Latest news with #scrutineers
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Inside the Bradfield recount: painstaking and polite, but sometimes heartbreaking
The Bradfield recount is being held in a warehouse in Asquith that appears to have been used for a number of northern Sydney electorates, but on my visit only Bradfield is being counted. A space is set aside as a break room for scrutineers, with large teams for the teal candidate, Nicolette Boele, and the Liberal, Gisele Kapterian, who finished just eight votes ahead after the first complete count. Given there were more than 6,500 informal votes in Bradfield (5.51% of those cast), the potential for decisions over validity to settle the outcome are obvious. Each candidate has at least enough scrutineers to have one watching every person counting. The regular counting space is divided into a series of bays. Each bay is dealing with one polling place at a time. The first part of the process is to conduct a fresh first-preference count. Ballot papers are already in bundles of 50, in first preference order. Each counter takes one bundle at a time and removes the rubber band, then carefully checks each ballot to ensure it is formal and that the first preference is correct. It is then laid on a pile facing the scrutineers, who can observe it. This process happens more slowly and carefully than you would expect for an election night count. Once each bundle is fully checked, the rubber band is put back on, and they keep going until all the votes for that candidate have been checked. Once this is done, the counter will take each bundle and hand-count to verify there are 50 in each bundle, and then the other counter sharing that table will swap bundles and do the same check. During this process, scrutineers are free to challenge a ballot. If they do, the ballot is put in a box to be referred to the divisional returning officer (DRO) for review. While I am there this happens with a decent number of votes – a few dozen for a normal booth size – but not excessively. Once the primary votes have all been checked, the informal pile is also checked. And then the box of challenged ballots is reviewed by the DRO. After the DRO review, each booth will redo the distribution of preferences, step by step. The DRO considers each ballot carefully and makes a ruling about the status of the ballot (who gets the first preference or whether it is informal), stamps the back and fills out a little form explaining their decision. At this point a scrutineer can refer a ballot to the Australian electoral officer (AEO) for a final decision. The AEO is the senior Australian Election Commission staff member for the state and is effectively the final arbiter in the recount process. The AEO carefully considers each ballot referred up for adjudication in line with the AEC's formality principles – including by deploying a magnifying glass. Both the DRO and AEO are careful and cautious, but also very clear on their priorities. The formality principles require them to construe the ballot paper as a whole, and err in favour of the franchise. This means that sometimes when a number is not entirely clear, but context clues make it clear that, for example, it would make sense for a number to be a 4 rather than a 7, they may interpret it that way. Officials can be very strict, while also giving a ballot the best chance of being counted. Occasionally scrutineers will politely make a case for a particular figure representing a particular number, but there are no arguments or shouting. You wouldn't know these people are in a fierce recount coming down to a handful of votes. If more people could see how this works it would increase faith in the democratic process, but it is frustrating to see votes that clearly attempt to express a preference ending up informal. In some cases it appears a voter made a mistake by losing count of where they were up to – a ballot might have unique numbers from one to five and seven, but two sixes instead of a six and an eight. In plenty of cases, the culprit was bad handwriting. The AEC officials do their best to fairly determine the correct answer, but ultimately sometimes it's too hard. Voters, try your best to write the numbers clearly and distinctly! But in a lot of cases where votes are made informal, it is perfectly clear who they preferred between Boele and Kapterian – the confusion was irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of the race. There are various ways the rules could be changed to make it easier for some of these votes to count. The most extreme would be to adopt optional preferential voting as used in New South Wales state elections, where voters are not required to number any more than one box. But under that system many fewer preferences would flow, and it opens the doors for parties to run 'Just Vote 1' campaigns to discourage opposing voters from using their ballots to their full value. We could also adopt a system similar to that used in the Senate, where voters are asked to number at least six boxes above the line, but votes are counted even when they number fewer. Short of those more significant changes, we could adopt more subtle 'savings provisions' that would keep the system as is but would give the AEC more flexibility to accept votes with minor errors. Votes with every box filled out but with a duplicate number could be counted until the vote-counters reach the duplicate number. Or we could require voters to number at least six boxes, but not every box. That would eliminate the problem where voters apply the Senate ballot instructions to the House, and as a result have their lower house vote treated as informal. Some have also suggested electronic voting. There are concerns about losing the paper trail, and it would be an enormous effort to roll out the technology and deal with the expected technical problems, to thousands of polling booths. Some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and the ACT, have used a hybrid model where big pre-poll booths use electronic voting but smaller booths still use pencils and paper. Others have suggested a compromise system whereby a voter fills their ballot out on a screen but the ballot is then printed out and submitted by hand. The AEC plans to conduct a survey of informality after this election, so we know more about why exactly votes have been treated as informal. In the past, this has shown us only about half of informal votes appear to be deliberate. We probably can't do much about those but it is heartbreaking to watch a ballot paper where the voter clearly made an effort to have their say end up on the informal pile. Ben Raue attended the Bradfield recount after being appointed as a scrutineer but took no active part in the process. This is an edited and expanded version of an article that first appeared on his blog The Tally Room.
