Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3335
Sums it up. Let's enjoy this a little yeahAlso, you want to know preferences in a yes/no referendum?? There's no preferences. There's yes & no.
10,078 people voted "Yes"
2,461 people voted "No"
6,844 people did not vote, and thus were not counted in the final ballot
Yep, I totally agree. The whole vote was rigged. The members were paid to vote yes and those who didn't were shot. A selected portion were allowed to vote "no" because they wanted to make it look believable.Note, 'took part in the vote', not 'voted'.
Why can't we have some detail on the effect of preference votes, especially undirected ones?
If this project is to proceed without battles every inch of the way, there must be transparency. If right at the start, a major player won't provide basic, uncontroversial information about votes, it doesn't look good for the future of communication in this 100% publicly funded project.
This vote business should be dealt with quickly and openly, now. Maintaining public trust in the way the public funds are being spent is very important.
This is a perfect case of what I mean about this thing needing expert project management, about the whole project, not just the bricks and mortar. With all respect to their ability to run a sports club, MacLachlan and Whicker may be out of their depth running a $500 million construction project.
Underestimating, right at the start, the value of public trust is not a good omen.
) support this Adelaide Oval Redevelopment. While I originally would have preferred a new stadium and a redeveloped RAH, I have come to accept that this is the reality. And tbh, I'm quite happy with it, for once. 
At least we're getting football in the city (which is something I wanted from whichever Government was in power) and a modern hospital (can't go wrong there). 
Sorry, couldn't resist; old habits die hard, I suppose.
)what can i say i am not surprised, especially with global movers and shakers like Olsen involvedPants wrote:Hey ricecrackers...
Interesting.FOCUS has turned to the flow and use of proxy votes in Monday's critical Adelaide Oval verdict.
The South Australian Cricket Association has said it will not release details of the vote that saw 80 per cent of its members vote in favour of the $535 million upgrade of Adelaide oval.
The Advertiser understands "undirected" proxy votes were automatically counted as a yes vote for the upgrade at SACA's special general meeting at the Wayville Showgrounds.
This clause was stated on proxy voting information for members.
Former federal MP for Port Adelaide Rod Sawford was surprised by the 80 per cent member support for the Adelaide Oval proposal and said transparency was critical in any voting process.
"There are some basic principles on how democratic results ought to be undertaken," Mr Sawford said, noting undirected votes were in many cases ruled invalid or in the negative. "You should be able to show your results and they should be accountable and in this case there is half a billion taxpayer dollars involved so it should be explained how 80 per cent was obtained," he said.
"An abstention is part of democracy too."
SACA secured the 75 per cent member approval required to change its constitution to give up control of Adelaide Oval to football in the watershed vote at Wayville.
The yes vote attracted a significant 80 per cent majority. Media outlets had reported insiders as saying the no vote was running at 40 per cent ahead of Monday's special general meeting.
Some have asked how this information became available while political veteran Mr Sawford, a key figure in exposing the SA Jockey Club vote controversy, noted how difficult it is to achieve an 80 per cent majority.
"I do find it a very surprising result and probably requires some analysis," he said.
"Not making how the voting was calculated available to the public, when it is the public who are funding (the project) is probably not acceptable."
SACA last night confirmed "it would not be releasing a breakdown of the figures" or say if it had been privy to proxy vote results ahead of Monday's special general meeting. Votes cast, however, will not be destroyed for six months.
The returning officer, Ernst and Young's Mark Phelps, declined to discuss the handling of the count saying inquiries should go to SACA.
I don't see why that's bad. if you abstain it's basically saying you don't care/don't have enough information to have an opinion, in which case it makes sense to automatically go with whatever the board thinks is the best option.ricecrackers wrote: it was my suspicion that they counted the abstainers as YES. very stinky indeed.
Pants wrote:Hey ricecrackers...
Interesting.FOCUS has turned to the flow and use of proxy votes in Monday's critical Adelaide Oval verdict.
The South Australian Cricket Association has said it will not release details of the vote that saw 80 per cent of its members vote in favour of the $535 million upgrade of Adelaide oval.
The Advertiser understands "undirected" proxy votes were automatically counted as a yes vote for the upgrade at SACA's special general meeting at the Wayville Showgrounds.
This clause was stated on proxy voting information for members.
Former federal MP for Port Adelaide Rod Sawford was surprised by the 80 per cent member support for the Adelaide Oval proposal and said transparency was critical in any voting process.
"There are some basic principles on how democratic results ought to be undertaken," Mr Sawford said, noting undirected votes were in many cases ruled invalid or in the negative. "You should be able to show your results and they should be accountable and in this case there is half a billion taxpayer dollars involved so it should be explained how 80 per cent was obtained," he said.
"An abstention is part of democracy too."
SACA secured the 75 per cent member approval required to change its constitution to give up control of Adelaide Oval to football in the watershed vote at Wayville.
The yes vote attracted a significant 80 per cent majority. Media outlets had reported insiders as saying the no vote was running at 40 per cent ahead of Monday's special general meeting.
Some have asked how this information became available while political veteran Mr Sawford, a key figure in exposing the SA Jockey Club vote controversy, noted how difficult it is to achieve an 80 per cent majority.
"I do find it a very surprising result and probably requires some analysis," he said.
"Not making how the voting was calculated available to the public, when it is the public who are funding (the project) is probably not acceptable."
SACA last night confirmed "it would not be releasing a breakdown of the figures" or say if it had been privy to proxy vote results ahead of Monday's special general meeting. Votes cast, however, will not be destroyed for six months.
The returning officer, Ernst and Young's Mark Phelps, declined to discuss the handling of the count saying inquiries should go to SACA.