informal voting

[bazzy]

Hi All

I have been looking at the results so far with the council elections and one thing i have noticed is this election there has been a very large percentage in excess of 10% of people who have cast informal votes.

From my observations of other areas the normal percentage is around 2 to 3 percent so that begs me the question, Why is there such a high percentage this election?

I mean if people are disgruntled with the current sitting members and from the sentiment that i have been hearing across people in the area that i spoke to there is then i would expect to see people voting the current standing members out. however for the most part the sitting members have been voted back in.

I mean I understand a lot of people don't want to be there but why not cast a proper ballot given your there. If you don't want to vote then just get your name marked off the list and either decline the ballot or dispose of it. putting a donkey vote into the ballot box slows down counting and in a lot of cases are unpleasant for the volunteers counting.

[wotnot]

putting a donkey vote into the ballot box slows down counting and in a lot of cases are unpleasant for the volunteers counting

Says who? Donkey votes are just as easy (and considered to be) as formal votes when it comes to counting. Those counting should remain impartial, and it should be neither 'pleasant' nor 'unpleasant' ; human 'emotions' play no part.

Informal votes would (or could) take longer to vet....ie; ballot correctly filled in, but on the bottom a person entered their name -- informal votes don't count towards election result.

Why is there such a high percentage this election?

The answer would be linked to the voting demographic....ie; are the informal votes from young (18-25 year old) voters, or instead from older voters in the 60+ year old range?

If one casts an informal vote, you negate the fail to vote fine ($20), and the informal vote they cast could be the only signal they can think of to display no confidence in any members presented.... without getting fined =) It's like a little loophole that can be used to avoid getting fined for not voting, whilst providing a vote that doesn't count ; they can't crack down on it, because votes are anonymous. I figure the % of informal votes will continue to rise ; it's the only 'legitimate' way to not vote for a bunch of fukwits =)

[B52]

Australia the only country in the world with compulsory voting and where you are penalised if you don't show up. Voting is for people who have a political view and who believe that their vote is going to improve their lives. Non believers regard the process as a waste of time. Casting their unmarked or wrongly market ballot , is a form of protest against compulsory voting. they would be "0" Informal's if voting was voluntary.

[bazzy]

all good points but you don't have to actually cast a vote only get marked off. you can turn up get marked off refuse the ballot then leave. you are not going to get fined for that. also my understanding is they increased the fine to $120 or $150 or something like that.

but i have to say. If you go to the ballot and throw your vote away by casting a donkey vote then i kind of feel that disqualifies any complaints the caster of said donkey vote has towards the elected official until the next election.

edit
looks like it is $66

[enf]

.................................
but i have to say. If you go to the ballot and throw your vote away by casting a donkey vote then i kind of feel that disqualifies any complaints the caster of said donkey vote has towards the elected official until the next election.

.................

Absolutely. But I would go further than that. It's the voters that put the bad politicians in. That means to me that it's the voters who are most responsible for bad politicians. This is exacerbated by blind liberal/labor/green faith voting.

But it's the system we have, and I can't think of a better one (other than me being the dictator .. .. ). Besides, if you are going to the booth to get your name scrubbed off, then you may as well vote. By doing this you at least take SOME responsibility for the results.

[enf]

Australia the only country in the world with compulsory voting and where you are penalised if you don't show up. Voting is for people who have a political view and who believe that their vote is going to improve their lives. Non believers regard the process as a waste of time. Casting their unmarked or wrongly market ballot , is a form of protest against compulsory voting. they would be "0" Informal's if voting was voluntary.

Not true....dunno where you got that from...we are, however in the minority by a long way.

[trash]

Australia the only country in the world with compulsory voting and where you are penalised if you don't show up. .

There are many countries where voting is compulsory. Or rather voting is not compulsory, your attendance is. You can turn up and choose not to vote or vote informal and that is a valid and fulfilling your responsibility as a citizen.

