Is Group Ticket Voting Really On The Way Out In Victoria?

The last week has brought the encouraging news via both The Age and The Herald-Sun that Victorian Labor is preparing legislation to scrap Group Ticket Voting at the last possible chance before this year's election. According to the reports, the legislation will be brought in in the sitting week starting July 28, and would presumably pass both houses quickly in order to meet the VEC's August deadline.  

Let's hope this is finally it for all this nonsense!  I understand the smaller parties may be reluctant to vote for a new system under which their chances of winning any seats are greatly reduced for now thanks to the Bracks Government's entrenchment blunders, so I'll cut them slack so long as they refrain from making false claims in defence of their position.  But if any major party stands in the way or does nothing this time then there is no excuse for them not caring about democracy.  

To keep this originally well-intentioned but now discredited system would say that Victorians are second class voters who do not deserve the right to direct their own preferences as easily between parties as voters can in every other state that at least has an upper house.  It would say that it is less important that MLCs be accountable to the voters who elect them than that they be accountable to an unelected consultant who has openly admitted to coercing MLCs' votes on electoral reform with the threat of starving them of future preferences.  It would say that it is right that voters be presented with ballot papers flooded with dishonestly named parties that use catchy names to send the unwary elector's vote to the opposite place they would have wanted it to ever go.  To say these things by doing nothing at a time when conspiracy theories about Victoria's elections already thrive, at a time when faith in democracy is more than usually frayed in the West would be something we should never forgive nor forget.    

Alas at this stage there is still no official confirmation that the legislation is coming and no detail on its content, so I can't yet be sure that there isn't a catch.  One issue to be decided is whether the electoral system would be fully optional preferencing (the above the line voter is instructed to number from 1 to as many boxes as they like, as in NSW, SA and WA) or semi-optional (as in the Senate, the voter is instructed to number from in this case at least 1 to 5, though if they number fewer then their vote can still be saved).  Subject to ability to implement I'd strongly recommend the latter.  Preferences make more of a difference with 5-seat regions than with whole statewide electorates.

Scaremongering about One Nation has resurfaced but on current polling the Coalition and One Nation are for the moment well placed to win a combined majority of seats in the Council whether the system is changed or not.  The right is likely to win at least 23 of the 40 upper house seats unless Labor's position improves substantially or One Nation's vote collapses to the mid-teens or below. While group ticket voting might throw one or two of those undeservedly to the Shooters, DLP or, shudder, Family First, it currently looks unlikely that it would stop a Coalition/ON majority (or provide anything meaningfully better for the left in outcome terms if it did).  A quota-proportional system with or without GTV suits the right better on anything like current polling than a single-seat preferential one does, because the right is not losing nearly so many votes to leakage when one of One Nation or the Coalition is excluded.  

Labor, however, is at some risk of a seat tally nightmare if it keeps the current system, even if its vote improves a little on current polling.  Primary vote breakdowns of lower house support by upper house region released by Redbridge/Accent found the party's lower house support to be below two quotas in every region bar one. That is even though upper house Labor support under group ticket voting is typically lower than in the lower house, and even though Redbridge/Accent appear to be strikingly underestimating the lower house support base for "others" (parties and independents that are not Coalition, One Nation, Labor or Greens).  The most striking example of this apparent underestimation is that Redbridge/Accent have Others on 5% in Western Metropolitan, where Others polled 20.9% in 2022 with Victorian Socialists getting 5% by themselves!  

What the Redbridge/Accent poll is pointing to is a situation where Labor's second candidates could be so readily leapfrogged by minor parties even if they had most of a quota that Labor might conceivably scrape in in the lower house yet confront a Council where it held only eight or nine seats.  If GTV is abolished the less authentic minor parties may still run, but with no actual chance of winning they're unlikely to make as much effort and their preferences will splatter.  

It is not in the Coalition's interests to keep Group Ticket Voting either.  If GTV survives it is likely there will be micro-parties (and not just the obvious fake ones) sending preferences that would otherwise scatter to One Nation over them in what could be several races between the two for seats. This is yet another reason why the idea that Group Ticket Voting still especially disadvantages One Nation is delusional.   And there are also possibilities that minor right preference spirals for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers or others could displace the Coalition in some regions.  

Right-wing attention seekers linked to the Monica Smit/Avi Yemini fake parties push have been claiming victory following the reports.  The victory is not won, least of all by these blowins, until Group Ticket Voting is gone with the legislation to axe it given Royal Assent (and there could well be a pointless legal challenge too).  Also, I believe there has actually been a plan within Labor to scrap GTV at the last moment (so as to avoid getting crossbenchers offside earlier) for some time before their shenanigans.   

