The 2001

ACT Legislative  Assembly Election

Review of the Electoral Act 1992

ISBN 0 642 60143 7

© Australian Capital Territory, Canberra 2002

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from Information Planning and Services, Department of Urban Services, ACT Government, GPO Box 158, Canberra City ACT 2601.

Produced by Publishing Services for the
ACT Electoral Commission
PO Box 272, Civic Square ACT 2608. Email: elections@act.gov.au
Phone: 6205 0033

Publication No 02/1170 http://www.elections.act.gov.au http://www.act.gov.au
Telephone: Canberra 13ACT1 or 132 281

Mr Jon Stanhope MLA Attorney-General
ACT Legislative Assembly London Circuit CANBERRA ACT 2601

Dear Attorney-General

This report on the review of the operation of the Electoral Act 1992 in relation to the conduct of the 2001 ACT Legislative Assembly Election is presented to you under section 10A of the Electoral Act.

Subsection 10A(2) of the Electoral Act requires you to cause a copy of this report to be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 6 days of receiving the report.

Yours sincerely

Graham Glenn	Phillip Green	Christabel Young	
Chairperson

14 August 2002	Electoral Commissioner

14 August 2002	Member

14 August 2002	

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 3

LEGISLATION CHANGES SINCE THE 1998 ELECTION........................................................... 4

NOMINATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 5

REVIEW OF DECISIONS .............................................................................................................. 7

PARTY REGISTRATION ............................................................................................................ 9

AUTHORISATION OF ELECTORAL ADVERTISEMENTS......................................................... 12

ELECTION FUNDING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE SCHEME ............................................ 13

REDUCTION OF THE IMPACT OF THE LINEAR VOTE........................................................... 15

SURVEY OF NUMBERING ON FORMAL  BALLOT PAPERS .................................................... 18

INFORMAL VOTING ................................................................................................................. 20

POSTAL  VOTING......................................................................................................................  22

TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Explanation of tables.............................................................................................................. 26

Table 1(a) –  Paper linear votes – Brindabella ...................................................................... 29

Table 1(b) –  Paper linear votes – Ginninderra ..................................................................... 30

Table 1(c) –  Paper linear votes – Molonglo ......................................................................... 31

Table 2 –	Linear votes – Summary 1995-2001................................................................ 32

Table 3 –	Distribution of linear votes between selected candidates................................ 33

Table 4(a) –  Length of sequence – Brindabella ................................................................... 35

Table 4(b) –  Length of sequence – Ginninderra .................................................................. 36

Table 4(c) –  Length of sequence – Molonglo....................................................................... 37

Table 5 –	Length of sequence – Summary 1998-2001 ................................................... 38

Table 6 –	Sequence breaks ............................................................................................. 39

Table 7 –	Breakdown of informal ballot papers by reason for informality........................ 40

Table 8 –	Breakdown of informal ballot papers containing ticks, crosses
or some numbers, but no unique first preference ............................................ 40

Table 9 –	Breakdown of informal ballot papers with 2 or more figure 1s,
ticks and crosses ............................................................................................. 41

Table 10 –	Postal vote outcomes ...................................................................................... 42

Page vi 	ACT Electoral Commission

The 2001  ACT Legislative Assembly Election: Review of the Electoral Act 1992

Executive summary

This review examines the operation of the Electoral Act 1992 in relation to the conduct of the ACT Legislative Assembly election held on 20 October 2001.

The 2001 ACT Legislative Assembly election represented a major milestone in the conduct of elections in Australia with the first use of electronic voting at polling places for parliamentary elections. This election also saw the first use of an electronic
counting system in the ACT using the Hare-Clark electoral system and Robson rotation.

Another significant change was the introduction of increased numbers of Robson rotation variations, intended to reduce the impact of the linear vote.

This review can be read in conjunction with the following reports:

•	The 2001 ACT Legislative Assembly Election: Electronic Voting and Counting
System Review, tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002;

•	The Elections Statistics for the election, published in December 2001; and

•	The Commission’s Annual Report 2001/2002, to be published in September 2002.

This review examines aspects of the operation of the Electoral Act during the conduct of the 2001 election, other than those issues raised in the electronic voting and counting system review. The issues considered in this review are limited to areas where changes had occurred since the 1998 election, or where the Commission considers that changes may be needed to the Electoral Act. A general report on the conduct of the 2001
election will be included in the Commission’s Annual Report for 2001/2002.

Specific issues covered by this review include:

•	Legislation changes since the 1998 election – listing the changes that were made to the Electoral Act since the previous election.

•	Nominations  – examining the operation of the changes made to the nominations requirements, and questioning the right of candidates to be listed on ballot papers in non-party groups.

•	Review of decisions – looking at the decision-making process related to requests for recounts of ballot papers.

• 	Party registration – discussing the process of determining whether a political party is eligible for registration, and suggesting that there be a fixed date by which applications for party registration must be submitted before an election;

• 	Authorisation of electoral advertisements – examining the operation of the changes made to the authorisation requirements after the 1998 election.

•	Election funding and disclosure scheme – suggesting that thresholds for disclosure of donations and expenditure for candidates and other political participants be brought into line with thresholds that apply to political parties.

•	Reduction of the impact of the linear vote – analysing the effect of increasing the number of Robson rotations of ballot papers printed to determine whether the changes succeeded in reducing the impact of the linear vote.

•	Numbering of formal ballot papers  – looking at the results of the survey of numbering behaviour on ballot papers.

• 	Informal voting – analysing the results of the survey of informal ballot papers.

•	Postal voting – examining those postal votes that were not able to be included in the election count, and suggesting an earlier deadline for submission of applications for postal votes from overseas.

Summary of recommendations

The Commission recommends that the Electoral Act be amended to provide that:

•	Only candidates belonging to registered political parties be able to be listed in groups on ballot papers; the provision of non-party groups be removed; and all non-party candidates be listed in the “ungrouped” columns on the ballot papers.

•	The Commissioner not be permitted to be present during any deliberation of the Commission in relation to a review of a decision of the Commissioner not to conduct a recount, and that the Commissioner not be permitted to take part in making any such decision, unless the original decision was made by a delegate of the Commissioner.

•	An additional requirement be imposed on parties applying for registration, such that the party must provide a list of members with its application for registration, and that this list must contain the names and addresses of at least 100 members who are electors.

•	The Commissioner must refuse an application to register a political party if the
Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the party did not have at least
100 members who were electors on the date on which the party applied for registration.

•	The latest date on which an application for party registration may be made is
30 June in the year in which an election is due to be held.

•	The disclosure thresholds set out in sections 217, 218, 221 and 224, that currently specify $200, be increased to $1500.

•	The threshold at which anonymous gifts received by candidates, non-party groups, parties, ballot groups and associated entities may not be received be increased to
$1500.

•	Broadcasters and publishers be required to provide the address of those people who have placed election advertisements when submitting returns under section
226.

•	Postal vote applications from electors who are overseas must be received before the last mail delivery on the Friday the week before polling day.

•	Postal votes must be issued for the electorate for which the elector is enrolled, or, if the issuing officer cannot determine whether the elector is currently enrolled, the vote is to be issued for the electorate in which the elector claims to be entitled to vote.

Legislation changes  since the 1998 election

A number of changes were made to the Electoral Act after the 1998 election and implemented for the first time at the 2001 election. The main changes were:

•	Allowing for the use of electronic voting and computerised vote counting;

•		Raising the threshold for the receipt of public funding from 2% to 4% of first preference votes in an electorate;

•		Altering the party registration scheme to require all political parties to demonstrate that they have 100 members on the ACT electoral roll and introducing a scheme of registration of ballot group names for non-party MLAs;

•	Increasing the number of nominees required to nominate a non-party candidate from
2 electors to 20 electors;

•		Requiring the Electoral Commissioner to reject nominations of candidates using names that are obscene, frivolous or assumed for a political purpose;

•		Enabling an elector to vote immediately outside a polling place where the elector is unable to enter the polling place because of a physical disability, illness, advanced pregnancy or other condition;

•		Removing the prohibition on inducing electors to return completed postal vote application forms to an address other than an address authorised by the Electoral Commissioner, and instead providing that an application for a postal vote may be included in material issued by any person or organisation;

•		Modifying the definition of electoral matter to limit its application to matter more directly concerned with Legislative Assembly elections (this definition is used to identify published matter that needs to carry an authorisation statement);

•	Increasing the number of variations of ballot papers to be printed for Legislative
Assembly elections;

•		Limiting the length of columns of candidates on ballot papers to the number of vacancies in the electorate; and

•		Closing nominations one day earlier to allow more time between the close of nominations and the commencement of pre-poll voting for typesetting and printing the more complex ballot papers.

The above amendments were successfully implemented at the 2001 election.

Nominations

Nomination of independent and non-party group candidates by
20 nominators

Prior to the 2001 election the Electoral Act was amended to require independent candidates and non-party group candidates to have 20 nominators who were on the ACT electoral roll rather than the 2 nominators required at previous elections. This increase did not cause any difficulties for the Commission during the nomination process.

However, the increase in nominators required did appear to cause difficulties for some candidates. Several nominations were submitted that did not have 20 enrolled electors listed as nominees. All but one of these were resubmitted before nominations closed with at least 20 enrolled electors as nominees. One person who wished to run as a candidate, who arrived at the Commissioner’s office less than half an hour before nominations closed, did not have his nomination form accepted as 2 of the 20 people listed as nominators on his nomination form were not enrolled electors. This person was not able to obtain the required number of nominees before nominations closed.

This experience highlighted the desirability of candidates submitting their nominations well in advance of the closing time for nominations, to allow time for defects in the nominations to be corrected. The need to submit nomination forms early will be stressed by the Commission in its Candidates Handbook for the 2004 election.

Non-party groups

There was a marked increase in the number of non-party groups contesting the election in 2001.  In both the 1995 and 1998 elections, there were 2 non-party groups across all electorates. In 2001 there were 5 non-party groups, with 3 in Molonglo and 1 in each of Brindabella and Ginninderra.

Non-party groups can be formed by 2 or more non-party candidates requesting that their names appear together on the ballot paper. A non-party group is entitled to a column on the ballot paper. This column is identified only by a column letter such as “A”, “B” etc. The position of the non-party group on the ballot paper is determined in the same draw that determines which column a party is to appear in.

Non-party groups were included in the model Hare-Clark system described in the Referendum Options Description Sheet that was published at the time of the referendum to choose the electoral system in 1992.  Non-party groups were subsequently included
in the Hare-Clark system adopted by the Legislative Assembly in 1994.

The legislative history of non-party groups in the ACT can be traced back to the introduction of registration of political parties by the Commonwealth prior to the 1984
Commonwealth elections. At Senate elections prior to the 1984 election (at the 1983
Senate election, for example), all columns of candidates listed on Senate ballot papers did not carry party affiliations. Consequently all columns of grouped candidates appeared as non-party groups do today. When party affiliations were introduced for the
1984 election, groups standing for Senate elections were given the option to stand either as registered party groups or as non-party groups.  The model Hare-Clark electoral

system proposed for the ACT in 1992 essentially followed the Senate ballot paper layout, insofar as groups of candidates were concerned.

The Commission considers that it is appropriate to review the provision of the opportunity for candidates to be listed on ballot papers in non-party groups.

In its original conception, a non-party group was a collection of like-minded candidates campaigning on a common platform. Before registration of political parties was introduced, non-party groups were commonly all members of the same political party.

It is now arguable that the facility for candidates to stand in non-party groups is most commonly used as a vehicle for 2 or more candidates to distinguish themselves on the ballot paper by being listed in a separate group.  There is no requirement or expectation that candidates listed in a non-party group have anything in common other than a desire to be listed together in a separate column. Indeed, it is possible that 1 of the 2 candidates listed in the column may only have agreed to be nominated in order to allow the other candidate to be listed in a non-party group on the ballot paper. Therefore it is arguable that the existence of non-party groups does not assist voters by providing them with any meaningful information about why such candidates are grouped together.

By contrast, candidates who are grouped under a registered party name have gone through a public registration process, which includes a requirement to make party constitutions available for public inspection. Consequently, voters can inform themselves about the policies and ideals of registered political parties and use that information to make judgments about candidates grouped together on the ballot paper in a party group.

