Victoria’s ballot papers will be larger than ever, with lower house ballots in particular growing on average by about 46% compared to 2018, while upper house ballots will also reach a record size with the same 22 party tickets running statewide as group voting tickets incentivise large candidate fields.
740 candidates have nominated for the Legislative Assembly, up from 507 in 2018 and 543 in 2014. This averages out to 8.4 candidates per seat, which appears to be the highest number of candidates per seat in a single-member system in Australian history, and it’s a 46% increase compared to 2018. Antony Green has a chart showing this figure at all elections since 1985 at his blog.
The ballot papers range in size from six candidates in ten seats up to 15 candidates in Point Cook and Werribee. There are also 14 in Melton and Mulgrave. Three of these seats are in the western suburbs, while the fourth is the premier’s seat, where one opponent threatened to run 50 independents.
We know that the informal rate is higher when ballot papers are so large under compulsory preferential voting. The sheer volume of candidates should raise questions about the ease of nominating candidates, and about rules that invalidate ballots for failing to correctly number so many boxes even when intentions are clear.
I’ve attempted to classify the gender of every lower house candidate. There has been a significant increase in the proportion of women, although as I expected the female majority I’d seen in earlier lists didn’t hold once more right-wing minor parties joined the field.
My list includes 337 women, 385 men and 1 non-binary candidate, along with 17 I haven’t been able to identify. Thus 46.6% of those identified are women. This compares to 36.3% in 2018.
A slight majority of Labor and Greens candidates are women, along with three quarters of Animal Justice candidates. The numbers of women running for the Coalition and Family First was more like about 30%. About 40% of independents are women, compared to 27.5% in 2018.
Looking at numbers of candidates running, there are five blocs running statewide. Animal Justice, Labor, Greens and Family First are running in every seat. The Liberal and National parties between them are running 94 candidates across the 88 seats.
The Freedom Party are running in 58 seats, while the Democratic Labour Party is running 32 and the Victorian Socialists 22. Another eleven minor parties are running 62 candidates between them.
There are a few more parties running, but the surging size of the ballot paper is mostly due to a handful of minor parties running huge numbers of candidates, usually people with a very low profile. Family First in particular had no candidates on my last candidate list and ended up running a full list of 88. There are no candidate profiles, no pictures. Where the candidate's gender is not clear from their first name I don't usually have anything else to go on.
Between Animal Justice (+45), Family First (+88) and the Freedom Party (+58), they added an extra 191 candidates, out of a total increase of 233.
There was also a small increase in independent numbers from 102 to 120.
As for the upper house, the ballot papers are not only at a record level, but remarkably consistent.
If you count the Coalition as a single bloc (since they don't run against each other in the upper house), there are 22 parties running in the upper house, and every one of those parties is running a full slate across the state. Apart from two independent groups in Western Metropolitan, every other ballot has exactly 22 groups (along with a single ungrouped candidate in some regions). This is a clear response to group voting tickets: there is a strong incentive to run candidates everywhere to allow for preference swapping.
Whether it's Family First running 88 unknown lower house candidates, or small parties stitching together a full statewide upper house ticket, there is little attempt to ensure candidates have some local connection or particular appeal. It's all about taking up space on the ballot paper, and an indictment on the Victorian government and parliament for failing to reform the electoral system.
That's it for now. You can view the list here, please let me know if you notice any errors or can fill in any of the missing cases. I'll also spend some time collecting as many candidate links as possible then I will be updating the candidate lists on each profile later this weekend.
It’s clearly time to find something better than compulsory preferential and optional preferential voting for single member elections.
The relatively new Senate system suggests a possible way – require ballot paper instructions and HTVs to require numbering of at least six boxes for elections with seven or more candidates. Votes with fewer boxes numbered would be covered by savings provisions in the expected way.
Consistence with the Senate approach for upper house elections would address both the craziness of GVTs and the NSW requirement to have 16 candidate upper house groups to get an above-the-line box.
Can you imagine the outcry amongst certain members of the press if Labor abolished GVTs? “Dictator Dan destroying the voice of the average person – deathknell for democracy!” – despite every other jurisdiction having got rid of them.
Not only that, but it’s probably not even likely to be passed when so many in the upper house are only there because they benefitted from them. It’s only possible with a Labor majority in both houses.
It would arguably be in the interests of more established political parties- including the ALP, Coalition, Greens and even Reason (who didn’t benefit from “preference whispering”) – to abolish GTV. They could join forces in the Upper House to dump it – most likely close to an election, to minimise the scope for micro party MLCs to crack a hissy fit and refuse to legislate responsibly.
Anne, there might be some political pain but I think you are overstating it, and ignoring Vic Labor’s approach to democratic reform more generally. They have made not a single noise to suggest they are supportive of reform and seem pretty happy to have the option to undermine the Greens by doing deals with the minor parties. From what I’ve heard, Andrews is personally opposed to reform for that reason.
I think the level of sympathy for the preference harvesters is massively overstated. There was no serious problem for other governments when they acted on reform.
With Labor preferencing the Greens they could have an upper house which would be ready to work with Labor if they were willing, but so far they haven’t been willing.
