Bren

I completely agree

In WA we "elected" (in our first senate election, before the re-run) a senator from the Australian Sports Party that attracted 0.23% of the primary vote. We also lost capable and experienced Senator Louise Pratt to union hack and faction guru Joe Bullock due to Labor placing Bullock above Pratt (many below-the-line voters ranked Pratt over Bullock, but of course the party ticket won out).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-14/louise-pratt-outpolling-joe-bullock-below-the-line/5389000

I have no objection to minor parties holding the balance of power – in fact, I can see benefits. But the preference system seems guaranteed to ensure that the major parties control most of the senate while the balance goes to parties that almost no-one wants in government.

Rhrosty,

How do preferences “skew the results that completely counter the demonstrated will of the people”?

Bren,

Why is the 2013 election of Ricky Muir from an initial .51 per cent of the vote a problem but the 2004 election of Stephen Conroy of the ALP (with 780 votes or 0.03 per cent), Julian McGauran of the National Party (with 1190 or 0.04 per cent) and Judith Troeth of the Liberal Party (with 829 or 0.03 per cent) not one?

Rhian.

Why is it a problem that “the party ticket won out”?

People freely choose to follow a party how-to-vote ticket and thus accept the results of their choice. There is nothing undemocratic about that. Those who don’t want to are free to vote below the line. It takes time and effort, but it is open to everyone to make that choice. There are even websites available that ensure your vote is formal and allow you to print you own how-to-vote card.

We have the single transferable vote. It makes no distinction in transferring that vote between a candidate in the same party and a candidate in a different party because it is, in line with Section 7 of the Constitution, designed to elect individuals, not parties.

If every one had to vote below the line and did so in such a way as to replicate the results of the 2013 election, there could be no rational argument that the result was invalid. The leap-frogging of one candidate over several others is not a fault but an essential capacity of the STV system. All that is happening is that candidate with the least support drops out and his or her voters move to their next choice. It is a series of contests, each of which has one candidate less in it, until one candidate demonstrates that he or she has the support of the majority of voters left in the count. Instead of occurring over several separate elections on perhaps 100 days, it occurs at one election, with preferences substituting for returning to the polling booth.

The “experts” claimed that people were horrified that micro-party candidates (voted for by 23.5 per cent of the national population in 2013) actually won seats, that they were appalled that they did not know where their votes had ended up, that they would realise their “mistake” and that they would flock back to the “proper” parties. Yet, the micro-party candidates actually gained votes in the Western Australian Senate election, showing that people were not horrified or appalled at all but pleased that the system allowed “outsiders” to be elected, relaxed about where their preferences went and completely understood that the system gave expression to “the demonstrated will of the people”. The total micro-party vote was 25.5 per cent http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ (Sunday, 06 April 2014 03:11:32 AM)), up 5.9 per cent on 2013

Chris C

You say that "People freely choose to follow a party how-to-vote ticket and thus accept the results of their choice. There is nothing undemocratic about that. Those who don’t want to are free to vote below the line. It takes time and effort, but it is open to everyone to make that choice.

You have hit the nail on the head with the observation that "it takes time and effort". People don't freely choose to vote above-the-line. They are induced to do so because it takes a lot less time and trouble.

If you could only vote for the Labor or Greens tickets above-the-line (but not for other tickets) would that be fair? According to your argument, it would be because supporters of other parties could still vote for their preferences below-the-line!

I don't share your view. I think that true democracy requires a level playing field at the voting booth.

Chris C

It is a problem that the party ticket won out because, as the article points out, the ticket system and above-the-line voting subverts the intent of the Hare-Clark system to deliver competition between candidates within as well as between parties. It is the political equivalent of third-line forcing.

I would be less concerned with micro parties gaining power if they are genuinely the least objectionable option for voters. This would be the case if everyone voted below the line according to their own preferences. But the labyrinthine preference deals that determine who turns up in the senate are not a reflection of voter preference between candidates, only the preference not to individually number 70+ boxes.

It is true that the micro parties attracted quite a large share of the vote in 2013, but irrelevant. People don’t vote for “A Micro Party”. It its very unlikely that people who did vote for them are indifferent between which minor party politician winds up in the senate. I imaging Australian Christians or Family First voters would be quite unhappy if their preferences contributed to the election of a Sex Party senator.

Bren,

I don’t think spending a few minutes every three years is too much to give for the cause of democracy, though many people apparently do. No, it would not be fair if “you could only vote for the Labor or Greens tickets above-the-line (but not for other tickets)”, but that is not the case: all parties have above-the-line votes.

Rhian,

The ideal would be for everyone to fill out every square below the line in whatever order they chose, but that does not happen. The group voting ticket has halved the informal vote and that is a good thing.

The group voting ticket are al on the AEC website before the election. People can check them before deciding how to vote. The idea that people are annoyed that the wrong micro-party won was tested in the WA special Senate election. If they had been annoyed, fewer would have voted for micro-parties the second tome around, but more did so.

As I have said, I agree with making preferences below the line optional after certain number (which should be the same for half Senate and full Senate elections and in all jurisdictions), but I see no problem in the convenience of group voting tickets because they are not compulsory. I can even see an argument for the preferences in a group voting ticket to exhaust at whatever the number of compulsory preferences below the line is o that GTVs do not carry more weight than below-the-line votes. I made this suggestion to the Joint Standing Committee.