Vast swathes of below the line votes remain to be counted

johnboy 11 September 2013 41

The Canberra Times reports that before you think it’s all over in the Senate Race there have been a record number of below the line votes, something like 20%.

One imagines few who went to that trouble put Zed first. In fact, anecdotally, below the line we hear he’s often dead last.

With that 20% still not appearing in the count don’t go getting too excited about any talk of a quota.

It’s game on.

(Should have answered your questions Zed)


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
41 Responses to Vast swathes of below the line votes remain to be counted
Filter
Order
Samuel Gordon-Stewart Samuel Gordon-Stewart 11:53 pm 11 Sep 13

I’m not entirely sure which one I enjoyed more. Voting below the line or putting a “1” in the box next to Zed. Both were very enjoyable, but I think the “27” next to Simon Sheikh was more satisfying.

chewy14 chewy14 7:30 pm 11 Sep 13

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/green-hand-the-power-of-preferences-back-to-the-people/4951020

Another excellent article on the preference farce by Antony Green.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 5:41 pm 11 Sep 13

Vote 27, Zed Seselja!

skip71 skip71 5:13 pm 11 Sep 13

Listeing to Ross Solly ans Simon Shiekh on 666 the other day I learned that you can vote both above and below the line. Simon referred to it as an insurance policy in case you make a numbering accident below the line.

I had not heard this before.

p1 p1 4:57 pm 11 Sep 13

caf said :

Yes – the first candidate to be eliminated can be considered last place…..

johnboy said :

A but the candidate with the most 27s on the ballot might well have more 1’s than the non-entities

Yeah, last place is not nearly the same as most hated. Would be a tight race between the witch haters and Zed (be he dead or otherwise).

caf caf 4:46 pm 11 Sep 13

aussielyn said :

After the count is finalized it would be interesting to find out the vote for last (27th)

Does anyone know if this info will be available?

Yes – the first candidate to be eliminated can be considered last place, and that will be shown in the Distribution of Preferences, which will be available on the AEC Senate Results page. Looking at current first preference totals I’m guessing the wooden spoon will either go to the Independent Emmanuel Ezekiel-Hart or the second candidate for the Drug Law Reform Party, Stacey Dowson.

    johnboy johnboy 4:51 pm 11 Sep 13

    A but the candidate with the most 27s on the ballot might well have more 1’s than the non-entities

aussielyn aussielyn 4:09 pm 11 Sep 13

After the count is finalized it would be interesting to find out the vote for last (27th)

Does anyone know if this info will be available?

housebound housebound 3:27 pm 11 Sep 13

watto23 said :

I think though both in 2010 and 2013 there was a concerted effort to oust the liberal senator by assigning below the line votes and many labor voters putting the green first and labor second.

This understanding of how the preferential system worked was decried by major parties and Nick Xenephon as gaming the system when micro parties did it last weekend.

I’m more on the side of diversity and upsetting the cosy system of two majors, one minor and a couple of entrenched independents.

watto23 watto23 2:11 pm 11 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Worth considering Kate Lundy isn’t sitting on an enormous quota either…

I think though both in 2010 and 2013 there was a concerted effort to oust the liberal senator by assigning below the line votes and many labor voters putting the green first and labor second.

That said either way at least the second senate spot is now effectively marginal and could be of value to the major parties, although i doubt it.

I still think under representation in federal government is out biggest problem. 4 seats aren’t worth bothering about, especially when it would take a mighty effort by a non labor party to win one. Greens as bad as their results have been of late probably have a better chance than liberals.

caf caf 1:36 pm 11 Sep 13

harvyk1 said :

Deref said :

The informal vote is something like electoral Darwinism; if you’re too stupid to know how to do it, then it’s probably a good thing that you’re not counted.

