A How-To Website For Australian Voters 158
Twisted64 writes "If you're interested in voting below the line in the upcoming federal election in Australia, but don't want to waste time in the booth individually ranking up to 76 candidates (for the unfortunates in New South Wales), then Cameron McCormack's website may have what you need. The website allows voters to set their preferences beforehand, dragging and dropping Stephen Conroy at the bottom of the barrel and thrusting the Sex Party into pole position (as an utterly random example). Once preferences are set, the site can generate a PDF to be printed and taken to the booth." (More, below.)
"There's also something to educate the above-the-line voters — if you check the box for your single party of choice, the site will fill out the effective party preferences below the line. This shows that a vote for The Climate Sceptics hands first preferences to Family First, and so on.
The website claims not to harvest voting information, but for the paranoid it recommends printing out a blank ballot sheet and copying your preferences from the screen. There is also a button to set up a donkey vote when in the ballot view, in case you have trouble counting from 1 to 100."
It's actually 84 (Score:4, Interesting)
There are actually 84 [smh.com.au] Senate candidates in NSW.
I think the system is obviously pretty broken if the only choices are to number each of 84 boxes, go with a pre-decided list that the main parties have reached through secret preference deals, or have your vote rejected. At the moment you have to choose between two evils, and it has been made as inconvenient as possible for you to even make that choice rather than the party powerbrokers.
Group voting tickets are just undemocratic. Preferential voting should only go as far as the voter wants - if your vote doesn't get distributed to any of your preferences, it should be discarded.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
It does do that.
This is why we have above/below the line voting. If you want to select only one, then you can do that. If you want to preference, then you can do that also.
I think preference voting is a very good compromise, but the voters need to be educated in it, rather than following blindly. Also, they need to know that if you make a mistake you can get a new ballot paper, and you can keep getting them until you are satisfied with your vote.
It is also good because you can protest vote without your vote
Re:It's actually 84 (Score:5, Interesting)
No, if you vote above the line, you're not selecting only one candidate, you're picking their pre-submitted preference list instead of your own. That's the main problem - the voters don't make the choice directly and the parties make deals or tactical decisions with their pre-submitted tickets. Slashdot's favourite Senator Stephen Conroy tried his luck at tactical voting in 2004 and accidentally elected a fundamentalist nutjob who got about 1% of the primary vote because they were trying to hold off a challenge from the Greens (when most Labor voters would have preferenced Greens first).
A preference system is better than a first-past-the-post system, but the current system isn't perfect. Most Australian states currently go with optional preferential voting, which should be the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you describe is only true if you vote once above the line (just place a 1 in your preferred party). If you fill out all the boxes above the line, then you dictate your own preferences.
Voting above the line is generally the most sensible option - I really don't have the time to audit all the various options below the line, but I can check out the policies of all the parties.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If you fill out all boxes above the line you have voted incorrectly and the ballot will possibly not be counted depending on how badly you failed to follow simple instructions, the mood of scrutineers, the closeness of the ballot etc. In the best case the ballot will be treated as if only the "1" was present. Voting - The Senate [aec.gov.au]
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'm a polling official (which is not the same thing as a "scrutineer"), and it most certainly does not come down to mood. If the voter's intention is clear, and it isn't disqualified for any other reason (e.g. writing which identifies the elector), then it's a valid vote.
The specific rules do change from election to election, and state elections have different rules from federal elections, but the basic idea is the same: If we can tell what you meant, it's usually a valid vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. It's MUCH better for two parties to each select a candidate, then have everybody vote either A or B.
I heard it makes things go much better, particularly in Florida, where dead people and people with alzheimer's get to vote. It must be rather icky for poll workers when people who recently died show up.
Re: (Score:2)
go with a pre-decided list that the main parties have reached through secret preference deals
They're not secret. http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm#gvt [aec.gov.au]
Re: (Score:2)
True, the tickets aren't secret, although most people don't know where to find them.
