Australian Elections 2013

[Beta Test]

Why? Are they preferencing socialist parties or something?

EDIT: I looked into it and they're preferencing WikiLeaks first.

Which would be hilarious if Assange has to participate in the Senate from the London Embassy.

That would be hilarious to see, but the party is saying that they would choose someone else to serve in the role if he can't get back in time.

They do have time. Senators' terms don't actually start until mid-next year.

[Blouman Empire]

Yes, yes doesn't mean the current crop are anything like him. Fuck we saw the current PM raise the price of bourbon and cokes as soon as he win the 2007 election.

That's my staple, just behind noodles and kebabs.

You're not getting it from the kebab shop at the uni are you? I've heard a lot of bad things about that place.

[Blouman Empire]

They have had six years and they haven't really made it work. Abbott doesn't sound too bad to me, so I think that he should get a go at government.

Heavens me. Mad Abbot? Not too bad? The fellow who has made explicit racist, sexist, and homophobic comments in the past?

A Coalition government with Malcom Turnbull as Prime Minister, fine. Abbot? Oh dear God no!

But someone who verbally abuses those that work for him because they are 'beneath' him is perfectly fine.

[Blouman Empire]

Now that aside, out of curiosity, if you are Australian, and are voting in this election, how will you be working out your House of Representatives ballot (if you don't mind telling)?

I just looked at the ballot and there is a total of 10 (I could only think of 6) so in order of preference

Liberal-Big shock right?

Socialist Alliance: Why would someone who is against Socialism vote for the SA? Well one reason really, I like the resistance centre they have in the derelict part of town and we want to keep them around.

The Greens: Yes I disagree with a number of Greens policies but hell if for some reason my seat was going to fall out of ALP hands and not go to the Liberals I would prefer the Greens over the ALP simply because it would shock the ALP and make it harder for them to rush through all legislation, not to mention the Greens support a similar parental leave policy to the liberal party.

Australian Independents: Protest vote more then anything I would prefer this mob over those below

Palmer United Party: These bastards didn't even give me their DVD so I had to ask someone from a neighbouring electorate for it just so I could watch the Titanic II video. Another party not worth mentioning except I don't really want any Palmer candidate in.

Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group): Apart from the ALP and the Liberal Party this guy is the only other party to put material in my letter box. I don't agree with his policies including his environmental policy which is to NOT allow any Coal Seam Gas mining (probably the only thing him and the Greens have in common).

ALP- The only reason I don't have them last is because of the three candidates below

Independent (Supported by the Progressive Labour Party): I dislike this party and their broad policies, these are the people whom many members are also a part of GetUp and thus want to impose their beliefs and values onto the rest of the population because they are looking out for us. While they have some good ideas on what needs to happen they have no decent policies. Thus the PLP can be down at the bottom.

Australia First Party: Don't really know much about them and the limited research I have done on them has not impressed me.

Independent- I have no idea why this guy is running all I know about him is that he is currently a student at the uni but haven't seen anything else about him he doesn't even campaign on campus. I only know about this guy because my roommate was asked by the this candidate to sign his form so he could make it on the list. This was done in the afternoon on the very last day of nominations which makes me think he is doing it for a bit of fun and to perhaps say he once ran in an election. Who knows why he bothered paying the money to get himself on the ballot I doubt he will even make the 4% limit to get any of it back.


Now some of my reasoning may be a bit wtf, but since it is a safe ALP seat and the only real competitor is the Liberal Party when it comes to election night and tallying the only thing that counts is which of those two parties are higher marked. Anyone who has scrutineered in a safe seat before will know how the tallying really goes to get out the result quickly.

[Blouman Empire]

Anyone listened to this?

http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/?page_id=1136

Hahaha, they should be playing this on election ads.

