In cases where members are elected to represent single-member wards, or divisions, Queensland councils use the optional preferential voting (OPV) electoral system to elect members. This covers all mayoral elections, as well as council seats in most urban south-east Queensland councils.
Under OPV, voters are free to number as many or as few preferences as they wish. A single ‘1’ is sufficient for a vote to be formal. It contrasts to compulsory preferential voting (CPV), which is used for single-member electorates for federal and Queensland state elections, amongst others. CPV requires voters to indicate a preference for every candidate, and their vote is informal without a complete order of preferences.
While these two systems can play out in different ways over time, it’s easy enough in the short-term to compare how preferences flow under the two systems, and from that make some assessments of how Brisbane City elections would differ if CPV was used.
In this post I find that an increased flow of preferences between Labor and Greens would flip a number of seats away from the LNP, and make these elections closer.
At the 2020 Queensland state election, there were 23 seats that were mostly contained within the City of Brisbane, and in all 23 of these seats the final three-candidate-preferred count was between Labor, Liberal National Party and the Greens. I can then compare the 3CP number to the final 2CP to identify how preferences flow in like-for-like situations.
Of the 26 Brisbane City wards in 2020, eighteen of them only had a Labor, LNP and Greens candidate, so the primary vote also functions as a 3CP. Doboy isn’t part of the analysis due to the absence of a Greens candidate, and I’ve also excluded Pullenvale and Tennyson where an independent made the 3CP. This leaves another five wards where Labor, LNP and Greens made the 3CP after other candidates were excluded.
So we have 23 Brisbane City wards to compare to 23 Queensland state electorates to see how preferences flow between these parties in the same area, in the same year, but with different voting systems.
Of the 23 Queensland state electorates, the Greens were knocked out after the 3CP in 21 of those seats (the classic races). The only exceptions were the two seats won by the Greens. In Maiwar, the ALP came third, with their preferences helping re-elect Greens MP Michael Berkman. In South Brisbane, the LNP came third, with their preferences helping elect new Greens MP Amy MacMahon.
At the Brisbane City election, the Greens were knocked out in 18 wards, with Labor knocked out in the other five. Plus the Greens were knocked out in the Lord Mayoral contest, so I’ll include that in the analysis. There was no example where the LNP dropped into third place, as they did in South Brisbane, so we can’t compare LNP preference flows between Labor and the Greens, which was a major factor in the Victorian state election.
This map shows which non-LNP candidate made the 2CP in each electorate, and how much they overcame the third-placed candidate on the 3CP. I explained it in yesterday’s post.
So I have then compared the 3CP to 2CP to calculate the proportion of preferences from the third-placed candidate to each of the other two. Under CPV, the two numbers add up to 100%. Under OPV, there is a third portion, which is the votes that exhaust.
| Voter group | Prefs to ALP/GRN | Prefs to LNP | Exhausted |
| Greens prefs (CPV) | 80.1 | 19.9 | |
| Greens prefs (OPV) | 47.0 | 10.1 | 42.9 |
| Labor prefs (CPV) | 74.6 | 25.4 | |
| Labor prefs (OPV) | 41.3 | 12.2 | 46.5 |
Generally preferences from the Greens to Labor are stronger than the reverse – something I found when I analysed NSW preference flows.
The proportion of flowing preferences to the LNP tend to be a bit lower under OPV, but in raw numbers the OPV preferences are much less favourable to the remaining centre-left candidate, since the volume of preferences is smaller. Almost half of all votes exhausted in 2020.
Those numbers above are averages, but this next chart shows (in the case of Greens preferences flowing between Labor and LNP) each individual datapoint.
The X and Y axis show the proportion of preferences flowing to LNP and Labor respectively. In the case of CPV elections, those two numbers add up to 100%, so all of those datapoints make a neat line which follows the formula X = 1 – Y. In the case of OPV elections, the distance from the CPV line indicates what share of the preferences exhausted.
While there is some variations, there is a clear clustering. The gap between the CPV datapoints and OPV datapoints demonstrate why OPV tends to favour the candidate leading on primary votes – there’s just less votes available to chase down a lead.
So I then calculated roughly how the exhausted votes would need to split to turn the OPV preference flows into CPV preference flows. In the case of Greens preferences, I calculated that 77% of exhausted votes would flow to Labor. In the reverse case, I calculated that 71.5% of exhausted votes would flow to the Greens. I then applied those adjusted figures to the 2020 Brisbane City Council election results.
In every single case, the LNP’s position is weakened by the use of CPV. It would be enough for the Greens to win a second ward in Paddington, and for Labor to win Enoggera and Northgate (the latter with a margin of just 0.02%, or just nine votes).
That would translate into a council of 16 LNP, 7 Labor, 2 Greens and 1 independent – still a clear LNP majority, but much less dominant than the actual outcome. It would have also reduced the lord mayoral margin from 6.3% to 3.7%.
