Anyone have info on Aussie elections, particularly open source and IRV?

[Amaryllis]

I've been reading what Thom Hartmann says about IRV as a way to achieve proportional representation, plus we have a whole lot of Greens in my state who are working for IRV. I like the concept, but understand that it's a computer security nightmare, and would make audits extremely difficult.

Anyone have any info about how it works in Australia? Thom Hartmann says they have successfully implemented IRV there, and they also use open source.

Thom talks about how in Vermont 2002, the people who voted for the Dems and Progressive candidates were a clear mamority but the Repub candidate became governor with 45% of the votes. And you all know what happened with Nader in 2000.

So here's my question: How can we achieve proportional representation without sacrificing security even further than it already is? (I know, if we don't get rid of e-voting, this won't even be an issue, but I am thinking about all the Greens in my state who are working with us on the e-voting issue, but who deserve to be represented also, without harming the party to which they are most closely aligned, namely the Dems. And frankly at this point, I am not so enchanted with the Dems, after some of the stunts such as what Cathy Cox did in GA, what they are doing in CA with Diebold, how the Dem governor of New Mexico obstructed the recount that the Greens tried to do there, etc.)

Here's an old forum on open source, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=303217

[Eureka]

1. Not implemented

I can't remember the details exactly, but if I remember correctly the system Thom Hartmann seems to be referring to was developed by CSIRO (govt funded research organisation, bunch of socialists aren't we) and they open sourced the code so that anyone who wished to could see if it was fair or not.

We still vote on paper here, with pencils.

My personal opinion is the biggest thing for fairness we have is the Australian Electoral Commission. This is a Fed Govt agency that oversees all government elections, be they state, federal or local. This reduces problems I see in the US where voting rules vary state to state and the people who run the elections can be partisan (see Ken Blackwell, I believe) I think the US could use a non-partisan body to oversee elections in the same way everywhere, but of course our Federal system is different to yours, so there are doubtless heaps of things that might stop this happening.

[Amaryllis]

2. So, it's a myth that Australia uses open source? And that you have IRV?

How do you count your votes? Hand or machine? If by machine, is that open source?

It would be very difficult to get anything non-partisan here, with having essentially a one-party system at this point, since one party controls all branches of government. But, we will not give up!

[Eureka]

4. Paper Ballots, Hand Counts

The AEC employs heaps of casual workers for counts.

I've never heard anyone complain about a partisan approach, but those on the extreme left or right might see it differently, of course.

A single body to oversee all elections is the way to go, IMHO. It seems a bastardization of democracy to have elected (and therefore partisan) officials in charge, it makes it just so open to abuse.

If the entire process is corrupted (from the top) the method of voting/counting is less important because it will be corrupted one way or another.

It's not a myth that Aus has open source electronic voting systems, but it is a myth that we use it for elections (at this point)

[Amaryllis]

5. Would you please clarify this statement:

It's not a myth that Aus has open source electronic voting systems, but it is a myth that we use it for elections (at this point)

I don't understand what you mean. What are these voting systems for if they are not used for elections?

It is very interesting how these rumors get spread around about how different countries conduct elections, and then they turn out to be only rumors. I've heard Australia held up as an example of open source voting.

[Eureka]

6. Yeah sure

The system exists, it was created by our national science research centre, so no myth there.

BUT

We don't use it, we use paper and pencils and handcounts.

The deal is, the Govt commissioned research into the system, the CSIRO built one, and now it's being reviewed. I believe the basic idea was, lets see if we can build something decent, and check it very thoroughly before it's put in the field so that we don't end up with people claiming the vote is rigged (ala US elections 2000/2004).

We don't really have a need for an electronic system for our current uses since we have a small population and hand counts are usually completed within a day or so of the election, even with preference voting BUT if we had an electronic system we could vote on a whole bunch of new things as well as the current lot of elections, so I think the effort was to design things for the future, not to work around problems with the current system.

We do have open source voting (if you want to perpetuate a myth :-) ) because paper is open source, pencils are open source, and counting is open source.

[Amaryllis]

7. What a concept! Checking it thoroughly before it's put in the field!

Seems like such a no-brainer, but then you don't have multi-national corporations in charge of your elections!

