Some staff at polling places in the Blue Mountains appear to have given voters incorrect instructions when they gave voters their ballot. They gave instructions similar to: "Place a 1 above the line or number at least two squares below the line." They should have said something like: "Place at least 1 number above the line or at least 2 below the line."
I conducted a survey of 44 people about this. 28% of the people who remembered said they were given incorrect instructions. I asked two of these if this changed the way they voted, and one of them said "yes".
This could have changed the election results in Ward 3. After the preferences for Lyn Trindall were distributed, Carmel McCallum had 20 votes less than Alison McLaren. If the incorrect instructions had persuaded 49 of Lyn's voters to exhaust, instead of giving preferences, this would probably have changed the result.
I provide below the results of a survey I conducted, and some calculations, to explain how I came to my conclusions. A also report the result of a conversation I had with the Returning Officer.
I asked 44 people if they were given instructions when the staff at the polling place gave them their ballot.
4 of the people in the survey said they don't remember. I leave them out of the calculation, leaving 40.
I overheard one of the people talking about it before I approached him, so I leave him out of the calculation. This leaves 39 people for the calculation of the percentage.
11 of these people said Yes - they were given instructions.
All the people who said "yes" remembered being told something like: "Put a 1 above the line" This is the incorrect instruction.
So, 28% (11/39) of the people who remembered said they were given instructions.
I went back to two of the people who said they had been given instructions. One of them said they intended to only vote for one group above the line anyway. The other said they intended to preference above the line, but only voted for one group above the line after hearing the instructions.
This comes from a sample ballot in the Handbook for Parties, Candidates and Scrutineers on the Electoral Commission website:
You may vote in one of two ways
either
Place the number "1" in the square above the group of candidates for whom you wish to vote. If you wish to vote for additional groups of candidates, place consecutive numbers beginning with the number "2" in the squares above the additional groups of candidates in order of your preference for them.
or
Place the numbers "1" and "2" in the squares opposite the names of 2 candidates in order of your preferences for them. If you wish to vote for additional candidates, place consecutive numbers beginning with the number "3" in the squares opposite the names of those additional candidates in the order of your preferences for them.
Instructions were reported at the following six polling places
Carmel McCallum lost the election by 20 votes.
Click here for the page showing Count 14, where Lyn Trindall was excluded.
In Count 14, Lyn Trindall was excluded. She had 1308 votes 370 went to Carmel McCallum, giving her a total of 2242 105 went to Alison McLaren, giving her a total of 2262 116 went to Daniel Myles, giving him a total of 2683 This gives a total of 591 votes that had preferences. 717 exhausted
After this count, Alison was ahead of Carmel by 20 votes.
Carmel was then excluded, on Count 15.
(To see the files for all of the counts for Ward 3 go to: www.lg.elections.nsw.gov.au/LgeFinalCountReports/Blue_Mountains/Third_Ward)
Carmel McCallum would have been elected if 49 of Lyn's voters gave preferences, instead of exhausting because they received the incorrect instructions.
Here is how I came to this conclusion:
591 of Carmel's votes that had preferences. 370 (63%) went to Carmel McCallum 105 (18%)went to Alison McLaren
If an additional 49 of Lyn's votes had preferences: 29 of these (63% * 49) would have gone to Carmel 8 of these (18% * 49) would have gone to Alison
Carmel would have gained 21 votes (29 - 8) relative to Alison, and won the election.
It depends on how many of the Lyn's voters received incorrect instructions, and what percentage of these exhausted, instead of giving preferences, as a result.
She received 1308 votes.
How many of these voters do you think received incorrect instructions? And what percentage of those do you think exhausted, instead of giving preferences, because of these incorrect instructions? Multiply these two numbers, and you get the number of additional voters who would have given preferences. If this number is 49 or more, it is quite possible that the results of the election were have changed.
For example: If you think 600 of her voters received incorrect instructions, and 10% of these exhausted instead of giving preferences, because of these incorrect instructions, then you come up with 60 additional voters who would have given preferences (600 * 10%) This is greater than 49, which means, in this case, the results of the election would have changed.
I discussed this with Andrew Frater, the Returning Officer.
I tried to get an accurate description from him of what he had asked the staff to say, and how many staff were involved.
In my opinion, he didn't give me a very informative answer.
Here is what I remember him saying, and my interpretation of what it meant.
He said he was "trying to assist the voter". This implies he suggested to some staff that they should give instructions when handing out the ballot. I was unable to find out how many of the staff he gave this suggestion to, or what the suggestion was.
He also said the voters "might have misunderstood" the instructions. He seems to be implying that correct instructions were given, but some of the voters misunderstood them. But the all voters I talked to recalled something like "Put a 1 above the line" And some seemed to be quite confident that their memory of this was accurate. And the instructions that they all remember were incorrect.
He said he "rang up everyone" with further instructions by around 1 pm. How long did it take him to call all the polling places? When did he start? How many of the staff were giving out incorrect instructions before then? How many voters were affected? I was not able to get answers to these questions.
Andrew asked me I would "jump off a cliff" if someone suggested it. This seems to imply that many of the voters would disregard the incorrect instructions, because they were obviously incorrect. But the instructions that people remembered don't sound to me like the kind of instructions they would ignore.
He said the correct instructions were printed on the ballot, and that voters were "obliged" to acquaint themselves with the proper way to fill in their ballot. I would think that most voters would assume the verbal instructions they received were correct, and not feel inclined to read the printed instructions on the ballot to make sure. And one voter told me, during the survey, that she found the printed instructions hard to read, because they were in fine print, and hard to understand, because they were complicated.
I tried to contact the Returning Officer again, for clarification. I called him twice on 19 September, and twice 22 September, and each time I got a message saying his mobile phone was "switched off or not in a mobile service area." His contact details on the Electoral Commission website did not include an email address or an alternate phone number. His mobile phone did not have voicemail, and it did not divert to another phone. This meant it was impractical for me to contact him. I could have sent him a fax, or sent a letter to his postal address, or visited his office in Katoomba, but these take a lot more time than making a phone call.
I think the Electoral Commission should conduct an investigation, to find out what happened. They should also ask the Returning Officer, and polling place staff, for a details. Maybe they should conduct a survey and ask the voters.
They should release a report, that gives details on what happened, offers an apology if a mistake was made, and suggests ways to prevent it in the future.
If it appears likely that the election results were changed, perhaps they should re-run the election for Ward 3. But this is a serious step, and the pros and cons should be considered carefully.
Sorted by whether they were given instructions, and by polling booth.
The ID is in the order I entered the data, not in the order I asked the people.
I overheard one of the people (ID 27) talk about the issue, and then asked him for details. For the rest, I didn't know in advance what their answers would be.
I asked the last 20 people (ID 25-44) if they asked the staff for instructions, and only one (ID 15) said yes. The others said no. I didn't ask the first 24 people (ID 1-24)
The first 24 people (ID 1-24)were given some information before being asked the question. They were told that some people had been saying they were instructed to do something like put a 1 above the line or put more than one number below the line. They were then asked if they received instructions, and what they were. I shouldn't have given them this information before asking my question! But I then asked them if they clearly remembered hearing something like "Put a 1 above the line", and not "Put at least one number above the line", and they all said they clearly remembered it as the former. I was careful not to give this information before asking the remaining 20 people in the survey (ID 25-44), and the response from these people was similar to the first group.
I am sending a copy of this report to the Electoral Commission, along with the contact details, when I was given permission, of the people who said they were given incorrect instructions.