tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post2954135310404576489..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Group Ticket Voting Wrecks 2018 Victorian Upper House ElectionKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-9820349545184368252022-07-08T23:19:49.876+10:002022-07-08T23:19:49.876+10:00Hey Kevin, I've been trying to get Labor and/o...Hey Kevin, I've been trying to get Labor and/or the Liberal party to care about group voting. I figure there's maybe a small window right before the election where they might be happy enough to jam through some legislation. It occurs to me that an analysis of what group voting cost them in 2018 and what it may cost them in 2022 (I imagine predictions this far out will have a high margin of error, but it's something) could be helpful. Back in 2018 Adrian Beaumont in the Conversation agreed with you that Labor would have had 19 MLCs elected under senate-like conditions (up from 18) and the Liberal party 14 (up from 11).<br /><br />From what I can gather from 2018, the Liberal party missed out out in regions where they had 0.85~ quota (N Vic), 0.76~ (W Vic) and 0.72~ (SE Metro). The ABC calculator (https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/vic-election-2018/results/nmet/?nw=0) even had them losing in N Metro with 0.97~, before BTLs. It seems like they get preferences from nobody and I guess they need over 0.9 quota on primary votes to get home. Is it forseeable that in a bad election they could lose MLCs in N Metro (0.97), E Vic (2.02~), E Metro (2.14), and even S Metro (2.26 but ballot position #1?).<br /><br />Labor might pick up some preferences here and there, although I don't know why the Greens would be inclined to preference them at all given Labor's inaction on the legislative front. Could they have a few MLCs at risk too?<br /><br />It's honestly staggering to me that the major parties haven't supported reform. Do Labor just feel like the current system hurts the Liberal party (and the Greens) more than it does them?David Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765986990904147427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-16051460787668650392018-12-18T22:08:00.810+11:002018-12-18T22:08:00.810+11:00As anticipated by our Kevin - see the "(assum...As anticipated by our Kevin - see the "(assuming that they stay together as a party!)" aside just under the listing of the results early in the main post. She seems to see her resignation more as an anti-Druery move than an anti-Hinch one - interesting... Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-65045195090829454602018-12-18T16:35:15.292+11:002018-12-18T16:35:15.292+11:00That didn't take long. Media reports that Cath...That didn't take long. Media reports that Catherine Cumming has quit or been pushed out of DHJP after losing their leadership ballot.Edward Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11992457293668557692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-8401232698229906152018-12-15T20:25:17.135+11:002018-12-15T20:25:17.135+11:00I'm not a lawyer, despite my extensive experie...I'm not a lawyer, despite my extensive experience of application of electoral law. Regarding 3b I think it goes to the fact of whether a candidate nominates, not the mechanism by which they nominate. It would have to be proven that someone had been induced by payment to nominate who would not have otherwise done so, or vice versa. In the context of supposed payments to a consultant to arrange preference flows, there's nothing of that sort.<br /><br />Regarding 151 3c, this could depend on how "support" was read. After all I don't think there's any question of someone being induced to make public statements in support of a candidate, which is usually how this is interpreted. Whether arranging a preference deal to the benefit of a party for payment could be interpreted as "support" - that would be more interesting to see discussion of. <br /><br />Re 151 3d, both do direct preferences, but the question is whether the GTV preference flow can be interpreted as "set out in the vote of the elector". I'd expect the defence lawyer would just say, no, the elector didn't set out those preferences at all, they just put a 1 in the box and the preference was implied. It is true that a 1 above the line is taken as if those preferences were set out by the voter, but I don't think that's the same thing. <br /><br />I'd be interested to see a dispute of return by a candidate or elector to clear up these matters. Of course a difficulty is having evidence of the alleged conduct in question in any of the contests. While it's being widely reported and not denied that Druery was involved in coordinated deals and payments, I don't know if anyone challenging a result would be able to prove it. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-36639636036997952492018-12-15T16:00:04.678+11:002018-12-15T16:00:04.678+11:00Hi Doc,