The Guardian
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Tim Wilson urges scrutineers to ‘knock out informal votes' for Zoe Daniel in leaked WhatsApp messages
Liberal candidate Tim Wilson has urged his scrutineers in Goldstein to 'knock out informal votes being counted' for independent Zoe Daniel, warning her team has done so 'with extreme precision' as the contest tightened this week. Wilson was declared the projected winner of Goldstein last week, a seat he lost at the 2022 election, but the gap in votes narrowed considerably in recent hours, with the former assistant minister now leading by just 294 votes. Leaked messages from a WhatsApp group called 'Goldstein blue tsunami' show Wilson told supporters the narrowing vote should not be a problem for his campaign, but said it 'highlights the EXTREME necessity for scrutineers to be available'. 'They are knocking out votes for us with extreme precision,' Wilson wrote. Scrutineers are entitled to challenge votes for another candidate if ballot papers are unclear, have missing numbers, use words or ticks and crosses instead of numbers, or are not appropriately signed by an electoral commission officer. 'If a full recount occurs, we will need a massive scrutineering team because every vote will need to be scrutinised and it will be a race to see who can knock out the most votes. Let's hope that doesn't happen. 'If the teals keep knocking out votes and we are not doing the same. The votes will be the votes. The difference is whether we have scrutineers to knock out informal votes that are being counted for the Teals.' Wilson told his supporters: 'Sadly, this is something I am extremely good at doing, but I am legally prohibited from doing on this vote because I am a candidate.' In response to the messages, Daniel said: 'As always, I thank my volunteers for their participation in an open honest democratic process'. On Wednesday night, Daniel used a social media post to say she was hopeful a batch of internal postal votes landing in the next two days would break towards her. 'No matter what, as always I am so buoyed by the love, support and ferocious determination that has been sent my way over the last week and a half,' Daniel said. When contacted for comment about the WhatsApp messages, Wilson said there were 'plenty' of Liberals scrutineering and that there was nothing unusual about this process of casting aside informal votes. 'They are knocking out informal votes for us,' Wilson said. 'We are knocking out informal votes for them. None of this is new.' He also cited scutineer training material from Zoe Daniel's campaign, seen by Guardian Australia, that instructed scrutineers to pay careful attention to Wilson's votes. 'We only challenge Tim Wilson's votes,' the training manual said. 'No need to check that Zoe's ballots are formal. Tim's scrutineers will do that. The tightening in Goldstein is being matched in the Sydney seat of Bradfield, where the Liberal party believes candidate Gisele Kapterian will win, despite independent Nicolette Boele reducing Kapterian's lead to just 70 votes, down from 80 on Wednesday afternoon. Another 200 votes are expected to be counted on Thursday. Some 2,000 postal votes are yet to be returned in the seat, ahead of Friday's deadline. About 500 absentee ballots also remain to be counted. Media outlets, including the ABC and Sky News, called the seat for Kapterian earlier this week, but returned it to 'in doubt' as her lead shrunk. Automatic recounts are ordered for any seat with a margin of less than 100 votes. Australian Electoral Commission officials on Thursday realigned the two-party preferred count in the New South Wales seat of Hunter, where Pauline Hanson's One Nation party moved into second place. Labor's Dean Repacholi is on track for a 10% margin, despite the stronger than expected performance of One Nation's Stuart Bonds. Nationals candidate Sue Gilroy suffered a more than 6% swing away from her, moving her to third place.
