Australia uses preferential voting in all lower house seats and a modified version for the senate.

There seems to be a lot of cunfusion about how preferential voting works. People can't get their head around whether they are voting 'for' or 'against' a certain candidate. You can really only say you are voting for your first preference and against your last. To try to put all the other candidates into these piles is clearly absurd. You are not voting for or against them, you are ranking them in order of preference. People get upset because they think they are being forced to vote 'for' someone they don't like. This is not true. Your vote only goes to your second preference after your first preference is excluded from the race.

The Americans call our system 'instant runoff' voting, in reference to how it replaces ana dditional runoff election. It helps if you think of the process as many elections, rather than one. Say for the sake of argument there are ten candidates. That means there are effectively nine elections. The first election has ten candidates, the second nine and so on until the last election which has two candidates. At each election you get to vote again for your favourite candidate out of the remaining runners. Viewed this way, you realise that your vote only ever goes to your favourite out of those that are actually running. This can never work against your preferred candidate, as your vote only goes to someone else after they are no longer participating.

More information:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html

The surprising thing I often find is that people think that a proclamation like "The Greens are directing their preferences towards the ALP" actually has any affect on their (lower house) vote, and consequently refuse to vote [1] Greens, because they would prefer the Liberals over the ALP. But it's rubbish...the ONLY thing that matters is what order you put on your own ballot paper. All "directing preferences" means in the lower house is what appears on the "How to Vote card".
Further, if you give your 1st preference vote to a major party, the reality is that the rest of your votes will count for nothing. In fact, voting [1] Liberals and [2] Greens is as good as Voting [1] Liberals and voting [6] Greens. The former is not sending any sort of message to the Liberal party that you think they need better environmental policies. If you really want to send that message, vote [1] Greens, and [2] Liberals. There's no real risk of the Greens actually winning a lower house seat (because the majority of voters give very little thought to their voting at all), but if the Liberals win the seat knowing that they relying on a large swathe of Green preferences, there's at least a small chance that will have some affect on their policy making.

Tired of politicians never listening to a word you have to say?

The Australian Government is thinking about setting up a 'blog' to let the public have their say on public policy.

Have your say on what shape it should take here. It's just a quick survey.

www.openforum.com.au/Survey

Yes, it's for real.

It makes sense dnicholson, but don't you think that the system is confusing at best?
You shouldn't have a degree in election studies to vote the way you would like it to take effect.

What currently happens is exactly as you described the "wrong way" of sending a message. It is not the first time that for the sake of "logic" we throw good old common sense out the window. It is just annoying that this should happen to the way we vote.

Other countries trialled our system (France I believe included), found unfair or unworkable, we are the only one left with it. It would not allow ever for any small party to emerge with any significant amount of votes, even if 20% voted for them [1] and others wouldn't prefer them for [2].

And consider this. If you REALLY decided to put 360 or so candidates in order on the spot that is 360! factored. Even if it only takes seconds considering each, that is an astronomical amount of seconds. Comes up to many years actually. And if an old person wants to put in the numbers just in order? Chances are he or she could easily make a mistake somewhere even by leaving out a number and putting another twice. With the best of intentions, his or her vote wouldn't count either. How many of such votes are discarded every 3 years?

Why not number just 1 to 10 or number parties instead of people. That was quite a sensible proposal from Bob Brown.

And I am not sure how the regional weighing of votes works in the voter's favour. I mean great majority aspired and voted for a republic. Somehow we still don't have it ...

The one-round voting system may be flawed. The argument for it I found was cost saving. Hmmm. What cost you can put on fair voting that does not disadvantage by party size or voter age? I say we should have the decency to do at least some patchwork. It is long overdue.

"You shouldn't have a degree in election studies to vote the way you would like it to take effect.

You don't. You just rank the candidates in order of preference. Whatever candidate you would most like to win, you rank first.

"Other countries trialled our system (France I believe included), found unfair or unworkable

I doubt that very much. There is a gradual drift towards various forms of ranked choice and runoff elections.

"we are the only one left with it

It's the other way round. We were one of the first, but others are switching to it.

"It would not allow ever for any small party to emerge with any significant amount of votes, even if 20% voted for them [1] and others wouldn't prefer them for [2].