My dad who was involved with some political parties said that what the major parties fear most is informal votes more than they fear a cross bench or independent vote. I have never understood that and I'm not sure it is true. But I do consider it and look to see if there is any evidence of it and why it might be.

As for compulsory voting itself, it is one of the ways we protect democracy. If everybody is required to vote (by this I mean attendance) it helps protect against corruption, vote rigging, fraud and intimidation and any other kind of fvcktardary. It also means that the citizens have to deliberately ignore election content and not let laziness let the screws work themselves loose.

As for suggesting that the idiots are polluting the vote. That is always an impression everybody gets all the time. Reality is that the voters might appear stupid and directionless but more often than not they make reasonably good choices in an environment with a lot of noise.

My personal favourite example of this was the Trump vs Hillary election.
The people of the USA had a choice of electing a tyrant or an idiot. "Hey, we always say the president is an idiot, so lets elect a real on and see what happens, how bad can it possibly be?"
The message was pretty clear to the Democrats. The USA won't tolerate a professional politicians and ruling families, kings or tyrants.
Would Hillary have done a better job. I think anybody could have done a better job than trump, but at the same time, the woke morons were crying in the streets because trump got elected. The reason they were crying is the reason Trump got elected. How hard is it to defeat an idiot in a fair election?

Even Paul Keating, the most hated Prime Minister in Australian history knew how to get elected. Make people vote against something they hate more than him.

[Uncle Fester]

...As for compulsory voting itself, it is one of the ways we protect democracy. If everybody is required to vote (by this I mean attendance) it helps protect against corruption, vote rigging, fraud and intimidation and any other kind of fvcktardary. It also means that the citizens have to deliberately ignore election content and not let laziness let the screws work themselves loose.

How so? The people of the Donbas region where coerced to vote (and agreed) to become Russian Federation.

Applying a fine like it is done here, is a subtle form of coercion and I do not see how that protects democracy. On the contrary, it would be more democratic to allow abstinence.
Rather than having all this informal BS, why not have a box to tick abstain !
Every shareholder has that on their Proxy Voting Form.

My personal favourite example of this was the Trump vs Hillary election.
The people of the USA had a choice of electing a tyrant or an idiot. "Hey, we always say the president is an idiot, so lets elect a real on and see what happens, how bad can it possibly be?"
The message was pretty clear to the Democrats. The USA won't tolerate a professional politicians and ruling families, kings or tyrants.

You must be somewhat confused.

Allow me to quote the definition of tyrant:


tyrant



ty·​rant
1 a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution

b: a usurper of sovereignty

2 a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally

b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power


All of above more or less describes Trump, who always sees himself above the law.
I can not see how any of that could be applied to Hillary.

As for any of them being idiots, I think not.

An idiot can not become the President of the USA.
The only idiots are the ones who voted a tyrant and now will do it again because Trump is SMART enough to reign them all in because he has figured out exactly what they want and says exactly what they all want to hear.
He was also smart enough to replace almost the entire Republican party with his followers and take control of the US supreme court.
Today I read that he intends to

overhaul federal departments, relocate up to 100,000 jobs from

"the Washington Swamp" to "places filled with patriots", and fire "all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus".

As we know his 'patriots' consist of groups like his Proud boys.


No he is certainly no idiot. In fact it is out right stupid to think he is an idiot.
...just like Hitler was no idiot nor Putin is.

[lsemmens]

It has been said that an informal vote is a vote for the incumbent, I can sort of see that, though I'm not sure how it works.

[Uncle Fester]

It has been said that an informal vote is a vote for the incumbent, I can sort of see that, though I'm not sure how it works.

That is only true if it can be assumed that the incumbent has a fixed voter base, meaning those who voted for the incumbent will vote them again.
Lets say there are 21 voters, 10 voted for the incumbent, nine against and two were informal.
So in this case the only way to change things next time would be for the informal voters to be less stubborn and vote for the opposition.


