One number still valid on Senate ballot paper

Matt Watts said :

creative_canberran said :

JC said :

If u want to look at disappointed, have u seen the number and the quality of candidates in House of Reps – Canberra electorate in particular ?

Very ordinary.

From what I can see, we only have 4 people to choose between in each electorate, consisting of four parties [Labor, Liberal, Greens and Bullet train for Canberra] and one independent for the south.
What kind of a choice is that?
Labor and Greens want a tram, I do not. Bullet Train party obviously likes things on rails. All I have left is Liberal, whom I do not want in charge of our health, education or anything else they can get their paws on. I have nobody to vote for, period! What a total disaster.
Even if I could vote for the independent on the Northside, he is no doubt also in support of the tram, pretty much the only way to gain favor with the Gunners electorate.
I’m over it… just can not win no matter who I pick.

Isn’t this the federal election in which case trams don’t really matter.

Yes, this is the federal election. Trams aren’t part of it.

rommeldog56 said :

If a Federal level Party promised to pass a law preventing the ACT town council from raising our rates by multiples of CPI, then you wouldn’t have much of a quandary.

Otherwise, it’s a bit puzzling what you are on about.

Whoever you vote for in the ACT election won’t be making Immigration policy or tax laws.

The Federal government will be taking care of the big end of town, as usual, vandalising the NBN some more, failing to collect tax from multinational corporations, allowing our mineral resources to be plundered for private profit and/or giving people smugglers the green light to restart the invasion.

Matt Watts said :

Isn’t this the federal election in which case trams don’t really matter.

For state issues, such as the Barton Highway duplication, the federal election is as important as the state election, because that’s where the big dollars come from. I seriously doubt that voting for a Liberal Federal government will not impact on local Labor politics. They are all in cahoots with one another, so it matters a lot who you put in the Senate and house of Reps, for small town issues that require their funding. What about public service jobs? I bet you’d think twice if you voted for a federal party and found a heap of funding cuts to the P.S., expecting local governance from the opposition to look after them.
As it is, all the major party are making promises for the barton Highway anyway, so it is going to be a matter of who you believe will not backflip, even though all of them have done so on so many promises in the past.
Another point of contention is gay marriage. Whichever view you have, voting for one party federally may have a big impact locally as we have already seen. Hence my crisis.
Independents are looking a lot more promising, if only we had the choice to choose them.

The problem with our country is the apethetic slackers who vote. Watch Twitchike on ABC iView it will make you reconsider compulsory voting.

The major parties like compulsory voting because it is literally a toss of a two dollar coin to see which party gets the vote and the cash.

creative_canberran said :

JC said :

If u want to look at disappointed, have u seen the number and the quality of candidates in House of Reps – Canberra electorate in particular ?

Very ordinary.

From what I can see, we only have 4 people to choose between in each electorate, consisting of four parties [Labor, Liberal, Greens and Bullet train for Canberra] and one independent for the south.
What kind of a choice is that?
Labor and Greens want a tram, I do not. Bullet Train party obviously likes things on rails. All I have left is Liberal, whom I do not want in charge of our health, education or anything else they can get their paws on. I have nobody to vote for, period! What a total disaster.
Even if I could vote for the independent on the Northside, he is no doubt also in support of the tram, pretty much the only way to gain favor with the Gunners electorate.
I’m over it… just can not win no matter who I pick.

Isn’t this the federal election in which case trams don’t really matter.

Kim Huynh said :

OK this is all rather confusing now, I am going to call the AEC and a few other places on monday and try to get a definitive answer on wether less than 6 numbers above the line in the senate is valid or not. This article could potentially lead to a lot of unintended informal votes if this advice in the OP is actually wrong as it is looking like at this stage.

No need to call. Check out the youtube link on the AEC website aec.gov.au .

It clearly says that for the Senate above the line, you must number 1 to 6 at least or below the line, 1 to 12 at least for the vote to be valid.

I assume the info on the AEC website is correct – not what has been proffered on Ray Hadley’s radio show, despite what the the AEC Commissioner said.

As u say, confusing.

OK this is all rather confusing now, I am going to call the AEC and a few other places on monday and try to get a definitive answer on wether less than 6 numbers above the line in the senate is valid or not. This article could potentially lead to a lot of unintended informal votes if this advice in the OP is actually wrong as it is looking like at this stage.

rommeldog56 said :

Masquara said :

rommeldog56 said :

Masquara said :

I would suggest to everybody to be on the safe side and number at least six squares as the Electoral Commission is advising in their advertising.

Ray Hadley on 2GB/2CC has been telling everybody to only put a 1 in one square but listeners are phoning and sending emails to him saying that EC staff at polling booths are telling voters to number at least six squares. So it is clear that on polling day when the votes are being counted, Electoral Commission staff will be disregarding any ballot papers with fewer than six squares numbered and counting them as informal.

