Antony Green,
Can you show me where in the Act it states that they have the authority to
remove from the total, formal votes that exhaust early.
Thereby stating that unless you vote for one of the major parties your
ballot will be removed from the total number of ballots making your vote
null and void.
Antony, 50% plus 1 of the electorate is exactly that.
In the seat of KAWANA;
Representative PrimaryVotes PrefFromPHON TotalInc Pref
Exhausted PHON
ALP 10065 1311
11376
LIB 9023 1133
10156
PHON 4524
2080
========== ============
========= ==========
Total Formal Votes 23612 2444
Required 50% plus 1 = (23612 divided by 2) plus 1 = 11807
The reality of this situation is that the exhausted 2080 votes from PHON are
excluded from the total count. That is 8.8% of that electorate has been
disenfranchised. IE Your vote is not part of the total electorate.
So the new Total ballots remaining is reduced by 2080 ballots. IE 23612 -
2080 = new total formal votes 21532.
That means that 2080 ballots were valid in the first count and invalid in
the second count.
Where is the Authority to remove 2080 ballots from the total formal ballots
of the seat of KAWANA?
If 100% of the ballot is counted to determine who has gained 50% plus 1 of
the ballot. Then why are you stating that 2080 ballots will be removed from
the ballot. Again where is the Authority to remove those ballots from the
total. The whole reason for counting preferences is because no one has got
50% plus 1 ballots of the total formal ballots of the electorate in the
first count.
So then in the second count 2080 ballots are removed from the total formal
ballot.
100% of the Seat of KAWANA is 23612
50% plus 1 of the seat of KAWANA is (23612 divided by 2) plus 1 = 11807
Your version is:
100% is 23612 - 2080ballots = "21532" - What happened to the 2080 people's
ballots.
50% plus 1 = (21532 divided by 2) plus 1 = 10767 of your culled electored.
If you new who they were you may as well write a letter to those 2080
electors and tell them their ballots will not be required at the next
election.
Democracy, yeah right 100% of the electorate less 8.8% equals 91.2% of the
electorate. That better 50% plus 1 of 91.2% of the electorate, there you go
if you fudge the numbers you can make anything look right.
I suggest you take out the act and read what it says, not what think it
says.
Antony I've just realised who you are. You're the guy that was tapping at
the notebook computer on election night!
Regards Jess
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antony Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Wolter Joosse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sunday"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"'Queensland Radio'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ourradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruce
Kirkpatrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Derek Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Neil Baird"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ian McLeod"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "City Country Alliance"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Selwyn Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian McDermott"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "McGuinness, Paddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Dorothy Pratt MLA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Neither Newsgroup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ron Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John
Pasquarelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paterson, Ian"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tony Pitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom Round"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Sheehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Graham Strachan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Queensland Times'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Darryl Wheeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jess Perez"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Letters The Australian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Noel Preston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Peter Brun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 01 March, 2001 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more
than help Mr O'Shea
Jim,
The Queensland electoral act states that for a candidate to be declared
elected after preferences, they only require a majority of the votes with
continuing preferences remaining in the count. Candidates are validly
elected even if they do not have a majority of the formal vote. They only
need a majority of votes remaining in the count. There is no such thing as
a 'failed election'.
This has always been so in both New South Wales and Queensland since the
introduction of optional preferential voting.
What you are talking about with 'failed' elections exists in some parts of
the United States, and are generally followed by run-off elections between
leading candidates. Run-off elections were used briefly in NSW between 1910
and 1917, but to my knowledge, have never otherwise been used in Australia.
As I have explained to you in the past, the provision in the Commonwealth
Electoral Act which you claim can force a 'failed election' is not there
for the purpose you claim. This bears no relevance anyway to where optional
preferential voting is used.
Antony Green
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general
discussion.
To unsubscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