Sorry if I have to bring up the USA again but I need it as the perfect example that it is all about the voter base.
In 2020 Trump had a fixed voter base of roughly 74 million and likely still has.
Based on the average voter turnout in the USA this should have been an easy win for him.
What he didn't fathom (and to this day still does not) was the huge voter turnout, the highest since 120 years.
That means so many people were scared of another Trump reign, that many got up off their asses and formally voted.

The reason why Trump will win 2024 is because many are frustrated with both candidates and therefore I would expect the voter turnout to be less this time(although believe me, I wish I were wrong).
As it seems Trump has not lost his fixed base of followers, not voting (or informally voting) means here that the numbers will now be against Biden.

[peteramjet]

all good points but you don't have to actually cast a vote only get marked off. you can turn up get marked off refuse the ballot then leave. you are not going to get fined for that. also my understanding is they increased the fine to $120 or $150 or something like that.

The requirement under the legislation, and upheld in by the High Court, is that you are required to cast a vote, not just turn up and get your name marked off.

Casting a vote means to receive the ballot, mark the ballot, and place the ballot into a ballot box.

Once the vote cast it can’t be reviewed, so if it hasn’t been marked (or is marked incorrectly) no one will know. However there have been a bunch of cases where people have been charged where they marked their name off and left without casting the vote, or took a ballet and didn’t place it in the ballot box - and in those matters that have made it to the Supreme or High Court the charge has been upheld.

This could be one reason of explaining why there are such a large number of informal votes.

[madtech]

Personally I feel we need another option on the ballot. This being None of the above
If this gets more than its average % of votes then the seat is recalled all original candidates are forbidden from running for any public office at any level for 5 years. If they are involved in a second None of the above then they are forever banned from any form of political or governmental role or employment in any manner or form at any level.

eg There are 4 candidates plus None of the above ​that gives a total of 5 voting options.
If none of the above gets >20% (1/5th) of the vote then the above is brought into play.

[lsemmens]

Personally I feel we need another option on the ballot. This being None of the above
If this gets more than its average % of votes then the seat is recalled all original candidates are forbidden from running for any public office at any level for 5 years. If they are involved in a second None of the above then they are forever banned from any form of political or governmental role or employment in any manner or form at any level.

eg There are 4 candidates plus None of the above ​that gives a total of 5 voting options.
If none of the above gets >20% (1/5th) of the vote then the above is brought into play.

That might actually work.

[wotnot]

That might actually work.

It wouldn't work here without changes to the constitution, but related reading ->

[enf]

That might actually work.

No, I'm afraid it wouldn't. Australians would tick the box just because it's there and then whine when absolutely nothing gets done by a hamstrung government.

Kinda like voting for teals now....stand for nothing except a paycheck....

[lsemmens]

Typically an informal vote is a vote for the incumbent (in the seat, not necessarily for the party per-se). I'm aware that constitutional change is required to alter ANY of our voting system. It may not be perfect, but it certainly seems to be one of the better systems in the world. I've been known to say, if you don't like the politician/party and the job they are doing, then get involved and start stirring. Pauline Pantsdown did not like what was happening and, at least tried to do something about it. Given that pollies whose job is not assessed on performance or key indicators and have to fight to retain their job every four years (or less) it's not particularly surprising the level of pollie we get, many would not survive in the cut-throat world of commerce or production. Those who are competent generally are on a good pay packet, and would have to take a pay cut to enter politics at any level. How much does the CEO of QANTAS, BHP, LendLease, any other large corporation get, compared with the PM? None of them have to answer to a fickle public every few years, nor is every dog and his man out to second guess every decision made, let alone broadcast it for the world to hear. I don't really care how many toilet rolls are used in parliament each week, but you can bet you sweet bippy that someone knows.

[Al Bundy]

Personally, and I mean personally, I would rather see a first past the post voting system none of the proportional voting crap we have now (yeah, I know, I’m now fodder for the crazies to come out and attack) it’s just my view, call my crazy too if you like, I don’t care, 1 person 1 vote, jam your quotas where the sun don’t shine.

