As dawn breaks, debate in the Senate over reform to its own electoral system grinds on. The chamber is in the process of signing off on a series of government amendments that will allow for optional preferential voting below-the-line, with voters to be directed by the ballot paper to number at least 12 boxes, but actually being allowed to get away with as few as six. For those wanting a thread for discussion of Senate reform apart from the freewheeling hubbub of the main threads, here you go.
Tell you what people
Follow the Qld OPTIONAL preferenctial Mayoral race that is on TOMORROW. Let us see just how many informal votes and or exhausted votes their really are?
Jackol – Ta for that.
Here ya go Davo. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-voting-reform-will-cause-surge-in-informal-votes-labor-warns-20160221-gmzhp4.html
Jackol / dave / Steelydan:
That report was on an earlier proposed version of the reforms. After that version was examined by the JSCEM it was subsequently amended to introduce the savings provision whereby any above-the-line vote with at least a single valid first preference is valid.
caf – I make no comment on the substance or context of the claim, I was merely interested in whether the claim had been made, as steelydan said, and indeed it had.
caf@54
caf – So is the claim of ‘an extra 800,000 informal votes’ now dated and no longer a valid claim ?
dave – I think there’s no doubt that if the 1-6 minimum had been legislated as being a requirement for formality (I’m not sure this was ever even floated as a possibility, but anyway) then informal rates would have spiked because a good chunk of people would continue to just put a ‘1’ for their preferred party as they have done in the past.
With the savings provisions I don’t think there is any prospect of any increase in informal votes.
I also suggest you look up the electorates with the largest informal voters all of them Labor.
Steelydan@58
I suggest you read what caf wrote above, ie –
[ With the savings provisions I don’t think there is any prospect of any increase in informal votes. ]
From memory I think Antony Green said similar.
Correction –
read what caf wrote = read what Jackol wrote
I can’t see how there will actually be more informal votes.
Unless we have a large population of people who doesn’t know how to number.
Even if they number it “1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2” it will still be formal. (I think.)
The only way it is going to increase informal votes if there are people so dissatisfied with the new system that instead of voting against the parties who instituted it and voting for those who are against it, they decided to write expletives on it and nothing else.
We will find out soon enough, like I said all the advertising will be to number 6 above the line and then the voters will here “but you only have to mark one box if you want to” and it will get confusing and the informal vote will increase and that will hurt labor, Particularly with your mobs reliance on people that don’t really care but no labor hand out more money.
I don’t care to talk about policy here (I’m not a Laborite or affiliated with any other party), but the instructions on the paper will be pretty clear.
Those who ignore it are:
1) Voting using the old style, “just vote 1”, which will still be formal, or,
2) Voting informal under the old system in such a way that it will still be informal under the new system (e.g. blank, identifies themselves, etc), or,
3) Voting informal under the old system by numbering all the boxes above the line, which will become formal under the new system.
I keep telling myself I won’t be drawn back into the endless Senate debate, and I keep failing miserable. Anyhoo…
IMO, the best argument for abolishing Group Voting Tickets still has to from this analysis by Kevin Bonham soon after the 2013 election. The entire article is worth a read, but the parts that really stuck with me were the following:
[2. Dependence on irrelevant events
The Western Australian preference distribution especially highlighted this problem. The makeup of the final two seats was eventually determined by the question of which out of the Australian Christians and the Shooters and Fishers party was excluded at an early stage of the count. Victory as a result of such a contest, between two parties that were neither in the race for a position themselves nor ideologically related to the parties contesting the final spots, had nothing to do with electoral merit. Furthermore, other such contests at earlier stages, such as HEMP vs Animal Justice, were also resolved by small margins and could have gone the other way had certain parties made different preference decisions at seemingly arbitrary points.
In normal preferential multi-candidate elections this problem very rarely occurs, firstly because all parties with low primary votes will usually be eliminated sooner or later anyway, and secondly because even if there existed a network of similar parties that strongly preferenced each other, the exclusion of any would favour any other member of the network, so roughly the same sort of candidate would still be competitive. In the Senate system the idea that preferences flow between ideologically similar parties is often violated by preference deals.