I’m a Greens supporter, but I’ve watched the absurd fantasies promoted by journalists regarding Dan Andrews, particularly since the beginning of the pandemic. The journalists have absolutely no sympathy for preference harvesters, unless they can use them for their own ends. There was no issues raised when the NSW government recently legislated changes to the State of Emergency – but when similar legislation was proposed in Victoria, you’d think martial law had been declared.
It frustrates me the lengths that Labor will go to attack the Greens, when they are, in many respects, closer the Whitlam’s ideals than is current day Labor. Perhaps because in an increasing number of electorates the Greens are Labor’s only opposition – certainly the case where I live. I still wish that they would co-operate.
The Greens are a party of anti-Australian ratbags. Labor look much better when they distance themselves from the Greens.
https://www.tallyroom.com.au/50342#comment-778221
Reason do benefit from group ticket voting, they wouldn`t be anywhere close to winning in any of Victoria`s five-member regions without GTV. The Legislative Council would need to be elected at large for Reason to win without GTV.
It is true that they did not benefit from Glen Drury`s preference whispering for hire, hence Reason trying to ban preference negotiations for hire, but that is not all of group ticket voting.
Ben Raue, can the defamatory nonsense that Entrepreneur posted above please be removed?
Scrolling through the GVT sheets released today, it’s somewhat humorous that in SE Metro at least, the “Sack Dan Andrews” party still have put Labor above the Libs and the Greens.
@expat. I think they have a split ticket – under one version they are apparently ok to live with Dan Andrews (ie preference ALP over Liberal) and in the other they want to sack Dan Andrews – or his legislative council equivalents.
How would a split ticket work in the Legislative Council? They can only lodge one GVT per region – if they don’t get left with one of the Conspiracy theorist crowds, their Leg Co preferences in this one will go to Labor.
You can lodge up to three tickets, with the votes split evenly.
Wilson,
While the ‘anti-Australian’ bit is a bit over the top (although I would not be surprised at the number of greens voters who would secretly welcome being taken over by China (or Cuba or anyone else to the ‘left’)) the rest is not really outside the boundaries. To anyone of the centre and right (and a surprising number of leftists as well) the Greens actually are ratbags, at least as much as Greens see conservatives as ratbags, and there is certainly a strong argument that Labor do better when distancing themselves from the Greens.
A quick look at Greens HTVs in some key IND challenge seats:
Hawthorn: IND Lowe before LAB
Kew: IND Torney before LAB
Caulfield: IND Kaltmann before LAB
Melton: LAB before IND Birchall
Point Cook: LAB before Garra, although Sawant before LAB
South West Coast: IND Altmann before LAB
@Mostly Labor Voter, I deleted part of the comment in question after the complaint, so you can’t judge it by what it looks like now.
Thanks Ben – it does look innocuous enough now.
@WanderWest I had a look too.
Importantly, the Greens have preferenced Labor above Felicity Frederico in Brighton too, and ALP also above the IND in Sandringham.
Particularly with the large Greens vote in Elwood, that should help Brighton remain an ALP v LIB race (which I think the ALP can win).
@ Wander West/ Trent, it was the million dollar Question that i was keen to find out earlier whether Greens would preference Teals or Labor first. Do you know what they will do in Mornington where there is a climate 200 endorsed Teal.
I guess the the Teals in Brighton and Sandringham are not Climate 200 endorsed which is why Labor was preference ahead of them
I agree it will now much harder for the Teal to win Brighton or Sandringham. However, a teal running may not help Labor if some Teal preferences go to the Libs ahead
Personally, i know feel it is very unlikely that Labor would retain Hawthorn.
@Nimalan – Mornington IND ahead of LAB
@ Wonder West, thanks for letting me know
For ALP to win Caulfield/Hawthorn in light of the preference decision by the Greens. Labor now needs the Teal to finish 4th behind the Greens and hope some Teals will preference them ahead of Libs/Greens. I think the Teals are not suggesting an allocation of preferences. If the Teals come third then with Green preferences they could leapfrog Labor.
People seem to forget that the Teals cannibalise the Greens vote – so it is likely that it will be only 6 or 7% that are being talked about. Where Teals won in Kooyong and Goldstein, both the ALP and Greens votes were in single digits. It is hard to see the Labor vote going that low in Hawthorn – a seat they hold – or in Caulfield – a seat where they were very close last time. However, in Kew, quite possibly – hence why the Libs would be especially worried there.
@ Redistributed, agree the Labor primary vote will not drop into the single digits or even in the teens in either Hawthorn or Caulfield. However, i am thinking the Labor primary vote maybe in the 20s with a Teal in the race rather than in the 30s with no Teal. Between 2010-2014 the Labor primary vote was in the 20s. I am thinking in Hawthorn more than Caulfield the Labor vote is more soft and much of it consists of small l liberals/Turnbull Liberals who may feel the Teal is a better option and may give them their first preference.
What do you feel the primary vote distribution would be?
@ Wander West, Do you if Greens will preference Jacqui Hawkins in Benembra ahead of Labor or any of the independents in Werribee (such as Paul Hopper)
@Nimalan
Benambra yes, Werribee no. For all HTVs: https://vote.greens.org.au/
Thanks @Wander West
I wonder what’s behind the complete field of Family First and Animal Justice candidates running for both houses.
Comments are closed.