There will be a recount of the result in former small business minister Fran Bailey’s Victorian seat of McEwen after her six-vote loss.

Bailey raised claims on ABC Radio earlier in this week of unauthorised ballot papers, lost votes and counting errors – as well as dropping very big hints about shadier practices.

The AEC has not acknowledged Bailey’s criticism, but says the recount will proceed because of the closeness of the result and so candidates and the community can have confidence in the outcome. Seven seats remain on the AEC’s list of close electorates, including McEwen.

I recall there being a count and two recounts over close to four weeks as a scrutineer in the 14-vote Hawker result in 2004. It was a long and stressful process, but all above board.

Which brings us to our friends in the HS Chapman Society and their signs on polling booths on election day warning against multiple voting.

After the 2004 Federal election, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters concluded that there was no evidence of any widespread electoral fraud. Despite that conclusion, the HS Chapman Society has continued to lobby for changes on the issue.

Paul Pirani, the AEC’s chief legal officer says:

Shortly before polling day the AEC became aware that the HS Chapman Society planned to place signs outside polling places that dealt with the issue of multiple voting which is a criminal offence under section 339 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act).

The AEC immediately sought and obtained external legal advice dealing with a number of issues. The resultant advice concluded that provided the corflutes were located more than 6 metres from the entrance to a polling booth (see section 340 of the Electoral Act) there was no power for the AEC to take any action…

The HS Chapman Society posters warned “This Booth Under Surveillance”.

The AEC is clearly not impressed by these self-appointed guardians of electoral integtity. Pirani says:

The AEC was clearly concerned that the message on the corflutes may have led to persons not voting or being hindered by voting because of the fears of having their actions in the polling booth being observed.

This would have been a possible breach of subsection 327(1) of the Electoral Act. However, the advice that was received by the AEC was that the mere threat of surveillance was not sufficient to enable action to be taken.

He adds:

The AEC has been given a limited power to address “misleading and deceptive” “electoral advertising” in subsection 329(1) of the Electoral Act… [T]he limited operation of this section results in the actions of the HS Chapman Society not being within the scope of section 329 of the Electoral Act as the corflute was not directed as to how a person actually marked the ballot-paper.

Cases of multiple voting do occur in elections. The anecdotal evidence suggests they large involve elderly residents of nursing homes who cast pre-poll votes and then vote again when well meaning family and friends take them to polling booths on election day.

AEC spokesman Phil Diak told Crikey, “The AEC referred 64 cases of apparent multiple voting to the Australian Federal Police following the 2004 federal election and the Werriwa by-election.”

Even in a very close result, these votes may have made little difference. Diak says the 64 cases were spread among 40 electoral divisions.

“AEC and AFP personnel met in September 2005 to discuss the outcomes of the investigations,” Diak says.

“The AFP advised that in most cases there was insufficient evidence available to proceed to prosecution. While the AEC continued liaison with the AFP in the light of evidence obtained and advice from the DPP, no further prosecutions resulted.”