Have you been the one who waits after the voting to see the votes counted?
Standing together all party's are represented or mostly, and under strict rules.
It is our job to challenge some votes see some of ours are counted and ring in ASAP so those board back at the counting room roll over.
But we ring our party's that is how they get the information just in front of the board.
So what happens to those votes the silly ones?
They end up on the floor ,well stay on the counter but are never counted.
Like the two who election after election say ALP one rest nothing, their vote is wasted.
And those that question the wedding of politicians mum and dad? never to be seen by them.
Some vote for strange non existent things ,you can tell some time as they leave with silly grins on their faces.
Last election I helped the greens newby who was lost count and report, of worth? every one leaves shoulder to shoulder No blood no hate we Aussie are indeed Weird and great mob.

Maybe some would be able to tell storys about manning the booths on election day.
To tell of my one night of counting at my local booth I must start at first light.
I set the booth up and manned it on my own all day 140 voters, about 40 to my mob a nationals seat but swings back and fourth,that day it swung back to Labor.
Small town self centered and not overly welcoming to outsiders like me,that may change in time after all I have only lived here 26 years.
Put the HTV down and entered the front door to vote little old lady handed me her national HTV and screamed at me hope you lost!
On returning to my stand her high heels rang out as she ran down the footpath to say it over and again.
That night nice young girl?daughter of the above, who had been an official all day on the roll said the same during counting, very much more in fact.
Head of that voting place said nothing he was teacher at the school the * nice Lady's* could harm him.
I go now to red neck country a long way from home, but grin at the memory every time I see them.
Actually got a job for the grandson of one but refused invitations to get to know them.
Got smacked in the head by an angry millionair in 07 thats another story.

Keep up the scrutineering Belly, must admit it is something I have never attended but see the significance of doing it when I consider the best quote to why we need scrutineers is from dear old uncle Joe...

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

Good on you Belly for being involved with the scrutineering process.

I disagree with your comments about wasted votes though. Votes that are deliberately nullified are not wasted. If they reflect the intention of the voter to not vote for any candidate, they should be considered legitimate. Votes that are unintentionally voided are the only ones that are wasted.

I wonder what you’d call votes that count for candidates that the voter really doesn’t like but feels compelled to vote for because they feel they are the slightly better of two terrible choices? I’d say they would be more allied to wasted votes than legitimate votes!

Then there are votes that count for candidates that the voter specifically had not voted for, but due to our compulsory preferential system, ends up voting for once preferences have filtered down. These votes are the worst of all, because they are STOLEN by a corrupt and reprehensible voting system!

Ludwig and others.
While it is assumed every one has the 'right(?)'(choice) to deliberately ruin their vote.

Having decided not to participate in their one chance to pass their opinion I do wish they would respect the 'right'(choice) of others who do.

I do particularly dislike those people that Belly describes.

Personally I see the 'spoilers' to be the biggest hypercrites in that they don't have the courage of their convictions to get up off their self indulgent butts to change what is wrong.

Common sense dictates that the very nature of a democratic society needs the participation of its citizens to have any hope of working properly. Those that willing opt out are simply putting their interests above that of the country. Further to that I don't think that a couple of hours every three years to formally help the country that supports them, is much to ask.

L, I am in the invidious position you describe forced to vote against what, I believe, is an inappropriate member rather than having a meaningful choice.

I would also point out that I have worked locally to improve the choice. I would never simply take my bat/ ball because the majority doesn't want to play the game I want and go home, sulking.

Doing nothing is a destructive/ churlish choice.

I detest the party system but for what ever reason that is the system the majority aren't pi$$ed off enough to change so for the greater good I play along, while trying to change it. Work with what is not what *I* want.

Examinator,

I have voted in every election since I became eligible to vote.

Nevertheless, I have come to a point in this election where I can see no good reason to give my lower house vote to either party. Quite frankly, if this media driven, self-interested mumbo jumbo is the best that our democracy can give us, then I will not insult my intelligence any longer by playing the game.
The minute a party shows up that shows its worth by pointing our society in a more constructive and cooperative direction, I will be willing to listen.

You might be willing to vote for a candidate who doesn't represent your wishes just for the opportunity to exercise your right, but I'm not.

Public perception of the function of scrutineers within the polling place during the primary vote count has historically been one of their being there to get a feel for the drift of preferences in seats where no candidate can be assured of attaining an absolute majority of votes, early on. Then to run away and ring this information through to 'party HQ' before anybody else knows.

