Results of the NSW/ACT Board Election (RAAus)

[Admin]

The successful candidates were Mr Michael Apps and Mr Paul Middleton

 

There were 36 valid ballot papers and 23 invalid papers

 

Michael Apps 113 votes

 

Colin Jones 52 votes

 

Paul Middleton 191 votes

 

After distribution of Paul Middleton’s preferences the votes were

 

Michael Apps 199 votes

 

Colin Jones 101 votes

 

Paul Middleton’s 2nd preferences contained 24 votes without a 2nd preference

 

Ken McCloskey witnessed the counting and Mr Malcolm Yates (non-member) was the scrutineer.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Absolutely none of that makes any sense at all, how can there be only 36 valid voting papers but 356 votes....I hope RAA fixes the news release so that it is sensible. At present it infers that if we have 6 voters in NSW 2.5 of them will be unable to read the instructions and understand enough to cast a valid vote.....

 

I would have thought that anyuone involved with putting a release like that together would be able to do a quick validity check to see if it passes a reasonableness test.....obviously not!

 

 

[turboplanner]

The successful candidates were Mr Michael Apps and Mr Paul MiddletonThere were 36 valid ballot papers and 23 invalid papers

Michael Apps 113 votes

 

Colin Jones 52 votes

 

Paul Middleton 191 votes

 

After distribution of Paul Middleton’s preferences the votes were

 

Michael Apps 199 votes

 

Colin Jones 101 votes

 

Paul Middleton’s 2nd preferences contained 24 votes without a 2nd preference

 

Ken McCloskey witnessed the counting and Mr Malcolm Yates (non-member) was the scrutineer.

Normal procedure is to distribute the preferences of the person who polls the least votes.

 

In this case, the two candidates were elected in the Primary Poll, so there was no need for preferencing.

 

That's aside from the crazy non-reconciliation of 36 valid ballot papers producing 356 votes.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The successful candidates were Mr Michael Apps and Mr Paul MiddletonThere were 36 valid ballot papers and 23 invalid papers

Michael Apps 113 votes

 

Colin Jones 52 votes

 

Paul Middleton 191 votes

 

After distribution of Paul Middleton’s preferences the votes were

 

Michael Apps 199 votes

 

Colin Jones 101 votes

 

Paul Middleton’s 2nd preferences contained 24 votes without a 2nd preference

 

Ken McCloskey witnessed the counting and Mr Malcolm Yates (non-member) was the scrutineer.

What sort of crazy preferential system distributes the preferences of the candidate who polled the most primary votes?

 

Either the poll is flawed or the person compiling and releasing the results is seriously misguided. Simply not good enough in an organisation with a multi-million dollar turnover.

 

Kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

That report is total garbage Ian, I cannot believe that rubbish is actually published on our association website. Apart from the numbers being clearly wrong as pointed out by Andy, why were Paul Middletons votes distributed for preference value. Either the report was incorrectly drafted and NOT checked or they don't have a clue on how to count votes. I assume the former.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

preferencing from the bottom up I seem to recall is what you do to fill a single position where you are looking for a first past the post. When you have 2 positions to fill and a clear winner for one of them without preferences then isnt it logical that you distribute his preferences? remeber he isnt at the top of the pile for the second position (he can only hold one position) so instead of thinking of him at the top think rather that he is the bottom of the pile for position 2.

 

Hopefully that makes more sense?

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

RAA executive just phoning it in now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Peoplepreferencing from the bottom up I seem to recall is what you do to fill a single position where you are looking for a first past the post. When you have 2 positions to fill and a clear winner for one of them without preferences then isnt it logical that you distribute his preferences? remeber he isnt at the top of the pile for the second position (he can only hold one position) so instead of thinking of him at the top think rather that he is the bottom of the pile for position 2.

 

Hopefully that makes more sense?

 

Andy

No it doesn't make the slightest sense, and I've fronted to a few Electoral Commission events.

 

 

[coljones]

"36 valid ballot papers" is clearly a typo

 

The voting method is similar to the method used in local government in NSW where there are no more than 2 vacancies.

 

Paul got an absolute majority of votes and therefore won the first position.

 

For the 2nd position all the votes were recounted and because Paul had been elected any votes for him were not allocated to him but distributed to the second preference thus Michael won that ballot.

