One in five Australians failed to vote. Why is the requirement to attend the ballot box being ignored by so many?
Is it time to change the law and, if so, in what way?
Is the Electoral Commission right to excuse older people who fail to vote?

Where did you pull that number from?

Even if it is an accurate number, it is meaningless unless we understand how the numbers break down.

How many failed because the process is too difficult to get right (unintentionally spoiled papers)

Or because they withheld their vote deliberately (informal)

Or because they weren't enrolled properly (system failure)

Or... etc.

If there really are large numbers of people withholding their vote deliberately, I say i) good on 'em and ii) perhaps it is time to join the list of civilized countries where voting is not mandatory.

Electoral Commission figures Freediver
As I understand it Pericles this is the difference between the number of people who are enrolled to vote and the number of people who had their names marked off the roll. I may be wrong but I believe the informal votes were included in the latter figure so we are looking at people who did not get their names marked off the roll.
I queried this figure because it seemed so high but apparently it is correct...still seems strange to me - which is why I started the thread because I am still puzzled by it

Can you give a link?

Voting is a responsibility, not a priviledge. Voting is an irrational act if given the choice, due to the effort required and the low liklihood of your vote making a difference to you. By making it optional, you confine government to representing the irrational.

Thanks for answering Freediver's question, Communicat. Mine would have been exactly the same.

Where specifically did this claimed Electoral Commission figure come from? Is/was it on a web page anywhere, and if so have you downloaded or taken a screenshot of that page? Can you give us a link? Did it come from a news report? Did you see it in printed form with your own eyes? Did it relate to this Federal election, or was it in connection with a by-election at some previous time?

Your claim, if true, is of immense significance. At previous Federal elections the number of the enrolled who appear to have failed to vote has been of the order of 5% of the total number of names carried on the roll. One in five persons from amongst those who are electorally enrolled represents around a 20% apparent failure to vote. A huge change!

AEC research done in 1989 revealed that only around 85% of Australians eligible for electoral enrolment claimed in fact to be enrolled. There was a particularly marked propensity among the newly eligible, the 18 to 20 year olds, not to have effected their enrolment. If Ed Coper (the Campaigns Coordinator for GetUp! Action for Australia), together with outgoing Special Minister of State, Gary Nairn, are to be believed, this situation has persisted up until the present day.

Your claim, if substantiated, when taken together with the estimates of the proportion of the eligible population who fail to enroll would mean that approaching 35% of electorally eligible Australians are not exercising their electoral rights. This is not too far from the 58% voter turn-out of 1922, before voting, and later enrolment, became compulsory.

The big problem is that it appears that when the actual enrolment figures are compared with estimates of the number of electorally eligible Australians derived from official population statistics, enrolment appears to be close to, or in excess of, 100% of the possible. Which sets of figures are correct, and why do they differ? They should give the same answer!

The figure could just not be in yet, flat out counting and re counting time has surely not been given to such a count.
And informal votes are counted as not voting? no way.
However it is cute, the idea and thread I mean, all day Sunday conservatives put the in boot in my in my red neck shopping village.
Compulsory voting they told me was the problem, one shouted while ever we had it we would never get good government!
Did he think Howard was good government? near stoped him breathing.
Votes including massive numbers who have never voted other than conservative have spoken.
It was not long term ALP voters who removed John Howard, it was his abandoned new conservatives his Aussie Battlers who removed him ,even from his seat!
Cop it sweet Communicat I have extreme joy overload you add to it with this thread.
Ease your pain on this , I have a brother who votes Liberal only , his understanding stops at that he is so hurt his hero Howard got beat by that woman!

The information that I've been given from elderly relatives (over 80s)
is that they don't have to vote - once they reach that age. A great many of them - choose not to vote - because they feel they don't known enough about the politics of the day, least of all the candidates in their area. So they prefer - to not vote. (Rather than make a bad judgement). Perhaps it's just as well...

It's disappointing IF 1 in 5 didn't vote,although until all the postals are counted we haven't got a full run down.With donkey votes do they go to the sitting member,this is the only way we can can work out how we ended up with a donkey getting elected in our local seat?

The figures came from someone at the Electoral Commission. I just rang Andrew and asked him where he got it from. His exact response:

"It is based on the difference between the number of people enrolled to vote in an electorate and the number of ballot papers placed in the boxes. That number has to match the number of people marked off the actual roll as well."

(They count the papers as they are put in the boxes so it has nothing at all to do with the counting of the actual votes.)

Hope that answers the question because I am off for the day!

So this one in five figure includes those who didn't vote for a perfectly good reason - eg because they are dead?

Compulsory voting gets a big thumbs up from me, and I was immensely pleased to see the piffling number of votes recieved by those advocates of mass immigration, the cec and ldp. I took the time to number my senate vote so I could put these clowns last.

Come the number is untrue, visit the electoral page or ABC elections.
About 79% is counted in most seats, no more yet, postal votes will take days maybe weeks.
informal votes are sometimes running about 2% but how can you say 1 in 5 and expect us to believe it.
Donkey vote? is this page called inside politics?
Number one gets it via top to bottom voters 1234 extra.
In a forum called inside politics some understanding is called for former conservative voters gave the win to Labor, a massive historic victory can anyone doubt the voters intent?

freediver,

Here's the link we need: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTurnoutByState-13745.htm

I'm astounded that the AEC have posted this page! I can't believe these figures, as on face value they show an inordinate increase in apparent failure to vote. Note No.3 on the page linked to causes me concern - it says "These results are not final".

Determination of voter turnout should not depend upon the progress of the vote count. Upon the close of the poll in every polling place one of the first things done is the reconciliation of ballot papers originally issued to the presiding officer by the DRO with blank ballot papers remaining unused and the total number of ballot papers recovered from the ballot boxes. All such acquittals are collated by DROs within hours.

I can only think that issues of postal voting papers have somehow been omitted from this tabulation.

Now the number of postal votes issued should be a figure that is set in concrete before polling day. Every DRO should know the issues figure applicable for their respective electoral Division. It may well be that the number of postal votes RETURNED cannot be known for some time after polling day, and as a consequence it may be impossible to determine a final voter turnout figure until the deadline for receipt of postal votes has passed. Surely it would have been wise to show the numbers of postal votes applied for in this tabulation, in order that a minimum estimate of turnout could be made.

I suggest anyone intending to hang their hat on this information in any post they may make should first download or take a screenshot of the AEC Virtual Tallyroom page as proof as to where their figures came from. I don't think the page will remain up unmodified for very long.

There really should be an accounting for postal vote issues up front, and a reporting of the number already returned as at the close of the poll, especially given the screw-up over such votes at the 2004 Federal elections.

OK, now you've got me interested.