[trash]

How so?

It's not what you think is reality, it's what the electorate thinks.
Hilary doesn't think she's a Tyrant. The Amercian public thought that. Your failure to realise that it's not your opinion that counts is exactly the same reason she failed. Sure I know exactly what your saying with the strict definitions and interpretations and I don't disagree with them.
I think you're a tyrant or an idiot and you believe you're not. How do you think I'm going to vote? Does the truth matter or just what I think is the truth?

Reality has no place in politics unless it is popular. You can speak the truth and if the electorate doesn't believe you, then the truth isn't what gets you elected.

Compulsory elections, it's a method of helping prevent election fraud, not a guarantee. Just because it doesn't work 100% means you don't abandon it.
The process is more complex than just giving examples of where it has failed and proclaiming it doesn't work. If the voting is compulsory and the voters are voting against the corruption, how do you think it failed? Because of the compulsory attendance or because some other influence has found a way to negate an anonymous compulsory vote and still maintain the illusion of a free and fair election? OR of course, maybe that is what the voters wanted despite the intimidation?

From a selfish point of view, I can increase the power of my vote if I can discourage you from doing so.
You don't need to vote Fester, the smart people have got everything sorted. You stay home and let the grown up's vote. But hey, if you want to vote, you can still turn up and be rest assured your vote doesn't matter anyway.

So what's the go here Comrade Fester? Are we trying to improve democracy or improve the outcomes at the expense of democracy?
Who needs to bother with those pesky elections when you or I know what's best?

[lsemmens]

With voluntary voting there is nothing to prevent unscrupulous people from voting as several other people. At least, here, you'd have to visit numerous polling booths to get your "name" crossed off the list.

[Uncle Fester]

It's not what you think is reality, it's what the electorate thinks.
Hilary doesn't think she's a Tyrant. The Amercian public thought that. Your failure to realise that it's not your opinion that counts is exactly the same reason she failed. Sure I know exactly what your saying with the strict definitions and interpretations and I don't disagree with them.
I think you're a tyrant or an idiot and you believe you're not. How do you think I'm going to vote? Does the truth matter or just what I think is the truth?

Reality has no place in politics unless it is popular. You can speak the truth and if the electorate doesn't believe you, then the truth isn't what gets you elected.

Compulsory elections, it's a method of helping prevent election fraud, not a guarantee. Just because it doesn't work 100% means you don't abandon it.
The process is more complex than just giving examples of where it has failed and proclaiming it doesn't work. If the voting is compulsory and the voters are voting against the corruption, how do you think it failed? Because of the compulsory attendance or because some other influence has found a way to negate an anonymous compulsory vote and still maintain the illusion of a free and fair election? OR of course, maybe that is what the voters wanted despite the intimidation?

From a selfish point of view, I can increase the power of my vote if I can discourage you from doing so.
You don't need to vote Fester, the smart people have got everything sorted. You stay home and let the grown up's vote. But hey, if you want to vote, you can still turn up and be rest assured your vote doesn't matter anyway.

So what's the go here Comrade Fester? Are we trying to improve democracy or improve the outcomes at the expense of democracy?
Who needs to bother with those pesky elections when you or I know what's best?

Reality in politics is brainwashing the idiots to vote for me. Trump has mastered that.
Things are a little different here. Nobody has his skills.

I have never missed a vote since I turned 18, no matter in what country I was living in.
I assume you didn't read my post #10, which explains why I THINK it is important to avoid informal votes if one is not satisfied with the current situation.

However I think we are ignoring reasons why people want to vote informal or abstain/not show up.
ONE of these reasons is likely pure ignorance per se.
So you think is it better if mindless people are forced to vote something randomly because they don't give a rat's? How would that improve democracy?
...or would it be better that only those who have put some thought into it should go and vote.

Democracy should be about what the PEOPLE want !
I stand by that compulsory action is undemocratic.

Most civilised western countries do not have compulsory voting and I do not see any admissible evidence of election fraud even in the USA.