See Below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antony Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jess Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 02 March, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more
than help Mr O'Shea
Antony,
As you have supplied the extract from the Queensland Electoral Act, I again
bring to your attention that the Act does not give anyone the Authority to
remove exhausted ballots from the count. It only states that,
(7) On the second count--
(a) the candidate who has the fewest first preference votes must be
excluded; and
(b) each ballot paper recording a first preference vote for that
candidate that is not exhausted must be transferred
to the candidate next in the order of the voter's preference; and
(it does not contiune saying that exhausted ballot papers are to be removed
from the count.)
*** Well what happens to them. If a ballot paper does not provide a
preference for a candidate remaining in the count, why should it be part of
determining which of the remaining candidates wins? ***
jess>> They cannot be distributed to other candidates because the elector
chose not to preference any other candidate and their ballot is kept as part of
the total because what is being determined is who has the majority of the ballot
with or without preferences. If there is no majority clear winner then you have
to
go to another election with candidates and policies that the majority agree
with.
This way Politicians may actually start representing the electorate rather than
is
the case, their party.
(c) that ballot paper must be counted as a vote for that candidate.
*** They are not removed from the count, but as they must be with a
candidate continuing in the count, and an excluded candidate cannot be a
continuing candidate, they become exhausted votes. The only votes remaining
in the count are those that lie with candidates still in the count. Votes
with candidate not in the count can't actually be votes remaining in the
count. ***
jess>> So your logic is that in a seat with say 5 candidates running it is
possible that
the "winner" may have won on a little over 1/5 fifth of that electorates total
formal votes
if they all chose not to exercise their preference vote.
If that is Democracy and a fair election where 4/5 fifths of the electorate did
not vote for the winner
what does that tell you?
It does not state that the exhausted ballot paper must be excluded from the
count, just the candidate is excluded from the count.
*** But nor can exhausted preferences remain with the excluded candidate,
because that candidate is no longer in the count. They are set aside
outside of the remaining votes in the count as exhausted.***
jess>> The votes are not the candidates votes. They are ballots on which the
elector has
nominated their preference or preferences for a candidate in the running to
represent them
in that electorate. If enough of the total electors in that electorate agree the
candidate wins
otherwise put up another candidate that the majority will agree to.
That is why preferences that are not exhausted are passed to the remaining
candidates according to the preference indicated on the ballot.
An election win is based 50% plus 1 of 100% of formal ballots not 92.1% of
formal ballots as in the KAWANA seat where 8.8% of the ballot papers have
been removed from the ballot/count.
*** There is not one statement in the electoral act that says that the
majority must be of formal votes, except on the first count. ****
jess>>Correct, because the candidates are all in the running while they are
establishing what the total count is, based on total formal first preferences.
In KAWANA that total count was 23612. Because none had the required
11807 votes majority the second count is started to distribute preferences
to see who gains the required minimum of 11807. After preferences the
closest was Labour with 11376 unfortunately that is 431 votes short of
50% plus 1 of the count 23612. This seat is a failed election bring on the
candidates that the majority of the electorate agree to.
I can understand your confusion being so involved in the Election Process,
"that you can't see the forest for the trees".
*** Gratuitous nonsense. If you want to waste money with lawyers
challenging the result on the basis of your argument you are entirely
entitled to it. Exhausted votes do not lie with candidate remaining in the
count, therefore they cannot be votes in the count. Optional preferential
voting has operated in this way in Australia for many decades. You would be
asking the courts to re-interpret the laws as they have always been applied
and using a semantics argument about what are votes "remaining in the
count" which I do not think has any legal basis. ***
jess>> It may be Gratuitous nonsense in your view but where will the Democrates,
Greens, Nationals, and Liberals be when they have no hope of againing seats
because they are "no longer remaining in the count". You and the electors of
QLD
are being hoodwinked by the ALP on wording "remaining in the count" and you
can't see it.
jess>> Regards Jess Perez
jess>>PS Just because something has been done a particular way for decades it
does
not mean that it is correct and we should not look to make it right. As in free
democratic and fair elections.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
