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.
Or to be clearer
So we have full preferential voting above the line, with instructions to number a minimum of 6 and about 100 unneeded and confusing words to describe it.
We have a minimum of 6 below line with instructions to number a minimum of 12 and about 100 unneeded and confusing words to describe it.
Why all the laments about exhausted votes? I’m planning to vote below the line this time – why not enjoy new found freedom – and there’s a good chance my vote might exhaust, because I won’t be forced any more to write bucketloads of numbers purporting to express preferences which I in fact don’t hold, for nonentities of whom I know nothing, merely to ensure that my genuine preferences will be counted. Needless to say, I won’t be disenfranchised in any meaningful sense by this.
Frankly, after all these years of full preferential voting for the House, and for the Senate BTL, it’s a miracle that we don’t all have noses like Pinocchio’s, given the number of outright lies we’ve been forced to tell on our ballots.
No. The instructions are clear on the ballot paper. Number at least six squares above the line, or number at least 12 below.
If you wish to consult the electoral act you will find there are savings provisions that differ from the instructions on the ballot paper. But as savings provisions, they do not form part of the instructions on the ballot paper.
If you voted below the line in NSW at the 2013 election, you were instructed to vote 1 to 110. If you consulted the act, savings provisions meant you only needed to numer 90% of the squares and were permitted up to three errors. As a savings provision that detail was not on the ballot paper.
Antony
is the limit above the line 6 and if there is no limit above 12 below then line then this seems fair do you agree
Antony
If the limit above the line 6 and if there is no limit above 12 below then line then this seems fair do you agree
Third attempt okay had a few beers
If there is no limit above the line after 1 and if there is no limit above 12 below then line then this seems fair do you agree
Assuming that’s what the new law states
Having read further I see that the limit to above the line voting is 6 which I find is unfair.
WarrenPeace @107: There are no limits to the number of preferences you can show above the line or below the line: if you fill in every square with consecutive numbers, they will all be able to be counted.
WarrenPeace: There is no limit. The six above and 12 below is a MINIMUM. You can number as many squares above the minimum as takes your fancy.
And that is six above OR 12 below as a minimum
This article has a line that I think should really be hammered home
“The more genuine preferences you express, the more likely a candidate you favour will be elected rather than one you disfavour.”
It should be shouted from the rooftops in any campaign, so that people don’t make the mistake of thinking that an exhausting “1” vote is somehow a purer or more effusive declaration of their first preference.
https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641
frednk@101
I am assuming tht you are referring to the legislation or to Antony Green’s words.
The basic instructions will just say to number 1 to 6 above the line or to number 1 to 12 below the line.
The rest of the wording speaks about savings provisions. It is not very relevant to the voters, but important to the counting officials in deciding which ballots to accept.
It is also to make it clear in case of a legal challenge (if this is is regards to the legislation).
Steelydan: The evidence shows that Labor and Liberal party voters follow their party’s how-to-vote instructions at a substantially higher rate than Greens voters.
frednk: Your precis is incorrect, because “full preferential voting” is a term of art meaning that a full set of preferences are required. What we now have is “optional preferential voting” both above and below the line, because a full set of preferences is not required.
What’s this about Malcolm Mackerras to challenge the legislation in the High Court?
The High Court could but probably would not rule ATL preference voting and unconstitutional and if it did do so, would almost certainly rule GTVs unconstitutional and send us all back to all numbering candidates individual boxes.
The High Court may find ATL voting constitutional but GTVs unconstitutional (if indeed reviewing the constitutionality of GTVs is part of the case).
The High Court may rule ATL voting is constitutional but ungrouped candidates get ATL boxes by interpreting that the word election implies that all candidates be treated equally. Remember that McKenzie versus the Commonwealth (McKenzie was an ungrouped candidate) was only an injunction hearing, not a High Court ruling and as such did not set a precedent.
It would be politically excellent if the High court were to rule that ATL voting is constitutional as long as it is Robson Rotated, so that the voters can decide which of a party`s candidates are elected. This is however very unlikely.
Toorak Toff@115
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4428147.htm
Presumably he is familiar with Bob Day’s intent to challenge and intends to assist it. Another possibility is that there is more than one Senator challenging.
