Palmer's PUP

[Neferti]

This exchange should be here since it is to do with PUP:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... 04#p141504

Aussie wrote:
Perhaps of you took the time to explain what you meant, I could reply.

Neferti wrote:
The bit about not being able to interpret the handwriting was in the online newspapers. Several different ones. It sounded weird to me, since voting requires NUMBERS. I'll have a look around ....

Here it is:

Clive Palmer's Fairfax bid could hinge on messy handwriting on ballot papers

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee ... 6718864798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aussie wrote:
Okay, I get what you mean. On many ballot papers, people stuff up their numbering and then try to go back and correct by over-writing the correction on their original numbers. It creates a mess, and depending on who benefits from the mess, you can bet one of the scrutineers 'challenged.' If I saw a doubtful one but it went in Clive's direction, I'd say nothing and hope the LNP bloke was not looking. If s/he challenged, s/he and I would have a short debate, and if neither conceded, the paper would be handed over to an AEC heavy who would make a ruling. He would record that on the ballot paper, and if there was later litigation, there is clear evidence of what had occurred at counting.

Lots of ballot papers were very messy, but they were not in significant numbers.

Neferti wrote:
I would have thought that if they messed up their ballot paper they should have asked for a fresh ballot, otherwise their vote would be INFORMAL?

Sounds like a LOT of cheating goes on ... no wonder Clive is going to sue, he must be pissed off that he didn't pay enough to the scrutineers.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Aussie! I thought you were better than that!

[freediver]

from 5:50 pm

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirs ... 96-160.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Palmer is 362 votes ahead.

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/ae ... 6720165445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Latest counting shows the mining magnate's lead in Fairfax has been slashed to 209 votes after the counting of more postal votes.

The billionaire is being reeled in by the LNP's Ted O'Brien, who is back in contention after being more than 2000 votes behind late last week.

Mr O'Brien has been attracting 63 per cent of the postal votes to Mr Palmer's 37 per cent.

This morning's counting did focus on postals, however, and there are still 2266 absentee votes to tally, which are likely to favour the mining magnate.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/ae ... z2f3bvqc00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Aussie]

Obviously the AEC figure as at 5.50 pm is the most up-to-date, which means he has gone back out from the 209 figure. Encouraging but uncertain whether they are postal or absentee.

[IQS.RLOW]

A lib win in Fairfax would be icing on the Aussie shit cake.

[Rorschach]

the official count at end of day by the AEC is 362 votes difference in favour of Palmer.

[Aussie]

the official count at end of day by the AEC is 362 votes difference in favour of Palmer.

Yes.....already freediver posted that ^^^^^^.

[Rorschach]

Half day count.... Palmer in lead by 122 votes.

[Neferti]

Half day count.... Palmer in lead by 122 votes.

Hahaha. How many votes to go?

[Rorschach]

Palmer... ahead by 64

[Neferti]

Palmer... ahead by 64