in WA and NSW where the same level of discontent is evident.

I must admit, I look at the 'reason' for the Senate as the 'state' house, and I do think that some groups standing purely/mostly for state issues there wouldn't be such a bad thing. There needs to be a lot more movement away from the blinkered us/them left/right progressive/conservative mindset for that to actually be workable though, and I think currently we're going through the rather painful process of senators learning to compromise. I dare say for it to really work, we need to break free of the rigid party loyalty/discipline of the big players..and that isn't going to happen while the money is controlled centrally.

 

[Maggie5]

WA Previously 6 Lib, 3 lab, 2 Greens, 1 PUP.
Libs lost one?

 

[Slax]

Had a second look at the AEC Senate declaration and they have declared an order of elected, which would suggest that they are making the recommendation of who gets 6 year terms. Elected order is:

1. Eric Abetz - Liberal
2. Anne Urquhart - ALP
3. Peter Whish-Wilson - Greens
4. Jacqui Lambie - JLN
5. Stephen Parry - Liberal
6. Helen Polley - ALP

7. Jonathan Duniam - Liberal *new (another dud politician who has never worked outside of the party system)
8. Carol Brown - ALP
9. David Bushby - Liberal
10. Lisa Singh - ALP (elected below the line)
11. Catryna Bilyk - ALP
12. Nick McKim - Greens

This would suggest that Pauline Hanson will get a full term as she achieved over a full quota, whilst Darryn Hinch will get a half term as he failed to get a full quota. Will also mean that the Senators from Greens who will get elected in Qld & SA will also only get half terms.

 

[telsor]

WA Senate finalised: 5 Liberal, 4 Labor, 2 Greens, 1 One Nation.

As with Tas, votes didn't exhaust nearly as much as I expected.

85766, or a bit over 6% (from memory, Tas was about 3.5%, the difference probably being due to the much bigger ballot sheet in WA).

There were some significant exhaustion numbers towards the end though.

For example when the Australian Christians candidate was excluded, of the 37483 votes transferred 14258 exhausted.

Also, the last exclusion was the Nationals...65112 votes transferred, and with only the Greens or One Notion remaining as other options, over half, 36,723 decided on 'none of the above'.

 

[telsor]

Had a second look at the AEC Senate declaration and they have declared an order of elected, which would suggest that they are making the recommendation of who gets 6 year terms. Elected order is:

1. Eric Abetz - Liberal
2. Anne Urquhart - ALP
3. Peter Whish-Wilson - Greens
4. Jacqui Lambie - JLN
5. Stephen Parry - Liberal
6. Helen Polley - ALP

7. Jonathan Duniam - Liberal *new (another dud politician who has never worked outside of the party system)
8. Carol Brown - ALP
9. David Bushby - Liberal
10. Lisa Singh - ALP (elected below the line)
11. Catryna Bilyk - ALP
12. Nick McKim - Greens

This would suggest that Pauline Hanson will get a full term as she achieved over a full quota, whilst Darryn Hinch will get a half term as he failed to get a full quota. Will also mean that the Senators from Greens who will get elected in Qld & SA will also only get half terms.

There is actually a formal process that is supposed to be carried out...They 'recount' the vote as if there were only 6 seats (and only allowing those 12 to 'win') and they get the longer terms, but ultimately the Senate can make up their own minds and last time they overruled the agreed process.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Interesting part for me was how few votes exhausted. 9310 (~3%) is a lot less than I'd have expected. I wonder if that will hold up elsewhere..especially as other states will have bigger ballot papers.

As for the result, Tas is leftie central, so 8-4 was always the most likely result. Most likely other option was One Notion getting up, which wouldn't exactly have been helpful to the Libs anyway.

I think only two challenges in the court of disputed returns have succeeded. Imagine it will be a tough ask to get up.

The so called soldiers not being able to vote will hardly be enough, when it can be argued that arrangements should have been made to cast postal or absentee ballots.

