Review of the

Electoral
Act 1992

Australian Capital Territory	

Elections ACT	
		ACT Legislative	
		Assembly	
		Election	
		21 February	
		1998	

THE 1998 ACT LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY ELECTION — REVIEW OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 1992

Introduction

This review examines the operation of the Electoral Act 1992 in regard to the conduct of the ACT Legislative Assembly election held on 21 February 1998.

In general, the Electoral Act operated effectively for the 1998 election.

Several amendments to the Electoral Act made as a result of recommendations put forward by the Commission following the 1995 election, combined with improvements in procedures, significantly increased service to electors.  Research undertaken after the
1998 election showed a high level of elector satisfaction with the services provided by the Commission.  Some of the changes also led to a reduction in the cost of the election.

The ban on how-to-vote cards and other political canvassing within 100 metres of each polling place, enacted after the 1995 election, was implemented without any significant infringements and was well received by most voters.

The recount provisions in the Electoral Act were tested for the first time in 1998, with a full recount required in the largest electorate of Molonglo.  After a full recount of the distribution of preferences involving almost 79000 ballot papers, the election result was finalised 22 days after polling day.

While the Electoral Commission judges that the Electoral Act operated effectively at the
1998 election, some issues that arose during the course of the election and subsequently will be considered in this review with recommendations for change.

As in 1995, it appeared in 1998 that the Robson rotation system of ordering candidates’ names differently on consecutive ballot papers — intended to share the “linear vote” evenly between candidates in a party column or a non-party column — still has some potential to influence the election of candidates within a particular party on “the luck of the draw”.  This apparently occurs because of the relatively high proportion of voters who cast linear votes, compared to the proportion of voters who indicate deliberate preferences for individual candidates.  This review examines this issue in the light of a ballot paper survey conducted by the Commission, and recommends a possible solution.

Other issues addressed include:
the 100 metre ban on canvassing;
options for computerising the vote counting process;
parties’ methods of canvassing postal voters;
the party registration scheme;
proposed changes to the Commonwealth enrolment and disclosure laws; and candidates’ use of offensive names or political slogans as names on ballot papers.

The review also makes some recommendations intended to rectify some minor anomalies in the Electoral Act.

The review is divided into two parts.  Significant recommendations are addressed in Part
1, under specific subject headings.  Minor and technical recommendations are addressed in Part 2 in the order in which they relate to the sequential numbering of the Electoral Act.

ACT Electoral Commission

17 December 1999

PART  1 — SIGNIFICANT RECOMMENDATIONS Robson rotation and  the “party linear vote” The problem
Robson rotation of candidates’ names on ballot papers was adopted in the ACT for two
reasons: to spread the effect of the “linear vote” evenly to all candidates in a party column and to reduce the influence of party machines over the election of candidates.  A “linear vote” is a vote where all the candidates in the column including the voter’s first preference are numbered consecutively from the top down.

Robson rotation currently works in the following manner.  When there are five candidates standing for a particular party, that party’s column of candidates is printed in five different “versions”, with each candidate appearing first in the list on one of the versions.  One fifth of all ballot papers printed would carry one of those versions, and another fifth would carry another version, and so on.  The same principle applies to columns of different lengths.

In its 1995 review, the Commission noted that, while Robson rotation did share the linear vote evenly between candidates within a party column when first preference votes were counted, it did not effectively share the linear vote equally between candidates whenever a candidate was excluded during the scrutiny and later preferences were counted.  This occurs because the current Robson rotation system only provides for one sequence of candidates in a column where a given candidate is at the top position in the column.  Consequently, whenever a candidate is excluded, all the “linear votes” counted to that candidate go to only one other candidate in that column.  If a high proportion of votes for the excluded candidate are “linear votes”, the resulting disproportionate distribution of preferences to one particular candidate can give an arguably unfair advantage to that candidate simply on the “luck of the draw”, as the order of candidates is determined by a random draw.

In 1995 the Commission took the view that this apparent effect of the linear vote was likely to diminish over time as voters, candidates and parties became used to the new system.  The Commission also pointed to the difficulty of printing a significantly larger number of rotations.  Consequently the Commission recommended that the existing Robson rotation system remain unchanged.

However, despite increased emphasis in the Commission’s 1998 election advertising on encouraging deliberate votes for particular candidates, and evidence that the proportion of linear votes did decrease from 1995 to 1998, it was apparent that the linear vote had an effect in every case where a candidate was excluded in 1998.

While the linear vote will not have an influence on the number of seats won by any particular party, it may influence which individual candidates within a party are elected. In particular, linear voting is most likely to have an influence on which candidates are elected where the vote totals counted to such candidates within a party are close to one another.  However, it is unlikely that linear voting will have prevented a candidate with
a high personal vote from being elected or lead to the election of a candidate with a very low personal vote.

The survey

In order to quantify the degree of linear voting a ballot paper survey was undertaken of a
5% representative sample of ballot papers from the 1995 and 1998 elections (a sample
of 9419 in 1998 and 8343 in 1995).  The methodology used and the results of the survey are in Appendix A.

Some of the key findings of the survey were:

The only obviously identifiable incidence of linear voting occurred where voters numbered the column of candidates of their first choice from the top down, with the first listed candidate receiving the first preference, the second listed candidate receiving the second preference, and so on for each candidate in the column.  This kind of vote is what is meant by the use of the term “linear voting”.  Attempts to identify other kinds of linear voting (for example, where the candidate of first choice was not at the top of the column) did not indicate any obvious trends.

Linear voting declined from 25.2% in 1995 to 22.6% in 1998.  It also declined to varying degrees in each electorate.

In electorate terms, the highest linear vote was 30.3% in Ginninderra in 1995, and lowest was 20.3% in Molonglo in 1998.

The proportion of voters giving a first preference to the candidate at the top of the column was 41.1% in 1998 and 41.9% in 1995.  Most voters gave their first preference to a candidate who was not on the top of the column on their ballot papers: 58.9% in 1998 and 58.1% in 1995.

Linear votes expressed as a proportion of total first preference votes received by each candidate were generally lower for better-known major party candidates and for independent candidates.

Linear votes expressed as a proportion of total first preference votes received by each candidate were generally higher for lesser-known major party candidates who received relatively fewer votes compared to better-known candidates in the same party.

In addition to linear votes, the survey also looked at the number of sequential preferences shown by each voter:

In 1998, 98.0% of all formal votes complied with the ballot paper instructions to number at least as many candidates as their were vacancies in the electorate.

Of all formal votes, 64.4% showed numbers for exactly the instructed minimum number of candidates.

Around 33.6% of formal votes went further than the instructed minimum and 7.1% of formal voters numbered every candidate.

Only 2.0% of formal votes failed to number at least as many candidates as there were vacancies, and only 0.6% of formal votes numbered one candidate only.

Possible solutions to the problem

The above analysis indicates that the linear vote had the potential to influence the outcomes of both the 1995 and 1998 elections in cases where two or more candidates vying for the one seat in the same party had vote totals close to one another.  In order to reduce the impact of the linear vote on future elections while retaining the spirit of the Robson rotation method, the Commission considers that the best solution would be to increase the numbers of rotations of names in each column so that preferences distributed from excluded candidates are not distributed disproportionately to some candidates over others as a result of linear voting.

In 1997 the Assembly rejected a proposed amendment that would have doubled the number of rotations.  For example, for every rotation like “1, 2, 3, 4, 5” there would
have been a second rotation “1, 5, 4, 3, 2”.  The problem identified with this approach is that it would divide the linear vote between two candidates in a column after a candidate is excluded, which could still operate to disadvantage the other candidates in that column.  (In this example, candidates 2 and 5 would share the linear vote from
candidate 1, but candidates 3 and 4 would not.)

In 1995, the ballot papers were printed using traditional off-set printing techniques.
This method did not lend itself to printing many different variations of each electorate’s ballot papers.  In 1998, the ballot papers were printed direct from a computer using laser printers, with “masters” for each version stored on computer disc.  This method has opened up the possibility of printing many more variations of ballot papers without greatly increasing costs.

The Commission considers that a feasible alternative to the current system would be to increase the number of rotations so that, for every case where a candidate is shown at the top of a column, there will be a version of that column listing every other candidate in the second position.  For example, for a five candidate column that is currently
printed with five variations, there would be 20 variations.  For a seven candidate column there would be 42 variations.  Suggested variations are shown in Appendix B.  Using these variations, each candidate would still (as at present) appear in each possible position in all the versions of that column the same number of times as each other candidate.

The advantage of this proposal is that, where a party candidate is excluded, the second preferences on any linear votes from that candidate would be spread evenly to each
other candidate in that party.  At present, the second preference on each linear vote only goes to one particular candidate.  This proposal would not completely eliminate “luck of the draw” advantages, because the linear vote could still benefit one candidate over another where one or more candidates in a column are already elected or excluded.  For example, where a candidate is excluded and one other candidate is already excluded, those votes that would have gone to that earlier excluded candidate would all go to one of the remaining candidates.  To fix this problem would require many more rotations, which would add a greater level of complexity.  In particular, it would not be feasible to adequately proof-read a larger number of versions in the time available.

The Commission considers that the impact of the linear vote using these additional rotations would be much less than under the current system, and might only have an

influence when two candidates were very close together in vote totals.  It should be noted that, even if every possible rotation was adopted to completely eliminate any systemic bias in the rotations, elements of chance would still be present, in so far as those ballot papers used by “linear voters” would be distributed at random.

In order to make this proposal work in practice, the Commission recommends reducing the maximum permissible column length to 7 candidates, rather than the current maximum length of 12.  Allowing column lengths greater than 7 would greatly add to the complexity of printing ballot papers by requiring significantly more versions.  This should not prove to be a problem, as in practice parties or non-party groups are not likely to nominate more candidates than there are vacancies in an electorate (because to do so would run the risk of losing the preferences of those voters who only complete as many preferences as there are vacancies). If a group of candidates longer than the minimum was nominated, that group would be split over two or more columns.  If the number of members to be elected in an electorate was increased to more than 7, this issue would need to be re-examined.

Adoption of this proposal would increase the number of versions that could be printed from a maximum for a seven member electorate of 18 under the current system to 80 versions (assuming column lengths of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).  For a five member electorate, the current maximum is 10 versions; under the proposed model this would increase to
28 versions (assuming column lengths of 2, 3, 4, and 5).  In practice, in Molonglo in
1998 there were only columns containing 2, 3, 4, and 7 candidates each.   Under the proposed model, 48 different versions of the Molonglo ballot paper would have been needed.  Under the current model, 12 versions of Molonglo were printed in 1998.

Tables showing the calculations used to determine the number of variations needed are in Appendix C.  Note that the number of variations is calculated to ensure that the correct proportion of each version of each column is printed.  For example, if the 1998
Molonglo ballot paper was printed using the proposed model, 48 different versions would have been printed using a cycle of 84 pages to ensure that each candidate was printed in each position in the column the same number of times as each other candidate in the column.

The Commission considers that the above model using increased numbers of versions of each ballot paper would significantly reduce the impact of the linear vote currently apparent using the existing Robson rotation system.

It should also be noted that the current specific form of Robson rotation set out in Schedule 2 of the Electoral Act has been entrenched by the Proportional Representation (Hare-Clark) Entrenchment Act and can only be altered by a two-thirds majority of Assembly Members or by a referendum.

Recommendation 1.  That the Robson rotation method currently set out in Schedule 2 of the Electoral Act be expanded to include more rotations, as set out in Appendix B and that the maximum number of candidates that may be included in one column on a ballot paper be reduced from 12 to 7.

Ban on How-to-Vote  Cards/Canvassing

Voter acceptance of the ban

The 1998 election was the first ACT election in which canvassing for votes was banned within 100 metres of polling places on polling day.  Several strategies were employed by the Commission to advise electors about the ban.  The Commission included the issue
as one of the main facets of its election advertising campaign in the lead up to the election as well as making it a focus of public relations activities prior to the election.

It was apparent that political parties and candidates employed alternative strategies for getting information about their candidates to electors.  In particular, considerable use was made of letterboxing just prior to the election with electors being encouraged to take the material with them to polling places.  Some parties also encouraged electors to write to them about pre-poll and postal voting (see below).

Market research undertaken during the election indicated that awareness of the ban increased from 44% in January 1998 to 48% on the weekend before polling day.  On polling day itself, exit polling showed that 81% of voters were aware of the ban, reflecting the Commission’s efforts to publicise the ban during the final week before polling day.

Market research also indicated that voters’ views on how-to-vote cards changed in proportion to the awareness of the ban.  In January, 49% of voters usually found how-to- vote cards useful, and 47% did not.  A week before polling day, 44% said that how-to- vote cards were useful and 51% said they were not useful.  On polling day, only 37% of voters said they found how-to-vote cards useful and 59% said they did not.  While the variation between the first two results may be attributable to sampling error, the polling day result seems to indicate that a significant number of voters had changed their minds about the usefulness of how-to-vote cards after experience of the ban.

Voters were also asked at the exit poll whether they found it a problem that how-to-vote cards were not available at polling places: 84% of electors did not find it a problem and
15% of voters did find it a problem.  It is not clear whether those who found the absence of how-to-vote cards a problem were referring to difficulty in knowing how to vote as opposed to a philosophical objection to the ban.

It can be concluded that the majority of voters were both aware of the ban on polling day and did not find the ban a problem.  However, a significant proportion, 15% of voters on polling day, did find the ban a problem.  The Commission takes the view that the appropriateness of the ban on how-to-vote cards is essentially a policy question that is a matter for the Assembly.  For those voters who found the ban a problem, the
Commission considers that their needs for how-to-vote card material should be able to be met through alternative sources.

Political  messages on clothing and cars

Complaints were lodged in two cases about the wearing of t-shirts containing electoral matter into polling places on polling day by a candidate and a party supporter.  Another

complaint was made about an electoral sign on a car parked within 100 metres of a polling place.

The Commissioner took the view prior to the election that voters wearing messages on t- shirts or sporting stickers or signs on their cars while at a polling place casting their own vote were not in breach of the canvassing ban because their purpose in being present
was for the purpose of voting, not for the purpose of influencing the vote of another person.  However, polling place staff were instructed that if a complaint was received that an elector wearing such material was lingering in the polling place or within 100 metres of the polling place they were to be asked to move on.

Nevertheless, it is arguable that paragraph 303(1)(c) of the Electoral Act, which prohibits exhibiting of a notice containing electoral matter which is able to be clearly seen by electors approaching, or at, a polling place, does apply to electoral matter on
t-shirts and car stickers.  It would be useful if the Assembly could amend the Electoral Act to make it clear that the ban does, or does not, apply to such items.  In the Commission’s view, it would be unreasonable to prevent a person from attending a polling place because of a political message contained on an item of clothing or a car.

Recommendation 2.  That the Electoral Act be amended to specify that the ban on canvassing does not apply to electoral matter contained on clothing or vehicles that are used by persons for the purpose of attending the polling place to vote.

Enforcing the ban

Another issue is the ability of the Commission and the law enforcement agencies to enforce the ban on canvassing.  For the 1998 election, all officers in charge of polling places were trained in strategies for dealing with infringement of the ban.  Polling area managers responsible for a group of polling places were given the task of attending polling places that reported problems with the ban.  At around ten polling places some political posters were removed (as provided by the Electoral Act) and two candidates were reported as apparently canvassing within the 100 metre limit and were asked to move on (which they did).  In general, however, virtually all political players appeared to observe the ban.

A difficulty would arise if there was a concerted campaign to deliberately flout the ban. As Commission officers have no power to remove persons defying the ban, enforcement of the ban in such a case would fall to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).  The AFP would not have the resources on polling day to deal with offences against the ban occurring at several locations at once, nor would the AFP be likely to wish to arrest or forcefully remove persons engaging in civil disobedience by flouting the ban.

The Commission does not consider that this is a serious risk or that any changes to legislation need to be made.  However the Commission wishes to place on record its conclusion that the success of the canvassing ban depends on the goodwill and cooperation of all political participants, and that legal enforcement may not be effective if that goodwill and cooperation is not forthcoming.

Placing how-to-vote  cards inside polling places

The Report on the Review of the Governance of the ACT (the Pettit Report) was critical of the ban on canvassing and recommended that, if the ban outside polling places is to remain, then how-to-vote cards be made available inside polling places for those
electors who wish to make use of them.  The Commission argued in its submission to the Select Committee inquiring into the Pettit Report that this would cause logistical problems which may require some sort of legislated registration scheme for how-to-vote cards.

Given that the ban on how-to-vote cards is primarily intended to remove the influence of how-to-vote cards from the vicinity of polling places, providing how-to-vote cards
inside polling places would seem to be at odds with this intention.