I also note a small ad in today’s Daily Telegraph from the Katter Australia Party telling everybody to number every square and put The Greens last. So even the people and parties who would be most likely to follow Ray Hadley’s advice are ignoring him, eager to make sure their supporters don’t invalidate their vote.

Hadley isn’t dumb. No doubt he is telling people that becuse less valid votes overall means more valid votes to the majors. The Libs don’t want any minor parties to be in control of the Senate.

The Electoral Commissioner – the big boss of elections – said on Hadleys radio show that for the Senate, if you put just 1 in a box above the line, it is a valid vote.

You dont have to mark 1 through 6. You can apparently also mark 1 through 4 or what ever. You don’t need to go to 6 above the line. Hadley replays that interview on his show each time a listener advises that in a pre poll booth, the electoral staff say u have to mark 1 through 6 above the line or else it will be informal.

So there seems to be a disconnect between what the Electoral Commissioner says and what some pre-polling booth staff are telling voters to do.

Where that leaves us in terms of a valid election outcome, god only knows…….

Correction : AECs website says that for the Senate above the line, you MUST mark 1 to 6 at least for it to be a valid vote.

This is Canberra – we do things differently here.

Masquara said :

rommeldog56 said :

Masquara said :

I would suggest to everybody to be on the safe side and number at least six squares as the Electoral Commission is advising in their advertising.

Ray Hadley on 2GB/2CC has been telling everybody to only put a 1 in one square but listeners are phoning and sending emails to him saying that EC staff at polling booths are telling voters to number at least six squares. So it is clear that on polling day when the votes are being counted, Electoral Commission staff will be disregarding any ballot papers with fewer than six squares numbered and counting them as informal.

I also note a small ad in today’s Daily Telegraph from the Katter Australia Party telling everybody to number every square and put The Greens last. So even the people and parties who would be most likely to follow Ray Hadley’s advice are ignoring him, eager to make sure their supporters don’t invalidate their vote.

Hadley isn’t dumb. No doubt he is telling people that becuse less valid votes overall means more valid votes to the majors. The Libs don’t want any minor parties to be in control of the Senate.

The Electoral Commissioner – the big boss of elections – said on Hadleys radio show that for the Senate, if you put just 1 in a box above the line, it is a valid vote.

You dont have to mark 1 through 6. You can apparently also mark 1 through 4 or what ever. You don’t need to go to 6 above the line. Hadley replays that interview on his show each time a listener advises that in a pre poll booth, the electoral staff say u have to mark 1 through 6 above the line or else it will be informal.

So there seems to be a disconnect between what the Electoral Commissioner says and what some pre-polling booth staff are telling voters to do.

Where that leaves us in terms of a valid election outcome, god only knows…….

Correction : AECs website says that for the Senate above the line, you MUST mark 1 to 6 at least for it to be a valid vote.

rommeldog56 said :

If a Federal level Party promised to pass a law preventing the ACT town council from raising our rates by multiples of CPI, then you wouldn’t have much of a quandary.

Otherwise, it’s a bit puzzling what you are on about.

Whoever you vote for in the ACT election won’t be making Immigration policy or tax laws. All they will do is hit us up for massive increases in our rates in order to pay for their army of unproductive “advisors” and consultants and their white elephant rail scheme.

The Federal government will be taking care of the big end of town, as usual, vandalising the NBN some more, failing to collect tax from multinational corporations, allowing our mineral resources to be plundered for private profit and/or giving people smugglers the green light to restart the invasion.

The golden rules for voting in the corrupt political situation we live in should be:
1/ Remember your vote is worth $2 to whichever candidate gets your 1st preference. Don’t give your $2 to somebody who doesn’t deserve it. If you give it to a party that fails to get about 7% of the vote, nobody gets the $2 – you can save the taxpayer $2 by voting for the most minor party available, then put your 2nd preference where you want your vote to go.
2/ Don’t vote for the major parties. They are dishonest, incompetent and untrustworthy. Vote in protest.
3/ Use your preferences, don’t vote above the line. Pick your protest vote for #1, then ensure that your preference flows to your realistic choice of winning candidate. Make sure your protest vote doesn’t accidentally go to the wrong side – depending on whether you are most concerned about science & the economy, or about border security and the marxist indoctrination of our children.

Great post. Thats it in a nutshell. Send the message to Labor/Liberals/Greens through the ballot box. Dont vote informal as a protest vote. It doesnt achieve anything except perpetuates the appallingly poor quality of Government we now have all levels.