I was referring more to the deals and behind-the-scenes reasoning which led to the group voting tickets, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The net effect of which would be ... letting others decide for you. The same as voting over the line, just in a slightly less predictable fashion. I don't get why it should make such an important difference?
I think the group voting tickets are interesting in their own right, for what they say of people's prefences.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. And it appears that a small party that is ostensibly about equal custody rights (read: custody rights for fathers) is really mostly about this stuff. Sad. But important for anyone considering voting for them.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes a difference because you can stop at exactly the point you want. To use an American example: optional preference voting would let you rank R, D, and Green candidates without having to care about where you're going to put the Constitution Party. Or a Norwegian one: optional preference voting
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have to mark all 84 boxes though?
Here in Scotland we used STV [wikipedia.org] in our most recent local council elections, which is basically preference voting with multi-member wards. Although we were able to number all the candidates 1-n, we were under no obligation to do so - if you only wanted to vote for one candidate you could just put a 1 by their name and it would still be counted.
I only marked two candidates, because they were the only two (out of the eight or so on the list) that I had actually heard of.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you have to number them all, but I think with 84 candidates, they allow for one or two minor errors (e.g. having two people ranked 25 or missing a number).
If you only mark two candidates, your vote will be thrown out completely.
Re: (Score:2)
This has come up in the reviews that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducts. Usually someone makes the argument that optional preferential voting is tantamount to first-past-the-post voting, and the matter is more or less swept under the carpet unless and until it comes up again after the next
Re: (Score:2)
Someone may have already said this (hey, why read all the comments if I haven't even bothered with TFA, this is /.), but I would like to see a system where you can number any number of boxes below the line that you like. If I only like three candidates, I only like three. I hate the bit every few years where I am sh
Re:It's actually 84 (Score:5, Insightful)
No, all you must do is turn up. If you want you can put an empty ballot in, or write a diatribe on the back, or as many of our younger citizens do, draw a massive dick and balls on it.
Only attendance is compulsory, you don't actually have to cast a valid ballot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only attendance is compulsory, you don't actually have to cast a valid ballot.
You don't even have to cast a ballot at all. I have refused to even take the ballot papers on more than one occasion. When the ballot papers are offered, I simply inform the scutineers that I have fulfilled my obligation merely by having my name crossed off the electoral roll - and walk out. They don't like it, but there's nothing they can do about it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So I'm assuming you don't complain about the result then?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't even have to cast a ballot at all.
You do in fact! [austlii.edu.au]
I have refused to even take the ballot papers on more than one occasion. When the ballot papers are offered, I simply inform the scutineers that I have fulfilled my obligation merely by having my name crossed off the electoral roll - and walk out. They don't like it, but there's nothing they can do about it.
Sure there something they could do about it. They could put you on trial for a criminal breach of s245 of the C'th Electoral Act, or (more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatonyms? How about rules 1,3,5 and 7? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How embarrassment!
Now you're just having me on, aren't you?
Re:It's actually 84 (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, no. You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations.
Where you people get this stuff from?! IAAL, so since we are talking matters of electoral law, 'technically' to me means you show me an Act of parliament of a curial decision rather than just making this stuff up. Allow me to demonstrate.
Technically, you can't be marked off the electoral role until after you receive your ballot. (C'th Electoral Act 1918, s232(1)) [austlii.edu.au].
OR thus: Once you get your ballot paper you are required "without delay" to "retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper" (s233) [austlii.edu.au] [my emphasis]
So technically you must enrol, attend, collect your ballot, be marked off, and vote. Turning up and having your name marked off without collecting a ballot, spoiling your ballot, and all these other suggestions are technically illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Simply dust the paper for fingerprints and check to see if they're in any government databases. You can privately vote mark your ballot however you want. TECHNICALLY the law doesn't say your vote must remain private. Otherwise they could arrest and charge people for making it public who they voted for.
