11 September 2013

Vast swathes of below the line votes remain to be counted

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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)

Join the conversation

41
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Samuel Gordon-Stewart11:53 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.

Holden Caulfield5:41 pm 11 Sep 13

Vote 27, Zed Seselja!

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.

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).

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

To quote Pulp Fiction, Zed’s dead baby !

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.

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.

HiddenDragon12:40 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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

“Whose old Senate seat is this?”
“It’s Zed’s”
“Who’s Zed?”
“Zed’s dead baby”

26. Kate Lundy
27. Zed Seseldja

farout said :

I voted under the line, just because I didn’t think any party should get Election Funding.

Yeah – that’s how I voted in the House of Reps – as it’s a foregone conclusion, I might as well save the taxpayer some money by voting the Secular Party “1”.

johnboy said :

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

I can’t see that being a problem – in the unlikely event she didn’t get the quota on first preferences, the vast bulk of preferences eventually flow to her anyway.

If Sheikh *does* get in, he’s going to have to behave very well indeed to eventually retain the seat – he will need to avoid all the obvious nutty-Green distractions the rest of them fell for and which caused their demise in the local assembly.

troll-sniffer said :

I normally vote above the line but this time I patiently numbered every square until I could put the magic number 27 next to Zed’s name. It’s a measure of how far down the estimation pole he was that i was prepared to put fundamentalist Christians and the like above him… yuck my stomach still churns at the choices I was forced to make, alone and friendless in that little cardboard cubicle.

I voted below the line as I always do, but I’m in Eden-Monaro. 27? Pfft…. in my dreams.

I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’ve got to say the 110 candidates and the metre long ballot paper was a bit ridiculous. No wonder most people vote above the line, and we now have the dubious pleasure of a Lib Dem senator.

Stone motherless last – even below the Green blow-in.

farout said :

I voted under the line, just because I didn’t think any party should get Election Funding.
So it was 1 for someone I don’t even remember – probably the Euthanasia guys or the Independent, then the Libs.
So there are a few (well, at least one) below the line votes that will go the Lib’s way.

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

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.

Going from 1- 27 with Zed last was perhaps the most enjoyable thing I did last Saturday morning. Bring back Gary! 🙂

I voted under the line, just because I didn’t think any party should get Election Funding.
So it was 1 for someone I don’t even remember – probably the Euthanasia guys or the Independent, then the Libs.
So there are a few (well, at least one) below the line votes that will go the Lib’s way.

There’s hope yet, then. I couldn’t bring myself to put anyone but Danny Nalliah’s mob last, but Zed was a close second.

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.

Robertson said :

You wouldn’t guess this was still undecided if you glanced at the ABC’s “results” site:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/

The ACT appears to be breaking the model. Helps we had a “mere” 27 below the line candidates.

troll-sniffer10:34 am 11 Sep 13

I normally vote above the line but this time I patiently numbered every square until I could put the magic number 27 next to Zed’s name. It’s a measure of how far down the estimation pole he was that i was prepared to put fundamentalist Christians and the like above him… yuck my stomach still churns at the choices I was forced to make, alone and friendless in that little cardboard cubicle.

You wouldn’t guess this was still undecided if you glanced at the ABC’s “results” site:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/

johnboy said :

Almost, but not quite time….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM

Yay! Thanks JB 😀

ACT did well. Lowest informal vote count across the country. We know what we are doing.

He wasn’t last on mine, either, I seem to recall being *very* challenged by the choice between the fundamentalist christians and the right-wing nutters to put dead last.
So, from memory, Zed got 5th-last on mine.

I must say, I got a fair way through numbering the boxes before I got to Emmanuel in the Independents – I wasn’t wearing my glasses so I couldn’t really read his name until I squinted, but I had intended to put him much higher than I did. I think I gave him 11.
Not that it matters, of course,
Sheikh 1
Lundy 2
was as much as matters.

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

Yeah, I’ve met Zed a couple of times, and personally I don’t think this could have happened to a nicer guy. For the record, he wasn’t dead last on my vote, but he was certainly way down the line.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.