In a remarkable turn of events, it would appear that Joshua Bonney has officially withdrawn his nomination for the current council election. Since this was post nomination date, his votes will still count. Bonney preferenced Magee second, Okotel third and Karlik fourth.
October 25, 2016
Glen Eira Debates 
October 25, 2016 at 1:35 PM
Another gigantic loophole in the legislation I reckon. His votes should be chucked out.
October 25, 2016 at 2:00 PM
Yes his vote should not count. It was obvious from the get-go that this guy was a stooge. Preference-ing that goose Magee and his sister – what a sham.
October 25, 2016 at 3:07 PM
If he’s not very ill, heading interstate, or leaving the country or (MODERATORS: phrase deleted), the man is a complete clown, and that’s putting politely.
I bet he only gathered a few hundred votes.
October 25, 2016 at 3:40 PM
We believe that he has taken up a position with/for a politician.
October 25, 2016 at 3:44 PM
It is understood that Bonney has secured employment with politician. He need not have quit the election as he has Buckleys chance of being elected, even with is sister as stooge. The question is did he have the job before he nominated. The whole setup with Magee sounds dodgy. Magee must be laughing.
October 25, 2016 at 4:49 PM
Something smelly about this.
October 25, 2016 at 7:35 PM
Sister quit. Now brother. Says it all.
October 27, 2016 at 7:55 AM
Has anyone seen Magee’s election leaflet? Early this week,people were heard cursing him for destroying our suburbs along with the group of his new mates. A pathetic structure planning expert.
October 27, 2016 at 12:46 PM
Would there be anything in the guidelines of democracy which would enable residents to cast a vote again as they may have voted in a different way and so the whole election result may have been farsical
October 27, 2016 at 1:15 PM
We don’t believe so. The votes will count.
October 27, 2016 at 7:00 PM
If it wasn’t for Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives [IIA] flaw in rank preference voting systems, the presence or absence of a candidate shouldn’t alter the relative group ranking of the other candidates.
However IIA isn’t satisfied by the voting systems we use. Assume the candidates are ranked by voters overall A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F, such that the winners are {A, B, C}. Then eliminating B at the end means the result becomes {A, C, D}. This can be but isn’t necessarily different to going back to the original ballots and removing B from each of them [adjusting the numbers to reflect one less candidate].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives
I’d rather focus attention on a mechanism in which sufficient voters pissed off with the performance of an abysmal councillor can force their recall. 4 years is too long to wait after discovering somebody has abandoned the principles they claimed in their electoral material.