Roughly 95% of Australians vote above the line in the senate. This makes voting far easier and gives considerable negotiating power to the party you vote for. The downside is that many people are unaware of how their favourite party distributes preferences and may not agree with where their vote ends up. The table below makes it easier for people to figure what will happen to their senate vote. The information is from the Australian Electoral Commission website. It is based on the senate group voting tickets provided by each party in NSW for the last federal election (other state senate tickets are likely to be very similar – check the aec website if you have concerns). New tickets will be issued after the next federal election is called.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html#guides

EDIT - updated for this election - please pass on

I have put up a 2010 guide for the QLD senate showing people where their vote will probably end up if they vote above the line. Other states to follow if I have time.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html

NSW added also:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html#NSW

Speaking of election process advice - has anyone else noticed the numbering error on the AEC publication that was distributed over the past few days!?

since it is entirely possible in this election to overestimate the number of voters who won't be taken in by this populist labor government, the safest thing to do in that case is to vote Liberal above the line, even though they stand a good chance of getting a majority in the Reps.

I voted below the line. It is not easy and I needed to have access to the web to find out where each representative were giving their votes to. There are so many different parties and independents that the average person wouldn't have a chance of knowing where they should place numbers in order to ensure their vote does what they intend it to do.

They should have written on the form, under the name or party, who the vote will be preferenced to. Surely it wouldn't be that hard. You must remember that some electorates could have in excess of sixty names on the ballot paper.

Quote:

They should have written on the form, under the name or party, who the vote will be preferenced to. Surely it wouldn't be that hard.

Yes it would. Check out the group voting tickets on the AEC website - link in the article. It's like a 100 page document. That's how much information they need to convey about preference allocation.

I would prefer we were allowed to vote both above and below the line. That is, rather than only 'ticking' one box above the line, you can rank the parties rather than the candidates. Or you can combine the two and rank some parties and for other parties rank individual candidates. If you rank a party, the assumption is that you list the according to the order given by the party.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 7:07am:

I voted below the line. It is not easy and I needed to have access to the web to find out where each representative were giving their votes to. There are so many different parties and independents that the average person wouldn't have a chance of knowing where they should place numbers in order to ensure their vote does what they intend it to do. They should have written on the form, under the name or party, who the vote will be preferenced to. Surely it wouldn't be that hard. You must remember that some electorates could have in excess of sixty names on the ballot paper.

I agree, in this case, easier is not best!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 11:31am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12th, 2010 at 7:07am: I voted below the line. It is not easy and I needed to have access to the web to find out where each representative were giving their votes to. There are so many different parties and independents that the average person wouldn't have a chance of knowing where they should place numbers in order to ensure their vote does what they intend it to do. They should have written on the form, under the name or party, who the vote will be preferenced to. Surely it wouldn't be that hard. You must remember that some electorates could have in excess of sixty names on the ballot paper. I agree, in this case, easier is not best!

What concerns me most, about voting below the line, is that voters are at greater risk of unwittingly casting an informal vote...

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 11:35am:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 12th, 2010 at 11:31am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 12th, 2010 at 7:07am: I voted below the line. It is not easy and I needed to have access to the web to find out where each representative were giving their votes to. There are so many different parties and independents that the average person wouldn't have a chance of knowing where they should place numbers in order to ensure their vote does what they intend it to do. They should have written on the form, under the name or party, who the vote will be preferenced to. Surely it wouldn't be that hard. You must remember that some electorates could have in excess of sixty names on the ballot paper. I agree, in this case, easier is not best! What concerns me most, about voting below the line, is that voters are at greater risk of unwittingly casting an informal vote...

That's right thy, I almost did, luckily I did it in pencil first so I could put it right. I really don't see how you could fill it out in the booth, far too long and complicated. They really don't want you to vote below the line, they'd rather you vote 1 labor or 1 liberal.

We've got two fishing parties, one nation and Australia first, almost the same thing, so many little parties that very similar to each other. All little liberal or labor offshoots.

