cods wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:01am:


I dont agree with that either.

I was merely pointing out the truth of the matter that preferential voting also allowed lots of big party candidates to be elected on SFA votes which all the Muir bashers seemed to ignore!

Parties be they pop or otherwise are all treated the same....dodgy!

cods wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:12am:


Whats wrong with all that! They won fair and square as did Cash.

The allowing of voting for a party with its preset preferences hasnt changed to my knowledge so cash will get in on SFA votes next time. 

So the change has only disadvanged some ...Very Dodgy

Redmond Neck wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:18am:




they left the Party that got them elected   thats what I am saying.. nothing FAIR about that...

well not in my book... we beg to differ on whats fair red....

if people vote under the line.. then so be it..

but above the line.......they should stay with the party of choice... not what they decide later is best FOR THEM..

Redmond Neck wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:18am:


Re my quote above: My poor Engrish there cods, what I meant was

"To all the bashers of the minor parties out there, this shows that all is not what it seems.

Some preference deals are apparently OK but not others"

Does anyone know what the new rules are exactly. Seemed a bit vague in the press.

Actually found this which seem to explain it quite well

After a marathon debate in the upper house, the Turnbull government’s changes to the way Australians elect their senators passed on Friday.

Under the changes, voters will have more control over their preferences.

The general principles of the system are:

    you have one vote;

    you can express preferences for candidates in the order you prefer them, writing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and so on; and

    if the candidate for whom you vote “1” is not elected, the full value of your vote passes to the candidate to whom you gave your “2”. And if that candidate is not elected, to your “3” and so on.

So, what do Australians need to know about the new system when they go to vote for their senators in this year’s federal election?
Voting below the line

Below-the-line voters rank individual candidates in the order they prefer. The government’s changes mean you have to number at least 12 squares below the line. But your ballot will nevertheless be formal provided it shows six consecutive preferences.

Suppose you are a Liberal voter but don’t like the order of candidates as shown on the ballot paper. You may number the squares of the six Liberal candidates in any order – provided the numbers are sequential and each is different.

If you then want to preference the Shooters and Fishers candidates (numbering 7 to 12), then Palmer United candidates (numbering 13 to 18), but dislike the remaining parties, you may leave their candidates’ squares blank. Your ballot is still formal and will be counted – as in the mock voting paper below.



Suppose you want to support particular candidates from different parties – and want to rank Penny Wong, Sarah Hanson-Young and Jacqui Lambie ahead of all the other candidates. You may certainly do that – again provided your ballot includes 1 to 12 and those preferences are sequential.



You might want to rank everyone except the main parties first. Let’s say that you also prefer the Hemp Party and Socialist Alternative first, but then want to vote for the Shooters and Fishers. If you then think Labor is the least bad of the main parties, the best way to use your ballot is to preference all of the small parties’ candidates and then Labor’s. That way, even if all the smaller parties’ candidates are excluded from the count, your next choice gains the value of your vote.

Note that you can rank the candidates of a particular party in any order. In the example below, the voter prefers Donald Trump to the other Shooters and Fishers candidates.

The more genuine preferences you express, the more likely a candidate you favour will be elected rather than one you disfavour.



The changes allow a vote to be formal provided that the first six consecutive numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you omit or repeat a number, the ballot will still be counted. So a ballot that has the preferences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 would be formal – but only preferences one to nine would count.
Voting above the line

Voters are still able to vote above the line, where they rank parties – not individual candidates. If you put a “1” in the Liberal square, the first Liberal to gain from your vote will be (in our example) Malcolm Turnbull, the second Alexander Downer, the third Tony Abbott and so on.

A valid above-the-line ballot is 1 to 6, as in the following example, which places the major parties last. But this voter feels that if a smaller party doesn’t get elected, the preferences should go in the order “Liberal – Labor – Green”.

It could happen that when this voter’s preferences are finally transferred, all the candidates for the first six parties chosen had been elected or excluded. The vote is then used to help decide the final contest, between Labor and the Greens – in this case favouring Labor.



An above-the-line “savings provision” means that even if you mark only one square, your ballot will still be counted. But (for example) if you mark the square for Climate Sceptics – and only that square – and the Climate Sceptics candidates fail to get enough votes to remain in the count, your ballot will become exhausted, meaning it will not count towards electing a senator.

This is why it is much better to express as many preferences as you can or want to – either below or above the line.

http://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upp...

So freediver in the example images below if I voted Liberal on the very top line. Would more than six (or 12 DD) people be given a number.

That is do the parties have preferences beyond their own candidates

Not sure what you are asking. Are you talking about the new or the old system?

Your ballot can contribute to the election of multiple candidates.

My advice would be to rank all candidates, either above or below the line. Failing that, keep ranking candidates until you have ranked 3 of the 4 major parties likely to get elected (ie Greens, Labor, Liberal, National). In almost all cases your vote would then stay active all the way through.

I think you can give your vote extra power by voting below the line and ranking in reverse order within each major party, or putting minor candidates first. Typically, major parties gets more than one quota of first preferences, and those first preferences votes then get passed on at a reduced value. This happens before any other preferences are distributed. So if you are not part of that group of first preferences, when your vote does eventually get transferred to a major party, it will be at a higher value and will remain at a higher value as it gets passed on.