GreensBlog - the official blog of the Australian Greens Senators

Posted in Election 07, Preferences, Senate | 14 Comments

14 Responses to “How preferences work”

1. on October 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm1 Liam

   This post is back?
   I’m sorry to say that quota is *still* calculated with (votes/seats+1)+1.

   
   
2. on October 13, 2007 at 8:02 pm2 Tim Hollo

   Yes, sorry Liam. I lost the post somehow and had to repost. Thanks for recommenting and you are still right. But it still makes no difference in terms of the actual result. And that is really the whole point of the post. People get caught up in the detail of the preferential system, but the most important message for us is “vote 1 Greens”!

   
   
3. on October 13, 2007 at 9:07 pm3 Liam

   If you say so.
   Respect to you for keeping a post up with an empirically wrong advertisement, though.

   
   
4. on October 13, 2007 at 11:43 pm4 Zoltar

   It has been my habit to vote below the line and to often fill preferences for a group in reverse order so that those at the bottom of the ticket are preferenced before those at the top. On reflection this may be a poor decision, it all depends upon exactly how preferences are distributed, and the order in which they are done so. Are above the line votes distributed before or after below the line votes? Do below the line votes take precedence in filling quotas, are they treated equally, or are they treated last?

   More importantly, what happens to the electoral funding attached to my first preference. If I give 1st preference to the last candidate in a senate group, and the group as a whole reaches the 4% funding threshold but the last candidate in the group doesn’t, what happens to the $2 or so assosciated with my vote? Does it go to the candidate, go to the group, or vanish completely because the guy I voted for didn’t get 4%?

   
   
5. on October 14, 2007 at 10:02 am5 Liam

   They’re treated equally, Zoltar, and if you vote below the line, nobody has any say in the preference distribution but you. I tend to vote with the same method.
   The electoral funding goes to the group, I understand, provided always that they achieve a sufficient first preference vote.

   
   
6. on October 14, 2007 at 11:05 pm6 sean

   In the Senate, if you give your first preference vote to a candidate who does not get 4% of the State primary vote then no one will get the electoral funding irrespective of what the group gets.

   “Subject to this Division, $1.50 is payable for each first preference vote given for a candidate or group in a Senate election.”
   ” (1) A payment under this Division shall not be made in respect of votes given in an election for a candidate unless the total number of eligible votes polled in the candidate’s favour is at least 4% of the total number of eligible votes polled in favour of all of the candidates in the election.”

   If we assume that only the lead Greens candidate will get more than 4% of the primary vote, Greens voters who vote below the line need to ensure they vote 1 for the lead candidate if they want the Greens to get electoral funding from their vote. Giving your primary vote to lower ranked candidates will cost electoral funding and achieve nothing from an electoral strategic perspective.

   
   
7. on October 14, 2007 at 11:25 pm7 sean

   Actually, I think my last post may have been based on rules at the Vic upper house election last yaer, and the commonwealth act may treat all votes to candidates in a group as if they are to a single candidate. So i’d like to retract what I said at 11:05 until someone can verify it. The legislation is unclear.

   
   
8. on October 15, 2007 at 8:33 am8 Liam

   Sean, I’m fairly sure that lower-place BTL votes attract Party election funding as long as the ticket reaches the threshhold. Certainly the AEC claims it pays to the registered Party where they’re organised in a group ticket.
   Wow, some of those Independents cleaned up, and Pauline Hanson didn’t do to shabbily either.

   
   
9. on October 15, 2007 at 1:19 pm9 Zoltar

   Liam,

   I saw how nicely Pauline Hanson did too. Nice work if you can get it.

   I think I read somewhere in something that Antony Green wrote that groups can lodge up to 3 group voting tickets. And here is a worked examples http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/senatevotingsystem.htm

   Lets assume that a party like the greens runs a full ticket with 6 candidates, and knows that at best they can get 2 senators elected. If they lodge 3 GVTs then we can assume:
   all 3 GVTs will direct first preference to the candidate at the top of the ticket;
   at least 2 of the GVTs will want to preference the 2nd greens candidate as 2nd preference; and
   the 3rd GVT will want to keep the vote within the greens group ticket, going to either candidate 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, and then preferencing back to candidate 2 (no later than 6th preference), so that candidate 2 will be the last candidate facing exclusion.

   The ramification of parties being able to lodge multiple GVTs is that the 6th candidate on a group ticket isn’t guaranteed to be a safe place for below the line voters to place their first preference, because up to one third of any surplus quota from the first candidate could also land here (very early in the count). This makes it a risky game for below the line voters who want to vote for an ungrouped candidate and also have the electoral funding attached to their vote not go to waste.

   Its so darn complicated!!! Can’t they just ammend the rules so that candidates get electoral commission funding if they achieve >4% of below the line first preferences.

   
   
10. on October 15, 2007 at 2:12 pm10 Liam

    No, zoltar, it’s not that complicated.
    The total number of votes for each group is determined by adding up the total number of votes for candidates in that group, regardless of their position. A candidate for a Party is a candidate for a Party, and four percent is four percent.
    Each ATL vote is equivalent to a vote cast BTL along the lines submitted as per the GVT; the actual count doesn’t discriminate between them. As Antony Green says (your link):

    When you select a group voting square above the line, your vote is accepting the preference ticket previously lodged by that party or group.