This wouldn’t have changed the overall outcome in 2020, but you could imagine it making a difference in a closer election.
Queensland used to use optional preferential voting, switching in 2016 in a sudden move in parliament without much notice.
In this case, I think the CPV outcome would have done a better job of representing how people voted. The LNP polled just 45.9% on the council ballot yet won 73% of the seats. While they did benefit from the usual majority bonus you see in single-member electorates, they also benefited from their centre-left opposition being divided.
While I think CPV would produce a fairer outcome, I remain a supporter of optional preferential voting. I don’t think it’s ethical to invalidate votes because they haven’t expressed the maximum number of preferences. But I think there is potential to have reforms that maintain OPV while doing more to encourage preferences – for example by instructing voters to number every box, even if you don’t enforce that rule through informality.
Ultimately, however, the answer is not CPV or OPV. It’s a more proportional system which ensures those exhausted votes can directly elect a representative. Labor and Greens voters can elect their own autonomous representatives who can then come to arrangements in the elected body, rather than relying on preferences to form majorities.
Welcome to the world of paradoxes in our voting system . A statement should be listed on the ballot paper “That in order to maximise your vote voters should number a preference for all candidates in the order of preference.
Optional preferential is made even more worst in proportional representation elections. The system of counting proportional representation used is outdated and seriously flawed.
We need to adopt a reiterative count that better reflects the voter’s intentions.
On the exclusion of any candidate during the count the count is reset and restarted with votes redistributed according to the express order of the voter’s preference. The number of reiterations continues until all positions are filled in a single iteration.
We could and should also reconsie=der the use of the “Droop Quota’ (X.(Y+1) and adopt a pure proportional system (X/Y)
The current system was designed to facilitate a manual count. It does not reflect the voter’s intention. With a computerised count, there is no need to continue with the current system of segmentation and distribution of preferences which distorts the outcome of the election.
The current system gives an unfair advantage to minor parties/candidates. The only segmentation of the vote that should occur is based on the valid continuing primary vote. Votes/Preferences should NEVER skip or jump a continuing candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_system
Any ballots that exhaust at full value are discarded. Ballots that retain a value less than the full value are recorded as exhausted with value.
This system would adjust the quota for election in each iteration.
I sometimes think that there’s value in an iterative count that recalculates the quota as preferences exhaust but switching from a Droop quota to a Hare quota is nuts.
Funnily enough, voting was changed in the Beattie years from CPV to OPV to take advantage of the seats with both Liberal and National candidates. When the two were merged to form the LNP the vote stopped being split. With the rise of The Greens the ALP watched as it not only cut into their primary, but it also reduced the flow of preferences from Green to ALP candidates as the vote exhausted. Which was the reason it was changed back to CPV in 2016.
One clear delineation between State and Council voting is the number of voters who choose LNP for Council and ALP for State.
And while I hate to be cynical it’s worthwhile pointing out that three out of the four significant changes to the voting process implemented by Labor (removal of the Upper House, weighted electorates and OPV) have all come back to bite them. We’ll have to see if CPV will do the same.
I would partially agree with you Mark, in that with the rise of One Nation and other conservative parties like Katter’s means the LNP would benefit just as much from full (compulsory) preferences as Labor currently does with the Greens.
Although analysis by Anthony Green suggests that even with full preferences, the flow from conservative minor parties like One Nation to the LNP seems to be weaker compared to the flow from Greens to Labor (usually at a rate of 70% instead of the 80-85% achieved for the Greens).
On more reflection and analysis I would scrap the use of the Droop Quota(x/(y+1)) and adopt a full proportional quota system (x/y) There is no justification why the “Wasted Quota” votes should not be taken into consideration when determining the outcome of the election. The Droop Quota was introduced to facilitate a manual count with computerisation of the count the roop quota can no longer be supported.
Those who continue to support the use of the Droop Quota are Luddites and include many in the defunct PRSA who continue to prop up a flawed counting system.
Ben please explain. Why should the so-called wastsed quota not be given a say in the outcome of the ballot?
You advocate Robson Rotation. Even though the impact of Robsoon Rotation is significantly less under an Optional preferential votiing system. Yet you support disenfranchising a quota-1 of voters and deny them a say in who should represent them.
The Droop Quota had merit in a Manual Count is serves no purpose in a computerised count where the delay in counting the vote is minimal. I can see no justification in maintaining the use of the Droop Quota unless you seek to disenfranchise a minority of votes caught out on the wriong side of the ledger.
Consider the following outcome in a three-seat electorate:
– Liberal: 52%
– Labor: 48%
I’m sure anyone would agree that the result here should be two seats to the Liberals, and one for Labor.
Now consider this outcome.
– Liberal: 52%
– Labor: 25%
– Greens: 23%
Under the Droop quota, the Liberals still win two seats, with Labor getting the third.
