tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post623756646154232507..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Tasmania Senate 2019: Prospects and GuideKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-11087272600243300532019-05-18T22:07:23.451+10:002019-05-18T22:07:23.451+10:00Yep, that's right, I checked the legislation, ...Yep, that's right, I checked the legislation, and the AEC vote guide is spot-on.<br /><br />COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 269, (1A)(b) "the following numbers written in a square printed on the ballot paper above the line are to be disregarded: ... <br /> (ii)if a number is missed--any numbers that are higher than the missing number...<br />Example... A second ballot paper has squares above the line that are numbered consecutively from 1 to 9 and then 11, 12, 13 and 14. The vote is formal under paragraph (1)(b). However, only the squares numbered from 1 to 9 are counted for the purposes of sections 273 and 273A because the numbers 11 and upwards are disregarded under subparagraph (b)(ii) of this subsection."<br /><br />As far as I'm aware, there is no parallel rule for the House of Reps. There's a case for electoral reform on that point. As far as I'm aware, there's no rationale for having different standards for vote formality in the Senate and in the House of Reps. Simplifying the rules by making them more uniform would decrease the chances of errors by vote counters. I doubt that many vote counters read the 41 page formality guide, and I'm quite certain that the AEC supervisors wouldn't have covered everything in their oral summaries of the formality rules given to vote counters before they started work.Mathew Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452186069308846582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-21123617647863318222019-05-18T15:12:12.830+10:002019-05-18T15:12:12.830+10:00Didn't need to ask because I know it could. E...Didn't need to ask because I know it could. Especially, it is very important that voters be aware that if they want to vote BTL they don't have to number all the boxes. This could be very important in the case of, for instance, a Lambie supporter who also likes Lisa Singh but is put off by the prospect of voting 1-44. If that voter was put off and voted ATL instead, their vote might end up not reflecting their true intention as concerns the Labor candidates. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-74716734140284725772019-05-18T14:44:40.331+10:002019-05-18T14:44:40.331+10:00They are constrained by the legislation. If it is...They are constrained by the legislation. If it is clear that the voter has numbered the boxes in a way that is informal or not fully formal under the law then they cannot use the voter's apparent intention to interpret around it. <br /><br />So for the dot example, there is a savings provision that saves a vote that omits one number provided "the square opposite the name of that candidate has been left blank". Any marking in that square means this is no longer the case. <br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-19521276319042586002019-05-18T13:34:17.258+10:002019-05-18T13:34:17.258+10:00The AEC have published a guide to help vote counte...The AEC have published a guide to help vote counters in determining whether or not a vote is formal: https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/files/ballot-paper-formality-guidelines.pdf<br /><br />On pdf page 9 (p.5) it lists the basic principles, inclusing:<br />* Establish the intention of the voter and give effect to this intention<br />* The ballot paper should be construed as a whole<br /><br />But then there are a couple of examples that completely go against these general principals, such as on page 14 of the PDF (p.10), with 8 candidates in the house of reps, seven boxes numbered 1-7 and a dot in the 8th box, they say that is informal. And of page 25 of the PDF (p.21), they say a Senate ballot numbered 1-3 then 5-8 should exhaust at the third preference, despite it being obvious how the voter intended to rank the candidates.Mathew Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452186069308846582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-19100241853417610632019-05-18T13:22:04.979+10:002019-05-18T13:22:04.979+10:00Bit of a 'got-ya' comment on Lambie's ...Bit of a 'got-ya' comment on Lambie's how to vote card. Do you ever ask yourself 'Does it really matter?' before critiquing someone on a technicality?Mathew Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452186069308846582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-46273123936050961112019-05-18T11:54:23.453+10:002019-05-18T11:54:23.453+10:00I can't thank you enough for all the work you ...I can't thank you enough for all the work you put in to providing this information. For the Hobart City Council elections and now this Federal election I have wanted to be very careful about my voting beyond the Labor/Liberal choice, and have relied heavily on your detailed information about the smaller parties and unaligned candidates. Most sites I found gave general statements like: 'believe in rational decision making blah blah", which tells you nothing about them. Your information at least provides the information I need about whether this means right/left leaning, conservation/development etc etc. Thanks again … I now feel like I am making the choices that I want to make with my vote.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05259038725049401332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-50498150148245827082019-05-03T17:06:17.824+10:002019-05-03T17:06:17.824+10:00I believe they did it the way they did because the...I believe they did it the way they did because the order-of-election method frequently favours the major parties over smaller parties and so while they have given the Liberals a freebie by using it in this case, if they keep using it they are likely to benefit in future.<br /><br />It's unlikely Labor would have got an extra 6-year term by refusing to use the order of election method. Maybe Lisa Singh would have got it if they had used the better Section 282 method but more likely Martin. However in that circumstance with a longer run up to his re-election attempt, Martin might well have remained as an independent rather than joining with the Nationals. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-8553274931191413802019-05-03T14:01:56.111+10:002019-05-03T14:01:56.111+10:00Hi Kevin,