Postal vote campaigning methods

It is an offence under the Electoral Act to induce electors to complete applications for postal votes and ask for them to be returned to an address other than an address authorised by the Electoral Commissioner.  As set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the relevant Electoral Bill, this offence was intended to prevent parties inducing electors to send applications for postal votes direct to the parties so that the parties could make use of applicants’ names and addresses for campaigning purposes.  It was considered that this practice was misleading to electors and could lead to electors receiving postal voting papers too late in the election because of the double handling involved.

In practice, this provision has not achieved its aim.  At the 1998 election the Commission was aware that the Liberal Party and the ALP distributed leaflets to households inviting electors to return a form printed on the leaflet to the party’s address so that the party could send the elector details on postal voting.  Copies of these leaflets are attached to this report in Appendix D.

The ALP leaflet had the words “Australian Labor Party” or “ALP” on every panel of the leaflet.  The Liberal Party leaflet only included the words “Canberra Liberals” on two of the four panels.  The tear-off part that included the form for the elector to fill out and the reply-paid address did not mention the Liberal Party or the Canberra Liberals on either side.

The Commission understands that most electors who responded to these leaflets were sent postal vote applications, advice on pre-poll voting locations and how-to-vote material from the party.  The Commission received several complaints from electors receiving this material, as some electors had not understood that they had sent a form to a political party — they had thought they used an official Electoral Commission form.

These leaflets were not in breach of the Electoral Act as they did not purport to induce electors to complete an official application for a postal vote.  However, this practice introduced two additional steps in the process of applying for a postal vote: the mail from the elector to the party and the mailing of an application form back to the elector. Complaints received by the Commission indicated that some electors missed out on voting because of the additional delay caused by this practice.  It is not possible to

quantify how many electors were affected.  In total, around 1100 electors were sent postal ballot papers that were not returned to the Commission in time to be included in the count, and another 190 applications for postal votes were received by the Commission too late for ballot papers to be mailed back.

Parties that send mail to households asking voters to write to them about postal voting are potentially disenfranchising voters.  Voters may be disenfranchised for two reasons: the delay caused by the “detour” through the party can mean a voter will miss the postal voting deadline and not be counted; or a voter encouraged to use a postal vote who might otherwise vote at a polling place or pre-poll voting centre may have his or her vote rejected at the preliminary scrutiny if he or she fills out the postal vote forms incorrectly, or claims a vote for the wrong electorate (which would be corrected at a polling place or pre-poll centre, where all voters are checked against the electoral roll).

The Commonwealth Electoral Act was changed before the 1998 election to allow parties to issue official approved postal vote application forms giving the party’s return address. Adoption of this practice in the ACT would at least reduce some of the delay currently experienced under the ACT system, provided the parties forward the applications to the Commission without delay.  Even with the Commonwealth system there would be some delay while the party collected its mail, copied or otherwise processed the electors’
forms and passed them on to the Commission.

Adoption of the Commonwealth model to grant parties the right to solicit postal vote applications would arguably give parties an administrative role in the conduct of an election.  The Commission cautions that this may not be seen to be appropriate, particularly if some electors are not able to vote because of delays or mistakes made by a party. The Commission is also concerned that some electors may confuse party applications with Electoral Commission applications, and be offended by receipt of unwanted party material.  It is also arguable that this practice is contrary to the spirit of the 100 metre ban on canvassing, as the main purpose of soliciting postal vote applications is to mail how-to-vote material to postal voters.

Another argument in favour of the ACT’s current restriction on soliciting postal vote applications is that it can be seen as helping to create a “level playing field” by preventing parties with greater resources from gaining an unfair advantage by providing a “service” to voters that would enable the party to send electors how-to-vote material.

The Commission considers that the current ACT situation is unsatisfactory.  The Assembly may wish to follow Commonwealth practice and explicitly allow parties and candidates to solicit official postal vote applications.  Although not the Commission’s preferred option, this would at least be an improvement on the current situation.  If this option was adopted, to minimise confusion, parties and candidates should be required to clearly state that the return address is the address of the party or candidate.

The Commission’s preferred model would be to keep the current restriction, and for parties and candidates to encourage electors to vote in person at pre-poll centres or to apply directly to the Commission for postal votes.  Parties and candidates could still invite electors to write to them directly for campaign material, but it would be best if they did not delay applications for postal votes by directing requests for applications through them.  This may be able to be achieved either legislatively or administratively.

Another option could be for the Commission to do its own additional mail-out to households early in the election period aimed specifically at pre-poll and postal voting, perhaps including an application for a postal vote.  While this would add to the cost of an election it may be worthwhile to avoid some of the confusion evident at the last election.

Recommendation 3.  That the Legislative Assembly retain the current prohibition on soliciting postal vote applications and adopt either a legislative or voluntary code of conduct related to campaigning that would minimise any delays or confusion related to applications for postal votes.

Authorisation of election matter published on behalf of political parties

The Electoral Act requires any printed electoral matter to include the name and street address of the person who authorised it.  There is no requirement to include the name of a political party or candidate if the material is published by or on behalf of a party or candidate.

The Commission has received complaints about political advertising that commented about various candidates and recommended casting votes for particular candidates, but did not directly identify which party or candidate was responsible for the advertisement. In some of these cases, the authoriser’s name given was the name of a party office holder and the address given was the address of that party.  However, if an elector who received such material wanted to clarify which party was responsible for it, some research would be needed to link the name and address with the party.

The purpose of the authorisation provisions is to prevent “irresponsibility through anonymity”.  By being aware of the sources of political advertising, voters are better
able to judge the messages being imparted.  However, where material is being published on behalf of political parties and candidates, but that fact is being hidden behind an authorisation that does not clearly identify the name of the party or candidate, it could be argued that the spirit of the authorisation provisions is not being complied with.

Recommendation 4.  The Commission recommends that the Electoral Act be amended to provide that, where printed electoral matter is being published by or on behalf of a registered political party or a candidate, the name of
the party or candidate should be included with the name and address of the person who authorised the matter.

Computerisation of the Election Process

At the 1998 election, a full recount was conducted in the Molonglo electorate to confirm a close result.   Two ALP candidates were five votes apart when a decision was needed as to which of the two candidates was to be excluded from the count.  In the course of
the recount a small number of sorting errors were detected, sufficient to change the relative order of the two candidates, so that the candidate that was five votes behind ended up three votes in front after the recount.  The recount delayed the finalisation of the count by around 9 days.

The delay in finalisation of the count and the small yet crucial number of sorting errors detected led to calls for the ACT election counting process to be computerised.  The

Commission has conducted some preliminary investigations as to possible ways of using computers to increase the speed and accuracy of the count.

The most attractive option would be to computerise the voting process at the input stage, so that each elector could vote using a computer interface.  However, given the current state of computer technology and the complex nature of the Hare-Clark system with Robson rotation of ballot papers, the Commission considers that it would not be feasible to facilitate computer voting.  Standard computer hardware would not be well suited to displaying an “electronic ballot paper” in such a way as to be easily understood by all voters and to be fair to all candidates.  While it would be possible to design a custom- built voter interface, this would be a very expensive option.  Preliminary investigations indicate that there are no voting interfaces in use anywhere in the world that are able to facilitate preferential voting, let alone Robson rotation.

Voting directly using a computer interface would also introduce risks related to data security and the potential for loss of data through system error.

On the other hand, the Commission considers that computerised counting of votes in
2001 is a viable alternative to manual counting.  The 1998 Senate election and the recent South Australian and Western Australian upper house elections were counted by data- entering the preferences written by voters on traditional ballot papers into computers. Each ballot paper was entered twice by different operators to verify the accuracy of the input.  A computer program then conducted the distribution of preferences
automatically.  Scrutineers were present during the data-entering process so that they could be satisfied that the outcome was accurate.

This process is still relatively slow and painstaking.  As ACT ballot papers do not contain a “ticket” option, the preferences shown on every ballot paper would need to be data-entered. By contrast, most Senate and SA and WA upper house ballot papers are marked as “ticket” votes which do not need to be individually data-entered.  As a result, it would be a much bigger task to data-enter an ACT Legislative Assembly election than it would be to data-enter an ACT Senate election.  The Commission calculates that it would take around the same time to data-enter an ACT election as it would take to count the election manually.  The data-entry method would also be likely to be more
expensive, because of the need to develop complex computer programs and hire large numbers of computers for data-entry.

However, the advantage of data-entry would be increased rates of accuracy.  Had this method been employed for the Molonglo election in 1998, it is possible that there would have been no need for a recount because the error rate might have been lower.
However, a recount would only have been averted if candidates and scrutineers had accepted the result of a data-entered count regardless of how close the outcome was.  If a candidate still insisted on a recount, so that the ballot papers would either have to be data-entered again or a manual count had to be conducted instead, the result would still have been significantly delayed.

Consequently, while data-entry of normal handwritten ballot papers is a viable option, it is not necessarily going to produce a faster result, although indications from test results are that it is more accurate than manual counting.  It would also tend to be more expensive than the current manual system.

A preferable option may be to electronically scan handwritten ballot papers through optical scan readers.  The Electoral Commission intends to examine further the issue of computerised vote counting in a separate report.

Offensive words and/or political slogans  printed on ballot papers as candidate names

Several candidates stood for the 1998 Federal election using names that were political slogans, frivolous or offensive.  These included (in order Surname, Given Name):
Abolish Child Support & Family Court, Justice
Handsome Handpuppet, Paul-Ian
Piss the Family Court - Legal Aid, Prime Minister John
The Family Court Refuses My Daughter’s Right To See Her Father, Bruce

Candidates are permitted to use these names for Commonwealth elections provided they are accepted as names for enrolment purposes.  In order for such names to be accepted for enrolment purposes, the Australian Electoral Commission investigates these cases and accepts claims for enrolment where it can verify that the name is the name by which the person is generally known in the community and is legally accepted by other government agencies and businesses.

The Commission considers that the use of candidates’ names that are political slogans, frivolous or offensive is undesirable.  Apart from any offence such names may cause, they can also be used to circumvent the rigorous party registration process in order to give a candidate a political “label” on a ballot paper.  The fact that a person has managed to have such a name recorded on the electoral roll should not of itself be sufficient evidence that a person should be able to use that name on a ballot paper.

The South Australian Electoral Act 1985 contains a provision that allows a nomination to be rejected if in the opinion of the returning officer the name under which the candidate is nominated is obscene, is frivolous or has been assumed for an ulterior purpose.  The following recommendation is based on this provision.

Recommendation 5.  The Commission recommends that the Electoral Act be amended to provide that the Electoral Commissioner may reject a nomination where, in the Commissioner’s opinion, the name under which the candidate is nominated is obscene, is frivolous or has been assumed for an ulterior purpose.  Such a decision should only be appealable (as with all other decisions related to rejection of nominations) by appeal to the Court
of Disputed Elections.  Where a nomination is to be rejected for this reason, the Commissioner must, if practicable, give the nominee sufficient notice of the proposed rejection to enable the withdrawal of the nomination and the making of a fresh nomination under a different name before the close of nominations.

Party registration

The Commission considers that the scheme for registration of political parties could be improved to remove some apparent anomalies.

Parties of convenience

The Electoral Act currently provides for registration of two types of political party:
a parliamentary party; or
a political party (other than a parliamentary party) that has at least 100 members.

A “member”, in relation to a political party, means a member of the party who is an
ACT elector or entitled to be an ACT elector.  A “parliamentary party” means a political party at least 1 member of which is a member of:
the Assembly;
the Parliament of the Commonwealth; or
the legislature of a State or another Territory.

The advantage given to parliamentary parties, in that they are able to be registered and use a party name on ballot papers without having a minimum membership requirement, is recognition that elected members have demonstrated a significant level of community support.

The practical operation of these provisions has led to the registration of two different kinds of political party:
a political party with a formal ongoing structure and a relatively wide membership, generally open to members of the public;  and
a ‘political party of convenience’ that does not have an apparent formal ongoing structure and has a very limited membership.

The expression ‘party of convenience’ is not intended to be critical.  This kind of party is typically registered to benefit a single Member of the Legislative Assembly who wishes to make use of the advantages party registration gives, particularly the opportunity to be grouped on ballot papers with like minded candidates under a party name.  The Electoral Act encourages this kind of party registration by allowing a party to be registered solely on the basis of having one member of the party who is a member of the Assembly.

Evidence that this kind of party is a matter of convenience is given by the manner in which recently elected MLAs have been elected under a party banner but have declared themselves to be independents in the Legislative Assembly.

It can be argued that the registration of a party of convenience is inconsistent with the recognised meaning of political party. The Macquarie Dictionary defines a party inter alia as “a number or body of persons ranged on one side, or united in purpose or opposition to others, as in politics, etc”.  A party of convenience comprising only one or two individuals barely falls within this definition.

The Electoral Act requires parties applying for registration to submit a copy of the
party’s constitution with the application. The requirement to submit a constitution with a party’s application is included in the Electoral Act to enable the public to investigate the bona fide’s of the proposed party.  In the case of a party of convenience, there seems
little point in requiring a constitution to be provided where what is really being
registered is a party name to be used on ballot papers, rather than a party consisting of “a number or body of persons ranged on one side, or united in [a political] purpose”.

In order to clarify these issues, the Electoral Commission proposes that the party registration scheme be revamped to provide for the registration of parties, and for the registration of ‘group names’ for use on ballot papers.  To be registered as a political party, an organisation should have a formal constitution and at least 100 members eligible to be electors in the ACT.  A registered political party would be entitled to use its registered name or abbreviation as its group name on ballot papers.

Members of the Legislative Assembly who were not members of a registered political party would be entitled to register a group name.  This would enable these Members to appear on ballot papers under a group name without forcing these members to apply for registration of a party of convenience.  This right (not extended to other candidates who are not supported by a political party) would be given in recognition that the Member had demonstrated a significant level of community support by being elected.

The same rules that apply to registered party names could apply to registration of group names, with the added restriction that the word ‘party’ could not be used in the title.  If a Member did want to use the word ‘party’, he or she would be required to register a party with at least 100 members.

The Commission proposes that a ballot name registered by an elected Member could be used in all three electorates by candidates sponsored by that elected Member, in the same way that party names are currently used.  The elected Member could appoint a registered officer who would have the power to nominate candidates to stand under the registered group name.

To avoid any disadvantages being perceived in registration of a political party or a group name, the Commission proposes that the funding and disclosure provisions relating to Independent MLAs (defined as MLAs who are not members of a registered party) be brought into line with the provisions relating to registered parties.

Interstate parliamentary parties

At present, any political party that can claim to have a member elected to any Commonwealth, State or Territory parliament can apply to be registered as an ACT political party without having to satisfy a membership requirement.  Several ACT parties are registered in this way.

This means that a political party can be registered in the ACT without having any substantial membership resident in the ACT.  The Commission considers that it would be more appropriate that ACT parties prove that they have a substantial local membership in order to be registered for ACT elections.

The Commission proposes that parliamentary parties should also need to satisfy the Electoral Commissioner that they have at least 100 members eligible to enrol for ACT elections before being eligible for party registration.  Parties already registered on the basis that they were parliamentary parties should have to prove they have 100 members in the ACT or be deregistered.

In order to prevent the adoption of names of parliamentary parties in use interstate, the current provision in the Electoral Act preventing the registration of party names that are

the same as or very similar to the names of unrelated parliamentary parties should be retained.

Checking party membership

Under section 90 of the Electoral Act, the Electoral Commissioner is empowered to require specified information from applicants for party registration in order to determine whether a party is entitled to be registered.  The Commissioner has taken this to include the power to request lists of members of parties in order to contact some or all of the listed members in order to check the veracity of applications.  A potential applicant for party registration has queried whether the Commissioner has this power.

In order to put the matter beyond doubt, the Commission proposes that a specific power to request lists of members of parties applying for registration and to communicate with those members be given to the Commissioner.  In order to protect the privacy of persons included on such lists, the Commissioner should be forbidden from making personal political party membership information available to any person except for the purpose of checking a party’s claim to have sufficient members for registration.  (In practice the Commissioner has taken the view that party membership list information is personal information that is protected by the Privacy Act, but it would be preferable to put this beyond doubt by amending the Electoral Act.)

Party constitutions

The Electoral Act requires that a party’s constitution must accompany an application for registration and provides that the constitution is to be made available for public inspection at the time at which the party applies for registration.  However, there is no requirement that amendments to the party’s constitution are to be provided to the Commission or to be made public or even that a party must continue to have a constitution. The Commission proposes that the Electoral Act be amended to provide that a party should at all times have a valid constitution and that any amendments to a party’s constitution should be provided to the Commissioner, who shall be required to make the latest version of a party’s constitution available for public inspection on request.

If a party could not satisfy the Commissioner that it had a valid constitution, the Commissioner would be required to deregister the party on the basis that it did not satisfy the requirements of an eligible political party.

Summary of recommendations related to party registration

Recommendation 6.  That the Electoral Act be amended to provide that, to be eligible for registration on the ACT register of political parties, parties must have at least 100 members who are ACT electors or who are entitled to be an ACT elector.