Insightful analysis on upper house result...Hi Doc,<br /><br />Insightful analysis on upper house results in Vic and especially commentary regarding participants in the Druery scam, potentially engaging provisions of the Electoral Act; you qualify your comments by distinguishing between HTVs and GVTs. My thinking is that if both require to be registered with the VEC they are intrinsically linked by virtue of the fact that both direct preferences. I would welcome your further comment on this. <br /><br />Further it is still unknown as to who performed the task of submitting the nominations for candidates which may engage 151 3b.<br /><br />There is clearly property and benefit which would engage 1 a, b, or c and the participants election conduct has undoubtedly been “influenced” by the preference whisperer as can be clearly seen by the tight preference flows between micro parties at each exclusion point. <br /><br />S3c is likewise in play!Citizen Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09142965827929597005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-26339730623533629572018-12-15T00:33:45.691+11:002018-12-15T00:33:45.691+11:00The politicians who sit on Electoral Matters type ...The politicians who sit on Electoral Matters type committees are usually well aware of the different systems so I'll be making those points to them provided I am aware of when the relevant inquiry is open. Just in summary, both SA and NSW have got rid of Group Ticket voting successfully (though NSW's system is a bit limited because of the high rate of just voting 1), Tasmania's upper house has single seats so it's not an issue there, Qld, ACT and NT don't have upper houses so it's only Vic and WA that still have group ticket voting. WA has an even worse system than Vic because it is malapportioned and anyone wanting to vote below the line needs to number every box. (It does have a better method for surplus transfers.)Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-42566393202115680142018-12-14T22:50:36.395+11:002018-12-14T22:50:36.395+11:00So-called "leftover votes" are not remot...So-called "leftover votes" are not remotely as unfair as GVTs, and are arguably just a fact of electoral life, although they do introduce some unpleasant strategic voting issues (which are made much more severe by GVTs). Put simply, in elections there are winners and losers, and not everyone can vote for a winner all of the time. A vote not contributing to someone getting elected is not at all the same as a vote not counting. <br /><br />For a simple version of this consider a single-seat election. A single seat election is much the same as a multi-seat election but with a quota of 50%. In a very close seat, like Ripon, 49.98% of the voters' preferences did not end up with the winner and did not contribute to getting anyone elected. But that doesn't mean those votes didn't count or were wasted votes. They counted alright and indeed they were counted many times; it's just there weren't quite enough of them.<br /><br />As the number of seats increases, the percentage of people whose votes do not determine any winners decreases, but it is not possible to eliminate the issue altogether. I pointed out the many fatal problems and contradictions with one attempt to do so (using the "Hare quota") in a very technical article at http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2017/04/wonk-central-why-we-dont-use-hare-quota.html<br /><br />It is true that a voter can reduce the effectiveness of their vote in deciding the results between candidates further down on their list if they vote 1 for a party that is going to poll a high primary vote, is not going to win, but is never going to be excluded. However it is only really GVTs that make this situation likely to happen in a multi-seat preferential contest. In the new Senate system a party that polls most of a quota will generally win, so not only will its voters help get it elected, but part of their vote will probably flow on as a surplus to others.<br /><br />Regarding the Family First case, the first thing to mention here is that FF only won because of Group Ticket Voting. Had voters made up their own minds, firstly Family First wouldn't be that high in the count anyway, and even if they were the Labor preferences would flow more to the Greens and the Greens would win. <br /><br />Odd cases where voters would be better off voting for an adverse party rather than their own (not only to help a more likeminded party win, but even to help their own party win!) happen in any of these systems where candidates are excluded from the bottom up. However Group Ticket Voting makes these cases much more likely and there were many of them in the 2013 Senate election. As for this one, at one stage there was a risk that Fiona Patten could lose because of votes for minor Green candidates that preferenced her instead of preferencing the other Greens. In Western Metro, I believe the Shooters would have won had more of their voters voted 1 Liberal instead of 1 Shooters. There are bound to be other such cases; I haven't looked closely.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-29208892345219369902018-12-14T18:38:25.980+11:002018-12-14T18:38:25.980+11:00I’ve been thinking about the results and the impac...I’ve been thinking about the results and the impact of GTVs and it strikes me that there is another aspect to the voting system which is just as unfair: the left over votes that don’t count towards getting anyone elected. The left over votes could in theory be as high as a quota minus 1 of vote (just over 17% of voters) which is an extremely high number of voters that effectively don’t have their votes counted.