4 ms·

Thank you. Why is it that you must number 100+ boxes? I can certainly see why many would be put off having to do so. It would make more sense to me if you simpl

Thank you. Why is it that you must number 100+ boxes? I can certainly see why many would be put off having to do so. It would make more sense to me if you simply numbered the candidates you actually had a preference for, and anyone else on the meter-long ballot didn't get a vote at all. I imagine that would cut down substantially on fringe candidates cluttering up the ballot. It seems that the official parties actually do get this privilege --I've only heard of the major parties mentioning their relative preferences to each other, with no mention of 100+ rankings (edit: or is there indeed a full ranking the party submits, but only the top relative positions are typically reported in the news?). However, if you wish to vote purely according to your own preferences, you're saddled with a ballot that folks will undoubtedly scour for their handful of preferences to truly mark, and then blindly count up to 100+ from top to bottom so that their ballot "counts." EDIT: Many thanks to coffeecheque, Volpe, BlackAura, and any others that help to explain all of the news I've been reading recently :)

Volpe 13y ago
Every vote has to count to someone... so you can't have a "dead end" on a ballet (hence a vote isn't counted if it isn't filled out completely). They preference all 100+ rankings, but do it by groups (generally). i.e. Party A will preference Party B candidates, then Party C. Though some smaller parties do very individual preferences.
BlackAura 13y ago
Parties do indeed submit full rankings, which are published. http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ Only the summaries get reported, for obvious reasons.
coffeecheque 13y ago
It's all published before hand. The deadline was the weekend, which is why we're seeing all the stories about preferences now. In the Senate, parties lodge Group Voting Tickets (GVTs) with the Australian Electoral Commission. If you vote "above-the-line" (say for the Liberal Party) the GVTs dictate where the preferences should flow. The AEC did have PDFs of the GVTs, but I can't find them now. The ABC has published them here (in an easier to follow format): http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ The reason why the candidate quit was in part because of the NSW Wikileaks preference deal: http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/nsw/#gtv_nsw_i http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/n... You can see at spot 36 and 37 the preference going to Australia First. Its chairman is a former neo-nazi, convicted in the 1980s of organising a gun attack on someone from the African National Congress. The first Greens candidate is down in the 50s. As for why we have to number all the boxes, I'm not entirely sure. It probably didn't matter so much back where there were only a handful of candidates. It doesn't work so well when there's more than 100.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  I see. So each party typically acts as a cluster. They may have their own internal rankings within that cluster of candidates, but on the whole parties will typically only be concerned with cluster rankings. That is to say, most parties won't bother with going through 100+ candidates' platforms entirely individually, and you'd expect to see all (or most) of a given party in a block on the ranking, rather than sprinkled throughout. Senate Preferences for Party A: 1 - PARTY A - John 2 - PARTY A - Jane 3 - PARTY A - Mike 4 - PARTY A - Jennifer 5 - PARTY B - Napoleon 6 - PARTY B - Elizabeth 7 - PARTY B - Bob 7 - PARTY C - Austin 8 - PARTY C - Emily 9 - PARTY B - Patrick <- (For whatever reason, Party A just really doesn't like Patrick at all) 10 - PARTY D - NeoNazi <- (Crazies at the bottom) And so on and so forth for 100+ candidates. The abc.net.au preference listings seem to show this sort of line up. (And there seem to be a ton of parties: Stop CSG Party, Australian Sex Party, Help End Marijuana Prohibition, Smokers Rights Party, Stable Population Party) I can certainly see how administrative error could creep in here --and sabotage as well. I still find myself preferring an election system like this however even with the bloat :)
  - coffeecheque 13y ago
    Yep. Though you have obviously worked out ways to game the system. It's happening more and more. For example, in Victoria, a group of five libertarian aligned micro-group parties (headed up by the Liberal Democrats) didn't lodge their GVT, meaning you now can't vote for them above the line. As most (95%) of people vote above, that's wiped them out in Victoria. But here's the realpolitik: they had organized a straight preference swap deal nationally with the Australian Sex Party, which had a chance of making quota (aka winning a spot) with the help of the preferences in Victoria. It's less likely now in that state. But the Sex Party has lodged its preferences in Victoria and other states with flows to the Lib-Dems. It means the Lib-Dems can avoid helping the Sex Party win a Victorian spot (and possibly balance of power in the Senate) but maybe win its own spot in other states (and also, balance of power). It is complicated and strategy matters big time.
    - aspensmonster 13y ago
Germanicus 13y ago
If you can stop numbering when you lose interest, that's the "optional" in "optional preferential voting". It's good, but we won't get it. As things are, you always have to choose between the two right wing parties that dominate the system, even if you put them at last choice and second last. So you vote from 1 according to your preferences, give the big numbers to your least preferred, and /then/ blindly count between them. With optional preferential voting, people who don't want either of the big two could avoid choosing between them. This doesn't happen because (what they taught us at school) there might be a tie, or you could get elected with a small number of votes, but really because (what they didn't teach us at school) the big two and their symbiotes know that it would encourage a civilised multi-party democracy in which coalitions could be negotiated and altruism might sneak in. The big two would rather take turns at being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition than see green, liberal or socialist options get a voice. They hate it when small parties get enough power to hold them accountable, or have legislation discussed before it is passed.
- caf 13y ago
  I don't think that analysis holds up. Optional preferential voting is closer to first-past-the-post than compulsory preferential (in Queensland and NSW where they have OPV at a State level, a large majority tend to "just vote 1"). First-past-the-post is bad for minor parties, and would cement the two-party system. At the last election, the Greens only won the seat of Melbourne by using Liberal voter preferences to overtake the ALP candidate, and similarly Andrew Wilkie relied on the preferences of Liberal, Green and Socialist party voters to eventually win from third position. Under OPV, it is highly likely that both of those seats would have gone to the ALP. OPV might be defensible on the grounds of reducing informality, but it would push our system closer towards FPTP and be bad for minor parties.
  - femto 13y ago
    From memory, the NSW upper house optional preferential instructions are that you must mark at least 15 boxes. It's a balancing act between enough numbers to ensure that most ballots continue to count, but small enough to reduce the effort, and consequent informal votes due to errors, of voting below the line.