3. Frequent perverse outcomes
In many scenarios at this election, parties might have won seats had their own position on various votes been worse, or lost them had they been better. For instance the Liberals would have won in Tasmania had more of their voters mistaken the Liberal Democrats for them and voted Liberal Democrat instead of Liberal. The Sports Party would have won in Western Australia had the Wikileaks Party not preferenced the Sports Party at a certain point in the count and instead preferenced the Animal Justice Party. The Greens would have won in Western Australia had a handful of their own voters instead voted for the ideologically opposed Australian Christians. The Palmer United Party would have been at risk of losing the seat they eventually won in Tasmania had enough voters who voted informal instead voted for PUP. The technical term for this sort of thing is non-monotonicity.
This is an occupational hazard in preferential elections – to a degree. Some examples include the 2009 Frome by-election in South Australia (the Liberals would have won had a handful of their voters instead voted Labor) and the 2010 Denison federal result (Labor would have beaten Andrew Wilkie had enough of their voters instead voted Liberal.) However, in such elections it is reasonably rare. In this Senate election it was normal, happening in several states, often multiple times in the same state. It is virtually impossible for parties to strategise effectively when there is such a complex relationship between their vote and the result. Again, this is largely a product of group ticket voting; it is strongly connected to the problem above.
(….)
5. Absurd preference deals and strategies
Pragmatic games of attempting to gain advantage saw many parties highly preference other parties that their supporters would oppose, or demote parties or candidates their supporters would view favourably. There were even cases of parties down-preferencing others not for pragmatic advantage at this election but out of spite. The most influential example of dodgy preferencing involved Labor and the Greens preferencing Family First above less ideologically incompatible forces, resulting in the election of free-market social reactionary Bob Day (SA) and nearly the election of anti-gay-rights extremist Peter Madden (Tas). Labor seemed to have some incentive to do this at least in the case of South Australia, but the Greens’ decisions to preference FF appeared to be founded in spite (SA) and extreme cluelessness (Tasmania).
(….)
There were many contentious cases involving micro parties, such as the Sex Party’s still-unexplained high preference for One Nation in New South Wales, the Wikileaks Party’s preferencing of the Nationals in Western Australia, and the LDP cluster of micro-parties all failing to lodge their group tickets in Victoria (thus disadvantaging the parties they had dealt with).
Ultimately, the idea of group ticket voting works well if it is assumed that parties direct their preferences in a way that resembles what their supporters would do. But this is not the case; parties game the system for immediate or long-term tactical advantage or even direct preferences incompetently. Voters not wishing to spare the time to vote below-the-line have their preferences sent somewhere they had no idea they would go, and in many cases are not aware that their vote may be live at full value for a party they’d never willingly support.]
I think its also instructive to actually have a look at the ABC’s Senate Results pages for the 2013 election and read through the detailed information on all the different acounts and exclusions. The results for Victoria are particularly interesting.
Really look at how the count progresses and the various parties whose preferences wound up electing Ricky Muir, remembering that the vast majority of these voters did not make any conscious decision about their preferences.
Muir got up on preferences from parties as diverse as the Sex Party, Animal Justice, Stop CSG, Democratic Labour, “Group AJ”, Katter’s Australian Party, The Citizen’s Electoral Council, Rise Up Australia, Drug Law Reform, Bullet Train for Australia, and the No Carbon Change Climate Skeptics oftentimes from positions as low as 43 on their various Group Voting Tickets. (I’m also amused to note that Beorwar’s personal favorite, the Secular Party, actually preferences the bestiality party over Ricky Muir. For his sake, I hope he voted below the line!)