What a shame this perception is, because the real function of scrutineers at the count in polling places should be to ensure that none of the predominantly casual (ie. engaged just for the election) polling officials make mistakes as to in which pile counted ballot papers are placed, and that at the end of the count that the ballot paper accountancy is complete and reconciles. All honest and competent scrutineers are really there in the interest of Australians at large, irrespective as to which candidate may have signed their scrutineers appointment form.

The great tragedy of recent years has been the spreading of the polling place scrutiny requirement over so many days that comprehensive competent volunteer scrutiny of the conduct of the electoral process is all but impossible to sustain.

At the 2007 Federal elections, around 20% of voters cast pre-poll votes. Polling place scrutiny there would have required some volunteer's presence all day, every day, for I think a fortnight. Almost impossible. If anything, governments have been making this form of voting easier and easier, and more and more people are resorting to it, if we are to believe the official figures. In the vast majority of pre-poll voting places, there would exist no scrutineer presence to confirm the reality of this, however.

It must be remembered that the full-time Divisional staff number around three persons. They can't be everywhere. In one close-run contest in 2007, at a pre-poll centre (not that of the DRO's Divisional office) the enveloped ballot papers filled in by vote claimants were not going into a sealed ballot box as they were cast, but into a pile under the counter.

<< The minute a party shows up that shows its worth by pointing our society in a more constructive and cooperative direction, I will be willing to listen. >>

Poirot, I think Gillard IS doing this.

For the first time in this country’s history, our PM is questioning the merits of rapid population growth and talking about a sustainable society.

While this is very rudimentary and actions that move us in the right direction are small, if not trivial, it should be enough for all of us environmentally concerned people to really perk up and listen, and be involved.

I find it really unfortunate that the consensus about this election appears to be one of disinterest and disillusionment when such a momentous and profoundly important (or potentially so) change in political rhetoric has been delivered by Gillard.

The challenge now has surely got to be to make sure that it is not just rhetoric. This election is NOT one to be blasé about, IMO.

That doesn’t mean that we should necessarily vote for Gillard. In fact, I will still probably be voting for no one. But it should surely mean that there is a lot more interest in the general populace than there has been in past elections.

Forrest

I’m not so sure that tight scrutineering is all that important.

There is a big check and balance in place – the recount option.

If a vote is close, then a recount can be requested. If this happens, then presumably a very accurate assessment of votes takes place.

It is also apparent, from my understanding, that when recounts have occurred, the original count has been shown to be pretty accurate. Maybe you can confirm or counter this.

The possibility of a recount certainly helps to keep those administrating voting procedure honest, I would think.

Ludwig,
Please read what I said.
I did not say vote for a candidate you don't like. That is too narrow a perspective. I look at the whole parliament.

I will vote against a irksome/ inappropriate candidate in the lower house but my senate vote is different.
i.e. I will vote anti lib in the lower house because of the candidate in the hope he will lose, so next election the party will select a worthwhile representative of the area.

however that doesn't mean I won't be giving my senate vote to the same party I voted against in the reps.

my point it the vote in the reps won't make a difference either way in determining govt. Policy at that end is smoke and mirrors as indicated elsewhere.

In the senate policy is important as the senate are the gate keepers.
Fail the senate and it fails.

Ludwig, it is simply a matter of a little analytic thought.
albeit by reverse logic.

Cheese :-)

Ludwig,

I understand your position and agree to a certain extent. I believe that Australia's optimum population would be best under thirty million. However, I believe Julia Gillard's motives for raising the sustainability issue regarding population were not as straight forward as they seemed - for one, it allowed her to jump on the "offshore processing" bandwagon quite comfortably.

There are other reasons why I have stopped listening - not the least being her attitude to schooling. Being a homeschooler, I'm obviously interested in autonomy in learning and abhor the one size fits all mentality. Ms gillard seems to be a great supporter of regimented test oritentated, teacher driven learning - I'm not, which is , of course, a personal thing.

P.S. I wouldn't vote for the present shadow front bench lead by Tony Abbott in a pink fit.

Ludwig, how can you say that?

So far Gillard has dodged every serious issue, with continual motherhood statements. To me this means she is not prepared to express what her, [or her party's], real policies are, as she believes knowledge of them would cost her the election.

Every time I see & listen to her I become more worried that she will get elected, then uncover a wide range of very bad policies. Her reference group idea is a smoke screen for hiding a bad policy, that would cost her votes, & nothing else.