The figures quoted are an illusion. How would they know how many people are not on the electoral rolls and how many people have been taken off the rolls without their knowledge or consent.
As for compulsory voting this is also an illusion just like our voluntary tax paying obligation that ended when we asked, by way of application, to be given a Tax File Number specifically for the purpose of agreeing to lodge returns and pay the statutory amount of income tax.
The act of applying to be placed on the electoral roll works exactly the same way, if you ask to have the opportunity to vote, and you don’t discharge your obligation, you will get prosecuted for the penalty and be paying the fine for breaching the agreement you entered into when you applied to be on the roll.
How many were taken off the rolls and turned up to vote only to discover they had been removed from the roll. This does happen but there is no penalty for the bureaucrats refusing to allow you to vote and they will not publish these figures.
As for voting for this fascist lot of bureaucrats in Canberra, just like Qld, that now have a Socialist Labor jockey, who can honestly accept this form of rule that we are expected to believe is a democracy.
If we don’t agree to be a part of this so called democracy, are we bound by the policies of these so called rulers that we don’t choose to elect or are we protected by the rule of law ?

A bit of maths comparing the number of enrolled voters with the ABS population statistics, supports Communicat's original "1 in 5" claim.

Let's not get sidetracked by the present state of the count. With respect to Forrest Gumpp, Note 1 below the table on the AEC's State by State Count specifically states that turnout is given as a percentage of "votes counted", not "votes cast". Whether the rest are postal, or pre-poll, etc, there's something even bigger going on here.

Off the same AEC page, 13,645,073 are enrolled (http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTurnoutByState-13745.htm). Call it 13.65 million for ease of reference.

Now let's go a bit further: The ABS Population Clock (http://www.abs.gov.au and click "Australia's Population") shows 21.1 million people living here. Some of these won't be entitled to vote, by far the biggest group being those under 18. From the last census, 25% of the population is under 18. That means 75% is old enough. Then subtract other small groups that aren't eligible, such as foreign students, other non-permanent residents, etc, but I don't know what those numbers are and I suspect they will be too small to affect the broad picture. So for present purposes I'm working with 75% of the population being eligible to vote.

75% of 21.1 million means approximately 15.8 million eligible voters. But only 13.65 million are enrolled. So more than 2.1 million eligible voters aren't even enrolled.

Then add in the 5% or so who are enrolled, but for whatever reason don't actually cast a vote. That takes us up to around 2.7 or 2.8 million non-voters.

Almost 1 in 5.

Gobsmacked.

Whatever the details on how the stats are calculated, I would assume the AEC is at least consistent in how it compares turnout this election with the last election. Thus that swing from about 5% to about 20% represents a real change. I'm still finding it hard to believe, given that a change in government was likely but not certain. Maybe with all the 'me-tooism' people were having difficulty distuinguishing the two major parties.

How can 1 in 5 Australians fail to vote?

The woman in front of me in the polling station left a note on a piece of paper for the electoral officer before she left the polling station, she did not collect ballot papers, she didn't stuff anything in the ballot boxes before she exited.

What happens to people who are overseas or of no fixed address or who have moved from interstate within the last 3 months or moved into my electorate since March.

Of course postal votes and pre-poll votes start getting counted tomorrow and you might be surprised at how many people pre poll vote.

The number of people not voting is not surprising, nor is the fact that there is an increase.

The fact is that the major parties are so far removed from average people, and obviously do not and will not govern in the interests of the majority that many come to the conclusion that there is no point voting.

Particularly given the fact that ultimately, regardless of who you vote for, in order to cast a valid vote you must preference either of the major parties. If you don't want to vote for them why should you be forced to - twice? First voting is compulsory - you get fined if you don't vote. Second - when you vote for someone else, you end up voting for Labor or Liberal - who are both pretty much exactly the same. Why bother? It is highly anti-democratic, and a prop for the 2-party system.

It is no coincidence that as the entire apparatus gets more anti-democratic (i.e. illegal war, anti-terror laws which strip us of democratic rights, electoral laws which disenfranchise people), increasing numbers of people choose not to participate.

More and more people understand, conciously or unconciously, that the change we want can't be effected through the parliamentary system.

The only reason they are the two major parties is because most people vote for them. If you don't like them, rank the minor parties higher, but the fact that it comes down to a race between Labor and Liberal is not anti democratic. It is the essence of democracy. Getting to choose between them in addition to voting for a minor party does not detract from your vote for the minor party in any possible way. It just gives you more say in how our country is run.

On the contrary, freediver. I don't want either of the major parties to run the country, yet ultimately, my vote goes to one or the other of them regardless of who I vote for. I find that completely anti-democratic.

Even if I voted Greens, which I didn't, they are promoting the fact that their preferences helped elect a Labor government.

Preferential voting is anti-democratic. In order to cast a valid vote you have to list a preference for parties you either know little about, or completely disagree with. Why can't you just vote 1 for the party or candidate you want, and that be a valid vote?

Before you say that the vote is wasted, think again. I vote for one party in opposition to ALL other parties. If my party doesn't win, then it makes no difference to me who wins - I oppose them all equally. I don't want the other parties to get my vote - that is my democratic right. Yet the preferential system denies that democratic right.

Sorry, I forgot to say, that the increasing numbers of people choosing not to vote are also exercising a democratic right NOT to vote which is denied by a compulsory voting system enforced by fines.

They are also exercising a democratic right NOT to vote for the major parties.

As many contributors will be aware there is actually no compulsion to vote - there is a compulsion to have your name marked off the roll, accept the papers and place them in the box - nobody can force you to mark them but many people believe that they must. It is also an offence to discourage people from voting - don't have the act in front of me but it is written into the act.
If, as the figures suggest, 20% of eligible voters failed to vote and other people made an active decision not to put themselves on the roll (as opposed to not enrolling in time)then it raises serious issues which need to be addressed - and 'education' and 'reminding people of their responsibility to vote' will not address the issues.

Well, this AEC 'Turnout by State' page linked to above has really put a cat among the pigeons!

dibs was right when s/he said this:

"Let's not get sidetracked by the present state of the count. With respect to Forrest Gumpp, Note 1 below the table on the AEC's State by State Count specifically states that turnout is given as a percentage of "votes counted", not "votes cast". Whether the rest are postal, or pre-poll, etc, there's something even bigger going on here."

When you click on the link "New South Wales" under the heading 'Division Results' on the left of the linked page, you are taken to a clickable list of Divisions in that State. (I have selected the Divisions of Charlton, Dobell, Lyne, Newcastle, Paterson, Robertson, and Shortland for a quick study.) At the bottom of the tabulated result for a Division is given the total ordinary vote cast. Right beside this figure is the apparent turnout, based on the ordinary vote CAST, that is, on the acquittal for ballot paper issues, not on the vote COUNT. The arithmetic confirms that this is how the apparent turnout figure shown at the bottom of the table was arrived at. (The total enrolments for the Division are shown in the table title bar headed "First Preferences".)

The problem is that to this point little of the 'Declaration Vote' (the aggregate of absentee, pre-poll, provisional, and postal votes) has been taken into account in assessing turnout! Just above the "First Preferences" title bar is a list of clickable links. Choose the one listed as "Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress". That will give you, in the first line of the table, the total of "Envelopes Issued". (In every envelope there is a set of ballot papers intended for the use of the claimant.)

Total declaration ballot paper issues are known by the time all acquittals have been completed on election night. What is not known is precisely how many of such claimed votes will be admitted to the count by the respective DROs. This takes time.

TBC

(continued)

I would expect that most declaration vote claims, however, would be admitted. Taking all the declaration vote claims at face value, you can assess the maximum turnout possible for each Division by adding their total to that of the ordinary vote cast, and then dividing by the total enrolments shown for the Division. Multiplying that result by 100 will give you the turnout percentage.