Under the Hare quota, the Liberals win one, Labor wins one, and the Greens win one! The left has a majority of the seats despite the Liberals winning a majority of the vote.
Thanks Nicholas, that is one very compelling reason to not use the Hare quota.
Kevin does a very good job of explaining why the Hare quota is ridiculous here. You get mentioned in there, Anthony!
Two things that come to mind:
-The Droop quota refers to the point at which someone is mathematically certain of getting elected. It is absurd to have candidates continuing to accrue preferences past that point.
-It seems like advocating for a Hare quota does the exact opposite as introducing an iterative quota. An iterative quota aids the voters whose candidate reaches a quota early, since more of those votes are freed up to pass on, and reduces the problem of the final candidates being elected with less than a quota. A Hare quota guarantees that the last seat is won with far less votes than those seats filled by full quotas, and punishes parties and candidates that reached quota early on.
Anyway this is why off topic so I’m going to put a stop to it here.
My view is that the real purpose of preferential voting in a single winner electorate isn’t about electing the candidate the most people like (as that’s what first past the post does). It’s about electing the candidate the fewest people dislike amongst those with a significant level of support. OPV messes with this by allowing people to abrogate the responsibility of specifying how much they dislike the candidates they don’t support the most, and in this sense it’s introducing a certain degree of FPTP by stealth.
For those who would argue that equally disliking all candidates except one is a view that is also valid, I don’t disagree, but I’d say this view defeats the purpose of preferential voting, and we may as well have FPTP if it’s just a matter of whom voters like the most. Moreover, in a single winner electorate, by necessity not all views can be represented in the result, so what makes this view any different?
However, I have no real problems with OPV in a proportional system, because to me the point of a proportional system is to represent a spectrum of views in the community, starting with the most popular. Where there’s space for multiple views to be represented, that includes space for the view of disliking all candidates except one.
Wilson, I will raise a counter point that invalidates your view. For many BCC wards, there are only three candidates running (LNP, Labor and Greens). Suppose a conservative leaning voter doesn’t like Labor or Greens, then they are better off just voting 1 LNP only rather than try to place a preference that doesn’t really exist for them.
I think the problem is that the LNP as a party uses ‘Just vote 1’ in their messaging, which probably should be banned so it is up to voters themselves to decide whether they want to cast a ‘1’ only vote, or to give further preferences to other candidates.
I support OPV for much the same reason I support voluntary voting:
– In a democracy, the voter themself must take some responsibility and accept that they will reap what they sow (or fail to reap what they fail to sow).
– Under CPV, many voters vote insincerely, either blindly following HTV cards, or donkey voting after their first preference.
I’m also inclined to think that for the same reasons, HTV cards should be outright banned.
Yoh An, I don’t understand how that situation is supposed to invalidate my view. Actually, it exemplifies it. In your example, it’s irrelevant to the LNP voter whether there is FPTP or preferential voting because their vote is the same regardless.
Let me ask, why do we have preferential voting rather than FPTP to begin with? The idea of a democratic mandate in FPTP is that in a single winner contest, the winner should be whoever has the most people that actively want them to win over all on the contenders. But this leads to elections where candidates win with the support of only a minority of the electorate.
Somewhere along the way, we decided that this isn’t a good thing, that a democratic mandate shouldn’t be about who has the most individual supporters, but about who can gain the consent of the least half the electorate for them to win. After all, they’re supposed to be representing the whole electorate, not just some of it, and a majority decision seems fair to most people.
OPV basically ruins this concept of a democratic mandate from majority. It brings us back to the idea that only a minority of the electorate consenting to the winner is still a true and fair democratic mandate. This is why I say it’s FPTP by stealth.
Now I’m not an advocate for FPTP, but at least there’s consistency in the idea, it’s all about who can draw the most direct support. CPV is also consistent in its idea of getting a majority to at least consent to a candidate, even if they don’t actively support them. OPV though is a sort of halfway house, with a confused idea of what a democratic mandate is, happy to elect someone with only a minority of electoral support, but not always the minority that has the most actual supporters.
Let me ask another question: why do we have compulsory voting with the threat of fines for the failure to vote? Why isn’t that optional? I would imagine it’s because we feel people have a civic responsibility to choose who governs society, and they shouldn’t be abrogating it. Why shouldn’t that civic responsibility extend to ensuring the local representative has the consent of the majority of the community?
is being asked under CPV to specify which candidate they dislike the least because the point is to select the candidate that is least disliked.
But as Ben Raue said in his post, the real solution is to dispense with single member electorates all together. Then even more of the community’s views can be adequately represented, than just what 50% of people will accept.
Ignore the second last paragraph, that was a half expressed thought that I failed to delete.
I don’t think OPV is confused. I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent about allowing people to express extra preferences without forcing people to do so. If a minority wins under OPV, it’s at least the largest minority. Perhaps a real majority does not exist.
@Wilson
Then perhaps the consistent position is the one which I advocate – OPV with voluntary voting. In my view, people have the right to not vote, and by extension, people have the right to not express preferences.