If they got 20% of the votes, they got 20% of the votes. Not sure where you are copying and pasting this from, but it is wrong. Alternatives like first past the post that let you win with less than 50% of the vote can hardly be described as fairer.

"And consider this. If you REALLY decided to put 360 or so candidates in order on the spot that is 360! factored.

No it isn't. That's what would happen if you voted multiple times. You only vote once.

"Why not number just 1 to 10 or number parties instead of people.

This is similar to voting above the line in the senate.

"How many of such votes are discarded every 3 years?

Less than 5% in the senate.

"how it works?" it works to assure labor or liberals control of reps, without the need to consult minority views.

this results in major decisions being taken in secret by caucus, without public discussion. the end result is oligarchy, with a figleaf of triennial voting for the credulous fools who swallow the description of their activity as 'democracy'.

DEMOS, that's part of the reason that we have two houses. At the moment with a majority in both, its a sho-in, but for many years prior to the current term, we had governments that had to live with independents/minor parties that controlled the ability to pass legislation. To me that's an ideal situation. Even with the majority the current government has, senators with a concsious can still act up and get issues into the spotlight before being pulled back into party line.

As to education, there should be compulsory schooling on the Australian voting process in say Y10 at highschool. Maybe Y9 to catch the drop-outs, but starting to get too early to have any meaning once voting age is reached. There should be no reason why anyone is allowed to not understand the process. Even when I was at highschool, it gave me the s*#@'s to hear people say "I'm going to vote for John Howard" (insert alternative leader). I went on a personal crusade for a while to try and educate my fellow students about who we actually vote for - I eventually gave up. American TV has a LOT to answer for!

“There seems to be a lot of confusion about how preferential voting works.”

You’re not wrong there freediver! Even those who are really interested battle to get a handle on it. The average voter hasn’t much of a clue and is very often horribly misled in what they believe to be the case.

I’ve just tried to seek clarification from the Australia Electoral Commission helpline regarding the allocation of preferences and what really happens to your vote. They couldn’t tell me! And they couldn’t refer me to anyone who knows.

I rang the office of my local member, Peter Lindsay. His staff couldn’t tell me. They didn’t know!

I looked it up on the AEC website and found the answer.

So the answers are there (http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/count.htm)…….but no one seems to give a hoot about how the system actually works!

Neither politicians nor the AEC seem that interested at all in making the system clear to voters!

“You can really only say you are voting for your first preference and against your last.”

You are not necessarily only voting for your first preference. If you really liked two candidates and put them first and second, you would be perfectly happy if your second choice won. If you really only liked one choice and strongly disliked the rest, you would be very unhappy if your second ranked candidate won. It comes down to where you are happy with your vote ending up.

But yes you are effectively only voting against your last ranked candidate, because it is possible that your vote could end up counting for the second last ranked candidate, as per the example from the Division of McMillan in 1972 on the AEC website. So if you specifically wished to vote against two or more candidates, you might find that your vote ends up counting for one of them.

continued

A system in which there is any chance of your vote counting where you don’t want it to fundamentally undermines democracy and the very purpose of voting.

It comes down to being able to exercise real choice when ranking candidates…which we can do in the optional preferential system that we have in some states, but can’t do in the compulsory preferential system, unless we are happy to rank all candidates and to have our vote count for any of them except the last one, which most thoughtful people certainly aren’t.

“People get upset because they think they are being forced to vote 'for' someone they don't like. This is not true.”

Again, if you only really like one candidate, and strongly don’t want any others to get up…but your chosen candidate is a minor candidate, then your second-ranked or third-ranked ‘choice’ could very likely get your vote. So, depending on how you might like to vote and whether preferences will need to be allocated, you may in effect be forced to vote for someone you don’t like.

And if you don't like any of the candidates, you have no formal channel through which to express it. You are legally obligated to vote for someone you don't want to vote for!

“Your vote only goes to your second preference after your first preference is excluded from the race.”

No. Your vote may not go to your second preference if your first choice wins or if one of the other candidates gets a clear majority (50% +1). But then it could go to your third or fourth preference if no candidate has a clear majority after the first and second rounds of preference allocations.

