Misleading instructions on the ballot papers at our election

Caf pointed this to me the other week on here.
All the advice given at the polling place was completely wrong.

wildturkeycanoe said :

If it is legal to place only one “1” on the ballot paper and it is a legitimate vote, why does it state on the ballot paper that you have to “number at least 5 boxes from 1 to 5”?
This has to be the most illegal and rigged deception ever conjured. It’s like saying “you have to vote for me or else”, without adding “I won’t win”.
Disenfranchised with the whole thing. Total waste of everyone’s time, as bad as X-Factor, as bad as Big Brother, as …..lost for words.

It’s true that a vote with a number 1 against a single candidate is formal. However, if everyone did that, with the Hare-Clark system, barely anyone would be elected. Look at the results from last night – only Katy and Zed got a quota of 1st preference votes on their own. So we’d have a Legislative Assembly with 2 people in it (actually, just Katy and Zed could be interesting to watch … :). Anyway, the primary vote is spread amongst a large group of people, and is redistributed to a smaller group of people based on preferences. That can’t happen if people don’t indicate what their preferences are.

Personally, I think it would be better if the voting instructions were “your vote will be most effective if you number at least 5 (7) candidates” rather than “you have to number at least 5 (7) candidates”, but that’s not the way the electoral commission chooses to do it.

poetix said :

It would be interesting to see how things would have turned out with different voting systems; for example the ‘normal’ preferential system.

God, I think I’m turning into Antony Green.

Well, under the “normal” single-member-electorate system, we’d only have 3 MLAs.

On the current results, Gininderra and Molonglo would have elected an ALP candidate, and Brindabella would be down to the wire between ALP and Liberal, but leaning Liberal.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Show me somewhere else in the world where they use Hare Clark(e) FFS.

Tasmania.

Thanks

If it is legal to place only one “1” on the ballot paper and it is a legitimate vote, why does it state on the ballot paper that you have to “number at least 5 boxes from 1 to 5”?
This has to be the most illegal and rigged deception ever conjured. It’s like saying “you have to vote for me or else”, without adding “I won’t win”.
Disenfranchised with the whole thing. Total waste of everyone’s time, as bad as X-Factor, as bad as Big Brother, as …..lost for words.

Show me somewhere else in the world where they use Hare Clark(e) FFS.

Tasmania.

It would be interesting to see how things would have turned out with different voting systems; for example the ‘normal’ preferential system.

God, I think I’m turning into Antony Green.

c_c said :

Interesting thing is will the E-Voting terminals let you submit the ballot with less than 5 preferences filled in. I didn’t try it, but there could be some interesting legal arguments to follow if it’s found the terminals did compel people to fill in 5.

By e voting you mean he barcode and number pad right? I only put 4 numbers in and it accepted it, even after annoying old man stuck is nose in and said you sure that’s your vote?

Show me somewhere else in the world where they use Hare Clark(e) FFS.

c_c said :

Interesting thing is will the E-Voting terminals let you submit the ballot with less than 5 preferences filled in. I didn’t try it, but there could be some interesting legal arguments to follow if it’s found the terminals did compel people to fill in 5.

I didn’t use e-voting this year, but in 2008 I did (at Gungahlin). I tried submitting it with only 1 number and that didn’t work – needed a minimum of whatever the number of candidates was. Other than that, I liked e-voting: the barcode used isn’t associated with your name, you’re crossed off the list and someone else gives you the code, then you put the code in the ballot box once you’ve voted. Was nice to know there was some anonymity.

Interesting thing is will the E-Voting terminals let you submit the ballot with less than 5 preferences filled in. I didn’t try it, but there could be some interesting legal arguments to follow if it’s found the terminals did compel people to fill in 5.

ChrisinTurner said :

I am confused. My wife said she voted (for the first time)according to the Green “How to vote” card which only gave three people 1,2,3. Was her vote counted??

Yes.

The problems seem less to do with the structure of the voting system than they are to do with an underinformed electorate; many voters understand the electoral system poorly and while to some extent party brands are sold quite well at the election, voters get very little information about the competencies and beliefs of individual candidates.

Electoral reform should be first and foremost targeted at helping relevant and informative electoral material reach the electorate.

Although there is an argument to say that a disinterested electorate is an endorsement of the system as one which more-or-less works.

@damianheffernan

Whilst we all contemplate our navels and work out how much lint accumulates there over a human lifetime, we patiently await for you to elucidate your preferred fair voting system and methodology…

I thought you may find this an interesting read as it makes things a little easier to understand through visualisation:
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

Should have said Stanhope.

