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.