New Senate voting system

[CaviAck]

The NSW senate ticket has gone from 1m wide to about 1.3m wide. They will need larger polling booths next...

I wonder if they'll send someone knocking on my booth after I spend 30mins in there and still haven't finished numbering everyone from start to finish.

 

[medhead]

It's just a vote. Can't see the point of going out of your way to complicate it or intentionally waste peoples' time trying to decipher your numbering. Agree the new system has flaws that's not going to change between now and July 2.

1. I'm just trying to understand the new system - not sure why that upsets you so much.
2. I haven't said anything about changing the system in the next 4 days.
3. I'm keeping people employed. No need to misrepresent as taking delight in wasting people's time. Personally such a suggestion is insulting.
4. This thread isn't about how anyone should vote, it is about how a vote is processed once it has been made. It'd be nice to stick to the topic rather than head off on a different pathway.
5. Nice to respect that I do have a reasoned methodology without resorting to insults.

 

[rainbowgirl]

I don't think that an exhausted vote is a wasted vote. If my top 12 picks from the Senate don't get in, I don't want to elect anyone else. I've had my say. I'd rather have no vote than voting for someone I don't want in.

The above is just one point of view.

I actually haven't decided whether I am voting above or below the line.

 

[Boca68]

I think there was another thread on the news of this change when it happened. Maybe this thread should merge. But having voted today, I'm having questions about the mechanics of the new system. I think there might be a risk of votes going to waste. During this election we are electing 12 senators per state. Ballot instructions are to vote for at least 12 below the line. The south australian ballot has 64 people running. It is certainly very easy to pick 12 people who have no chance of being elected.
What happens if a ballot gets to its 12th preference and hasn't been extinguished and needs to be distributed to a non-existent 13th preference? Will some voters be disenfranchised, or considered informal? Will AEC track this, will we be made aware of any ballots that don't elect someone? If a big problem will they amend the legislation?

To answer your question medhead. At first I thought you were just being facetious. But your answer is in the highlighted text of your OP.

You are voting for 12 senators and should vote 'at least' 12 below the line. But if you decide to number 1 to 64, then those preferences are counted. The solution is to number the voting paper up to the number you feel comfortable with, i.e. 1 to 12 or 1 to 25 or even 1 to 64. Not that difficult.

No votes extinguished or lost. Not quite sure why you want to go that method, but each to thier own.

So, in essence , there is no need to stop at #12.

 

[serfty]

Of course voting above the line if each 'group' you number has at least 2 candidates then you get at least 12 selections.

 

[farstar]

You can number as many boxes as you want above or below, that is democracy, you should always treat voting as an honour and take it seriously, many countries don't have free votes.

 

[vetrade]

1. I'm just trying to understand the new system - not sure why that upsets you so much.
2. I haven't said anything about changing the system in the next 4 days.
3. I'm keeping people employed. No need to misrepresent as taking delight in wasting people's time. Personally such a suggestion is insulting.
4. This thread isn't about how anyone should vote, it is about how a vote is processed once it has been made. It'd be nice to stick to the topic rather than head off on a different pathway.
5. Nice to respect that I do have a reasoned methodology without resorting to insults.

Not upset in the slightest, medhead, and it was never my intention to insult you. Just like you, I can be blunt when I want to be, but your interpretation of what I wrote goes way, way beyond what I intended to convey. Your reaction makes it obvious I haven’t expressed myself well enough.

Despite realising their necessity, and taking my responsibilities seriously, I consider things like voting to be a PITA so the least time spent doing them the better. I definitely don’t relate to why anyone (yes, you and some others) would go out of their way to make it more complicated or time consuming for themselves than it needs to be, or to think it productive to aim to create extra work for someone else at the same time.

Likewise, I don’t relate to why anyone would bother to fill out a ballot paper in a way which made it informal (notwithstanding the vagaries of the new system that may lead to an informal vote inadvertently). Easier to just stuff it in the box blank.

People can, and will, do with their ballot paper and their time whatever they like. It has no effect on me and I really don’t care. I didn’t expect that expressing a contrary view would be taken as an insult.

 

[moa999]

While Antony Green seemingly disagrees with me, I would think that these changes will result in less below the line voting.

Reason being that most previously who have voted below the line to get their preference order, can do so now much more easily above the line

 

[vetrade]

......If my top 12 picks from the Senate don't get in, I don't want to elect anyone else. I've had my say. I'd rather have no vote than voting for someone I don't want in.........

