[clug] Open Data Democracy

[Rodney Peters]

On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 10:50:24 AEST Michael James wrote:
> > > The AEC publish a file with the raw vote tallies, this preference
> > > pattern scored this many votes. This file must have enough data to
> > > actually run the counting algorithm. Just first preferences (while very
> > > useful for regional analyses) is not enough.> 
> > The BTL files *should* allow you to construct all the preferences
> > (I haven't sat down and tried so I might be wrong).
> > For ATL, at the last election you wouldn't have anything beyond first
> > preferences - you would use the Group Voting Tickets to reconstruct the
> > full preference sequences.
> Dear Andrew,
> 
> Yes, you’re right, in the old senate system it’s enough to know
>  the count for each possible Above the Line vote
>  as they map to Below the Line using the party registered preference
> pattern.
> 
> I must look at the BTL files…
> 
> 
> Dear Bob,
> 
> Also yes, I am being very loose with the term computer.
> But it’s inevitable that  data entry operators are hammering many
> workstations (terminals? computers? thin-clients?) and short of filming
> them (not allowed) we can only keep the overall vote tally and trust the
> system is good. Personally I have faith in the AEC, but bugs do crop up.
> 
> I will be interested (while I scrutineer) to see how much
>  they sort, bundle and count common preference patterns,
>  and how much they rely on data entry and programmed aggregation.

Michael,

Altough not on the official AEC site, the paragraphs towards the end of the 
following would also need to be taken into account.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2016/03/15/controversial-senate-voting-reforms-explained/

Rod