One thing though. In the ACT Legislative Assembly election in a few months, the ACT Libs/Labor/Greens voted their parties a pay rise. They do not get $2 per vote. They increased that to $6 or $8 per vote (I can not recall which) . Funded by ACT Ratepayers of course ! If thats not enough pork barreling to turn ACT Ratepayers/voters off the majors in the upcoming Legislative Assembly election, nothing will.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Am I going crazy? Does anybody else have this dilemma? July 2 is fast becoming a day where our kids’ soccer games are about the only things I can make an informed decision on whom I want to support.

If a Federal level Party promised to pass a law preventing the ACT town council from raising our rates by multiples of CPI, then you wouldn’t have much of a quandary.

Otherwise, it’s a bit puzzling what you are on about.

Whoever you vote for in the ACT election won’t be making Immigration policy or tax laws. All they will do is hit us up for massive increases in our rates in order to pay for their army of unproductive “advisors” and consultants and their white elephant rail scheme.

The Federal government will be taking care of the big end of town, as usual, vandalising the NBN some more, failing to collect tax from multinational corporations, allowing our mineral resources to be plundered for private profit and/or giving people smugglers the green light to restart the invasion.

The golden rules for voting in the corrupt political situation we live in should be:
1/ Remember your vote is worth $2 to whichever candidate gets your 1st preference. Don’t give your $2 to somebody who doesn’t deserve it. If you give it to a party that fails to get about 7% of the vote, nobody gets the $2 – you can save the taxpayer $2 by voting for the most minor party available, then put your 2nd preference where you want your vote to go.
2/ Don’t vote for the major parties. They are dishonest, incompetent and untrustworthy. Vote in protest.
3/ Use your preferences, don’t vote above the line. Pick your protest vote for #1, then ensure that your preference flows to your realistic choice of winning candidate. Make sure your protest vote doesn’t accidentally go to the wrong side – depending on whether you are most concerned about science & the economy, or about border security and the marxist indoctrination of our children.

dungfungus said :

It’s important to remember that given there are only two Senate seats in the ACT, it really doesn’t matter where you put your preferences. Only a number 1 really matters.

This is very, very wrong.

Say Katy Gallagher gets 1.5 quotas, and you gave her your 1st preference.
1/3rd of your vote now goes to your second preference.
The Libs didn’t get their quota in the last election until the 16th(?I think) redistribution where the Animal Justice nutters gave their preferences to the Libs just to spite the Greens.
Senate preferences are very important.

rommeldog56 said :

Masquara said :

I would suggest to everybody to be on the safe side and number at least six squares as the Electoral Commission is advising in their advertising.

Ray Hadley on 2GB/2CC has been telling everybody to only put a 1 in one square but listeners are phoning and sending emails to him saying that EC staff at polling booths are telling voters to number at least six squares. So it is clear that on polling day when the votes are being counted, Electoral Commission staff will be disregarding any ballot papers with fewer than six squares numbered and counting them as informal.

I also note a small ad in today’s Daily Telegraph from the Katter Australia Party telling everybody to number every square and put The Greens last. So even the people and parties who would be most likely to follow Ray Hadley’s advice are ignoring him, eager to make sure their supporters don’t invalidate their vote.

Hadley isn’t dumb. No doubt he is telling people that becuse less valid votes overall means more valid votes to the majors. The Libs don’t want any minor parties to be in control of the Senate.

The Electoral Commissioner – the big boss of elections – said on Hadleys radio show that for the Senate, if you put just 1 in a box above the line, it is a valid vote. You dont have to mark 1 through 6. You can apparently also mark 1 through 4 or what ever. You don’t need to go to 6 above the line. Hadley replays that interview on his show each time a listener advises that in a pre poll booth, the electoral staff say u have to mark 1 through 6 above the line or else it will be informal.

So there seems to be a disconnect between what the Electoral Commissioner says and what some pre-polling booth staff are telling voters to do.

Where that leaves us in terms of a valid election outcome, god only knows…….

I am now totally confused and need a question answered by the mind hive.
The federal election has candidates and parties with varying policies on a national scale, but what influence will they have in local affairs? I am torn between the idea of voting for one party nationally on July 2, but then a party that stands in opposition to them locally in October. Does this achieve the desired outcome? Will not the national policies override what a party decides to do in the A.C.T, what the local candidates promise to do here?
This is the quandary of a political system that has so many twists and turns. It seems that I cannot get what I want through any of the candidates on offer. I’ve browsed the web pages of the parties, looked up the candidates themselves, tried to determine exactly what their stance on certain issues is and come up completely blank in the end. It used to be about trying to work out who was the biggest liar, but now I cannot even differentiate one party from another. All of them are pretty much copy and pasting each others slogans, mission statements, aims and objectives.
Am I going crazy? Does anybody else have this dilemma? July 2 is fast becoming a day where our kids’ soccer games are about the only things I can make an informed decision on whom I want to support.