[Beta Test]

Ok, I found the candidates for the seat of Ryan

1: Craig Geoffrey Gunnis, Palmer United Party- Clive Palmer might not make the best PM but I think he's an alright guy. This would be a protest vote
2: Michael Sweedman, Secular Party- I know nothing about this candidate but this party is alright
3: Jane Prentice, Liberal National Party- She hasn't been the most visible local MP, unlike the last one. But I favor this party out of the major parties
4: Charles Worringham, Greens- This guy is a professor or something and I like the Greens' social and environmental policies.
5: Peter Andrew Walker, Katter's Australian Party- When it comes to economics, Bob Katter appeals to me quite a bit. It's a shame his party is full of bigots and gun nuts
6: Damien Scott Hamwood, Australian Labor Party- I just don't think they should get another term in office
7: Lisa Demidio, Family First- Christian bigot nutcases. No thank you.

[New Chalcedon]

Why? Are they preferencing socialist parties or something?

EDIT: I looked into it and they're preferencing WikiLeaks first.

Which would be hilarious if Assange has to participate in the Senate from the London Embassy.

Not going to happen. IF Assange gets elected, he walks - or else there'll be an absolute first-class diplomatic incident.

[Forster Keys]

That's my staple, just behind noodles and kebabs.

You're not getting it from the kebab shop at the uni are you? I've heard a lot of bad things about that place.

Not yet. I'll be wary of it now though.

[Forster Keys]

Now that aside, out of curiosity, if you are Australian, and are voting in this election, how will you be working out your House of Representatives ballot (if you don't mind telling)?

I just looked at the ballot and there is a total of 10 (I could only think of 6) so in order of preference

Liberal-Big shock right?

Socialist Alliance: Why would someone who is against Socialism vote for the SA? Well one reason really, I like the resistance centre they have in the derelict part of town and we want to keep them around.

The Greens: Yes I disagree with a number of Greens policies but hell if for some reason my seat was going to fall out of ALP hands and not go to the Liberals I would prefer the Greens over the ALP simply because it would shock the ALP and make it harder for them to rush through all legislation, not to mention the Greens support a similar parental leave policy to the liberal party.

Australian Independents: Protest vote more then anything I would prefer this mob over those below

Palmer United Party: These bastards didn't even give me their DVD so I had to ask someone from a neighbouring electorate for it just so I could watch the Titanic II video. Another party not worth mentioning except I don't really want any Palmer candidate in.

Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group): Apart from the ALP and the Liberal Party this guy is the only other party to put material in my letter box. I don't agree with his policies including his environmental policy which is to NOT allow any Coal Seam Gas mining (probably the only thing him and the Greens have in common).

ALP- The only reason I don't have them last is because of the three candidates below

Independent (Supported by the Progressive Labour Party): I dislike this party and their broad policies, these are the people whom many members are also a part of GetUp and thus want to impose their beliefs and values onto the rest of the population because they are looking out for us. While they have some good ideas on what needs to happen they have no decent policies. Thus the PLP can be down at the bottom.

Australia First Party: Don't really know much about them and the limited research I have done on them has not impressed me.

Independent- I have no idea why this guy is running all I know about him is that he is currently a student at the uni but haven't seen anything else about him he doesn't even campaign on campus. I only know about this guy because my roommate was asked by the this candidate to sign his form so he could make it on the list. This was done in the afternoon on the very last day of nominations which makes me think he is doing it for a bit of fun and to perhaps say he once ran in an election. Who knows why he bothered paying the money to get himself on the ballot I doubt he will even make the 4% limit to get any of it back.


Now some of my reasoning may be a bit wtf, but since it is a safe ALP seat and the only real competitor is the Liberal Party when it comes to election night and tallying the only thing that counts is which of those two parties are higher marked. Anyone who has scrutineered in a safe seat before will know how the tallying really goes to get out the result quickly.

Wow. We'll make a red out of you yet.