Now, I believe that people should vote and they should express preferences. But deeper than that is that people should care about politics and do their research. But we can’t force that on anyone. If someone votes or expresses preferences out of compulsion without caring or knowing, then their vote is not a true reflection of their will.
It also needs to be considered that under CPV, if a voter doesn’t number every box, even if they have expressed preferences for candidates that make it into the 2CP, their vote is thrown out. I don’t think that can be justified.
Ben Raue, that’s okay, we can disagree on that.
Nicholas, I agree, voting shouldn’t be compulsory, and if it wasn’t compulsory, then it would be consistent to not force them into compulsory preferences either. But, I do think it can be justified that if people can’t follow basic instructions properly, they shouldn’t be treated the same as those who did. This happens in basically every other formal process in our society, from education to driving to job recruitment to obtaining a passport.
I agree with Wilson that CPV aligns strongly with single member electorates. However, I prefer to express that CPV elects the “most preferred” candidate rather than “least disliked”, simply because it’s nicer to frame things positively.
There are several reasons why CPV is better than OPV in this context:
1. A single MP needs to represent their whole constituency, not just their voters, so their victory should ideally come from the entirety of formal voters.
2. A sitting MP needs in a CPV system needs to consider how they maintain the general satisfaction of the majority of voters whenever they act in parliament or in government, whereas a sitting MP in an OPV system has more wiggle room (by virtue of their opponents’ exhausted votes) to serve their base at the expense of other constituents. Democracy shouldn’t be a winner-takes-all system, and that OPV is closer to that makes it a worse voting system.
Personally, I fully support CPV, and argue that in a democracy, a citizen has a responsibility to express an opinion as to who they most and least prefer to represent them. They’re welcome to get others’ preferencing opinions to guide their own if they want.
I also agree with Wilson that OPV is more appropriate in mutli-member electorates. I think it’s good in the Senate that we have minimum numbering requirements for a formal vote.
When we’ve discussed CPV and OPV on here previously, a reasonable compromise consensus position appears to have formed halfway between each camp; expressed either in my preferred form as ‘CPV with a savings provision’, or as Ben puts it as ‘OPV with directions to number every box’. These are pretty similar, so in the interests of compromise I’m ok with either, as they negate the concerns about errors leading to informal votes in CPV and reduce the influence of the inherent issues with OPV.
@ Yoh An
“I will raise a counter point that invalidates your view… they are better off just voting 1 LNP only rather than try to place a preference that doesn’t really exist for them.”
1. With respect, that’s not an invalidation, just a counter argument. That point isn’t worth any more or any less than Wilson’s and my point.
2. It’s reasonable for a citizen to be asked who they prefer as an alternative if their most-preferred candidate is unsuccessful. If they don’t know, they should find out, or it’s fine if they choose to take advice from someone they trust.
“‘Just vote 1’… should be banned.”
I agree.
We also need much stronger regulations to prevent political advertising from mimicking neutral / official-looking directives (black and white), from mimicking AEC branding (purple and white), or from adopting the branding of other candidates or parties. The current fines for breaking the rules are too low too.
I don’t see why compulsory voting and compulsory preferential voting need to go together. If you wish to opt out of compulsory voting, you can easily vote informally. But with CPV, they make it impossible for you to expression a partial preference. Compulsory voting forces you to engage with the process but it ultimately doesn’t force you to make a choice. CPV forces someone who wishes to express some preference to then express some other preference for the thing they care about.
So if I don’t want to vote, compulsory voting just forces me to turn up and cast an informal vote.
If I want to vote 1 for a particular candidate, CPV gives me 2 options – either fill out a bunch of other insincere preferences, or have no vote counted at all. The latter is clearly worse.
@ Nicholas
“In a democracy, the voter themself must take some responsibility and accept that they will reap what they sow (or fail to reap what they fail to sow).”
Yes. Of course. That’s unarguable. It applies no matter which voting system is used.
“Under CPV, many voters vote insincerely, either blindly following HTV cards, or donkey voting after their first preference.”
1. Where’s your evidence for “many voters”? Is this really a big deal? I don’t think so.
2. Let’s not lump voters who vote randomly (including any donkey voters) in the same box as deliberate voters (including HTV voters). If you want to say that donkeys are silly, fine, but anything more than that is a slippery slope to voluntary voting. That would be an absolute disaster for Australian democracy IMO. Mandatory voting is a huge reason for the relative stability of Australian politics.
3. Let’s also consider that HTV voters are not all perjoratively “blind” or as thoughtless as donkey voters. They might follow HTV cards either fully, partially, or they might mix HTV cards from multiple candidates if they want. In any of these situations, they’re taking advice from trusted sources, and in some of these situations, they’re expressing their personal opinions. All of that is fine. People are busy, and someone who is flat-out with other matters in their life has no less right to equal democratic influence as anyone else.