Recommendation 7.  That the Electoral Act be amended to give the Electoral Commissioner a specific power to request lists of members of parties applying for registration and to communicate with those members for the purpose of confirming that they are members of the proposed party.

Recommendation 8.  That the Electoral Act be amended to provide that the Electoral Commissioner may not make personal political party membership information available to any person except for the purpose of checking a party’s claim to have sufficient members for registration.

Recommendation 9.  That the Electoral Act be amended to provide for a scheme of registration of group names along the following lines:
MLAs who are not members of a registered political party (Independent MLAs) may apply to register a group name for use on ballot papers. Group names would be used on ballot papers in the same way as registered party names or abbreviations.
Independent MLAs registering a group name could appoint a registered officer who would carry the same rights and responsibilities as currently apply to registered officers of registered parties.
If an Independent MLA did not appoint a registered officer, the
Independent MLA would be taken to be the registered officer.
A constitution would not be required for registration of a group name. The same naming restrictions as those that apply to registered party names would apply to group names, with the added restriction that the word “party” may not be used in a group name.
Public objections to the name of a proposed group name would be invited in the same way as objections to a party’s registration are currently invited.

Recommendation 10.  That the Electoral Act be amended to provide that a registered political party must at all times have a constitution.  Any amendments to a party’s constitution must be provided to the Electoral Commissioner.  The Electoral Commissioner should be required to make the latest available version of a party’s constitution available for public inspection on request.  The Electoral Commissioner may deregister a registered party if he or she is not satisfied that a party has a valid constitution.

Recommendation 11.  That the Electoral Act be amended to provide that the disclosure thresholds relating to Independent MLAs be brought into line with the thresholds relating to registered parties.

Recommendation 12.  That transitional provisions be enacted to provide that each party currently registered would have, say, two months in which to prove to the Electoral Commissioner that it had at least 100 members eligible for enrolment in the ACT and that it had a valid constitution.  If a party could not so satisfy the Commissioner, the party would be deregistered.  An Independent MLA would have the option of “converting” a registered party name into a group name.

Election Funding and  Financial Disclosure Scheme

The Election Funding and Financial Disclosure (FAD) scheme in the ACT is modelled closely on the Commonwealth’s FAD scheme to reduce the administrative load on parties registered both with the Commonwealth and the ACT.  As a result, in the past, as

amendments are made to the Commonwealth’s FAD scheme the ACT has passed legislation to ensure that the ACT FAD scheme remains in line with that of the Commonwealth.

Consistency with the Commonwealth FAD scheme

Before the 1998 Federal election, the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended to provide that, for the 1998/99 financial year, registered parties will no longer be required to itemise amounts paid by the party during the financial year.  Parties will simply have to disclose the total amount paid by the party in the financial year.  The ACT Electoral Act requires parties to disclose the identity of persons or organisations who are paid
$1500 or more by the party in a financial year.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act was also amended to provide that, for the 1998/99 financial year,  parties will have the choice of either lodging an official annual return, as in the past, or lodging a return constituted by the audited annual accounts of the registered party, in a form approved by the Australian Electoral Commission.

These changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act impact on the ACT FAD scheme as parties registered at both Commonwealth and ACT levels are able to satisfy the requirements of the ACT Electoral Act by providing the ACT Electoral Commission with a copy of the party’s annual return as provided to the Australian Electoral Commission.  In order to ensure that the same provisions apply to all registered ACT parties (including those registered at both Commonwealth and ACT levels and those registered at ACT level only), the ACT Electoral Act will need to be amended to bring the ACT FAD scheme back into line with the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth Government also introduced another set of changes to the Commonwealth FAD scheme before the 1998 Federal election, but these changes were not considered by Federal Parliament before the election.  The Commonwealth Government has indicated that it proposes to introduce similar changes in the new Parliament.  It is not known whether these proposals will be likely to be passed by the Senate.

The proposed changes to the Commonwealth FAD scheme introduced in May 1998 in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No 2) 1998 included:

Raising the threshold amount at which the identity of donors to political parties has to be disclosed from $1500 to $5000 received during the financial year.

Raising the amount of individual donations that need to be taken into account in determining whether a donor has given more than the threshold amount to a political party in a financial year from $500 to $1500.

Raising the threshold amount above which a donor to a political party must submit an annual return from $1500 to $10000.

These proposed changes, if implemented, would put the ACT out of step with the Commonwealth.  If these changes were to be adopted by the ACT they would significantly change the nature of the ACT FAD scheme.  Because of the smaller scale

of ACT politics compared to Federal politics, the implementation of the proposed higher threshold amounts for disclosure would mean that registered parties would not be required to list many of the donors that are currently listed.

For example, the 1997/98 annual returns (which will be made public in February 1999) show that a total of 24 donors gave $5000 or more to registered parties during the year (which was an election year).  Another 48 donors are listed as making donations of between $1500 and $4999.  These 48 donors would not have been disclosed if the proposed changes had applied.

Accounting for individual  donations  of less than  $500

In its report on the 1995 election, the Commission recommended against adopting the Commonwealth provision whereby individual donations of less than $500 did not need to be taken into account when determining whether a donor had given more than $1500 to a party in a financial year.  The Assembly did not accept this recommendation, and adopted this provision as part of bringing the ACT provisions into line with the Commonwealth provisions.

The Pettit Report also examined this issue, and recommended that “the rules for the disclosure of contributions to electoral funds should be amended so as to remove any obvious loopholes in the current system.”

The Commission has not at this stage conducted any audits of party records to ascertain whether parties are making use of this apparent “loophole”.  However, the 1997/98 annual returns indicate that the difference between the total amount received by parties and the total amount of donations disclosed as attributable to individual donors was around $407000.  That is, all parties combined apparently received around $407000 in donations or other income either in individual donations of less than $500 or from individual donors who gave less than $1500 in total.  This represents about 34% of the total income received by all parties in 1997/98 (not including public funding provided under the Electoral Act).

Details on individual parties will be available when the annual returns are made public in February 1999.

Options for consideration

As the ACT FAD scheme is now out of step with the Commonwealth scheme, and may be further out of step if other proposed Commonwealth changes are adopted, the Assembly needs to decide whether to bring the ACT scheme into line with the Commonwealth again, or whether to maintain a separate ACT FAD scheme.

If the Assembly considers that the ACT should always follow the Commonwealth lead,
it may wish to consider removing detailed requirements for submission of annual returns from the ACT Electoral Act and simply provide that all registered ACT parties, independent MLAs, donors and associated entities should provide the ACT Electoral Commission with a return that satisfies the requirements set out in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.  This would avoid the need to change the ACT Electoral Act every time the Commonwealth scheme changes.

If the Assembly does not wish to adopt the Commonwealth changes, the Electoral Act would need to be amended to remove the option that parties and associated entities registered at both Commonwealth and ACT levels currently have, to lodge a copy of their Commonwealth annual return with the ACT Electoral Commission.  If this course is followed the Assembly may wish to reconsider its view on accounting for individual donations of less than $500.

Recommendation 13.  The Commission recommends that the Assembly amend the Electoral Act to break the nexus between the Commonwealth’s FAD scheme and the ACT’s FAD scheme and to provide that individual donations of less than $500 be taken into account when determining disclosure thresholds.

Other Proposed Changes  to the Commonwealth Electoral Act

The Commonwealth Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No 2) 1998 introduced in May 1998 also proposed changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act that, if implemented, would impact on the way the electoral roll is maintained in the ACT.  In addition, as the ACT franchise is directly linked to the Commonwealth franchise, the Federal changes would, if implemented, also change the franchise for ACT elections.  The Commonwealth Government has indicated that it intends to reintroduce the measures contained in this Bill.  If the ACT Assembly does not wish to adopt the Federal changes it will have to legislate to maintain the status quo.

The proposed changes include:

Removing the right to enrol and vote from all persons serving a prison sentence for any Commonwealth, State or Territory offence. (Currently, only prisoners serving a sentence of 5 years or longer are unable to enrol or vote.)

Limiting the class of persons able to witness enrolment forms to a prescribed class of persons similar to those required to witness passports and statutory declarations.  A witness will also have to be enrolled on the electoral roll. (Currently, any person entitled to be enrolled on the electoral roll is also entitled to witness an enrolment form.)

Requiring a person enrolling for the first time to produce an original item of proof of identity, such as a driver’s licence, birth certificate or passport. (Currently, no proof of identity is required.)

Requiring citizenship to be verified with the Immigration Department (for naturalised citizens) for first time enrolment, before that enrolment is accepted. (Currently, citizenship details are not verified.)

Removing the one-month residency period for re-enrolment in a new electoral Division and replacing it with a requirement to re-enrol within one month of moving address (with no residency period required). (Currently a person has to live in an electoral Division for one month before being entitled to enrol for that address.)

Altering the close of rolls period so that the rolls for federal elections will close for first-time enrolments on the day of issue of the writ for an election, and the

rolls will close for re-enrolments three days after the issue of the writ. (Currently, the Commonwealth roll closes 7 days after the issue of the writ.)

The Commission will monitor the progress of the proposed Commonwealth changes and will report developments to Assembly Members.

Recommendation 14.  The Commission recommends that the Assembly note the proposed changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act related to the electoral roll and note that, if the changes are implemented, they will automatically apply to the ACT unless the Assembly amends the Electoral Act otherwise.

PART  2 — PROPOSED MINOR AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 1992

Section 3 — Definition of “declaration vote”

There is an incorrect cross-reference in the definition of “declaration vote” in section 3. The reference to subsection 136B(12) should be to subsection 136B(15). [Recommendation 15.]

Section 4 — Definition of “electoral matter”

This definition is used primarily to define those articles that need to be authorised under section 292.  It is also used in relation to a variety of offences related to publication of electoral matter and in relation to disclosure of expenditure related to publication of electoral matter.

As it stands, this definition is very broad, as it includes any mention of the Government, an MLA, a political party or an issue relevant to an election.  For example, it covers most if not all of the publications of the ACT Government and all ACT public service agencies.  It also covers any publication that refers in whatever context to an MLA or
the ACT Government.  For example, it covers a brochure advertising a concert that lists an MLA as a patron.  Consequently, it covers much more material than may have been intended given that this section is intended to define “matter that is intended or is likely to affect voting in an election”.

The Commission recommends limiting the scope of this definition.  This could be done by:
exempting any matter published by an ACT agency, provided the agency is clearly identified (along the lines of regulations made before the 1998 election exempting such publications from the authorisation requirements);  and/or
limiting the application of the definition to matter that has a direct or implied reference to an election or to the performance of the Government, the Opposition, a previous Government, a previous Opposition, an MLA, a former MLA, a political party, a candidate or group of candidates, in so far as such a reference may affect the formation of an elector’s voting intentions;  and/or
omitting subsection 4(3), which refers to matter related to Governments and members of legislatures of other States and Territories.
[Recommendation 16.]

Section 7 — Conduct of ballots for prescribed persons and organisations

Under paragraph 7(1)(h) of the Electoral Act the Commission has the function of conducting ballots for prescribed persons and organisations.  In this case, “prescribed” means prescribed in regulations.  The requirement to have regulations passed for this purpose is cumbersome, and can cause delays when the Commission is asked to quote for the conduct of an election at short notice.  The Commission recommends that this paragraph be amended to allow the Commission to conduct ballots for persons and organisations as determined by the Commission.  [Recommendation 17.]

Sections 46 and 52 — Objections to redistribution proposals

Under section 49 of the Electoral Act the augmented Commission is required to investigate each objection to a proposed redistribution made under section 46 or 52 and to hold public hearings into objections under certain circumstances.  At a public hearing, any person may make a submission in relation to an objection.  However, there is no requirement that objections be made publicly available before a public hearing.  The Commission recommends that the Electoral Act be amended to provide that objections lodged under sections 46 and 52 are to be made available for perusal by members of the public at the office of the Electoral Commission as soon as practicable after being received by the Electoral Commission.  [Recommendation 18.]

Sections 63 and 64  — Approved and prohibited uses of roll extracts

Section 63 places end use restrictions on the information contained in roll extracts provided to MLAs and parties.  Section 64 prohibits commercial use or unauthorised disclosure of electoral extracts provided to MLAs and parties.  These provisions are intended to prevent misuse of personal electoral roll details.

Electoral rolls are also provided to candidates in an election under section 121, but no end use restrictions are imposed on the use of the electoral roll information by candidates.  The Commission recommends amending sections 63 and 64 to ensure that the same end use restrictions apply to candidates receiving certified lists under section
121.  [Recommendation 19.] Section 80 — Closed rolls
Section 80 sets out the arrangements that pertain while the electoral roll is “closed” for an election.  Subsection 80(4A) allows for the enrolment or transfer of enrolment of a person of an elector whose claim is received before the close of roll but whose claim is not processed until after the close of rolls.  There is arguably some doubt as to the meaning of “received’ in this subsection, as it does not identify the intended recipient. The Commission recommends that subsection 80(4A) of the Electoral Act be amended to clarify that it applies to claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment received by officers of the Australian Electoral Commission, officers appointed under the ACT Electoral Act, or persons authorised for the purpose by the Electoral Commissioner (such as officers of ACT Government shop fronts).  [Recommendation 20.]

Section 91 — Publication of notice of applications

Section 91 sets out the process which the Commissioner must follow when considering an application to register a political party.  At present the Commissioner calls for objections to the application then provides those objections to the proposed registered officer of the new party for a response.  The section does not make it mandatory for the Commissioner to consider that response in making a decision to register the party or to refuse the registration.

Any response from a registered officer to objections lodged in relation to an application to register a political party or to change the register should be considered by the Commissioner when making decisions on registering a party.  The Commission recommends amending section 91 to ensure the response from the registered officer of

the party must be considered when a decision regarding the register is being made.
[Recommendation 21.]

Section 105 — Candidates to be nominated

Paragraph 105(2)(b) states that a person may be nominated to be a candidate by 2 electors entitled to vote at the election.  The Commissioner has interpreted this to mean that the nominators must be entitled to vote for the election for which the candidate is being nominated.  That is, the nominators must be enrolled for the relevant electorate. Legal advice obtained during the 1998 election indicated that there may be some doubt about this interpretation.

There is a sound reason that nominators should be required to be entitled to vote for the election for which a candidate is being nominated.  Under section 111, if the number of candidates for election is not greater than the number to be elected, those candidates are automatically declared elected without the need for an election.  While this is a theoretical possibility that is not likely to occur in practice, it does point to the central role of nominators.  Nominators have the responsibility of putting forward prospective candidates to represent an electorate, and in theory may be the only persons who play a part in electing candidates.  Consequently it would be appropriate that nominators should be required to be entitled to vote for the electorate for which a candidate is being nominated.

The Commission recommends that paragraph 105(2)(b) be amended to make it clear that nominators must be entitled to vote at the election for the electorate for which the candidate is being nominated.  [Recommendation 22.]

Section 123 — Scrutineers — conduct

Section 123 deals with the conduct of scrutineers and places limitations on the number of scrutineers that can be appointed.  Candidates are entitled to appoint scrutineers to polling places as long as the number of scrutineers representing a particular candidate who are present at the polling place does not exceed the number of polling place staff responsible for issuing ballot papers.  No such provision exists to limit the numbers of scrutineers entitled to attend mobile polling.  The Commission recommends that this section be amended to state that the same rule applies to mobile polling, that is, that a candidate can appoint scrutineers to observe mobile polling but that the number of scrutineers per candidate cannot exceed the number of mobile polling officers responsible for issuing ballot papers.  [Recommendation 23.]

Section 156 — Assistance to voters

The Commonwealth Electoral Act has recently been amended to allow an elector to vote outside (but in close proximity to) a polling place, if the officer in charge is satisfied that the elector is unable to enter the polling place because of physical disability, illness, advanced pregnancy or other condition.  Scrutineers are invited to be present while the vote is being taken outside the polling place.  The Commission recommends that a similar amendment be made to the Electoral Act.  [Recommendation 24.]

Section 231B — Annual returns by associated entities

There is a drafting error in subsection 231B(4).  The reference to paragraph (1)(b)
should be to paragraph (2)(b).  [Recommendation 25.] Section 243 —  Inspection and supply of copies of returns
There is a drafting error in subsection 243(4).   The reference to paragraph (1)(a) should be omitted.  [Recommendation 26.]

This section should also specify that a person may examine or obtain a copy of an annual return provided by a donor under section 221A from 1 February in the year following the year in which it is due to be given to the Commissioner.  At present, these annual returns are not adequately covered by this section.  [Recommendation 27.]

It would also be desirable to amend subsection (5) to provide that annual returns should be made public from 1 February in the year following the year in which it is due to be given to the Commissioner, rather than the year in which it is given to the Commissioner, as at present, to allow for the publication of returns received late in the year in which they were due to be published. [Recommendation 28.]