[Amaryllis]

8. Do you have instant runoff voting? I read in one of Thom Hartmann's books

that you did.

[Amaryllis]

3. Some fascinating info on the Australian Electoral Commission website:

Thank you, Eureka.

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/index.htm

Voting

Voting is compulsory for all eligible persons, unless they have a valid and sufficient reason. To vote, people must be on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll.
More ...
General Information

* How Your Vote Counts
* How the Votes are Counted
* Counting the Votes - House of Representatives
* Counting the Votes - Senate
* Your Vote - A Guide to Your Electoral System

Types of Votes

* Types of Votes within Australia
* Overseas Voting

How to Vote at a Federal Election

* How to Vote - House of Representatives
* How to Vote - Senate

Multilingual Information

* Information About Enrolment and Voting
* How to vote for the House of Representatives and the Senate

Formal and Informal Voting

* Formal and Informal Votes
* Informal House of Representatives Ballot Paper Survey - 2001 Election
* Informal Senate Ballot Paper Survey - 2001 Election
* Research Report 1 Informal Vote Survey House of Representatives - 2001 Election
* Informal Voting by Division for House of Representatives 1987 - Present (%)
* Informality - House of Representatives and Senate - 2001 (%)
* Informality - House of Representatives and Senate - 1998 (%)
* Informality - House of Representatives and Senate - 1996 (%)
* Informality - State and National Summaries 1977 - Present

Voter Turnout

* Voter Turnout 1901 - Present (National Summary)
* 2004 Federal Election Voter Turnout by Division
* 2001 Federal Election Voter Turnout by Division
* 1998 Federal Election Voter Turnout by Division
* 1996 Federal Election Voter Turnout by Division
* 1993 Federal Election Voter Turnout by Division

Further Information

* What Happens at a Polling Place
* Electoral and Voting Systems Research Paper
* Electronic Voting and Electronic Counting of Votes Status Report 1
* Electronic Voting Status Report 2
* Multilingual Information about Enrolment and Voting

Frequently Asked Questions

* General Voting
* Overseas Voting

Search:

powered by Google
Subscribe for the latest AEC updates
Help:
Australian Electoral Commission Commonwealth of Australia

[JunkYardDogg]

9. Thanks for the old Open Source Code Thread

N/T

[Aussie_expat]

10. Austrailian vote counting .......................

Votes are counted by hand and overseen by scrutineers who are provided by all of the candidates represented in the electorate. The scrutineers have the right to contest any suspicious ballot at the precinct level.

A preferential system is used, by marking your prefered candidate 1 and down to your least prefer candidate ... say 5 or so depending on how many are running in the specific electorate. If the winning candidate wins less than 50% the vote then preferences are distributed to the top candidates to determining a result.

The results are generally known within a few hours unless the electorate experienced a close race.

All ballots are paper and every citizen over 18 must cast a ballot.

It's a simple and transparent system.

[Amaryllis]

11. Do you like the preferential system? It sounds really good. Do

most Aussies seem to feel favorably toward it?

[Aussie_expat]

17. Most Aussies....................

Most Austrailians are indifferent unless it directly effects our hip pocket, then we are apt to have a wholesale change in Government.

If a candidate wins with preferences then he and his constituents love the system... the opposite holds true with a loss.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. IRV - Instant Republican Victory

Pitfalls of IRV, or why it should be called
Instant Republican Victory

The big problem with IRV is that the winner is very often a candidate who would have lost to
one or more of the other candidates in a one to one contest. This is not just an
occasional problem but would likely happen frequently.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-January/014389.html


IRV: Instant Runoff Voting, a distraction from fixing a broken system
... IRV does not address the key issues of vote fraud -
the use of voting machines (of whatever flavor),
the role of the CIA, big money, ...
www.oilempire.us/irv.html


There is more than meets the eye to IRV:
IRV gives Third Parties an unproportional amount of political power
IRV requires deliberate strategy of ranking of votes (voter ed critical here)
IRV gives rise to Vote-Brokering
IRV is too complex and expensive for our present voting infrastructure
IRV avails itself to election manipulation by strategically placing candidates in a certain order
popular candidates can be defeated even though they would have normally won an IRV election
http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/000173.shtml

IRV gave Australia Howard, and Israel Sharon.