“The basic instructions will just say to number 1 to 6 above the line or to number 1 to 12 below the line.”
Just to be absolutely clear, Raaraa, the instructions are to number at least one to six above the line, and at least one to 12 below the line. I’ve been very surprised about the mis-information provided in some places about this, claiming that you only get 6 prefs above.
Be funny, TomTFAB, if the High Court found that ATL voting was unconstitutional, and had always been so. (The old system looks far shonkier than the new one in this regard). Just imagine if every piece of legislation put in place from 1984 onwards was found to be improperly made! Talk about a constitutional crisis, with no properly elected Senate to even attempt to address it! 😉
Won’t happen though.
I hasten add, Raaraa, I wasn’t suggesting you were trying to spread the misinformation. Simply making sure your comment wasn’t misinterpreted.
[Presumably he is familiar with Bob Day’s intent to challenge and intends to assist it. Another possibility is that there is more than one Senator challenging.]
There is an ABC report that Leyonhjelm will also be funding the challenge.
What beggars belief about the constitutional challenge is that the present system is much more ticket based than the proposed system. And the ticket system is the basis of their challenge.
Prior to 1984, every box had to be numbered, but it could be argued that the ticket has been more important ever since the change to PR for senate voting in 1948.
Any potentially highly ironical outcome would be if the High Court found that the proposed system was legitimate, but that their own election was not. The recursive implications of such a decision are mind-boggling! 😉
Whoops “Any…” should have been “Another…”
119
Election result can only be challenged either while the writs are out or within 40 days of their return. Thus the High court cannot throw out any previous election now and will not be able to throw out any election until after the next election.
The High Court probably would not issue an injunction against conducting the election, just like what happened with McKenzie versus the Commonwealth in 1984, and so there would be no judicial impediment. However, in the event of a challenge, the GG may decide that there is a danger of the election being ruled void and that it would not be a safe time for a DD (with the risk of the whole Senate being thrown out and sent back to the polls) and thus refuse.
There would be little impediment to half-Senate elections as the challenge could take place during the wait for the Senate changeover. However the resulting new half-Senate elections would be separate from house elections.
One of the ironies of Labor bleating on about there being a greater likelihood of a LNP majority is that in 1948 Arthur Calwell convinced his colleagues that the PR system we have had for senate voting would give Labor a majority forever …
caf I take your point
Antony
Above the line
1 my vote gets counted
1 2 my vote gets counted all preferences used
1 2 3 my vote gets counted all preferences used
1 2 3 4 my vote gets counted all preferences used
1 2 3 4 5 my vote gets counted all preferences used
1 2 3 4 5 6 my vote gets counted all preferences used
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my vote gets counted all preferences used
I am slow; am I right and if I am right, why is this not full optional preferential voting above the line.
Below the line
1 not good enoug
1 2 not good enough
1 2 3 not good enough
1 2 3 4 not good enough
1 2 3 4 5 not good enough
1 2 3 4 5 6 vote gets counted all preferences used
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 etc. vote gets counted all preferences used
Why is this not optional preferential voting with a minimum of 6.
My son a Green voter, is ropable with the greens; his point; if you vote for a minor candidate and you don’t preference to someone who is electable you vote is wasted. They are getting a letter informing them no Green votes from him no more, so it was not without cost.
Anntony; to put it another way; why is a “vote saved” worth less than a vote.
126
When the introduction of PR for the Senate was put through the Reps, Lang Labor MP Jack Lang denounced it as “gerrymandering”. As it insurred that the ALP retained its majority in the Senate term starting in 1950 because it retained the 15 senators it won of the 18 senators elected in 1946 under the old majoritarian system (although a DD would have been required to get rid of them, as indeed happened in 1951).
Fresno,
“Full” preferential voting means you have to essentially fill all prefs for your vote to count. “Optional” preferential voting means you get to choose whether you preference everyone or not ( beyond a defined minimum number). There is therefore really no such thing as “full optional preferential voting”.
