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.