The facility that allows 2 candidates to form a non-party group could have significant consequences for the size of Legislative Assembly ballot papers. As each column on the ballot paper increases the width of the ballot paper, a relatively small number of candidates forming several non-party groups with as few as 2 candidates in each group could result in a ballot paper that was unmanageably wide. At the 2001 election, with
3 non-party groups, the Molonglo ballot paper was 560 mm wide. If those 3 groups (comprising 6 candidates) had instead been included in 1 “ungrouped” column, the ballot paper would have been 88 mm narrower.

Wider ballot papers impose significant costs. They cost more to print, they use more paper, they are more difficult to store and handle, and they are more difficult and time- consuming to count and data-enter. With electronic voting, the more columns listed on the ballot paper, the more difficult it is to list all columns on screen so that they are all visible at a readable point size.

The non-party group facility could be used by a relatively small number of mischievous persons to frustrate the electoral process by causing ballot papers to be over large and difficult to manage, at considerable cost to the public purse.  By contrast, persons wishing to run in party columns have to prove a significant level of public support in order to register a political party.

For these reasons, the Commission recommends that the provision of non-party groups should be removed, and that only candidates belonging to registered political parties should be able to be listed in groups on ballot papers. All other candidates should be listed in the “ungrouped” columns on the ballot papers.

Review of decisions

In his submission to the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs in relation to its inquiry into the size of the Legislative Assembly of 8 April 2002, Ginninderra candidate
Mr Harold Hird made 2 recommendations in relation to reviews of decisions made by the Electoral Commission:

•	the Electoral Act should be amended to ensure the integrity of the decisions that the full commission makes by exempting the Electoral Commissioner from hearing appeals against his own rulings, and

•	the Electoral Act be amended to allow the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to make a ruling in cases of dispute over an election issue.

In the Committee’s report on this inquiry, the Committee recommended adopting the first recommendation listed above. The Committee did not comment on the second recommendation.

Under section 187 of the Electoral Act, the Electoral Commissioner may, if the Commissioner thinks fit, conduct a recount of some or all ballot papers for an electorate. A candidate may ask the Commissioner to conduct a recount. If the Commissioner does not accede to a request for a recount by a candidate, the candidate may ask the Commission for a recount. The Commission is not obliged to grant a recount on
request. However, the Commissioner must conduct a recount if the Commission directs the Commissioner to do so.

In effect, section 187 provides for a 2-step appeal process, whereby a candidate can ask the Commissioner for a recount and, if the Commissioner refuses, the candidate can appeal to the Commission for this decision to be reversed.

A similar appear process for other decisions made by or on the authority of the Commissioner is provided for under part 15 of the Electoral Act. Under this part, a person affected by a reviewable decision may apply to the Commission for a review of a decision made by the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s delegate. Under section
247(8), the Commissioner is required not to be present during any deliberation of the Commission in relation to a review under part 15, and not to take part in any decision of the Commission in relation to a review under part 15, unless the original reviewable decision was made by a delegate of the Commissioner.

By contrast, section 187 does not prohibit the Commissioner from taking part in deliberations or decisions on a request for a review of the Commissioner’s decision not to conduct a recount. The Commission accepts that section 187 is inconsistent with the general principle that a person should not hear appeals against his or her own decision. Accordingly the Commission recommends that section 187 be amended to provide that the Commissioner not be permitted to be present during any deliberation of the Commission in relation to a review of a decision of the Commissioner not to conduct a recount, and that the Commissioner not be permitted to take part in making any such decision, unless the original decision was made by a delegate of the Commissioner.

However, the Commission notes that adopting this principle would not prevent the Commission from consulting the Commissioner in order to inform itself of the facts of the case being considered.

As indicated above, the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs did not comment on Mr Hird’s recommendation that “the Electoral Act be amended to allow the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to make a ruling in cases of dispute over an election issue”. The Commission strongly opposes this recommendation.

Section 256 of the Electoral Act provides that the validity of an election shall only be disputed by application to the Court of Disputed Elections, which is a special jurisdiction conferred on the ACT Supreme Court. A number of matters are listed in section 256 that clarify the meaning of matters relating to disputed validity of an election. One of those items listed is “any matter connected with the issue, or scrutiny, of ballot papers by an officer”.

Since 1997, there has been no avenue of appeal against a decision of the ACT Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Elections. This was the result of an amendment made by the Commonwealth to the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, which removed appeal rights to the Federal Court and the High Court. This brought the ACT into line with other Australian jurisdictions that do not allow appeals from their equivalent courts.

By providing that there are no appeals from the Court of Disputed Elections, the ACT’s electoral legislation ensures that decisions relating to the validity of ACT elections can be dealt with quickly, with finality and with certainty. In turn, this would serve to minimise the amount of uncertainty and disruption that could be caused to the operation of the Legislative Assembly and government in the ACT by any challenge to an election result.

Allowing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to have any jurisdiction over election disputes, while still conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Elections, would add an unnecessary step in the process of challenging an election that would serve to delay the process of finalising election disputes, for no apparent benefit.

Allowing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to have sole jurisdiction over election disputes would not, in the Commission’s view, be appropriate. The Commission considers that a senior court should be given the responsibility for hearing election disputes. The Commission considers that a candidate who wishes to challenge a decision not to conduct a recount is effectively challenging the result of an election, and
that the appropriate method of appeal to follow in this case is by application to the Court of Disputed Elections.

Party Registration

In June 2001, the Electoral Act was amended to ensure that all political parties registered in the ACT have 100 members on the ACT electoral roll. Following these amendments, the Commission reviewed all existing registered parties to determine if they had 100 members on the roll, and as a result of notifying parties of the new requirements, 4 parties sought cancellation of their registration. One other party did not respond to enquiries regarding its membership, and consequently its registration was cancelled. The remaining parties were found to meet the new membership
requirements.

New parties seeking registration prior to the 2001 election were also required to meet the new membership requirements. While it is not an immediate requirement of the application process that a party provide membership details to the Commissioner, the Commissioner may, by written notice, request these details. In practice, the Commissioner always requests this information and most political parties wishing to register provide a membership list with their application.

The Electoral Act provides that the Commissioner must refuse an application to register a political party if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the party does not have at least 100 members who are electors. The Electoral Act is unclear as to when during the registration process the party must meet the membership criteria in the Electoral Act.  In particular, it is not clear whether a membership list that meets the criteria must be provided with the application for registration, or whether the party must prove it has 100 members on the electoral roll sometime after the application date, but before the date on which it is registered.

In order to determine if a political party does in fact have 100 members on the electoral roll, the Commissioner compares the list provided with the electoral roll, and then writes to a sample of those electors on the roll seeking confirmation of party membership.

In practice, in some cases in 2001 the membership lists provided by parties did not contain 100 names that were on the electoral roll. In these cases the Commissioner contacted the party and sought additional names of party members in order to determine if the party had 100 members. If the Commissioner was satisfied at the time of registration the party had 100 members, and all other requirements had been fulfilled, then the party was registered.

The difficulty with this approach is that it allows a party to submit an application for registration before it has secured 100 members, at a time when it is arguable the party was not entitled to apply for registration, but still allows the party to secure registration if it is able to recruit more members before the Commissioner makes a decision on the application.

This difficulty arises in part because the Electoral Act imposes the membership requirement in a negative fashion, rather than as a positive requirement. That is, rather than say “to be registered, a political party must have at least 100 members who are electors”, section 93 of the Electoral Act states that the Commissioner must refuse an application to register a political party if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the party does not have at least 100 members who are electors.

In order to clarify this requirement, and to prevent a party applying for registration before it is eligible, the Commission recommends that an additional requirement be imposed on parties applying for registration, such that the party must provide a list of members with its application for registration, and that this list must contain the names and addresses of at least 100 members who are electors. Further, the Commission recommends that section 93 of the Electoral Act be amended to provide that the Commissioner must refuse an application to register a political party if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the party did not have at least 100 members who were electors on the date on which the party applied for registration.

Another difficulty with the party registration scheme is that there is no specified deadline before which a party must submit an application for registration before an election. There is a constraint on the latest possible date for submitting an application for party registration, in the sense that section 96 of the Electoral Act provides that no action may be taken in relation to the registration of a political party during the pre- election period for an election. This means that the Commissioner may register a party no later than the day before the start of the pre-election period, which starts on the Friday the 36th day before polling day. However, there is no fixed “latest date” on which an application must be submitted.

The relevant periods in the party registration process are:

Receipt of application to register a party to publication of notice.................... unspecified Public objection period from date of publication of notice .................................... 14 days Consideration of objections (if any) by Commissioner ................................... unspecified Objections (if any) forwarded to applicant for response .............................. up to 14 days Decision to register party notified .................................................................... unspecified Further period in which review of decision can be sought..................................... 28 days Decision on requests for review (if any) by Commission ................................ unspecified Pre-election period commences................................................ 36 days before polling day

If each of the unspecified time periods in this process takes about 4 days to complete, around 108 days before polling day is needed to allow all of these processes to take place.  In practice, an application received around 60 days before polling day can lead to registration of a party before the election by the Commissioner, since party registration takes effect from the date the Commissioner decides to register the party.

However, this minimum period is not fixed and could vary depending on how long it takes to organise a public notice in a newspaper, how long it takes an applicant to respond to an objection, and on how long is needed for the Commissioner to consider any objections. This level of uncertainty is not desirable, and can lead to confusion as to when an application for registration must be made.

Another concern with this minimum timetable is that it does not allow time for a person to appeal to the full Commission against a decision made by the Commissioner.

If a party leaves its application until the latest possible date, and the Commissioner decides to register the party just before the start of the pre-election period, this would effectively prevent another person or organisation from objecting to the registration of the party under the appeals provisions in the Electoral Act, until after the election was over. This is also not desirable, as it could be seen to be circumventing due process.

In order to remove the current uncertainty about the latest date on which an application for party registration may be made, and in order to allow sufficient time for an appeal to be made to the full Commission against a decision of the Commissioner, the Commission recommends that the Electoral Act be amended to provide for a latest date on which such an application can be made, set at 30 June in the election year.

Authorisation of electoral advertisements

Before the 2001 election, the Electoral Act was amended to modify the definition of electoral matter to limit its application to matter more directly concerned with Legislative Assembly elections. The definition was also amended to make it clear that it applied to matter in printed or electronic form. This definition is used to identify published matter that needs to carry an authorisation statement.

Under section 292 published material containing electoral matter is required to show the name and address of the person who authorised the matter, or its author, subject to some exceptions. This requirement is generally aimed at preventing “irresponsibility through anonymity”.

In the course of the election, several complaints were made to the Commissioner about material that was not correctly authorised. In most cases the material, while technically in breach of the authorisation statement requirement, was not anonymous. In these cases, the Commissioner issued a warning and requested that any future dissemination of the material be properly authorised. No cases were identified where unauthorised material was distributed after a warning was issued.

Two cases that involved material that was distributed anonymously were referred to the
Australian Federal Police.

The experience of dealing with the authorisation requirements using the revised definition of electoral matter indicated that the revised definition was effective in narrowing the range of material encompassed by the definition to matter more directly related to campaigning for elections.

Election funding and  financial disclosure scheme

The Commission notes that the Legislative Assembly rejected the Commission’s recommendation, made in its review of the Electoral Act after the 1998 election, to break the nexus with the Commonwealth’s funding and financial disclosure scheme, so as to close an apparent loophole in the current scheme. This apparent loophole allows parties to avoid disclosing the identities of donors who give more than $1500, by not requiring parties to take account of individual donations that amount to less than $1500 in determining whether a donor has given more than $1500.

The Commission’s views on this apparent loophole were addressed in its 1998 review, and they will not be repeated here.

On a separate issue, the Commission considers that an amendment to the disclosure provisions for candidates is warranted. Under the Electoral Act at present, candidates must disclose details of donors who give the candidate $200 or more. By contrast, parties have to disclose details of donors who give the party $1500 or more

After the 2001 election there was confusion among some party candidates about whether amounts received during the election should be reported by the party or by the candidate. The Electoral Act provides that campaign committees for party candidates are considered part of the party for reporting requirements and amounts received or raised by party candidates’ fundraising committees should be included in the party’s annual return. In other words, provided a party candidate receives donations through a campaign committee, the Electoral Act obliges all donations to party candidates to be treated as donations to the party.