    You’re right that strategic voting is difficult and probably unwise, but it doesn’t matter as far as funding goes.

    
    
11. on October 15, 2007 at 5:28 pm11 Zoltar

    Liam, if there was no funding involved it would be easy, just vote in the order you want your preferences distributed. Simple.

    When you introduce funding it complicates the matter because only 4% or 5% of people vote BTL and the only way an ungrouped candidate can get a first preference vote is with BTL voting. An ungrouped candidate would need to get just about every first preference vote cast BTL in order to reach the 4% funding threshold, this isn’t going to happen. Hence a first preference BTL vote for an ungrouped candidate is flushing the funding attached to your vote straight down the drain.

    The only way to put the funding attached to your vote to some use is to vote 1 for a candidate who is part of a group where the group will exceed the 4% funding threshold. You then must hope that your first preference (if voted primarily to avoid loss of vote funding) gets elliminated before the person you marked as a 2nd preference (who you really preferred) get elliminated.

    Alternatively, you can of course vote 1. for the top candidate in a group if you are highly confident that they will receive more than one quota from the combined ATL and first preference BTL votes. You will then get a partial vote passed on to your 2nd preference candidate, better than nothing, but its far from ideal. If the top candidate gets 1.8 quotas, about 45% of your vote passes on to your 2nd preference, if they get 1.1 quotas less than 10% of your vote passes to your 2nd preference, if they fail to reach quota, the guy you put 2nd is screwed, they’ll probably get elliminated long before your vote has a chance of flowing to them.

    Voting for a group and denying them your funding is easy. Voting for a group and giving them your funding is easy. Voting for an ungrouped candidate and denying them your funding is easy. Voting for an ungrouped candidate whilst preserving your funding is complicated.

    
    
12. on October 15, 2007 at 10:39 pm12 Liam

    Zoltar, ungrouped candidates by definition cannot have votes cast for them above the line. That’s the price of independence, and in any case any candidate, a vote above the line is exactly equal to a vote below the line for funding purposes. I really think you’re needlessly complicating things in your working-out.

    … a first preference BTL vote for an ungrouped candidate is flushing the funding attached to your vote straight down the drain.

    Yeah, but frankly, BFD. You’re confusing two different things. Election funding set at 4% of the primary vote is a matter of legislated policy, not electoral preference. Voting should be a matter of individually expressed political preference, and not at all about allowing or denying a group access to somebody else’s tax money.
    Let’s talk realistic scenarios. I’m assuming because we’re arguing here that you’re not entirely against the Greens receiving funding. Though I’m a Labor stooge myself, I don’t particularly mind that they do either. The Greens Senate vote *will* exceed four percent in every State and territory in this election, and though it might not be by much everywhere, a primary vote for any candidate on the Greens ticket is a safe bet for securing Commonwealth election funding for them.
    Ungrouped candidates should have thought of funding before they went on their own way.

    Voting for an ungrouped candidate whilst preserving your funding is complicated.

    Quite. It’s not your funding, or mine, to give.

    
    
13. on October 16, 2007 at 1:34 am13 Zoltar

    Liam, I agree its not anyone’s funding to give, but given that its on offer it is better to give it to a party that best represents your political objectives, than to have it wasted. Wasting it is akin to strengthening the opposition and weakening your own side.

    I see a subtle difference between who you want elected and who you want to receive funding from your vote.

    Which major party (or independent) eventually secures your preference at the two party/candidate preferred stage is effectively your vote for the present, whilst the funding attached to your first preference is essentially a vote for the future. The reason is simple, the funding comes AFTER the election, so its too late to help a party at the 2007 election. It can however make a difference for the 2010 election fight.

    I live in a very very safe liberal electorate, the swing required to unseat the sitting member is astronomical, if 30% of the voters who voted liberal at the last election voted labor this time around the liberals would still win. It makes no difference who I vote for, the liberals will win, so a vote for the future is about all I’ve realistically got. Consequently I try and direct the funding attached to my vote to the party I want to be in the best position to advocate my issues after the election, and to help them survive to and to fight the election in 3 years time.

    
    
14. on December 6, 2007 at 5:00 pm14 Cloud

    I know, from personal contact, that in the electorate where I live voters who usually vote Green 1 and Labor 2 reversed that order. Their rationale was that Howard had to go and the only way to effect that was to put Labor first.
    Speaking to a worker at our local campaign office this sounds as though it’s a perennial problem, perhaps exacerbated by such a strong desire to see Howard defeated.
    Perhaps a greater effort needs to be put into an education campaign to ensure minimisation of this effect. I was pleased to see the explanation on the reverse of Page’s ‘how to vote’ but I’m not sure how many people, already at the booth, will have seen it.
    Since grassroots action is at the heart of the Greens, one person in each area (smaller than an electorate, especially in a rural area like ours) taking on the task of writing letters, etc for the local ‘rag’ may help.
    And at each election I learn something new. Reading the ABC election web site I learned that voting above AND below the line in the Senate does not make the vote informal. I checked this out on the AEC website and this concept was confirmed in the scrutineers’ handbook. Seems to me this is a great way of lessening the risk of an informal vote and one that no one else I’ve spoken to (except some long-standing booth workers) know about.

    
    

Leave a Reply