WA votes (again) on April 5

Due to Australian Electoral Commission incompetence West Australian voters will be voting on April 5 in a re-run of the 2013 election.

Sending 1.5 million WA voters back to the polls to choose six new senators is expected to cost taxpayers as much as $20 million, electoral officials said this week.

The new election comes after the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, last week declared the September 7 result “absolutely void’’ as a result of the lost 1370 ballot papers.

I have yet to see an explanation of how 1370 votes were actually lost. Each ballot must be a about a metre long – so that’s at least 1.3 km of paper the AEC misplaced.

Anyway – nobody is criticising the Americans any more over their hanging chad debacle. At least they still had the chads and the ballot papers.

The thing that does trouble me, however, is that the election won’t be an actual re-run of the 2013 election:

The key dates in the build up to the new poll include the closing of electoral rolls on March 7, and nominations closing on March 13.

It seems to me that only those people who nominated previously should be allowed to contest the rerun. Otherwise WA voters get make a very different choice now than they did then.

If you are voting in the WA election – be sure to consider Linda Reynolds (related to our own Andrew Reynolds) and be sure to vote for the LDP.

Update: As yet I haven’t seen any betting markets for the WA result.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to WA votes (again) on April 5

  1. Rabz

    And to think that the architect of this inexcusable third world debacle, Killestyn, is still hoovering our taxes.

    Great work, all those concerned.

    :x

  2. Infidel Tiger

    If you are voting in the WA election – be sure to consider Linda Reynolds (related to our own Andrew Reynolds) and be sure to vote for the LDP.

    How many votes does he need?

    I’ll arrange it.

    With a bit of walk around money I should be able to game most of the outback polling stations without much trouble. A few primary schools are going to have some distractions and minor paper theft about 6pm as well.

  3. Infidel Tiger

    It seems to me that only those people who nominated previously should be allowed to contest the rerun. Otherwise WA voters get make a very different choice now than they did then.

    It’s a stuttering clusterfuck.

    We need UN inspectors to supervise.

  4. Grumbles

    Never before have us sandgropers had a greater influence on the outcome of an election, we will define the nature of the senate moving forward. Hopefully we are still as anti left as we were feeling last year.

    Small question, watching how the count of votes works was very confusing, most people I know vote below the line… I thought there was no preference flows below the line that they have to use the full spread or am I wrong?

  5. Muphin

    Why bother with the WA senate election?? There is little doubt that the Labor and the Greens will block the carbon tax repeal. This is a trigger for a double dissolution. TA should grab this opportunity to get rid of the unrepresented swill of the Greens, Labor and some of the independents in the senate.

  6. Rabz, worth reading the conclusions of the report produced. Sounds like the real issues were one level down from Killestyn.

    Be interesting to see how this plays out, especially with the minor parties and preferences.

    Grumbles – below the line you indicate your own preferences. Above the line, you select the preference flows nominated by the party. If you don’t like the preference flows, choose another party. With the number of minor parties standing, its a good bet you’ll find one you are happy with.

    Muphin – DD process takes three months. The election will be held by then.

  7. Fred Lenin

    The gheifs of aec should be dismissed without compensation,and the cost of the new election deducted from political pensions paid to retired politicians and the senates budget for this year,if the useless senate works its stupidity on the reduced money cut next years budget by twice the amount,A large donation from the high courts budget would help also,say cut all high court finances by half.see how they manage on that ,other savings cut to one quarter all retired judges and governor generals pensions!

  8. H B Bear

    Is it confirmed parties can put up new candidates?

    That is bullshit.

  9. .

    It is not fair to Wang, this whole thing.

    However, the LDP are the party to support.

    If anyone has an idea how to preference non leftists parties first after the LDP, down the ALP 2nd last and Greens last, I’m all ears.

    If you support the LDP please donate – I have already have donated so our Western brothers can be represented by a pro liberty Senator.

  10. Yobbo

    Why should anyone vote liberal who preference PUP ahead of the LDP?

    Fuck the “Liberal” party.