[Internut]

16. Israel does not have IRV. n/t

[Amaryllis]

19. so then how do we get proportional representation? I am NOT SAYING

this is any antidote for election fraud; obviously taking care of the e-voting issue and corruption is crucial and is first; however, this still leaves the Greens in the position of weakening the chances of the Dem candidates if they run their own candidate. They do deserve to have a voice and there needs to be a way to have one without it meaning weakening the closest party.

See this from my original post:
Thom talks about how in Vermont 2002, the people who voted for the Dems and Progressive candidates were a clear mamority but the Repub candidate became governor with 45% of the votes.

So, do you have any solutions to offer?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. As used in Australia, source code etc

Australia began using electronic voting:
The ACT's electronic voting system, which was first used at the October 2001 election
and was again used in the October 2004 election, is the first of its kind to be used for
parliamentary elections in Australia.

The system uses standard personal computers
as voting terminals, with voters using a barcode to authenticate their votes.

Voting terminals are linked to a server in each polling
location using a secure local area network. No votes are taken
or transmitted over a public network like the Internet.
Link: http://www.elections.act.gov.au/Elecvote.html

[Amaryllis]

18. We are getting conflicting info here. The two people from Australia who

are posting are saying they don't use electronic voting.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. misnomer about Nader

It is incorrect that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election.
It is also incorrect that punchcards cost Gore the 2000 election.

yet should both of these faulty assumptions cause major election reform?

or should we address the real issue, the one that did cost
Gore and us the election in 2000, and also cost the dems the 2004 election?

In 2000, in Florida, voting machines showed a minus 19,000 votes for Gore.

Greens can take credit for election reform all they want, but they pretty much showed up AFTER the election, didn't they.

I am more in favor of reforming the democratic party, rather than further weakening it. That takes grassroots effort. That means that we have to campaign against the bad democrats, and reward the good ones.

That means taking over your local democratic party, blogging, and getting the word out on bad dems who hurt our cause.

Changing elections so that people need an extensive strategy is not going to help.

Voter ed in our country already stinks, and we can't afford to lose any more votes than we are losing.

With IRV, if you only choose one candidate for a contest, your vote counts less than if you choose 3 or 4.
You have to carefully rank your candidates, because you could end up helping the candidate that you hate if you aren't wise.

[Amaryllis]

20. I did not say that NAder cost Gore the election in 2000. However, the

fact remains that without some way to have proportional representation, third parties will invariably weaken the position of the party candidate most closely affiliated with them.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. IRV less fair to minorities

Is IRV fairer to voters?

According to the Dec 2004 report on San Francisco's IRV election, by the Public Research Institute at San Francisco University:

Education, income, race and language tied to understanding of IRV

Overall, 1 in 8 expressed some lack in understanding of IRV.

Understanding of IRV by all voters polled
nearly 1/3 (31%) of voters who came to the polls did not know they would be asked to rank candidates
about 1/2 (52%) of those surveyed said they understood RCV "perfectly well"
35% said they understood it "fairly well"
11% said they "did not understand it entirely"
3% said they "did not understand it at all".

Breakdown by race - of voters reporting a lack of understanding
African Americans (23%)
Latinos (19%)
"Other" racial/ethinic groups (17%)
Asian (13%)
White (12%)
Percent of voters who actually ranked candidates
59% reported ranking three candidates
14% reported ranking two candidates
23% reported ranking only one candidate
The self-reported incidence of ranking three candidates was lowest among
African Americans, Latinos, voters with less education, and those whose first language was not english.

The lack of prior knowledge, understanding, and full use of the Ranked-Choice system among some groups
of citizens are concerns that should capture the focus of citizens and government alike and shape efforts to find
remedies in future elections.
http://pri.sfsu.edu/reports/SFSU-PRI%20Ranked%20Choice%20Voting%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf

Pretty sorry that after two years of public discussion and promotion, that so many were not educated about the new voting system used in their city.