[Forster Keys]

1. Socialist Alliance. I'm not a member, I find some of their approaches ludicrous, but they're still the closest to my beliefs. Also Blouman's reasoning about their resistance centre is sound. It's a pretty cool joint.
2. Greens. Next closest to my beliefs. A little too middle class and nanny state for my liking, but they do good shit and they've got a lot of good people.
3. Australian Independents. They haven't marketed themselves well, but their policies are quite good.
4. Independent (female). She sounds like she's got some good policies
5. Labor. They're marketing themselves as centrist technocrats now. I find centrist technocracy distasteful.
6. Palmer United Party. It's nice the man has a hobby now. And he's a bit of a laugh.
7. Liberals. Ew. Liberals.
8. Independent (male). Can't find shit about this bloke. But he doesn't poll last because of the bottom too.
9. Christian Democrats. Reactionary fundamentalists, hell no.
1-. Australia First. Blouman said he didn't really research them. That's obvious, because these cunts are to the right of One Nation and led by a man jailed for his paramilitary activities.

[Blouman Empire]

You're not getting it from the kebab shop at the uni are you? I've heard a lot of bad things about that place.

Not yet. I'll be wary of it now though.

Well apparently they charge $1 for every salad filling including the staples of lettuce, tomato, onion and tabouli and sauces are $2, the price before any of that is $7 so adding the basics takes it to well over $10. Not sure if they have changed it or not but quite frankly any student buying their kebabs from there should be reexmained to ensure they have the intelligence to do their course.

Not going to happen. IF Assange gets elected, he walks - or else there'll be an absolute first-class diplomatic incident.

Which is his plan all along and the only reason he started it up.

Wow. We'll make a red out of you yet.

Haha, don't get me wrong I'm very socially progressive hence why I am a small l liberal but it's a lot of the other policies including ones that go against social liberal ideals that stops me from supporting them outright.

Have you been in the resistance centre?

[Blouman Empire]

1. Socialist Alliance. I'm not a member, I find some of their approaches ludicrous, but they're still the closest to my beliefs. Also Blouman's reasoning about their resistance centre is sound. It's a pretty cool joint.
2. Greens. Next closest to my beliefs. A little too middle class and nanny state for my liking, but they do good shit and they've got a lot of good people.
3. Australian Independents. They haven't marketed themselves well, but their policies are quite good.
4. Independent (female). She sounds like she's got some good policies
5. Labor. They're marketing themselves as centrist technocrats now. I find centrist technocracy distasteful.
6. Palmer United Party. It's nice the man has a hobby now. And he's a bit of a laugh.
7. Independent (male). Can't find shit about this bloke. But he doesn't poll last because of the bottom too.
8. Christian Democrats. Reactionary fundamentalists, hell no.
9. Australia First. Blouman said he didn't really research them. That's obvious, because these cunts are to the right of One Nation and led by a man jailed for his paramilitary activities.

Haha I just had to say yes it is very obvious, but your vote is informal you missed out on the Liberal party. As for the male independent as I said he only nominated himself on the last day and if you haven't heard of him that says it all considering he is at your uni as a post doctorate student a place you would think would be where he would start doing any campaigning.

[Forster Keys]

1. Socialist Alliance. I'm not a member, I find some of their approaches ludicrous, but they're still the closest to my beliefs. Also Blouman's reasoning about their resistance centre is sound. It's a pretty cool joint.
2. Greens. Next closest to my beliefs. A little too middle class and nanny state for my liking, but they do good shit and they've got a lot of good people.
3. Australian Independents. They haven't marketed themselves well, but their policies are quite good.
4. Independent (female). She sounds like she's got some good policies
5. Labor. They're marketing themselves as centrist technocrats now. I find centrist technocracy distasteful.
6. Palmer United Party. It's nice the man has a hobby now. And he's a bit of a laugh.
7. Independent (male). Can't find shit about this bloke. But he doesn't poll last because of the bottom too.
8. Christian Democrats. Reactionary fundamentalists, hell no.
9. Australia First. Blouman said he didn't really research them. That's obvious, because these cunts are to the right of One Nation and led by a man jailed for his paramilitary activities.

Haha I just had to say yes it is very obvious, but your vote is informal you missed out on the Liberal party.

