Preferential voting

N

Nemo30

Exactly how does preferential voting work?

I checked out the results for the ACT senate seat this morning and I'm a little outraged to say the least.

I voted below the line, stupidly believing that my vote would be distributed in the order of preference that I indicated.

I voted 1 for a small party that a friend was running in, with my next preference being liberal - thinking that the small party would be knocked out early and so I was really voting liberal.

Looking at the results, I was alarmed to see that all of the votes the small party I voted for was eventually redistributed to the Greens! How does that work? Outrageous! They didnt go directly to the greens, they went via several other small parties first, eventually snowballing into 17 000 extra votes for the greens!


http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/act/
 
I think the quota to elect a candidate was 52966 votes. The Libs achieved one quota but after distributions of preferences not enough for two. So after elimination of the Libs placed second on their card those preferences are distributed to the next in line and so on til someone gets enough for a quota.
 
I think the whole election system in Australia is a scam. iMO it is undemocratic to have both compulsory voting and preferential voting at the same time. You need to choose one or the other.

Also, how can a party get almost one in ten votes in the lower house but only get 0.7% of the seats? The electoral divisions in Australia place higher-density, urban areas at a massive disadvantage compared to rural areas meaning a small number of people get to have more of a say than others.

How on Earth do the Motoring Enthusiasts get a Senate seat when they only got 0.5% (11,000) of their state's initial votes but other parties who get 40 times more votes proportionally get nothing?
 
Libs didnt get enough for a quota - there were about 2000 short.

Its how the preferences were distributed that I have an issue with. They have purely been allocated on preference deals done before the election.

I was always of the belief that voting below the line meant my preferences were allocated to candidates in the order I choose. Appears not.
 
Crabnet said:
I think the quota to elect a candidate was 52966 votes. The Libs achieved one quota but after distributions of preferences not enough for two. So after elimination of the Libs placed second on their card those preferences are distributed to the next in line and so on til someone gets enough for a quota.
Click to expand...

Thats not what happened at all.

They took an envelope containing 2 names to each electorate and the preferences went to those 2 names. Read http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...-affect-wa-votes/story-fnho52jl-1226714306247 for more info
 
Nemo30 said:
Libs didnt get enough for a quota - there were about 2000 short.

Its how the preferences were distributed that I have an issue with. They have purely been allocated on preference deals done before the election.

I was always of the belief that voting below the line meant my preferences were allocated to candidates in the order I choose. Appears not.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right
They got 51,106 primary votes. So short of a quota and relied on preferences of eliminated candidates.
However it is my understanding that the vast majority of people vote above the line so the preference deals have more weight with the final result.
 
Nemo30 said:
I was always of the belief that voting below the line meant my preferences were allocated to candidates in the order I choose. Appears not.
Click to expand...

You are correct - it's just that hardly anyone votes below the line. I always do because I don't like a political party determining my preferences. Also even those who do vote below the line will usually follow approximately the preference flow of the ticket anyway. One little vote flowing the other way isn't going to make a difference but all preferences are counted.

I like our system overall - it's better than first past the post and the senate is where the small parties with decent support (after preferences) can get some representation. The big problem is the number of candidates for the senate - there needs to be a higher threshold to get on the ballot paper in my view. It's also a problem that states like tas get the same number of seats as nsw despite having such a smaller population but that was the deal at Federation and the price of all the states getting together peacefully - the small states were worried about getting outvoted so held out for equal representation...
 
I agree, most people vote above the line - so can absolutely see who those votes are distributed.

However, I voted below the line, as did my son. Neither of our votes were distributed to the candidates we nominated after the small party was knocked out. - they all went to one party.

ie. Party 1, Party 2, Party 3

Party 3 has a deal that they will give preferences to Party 1.

I vote below the line for Party 3, Party 2 and then Party 1.

Party 3 gets the lowest vote and so their votes are redistributed - problem is my vote doesnt go to Party 2 as I have indicated on my ballot. It goes to Party 1 as do all the other votes for Party 3.

Why do we have below the line voting if it doesnt count.
 