Section 247 — Review by Electoral Commission

Section 247 allows for review of reviewable decisions by the full Electoral Commission. It provides that an application for a review may be lodged by a person affected by a reviewable decision within 28 days after the day on which the relevant review statement was given to the applicant.  However, in the case of those decisions related to party registration, it is conceivable that there will be persons who can claim to be “affected by a reviewable decision” who would not be entitled to be given a review statement.  In order to allow such persons to apply for review of a decision, the Commission recommends that section 247 be amended to provide that notification of reviewable decisions related to party registration must be published in the Gazette, with the review period being 28 days from the date of that notice.  [Recommendation 29.]

Schedule 3 — Preliminary scrutiny of declaration voting papers

Clause 3 of schedule 3 assumes that completed declaration votes are stored in ballot boxes. However, relevant provisions elsewhere in the Electoral Act (eg subsection
139(2)) do not require declaration votes to be stored in ballot boxes, rather they are to be kept in “safe custody”.  The Commission recommends that this clause be omitted. [Recommendation 30.]

Clause 12 of schedule 3 provides that the Commissioner shall give each elector whose declaration vote has been rejected a notice setting out the reasons for the rejection.  The value in providing such advice to electors is questionable.  In many cases the advice is not welcomed by electors and only causes anguish and confusion.  From an administrative point of view the cost in providing the advice is relatively high.  The Commission recommends that this clause be omitted.  [Recommendation 31.]

APPENDIX A

The survey of formal votes cast  at the 1995 and  1998 ACT Legislative
Assembly elections

A structured random sample of 5% of all formal ballot papers from the 1995 and 1998 elections was examined to determine patterns of voting behaviour.

Three different surveys were undertaken. The first survey looked at the different ways voters marked the column of their first choice, in order to gauge the extent of “linear voting”, the act of marking a column of candidates sequentially from the top of the column down.  Results for 1995 and 1998 are shown for this survey.

The second survey examined ballot papers that showed a first preference for a candidate who was not a Liberal Party or Australian Labor Party candidate to determine the extent of “linear voting” for Liberal and ALP candidates receiving later preferences on these ballot papers.  Only 1998 results are reported (as 1995 results showed no significant differences from 1998).

The third survey looked at the lengths of sequences of preferences shown on ballot papers to determine how voters followed the ballot paper instructions.  Only 1998 results are reported (as 1995 results showed no significant differences from 1998).

The first survey — Linear voting in the column containing the candidate of first choice (1995 and 1998)

All ballot papers were divided into two categories: where the candidate of first choice was at the top of the column; and where the candidate of first choice was not at the top of the column.  These two categories were subdivided into the following subcategories:

Candidate of first choice at top of column:

Linear vote (all candidates in the column numbered sequentially from the top down)

Non-linear party vote (all candidates in the column numbered higher than any other candidates for any other columns, but not numbered sequentially from the top down)

Non-linear non-party vote (not all candidates in the column numbered higher than at least one candidate in another column)

Candidate of first choice not at top of column:

Arguably linear votes (four different types of votes that could be taken to be “linear” following the first preference vote — see the detailed tables for descriptions — these votes are not included in the definition of “linear votes” used in the text)

Non-linear party votes (all candidates in the column numbered higher than any other candidates for any other columns, but not arguably linear votes)

Non-linear non-party vote (not all candidates in the column numbered higher than at least one candidate in another column)

The second survey — Linear voting where first preference  is not for Labor or
Liberal candidates (1998)

This survey examined ballot papers that showed a first preference for a candidate who was not a Liberal Party or Australian Labor Party candidate to determine the extent of “linear voting” for Liberal and ALP candidates receiving later preferences on these ballot papers.

The survey was intended to ascertain whether the linear vote was a factor when preferences are received from voters whose first choice was for a candidate in another column.

The survey showed that there was no discernible linear vote effect in this case.

These ballot papers were divided into three categories:  where there were no available preferences for Liberal or ALP candidates; where the highest available preference was for a Liberal candidate; and where the highest available preference was for an ALP candidate.  These categories were subdivided into the following subcategories, looking only at the Liberal or ALP column as the case may be:

Linear vote (all candidates in the column numbered sequentially from the top down)

Non-linear party vote (all candidates in the column numbered sequentially, but not numbered sequentially from the top down)

Non-linear non-party vote (not all candidates in the column numbered sequentially).

The third survey — Length of sequence of preferences (1998)

This survey ascertained the last consecutive number marked on each ballot paper.  The results are listed for each candidate that received the first preference vote, with totals for each column showing the last number marked in each electorate expressed as percentages.

Summaries for each electorate are printed at the foot of each table.  The summary for the
ACT as a whole is printed at the foot of the Molonglo table.

ACT Legislative  Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1995/1998
1.  Linear Vote - ACT Summary
Examining  the column containing the first preference  vote

candidate  of first choice at top of column	
linear	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
1
2
3
4
5
no. 	%	
eg
1
3
5
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
1
9
14
7
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	

candidate  of first choice not at top of column	
possibly linear down	possibly linear up	possibly linear top down	possibly linear bottom up	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
3
4
5
1
2
no. 	%	
eg
4
3
2
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
2
3
4
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
5
4
1
3
2
no. 	%	
eg
3
5
1
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
1
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
	
35	1.3	193	7.0	117	4.2	59	2.1	505	18.2	546	19.7	1455	52.5	
50	1.8	138	5.0	127	4.6	37	1.3	549	20.0	689	25.1	1590	58.0	
25	0.6	138	3.5	107	2.7	15	0.4	1108	28.4	1108	28.4	2501	64.1	

Total

675	24.4	177	6.4	465	16.8	1317	47.5	
663	24.2	122	4.4	368	13.4	1153	42.0	
792	20.3	139	3.6	472	12.1	1403	35.9	

no.

Brindabella  1998
Ginninderra 1998

2130	22.6	438	4.7	1305	13.9	3873	41.1	

110	1.2	469	5.0	351	3.7	111	1.2	2162	23.0	2343	24.9	5546	58.9	

Molonglo 1998

2772
2743
3904

ACT Total 1998

9419

Brindabella  1995
Ginninderra 1995

2105	25.2	516	6.2	871	10.4	3492	41.9	

219	2.6	406	4.9	244	2.9	77	0.9	2116	25.4	1789	21.4	4851	58.1	

Molonglo 1995

2466
2492
3385

649	26.3	187	7.6	314	12.7	1150	46.6	
756	30.3	161	6.5	267	10.7	1184	47.5	
700	20.7	168	5.0	290	8.6	1158	34.2	

53	2.1	127	5.2	78	3.2	14	0.6	497	20.2	547	22.2	1316	53.4	
105	4.2	143	5.7	65	2.6	24	1.0	548	22.0	423	17.0	1308	52.5	
61	1.8	136	4.0	101	3.0	39	1.2	1071	31.6	819	24.2	2227	65.8	

ACT Total 1995

8343

ACT Legislative Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1998
1.  Linear Vote - Brindabella

candidate of first choice at top of column	
linear	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
1
2
3
4
5
no. 	%	
eg
1
3
5
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
1
9
14
7
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
4	10.3	1	2.6	16	41.0	21	53.8	
9	27.3	1	3.0	19	57.6	29	87.9	
6	15.4	2	5.1	14	35.9	22	56.4	
43	33.9	1	0.8	18	14.2	62	48.8	
62	26.1	5	2.1	67	28.2	134	56.3	
20	80.0	0	0.0	3	12.0	23	92.0	
15	60.0	0	0.0	2	8.0	17	68.0	
35	70.0	0	0.0	5	10.0	40	80.0	
15	55.6	0	0.0	6	22.2	21	77.8	
108	26.1	0	0.0	98	23.7	206	49.8	
123	27.9	0	0.0	104	23.6	227	51.5	
19	43.2	1	2.3	10	22.7	30	68.2	
8	25.8	2	6.5	9	29.0	19	61.3	
9	17.3	4	7.7	17	32.7	30	57.7	
8	40.0	0	0.0	6	30.0	14	70.0	
11	39.3	4	14.3	3	10.7	18	64.3	
55	31.4	11	6.3	45	25.7	111	63.4	
56	34.6	10	6.2	13	8.0	79	48.8	
25	26.9	8	8.6	24	25.8	57	61.3	
36	37.9	8	8.4	10	10.5	54	56.8	
34	16.5	15	7.3	60	29.1	109	52.9	
37	14.9	20	8.1	27	10.9	84	33.9	
188	23.4	61	7.6	134	16.7	383	47.6	
33	37.5	6	6.8	8	9.1	47	53.4	
36	40.9	10	11.4	14	15.9	60	68.2	
41	23.8	16	9.3	19	11.0	76	44.2	
44	22.2	31	15.7	8	4.0	83	41.9	
52	11.6	36	8.0	45	10.0	133	29.6	
206	20.7	99	9.9	94	9.4	399	40.1	
1	11.1	1	11.1	1	11.1	3	33.3	
2	7.7	0	0.0	8	30.8	10	38.5	
1	10.0	0	0.0	3	30.0	4	40.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	2	16.7	2	16.7	
2	16.7	0	0.0	2	16.7	4	33.3	

candidate of first choice not at top of column	
possibly linear down	possibly linear up	possibly linear top down	possibly linear bottom up	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
3
4
5
1
2
no. 	%	
eg
4
3
2
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
2
3
4
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
5
4
1
3
2
no. 	%	
eg
3
5
1
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
1
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
0	0.0	2	5.1	1	2.6	0	0.0	3	7.7	12	30.8	18	46.2	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	12.1	4	12.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	2	5.1	1	2.6	1	2.6	13	33.3	17	43.6	
3	2.4	8	6.3	6	4.7	5	3.9	11	8.7	32	25.2	65	51.2	
3	1.3	10	4.2	9	3.8	6	2.5	15	6.3	61	25.6	104	43.7	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	8.0	2	8.0	
0	0.0	6	24.0	0	0.0	1	4.0	0	0.0	1	4.0	8	32.0	
0	0.0	6	12.0	0	0.0	1	2.0	0	0.0	3	6.0	10	20.0	
0	0.0	3	11.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	11.1	6	22.2	
0	0.0	125	30.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	83	20.0	208	50.2	
0	0.0	128	29.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	86	19.5	214	48.5	
0	0.0	2	4.5	0	0.0	1	2.3	7	15.9	4	9.1	14	31.8	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	6.5	10	32.3	12	38.7	
1	1.9	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	3.8	5	9.6	14	26.9	22	42.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	5.0	0	0.0	2	10.0	3	15.0	6	30.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	3.6	0	0.0	3	10.7	6	21.4	10	35.7	
1	0.6	2	1.1	2	1.1	3	1.7	19	10.9	37	21.1	64	36.6	
0	0.0	0	0.0	15	9.3	5	3.1	36	22.2	27	16.7	83	51.2	
0	0.0	1	1.1	1	1.1	0	0.0	16	17.2	18	19.4	36	38.7	
0	0.0	0	0.0	8	8.4	3	3.2	24	25.3	6	6.3	41	43.2	
0	0.0	6	2.9	16	7.8	5	2.4	31	15.0	39	18.9	97	47.1	
4	1.6	7	2.8	18	7.3	14	5.6	61	24.6	60	24.2	164	66.1	
4	0.5	14	1.7	58	7.2	27	3.4	168	20.9	150	18.7	421	52.4	
5	5.7	4	4.5	3	3.4	3	3.4	18	20.5	8	9.1	41	46.6	
0	0.0	6	6.8	1	1.1	2	2.3	14	15.9	5	5.7	28	31.8	
5	2.9	0	0.0	8	4.7	0	0.0	53	30.8	30	17.4	96	55.8	
5	2.5	9	4.5	10	5.1	3	1.5	60	30.3	28	14.1	115	58.1	
12	2.7	10	2.2	25	5.6	12	2.7	151	33.6	106	23.6	316	70.4	
27	2.7	29	2.9	47	4.7	20	2.0	296	29.7	177	17.8	596	59.9	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	11.1	2	22.2	3	33.3	6	66.7	
0	0.0	1	3.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	11.5	12	46.2	16	61.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	10.0	5	50.0	6	60.0	
0	0.0	2	16.7	0	0.0	1	8.3	0	0.0	7	58.3	10	83.3	
0	0.0	1	8.3	1	8.3	0	0.0	1	8.3	5	41.7	8	66.7	
	
35	1.3	193	7.0	117	4.2	59	2.1	505	18.2	546	19.7	1455	52.5	

	
Total	

no. 	%	
39	1.4	
33	1.2	
39	1.4	
127	4.6	
238	8.6	
25	0.9	
25	0.9	
50	1.8	
27	1.0	
414	14.9	
441	15.9	
44	1.6	
31	1.1	
52	1.9	
20	0.7	
28	1.0	
175	6.3	
162	5.8	
93	3.4	
95	3.4	
206	7.4	
248	8.9	
804	29.0	
88	3.2	
88	3.2	
172	6.2	
198	7.1	
449	16.2	
995	35.9	
9	0.3	
26	0.9	
10	0.4	
12	0.4	
12	0.4	

Examining the column containing the first preference vote

Party	
Candidate
of first choice	
GREEN	Ellerman	
GREEN	Farrelly	
GREEN	Stephens	
GREEN	Tito	
GREEN		
CDP	Carter	
CDP	Piccin	
CDP		
OIG	Moore	
OIG	Osborne	
OIG		
DEM	Bell	
DEM	Dodd	
DEM	Grant	
DEM	Peirce	
DEM	Tate	
DEM		
ALP	Hargreaves	
ALP	Mow	
ALP	Presdee	
ALP	Whitecross	
ALP	Wood	
ALP		
LIB	Didier	
LIB	Head	
LIB	Kaine	
LIB	Littlewood	
LIB	Smyth	
LIB		
	Cornwell	
	Kobier	
	Marshall	
	Menegazzo	
	Munday	

675	24.4	177	6.4	465	16.8	1317	47.5	

Totals

2772

ACT Legislative Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1998
1.  Linear Vote - Ginninderra

candidate of first choice at top of column	
linear	party
non linear	non party
non linear	Subtotal	

eg
1
2
3
4
5
no. 	%	
eg
1
3
5
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
1
9
14
7
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
5	23.8	1	4.8	9	42.9	15	71.4	
15	19.7	2	2.6	9	11.8	26	34.2	
13	50.0	1	3.8	6	23.1	20	76.9	
14	60.9	0	0.0	7	30.4	21	91.3	
8	21.1	1	2.6	6	15.8	15	39.5	
55	29.9	5	2.7	37	20.1	97	52.7	
39	41.1	8	8.4	10	10.5	57	60.0	
34	24.5	15	10.8	10	7.2	59	42.4	
29	55.8	1	1.9	9	17.3	39	75.0	
47	27.3	2	1.2	12	7.0	61	35.5	
63	14.0	31	6.9	34	7.5	128	28.4	
212	23.3	57	6.3	75	8.3	344	37.8	
60	15.6	8	2.1	21	5.5	89	23.1	
30	26.3	2	1.8	15	13.2	47	41.2	
22	34.9	11	17.5	5	7.9	38	60.3	
22	34.4	6	9.4	10	15.6	38	59.4	
37	17.5	16	7.6	23	10.9	76	36.0	
171	20.4	43	5.1	74	8.8	288	34.4	
21	40.4	2	3.8	10	19.2	33	63.5	
24	24.2	3	3.0	14	14.1	41	41.4	
14	33.3	4	9.5	6	14.3	24	57.1	
16	39.0	1	2.4	10	24.4	27	65.9	
75	32.1	10	4.3	40	17.1	125	53.4	
2	66.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	66.7	
4	66.7	0	0.0	2	33.3	6	100.0	
6	66.7	0	0.0	2	22.2	8	88.9	
28	65.1	0	0.0	6	14.0	34	79.1	
68	33.3	0	0.0	54	26.5	122	59.8	
96	38.9	0	0.0	60	24.3	156	63.2	
7	26.9	0	0.0	12	46.2	19	73.1	
2	50.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	50.0	
9	30.0	0	0.0	12	40.0	21	70.0	
18	52.9	1	2.9	3	8.8	22	64.7	
13	81.3	0	0.0	1	6.3	14	87.5	
31	62.0	1	2.0	4	8.0	36	72.0	
2	3.2	0	0.0	20	32.3	22	35.5	
2	18.2	0	0.0	4	36.4	6	54.5	
1	1.5	2	3.0	19	28.4	22	32.8	
3	2.9	4	3.9	21	20.4	28	27.2	

candidate of first choice not at top of column	
possibly
linear down	possibly linear up	possibly linear
top down	possibly linear
bottom up	party
non linear	non party
non linear	Subtotal	