Rectified.

As for the male independent as I said he only nominated himself on the last day and if you haven't heard of him that says it all considering he is at your uni as a post doctorate student a place you would think would be where he would start doing any campaigning.

I'm thinking this is a bet of some sort?

[Forster Keys]

Not yet. I'll be wary of it now though.

Well apparently they charge $1 for every salad filling including the staples of lettuce, tomato, onion and tabouli and sauces are $2, the price before any of that is $7 so adding the basics takes it to well over $10. Not sure if they have changed it or not but quite frankly any student buying their kebabs from there should be reexmained to ensure they have the intelligence to do their course.

They're always out when I get there. I go for the pies though. Cheap as.

Haha, don't get me wrong I'm very socially progressive hence why I am a small l liberal but it's a lot of the other policies including ones that go against social liberal ideals that stops me from supporting them outright.

Ah, indeed. Pity the Democrats aren't around anymore.

Have you been in the resistance centre?

I actually haven't. How is it?

[Socialist EU]

1. Socialist Alliance. I'm not a member, I find some of their approaches ludicrous, but they're still the closest to my beliefs. Also Blouman's reasoning about their resistance centre is sound. It's a pretty cool joint.
2. Greens. Next closest to my beliefs. A little too middle class and nanny state for my liking, but they do good shit and they've got a lot of good people.
3. Australian Independents. They haven't marketed themselves well, but their policies are quite good.
4. Independent (female). She sounds like she's got some good policies
5. Labor. They're marketing themselves as centrist technocrats now. I find centrist technocracy distasteful.
6. Palmer United Party. It's nice the man has a hobby now. And he's a bit of a laugh.
7. Independent (male). Can't find shit about this bloke. But he doesn't poll last because of the bottom too.
8. Christian Democrats. Reactionary fundamentalists, hell no.
9. Australia First. Blouman said he didn't really research them. That's obvious, because these cunts are to the right of One Nation and led by a man jailed for his paramilitary activities.

Haha I just had to say yes it is very obvious, but your vote is informal you missed out on the Liberal party. As for the male independent as I said he only nominated himself on the last day and if you haven't heard of him that says it all considering he is at your uni as a post doctorate student a place you would think would be where he would start doing any campaigning.

I'm obviously not Australian, but are you saying that you guys have to vote for all the candidates on the ballot or it will be deemed informal? And what does that mean? Does that mean the vote will not count? Could you not, say, just put 1 and 2 on your first and second preference, or just a 1 and leave at that? I ask this because if it was me voting over there, I'd only put a one or two,(eg, 1 Socialist Alliance, 2, Labor or Greens), I couldn't bring myself to vote for parties' I really hate even if I put say, Family First at the bottom, *shudders*.

So, my main question is, I know voting in Oz is compulsory, but is it compulsory to vote for all the candidates in order of preference? If that is the case, well, that really sucks.

[New Chalcedon]

Haha I just had to say yes it is very obvious, but your vote is informal you missed out on the Liberal party. As for the male independent as I said he only nominated himself on the last day and if you haven't heard of him that says it all considering he is at your uni as a post doctorate student a place you would think would be where he would start doing any campaigning.

I'm obviously not Australian, but are you saying that you guys have to vote for all the candidates on the ballot or it will be deemed informal? And what does that mean? Does that mean the vote will not count? Could you not, say, just put 1 and 2 on your first and second preference, or just a 1 and leave at that? I ask this because if it was me voting over there, I'd only put a one or two,(eg, 1 Socialist Alliance, 2, Labor or Greens), I couldn't bring myself to vote for parties' I really hate even if I put say, Family First at the bottom, *shudders*.

So, my main question is, I know voting in Oz is compulsory, but is it compulsory to vote for all the candidates in order of preference? If that is the case, well, that really sucks.

Yes, it is compulsory - except in Queensland state elections, where they've introduced optional preferences.