News.com.au
14-05-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
AEC confirms missing ballots found at electoral worker's home
Almost 2000 ballots that went missing on election night in the Sydney electorate of Barton have now been recovered at the home of a temporary AEC worker. The ballots, stored in a secure a secure container, were collected by the worker from the Hurstville polling booth on May 3 and were then not delivered to the commission's central counting centre. Officials only noticed the missing container when a routine recount of the votes began. 'The AEC's tracking processes for ballot paper transport containers identified that one of the two transport containers for the Hurstville polling place was not returned to the central counting centre on election night as it should have been,' an AEC spokesperson told NewsWire. 'Ballot papers were securely packaged in the presence of scrutineers with an authorised transport officer collecting two ballot paper transport containers for delivery to a central counting centre to await further processing. 'The staff member responsible erroneously returned one less container than was expected.' After exhausting numerous lines of inquiry, the box was recovered from the worker -undamaged and unopened - early last week. All 1866 votes had already been counted and did not affect the result in the seat of Barton. The spokesperson said further investigations were under way to ensure the incident did not happen again. 'The AEC takes ballot paper handling extremely seriously and deeply regrets this incident,' they added. It has not been explained how the ballots ended up at the worker's home. Labor candidate Ash Ambihaipahar won the seat with more than 60 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote, beating the Liberal Party's Fiona Douskou.
Daily Mail
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Australian election rocked by scandal after missing ballot papers are found at electoral worker's home
About 2,000 missing ballot papers that went missing on election night have been found in the home of a temeporary Australian Electoral Commission worker. Because the votes had already been counted, the incident did not impact the result in the NSW seat of Barton. 'Ballot papers were securely packaged in the presence of scrutineers with an authorised transport officer collecting two ballot paper transport containers for delivery to a central counting centre to await further processing,' an AEC spokesperson said in a statement. The AEC revealed that a worker collected 1,866 House of Representatives votes in a secure container from a Hurstville polling booth on May 3 but did not deliver it to the central counting facility. 'The staff member responsible erroneously returned one less container than was expected.' AEC officials only noticed the ballots were missing last week. 'The AEC's tracking processes for ballot paper transport containers identified that one of the two transport containers for the Hurstville polling place was not returned to the central counting centre on election night as it should have been,' the spokesperson said. 'This issue relates to a single transport container that remained sealed and intact and has not affected the election,' the AEC said. 'The uniquely coded security seals were not broken, and the AEC's purpose-built ballot paper transport container was intact. 'All ballot papers are accounted for. 'The AEC takes ballot paper handling extremely seriously.' The Barton seat was won by Labor's Ash Ambihaipahar, who secured over 60 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote, beating Liberal candidate Fiona Douskou.
New York Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Live Updates: Papal Conclave Enters 2nd Day
The process of selecting a new pope, which takes place in the Sistine Chapel, is intended to be leakproof. No cellphones. No internet. No television. No contact with the outside world. Welcome to the conclave, which some security experts say is the most secure vote anywhere. The ancient, closed-door selection process that began in the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday was intended to be leakproof. Popes have been fine-tuning the procedure for centuries. The last major changes to the rules came in 1996 and were laid out in a document written by Pope John Paul II, 'Universi Dominici Gregis: On the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff.' Before a single vote was cast on Wednesday, the chapel was cleared of all but the cardinal electors. (This time there are 133 of them.) The room was swept for listening and transmission devices. The windows were boarded up. Jamming devices are routinely used, to ensure that the proceedings cannot be interfered with, or snooped on. The participants all took an oath to uphold the sanctity — and, in essence, the security — of the vote. The process is almost entirely tech-free: Cardinals write their votes by hand on paper ballots, and then proceed one at a time to the altar to place their ballots in an urn. Nine cardinals oversee the process. Three are known as 'scrutineers,' tasked with counting and recounting the votes and three are 'revisers' who double-check their work. All of this creates 'enormous social — religious, actually — disincentives to hacking the vote' or leaking details, Bruce Schneier, a security expert and lecturer at Harvard Kennedy School, wrote in a 2005 blog post. Twenty years later, with smartphones and recording devices nearly everywhere, Mr. Schneier reflected on the security of the voting. In an interview last week, he said that he still considered the conclave to be nearly hackproof. (On a scale of one to 10, with 10 being unhackable, Mr. Schneier gave it a 9.9.) 'It's a small manual process, which makes it more secure,' he added. But that also makes it nearly impossible to replicate for national elections. 'There are no lessons for the real world,' he said, 'because it doesn't scale.'