“I’m also inclined to think that for the same reasons, HTV cards should be outright banned.”
I disagree. I’m fine with HTV cards, in the same way that I’m fine for people to take in their own or others’ written or digital notes into the booths to help them fill out their papers as they wish.
It’s also helpful for people to be able to see who each of their candidates publishes as their most and the least preferable as alternatives.
That said, I wouldn’t mind seeing minor regulatory tweaks on HTVs. We could improve the consistency of cards between different candidates and reduce waste.
“1. A single MP needs to represent their whole constituency, not just their voters, so their victory should ideally come from the entirety of formal voters.”
Arguments of this type always hinge on the idea that voters genuinely hold preferences that are being lost if you don’t force them to express it. And while that is probably true of some voters, I think there’s plenty of others who genuinely don’t hold a preference.
And remember we’re not just asking voters to decide between Labor and Liberal. If there are 10 candidates on the ballot, they need to make 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 45 pairwise comparisons. Of course plenty of people don’t actually do that, they mark the boxes of the important numbers and then fill in the rest, or they follow a HTV. None of these are conducive to making sensible decisions!
@Peter “We also need much stronger regulations to prevent political advertising from mimicking neutral / official-looking directives (black and white), from mimicking AEC branding (purple and white), or from adopting the branding of other candidates or parties.”
Me me me. I made a suggestion to the Joint Parliamentary Inquiry Into the 2022 Election making exactly that point. I said that political parties should be able to define a principal colour, a font (apart from the standard Windows set) and a logo and to have that reserved. Certain long-standing government departments such as, but not limited to, Medibank, the AEC and the defence force should also be able to reserve those combinations as well. The colour would have a PMS, CMYK and RGB value and no other colour could come within a set value of it.
Unfortunately it didn’t make the discussion but I will keep on putting it in there.
@Yoh An re:One Nation preference value
A few years ago I actually worked out the value of One Nation preferences depending on where they were directed. Fortunately we had the ideal test case in the 2016 Longman byelection where ON directed preferences to the ALP and 2018 when ON directed preferences to the LNP.
“In 2016 ON directed their preference to Labor ahead of the LNP and the split was 56.49 percent to 43.51 percent. So 56.91 percent followed the ON HTV to the final distribution. In 2018 ON directed their preference to the LNP ahead of Labor and the split was 67.74 percent to 32.26 percent.
If we assume a consistency in voters from one election to the next we can define the core makeup of a ON voter in this demographic – a base of 32.26 percent for Labor and a base of 43.51 percent for the LNP. So 75.76 of the One Nation voters are going to preference whomever they like irrespective of a HTV. In essence they’re ON ALP or ON LNP voters. That leaves 24.24 percent of votes up for grabs – but that’s only 24.24 percent of somewhere between 9.42 percent and 15.91 percent, or 2.28 percent to 3.85 percent. In reality the HTV cards are followed less closely than that, as most scrutineers can tell you.
Getting back to the Greens for a moment, their split in 2016 was 80.70/19.30 and in 2018 it was 76.52/23.48. Effectively a vote for the Greens is not a vote for Labor – it’s somewhere between half a vote and two thirds of a vote.
@Ben Raue Also a clarification to your original piece.
Following the 2019 changes to the Councillor Code of Conduct, Councillors may be elected by voters in a Division but can not REPRESENT just that Division. Specifically, “When performing a responsibility, councillors must serve the overall public interest of the whole region.”
So when Councillors are voting on issues in another Division they can’t say “I’m voting against this because I’d rather have the money go on my own pet project”. If they were dumb enough to say that they’d find themselves referred to the OIA and the Councillor Conduct Tribunal very quickly.
@Peter
It is a big deal, because an election is intended to capture what voters wants.
I’m not being pejorative to anyone, be it donkey voters or those who follow HTV cards. Who am I, or you, or anyone else to tell someone that they are obliged to take an interest in politics? Of course, people should, but they cannot be forced into it. People have the right to vote and to express preferences, but no one should be coerced into it, because that is a distortion of people’s will.
As for compulsory voting – it is a blight on Australian democracy and extremely harmful to our political culture. We have a serious problem with political apathy. Compulsory voting does not address the issue, rather, it sweeps it under the rug. Under compulsory voting, major parties and candidates have little incentive to engage voters in the way they do elsewhere in the world. Many disillusioned and apathetic voters will show up to the polls and cast their vote for whoever is able to appeal to them as being the lesser evil. This is an insidious problem with Australian political culture that the major parties have no incentive to address thanks to compulsory voting.
People should be convinced that they should care about and engage in politics, not be coerced into it. The latter is illiberal and ultimately anti-democratic.
@ Ben
“I think there’s plenty of others who genuinely don’t hold a preference”
Sure, but 100% of Australians will have an MP who is supposed to represent them in parliament. So it’s fine for a voter to be asked to consider what their full preferences are as to who that MP should be – or to trust a family member, friend, or a HTV card for advice.