Now, fair enough, had voters for those parties actually consciously chosen to preference the Motoring Enthusiasts Party above the parties it competed with for the final seat, than so be it. But that’s not what happened. I don’t think its at all a leap to suggest that the vast majority of voters for, say, The Sex Party or Australian Voice or Drug Law Reform had never even heard of the Motoring Enthusiasts Party, let alone had a preference in whether they are elected or not. I know some people here seem to assume that everyone who votes for a micro party is happy for any micro party candidate to be elected, but I would argue to there’s also a very large proportion of people who vote for Animal Justice because they care about justice for animals, or who vote for Drug Law Reform because they want drug laws to be reformed, or vote for Bullet Train for Australia because they want Australia to have a bullet train. It’s a pretty natural assumption that if you were to vote for a party like that, they would direct preferences to parties who also care about those issues – but that’s not what happens! Instead, all of the micros get Glenn Druery to pool their preferences together in the hope that one of them might be elected, and a lot of voters could wind up helping elect someone who wants to do the exact opposite on issues they care about.
Sure, Ricky Muir seems a thoroughly decent guy who has turned out to be a pretty decent Senator and a surprisingly strong parliamentary performer. But we lucked out with Muir. The Minor Party Alliance that Muir was a part of also contained such stellar groups as Rise Up Australia, the Citizens Electoral Council, and No Carbon Tax Climate Change Skeptics.
Had the primary votes been a little different, had some of the parties ordered their preferences slightly differently, Victoria could right now be represented by Senator Danny Naliah instead of Senator Ricky Muir. And this wouldn’t be from any conscious decision by voters, or even by the various micro parties and Glenn Druery, but rather mathematical oddities caused by various parties getting 100-200 votes more or less than they actually did.
None of these parties actually chose to collude to elect Ricky Muir. Nor was that Glenn Druery’s primary aim. And it certainly wasn’t the decision of much of any voters beyond those who voted 1 for Muir or put him in a decent spot below the line. It happened because a large proportion of the micro parties were happy to pool their preferences for chance that one of them might just luck out and be elected, and the byzantine processes of the current Senate voting system did the rest. No, it’s not entirely “random”, but the lack of control anyone has over it – least of all voters – means its pretty damn close.
And a final point on the 2013 results. Take a look through all those endless counts and see if you can spot the below the line preferences. Note how much of an impact they had on the final results (basically none). They are so heavily drowned out by the ATL block preferences to make them virtually worthless.
Steelydan, 62
[“but you only have to mark one box if you want to” ]
will not be mentioned because it is a savings provision and not classified as an “ideal” vote (much like in the ACT, where 5 preferences are recommended on the ballot paper, but 1 preference plus is rendered formal)
Steelydan@62
Produce your proof/ substantiation that –
[ people that don’t really care ]
I have already produced evidence that its the tories who tax and spend more of the two major party’s and can do so again.
Also the so called ‘Sainted’ john howard was the one who invented the *Cash Splash* –
[ In the 2001 budget he and Peter Costello gave a one-off payment of $300 to everyone of age pension age, plus cash payments of $25,000 each to former prisoners of war of the Japanese, at a combined cost to the budget of more than $900 million.
In the 2004 budget Howard and Costello gave one-off payments of $600 per child to people receiving the family tax benefit, bonus payments of $600 or $1000 to carers, and cash payments of $3500 per place to providers of aged care accommodation, at a combined cost of $3 billion.
In the 2005 budget the $600 or $1000 bonus payments to carers were repeated at a cost of $320 million. The exercise was repeated again in the 2006 budget, by which time the cost had risen to $360 million. Seniors got a one-off utilities allowance costing $200 million.
In the 2007 budget the cash bonuses to carers were repeated, plus a one-off bonus to seniors of $500 each, at a combined cost of $1.7 billion. And that year’s co-contribution for superannuation savers was retrospectively doubled, just the once, at a cost of $1.1 billion]
http://www.smh.com.au/business/tax-cuts-replace-howardinvented-cash-splash-20090510-az6d.html#ixzz3PY37Ejcm
RaaRaa So if there is a large increase in voters with no clear direction accept the the first vote say like 1 labor then 2 fishers and shooters 3 Lazarus 4 sex party 5 Coalition 6 Socialist alliance. But the Greens and Coalition can pretty much get there voters to follow the how to vote card, what do you think this would do?