 

[telsor]

I think only two challenges in the court of disputed returns have succeeded. Imagine it will be a tough ask to get up.

The so called soldiers not being able to vote will hardly be enough, when it can be argued that arrangements should have been made to cast postal or absentee ballots.

(I think you quoted the wrong post)

If the court determines that enough people were somehow prevented from voting, then there can be a by election.

What constitutes such prevention and how it would need to be proven are another matter.

For example, if the soldiers had a reasonable expectation that there to be a booth setup (either because it had happened previously, or they'd been told it would) and it didn't happen, then that they could have put in a postal or absentee ballot wont matter and it could be argued they were prevented from voting.

I'm not saying this is the case...I have no idea. I'm just saying that in a close count, in a close election, it's not unreasonable for the losing party to look into all such matters and if they think there is enough of a case, take it to the CoDR to make their judgement. Indeed, I'd say the losing party would be derelict in their duty if they didn't look into such things.

 

[Slax]

WA Senate finalised: 5 Liberal, 4 Labor, 2 Greens, 1 One Nation.

Haven't seen confirmation of the order elected. But scanning the declaration with the counts, would suggest the 6 year terms will go as follows:

Liberal 3
Labor 2
Green 1

Meaning up next time
Liberal 2
Labor 2
Green 1
One Nation 1

Actually pretty happy with this result as called it right, final count was WA Nationals v Greens and Greens got up. So just leaves Qld really to see who gets the 12th seat for the final breakdown.

Greens will be very happy to keep both in WA, Coalition disappointed didn't get the WA National up as notionally a coalition member. Greens now looking like having 9 Senators (expect them to get 2 in Vic) which is only a loss of 1 in a DD election so pretty good. SO much for the doomsayers saying they'd get 5 or 6 shortly after counting started.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

(I think you quoted the wrong post)

If the court determines that enough people were somehow prevented from voting, then there can be a by election.

What constitutes such prevention and how it would need to be proven are another matter.

For example, if the soldiers had a reasonable expectation that there to be a booth setup (either because it had happened previously, or they'd been told it would) and it didn't happen, then that they could have put in a postal or absentee ballot wont matter and it could be argued they were prevented from voting.

I'm not saying this is the case...I have no idea. I'm just saying that in a close count, in a close election, it's not unreasonable for the losing party to look into all such matters and if they think there is enough of a case, take it to the CoDR to make their judgement. Indeed, I'd say the losing party would be derelict in their duty if they didn't look into such things.

The army being disorganised is not a good reason for a by-election. There would've been 100 conversations in the lead-up to the election regarding what the deal was with voting. Stumbling upon the day only to find no booth nearby seems highly unlikely. The story seems like just classic LNP entitlement, pretending that they 'deserve' to win.

 

[JackOutback]

I don't think the ALP will be quite as constantly mischevious as the abbot pyne pair were. wouldn't even do pairings to attend funerals etc

What a vile pair they were.

 

[telsor]

The army being disorganised is not a good reason for a by-election. There would've been 100 conversations in the lead-up to the election regarding what the deal was with voting. Stumbling upon the day only to find no booth nearby seems highly unlikely. The story seems like just classic LNP entitlement, pretending that they 'deserve' to win.

Not an army issue, it's an AEC issue, and don't pretend that it would be any different if the ALP was the one down by 37 votes and they got a sniff of votes unable to be cast.

Both parties, when on the losing side, would look into it more closely (which is all that's happened so far), and moreover, both parties SHOULD look into it more closely, because by doing so, they keep the AEC on the ball, and ensure that the vote is as full and fair as possible, which is, after all, what we want in a democracy, isn't it?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Not an army issue, it's an AEC issue, and don't pretend that it would be any different if the ALP was the one down by 37 votes and they got a sniff of votes unable to be cast.