When I did this for my little study, apparent (maximum) turnout for Charlton was 96.33%, Dobell 99.83%, Lyne 102.25%, Newcastle 93.94%, Paterson 102.42%, Robertson 88.62%, and Shortland 100.68%!

For the first time anywhere in Australia, to my knowledge, more vote claims have been made than there are names enrolled in an electoral Division! Undoubtedly, some of the apparent (maximum) turnout percentages will be reduced slightly (and quite properly) by DROs refusing to admit some declaration vote claims.

It looks as if, far from a record low turnout, at least in some Divisions there will have been an all-time high turnout!

Progressing results for these seven Divisions have also thrown up other surprises. Apparent (maximum) turnout for Robertson is phenomenally LOW. The disparity in postal vote issues is also perplexing. Postal vote claims in Charlton totalled 306, Dobell 5,406, Lyne 3,262, Newcastle 306, Paterson 5,723, Robertson 193, and Shortland 6,383.

The disparity between Dobell and Robertson, adjoining, and broadly similar Divisions with respect to the factors that would be thought to pre-dispose electors to use pre-poll or postal voting, is astounding. They were both marginal seats, Dobell particularly so. Why so different in turnout and postal and pre-poll voting? (The pre-poll vote claim in Dobell was 8,322, but in Robertson only 1,306.)

Of the 8,322 pre-poll envelopes issued in Dobell only 6,177 show as received. Why should there be any difference? Don't pre-poll voters leave the enveloped vote they have claimed in the very place it was issued?

dibs may well be right in saying "there's something even bigger going on here".

"I don't want either of the major parties to run the country, yet ultimately, my vote goes to one or the other of them regardless of who I vote for. I find that completely anti-democratic.

Only because you don't understand it. This does not in any way penalise the minor parties you rank higher or help the major parties stay in power.

"Even if I voted Greens, which I didn't, they are promoting the fact that their preferences helped elect a Labor government.

You have the option of voting below the line. If you don't like the group voting ticket preferences, you should take advantage of that option.

"In order to cast a valid vote you have to list a preference for parties you either know little about, or completely disagree with.

So you list them last.

"If my party doesn't win, then it makes no difference to me who wins

Then it is no detriment to you which of those other parties wins once yours is knocked out of the race.

Your vote only counts for other parties AFTER your first rpeference has been eliminated by democratic means. This is more about the fact that no-one else votes for your favourite party. Making it optional to fill out all the preferences actually helps the two major parties hold onto power and keep out the minor parties.

The AEC Virtual Tally Room progressive 'Turnout by State' web page, that appeared when first posted to indicate a huge increase in failure to vote, is gradually beginning to show a move to more usual levels of voter turnout as the various components of the declaration vote begin to be counted. NSW has already moved from 79.12% apparent turnout on Tuesday to 79.36% on Wednesday morning.

What has been revealed along the way is a seemingly inexplicable disparity between pre-poll envelope issues (each envelope issued containing a blank ballot paper for each of the Senate and House of Representatives votes) and corresponding receipts back from electors after they have marked their votes and sealed them back up in those same envelopes. Such envelopes and their contents should never have left the pre-poll polling places, other than when being secured by AEC staff out of hours. Total ISSUES should have been known to AEC Divisional staff shortly after the close of pre-polling on the last day before polling day, and consequently should have been FINAL figures associated with the very first Divisional results pages posted to the VTR. Total (matching) returns of pre-poll envelopes should likewise have been known and final at the time of the first Divisional postings to the VTR.

If this reported disparity is reflective of unmarked ballot papers having left pre-poll centres and remained unreturned, then a very serious problem exists. Such ballot papers, being completely genuine, could conceivably have been marked up as votes for one candidate and been substituted on election night during the count in an ordinary polling place for an equivalent number of ballots cast for an opponent. A bundle of 50 ballots swapped for another bundle of 50 cast for the opponent: easily done part way through the preliminary counting! Totals would reconcile even if suspicions were aroused and a recount was ordered. Double whammy!

In some Divisions the sum of ordinary votes cast and declaration vote issues exceeds the number of names enrolled! This, I think, constitutes an historic first for an Australian election!

Who said Australian elections were free of fraud and other nefarious behaviour? They are not and anyone who thinks otherwise would be a fool. All the supposed safeguards are only as good as the people who put them in place. The vast majority are probably good honest citizens but they are not doing the job everyday of the week and their inexperience can allow others to deceive.
The electoral roll is also, despite supposed reviews, riddled with errors. It is also marked by hand.
If there are more votes than there are people in any electorate they should rightly start again - but imagine the howls of rage at the expense.
When you get the added problem reported in the local rag of a paper of someone actively running around telling the elderly they need not vote 'because the law has changed and JH does not want you out in the heat' then (whatever you think of JH) you have a real opportunity for fraud.Does 'compulsory' voting actually encourage fraud?

Please freediver, don't patronisingly tell me I don't understand it. I understand it perfectly. And don't tell me that my comments are sour grapes because no-one else votes for my party. These are ad hominem arguments. Think the issues through critically.

I asked a question which you chose not to answer - Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid vote?

What sensible rationale can you present that would illustrate that such a vote is invalid (other than the fact that the electoral-system says it's informal)?

Perhaps the real question you might ask yourself is - In a truly democratic system, why would anyone want to invalidate my vote if I didn't preference someone else?

"You have the option of voting below-the-line. If you don't like the group-voting-ticket-preferences, you should take advantage of that option"

This does not address the fact that I object to voting for anyone other than the party of my choosing. Numbering 1 - 68 is not an "advantage" it is a disadvantage, nor is it any real "option" - if you make a mistake your vote is informal, and you HAVE to express a preference for someone you clearly DON'T PREFER (because you voted AGAINST THEM) to make your vote for someone else valid. I just want to vote 1, but I am not entitled to do so under the preferential-system

As for your argument that it doesn't affect me or the outcome - I disagree.

For arguments sake, lets say there are 1001 voters - 500 vote Labor and 500 vote Liberal. I vote for someone else but am forced to ultimately preference either Labor or Liberal, and they get my preference and a majority. I don't want to vote for them but end up being FORCED to do so, just so I can vote for my guy. This is not about sour grapes. This is about the fact that my democratic wish, which is supposedly a right, cannot be expressed in this system without giving the major parties my imprimatur against my wishes.

"Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid vote?

Because voting is compulsory.

"What sensible rationale can you present that would illustrate that such a vote is invalid (other than the fact that the electoral-system says it's informal)?

See the other thread i just started on this issue.

"I don't want to vote for them but end up being FORCED to do so, just so I can vote for my guy. This is not about sour grapes.

Either way, your guy loses. It is no disadvantage to him or to you if your preference gets distributed.

"This is about the fact that my democratic wish, which is supposedly a right, cannot be expressed in this system without giving the major parties my imprimatur against my wishes.

Compulsory voting is not undemocratic.

freediver,

Tao: Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid-vote?

Freediver: Because voting is compulsory.

Tao: What kind of answer is that? You seem to be saying that voting is compulsory therefore I can’t just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose?