Freediver you say "Whatever candidate you would most like to win, you rank first". And indeed, that's what most people do. But in most cases, they pick a major party candidate, because they assume (not entirely unreasonably) that the minor parties couldn't possibly handle running the country on their own. The problem is as soon as you put a major party candidate first on your ballot paper, the the rest of your votes are completely wasted.
So I explicitly do not put the candidate I would most like to win 1st, because I want to get the full value of my votes. To do this you have to vote:

[1] Party/parties with policies that you'd like your preferred major party to adopt
[2] Your preferred major party
[3] The other major party
[4] Remaining parties/candidates

(Of course [1] might actually be [1], [2] and [3], but you get the idea. Situation is different for seats with strong independents, which can then be treated like major parties).

"it works to assure labor or liberals control of reps, without the need to consult minority views

Compared with the msot likely alternative for single member electorates (first apst the post), it does the opposite to what you describe.

"A system in which there is any chance of your vote counting where you don’t want it to fundamentally undermines democracy and the very purpose of voting.

But that isn't possible. That is the point I am getting across.

"Again, if you only really like one candidate, and strongly don’t want any others to get up…but your chosen candidate is a minor candidate, then your second-ranked or third-ranked ‘choice’ could very likely get your vote.

That doesn't mean that you vote 'for' them instead of voting for your favourite. Your vote only goes to them in an election where your favourite is no longer participating. it is no loss to your favourite candidate.

"And if you don't like any of the candidates, you have no formal channel through which to express it. You are legally obligated to vote for someone you don't want to vote for!

Wrong. Donkey votes are perfectly legal. And besides, you are not asked to say who you like or dislike, you are asked to rank them in order of preference. This says nothing at all about who you like.

"No. Your vote may not go to your second preference if your first choice wins

This does not contradict the satement you responded to.

Freediver, I wrote;

"A system in which there is any chance of your vote counting where you don’t want it to fundamentally undermines democracy and the very purpose of voting.

And you replied;

“ But that isn't possible. That is the point I am getting across.”

Well…..I’m almost lost for words!! The compulsory preferential system so obviously can make your vote count where you don’t want it to. It is completely beyond my comprehension as to how you can insist that it isn’t so. We’ve apparently reached a total schism on this fundamental point.

“Wrong. Donkey votes are perfectly legal.”

You are confusing a donkey vote with a null or informal vote. A donkey vote is the marking of your ballot paper sequentially from top to bottom. Of course that is legal. But a deliberate null vote is not legal, although you can easily do it without penalty.

“And besides, you are not asked to say who you like or dislike, you are asked to rank them in order of preference. This says nothing at all about who you like.”

Yes, EXACTLY!! This ROTTEN compulsory preferential system COMPELS us to rank all candidates, and for most of us that means ranking two or more that we really don’t like! SURELY, in a real democracy, if we don’t like candidates, then there should be NO WAY that we should be expected to rank them and hence risk our vote counting for one of them! We should be able to leave the boxes next to their names UNMARKED so that there is NO CHANCE of our vote ending up scoring for a candidate where our intent was to vote AGAINST them!

Freediver, I don’t think you’ve ever had anything to say about the optional preferential system. Can you tell us what you think is so bad about it and why it would not serve us better than the compulsory preferential system.

I've said a lot about optional preferential voting, both here and on OzPolitic:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706

I suggest you take it up there as I am butting up against that stupid 10 post limit.

"The compulsory preferential system so obviously can make your vote count where you don’t want it to.

No it can't. For example, your vote can only end up with your second last preference when only the last two candidates are left in the race. When this happens, all your earlier preferences are no longer participating so your vote cannot possibly count against them. It only benefits your second last preference relative to your last preference. however, you ranked that candidate ahead of your last preference so that was obviously your intention. Provided you rank the candidates according to what your real preferences are, your vote cannot possibly count where you don't want it too.

The only possible exception to this is that it is a form of compulsory voting. However, the same argument against compulsory preferential voting would also apply to making voting completely optional. To use this argument against preferential voting misses the point a bit. Compulsory vs optional voting is a completely different choice to preferential voting vs the other options.

Furthermore, the form of OPV we have in some states actually increases the liklihood of your vote counting in a way you did not intend, because the preferences still get distributed.

Dammit, I should have checked before In hit submit. Now I've wasted another post.

Anyway, a correction - the form of OPV we use does not result in preference distribution. OPV is effectively a form of optional voting by stealth, and has all the problems associated with optional voting. The choice is not really relevant to the choice between preferential voting and other voting methods.