JC said :

If u want to look at disappointed, have u seen the number and the quality of candidates in House of Reps – Canberra electorate in particular ?

Very ordinary.

From what I can see, we only have 4 people to choose between in each electorate, consisting of four parties [Labor, Liberal, Greens and Bullet train for Canberra] and one independent for the south.
What kind of a choice is that?
Labor and Greens want a tram, I do not. Bullet Train party obviously likes things on rails. All I have left is Liberal, whom I do not want in charge of our health, education or anything else they can get their paws on. I have nobody to vote for, period! What a total disaster.
Even if I could vote for the independent on the Northside, he is no doubt also in support of the tram, pretty much the only way to gain favor with the Gunners electorate.
I’m over it… just can not win no matter who I pick.

JC said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

After going through the candidate’s party policies for the senate election, I am dismayed to find none of the parties worth voting for. I read through, pleased with some of the ideals being presented and then “Whammy”, a totally objectionable policy that derails them from my “Like” list.
I will not win in this years election because yet again, I cannot vote for the party of my preference because there are no candidates in our state/territory.
Again, my vote is going to be wasted on someone who is “second best” instead of who I really want steering the big ship “Australia”. It’s either that or vote for somebody who actually has a chance at overthrowing the current leadership, but they haven’t really proven to be any better anyway.

Fully agree with that view wildturkeycanoe. Have done the same myself.

The Senate choices and their “policies” are dismaying. In my view, its a shame that the Xenophon party isnt standing in the ACT – though I certainly don’t agree with all of their policies, it makes lodging an effective “protest vote” against Labor/Greens/Liberal almost ineffective – maybe the Sex party & Mr Bailey will get more votes than anticipated.

If u want to look at disappointed, have u seen the number and the quality of candidates in House of Reps – Canberra electorate in particular ?

Very ordinary.

The best response to such a lack-lustre field like we have is to vote informal.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

After going through the candidate’s party policies for the senate election, I am dismayed to find none of the parties worth voting for. I read through, pleased with some of the ideals being presented and then “Whammy”, a totally objectionable policy that derails them from my “Like” list.
I will not win in this years election because yet again, I cannot vote for the party of my preference because there are no candidates in our state/territory.
Again, my vote is going to be wasted on someone who is “second best” instead of who I really want steering the big ship “Australia”. It’s either that or vote for somebody who actually has a chance at overthrowing the current leadership, but they haven’t really proven to be any better anyway.

Fully agree with that view wildturkeycanoe. Have done the same myself. The Senate choices and their “policies” are dismaying. In my view, its a shame that the Xenophon party isnt standing in the ACT – though I certainly don’t agree with all of their policies, it makes lodging an effective “protest vote” against Labor/Greens/Liberal almost ineffective – maybe the Sex party & Mr Bailey will get more votes than anticipated.

If u want to look at disappointed, have u seen the number and the quality of candidates in House of Reps – Canberra electorate in particular ? Very ordinary.

After going through the candidate’s party policies for the senate election, I am dismayed to find none of the parties worth voting for. I read through, pleased with some of the ideals being presented and then “Whammy”, a totally objectionable policy that derails them from my “Like” list.
I will not win in this years election because yet again, I cannot vote for the party of my preference because there are no candidates in our state/territory.
Again, my vote is going to be wasted on someone who is “second best” instead of who I really want steering the big ship “Australia”. It’s either that or vote for somebody who actually has a chance at overthrowing the current leadership, but they haven’t really proven to be any better anyway.

Following comment from ABC’s Anthony Green about Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system which would appear to apply to ACT as well:
“In Australia, Hare-Clark and the related system used to elect the Senate, makes use of preferences to determine the final vacancies. In that sense, the system works against the idea of proportionality based on primary votes. As with list PR, allocating the first seats to parties under Hare-Clark is relatively easy, though the highly personalised nature of Tasmanian voting can make determining the candidates of each party slightly more complex. The allocation of the final seats is more complex, relies on preferences, and moves away from the idea of proportionality. As an example, at the 1998 Senate election, the Australian Democrats elected five Senators and One Nation a single Senator. One Nation polled a much higher vote than the Democrats, but the distribution of preferences favoured the Democrats, distorting proportionality. The Democrats recorded one of their highest votes in Victoria, yet this was the only state in which they failed to elect a Senator, once again preferences distorting the proportions.”

govnor said :

The public got exactly who they voted for. Our voting system is not highest number of votes wins. You can disagree with the system all you like but end of the day the public got who THEY voted for.

