3 ms·

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 Gro

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
    Oooohhhh that is devious. So the Australian Sex Party is trying to break into the Senate and have a say nationally. Their best bet on securing a seat is in Victoria. With the aid of preferences in Victoria from that small group of libertarian-minded parties, that was feasible. In return, the Libertarian bloc got preferences nationally; maybe they'll win, maybe they won't. But they've got a shot. All gravy, right? Well, actually, the Sex party also had preferences nationally with the Liberal Democrats (whether the Lib-Dems were above or below the Libertarian bloc in those preferences is irrelevant, as we'll soon see). And it just so happens that the Libertarian bloc --that the Sex party is counting on to get their seat in Victoria-- had substantial backing from the Lib-Dems. By hook or by crook (hint: crook), the Lib-Dems utilize their influence over that libertarian bloc and stop the GVT from getting lodged. Now they get to keep the Sex party's preferences flowing to them, while not having to worry about the Sex party actually gaining a seat at all! Even the threat of the remaining libertarian preferences to them in other states is minimal; they've likely got better backing from other parties anyway. http://i.imgur.com/s2zg1qc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/s2zg1qc.jpg
    - caf 13y ago

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
  Oooohhhh that is devious. So the Australian Sex Party is trying to break into the Senate and have a say nationally. Their best bet on securing a seat is in Victoria. With the aid of preferences in Victoria from that small group of libertarian-minded parties, that was feasible. In return, the Libertarian bloc got preferences nationally; maybe they'll win, maybe they won't. But they've got a shot. All gravy, right? Well, actually, the Sex party also had preferences nationally with the Liberal Democrats (whether the Lib-Dems were above or below the Libertarian bloc in those preferences is irrelevant, as we'll soon see). And it just so happens that the Libertarian bloc --that the Sex party is counting on to get their seat in Victoria-- had substantial backing from the Lib-Dems. By hook or by crook (hint: crook), the Lib-Dems utilize their influence over that libertarian bloc and stop the GVT from getting lodged. Now they get to keep the Sex party's preferences flowing to them, while not having to worry about the Sex party actually gaining a seat at all! Even the threat of the remaining libertarian preferences to them in other states is minimal; they've likely got better backing from other parties anyway. http://i.imgur.com/s2zg1qc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/s2zg1qc.jpg
  - caf 13y ago