eg
3
4
5
1
2
no. 	%	
eg
4
3
2
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
2
3
4
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
5
4
1
3
2
no. 	%	
eg
3
5
1
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
1
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	4.8	1	4.8	4	19.0	6.0	28.6	
0	0.0	2	2.6	5	6.6	2	2.6	13	17.1	28	36.8	50.0	65.8	
0	0.0	1	3.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	3.8	4	15.4	6.0	23.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	8.7	2.0	8.7	
1	2.6	2	5.3	0	0.0	1	2.6	5	13.2	14	36.8	23.0	60.5	
1	0.5	5	2.7	5	2.7	4	2.2	20	10.9	52	28.3	87.0	47.3	
0	0.0	2	2.1	4	4.2	0	0.0	15	15.8	17	17.9	38.0	40.0	
3	2.2	2	1.4	12	8.6	3	2.2	31	22.3	29	20.9	80.0	57.6	
1	1.9	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	9	17.3	3	5.8	13.0	25.0	
6	3.5	2	1.2	6	3.5	2	1.2	56	32.6	39	22.7	111.0	64.5	
14	3.1	17	3.8	24	5.3	5	1.1	152	33.7	111	24.6	323.0	71.6	
24	2.6	23	2.5	46	5.1	10	1.1	263	28.9	199	21.9	565.0	62.2	
10	2.6	15	3.9	38	9.9	3	0.8	144	37.4	86	22.3	296.0	76.9	
4	3.5	3	2.6	5	4.4	2	1.8	30	26.3	23	20.2	67.0	58.8	
2	3.2	1	1.6	1	1.6	1	1.6	10	15.9	10	15.9	25.0	39.7	
1	1.6	0	0.0	5	7.8	1	1.6	9	14.1	10	15.6	26.0	40.6	
2	0.9	8	3.8	9	4.3	3	1.4	52	24.6	61	28.9	135.0	64.0	
19	2.3	27	3.2	58	6.9	10	1.2	245	29.3	190	22.7	549.0	65.6	
3	5.8	3	5.8	2	3.8	3	5.8	2	3.8	6	11.5	19.0	36.5	
1	1.0	9	9.1	14	14.1	4	4.0	11	11.1	19	19.2	58.0	58.6	
1	2.4	3	7.1	0	0.0	3	7.1	0	0.0	11	26.2	18.0	42.9	
1	2.4	1	2.4	1	2.4	2	4.9	3	7.3	6	14.6	14.0	34.1	
6	2.6	16	6.8	17	7.3	12	5.1	16	6.8	42	17.9	109.0	46.6	
0	0.0	1	33.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1.0	33.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	
0	0.0	1	11.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1.0	11.1	
0	0.0	8	18.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	2.3	9.0	20.9	
0	0.0	40	19.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	42	20.6	82.0	40.2	
0	0.0	48	19.4	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	43	17.4	91.0	36.8	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	7	26.9	7.0	26.9	
0	0.0	1	25.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	25.0	2.0	50.0	
0	0.0	1	3.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	8	26.7	9.0	30.0	
0	0.0	8	23.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	11.8	12.0	35.3	
0	0.0	2	12.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2.0	12.5	
0	0.0	10	20.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	8.0	14.0	28.0	
0	0.0	1	1.6	1	1.6	0	0.0	2	3.2	36	58.1	40.0	64.5	
0	0.0	1	9.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	36.4	5.0	45.5	
0	0.0	2	3.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.5	42	62.7	45.0	67.2	
0	0.0	3	2.9	0	0.0	1	1.0	2	1.9	69	67.0	75.0	72.8	

	
Total	

no. 	%	
21	0.8	
76	2.8	
26	0.9	
23	0.8	
38	1.4	
184	6.7	
95	3.5	
139	5.1	
52	1.9	
172	6.3	
451	16.4	
909	33.1	
385	14.0	
114	4.2	
63	2.3	
64	2.3	
211	7.7	
837	30.5	
52	1.9	
99	3.6	
42	1.5	
41	1.5	
234	8.5	
3	0.1	
6	0.2	
9	0.3	
43	1.6	
204	7.4	
247	9.0	
26	0.9	
4	0.1	
30	1.1	
34	1.2	
16	0.6	
50	1.8	
62	2.3	
11	0.4	
67	2.4	
103	3.8	

Examining the column containing the first preference vote

Party	
Candidate
of first choice	
DEM	Allars	
DEM	Bell	
DEM	Holder	
DEM	Selden	
DEM	Vandenbroek	
DEM		
LIB	Birtles	
LIB	Dunne	
LIB	Gow	
LIB	Hird	
LIB	Stefaniak	
LIB		
ALP	Berry	
ALP	McRae	
ALP	Nicholls	
ALP	Sant	
ALP	Stanhope	
ALP		
GREEN	Palma	
GREEN	Rattenbury	
GREEN	von Behrens	
GREEN	Wainwright	
GREEN		
PLP	Brooks	
PLP	Graham	
PLP		
OIG	Back	
OIG	Rugendyke	
OIG		
NPG	Hill, C	
NPG	Hill, D	
NPG		
CDP	Miller	
CDP	Young	
CDP		
	Chu	
	Steven	
	Szuty	
	Xyrakis	

663	24.2	122	4.4	368	13.4	1153	42.0	

Totals

50	1.8	138	5.0	127	4.6	37	1.3	549	20.0	689	25.1	1590.0	58.0	

2743

ACT Legislative Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1998
1. Linear Vote - Molonglo

candidate of first choice at top of column		candidate of first choice not at top of column	candidate of first choice not at top of column	
linear	party
non linear	non party
non linear	Subtotal		possibly
linear down	possibly linear up	possibly linear
top down	possibly linear
bottom up	party
non linear	non party
non linear	Subtotal	

eg
1
2
3
4
5
no. 	%	
eg
1
3
5
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
1
9
14
7
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%		
eg
3
4
5
1
2
no. 	%	
eg
4
3
2
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
2
3
4
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
5
4
1
3
2
no. 	%	
eg
3
5
1
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
1
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
15	57.7	0	0.0	3	11.5	18	69.2		0	0.0	4	15.4	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	15.4	8	30.8	
34	77.3	0	0.0	5	11.4	39	88.6		0	0.0	2	4.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	6.8	5	11.4	
49	70.0	0	0.0	8	11.4	57	81.4		0	0.0	6	8.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	7	10.0	13	18.6	
35	19.9	12	6.8	18	10.2	65	36.9		2	1.1	1	0.6	5	2.8	1	0.6	70	39.8	32	18.2	111	63.1	
38	32.2	7	5.9	13	11.0	58	49.2		0	0.0	0	0.0	6	5.1	0	0.0	29	24.6	25	21.2	60	50.8	
31	24.6	7	5.6	14	11.1	52	41.3		1	0.8	0	0.0	6	4.8	0	0.0	35	27.8	32	25.4	74	58.7	
31	21.8	7	4.9	12	8.5	50	35.2		0	0.0	0	0.0	2	1.4	0	0.0	53	37.3	37	26.1	92	64.8	
42	31.3	8	6.0	15	11.2	65	48.5		2	1.5	0	0.0	3	2.2	2	1.5	30	22.4	32	23.9	69	51.5	
45	30.0	10	6.7	20	13.3	75	50.0		0	0.0	1	0.7	4	2.7	0	0.0	41	27.3	29	19.3	75	50.0	
55	35.9	10	6.5	10	6.5	75	49.0		0	0.0	2	1.3	8	5.2	0	0.0	38	24.8	30	19.6	78	51.0	
277	27.7	61	6.1	102	10.2	440	44.0		5	0.5	4	0.4	34	3.4	3	0.3	296	29.6	217	21.7	559	56.0	
6	27.3	0	0.0	5	22.7	11	50.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	1	4.5	0	0.0	3	13.6	7	31.8	11	50.0	
9	32.1	0	0.0	10	35.7	19	67.9		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	3.6	8	28.6	9	32.1	
6	25.0	1	4.2	10	41.7	17	70.8		0	0.0	1	4.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	12.5	3	12.5	7	29.2	
10	21.7	5	10.9	5	10.9	20	43.5		0	0.0	0	0.0	1	2.2	0	0.0	11	23.9	14	30.4	26	56.5	
9	39.1	0	0.0	3	13.0	12	52.2		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	8.7	9	39.1	11	47.8	
5	31.3	0	0.0	6	37.5	11	68.8		0	0.0	2	12.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	6.3	2	12.5	5	31.3	
19	7.9	3	1.3	24	10.0	46	19.2		2	0.8	6	2.5	6	2.5	1	0.4	70	29.3	108	45.2	193	80.8	
64	16.1	9	2.3	63	15.8	136	34.2		2	0.5	9	2.3	8	2.0	1	0.3	91	22.9	151	37.9	262	65.8	
0	0.0	1	4.8	3	14.3	4	19.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	1	4.8	1	4.8	5	23.8	10	47.6	17	81.0	
15	41.7	2	5.6	1	2.8	18	50.0		1	2.8	0	0.0	1	2.8	0	0.0	11	30.6	5	13.9	18	50.0	
80	6.1	46	3.5	61	4.7	187	14.3		13	1.0	16	1.2	53	4.0	8	0.6	624	47.6	410	31.3	1124	85.7	
10	16.4	4	6.6	9	14.8	23	37.7		1	1.6	1	1.6	0	0.0	1	1.6	17	27.9	18	29.5	38	62.3	
21	21.0	6	6.0	12	12.0	39	39.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	21	21.0	40	40.0	61	61.0	
0	0.0	1	11.1	3	33.3	4	44.4		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	55.6	5	55.6	
7	9.7	5	6.9	11	15.3	23	31.9		0	0.0	6	8.3	4	5.6	0	0.0	18	25.0	21	29.2	49	68.1	
133	8.3	65	4.0	100	6.2	298	18.5		15	0.9	23	1.4	59	3.7	10	0.6	696	43.2	509	31.6	1312	81.5	
14	50.0	0	0.0	6	21.4	20	71.4		1	3.6	3	10.7	0	0.0	1	3.6	2	7.1	1	3.6	8	28.6	
6	66.7	0	0.0	2	22.2	8	88.9		0	0.0	1	11.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	11.1	
2	40.0	0	0.0	1	20.0	3	60.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	40.0	2	40.0	
22	52.4	0	0.0	9	21.4	31	73.8		1	2.4	4	9.5	0	0.0	1	2.4	2	4.8	3	7.1	11	26.2	
3	30.0	0	0.0	3	30.0	6	60.0		0	0.0	2	20.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	20.0	4	40.0	
7	9.9	0	0.0	32	45.1	39	54.9		0	0.0	9	12.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	23	32.4	32	45.1	
10	12.3	0	0.0	35	43.2	45	55.6		0	0.0	11	13.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	25	30.9	36	44.4	
8	72.7	0	0.0	1	9.1	9	81.8		0	0.0	2	18.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	18.2	
1	25.0	0	0.0	3	75.0	4	100.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
9	60.0	0	0.0	4	26.7	13	86.7		0	0.0	2	13.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	13.3	
6	35.3	0	0.0	8	47.1	14	82.4		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	5.9	2	11.8	3	17.6	
7	33.3	0	0.0	7	33.3	14	66.7		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	19.0	3	14.3	7	33.3	
9	11.3	1	1.3	17	21.3	27	33.8		1	1.3	0	0.0	4	5.0	0	0.0	6	7.5	42	52.5	53	66.3	
3	33.3	1	11.1	1	11.1	5	55.6		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	11.1	3	33.3	4	44.4	
13	30.2	2	4.7	10	23.3	25	58.1		0	0.0	1	2.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	9.3	13	30.2	18	41.9	
8	50.0	0	0.0	4	25.0	12	75.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	12.5	2	12.5	4	25.0	
10	55.6	0	0.0	2	11.1	12	66.7		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	5.6	5	27.8	6	33.3	
56	27.5	4	2.0	49	24.0	109	53.4		1	0.5	1	0.5	4	2.0	0	0.0	19	9.3	70	34.3	95	46.6	
48	76.2	0	0.0	9	14.3	57	90.5		0	0.0	4	6.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	3.2	6	9.5	
47	64.4	0	0.0	9	12.3	56	76.7		0	0.0	7	9.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	10	13.7	17	23.3	
95	69.9	0	0.0	18	13.2	113	83.1		0	0.0	11	8.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	12	8.8	23	16.9	
9	64.3	0	0.0	1	7.1	10	71.4		0	0.0	3	21.4	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	7.1	4	28.6	
62	25.4	0	0.0	64	26.2	126	51.6		0	0.0	64	26.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	54	22.1	118	48.4	
71	27.5	0	0.0	65	25.2	136	52.7		0	0.0	67	26.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	55	21.3	122	47.3	
1	4.8	0	0.0	5	23.8	6	28.6		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	15	71.4	15	71.4	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	1	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	100.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	3	33.3	3	33.3		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	11.1	5	55.6	6	66.7	
0	0.0	0	0.0	3	15.0	3	15.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	5.0	16	80.0	17	85.0	
1	14.3	0	0.0	1	14.3	2	28.6		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	71.4	5	71.4	
1	3.6	0	0.0	7	25.0	8	28.6		1	3.6	0	0.0	1	3.6	0	0.0	2	7.1	16	57.1	20	71.4	
2	66.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	66.7		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	33.3	1	33.3	
1	50.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	50.0		0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	50.0	1	50.0	

	
Total	

no. 	%	
26	0.7	
44	1.1	
70	1.8	
176	4.5	
118	3.0	
126	3.2	
142	3.6	
134	3.4	
150	3.8	
153	3.9	
999	25.6	
22	0.6	
28	0.7	
24	0.6	
46	1.2	
23	0.6	
16	0.4	
239	6.1	
398	10.2	
21	0.5	
36	0.9	
1311	33.6	
61	1.6	
100	2.6	
9	0.2	
72	1.8	
1610	41.2	
28	0.7	
9	0.2	
5	0.1	
42	1.1	
10	0.3	
71	1.8	
81	2.1	
11	0.3	
4	0.1	
15	0.4	
17	0.4	
21	0.5	
80	2.0	
9	0.2	
43	1.1	
16	0.4	
18	0.5	
204	5.2	
63	1.6	
73	1.9	
136	3.5	
14	0.4	
244	6.3	
258	6.6	
21	0.5	
1	0.0	
9	0.2	
20	0.5	
7	0.2	
28	0.7	
3	0.1	
2	0.1	

Examining the column containing the first preference vote

Party	
Candidate
of first choice	
CDP	Craig	
CDP	Miller	
CDP		
ALP	Corbell	
ALP	Flaherty	
ALP	Garth	
ALP	McMurtry	
ALP	O'Keefe	
ALP	Quinlan	
ALP	Reilly	
ALP		
GREEN	Kirschbaum	
GREEN	Le Couteur	
GREEN	Lynch	
GREEN	Manderson	
GREEN	Ruker	
GREEN	Smitheram	
GREEN	Tucker	
GREEN		
LIB	Aouad	
LIB	Burke	
LIB	Carnell	
LIB	Cornwell	
LIB	Humphries	
LIB	Louttit	
LIB	Tolley	
LIB		
DS	Bull	
DS	Gooden	
DS	Soudakoff	
DS		
NPG	Haberecht	
NPG	Rees	
NPG		
PLP	Bartrum	
PLP	Kanra	
PLP		
DEM	Coates	
DEM	Davey	
DEM	Errey	
DEM	Kennedy	
DEM	McEwen	
DEM	Tonge	
DEM	Wood	
DEM		
OIG	Carlile	
OIG	Uhlmann	
OIG		
MI	Kellett	
MI	Moore	
MI		
	Ayson	
	Black	
	Dyer	
	Gray-Grzeszkiewicz	
	Hancock	
	Leyland	
	Nicholls	
	W illmott	

792	20.3	139	3.6	472	12.1	1403	35.9		25	0.6	138	3.5	107	2.7	15	0.4	1108	28.4	1108	28.4	2501	64.1	

