One Vote One Value :One Vote One Value Change that counts Calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value


Change that counts :Change that counts The formula currently used in the senate count to calculate a candidate’s surplus transfer value seriously distorts the proportionality and value of the vote: It divides the value of the surplus by the number of ballot papers even though some ballot papers hold a fraction of value of others The formula was used to primarily aid a manual count and the reduce the number of mathematical calculations that were required. It fails the one vote one value principle. Major party ticket votes are increased in value at the expense of minor party candidates that have been excluded from the count. It has the potential to effect the overall results of the election disproportional to the vote. The problem is magnified when the same system is used in smaller electorates that do not use above-the-line voting. With the use of computer based technology there is no longer any justification for retaining the system and formula used


Change that counts :Change that counts To demonstrate the effect of the current problem. Hypothetical: Victoria’s Senate Election 2007 Change “One Nation’s” Ticket vote placing the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP before the Greens by swapping One Nation’s ALP-Liberal parties ticket preferences. This reduces the Australian Labor Party’s vote and forces a distribution of the Liberal Party’s third candidate’s surplus. * Reference: Antony Green’s detailed analysis in his JSCEM supplementary submission (62.1) “Problems with the Senate Counting System" dated 23 July 2008


Change that counts :Change that counts Hypothetical outcome: Under the current method used by the AEC, the Greens Candidate is bolstered by an additional 7,000 vote bonus votes delivered by the system due to the distortion in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value. With the Weighted “Inclusive Gregory” the transfer value of each vote is calculated at correct proportion to its original value * Reference: Antony Green’s detailed analysis in his JSCEM supplementary submission (62.1) “Problems with the Senate Counting System" dated 23 July 2008


Change that counts :Change that counts Question: If 91% of ballot papers (Major Party’s Ticket Vote) represent 74% of the value of the vote and 9% of ballot papers (Minor Parties and BTL votes) represents 26% of the value of the vote Do you transfer those votes based on the number of ballot papers (91:9) or on the value of the vote (74:26)? If you have 9% of shareholders who own 26% of a company’s assets and you are liquidating the company… Do you divide the assets of the company equally between the number of shareholders or based on the value of their shares? Answer: The value of their shares. Why not the value of the vote?


Change that counts :Change that counts The solution is simple. Change the formula used to calculate the surplus transfer value. Instead of dividing the value of the surplus by the number of ballot papers. Divide the value of the surplus by the candidate’s total vote times the value of the vote.


Change that counts :Change that counts Change the formula used to calculate the surplus transfer value – adopt the Gregory Inclusive Weighted vote method. Western Australia has adopted it. Victoria has recommended it Total value of candidates surplus votes divided by the total value of the candidates vote times the value of each vote


Change that counts :Change that counts The Federal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has failed to act to correct this obvious disparity in the way the senate vote is counting. Of great disappointment was Victoria’s member of parliament for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, who failed to address this issue. Michael Danby is at odds with the Victorian Parliament who has recommended the adoption of the West Australian model and the adoption of a weight transfer system.