Bear in mind, too, that marking a single box ATL casts pref votes for ALL in that column, not just 1. That is why it is generally analogous to 6 BTL.
ah! OK TTFAB at 124. Thanks for that. I was almost looking forward to the absurdity of Senators challenging themselves out of office! 😉
Antony to put it another way, the “saving” provisions have completely changed what has been legislated.
Allowing a few mistakes and allow one to give up after 90% is different to allowing full optional preferential voting above the line (if my understanding is correct).
frednk, 127
The point of 6 ATL and 12 BTL is to encourage people to preference candidates in accordance to the amount of seats available to be voted on (much like in the ACT elections where a 1 vote is valid, but 1-5+ is recommended on the ballot paper).
Airlines I understand the word encourage. What I am trying to work out is what we actually have. If I understand it correctly we have full optional preferential voting above the line and optional preferential below the line with a minimum of six. It seems to me the words “vote save” is being used to hide the facts.
frednk, 134
I don’t think anybody is disputing that, it’s just being pointed out that that’s not what will be written on the ballot paper.
Airlines; if I read Antony’s post correctly he is. I don’t know if I am right as this “vote save” is confusing; but if I am it would seem Antony wants to play the “vote save” game instead of pointing what what is and is not a vote counted.
It looks to me as if the “vote save” stuff has fundementally change the legislation.
A serious piece of legaslative dishonestly.
And if a one means your vote is counted but the greens get no residual under any circumstance then my guess is the greens have got out the bazooka and shot themselves in the foot. At the last election a lot of people voted above the line putting 1 in the square for their preferred party; a lot of people won’t be able or won’t be bothered reading the missleading instructions on the ballot paper. They will number as they did in the last election with a much different result.
frednk, 137
Yes, that’s what happens. That’s also why there’s the savings provision – so voting less than 1-6 doesn’t instantly mean your vote doesn’t count, and instead just exhausts at the end of your numbering.
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/senate-reform-has-been-passed.html
Senate Reform Has Been Passed
Article includes
– details of final model
– possible issues
– possible results if there’s a double dissolution
– Labor’s intellectual bankruptcy on Senate reform
– brief comments re High Court challenge
…and is very long.
Kevin; nice article.
So we have full optional preferential voting above the line and your allowed to tell people about it, and below the line your not even talking about numbering to twelve.
This may or may not be a good thing; my beef is the dishonest presentation of the legislation.
Just watched insiders, had to laugh. The commentators suggested that the senate reform debate has done more damage to the Labor party. Insiders sometimes has no realty of politcal implications.
frednk@140
This level of “dishonesty” (in which the ballot paper tells the voter to do one thing but the rules actually save votes that don’t comply) is common at state/territory level. Actually it existed at federal level under the old system because although the BTL instruction is to number all boxes, in practice a voter who numbers the first 90% and then stops still has their vote saved.
Frednk@140 I am not sure why you think the Greens have shot themselves in the foot – this has been on their policy platform for 14 years so they have seen it as an issue of principle. Why they would be particularly disadvantaged beyond any other party is not clear. they have a higher proportion of below the line votes than most parties and are likely I suspect to increase that proportion given that it is now a good deal easier to vote below the line.
Some thoughts from Professor Anne Twomey on prospects for a High Court challenge to Senate electoral reform: http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/03/02/-is-a-constitutional-challenge-to-senate-voting-reforms-likely-t.html
Also well worth a look is Anne Twomey, “Compulsory Voting in a Representative Democracy: Choice, Compulsion and the Maximisation of Participation in Australian Elections”, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 283-312, (DOI: 10.5235/14729342.13.2.283), especially Part E.
Rod Hagen@118
Rod Hagen@120
Correct. I didn’t intend to spread misinformation. It will probably be clearer on the ballot paper, probably along the lines of “number at least 1 to 6”. You can tell I’m probably not the best in deciding what’s the best way to make instructions.
To correct what I said, voters are to number at least 1 to 6 above the line, or at least 1 to 12 below the line.
But there are savings provisions to reduce informal voting.
Nick Casmirri has done some great analysis of how the old system would have looked with threshholds (ie the Albo on Lateline model):
https://nickcasmirri.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/what-if-the-senate-were-elected-using-threshholds/