---

Tao: What sensible rationale can you present that would illustrate that such a vote is invalid (other than the fact that the electoral-system says it's informal)?

Freediver: See the other thread i just started on this issue.

Nothing in your other thread illustrates that a vote for 1 candidate only is inherently invalid. You appear to be more concerned about the fracturing of the vote, particularly on the left. This is no reason to deny someone a democratic right NOT to vote for a major party. There is a definite-reason why I don’t want to vote for Labor, yet by your logic I must anyway. This is not democratic.

---

Tao: I don't want to vote for them but end up being FORCED to do so, just so I can vote for my-guy. This is not about sour-grapes.

Freediver: Either way, your guy loses. It is no disadvantage to him or to you if your preference gets distributed.

But it is a direct denial of my right NOT TO VOTE for someone that I don’t want to vote for. It IS a disadvantage to me.

---

Tao: This is about the fact that my democratic-wish, which is supposedly a right, cannot be expressed in this system without giving the major-parties my imprimatur against my wishes.

Freediver: Compulsory voting is not undemocratic.

You have not offered any argument at all to support your statement. By your logic, someone forcing me into a polling-booth by gunpoint is not undemocratic.

What is also notable about your logic, freediver, is that you frequently fall into a circular-argument – the major parties are the major parties because most people vote for them, therefore everyone must vote for them under the preferential-voting-system even if they don't want to vote for them.

"What kind of answer is that? You seem to be saying that voting is compulsory therefore I can’t just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose?

Exactly. If you look into how preferential voting works, you would say that voting 1 is the same as not voting in an election.

"Nothing in your other thread illustrates that a vote for 1 candidate only is inherently invalid.

Irrational, not invalid.

"But it is a direct denial of my right NOT TO VOTE for someone that I don’t want to vote for. It IS a disadvantage to me.

Then you should be campaigning to remove compulsory voting, not instate compulsory optional voting. BTW, voting is a responsibility, not a right.

"You have not offered any argument at all to support your statement.

It comes down to a definition of democracy. Get out a dictionary if you need to.

"the major parties are the major parties because most people vote for them

Duh, that's the definition of a major party.

"therefore everyone must vote for them

Wrong. This just reflects your misunderstanding of preferential voting. You must rank them, not vote 'for' them.

Freediver,

This is the full text of my question about validity:

“I asked a question which you chose not to answer - Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid vote? What sensible rationale can you present that would illustrate that such a vote is invalid (other than the fact that the electoral-system says it's informal)? Perhaps the real question you might ask yourself is - In a truly democratic system, why would anyone want to invalidate my vote if I didn't preference someone else?”

To which you answered:

“Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid vote?”

“Because voting is compulsory”

To which I responded:

"What kind of answer is that? You seem to be saying that voting is compulsory therefore I can’t just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose?

To which you answered:

Exactly. If you look into how preferential voting works, you would say that voting 1 is the same as not voting in an election.

"Nothing in your other thread illustrates that a vote for 1 candidate only is inherently invalid.

Irrational, not invalid.

My question specifically asked you to provide a sensible rationale OTHER than the fact that the electoral system says its informal. Your response that a single vote is IRRATIONAL relies on the fact that voting is compulsory and the preferential system says its informal.

As you state, a vote for 1 person is not inherently invalid. You claim it is irrational in a compulsory voting system. What you are in effect saying is that in a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid, is made irrational. In a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid is made by the system to be invalid.

Cont…

…cont

I return to the question I asked earlier: In a truly democratic system, why would anyone want to invalidate my vote if I didn’t preference someone else?

To be more specific- In a truly democratic system, why would anyone want to invalidate my vote if I didn’t preference a major party?

It is not the vote for one party which is invalid, or irrational, it is the system which transforms a legitimate vote for a single opposition party into an invalid vote. The system is irrational and anti-democratic.

You have to ask why it is necessary in a supposed democracy for a vote for an opposition to the two major parties to be invalid. But I suspect that is exactly what you don’t want to do, or you don’t want me or anyone else to either.

- - -

"But it is a direct denial of my right NOT TO VOTE for someone that I don’t want to vote for. It IS a disadvantage to me.

Then you should be campaigning to remove compulsory voting, not instate compulsory optional voting. BTW, voting is a responsibility, not a right.

Where did I say that I wanted to instate compulsory optional voting? You are misrepresenting my argument.

I made the comment that compulsory preferential voting is anti-democratic. You are the one who is trying to argue (unsuccessfully in my opinion) that I am wrong, and that compulsory preferential voting is democratic.

If voting is a responsibility, and not a right, why then have various groups throughout history had to actually FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT to vote? Non property holders, women, aboriginals, negroes?

It is a responsibility of every person to think every issue through carefully and exercise their RIGHT to vote accordingly. If thinking every issue through carefully leads to the conclusion that the major parties, or anyone else, cannot be trusted, then it is the responsibility of a voter not to vote for them. And it is the RIGHT of a voter not to vote for them.

Cont…

"My question specifically asked you to provide a sensible rationale OTHER than the fact that the electoral system says its informal.

I did. In the other thread on OPV.

"What you are in effect saying is that in a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid, is made irrational. In a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid is made by the system to be invalid.

It is the combination of OPV and compulsory voting that is irrational.

"Where did I say that I wanted to instate compulsory optional voting? You are misrepresenting my argument.

No I'm not. Youa re pretending it has something to do with preferential voting. It doesn't. If it was compulsory voting that was your issue, you would focus on that, not rpeferential voting. The fact is you have to misrepresent preferential voting to make any kind of case.

"You are the one who is trying to argue (unsuccessfully in my opinion) that I am wrong, and that compulsory preferential voting is democratic.

Of course it is democratic.

"If voting is a responsibility, and not a right, why then have various groups throughout history had to actually FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT to vote? Non property holders, women, aboriginals, negroes?

The fact that black people etc were previously denied a vote does not support one argument or the other. The fact that it has been treated like a right does not mean it isn't a responsibility.

Forest Gump, I understand your semantics, but you seem to have forgotten about a Liberal policy that has not taken lessons from the past, but is back in the past.

The way Howard has given so much respect to the US President, especially one who is not one to be proud of, proves that he believes too much in loyalty, when Australia at this stage though needing America possibly, should be brave enough to peddle its own canoe a bit.

As an old retired farmer who has done well spending his time on such problems, really agreed with Malcom Turnbull in his welcoming vision of a new light for the Libs. But guess he shot his mouth off too much with not only
his promise to quit wornout ideas like work choices, but also a promise to say sorry to our dinkum dark
native Aussies.

Maybe Rudd might have gone too far giving inexperienced Stephen Smith the job of Foreign Affairs, but doubt if Stephen will suck up to Bush the way Howard and Downer have done.

Besides breaking proven democratic rules by rendering useless the Arbitration Court, in many ways the Libs had
regressed back to before 1850 - especially in their forelock two-finger tossing to our evidently superior cousins, the English-speaking global hierachy.

The figure for turnout is gradually going up as the remainder of the votes are counted. I guess the AEC just posted the figures prematurely.

You are a liar freediver.

You said: “Then you should be campaigning to remove compulsory voting, not instate compulsory optional voting. BTW, voting is a responsibility, not a right.”