Your statement isn’t true. If a party wins on 2nd or 3rd preferences but not 1st, then more than half the country will be disappointed in the result because they didn’t get who they voted for first. Basically we are settling for 2nd or 3rd best and more often than not it’ll be one of the two major parties, because people can see there is no point voting for minor parties if there aren’t enough candidates across the country for them to get a majority to rule the country. Last election I wanted to vote for party “A” but we had no candidates in the A.C.T., so I got stuck voting for second best as my first preference. What kind of a system do we have where you cannot vote for an ideology or political presence when you don’t have any representation in your state, yet it is supposed to be a national election? That is pretty much rigging the election by numbers, because the major parties have the funding to have enough candidates to win, whilst minor parties are really only ever going to win enough seats to have a small voice of reason in a cataclysm of left vs right. I want to vote for party “X”, why can’t I? Because Hare & Clarke have made a complete mockery of the political process and made it near on impossible for us to ever get out of Labor or Liberal control.

Again we do not have a most votes wins voting system so what I am saying is very much the case and very much true.

jmcassar said :

dungfungus said :

It is disappointing that you have to give a preference vote to someone you don’t want to vote for. If for example,my favorite party has only 3 candidates, why am I giving any vote, be it my 4th preference or not, to a person I do not want to vote for? If they are asking for 6 numbers, there is obviously an expectation that they cannot get a result from the first 5 preferences. If it is that hard to find a winner and we resort to accepting the country’s sixth favourite candidate, it isn’t much of a win for anyone.

More likely is that the legislation was drawn up with the states in mind (who will be electing 12 senators each in this DD election) and just forgot about the NT and ACT who’ll only be electing two. Hence the need for 12 choices below the line. Maybe 6 above adequately covers the need for 12 senators, I haven’t looked, because I only vote below the line.

No. becuase hare Clarke works on a quota system it is not as easy as that. Pretence allocation etc is more complex.

It’s important to remember that given there are only two Senate seats in the ACT, it really doesn’t matter where you put your preferences. Only a number 1 really matters.

govnor said :

The public got exactly who they voted for. Our voting system is not highest number of votes wins. You can disagree with the system all you like but end of the day the public got who THEY voted for.

Your statement isn’t true. If a party wins on 2nd or 3rd preferences but not 1st, then more than half the country will be disappointed in the result because they didn’t get who they voted for first. Basically we are settling for 2nd or 3rd best and more often than not it’ll be one of the two major parties, because people can see there is no point voting for minor parties if there aren’t enough candidates across the country for them to get a majority to rule the country. Last election I wanted to vote for party “A” but we had no candidates in the A.C.T., so I got stuck voting for second best as my first preference. What kind of a system do we have where you cannot vote for an ideology or political presence when you don’t have any representation in your state, yet it is supposed to be a national election? That is pretty much rigging the election by numbers, because the major parties have the funding to have enough candidates to win, whilst minor parties are really only ever going to win enough seats to have a small voice of reason in a cataclysm of left vs right. I want to vote for party “X”, why can’t I? Because Hare & Clarke have made a complete mockery of the political process and made it near on impossible for us to ever get out of Labor or Liberal control.

If a small party starts winning in a few seats they will likely have more people running for them in more seats next election. The reason either Labor or Liberal get in is because most people vote for them, either first or as the first viable party in their list, and that’s what democracy is about. (I didn’t vote first for either of those parties this election and the one that appeared on my list of 12 appeared low down, but it will no doubt be who my vote will end up with, not because the other parties are small, but because not enough other people will vote for them BEFORE the major parties.) So pleased we don’t have a system where the party that gets the most votes (which could be very low numbers) wins, regardless of the general feelings of the electorate, because of split votes. I find that undemocratic.

The public got exactly who they voted for. Our voting system is not highest number of votes wins. You can disagree with the system all you like but end of the day the public got who THEY voted for.

Your statement isn’t true. If a party wins on 2nd or 3rd preferences but not 1st, then more than half the country will be disappointed in the result because they didn’t get who they voted for first. Basically we are settling for 2nd or 3rd best and more often than not it’ll be one of the two major parties, because people can see there is no point voting for minor parties if there aren’t enough candidates across the country for them to get a majority to rule the country. Last election I wanted to vote for party “A” but we had no candidates in the A.C.T., so I got stuck voting for second best as my first preference. What kind of a system do we have where you cannot vote for an ideology or political presence when you don’t have any representation in your state, yet it is supposed to be a national election? That is pretty much rigging the election by numbers, because the major parties have the funding to have enough candidates to win, whilst minor parties are really only ever going to win enough seats to have a small voice of reason in a cataclysm of left vs right. I want to vote for party “X”, why can’t I? Because Hare & Clarke have made a complete mockery of the political process and made it near on impossible for us to ever get out of Labor or Liberal control.

If the electoral commission staff discard a senate paper with a single vote above the line (whether it be a “1” or cross or tick), they’ll be disobeying the legislation that says this is a valid vote.

