I am finding the way preferences work to be somewhat confusing.

Say we have 5 candidates a b c d e

a gets 35%
b gets 35%
c gets 12%
d gets 10%
e gets 8%


e gives his votes to who??

does all 8% of his votes go to who he has done a preference deal with??


Or as ppl say you can control who your preferences go to, so

of e 8% of votes, half preferenced a as number 2 on the vote and half preferenced b as number 2.


So e gives his votes to who was preferenced 2nd does that mean candidate a and b get half of e total votes?? each improving their vote to 39% assuming none of the other candidates where preferenced second???


I can't see electoral officials sorting through thousands of votes for the candidates that get the lowest number of votes and then sorting those votes to the second preference, that would take hours and results come in way quicker than could be manually sorted??

The one with the lowest number of votes is removed and their preferences dispersed.

The lowest then is next removed and their preferences dispersed.

and so on.

The preferences are either decided by the voter below the line or by the party when voting above the line.

What Greens said is true, but also, you do get to choose who gets your preferences. You do not have to follow the how to vote card of your favourite party, if you do not wish to do so.

However the senate is much more tricky. If you just put a '1" above the line of your chosen party, then you have no say in where your preferences go. That's why a lot of people like to number every box below the line - that way you can decide exactly where your preferences go, it is just a lot more involved and time consuming.

Thanks, Matty.

Did that answer your question, Woof Woof?

Thoughts, please.

OK so if e is removed first and the preferences allocated, we then come to d


what happens to d preferences that had e as number 2????

e is out gone see ya, but what happenes to the votes of those who preferenced e 2nd but voted for d

who would get d votes if everyone of his votes had e as second but he's gone??

would they then look at who was 3rd pref on d vote and they'd get d votes

The votes are only counted till a winner is decided at the polling place, all votes are eventually counted but only enough to determine a result on the day.

i.e. in a very substantial number of seats the first preference plus the above the line vote preferences from one or two other groups will decide the result.

i.e. if there are 100,000 voters in an electorate and the Liberals get 40,000 direct votes and one nation have a deal to preference the Liberals and they get 11,000 above the line votes then the Libs have 51% of the vote easily counted at the poling stations on the day of the election.

Each booth will provide the above the line numbers for all major groups. Labor Liberal Nat Greens Democrats one nation, family first etc. The totals are easily assembled.

The few electorates where it is real close and it takes a few days or weeks even are the places where they have to actually count all the votes.

Geez, it's a complex system. The sooner it changes the better.

woof woof wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 10:51pm:

who would get d votes if everyone of his votes had e as second but he's gone?? would they then look at who was 3rd pref on d vote and they'd get d votes

The reality is that they are only going to count the Labor and Liberal votes in most electorates unless they have to count something else. In this case if someone gets to 51% without these votes they will not be counted at that time.

i.e. the pile of something else is high.

Peter Freedman wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 11:09pm:

Geez, it's a complex system. The sooner it changes the better.

It's actually quite a straight forward process unless of course we're talking about the Senate.

woof woof wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 10:48pm:

OK so if e is removed first and the preferences allocated, we then come to d what happens to d preferences that had e as number 2???? e is out gone see ya, but what happenes to the votes of those who preferenced e 2nd but voted for d

Your assumption that d is eliminated next is wrong. We don't know who will be eliminated next until e's preferences have been distributed. It's possible that many of those who voted e preferenced d. This might be because the two candidates have similar policies. In this case a strong flow of preferences from e to d will see c eliminated.

If e's preferences don't save d, d will be eliminated. As for the d voters who preferenced e 2nd, it's then necessary to jump to their 3rd preference.

It might sound complicated, but the process is quite straightforward once you get your head around a couple of basic rules.

woof woof wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 10:25pm:

I am finding the way preferences work to be somewhat confusing.

It's not really that confusing:


http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/single/by_category/preferential.htm


And remember what matty said: you can number the boxes any way you like.  You do not need to follow the how-to-vote cards.  They're your preferences, not the candidates'.


http://www.aec.gov.au/education/Democracy_Rules/interactives/voting_tool/index.htm

woof woof

While I am no fan of preferences, I do struggle to model a better system especially for the scenario your describing.