Nemo30 said:
Click on the link and actually follow the flow of preferences - the entire lot of votes go together. There are no individual preferences.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/act/
Click to expand...

I thought I understood this, but obviously not. If you choose to vote below the line why don't they show one box per party so (say) you'd be preferencing 1-13 rather than 1-97. To put it another way are these two papers (three parties, two names each)


P1 P2 P3 and P1 P2 P3
1. 3. 5. . . 2. 4. 6
2. 4. 6. . . 1. 3. 5


just treated the same so if Party 1 makes it to the top the first name on the list will be elected even if everyone votes as my second paper? If so, preferencing names within a party group does nothing.
 
Nemo30 said:
Click on the link and actually follow the flow of preferences - the entire lot of votes go together. There are no individual preferences.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/act/
Click to expand...

I suspect the ABC website is not accurate at this stage. Just indicative results perhaps as counting hasn't finished.

The AEC site says
Above the Line Votes are entered for each group (ticket only). These are referred to as 'Ticket Votes'. Below the line votes for individual candidates are also counted. A derived figure 'Unapportioned' is calculated which equals 'Group Total' minus 'Ticket Votes' minus 'Below the line votes'.

As the below the line votes are calculated the candidate first preference votes are allocated to that candidate and the 'Unapportioned' decreases.

When the calculation of the below the line votes is completed and apportioned to the relevant candidate the 'Unapportioned' becomes zero.

During the fresh scrutiny (count) of Senate figures as divisional data is progressively provided, fluctuations in votes for Ungrouped Candidates and Informal may be experienced.

The progressive quota is calculated as follows: Progressive Quota = The number of formal votes counted so far divided by the number of vacant Senate positions in a state/territory +1, then plus 1
These results are not final.
 
Judging by this article it seems they might as well have tossed a coin to determine who got into the senate. I'm sure it isn't working as originally intended, with minority interest groups ganging up to end up with obscene influence with the balance of power when almost no-one voted for them. It seems like the preferences went "They will never get in, so I will preference them". Enough parties do this and it heavily impacts the results. Certainly nothing to do with a democratic system.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...te-in-new-hung-parliament-20130908-2tdqm.html
 
I would think the distribution of Senate votes on the site only include those voters who opted for the above the line (ATL) voting as there is no way that any below the line (BTL) Senate votes would have yet been finalised.

I work yesterday in a booth it was no surprise when <1% used the BTL method in NSW given there where ~110 boxes to number if you went for this option.

I understand all the BTL would still be in the sealed bags from each polling station and will not yet be actually counted and included in interim count.

When the BTL votes are finally entered into the AEC system your actual preferences would be distributed as you specified until the are exhausted and your final preference is allotted most likely to one of the candidates already confirmed as being elected due to the flow of preferences from the ATL distribution.

It seems to be the way it is and I don't believe it a scam in any way. Just feeding the need for an outcome to be known ASAP for the News and Public.
 
Maybe someone can enlighten me on something wrt BTL voting.

In NSW there were 110 boxes btl. In order for a vote to be considered valid the voter had to number a minimum of 99 boxes in sequential order from 1 to 99. If they filled in only 98 or less the vote would be invalid and as such would be thrown in the bin without it being counted at all.

If it is clear who the first 10, 20, 50, 98 or whatever preferences are for, why is the vote not counted and preferenced until the preferences are exhausted and then made invalid at that point? Why if the voter fills out 99 preferences are they able to count the vote and preference it appropriately but if they fill in only 98 boxes suddenly they seem unable to work it out and must throw the vote in the bin?

What is the rationale for this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Greens Lost control of the Senate
Replies
9
Views
1K
devank
devank
I
2013 Election: Senate Vote
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Intrinsic_Value
I
I
You can vote both above and below the line
Replies
0
Views
932
Intrinsic_Value
I
AlmostBob
Have you ever wondered how Bob Brown got elected
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
5K
willair
W
Dazz
Getting rid of the Carbon Tax
15 16 17
Replies
326
Views
31K
Sunfish
S
Back
Top