Election today - Don't forget to vote

[karj]

I want to illustrate a point about just how preferences impact on elections and the potential to distort democracy when people vote above the line in the senate.

Look at the Victoria senate count at the moment with 49.97% of the vote counted (so not final figures).

AMEP has got 0.52% of the primary vote thus far with 9,258 votes which equates to a quota of 0.0366. They need a quota of 1 to get a senator elected.

After preference distributions, AMEP jump to 15.08% of the vote (266,379 votes) and a quota of 1.0566, which means that a candidate for AMEP is elected to the senate.

With over 95% of people voting above the line on the senate ballot paper... it means that most people would have preferenced AMEP without realising what they have done. Of course, these people may have chosen to preference AMEP anyway, but maybe not.

So if we were to stop counting with only half the votes actually counted, we have a situation where AMEP would be elected to the last senate position with just 0.52% of the primary vote.

Good for the AMEP... bad for representative democracy.

If this isn't a case for electoral reform, then I don't know what is.

Of course, votes are only half counted at this stage, so when the figures are all in, AMEP may not actually get that 6th Vic Senate spot.

[Syndrome]

Not only did I vote but I also marked every number on the senator paper under the line. Too many people are just ignorant or lazy to do the right thing.

[karj]

Originally Posted by karj

I want to illustrate a point about just how preferences impact on elections and the potential to distort democracy when people vote above the line in the senate.

Look at the Victoria senate count at the moment with 49.97% of the vote counted (so not final figures).

AMEP has got 0.52% of the primary vote thus far with 9,258 votes which equates to a quota of 0.0366. They need a quota of 1 to get a senator elected.

After preference distributions, AMEP jump to 15.08% of the vote (266,379 votes) and a quota of 1.0566, which means that a candidate for AMEP is elected to the senate.

With over 95% of people voting above the line on the senate ballot paper... it means that most people would have preferenced AMEP without realising what they have done. Of course, these people may have chosen to preference AMEP anyway, but maybe not.

So if we were to stop counting with only half the votes actually counted, we have a situation where AMEP would be elected to the last senate position with just 0.52% of the primary vote.

Good for the AMEP... bad for representative democracy.

If this isn't a case for electoral reform, then I don't know what is.

Of course, votes are only half counted at this stage, so when the figures are all in, AMEP may not actually get that 6th Vic Senate spot.

A similar thing appears to be happening in WA with the Australian Sports Party (however, very early days there atm with only 27% of the vote counted).

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats appear to have picked up a senate position in NSW because they were first on the ballot paper and people confused them with the Liberal Party (position on ballot papers are determined through a random draw conducted by the AEC).

[mik]

In my area every term, the ballot voting thing is organized very well, in and out in 10 minutes, i would have liked to filled the whole form out , but i'm not clued up enough to know all the parties, in any event , i'm pretty happy with the outcome, about the hardest part for voting was getting getting a park close, but it wasn't that bad.
as for the bloke that put dicks on his form....... you voted for labor mate.

[karj]

Originally Posted by mik

In my area every term, the ballot voting thing is organized very well, in and out in 10 minutes, i would have liked to filled the whole form out , but i'm not clued up enough to know all the parties, in any event , i'm pretty happy with the outcome, about the hardest part for voting was getting getting a park close, but it wasn't that bad.
as for the bloke that put dicks on his form....... you voted for labor mate.

No he didn't. Defaced ballots are classified as informal votes and are not counted, thus have no bearing on the outcome of the election. Informal votes are NOT a vote for the incumbent, nor are donkey votes (because the position on the ballot paper is determined by a random draw). Don't really know why this particular election myth is so widespread.

... or am I just being thick and you are making a joke about Labor?

[karj]

Originally Posted by cs123

Nope, I only wanted to preference 2 minor parties, after that I went to the majors and it didn't matter after that.

Preferences after that do matter.

Senate positions are determined by quotas. If the major parties get votes surplus to the required quota, then surplus votes are transferred to the candidates you next preferenced. Because it can't be determined what votes are "surplus" all the votes for the successful candidate are transferred (at a reduced rate) to the candidates you next preferenced.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/senate_count.htm

This isn't directed specifically at you, but I think we need a major education campaign to inform people how our electoral system works because it's pretty clear that many people don't understand it.