Re: (Score:2)
Put your thinking cap back on and re-read my post. The snippet in the OP is not the entire electrol act it's just one paragraph, as with all democractic governments, elections in Oz are by secret ballot and the law in Oz takes the privacy of the secret ballot very seriously (eg: see the recent kurffufle about blind people and their right to a secret ballot).
Re: (Score:2)
Every law has a loophole
On the contrary, there is no such thing as a legal loophole, except in the minds of those who don't grok Law. There are perhaps surprising results.
the one you're missing is contained in the words in private
That's a merely question of enforceability, not of what is TECHNICALLY illegal.
ie: They would have to break the very same law to confirm you are breaking the law.
What if you fail to vote privately and then confess your dereliction at a later time? When one considers ques
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so you are a lawyer. What is your area of expertise? A good friend of mine is a corporate lawyer who freely admits that he has nfi about criminal law and no interest in it, so does being a lawyer in one field automatically make you an expert in every field of law?
Yes, I realise that you have a sounder basis than "average joe" for making your statement, but I would like to be clear on exactly how much weight we should give to said statement.
Re: (Score:2)
[D]oes being a lawyer in one field automatically make you an expert in every field of law?
Not automatically, no.** Nor did I claim any expertise in electoral law. On the contrary, I refused to venture a definitive opinion on a matter on which I confessed I was "too lazy to do the research," (although I suspect I do know the answer). In fact I have no area of expertise since, despite the fact that I'm admitted, I actually develop software for a living. OTOH, a legal education ought to leave you with an
Re: (Score:2)
A good friend of mine is a corporate lawyer who freely admits that he has nfi about criminal law ...
Your friend is lying to you! :) Assuming he is an Australian lawyer, we all have to study Criminal Law in first year, and to be frank, it ain't exactly rocket science (a criminal specialist might beg to differ). Moreover there are numerous criminal provisions in corporate law. OK, he's not a specialist, but NFI, yeah right!
But why would your good friend mislead you?
It's an oc
Re: (Score:2)
The polling officials aren't actually scrutineers - scrutineers are representatives of political parties (generally volunteers) who are allowed to be present during the counting of the votes. Polling officials are usually casual employees who just show up and do the job. They probably couldn't care less about whether you took a ballot paper or not.
I used to do that job during university. It was a long day, but decent money (varied, but around $350 - $400 for a long day). The only reason I can think of not l
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal to cast an invalid vote (it just won't get counted), and the punishment for not turning up is only a fine.
Still, compulsory voting does compound the deficiencies in our system. Most people go with the easy way out because they see voting as a chore, most evident in the high proportion of donkey votes (that's where a voter just numbers the ballot 1,2,3,4... for our international readers).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The AEC's backgrounder [aec.gov.au] says not. It's illegal to _force_ or _bribe_ people to vote informally (or in any other way) though.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, except within 6 metres of the polling place, as per another AEC backgrounder [aec.gov.au].
Re:It's actually 84 (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, compulsory voting does compound the deficiencies in our system. Most people go with the easy way out because they see voting as a chore, most evident in the high proportion of donkey votes
One or two percent is a "high" proportion? "Most voters" are taking the easy way out? Our system has "deficiencies" which are "compounded" by people actually voting?
One is reminded of that Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government ...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with "donkey votes" is that politicians waste time arguing about who gets the top slot -- which they wouldn't care about if not for said votes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It's actually 84 (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with "donkey votes" is that politicians waste time arguing about who gets the top slot
They don't. The position on the ballot paper is drawn by lot.
The real problem with donkey votes is that the people casting them are negligent in fulfilling their public duty to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem with donkey votes is that the people casting them are negligent in fulfilling their public duty to vote.
Yes, that's right. They just don't realise! You have to become a politician to earn the right to be negligent in fulfilling your public duty!
Re: (Score:1)
You have to become a politician to earn the right to be negligent in fulfilling your public duty!