I think Ludwig has a MAJOR point.
Optional could make the system better.
And thanks for the reply, freediver. I don't usually past my opinion;-) last election looked up electoral info, since listened to a doco on subject.

360! factor? Stand my ground on this. One vote one series of numbers, true. But the choice from which to select is that astronomical. Given that about 10% is known to decide on the spot, and no one wants to spend years doing it - that's a no choice. So folks either go with the party preference, in which case you DON'T KNOW who you voter for (Family First, Victoria, case in point) or put first 10 numbers in order and the rest just to make up the numbers. Where mistakes WILL happen. This is not and Exam. Folks should not be disadvantaged for loss of focus (we have a huge and growing number of elderly and impatient youth.) Lost votes directly attributed to a flawed system are serious no matter what the percentage is. (It's no punched or half-punched cards here ...)

The point is this. Preferential deals between minor parties and major parties seal the fate of your vote even before you cast it. It may have a logic, it is possible, though no one seems to be overly willing to educate us about it in a concise easy to understand way. It should be YES/NO simple 1,2,3,4,5 then no thank you, not like a Futures Exchange.

I am in favor of a voting system where simple minded, young and old people alike (and tell me this is not the majority) can cast intentional votes with the knowledge that they did cast it where they wanted it when they leave the boot.

On 24th Nov for a lot of folks the opposite will happen unless they cast Greens first and Labor or Liberal Second.

But tell me how many of those who don't read this thread will know that. Should they be disadvantaged just because they don't or can't google up the intricacies of preferences and follow political broadcasts regularly?

Ok freediver, I have read your piece on optional preferential voting before and commented on it in some detail a while back on OLO.

I admire the trouble you have gone to with all this stuff and I admire your cool head and tactful manner of debating it. But really, some of your comments just seem to be crackers to me!

For example;

“If you do not rank at least one of the two major parties, your vote will probably not end up counting.”

You seem to be implying that if your vote is exhausted before preference distribution make it count for one of the two major candidates, then it is effectively wasted?

Your vote counts if it goes where you intend it to go, end of story. This happens in optional preferential voting but can easily not happen in compulsory preferential.

“It only benefits your second last preference relative to your last preference.”

YES!

But if you detest both your last and second last ranked candidates, then your vote would end up counting for a candidate that you loathe and had no intention of voting for!!

I keep repeating myself on this point.... and you keep brushing over it.

“Provided you rank the candidates according to what your real preferences are, your vote cannot possibly count where you don't want it too.”

YESSSSSSSS !! !! !!

Provided you rank candidates according to your REAL intentions! And that is the fundamental problem with compulsory preferential voting and the reason why optional preferential voting is a hundred times better!! !!

Needless to say; I think you are profoundly off-track with your interpretation of the significance of the two systems of preferential voting used in Australia.

"But the choice from which to select is that astronomical.

When you go to a supermarket and buy 100 items you have an equally astronomical choice, but you do not sit there and consider the relative merits of each possible combination of 100 items do you? Well, this decision is even easier than the shopping example, because you have a far more limtied number of options and you only have to consider the relative merits of each one.

"So folks either go with the party preference, in which case you DON'T KNOW who you voter for

The information is available and widely publicised in the media prior to the election.

"The point is this. Preferential deals between minor parties and major parties seal the fate of your vote even before you cast it.

No they don't. You still have to choose that option.

"Should they be disadvantaged just because they don't or can't google up the intricacies of preferences and follow political broadcasts regularly?

Should people be disadvantaged because of their ignorance? Isn't that a bit of a naive question?

"What I would support is a scheme that allows people to rank the parties, lists and independents rather than the candidates in order of preference. But that would just confuse people. The reason we have above the line voting in the senate is because it is the simplest way and drastically reduced the number of incorrectly filled out ballots.

"It should be YES/NO simple 1,2,3,4,5 then no thank you

You ask for a simple method. You have it with above the line voting. You can;'t ask for simplicity then complain that the simple methods create other problems.

I think you too are confusing preferential voting with optional voting. There is no point having partially optional voting where it is compulsory to turn up but you are encouraged to vote in a way that your ballot gets discarded. First you have to justify optional voting. You are trying to link in the choice between optional and compulsory voting with preferential voting, with which it has nothing at all to do.

"What I would support is a scheme that allows people to rank the parties, lists and independents rather than the candidates in order of preference." This forms the core of many working democratic easy to follow systems.