In Australia:

There are N candidates for a seat. You number them in order of preference, from 1 to N. Should no-one get a majority of all "1" votes case, the candidate with the least gets eliminated, and their "1" votes go to the voters' "2" preference.

And so on, until a candidate has a majority of all votes cast.

In Queensland:

There are N candidates for a seat. You number them in order of preference, until you run out of candidates you're prepared to vote for. Should no-one get a majority of all "1" votes cast, the candidate with the least gets eliminated. Their ballots are examined - those whose voters put a "2" next to another candidate have those votes go to that candidate, while those who did not are called "exhausted ballots" and tossed.

And so on, until EITHER a candidate has a majority of all votes cast, OR only one candidate is left standing.

***

I prefer Queensland's system. That way, I could - in my seat of Brand - vote as follows:

NEWHOUSE, Andrew (Family First Party)--------------IGNORE
LAWRENCE, Craig Walker (Palmer United Party)-----THIRD
GRAY, Gary (Australian Labor Party)---------------IGNORE
LE-COCQ, Mick (Citizens Electoral Council)-----------IGNORE
YOUNG, Paul James (Australian Democrats)---------SECOND
IRIKS, Gabrielle Lisanne (Rise Up Australia Party)-IGNORE
JECKS, Dawn (The Greens (WA))--------------------FIRST
BURDETT, Bob (Australian Christians)----------------IGNORE
GORDIN, Donna (Liberal)--------------------------------IGNORE

As it is, I have to vote for all of them in order, despite the vast swathe of right-wing Christians in there whom I'd rather die than see in office.

[New Chalcedon]

As of August 23, The Poll Bludger has the following polling averages (all figures in TPP):

COALITION 53.1%
ALP 46.9%

On a State-by-State level - where the action is - this translates into the following:

NSW

Coalition 55.2%
ALP 44.8%

Victoria

ALP 50.3%
Coalition 49.7%

Queensland

Coalition 53.3%
ALP 46.7%

Western Australia

Coalition 59.1%
ALP 40.9%

South Australia

Coalition 50.3%
ALP 49.7%

Tasmania

Coalition 53.5%
ALP 46.5%

Territories

ALP 53.5%
Coalition 46.5%

Plugging those state-by-state TPP figures into Antony Green's Election Calculator, I arrived at the following result:

ALP 62 seats (-10)
Coalition 85 seats (+13)
KAP 1 seat (+0)
Green 1 seat (+0)
IND 1 seat (-3)

Basically, Labor loses a swag of seats in NSW and bleeds a few elsewhere (particularly in Tasmania, which is seeing a 14%(!) swing against the ALP), the latter of which are made up by a small swing in Queensland. People are waiting with cricket bats in NSW, Victoria's tepid toward the ALP and WA is even more hostile territory for Labor than in 2010.

Basically, with NSW and WA united in hostility to Rudd and Victorian indifference, the limited gains he looks like making in Queensland just can't make up the difference. I'm standing by my earlier prediction of a Coalition Government and a Coalition-majority Senate.

[Beta Test]

Wow, New Chalacedon. If that's correct polling, Rudd doesn't stand a chance.

[Yaltabaoth]

I'm obviously not Australian, but are you saying that you guys have to vote for all the candidates on the ballot or it will be deemed informal? And what does that mean? Does that mean the vote will not count? Could you not, say, just put 1 and 2 on your first and second preference, or just a 1 and leave at that? I ask this because if it was me voting over there, I'd only put a one or two,(eg, 1 Socialist Alliance, 2, Labor or Greens), I couldn't bring myself to vote for parties' I really hate even if I put say, Family First at the bottom, *shudders*.

So, my main question is, I know voting in Oz is compulsory, but is it compulsory to vote for all the candidates in order of preference? If that is the case, well, that really sucks.

Yes, it is compulsory - except in Queensland state elections, where they've introduced optional preferences.

In Australia:

There are N candidates for a seat. You number them in order of preference, from 1 to N. Should no-one get a majority of all "1" votes case, the candidate with the least gets eliminated, and their "1" votes go to the voters' "2" preference.