 

This is the mechanism that should have been used to conduct the by-elections as well - excluding the candidate who had already been elected (last year Don) and distributing his votes in accordance with the 2nd prefs.

 

I think I prefer proportional representation but this would not have changed the result. I suspect that there will be a move from outside the board to review the board structure in terms of its composition, adequacy and electorate.

 

I must again question the competence of the board, staff and their lawyers in that they seem unable to come to grips with running elections. NSW was down a rep for 6 months last year while they played games and NSW and Vic will continue to be down for another 2 months with the unjustifiable delays in the by-elections.

 

Congratulations to Paul and Michael and best wishes for your terms on the board.

 

Col

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Peoplepreferencing from the bottom up I seem to recall is what you do to fill a single position where you are looking for a first past the post. When you have 2 positions to fill and a clear winner for one of them without preferences then isnt it logical that you distribute his preferences? remeber he isnt at the top of the pile for the second position (he can only hold one position) so instead of thinking of him at the top think rather that he is the bottom of the pile for position 2.

 

Hopefully that makes more sense?

 

Andy

Excuse me! Am I missing something? It seems to me that in this example, the people who voted for the outright winner Middo, got to have their vote counted twice, but the others didn't. How can that be right?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Gee Wayne, you shouldn't ask questions like that...............

 

 

[turboplanner]

Of course there's no issue in terms of who was elected this time, but if someone got support to the point of seriously challenging it could be a concern - something that needs to be addressed and cleaned up.

 

 

[Admin]

They have corrected their notice:

 

Results of the NSW/ACT Board Election

 

August 20, 2012 | members

 

The successful candidates were Mr Michael Apps and Mr Paul Middleton

 

There were 356 valid ballot papers and 23 invalid papers

 

Michael Apps 113 votes

 

Colin Jones 52 votes

 

Paul Middleton 191 votes

 

After distribution of Paul Middleton’s preferences the votes were

 

Michael Apps 199 votes

 

Colin Jones 101 votes

 

Paul Middleton’s 2nd preferences contained 24 votes without a 2nd preference

 

Ken McCloskey witnessed the counting and Mr Malcolm Yates (non-member) was the scrutineer.

 

 

[Powerin]

This was vote for two positions. I think most of us would have put our choices for the two positions by voting 1 and 2 for our preferred candidates. Middo won the first position outright with more than 50% of the vote. You have to then count the second choices on Middos voting papers otherwise 199 voter's second choice (ie for the second position) wouldn't count.

 

 

[turboplanner]

After the primaries were counted there were two clear winners. There was no need for preferencing.

 

If you allow the highest polling candidate to distribute his preferences that's how cliques form.

 

Let's say Col polled better than he did, still coming third, so there were still two clear winners, but you led the highest winner distribute his preferences, and Col was his mate, the preferences may have unseated the candidate who polled second.

 

If there were four candidates, and Col went out first it's his preferences which should be distributed, then you aren't stacking the vote.

 

 

[kaz3g]

What sort of crazy preferential system distributes the preferences of the candidate who polled the most primary votes?Either the poll is flawed or the person compiling and releasing the results is seriously misguided. Simply not good enough in an organisation with a multi-million dollar turnover.

 

Kaz

Ok... I apologise to the extent that I didn't know they were electing two members but the results were still flawed because the numbers didn't add up.

 

kaz

 

 

[Powerin]

After the primaries were counted there were two clear winners. There was no need for preferencing.If you allow the highest polling candidate to distribute his preferences that's how cliques form.

 

Let's say Col polled better than he did, still coming third, so there were still two clear winners, but you led the highest winner distribute his preferences, and Col was his mate, the preferences may have unseated the candidate who polled second.

 

If there were four candidates, and Col went out first it's his preferences which should be distributed, then you aren't stacking the vote.

If the candidates were mates that wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? WE are the ones that vote for our preferences....the candidates have no control of where the voters put preferences, mates or not. They can't stack the votes. They didn't issue "How to Vote" cards, the choice was entirely ours.

There weren't two clear winners because if all of Middos voters put had Col as their choice for the OTHER position (not the second position...big difference) then by far the majority of people would have wanted Col as their other board member. In effect we were actually putting two number 1 votes on our ballot papers because we were voting for two positions on the one ballot paper.

 

I think you're right about how it would work for four candidates, but we had three.

