Johns was,and apparently still is,just a Labour apparatchik.There are plenty of his type in the current Labour lineup and their equivalent in the Liberal/Nationals.In other words,Johns knows very well how the Senate works and he knows damn well how preferential voting works.His piece was just the usual election campaign spin.

Unfortunately,many of the sheep who pass for an electorate don't know how to use their preferential vote to good effect.

As for the balance of power,it may sometimes be used to good effect but only when one of the major parties opposes legislation.The fact is that Lib/Lab are Tweedle Dee/Tweedle Dum so that situation is not going to arise in the important issues.

I am hoping for a hung parliament in the House.That anarchical situation will really put the feral cat amongst the feral pigeons.That could not be any worse than the present bilateral hopeless case.

"This “giving” of preferences can only occur in the Senate, and even then only if a voter chooses to have their vote used in this way by voting for a party above the line on the Senate ballot paper, rather than number all the boxes below the line themselves." Oh Andrew, you've obviously been in Canberra too long old chap. Are you seriously saying that most punters make an informed choice when they vote above the line? I'd love to see some evidence of that assertion. The proposal by Mark Latham that people just leave their ballot paper blank really resonates when you consider the structural corruption that above the line voting has facilitated at every election since 1983 (a "gift" to the Nation by your old political party too - thanks for that!). 95% of the electorate are likely to vote above the line this Senate half election, something your current political party is no doubt thankful for - so simple, to rely on apathy, compulsion and back room deals to get your outcome. Vote BLANK never made so much sense.

The Senate is an enigma to most people and Andrew Bartlett has pointed out that there is a lack of understanding about preferential voting.

But preferential voting is only part of the puzzle of the Senate voting system for people who have other things think about. The preference system is part of the 'one electorate' whereby all voters in one State vote for the same list of candidates, and remember there are six senate seats up for grabs at each election in each State, (and twelve after a double dissolution) which means a multiple list of candidates. A minimum of three candidates for each seat (and possibly more) presents the voter with 18 candidates to list in order of preference, and a huge voting paper with many names of people the voter knows nothing about. No wonder many people vote above the line, but make no mistake, this is not an option for the benefit of the voters, it is a political ruse to give more control over voting intentions into the hands of politicians.

Voting above the line means that ‘preference deals’ become real bargaining tools as above the line voting means the voter agrees to the list of candidates in the order of the political party which he/she has voted for above the line. Combined with the quota system, where a candidate who attracts more than his/her quota (one sixth of the total vote plus one) has the surplus allotted to the next candidate on the party’s preference list. Hence in the deal between Greens and Labor, Labor votes over the quota vote go to the Greens. This is the system that gave Senator Fielding, of the Family First party and with only a fraction of the primary vote but plus the preferences of Labor, a Senate seat, and denied a seat to Pauline Hanson, with a significant number of primary votes but no preferences. In this way political parties play with the Senate vote to suit their own ends distorting voting intentions. Is this democratic

<< This “giving” of preferences can only occur in the Senate… >>

Yes, if we vote above the line and mark just one square, we are actually allocating preferences in a manner that is predetermined by the party that we are voting for!

The very nature of just marking one square surely should mean that NO preferences are being allocated and that your vote ONLY counts for the candidate that we are voting for…..in complete contrast to the ordered allocation of preferences if you vote below the line!

This is terrible. It means that your vote in Senate can end up counting where you have no intention of it counting! And THAT is TOTALLY antidemocratic!

Thanks Pemmy for further elucidating how this terrible rort actually operates.

Andrew, I find it very odd that in an article explaining how preferences work, you have not mentioned our terrible compulsory preferential voting system.

This system is every bit as much of an antidemocratic rort as the above-line mark-only-one-box Senate system.

The CPV system operates for the Senate if you vote below the line and for your House of Reps vote.

You have to mark every square, which means that your vote can very likely filter down and end up counting where you have no intention of it counting. If you specifically want to vote against both Labor and Liberal and put them last and second last, your vote will very likely end up counting for whichever one you put second last.

There is absolutely no need for this. The optional preferential system, which operates in some states, allows the voter to allocate preferences to the extent that they wish, from just marking one square to marking every square or anywhere in between.

THIS is democratic. It has worked well in Queensland and NSW for numerous elections and there should be no reason why it isn’t in use in this Federal election.

Bitey
your post sounds like a personal problem.
You seem to think that government is Someone Else's Problem i.e. if the voting process reflect the actual complexity of government then it's wrong to expect the spoiled/ indolent public to actually put in enough effort. Heaven forbid that choosing a representative to represent you should take up your precious leisure time.

Ludwig,
Think it through.
I for example sake vote out my preferred option then play random numbers with the rest this in fact breaks up any chance of support.
I think that you'll find that the preferences are only used untill all the available seats are filled.

Any way what are you fretting about The libs will probably win and even if Labor win the Greens will stop the dreaded, evil, childless succubi from unfetted socialism (sic). ;-)