Secondly, as for your preferences going where someone else wants, it’s simply not the case. There are no preference distribution beyond what you specify on the ballot paper. The only “preference deals” going on are with regard to the layout of various parties’ how-to-vote cards.

Considering that said AEC managed to “lose” 1500 votes in WA last election, I don’t think they take their duties seriously at all.

Risl can you please show us this legislation?

Go to here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5626

And look at the As Passed by Both Houses document:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r5626_aspassed/toc_pdf/16025b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Check out page 8

Most interesting – the requirement to nominate six preferences when we only have two Senators to elect makes no sense for ACT voters.

dungfungus said :

It is disappointing that you have to give a preference vote to someone you don’t want to vote for. If for example,my favorite party has only 3 candidates, why am I giving any vote, be it my 4th preference or not, to a person I do not want to vote for? If they are asking for 6 numbers, there is obviously an expectation that they cannot get a result from the first 5 preferences. If it is that hard to find a winner and we resort to accepting the country’s sixth favourite candidate, it isn’t much of a win for anyone.

More likely is that the legislation was drawn up with the states in mind (who will be electing 12 senators each in this DD election) and just forgot about the NT and ACT who’ll only be electing two. Hence the need for 12 choices below the line. Maybe 6 above adequately covers the need for 12 senators, I haven’t looked, because I only vote below the line.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

I have already voted as I will be travelling. As per usual I voted below the line, as I don’t like others choosing my preferences or me. It’s very easy and quick to vote below the line with twelve numbers. Yes, there were not twelve candidates that I wanted to vote for, but I doubt my vote will flow as far as number 11 and 12. There were only a couple I really wanted to vote for (none of the major parties) and I put them first. After that I voted in order of least disliked. I really can’t understand why someone would find it onerous, at least in the ACT, to vote below the line.

It is disappointing that you have to give a preference vote to someone you don’t want to vote for. If for example,my favorite party has only 3 candidates, why am I giving any vote, be it my 4th preference or not, to a person I do not want to vote for? If they are asking for 6 numbers, there is obviously an expectation that they cannot get a result from the first 5 preferences. If it is that hard to find a winner and we resort to accepting the country’s sixth favourite candidate, it isn’t much of a win for anyone.

If you are taking about 6 votes you are not talking candidate as such rather party. If you want to vote for a specific candidate then vote below the line and fill in at least 12 boxes.

Such a large number of ‘preferences’ are required in the senate due to the hare Clarke system. Is essence with preferences you are saying of the person who I didn’t vote for who would I want next and so on.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Wildturkeycanoe’s problem of understanding is best illustrated if I list a few of the Senate 1st-preference results from the last election:

Michaelia Cash (Lib) – 349
Nick Xenophon – 24,362
Zed Seselja (Lib) – 5,759
Janet Rice (Greens) – 31,311
Corey Bernardi (Lib) – 5,554
Arthur Sinodinos (Lib) – 1,488

That is one seat, but what about the final result.
Labor 25 seats
Liberal 23 + LNP 5
National 3 + LNP 1
Greens 10
Democrats 1
CLP 1
Independent 1
Other 6
Total 76

So Labor got 32% of seats, Liberal/National coalition got 42%. Nobody won outright on 1st Preferences or anything after, we just got stuck with a party that most of Australia did not want which is exactly what I was saying all along.
Even in the House of Reps Labor only got 33% and Liberal/National coalition 45.6% of the primary vote, so 54.4% of the nation did not get who they voted for. The only time Australia had a clear winner was in 1975 with Liberals taking 53.1% of the primary vote and even then they only just scraped in.
Some years the party with the most of the primary vote lost on preferences even, what kind of crazy British system is this, where your 3rd, 4th or 5th choice ends up winning and still most of the country did not want them in power?

The public got exactly who they voted for. Our voting system is not highest number of votes wins. You can disagree with the system all you like but end of the day the public got who THEY voted for.

If the electoral commission staff discard a senate paper with a single vote above the line (whether it be a “1” or cross or tick), they’ll be disobeying the legislation that says this is a valid vote.

Secondly, as for your preferences going where someone else wants, it’s simply not the case. There are no preference distribution beyond what you specify on the ballot paper. The only “preference deals” going on are with regard to the layout of various parties’ how-to-vote cards.

Risl can you please show us this legislation?

The AEC website is quite clear that for a senate vote to be considered formal there needs to be a minimum of 6 boxes numbered above the line or 12 below. Find it hard to believe they would be misinforming the public if what you are saying is true.

http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/informal_voting/

If the electoral commission staff discard a senate paper with a single vote above the line (whether it be a “1” or cross or tick), they’ll be disobeying the legislation that says this is a valid vote.