Firstly, thanks for all your wonderful w...Hi Kevin,<br />Firstly, thanks for all your wonderful work. <br /><br />The thing I came here to ask about is rather subjective/speculative, but I'd be interested in knowing if you have any thoughts. <br /><br />I'm just wondering if there is any chance that the Labor party followed the following thought process when deciding to apply the order of election method to the Lambie situation:<br />a) At either the 2019 or 2022 election we're going to have to defend 3 Senate seats<br />b) We are confident of a strong performance in the next election<br />c) The Greens vote struggles more when Labor are in opposition and running against and unpopular Liberal government<br />d) Therefore we should make the most of the electoral circumstances at the 2019 Federal Election, as it gives us the best chance of holding on to all of the seats we won in 2016 (when viewed from a full Senate perspective). <br /><br />I guess I just have no idea why else they might have taken the decision they did! <br /><br />Cheers,<br />SteveStevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601899094603733813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-50117677406298201752019-04-28T01:58:57.968+10:002019-04-28T01:58:57.968+10:00The then "National Country Party" ran in...The then "National Country Party" ran in every state in 1975.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-81762425090766613912019-04-27T22:59:37.678+10:002019-04-27T22:59:37.678+10:00The rebirth of the Tasmanian Nationals has gotten ...The rebirth of the Tasmanian Nationals has gotten me thinking - when was the last time that the Nationals/Country party have run candidates in every state? (Including QLD LNP Nats) A quick look says the Tasmanian Nationals last ran in 1996, but a quick look at SA's rural seats suggests Nats didn't run in SA that year.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536933978795184627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-81218869313920506132019-04-27T17:51:03.763+10:002019-04-27T17:51:03.763+10:00Thanks again. Think I might print out a list of th...Thanks again. Think I might print out a list of the candidates and when I get to that point drag out a two bob piece, heads that one, tails that one and so on.Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08664699802718952449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-50099308076109249982019-04-27T17:26:07.927+10:002019-04-27T17:26:07.927+10:00If you think some of those "certain parties&q...If you think some of those "certain parties" are worse than others then it is worth it to keep going to put the bad ones ahead of the awful ones. This isn't voting for them, it's just saying there are worse things out there. <br /><br />If on the other hand there are several parties that you think are about equally bad, then by all means stop when you get to them. It may mean your vote (or part of your vote's value) exhausts if and only if just those parties are left fighting for a seat.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17211245268600979682019-04-27T16:58:23.618+10:002019-04-27T16:58:23.618+10:00Thanks for that Dr Bonham, going to have to do som...Thanks for that Dr Bonham, going to have to do some serious thinking in the next few weeks because there are certain parties I'd never vote for in anyway, shape or form and I always vote below the line in the Senate, always have, always will.Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08664699802718952449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-61607560721648532182019-04-27T14:06:40.262+10:002019-04-27T14:06:40.262+10:00If you're voting above the line, not really, t...If you're voting above the line, not really, though you could safely leave Citizens Electoral Council box blank without any fear of your vote exhausting.<br /><br />If you're voting below the line, for most parties you can safely omit the second candidate as there is no real chance of the second candidate being elected. So you could just number boxes (in your order of choice) for all the lead candidates, the first four Labor, all the Liberals, the top two Greens (just to be on the safe side) and maybe Mav from the ungrouped column (unless you want to put him last). <br /><br />The risk in this is if someone gets elected and then gets disqualified, your vote might then exhaust in the special count to replace that person. <br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-193515873070380402019-04-27T07:43:29.273+10:002019-04-27T07:43:29.273+10:00Is there a theoretical number of squares you could...Is there a theoretical number of squares you could number so your ballot wouldn't exhaust apart from the obvious "all of them"?Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08664699802718952449noreply@blogger.com