Oh come on now. Everyone realises that you don't have to become a politician to do that! Becoming head of a bushfire authority works just as well ... especially if you're feeling a bit peckish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if those people are donkey voting by accident.
Can a donkey vote be cast by accident? It is usually taken to reflect a "dunno don't care" attitude to the process. OTOH if your preferred candidate is first and the least preferred last, numbering straight down the ticket isn't a 'donkey vote' at all. And it's not possible to separate these two cases on the basis of any single ballot alone. Indeed beyond observing that there is a statistical tendency for candidates on the top of the ticket to do bett
Re: (Score:1)
One is reminded of that Churchill quote about democracy...
What was it? Oh yeah... The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.
Re: (Score:1)
You'd probably enjoy the Spike Milligan quote, which (from memory so excuse any inaccuracy) runs something like:
In a democracy people get the government they deserve. And so do I.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Churchill was a racist, biggoted prick. If he lived in our times, he could have been charged with war crimes ( though of course like current politicians who commit war crimes, there is little chance that this would actually happen ).
Re: (Score:2)
But he didn't, so judging him by today's standards is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Six senators per state, not five (and two for the territories). A quota is 14.3% - 5% doesn't help that much, although the preference allocation may be relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a high proportion. Donkey votes rank at no more than 1% of valid votes cast. Informal votes come in at around 5%.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you don't like having to vote then you shouldn't enroll.
Nice try, but every person who is entitled to have his or her name placed on the Roll ... and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of 21 days from the date upon which the person became so entitled ... shall be guilty of an offence ... [austlii.edu.au].
I never enrolled, didn't vote in the last 3 or 4 elections
You're probably safe here, but in general I would advise you not to brag too much about your criminal activities on public internet fora. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Live on the Northern Beaches? I did, used to live near Warringah (Which was the council that was tossed out, known to be heavily corrupt and enough to the residents whinged to state government to get them out), the funny thing was that the administrator that they put in was more effective than the local council. The administrator started effectively communicating with the local communinity by taking space in The Manly Daily and he (Or probably one of his administration) would write up a letter each week say
Re: (Score:2)
Compulsory voting is fantastic because it encourages a higher voter turn than voluntary schemes, and gives a better chance of actually getting what the public wants, rather than just what politically motivated groups want. Donkey votes are a minor problem, but at least such people can be seen to have willingly abstained, rather just failing to turn up.
I think it would be a complete disaster if Australia ever adopted a voluntary system like the US, where half the battle is just getting people to bother turni
Slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
500 KB Web fonts on a Slashdotted page... I guess one thing you can do now is replace that declaration with "font-face: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" everywhere.
Re:Slashdotted (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity...
Where are your backups?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Cameron, love the site, it's a great tool. I managed to have a look before it was nuked.
The AEC should have thought of this a long time ago!
Now all we need is some information on those dozens of independent candidates. Beyond their name. Google could only help me with a few of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
p.s. I need to get up to speed with Google App Engine, so would love a shot at porting your application to that. Let me know if you're interested.
Coral Network (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of the problem with Coral Cache is that many filtering systems (WebSense etc) completly block it (because it could be used to bypass the filtering system and access banned content)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bob's not up for election this time - it's a half-Senate election. Christine Milne is - Bob's up in 2013.
Not an australian voter... (Score:2)
"The website allows voters to set their preferences beforehand, dragging and dropping Stephen Conroy at the bottom of the barrel and thrusting the Sex Party into pole position (as an utterly random example)."
Hah. Random. Right. Anyway, I LOLed. Thanks again, Australia!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The ballot in NSW is NSFW.
That's what people from the other states call NSW.
Just to be clear (Score:4, Informative)
Non Australian voters might be confused by this article because it gives the impression that you need a HOWTO to be able to vote. But thats not true. Just give people you don't like high numbers, and people you do like low numbers. Its still pretty simple.