Raaraa@63: Re your point 3, I thought that, under the system now to be replaced, votes which numbered more than one box above the line were still counted as formal, but their preferences were ignored.
Are any of the experts reading this and, if so, can they clarify this?
Thanks Asha Leu
I am not actually sure but has the labor Party ever balanced a Budget
Raaraa and MB
An easy to read guide:
https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641
If there’s an issue with formality, surely it’s that some might number only six boxes in the House.
Under the current system any preference other than a ‘1’ is ignored. A 1 above the line immediately defaults to the party ticket.
Under the new system a single 1 is saved and applies only to the selected group. There are no preferences to other groups on the ballot paper unless the voter fills in squares themselves. The instructions suggest at least 6 boxes be numbered above the line or 12 below.
BTW, I managed to catch some of the debate in the Senate and the House over the past 24 hours. I think it’s fair to say that Labor is fortunate that not many people closely follow what goes on in Parliament. I thought their behaviour and statements were mostly ludicrous, with hyperbole and petty nastiness to the fore. They’ve clearly taken their gloves off in their dealings with the Greens. It could be a strategic mistake IMO, but i don’t have time right now to explain why.
I’ll just say that, in short, I think the more Labor attacks the Greens, the more out of date they will look to the millennials.
Thanks Antony, you have confirmed my understanding of the rules.
Peg@71: thanks, but I wasn’t referring to the new system.
oops MB, that’s what happens when multi tasking at a rapid rate!
Balancing the budget is sound economics when all is well, but it is not sensible to cut spending to balance the budget when recession is threatening.
Whereas the Howard Government was able to achieve budget surpluses because of the mining boom, the Rudd Government saved Australia from the worst effects of the global financial crisis by loosening the purse-strings.
Our economy is dodgy ATM so the current government has allowed the deficit to blow out to double what is was under Labor. Simple really.
Seriously, Labor tactics on this debate were so dumb I can only wonder if Conroy was involved. Dragging it out only serves to highlight the fact that Labor was against reforms to stop Senate voting getting rorted. The reforms are not perfect but are a vast improvement over the current farce.
Anthony or William
In your view is the new Senate voting system likely to result in more informal votes as some have claimed? I find that hard to believe.
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t know numbering further than 1 didn’t make it informal in the old system.
Hopefully also with senate voting reform we get smaller lower house ballot papers as well – as hopefully now the micro parties will just disappear.
Blackburn
I do not necessarily want the minors to disappear, but it would be nice if there was a single outdoor recreation type party instead of 4, if there was a single Christian family values party rather than 3 and if special interest single issue parties only ran where the issue is topical and where none of the other parties have adopted their issue as policy. Animal Justice or Drug Law reform could probably be accommodated in the Greens, or Democrats, while the Libertarians might cover the Drug reformers and the Smoker’s rights quite acceptably.
Daretotread
Agree entirely. Not sure how likely this is to happen as one of the common denominators or minor partydom is their internal fractiousness.
daretotread
Hopefully, micro-parties will now be replaced by proper minor parties. At the moment, it is electorally beneficial for there to be lots of different tiny parties, rather than one united small one. I’m no fan of the Liberal Party’s “broad church”, but most of these churches could stand to be a little broader.
So after the dust has settled is it preferential voting with a minimum of 6 above the line and preferential voting with a minimum of 12 below the line?
Hopefully someone comes out with a minor part guide!
[
Socrates
Posted Friday, March 18, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink
Seriously, Labor tactics on this debate were so dumb I can only wonder if Conroy was involved. Dragging it out only serves to highlight the fact that Labor was against reforms to stop Senate voting getting rorted. The reforms are not perfect but are a vast improvement over the current farce.
