Vote counting procedure misrepresented in baseless corruption claims
Soofia Tariq
May 09, 2025
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
Votes preferencing independent candidates were ignored in the Adelaide count.
OUR VERDICT
False. Primary votes have been counted for all independents who ran in the city.
AAP FactCheck – Votes for independent candidates in Adelaide electorates were not ignored in the federal election, despite claims on social media that only votes for major parties were counted at a polling location.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has published primary vote tallies for all independents who ran in the South Australian capital, and says the social media posts instead describe the two-candidate preferred (TCP) count.
As counting continued after the election on May 3, 2025, the claim appeared in a Facebook post alleging corruption in the electoral process.
“So this is from a scrutineer in Adelaide at a counting booth. Read this and understand the corruption of what they do with our votes. How they just ingor [sic] the voters marked preference to their preferred candidate,” the caption reads.
“See how they just go to labour / liberal pile and apply the vote to which of the major 2 parties is 1st.
“Absolutely corruption from top to bottom of the AEC and fraudulent corporation non Australian government entity.”
The post includes a screenshot of another Facebook post making a claim about first preferences being ignored.
“…if there was a No1. for an independent they ignored it and went to who of the major two parties was first in a box whether 7th or 8th place it in a Labor or LNP pile and totally dismissed the No1 preference on the ballot paper !!” the post reads.
AAP FactCheck found no evidence that first preference votes for independent candidates who ran in five of South Australia’s 10 federal electorates had not been counted.
The AEC’s Tally Room website has recorded primary vote figures for independents in every seat where they ran in South Australia, including Barker, Grey, Hindmarsh, Spence and Sturt.
However, no independent candidates ran in the electorates of Adelaide, Boothby, Makin, Mayo or Kingston.
An AEC spokesperson told AAP FactCheck the Facebook posts describe the TCP count, which is how federal elections are normally conducted and is legally required on election night.
For the TCP count, the election watchdog selects the two candidates it deems the most likely to win an electoral division, based on factors including previous election results, before voters go to the polling booths.
After first preferences are tallied on election night, AEC scrutineers re-sort ballots into two piles based on which of the two candidates is preferenced higher to help give an early indication of the winner.
This means the candidates in the TCP count will often be from the major parties, though this is not always the case.
The AEC spokesperson expressed dismay at seeing the counting process misrepresented.
“It is intensely disappointing to see someone claiming to be a scrutineer who clearly has not done the required reading and has instead chosen to misrepresent the process they themselves have volunteered to witness on behalf of a candidate,” they told AAP FactCheck.
The AEC’s Scrutineers Handbook also states that the TCP count is conducted after counting first preferences in each House of Representatives seat (page 21).
The AEC spokesperson added that the TCP is intended to offer an indication of which candidate is more likely to win in each seat.
The TCP count was introduced during the 1990s as TV networks grew tired of waiting for full preferential counts.
“It meets the desire of media, voters and candidates to provide indicative numbers as early as possible,” the spokesperson said.
AAP FactCheck is an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network. To keep up with our latest fact checks, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, BlueSky, TikTok and YouTube. (AAP)