Volpe 13y ago

Every vote has to count to someone... so you can't have a "dead end" on a ballet (hence a vote isn't counted if it isn't filled out completely). They preference all 100+ rankings, but do it by groups (generally). i.e. Party A will preference Party B candidates, then Party C. Though some smaller parties do very individual preferences.

BlackAura 13y ago

Parties do indeed submit full rankings, which are published. http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ Only the summaries get reported, for obvious reasons.

coffeecheque 13y ago

It's all published before hand. The deadline was the weekend, which is why we're seeing all the stories about preferences now. In the Senate, parties lodge Group Voting Tickets (GVTs) with the Australian Electoral Commission. If you vote "above-the-line" (say for the Liberal Party) the GVTs dictate where the preferences should flow. The AEC did have PDFs of the GVTs, but I can't find them now. The ABC has published them here (in an easier to follow format): http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/ The reason why the candidate quit was in part because of the NSW Wikileaks preference deal: http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/nsw/#gtv_nsw_i http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/gtv/n... You can see at spot 36 and 37 the preference going to Australia First. Its chairman is a former neo-nazi, convicted in the 1980s of organising a gun attack on someone from the African National Congress. The first Greens candidate is down in the 50s. As for why we have to number all the boxes, I'm not entirely sure. It probably didn't matter so much back where there were only a handful of candidates. It doesn't work so well when there's more than 100.

aspensmonster 13y ago
I see. So each party typically acts as a cluster. They may have their own internal rankings within that cluster of candidates, but on the whole parties will typically only be concerned with cluster rankings. That is to say, most parties won't bother with going through 100+ candidates' platforms entirely individually, and you'd expect to see all (or most) of a given party in a block on the ranking, rather than sprinkled throughout. Senate Preferences for Party A: 1 - PARTY A - John 2 - PARTY A - Jane 3 - PARTY A - Mike 4 - PARTY A - Jennifer 5 - PARTY B - Napoleon 6 - PARTY B - Elizabeth 7 - PARTY B - Bob 7 - PARTY C - Austin 8 - PARTY C - Emily 9 - PARTY B - Patrick <- (For whatever reason, Party A just really doesn't like Patrick at all) 10 - PARTY D - NeoNazi <- (Crazies at the bottom) And so on and so forth for 100+ candidates. The abc.net.au preference listings seem to show this sort of line up. (And there seem to be a ton of parties: Stop CSG Party, Australian Sex Party, Help End Marijuana Prohibition, Smokers Rights Party, Stable Population Party) I can certainly see how administrative error could creep in here --and sabotage as well. I still find myself preferring an election system like this however even with the bloat :)
- coffeecheque 13y ago
  Yep. Though you have obviously worked out ways to game the system. It's happening more and more. For example, in Victoria, a group of five libertarian aligned micro-group parties (headed up by the Liberal Democrats) didn't lodge their GVT, meaning you now can't vote for them above the line. As most (95%) of people vote above, that's wiped them out in Victoria. But here's the realpolitik: they had organized a straight preference swap deal nationally with the Australian Sex Party, which had a chance of making quota (aka winning a spot) with the help of the preferences in Victoria. It's less likely now in that state. But the Sex Party has lodged its preferences in Victoria and other states with flows to the Lib-Dems. It means the Lib-Dems can avoid helping the Sex Party win a Victorian spot (and possibly balance of power in the Senate) but maybe win its own spot in other states (and also, balance of power). It is complicated and strategy matters big time.
  - aspensmonster 13y ago

Germanicus 13y ago

If you can stop numbering when you lose interest, that's the "optional" in "optional preferential voting". It's good, but we won't get it. As things are, you always have to choose between the two right wing parties that dominate the system, even if you put them at last choice and second last. So you vote from 1 according to your preferences, give the big numbers to your least preferred, and /then/ blindly count between them. With optional preferential voting, people who don't want either of the big two could avoid choosing between them. This doesn't happen because (what they taught us at school) there might be a tie, or you could get elected with a small number of votes, but really because (what they didn't teach us at school) the big two and their symbiotes know that it would encourage a civilised multi-party democracy in which coalitions could be negotiated and altruism might sneak in. The big two would rather take turns at being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition than see green, liberal or socialist options get a voice. They hate it when small parties get enough power to hold them accountable, or have legislation discussed before it is passed.

caf 13y ago
I don't think that analysis holds up. Optional preferential voting is closer to first-past-the-post than compulsory preferential (in Queensland and NSW where they have OPV at a State level, a large majority tend to "just vote 1"). First-past-the-post is bad for minor parties, and would cement the two-party system. At the last election, the Greens only won the seat of Melbourne by using Liberal voter preferences to overtake the ALP candidate, and similarly Andrew Wilkie relied on the preferences of Liberal, Green and Socialist party voters to eventually win from third position. Under OPV, it is highly likely that both of those seats would have gone to the ALP. OPV might be defensible on the grounds of reducing informality, but it would push our system closer towards FPTP and be bad for minor parties.
- femto 13y ago
  From memory, the NSW upper house optional preferential instructions are that you must mark at least 15 boxes. It's a balancing act between enough numbers to ensure that most ballots continue to count, but small enough to reduce the effort, and consequent informal votes due to errors, of voting below the line.