I said: “Where did I say that I wanted to instate compulsory optional voting? You are misrepresenting my argument.”

To which you responded:

“No I'm not. Youa re pretending it has something to do with preferential voting. It doesn't. If it was compulsory voting that was your issue, you would focus on that, not rpeferential voting. The fact is you have to misrepresent preferential voting to make any kind of case.”

However, this is what I said in my first post:

“Particularly given the fact that ultimately, regardless of who you vote for, in order to cast a valid vote you must preference either of the major parties. If you don't want to vote for them why should you be forced to - twice? First voting is compulsory - you get fined if you don't vote. Second - when you vote for someone else, you end up voting for Labor or Liberal - who are both pretty much exactly the same. Why bother? It is highly anti-democratic, and a prop for the 2-party system.”

which can be found here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1306#23309

Quite clearly, I indicated that it was undemocratic because it is compulsory, and because it is compulsory to vote for either of the major parties. Quite clearly, I have not anywhere stated that I want to instate compulsory optional voting. Quite clearly, I am not pretending anything.

Quite clearly, you are misrepresenting my argument – not once, but twice. You are a liar.

This is my last post to you freediver. You are a liar – a deliberate liar. Your arguments are circular, you use selective quotes without considering the full development of an argument, and your statements are unsupported by anything other than your own questionable authority. You are not interested in reason or truth. No wonder you think its OK to be forced to vote for the major parties – you share their modus operandi.

Mmm very gradually going up Freediver but I would still say a matter for concern. The percentage of the vote counted is also now high enough to show that there is a significant decrease in the participation rate.
Include those who choose not to be on the electoral roll (as opposed to those who were too late) and the overall figure is even higher - and may well be as high as one in five.

That raises other questions that need answering but they would be off the topic here

"I indicated that it was undemocratic because it is compulsory

But that's just wrong. Seeing as you seem to be stuck on this issue, I'll give you a hint - if the majority of citizens support sompulsory voting and it was implimented by an elected government, doesn't that make it democratic? Democracy and freedom are not the same thing.

You keep insisting my arguments are unsupported, yet you refuse to participate in the other thread where I am supporting them.

Communicat,

I cannot agree with your interpretation of the turnout figures showing a significant decrease in participation rate.

Just to ensure that we are talking about the same thing, the turnout figures being posted by the AEC in the Virtual Tally Room, and upon which you commented in opening this topic (whatever the correct ones prove to be) relate only to those persons eligible to be electors who have enrolled. The non-participation of persons eligible to be electors but who have not enrolled is an entirely separate issue, one worthy of a discussion on its own.

The very idea of trying to relate apparent voter turnout during a progressive vote count in a VTR to a final turnout figure at a previous election is a nonsense. Until the count is complete no partial figure means anything! Why the AEC chose to design its VTR in this way to throw up such a nonsensical (and misleading) figure for turnout is not clear.

As a spot check, I have looked at and interrelated figures shown on different linked AEC VTR pages for several Divisions. This is how I proceeded:

First, I got the total enrolments from the (Division Results) NSW link shown on the 'Turnout by State' page (reached via the link given in my earlier post) after clicking, for example, Dobell.

Next I clicked 'Two Candidate Preferred By Polling Place' shown above the table title bar on the Dobell main page. From this tabulation you can get the total ordinary vote (the vote cast on election day in all polling places) by a process of subtraction of Absent, Provisional, Pre-poll, and Postal categories. It must be noted that total informal ordinary votes are not shown.

I then clicked 'Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress' to get the total declaration vote enveloped ballot paper issues.

By adding total declaration vote issues to the total ordinary vote, and then dividing by total enrolments, I got an approximate turnout for Dobell of 94.3%. Postals received too late, and informals, will alter this somewhat.

Such turnout has been par for the course for years.

I think I see what you are getting at FG but I am not sure I agree - the AEC figures are suggesting a decline even now that most of the vote is counted.
Also, given that the AEC made a massive effort to ensure people were enrolled (including a door knock and several millions spent in advertising) as well as enrolled in time there is the question of why so many people were still not on the electoral roll and still failed to vote. Is there a growing concern about the electoral roll itself perhaps? Is privacy a concern? Is our population now too mobile to support such a roll?
There is also the question of why some of those who did vote failed to do so in a manner which meant their vote was valid. There will always be people who are incapable of understanding the process but are there others protesting as well? Is it democratic to permit the intellectually impaired to vote when they do not understand the process and vote because a candidate 'looks nice' or to pressure a new citizen who is fearful and suspicious of the entire process to make a decision when they do not trust any candidate?
Both major parties have shied away from any discussion about 'compulsory' voting. We are told it is democratic and the assumption is that it is democratic and a 'good thing' but is it really? It is an issue which needs robust public debate but one even the media seems reluctant to tackle. Perhaps we need to start a new thread?

Communicat,

After some fresh research since my last post, I emphasise that voter turnout can not have declined in relation to levels of former years if the AEC VTR progressive count tabulations for 2007 contain correct ballot issue figures. On the contrary, turnout, when calculated in the manner I have outlined in my last post, is very comparable with the 2004 turnout for the sample of seven Divisions listed earlier in the thread.

My previously estimated approximate turnout for Dobell in 2007 of 94.3% compares favourably with the final figure for Dobell turnout in 2004 of 95.07%. When figures used from VTR pages updated at 3:12:02 PM on Thu 29 Nov 2007 are used, it is theoretically possible for turnout to reach 96.47% in Dobell.

The total valid ordinary vote of 64,499 obtainable from the 'Two Candidate Preferred by Polling Place' page by adding totals from all polling places, plus the 3,176 informals, comes to 67,675 votes. When this is added to the total declaration vote envelopes received less preliminary rejections, 19,464 votes, you get a total of 87,139 as the maximum possible vote in Dobell. When this theoretical maximum is divided by the 90,328 enrolments at roll close, you get 96.47% maximum apparent turnout. This will decline somewhat if there are rejections of provisional vote claims, postal votes received too late, or other declaration vote rejections.

The informal vote in Dobell in 2004 was 7.41% of the total vote cast. It looks like the Dobell informal vote in 2007 will be around 4% when finalised.

To update the picture for the other six Divisions I spot checked, voter turnout in 2004 for Charlton was 95.73%, Lyne 95.62%, Newcastle 94.72%, Paterson 96.08%, Robertson 95.38%, and Shortland 95.54%. The theoretical maxima this time are 96.82%, 96.08%, 96.39%, 99.09%, 88.42%, and 95.47% respectively.

Only Robertson appears anomalous, due to seemingly incomplete reporting of declaration vote issues.

No way has there been a decline in turnout this election!

Why did I say what I did in the 26th post in this thread, the one beginning with "(continued)"?

I made the now seemingly stupid claim "For the first time anywhere in Australia, to my knowledge, more vote claims have been made than there are names enrolled in an electoral Division!"

I made this claim because of what I saw posted to the AEC VTR when I started looking on Tuesday 27 November 2007. When I first looked, the 'Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress' pages were not showing any count figures. There is provision for count figures on the page, but only zeros were showing. The corresponding 'First Preference Two Candidate Preferred' pages I took to at that point and in that circumstance to be a record of the ordinary vote, the vote cast in polling places with its accountancy finalised on election night in the presiding officers' returns.