And so on, until a candidate has a majority of all votes cast.

In Queensland:

There are N candidates for a seat. You number them in order of preference, until you run out of candidates you're prepared to vote for. Should no-one get a majority of all "1" votes cast, the candidate with the least gets eliminated. Their ballots are examined - those whose voters put a "2" next to another candidate have those votes go to that candidate, while those who did not are called "exhausted ballots" and tossed.

And so on, until EITHER a candidate has a majority of all votes cast, OR only one candidate is left standing.

***

I prefer Queensland's system. That way, I could - in my seat of Brand - vote as follows:

NEWHOUSE, Andrew (Family First Party)--------------IGNORE
LAWRENCE, Craig Walker (Palmer United Party)-----THIRD
GRAY, Gary (Australian Labor Party)---------------IGNORE
LE-COCQ, Mick (Citizens Electoral Council)-----------IGNORE
YOUNG, Paul James (Australian Democrats)---------SECOND
IRIKS, Gabrielle Lisanne (Rise Up Australia Party)-IGNORE
JECKS, Dawn (The Greens (WA))--------------------FIRST
BURDETT, Bob (Australian Christians)----------------IGNORE
GORDIN, Donna (Liberal)--------------------------------IGNORE

As it is, I have to vote for all of them in order, despite the vast swathe of right-wing Christians in there whom I'd rather die than see in office.

If I understand right, there's above-the-line voting, in which you select only your first preference, and the rest of the list is automatically filled out according to the party / candidate's (I'm not sure which, assuming party) preferences.

Or there's below-the-line, which is as you've described above.

Please correct me if I've gotten that wrong. I seem to be prone to it in this thread for some reason...

[Beta Test]

Yes, it is compulsory - except in Queensland state elections, where they've introduced optional preferences.

In Australia:

There are N candidates for a seat. You number them in order of preference, from 1 to N. Should no-one get a majority of all "1" votes case, the candidate with the least gets eliminated, and their "1" votes go to the voters' "2" preference.

And so on, until a candidate has a majority of all votes cast.

In Queensland:

There are N candidates for a seat. You number them in order of preference, until you run out of candidates you're prepared to vote for. Should no-one get a majority of all "1" votes cast, the candidate with the least gets eliminated. Their ballots are examined - those whose voters put a "2" next to another candidate have those votes go to that candidate, while those who did not are called "exhausted ballots" and tossed.

And so on, until EITHER a candidate has a majority of all votes cast, OR only one candidate is left standing.

***

I prefer Queensland's system. That way, I could - in my seat of Brand - vote as follows:

NEWHOUSE, Andrew (Family First Party)--------------IGNORE
LAWRENCE, Craig Walker (Palmer United Party)-----THIRD
GRAY, Gary (Australian Labor Party)---------------IGNORE
LE-COCQ, Mick (Citizens Electoral Council)-----------IGNORE
YOUNG, Paul James (Australian Democrats)---------SECOND
IRIKS, Gabrielle Lisanne (Rise Up Australia Party)-IGNORE
JECKS, Dawn (The Greens (WA))--------------------FIRST
BURDETT, Bob (Australian Christians)----------------IGNORE
GORDIN, Donna (Liberal)--------------------------------IGNORE

As it is, I have to vote for all of them in order, despite the vast swathe of right-wing Christians in there whom I'd rather die than see in office.

If I understand right, there's above-the-line voting, in which you select only your first preference, and the rest of the list is automatically filled out according to the party / candidate's (I'm not sure which, assuming party) preferences.

Or there's below-the-line, which is as you've described above.

Please correct me if I've gotten that wrong. I seem to be prone to it in this thread for some reason...

He is talking about lower house optional preferencing.

[New Chalcedon]

Wow, New Chalacedon. If that's correct polling, Rudd doesn't stand a chance.

