• Contents
• previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• next

Appendix A Summary of Targeted Polling Places

Table 2: Allenby Gardens

Allenby Gardens Percent of electors who received letters: 87.8 % Category of Informality	% of total informality 2001	% of total informality 2004	% points swing
Blanks	26.25%	19.75 %	-6.50%
Number ‘1’ Only	25.00%	40.74%	15.74%
Ticks and Crosses	16.25%	18.52%	2.27%
Non-sequential	27.50%	11.11%	-16.39%
Voter Identified	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Marks	5.00%	2.47%	-2.53%
Slogans making numbers illegible	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Incomplete Numbering (not tallied separately in 2001)	N/A	4.94%	N/A
Langer Style / Other[13]	0.00%	2.47%	N/A
Overall level of informality	6.91%	6.40%	-0.51%

Table 3: Ferryden Park

Ferryden Park Percent of electors who received letters: 30.20% Category of Informality	% of total informality 2001	% of total informalit 2004	% points swing
Blanks	19.64%	19.61%	-0.03 %
Number ‘1’ Only	24.11%	35.29%	9.18%
Ticks and Crosses	18.75%	14.71%	-4.04%
Non-sequential	29.46 %	18.63%	-10.83%
Voter Identified	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Marks	8.04%	6.86%	-1.18%
Slogans making numbers illegible	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Incomplete Numbering (not tallied separately in 2001)	N/A	1.96%	N/A
Langer Style / Other	0.00%	2.94%	N/A
Overall Level of Informality	8.15%	7.86%	-0.29%

Summary of targeted Polling places

Table 4: Findon North

Findon North Percent of electors who received letters: 42.90%Category of Informality	% of total informality 2001	% of total informality 2004	% points swing
Blanks	19.78%	23.08%	3.30%
Number ‘1’ Only	39.56%	34.62%	-4.94%
Ticks and Crosses	18.68%	12.82%	-6.06%
Non-sequential	19.78%	16.67 %	-3.11%
Voter Identified	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Marks	1.10%	8.33%	7.23%
Slogans making numbers illegible	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Incomplete Numbering (not tallied separately in 2001)	N/A	4.94%	N/A
Langer Style / Other *	1.10%	2.47%	N/A
Overall level of informality	8.18%	7.58%	-0.60%

Table 5: Pennington

Pennington Percent of electors who received letters: 72.80 % Category of Informality	% of total informality 2001	% of total informality 2004	% points swing
Blanks	14.04%	22.48%	8.44%
Number ‘1’ Only	43.86%	25.58%	-18.28%
Ticks and Crosses	19.30%	23.26%	3.96%
Non-sequential	15.79%	19.38%	3.59%
Voter Identified	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Marks	5.26%	4.65%	-0.61%
Slogans making numbers illegible	1.75%	0.78%	-0.97%
Incomplete Numbering (not tallied separately in 2001)	N/A	3.10%	N/A
Langer Style / Other	0.00%	0.78%	N/A
Overall level of informality	8.96%	7.48%	-1.48%

Table 6: Woodville Gardens

Woodville Gardens Percent of electors who received letters: 61.10 % Category of Informality	% of total informality 2001	% of total informality 2004	% points swing
Blanks	28.80%	23.43%	-5.37  %
Number ‘1’ Only	32.00%	23.43%	-8.57%
Ticks and Crosses	15.20%	15.43%	0.23%
Non-sequential	17.60%	21.14%	3.54%
Voter Identified	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Marks	6.40%	4.00%	- 2.40%
Slogans making numbers illegible	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Incomplete Numbering (not tallied separately in 2001)	N/A	5.71%	N/A
Langer Style / Other	0.00%	6.86%	N/A
Overall level of informality	9.57%	8.11%	-1.46%

Table 7: Summary of the Division of Port Adelaide

	2001		2004
Total number of votes cast:	82011		92179
Total number of informal votes:	5627		6522
Percentage of Informality:	6.86 %		7.08 %
Number of Candidates	6		6
Category of Informality	2001 ballots	% of total informality	2004 ballots	% of total informality	% points swing
Blanks	1179	20.95%	1449	22.22%	1.26%
Number ‘1’ Only	1888	33.55%	2033	31.17%	-2.96%
Ticks and Crosses	817	14.52%	1140	17.48%	2.96%
Langer Style *	16	0.28%	N/A	N/A	N/A
Non-sequential	1071	19.09%	746	11.44%	-7.65%
Voter Identified	0	0.00%	8	0.12%	0.12%
Marks	643	11.43%	579	8.88%	-2.55%
Slogans making numbers illegible	10	0.18%	25	0.38%	0.21%
Other * (includes other symbols)	0	0.00%	286	4.39%	4.39%
Incomplete Numbering (grouped with ‘Other’ in 2001)	N/A	N/A	256	3.93%	N/A
Highest % Informal Polling place 2004		Royal Park	1601	10.56%
Lowest  % Informal Polling Place 2004		Croyden	896	4.16%

[13] In 2001, the “other” category was not tallied at the polling station level; In 2004, Langer-style votes would have been counted as non-sequential.