  11. Menai Pete

    I am not (and never will be) convinced that the loss was accidental and that the ballots were not stolen by a Labor/Greens apparatchik employed by the AEC who saw the opportunity to cause a new election at a time when the anti-Labor/Greens mood of the electorate in September had been tempered by time to give them the opportunity to gain advantage for their candidates. After all, we would not have known about the missing votes if the September result had not been challenged.

  12. .

    Why is the result in Indi still valid?

  13. Anne

    We need UN inspectors to supervise.

    Hahaha…Dracula guarding the Blood Bank.

  14. Gab

    If you are voting in the WA election – be sure to consider Linda Reynolds (related to our own Andrew Reynolds) and be sure to vote for the LDP.

    Who is the LDP candidate?

  15. Fleeced

    Libs preffed PUP? Fools… LDP would be much better for them in the long run.

    Given that, and the fact that Libs wan’t to block LDP from using their name in the future, they deserve no mercy – but there are so many crappy left-wing groups (that is, more left-wing than the Libs), that they’re kind of short on options.

  16. Yobbo

    Dot: I’ll list the minors in order of ideological soundness:

    1. LDP
    2. Outdoor Recreation (stop the greens)
    3. Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
    4. Smoker’s rights
    5. Australian motor enthusiasts
    6. Family First
    7. No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
    8. Wikileaks
    9. Australian Sports Party
    10. Secular Party
    11. Help End Marijuana Prohibition
    12. Sex Party
    13. Australian Independents

    Unless I’ve missed any, the remaining minor parties (PUP, Katter, Rise Up Australia, Stable Population, Australian Democrats, Australian Voice etc) are worse than the majors.

  17. Infidel Tiger

    Voting LDP is a priority but ballot rigging must also be high on everyone’s agenda.

    This election can be the first one ever stolen by pro-liberty parties.

  18. Fleeced

    Unless I’ve missed any, the remaining minor parties (PUP, Katter, Rise Up Australia, Stable Population, Australian Democrats, Australian Voice etc) are worse than the majors

    I suspect many of those minors are too – still not sure about Sex Party – but I figure the chaos of them being there is likely to be better than the majors.

  19. Yobbo

    Libs preffed PUP? Fools… LDP would be much better for them in the long run.

    Given that, and the fact that Libs wan’t to block LDP from using their name in the future

    They also supported laws that doubled the cost of minor party candidate nominations and are planning to conspire with the Greeens and ALP to prevent minor parties from receiving electoral funding in the event they get enough votes.

  20. Fleeced

    So… we’ve all got our AEC change of address forms to move to WA for a few months?

    (You laugh, but I wouldn’t put that sort of behaviour past the Greens)

  21. Infidel Tiger

    My wife is going to vote LDP first 5 times at least this election.

  22. dismissive

    Why should anyone vote liberal who preference PUP ahead of the LDP?

    Seems only fair … LDP put PUP before the Liberals too.

  23. Gab

    Thanks, Yobbo. I wish him well and hope he gets elected. Just have a read:

    Jim has over thirty years experience in mining and exploration and has gained a unique perspective on the nation, working in all areas from the hearts of cities to some of the remotest parts of the country, including extended time in the Pilbara and goldfields of Western Australia.

    Mr. Fryar said that the three levels of government in Australia are out of control and all constantly pass rules and regulations that impact adversely on all of us as well as sucking up vast financial resource.
    The mere fact that something is unregulated is now seen by the government as a reason to regulate it.

    The cost of this is borne on the backs of Australian taxpayers, especially in the resource rich states like Western Australia and Queensland, where the government watches economic activity with the same keen interest a locust displays towards a wheat field.

    Excellent stuff!

    So in order to get Jim’s name out there, the LDP needs donations … which can be done at:

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/get-involved/donate

  24. I might just vote LDP, you know.

    I might just do that.

  25. brc

    I get the impression much of the liberal strategy up until this point has been with an eye to this happening.

    At least it is not a drawn out campaign.

    Abbott needs to spend the next three weeks in Wa asking for permission to block the carbon and mining taxes, and to keep operation sovereign borders ona continued path to success.

    The plain line between voting for a liberal in the senate and repealing carbon and mining taxes needs to be drawn so firmly in the lines of the voters that they won’t be able to forget it in ten years time.

