Thanks everyone for your enlightened and enthusiastic commentary today. If have read all your intelligent comments.
Nothing I have read our seen makes me think the process would be worse off by doing a recount. So let's do it if not only to legitimise the victors for the next 6 years.
I'm travelling until Sunday night so won't be able to individually talons until then. But I will.
In the meantime, check out https://t.co/nfI4WeQobG. At least two people claim to have actually voted btl at the geraldton booth. Not that this would have changed the result. .. probably.
But surely it tells us we should conduct a full recount.
UPDATE: For my previous article about the Senate composition in a double dissolution, follow this link:
http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/and-you-thought-current-senate-was.html?m=0
And nice work on being name dropped again by Tim Colebatch in today's Fairfax newspapers:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/double-trouble-in-double-dissolution-20131004-2uzyv.html
Whats the betting that a recount will be conducted? By the AEC or by the court of appeal?
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents. For the AEC I think there is a 60-70% chance of a recount purely based on the logic of a close result AND the political/public pressure. However I think left to their own devices they would be reluctant to call for a recount based purely on the fact that the result was close at one of the earlier eliminations. Reason being is that this opens up a massive can of worms for senate elections as given the current system this type of close elimination will happen fairly regularly I would imagine. As I have pointed out in WA alone it was not just the Shooters/Christians that was close (14 votes) but also Katter party was only eliminated by 25 votes. Are we going to recount based on closeness or just the closeness that matters? Pretty rubbery if you ask me. So I think there is a large non zero chance that they decline the recount but on balance I suspect they will proceed. The question then becomes whether anything other than a full recount would do....another big can of worms......
If it gets to the Court of Disputed returns I suspect the chances of a recount would be much higher again, purely due to the fact that the decision is now out of the hands of the AEC. But once again its non zero due to fact that the AEC laws if interpreted strictly would probably not allow for a recount unless sufficient evidence can be shown that it should......which we have not seen to date.
What do others think?
The 25 votes involving KAP is nothing. At the early stages of the count minor candidates (#2 candidates for obscure parties) are frequently eliminated with votes tied. In theory any minor candidate who is eliminated in this way might have received preferences from other candidates they are tied with and gone on to win, but in practice none of these candidates have any chance. That is why there is not an automatic recount threshhold for Senate counts. The KAP exclusion by 25 votes does not matter because ATL preference flows show KAP wouldn't win anyway.
DeleteThe logical extension of the House automatic recount provisions is that there would be some form of recount if you could demonstrate that a specific exclusion that was very close actually mattered. I think that would have to be a subjective judgement call by the AEC.
My worry about a full recount is that the rights of scrutineers in the recount provisions will turn it into a scrutineers' picnic - as per Fairfax in which the Palmer team seems to be challenging the authenticity of most opposing ballots (see http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/2013-federal-election-late-counting.html ) What the situation really demands is a recheck, just to go through every vote and make sure there are no S+F or AC votes hidden anywhere else and that the S+F and AC votes are all correct.