<br /><br />So for example at this election the 14% of people who voted Green in Southern Metro never had their second choice considered but people who voted for minor party candidates didn’t just have their second choice distributed, but their 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 20th 30th, etc, preferences count. So in theory someone’s 50th preference (or higher) can count towards electing someone but the 2nd preference of the left over candidate never gets considered. Therefore the fifth seat is not necessarily won by the most preferred candidate and receiving a high primary vote can actually be a liability.<br /><br />I’m thinking back to the Victorian Senate at the 2004 federal election. The 6th seat was a contest between Labor, the Greens and Family First. Before the last exclusion Labor was on 0.56 of a quota, the Greens were on 0.71 of a quota and Family First were on 0.72 of a quota. Labor was excluded and since they directed preferences to Family First, the Family First candidate was elected with 1.26 of a quota and the Greens were left with 0.73. However, clearly the Greens would have preferred the Labor candidate to win and you could argue that Labor (even though they had the lowest % of a quota) was the preferred choice if you had of distributed Green preferences (although probably only by a very small margin). The ridiculous thing about this example is that if more Green voters had actually voted for Family First then the Green candidate would have been eliminated and therefore the Labor candidate would have been elected (likely pleasing Green voters). Therefore we have a voting system where voting for your absolute last choice candidate could actually help your preferred candidate win (eg, if more Green voters voted for Family First the Labor candidate would have won). This strikes me as ridiculously unfair. Please tell me if I am missing something here.<br />Without analysing all the results from the Victorian election, I assume this scenario above has played out in at least one of the regions?<br /><br />Kevin, has there been much analysis on left over votes and do you have any ideas on how we could address the anomalies I've described above to make the system fairer (assuming you agree with my analysis?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03564344387056191101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-50028266784270441812018-12-14T17:29:52.762+11:002018-12-14T17:29:52.762+11:00Kevin is is worthwhile for you to do a post detail...Kevin is is worthwhile for you to do a post detailing the difference between upper house election systems in the varying states and the Senate? Perhaps when politicians have a sense of the strengths and weaknesses of each we may get some momentum for change.<br />Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267946559548664259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-56989952418052698322018-12-13T23:15:59.617+11:002018-12-13T23:15:59.617+11:00A number of points here:
1. One Nation are just a...A number of points here:<br /><br />1. One Nation are just another little party nowadays. The big parties might put up the cordon sanitaire to try to stop them winning under GVTs, but the micros don't, so the argument that using GVTs shuts them out is now completely obsolete. Had NSW 2013 been a double dissolution, Hanson would have won by preference-harvesting off 1.2%. We have no idea how many they would have won in 2016 with GVTs but certainly at least 1 and perhaps as many as 7.<br /><br />2. One Nation don't poll well in Victoria anyway. It was their worst state in 2016. <br /><br />3. The seats One Nation won in the Senate in 2016 were won on merit, either on primary vote or on superior preferencing performance compared to other parties in the hunt. We should be supporting systems that will make it possible for parties to get elected if their support level deserves it, no matter how odious we might find those parties to be. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17601391202412438092018-12-13T19:05:13.983+11:002018-12-13T19:05:13.983+11:00Pauline is our (Qld's) poison. I'd be surp...Pauline is our (Qld's) poison. I'd be surprised if the rightwing whirlwind coalesces around her candidates a second time. It's not the voting system, but the voters that elected Pauline and her fair weather friends. Given the completely random outcome of this election I'm not sure that GVTs would be any protection from One Nation except perhaps in Queensland where they'd be just as cursed as the Greens.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271887010200067143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-11554627129303244842018-12-13T17:59:53.418+11:002018-12-13T17:59:53.418+11:00There were no One Nation candidates.There were no One Nation candidates.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537910486414527809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-1974651116392539242018-12-13T12:50:43.914+11:002018-12-13T12:50:43.914+11:00to change to a system similar to the senate will ...to change to a system similar to the senate will invite onp in.... I note not one onp mp in the Vic upper houseMickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02784376200127303021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-22973220788095082192018-12-13T11:22:43.427+11:002018-12-13T11:22:43.427+11:00Hi Kevin,