[ILLaViTaR]

Ummmm Geelong lost today so it's not like voting would've done anything.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by karj

This isn't directed specifically at you, but I think we need a major education campaign to inform people how our electoral system works because it's pretty clear that many people don't understand it.

You seem to be clued up on this. I'm not a voter so my opinion matters little BUT

Why is voting so complex that the vast majority do not understand it? Why is it not done on line with results being available in an instant. Voting closes at 5pm and results are known at 5.05. People can vote at any time any place.

I have to wonder why at times we are so backward.

[mik]

Originally Posted by karj

No he didn't. Defaced ballots are classified as informal votes and are not counted, thus have no bearing on the outcome of the election. Informal votes are NOT a vote for the incumbent, nor are donkey votes (because the position on the ballot paper is determined by a random draw). Don't really know why this particular election myth is so widespread.

... or am I just being thick and you are making a joke about Labor?

my bad , i was misinformed then, looks like i'm the thick one, i think that was the consensus that labor was a joke, hence getting their marching orders, but i could be wrong.

[karj]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Why is voting so complex that the vast majority do not understand it?

We have full preferential voting, which is what makes things complicated to the point of people not understanding it. There are different models of voting in use all over the world, but the benefit of preferential voting is that it *should* be more representative of community views.

It means that even if our preferred candidate doesn't get enough votes, our vote will be directed towards the next person we like (and so on until there is a clear winner). The way votes are tallied in both houses is slightly different, but preferential voting in my opinion is the fairest electoral system because it should moderate the vote towards the political centre (and majority) of the electorate.

In reality, what happens is that people make a decision they want to vote for 1 person and don't really take much notice of who they vote for after that. On polling day, they accept a flyer from the person they want to vote for which tells them how to direct preferences and they follow this mistakenly thinking that because their ideology matches the candidate, then the candidates preferences must match theirs. Some candidates do distribute preferences according to ideology, but many do deals with other parties to strategically maximise their vote (and therefore maximise their chances at election).

Above the line voting (allowing a party to distribute preferences on your behalf) was introduced for the senate ballot paper because there was so many candidates running that when people had to number them all, they made numbering errors that invalidated their vote. It was decided that it was much simpler to just put a 1 in the box of who you want to vote for and accept the party will direct your vote in accordance with your views. Except, that's not what happens...

Things can be done to address this, like introducing partial preferential voting so people don't have to number up to ridiculous high double digit or triple digit figures. Abolishing above the line voting would also go some way to stopping the strategic misuse of preferences by parties.

The electoral system also needs to be taught thoroughly in highschools, complete with mock elections so that students can practice vote.

Originally Posted by Stefan

Why is it not done on line with results being available in an instant. Voting closes at 5pm and results are known at 5.05. People can vote at any time any place.

The AEC are trialling electronic voting this year in some polling booths, so that is the way of the future. We will probably eventually be able to vote online from our own home, but at this point in time it is probably a bit too open to manipulation.

We also wouldn't want votes to be tallied instantly after we vote because results would leak out before polling closed and this could sway people who haven't yet voted into changing their vote.

Originally Posted by Stefan

I have to wonder why at times we are so backward.

If and when you work that out, let me know.

[FGII-XR6]

that is only half accurate. I have worked quite a few elections and the way it works is that a defaced ballot is a formal vote if

1. it was marked in a way that would otherwise be formal ( numbered correctly)
2. the extra content can not identify the voter
3. the extra content does not encroach on the squares used for numbering
4. the initial of the polling official is not defaced or missing

there a few others I can't remember but these are the main ones. The number of ballots I put through as formal with comments like legalise marijuana or an uncomplimentary comment about a candidate were a lot higher than you would think and if you excluded them all the informal vote would be very high.
If one was doubtful but you didn't feel comfortable calling it the manager of the site would call it or put it in a pile for later determination

Originally Posted by karj

No he didn't. Defaced ballots are classified as informal votes and are not counted, thus have no bearing on the outcome of the election. Informal votes are NOT a vote for the incumbent, nor are donkey votes (because the position on the ballot paper is determined by a random draw). Don't really know why this particular election myth is so widespread.

... or am I just being thick and you are making a joke about Labor?