Labor didn't want to bring him back because they wanted to win - they brought him back because they thought he could "save the furniture", so to speak - that he could minimise the losses and at least leave Labor in decent shape after the dust settles.

Consider that the average polling prior to Gillard's defeat in the caucus was 57-43 Coalition-ALP - essentially, another 3.9% toward the Coalition. Now I deduct another 3.9% from Labor's two-party vote in the seats (below the headline result in the previous link), and come at the following:

Labor loses an additional 21 seats (everything up to & including McMahon in NSW, which would become Coalition on 0.1% margin) and is left with only 41 seats - a wipeout worse than Keating's 1996 loss.

They brought Rudd back hoping he could stem the losses, and so far it looks like he will.

If I understand right, there's above-the-line voting, in which you select only your first preference, and the rest of the list is automatically filled out according to the party / candidate's (I'm not sure which, assuming party) preferences.

Or there's below-the-line, which is as you've described above.

Please correct me if I've gotten that wrong. I seem to be prone to it in this thread for some reason...

Above-the-line/below-the-line only works for Senate votes. In each Senate half-election (i.e., each general election, unless there was a double dissolution of Parliament, a la 1974 and 1975) 6 Statewide seats are up in each State. This leads to huge numbers of candidates putting themselves forward - in NSW, there are a hundred and ten candidates for the NSW Senate seats.

Obviously, this, when combined with the requirement to number every box, led to huge rates of informal voting - just under 10% in the 1983 election, when there were far fewer candidates; now I'd wager that given the choice between writing "YOU ALL SUCK!" and numbering 110 boxes, most people will choose "YOU ALL SUCK!"

Thus, at the 1984 election, they brought in the above-the-line vote, in which you can enter "1" in the box of the party which you support, and the preferences are distributed according to their pre-lodged preferences card if they don't get a seat.

None of this is needed in the House ballots, which rarely have more than six candidates and correspondingly low informal vote rates.

Frankly, I'd be overjoyed if 50%+ of the people voted informal at the next election, in protest over the abysmal choices the two-party duopoly are dishing out to us. I'd be even happier if we brought in optional preferencing (rather than compulsory preferencing as we have today), so that people didn't have to vote for either major party, but could preference them if they wanted, to avoid "wasting" a vote.

[Mollary]

Wow, New Chalacedon. If that's correct polling, Rudd doesn't stand a chance.

Labor didn't want to bring him back because they wanted to win - they brought him back because they thought he could "save the furniture", so to speak - that he could minimise the losses and at least leave Labor in decent shape after the dust settles.

Consider that the average polling prior to Gillard's defeat in the caucus was 57-43 Coalition-ALP - essentially, another 3.9% toward the Coalition. Now I deduct another 3.9% from Labor's two-party vote in the seats (below the headline result in the previous link), and come at the following:

Labor loses an additional 21 seats (everything up to & including McMahon in NSW, which would become Coalition on 0.1% margin) and is left with only 41 seats - a wipeout worse than Keating's 1996 loss.

They brought Rudd back hoping he could stem the losses, and so far it looks like he will.

If I understand right, there's above-the-line voting, in which you select only your first preference, and the rest of the list is automatically filled out according to the party / candidate's (I'm not sure which, assuming party) preferences.

Or there's below-the-line, which is as you've described above.

Please correct me if I've gotten that wrong. I seem to be prone to it in this thread for some reason...

Above-the-line/below-the-line only works for Senate votes. In each Senate half-election (i.e., each general election, unless there was a double dissolution of Parliament, a la 1974 and 1975) 6 Statewide seats are up in each State. This leads to huge numbers of candidates putting themselves forward - in NSW, there are a hundred and ten candidates for the NSW Senate seats.

Obviously, this, when combined with the requirement to number every box, led to huge rates of informal voting - just under 10% in the 1983 election, when there were far fewer candidates; now I'd wager that given the choice between writing "YOU ALL SUCK!" and numbering 110 boxes, most people will choose "YOU ALL SUCK!"