 

I know a lot of people hate the preferential system, but I like it. Yes, it can be complicated to understand, but it is the fairest way.

 

Let's say we have three candidates in an election. Tom gets 34 votes, Dick gets 33 votes and Harry gets 33 votes. In a "first past the post" system Tom wins. But 66% (by far the majority) of people voted against Tom and yet he won. The preferential system gives you a chance to vote for someone else if your guy or girl doesn't get in.

 

 

[djpacro]

But 67% voted against Dick and Harry so neither of them should win.

 

Tom is both the most popular and the least unpopular, clearly the winner.

 

Any other outcome but Tom winning is therefore unfair.

 

One person one vote is fair.

 

If your gal or guy didn't get in it is because some-one else got more votes.

 

 

[Powerin]

But 67% voted against Dick and Harry so neither of them should win.Tom is both the most popular and the least unpopular, clearly the winner.

Any other outcome but Tom winning is therefore unfair.

 

One person one vote is fair.

 

If your gal or guy didn't get in it is because some-one else got more votes.

Good point DJP...must admit I hadn't thought of it that way. But preferential still gives people a second bite of the cherry, which should theoretically make the majority of people the happiest with who gets in.

 

 

[djpacro]

Lucky I don't have the opportunity to determine voting systems. I'd use points like Formula 1 world championships. 3 for first choice, 2 for second choice and 1 for third choice. After all, why should second and third preferences be worth as much as first preference. Whichever candidate gets the most points wins.

 

Make the majority of people happiest - I like that idea but I really only like Tom and hate the other two. If all voters were like me then first past the post achieves that objective.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Pow, you're assuming a fair election (and I'm not saying this one was unfair, or RAA has ever had an unfair election)

 

It's not unusual for cliques to head their heads together, particularly if they have more money, and do a joint promotion, "talk with one voice", "get on message" etc. You as a voter are just seeing statements that you like, so you vote Tom first and second preference Harry, third preferencing Dick.

 

Preferencing from the top compounds the mate vote.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

I was recently included on an email list discussing the election, I responded by saying:

 

I know you're correct D....., and no matter how this election was/is tallied up, Col just ain't got the numbers. So Michael and Paul are returned to the board, and I'll extend them my congratulations and best wishes when I see them.

 

But I still have a problem with the fact that the people who chose the first place getter, got a second vote for the runner up, when no one else did. I know it's the way it's being done. But that doesn't mean it's right, in my opinion. I mean to say, "OK guys. One man one vote. Except if you vote for the right bloke in the first place, you'll get to have your second pick counted too. But if you don't pick the right bloke first up, you won't get a second pick."

 

I know it's the way it is, and I'm not going to go charging off tilting at windmills. But I'm having a bit of trouble getting my head around that one...

 

Keep the sunny side up,

 

Wayne.

 

Then Don Ramsay responded by saying:

 

Wayne,

 

Probably easier to think of it as two elections for two positions. Each member should effectively get two votes - one vote for each position on the Board.

 

Regards

 

Don

 

My thanks go to Don. Looking at it that way makes it work for me.

 

Now I understand and empathize with what David P and Turbz are saying above. But the fact remains, in this election, by the rules we're using, Paul and Michael won their seats on the board fair and square and Col didn't get elected. Personally, I salute all three men for having the balls to put their hats in the ring...

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't want to get any hearts palpitating here, so please correct me quickly if I've missed something.

 

RAA Constitution Clause 13 Election of Board members says:

 

(i) The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member - one vote system.

 

(ii) talks about the regions

 

(iii) talks about who may nominate

 

(iv) talks about what happens if no one nominates

 

(v) talks about postal votes

 

...and that's it.

 

There is no provision in the Constitution for preferential votes, which makes sense because with preferences a member gets two or more votes.

 

The implications of this are that one, several or many elections may have been invalid.

 

I say again, this needs to be cross checked in case I missed a formally approved addendum or something odd like that, however the intent of the base Constitution is first past the post which is normal for Incoporated Associations.

 

 

[Admin]

There would have to be some form of addendum or something that has allowed them to do it this way for some time...I mean they even had to get legal opinion which held up the NSW by-election with Don Ramsay so in the investigation of that I can only presume their legal advise would have picked up any untowards in the legality side of this. But as you say TP, it would be good to get a definitive answer to it