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). ;-)

Examinator, speaking of personal problems. Go look in a mirror. Vote BLANK people, it's our only hope. ;))

True, preferences are not "given" but that is usually the biggest media exposure most minor parties achieve.

In the case of the Greens, it is not very surprising that Labor is the beneficiary - from memory it always has been this way. The Democrats at least tended to always present a split ticket, something I believe they are sticking with this time around (at least for the Senate).

And the conservative minor parties tend to favour the Coalition (unless an extraordinary reason arises).

Perhaps our modern lives are too saturated that having different voting methods: local, state, federal (house & senate) etc etc can get just a little confusing? Wouldn't it be great to have a debate to sort out which voting system is better suited for everyone and just stick with it in ALL elections? It would make so much more sense since most Aussies move all over the country.

http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

I agree with Pemmy and Ludwig. To say that preferences reflect voters’ preferences because they can number all the boxes below the line is disingenuous. There are so many candidates and parties that most voters vote above the line – about 95%, according to the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/glossary.htm#group_voting_ticket

If all voters actually voted below the line it would probably take months to actually count the vote. At the last election here in WA there were 54 senate candidates, yielding possible voting permutations for each voter of:

230,843,697,339,241,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Unless the preferences directions of their chosen party coincide with the actual preference of the voter then their preferences are not in fact represented by the way their vote is cast. Add to this the complex preference deals done by the parties, which direct votes as much by electoral advantage as ideological affinity, and we have a recipe for the election of candidates almost no-one wants (like Senator Fielding)

Examinator, any voting system that can possibly make your vote count where you specifically don’t want it to count is a total affront to democracy and to the very purpose of voting!

When you stop and think about it, the ‘first past the post’ system is democratic, the optional preferential system is likewise and the compulsory preferential system just completely isn’t!

.
We should all put in a blank ballot paper for two very good reasons:

1. The choice of major candidates is dismal and it really is a case of either picking whichever we feel is the slightly less terrible of two fundamentally flawed options, or choosing to vote for neither of them, and only voting for some other candidate if he/she has a realistic chance of being one of the two front-runners in their seat. If a minor candidate has no projected chance of winning in any particular seat, then to vote for one of them and preference any the other minor candidates ahead of Labor or Liberal would be futile as your vote would filter down and end up counting for one of the liblabs.

2. The voting system is so utterly flawed that we should be protesting by not having a bar of it.

.
Jorge, we should indeed be striving to uniformalise and simplify the voting system so that everyone can easily understand it.

The first big step would be to introduce the optional preferential system across the board, in the upper and lower houses in every state and federally.

It can be daunting to attempt to vote below the line in the Senate. I also agree that an optional preferential system would be preferable.
However, given that on Saturday we will have to work with the system we got, the challenge becomes about how to make sure one is happy with the way one's preferences are allocated.
Thanks to this site https://www.belowtheline.org.au/ I have created my own how to vote card - if everyone who wants to make an informed vote created their own how to vote card then you keep control of your preferences.
I would strongly recommend that OLO readers circulate this link to their networks.

Today I spent a bit of time on line trying to find out how the ALP, Libs and Greens had distributed their preferences for those who choose to vote above the line. Couldn't find anything on their web sites, or on the Australian Electoral Commission. The ALP did direct its supporters to vote above the line, which is like asking them to fly blindfolded if they don't know exactly what they are voting for. It is this sort of secrecy that gave us Senator Fielding in Victoria. So I'll be taking the time to vote below the line for the NSW Senate, because I have to make sure Karl Bitar is the very last number. If there was an Optional Preferential Voting Party it would be my number one!

Candide, if you vote above the line Labor and the Greens have a preference deal. Liberals I don't know I assume in Victoria they would be supporting Fielding Family First Party.

I agree Ludwig.

I personally find the 'first past the post' system to be very UN_democratic because it means that the government has a mandate of only a minority- I would suggest compulsory coalition governments consisting of every elected representative, or at least, as many parties merged as it takes till an actual majority or representation is reached. Most West-European countries do this and it means there is more balanced governance and better-quality elections that Australia's big-two scare hysteria.

But on preferencing, I totally agree- having my ballot DIScounted if I don't vote for all the candidates is completely and utterly undemocratic.

Anyway, I would also like to thank Andrew for clarifying this to the public and hope to see it in the papers.

Thanks Paul1405 - but do you know where the full details of the Parties' Senate preferences can be found? When I saw them in 2007 there were some shockers lurking not far from the top.

candide
If you want to see where the various parties have directed their preferences go to
https://www.belowtheline.org.au
Not only will you see where they have directed their preferences but you will also be able to 'tweak' the preference flow so that it suits your particular situation.
The other feature available on the site is that you can check the credentials of all the candidates.
So for example if you check out Senator on line you find that they do not have any policies BUT when it comes to their preference flow you find that voting above the line for them in NSW will result in your vote eventually flowing to the Liberals (there is a strong conservative bias in their ticket) The problem is of course that given that all parties have to allocate preferences their preference flow may not reflect their political philosophy.

Candide,

The senate ticket lists are on the Australian Electoral Commission site....though it's not that easy to find.

http://www.aec.gov.au/

1. On the top page, go to "Voting in" under the heading "Saturday 21 August, 2010 Federal Election"
2. Select your state
3. Scroll down to "Senate candidates and Group Voting Tickets..."
4. And click on "Group Voting Tickets (Senate preference flows) for xxx"

There you can see all the lodged tickets and also see which candidates/parties have lodged more than one ticket.

Hope that helps.

http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Thanks BAYGON and Jorge. I did look on the AEC site but didn't see where it was, so rang them - and was told in no uncertain terms that nothing so party political would be available from them and to ask the Parties in question. What idiots. I then emailed my local member (Liberal) and the NSW Office of the Liberals - no reply - and my local Labor Senator and NSW ALP - no reply - and NSW Greens office (as linked to by Green Senate candidate Lee Rhiannon) - reply within 2 minutes. Apparently all the info is on the ABC election site too - according to Greens.