Thus, at the 1984 election, they brought in the above-the-line vote, in which you can enter "1" in the box of the party which you support, and the preferences are distributed according to their pre-lodged preferences card if they don't get a seat.

None of this is needed in the House ballots, which rarely have more than six candidates and correspondingly low informal vote rates.

Frankly, I'd be overjoyed if 50%+ of the people voted informal at the next election, in protest over the abysmal choices the two-party duopoly are dishing out to us. I'd be even happier if we brought in optional preferencing (rather than compulsory preferencing as we have today), so that people didn't have to vote for either major party, but could preference them if they wanted, to avoid "wasting" a vote.

Surely it would be better if those votes went to the Greens or someone like them? Surely that would have more of an impact on the two main parties as it will cause them to lose seats.

[New Chalcedon]

Surely it would be better if those votes went to the Greens or someone like them? Surely that would have more of an impact on the two main parties as it will cause them to lose seats.

Which "votes" are you referring to? If you're talking about the optional preferencing rules I'm proposing, then the small parties would get more of the votes, and those votes might be passed on to the big parties (whom, let's face it, everyone hates these days) depending on whether the individual voter thinks they've earned it.

As is, we are required to ultimately say that we prefer one to the other, even if we think they're both terrible.

[Beta Test]

I say we should all vote for Palmer in protest.

[Yaltabaoth]

Wow, New Chalacedon. If that's correct polling, Rudd doesn't stand a chance.

Labor didn't want to bring him back because they wanted to win - they brought him back because they thought he could "save the furniture", so to speak - that he could minimise the losses and at least leave Labor in decent shape after the dust settles.

Consider that the average polling prior to Gillard's defeat in the caucus was 57-43 Coalition-ALP - essentially, another 3.9% toward the Coalition. Now I deduct another 3.9% from Labor's two-party vote in the seats (below the headline result in the previous link), and come at the following:

Labor loses an additional 21 seats (everything up to & including McMahon in NSW, which would become Coalition on 0.1% margin) and is left with only 41 seats - a wipeout worse than Keating's 1996 loss.

They brought Rudd back hoping he could stem the losses, and so far it looks like he will.

If I understand right, there's above-the-line voting, in which you select only your first preference, and the rest of the list is automatically filled out according to the party / candidate's (I'm not sure which, assuming party) preferences.

Or there's below-the-line, which is as you've described above.

Please correct me if I've gotten that wrong. I seem to be prone to it in this thread for some reason...

Above-the-line/below-the-line only works for Senate votes. In each Senate half-election (i.e., each general election, unless there was a double dissolution of Parliament, a la 1974 and 1975) 6 Statewide seats are up in each State. This leads to huge numbers of candidates putting themselves forward - in NSW, there are a hundred and ten candidates for the NSW Senate seats.

Obviously, this, when combined with the requirement to number every box, led to huge rates of informal voting - just under 10% in the 1983 election, when there were far fewer candidates; now I'd wager that given the choice between writing "YOU ALL SUCK!" and numbering 110 boxes, most people will choose "YOU ALL SUCK!"

Thus, at the 1984 election, they brought in the above-the-line vote, in which you can enter "1" in the box of the party which you support, and the preferences are distributed according to their pre-lodged preferences card if they don't get a seat.

None of this is needed in the House ballots, which rarely have more than six candidates and correspondingly low informal vote rates.

Frankly, I'd be overjoyed if 50%+ of the people voted informal at the next election, in protest over the abysmal choices the two-party duopoly are dishing out to us. I'd be even happier if we brought in optional preferencing (rather than compulsory preferencing as we have today), so that people didn't have to vote for either major party, but could preference them if they wanted, to avoid "wasting" a vote.

Thank you very much, that's very helpful.
Edit: as a kiwi I've never been able to vote in Oz, so I've never been through the process. I'm mainly thinking of friends' complaints about having to number soooo many boxes ugh!, I'd assumed it was laborious (sorry) at all levels of voting.