"The reason we have above the line voting in the senate is because [...] drastically reduced the number of incorrectly filled out ballots."

freediver, this is getting interesting. you may have a few practical points there. nothing better then clear thinking and persistence ;-)

OK this post limit thing is really pissing me off. I will respond to the earlier posts first. Can I suggest we take it up here instead?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706

"You seem to be implying that if your vote is exhausted before preference distribution make it count for one of the two major candidates, then it is effectively wasted?

In the short term yes. In the long term you may help the minor party or independent, but you can have a short term impact without losing your ability to have that long term impact. So you are wasting an opportunity.

"Your vote counts if it goes where you intend it to go, end of story.

No, that is only the beginning of the story. It is at best a rather vague introduction to voting.

"But if you detest both your last and second last ranked candidates, then your vote would end up counting for a candidate that you loathe and had no intention of voting for!!

If you detest your second last preference less than your last preference, then it is in your interest that he gets in instead of your last preference. There is no logical way that this can work against you. Failing to rank the last two candidates will in no way help your third last preference, or anyone else get in. Your vote still counts against the last two candidates up until the point that they are the only two remaining candidates. Only then does it count for your second last and against your last candidate. Which is what you want. Basically, you did intend to vote for that person in the sense that you prefer that person to your last ranked candidate. That is the only way in which it is ever used.

"Provided you rank candidates according to your REAL intentions!

If you rank -- ALL -- candidates according to how your eally rank them, it is not possible for this to work against your interests.

"This forms the core of many working democratic easy to follow systems.

Not any that I am aware of. Care to give an example?

"freediver, this is getting interesting. you may have a few practical points there.

Another practical reason for opposing OPV is that it is more likely to be misinterpretted than interpretted correctly. This is because on the surface it is identical to the senate system. Yet there is nothing on the ballot paper to inform people that it actually works completely differently and that if you assume it is the same you may waste your chance to have a say. The how to vote cards to not clarify the issue, but tend to reinforce the misunderstanding.

Freediver

I wouldn’t be worried about the post and word limits. Up to 4 posts and 1400 words on one general thread and 15 posts and 5250 words on OLO in 24 hours. That’s pretty good really.

I’d prefer to keep the discussion on OLO rather than jump to a whole separate forum.

.
I wrote;

"Your vote counts if it goes where you intend it to go, end of story.”

You replied;

“No, that is only the beginning of the story.”

Alright then if you insist. The point is that having your vote count where you intended it to count is an absolute prerequisite for an acceptable voting system, end of story.

Your beloved compulsory preferential voting system is democratically fatally flawed because it does not uphold this most fundamental principle. No matter what else may be said about either system, it comes down to this point. And this, far above all else, is what makes OPV much much MUCH better than CPV.

“If you detest your second last preference less than your last preference, then it is in your interest that he gets in instead of your last preference”

Well that says it all doesn’t it. You obviously don’t believe that the voter has a right to vote where they want to and to be confident that their vote will count there and only there. It is completely bizarre to think that it would be alright for anyone’s vote to count for a candidate that they detest.

“Basically, you did intend to vote for that person in the sense that you prefer that person to your last ranked candidate.”

NO! Forced ranking is not necessarily a true indication of a voter’s sequence of choices. Many voters would think equally badly of the candidates that they put last and second last, or perhaps last and second, third, fourth and fifth last. If they feel this way, they have no way of expressing it within CPV. You can’t leave any squares blank and you can’t put the same number in two or more squares.

"Your beloved compulsory preferential voting system is democratically fatally flawed because it does not uphold this most fundamental principle.

Does any form of compulsory voting? I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that it is only the combination of compulsory voting with preferential voting that makes it undemocratic. Such a stance cannot stand up to logical scrutiny. Please reply to this point in detail, as it is the only way this argument can move beyond vague generalisations.

"NO! Forced ranking is not necessarily a true indication of a voter’s sequence of choices.

Well, that's the voters problem.

"Many voters would think equally badly of the candidates that they put last and second last

Then it makes no difference to them which of the two is elected. Thus it is not possible for it to work against their interest. Of course, in practice it is always possible to distuinguish the two leading candidates.

“Does any form of compulsory voting?”

I presume you are asking; is any form of compulsory voting not fatally flawed?