This means that the effective disclosure threshold for donors to be disclosed by a party candidate is $1500, while the threshold for non-party groups and independent candidates is $200.  This is not an equitable situation.

On the other side of the disclosure equation, donors who give more than $200 to candidates are obliged to submit donors’ returns. However, this can also give rise to confusion, as donors who give to a party candidate’s campaign committee are effectively making a donation to the party.  In this case the disclosure threshold is
$1500.  Again, this is not equitable.

Other electoral participants (known as “third parties”) who incur electoral expenditure of more than $200 are also required to submit an expenditure return. Again, it is arguable that this low threshold is not equitable, compared to donors to party candidates.

In order to make these provisions equitable, to remove confusion and to provide consistency the Commission recommends that all the relevant disclosure thresholds that currently specify $200 be increased to $1500.  This would make the disclosure scheme equitable to both party candidates, non-party candidates and third parties. It would also recognise the relative insignificance of donations and expenditure of less than $1500.

The Electoral Act also provides that anonymous gifts to candidates and non-party groups of $200 or more cannot be received, while anonymous gifts to parties, ballot groups and associated entities of $1000 cannot be received. For consistency, the Commission recommends that this amount be set at $1500 for candidates, non-party groups, parties, ballot groups and associated entities.

After an election, returns are also required to be lodged by people who make donations to candidates, by people or groups who take part in the election, such as lobby groups and by broadcasters and publishers. These returns are cross matched to determine if anyone who should have lodged a return has not done so.

It is not a requirement of the Electoral Act that broadcasters and publishers provide the address of those people who have placed advertisements in relation to an election advertisement.  However, this information would be helpful in the cross matching process and in contacting those people who are required to lodge a return under the Electoral Act. Therefore, the Commission recommends amending the Electoral Act to require Broadcasters and Publishers to supply this information.

Reduction of the impact of the linear vote

In June 2001, the Electoral Act was amended to increase the number of versions of Robson rotated ballot papers. This amendment was made after an analysis of ballot papers from the 1995 and 1998 elections showed that the “linear vote” had the potential to influence outcomes at the elections. (See the Commission’s The 1998 ACT Legislative Assembly Election – Review of the Electoral Act 1992.)

A “linear vote” is a ballot paper where all the candidates in the column including the voter’s first preference are numbered consecutively from the top down (that is, 1, 2 ,3,
4, 5 etc straight down the column).

While some linear votes can be expected to reflect the considered view of the voters with regard to the merits of the individual candidates, it is probable that a sizeable proportion of linear votes are cast by voters without regard to the merits of the individual candidates. In other words, in these cases the particular order of names printed on the ballot papers determines the order in which some voters mark their preferences.

The practical significance of linear votes can be seen in cases where, during the distribution of preferences, 2 candidates from the same political party are contesting the last seat to be won by that party.  In these cases, particularly where the difference in the vote totals between the last 2 candidates is small, the distribution of the linear vote can determine which of the last 2 candidates wins the seat.

Under the rules applying at the 1995 and 1998 elections, only one Robson rotation variation was printed for each case where a particular candidate was listed at the top of the column. This meant that, at the point where only 2 candidates remained in the count in a party column vying for the last seat for that party, all of the linear votes from
another candidate from that party excluded from the count would go to only one of the remaining candidates. As the Robson rotation orders are determined by lot, this meant that the luck of the draw would determine which candidate received the linear vote in this situation. In turn, if the linear vote was high enough to influence which of these last
2 candidates won the last seat, the luck of the draw could therefore determine which candidate won that seat.

To reduce the influence of linear votes, the number of Robson rotation versions printed for the 2001 election was increased to 60 in the 5 Member electorates and to 420 in the
7 Member electorate. These Robson rotation versions are set out in Schedule 2 of the
Electoral Act.

The introduction of the increased numbers of Robson rotation versions was intended to share the linear vote more equally between all candidates at each stage of the count. In particular, the intention was that, in situations where the last 2 candidates left standing in a party column were vying for one seat, the linear vote would be shared as close as possible equally between the 2 candidates.

Because all preferences on all ballot papers were recorded electronically, the level of linear voting apparent at the 2001 election was able to be accurately measured for all formal paper ballots. (This was not possible for electronic votes, as the Robson rotation version number was not recorded for each electronic vote – this data will be stored in future versions of the electronic voting system.)

Table 1 – Paper Linear Votes shows, for each electorate, the proportion of votes marked on paper ballots that were party linear votes, as well as various types of non-linear
votes. Table 2  – Linear votes – Summary 1995-2001 shows that, compared to the sample of ballot papers surveyed from the 1995 and 1998 elections, linear voting has stayed at roughly the same level – around 21% to 30% of all votes, depending on the electorate.

Analysis of the preferences recorded on the data-entered paper ballots indicates that any disproportionate effects of linear voting were not a major factor in any of the 2001 election outcomes. The analysis also confirms that the increase in the number of
Robson rotations has succeeded in sharing the linear votes close to equally between candidates.

In order to judge the effectiveness with which the increased number of Robson rotations distributed the linear vote equally to pairs of candidates, a range of unsuccessful Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party and Australian Democrats candidates were selected, chosen from candidates who were excluded during the distribution of preferences at a point at which at least 2 candidates in the same party remained in the count.

Apparent linear votes from these candidates were assigned to pairs of other candidates in the same party who were still in the count at the point at which the candidate was excluded, to determine how evenly the linear vote was being shared between these pairs of candidates. These candidates were chosen to represent cases where there were relatively close contests between candidates in the same party in the race for the last
seat won by that party. Not all of these preferences would have actually been distributed to these candidates in this way – this data simply shows which of the two listed candidates was highest in the ranking of preferences for each of the linear votes counted to the excluded candidate.

Table 3 – Distribution of linear votes between selected candidates shows that the distribution of the linear vote was close to 50-50 between these pairs of candidates, ranging from a minimum variation from 50% of +/- 0.0.4% to a maximum variation of
+/- 6.5%.

Of course, it cannot be assumed that all apparent linear votes can be attributed to voters marking their preferences in descending sequence with no regard to the candidates concerned. It is possible that at least some of these linear votes were indicative of deliberate choices made by voters between these candidates.

It is also not reasonable to expect that all linear votes will be exactly split 50-50
between each pair of candidates. Random elements, such as the relatively small number of linear voters and the particular ballot paper versions given to those voters, can be expected to result in deviations from an exact 50-50 split.

Even if it is assumed that all of the identified linear votes were made without regard for the merits of each candidate, table 3 indicates that the variations from a straight 50-50 split were not large enough to have affected any election outcome, compared to what would have been the case if these linear votes had split exactly 50-50.

On the other hand, the level of linear voting listed in table 3 indicates that, had the changes to the Robson rotation variations not been made, linear voting could have changed the results of the election in some cases, had the linear votes been distributed in favour of candidates who were narrowly defeated by other candidates in the same party. (Remembering that, under the previous Robson rotation rules, all of the linear votes
from an excluded candidate went to only one other candidate in that party at any one stage of the count.)

For example, in Ginninderra, Australian Democrats candidate Roslyn Dundas out- polled Australian Democrats candidate Dan McMillan by 190 votes, at the point at which Mr McMillan was excluded from the count. Had the 272 linear votes that were distributed to Ms Dundas when Anthony David was excluded all gone instead to
Mr McMillan, the latter candidate would probably have been elected in Ms Dundas’
place.

This analysis indicates that the changes to Robson rotation successfully removed the
“luck of the draw” element of the previous Robson rotation rules.

Survey of numbering on formal ballot papers

The fact that the preferences shown on all formal ballot papers were recorded electronically for the 2001 election meant that, for the first time in the ACT, it has been feasible to tabulate a range of statistics that show how all electors have numbered preferences on their ballot papers. This was a considerable advance on the surveys conducted using the 1995 and 1998 ballot papers, which looked at a random sample of
5% of ballot papers from those elections.

Table 4  – Length of sequence shows for each electorate in 2001 the length of sequence of each ballot paper, recording how far each elector indicated preferences in an unbroken sequence. Table 5 – Length of sequence – Summary 1998-2001 shows summary details comparing the results for the 1998 and 2001 elections.

Around 98% of all formal voters in 2001 followed the instructions on the ballot papers and indicated at least as many preferences as there were vacancies in the electorate. This result indicates that the instructions provided to voters were effective. Around
62.7% - 67.5% of formal voters (depending on the electorate) indicated only as many preferences as there were vacancies in the electorate. That is, 5 preferences in Brindabella and Ginninderra and 7 preferences in Molonglo.

Between 31.4% and 34.9% of formal voters showed more than the instructed minimum number of preferences. Between 5.5% (in Molonglo) and 9.2% (in Ginninderra) of formal voters marked preferences for every candidate (with 7.6% in Brindabella).
These results indicate that, while around two thirds of voters are inclined to cast “the recommended minimum” number of preferences, another third of voters take the opportunity to show more preferences than the recommended minimum.

The current formality rules accept as formal ballot papers that indicate at least a unique first preference, even if the instructed minimum number of preferences is not shown. Around 2.4% of formal voters in Molonglo and 1.4% of electors in Brindabella and Ginninderra failed to number at least as many preferences as there were vacancies in the electorate. It is impossible to know how many of these votes were cast in the
knowledge that these votes were not complying with the recommended minimum, but were nevertheless formal votes, and how many of these votes were the result of a failure to understand or follow the instructions. Whatever the reason, the number of ballot papers concerned is significant enough to make it worth keeping the current formality rules, while maintaining the general instruction to number at least as many candidates as there are vacancies in the electorate.

Table 6 – Sequence breaks shows the number of formal ballot papers that omitted a preference number or duplicated a preference number, thereby breaking the sequence of preferences that can be taken into account in a Hare-Clark count. A total of 1725 ballot papers contained a repeated number, and a total of 1141 ballot papers missed a number in the sequence. Under the ACT’s Hare-Clark system, these ballot papers are still counted as formal, as they had a unique first preference. However, they could not be given full effect, with regard to any preferences shown after the break in sequence.

Most breaks in sequence occurred early in the sequence, with the number of mistakes tailing off as the number of preferences increases. This is to be expected, since two- thirds of all formal voters only showed the recommended minimum number of preferences.

It is possible that some of these breaks in sequence were deliberate, as some people may have thought “Langer style” voting applied in the ACT – that is, that a minimum
number of preferences had to be shown, but that a deliberate break in sequence would render later preferences inoperative (for example, voting 1, 2, 2, 2, 2).  However, the large variation in the points where sequence breaks occur would appear to indicate that most of these sequence breaks were unintentional.

These results, and the level of unintentional informal voting, point to the inherent problem with paper ballots – some voters have difficulty in marking sequential preferences without making mistakes. As the Commission noted in its report on the electronic voting and counting system, a solution to this problem would be to maximise the use of the electronic voting system, which automatically constrains preferences chosen by the voter to ensure that they follow a correct sequence.

Following this analysis, the Commission supports the retention of the existing ballot paper instructions and the existing formality rules.

Informal voting

The 2001 election continued the trend started at the 1998 election, with the number of informal votes counted at the 2001 election being the lowest in both percentage and absolute terms of any of the 5 ACT Legislative Assembly elections. Around 3.97% of all votes admitted to the count, or 7881 out of 198721 ballot papers, were informal in
2001 (compared to 4.32% in 1998; 6.2% in 1995; 6.5% in 1992 and 5.7% in 1989).

One factor influencing the low informal rate in 2001 was the introduction of electronic voting. See the discussion on informal voting in the Commission’s Electronic Voting and Counting System Review.

Table 7 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers by reason for informality shows the total number of informal ballot papers, broken down by main reasons of informality.

A total of 29 ballot papers were counted as informal because they were declaration ballot papers issued for the wrong electorate. This is generally attributable to polling official error. While the Commission has emphasised the importance of correctly issuing declaration votes in its training and procedures, this result indicates improvements can still be made. The Commission intends to examine its training and procedures with a view to improving performance in this area.

