Voting Capers (And Some Interesting Trivia)

During the recent Federal election, above the line Senate voting delivered a seat for a Victorian Family First candidate, a person who received 1.9% of the first preference vote, or just 0.13 of the quota required to win the seat. Family First success had a lot to do with preference deals done with other parties, particularly the Labor Party. (Thanks guys!) The deals were done without any visibility to the voters when casting their vote.

This begs some questions:

Is it a good thing that you can vote for Senate candidates 'above the line' and have no idea of where your preferences are being allocated?

Is it desirable that you are made to allocate a preference for someone whose policies you detest?

I think most people would answer no the the above questions, but this is exactly what we have at the moment in Federal elections. Something should be done.

A solution to the above deficiencies in the Federal voting system is to adopt an Optional Preferential voting system similar to that used in the NSW elections. In the NSW lower house, the Legislative Assembly, voters only need to allocate one preference for the vote to be valid. It's up to the voters to decide if they want to allocate further preferences. If you don't like a candidate, you don't have to allocate a preference.

In the NSW upper house, the Legislative Council (LC) has a system that allows the voter to allocate preferences above the line. LC ballots used to follow the Senate format, but have evolved into something different.

Some background information follows detailing the evolution of the NSW LC ballot paper.

The facts in the following have been shamelessly lifted out of Prospects for the 2003 Legislative Council Election written by Antony Green.

Above the line voting for the Senate was introduced in 1984. It was established because the large number of candidates nominating themselves for the Senate made numbering every square chore, and caused large numbers of informal votes. The politicians decided it would be much better if the voters only number one square, with the parties deciding the preferences, a system called Group Ticket Voting. Voters have the option of voting the conventional way by numbering every square if they want to direct their own preferences.

The above the line system was adopted by NSW for upper house ballots in 1988. The NSW system closely followed the Federal system, using Group Ticket Voting.

It all came to a head during 1999 NSW election. The upper house ballot paper that had 81 groupings and 264 candidates, and measured 1m x 0.7m! Registering a political party was relatively easy, hence the large number of groupings. Smart operators saw a seat in the NSW LC as a way to set themselves up financially for life. Politicians in NSW qualify for generous superannuation entitlements after being in parliament for two terms. Since politicians are elected to the LC for two terms, winning once was like winning the lottery. A lot of effort was put into stitching up preference deals that would get a minor party candidate elected despite only receiving and handful of primary votes. Antony Green was too polite to state it so cynically, but he did point out the following:

The ease with which parties were registered in NSW was one of the causes of the giant ballot paper in 1999. Many registered parties appeared to have overlapping party memberships, and seemed to consist of names derived from petition drives rather than formal acceptance of party membership. It also appeared many parties were closely related, and attractive party names were adopted that did not always reflect the opinions of the people who had set up the party. When combined with the control of preferences allowed by group ticket voting, multiple party registrations became an effective way to channel preferences to a preferred candidate. Several candidates elected in 1999 achieved their quota thanks to very complex flows of preferences that would have been impossible without group ticket voting.

The NSW upper house voting system, similar to the one still used in Federal Elections, was effectively corrupted. This was confirmed when Malcolm Jones of the 'Outdoor Recreation Party,' a beneficiary of preference swapping deals, was found rorting his travel allowance by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The system was changed for the 2003 NSW election. Political parties had more stringent tests applied before they could nominate for the ballot, and Group Ticket Voting was abolished. To register a valid LC vote, the voter could number one or more boxes above the line, or number a minimum of 15 candidates below it.

It's still possible for a minor party to win with a small primary vote, but it's much more unpredictable.

Voters should be given the decision for preference allocation in Senate Elections. In a half Senate election, only 6 senators from each state are elected. Groupings could be limited to six candidates, and electors could choose preferences above the line. Even if the compulsory preferential voting was retained, voters would only need to number a handful of boxes.

And for some trivia:

1. In Federal Senate elections, those who vote below the line can make mistakes and the vote is still valid! From Antony Green:

Senate elections are conducted using compulsory preferential voting. Group Voting Tickets must show preferences for all candidates. Some saving provisions are provided so that below the line votes are not unfairly excluded from the count. A formal ballot paper must show preferences for at least 90% of candidates, and up to three acceptable sequence errors are allowed in preferences.

I wonder what an acceptable error is?

2. In NSW, all LC votes are entered into a computer but not counted!

Random sampling is used in NSW LC ballots to allocate preferences! The exact preference calculation could be done at the touch of a button, but isn't. This is a NSW constitutional requirement and can not be changed without a referendum.

3. In NSW, a vote can be valid if marked with a tick or a cross, but it's an offence to promote voting this way.

I'm expecting a knock at my door any minute!