Not the socialist party tho, there is no other like them.    [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Apparently if you vote both below and above the line, they will count your below the line vote if it is formal, but use your above the line vote if it is informal.

freediver wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 6:04pm:

Apparently if you vote both below and above the line, they will count your below the line vote if it is formal, but use your above the line vote if it is informal.

Really? Now why doesn't that surprise me? I reckon there would be a lot of shenanigans going on at the counting stations. I bet we don't know the half of it. [smiley=wink.gif] [smiley=wink.gif]

Sorry, I was wrong (again) about voting above and below the line. Details:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1195777429

Victoria added:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html#VIC

other states add:

QLD

NSW

VIC

TAS

SA

WA

I have updated the guide for the 2013 election:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html#guides

The increase in the number of microparties makes it even more important to check where your vote will end up, if you plan to vote above the line. Some of the predictions are quite alarming. For example, in South Australia the new “No carbon tax” microparty has a 64% chance of election as long as its primary vote is 0.15% or higher, based on historical preference flows and current polling.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 9:55pm:

I have updated the guide for the 2013 election: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html#guides The increase in the number of microparties makes it even more important to check where your vote will end up, if you plan to vote above the line. Some of the predictions are quite alarming. For example, in South Australia the new “No carbon tax” microparty has a 64% chance of election as long as its primary vote is 0.15% or higher, based on historical preference flows and current polling.

And this is concerning ?

The tax was introduced in a very undemocratic way so removing it using our democratic system does not concern me at all.

Do you prefer that Abbott lies and says he is not going to remove the carbon tax only to remove it later ?

I get your point but you picked bad example.

I have updated the tables based on new predictions of who is in with a chance.

I have also added links to more detailed group tickets, organised as an ordered list.

what about ACT fd.... dont they count us?

Sorry I didn't get time to finish it all off properly.

Good guide - unfortunately I only seen it today.

I did plan to vote under the line.. but it over whelmed me to be honest...I just could not be bothered...its a ridiculous thing to expect of the majority of people....thank god they have above the line........as the bloody booths would never close.

Some interesting results, based on 62% of senate votes counted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/

WA has a senator from the Australian Sport Party. I had this one listed on my guide.

Victoria has a senator from the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party. I did not have this one on my guide.

NSW has a senator from the Liberal Democrats. I had this one listed on my guide (under a slightly different name for some reason).

Tasmania and Queensland both have a senator from the Palmer Untied Party. I did not have either of these listed.

South Australia has elected Nick Xenophon (again) and a Family First senator (as well as a Green). I had Xenophon listed, but not Family First.

There were four Greens elected - in SA, TAS, VIC, WA.

Every single state has a surprise in the results.

I noticed that Wikileaks hardly got any preferences from other parties - they must have not have been adept at doing all the shifty back room deals.


Did anyone else number all the boxes below the line? It took me about 5 minutes just to do that. Everybody else at the polling booth seemed to be in and out quickly - doubt that they were numbering all the boxes.

I am thinking that it is time for a new rule for the senate; if you don't bother to number all the boxes, and you only nominate one party above the line, then you don't get preferences.

Otherwise with all these candidates doing shifty deals, we will end up with parties in the senate that 99% of us didn't actually want.

The motoring party only got 0.52% in the first count -yet with backroom deals they can get a senator. Ludicrous!

I actually voted above the line yesterday. First time ever I think.

Note that the results I posted above seem to be based on group voting ticket preference flows only. The outcome is likely to change significantly once all votes are counted.


Quote:

Otherwise with all these candidates doing shifty deals, we will end up with parties in the senate that 99% of us didn't actually want.

You only need 1/7th of the total vote in a state, after preferences, to win a seat. It is supposed to have minor party representation.

With regard to wikileaks, a lot depends on the order in which parties are eliminated. A party can narrowly escape elimination, then go on to collect a lot of preferences.

I expect that there will be some kind of reaction to this at the next election, with a lot more scrutiny of preference flows, especially to micro parties that are virtually unknown and to parties from the opposite side of the political spectrum.