Both parties, when on the losing side, would look into it more closely (which is all that's happened so far), and moreover, both parties SHOULD look into it more closely, because by doing so, they keep the AEC on the ball, and ensure that the vote is as full and fair as possible, which is, after all, what we want in a democracy, isn't it?

"A Defence spokesman told AAP on Friday that 1371 members voted at seven polling stations at Exercise Hamel. Another 1371 members were taken to civilian polling stations in Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie or Kadina to cast their vote. But 628 Army members did not cast their votes."

Sounds like the AEC did provide booths. And, yes, I do think it would be different. There would be thousands of people who could say that the new stricter rules around polling places meant they didn't get to vote. Army members in particular should be organised. They would've seen this coming for months.

If the vote was closer there may be a need for court action. But the re-count would've been closely watched and the result was ~40, right?

 

[AM]

"A Defence spokesman told AAP on Friday that 1371 members voted at seven polling stations at Exercise Hamel. Another 1371 members were taken to civilian polling stations in Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie or Kadina to cast their vote. But 628 Army members did not cast their votes."

Sounds like the AEC did provide booths. And, yes, I do think it would be different. There would be thousands of people who could say that the new stricter rules around polling places meant they didn't get to vote. Army members in particular should be organised. They would've seen this coming for months.

If the vote was closer there may be a need for court action. But the re-count would've been closely watched and the result was ~40, right?

37 votes was the margin.When you consider there are approaching 95,000 voters that's a small margin. A challenge to the C of DR is reasonable and I'm no reactionary.

 

[Gough]

The greater the need for party room discipline, the better it is for Turnbull, this might not be a bad result for him.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

37 votes was the margin.When you consider there are approaching 95,000 voters that's a small margin. A challenge to the C of DR is reasonable and I'm no reactionary.

For no reason? If we think that a closely scrutineered re-count could be that wrong then how reliable are the results which aren't being scrutineered closely? And Telsor is talking about a by-election.

 

[AM]

For no reason? If we think that a closely scrutineered re-count could be that wrong then how reliable are the results which aren't being scrutineered closely? And Telsor is talking about a by-election.

Of course there would have to be a basis for the challenge. Following are a few suggested by Crikey.

Whether it gets up and if it does what the C of DR finds - who knows. All I'm saying is in such a close result a party would be negligent in not checking out every possibility.

 

[telsor]

"A Defence spokesman told AAP on Friday that 1371 members voted at seven polling stations at Exercise Hamel. Another 1371 members were taken to civilian polling stations in Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie or Kadina to cast their vote. But 628 Army members did not cast their votes."

Sounds like the AEC did provide booths. And, yes, I do think it would be different. There would be thousands of people who could say that the new stricter rules around polling places meant they didn't get to vote. Army members in particular should be organised. They would've seen this coming for months.

If the vote was closer there may be a need for court action. But the re-count would've been closely watched and the result was ~40, right?

40, out of ~100,000 is too big a margin to even be looked at?

Remember, that's all they're doing...Looking to see if there is cause. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has actually done anything official yet.

Just why do you think the ALP would do anything different?

Both sides are interested in power, and will use any legal (and some questionable) means to gain it.

If you don't realise that, you really need to get out and smell the roses more...and don't be surprised if you catch a whiff of fertiliser.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

40, out of ~100,000 is too big a margin to even be looked at?

Remember, that's all they're doing...Looking to see if there is cause. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has actually done anything official yet.

Just why do you think the ALP would do anything different?

Both sides are interested in power, and will use any legal (and some questionable) means to gain it.

If you don't realise that, you really need to get out and smell the roses more...and don't be surprised if you catch a whiff of fertiliser.

Perhaps you should check your own posting history before casting aspersions. You have suggested that the army members failing to vote is a reason for a by-election. It looks to me like a failure of Army organisation. Why you wouldn't just postal the lot of them if they're in the middle of an operation? Seems cheaper and easier than interrupting it all, but then logistics is something the Army is especially good at, so perhaps you should provide your reasoning for suggesting the AEC are at fault. There needs to be a good reason for a by-election, and you haven't provided one.