Sorry, couldn’t help it. And I knew someone would notice….

p1 said :

20% of the other people all vote for Hitler. Are you saying…

@p1:
You invoked a Godwin Event by resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, so you immediately lost the argument.

Please be more observant of the implications of Godwin on internet discussions, and you will go far.
(Google Godwin’s Law if you want to know more)

I reckon the ballot papers should have a ‘None of the above’ option. If ‘None of the above’ won then there would be a another election where all of the previous candidates were barred from standing.

I like this idea rather a lot.

I do find the Hare Clark system to be strange in that someone can get elected with 3300 votes in an electorate of 85,000.

Say for example there is a lot of people that are all quite popular, and 80% of votes are split between 20 candidates. Then all 20% of the other people all vote for Hitler. Are you saying that Hitler should be elected with 20% of the vote, or there should be consideration for the fact that the other 80% would rather anyone else but him?

@Damian:

I suggest you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox

Would you care to suggest an alternative voting system that meets all “your” criteria rather than just whinge?

As Deano said, that was my point. I should probably be more specific and note that it’s Hare Clark and the changes we had to the electoral Act combined that add up to a Party biased electoral system, but this post was about the fact that we were led to believe we had to vote the minimum preferences and not from 1 and up as is legal. Independents are no longer able to group in our elections. For interest “The last occasion in Tasmania where an ungrouped candidate was elected was in 1959, and I am not aware of an Ungrouped candidate ever being elected to the Senate or to any state Legislative Council.”*

By first preference Canberrans actualy elected 3 people as they were the only ones to make quota.

I can’t actually find an Independent in Tassie since 1928 but that may be just me.

In our own State if you look through the blow by blow of the preference counting you’ll see that Independents with substantially more votes than Party memebers get knocked off as the other Party members get excluded. This shows why Labor and Libs ran so many Candidates, for the preferences. But not too many Candidates as shown in this article (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2008/07/labor-running-t.html#more) because running 6 would have split the Party candidates so of course both of the Majors ran 5 (different for Molonglo).

In Molonglo Pangallo got 3513 votes but wasn’t elected, instead Caroline Le COUTEUR with 3334 first preference votes got in, on preferences.

I do find the Hare Clark system to be strange in that someone can get elected with 3300 votes in an electorate of 85,000.

*http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2008/03/independents-to.html

ellingly said :

Notably, the electronic voting system would not let you put in less than 7 candidates. And most certainly it would not let you do a donkey vote.

I have never been a fan of the electronic voting system as it fails to provide an independent hardcopy audit trail (i.e. something akin to a physical ballot slip that the voter has to verify actually concurs with his/her electronic vote).. but I digress.

The system should allow you to vote for as few or as many candidates (up to the number on the ballot paper). The system only allows you to lodge an “informal” vote by allowing you to select no candidates, however you should also be able to vote for fewer than the minimum number of candidates to be elected. The electronic voting system definitely will not allow you to vote informally in any other manner.

The problem with numbering all of the preferences is that it does not represent how I want to vote. On any ballot there will be one or two people I want to be elected, a couple more I am indifferent about, and the rest (usually the majority) I definitely do not want elected under any circumstance. By numbering every preference I would be effectively increasing the chances of one or more of the ‘do not want to be elected’ candidates getting elected, even if my first preferences get up.

I hadn’t considered the possibility until I’d already started, at which time you can’t easily ‘cancel’ and thus do an invalid vote. I guess you could scan it, go “stuff this”, walk away, chuck the barcode into the ballot box and let some election official reset the electronic system.

Overall, the electronic stuff worked okay. Was a bit clunky, but, it seemed to handle most of my complaints with electronic voting adequately. I’d still like an open system to know (as well as possible) that my vote had been counted – at least it let you review it and reset if it was cocked up, and the anonymisation combined with one-person-one-vote is a pretty good setup.

Anyway, seems that it tries to force you to vote ‘correctly’ even if its measure of ‘correctly’ is not exactly the same as the act. Not that providing up to 7 preferences is that onerous.

It turns out, on further reading, that while I’m familiar with the operation, I’m not familiar with the spelling of Hare-Clark. My apologies to Mr Clark 🙂

Ellingly: That’s an interesting point about electronic voting – I admit I hadn’t considered it. However it sounds like the same ability to non-vote exists there too.