    West australia, your country needs you to boot the greens as far as possible from the senate.

  26. johno

    nobody is criticising the Americans any more over their hanging chad debacle

    Whatever criticisms might be directed against the Yanks, remember one thing. The outcome of the hanging chad was that we were spared the horror of an Al Gore presidency, who could possibily have been worse than the Obama presidency. (If that is possible.)

  27. Steve D

    Shall we all move to WA? In time for the closing of the electoral rolls, of course. :-p

  28. Fleeced

    I believe Jim was involved in Singo’s Progress Party back in the day – arguably the country’s first libertarian party.

    I could be wrong about that though…

  29. Yobbo

    Seems only fair … LDP put PUP before the Liberals too.

    LDP preferenced the Liberals first out of the majors.

    PUP preferenced The Greens.

    Yet Liberals support the party who are trying to get Scott Ludlam elected.

    The Liberal party is a disgrace.

  30. twostix

    Why is the result in Indi still valid?

    Because they “found” the ballots that they “lost” dot.

    Exactly the number needed to get the green-left “independent” over the line.

  31. dismissive

    You understand that what PUP preference has no effect on the flow of Liberal preferences?

  32. Fleeced

    You understand that what PUP preference has no effect on the flow of Liberal preferences?

    You understand that these things are generally negotiated beforehand? And that given the choice between free-market and Lib-preferencing LDP or whacky Greens-preferencing PUP, the Libs chose the latter?

    Unless you think the Libs were simply caught by surprise… what’s the bet they’re surprised again?

  33. dismissive

    You understand that these things are generally negotiated beforehand? And that given the choice between free-market and Lib-preferencing LDP or whacky Greens-preferencing PUP, the Libs chose the latter?

    So you would be appalled then at the LDP’s choice of Wikileaks as their first preference who gave their major preferences to the greens, the ALP and then the libs.

  34. Yobbo

    The Liberal party generally has it in for the LDP because they think we steal their votes.

    They seem to forget:

    a: We are probably their closest ally in the senate after the Nats
    b: We preference them first.

    The Liberals’ refusal to preference us means Greens senators keep getting elected instead of LDP ones. Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

    If Libs had preferenced the Greens last in the 2010 election, the LDP would have Lee Rhiannon’s seat right now. Fact.

  35. Yobbo

    So you would be appalled then at the LDP’s choice of Wikileaks as their first preference who gave their major preferences to the greens, the ALP and then the libs.

    There’s a big difference between minor party preferences and major party preferences. If you don’t understand the difference then it’s best not to judge.

  36. dismissive

    Are you claiming the brand new PUP as a major party? Is this your point of differentiation?
    Seriously, pretty much ever pundit pre-election had Katter’s mob outperforming them.

  37. Fleeced

    So you would be appalled then at the LDP’s choice of Wikileaks as their first preference who gave their major preferences to the greens, the ALP and then the libs.

    Not sure of the details there, but it is quite common for minor parties to sacrifice one state for preferences in another (LDP did this with Sex Party, and stuffed up their Vic ballot – needless to say, they may be copping a revenge hit in WA at this election).

    But no, I wouldn’t be appalled at LDP preferencing Wikileaks in one state – just as I’m not appalled at LDP preferencing PUP ahead of majors. For that matter, I am not even appalled at PUP preferencing Greens in WA – I’m sure it made sense in their bigger/national picture at the time. For the Libs to then preference them, OTOH… Not sure I see the advantage there – but then, others get paid big bikkies for that sort of thing, so I’m sure there’s some method to their madness (but I still think they got it wrong).

    At any rate, it will be interesting to see if a party which had a favourable cross-state preference deal in WA at the last election, expects the same deal to be honoured in this election (since the other states are locked in)… there may be some squabbles up ahead about that.

  38. Yobbo

    No, I count PUP as a minor party. The point is that the way that minors distribute preferences is different to majors. It’s in the interest of minors to preference each other since none of them will get a quota on their own as long as they preference each other before the Greens it basically guarantees that at least 1 minor gets a seat. Who gets it is largely decided by who gets the most primary votes.