I feel the same way about the lower house. Would prefer a vote to be valid as long as a "1" is put in a single box, indicating a conscious decision not to see the vote flow to someone else under the preferential system. Anyone wanting to number all the boxes would still be free to do so.

 

[moa999]

The new savings provisions actually mean a 1 only above the line in the Upper House is a valid vote... despite the instructions to number 1-6

 

[Moindardt]

It's 6 above the line or 12 below as a minimum. Number them all if you have an hour. I believe that it uses the all those members of the part above the line as preferences so by numbering 6 you might number 50. Somebody post photos of the lines.

 

[PLANT]

Can I have the 6 winning numbers in order please!

 

[vetrade]

Can I have the 6 winning numbers in order please!

In order?
That's easy: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

 

[medhead]

I don't think that an exhausted vote is a wasted vote. If my top 12 picks from the Senate don't get in, I don't want to elect anyone else. I've had my say. I'd rather have no vote than voting for someone I don't want in.

The above is just one point of view.

I actually haven't decided whether I am voting above or below the line.

To answer your question medhead. At first I thought you were just being facetious. But your answer is in the highlighted text of your OP.

You are voting for 12 senators and should vote 'at least' 12 below the line. But if you decide to number 1 to 64, then those preferences are counted. The solution is to number the voting paper up to the number you feel comfortable with, i.e. 1 to 12 or 1 to 25 or even 1 to 64. Not that difficult.

No votes extinguished or lost. Not quite sure why you want to go that method, but each to thier own.

So, in essence , there is no need to stop at #12.

I'm also one to full exercise my vote normally. I did number upto about 20, for people that should end up in the senate. I just see that there are unintended consequences to the new voting system that make it confusing if people follow the given instructions. Afterall, it was supposed to make things clearer, more transparent, for people yet I'm not sure it does so. I think there is a problem when the last couple of places for the senate potentially will be decided with less than a quota. I agree that people might not want to vote for particular candidates, I never wanted to vote for Lady Flo even at last place. But if there is a choice for the last couple of spots between 3 or 4 I think that the voter has been disenfranchised if they don't get to nominate their preferred person/s. Someone is going to get elected, who may not be the person you want, and they are going to be elected on less than a quota. There is also the issue of passing on fractional votes to following preferences. This is especially important for someone like me, who does vote for the minor candidates but also recognises that I need to eventually end up with someone who has a chance of being elected

anyway, enough of the philosopy of voting. Just a heads up that the supposedly simpler system doesn't necessary make life simpler, or remove the need to number most of the boxes below the line.

As for above the line, I simply cannot support the parties nominated order of candidates. That feels like I'm pandering to their fractional systems - I believe in supporting the best person.

 

[moa999]

I think there is a problem when the last couple of places for the senate potentially will be decided with less than a quota.

At the end of the way they have received more non-excluded votes than the next person, so I don't see a problem with it

 

[medhead]

At the end of the way they have received more non-excluded votes than the next person, so I don't see a problem with it

But if the excluded voters were asked to choose between the person with the most non-excluded votes and the next person and the next person would actually gain more support (and a quota); that is a problem IMO. It is significant shift in the basis of our voting system for the senate. It also goes to the reasons given for changing the senate ballot system. they're addressing a concern that people don't know who they're voting in by introducing something that means people don't know who they're voting in.

 

[serfty]

It's 6 above the line or 12 below as a minimum. Number them all if you have an hour. I believe that it uses the all those members of the part above the line as preferences so by numbering 6 you might number 50. Somebody post photos of the lines.

Not quite ...a single 1 above the line or even 1, 2, 3 is a valid vote under 'saving' rules.

 

[moa999]

But if the excluded voters were asked to choose between the person with the most non-excluded votes and the next person and the next person would actually gain more support (and a quota); that is a problem IMO. .

Then those people should have added an extra number.
Nothing stopping you numbering 1-30 or more above the line

 

[CaviAck]

Then those people should have added an extra number.
Nothing stopping you numbering 1-30 or more above the line

Only 29 groups? That'll stop you from numbering 1-30.

 

[serfty]

there was a website last time that let me print out the ballot properly numbered. It was then a simple matter to move across the ballot and copy the votes. Can't find it right now.

This one?

Senate Voting Card Creator: 2016 Federal Election | finder.com.au