I am happy for any Victorian MPs or their staff who wish to talk to me about what is going on with this legislation or any aspect of modelling the upper house election in the leadup to the sitting week to contact me.  (Email address in sidebar.)

Deception Alley

I thought it would be worth noting just how many deceptively named party attempts are currently being made, and to track them to see how they go.  Unlike the Commonwealth, Victoria publishes the names of parties attempting to register before the applications have been fully checked, so the publication of a name as applying is no guarantee that the deceptively named party will be able to pass the 500 members test.  It only means a list has been submitted.  

I classify a party as deceptive based on any of the following:

- its name is known to cause or likely to cause confusion 

- its name is known or suspected to have been deliberately created so as to mislead about the party's purpose

- its name is apparently created to send Group Ticket preferences to a party alien to the party's apparent purpose

- it is applying for name changes between unrelated concepts 

- it is mimicking the name of a party popular overseas or an unrelated party elsewhere in Australia

This list is not necessarily exhaustive.

REGISTERED DECEPTIVE PARTIES

Democratic Labour Party (DLP) - once upon a time voters knew the difference between the DLP and the ALP on the ballot paper but these days it's evident that some don't

End Mass Immigration – Reform AU, nee Companions and Pets Party, applying to change to Christian Alliance Party – Reform AU

Freedom Party, applying to change name to Safety Victoria – Violent Crime Prevention

New Democrats, applying to change name to Put Australia First, Save The Environment

DECEPTIVE PARTIES SEEKING REGISTRATION

Climate Action Now (Smit/Yemini grouping)

Free Palestine (Smit/Yemini grouping, not to be confused with Free Palestine Party which is also seeking registration)

Fusion Party Victoria – Reignite Democracy (this is Fusion claiming they are stealing Monica Smit's slogan as a tit-for-tat but given this party has worked with Vern Hughes and have horrendous form on preference recommendations nobody should trust them or will care)

I’m Voting to Avoid the Fine (Smit/Yemini grouping)

The Republican Make Australia Great Again

Several other deceptive party names including Muslim Votes Matter were being mooted but do not seem to have amounted to applications.  

Tasmania Redistribution: Announcement Day Live Thread

Today could be a momentous day in the history of Tasmanian electoral boundaries!  Or it could be a nothing-ever-happens.  Around mid-morning today there will be a boundary announcement.  If the announcement is either the same as the draft boundaries or only slightly different then that's it and the new boundaries will be official for federal elections after 8 October.  It usually takes several months for them to then be adopted at state level via legislation, so an early state election before, say, mid-2027 would not necessarily be on the new boundaries.  

Alternatively the Augmented Electoral Commission could recommend substantively different boundaries, which would result in further rounds of consultation.  I have seen no variations from process that would suggest there is any intent to do this so far, but I am not sure if that should be taken as a sign that it's not happening.  

My previous articles are here:

Clark Must Expand But Where?

Draft Scraps The Franklin Divide

The Reaction

Once the announcement is up I will be posting details of what has been decided.  I'm not Ben Raue or William Bowe so please do not expect new margin calculations from this source.  However I will have summaries and comments about the decision, whatever it is.  

10:25 It's up!  The original decision has been endorsed except that the following change has been recommended:

"Bass gains the Break O’Day local government area.

Lyons retains the Blackstone Heights and Prospect Vale localities."

This now means former Clarence Mayor Doug Chipman's original submission has been adopted in full!  The boundary changes are now final and the Franklin divide is dead! 

The Commission is proposing that Franklin become Tongerlongeter.  Submissions on the new name are open until 21 July with a public inquiry on 31 July.    The new name would tie Eden-Monaro and Capricornia for the most syllables in an electorate name and Kingsford-Smith for the most letters.

10:40  On the Break O'Day change the Commission has argued that putting Break O'Day in Bass better reflects community of interest considerations while keeping all LGAs in a single electorate. They have also argued that leaving Prospect Vale and Blackstone Heights counters a concern about Glenorchy being the only urban area in neo-Lyons.   I don't think that was much of a concern in the submissions, they were more concerned about Glenorchy dominating the rural portions of the seat.  