    OTOH, the major party preferences can play a much bigger part in deciding who gets elected. By preferencing PUP (who preference the Greens) ahead of the LDP, the Liberals are basically guaranteeing the election of Scott Ludlam, who basically wants to ban all mining in WA.

    The LDP on the other hand is pro-mining, anti-tax. Why don’t the liberals support the LDP? Because they had a tanty over the name.

  39. dismissive

    Look I don’t particularly care either way. If you want to bag the Libs and rev the LDP, good on you. I just can’t see the justification based on those preferences. Based on
    . long standing preferences; sure
    . on the “they take our vote so we won’t give them any” ; sure
    . based on ideology; sure
    . and many more reasons.

    But not on the WA pref deals to PUP.

  40. Fleeced

    The fact that there’s no cross-state swaps this time around makes the whole thing a bit more interesting… as I said, there may be some parties who had a favourable swap for WA senate at the last election and who, having honoured their commitments in other states, expect to receive their end of the bargain… it will be interesting to see what happens with that.

  41. Yobbo

    For that matter, I am not even appalled at PUP preferencing Greens in WA – I’m sure it made sense in their bigger/national picture at the time.

    I am. Especially in WA, where the #1 greens candidate wants to ban the entire economy. If PUP wanted to preference the Greens somewhere they should have done it in Tasmania where nobody cares.

  42. dismissive

    OTOH, the major party preferences can play a much bigger part in deciding who gets elected. By preferencing PUP (who preference the Greens) ahead of the LDP, the Liberals are basically guaranteeing the election of Scott Ludlam, who basically wants to ban all mining in WA.

    Ah, no. The flow of prefs don’t work that way.
    1) If PUP, get lib prefs and get a seat. No lib prefs go to the Greens before the LDP. Any over the quota votes are discounted and revert to the next in line on the Lib pref list
    2) If PUP, get lib prefs and DON’T get a seat. No lib prefs go to the Greens before the LDP. On PUP exclusion, Lib prefs revert to the next in line on the Lib pref list.

  43. Fleeced

    I must admit, it did seem an odd place for them to preference the Greens, but these things aren’t always easy to decide for a minor party – especially with multiple states in play.

    Incidentally, I hope LDP have systems in place to ensure they lodge their ticket on time – don’t want to see another disaster like in Victoria…

  44. Yobbo

    If LDP does not get enough primary votes then the PUP vote elects the Greens.

    A vote for the LDP will never elect the Greens, because we put them last.

  45. dismissive

    We are arguing at cross-purposes. Each WA card (LPD and Lib) gave their last prefs as below;
    26 Greens
    27 One Nation
    28 Socialist Equality Party

    Lib votes and LDP votes will get to the greens at the same time, when only the greens and one nation are the only ones left.

  46. Tom

    Yobbo

    #1207642, posted on February 28, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    Dot: I’ll list the minors in order of ideological soundness:

    1. LDP
    2. Outdoor Recreation (stop the greens)
    3. Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
    4. Smoker’s rights
    5. Australian motor enthusiasts
    6. Family First
    7. No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
    8. Wikileaks
    9. Australian Sports Party
    10. Secular Party
    11. Help End Marijuana Prohibition
    12. Sex Party
    13. Australian Independents

    Unless I’ve missed any, the remaining minor parties (PUP, Katter, Rise Up Australia, Stable Population, Australian Democrats, Australian Voice etc) are worse than the majors.

    Thank you, Yobbo. An excellent future reference.

  47. Fleeced

    I have to say, Family First has changed over the years, haven’t they? They seem to have some sound economic policy (with the exception of their foreign aid rubbish). Is that Bob Day’s influence?

    How are they on social issues? They’re not going to start banning gambling and adult video games, are they?

  48. Yobbo

    Lib votes and LDP votes will get to the greens at the same time, when only the greens and one nation are the only ones left.

    Yes, but I think you are missing that the Libs are rewarding PUP for putting the Greens first. It would not have been hard for them to say “sure we’ll preference you in exchange for putting the greens last”. As a result of them not bothering, a guy wants to ban mining is likely to be elected.j

  49. Andrew

    This is a trigger for a double dissolution. TA should grab this opportunity to get rid of the unrepresented swill of the Greens, Labor and some of the independents in the senate.