Totals

3904

1.  Linear Vote - Brindabella

candidate of first choice at top of column	
linear	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
1
2
3
4
5
no. 	%	
eg
1
3
5
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
1
9
14
7
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
25	50.0	0	0.0	11	22.0	36	72.0	
36	34.3	7	6.7	8	7.6	51	48.6	
31	67.4	0	0.0	10	21.7	41	89.1	
92	45.8	7	3.5	29	14.4	128	63.7	
26	68.4	0	0.0	4	10.5	30	78.9	
32	62.7	0	0.0	10	19.6	42	82.4	
58	65.2	0	0.0	14	15.7	72	80.9	
32	55.2	3	5.2	14	24.1	49	84.5	
46	31.1	34	23.0	15	10.1	95	64.2	
29	33.0	4	4.5	16	18.2	49	55.7	
46	16.0	36	12.5	18	6.3	100	34.7	
68	30.1	6	2.7	18	8.0	92	40.7	
221	27.4	83	10.3	81	10.0	385	47.6	
22	62.9	1	2.9	4	11.4	27	77.1	
29	47.5	1	1.6	10	16.4	40	65.6	
51	53.1	2	2.1	14	14.6	67	69.8	
16	66.7	0	0.0	3	12.5	19	79.2	
6	24.0	0	0.0	9	36.0	15	60.0	
22	44.9	0	0.0	12	24.5	34	69.4	
39	37.5	11	10.6	15	14.4	65	62.5	
67	20.3	31	9.4	24	7.3	122	37.0	
49	21.7	19	8.4	27	11.9	95	42.0	
43	27.4	21	13.4	16	10.2	80	51.0	
0	0.0	7	11.5	6	9.8	13	21.3	
198	22.6	89	10.1	88	10.0	375	42.7	
0	0.0	1	14.3	2	28.6	3	42.9	
1	2.6	1	2.6	6	15.4	8	20.5	
5	1.8	4	1.4	61	21.5	70	24.6	
1	6.7	0	0.0	7	46.7	8	53.3	

candidate of first choice at top of column	
possibly linear down	possibly  linear up	possibly  linear top down	possibly  linear bottom up	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
3
4
5
1
2
no. 	%	
eg
4
3
2
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
2
3
4
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
5
4
1
3
2
no. 	%	
eg
3
5
1
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
1
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
0	0.0	8	16.0	1	2.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	10.0	14	28.0	
1	1.0	19	18.1	19	18.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	15	14.3	54	51.4	
3	6.5	1	2.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	2.2	5	10.9	
4	2.0	28	13.9	20	10.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	21	10.4	73	36.3	
0	0.0	5	13.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	7.9	8	21.1	
0	0.0	3	5.9	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	6	11.8	9	17.6	
0	0.0	8	9.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	9	10.1	17	19.1	
0	0.0	1	1.7	2	3.4	0	0.0	4	6.9	2	3.4	9	15.5	
0	0.0	1	0.7	8	5.4	1	0.7	26	17.6	17	11.5	53	35.8	
0	0.0	1	1.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	4.5	34	38.6	39	44.3	
4	1.4	33	11.5	1	0.3	3	1.0	135	46.9	12	4.2	188	65.3	
13	5.8	1	0.4	19	8.4	2	0.9	39	17.3	60	26.5	134	59.3	
17	2.1	37	4.6	30	3.7	6	0.7	208	25.7	125	15.5	423	52.4	
0	0.0	7	20.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	2.9	8	22.9	
1	1.6	14	23.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	6	9.8	21	34.4	
1	1.0	21	21.9	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	7	7.3	29	30.2	
0	0.0	1	4.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	16.7	5	20.8	
0	0.0	6	24.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	16.0	10	40.0	
0	0.0	7	14.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	8	16.3	15	30.6	
1	1.0	1	1.0	1	1.0	2	1.9	24	23.1	10	9.6	39	37.5	
5	1.5	11	3.3	10	3.0	3	0.9	118	35.8	61	18.5	208	63.0	
13	5.8	4	1.8	5	2.2	3	1.3	67	29.6	39	17.3	131	58.0	
5	3.2	1	0.6	4	2.5	0	0.0	45	28.7	22	14.0	77	49.0	
2	3.3	0	0.0	1	1.6	0	0.0	26	42.6	19	31.1	48	78.7	
26	3.0	17	1.9	21	2.4	8	0.9	280	31.9	151	17.2	503	57.3	
1	14.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	42.9	4	57.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	31	79.5	31	79.5	
4	1.4	9	3.2	7	2.5	0	0.0	9	3.2	185	65.1	214	75.4	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	7	46.7	7	46.7	

	
Total	

no. 	%	
50	2.0	
105	4.3	
46	1.9	
201	8.2	
38	1.5	
51	2.1	
89	3.6	
58	2.4	
148	6.0	
88	3.6	
288	11.7	
226	9.2	
808	32.8	
35	1.4	
61	2.5	
96	3.9	
24	1.0	
25	1.0	
49	2.0	
104	4.2	
330	13.4	
226	9.2	
157	6.4	
61	2.5	
878	35.6	
7	0.3	
39	1.6	
284	11.5	
15	0.6	

Examining  the column containing  the first preference vote

Party	
Candidate
of first choice	
GREEN	McGuiness	
GREEN	Parratt	
GREEN	Stephens	
GREEN		
MI	Isaacson, N	
MI	Isaacson,  S	
MI		
ALP	Cawthorne	
ALP	Ellis	
ALP	Whan	
ALP	Whitecross	
ALP	Wood	
ALP		
DEM	Bell	
DEM	Forceville	
DEM		
SAVCR	Dencio	
SAVCR	Kowalski	
SAVCR		
LIB	Brooke	
LIB	De Domenico	
LIB	Kaine	
LIB	Littlewood	
LIB	Lowe	
LIB		
	Ferguson	
	Kobier	
	Osborne	
	Savage	

649	26.3	187	7.6	314	12.7	1150	46.6	

Totals

53	2.1	127	5.2	78	3.2	14	0.6	497	20.2	547	22.2	1316	53.4	

2466

ACT Legislative Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1995
1.  Linear Vote - Ginninderra

candidate of first choice at top of column	
linear	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
1
2
3
4
5
no. 	%	
eg
1
3
5
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
1
9
14
7
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
42	10.4	35	8.7	26	6.4	103	25.5	
25	32.1	6	7.7	8	10.3	39	50.0	
22	14.6	11	7.3	19	12.6	52	34.4	
23	39.7	3	5.2	19	32.8	45	77.6	
22	24.7	11	12.4	17	19.1	50	56.2	
134	17.2	66	8.5	89	11.4	289	37.1	
31	54.4	0	0.0	13	22.8	44	77.2	
63	45.7	0	0.0	28	20.3	91	65.9	
94	48.2	0	0.0	41	21.0	135	69.2	
15	50.0	4	13.3	9	30.0	28	93.3	
40	71.4	0	0.0	4	7.1	44	78.6	
55	64.0	4	4.7	13	15.1	72	83.7	
30	76.9	0	0.0	4	10.3	34	87.2	
43	44.8	4	4.2	12	12.5	59	61.5	
73	54.1	4	3.0	16	11.9	93	68.9	
23	50.0	3	6.5	8	17.4	34	73.9	
48	40.0	0	0.0	9	7.5	57	47.5	
24	44.4	6	11.1	9	16.7	39	72.2	
95	43.2	9	4.1	26	11.8	130	59.1	
45	28.0	16	9.9	16	9.9	77	47.8	
46	57.5	6	7.5	8	10.0	60	75.0	
51	26.0	9	4.6	14	7.1	74	37.8	
43	23.8	13	7.2	13	7.2	69	38.1	
63	15.8	34	8.5	31	7.8	128	32.0	
248	24.4	78	7.7	82	8.1	408	40.1	
57	98.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	57	98.3	

candidate of first choice at top of column	
possibly linear down	possibly  linear up	possibly  linear top down	possibly  linear bottom up	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
3
4
5
1
2
no. 	%	
eg
4
3
2
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
2
3
4
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
5
4
1
3
2
no. 	%	
eg
3
5
1
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
1
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
40	9.9	8	2.0	12	3.0	1	0.2	171	42.3	69	17.1	301	74.5	
2	2.6	1	1.3	0	0.0	1	1.3	14	17.9	21	26.9	39	50.0	
0	0.0	9	6.0	1	0.7	2	1.3	33	21.9	54	35.8	99	65.6	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.7	0	0.0	5	8.6	7	12.1	13	22.4	
1	1.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.1	10	11.2	27	30.3	39	43.8	
43	5.5	18	2.3	14	1.8	5	0.6	233	29.9	178	22.8	491	62.9	
0	0.0	6	10.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	3.5	5	8.8	13	22.8	
0	0.0	32	23.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	15	10.9	47	34.1	
0	0.0	38	19.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	1.0	20	10.3	60	30.8	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	6.7	2	6.7	
0	0.0	9	16.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	5.4	12	21.4	
0	0.0	9	10.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	5.8	14	16.3	
1	2.6	4	10.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	12.8	
0	0.0	26	27.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	2.1	9	9.4	37	38.5	
1	0.7	30	22.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	1.5	9	6.7	42	31.1	
1	2.2	5	10.9	1	2.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	10.9	12	26.1	
32	26.7	10	8.3	3	2.5	3	2.5	0	0.0	15	12.5	63	52.5	
2	3.7	8	14.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.9	4	7.4	15	27.8	
35	15.9	23	10.5	4	1.8	3	1.4	1	0.5	24	10.9	90	40.9	
4	2.5	2	1.2	7	4.3	3	1.9	37	23.0	31	19.3	84	52.2	
0	0.0	2	2.5	2	2.5	0	0.0	7	8.8	9	11.3	20	25.0	
6	3.1	2	1.0	10	5.1	2	1.0	62	31.6	40	20.4	122	62.2	
0	0.0	8	4.4	10	5.5	7	3.9	50	27.6	37	20.4	112	61.9	
16	4.0	11	2.8	18	4.5	4	1.0	153	38.3	70	17.5	272	68.0	
26	2.6	25	2.5	47	4.6	16	1.6	309	30.4	187	18.4	610	59.9	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.7	0	0.0	1	1.7	

	
Total	

no. 	%	
404	16.2	
78	3.1	
151	6.1	
58	2.3	
89	3.6	
780	31.3	
57	2.3	
138	5.5	
195	7.8	
30	1.2	
56	2.2	
86	3.5	
39	1.6	
96	3.9	
135	5.4	
46	1.8	
120	4.8	
54	2.2	
220	8.8	
161	6.5	
80	3.2	
196	7.9	
181	7.3	
400	16.1	
1018	40.9	
58	2.3	

Examining  the column containing  the first preference vote

Party	
Candidate
of first choice	
ALP	Berry	
ALP	Grassby	
ALP	McRae	
ALP	Shea	
ALP	Wilson	
ALP		
MI	Evans	
MI	Szuty	
MI		
SAVCR	Ballard	
SAVCR	Bevan	
SAVCR		
DEM	Granleese	
DEM	Main	
DEM		
GREEN	Corr	
GREEN	Horodny	
GREEN	Rielly	
GREEN		
LIB	Dunne	
LIB	Gordon	
LIB	Hill	
LIB	Hird	
LIB	Stefaniak	
LIB		
	Connor	

756	30.3	161	6.5	267	10.7	1184	47.5	

Totals

105	4.2	143	5.7	65	2.6	24	1.0	548	22.0	423	17.0	1308	52.5	

2492

1.  Linear Vote - Molonglo

candidate of first choice at top of column	
linear	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
1
2
3
4
5
no. 	%	
eg
1
3
5
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
1
9
14
7
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
41	56.2	0	0.0	11	15.1	52	71.2	
16	50.0	0	0.0	6	18.8	22	68.8	
57	54.3	0	0.0	17	16.2	74	70.5	
26	46.4	6	10.7	3	5.4	35	62.5	
23	48.9	6	12.8	5	10.6	34	72.3	
73	7.3	42	4.2	50	5.0	165	16.5	
26	28.6	8	8.8	7	7.7	41	45.1	
36	22.8	8	5.1	13	8.2	57	36.1	
18	27.7	8	12.3	4	6.2	30	46.2	
13	21.7	5	8.3	3	5.0	21	35.0	
215	14.6	83	5.6	85	5.8	383	25.9	
16	10.3	9	5.8	12	7.7	37	23.9	
13	56.5	1	4.3	4	17.4	18	78.3	
31	4.6	50	7.5	31	4.6	112	16.8	
15	20.5	3	4.1	9	12.3	27	37.0	
15	48.4	3	9.7	3	9.7	21	67.7	
17	63.0	1	3.7	7	25.9	25	92.6	
13	43.3	3	10.0	6	20.0	22	73.3	
120	11.9	70	7.0	72	7.1	262	26.0	
37	78.7	0	0.0	7	14.9	44	93.6	
17	70.8	0	0.0	6	25.0	23	95.8	
54	76.1	0	0.0	13	18.3	67	94.4	
49	64.5	1	1.3	9	11.8	59	77.6	
45	65.2	0	0.0	12	17.4	57	82.6	
91	41.9	5	2.3	12	5.5	108	49.8	
185	51.1	6	1.7	33	9.1	224	61.9	
0	0.0	0	0.0	2	33.3	2	33.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	6	42.9	6	42.9	
0	0.0	0	0.0	8	40.0	8	40.0	
2	14.3	2	14.3	1	7.1	5	35.7	
38	15.8	7	2.9	48	20.0	93	38.8	
16	41.0	0	0.0	4	10.3	20	51.3	
56	19.1	9	3.1	53	18.1	118	40.3	
5	62.5	0	0.0	1	12.5	6	75.0	
1	50.0	0	0.0	1	50.0	2	100.0	
6	60.0	0	0.0	2	20.0	8	80.0	
2	18.2	0	0.0	2	18.2	4	36.4	
5	21.7	0	0.0	4	17.4	9	39.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	16.7	1	16.7	

candidate of first choice at top of column	
possibly linear down	possibly  linear up	possibly  linear top down	possibly  linear bottom up	party non linear	non party non linear	Subtotal	

eg
3
4
5
1
2
no. 	%	
eg
4
3
2
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
2
3
4
1
5
no. 	%	
eg
5
4
1
3
2
no. 	%	
eg
3
5
1
2
4
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
1
3
no. 	%	

no. 	%	
0	0.0	15	20.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	6	8.2	21	28.8	
0	0.0	5	15.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	15.6	10	31.3	
0	0.0	20	19.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	11	10.5	31	29.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.8	0	0.0	9	16.1	11	19.6	21	37.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	8	17.0	5	10.6	13	27.7	
14	1.4	8	0.8	36	3.6	1	0.1	518	51.8	258	25.8	835	83.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	36	39.6	14	15.4	50	54.9	
2	1.3	0	0.0	5	3.2	0	0.0	33	20.9	61	38.6	101	63.9	
1	1.5	1	1.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	20	30.8	13	20.0	35	53.8	
1	1.7	1	1.7	2	3.3	0	0.0	25	41.7	10	16.7	39	65.0	
18	1.2	10	0.7	44	3.0	1	0.1	649	43.9	372	25.2	1094	74.1	
1	0.6	2	1.3	1	0.6	0	0.0	39	25.2	75	48.4	118	76.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	21.7	5	21.7	
17	2.5	0	0.0	6	0.9	6	0.9	355	53.1	172	25.7	556	83.2	
1	1.4	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	19	26.0	26	35.6	46	63.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	12.9	6	19.4	10	32.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	3.7	1	3.7	2	7.4	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	3.3	0	0.0	3	10.0	4	13.3	8	26.7	
19	1.9	2	0.2	8	0.8	6	0.6	421	41.8	289	28.7	745	74.0	
0	0.0	1	2.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	4.3	3	6.4	
0	0.0	1	4.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	4.2	
0	0.0	2	2.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	2.8	4	5.6	
3	3.9	2	2.6	1	1.3	0	0.0	1	1.3	10	13.2	17	22.4	
2	2.9	4	5.8	2	2.9	2	2.9	0	0.0	2	2.9	12	17.4	
0	0.0	22	10.1	34	15.7	29	13.4	0	0.0	24	11.1	109	50.2	
5	1.4	28	7.7	37	10.2	31	8.6	1	0.3	36	9.9	138	38.1	
0	0.0	1	16.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	50.0	4	66.7	
0	0.0	1	7.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	7	50.0	8	57.1	
0	0.0	2	10.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	10	50.0	12	60.0	
0	0.0	4	28.6	0	0.0	1	7.1	0	0.0	4	28.6	9	64.3	
12	5.0	58	24.2	10	4.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	67	27.9	147	61.3	
5	12.8	4	10.3	2	5.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	8	20.5	19	48.7	
17	5.8	66	22.5	12	4.1	1	0.3	0	0.0	79	27.0	175	59.7	
0	0.0	1	12.5	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	12.5	2	25.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
0	0.0	1	10.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	10.0	2	20.0	
0	0.0	2	18.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	45.5	7	63.6	
2	8.7	2	8.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	10	43.5	14	60.9	
0	0.0	1	16.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	66.7	5	83.3	

	
Total	

no. 	%	
73	2.9	
32	1.3	
105	4.2	
56	2.2	
47	1.9	
1000	40.1	
91	3.7	
158	6.3	
65	2.6	
60	2.4	
1477	59.3	
155	6.2	
23	0.9	
668	26.8	
73	2.9	
31	1.2	
27	1.1	
30	1.2	
1007	40.4	
47	1.9	
24	1.0	
71	2.8	
76	3.0	
69	2.8	
217	8.7	
362	14.5	
6	0.2	
14	0.6	
20	0.8	
14	0.6	
240	9.6	
39	1.6	
293	11.8	
8	0.3	
2	0.1	
10	0.4	
11	0.4	
23	0.9	
6	0.2	