11:25 The placement of Break O'Day in Bass shifts one of the Shooters Fishers and Farmers' stronger areas into the seat, not great news for Carlo di Falco though immaterial compared to his party getting swamped by One Nation.  It is also not great for Bass independent George Razay.  It makes Bass slightly stronger for the Greens at state level and weaker for the Liberals, though a part of the Liberal weakness is hidden in a very high personal vote for Nationals candidate and former state Liberal MP John Tucker in the St Helens area.  

I reproduce Doug Chipman's map of the new boundaries from his original submission.   

11:45 My previous conclusions about impacts of this change on the southern seats are of course unaffected.  We are likely to in coming years see a game of musical chairs in the south as MPs based in the ex-Franklin part of neo-Clark, the ex-Clark part of neo-Lyons and the ex-Lyons part of what may be Tongerlongeter consider relocation (or in some cases retire).  

Ben Raue has posted new state estimates here.  I will be working on One Nation estimates for the new boundaries based off recent state polling as time permits.  

Various notes later:

* If the renaming of Franklin to Tongerlongeter proceeds Bass will be the sole surviving unchanged name in the state.  That would also be the first time the alphabetical order of the divisions has changed with none of the previous renamings (Darwin to Braddon, Wilmot to Lyons and Denison to Clark) affecting it.  

* Antony Green has conveniently added One Nation Reps primary vote estimates that find only a marginal increase in Clark (up 0.2), a very small decrease in Franklin (-0.1) and no change to one decimal anywhere else.  

* The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre is objecting to the proposed Tongerlongeter on the grounds that he would be honoured by a "colonial construct" that he fought against (and they say died fighting against though perhaps died while fighting against would be more accurate.)  This reflects a culture clash - the redistribution process works by applying criteria and considering public submissions, but the TAC (which does not stand for by any means all Palawa people but is the major body in the south) issues resources of place names that anyone is free to use, but beyond that expects to be consulted.  

I am also seeing some right wing culture war type accounts warming up against the proposal, so it will probably be on Andrew Bolt by the weekend.  

DemosAU: Could Hare-Clark Help One Nation Shift Tasmania To The Right?

DemosAU Liberal 28 Labor 21 One Nation 21 Greens 14 IND 12 SF+F 2 Others 2

Seat estimate if these vote shares were recorded in election "held now" Lib 10 ALP 9 ON 8 Grn 4 IND 4

After a previous state poll which did not explicitly include One Nation, DemosAU have now included them in their Tasmanian state polling for the first time.  The party, which has been advertised for state registration, debuts on 21%, similar to the 19% it recorded in the May EMRS.  But if we add the Liberal and One Nation votes in the EMRS poll, we get 44%.  In the DemosAU poll, it is 49.

This raises a thought experiment.  Yes, we know One Nation is trashing the Liberal vote everywhere and that they would win seats from the Liberals in Tasmania right now.  But what if, by taking votes from Labor and increasing the overall right vote, they ended up taking a fourth seat for the right in Bass (where the right nearly won four last time anyway), a third seat for the right in Franklin (ditto) and - though this I think would be the hardest part - a third seat for the right in Clark?  (That's on the current boundaries; if the proposed new boundaries are accepted I expect similar scenarios to emerge).  

It's a very long way to the next election, or is it?  After the historic censuring of Premier Rockliff, as prospective Senator Stansfield notes in the latest Poll Position pod, at some point there will be another scandal.  And at that point Labor will have painted themselves into an even tighter corner than before. If they don't want to force another election that nobody wants and that now also floods the House with One Nation, they can either form a government nobody understands, or look comically impotent as they pass meaningless censure motions or do nothing.  

Tas Liberal Senate Turnover As Duniam And Askew To Go

I had a piece in drafts almost ready to release for weeks about this, but perhaps just as well I didn't since further developments have rendered the draft somewhat out of date.   The last few weeks have seen major news in the leadup to the expected 2028 half-Senate election with the Tasmanian Liberal ticket to lose both its incumbents.  Incumbent since 2019 Wendy Askew was to retire at the end of the term but will now resign in coming weeks while incumbent since 2016 Jonno Duniam will quit by the end of this year.  Askew's successor will get something like 20 months and Duniam's successor about 17 in the Senate in the lead-up to the next election, assuming it is on schedule and not early. 

The preselection currently underway is for the next election but I would expect that the top two candidates will inherit the seats of Askew and Duniam unless there are twists regarding availability.  

While it may seem disastrous for the Liberals to be go in with no incumbents, in some ways it is an advantage to them compared to if just one incumbent departed now.  The party now has more flexibility in planning a 2028 ticket from scratch without, for instance, feeling pressured to choose a female candidate as the sole winner of the vacancy race as might have been the case had only Askew departed. 