Almost half of all informal votes were either blank, included a “written in” candidate (for example, “Vote 1 Mickey Mouse”) or contained marks, writing, lines, scribbles, slogans or stickers only – 3869 out of 7881, or 49.1%.  While it is impossible to judge how many of these were deliberately cast as informal votes, it is likely that most of
these were deliberate. Certainly many of the ballots containing writing clearly indicated a desire to vote informal, expressed in varying degrees of politeness. Around 140
ballots included the words “No Self Government”.

Deliberate informal voting in some quantity is expected under a compulsory voting system, where voters who do not want to vote for any candidates are compelled to attend a polling place. There is little the Commission can do to reduce the number of deliberate informal votes.

However, the Commission considers it important to reduce, and ideally eliminate, the number of unintentional informal votes. A total of 3971 ballot papers contained ticks, crosses or some numbers, but no unique first preference. While some of these were probably deliberately informal, it is likely that a sizeable proportion of them were cast by voters who were trying to cast a formal ballot.

Table 8 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers containing ticks, crosses or some numbers, but no unique first preference shows that over 90% of these ballots were informal because they contained 2 or more figure 1s, ticks or crosses.  The number of ballot papers that were informal because voters used a single tick or a cross was relatively low – only 132 ballot papers. Only figure 1s are counted as valid first preferences under the Electoral Act.

Table 9 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers with 2 or more figure 1s, ticks and crosses shows the most common mistake in Molonglo (22.4%)  was to list 2 first preferences. This was the second most common mistake in Brindabella (18.3%) and Ginninderra (24.4%).  The most common mistake in Brindabella (29.7%) and the third most common mistake in Ginninderra (21.8%) and Molonglo (16.7%) was to list as many first preferences as there were columns in the ballot papers – mostly by
attempting to number the candidates by starting at 1 in each column. The most common mistake in Ginninderra (25.1%) and the second most common mistake in Brindabella (24.9%) and Molonglo (19.4%) was to list as many first preferences as there were vacancies in the electorate.

These results indicate that, while the overall reduction in the informal vote would indicate that the Commission’s voter information campaign is having some effect on reducing the rate of informal voting, more can be done to reduce the number of voters who unintentionally vote informal by using incorrect number combinations.

One particularly effective method for reducing the number of unintentional informal votes cast at the 2001 election was electronic voting. It can be expected that greater use of electronic voting at future elections will lead to a reduction in the number of unintentional informal votes. This is discussed in more detail in the Commission’s Electronic Voting and Counting System Review.

Postal voting

An elector who expects to be unable to attend a polling place on polling day or whose address is suppressed on the electoral roll is entitled to vote by post or at a pre-poll voting centre. In 2001, 6410 postal votes were admitted to the count, compared to
24599 votes cast at pre-poll centres. Table 10 – Postal vote outcomes – shows the number of postal vote ballot papers issued and the numbers of postal votes admitted or not admitted to the count for a range of reasons.

Electors can obtain a postal vote by completing an application form. Postal vote application forms were made available in the ACT at all Post Offices and at the ACT Electoral Commission office. The application form was also available from the Commission’s website. Australian overseas missions provided application forms to electors overseas. Postal vote application forms have to contain signatures of electors and witnesses, so they could not be sent by email or internet. However, they could be faxed, and many overseas applications were returned by fax. Electors who were registered declaration voters were automatically sent postal ballot material without the need for an application form.

Following an amendment to the Electoral Act passed in 2001, political parties and others were permitted, for the first time since the introduction of Hare-Clark in the ACT, to induce electors to return completed postal vote application forms to an address other than an address authorised by the Electoral Commissioner. In the lead up to the
October 2001 election, both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party distributed leaflets to households that included a postal vote application form. The return address on these leaflets was an address of the relevant party. Completed postal vote
application forms were received by the party and then delivered to the Commission for processing.

Out of a total of 8192 postal vote applications processed, 1106 were made on forms distributed by the Australian Labor Party, and 867 were made on forms distributed by the Liberal Party.

In its 1998 election review, the Commission had cautioned against legalising this practice, which has become common in some other jurisdictions. The Commission is still of the view that this practice gives political parties an inappropriate administrative role in the conduct of an election.

The drawbacks of postal voting

Postal voting in ACT elections is the voting method most likely to see an elector’s vote not counted. There are 3 main reasons why a postal vote will not be counted:

•	It has not been marked on or before polling day and/or has not been returned to
Elections ACT by the Friday after polling day;

•	The elector is not correctly enrolled; or

•	The postal vote declaration has not been correctly signed by the voter and/or the witness.

Postal ballots not counted because they were marked  after polling day and/or  were not returned to Elections ACT by the Friday after polling day

At the 2001 election, 1036 postal ballots were not counted because, most commonly, the postal ballots were not returned to Elections ACT (651 cases), or because they arrived after the cut-off date (264 cases), or because the voter signed the declaration after
polling day (121 cases).

Of these, around 740 postal ballot packs had been sent to overseas addresses. Around
240 had been sent to ACT addresses, with the remaining 50 or so going to other
Australian States or the Northern Territory.

Feedback from some overseas electors indicated that international mail of postal voting material was delayed by the tightened security measures that followed September 11 terrorist attacks. However, the proportion of postal votes that was returned in time to be counted in 2001 (78%) was similar to the return rate from the 1995 (74%) and 1998 (78%) elections.

The date on which electors applied for postal ballot material was also a factor. In 174 of these cases, the application for the postal ballot material was received in the last week before polling day – 94 of them from overseas. While postal ballot material received before 4 pm was despatched to the post office on the same day during this last week, it would appear that, for those applications received in the last week, there was not enough time for postal ballot material to be sent to electors, completed and returned in time to
be counted, particularly given the overseas mail delays. In fact, none of the postal ballot packs sent in response to applications received from overseas in the last week before polling day were returned in time to be included in the count. This points to the need
for electors to apply for postal votes as early in the election period as possible. In the case of overseas electors, this points to the need to apply at least a week before polling day.

Section 136A(5)(a) of the Electoral Act provides that postal ballot papers are not to be posted where an application for a postal vote is received after the last mail clearance at the nearest post office on the last Thursday before polling day. This provision recognises that it would be impractical to mail postal ballot papers on the Friday before polling day, as electors would be unlikely to receive the ballot papers in time to vote before the polls closed on polling day.

However, in the case of electors who are overseas, the 2001 election experience showed that it would be very unlikely that postal ballot material mailed at any time in the last week before polling day would be received by an elector on or before polling day at an overseas location. Therefore the Commission considers that it would be preferable to provide – and to inform electors – that postal vote applications submitted by electors overseas must be received by no later than the last mail clearance on the Friday in the week before polling day.

Imposing this deadline on overseas electors may serve to ensure that more electors will apply for postal votes in time for their ballot papers to be sent, returned and counted.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends that section 136A of the Electoral Act be amended to provide that postal vote applications from electors who are overseas must be received before the last mail delivery on the Friday the week before polling day.

Postal votes not counted because they were submitted by electors not correctly enrolled

A total of 62 postal votes were rejected from the count because they were submitted by people who were not on the ACT electoral roll as at the close of rolls for the election.
In these cases, these people would not have been able to vote even if they had attended a polling place, as they were not entitled to vote.

A further 14 postal votes were rejected because the applicants claimed to be enrolled for a particular electorate but were in fact enrolled for a different electorate as at the close
of rolls. Section 136A(3) of the Electoral Act provides that postal voting papers must be issued to electors for the electorate for which the person claims to vote. It does not permit ballot papers to be issued for the electorate for which the person is actually enrolled, even where the issuing officer is aware that the person has claimed a vote for an electorate for which they are not enrolled but that the elector is enrolled for another electorate.

If such an elector had attempted to vote at a polling place, he or she would have been issued with a vote for the electorate for which he or she was enrolled, rather than for the electorate for which the elector claimed a vote. This is because, under section 128(1) of the Electoral Act, a person is entitled to cast a vote for an electorate for which they are enrolled. Standard procedure at all ACT polling places for cases where an elector is not found on the roll for the electorate for which they claim a vote, is for the certified lists for all 3 electorates to be searched to check whether the person is enrolled for another electorate. If the person is found on the roll for another electorate, a ballot paper is issued for that electorate.

The postal voting procedure as specified in the Electoral Act does not allow polling officials to apply the same rules to postal voters, so that votes must be issued even where the polling official knows that the vote will have to be rejected, because the elector has claimed a vote for an electorate for which he or she is not enrolled. In order to bring postal voting into line with polling place procedure, the Commission recommends amending section 136A of the Electoral Act to provide that postal votes must be issued for the electorate for which the elector is enrolled or, if the issuing officer cannot determine whether the elector is currently enrolled, the vote is to be issued for the electorate in which the elector claims to be entitled to vote.

Postal votes not counted as the postal vote declaration had not been correctly signed by the voter and/or the witness.

A total of 178 postal votes were rejected because they were not properly signed by the voter and/or the witness.  Where postal votes not correctly signed were received before polling day, Commission staff phoned the elector concerned, if a phone number had been provided, and advised the elector that the postal vote had not been signed and, if possible, arrangements were made to enable the person to vote. Some of these voters were able to cast a pre-poll vote in person. The 178 cases that were rejected were all electors who were unable to resubmit their votes.

Failure to correctly sign forms is a relatively common problem that unfortunately, in the case of postal vote forms, can lead to votes not being counted. By comparison, if these voters had attended a polling place, their votes would have been counted. Around 145
of these 178 electors had their ballot papers sent to ACT addresses.

These cases point to the desirability of encouraging electors to attend a pre-poll voting centre rather than encouraging electors to vote by post.  The Commission recognises that some people will only be able to vote by post, either because they are unable to travel to a pre-poll centre or because they are outside the ACT.  However, for the 2004 election, the Commission intends to encourage voters unable to get to a polling place to attend a pre-poll centre rather than vote by post where that is possible.

Tables

Explanation of tables

Table 1 – Paper linear votes – [For each electorate]

This table shows, for each electorate, the proportion of votes marked on paper ballots that were party linear votes, as well as various types of non-linear votes. Results are shown for each party, for each ballot paper group and for the electorate in total. These results for the 2001 election are based on a survey of all formal paper ballots (not electronic ballots).

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)

►	Party non-linear 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-party non-linear 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:

►	Party non-linear votes (all candidates in the column numbered higher than any other candidates for any other column)

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

Table 2 – Linear votes – Summary 1995-2001

This table shows the proportion of votes counted in the categories used in table 1, for each of the electorates and for the ACT in total for the 1995, 1998 and 2001 elections.

Note that the results for 2001 are based on a survey of all formal paper ballots (not electronic ballots) and the results for 1995 and 1998 are based on a random sample of around 5% of the formal ballots cast in each electorate.

Table 3 – Distribution of linear votes between selected candidates

This table shows the distribution of linear votes from selected candidates to pairs of candidates in the same party. These results for the 2001 election are based on a survey of all formal paper ballots (not electronic ballots).

In order to judge the effectiveness with which the increased number of Robson rotations distributed the linear vote equally to pairs of candidates, a range of unsuccessful Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party and Australian Democrats candidates were selected, chosen from candidates who were excluded during the distribution of preferences at a point at which at least 2 candidates in the same party remained in the count.

Apparent linear votes from these candidates were assigned to pairs of other candidates in the same party who were still in the count at the point at which the candidate was excluded, to determine how evenly the linear vote was being shared between these pairs of candidates. These candidates were chosen to represent cases where there were relatively close contests between candidates in the same party in the race for the last
seat won by that party. Not all of these preferences would have actually been distributed to these candidates in this way – this data simply shows which of the two listed candidates was highest in the ranking of preferences for each of the linear votes counted to the excluded candidate.

Table 4 – Length of sequence – [For each electorate]

This table shows the length of sequence of each ballot paper, recording how far each elector indicated preferences in an unbroken sequence. These results for the 2001 election are based on a survey of all formal ballots (including electronic ballots).

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. Progressive totals and progressive percentages are also shown.