Examining  the column containing  the first preference vote

Party	
Candidate
of first choice	
DEM	Appleyard	
DEM	Kramer	
DEM		
LIB	Aouad	
LIB	Ash	
LIB	Carnell	
LIB	Cornwell	
LIB	Humphries	
LIB	Spier	
LIB	Wilcox	
LIB		
ALP	Connolly	
ALP	Corbell	
ALP	Follett	
ALP	Lamont	
ALP	Reilly	
ALP	Wilson	
ALP	Zamora	
ALP		
SAVCR	McMahon	
SAVCR	Reavell	
SAVCR		
GREEN	David	
GREEN	Rattenbury	
GREEN	Tucker	
GREEN		
NPG1	Burns	
NPG1	De Luca	
NPG1		
MI	Dunstone	
MI	Moore	
MI	Van Raay	
MI		
NPG2	Dellit	
NPG2	Middleton	
NPG1		
	Boland	
	Slazenger	
	Weston	

700	20.7	168	5.0	290	8.6	1158	34.2	

Totals

61	1.8	136	4.0	101	3.0	39	1.2	1071	31.6	819	24.2	2227	65.8	

3385

ACT Legislative Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1998
2.  Linear Vote where candidate of first preference is not Labor or Liberal - Brindabella

Preference for Labor before Liberal	
linear	party
non linear	non party
non linear	

eg
7
8
9
10
11
no.	%	
eg
9
8
10
7
11
no.	%	
eg
7
9
14
6
3
no.	%	
0	0.0	3	7.7	9	23.1	
2	6.1	3	9.1	8	24.2	
4	10.3	5	12.8	10	25.6	
6	4.7	13	10.2	32	25.2	
0	0.0	2	8.0	8	32.0	
0	0.0	1	4.0	5	20.0	
2	7.4	2	7.4	2	7.4	
11	2.7	12	2.9	111	26.8	
3	6.8	3	6.8	14	31.8	
4	12.9	2	6.5	8	25.8	
4	7.7	4	7.7	15	28.8	
3	15.0	2	10.0	5	25.0	
2	7.1	2	7.1	6	21.4	
1	11.1	0	0.0	1	11.1	
1	3.8	2	7.7	6	23.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	10.0	
0	0.0	2	16.7	1	8.3	
1	8.3	0	0.0	4	33.3	

Preference for Liberal before Labor	
linear	party
non linear	non party
non linear	

eg
7
8
9
10
11
no.	%	
eg
9
8
10
7
11
no.	%	
eg
7
9
14
6
3
no.	%	
3	7.7	1	2.6	11	28.2	
3	9.1	1	3.0	3	9.1	
1	2.6	0	0.0	9	23.1	
0	0.0	1	0.8	15	11.8	
0	0.0	2	8.0	11	44.0	
1	4.0	6	24.0	6	24.0	
2	7.4	3	11.1	7	25.9	
12	2.9	19	4.6	156	37.7	
1	2.3	0	0.0	8	18.2	
1	3.2	0	0.0	3	9.7	
0	0.0	2	3.8	10	19.2	
1	5.0	0	0.0	3	15.0	
1	3.6	0	0.0	4	14.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	5	55.6	
0	0.0	0	0.0	15	57.7	
1	10.0	0	0.0	3	30.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	3	25.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	5	41.7	

For each non-Labor and non-Liberal candidate's first preference, examing only the Labor and Liberal columns

Candidate
of first choice	
Ellerman	
Farrelly	
Stephens	
Tito	
Carter	
Piccin	
Moore	
Osborne	
Bell	
Dodd	
Grant	
Peirce	
Tate	
Cornwell	
Kobier	
Marshall	
Menegazzo	
Munday	

No preference
for Labor or Liberal
no.	%	
12	30.8	
13	39.4	
10	25.6	
60	47.2	
2	8.0	
6	24.0	
9	33.3	
93	22.5	
15	34.1	
13	41.9	
17	32.7	
6	30.0	
13	46.4	
2	22.2	
2	7.7	
5	50.0	
6	50.0	
2	16.7	

Totals	
39	
33	
39	
127	
25	
25	
27	
414	
44	
31	
52	
20	
28	
9	
26	
10	
12	
12	

44	4.5	58	6.0	246	25.3	

27	2.8	35	3.6	277	28.5	

Totals	286	29.4

973

2.  Linear Vote where candidate of first preference is not Labor or Liberal - Ginninderra

Preference for Labor before Liberal	

linear	party non linear	non party non linear	

eg
7
8
9
10
11
no. 	%	
eg
9
8
10
7
11
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
6
3
no. 	%	
1	4.8	2	9.5	6	28.6	
7	9.2	3	3.9	16	21.1	
0	0.0	6	23.1	7	26.9	
1	4.3	0	0.0	5	21.7	
3	7.9	2	5.3	7	18.4	
5	9.6	3	5.8	15	28.8	
9	9.1	11	11.1	25	25.3	
7	16.7	6	14.3	11	26.2	
4	9.8	1	2.4	9	22.0	
1	33.3	0	0.0	1	33.3	
2	33.3	1	16.7	2	33.3	
3	7.0	0	0.0	4	9.3	
9	4.4	4	2.0	39	19.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	10	38.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	2	50.0	
0	0.0	2	5.9	3	8.8	
0	0.0	0	0.0	5	31.3	
1	1.6	2	3.2	21	33.9	
0	0.0	0	0.0	2	18.2	
3	4.5	10	14.9	17	25.4	
3	2.9	3	2.9	26	25.2	

preference for Liberal before Labor	

linear	party non linear	non party non linear	

eg
7
8
9
10
11
no. 	%	
eg
9
8
10
7
11
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
6
3
no. 	%	
1	4.8	1	4.8	7	33.3	
2	2.6	0	0.0	8	10.5	
2	7.7	0	0.0	6	23.1	
2	8.7	0	0.0	6	26.1	
1	2.6	0	0.0	7	18.4	
2	3.8	0	0.0	6	11.5	
5	5.1	5	5.1	7	7.1	
0	0.0	1	2.4	5	11.9	
2	4.9	1	2.4	11	26.8	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
3	7.0	1	2.3	16	37.2	
8	3.9	12	5.9	75	36.8	
1	3.8	1	3.8	8	30.8	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
2	5.9	2	5.9	10	29.4	
2	12.5	0	0.0	3	18.8	
0	0.0	1	1.6	18	29.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	3	27.3	
3	4.5	0	0.0	16	23.9	
6	5.8	4	3.9	37	35.9	

For each non-Labor and non-Liberal candidate's first preference, examing only the Labor and Liberal columns

Allars	
Bell	
Holder	
Selden	
Vandenbroek	
Palma	
Rattenbury	
von Behrens	
Wainwright	
Brooks	
Graham	
Back	
Rugendyke	
Hill, C	
Hill, D	
Miller	
Young	
Chu	
Steven	
Szuty	
Xyrakis	

No preference
for Labor or Liberal
no. 	%	
3	14.3	
40	52.6	
5	19.2	
9	39.1	
18	47.4	
21	40.4	
37	37.4	
12	28.6	
13	31.7	
1	33.3	
1	16.7	
16	37.2	
57	27.9	
6	23.1	
2	50.0	
15	44.1	
6	37.5	
19	30.6	
6	54.5	
18	26.9	
24	23.3	

Totals	
21	
76	
26	
23	
38	
52	
99	
42	
41	
3	
6	
43	
204	
26	
4	
34	
16	
62	
11	
67	
103	

59	5.9	56	5.6	233	23.4	

31	3.1	26	2.6	220	22.1	

Totals 	329 	33.0

997

ACT Legislative  Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1998
2.  Linear Vote where candidate of first preference is not Labor or Liberal - Molonglo

Preference  for Labor before Liberal	
linear	party non linear	non party non linear	

eg
7
8
9
10
11
no. 	%	
eg
9
8
10
7
11
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
6
3
no. 	%	
1	3.8	1	3.8	4	15.4	
5	11.4	1	2.3	18	40.9	
3	13.6	1	4.5	5	22.7	
1	3.6	0	0.0	7	25.0	
1	4.2	0	0.0	7	29.2	
4	8.7	3	6.5	7	15.2	
0	0.0	1	4.3	5	21.7	
2	12.5	3	18.8	2	12.5	
15	6.3	16	6.7	70	29.3	
4	14.3	3	10.7	6	21.4	
1	11.1	1	11.1	0	0.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	20.0	
0	0.0	1	10.0	5	50.0	
0	0.0	2	2.8	22	31.0	
2	18.2	0	0.0	5	45.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	4	100.0	
3	17.6	0	0.0	6	35.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	3	14.3	
4	5.0	3	3.8	11	13.8	
1	11.1	0	0.0	4	44.4	
5	11.6	8	18.6	10	23.3	
2	12.5	0	0.0	3	18.8	
6	33.3	0	0.0	5	27.8	
4	6.3	2	3.2	17	27.0	
4	5.5	2	2.7	18	24.7	
0	0.0	2	14.3	4	28.6	
15	6.1	9	3.7	74	30.3	
0	0.0	3	14.3	4	19.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	11.1	
0	0.0	0	0.0	4	19.0	
1	14.3	0	0.0	2	28.6	
1	3.8	1	3.8	7	26.9	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
1	50.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	

Preference  for Liberal before Labor	
linear	party non linear	non party non linear	

eg
7
8
9
10
11
no. 	%	
eg
9
8
10
7
11
no. 	%	
eg
7
9
14
6
3
no. 	%	
1	3.8	1	3.8	11	42.3	
0	0.0	2	4.5	8	18.2	
1	4.5	0	0.0	3	13.6	
0	0.0	0	0.0	8	28.6	
0	0.0	0	0.0	5	20.8	
0	0.0	0	0.0	6	13.0	
0	0.0	1	4.3	4	17.4	
1	6.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	
2	0.8	5	2.1	42	17.6	
0	0.0	0	0.0	5	17.9	
1	11.1	0	0.0	1	11.1	
1	20.0	0	0.0	1	20.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	3	30.0	
1	1.4	2	2.8	22	31.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
1	5.9	0	0.0	4	23.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	4	19.0	
1	1.3	4	5.0	13	16.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
1	2.3	0	0.0	4	9.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	2	12.5	
0	0.0	0	0.0	2	11.1	
1	1.6	6	9.5	18	28.6	
6	8.2	2	2.7	20	27.4	
0	0.0	1	7.1	3	21.4	
2	0.8	9	3.7	72	29.5	
0	0.0	2	9.5	6	28.6	
0	0.0	0	0.0	1	100.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	5	55.6	
1	4.8	0	0.0	7	33.3	
0	0.0	0	0.0	3	42.9	
0	0.0	2	7.7	5	19.2	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	
0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	

For each non-Labor  and non-Liberal  candidate's  first preference,  examing only the Labor and Liberal columns

Craig	
Miller	
Kirschbaum	
Le Couteur	
Lynch	
Manderson	
Ruker	
Smitheram	
Tucker	
Bull	
Gooden	
Soudakoff	
Haberecht	
Rees	
Bartrum	
Kanra	
Coates	
Davey	
Errey	
Kennedy	
McEwen	
Tonge	
Wood	
Carlile	
Uhlmann	
Kellett	
Moore	
Ayson	
Black	
Dyer	
Gray-Grzeszkiewicz	
Hancock	
Leyland	
Nicholls	
Willmott	

No preference
for Labor or Liberal
no. 	%	
7	26.9	
10	22.7	
9	40.9	
12	42.9	
11	45.8	
26	56.5	
12	52.2	
8	50.0	
89	37.2	
10	35.7	
5	55.6	
2	40.0	
1	10.0	
22	31.0	
4	36.4	
0	0.0	
3	17.6	
14	66.7	
44	55.0	
4	44.4	
15	34.9	
9	56.3	
5	27.8	
15	23.8	
21	28.8	
4	28.6	
63	25.8	
6	28.6	
0	0.0	
3	33.3	
9	42.9	
1	14.3	
10	38.5	
3	100.0	
1	50.0	

Totals	
26	
44	
22	
28	
24	
46	
23	
16	
239	
28	
9	
5	
10	
71	
11	
4	
17	
21	
80	
9	
43	
16	
18	
63	
73	
14	
244	
21	
1	
9	
21	
7	
26	
3	
2	

86	6.6	63	4.9	341	26.4	

21	1.6	37	2.9	288	22.3	

Totals 	458 	35.4

1294

3.  Length of sequence - Brindabella
Where the first preference is for the candidate listed in the left column, showing the last consecutive number marked

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	Total	
Ellerman	1	0	0	1	23	3	1	0	2	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	39	
Farrelly	0	0	0	0	18	4	0	0	3	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	3	33	
Stephens	0	1	0	2	18	3	1	1	2	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	39	
Tito	2	0	1	3	75	11	0	5	7	6	6	1	0	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	127	
Carter	0	0	0	0	16	1	3	0	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	25	
Piccin	0	1	0	0	14	2	1	2	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	25	
Moore	1	0	0	0	16	2	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	4	27	
Osborne	6	9	0	1	279	19	22	7	4	5	5	3	2	0	1	2	0	2	1	0	3	0	4	0	0	3	1	35	414	
Bell	0	0	0	0	22	1	1	0	2	3	0	2	2	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	44	
Dodd	0	0	0	0	19	0	2	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	31	
Grant	0	0	0	1	31	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	10	53	
Peirce	0	0	0	0	10	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	4	19	
Tate	0	0	0	0	17	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	28	
Hargreaves	0	0	0	0	98	5	6	2	5	4	2	0	0	7	6	4	0	2	3	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	14	162	
Mow	0	0	1	0	65	2	4	2	1	2	0	1	0	7	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	5	93	
Presdee	1	0	0	0	72	2	1	0	0	4	0	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	9	95	
Whitecross	1	1	0	1	135	6	6	3	7	6	3	1	0	6	2	4	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	19	206	
Wood	0	0	0	1	159	13	12	2	2	12	3	1	3	5	5	1	1	0	1	0	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	23	248	
Didier	0	0	0	0	61	4	2	2	2	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	12	88	
Head	2	0	0	0	67	1	4	2	1	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	6	88	
Kaine	1	0	1	1	114	4	15	2	1	4	2	4	0	2	1	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	16	172	
Littlewood	1	0	1	0	133	10	17	3	4	4	1	5	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	15	198	
Smyth	1	1	0	0	304	28	29	9	9	9	2	5	3	4	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	38	449	
Cornwell	0	0	0	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	9	
Kobier	0	0	0	0	17	1	2	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	26	
Marshall	0	0	1	0	6	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	10	
Menegazzo	0	0	0	0	10	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	
Munday	0	0	2	0	6	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	12	
Total	17	13	7	11	1812	128	134	43	56	71	30	31	15	42	19	19	5	8	9	5	11	1	12	2	1	6	9	255	2772	
%	0.6	0.5	0.3	0.4	65.4	4.6	4.8	1.6	2.0	2.6	1.1	1.1	0.5	1.5	0.7	0.7	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.0	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.3	9.2		

	no.	%	
Only 1 preference	17	0.6	
Less than 5 preferences	48	1.7	
Exactly 5 preferences	1812	65.4	
More than 5 preferences	912	32.9	
Every square numbered	255	9.2	

ACT Legislative Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1998
3.  Length of sequence - Ginninderra
Where the first preference is for the candidate listed in the left column, showing the last consecutive number marked

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	Total	
Allars	0	0	1	0	8	1	1	1	1	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	21	
Bell	0	0	0	0	36	3	4	1	6	1	0	1	3	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	16	76	
Holder	0	0	0	0	12	0	1	1	0	3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	26	
Selden	0	0	0	0	12	1	1	1	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	23	
Vandenbroek	1	0	0	0	19	2	4	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	38	
Birtles	0	0	1	0	64	1	3	1	3	3	4	0	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	95	
Dunne	1	0	0	0	94	8	7	1	4	6	3	2	0	3	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	8	139	
Gow	0	0	0	0	40	3	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	52	
Hird	1	0	1	0	116	7	6	9	5	4	2	3	2	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	10	172	
Stefaniak	1	1	1	0	302	17	31	15	8	15	4	0	3	4	3	2	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	38	451	
Berry	2	0	0	2	273	7	15	9	22	3	4	2	2	0	3	23	1	3	0	1	0	3	0	0	2	0	3	0	0	0	5	385	
McRae	1	0	0	0	68	3	8	4	1	9	1	1	1	3	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	10	114	
Nicholls	0	0	0	0	47	1	4	4	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	63	
Sant	0	0	0	0	47	0	4	3	1	2	1	1	2	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	64	
Stanhope	1	0	0	0	135	14	7	3	6	5	4	6	0	2	1	1	0	2	0	1	2	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	19	211	
Palma	0	0	0	0	28	2	1	2	1	3	1	0	1	2	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	8	52	
Rattenbury	0	0	0	2	34	5	1	6	9	4	3	2	3	5	2	1	0	0	2	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	17	99	
von Behrens	1	0	0	0	20	1	2	1	3	1	0	0	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	8	42	
Wainwright	0	0	0	0	27	1	0	1	5	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	3	41	
Brooks	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	
Graham	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	6	
Back	0	1	0	0	25	2	2	0	2	1	1	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	43	
Rugendyke	2	5	1	0	131	6	10	6	5	8	2	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	19	204	
Hill, C	1	0	1	0	17	0	3	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	26	
Hill, D	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	
Miller	0	0	0	1	18	1	3	0	3	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	34	
Young	0	0	0	0	10	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	16	
Chu	1	2	0	0	36	6	1	0	1	3	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	62	
Steven	1	0	0	1	7	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	11	
Szuty	0	0	1	0	28	4	2	3	2	5	2	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	3	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	67	
Xyrakis	0	0	0	0	74	10	2	0	3	2	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	103	
Totals	14	9	7	6	1733	108	126	76	94	89	36	24	25	25	22	35	10	13	13	16	5	8	3	5	4	3	3	0	4	3	224	2743	
	0.51	0.32	0.25	0.216	62.5	3.9	4.55	2.74	3.39	3.21	1.3	0.87	0.9	0.9	0.79	1.26	0.36	0.47	0.47	0.58	0.18	0.29	0.11	0.18	0.14	0.11	0.11	0	0.14	0.11	8.08		

 	no. 	%
Only 1 preference	14	0.5	
Less than 5 preferences	36	1.3	
Exactly 5 preferences	1733	62.5	
More than 5 preferences	974	35.1	
Every square numbered	224	8.1	