The way it works is that they count first preferences, if there is a clear winner ..... more then 50% then they declare the seat won

If that fails they add second preferences and if there is a clear winner ..... more then 50% then they declare the seat won

They keep following this process until there are no preferences left which means that mathematically one candidate should have 50%+ of the votes.

I guess its possible that 2 candidates could end up on 50:50 which I assume they would have to call a new election for that seat ..... I can't recall it happening but its mathematically possible ..... so is winning lotto.

Can you suggest a more efficient way to determine who is best to represent the electorate ?

One change I would prefer is they just count 2nd preferences and whoever has the highest vote count wins (even if its not > 50%)

The last state election I only had 3 candidates. Someone who votes Greens would not want their vote to count for the libs, which is possible in a close race. Not that it mattered as I am in safe Liberal seat.

Similarly people who vote Liberal don't want their vote to count to greens

The vast majority of people support the Libs/Nats or the ALP ...... based on current polling that is about 80% this group does not think about who they like as a third option or forth etc.....

woof woof wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 10:25pm:

I am finding the way preferences work to be somewhat confusing. Say we have 5 candidates a b c d e a gets 35% b gets 35% c gets 12% d gets 10% e gets 8% e gives his votes to who??

Nobody.  The candidate with the fewest votes is excluded from each count.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 8:40am:

woof woof wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: I am finding the way preferences work to be somewhat confusing. Say we have 5 candidates a b c d e a gets 35% b gets 35% c gets 12% d gets 10% e gets 8% e gives his votes to who?? Nobody.  The candidate with the fewest votes is excluded from each count.

You sure Gregg???  I thought that E's #2 votes are distributed prior to his/her exclusion from the next count.   

who ever gets the most number of primary votes wins, no preferences.

You don't see board positions of companies going to preferences.

woof woof wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:04am:

who ever gets the most number of primary votes wins, no preferences. You don't see board positions of companies going to preferences.

thats a fact but they have always done it this way....they claim this way every voter gets a say.. I dunno about that when I see independents only getting in because of preferences...

as you can see the Greens use it as a bargaining tool... ::) ::)

not a good look I dont think

.

Exhibit A why I voted NO in the UK referendum to move to this retarded election system.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:

Exhibit A why I voted NO in the UK referendum to move to this retarded election system.

Exhibit A why you don't get a vote in this country.

Karnal wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:16am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:11am: Exhibit A why I voted NO in the UK referendum to move to this retarded election system. Exhibit A why you don't get a vote in this country.

And that is my preference.

Preferences mean nobody has their vote is wasted. Your vote is distributed to one of the two most popular candidates. Of the two most popular candidates, your vote goes to the one that you placed highest - therefore everybody gets a say on which of the two most popular candidates win.

It means that nobody wins without at least 50% of the votes.


In the first past the post system, anyone who voted for a minor candidate has their vote wasted.

THe senate works in a similar fashion except that each electorate has six winners instead of one.

In a first past the post system, a person who is like by 30% of the people, but hated by 70% can win an election. Is that democratic?

True Colours

If you just went to second preferences a person on 30% primary would be unlikely to win.
As I said before I doubt people think of 3rd options, 80%+ seem to vote LIB/NAT/ALP.

Another approach could be to have election reruns for seats that have minority winners with only 1st and 2nd running.

The real test of our current system is that the vast majority seem to want to vote and the vast majority seem to vote correctly which to me seems to be a big tick of acceptance.

woof woof wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 10:48pm:

OK so if e is removed first and the preferences allocated, we then come to d what happens to d preferences that had e as number 2???? e is out gone see ya, but what happenes to the votes of those who preferenced e 2nd but voted for d

In that situation they go to the third preference.

The Americans call it instant runoff voting, which I think is a much simpler way of understanding it. You have a series of runoff votes. After each round the lowest ranking candidate (or several of them in some circumstances) is eliminated. Everyone gets to vote again, and their vote goes to whoever they listed highest out of the remaining candidates. This continues until someone has 50% of the votes.