Table 5 – Length of sequence – Summary

This table shows summaries for each electorate and for the ACT in total, showing key results from the 2001 survey listed in table 4, with the results for the 1998 election.

This table shows:

•	The proportion of ballots marked with a single first preference only;

•	The proportion of ballots marked with less than 5 preferences (for Brindabella and
Ginninderra) and marked with less than 7 preferences (for Molonglo);

•	The proportion of ballots marked with exactly 5 preferences (for Brindabella and
Ginninderra) and marked with exactly 7 preferences (for Molonglo);

•	The proportion of ballots marked with more than 5 preferences (for Brindabella and Ginninderra) and marked with more than 7 preferences (for Molonglo);

•	The proportion of ballots where every square was numbered correctly.

Note that the results for 2001 are based on a survey of all formal ballots and the results for 1998 are based on a random sample of around 5% of the formal ballots cast in each electorate.

Table 6 – Sequence breaks

This table shows the number of formal ballot papers that omitted a preference number or duplicated a preference number, thereby breaking the sequence of preferences that can be taken into account in a Hare-Clark election count. These results for the 2001 election are based on a survey of all formal paper ballots (sequence breaks were not possible with electronic ballots).

Table 7 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers by reason for informality

This table shows the total number of informal ballot papers, broken down by reasons of informality, for each electorate and for the ACT in total for 2001.

Table 8 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers containing ticks, crosses  or some numbers,  but no unique first preference

This table shows the breakdown of those ballot papers that contained ticks, crosses or some numbers, but no unique first preference, for each electorate and for the ACT in total for 2001.

Table 9 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers with two or more figure 1s, ticks and crosses

This table shows the breakdown of those informal ballot papers that contained 2 or more figure 1s, ticks or crosses, for each electorate and for the ACT in total for 2001.

The results for ballots with 9 first preferences in Brindabella and Ginninderra are further broken down to show the number of ballots on which consecutive numbering from 1
was attempted within each column. There were 9 columns of candidates in each of these electorates.

The results for ballots with 12 first preferences in Molonglo are further broken down to show the number of ballots on which consecutive numbering from 1 was attempted within each column. There were 12 columns of candidates in this electorate.

Table 10 – Postal vote outcomes

This table shows the number of postal vote ballot papers issued and the numbers of postal votes admitted or not admitted to the count for a range of reasons.

Table 1(a)- Paper linear  votes- Brindabella

	Candidate of first choice at top of column	Candidate of first choice not  at top  of column	

Total	
	Party 		Party	 Non-party linear 	non-ilnear 		non-linear	Party 	Non-party non-linear 	 non-linear		
Australian Democrats
JOLLEY Jeannette	530	34.3%	52	3.4%	294	19.0%	362	23.4%	308	19.9%	1546	
MICO Domenic	450	36.9%	25	2.1%	251	20.6%	264	21.7%	229	18.8%	1219	
WELCH Mike	395	53.7%	32	4.3%	157	21.3%	84	11.4%	68	9.2%	736	
Total for Australian Democrats	1375	39.3%	109	3.1%	702	20.1%	710	20.3%	605	17.3%	3501	
Australian Labor Party
HARGREAVES John	1340	17.0%	683	8.7%	765	9.7%	3402	43.1%	1698	21.5%	7888	
MACDONALD Karin	982	26.5%	288	7.8%	422	11.4%	1250	33.8%	761	20.6%	3703	
SANTI Trevor	899	32.8%	186	6.8%	385	14.0%	854	31.1%	421	15.3%	2745	
WILLIAMS Athol	904	41.7%	174	8.0%	298	13.7%	502	23.1%	291	13.4%	2169	
WOOD Bill	1224	19.7%	511	8.2%	703	11.3%	2353	37.8%	1426	22.9%	6217	
Total for Australian Labor Party	5349	23.5%	1842	8.1%	2573	11.3%	8361	36.8%	4597	20.2%	22722	
Kaine Independent Group
BROOKE Sandie	46	45.5%	0	0.0%	30	29.7%	8	7.9%	17	16.8%	101	
KAINE Trevor	116	24.3%	0	0.0%	132	27.6%	104	21.8%	126	26.4%	478	
Total for Kaine Independent Group	162	28.0%	0	0.0%	162	28.0%	112	19.3%	143	24.7%	579	
Liberal Democratic Party
BROWN Bradley	83	61.0%	0	0.0%	41	30.1%	8	5.9%	4	2.9%	136	
KENNEDY Darren	82	59.0%	0	0.0%	30	21.6%	14	10.1%	13	9.4%	139	
Total for Liberal Democratic Party	165	60.0%	0	0.0%	71	25.8%	22	8.0%	17	6.2%	275	
Liberal Party
OOSZPOT Steve	516	28.5%	146	8.1%	215	11.9%	551	30.5%	380	21.0%	1808	
O'CONNOR Megan	517	30.5%	136	8.0%	203	12.0%	468	27.6%	371	21.9%	1695	
PRATT Steve	623	17.2%	297	8.2%	365	10.1%	1364	37.6%	974	26.9%	3623	
ROSSER Winnifred	447	38.8%	101	8.8%	132	11.5%	297	25.8%	175	15.2%	1152	
SMYTH Brendan	960	11.8%	627	7.7%	662	8.1%	3821	46.9%	2081	25.5%	8151	
Total for Liberal Party	3063	18.6%	1307	8.0%	1577	9.6%	6501	39.6%	3981	24.2%	16429	
Non-Party Group 1
LEVANTIS May	21	32.8%	0	0.0%	16	25.0%	7	10.9%	20	31.3%	64	
MACKENZIE Bob	13	25.0%	0	0.0%	15	28.8%	5	9.6%	19	36.5%	52	
Total for Non-Party Group 1	34	29.3%	0	0.0%	31	26.7%	12	10.3%	39	33.6%	116	
PaulOsborne
BUSH Donna	70	49.6%	0	0.0%	31	22.0%	12	8.5%	28	19.9%	141	
OSBORNE Paul	678	19.9%	0	0.0%	1134	33.3%	613	18.0%	983	28.8%	3408	
Total for Paul Osborne	748	21.1%	0	0.0%	1165	32.8%	625	17.6%	1011	28.5%	3549	
The ACT Greens
ELLERMAN Sue	802	71.3%	0	0.0%	149	13.2%	120	10.7%	54	4.8%	1125	
KELLY Kathryn	1001	62.8%	0	0.0%	227	14.2%	251	15.7%	116	7.3%	1595	
Total for The ACT Greens	1803	66.3%	0	0.0%	376	13.8%	371	13.6%	170	6.3%	2720	

ALAMEDDINE Danny	7	12.5%	1	1.8%	16	28.6%	8	14.3%	24	42.9%	56	
MUNDAY Len	17	7.4%	2	0.9%	52	22.5%	16	6.9%	144	62.3%	231	
SUTHERLAND Bruce	22	5.2%	3	0.7%	100	23.6%	16	3.8%	283	66.7%	424	
TRUDINGER Maria	23	2.6%	2	0.2%	220	25.3%	47	5.4%	578	66.4%	870	
Total for Ungrouped	69	4.4%	8	0.5%	388	24.5%	87	5.5%	1029	65.1%	1581	
total	12768	24.8%	3266	6.3%	7045	13.7%	16801	32.6%	11592	22.5%	51472	

Ungrouped

Grand

The .200 I ACT Legislative Assembly Election

Table 1(b)- Paper linear  votes- Ginninderra

Austra l ian Democrats

Candid ate of first choice 	Candidate of fi rst choice at top of col umn 		not at top of col um n
Party	Party 	Non-party	Party	Non-party
linear	non-linear	non-linear	non-linear	non-linear Total

DAVI D Anthony	566	55.2%	19	1.9%	257	25.0%	102	9.9%	82	8.0%	1026	
DUNDAS Roslyn	654	34.2%	51	2.7%	369	19.3%	456	23.9%	380	19.9%	1910	
McMILLA N Dan	702	39.2%	51	2.8%	327	18.2%	433	24.1%	280	15.6%	1793	
Total for Australian  Democrats	1922	40.6%	121	2.6%	953	20.2%	991	21.0%	742	15.7%	4729	

BE RRY Wayne	810	22.3%	295	8.1%	392	10.8%	1379	38.0%	757	20.8%	3633	
DOWNEY J udith	548	34.3%	156	9.8%	258	16.2%	370	23.2%	265	16.6%	1597	
McCARTHY Susan	612	25.7%	197	8.3%	308	12.9%	741	31.1%	521	21.9%	2379	
RE BIKOFF Vic	565	32.8%	121	7.0%	211	12.3%	498	29.0%	325	18.9%	1720	
STANHOPE Jon	1280	10.2%	1002	7.9%	1003	8.0%	6196	49.1%	3129	24.8%	12610	
Total for Australian  labor Party	3815	17.4%	1771	8.1%	2172	9.9%	9184	41.9%	4997	22.8%	21939	
Rugendyke												
BROWN lan	60	46.5%	0	0.0%	41	31.8%	15	11 .6%	13	10.1%	129	
RUGENDYKE Dave	492	18.2%	0	0.0%	877	32.4%	465	17.2%	871	32.2%	2705	
Total for Dave R ugendyke	552	19.5%	0	0.0%	918	32.4%	480	16.9%	884	31.2%	2834	

Australian Labor Party

Dave

Gungahlin Equality Party
JON ES Gail	70	45.5%	0	0.0%	49	31.8%	11	7.1%	24	15.6%	154	
SIMSONS John	87	55.8%	0	0.0%	33	21.2%	23	14.7%	13	8.3%	156	
Total for Gungahlin Equality Party	157	50.6%	0	0.0%	82	26.5%	34	11.0%	37	11.9%	310	
Liberal Democratic Party
HUMPHREYS John	247	34.6%	0	0.0%	233	32.6%	88	12.3%	146	20.4%	714	
M ORRISSEY Susan	112	46.9%	0	0.0%	66	27.6%	28	11.7%	33	13.8%	239	
Total for liberal Democratic  Party	359	37.7%	0	0.0%	299	31.4%	116	12.2%	179	18.8%	953	
Liberal Party
DUNNE Vicki	507	27.6%	147	8.0%	242	13.2%	527	28.6%	417	22.7%	1840	
FRASER Ilona	497	25.5%	173	8.9%	255	13.1%	606	31 .1%	419	21.5%	1950	
HIRD Harold	568	25.3%	197	8.8%	269	12.0%	722	32.2%	488	21.7%	2244	
SAR RI Andrew	423	32.7%	99	7.7%	177	13.7%	343	26.5%	250	19.3%	1292	
STEFA N IAK Bill	869	12.6%	546	7.9%	653	9.5%	2844	41.2%	1991	28.8%	6903	
Tota l  for Liberal Party	2864	20.1%	1162	8.2%	1596	11.2%	5042	35.4%	3565	25.1%	14229	
Non-Party Group 2
CLARKE Geoff	31	29.8%	0	0.0%	31	29.8%	17	16.3%	25	24.0%	104	
HE NRY Darcy	82	24.4%	0	0.0%	101	30.1%	59	17.6%	94	28.0%	336	
Total for Non-Party Group  2	113	25.7%	0	0.0%	132	30.0%	76	17.3%	119	27.0%	440	
The ACT Greens
RATIE N BURY Shane	1127	41.8%	0	0.0%	529	19.6%	669	24.8%	373	13.8%	2698	
WOODCROFT-LE E Patricia	726	59.7%	0	0.0%	205	16.8%	192	15.8%	94	7.7%	1217	
Total for The ACT Greens	1853	47.3%	0	0.0%	734	18.7%	861	22.0%	467	11.9%	3915	
Ungrouped
GARVI E Chris	20 	3.5% 	0 	0.0% 	199    35.1% 	16 	2.8% 	332   58.6% 	567
GOOD Shaun 	23    16.1%	1 	0.7%	44   30.8% 	13 	9.1%	62   43.4% 	143
JAMES Rhonda	32 	5.0% 	6 	0.9% 	183   28.6% 	64    10.0% 	355    55.5%	640
Total for Ungrouped 	75 	5.6% 	7	0.5% 	426    31.6% 	93 	6.9% 	749    55.5% 	1350