OPV has no significant flaws that I can see. FPTP is flawed, but not fatally. Similarly with others. CPV and any other system that steals your vote and makes it count where you don't want it to is fatally flawed.

“I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that it is only the combination of compulsory voting with preferential voting that makes it undemocratic.”

What?! It is perfectly clear that we have been comparing optional preferential voting and compulsory preferential voting…. and have not been discussing the merits of optional vs compulsory voting or preferential vs first past the post voting. So let’s not get sidetracked.

“Please reply to this point in detail”

Please clarify just what you are asking.

“Well, that's the voters problem.”

YES! And there is NOTHING they can do about it under CPV!

So you agree then that forced rankings can occur under CPV. And you agree they are not necessarily the voter’s choice. So you agree that CPV can force voters to rank candidates in a way that they would not freely choose…..and that their vote can therefore end up counting where they don’t want it to. Good.

And you also presumably agree that optional ranking, which occurs under OPV is a true reflection of a voter’s choice, and cannot lead to their vote counting where they don’t want it to.

Given that you’ve strongly made the point that;

“If you rank -- ALL -- candidates according to how you really rank them, it is not possible for this to work against your interests.”;

you must surely now concede that CPV is the product of forces of democratic corruption and OPV is democratically sound, and should be adopted universally in Australia.

"OPV has no significant flaws that I can see. FPTP is flawed, but not fatally. Similarly with others. CPV and any other system that steals your vote and makes it count where you don't want it to is fatally flawed.

You seem to be ignoring the actual question and focussing on the voting systems, not whether they are compulsory.

By FPTP, you mean compulsory FPTP?

What about a compulsory runoff election. (FYI/eg France uses runoff elections, but I don't think they are compulsory).

"What?! It is perfectly clear that we have been comparing optional preferential voting and compulsory preferential voting…. and have not been discussing the merits of optional vs compulsory voting or preferential vs first past the post voting. So let’s not get sidetracked.

I know it is clear, but if that is the case then there are huge logical flaws in your argument. There are no additional issues created by combining compulsory voting with preferential voting. Each issue can be separated and considered on it's own.

"YES! And there is NOTHING they can do about it under CPV!

If a voter votes different to how they actually want to vote, there is nothing you can do about it under any system.

"So you agree then that forced rankings can occur under CPV. And you agree they are not necessarily the voter’s choice.

No idea what you mean by forced rankings. Of course a voter can vote differently to how they actually want to vote, but again that is entirely their fault and not a fault of the system. Anyway, we are getting off track. Please answer the questions about compulsory voting in detail. Then this other stuff willall become clear.

"So you agree that CPV can force voters to rank candidates in a way that they would not freely choose

Definitely not. This is absurd.

Freediver you wrote;

“Please reply to this point in detail, as it is the only way this argument can move beyond vague generalisations.”

I wrote:

“Please clarify just what you are asking.”

You didn’t!!

You said in you previous post that it is the only way that we can move on constructively….and then you just skipped straight over it. Now that’s bizarre!

“….there are huge logical flaws in your argument.”

Well, you have had all the opportunity in the world to tell me what they are. As far as I am concerned you haven’t indicated ANY flaws at all.

I wrote;

"So you agree that CPV can force voters to rank candidates in a way that they would not freely choose”

You wrote;

“Definitely not. This is absurd.”

I think you can see it perfectly clearly. It is an extremely simple concept. It seems that you are just not going to concede even the bleedingly obvious.

There is no point in continuing

Until I know what your position is I can't point out the flaws in it. I could try, but I would have to point out the flaws in about ten different arguments in the hope i would cover yours. I have tried to clarify a number of times already, but you stick so hard to vague generalisations that it is not possible. So, answer the questions:

Do you oppose compulsory voting in any form?

Do you oppose compulsory voting in a runoff election?

I concur with Ludwig, particularly having just completed a postal vote and found that for me 'forced ranking' was inevitable on 2 counts with the senate vote.
I chose to vote below the line because I disagreed with the preference distribution order indicated by the 2 parties for whom I wished to primarily vote.

1. There were at least 8 parties for whom I'd never vote, would rank their ideologies equally poorly, and therefore could not intellectually or preferably rank one above the other; the system therefore forced me to 'RANDOMLY ALLOCATE' these preferences which I consider a mindless action and was loathe to do. Also, there was a considerable number of candidates whom I'd never heard of, and therefore could not make any considered judgement re their qualities to rank; again, I had to randomly allocate them near the end but prior to the more disliked groups previously mentioned.