[karj]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

that is only half accurate. I have worked quite a few elections and the way it works is that a defaced ballot is a formal vote if

1. it was marked in a way that would otherwise be formal ( numbered correctly)
2. the extra content can not identify the voter
3. the extra content does not encroach on the squares used for numbering
4. the initial of the polling official is not defaced or missing

there a few others I can't remember but these are the main ones. The number of ballots I put through as formal with comments like legalise marijuana or an uncomplimentary comment about a candidate were a lot higher than you would think and if you excluded them all the informal vote would be very high.
If one was doubtful but you didn't feel comfortable calling it the manager of the site would call it or put it in a pile for later determination

Thanks for the clarification.

I do realise that is how it works, but I did a very poor job of articulating it :-)

[Franco Cozzo]

Is being forced to enrol to the AEC (and subsequently vote) part of our constitution or just legislation?

Would it be possible for a party to overturn the requirement to register with the AEC or opt out?

[FGII-XR6]

I'm fairly sure it's in the constitution but not 100% . can never understand the whinging about having to show up ( voting itself is optional) the best way to get a true picture of what the nation wants is for everyone to vote. look at the system in the US .
typically 50% to 60% of eligible people vote so half of the voters don't get involved in the "democratic process" in theory 20% could determine who runs the country in some years the voter turnout has been less than 50%
by voting you have a say and a right to complain if you don't vote I won't listen to you as you couldn't even be bothered to have your say when it counts

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Is being forced to enrol to the AEC (and subsequently vote) part of our constitution or just legislation?

Would it be possible for a party to overturn the requirement to register with the AEC or opt out?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

can never understand the whinging about having to show up ( voting itself is optional)

If voting was optional it probably wouldn't be called "Australian Electoral Commission".

I never enrolled, and I stand by that because they just forced these AEC forms on us in high school in 2008/2009, there was never one explanation on how the system actually works, preference etc. The teachers weren't actually allowed to tell us anything about politics.

So I never bothered and a lot of people I know just informal voted, so there would be a lot of support for a party to remove the requirement to vote, I'd actually register to vote for them.

[Yellow_Festiva]

I always vote prior to the big day. In and out in 5 minutes.

Besides, I was at the local Bunnings all day helping put with a cake stall I organised to help pay for the school camp I organised ;)

Before, they used to really try and hammer you on why you can't vote on election day. Last election, my in laws tried to vote prior and they were turned away because their excuse of driving to Qld that day was not good enough "you can stop along the way and vote"... didn't even bother me or the Mrs with a question.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

If voting was optional it probably wouldn't be called "Australian Electoral Commission".

I never enrolled, and I stand by that because they just forced these AEC forms on us in high school in 2008/2009, there was never one explanation on how the system actually works, preference etc. The teachers weren't actually allowed to tell us anything about politics.

So I never bothered and a lot of people I know just informal voted, so there would be a lot of support for a party to remove the requirement to vote, I'd actually register to vote for them.

You have to show up and have your name marked off but you do not have to lodge a vote you can put a blank paper in the box if you want.
I'll remember that you don't vote and if you complain about a law of any kind will remind you that your opinion as a non voter is irrelevant

[ratter]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I'll remember that you don't vote and if you complain about a law of any kind will remind you that your opinion as a non voter is irrelevant

although comes across a bit harsh, this statement is totally correct.
We all have the right vote and have a say in the running of our country, it may not go the way we wanted but at least you have the choice of having a say

[Franco Cozzo]

Or you could also put it as voters got us into X situation, and I had no part in it

[ratter]

same as anyone else who did not vote for liberal but that's not what his post was about

[BHDOGS]

What choice was that again labour or liberal red or blue thats right our choice of two its all good to bang on about how i ticked every box but its the other 95% of the fat lazy slobs who ruin it and thats democracys biggest problem everybody gets a say no matter how undeserving uneducated or down right racist bigoted sexist homophobic they are its democracys biggest problem and will eventual be its downfall as a system of government

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

You have to show up and have your name marked off but you do not have to lodge a vote you can put a blank paper in the box if you want.
I'll remember that you don't vote and if you complain about a law of any kind will remind you that your opinion as a non voter is irrelevant

A bigoted person is even more irrelevant.

[Falcon Coupe]

Interesting how those who don't bother to vote make the time to post here telling us so.
You obviously have no opinion and those who do don't need to hear it.
Thread closed.