Grand total 	11710    23.1% 	3061 	6.0%     7312    14.4%   16877   33.3%   11739   23.2%  50699

Table 1(c)- Paper linear votes- Molonglo

	Candidate of first choci e at top of column	Candidate of first choice not at top of column	

Total	
	Party		Party   Non-party linear 	non-linear	non-linear	Party    Non-party non-linear 	non-linear		
Australian Democrats
BRAY Eric	456    53.8% 	17     2.0%	196    23.1%	83      9.8% 	95    11.2% 	847
ERREY Jane	603    30.7%	94      4.8%	339    17.2%	547    27.8%	383    19.5%     1966
JONES Stella	556    44.2% 	54      4.3%	282    22.4% 	171  13.6%	196    15.6%    1259
WALTERS Isabel	542    45.2% 	41      3.4% 	272    22.7%	152    12.7% 	191    15.9%    1198
Total for Australian Democrats 	2157    40.9%	206      3.9%   1089    20.7%	953    18.1%	865    16A%     5270
Australian Labor Party
CORBELL Simon	1096    14.2% 	433      5.6%	738      9.6%    3126    40.6%     2312   30.0%    7705
GALLAGHER Katy	849    26.5% 	201      6.3% 	438    13.6% 	914    28.5%	803    25.1%    3203
LEFTWICH Fred 	763    35.4% 	130     6.0% 	260    12.0% 	535    24.8% 	470    21.8%    2158
O'KEEFE John	867    28.0% 	192     6.2%	397    12.8%     977    31.5%	668    21.5%     3101
QUINLAN Ted	999    14.7% 	484      6.8%	601      8.8%     2971   43.6%     1772    26.0%     6807
REILLY Marion	869    31.6% 	183     6.6% 	376    13.7% 	727    26.4%	599    21.8%     2754
RYAN Christina	---	848    28.8% 	181     6.1% 	374    12.7% 	803    27.3%	738    25.1%     2944
Total for Australian Labor Party 	6291    21.9%     1784     6.2%    3182    11.1%   10053    35.1%     7362    25.7%   28672
Canberra First Party
JAMES Claire	45   45.9% 	1     1.0%	27   27.6%	12   12.2% 	13   13.3% 	98
McCULLOUGH Nancy Louise	28    19.9% 	8   5.7%	25    17.7%	37    26.2% 	43    30.5% 	141
PASTERNAK Joel	25    25.8%	5    5.2%	25   25.8%	12    12 4% 	30    30.9% 	97
SPIER Lucinda	51    17.5% 	4	1.4% 	44    15.1%	82    28.1%	111    38.0% 	292
Total for Canberra First Party 	149    23.7% 	18      2.9% 	121    19.3% 	143    22.8% 	197    31.4%	628
Gungahlin Equality Party
REYNOLDS Jonathon	197   64.8% 	0     0.0%	49    16.1%	39    12.8%	19     6.3%	304
RUECROFT tan	205    62.9% 	0     0.0%	57    17.5%	36    11.0%	28      8.6% 	326
Total for Gungahlin Equality Party 	402    63.8%	0     0.0% 	106    16.8%	75    11.9%	47      7.5% 	630
Kaine Independent Group
CARTWRIGHT Cohn	59    57.3% 	0     0.0%	26   25.2% 	7     6.8%	11   10.7% 	103
PARKER Alan	78   61.4% 	0     0.0% 	30   23.6% 	11      8.7% 	8    6.3% 	127
Total for Kaine Independent Group 	137    59.6%	0     0.0% 	56   24.3% 	18      7.8%	19      8.3% 	230
Liberal Democrat c Party
GRAHAM Brett	50    32.5% 	1     0.6% 	48   31.2% 	1 7   11.0%	38    24.7% 	154
PURNELL-WEBB John	62   44.6% 	0     0.0% 	36   25.9% 	12      8.6% 	29   20.9% 	139
SPENDER Duncan	48    26.2% 	4     2.2%	56   30.6%	46    25.1%	29    15.8% 	183
Total for LiberalDemocratic Party	160   33.6% 	5      1.1% 	140    29.4%	75    15.8%	96    20.2% 	476
Liberal Party
BURKE Jacqui	352    22.1%	124     7.8%	209    13.1%	485    30.4% 	425    26.6%    1595
CORNWELL Greg	424    28.5% 	120     8.1%	178    12.0% 	449    30.2%	317   21.3%    1488
CROSS Helen	425    19.8% 	142     6.6% 	225    10.5% 	803    37.5%	547    25.5%    2142
HUMPHREI S Gary	958      6.6% 	922      6.3% 	802      5.5%     8028    55.0%     3895    26.7%   14605
MATHESON Amalia	391    27.9% 	98      7.0%	136     9.7% 	433    31.0%	341    24.4%    1399
SPILL Mark	356    29.4% 	101      8.3%	132    10.9% 	370    30.5% 	253    20.9%     1212
XYRAKIS Manuel	370    16.5%	119     5.3%	215      9.6%	809    36.2%	723    32.3%    2236
Total for LiberalParty 	3276    13.3%     1626     6.6%     1897      7.7%   11377    46.1%     6501    26.3%   24677
Non-Party Group 3
AYSON Pamela	56    31.1% 	0     0.0%	47   26.1% 	40   22.2% 	37    20.6%	180
GELONESITania	26    31.0% 	0     0.0% 	30   35.7% 	10   11.9% 	18   21.4% 	84
Totalfor Non-Party Group 3 	82    31.1%	0     0.0% 	77    29.2'/o	50    18.9%	55    20.8%	264
Non-Party Group 4
BACK Hilary	117    15.9% 	0     0.0%	270    36.7%	99    13.5%	249    33.9% 	735
MARSHALL Melanie	36    32.1% 	0     0.0% 	33   29.5% 	24    21.4% 	19   17.0% 	112
Total for Non-Party Group 4 	153    18.1%	0     0.0% 	303    35.8% 	123    14.5%	268    31.6%	847
Non-Party Group 5
BLACK ian	71    17.7% 	0     0.0% 	139    34.6% 	48    11.9% 	144   35.8% 	402
BLACK Mamie	16   31.4% 	0     0.0% 	14   27.5%	8   15.7% 	13   25.5% 	51
Totalfor Non-Party Group 5 	87    19.2% 	0      0.0%	153    33.8%	56    12.4% 	157    34.7% 	453
Nurses Good Government Party
HICKOX Phillip 	241    75.5% 	0     0.0% 	44    13.8%	27      8.5% 	7     2.2%	319
STANIFORTH Robyn	343    48.7% 	0     0.0% 	146    20.7%	138    19.6% 	78    11.1% 	705
Totalfor Nurses Good Government Party 	584    57.0% 	0      0.0%	190  18.6% 	165    16.1% 	85      8.3%     1024
The ACT Greens
FOSKEY Deb	294    49.2% 	34      5.7% 	111    18.6%	88    14.7% 	70    11.7% 	597
NOLAN Michael	262    48.5% 	20      3.7% 	101    18.7%	78    14.4% 	79    14.6%      540
TUCKER Kerrie	895    12.3%	181    2.5%     1065    14.7%    2377    32.8%     2740    37.8%     7258
YOUNG Victoria	304    47.6%	34      5.3% 	124    19.4%	76    11.9% 	100    15.7%	638
Totalfor The ACT Greens	1755    19.4% 	269      3.0%     1401    15.5%    2619    29.0%     2989    33.1%    9033
Grand total 	15233    21.1%     3908      5.4%    8715    12.1%   25707    35.6%   18841   25.8%   72204	

The 2001 ACT Legislative Assembly Election

Table 2 – Linear votes – Summary 1995-2001

Election	
Candidate of first choice at top of column	
Candidate of first choice not at top of column	
	
Party 	Party non- 	Non-party
Linear 	linear 	non-linear	
Party non- 	 Non-party linear 	non-linear	

1995 – Brindabella	26.3%	7.6%	12.7%	31.2%	22.2%

1995 – Ginninderra	30.3%	6.5%	10.7%	35.5%	17.0%

1995 – Molonglo	20.7%	5.0%	8.6%	41.6%	24.2%	

1995 – Total 	25.2%	6.2%	10.4%	36.7%	21.4%	

1998 – Brindabella	24.4%	6.4%	16.8%	32.8%	19.7%

1998 – Ginninderra	24.2%	4.4%	13.4%	32.8%	25.1%

1998 – Molonglo	20.3%	3.6%	12.1%	35.7%	28.4%	

1998 – Total 	22.6%	4.7%	13.9%	34.0%	24.9%	

2001 – Brindabella	24.8%	6.3%	13.7%	32.6%	22.5%

2001 – Ginninderra	23.1%	6.0%	14.4%	33.3%	23.2%

2001 – Molonglo	21.1%	5.4%	12.1%	35.6%	25.8%	

2001 – Total 	22.8%	5.9%	13.2%	34.1%	24.1%	

Table 3 – Distribution of linear votes between selected candidates

FROM excluded  candidate   . . .	TO continuing candidate   . . .	Ballots	%	
Electorate  of Brindabella	
Doszpot, Liberal Party

Total	O’Connor

Pratt	256

260

516	49.6%

50.4%	
Rosser, Liberal Party

Total	O’Connor

Pratt	212

235

448	47.4%

52.6%	
Santi, Australian Labor Party

Total	MacDonald

Wood	430

469

899	47.8%

52.2%	
Williams, Australian Labor Party

Total	MacDonald

Wood	476

428

904	52.7%

47.3%	
Electorate  of Ginninderra	
David, Australian Democrats

Total	Dundas

McMillan	272

294

566	48.1%

51.9%	
Downey, Australian Labor Party

Total	Berry

McCarthy	276

272

548	50.4%

49.6%	
Fraser, Liberal Party

Total	Dunne

Hird	242

255

497	48.7%

51.3%	
Rebikoff, Australian Labor Party

Total	Berry

McCarthy	291

274

565	51.5%

48.5%	
Sarri, Liberal Party

Total	Dunne

Hird	239

184

423	56.5%

43.5%	
Electorate  of Molonglo	
Burke, Liberal Party

Total	Cornwell

Xyrakis	192

160

352	54.5%

45.5%	
Matheson, Liberal Party

Total	Cornwell

Xyrakis	202

189

391	51.7%

48.3%	

Tile 200 I ACT Legislative Assembly Election

FROM excluded candidate ...	TO continuing candidate . ..	Ballots	%	
O'Keefe,  Australian Labor Party	Gallagher	456	52.6%
-------------
47.4%
-------------	
	
Ryan	
411		

Total		
867		
Reilly,  Australian Labor Party	Gallagher	429	49.4%
-------------
50.6%
-------------	
	
Ryan	
440		

Total		
869		

Australian Democrats

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   Total

-1

-1
!!!

JOLLEY Jeannette	4
MCI O Domenic	5
WELCH Mike	4

Australian Labor Party

2  27
5 	26
4 	12

1     1061	68
0 	710	47
494	29

62 	74 	26    103	23
41	81	35    116	34
31 	41	13     44	6

31 	11 	11	12
22	7	6 	12
14 	7	12

10	8 	4
2 	10 	5
0 	3 	2

5 	2 	3 	4
1 	3 	2
2 	2 	0

0 	1
1 	5
0	0 	4

3    197    1754
2    189    1369
2 	86	815

Ill tT (i'
.e.