    Great idea when the Senior Labor Figure has had a bounce in the polls to 54% and would inflict a Gillardesque result on Abbott666.

    The fact is the brainwashed public has convinced itself that it LIKES the carbon tax and lots of boatees seeking “compassion” and for some reason it is appalled at the govt not running its military activities via YouTube. They also seem to have decided that the mere act of Abbott666′s election (and not electricity taxes, FBT hikes or crushingly pro-union regulators during 6 years of organised corruption in FWA) have made dozens of companies throw in the towel.

    We’ll have a better idea what’s going on when WA votes. Presumably they will vote for a hung GreenLP-dominated Senate, where the policies of the Milne-SLF opposition can be used to destroy their economy too. And it will be the greatest example of turkeys voting for Xmas since 50% of the public voted for Gillard. And they will deserve what they get. But that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to watch it be replicated nationally.

  50. Infidel Tiger

    How are they on social issues? They’re not going to start banning gambling and adult video games, are they?

    No more so than the ALP, LNP and Greens want to.

  51. Yobbo

    How are they on social issues? They’re not going to start banning gambling and adult video games, are they?

    They are no different to the libs on social issues, but better on economic issues.

    http://www.australiavotes.org/policies/index.php?election_id=5&topic_ids=all&party_ids=13

  52. Yobbo

    Family First
    Australia needs a political party which understands business and how markets work; how and why investment decisions are made; how real jobs are created; and that ‘barriers to entry’ to getting a job causes unemployment.
    The tragedy of workplace regulation is that while it seeks to protect the interests of those who have a job it effectively keeps out those who do not. Accordingly, Family First is committed to removing the ‘barriers to entry’ to getting a job or working more hours.
    Pricing people out of the job market denies them the opportunity to buy a house and lead a happy and prosperous life. This is not just bad for the economy it is morally wrong.

  53. candy

    Great idea when the Senior Labor Figure has had a bounce in the polls to 54% and would inflict a Gillardesque result on Abbott666.

    All true, Andrew, the job losses have hit Tony Abbott very hard. Bill Shorten feels confident blocking all legislation based on the polls, so it’s a compounding problem for the government and Australia.
    Maybe a DD is the only way to resolve it, one way or the other, but the Libs would take a serious risk.

  54. jupes
    So you would be appalled then at the LDP’s choice of Wikileaks as their first preference who gave their major preferences to the greens, the ALP and then the libs.

    There’s a big difference between minor party preferences and major party preferences. If you don’t understand the difference then it’s best not to judge.

    No no. Anyone who gives preferences to wikileaks deserves to be judged. Harshly.

  55. jupes

    I have to say, Family First has changed over the years, haven’t they?

    Getting rid of Fielding could only have turned out well for them.

  56. Yobbo

    I’ll give a quick summation of all the minors key platforms.

    1. LDP

    Everyone should know what they stand for by now.

    2. Outdoor Recreation (stop the greens)
    3. Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party

    Both groups are similar. semi-single issue parties, that issue being increased recreational access to national parks for fishing, camping, hunting etc. Stop The Greens is allied with the LDP, AFLP with the shooters’ party.

    4. Smoker’s rights

    Another LDP ally, single issue party opposed to increases in smoking excise and bans on smoking that trump private property rights.

    5. Australian motor enthusiasts

    Single issue party who mostly just want higher speed limits on highways, and less regulation of car modifications.

    6. Family First

    See above.

    7. No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics

    Obvious, but the reason I rank them lower is that they are also big supporters of boondoggles like the NBN and trains to everywhere. Also big fan of central planning of cities.

    8. Wikileaks

    Major platform is transparency and accountability of government. Their website and policies were written by socialists who infiltrated and try to turn the party into a mini-democrats, but Assange fucked them off and now stands on his own. I’m not sure they will even run a candidate this time, unless it Assange himself.

    9. Australian Sports Party

    Single issue party whose biggest policy is probably the wish to have sport included as an official part of school curriculum. Harmless enough.