]
Highlights that the greens voted with the Liberals out of self interest.
frednk @86:
[So after the dust has settled is it preferential voting with a minimum of 6 above the line and preferential voting with a minimum of 12 below the line?]
Exactly that.
Horrifying, I know.
[
Steelydan
Posted Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:32 pm | Permalink
I am not actually sure but has the labor Party ever balanced a Budget
]
The lowest debt to GDP ratio was under Whitlam.
Hawke/Keating had a surplus.
But the big spender:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html
Managed to get surpluses by selling a lot of stuff.
Hawke/Keating and Howard are the only governments to return a surplus.
But hay; full marks for trying to keep the myth that the liberals actually know what they are doing alive.
Ashu Leu
Wasn’t below the line preferential one of the amendments.
And why the minimum number? What is the reason given for that.
Based on what antony wrote it looks full preferential above and below the line with the number 6 and 12 only being a suggested number.
Nope based on:
https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641
It’s full preferential above and a minimum of six below. Why the complications?
The instructions above the line say to number at least 6 preferences. You can number as many as you like but only six are required to meet the formality criteria. However, the savings provisions have sensibly been set to cope with voters having been required to give only a single ‘1’ for the past 32 years. If you do not have 6 valid ATL preferences, your ballot paper will be ‘saved’ as a formal vote as long as it has a valid first preference. A single ‘1’ counts only for the chosen party. Any preference beyond ‘1’ also count. You can complete as many preferences as you like and they will all count.
Below the line the instructions say a minimum 12 preferences. The savings provision has been set as 6 preferences, which is saving a vote where a voter has confused the ATL instructions by completing only 6 preferences below. Again, you can number as many preferences as you like beyond 12.
Above the line
1 is valid
1 2 is this valid does the 2 matter or is it just the one used.
1 2 3 is this valid does the 2,3 matter.
etc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 is valid
Below the line.
1 2 3 4 5 6 is valid
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I assume is valid does the 7 matter?
A formal ATL vote, defined as one which corresponds to the instructions on the ballot paper, is a vote with at least 6 ATL preferences. A voter can number as many preferences beyond six as they like and it is valid and every preference in the sequence counts.
If a vote does not have 6 valid preferences ATL, it will be saved from being informal if it has a valid first preference. Every valid preference above 1 also counts.
A formal BTL vote, defined as one which corresponds to the instructions on the ballot paper, is a vote with at least 12 BTL preferences. A voter can number as many preferences beyond 12 as they like and it is valid and every preference in the sequence counts.
If a voter completes at least the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 BTL, then it is saved from being informal. Every preference beyond 6 also counts.
The ballot paper instructions define what is formal, but savings provisions exist that save certain ballot papers from being informal because they do not match the ballot paper instructions.
frednk @95:
Yes, those are all valid. As are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and so on until you run out of parties or candidates.
Before we all shed tears about the micro-parties being put out of existence, there’s a prior question to be answered: did they ever really exist?
The answer in many if not most cases seems to be “no”. They were registered, but the requirements for that are quite minimal: 500 people who are prepared to call themselves members, plus a document which purports to be a constitution. Go looking for offices, branches, meetings, national conferences, associated youth bodies, activities, etc, etc, all the sorts of things that one expects to find with a genuine party, and you will likely come up short. (They will probably have bank accounts, though.)
Really, they are like shelf companies. Shells with no real existence. Part of a scam to get around the requirement in the Electoral Act that a party can only have six words in its name, by creating a preference harvesting conglomerate with a whole range of attractive but essentially meaningless names.
Good riddance to them.
[And why the minimum number? What is the reason given for that.]
To avoid an especially high exhaust rate, and so that minor parties are still guaranteed some preferences.
So we have full preferential voting above the line, with instructions to number 6 and about 100 unneeded and confusing words to describe it.
We have a minimum of 6 below line with instructions to number 12 and about 100 unneeded and confusing words to describe it.