Essential Report Microblogging Disclaimers

Frequently I post federal polling results and calculations to the microblogging sites Twitter (X) and Bluesky (links to my accounts in sidebar); here is an example I posted today:

The standard items I include are the primary votes for all parties, any two-party preferred or Labor vs One Nation "shadow 2PP" issued by the pollster, and what I call "my conversion".  "My conversion" is a 2PP figure I get by applying my own estimate of 2025 election preference flows to the primary votes released by the pollster, and is the figure I use in my Labor vs Coalition 2PP aggregate and my Labor vs One Nation 2PP estimate, both of which can be seen on the sidebar together with a link to the methods page for them.   I have been including primary vote changes recently because of interest in whether One Nation is going up or down, but probably won't keep doing so for long.  (In fact the one shown has a typo in it, the Greens are down 1 not up 1).  

Hungry Lies: One Nation's Food Security Fibs

Please explain!

Yesterday I was posting some comments about how tweets on the Pauline Hanson twitter account mostly are not written by her, despite being frequently written in the first person.  Tweets signed "PH" or "-PH", the supposed signs that they are actually hers, seem to have largely dried up; after 23 in 2023 (mostly re the Voice) there were according to the advanced search function just two in 2024, none in 2025 and only two so far this year.  In the process I had a broader look at what else One Nation's social media was tweeting and came across a two-minute video for One Nation's current "Fire the Liar" campaign.  One claim, voiced in what appears to be Hanson's voice, caught my attention:

"Seven million Australians can only afford one meal per day.  In a country as prosperous as we used to be.  People are screaming out for change"

"Independent Australia": The Worst Website In Australian Politics?

In an article way back in 2015 I noted that the faux-progressive website "Independent Australia" was independent of "Quality control, consistency, accuracy and editorial skill."  Has it got better since?  Well no, if a recent attempt to soothe reader concerns about the One Nation surge is any guide, it seems to have got even worse.  I've decided to write a whole piece about this trainwreck to explain how abysmal IA's standards are and why nobody should be enabling their output in any way.

The most recent case is an article attributed - I have no idea whether correctly - to a Dr Jason Foster of RMIT.  Even the qualifications of the claimed author are something IA cannot seem to get straight.  The RMIT website states that Foster "holds a PhD in Media and Communication from RMIT, focusing on the representations of history in film and other media."  IA however claimed his PhD covered "media representations, politics and national consciousness", a claim that has since, without acknowledgement of error, been removed.

Before I deal with what is uniquely bad about this article and IA's failed attempt (?) to fix it, I will pick off a number of the low-hanging fruit, many of which are common myths about elections.

Begging For Debunking: A Silly Article Re Stafford Preferences

It was as sure as night follows day, as sure as daylight savings fading the curtains (oh wait) that the Stafford by-election result would see the Queensland right again beating the drum for optional preferences.  On cue we have an op ed by Morgan Begg from the IPA in the Courier-Mail trying to argue that compulsory preferential voting is some kind of aberration that has saved Labor's seat with the aid of obscure leftoids.  Begg's arguments contain a remarkable number of errors, but are also typical of the misguided and poorly debated push to return to full OPV in Queensland.

Begg is probably not responsible for the headline but for starters compulsory preferential voting is hardly an "Absurd Qld voting quirk".  Rather it is the standard form of preferential voting as it exists federally and currently (with very minor differences) in four states - and as it has existed federally, continuously, for 108 years.  (OK between 1984 and 1996 we did have a federal savings provision which allowed for a voter to deliberately exhaust their preferences, but few voters knew about that). 

Pre And Post Budget Federal Poll Roundup

2PP Aggregate 52.4 to Labor vs Coalition (term low, -0.8 since last week)

Shadow-2PP 52.9 to Labor vs One Nation (-0.6 since last week)

Labor would win election"held now" but most likely with only a small majority

This is my usual annual post about federal voting intention polling after the Budget, plus a summary of what's been happening in the months leading up.

The briefest summary of what happened in the months leading up is "not much".  In terms of my Labor vs Coalition two-party preferred aggregate, Labor dipped down to the high 52s in mid-January (off not a lot of polling at the time) but got back above 54 during Coalition leadership tensions in early February.  Since Angus Taylor replaced Sussan Ley Labor's 2PP has bobbed around the 53s with no real evidence of signal.