Both page types showed the same update time in the case of each Division spot checked. Despite this, it appears that there had been some counting of declaration vote included in the totals showing at the foot of the pages, if not the inclusion, without separate identification, of informal votes. At this early stage I was not taking screenshots, but I noted down the following totals then showing of what I took to be the valid ordinary vote, and declaration vote issues for the seven Divisions spotchecked:

Charlton 75,354 12,430

Dobell 69,644 20,522

Lyne 72,009 16,724

Newcastle 75,216 12,578

Paterson 71,609 21,089

Robertson 75,458 8,137

Shortland 75,184 18,637

The cached pages of progressive postings to the VTR will reveal the accuracy of these transcriptions, in the event there is inquiry into the basis upon which such a presumably disturbing claim could have been made.

Informal votes are part of the ordinary vote, and are known on election night. They should have been identified in all updates to the VTR made after the Saturday night. I don't recall seeing informals identified when I started looking on Tuesday.

dibs' post (the 17th in this thread) deserves some comment.

dibs is bang-on with respect to the methodology for determining just what proportion of Australians failed to vote.

I suspect the figure used by dibs, of near to 75% of the population as being eligible to enroll electorally, may be a little high. I think the right figure would be nearer 65%. The reason I say this is because a figure of this order is indicated in a study of Australian electoral enrolment levels covering the years 1947 to 1987 submitted to the Parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 Federal elections. Whilst this study stops at 1987, the age distribution and citizenship status of the population, the two determinants of eligibility for enrolment, would probably only have moved slightly upward since the 1987 figure of 62.74% given in that study.

It is common knowledge that there was an extensive (and expensive) advertising campaign undertaken by the AEC in the year before the elections to encourage people to enroll. There exist studies that show significant failure to take up electoral enrolment among the newly age-qualified part of the population. It is accepted that there was a significant level of failure (or refusal) to enroll in the community at large. That's why they ran the advertisments.

dibs' maths, when applied to the eligible proportion of the population indicated in the study referred to above, reveals a conundrum. 65% of the Australian population of 21.1 million comes to 13.72 million. dibs tells us (correctly, from official figures) that 13.65 million names are carried on the electoral rolls. Near as dammit to 100% enrolment, if the 65% of population being eligible is near the correct figure. If you believe it.

AEC studies over the last 20 or so years have indicated only around 85% of the eligible actually enroll.

So how do the extra names get to be on the rolls?

The tune "Colonel Bogey" echos through my head. It has another name in Australian military musical circles. Not "Bridge on the River Kwai".

I should have given the link to the enrolment level study I referred to in my previous post. The word limit beat me.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm

This link is to a list of submissions to the 2004 Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Elections. Click on submission No. 123. This will give you a PDF document which includes a table titled "Australia - Aggregate Enrolment Levels 1947-1987". The relevant figures are in Column J, headed "E%P", which is explained as being ".... the ratio of total number of persons estimated as being eligible to enroll to the total population, normally expressed as a percentage of the latter, but in Column J expressed as a decimal fraction for calculation purposes.". Line No. 122 of the table gives E%P for 30 June 1987 as 0.6274, which, being converted, is 62.74%.

There is no line in the AEC VTR tabulation of "Two Candidate Preferred by Polling Place" for informal votes counted in the ordinary vote, a count that is finalised on election night. Why not?

Informals instead are shown in the tabulation of the progressive counting results titled "First Preferences and Two Candidate Preferred", but this total may include informals from the declaration vote as well as those from the ordinary vote. The sum of the valid ordinary vote and the informals subsequently posted does not equate to what I transcribed from the progressive count pages on Tuesday.

With respect to Paterson, the valid ordinary vote of 65,528, plus 2,793 informals as at 3:16:30 PM Thu 29 Nov 2007, does not equate to the 71,609 total I transcribed on Tuesday when I commenced my spot check of seven Divisions. It falls 3,288 short, but at the time of transcription, to my recollection, the "Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress" table showed no declaration vote counted!

Like discrepancies exist with respect to all seven Divisions' Tuesday transcriptions.

Was the VTR website cracked? Were these transient discrepancies 'messages' as to what extra vote could safely yet appear?

The voter turnout at the Federal elections, according to the AEC Virtual Tally Room website, continues to rise.

From an average turnout of 79.36% for NSW as at 9:06:23 PM on Tue 27 Nov 2007 (then shown on the 'Turnout by State' page linked to), the seemingly very low figure that sparked this discussion, the turnout as at 10:22:47 PM on Mon 3 Dec 2007 stands at 86.30% for NSW.

The State average lags significantly behind the turnout percentages currently posted for many individual Divisions within this State. Whether this is because some Divisions have experienced a relatively low turnout, or because in some Divisions the counting of the declaration vote has been slower than in others, remains to be seen.

One can only wonder what this curious presentation of claimedly comparative turnout figures was meant to achieve. Could it have been intended to convey the impression to the public that there had been a relatively low turnout, when in fact the turnout is in truth (at least in some Divisions) perhaps greater than previously experienced?

What would have been the point of conveying such an impression? Could it be that if there was an impression of relatively low turnout, less attention might be paid to the progress of the count, or to apparent anomalies that might reside therein? Or could it be something else?

The turnout in Dobell, for example, although showing as being 87.95% as at 5:00:49 PM on Mon 3 Dec 2007, on figures displayed at that time in the 'Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress' page taken in conjunction with the information on other pages, indicates a ceiling turnout of 97.31% based upon declaration vote received. If the turnout ceiling was to be based upon declaration vote ballot paper issues, then the ceiling would be 98.05%.

Clearly, some of the declaration vote issues may never be returned, and some of it may well be properly rejected at the scrutiny yet to be completed. It would nevertheless appear that turnout in Dobell will be in excess of 95%.

Do they even count all the votes if there is no need to distribute preferences? If a candidate wins by a landslide and has over 50% of the potential vote before counting finishes, they may not bother. They would certainly focus on getting the close races counted first.

You better believe it, freediver.

The Divisional Returning Officers invariably do count all the votes. For the sake of maintaining transparency in public accountability for the even-handed conduct of elections, it is essential that they do so. If they didn't, how, for example, would it be possible to determine voting swings from one election to the next?

Ballot papers tend to be viewed by DROs like banknotes. There has to be a full accounting for the bulk disbursment to polling staff, issue in detail to vote claimants, and return of unused and spoilt papers at the close of the poll, let alone the accounting for the contents of the ballot boxes themselves. Uncontrolled genuine blank ballot papers could, in the wrong hands, be used by way of substitution during the count to distort genuine electoral results. All of this DROs strive to nail down before a single vote is counted. Historically, very few papers have gone missing after issue to voters. The question is as to whether the operating procedural instructions they have received from on high, particularly for around 22 of the last 24 years, have permitted them to efficiently and securely do all this.

If you have been observing the VTR progressive results, you may have noticed differences between pre-poll ballot paper issues and pre-poll ballot paper returns reported on the 'Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress' pages for various Divisions.

