tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post4661089145805729281..comments2023-10-20T21:32:41.646+11:00Comments on Truth Seeker: Flip!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-44701477814349218182013-09-26T02:38:35.326+10:002013-09-26T02:38:35.326+10:00Wonder if there were any other data entry errors?Wonder if there were any other data entry errors?Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272077261033925542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-6544978439132681552013-09-22T13:40:59.804+10:002013-09-22T13:40:59.804+10:00With that mismatch between House and Senate votes ...With that mismatch between House and Senate votes it looks very much like this is just a data entry error. It should be caught when they attempt to apportion those votes and discover that they don't exist.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-74357752725250464692013-09-22T04:12:22.417+10:002013-09-22T04:12:22.417+10:00I'm not aware of anything that would cause the...I'm not aware of anything that would cause the Forcett oddity but it's interesting that those RUA votes in Forcett are mostly shown as unapportioned at a stage of the count at which almost all votes are apportioned. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-79287255269965708632013-09-22T01:58:31.561+10:002013-09-22T01:58:31.561+10:00The RUA vote is ridiculous and if candidate lives ...The RUA vote is ridiculous and if candidate lives there might be explainable. But the discrepancy in total votes between Senate and house is not. Are these two discrepancies related? Was it just a typo? 32 instead of 3? If so, then why didn't the software detect this was bogus? <br />-TruthSeekerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-63714676870434772662013-09-22T01:12:50.254+10:002013-09-22T01:12:50.254+10:00You're absolutely right. The figure for Force...You're absolutely right. The figure for Forcett in the Senate is not credible, only (at a stretch) if the Senate candidate for RUA lives at Forcett, which local AEC official should be aware of. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-62738940926552237942013-09-21T21:31:00.196+10:002013-09-21T21:31:00.196+10:00While not worthy of a standalone post, I'll ma...While not worthy of a standalone post, I'll make this as a comment. The booth of Forcett in Lyons looks unusual and would be the first one I'd recount (Senate and house).<br />- 597 house votes<br />- 626 senate votes<br />- RUA house vote=1.3% (Lyons range: 0-2.2%)<br />- RUA senate vote=5.1% (Rest of Lyons range: 0-1.7%)<br /><br />This is no smoking gun, it's nothing that will turn the election, but it's one obvious example of where a priority recount should have been done ASAP. Realistically, software should probably have prevented this data being entered into the system on election night two weeks ago.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272077261033925542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-16856010324250367782013-09-21T20:15:41.120+10:002013-09-21T20:15:41.120+10:00PS - by Truth Seeker.
(I have trouble logging in ...PS - by Truth Seeker. <br />(I have trouble logging in and commenting from one of my devices)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-78032789222499063652013-09-21T20:13:39.648+10:002013-09-21T20:13:39.648+10:00Yes, hasn't this been annoying! In this case ...Yes, hasn't this been annoying! In this case though I'm pretty sure this was a data entry error. The liberal ticket was right next door and Bullet had picked up an additional 500 votes or 0.8% of the daily count, 4x their overall average. This was reversed today. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-22304044028772014832013-09-21T19:52:12.020+10:002013-09-21T19:52:12.020+10:00There has been some kind of glitch in the Tasmania...There has been some kind of glitch in the Tasmanian Senate count that has seen new figures overwritten with old figures - sometimes for hours at a time - although it has always been fixed eventually. It seems to especially target postal votes from one or more specific electorates at a time.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-17512458790782969682013-09-21T19:08:05.367+10:002013-09-21T19:08:05.367+10:00Currently having a look at one such electorate. .....Currently having a look at one such electorate. .. Will post any notable results! Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272077261033925542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-78428384177665005802013-09-21T19:06:25.429+10:002013-09-21T19:06:25.429+10:00This flip very much increases the likelihood of Si...This flip very much increases the likelihood of Sinodinos winning the final seat. Although I think this outcome most accurately reflects the will of the voters, it is still annoying that pundits such as me make predictions based on the available data only to be gazumped when correct data is subsequently loaded. <br /><br />Why not have the system quarantine dubious data until such data can be manually rechecked? <br /><br />I have a lot of confidence in the aec. But I remain concerned that the two highest profile house seats have seen massive errors corrected - what about the 100 safe seats no pundits have even looked at? What about the Senate which is near impossible to accurately scrutineer? Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272077261033925542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-15430957799706400102013-09-21T18:25:36.715+10:002013-09-21T18:25:36.715+10:00I have scrutineered numerous times in Senate count...I have scrutineered numerous times in Senate counts. As a consequence I am very relaxed about the AEC getting things right. I have seen mistakes from time to time, but they always find them, maybe a day later as has happened this time. And maybe it's as simple as someone making a mistake when updating the website. BTW, what does this alteration do to your predictions about the Dems or Shooters & Fishers taking out the 6th seat in NSW?Sandranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-71390772252538881362013-09-21T17:54:55.839+10:002013-09-21T17:54:55.839+10:00Excellent suggestion again. For example, the Cool...Excellent suggestion again. For example, the Coolum Beach pre-poll centre would have shown up as the largest discrepancy, in fact it would have gone off the chart entirely. (The figures posted showed more than 8% increase to LNP primary, when for the whole electorate the LNP suffered an 8% decrease, and this in one of the biggest booths - quite apart from the mismatch in Senate votes cast and a huge 19% House of Reps premium to the LNP). But clearly, very small differences could show up as strong outliers in the Senate count, particularly for Micros, which as you have shown can totally flip the whole Senate race on its head. This is really very concerning for the Senate count. And I am pleased you've proved the practical application of your suggestions in your job. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-81835603483487260332013-09-21T17:20:59.056+10:002013-09-21T17:20:59.056+10:00Agree, Agree, Agree. I would use data crunching te...Agree, Agree, Agree. I would use data crunching techniques and then enable a vote counting "spare team" of experienced staff in each state to be directed to recount votes that are dubious.<br /><br />You refer to a 10% threshold. I would instead use data analysis to "list" the booths by discrepancy and have a hit-list of most likely booths to contain a discrepancy, for both house and Senate. It's a case of diminishing marginal returns so although it would always be worth rechecking every booth with limitless resources, AEC would need to focus on booths most likely to:<br />- Contain errors; and<br />- Modify the overall <br /><br />And guess what - I've been looking at using such techniques in my day job too to improve business outcomes.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272077261033925542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3398321532435953524.post-14426581457362472612013-09-21T17:02:49.586+10:002013-09-21T17:02:49.586+10:00Well said! I couldn't agree more. We certain...Well said! I couldn't agree more. We certainly need "sanity" checks - when figures are first determined, before they are recorded. In fact, I think the AEC could fine-tune this even more than you suggest - examples are booths where either the House of Reps or Senate or both votes are swinging say more than 10% more than the other booths in that Electorate, or certain categories of votes (eg Postal) behaving in a significantly different manner to that same category of the same Party's candidate in nearby demographically similar seats. These types of considerations / formulae would need to be adjusted according to the size of the sample / booth (so that a much larger variation of swing would be tolerated at a very small polling place without triggering a check).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com