I was saying what everyone else is saying now about Rudd, 6 months before he was elected, & was unhappily expecting him to be elected by dumb Ozzie's. So take heart, I feel the same way, now after some consideration, about little Julia. I expect she will be elected, & be an even worse mistake than Rudd, if that's possible.

NB my last post was incorrectly addressed to Ludwig (sorry)
it should have been to poirot......

Ahem sorry.

Hey Belly,

What say you open a thread about scrutineering after the polls?

I thought for a moment you already had, but I must have imagined it. Could have sworn I posted to it, too, but the Oldtimers must be getting to me, because I can't see any trail of a discussion about it any more. Musta just sent the post to bed in my filing system by accident, instead.

There just seem to be so many threads about the relative merits or demerits of Julia or Tony, or Tony or Julia, or the Libs and Labs, or the Labs and Libs, that I must have got lost in the matrix somewhere, because blow me down if I haven't found another one.

Hey, I've got it! I reckon some hacker (Jim Hacker?) must have hijacked the OLO index page, and just for fun is putting up different topic titles like the one I thought I had posted to, but they're all really about Tony and Julia, or Julia and Tony, etc, etc, etc. I actually think he may have 'identity-thieved' Belly's OLO userID! Yeah, that must be how he's doing it!

Well, I know how to fix this hacker right up! I'll post off-topic to his damn Julia or Tony, Lib or Lab, love/hate thread!

Belly (the real Belly, that is), you've been on OLO a fair while. Do you think other OLOers would be interested in discussing a bit of online scrutineering after the polls? They could all do it from the comfort of their opinionating chair, couch, or whatever it is that they recline upon while giving the world the benefit of their thoughts.

Do you reckon they'd be in it?

I value your opinion, because I believe you've actually done this important work. Someone has to help keep the bastards honest. Do you reckon they'd be up to it?

My husband feels the same way as Poirot.
He's telling me that he's simply going to
front up on election day, have his name crossed
off the list and hand in a blank sheet.
I'm furious at him.
I agree with Examinator, that it's not a big ask
to select , (every couple of years)
if not the candidate of your choice,
then the Party, that you feel will best run the
country. Surely we all have an opinion on that?

I've voted in every single election since I was
eligible to vote, and I will continue to do so.
Simply because I feel that if I don't, I deserve
someone like Tony Abbott! ;-)

If you do not I will start such a thread after it is over it should fly.
Hasbeen gee you come across as an unhappy person.
Voters who take as much time as you do, think as clearly as you do, are not wrong just because they do not do your asking.
I count both numbers and keep an eye on preferences.
I do not wait for Senate votes but do watch officials, many are pumped up bullfrogs full of self importance.
Yes Ludwig I have voted for a candidate I did not like.
But while we face an uphill battle my candidate this time is better than the sitting member.
Votes will be counted many times after my job is done and I do Help any one in there who needs it from any party.
Do not ever think those who destroy votes are silly they act silly but are the first to complain no matter who gets the job.
Read my posts, I have issues with Gillard ,yet she will re state and act on a sustainable population and like it or not do every thing she can to stop those boats.
More votes can be lost by ignoring them

Examinator “Personally I see the 'spoilers' to be the biggest hypercrites in that they don't have the courage of their convictions to get up off their self indulgent butts to change what is wrong.”

How about compulsory voting was abandoned and those who decide to spoil their vote could stay at home and save everyone else the bother….

Exercising their democratic right not to participate

“Doing nothing is a destructive/ churlish choice.”

But then, so is voting labor

<< Ludwig, how can you say that? >>

Hasbeen, I presume you are referring to my agreement with Poirot that Gillard IS << … pointing our society in a more constructive and cooperative direction … >>

Inasmuch as she has expressed concerns about sustainability and a move away from a big Australia, she has made a very significant change to the up-to-now entrenched and untouchable continuous growth paradigm.

But yes I agree with you that apart from some motherhood statements in the right direction, she has not cut the mustard!

You say;

<< I expect she will be elected, & be an even worse mistake than Rudd, if that's possible. >>

Hmmm. I share that fear. Well, I can’t see how she could be worse than Rudd, but yes, she could well turn out to be a very long way removed from striving for real sustainability or from meaningfully pulling back from rapid population growth and other big issues that really matter.

<< My husband feels the same way as Poirot.
He's telling me that he's simply going to
front up on election day, have his name crossed
off the list and hand in a blank sheet.
I'm furious at him. >>

But Foxy, it is part of our democratic right to choose to not vote for any candidate if we feel that none is worthy, or if we are left feeling apathetic or disaffected by their rantings.