Damien: In the interests of being a bit more informative than just saying “no, you’re wrong”, here’s Wikipedia’s article on the Single Transferable Vote system (which is the generic name for what we call Hare Clarke). I can assure you that after your first (and latter) preferences are excluded your vote very much continues to count. And…

It’s not like they go through all your preferences and allocate down to the 17th.

Yes, that’s exactly what it’s like, if you numbered them that far and your earlier preferences are excluded or have reached over-quota.

… note that I was voting in Molongolo, hence 7.

Notably, the electronic voting system would not let you put in less than 7 candidates. And most certainly it would not let you do a donkey vote. What one could have done is to grab the barcode they give you and chuck it straight into the ballot box.

Damian: I’m pretty familiar with how Hare Clarke works, thanks. And if it’s all the same with you, I’m just going to stand by my original post.

Damian, I suspect you are almost as far from correct as anyone can be, before they have to turn around and start coming back.
However I would like to hear this theory of yours.

Please, explain Hare Clarke to us, preferably making reference to every single instance where someone got it wrong..

damianheffernan said :

@spectra
have a read of how Hare Clark works. You are wasting every one of your preferences after the candidate you preferenced first is excluded. It’s not like they go through all your preferences and allocate down to the 17th.

The Hare Clark system favours Parties and is hard on minors and independents.

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong here Damian.

@spectra
have a read of how Hare Clark works. You are wasting every one of your preferences after the candidate you preferenced first is excluded. It’s not like they go through all your preferences and allocate down to the 17th.

The Hare Clark system favours Parties and is hard on minors and independents.

As far as I’m concerned Elections A.C.T. stole 4 votes off me, and I want them back.

Okay, that’s just about the stupidest thing I’ve read this year.

Nobody can force you to put a number anywhere. The nature of our secret ballot system is such that if you don’t want to vote for anyone, you can quite easily do so by not putting a number in any boxes. Yes, it may be illegal in the most technical of senses, but those who drafted the laws must have done so in the understanding that in a secret ballot it is impossible to enforce mandatory formal voting. All you have to actually do is turn up an get your name marked off.

This deception benefits the Major Parties as you are forced to put preferences and if you vote for an Independent or someone as unlikely to get elected then basically all your vote is worth is the preferences.

How? If you really do insist on numbering multiple boxes, put all your numbers for independents or other people unlikely to get elected. No benefit to the major parties, problem solved.

Bugger me – if this is the biggest problem with our electoral system, we should be dancing in the streets.

(For what it’s worth, I number every box – stuffed if I’m going to have my preferences exhausted).

I am confused. My wife said she voted (for the first time)according to the Green “How to vote” card which only gave three people 1,2,3. Was her vote counted??

Almost certainly – from conversations I’ve had in the past with scrutineers, the bent is very much towards trying to value a vote as close to the intent as possible. Even an X in a single candidate tends to get treated as a ‘1’ for them. (I’m not a scrutineer myself, so don’t quote me on this, but it would seem to be in line with what jimbocool says the election act says).

I am confused. My wife said she voted (for the first time)according to the Green “How to vote” card which only gave three people 1,2,3. Was her vote counted??

Here, you dropped these straws. Maybe you shouldn’t clutch at them so hard.

There is a difference between how to vote, and what is required for a vote to be counted. The Act needs to specify the minimum requirement, but the instructions on the ballot paper should help you make the most of your vote. It can only benefit the major parties if you put a number in one or more of their boxes.

Nonetheless, I think Deano is absolutely right. A ‘none of the above’ option that forces us to come back a week later and try again to get reasonable candidates would not only make the candidates more responsible for their policies, it would also encourage lazy voters to get it right the first time so we don’t have to keep wasting our Saturdays at the polling booth.

I think it would be better still, though, if elections were always held on Mondays or Fridays, and you didn’t have to go to work on that day. That way you could have a long weekend to compensate (partially) for having to listen to all the pollies’ crap for six months.

The relevant part of the ACT electoral act requires the electoral commission to ‘instruct’ voters to put 1 to 5 or 1 to 7. However, as long as there is a valid first preference indicated, it counts as a formal vote. It’s a delicate distinction, but that’s the law – cue Jakez and something about libertarianism.

I reckon the ballot papers should have a ‘None of the above’ option. If ‘None of the above’ won then there would be a another election where all of the previous candidates were barred from standing.

I think our council elections used the same system: parties had an above the line option, and just numbering one box above the line was a valid vote.
However, if you voted for individuals below the line, you had to number at least 5 boxes for it to count.

Is this the same in the ACT?