Adrian Beaumont wrote a piece at the co...Hi Kevin,<br /><br />Adrian Beaumont wrote a piece at the conversation on this as well. If you could compile a list of phesologists who've pointed out this result is a distortion of democracy, that would be a very useful thing next time a reporter talks to Tanya Plibersek, or a reader engages with someone in a comments section. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537910486414527809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-10904924600881943342018-12-12T23:27:19.203+11:002018-12-12T23:27:19.203+11:00Correct and thankyou.Correct and thankyou.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-41656499313041722018-12-12T23:17:19.501+11:002018-12-12T23:17:19.501+11:00Hey Kevin, should "a party that won the Upper...Hey Kevin, should "a party that won the Upper House so decisively" (first para after the seat tally) actually read "Lower House"?<br /><br />Massive thank you to the time and effort you put into covering the ongoing count this election. Your work really was second to none!BlackVegiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06380314430186538856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-47341073150655143762018-12-12T13:34:42.961+11:002018-12-12T13:34:42.961+11:00I don't have any stats for 2018 in that regard...I don't have any stats for 2018 in that regard. This is from the VEC's report for 2014:<br /><br />"Of those who voted below-the-line, more than half (52.67%) simply voted 1 to 5.<br />One seventh (14.65%) numbered all the squares on the ballot paper.<br />The remaining below-the-line voters finished at various points, with<br />fairly small numbers for each finishing point (though several<br />thousand voted 1 to 10, possibly for two groups on the ballot paper).<br />There was some variation among the regions; broadly, voters in<br />regions with a higher below-the-line voting rate were less inclined to<br />stop at 5, and showed a slight tendency to go to the end. For<br />instance, in Northern Metropolitan Region, 45.42% voted 1 to 5, and<br />15.15% numbered all the squares on the largest ballot paper in the<br />election."Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-28380146167188372642018-12-12T11:28:18.419+11:002018-12-12T11:28:18.419+11:00Thanks Kevin. I infer from that that a goodly frac...Thanks Kevin. I infer from that that a goodly fraction of BTL voters went beyond the minimum of 5 preferences and gave further contingent preferences to candidates whom they didn't mind too much (as an intelligent voter would). Correct?Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-51080408500066463862018-12-12T11:18:13.019+11:002018-12-12T11:18:13.019+11:00In the cases of Hughes (Aussie Battler) and Khan (...In the cases of Hughes (Aussie Battler) and Khan (Transport Matters) losing, the candidates needed to get past cut-off points involving other parties that weren't actually in the hunt. Both of those candidates failed because the below-the-lines for their feeder parties sprayed all over the place instead of going in the same direction as the ATL preferences, which is basically your negative effect. It means that what the calculator modelled as a 100% preference flow might be only 90%. The eventual winners of those seats didn't need any positive effect themselves, they just needed the losers to get knocked out at an early stage.<br /><br />In the case of the Liberals in Northern Metro, below the lines had a net positive effect for them as they did eventually reach quota. But had this not been the case they would have been saved by negative effects against their rivals as well.<br /><br />It's also worth mentioning South Metro where negative effects against Sustainable Australia and positive effects in favour of the Greens made the race very much closer than the calculator had it. Sustainable Australia finished up over 15000 votes worse than the calculator forecast and the Greens finished up almost 6000 better, but their position was so good even this couldn't stop SA from winning.<br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-63384823316261200892018-12-12T10:51:39.414+11:002018-12-12T10:51:39.414+11:00Thanks Kevin - very useful (and I agree 100% with ...Thanks Kevin - very useful (and I agree 100% with your conclusions). I'm not sure whether you can answer this question straight off or whether you'd need to do more analysis, but I'm wondering - in the cases where the BTL votes made a difference was it because they had a positive effect (actual preferences tending to favour the eventual winner) or a negative effect (exhausting, so preference simply not going to the beneficiary of the ATL deals)? Or a bit of both? Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.com