Voting for on one is not necessarily a sign of apathy. It could well be a carefully considered decision.

Let’s face it, there is a large portion of the voting public that don’t like either the Labs or Libs, but are going to vote for whichever one they think is the slightly less putrid!

They SHOULDN’T!!

They should vote for no one, unless they feel that one or other party really does deserve their vote… or … that they want one party to win because they feel that the other one really would be significantly worse.

What sort of a system have we got anyway if a large portion of the votes gained by the winning party are based on the 'slightly lesser of two evils' (SLOTE) motivation?

And by all indications, the SLOTE factor will indeed be very large!

Dear Ludwig,

My husband will change his mind on
Election Day - because he, like myself,
may not be all that crazy about Julia
Gillard, but when we consider the alternative,
AHHHHHHHHHH!

Well Foxy, if you and your hub genuinely think that the babbling Abbott is significantly worse than the dithering Dillard, well so be it. But I can’t see it. They are two ‘me-tooist’ peas in a pod….and I don’t think that any caring person should be voting for EITHER of em! Grrr |:>{

As the counting starts and the voters are gone the Aussie comes out in the party people standing around the table.
All day you may have swapped little insults or views but once only the count remains a calm comes over us all, mostly.
That rude young girl who was an official all day broke every rule but she is not the only one.
My usual booth far away from home saw the public servant earning extra income swearing as votes went to his most disliked party.
He stopped only after both I and that sides person told him to stop.

Ludwig says, in his post of Thursday, 29 July 2010 at 9:18:35 PM, that:

"Voting for no one is not necessarily a sign of apathy.
It could well be a carefully considered decision."

[There, I've fixed the typo!]

As this is a thread about scrutineering after the close of the poll, it is important to note that what Ludwig claims might well be a carefully considered decision (ie. leaving the ballot paper blank) is in fact recognised as potentially being such by the Constitution itself. When it is a referendum question, as distinct from an election of a member or senator, the Constitution recognises nothing other than a 'Yes' vote as approving proposed change to the Constitution. A blank ballot paper, classed as informal though it may be, and unwise as it may be to leave a blank ballot paper for potential tampering with during the count, is effectively regarded as an expression of a voter being unable to decide the merit of the proposal, and thus counts, in the end, as if it were a formal 'No' vote.

I mention this because the AEC at the last referendum (in 1999) tried to tell its officials, and scrutineers, differently.

Thankfully, Sir David Smith, in a submission to the JSCEM, drew this serious error to the attention of the Parliament. The AEC 'Electoral Backgrounder 10' web document was subsequently taken down. I mention it again so that if any viewer is scrutineering at a referendum in the future, they may not be taken in by any such claim that an informal vote does not affect the result. It does.

This Federal election, were large numbers of voters to leave the ballot paper blank, even as a conscious decision as described by Ludwig, it would be that much more vital for scrutineers to be present during the count to ensure no secretly, or openly, partisan electoral official filled any such blank ballot papers in. Recording the number of informals, and countersigning the acquittal sheet, is vital scrutineering.

The original VTR in 2007 didn't publish the ordinary vote informals!

I am voting for the party with the best history of Treasurer [and Economist]! Shall avoid the dilemma having to think about either AA or JG......always room for improvement and should restore this country of ours to health; cheers Belly you patriotic Laborite, please note: you give me some special fun filled moments reading your posts].

Remember folks voting in Australia is not compulsory, turning up and having your name crossed off the list is (compulsory).

Stern
Thanks for the party promo.
You a liberal voter strewth ! who would have thunk it?

;-)

Severin,
Too true too true. You can lead "a horse to water...."

At least that way it can be truly said we get the government we deserve.
Those who deliberately don't vote have the similar moral thinking as to not warn someone of a crumbling cliff edge.

Yet it were their spouse that went over they would sue the person for not warning or DOING something to stop it. Councils cop that often.
It's called criminal negligence.
If one doesn't do the MINIMUM to support democracy (voting ) isn't that negligence ?

Examinator

>> If one doesn't do the MINIMUM to support democracy (voting ) isn't that negligence ? <<

I agree it is negligence. And, therefore, will not be wasting my vote.

In fact, I believe this federal election is of even greater import than the last, when getting rid of Howard was the primary goal. This time, it is a choice between a sustainable economy, or regression to a business-as-usual theocracy.