    10. Secular Party

    Opposes anti-blasphemy laws and tax breaks for religious organisations. Pro-Gay marriage. Pro-euthanasia. Anti-internet censorship. No real economic policies to speak of bar supporting Gonski education reforms. Basically the opposite of the Christian parties.

    11. Help End Marijuana Prohibition

    Obvious. These guys really don’t care about anything except Marijuana legalisation. No hidden socialist agenda like a lot of pro-pot groups.

    “Our sole purpose is to agitate for the re-legalisation of Cannabis for personal, medical and industrial use.”

    12. Sex Party

    Pro-gay marriage, legalised prostitution, drug legalisation, abortion and euthanasia. A few request for increased spending on the arts and education, but not many economic policies apart from that.

    13. Australian Independents

    This is just the group voting ticket that all the independents run under in order to let people vote above the line for them. Their main policy is that they do not have any policies, but rather will literally represent the wishes of their electorate. How that works in the senate is anyone’s guess though.

  57. Yobbo

    On reflection of the list above I would probably rank HEMP higher given their 1 single issue is drug liberalisation. Wikileaks I doubt even exist any more.

  58. Grumbles

    Yeah those poll results are not in WAwe havenot forgotten the Rudd/Gillard years that we never wanted. Other than Groups in the City Center and Lefty Latte district of Fremantle, there is zero green support here.

  59. Cold-Hands

    The four senators who were duly elected at the September election are being robbed. By rights, only two seats should be up for grabs. That would have seen at least one more LNP senator and would have stopped this vote-stealing tactic in its tracks. Now, the Court of Disputed Returns has established vote-stealing as a viable strategy to re-do a poll.

  60. jupes

    8. Wikileaks

    Major platform is transparency and accountability of government.

    Oh and support of Bashar al-Asad.

  61. Infidel Tiger

    Now, the Court of Disputed Returns has established vote-stealing as a viable strategy to re-do a poll.

    Go with the flow my friend.

    We have established the AEC is useless. Now we must use that in our favour.

    I’ll be voting all day in many different names.

    Then I’ll be “scutineering”all over the place.

    We should all be doing this. They can not possibly prove you were the one that multiple voted.

  62. Infidel Tiger

    Oh and support of Bashar al-Asad.

    So do I.

    The alternative is far worse.

  63. Grigory M

    The whole damn thing is a farce. There is no way that the voting intentions of the electorate as at September 2013 can be replicated in a re-run to be held in different circumstances and most likely with different or additional candidates more than 6 months later. The High Court should have simply directed that the earlier count, which included the subsequently “lost” 1370 ballot papers, was valid and that no further action was required. The Senators-elect as per that count should now be waiting to take their seats from 1 July 2014 in accordance with the validly expressed intentions of the WA voters.

  64. jupes

    The alternative is far worse.

    Well a little bit worse at any rate. Probably.

    Baddies vs baddies as someone may have mentioned before.

    Wikileaks taking sides in Syria has as much to do with ‘transparancy and accountablility of government’ as Snowden releasing information about Australian phonetaps on Mrs SBY has on supporting the US constition.

  65. Yobbo

    The High Court should have simply directed that the earlier count, which included the subsequently “lost” 1370 ballot papers, was valid and that no further action was required.

    I don’t see how they can possibly do that.

    The last seat was won by about 10 votes and there were over 1000 votes missing. There is no way that result can stand.

  66. The High Court should have simply…

    An easy solution (and far less costly) would have been to write to all the citizens who cast a vote at the booth which misplaced the voting papers, inviting them to vote again.

  67. Grigory M

    I don’t see how they can possibly do that.

    The last seat was won by about 10 votes and there were over 1000 votes missing.

    Huh? There were no ballot papers missing at the time of the earlier count. None. It was a complete count and should stand. The missing 1370 papers were stolen and/or destroyed after that count.

  68. Infidel Tiger

    Don’t worry guys. I am personally stealing this election for the righteous.

    Have you ever seen a ballot box catch fire at a polling booth? Wait until April 5th!

    I predict a new election every week will be needed.

  69. twostix

    I don’t see how they can possibly do that.