Given that a ballot paper issued at a pre-poll voting location should not ever leave the room before being inserted, folded, into the declaration envelope in the sight of the polling clerk, then be sealed up and returned, and that this part of the electoral process is finalised BEFORE election day, I await with interest the explanation for the widespread differences between 'issued' and 'returned' shown during the count, let alone changes during the count of the number of issues. I'll lay odds it has arisen from the outworking of some (ill-thought-out?) central operational directive!

Just for the record, I have never been a casual or permanent employee of the AEC.

have you been a scrutineer? What about postal votes?

Yes, freediver, I have been a scrutineer.

The issue of postal voting ballot papers, like those of pre-poll ballot papers, is something that should be finalised before election day. It is likewise to be expected that the total number of such papers applied for and issued should be in the very first returns posted to the VTR, and should not be subject to change as the count proceeds.

It is obviously possible that some postal votes will not have been received by DROs before the deadline for such receipts, and consequently such will not contribute to the count. Such papers nevertheless must still be accounted for, as if this did not occur it would be rendered more possible for postal voting applications to be made, or mail intercepted, by persons desirous of getting their hands on blank genuine ballot papers.

What this curious 'Turnout by State' table indirectly makes clear is that something of the order of 20% of the vote cast is one form or other of declaration vote. This has implications for the maintainance of the integrity of the ballot. As the convenience of electors has been given increased consideration, so too have the opportunities multiplied for defeating effective scrutineering. The whole electoral process is becoming just too strung out, excuse ridden, and diffuse for scrutineers (most of whom are unpaid volunteers, irrespective of party alliegance) to watch effectively.

Once it becomes known that scrutiny is likely to be weak or non-existent short-cuts start to be taken at the administrative level, and risks become worthwhile for those within or outside the system who might wish to criminally distort or reverse real electoral results.

No doubt it will be contended that the timeliness and accuracy of updates to the VTR is primarily the responsibility of the DROs. The inescapable fact is that responsibility for the design and operation of the VTR website must have been a central office function. I strongly suspect that any DRO, if consulted, would have identified a progressive comparative turnout as a nonsense.

However, let's not rush to judgement.

Caveat elector!

On its official election results page for the Division of Paterson, updated as at 12:42:27 PM on Wed 5 Dec 2007, the AEC VTR reported a turnout of 93.06%.

On the 'Two Candidate Preferred by Polling Place' page for this Division a total of 81,216 votes was given as having so far been counted, at the bottom of a column headed 'Formal'. Subtraction of the counts given for Absent, Pre-poll, Postal, and Provisional formal votes from this 81,216 total yielded a remainder of 65,528 as the valid ordinary vote.

On a separate page, that identified as 'First Preferences and Two Candidate Preferred', the progressive total of informal votes was given, 3,005 votes. The total of 3,005 informal votes, when added to the valid ordinary vote of 65,528 gave a sum of 68,533.

Was the total declaration vote issued, shown as 21,038 (down from 21,360 in an earlier update, BTW) added to the total of the valid ordinary vote and the informals, a sum of 89,571 would be given. This sum represents apparent turnout of 98.97% of the 90,504 enrolments for Paterson, an extremely (dangerously?) high figure.

Now as it stands the calculation is not quite a proper one, for two reasons. The first is that the total given for the informals derives in part from the counting of the declaration vote, and this method of assessing turnout may double count some informals.

The problem is, on pages updated at 5:43:07 PM on Tue 27 Nov, 2,709 informals were recorded at a time when only 3,450 declaration votes (all pre-poll votes) had been claimedly counted. Commonsense (and scrutineers) would tell us that the bulk of the informals would have come from the ordinary vote. If informals are spread evenly throughout the vote, we should expect around 2,600 of those 2,709 informals came from the ordinary vote. On this (reasonable) assumption, we are at risk of only having double-counted at most 350 informal votes in assessing turnout.

TBC

(continued)

The second slight impropriety in this calculation of turnout in Paterson is that it assumes that all declaration vote issues will be admitted to the count. So far, 805 declaration votes have been rejected. Only 492 declaration votes remain outstanding.

If we deduct the notionally double counted 350 informals from the total of 89,571 previously calculated, and then further deduct the 805 rejections, we have a remaining total of 88,416. This equates to a turnout of 97.69%, a far cry from the officially claimed 93.06%. Even if it is assumed that every single one of the 492 outstanding declaration votes either never is returned, or upon return is rejected from the scrutiny, turnout will be close to 97.15%!

What does this mean?

The first thing seemingly meant is that the VTR calculation of the [meaningless(?) progressive] turnout percentage displayed has been throughout DIVORCED from the realities of scrutinised vote counting in Divisions, and the claimed reporting thereof.

Being translated, the AEC VTR reports were acting to deceive all Australians as to the extent of apparent turnout (whatever that meant) DURING THE PROGRESS of the count.

What is the significance of this deception being during the PROGRESS of the count?

The significance may lie in the prospect that the deception may have been meant to provide TEMPORARY cover for adjustments to the publically reported number of vote claims made, such as to prevent the anomaly of more ballot papers ever being seen to have been issued than there were electors enrolled in given Divisions. The reason the cover may only have been temporarily needed could have been because time was available, courtesy of the inevitable delays between actual counting and reporting, to adjust if necessary the record of lodgement, if not that of unlawful claim, of declaration votes so as to not transgress credibility.

It was exactly such transient apparent issues of ballot papers in excess of total enrolments in several spot checked Divisions that my claims in the 26th post in this thread highlighted.

Was the whole election result unlawfully distorted, even reversed?

Just catching up here - the AEC may claim a 97% turnout but I still believe the reality is different. There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone voting on behalf of someone they know is not going to vote or on behalf of someone no longer alive or out of the country. Although cross checking is supposed to take place there is nothing at all to stop someone voting multiple times and then claiming that they know nothing about it etc. (Very hard to prove unless someone boasts about it or is stupid enough to make a habit of it i.e. at the next election.)
Our electoral and voting systems are antiquated and need an overhaul but we also need to be very careful what we replace them with.
Remember the referendum on the republic? That did not succeed but it was not for want of stacking by certain elements in the community who used the system to insist that people fill in the paper 'under supervision'.

Figures posted to the AEC VTR page for Dobell, updated as at 2:52:32 PM Thu 6 Dec 2007, now show a turnout of 95.21%. See: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-115.htm

At most, 1,713 votes remain to be counted in this Division, if the figures posted on the 'Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress' page bearing the same update timestamp are correct. If all these uncounted, but acknowledged already received, votes are admitted to the count, turnout would rise to 97.11%. Being realistic, it is to be expected that a significant proportion of the 443 uncounted provisional votes will be rejected from the scrutiny.

Against this anticipated reduction from 97.11% is the possibility that as many as 546 postal votes still unreturned as at the time of update may yet get to be counted. So all in all, somewhere around 97% turnout looks likely to be the end result in Dobell. In 2004 turnout was 95.07% in Dobell, according to this AEC web page:
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseTurnoutByDivision-12246-NAT.htm

The 'Turnout by State' page (see: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTurnoutByState-13745.htm ) as at 8:23:54 AM on Fri 7 Dec 2007 shows an average 'progressive' turnout for NSW of 93.39%, and an average of 92.95% nationally. Clearly, even on average, turnout is looking like finalising right around the long-term experience of 95%, despite the misleading early and progressing figures quite incorrectly derived from the count instead of from an aquittal for ballots issued and returned in no way dependent upon the count conducted for the purpose of determining who is to be elected.