I will be voting below the line to make MY preferences work in the senate - even though it will be for only half the senate and this means the Greens. There is no-one else and putting the Abbott led Libs where they belong (last) for letting our infrastructure decline for 11 years, putting sick people on unemployment benefits instead of appropriate aid, tormenting innocents in mandatory detention, exploiting workers in work(non)choices, I could go on, but those of similar inclination to myself don't need proselytising.

Examinator,

Do give me some credit for deciding that my vote(in the lower house) will not be crucial. I live in very safe Liberal seat. The Labor candidate is all but invisible, while the Liberal candidate has plied us with much paraphernalia and is very high profile. It might be defeatist but I know which candidate is going to win. That knowledge, plus the odium of the campaign has brought me to my decision.
My Senate vote, however, will be utilized to vote for the Greens as I like the idea of them holding the balance of power. I have voted this way in the Senate in the last four elections and the Green candidates I have voted for have been elected.
So you see, it is not just mindless disinterest

Poirot

I am in a marginal seat which has candidates from Labor/Libs through to the Sex Party, so I feel my lower house vote will count for something this year.

Cheers

Severin,

Absolument!

If my seat was marginal, I would definitely have a different outlook and would be voting in the lower house, My decision to avoid most of the daily clap-trap during this election has been significantly coloured by the no contest situation in my electorate.

I am over it but will be manning my booth and watching the count.
And letter boxing doing what I can to see a second term.
I FEAR an Abbott government.
No SPIN I DO the divide between Australians would be harsh,
But I just bet that night, if I can not get out of it, watching each vote will be a hard night for who ever fails, and just maybe Australia.

Belly

I share your fears, unless the Greens are the ones attracting voters from Labor.

However, I am staggered at the current polls that people are seriously considering Abbott for PM - I spent 11 years gobsmacked that Howard was returned election after election. We cannot return to a right-wing ultra-conservative Christian dominated government again.

No more theocracy.

Gotta agree with you, Severin.

I have to admit that I did not see the election of an Abbott government as a serious proposition.
If these polls are accurate, it does make you wonder if the electorate is really like a field of poppies swayed to and fro by huge wafts of media spin...depending which way the spin is blowing around election time as to who wins.
Imagine...three years after Howard's demise the notion of Prime Minister Abbott....sounds a bit freaky to me.

In my post of Friday, 30 July 2010 at 8:19:23 AM, I made the statement:

"The original VTR in 2007 didn't
publish the ordinary vote informals!"

By the time the count had reached finality, of course, the total number of informal votes HAD been published.




The point of significance is that in the counting of the ordinary vote, that vote cast in the various polling places that goes straight into the ballot boxes un-enveloped on election day, the number of informal votes IS known and recorded on the respective polling place acquittal sheets.

It seems important to me to ask why such informals were not listed alongside the progressive reports of the ordinary primary vote count as these were posted to the VTR. That total ordinary vote informals figure is known by the time the last polling place has notified its figures to the DRO on election night. True it may be that the DRO may subsequently rule upon votes initially recorded as being informal, and award them to one candidate or another, but that does not alter the accountancy for ballot papers issued to vote claimants, which acquittal is of as much importance in itself in each polling place as the counting of primary votes.

This failure to account for the ordinary vote informal total made it impossible for the public viewing the VTR in 2007 to know how much, if at all, the propensity for the casting of informal votes varied between the ordinary vote and the declaration vote categories. It also made it impossible to assess the turnout of voters at that election until the finality of the count.

A sub-class among informal votes is that of those that are such because they have been LEFT BLANK, unmarked. These ballot papers are of special concern because they remain open to tampering during the sometimes extended period before the declaration of the poll by the DRO. It is a requirement of both good scrutineering, and for electoral transparency, to know, and record, the number of such BLANK informals cast in each polling place.

Yes I fear an Abbott government.
I truly think he will bring back a form of workchoices.
And yes this has happened before in 1975 and two years before my ALP helped the media paint a picture that frightened little children.
After 11/11 that year we had no place to go, lost office and it hurt to know we helped what I think was a low act ,take place.
This time media is one sided making news in the truest sense.
But Abbott started this mud slinging, watch as it returns, in the strangest way it will be his own words that beat him the release of his past statements will derail him.
This country would be far better if both sides in every Parliament in the country, stops the rowdy rubbish and mud throwing and let policy's do the talking.
But this election has just started to get dirty if a debate took place no set rules just set times Abbott would tumble down and out.
I ask every one not to close their eyes remember the complaints about ALP spending, have you done the sums? Abbott has promised big spending but with what?