I reiterate my support your suggestion that OPV systems can be improved by instructing voters to number every box, without enforcing this instruction. Also, adding a ban of “just vote 1” messaging would also help with this.
@ Mark
Goodonya! I like your suggestion. Keep on keeping on with that!
On that topic, another small improvement would be to require all parties, independents, and third parties to put their own official logo (of a minimum size) on all political advertising they produce, in addition to the “Authorised by…” fine print. Everyone should visibly own the advertising materials and messages they produce.
@ Nicholas
You claimed that “Under CPV, many voters vote insincerely”. I was inviting you to justify that statement. Simply reasserting that “It is a big deal” doesn’t do that. Again, I disagree with your suggestion that this is a problem that affects “many” people. There doesn’t appear to be any significant or widespread community concern about CPV requiring all boxes to be numbered.
If you told me that “it is a big deal” that “many” people believe the tooth fairy is a real person, then for the same reason, I would invite you to provide evidence.
The pejorative word that I was criticising was “blind”. Literally blind or vision impaired voters are a small proportion of the population of course, but that in itself is not a barrier to them making a formal vote.
“Who am I, or you, or anyone else to tell someone that they are obliged to take an interest in politics? ”
We have an overwhelming majority of voters in our CPV systems successfully registering formal votes, so the requirement to number all boxes is clearly tolerable for most people.
Who are you to tell someone that their vote was “insincere”, or that it should have less influence than another person’s vote?
“People have the right to vote and to express preferences, but no one should be coerced into it, because that is a distortion of people’s will.”
I knew this would come up… Let’s recognise that we’re talking about competing rights.
You’re talking about the right of an individual to vote the way they choose.
I’m talking about the right of the community to elect an MP who is most preferred across all voters.
Neither right automatically takes precedence over the other. And unfortunately, these rights are mutually exclusive. We have to choose.
Let’s agree to disagree what our preferred choice is?
“As for compulsory voting… We have a serious problem with political apathy.”
America’s and Britain’s political apathy is worse.
“Under compulsory voting, major parties and candidates have little incentive to engage voters in the way they do elsewhere in the world.”
That’s ridiculous. Due to CPV, Australian federal politicians must retain the consent of the majority of voters in their electorates if they want to remain in office.
“Many disillusioned and apathetic voters will show up to the polls and cast their vote for whoever is able to appeal to them as being the lesser evil.”
Again, the “many” is used without evidence. Aside from that disagreement, keeping the disengaged in our Australian voting culture is far better than the alternative – where the disengaged are absent, and the politics devolves into something far more base-oriented and polarised than we experience.
Let’s find something we can agree on…
“Now, I believe that people should vote and they should express preferences. But deeper than that is that people should care about politics and do their research.”
This is a nice ideal.
In practice, how about we consider the disengaged from an empathetic point of view? We could say to them, “I understand – you’re flat out keeping your kids in school and your elderly parents on their feet. Voting isn’t a big issue for you right now, that’s fine. But several of your fellow citizens have put their hands up as candidates, seeking election to represent your interests. So if you can at least give them your best assessment of your preferences, or defer to advice from those you trust, then you’re doing your bit to help elect the most broadly supported person to make decisions on your behalf. That can help give you the confidence that political matters are generally under control, and you can keep on helping your family.”
“So it’s fine for a voter to be asked”
We don’t ask. We demand it, and if someone doesn’t want to do that we invalidate any other preferences they actually have.
“We have an overwhelming majority of voters in our CPV systems successfully registering formal votes, so the requirement to number all boxes is clearly tolerable for most people.”
Actually the rates of people who vote informal is really high! And in most countries you don’t get many people making an informal vote. Probably about half of that is intentional informality from people who don’t want to vote, but the other half are mistakes, and mostly go away when you don’t force full preferences.
I think Nicholas is partly right – I don’t think compulsory voting solves political apathy, and sometimes it can just cover it up. But I don’t think abolishing compulsory voting would help with that problem.
@ Ben
We ask / demand / require / insist upon / need… Same same.
In a democracy, the people have (or are supposed to have) ultimate power. With great power comes great responsibility.
We do need to recognise the competing rights challenge (that I mentioned in response to Nicholas). In our current CPV systems, we tolerate this individual imposition because it serves the common good.
It’s kind of like wearing seat belts – it’s a standard that we demand for car travel. It’s also fairly culturally ingrained – it’s normal and broadly accepted now. If you insist upon not wearing one, then although it’s only your head that risks travelling through the windscreen in a crash, but we would all bear the costs of your medical treatment / loss of employment capacity / community bereavement / etc.
—
“Actually the rates of people who vote informal is really high!”
Really?
AEC data:
2022 federal election, lower house, all divisions: 5% informal, 95% formal.
Average swing in informal vote by division: -0.3%.
—
“And in most countries you don’t get many people making an informal vote.”