ACT Legislative Assembly Election Ballot Paper Survey - 1998
3.  Length of sequence - Molonglo
Where the first preference is for the candidate listed in the left column, showing the last consecutive number marked

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	Total	
Craig	1	1	0	0	0	0	12	0	2	2	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	26	
Miller	0	0	1	1	0	0	24	0	3	4	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	44	
Corbell	0	0	0	0	2	1	99	9	10	7	3	4	1	12	0	5	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	5	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	8	176	
Flaherty	1	0	0	0	0	0	74	10	4	3	2	2	3	4	1	2	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	118	
Garth	0	1	0	0	0	3	92	8	3	1	1	0	1	7	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	126	
McMurtry	0	0	0	0	1	0	97	9	8	3	2	1	0	4	1	2	1	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	5	142	
O'Keefe	1	2	0	0	2	2	93	4	4	3	2	1	0	1	2	2	1	5	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	134	
Quinlan	4	0	0	0	0	1	100	3	5	3	4	1	1	5	2	1	2	1	0	1	1	2	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	5	150	
Reilly	0	0	1	0	0	0	108	2	7	2	2	4	1	5	1	3	0	0	2	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	153	
Kirschbaum	0	0	0	0	0	0	13	0	0	1	0	1	0	3	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	22	
Le Couteur	0	0	0	0	0	1	16	1	1	0	2	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	28	
Lynch	0	0	0	0	0	0	19	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	24	
Manderson	0	0	2	0	0	0	25	1	1	1	2	0	1	3	1	2	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	46	
Ruker	1	0	0	0	0	0	13	3	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	23	
Smitheram	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	16	
Tucker	2	0	1	0	0	1	118	15	7	7	3	6	4	10	9	5	4	3	0	0	5	0	1	4	2	2	2	2	1	3	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	19	239	
Aouad	1	0	0	1	0	0	13	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	21	
Burke	0	0	0	0	0	0	25	3	1	1	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	36	
Carnell	10	4	3	4	7	9	961	39	74	34	28	15	5	20	8	7	6	5	2	2	7	2	3	0	0	2	5	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	2	2	1	34	1311	
Cornwell	2	1	0	0	0	1	41	0	4	4	0	2	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	61	
Humphries	1	0	0	0	0	0	71	4	4	6	0	0	1	2	1	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	100	
Louttit	0	0	0	0	0	0	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	
Tolley	1	0	0	0	0	1	48	1	4	3	2	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	72	
Bull	0	0	1	0	0	1	8	2	1	3	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	28	
Gooden	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	9	
Soudakoff	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	
Haberecht	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	10	
Rees	0	4	0	0	0	0	43	4	0	4	2	0	0	0	4	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	3	71	
Bartrum	0	1	0	0	1	0	5	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	11	
Kanra	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	
Coates	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	1	1	3	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	17	
Davey	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	21	
Errey	0	0	0	0	0	0	43	2	1	5	1	3	0	7	1	1	0	0	2	1	3	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	6	80	
Kennedy	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	9	
McEwen	0	0	0	0	0	1	24	0	1	1	2	0	0	3	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	5	43	
Tonge	0	0	0	0	0	0	13	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	16	
Wood	0	0	0	0	0	0	8	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	18	
Carlile	0	0	1	0	1	0	38	2	7	0	2	1	1	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	63	
Uhlmann	0	0	0	0	1	0	41	4	5	1	1	3	1	1	0	3	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	6	73	
Kellett	0	1	0	0	0	0	7	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	14	
Moore	3	3	0	0	0	0	124	14	14	7	7	4	1	3	1	11	3	6	1	4	2	2	2	1	2	1	0	1	2	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	19	244	
Ayson	0	0	0	0	0	0	11	3	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	21	
Black	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	
Dyer	0	0	0	0	0	0	8	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	
Gray-Grzeszkiewicz	1	1	0	0	0	0	8	1	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	20	
Hancock	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	7	
Leyland	1	0	0	0	0	1	16	1	2	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	28	
Nicholls	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	
Willmott	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	
Totals	30	19	12	6	15	23	2523	150	179	119	76	59	29	112	43	54	25	26	15	16	28	14	14	11	9	16	11	9	5	17	4	6	3	0	1	0	4	1	3	5	1	2	1	3	1	3	9	4	188	3904	
%	0.8	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.6	64.6	3.8	4.6	3.0	1.9	1.5	0.7	2.9	1.1	1.4	0.6	0.7	0.4	0.4	0.7	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.4	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.1	4.8		

Molonglo Total	no.	%		ACT Total	no.	%	
Only 1 preference	30	0.8		Only 1 preference	61	0.6	
Less than 7 preferences	105	2.7		Less than 5/7 preferences	189	2.0	
Exactly 7 preferences	2523	64.6		Exactly 5/7 preferences	6068	64.4	
More than 7 preferences	1276	32.7		More than 5/7 preferences	3162	33.6	
Every square numbered	188	4.8		Every square numbered	667	7.1	

PROPOSED ROBSON ROTATION TABLES

1st*
batch	2nd*
batch	
1	2	
2	1	

Where there are 2 names in the column—

* Indicates existing batches listed in Schedule 2 of the
Electoral Act 1992

Where there are 3 names in the column—

1st*
batch	2nd batch	3rd*
batch	4th batch	5th*
batch	6th batch	
1	1	2	2	3	3	
2	3	3	1	1	2	
3	2	1	3	2	1	

Where there are 4 names in the column—

1st*
batch	2nd batch	3rd batch	4th*
batch	5th batch	6th batch	7th*
batch	8th batch	9th batch	10th*
batch	11th batch	12th batch	
1	1	1	4	4	4	2	2	2	3	3	3	
2	4	3	3	2	1	1	3	4	4	1	2	
3	2	4	1	3	2	4	1	3	2	4	1	
4	3	2	2	1	3	3	4	1	1	2	4	

Where there are 5 names in the column—

1st*
batch	2nd batch	3rd batch	4th batch	5th*
batch	6th batch	7th batch	8th batch	9th*
batch	10th batch	11th batch	12th batch	
1	1	1	1	3	3	3	3	5	5	5	5	
2	5	3	4	1	4	5	2	3	2	4	1	
3	4	5	2	5	2	4	1	4	1	2	3	
4	3	2	5	2	5	1	4	1	4	3	2	
5	2	4	3	4	1	2	5	2	3	1	4	

13th*
batch	14th batch	15th batch	16th batch	17th*
batch	18th batch	19th batch	20th batch	
4	4	4	4	2	2	2	2	
5	1	2	3	4	3	1	5	
2	3	1	5	1	5	3	4	
3	2	5	1	5	1	4	3	
1	5	3	2	3	4	5	1	

Where there are 6 names in the column—

1st*
batch	2nd batch	3rd batch	4th batch	5th batch	6th*
batch	7th batch	8th batch	9th batch	10th batch	
1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	
2	6	5	4	3	5	3	4	6	1	
3	5	4	2	6	1	4	6	5	3	
4	3	6	5	2	6	1	3	4	5	
5	2	3	6	4	4	5	1	3	6	
6	4	2	3	5	3	6	5	1	4	

11th*
batch	12th batch	13th batch	14th batch	15th batch	16th*
batch	17th batch	18th batch	19th batch	20th batch	
5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	
4	1	6	3	2	6	2	3	1	5	
2	6	3	4	1	5	3	1	6	2	
3	2	1	6	4	1	5	2	3	6	
6	4	2	1	3	3	6	5	2	1	
1	3	4	2	6	2	1	6	5	3	

21st*
batch	22nd batch	23rd batch	24 th batch	25th batch	26th*
batch	27th batch	28th batch	29th batch	30th batch	
6	6	6	6	6	3	3	3	3	3	
3	5	1	2	4	1	4	2	5	6	
4	1	2	3	5	6	2	5	1	4	
2	4	5	1	3	5	6	4	2	1	
1	3	4	5	2	2	1	6	4	5	
5	2	3	4	1	4	5	1	6	2	

Where there are 7 names in the column—

1st*
batch	2nd batch	3rd batch	4th batch	5th batch	6th batch	7th*
batch	8th batch	9th batch	10th batch	11th batch	12th batch	
1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	
2	7	6	5	4	3	6	3	5	7	1	4	
3	6	4	7	2	5	4	5	1	3	6	7	
4	5	2	3	6	7	1	7	6	4	5	3	
5	4	3	2	7	6	7	1	4	6	3	5	
6	3	7	4	5	2	5	4	3	1	7	6	
7	2	5	6	3	4	3	6	7	5	4	1	

13th*
batch	14th batch	15th batch	16th batch	17th batch	18th batch	19th*
batch	20th batch	21st batch	22nd batch	23rd batch	24 th batch	
6	6	6	6	6	6	5	5	5	5	5	5	
5	4	7	3	2	1	7	1	3	4	6	2	
1	7	2	4	5	3	2	3	6	1	7	4	
2	3	5	1	7	4	6	4	7	2	3	1	
3	2	1	5	4	7	4	6	2	7	1	3	
7	1	4	2	3	5	3	2	1	6	4	7	
4	5	3	7	1	2	1	7	4	3	2	6	

25th*
batch	26th batch	27th batch	28th batch	29th batch	30th batch	31st*
batch	32nd batch	33rd batch	34th batch	35th batch	36th batch	
7	7	7	7	7	7	3	3	3	3	3	3	
3	2	4	1	5	6	4	6	1	2	7	5	
6	4	5	2	3	1	5	1	7	6	4	2	
5	1	3	6	4	2	7	2	4	5	1	6	
1	5	6	3	2	4	2	7	5	4	6	1	
4	6	2	5	1	3	1	5	6	7	2	4	
2	3	1	4	6	5	6	4	2	1	5	7	

37th*
batch	38th batch	39th batch	40th batch	41st batch	42nd batch	
4	4	4	4	4	4	
1	5	2	6	3	7	
7	2	3	5	1	6	
3	6	1	7	2	5	
6	3	7	1	5	2	
2	7	5	3	6	1	
5	1	6	2	7	3	

Robson Rotation versions with columns of 5, 4, 3, 2 candidates

5 candidates	4 candidates	3 candidates	2 candidates	Number of copies	Page number	Version number	
							
1	1	1	1	3	1-3	1	
2	1	1	1	2	4-5	2	
2	2	1	1	1	6	3	
3	2	1	1	3	7-9	4	
4	2	1	1	1	10	5	
4	3	2	1	2	11-12	6	
5	3	2	1	3	13-15	7	
6	4	2	1	3	16-18	8	
7	4	2	1	2	19-20	9	
7	5	3	1	1	21	10	
8	5	3	1	3	22-24	11	
9	5	3	1	1	25	12	
9	6	3	1	2	26-27	13	
10	6	3	1	3	28-30	14	
11	7	4	2	3	31-33	15	
12	7	4	2	2	34-35	16	
12	8	4	2	1	36	17	
13	8	4	2	3	37-39	18	
14	8	4	2	1	40	19	
14	9	5	2	2	41-42	20	
15	9	5	2	3	43-45	21	
16	10	5	2	3	46-48	22	
17	10	5	2	2	49-50	23	
17	11	6	2	1	51	24	
18	11	6	2	3	52-54	25	
19	11	6	2	1	55	26	
19	12	6	2	2	56-57	27	
20	12	6	2	3	58-60	28	

of the column

Robson Rotation versions with columns of 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 candidates

7 candidates	6 candidates	5 candidates	4 candidates	3 candidates	2 candidates	Number of copies	Page number	Version number	
									
1	1	1	1	1	1	10	1-10	1	
2	1	1	1	1	1	4	11-14	2	
2	2	1	1	1	1	6	15-20	3	
3	2	1	1	1	1	1	21	4	
3	2	2	1	1	1	7	22-28	5	
3	3	2	1	1	1	2	29-30	6	
4	3	2	1	1	1	5	31-35	7	
4	3	2	2	1	1	5	36-40	8	
5	3	2	2	1	1	2	41-42	9	
5	4	3	2	1	1	8	43-50	10	
6	4	3	2	1	1	6	51-56	11	
6	5	3	2	1	1	4	57-60	12	
7	5	3	2	1	1	3	61-63	13	
7	5	4	2	1	1	7	64-70	14	
8	6	4	3	2	1	10	71-80	15	
9	6	4	3	2	1	4	81-84	16	
9	7	5	3	2	1	6	85-90	17	
10	7	5	3	2	1	8	91-98	18	
10	8	5	3	2	1	2	99-100	19	
11	8	5	3	2	1	5	101-105	20	
11	8	6	4	2	1	5	106-110	21	
12	8	6	4	2	1	2	111-112	22	
12	9	6	4	2	1	8	113-120	23	
13	9	6	4	2	1	6	121-126	24	
13	10	7	4	2	1	4	127-130	25	
14	10	7	4	2	1	10	131-140	26	
15	11	7	5	3	1	7	141-147	27	
15	11	8	5	3	1	3	148-150	28	
16	11	8	5	3	1	4	151-154	29	
16	12	8	5	3	1	6	155-160	30	
17	12	8	5	3	1	8	161-168	31	
17	13	9	5	3	1	2	169-170	32	
18	13	9	5	3	1	5	171-175	33	
18	13	9	6	3	1	5	176-180	34	
19	13	9	6	3	1	2	181-182	35	
19	14	9	6	3	1	7	183-189	36	
19	14	10	6	3	1	1	190	37	
20	14	10	6	3	1	6	191-196	38	
20	15	10	6	3	1	4	197-200	39	
21	15	10	6	3	1	10	201-210	40	
22	16	11	7	4	2	10	211-220	41	
23	16	11	7	4	2	4	221-224	42	
23	17	11	7	4	2	6	225-230	43	
24	17	11	7	4	2	1	231	44	
24	17	12	7	4	2	7	232-238	45	
24	18	12	7	4	2	2	239-240	46	
25	18	12	7	4	2	5	241-245	47	
25	18	12	8	4	2	5	246-250	48	
26	18	12	8	4	2	2	251-252	49	
26	19	13	8	4	2	8	253-260	50	
27	19	13	8	4	2	6	261-266	51	
27	20	13	8	4	2	4	267-270	52	
28	20	13	8	4	2	3	271-273	53	
28	20	14	8	4	2	7	274-280	54	
29	21	14	9	5	2	10	281-290	55	
30	21	14	9	5	2	4	291-294	56	
30	22	15	9	5	2	6	295-300	57	
31	22	15	9	5	2	8	301-308	58	
31	23	15	9	5	2	2	309-310	59	
32	23	15	9	5	2	5	311-315	60	
32	23	16	10	5	2	5	316-320	61	
33	23	16	10	5	2	2	321-322	62	
33	24	16	10	5	2	8	323-330	63	
34	24	16	10	5	2	6	331-336	64	
34	25	17	10	5	2	4	337-340	65	
35	25	17	10	5	2	10	341-350	66	
36	26	17	11	6	2	7	351-357	67	
36	26	18	11	6	2	3	358-360	68	
37	26	18	11	6	2	4	361-364	69	
37	27	18	11	6	2	6	365-370	70	
38	27	18	11	6	2	8	370-378	71	
38	28	19	11	6	2	2	379-380	72	
39	28	19	11	6	2	5	381-385	73	
39	28	19	12	6	2	5	386-390	74	
40	28	19	12	6	2	2	391-392	75	
40	29	19	12	6	2	7	393-399	76	
40	29	20	12	6	2	1	400	77	
41	29	20	12	6	2	6	401-406	78	
41	30	20	12	6	2	4	407-410	79	
42	30	20	12	6	2	10	411-420	80