A Labor politician told me today that a recount in South Australia would take the form of a "special count" in which only Bob Day's votes would be redistributed. That does not entirely make sense. I would expect a full recount for all 12 senators. Does anyone have any more info on this?

http://www.aec.gov.au/

Topic of public interest
Senate vacancy South Australia
On 5 April 2017, the High Court determined that a special count be conducted to elect a new representative to the Senate from South Australia in order to fill a vacancy created by the disqualification of Mr Bob Day.

The AEC notes that the decision requires further directions by a Justice of the High Court. Upon receiving these directions the AEC will conduct the special count.

Further information will be provided when it is available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Senate_appointments#List_of_inv
alid_elections_and_appointments_to_the_Senate

This is a list of people who have been declared to have been elected or appointed to the Australian Senate that the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, has subsequently declared to be void. Some of these have actually sat in the Senate and participated in proceedings however the High Court has held that their presence did not invalidate the proceedings of the Senate.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Culleton

On 3 February 2017, the High Court determined the Senate reference, unanimously finding that Culleton had been ineligible for election to the Senate. At the time of the 2016 election he was subject to being sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, which under Constitution section 44(ii) rendered him ineligible for election. This had not been affected by the subsequent annulment of the finding of guilt; the annulment had operated only from the time of the annulment. The vacancy should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers. Any directions necessary to give effect to the conduct of the special count should be made by a single Justice. However, the Court anticipated that a simple recount, as if Culleton had not been a candidate, would make the votes cast for him (so far as they were "above the line", which was 96% of them) would flow through to the next One Nation candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Georgiou

A consequence of this ruling was that the ballots underwent a special count discounting Culleton's position on the paper, and Georgiou was elected in his place.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2017/51.html

On 3 February 2017, this Court answered questions referred to it as the Court of Disputed Returns by the President of the Senate. The answer to question (a) was to the effect that there is a vacancy in the representation of Western Australia in the Senate for the place for which Senator Rodney Norman Culleton was returned. It was further ordered that the vacancy should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers and any directions necessary to give effect to the conduct of the special count should be made by a single Justice. On 2 March 2017, Justice Keane made further orders. The special count has been undertaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_special_election_in_Western_Aust
ralia,_2014

A half-Senate election for the election of six Senators occurred in Western Australia on 5 April 2014.[1] Preferences were distributed on 29 April 2014.[2][3] The outcome was 3 Liberal, 1 Labor, 1 Green and 1 Palmer United Party. Compared to the 2013 result, the Sport party's Wayne Dropulich was replaced by Zhenya Wang of the Palmer United Party.
The election was called after the result of the 2013 Australian federal election for the seats was voided by the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, on 20 February 2014. The election came about as a result of 1,375 ballot papers being lost during an official recount in November 2013. The High Court ruled that because the number of lost ballots far exceeded the margin for the two remaining Senate seats, the only acceptable remedy was to throw out the results and hold a fresh election. This decision set in motion the process of a special election.[4][5]
The election is unprecedented in Australian federal politics. An election was held in South Australia in 1907 for the election of one senator under a previous electoral system. Half-Senate elections without a corresponding Australian House of Representatives election have occurred several times due to effluxion of time, the last one having been held in 1970.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blundell_v_Vardon#Vardon_v_O.27Loghlin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Senate_appointments

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 8:21am:


But, doesn't this relate to the specific voting system of 'Single Transferable Vote'? This manner of voting can be changed by legislation, although a constitutional amendment would also be sensible.

Auggie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 3:34pm:


It is vaguely related to it, in the sense that we are talking about democracy.

Quote:


The constitution does not even recognise political parties.

OK. In this case, the court has determined that the Senator was not legitimately elected in the first place. It is the outcome of the election that has been called into question. It is not merely a matter of a Senator retiring or similar.

They will most likely still win it, if their other candidate gets the preferences.

Not sure what exactly you are proposing. Most people have enough difficulty figuring out how to preference parties. They are not going to take enough interest to order candidates within parties, though both options are currently open to them.

The parties could always use internally democratic mechanisms to determine candidate order.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:


I believe the high court has yet to decide whether or not Family First will still be eligible for the recount - but its widely tipped that they will be, and the Kenyan FF lady will take the seat.

There's been quite a lot about the whys and hows of this recount on the news, so I'm pretty sure you'll find something useful with a bit of googling. Antony Green has written an article about it on his blog.

Got a response from the AEC. They are still waiting on instructions from the judge. I am trying to get them to explain how it worked in WA.

Antony Green has come through with the goods:

Quote:


So, there is a possibility of a change in the order of elected Senators, meaning a possible change in who gets the 3 and 6 year terms, depending on how the Senate handles it. There is even a possibility of other Senators losing their seat as a result.