Is this comparison controlling for CPV verses OPV, and compulsory verses optional voting?
Anyway, it’s a good idea for us to try to reduce the size of our 5% informal voting cohort.
Let’s start with civic education. This can help in multiple ways; helping people avoid making honest mistakes, and helping encourage people to appreciate the benefit of expressing themselves with preferences rather than drawing a penis or submitting an unmarked vote.
—
“I don’t think compulsory voting solves political apathy, and sometimes it can just cover it up. But I don’t think abolishing compulsory voting would help with that problem.”
Yes, I agree.
Apathy is a civic issue that needs civic responses.
It would be much easier to reduce informal rates by not making votes informal when the voter’s intention is clear.
Yes 5% informal rates is very high. And no it’s not “controlled” for CPV or compulsory voting because CPV is the problem causing the informal rate to be so high.
“Following the 2019 changes to the Councillor Code of Conduct, Councillors may be elected by voters in a Division but can not REPRESENT just that Division.”
Oh so by some magical thinking you can make councillors ignore the fact that they only represent one part of a council?
They do represent just that division, whatever might be written in a code of conduct.
“Who are you to tell someone that their vote was ‘insincere’, or that it should have less influence than another person’s vote?”
I am no one to say whether someone’s vote was sincere or not. Any vote that is cast under any system should be counted. (That is an argument against CPV!) What I’m saying is that systems should be in place to ensure that voters are expressing their will out of their own volition.
“Let’s recognise that we’re talking about competing rights.”
I will always prefer individual rights over “community” rights or “group” rights. That’s a meaty debate in itself, but with my conclusion, there is one that takes precedence.
“Due to CPV, Australian federal politicians must retain the consent of the majority of voters in their electorates if they want to remain in office.”
Australian federal politicians just have to convince their electorates that they are less bad than the other major party and that minor parties have no chance of election or making a difference.
“I was inviting you to justify that statement.”
How often do you hear people who have no idea how preferences work? It constantly has to be explained and re-explained, and misinformation fought against. In states that have OPV, voting just ‘1’ is very common. How many Australians do you think will have heard of every political party or candidate they assign a preference to when they follow a HTV card? As for political apathy in Australia, it is well-documented in media and academia.
“If you told me that ‘it is a big deal’ that ‘many’ people believe the tooth fairy is a real person, then for the same reason, I would invite you to provide evidence.”
Aside from my response above, the important point here is a matter of principle. It matters that CPV (and compulsory voting) forces the voters’ hand. Elections should be a snapshot of the will of the people. CPV and compulsory voting violate this principle.
***
Also, just wanted to say in the midst of this discussion, that I respect you and I respect your opinion, even if we don’t agree.
At the election night count for the last state election, the ECQ decided the indicative 2CP preferred count in the seat of McConnel would be Labor vs Greens (on the assumption that the LNP would come 3rd). Unfortunately (for the Greens) it turned out they were 3rd, so at some stage that indicative count was stopped & it reverted to a traditional Labor v LNP count.
It was at least useful in showing how LNP preferences would have flowed (although it wasn’t all votes of course). From memory LNP votes flowed about two-thirds to Greens & one-third to Labor. (This was the election where the LNP put Greens ahead of Labor on their how to votes – I don’t think anyone knows what they’ll do at this year’s election).
I don’t know if the ECQ still has that data anywhere. It might be in a database of some Greens scrutineer.
Agree Nicholas, as a progressive voter I was forced to distinguish between the various right wing minor parties when voting under CPV, when I could have just left them blank as I dislike them all equally and only want to select my preferred candidates.
I’m wondering, with more volunteers due to less Covid, whether the exhaust rate will be lower this time. The Greens in particular will be wanting to nail in the “number every box” message to everyone that passes by.
@Andrew:
That matches up with the general trend in Labor/Greens contests – LNP preferences seem to flow either around 2/3rds Labor or 2/3rds Greens depending on the HTV.
Of course if there is a Labor/Greens contest in the BCC election I expect the LNP vote to mostly exhaust
@ Ben
“It would be much easier to reduce informal rates by not making votes informal when the voter’s intention is clear.”
Yes, the easiest change to CPV is to introduce a savings provision. That doesn’t change voting behaviour, but it immediately stops some of the votes falling into the informal pile.
(The alternative method of moving from CPV to OPV due to a 5% informal count would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
A civic education avenue may not be quite as direct as a savings provision, but giving voters more information would be more beneficial for our democracy. This could include not only how to ensure your vote is counted as formal, but why that matters.
Besides, civics is also something that needs regular refreshment anyway, like we need sun safety reminders to combat our high rate of skin cancer.
@ Nicholas
“How often do you hear people who have no idea how preferences work?”
In our NSW OPV system in 2023, I had a minor party voter tell me, “I’ll just vote 1 for my minor party, and they’ll apply their party preferences for me.” I explained that’s not how it works.