The really significant point is that at a time when such an aquittal could and should have been available and indicating a turnout in Dobell of around 97%, the official count-derived figures were showing 93%, and earlier even less, turnout. Pointless and unsatisfactory at best. At worst a possible means of withholding information from the public that might otherwise alert it to prospects of electoral tampering.

The AEC Virtual Tally Room page 'Turnout by State' linked to above is, as of an update as at 6:52:35 PM on Sat 8 Dec 2007, showing turnout for NSW of 94.72%, and, nationally, of 94.21%.

The 'Home' page link on the left side of the 'Turnout by State' page takes you to a main page entry to the VTR headed 'The Official 2007 Federal Election Results'. The opening summary states that as of 6:52:35 PM on Sat 8 Dec 2007, 94.21% of the primary vote has been counted for Australia at large.

Note the identicality, 94.21%, of the national figures in each of the above paragraphs. Understand that, although the figures are numerically identical, they refer to altogether different things. Turnout expresses votes claimed as a percentage of total enrolments as at roll close. Count progress expresses votes counted as a percentage of total votes cast. Funny how the two different measures just happened to be coincidentally the same percentage.

At the 2004 Federal Elections the final turnout figure (with respect to the House of Representatives elections) for NSW was 94.70%, whilst nationally it was 94.32%. The turnout with respect to the Senate elections was 95.11% and 94.82% respectively. (This difference arises when electors who have claimed an absent vote incorrectly with respect to the Division within which they are in fact enrolled have their House of Representative ballot paper rejected, but their Senate ballot accepted because they are in fact found to be enrolled correctly elsewhere in the same State.) So it is really the higher of the two percentages which is in fact the true measure of turnout, the attempt to lawfully vote.

Given that the 2007 figures are not yet final, it appears that, if anything, turnout may be slightly greater in 2007 than in 2004. So much for any claim that one in five ENROLLED ELECTORS did not vote!

Adding the 5% who fail to vote to the indicated 15% of the eligible failing to enroll shows Communicat could nevertheless be spot on!

dibs' post earlier in this thread (the 17th post) compared Australian population statistics with official enrolment records. (The latter are published monthly in the Government Notices edition of the Commonwealth Government Gazette, as well as on AEC web pages with reference to roll closures for elections past and present.)

The only point upon which I differ from dibs is with respect to the percentage of the total population that is eligible to be electorally enrolled: dibs suggested 75%, whereas I suggested around 65% (based upon an enrolment level study linked to in the 47th post of the thread) as a more likely figure.

When this comparison is made for enrolments as at the roll close for the 2007 Federal elections when population was around 21.1 million, the 13,645,073 shown as being enrolled compares very closely with the 13.72 million estimate of the electorally eligible population. The enrolment level is virtually 100%.

Courtesy of the link provided by dibs to ABS statistics, Australian population at 30 June 2004 was estimated at 20.1 million persons. Enrolment at roll close for the 2004 Federal elections was 13,021,230 (see this link: http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/GeneralEnrolmentByState-12246.htm ) . 65% of 20.1 million is 13.07 million, so electoral enrolment was also 100% of the eligible in 2004!

So what was all the hoo ha about people being disfranchised as a consequence of the legislative changes that (supposedly) closed the rolls at 8:00 PM on the day of issue of the writs? The statistics tell us, in aggregate, that everyone was enrolled! The worst that could have occurred to anyone changing address is that their enrolment became 'trapped' in their old Division. Enrolments were at 100% in both 2004 and 2007, so there was no room for any NETT change in the number of enrolments between events. Electors couldn't have been removed from the roll since leaving, could they?

Not unless other different names had replaced the erstwhile genuine ones that had been in the interim removed, surely?

Puzzle.

TBC

(continued)

First a clarification. After the phrase "change in the number of enrolments between events" in the third last paragraph of my preceeding post, insert the following: ", other than that resulting from the excess of newly eligible electors over deaths of formerly enrolled electors." (Such increase is a consequence of a growing eligible population between elections.)

The claim to the existence of 100% enrolment of the eligible at both the 2004 and 2007 Federal elections does, of course, depend upon the applicability of the extrapolated "E%P" factor from the study "Australia - Aggregate Enrolment Levels 1947 - 1987". This does not appear to have been an official study, but was it to have been seriously inaccurate, surely it would have elicited some form of official rebuttal, or at least the promotion of some alternative official view.

Given that the Australian Statistician has been, since the inception of the AEC in 1984, the non-judicial member of that three-person Commission, it is to be expected that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (of which the Australian Statistitian is in charge) would have been regularly publishing official bulletins with respect to electoral eligibility levels in relation to enrolment levels amongst the Australian population. There are many factors to be considered in attempting to assess the proportion of the population eligible for enrolment at any time, and no organisation would seem better fitted to compile such statistics than the ABS. Does anyone know of any such published studies?

The only other foray into this field I am aware of was a seeming passing observation made under the aegis of the demi-official, Australian Research Council funded, ANU hosted Democratic Audit of Australia by Professor Marian Sawer in relation to the enrolment level in 1903. This has been the subject of comment on OLO. See:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=208#4002

If the claims that many newly eligible are in fact not enrolled, along with others across the age distribution of the population, are correct, then how are emplaced the enrolments that bring the level up to the 100% statistics indicate?

I commented in the 44th post in this thread that, of the seven Divisions I had spot checked, Robertson had appeared somewhat anomalous, apparently due to incomplete posting of declaration vote issues to the VTR up to that point. This deficiency has since seemingly been rectified.

As at 12:31:17 PM on Tue 4 Dec 2007, the VTR page for Robertson was showing a 'turnout' of 94.50%.

The 'Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress' page of even timestamp showed that there was a total of 1560 declaration votes still outstanding unreturned, consisting of 159 pre-poll votes, and 1,401 postal votes.

2,602 declaration votes already returned remained then as yet uncounted.

The total votes already counted stood at 89,148. When the 1560 declaration votes outstanding, and the 2,602 votes returned but then still uncounted are added to this total, a total number of 93,314 vote claims had been made in this Division. This equated to an apparent turnout of 98.92%!

Up to this point, only 37 declaration votes had been rejected at preliminary scrutiny, consisting of 11 absent, 10 pre-poll, and 16 postal votes. No provisional vote claims had as yet been scrutinised.

By 3:29:33 PM on Mon 10 Dec 2007 Robertson was showing 95.74% 'turnout', with 1,112 postal votes only unreturned. A total of 1,816 declaration votes had by then been rejected at the preliminary scrutiny, with only 1,171 more votes having been admitted and counted since Tue 4 December. The rejections consisted of 534 absent, 696 provisional, 256 pre-poll, and 330 postal vote claims.

The very high turnout of 98.92% assessed upon the basis of vote claims made had been massaged down to 95.74% with the aid of the rejections of declaration votes at preliminary scrutiny. That's the potential difference between assessing what is misnamed 'turnout' progressively upon the basis of votes counted, as opposed to true turnout at finality upon votes claimed, or even votes cast. For the Australian public it could prove to be an extremely important distinction.