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
harvyk1 harvyk1 10:00 am 11 Sep 13

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.

johnboy johnboy 10:03 am 11 Sep 13

Almost, but not quite time….

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

Robertson Robertson 10:20 am 11 Sep 13

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.

    johnboy johnboy 10:26 am 11 Sep 13

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

BimboGeek BimboGeek 10:25 am 11 Sep 13

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

DrKoresh DrKoresh 10:30 am 11 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Almost, but not quite time….

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

Yay! Thanks JB 😀

Robertson Robertson 10:33 am 11 Sep 13

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/

troll-sniffer troll-sniffer 10:34 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.

johnboy johnboy 10:39 am 11 Sep 13

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.

Deref Deref 10:39 am 11 Sep 13

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.

farout farout 10:45 am 11 Sep 13

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.

Swaggie Swaggie 10:56 am 11 Sep 13

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

harvyk1 harvyk1 10:59 am 11 Sep 13

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.

harvyk1 harvyk1 11:00 am 11 Sep 13

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…

bikhet bikhet 11:03 am 11 Sep 13

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

vet111 vet111 11:04 am 11 Sep 13

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.

Robertson Robertson 11:15 am 11 Sep 13

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.

Robertson Robertson 11:18 am 11 Sep 13

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”.

Gismondo Gismondo 11:27 am 11 Sep 13

26. Kate Lundy
27. Zed Seseldja

tonkatuff82 tonkatuff82 11:32 am 11 Sep 13

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

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