Preferences are still very important though – we don’t always get our first choice.
—
“As for political apathy in Australia, it is well-documented in media and academia.”
I share this concern, but not your suggestions for what we should do about it.
We need to be smartening up the voters rather than dumbing down the voting system.
Also, improving civic education shouldn’t be considered overly an aspirational and unrealistic ambition. Improvements might be on the way, for example this proposal:
‘Democracy is a bit like breakfast’: The push for nourishing civics education in NSW schools:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/democracy-is-a-bit-like-breakfast-the-push-for-nourishing-civics-education-in-nsw-schools-20240216-p5f5j2.html
—
“Also, just wanted to say in the midst of this discussion, that I respect you and I respect your opinion, even if we don’t agree.”
Thank you, that’s nice to hear. And likewise to you.
Agree Peter, I would say an improved OPV style system similar to the Senate or Tasmanian Legislative council, where ballot paper instructions should specify a minimum of 3 preferences but also have a savings provision such that votes with fewer preferences can also count.
@Peter Thanks Peter. I’m not giving up. However there are moments when the legislation itself is dumb so the electoral bodies just have to follow it – a conga line of stupidity.
My favourite case in point – in Queensland the legislation defines the font size to be used in authorisations. However font size is not an absolute value, it’s a relative value. 12pt Times New Roman is physically smaller than 12pt Impact. If I sit down with my ancient version of Fontographer I can make my own font that can produce a 30cm high 12pt font or a .01cm high 30pt font.
It makes a lot more sense to either define it as “text that can be read with ease at a normal reading distance” or “text that is at least .70cm in height”. The first is subjective and the second is objective but either way they make sense.
@Yoh An @Peter In the lead up to the JSC 2022 Investigation into the 2022 Election I was very fortunate to have the Committee Secretary point me to the “Senate Ballot Paper Study 2016 on Exhaustion”. It completely made me rethink the way we count Senate votes. In particular the way some preferences are effectively double counted.
This is probably not the right place to discuss it but if Ben ever starts a post on Alternate Ways To Count Senate Votes then I’m all in.
@Ben Raue
“Oh so by some magical thinking you can make councillors ignore the fact that they only represent one part of a council?
They do represent just that division, whatever might be written in a code of conduct.”
Representation of a division in Queensland only applies to those Councils with divided divisions and generally whatever the hell Ipswich has. I’m not sure what the situation is where you’re from, but in Queensland there are onerous provisions that apply to the way Councillors cast their vote. As my mother would say – “Lots of dibber-dobbers”.
So yes, as a Councillor you can’t just say that you’re only interested in those issues that directly apply to where your voters come from. Much the same as you can’t say that you’re only going to speak to those people who voted for you. Both of which are perfectly acceptable for State and Federal representatives, but there you go.
It may be magical thinking for you, but it’s the actual law and process for Queensland Councillors. You don’t represent the people who voted for you, you don’t represent the people in your ward or division – you represent everyone in your local Council.
@Nicholas I’m going to put the counter-argument for compulsory voting.
Although technically it’s compulsory attendance (or compulsory requesting a postal vote if that’s your thing). You just have to get your name crossed off and that’s the job done. You can even take those nice fresh ballot papers and drop them in the ballot box as you leave – all without laying a pencil on them to vote. And there’s not a thing the booth workers can do about it, as anyone who has ever scrutineered can tell you.
What compulsory attendance does ensure is that no-one can stop you from turning up or, in the quiet of a closed booth, voting for whoever the hell you like. There’s a lot of countries out there that formally or informally restrict people’s right to choose their government of choice based on the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation or even who they might be likely to vote for. That also applies to employers who keep their workers locked up during voting hours or husbands who take away all of their wife’s clothes for the day.
Short story – many years ago I was handing out HTVs and this older lady came up to me (because I have that kind of vibe). 🙂 She said that her husband was still in the polling place filling out his ballot, but every election since they were dating he had told her who to vote for and she made copious notes on what he was saying. And every election she went into the booth and voted for the exact opposite candidate, safe in the knowledge that she had just cancelled out his vote.
She said it wasn’t that they didn’t love each other, but she had to be comfortable with the line she had drawn.
@Mark Yore
Prevention of voter suppression the one argument in favour of compulsory voting that I accept as having any substance.
@Nicholas You can probably also include not having a “get out the vote” process to worry about as it runs in the US. Because it’s more important to get more of your own people out to vote in the first place, messaging tends to be aimed either far-right or far-left (for a given value of far-left in the US). What it does lead to trying to diminish turnout on the other side and ignoring those in the middle. It also needs lots of money and manpower, as well as tinkering with the system to make it harder on voters on the other side.
As an example, putting lots of polling booths where your voters are and minimal amounts where the opposition are, limiting voting to set booths, banning supplies of water and ignoring 6 hour polling delays are all ways to make people go home before voting.
Comments are closed.