!.	HARGREAVES John	36	21
n	MACDONALD Karin	19	10
SANTI Trevor	16	11

-

a	WILLIAMS Athol	15	2
g·	WOOD Bill	31 	25

BROOKE Sandie	0	1	0	68	4	8	5	4	1	5	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	8	112	.2	
KAINE Trevor	8	3	3	338	32	31	13	12	13	3	8		2	0	3	3	2	0			0	3	40	524	c:	

Kani  e Independent Group

15 	19    5843   352
11 	5    2680   180
10	9    2208   106
12 	4      1667	82
15 	9    4492   306

451   283    158   349   104	95
204   145 	78   219	65	58
134	74 	46    104	16	32
110 	69	37	98 	13	25
365   247    118   319	73	88

39	39	29
22	12 	13
6 	12 	10
6 	13	6
30 	28	31

17	20
12 	2
8 	4
6 	4
19	18

7 	9 	9
8 	5 	5
1 	3
2 	5 	4
6 	13 	12

6 	12
6 	5
4 	5
5 	2
5 	6

8	7 	29
3 	3 	12
5 	5
1	2 	11
7 	8 	23

16   636    8609
8   284    4074
1   207    3039
0    140    2341
12   522    6828

I
!;
::I
CQ
a
Ill

Liberal Democratic Party

KENNEDY Darren

Liberal Party DOSZPOT Steve O'CONNOR Megan PRATT Steve	3	3		2	99	4	7	2	3	1	2	4	0	0	0	2	2	0			0		0	0	0	0 	15	153

2    116    1988	

2	

1	

7	

6	

1483	

80	

102	

34	

44	

43	

7	

23	

3	

4	

6	

3	

4	

3	

3	

0	

3		

2	

1	

5		
	9	3	1	1	1425	78	94	26	38	39	9	10	4	8	9	0	3	2	0	4	1	1	2	0	1	6	116	1890	
	18	5	6	6	2906	193	205	88	66	84	27	31	13	20	15	9	8	7	5	13	2	6	6	8	6	8	220	3981	
ROSSER Winnifred	9	5	0	4	888	49	72	26	18	32	4	15	7	10	3	3	3	2	0	7	1	0	2	4	2	3	81	1250	
SMYTH Brendan	23	17	8	22	6465	439	472	194	170	208	54	96	24	29	33	14	14	7	11	9	10	5	7	15	28	13	539	8926	
Non-Party Group 1																													
LEVANTIS May	0	0	0	0	50	2	3	0	2	1	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	10	71	
MACKENZIE Bob		0	0		37	4	2		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0			0	0	0	0	0		0		7	57	
Paul Osborne																													
BUSH Donna	3	2	0	0	105	7	9	3	4	4	0	3	1	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	11	156	
OSBORNE Paul	39	33	12	6	2402	234	268	94	85	70	31	32	22	15	16	6	12	5	6	3	2	6	3	2	13	7	308	3732	
The ACT Greens																													
ELLERMAN Sue	6	13	2	2	712	61	76	35	27	99	32	18	11	8	13	7	5	2		4	0		2		5	6	141	1290	
KELLY Kathryn	9	10	5	6	904	67	130	57	44	139	38	30	6	13	23	9	10	4	4	6		5	5		4	3	251	1784	
Ungrouped
ALAMEDDINE Danny	

1		

0	

0	

32	

5	

3	

3	

2	

2	

1	

0	

0	

0		

0	

0	

0	

0	

0	

0	

0	

0	

0	

0		

8	

60	
MUNDAY Len	2	1	3	3	158	17	6	4	6	4	6	4	3			0	0	0	0	2	0	0	1		0		28	252	
SUTHERLAND Bruce	9	2		2	316	23	16	14	8	6	1	4	3	1		2	0	2	1	2	0		0	1	2	1	36	455	
TRUDINGER Maria	13	4	7	8	560	70	30	20	13	28	27	11	8	10	7	5	4	5	2	3	0		0	0		5	108	950	

BROWN Bradley	2 	4

0	4 	93	4

9 	4 	2 	4 	0

2 	2 	3	0	0

0 	0	0	0 	0 	0

0	8 	144

£n!
(I)
I
DJ
::::!.
:c:I.
g.
!!.
&"

,

,
II»

w
U'l

Totals
Percentage

287   188   184   123  38196 2543
0.51  0.33  0.33  0.22   67.48  4.49

2941 1637 1059 2130   581   660   236   246    256   136   139	80	79 	93	52 	66	52 	63    162   103  4312 56604
5.20  2.89  1.87  3.76  1.03  1.17  0.42  0.43  0.45  0.24  0.25   0.14  0.14  0.16   0.09  0.12   0.09  0.11  0.29  0.18  7.62

:2:1
­
i

:

5..l.
ID

'

Progressive totasl
Progressive percentage

56604  56317  56129  55945      55822 17626    15083 12142 10505  9446    7316   6735    6075    5839    5593    5337    5201    5062    4982    4903    4810    4758    4692    4640    4577    4415   4312
100.00  99.49   99.16  98.84       98.62  31.14 	26.65   21.45   18.56   16.69   12.92  11.90   10.73   10.32     9.88     9.43     9.19     8.94     8.80   8.66     8.50     8.41     8.29     8.20     8.09    7.80     7.62

,

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    Total

,
II»

Australian Democrats
DAVID Anthony	5
DUNDAS Roslyn	10

Australian Labor  Party

3 	12
4 	23

3 	660	44
4 	1203   103

41 	61
82    108

28	65 	11	22
52    170	22	33

11	5 	10
13	22 	18

5 	3 	4
8 	10	5

1	2 	3	2 	1 	4
0 	5	5	1 	2 	4

4    165    1175
6    285    2198

-1
Ill
tT
(i'
-tT

i..,
8

McMILLAN Dan

9	4 	19

2     1121	85

77 	97	44    155	 35	44	23

9 	19	9	8 	2

5 	5 	5 	3 	2

5 	8    240    2035

BERRY Wayne	35	14
DOWNEY Judith	11	5
McCARTHY Susan	16	6
REBIKOFF Vic	15	4

6	7    2853    159
3	2     1147	59
3 	6     1701   119
6 	4 	1305	76

170   125
79 	69
124	90
89	57

40    179	41	30 	12
26    113	20	22	10
49    135	42	33 	16
23    104	12 	19	11

6	14
5 	9
6 	10
6 	7

5 	11 	8
6	5 	1 	4
4	8 	3 	4
4 	4 	2	2

2 	6 	2
3 	6 	1
2 	7 	2
1 	3 	0

2 	5 	5   235    3973
4 	6    137    1754
1 	4 	4    222    2617
2	3	3   106    1868

I
r-
!!!
ca.

-1
ID
C!9.
!a!.

STANHOPE Jon 	38	23
Dave Rugendyke

12	20    8692   589

643   526    193   934   207    165	69

54 	76

32 	38

16	30

16	33

7 	11 	30

25 1161  13640

g, 	i"

BROWN lan 	1 	2
RUGENDYKE Dave	21	25
Gungahlin Equality Party

1	1 	73	5
5	9     1880   215

14 	4
180	77

1 	8
61	68

1 	2
23	42

1	1 	2 	0 	0
15	12 	12 	7 	7

0 	0	1 	0 	0
3 	3 	6 	2 	0

0 	0
5 	10

0 	18 	136	'@
6    296    2990	(D
!l
"<
(D

JONES Gail
SIMSON$ John

Liberal Democratic Party

0 	3	2
0

3 	107	 6
103	5

9 	3	6 	4
9	4 	8 	6

0 	4 	2
2 	4 	2

2 	0	1 	0 	1 	0
0 	0 	0 	0

0	0	0 	0
0 	0 	0

0 	0 	18 	171
0 	25 	175

I	!!!
- g

HUMPHREYS John	4 	11
MORRISSEY Susan	3 	9

Liberal Party

6	3 	493	57
2 	152	10

52 	11
20	9

19	22
13	13

10 	11 	3 	4
4 	0

3	2 	2
0 	0

1 	0 	0	4 	0
0 	0 	0 	0

0 	2 	1 	54 	775
2 	26 	270

::::1
i
;

DUNNE Vicki
FRASER Ilona

8	3 	3
11	7 	4

2     1397   102
4 	1434	96

104 	46
115	54

32 	54
33	58

15 	29	8 	10
17	22	10	8

9 	3 	2
5 	6 	2

3	3	3 	4 	0
2 	3	1 	6	1

1 	4
0 	12

4    164    2013
5   195    2111

HIRD Harold SARRI Andrew STEFANIAK Bill
Non-Party Group 2

10	7 	6
12	4
37	11 	11

5     1752   107
4 	1030	64
17    5144   416

149	52 	44	60
79 	31 	20	27
487    187   145   197

11 	16	8 	9 	11
8	15	5 	11 	3
50	64	27	25	35

7 	6	2 	4
1 	2 	0
17	12	10	7

2 	4 	3
0	5 	0
12 	4

1 	7
3 	5
7 	26

5    155    2443
84    1416
11   609    7569

CLARKE Geoff
HENRY Darcy

The ACT Greens

3 	1 	0	0 	69	5
6	8 	0 	252	17

7 	3 	0 	3
15	5 	5 	5

0 	0 	0 	0 	0 	1
3	0 	0

0 	0	0 	0
0 	0

0 	0 	0 	19 	113
2 	28 	356

-1
!!!

RATTENBURY Shane
WOODCROFT-LEE Pat

Ungrouped

7  30
5 	13

9 	11    1315   143
6	3 	754	57

192	89	57   350	95	68	34 	21	33	15	18	7
90 	30 	35    135	28	14	7 	6 	12 	2 	6 	4

9	8 	7	0 	5
4 	2 	2 	0

9 	10   503    3045
5 	3    157    1381

!.	GARVIE Chris
n	GOOD Shaun
JAMES Rhonda

7 	5
2 	1
12 	3

3	5 	356	45
1 	104	7
3 	405	45

21	29	17	14 	9
5 	2 	1 	2 	2
22	22	15	23 	16

9 	4 	4 	4 	0 	0 	0
1 	1 	1 	3	0	2 	0
7 	6 	3 	4

0 	0	2 	1 	0
0	0	1 	0 	0
2 	2 	0

2 	2 	81 	620
0	0	23 	160
3    104	704

a-	Totals
g·	Percentage

289   207    145   122  35502 2636
0.52  0.37  0.26  0.22   63.73  4.73

2875 1791   967  2904   683   680    299   231   302   137   148	71 	91 	63    119	29	46    144   117  5110  55708
5.16   3.21  1.74  5.21   1.23  1.22  0.54  0.41  0.54  0.25  0.27   0.13  0.16  0.11   0.21  0.05  0.08  0.26  0.21  9.17

Progressive totals
Progressive percentage

55708  55419  55212  55067      54945  19443    16807  13932  12141  11174  8270    7587    6907    6608    6377    6075    5938    5790    5719  5628    5565    5446    5417     5371    5227    5110
100.00  99.48   99.11    98.85       98.63  34.90	30.17   25.01   21.79   20.06   14.85 13.62  12.40 11.86  11.45 10.91 10.66 10.39  10.27 10.10   9.99   9.78   9.72   9.64     9.38     9.17

Australian Democrats

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     To1al

BRAYEnc
ERREY Jane
-1	JONES Stella

27
14     22

10 	534     80       19     28     49       19	7
II  5   1023     198       51    107    110      64     32
5	758    138     22      43     74      43      13

15     52
37    136
16      58

16    40
12     29

4
25     33
13     16

13     13     23
10

60
4      1 92
100

973
2230
1437

-1
Ill
tT

!!!