Nor have you answered the conundrum that apparently our counting isn't that reliable. It took weeks, remember. Weeks of close scrutineering. If that many people are creating border-line illegible ballots then shouldn't the AEC be telling us what the problem is so we can try and solve it?

 

[telsor]

For no reason? If we think that a closely scrutineered re-count could be that wrong then how reliable are the results which aren't being scrutineered closely? And Telsor is talking about a by-election.

No, I'm saying it's very reasonable for parties to be LOOKING at the circumstances, and if they feel it warrants it, ASKING the CoDR to determine if those circumstances mean the result is still valid. Along way short of a by-election.

As I said, I don't know the circumstances...I just think that if it's close, then it's fair and reasonable to look closely. Indeed, I'd consider it an obligation to do so.

As for Scrutineering..I'm not aware of anyone objecting to how that was done, but if people who can/should vote are unable to, then you can't scrutineer votes that aren't made, can you?

WA got a state wide senate 'by election' due to 1300 votes missing, because the CoDR ruled that it was bigger than the margin, and therefore the only remedy was to do it again.

*IF* someone finds that >37 votes are missing in Herbert for whatever reason, then why the hell wouldn't they ask the CoDR to rule?


Checking like this is what ensures the process is done right, and that the AEC does it's job right. I know on election day a friend of mine in New England couldn't vote absentee because she hadn't updated her details they didn't have the right papers for her old electorate (somewhere in Canberra)...Now it doesn't really matter much to the result, because neither ACT seat is exactly marginal, but how would you feel if she was from Townsville? Should we accept it that the AEC just doesn't bother distributing such things or should people look closely at the results and call them on their 'errors'?

So to keep the AEC on their toes, and minimise cases like the above, results should be checked closely, and 'irregularities' examined, and to be realistic, this is only going to be done by the losing party in a close result because they're the only ones with sufficient self interest and motivation to put the time/money/effort into it.

That said, I don't care which party it is, they should ALL do it, and as I said before, I think they'd be derelict in their duties if they didn't. Hell, I'd be happy for there to be a law dictating that an inquiry be made into any that are under, say, 0.1% (~1000 votes) just to keep the AEC on their toes.


Look at some of the question marks that come up over voting in the US and tell me if you think the AEC shouldn't be scrutinised regularly and thoroughly.

 

[telsor]

Perhaps you should check your own posting history before casting aspersions. You have suggested that the army members failing to vote is a reason for a by-election.

where did I say that?

I've been all about the process as, as I've frequently said, I don't know the details.

It looks to me like a failure of Army organisation. Why you wouldn't just postal the lot of them if they're in the middle of an operation? Seems cheaper and easier than interrupting it all, but then logistics is something the Army is especially good at, so perhaps you should provide your reasoning for suggesting the AEC are at fault. There needs to be a good reason for a by-election, and you haven't provided one.

Even if you're right, you're talking about a Government body stuffing up and preventing critical votes...yeah, no reason to look into that...

CoDR has ruled that a good reason for a by election is sufficient votes missing that the result could be changed. I don't know if this qualifies, but I do know it should be looked into.

Nor have you answered the conundrum that apparently our counting isn't that reliable. It took weeks, remember. Weeks of close scrutineering. If that many people are creating border-line illegible ballots then shouldn't the AEC be telling us what the problem is so we can try and solve it?

Who said that? Not I.

If they count 90,000 ballots, and do so perfectly, but 50 more people were unable to vote, then it's not a counting issue. The issue is why those 50 couldn't vote.


I repeat, I don't know if 50 people couldn't vote. I don't know if 1 person couldn't vote. I'm saying that if the is any question that the election did not produce the correct result, for whatever then it should be looked at. If that examination find there might be sufficient verifiable proof that the correct result was not obtained, then it should be taken to the CoDR to determine if this is indeed the case and what should be done about it.