Secondly, as for your preferences going where someone else wants, it’s simply not the case. There are no preference distribution beyond what you specify on the ballot paper. The only “preference deals” going on are with regard to the layout of various parties’ how-to-vote cards.

For once the scrutineers might actually have a job to do this time, instead of just looking pretty.

If the electoral commission staff discard a senate paper with a single vote above the line (whether it be a “1” or cross or tick), they’ll be disobeying the legislation that says this is a valid vote.

Secondly, as for your preferences going where someone else wants, it’s simply not the case. There are no preference distribution beyond what you specify on the ballot paper. The only “preference deals” going on are with regard to the layout of various parties’ how-to-vote cards.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Wildturkeycanoe’s problem of understanding is best illustrated if I list a few of the Senate 1st-preference results from the last election:

Michaelia Cash (Lib) – 349
Nick Xenophon – 24,362
Zed Seselja (Lib) – 5,759
Janet Rice (Greens) – 31,311
Corey Bernardi (Lib) – 5,554
Arthur Sinodinos (Lib) – 1,488

Nobody won outright on 1st Preferences or anything after, we just got stuck with a party that most of Australia did not want which is exactly what I was saying all along.

I just think your point is very well illustrated in WA by Michaela Cash having only received 349 1st preference votes (out of 1.3million votes cast), and not only scoring a senate seat but an assistant Ministership to boot, whereas David Mrrpanda received 4,280 1st-preference votes and got nothing.

Forget leadership for the moment, what we need is an end to political parties and a consensus government by high-quality independent candidates.

Just look at the rubbish that gets put into office simply because they’ve brown-nosed their way into the good books of a political party.
The House of Reps seats of Indi and Warringah spring to mind as well.

Masquara said :

I would suggest to everybody to be on the safe side and number at least six squares as the Electoral Commission is advising in their advertising.

Ray Hadley on 2GB/2CC has been telling everybody to only put a 1 in one square but listeners are phoning and sending emails to him saying that EC staff at polling booths are telling voters to number at least six squares. So it is clear that on polling day when the votes are being counted, Electoral Commission staff will be disregarding any ballot papers with fewer than six squares numbered and counting them as informal.

I also note a small ad in today’s Daily Telegraph from the Katter Australia Party telling everybody to number every square and put The Greens last. So even the people and parties who would be most likely to follow Ray Hadley’s advice are ignoring him, eager to make sure their supporters don’t invalidate their vote.

Hadley isn’t dumb. No doubt he is telling people that becuse less valid votes overall means more valid votes to the majors. The Libs don’t want any minor parties to be in control of the Senate.

JC said :

I have already voted as I will be travelling. As per usual I voted below the line, as I don’t like others choosing my preferences or me. It’s very easy and quick to vote below the line with twelve numbers. Yes, there were not twelve candidates that I wanted to vote for, but I doubt my vote will flow as far as number 11 and 12. There were only a couple I really wanted to vote for (none of the major parties) and I put them first. After that I voted in order of least disliked. I really can’t understand why someone would find it onerous, at least in the ACT, to vote below the line.

It is disappointing that you have to give a preference vote to someone you don’t want to vote for. If for example,my favorite party has only 3 candidates, why am I giving any vote, be it my 4th preference or not, to a person I do not want to vote for? If they are asking for 6 numbers, there is obviously an expectation that they cannot get a result from the first 5 preferences. If it is that hard to find a winner and we resort to accepting the country’s sixth favourite candidate, it isn’t much of a win for anyone.

“…and there is simply no way I could make an informed ranked vote for six parties.”

Yes, there is. It’s called research. And you’d only need to do a very small amount. So do it.

I have already voted as I will be travelling. As per usual I voted below the line, as I don’t like others choosing my preferences or me. It’s very easy and quick to vote below the line with twelve numbers. Yes, there were not twelve candidates that I wanted to vote for, but I doubt my vote will flow as far as number 11 and 12. There were only a couple I really wanted to vote for (none of the major parties) and I put them first. After that I voted in order of least disliked. I really can’t understand why someone would find it onerous, at least in the ACT, to vote below the line.

I would suggest to everybody to be on the safe side and number at least six squares as the Electoral Commission is advising in their advertising.

Ray Hadley on 2GB/2CC has been telling everybody to only put a 1 in one square but listeners are phoning and sending emails to him saying that EC staff at polling booths are telling voters to number at least six squares. So it is clear that on polling day when the votes are being counted, Electoral Commission staff will be disregarding any ballot papers with fewer than six squares numbered and counting them as informal.