    The last seat was won by about 10 votes and there were over 1000 votes missing. There is no way that result can stand.

    The AEC just admitted that 19,000 people voted more than once at the last election. That means that at a minimum 19,000 fradulent votes were cast. Averaged over the states and territories that’s nearly 2300 fake votes in each. Which makes the fuss over this 1000 look a bit farcical but as you point out, some seats were won by 10 votes – which in light of the AEC’s admittance is clearly a lie. Nobody knows who really, actually, won those close seats.

  70. twostix

    Great idea when the Senior Labor Figure has had a bounce in the polls to 54% and would inflict a Gillardesque result on Abbott666.

    The polls weren’t even nearly reflected by the Griffith by-election which saw a (historic) further swing to Abbott.

  71. Token

    The AEC just admitted that 19,000 people voted more than once at the last election.

    2,000 admitted they committed fraud, 17,000 got away with it. Noone can prove how they voted so none of the votes with nullified.

  72. Token

    I hope IT you have been doing what the lefties will be doing & borrowing mail from houses all over Perth so you can spend a day voting many times.

  73. Token

    The last seat was won by about 10 votes and there were over 1000 votes missing. There is no way that result can stand.

    Why didn’t they get the people recorded as voting at those booths only to re submit their votes & save the taxpayers $10m?

    Oh yes, the point is to ensure that the vote of Sep 7 couldn’t stand.

  74. incoherent rambler

    I suspect many of those minors are too – still not sure about Sex Party

    Has the ALP changed its name in the West?

  75. Bertie_Wooster

    “Why didn’t they get the people recorded as voting at those booths only to re submit their votes & save the taxpayers $10m?”

    Is it really that simple? I’m not sure that the rolls system to mark names off is reliable enough. Moreover, there may be voters that are eligible to vote in the new booth because of changes in their recent circumstances.
    I really don’t know, but I expect it would be much more difficult than we might appreciate from the sidelines.

    The point still stands though — the biggest loser of this ‘recount’ will certainly have to be PUP, right? Surely 2-2 Coal, ALP senate spots are all but guaranteed?

  76. Andrew

    The polls weren’t even nearly reflected by the Griffith by-election which saw a (historic) further swing to Abbott.

    Krudd would have had a 10% personal vote in Griffith. While it was a good by election (esp compared to the bollocking in the state byelection days later), it’s given me go confidence at all. I’m assuming a swing away from Abbott666 in the WA rerun. Not least because of the horrendous campaigning. They should be reminding voters every day that St Bill the SLF actually stripped WA of 100% of its Gonski funding and retains a policy of doing so to WA again.

  77. Rabz

    There were no ballot papers missing at the time of the earlier count. None. It was a complete count and should stand. The missing 1370 papers were stolen and/or destroyed after that count.

    Oh dear. A very wrong result all round.

    Again, if anyone is able to explain to me why Killestyn is still hoovering our taxes after this travesty, I’m not sure I’d be all ears. If it was his subordinates, he’s still f*cking responsible.

    labor have turned this country into a f*cking third world hellhole – we can’t even hold a fucking election without it being corrupted.

    To have had the misfortune to have witnessed such an inexcusable shemozzle in my lifetime is a fucking outrage, peoples.

    And they’re still attempting to fuck with the outcome by allowing new entrants to the field.

    You’ve been made morons, peoples.

    Time to start being revolting and in no uncertain terms.

    :x

  78. sdfc

    They should be reminding voters every day that St Bill the SLF actually stripped WA of 100% of its Gonski funding and retains a policy of doing so to WA again.

    WA being ripped off by Canberra has become a way of life.

  79. Econocrat

    Political parties. Bring out your fruitcakes!

  80. Are the group voting tickets being re submitted for the new election?

  81. incoherent rambler

    I’m assuming a swing away from Abbott666 in the WA rerun.

    Hopefully, the disaster will be the end of Credlin.

  82. Yobbo

    The point still stands though — the biggest loser of this ‘recount’ will certainly have to be PUP, right? Surely 2-2 Coal, ALP senate spots are all but guaranteed?

    You would think so. Clive has been a bit of a goose since the election.