I pseudo agree with that, the informal vote can also be by accident, made by someone who does know what they are doing, and who simply forgot that they’d already allocated the number 19 to someone else. Because there was a 19 twice, numbers 1 to 18 are not counted either, despite the fact that chances are a persons 19th place is unlikely to ever be counted when determining preferences. For a persons 19th place getter to be counted as a vote, the person would have needed to vote for the 18 most unpopular candidates ever first.

That’s not quite how it works in the Senate, because of the way that excess quotas are distributed. In this case, if you didn’t vote for either Zed or Simon in the first 18 preferences, then your 19th and higher preferences will still come in to play (albeit at greatly reduced value if you voted 1 for Kate Lundy).

Kim F Kim F 1:36 pm 11 Sep 13

He got a beautifully hand-crafted “27” from this bloke!

TheMal TheMal 1:34 pm 11 Sep 13

harvyk1 said :

Deref said :

The informal vote is something like electoral Darwinism; if you’re too stupid to know how to do it, then it’s probably a good thing that you’re not counted.

I pseudo agree with that, the informal vote can also be by accident, made by someone who does know what they are doing, and who simply forgot that they’d already allocated the number 19 to someone else. Because there was a 19 twice, numbers 1 to 18 are not counted either, despite the fact that chances are a persons 19th place is unlikely to ever be counted when determining preferences. For a persons 19th place getter to be counted as a vote, the person would have needed to vote for the 18 most unpopular candidates ever first.

This is incorrect. The savings provision under S270 of the act allows for misnumbering of preferences. In the case if the senate, 90% of the squares need to be numbered with three or less errors.

muntychops muntychops 1:20 pm 11 Sep 13

To quote Pulp Fiction, Zed’s dead baby !

LSWCHP LSWCHP 1:08 pm 11 Sep 13

I started from the bottom, because I wanted to squeeze every drop of juice out of exercising my democratic rights.

The Rise Up nutters got dead last from me. The bullet train no-hopers were second last. And then (and this still gives me a little frisson of pleasure) third last for Zed. And Mrs LSWCHP did pretty much the same.

I’m still hoping against hope for a Zed defeat.

peitab peitab 12:57 pm 11 Sep 13

I really struggled with only having one last place vote to assign, and so many worthy candidates ripe for last place. It would have been lovely to assign last place to about 15 of the 27 candidates.

HiddenDragon HiddenDragon 12:40 pm 11 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Worth considering Kate Lundy isn’t sitting on an enormous quota either…

Perhaps the nightmare memories triggered by the return of Kevin suppressed the local Labor vote.

Section44 Section44 11:58 am 11 Sep 13

I was just looking at the AEC results page and a far as I can understand the Liderals got 28262 votes above the line so far and 41227 below the line, which haven’t been allocated to candidates yet. If I am understanding it correctly there is a chance the 2nd senate seat will go to Merinda Nash and not Zed or Simon.

housebound housebound 11:57 am 11 Sep 13

The aec website shows that 79% of votes have been counted. Is the 20% JB refers to the same uncounted 20% (postal and prepoll votes)? Or is JB’s 20% part of the ‘unallocated’ votes? If it is the latter, then 20% of people who voted liberal voted Zed last, and we should see some interesting results once votes are allocated to candidates.

Innovation Innovation 11:46 am 11 Sep 13

Unless I’m missing something, there’s still 50,000+ first preferences to count. I thought I read that the AEC had counted all of the 1’s from above and below the line. Is this then just pre poll and postal votes left? If it is, don’t the Libs traditionally do well from pre poll and postal’s (ie the wealthier voters are often the ones who can afford to travel or are higher paid workers on business trips)?

farout farout 11:42 am 11 Sep 13

harvyk1 said :

I do believe you $2 something goes to whom ever you put a 1 against, above or below…

A candidate or Senate group is eligible for election funding if they obtain at least 4% of the first preference vote in the division or the state or territory they contested. Source: http://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_funding/index.htm

So if you put a 1 against a party that is unlikely to pull 4% of the ‘1’ vote, you’re saving the taxpayer some money.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site