You can tell from my sig. Labour candidates are getting high numbers from me in the senate this year.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what do they do if you do a "donkey vote", but instead of 1,2,3, you do 2,3,5,7,... or 1,1,2,3,5,8,... Do they just throw the ballot out?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
What you are suggesting is pretty close to a "Langer Vote" (ie: number the guys you like from 1 to N, fill the remaining boxes wiht N+1). This is specifically legislated against in the commonwealth Electoral Act, 1998 amendments.
When voting "below the line", the numbers must start at 1, they must be consecutive, and all boxes must be numbered. If those simple rules are not followed, the vote is invalid. When voting "above the line" the voter just puts 1 for their preferred party, and the various preferences
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has counted votes at elections, the rule of thumb we were given is "as long as a clear preference is indicated".
Another Below the Line helper (Score:2, Informative)
Actually here's one that actually scales:
https://www.belowtheline.org.au/
Re:Another Below the Line helper (Score:4, Interesting)
link appears borked (Score:1, Informative)
The link to the belowtheline website appears to be borked in the article.
A quick Google, finds https://www.belowtheline.org.au/ [belowtheline.org.au] however.
For Victorian resident there is this site as well. (Score:1)
Just waiting for the voting guides.
http://www.filter-conroy.org/ [filter-conroy.org]
Google Docs Party Comparison (Score:2, Informative)
The following document is a summary of the parties and their positions on various subjects. Publically modifiable, so if you can contribute, please do.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AgwGFHFd0TUIdExCbkNZWllUaVRsRG9yZXVVTXhUN0E&hl=en&authkey=CJu2lp8P#gid=0
Re: (Score:1)
www.belowtheline.org.au (Score:1)
Yay, A site telling me how to preference my votes (Score:1)
So why isn't it an officiel site? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why doesn't the AU government provide the service? Why is it left to some random website to provide a means to vote more easily?
Re:So why isn't it an officiel site? (Score:5, Informative)
How to Vote in South Australia (Score:2)
Below The Line - How To Vote In South Australia [scribd.com]
If Internet Censorship is your main concern this coming election, the following guide has been created online via BelowTheLine.org.au [belowtheline.org.au] and using the different parties websites and statements on policies to order them.
While they are ordered in preference of internet censorship, the top 2 are ordered based on their ability to influence. The rest are ordered within their preference (against/unknown/for) relatively randomly, except with the Australian Labour Party b
Re: (Score:2)
That edit link is broken - I think it may be a problem with the site. Does it work for you?
I've already emailed the site's creator to alert him to the potential problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you can ignore my previous comment - he's fixed it now.
(Guess which feature was added just before he went to bed?)
Re: (Score:2)
You think civil liberties are sad?
I like how you reworded internet censorship, into "blocking a few http websites". As if it was a minor thing. You must be new around here.
If you really want to know about censorship, then all you need to do is Google a bit about it.
Here's the latest article I'm reading about it...
Classification and Internet Censorship as an Election Issue [gizmodo.com.au]
Quite frankly, if you think bickering over money spent here, and money spent there, is more important than free speech (or immigration in
Re: (Score:2)
Warning #3675; Self referential post.
Re: (Score:2)
G is closer to 25% of Y; C is over 60%. If you don't understand what I've just said (and I expect you don't), you may wish to consider reading an introductory economics textbook before publicly demonstrating your ignorance.
Voting Above and Below the line (Score:3, Informative)
A wise person votes both above and below the line. If you do that and stuff your below the line vote up then your above the line vote gets used instead.
See http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/07/how-to-vote-guide.html [abc.net.au], in the last section titled What happens if I vote both above and below the line? .
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if you were right; but that's not what your link itself says.
If you vote both above and below, the below vote counts unless it's ruled informal - in other words, invalidly. In that case, what you voted above the line counts, instead of your entire vote being rejected.
So if you followed your own advice, and ranked say 40 of 81 below the line, and put green above it, the below-the-line part would be invalid, resulting in you casting a vanilla green vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)