Comment on MP berates informal voters after dud ballot spike in NSW seat

No1@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• techno_analyst@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  The Riverina electorate had 13 lower house candidates – the equal-highest nationally – and he said such a “large number” was known to confuse voters.

  Old mate thinks the locals can’t handle double digit numbers.

  source

  • Salvo@aussie.zone ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    There are two reasons why people place Informal Votes;

    • Ignorance (they don’t know how our great Australian Preferential Ballot works)
    • No confidence (they do not feel that any candidate can represent their interests.

    Given the fact that voters had 13 different candidates to choose from, and still voted informally, I think that it may be the first reason. I think that Old Mate now has a mandate to invest in education for his constituents so they now how our Australian Preferential Ballot works for next time.

    …aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-31496-250.htm

    source
• princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Yeah, I commonly assert to people that we don’t actually have mandatory voting in Australia. The only thing that’s mandatory is showing up, having your name crossed off the roll, and putting your ballots in the box. Considering the sanctity we treat the secret ballot with, that’s always going to be the case!

  Besides, I get a lot less irked by people doing that in Australia, because it’s still a very active decision that (some? most?) people make. Compare that to America where a bunch of lazy cunts just don’t bother (and a bunch more can’t vote because the government isn’t obliged to make it easy for them)!

  source
• eureka@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  My understanding is that an informal vote IS a valid way of voting.

  An intentional informal vote is a valid form of political expression. I think it’s stupid idealism, and it’s not a valid vote, but it’s valid as political expression. Like you mentioned, there are also accidental informal votes, like [1, 2, 3, 1, 4] or [1, , , , ].

  (A donkey vote, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], is a valid vote)

  source

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I wish we could get data on this, but it is unfortunately so hard to know which is which, so the AEC doesn’t even try. Is the person who numbered all boxes apart from two intending to vote informally? Did they make a mistake in filling out their ballot? Did they misunderstand how it works? What about the person who filled out a Senate ballot above the line completely correctly, but also wrote “1” next to like 8 different candidates below the line?

    source
  • Tenderizer@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    More people should spoil their ballot instead of doing the donkey vote. If they want to express disinterest, the former is better than the latter.

    source

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Donkey votes can be a valid vote politically, depending on the draw and the individual’s political beliefs. I gave what could be considered a donkey vote in the 2024 Qld state election. (“Could be considered” because I’ve seen one definition that says either [1, 2, 3, 4] or [4, 3, 2, 1] can be called a donkey vote, and the latter is what I did.) It just so happened that in my electorate, candidates were drawn in order from most conservative to most progressive.

      source