In some countries they use the same principle, except you actually have to turn up at the polls again and vote from a limited set of candidates.

If you only ever have only two candidates first past the post is fine.

When you have more than two you have a problem.

lets say we have an election with three candidates.
1.The liberal
2. Labor
3. The sex with horses party

OK I can assume everywhere other than Tasmania the Libs and Labs will be totally opposed to the Sex with horses party.

If we split the vote three ways Libs 33% lab 33% and Sex with horses party 34%

The Sex with horses party would win with 66% of people totally opposed to them

The "spoiler effect" is just the beginning of the problems you get with first past the post. There are all sorts of nasty longer term effects caused by people voting insincerely in order to avoid the spoiler effect.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#FPTP-problems

miketrees wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

If you only ever have only two candidates first past the post is fine. When you have more than two you have a problem. lets say we have an election with three candidates. 1.The liberal 2. Labor 3. The sex with horses party OK I can assume everywhere other than Tasmania the Libs and Labs will be totally opposed to the Sex with horses party. If we split the vote three ways Libs 33% lab 33% and Sex with horses party 34% The Sex with horses party would win with 66% of people totally opposed to them

You just had to make that as offensive as you could huh

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

miketrees wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

When you have more than two you have a problem. The Sex with horses party would win with 66% of people totally opposed to them

Excellent point!!!

In my opinion, since we have such silly voting system, then not the party itself should give preferences, and thus decide who gets to win, but those ppl voted for this party, by their second preferred party. Otherwise, we are seeing bunch of some assholes deciding for the whole country

That is how it works in our system Torpedo.In the senate you have a choice. In the lower house you have to mark your preferences. In states that do not require you to rank all preferences for state lower house elections, if you do not rank them all, you risk your vote being discarded.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

miketrees wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 9:40am: If you only ever have only two candidates first past the post is fine. When you have more than two you have a problem. lets say we have an election with three candidates. 1.The liberal 2. Labor 3. The sex with horses party OK I can assume everywhere other than Tasmania the Libs and Labs will be totally opposed to the Sex with horses party. If we split the vote three ways Libs 33% lab 33% and Sex with horses party 34% The Sex with horses party would win with 66% of people totally opposed to them You just had to make that as offensive as you could huh SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Good point, Borg. We progressives need to become more offended. Only by being more offended can the utopia be realised.

I think Australia has actually got it right on this one.

Vote above the line if you cant be bothered, number all boxes if you want to.

I number all boxes, no one is going to tell me where to send my preferences.

In the house of reps, the preferences only come into play if no candidate gets 50% + 1 vote purely on primary votes (ie first votes).

Then the 2nd preferences are looked at and if 50% is still not reached by any candidate they look at 3rd preferences, etc, until a majority 50% +1 vote is reached.

The senate preferences are almost always counted because you usually have lots of candidates fighting for a few senate seats in order to represent their state.

So in Victoria for example, there are about 97 senate candidates fighting for about 10 seats, in a half senate election.

Usually about 12% of the vote will get a candidate a senate seat. Wikileaks had 3 candidates listed which is the minimum number of candidates needed to be classed as a political party.

Personally I prefer the proportional representation system which effectively means that a party that gets 5% of the vote for example gets 5% of the say in parliament. It can lead to instabilities in political process, but its far more democratic and reflective of society's wishes.

As it stands we have a clown puppet circus act that has two major party actors who represent the same corporate interests.

Since the 1960s the ALP and the Liberal/National coalition have voted together on about 95% of bills and legislation to have been presented in the senate.

Never vote for any of the 2 major political parties, in elections if you want genuine change to occur.

Speak with the many independents that are running in your seats or with smaller issue parties, and make an informed casting of your vote.

Maybe if the two major parties continue to fail on receiving majority control of parliament and need to form agreements with minor parties or independents they may start listening to their constituencies rather than bank CEOs, corporate puppets, mining magnates and media moguls etc.


Cheers