I also note a small ad in today’s Daily Telegraph from the Katter Australia Party telling everybody to number every square and put The Greens last. So even the people and parties who would be most likely to follow Ray Hadley’s advice are ignoring him, eager to make sure their supporters don’t invalidate their vote.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Wildturkeycanoe’s problem of understanding is best illustrated if I list a few of the Senate 1st-preference results from the last election:

Michaelia Cash (Lib) – 349
Nick Xenophon – 24,362
Zed Seselja (Lib) – 5,759
Janet Rice (Greens) – 31,311
Corey Bernardi (Lib) – 5,554
Arthur Sinodinos (Lib) – 1,488

That is one seat, but what about the final result.
Labor 25 seats
Liberal 23 + LNP 5
National 3 + LNP 1
Greens 10
Democrats 1
CLP 1
Independent 1
Other 6
Total 76

So Labor got 32% of seats, Liberal/National coalition got 42%. Nobody won outright on 1st Preferences or anything after, we just got stuck with a party that most of Australia did not want which is exactly what I was saying all along.
Even in the House of Reps Labor only got 33% and Liberal/National coalition 45.6% of the primary vote, so 54.4% of the nation did not get who they voted for. The only time Australia had a clear winner was in 1975 with Liberals taking 53.1% of the primary vote and even then they only just scraped in.
Some years the party with the most of the primary vote lost on preferences even, what kind of crazy British system is this, where your 3rd, 4th or 5th choice ends up winning and still most of the country did not want them in power?

Wildturkeycanoe’s problem of understanding is best illustrated if I list a few of the Senate 1st-preference results from the last election:

Michaelia Cash (Lib) – 349
Nick Xenophon – 24,362
Zed Seselja (Lib) – 5,759
Janet Rice (Greens) – 31,311
Corey Bernardi (Lib) – 5,554
Arthur Sinodinos (Lib) – 1,488

Just like the other comments so far, all this numbering 1 to 6 stuff is simply ridiculous.
If they think that having preferences is good, look at it this way. If one candidate cannot win outright on 1st vote, then 2nd preferences get counted, then 3rd and 4th etc., the guy or girl who ends up winning doesn’t have a majority of people wanting them to lead and most people get the person who was their 3rd, 4th, 5th or even 6th choice for the job.
If preferences are supposed to bring an outcome to the election that gives clear leadership to one party over another so they can perform official duties, why have so many of the recent elections had independents at the helm with the two major parties unable to form a majority government? Basically we’ve ended up with a person who got less than a tenth of the country’s vote calling the shots! That is absurd and even worse than having two opposing sides sitting in government unable to make any decisions at all.

The root of the problem isn’t so much that the system doesn’t work, but the fact that the people are so evenly divided between the two major parties that we will never form a government that has more than 50% of the nation backing it. There is no voting system that will determine a winner when the numbers are stacked like this. The only way for things to change is for the people to be swayed in one direction or another, so that a majority of them decide they like one candidate much more than the other. A lack of political gusto on the part of our “leaders” has made the country indifferent to their policies, which are so alike it is impossible to tell who is conservative and who is more liberal. If only someone went out on a limb, took a chance with the country and their own political future instead of being so safe and mundane, we might see some great changes to our country.
Unfortunately the only exciting thing about this year’s elections is the numbering system, which is only going to make the outcome even more difficult to calculate. If only something or someone would bring some life, some fresh air into the government of this nation. With the tied hands of our current system, the stagnant policies, the constant bickering and name calling in the houses of parliament, we will slip away from the first world status fought for by our forebears. Another term of these gutless puppets and we will see the country ruined, destitute, full of promise but nobody willing to make something of it. Whilst the nation flips a coin to determine the winner, the value of that coin drops as quickly as it falls to the ground.

What a lot of nonsense just to elect 2 people.

if you 1,2,3, above the line your vote extinguish at the last selection.
If you think preferential voting stinks like I do This is exactly what you do.

I’m not leaving my vote for a candidate to decide who nose they will wipe with it. If my guy can’t win on his own well too bad too sad. Put in a better effort.

Will preferences flow according to the ticket preferences or will your vote extinguish if the vote has to be redistributed?

I know this is a moot point if the vote is for a major political party because the vote won’t be redistributed. I think whoever forms government is going to regret the senate reforms because I think we will end up with more cross benchers in the senate.

Yeah but the likes of the greens, Xenophon and even palmed United. Not too many minor parties or true independents.

Also it isn’t the AEC that made the change. The parliament made the changes and the AEC are just following the new legislation.

Will preferences flow according to the ticket preferences or will your vote extinguish if the vote has to be redistributed?

I know this is a moot point if the vote is for a major political party because the vote won’t be redistributed. I think whoever forms government is going to regret the senate reforms because I think we will end up with more cross benchers in the senate.

Still don’t have a “None of the above” option.

Btw, for those who still vote below the line, you may find https://www.clueyvoter.com/ useful.