2. At the 2nd last square I discovered I'd made and error somewhere with the numbering, and yes, midway I'd skipped one..Therefore I had to
allocate a higher number to a member of one of the disliked group; again a random selection and definately not my preference.

Therefore, I havent found the notion of the possibility of 'forced ranking' to be absurd; would have much preferred not to allocate anything to those I would consider a disaster in the senate. OPV would give voters at the very least, a view that their real opinions are of value.

Option preferential voting operates (at least in the lower house) in N.S.W.
This just confuses the issue for N.S.Welshmen voting in Federal Elections.

I once taught government to a group of students (average age 35YO) all who had some previous work experience, intelligent, caring people.
Not one (of 35) could tell me the difference between State and Federal Governments.

I once helped a committed friend, standing nobly for the Democrats in the H of Reps, to give out "how to Vote" pamphlets and to scrutineer for her.

It was quite an education.
little old ladies would ask if they could vote for Mr Menzies( NO he's dead). Some would try to fill in the how to vote pamphlet and give it back to me. Others I tried to explain, the then, policy of the Democrats to split their Senate preferences.
That was beyond everybody.

Scrutineering was also a revelation. "Number each box from one to four
So we got:-
tick
tick, tick,tick,
tick,tick,tick,tick,
X,
XXX
XXXX
1,
1,2
etc
Labour and Liberal scruitieers ( a dozen each of them) would find a vote that say had a tick or a cross or a "1" next to their candidate and go to work on the Returning Officer (? Guy in Charge of polling booth). One lot lobbing for one against the vote.
I thought the RO we had was very fair and disinterested. He said as long as he was satisfied that "The voter's intention was clear", he would count it as a formal vote. So a "1" or a tick would be accepted as a vote for that candidate.
A gathered that the ROs word was final so a less disinterested RO could decree that unless all boxes were numbered, as instructed, it was an informal vote.
By the end of the day I was barracking for a dictatorship or at least an Oligarchy.
Yes 50% of the Australian Population have below average intelligence!
TOO MANY WORDS WILL HAVE TO SPLIT POST

PART TWO
Dnicolson says
"The surprising thing I often find is that people think that a proclamation like "The Greens are directing their preferences towards the ALP" actually has any affect on their (lower house) vote,"
This is not strictly true. My friend over a number of years had built her vote up to 18& in some areas of the electorate. If she got some magical % the last candidate's preferences would be distributed to her (hopefully) and so on up the ticket.

I think it could be possible to win a seat with around 20-25% first preferences depending on how many people are standing & how the preferences are directed or fall.. The Christians seem to be well aware of this with four of various colour standing in a ticket of seven in my electorate.

It will be very interesting to see how this works in Howard's Bennalong with so many candidates standing.

THE SENATE
Even I am confused here.
So, I always vote below the line dutifully filling out all 70 or 80 squares.
If I mess it up I go back and demand another.

It used to be the case that if you vote "1" above the line for your favourite party; then the preferences then flow according to a pre-ordained Vote-Preference-Allocation made by the said party and registered with the Electoral Commission.
These used to be made available posted to the wall in some dark corner of the Voting Hall.

Is this still the case?

As far as I know, that is only the case for the federal senate. Not sure about state senates. In QLD and NSW you can 'just vote 1' but then no preveferences are distributed.

If for example the left or right wing vote is split among a number of candidate and voters tend to stick to their side (ie rank all the left wing candidates first) then it is possible to win power with only a small % of the vote. Many green candidates are getting close to this for lower house seats in very left wing electorates. Labour usually wins easily on a two party preferred basis, but if it comes to close a 2-way contest between Labor and Green for second place, if the Labor candidate has the least votes, the Green candidate may get in on preference.

"1. There were at least 8 parties for whom I'd never vote, would rank their ideologies equally poorly....

Think of the six or so major parties: Labor, Lib, National, Dem, Green, Family First, One Nation/Pauline

You can safely assume that any perties you rank after these ones are not going to get in. Unfortunately there is no fair way to legislate that people can do this without a high liklihood of people wasting their vote.

Also, if you see no difference between those parties, it is no cost to you if one wins over the other.