    There are 2 seats up for grabs for the minors in this election. If David Leyonhjelm’s election has given them any publicity, then there is a very good chance that the LDP will nab one of those seats. We polled 3.5% of the primary the first go round. The 2nd time I guess will really answer the question as to whether or not that was because people confused the LDP with the Liberal Party.

  83. twostix

    I’m assuming a swing away from Abbott666 in the WA rerun. Not least because of the horrendous campaigning. They should be reminding voters every day that St Bill the SLF actually stripped WA of 100% of its Gonski funding and retains a policy of doing so to WA again.

    Totally agree that Abbott’s media “strategy” is an abortion.

    I mean, really? Shorten is preventing Abbott from doing what he was elected to do. Why is every Liberal MP not out there screaming that from the rooftops?

  84. Andrew Reynolds

    Thanks for the plug, Sinclair.

    I’d agree we need to work on the Lib’s attitude to the LDP, though.

  85. Yohan

    The lost votes only came from two seats. I do not understand why the entire state has to go back to the polls, when the revote could just be held in those seats.

  86. Yohan

    What are the chances of the LNP getting 3 seats again in the new election? Isn’t that the main danger here, that they could only pick up 2 seats?

    Then PUP it will be really difficult to pass any legislation. PUP seems to be just an interventionist populist party, just like Nick Xenophon here in SA.
    If it was up to PUP and Nick, we would have bailed out SPC, Holden, Qantas and every other business crying wolf about jobs.

  87. johno

    The lost votes only came from two seats. I do not understand why the entire state has to go back to the polls, when the revote could just be held in those seats.

    Yohan

    It’s the Senate, not House of Reps. The HoR has single member electorates, so if there is a stuff up, only the electorate with the stuff up needs to go back to the polls. The Senate is a multi-member electorate. The six senators are elected by the whole State to represent the whole State. If there is a stuff up, all six have to go back to the polls and the whole State has to vote again.

    Also under the relevant legislation, the judge didn’t have the discretion to declare four of the six elected and to order a re-run of the remaining two. It was all in or all out. He had little choice but to declare all out.

  88. If it was his subordinates, he’s still f*cking responsible.

    Was it a pile of votes, or selected votes? If it was after the initial count, I suspect the latter with extreme prejudice. Who won? It couldn’t be hard to identify a very small number of suspects. Disgraceful indeed.

  89. duncanm

    The High Court should have simply directed that the earlier count two counts, which included the subsequently “lost” 1370 ballot papers, was valid and that no further action was required.

  90. duncanm

    The report is worth reading.

    A litany of excuses is rolled out before the meat is even touched.

  91. Warrick

    Yobbo, I’d like to point out that supporting the Wikileaks party wouldn’t be in the best interests of voters as their previous election campaign was marred by controversy and factional infighting.
    The Pirate Party has very similar ideals and has a much more stable party structure. You should give them a look in before the election.

  92. Yobbo

    Warrick: Like I said, I don’t think wikileaks even exists any more in its original form.

    There was a fundamental disagreement between Assange and the socialists who were running his party. Apparently they just assumed that because he published information that damaged the USA that he was a socialist. When it became apparent he isn’t, they all spat their dummies and quit.

    So I don’t know if they will be running again in the revote.

    I didn’t list the Pirate Party because they didn’t run any candidates in WA last time.

  93. Yohan

    Johno you have misread my point. I am well aware of the voting structure.

    The 1300 missing senate votes, over 1000 were from one electorate, and about 300 votes in another. So why is the entire state going back for a vote?
    Across all electorates in WA except for two, the senate voting tally is correct. Its only incorrect in two electoral districts. There is an electoral roll for each area, and only those on that roll should vote again.

    All in or out. But only in those two electorates.

    This is what the LNP should have been arguing in court, instead it became something else, a strategic misjudgement.

  94. There is an electoral roll for each area, and only those on that roll should vote again.

    Not only that but, as I suggested earlier, only those whose names were marked to record their having voted should be asked to vote again—for the same candidates, with the same ballot papers; after all, it’s not as if the senators-elect not already in the Senate have taken their seats yet.

Comments are closed.