WALTERS tsaoel
Australian Labor Party
CORBELL s;mon 	27     23

17

17     17

724    117     27     53    61      46      16

34     20    5097   382   344     1 85   470    146   110

69

85    407

24

46    182     47

5

58     25

6      6

26     23

18    12     10

89

,.  20    432

1352

8322

(i'
-n

GALLAGHER Katy	23

n

!.	LEFTWICH Fred	9
o·KEEFE John 	2 t
QUINLAN Ted	21
REILLY Marion	17
a	RYAN Ch,.l>la 	10

g·

·	Canberra  First  Party

3 	7
6
11
17     21     22
8     11
5

15 	2222    136    153     68   178     60     54
5	1355     94    106     55    108     46     46
13     16    2289    113    1 22     56    137     44      38
31     21    4387   378  348   191   384   136   111
10       9    1768   121    1 36     55    164     62     47
20 	1989   106    1 32     72    158     60     50

21    148
28    121
29    123
83    304
21     171
29    160

17     54
15     72
5     49
42    132
1 7     53
25     68

15     26       12
7      19      15
10      1 3       9
37     54    36
21      19
9    20     14

21	7 	3	3
12
12	1
34     22      14      16 	II
13 	4 	3	2
15 	tO

8     9   1 51
134
147
14	9   387
>52
1 57

3443
2328
3305
7331
2942
3202

!;
::I
CQ

 	

JAMES Cl ire McCULLOUGH Nancy L PASTERNAK Joel SPIER lucinda

REYNOLDS Jonothon	2	230	21	17	13		0	23	362	
RUECROFT ton		229	16	25	10	12		35	382	

Gungahlin Equality Party

CARTWRIGHT Colin	0	62						115	
PARKER Alan		77				0		129	
LiberalDemocratic Party
GRAHAMBren	102 	12 	169	
									
PURNELL·WEBB John		64					10	ISO	
SPENDER Duncan		107	13	6	0		21	212	
LiberalParty									

Kaine Independent Group

0 	68 	0
85	6 	0
51 	8 	1 	s	0
173     28 	9    10 	6

0
1
1 	0	9
0 	0     30

104
146
105
314

g,
Ill
.2
c:
£n!
(I)
I
s
2g.
ce.
0

BURKEJacqui			11	•	12	7	1315	67	43	59	4 1	25	18	13	14			10	2	4									74	1764	
CORNWELL Greg			5	7	8	8	1181	63	58	60	28	21	20	14	16			9	3	4								2	68	1616	
CROSS Helen	15	5	12	9	8	6	1818	74	50	73	47	26	14	24	14	1 3	1 3	12	2	7	5	3	5	1	1	2		2	76	2352	
HUMPIIRIESGa y	76     45     62    36	76     63  11675   551   467    470    323   209   116   197    119    60     68      70      31    52     25    39     17     23     Z1      23 	12	19     65     1$8$§	
MATHESON A""'l"	14						1096	50	42	48	31	30	\1	17	14	4				5									87	1506	
SPILLMall<	15	3	4		3	3	966	46	32	42	28	20	8	15	6	11				6									50	1298	
XYAAKIS Malluel	18	12	12		23	13	1832	94	68	58	44	24	12	24	14					tO							0		95	2411	

AYSONPamela	122       15      11 	6
GELONESI Tan1a 	56 	6 	3
Non-Party Group 4
BACK H<laJY	34     18
-	g
MARSHALL Melanie	8 	2 	0 	2													15	193	
	0													91	
													
52	
813	
											0		6	119	
Non-Party Group 5
BLACK lan			
228	
34	
20	
10	
14			
6					
0										
0		
45	
424	
BLACK Maftue			28	4	1	1	8			0					0										0		7	54	
Nurses Good Govern
HICKOX PhUip	ment P
4	arty
7	
189	
19	
15	
12		
4	
11			
1	
12	
0													
27	
344	
STANlFORTH  Rot>yn	7	11	421	41	42	27		17	17	14		13	24	2											0		61	765	

Non·Party Group 3

:2:1
.
i
5..l.
:
ID

,II»

The ACT Greens

NOLANMoehael
TUCKER Kerrle

301     56      13
1 	278     49 	8
23

23     40      10      10      6    57
17     26      13       8     5    58

32
4     18	6     4 	1 	1

46 	658
47	589

17       12      14     47

25    3239     627    1 84   319   441    205    146   122   193

79    318

59    122     57

72     48      31

33     24

22      11

1 3      13     14

0 	11

22   699

7906

YOUNG Victoria

2 	2 	3 	8

349     65      12

19     35      12     15       7      67 	16	10

3 	5      3	2

0 	0 	0

1 	43

716

w....

Tota ts
Percentage

381   223   271   331
0.49   0.28  0.35   0.42

373     3-02  49231  3929   2684  2278  3072  143;8   999    836  2993    454   1243     422     475     338    308    246   159     1$6    115      96      63      63      62      62       62       4·3    33      64       27       16      53      24   108     127  4319
o.47   o.38   62.69   s.oo   3.42   2.•o    u1 1.83  1.21  1.13  3.81   o.s8   1.sa   o.$4   o.6o  o.•3   o.39  o.31  o.2o   o.zo   o.15  0.12   o.o8 o.o8   o.o8  o.o8  o.o8   o.os   o.o4   o.o8   o.o3  o.o2  oo. 1   o.o3  o.14  o.16   5.so

78528	'

Progressi.,. t oiAts
Progre11in porc.on-.ge

78521  71t47  7792.. 77&53    77322  7Ct-49   7&&47  274U23.487  2()8(13 1!52.5  tS.SS  U015 13011 12U1      9UI  8184    74.et   70t9 65«   620&  S898   HS2    5<193    5337   !222  St2C   6063    SOl)()   ..931   4871    4814    4711   4738   "C74   d47  .t6SI   .t57a   •55.4   4.e46   4!19
,00.00 99.5t   99.23   98.89      91.-.ta   97.9'9      97.&0 S.t.9,   29.91   2t.A9  23.$9  19.11   1 7.85   IIU7   U,.t! U.S.t   H.OC    9.48     1.9-t    8.)3   7.90    7.$1     7.20   1.99    6.80     6.&5     8.53     5.-t!    5.37    6.29    &.21    5.t3   ,,OS    1.03     5.95     5.92    5.90    5.13     5.80     US    U.O

Table 5 – Length of sequence – Summary 1998-2001

Election 		Only 1	Less than 	 Exactly 5/7	More than 		Every preference 		5/7	preferences		5/7	square
preferences 	preferences 	numbered	

1998 – Brindabella	0.6%	1.7%	65.4%	32.9%	9.2%	

1998 – Ginninderra	0.5%	1.3%	62.5%	35.1%	8.1%	

1998 – Molonglo	0.8%	2.7%	64.6%	32.7%	4.8%	

1998 – Total 	0.6%	2.0%	64.4%	33.6%	7.1%	

2001 – Brindabella	0.5%	1.4%	67.5%	31.1%	7.6%

2001 – Ginninderra	0.5%	1.4%	63.7%	34.9%	9.2%

2001 – Molonglo	0.5%	2.4%	62.7%	34.9%	5.5%	

2001 – Total 	0.5%	1.8%	64.4%	33.8%	7.2%	

Table 6 – Sequence breaks

Highest preference counted	Missing next consecutive number	Repeated next consecutive number	
	Brin	Ginn	Molo	Total	Brin	Ginn	Molo	Total	
1
2
3
4
5	26	19	32	77
29	17	45	91
19	15	55	89
14	13	61	88
42	72	31	145	53	47	88	188
48	56	87	191
42	28	127	197
35	35	101	171
33	27	68	128	
6
7
8
9
10	12	7	25	44
20	7	62	89
8	6	11	25
15	4	15	34
20	13	27	60	37	42	65	144
29	32	32	93
14	18	51	83
16	21	33	70
9	11	42	62	
11
12
13
14
15	4	5	26	35
5	3	8	16
6	4	22	32
11	6	14	31
8	3	16	27	6	15	16	37
2	10	10	22
7	5	19	31
2	4	14	20
5	5	23	33	
16
17
18
19
20	8	2	9	19
3	2	13	18
3	4	8	15
9	17	19	45
3	2	3	8	4	6	13	23
6	8	7	21
3	2	6	11
4	6	15	25
8	13	16	37	
21
22
23
24
25	9	14	9	32
1	3	7	11
5	8	11	24
5	8	5	18
7	3	5	15	4	2	7	13
2	4	6
3	6	8	17
3	1	10	14
4	9	13	
26
27
28
29
30	3	2	5
3	3
0
3	3
0	13	13
5	5
11	11
6	6
9	9	
31
32
33
34
35	3	3
6	6
7	7
5	5
6	6	4	4
3	3
9	9
2	2
3	3	
36
37
38
39
40	0
5	5
2	2
6	6
2	2	3	3
1	1
1	1
5	5
0	
Totals	295	257	589	1141	379	400	946	1725	

Table 7 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers by reason for informality

Reason for informality	Brindabella

Votes	%	Ginninderra

Votes	%	Molonglo

Votes	%	ACT Total

Votes	%	
Declaration ballot papers issued for the wrong electorate	9	0.3%	12	0.5%	8	0.3%	29	0.4%	
Ballot papers that identify the elector	0	0.0%	8	0.3%	4	0.1%	12	0.2%	
Ballot papers totally blank	754	28.9%	625	27.0%	827	28.0%	2206	28.0%	
Ballot papers informal because the voter has “written in” a candidate	7	0.3%	36	1.6%	64	2.2%	107	1.4%	
Ballot papers containing marks, writing, lines or scribbles/slogans/ stickers only	501	19.2%	476	20.6%	579	19.6%	1556	19.7%	
Ballot papers containing ticks, crosses or some numbers, but no unique first preference	1341	51.3%	1157	50.0%	1473	49.8%	3971	50.4%	
Total informal ballot papers	2612	2314	2955	7881	

Table 8 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers containing ticks, crosses  or some numbers,  but no unique first preference

	Brindabella

Votes	%	Ginninderra

Votes	%	Molonglo

Votes	%	ACT Total

Votes	%	
Ballot papers where a single tick has been used instead of a figure 1	29	2.2%	29	2.5%	32	2.2%	90	2.3%	
Ballot papers where a single cross has been used instead of a figure 1	11	0.8%	11	1.0%	20	1.4%	42	1.1%	
Ballot papers with 2 or more figure
1s, ticks and crosses, consisting of ballot papers (treating a 1, tick or cross as a first preference)	1250	93.2%	1043	90.1%	1349	91.6%	3642	91.7%	
Others not included in the above categories (including numbers other than 1s, ticks or crosses)	51	3.8%	74	6.4%	72	4.9%	197	5.0%	
Total	1341	1157	1473	3971	

Table 9 – Breakdown of informal ballot papers with 2 or more figure 1s, ticks and crosses

Ballot papers:*	Brindabella

Votes	%	Ginninderra

Votes	%	Molonglo

Votes	%	ACT Total

Votes	%	
with 2 first preferences	229	18.3%	254	24.4%	302	22.4%	785	21.6%	
with 3 first preferences	83	6.6%	82	7.9%	99	7.3%	264	7.2%	
with 4 first preferences	63	5.0%	50	4.8%	78	5.8%	191	5.2%	
with 5 first preferences	311	24.9%	262	25.1%	46	3.4%	619	17.0%	
with 6 first preferences	52	4.2%	37	3.5%	65	4.8%	154	4.2%	
with 7 first preferences	39	3.1%	34	3.3%	262	19.4%	335	9.2%	
with 8 first preferences	50	4.0%	33	3.2%	46	3.4%	129	3.5%	
with 9 first preferences	371	29.7%	227	21.8%	48	3.6%	646	17.7%	
consisting of:	

339	91.4%

32	8.6%	

199

28				
ballot papers on which consecutive numbering from 1 has been attempted within each column

others			87.7%

12.3%			
with more than 9 first preferences	52	4.2%	64	6.1%		116	3.2%	
with 10 first preferences			38	2.8%	38	1.0%	
with 11 first preferences			42	3.1%	42	1.2%	
with 12 first preferences			225	16.7%	225	6.2%	
consisting of:

ballot papers on which consecutive numbering from 1 has been attempted within each column

others			

205	91.1%

20	8.9%		
with more than 12 first preferences			98	7.3%	98	2.7%	
Total	1250	1043	1349	3642	

* Treating a 1, tick or cross as a first preference

Table 10 – Postal vote outcomes

Persons issued with a postal vote	8192	

Postal vote ballot papers admitted to the count	6410	

Postal vote envelopes admitted to the count without ballot papers	30 enclosed	

Persons applying for a postal vote who voted at an ordinary polling	399 place or pre-poll centre	

Postal votes received but not admitted to the count because the voter	62 was not correctly enrolled	
Postal votes received but not admitted to the count because the voter	14 claimed a vote for the wrong electorate	

Postal votes received but not admitted to the count because the voter	129 did not sign the declaration	

Postal votes received but not admitted to the count because the witness	15 did not sign the declaration	

Postal votes received but not admitted to the count because the voter’s	34 signature did not match the signature on the application	

Postal votes received but not admitted to the count because the voter	121 marked his or her vote after polling day	

Postal votes received too late to be counted	264	

Postal votes returned to sender unclaimed	58	

Postal vote cancelled and ordinary vote NOT issued	5	

Total number of postal votes returned to Elections ACT	7541	

Total number of postal votes not returned to Elections ACT	651