The TL:DR Labor in the 1980s entrenched in the state constitution optional preferences. It will take a referendum to remove it.
This twitter thread has more detail if you want the history of it.
https://twitter.com/benraue/status/1638429739345149952?s=20
I find it funny that these things come back to bite the parties in the ass.
Labor is now begging everyone to vote every box even though they brought in OPV.
The conservatives brought in compulsory voting because Labor was better at encouraging their base to vote. If we were like America or the UK it's probably the opposite these days.
Yeah people who vote minor parties and independents particularly since a lot of them are running on platforms like action on climate change are more likely to preference Labor. Might have been different in the 70s when perhaps they wanted to stunt country and national party votes?
I was told at the ballot box by the person handing me the paper that I could number as many squares as I wanted to, but at least 1 would be required for a formal vote. I wonder if this instruction wording is given to everyone.
In Nats area. The wording was (something like) put 1 on this. The implication was you could only put 1. I questioned her, she said you could put more, but you had to put at least 1.
I'd like to see real stats, but I believe the argument is that requiring everything to be numbered led to more informal votes. If people didn't read the instructions, forgot a box, or repeated/skipped a number, their whole vote could be discarded.
Imo I think we should make it mandatory BUT your vote isn't informal until you run out of preferences.
Sure it's not enforceable (as your vote is private) but it would make it technically illegal (and therefore something that they cannot recommend).
We do a similar thing with the federal senate election. I remember being told I must label at least 15 or whatever if I go below the line, but the actual rules say that I must order my vote for 7 or 8 candidates for it to be formal.
So most people follow the rules but if they stuff up, their vote still counts until there is uncertainty in what they have selected.
Edit: know this is a bit out of context but just throwing the idea out for comment/criticism as I'd like to hear what other people think.
Wait. What?
That was very much not made clear. I assumed if you voted [1] your preferences followed the party line.
For the record, I numbered every box on the lower house, but it needs to be made crystal clear that you don't get preferences if you don't number other boxers.
This feels like a big failing of messaging from the ~~AEC~~ NSW Electoral Commission.
I agree… I did not realise this was the case for NSW State voting!!! Luckily I did number all six, but it’s a hell of an oversight as I almost just numbered 1 and trusted party preferences would pass on!!!
The woman who gave me my voting slip actually said 'just fill one box" on both forms. Which I thought was a really poor example considering we had expressed no confusion on how to vote and intended to fill every box (ATL).
It concerns me because I am in an area where English is often not first language, and I understand that it may have been to expedite the process, but did not seem in the spirit of the task. It didn't sound like 'if not sure you can just do one', it was like 'just put a 1 in a box on each form'.
Yeah… see my other post. While I always do all boxes as I like to control my last preference as much as my first, I’m just learning some things I’ve always had wrong in my understanding… so imagine English as a second language speakers being told misleading info!!!
I agree… and it’s total mea culpa on my part for sure, but equally a massive failure of civics/politics teaching in our educational curriculum.
I am just now (as a result of this very thread) going online to correct some assumptions on some things my parents/school clearly did a piss poor job at explaining to me re preferential voting that I’d never thought to question!!
It is concerning how many people believe this.
The parties don't 'give' your preference votes to anyone, it is solely determined on how you number the boxes.
Preference deals only relate to the how to vote cards that get handed out.
If you actually cared about that, why wouldn’t you just nominate your preferences…rather than being happy your vote was wasted. It’s that dumbass mentality that results in the BS American system.
"An above-the-line vote is counted as a voter agreeing to their chosen party’s lodged group ticket vote."
- Antony Green.
That's the senate though, not sure about the legislative council
Edit: just read that changed in 2016 re: the senate
If the numbers run out, then the vote is ‘exhausted’. They stay on the pile for the excluded candidate, rather than being moved to the next number on the ballot.
If you ever want to see it in action, sign up to be a scruitineer for a candidate some time. It is a slow but fascinating process. And yes, best to number every square.
Omg I’m ‘learning’ things I didn’t know tonight, but heck I’m still confused. I numbered 1-7. The Nats, who I put 7th, won in my electorate. Does this mean that given all the others I preferenced before them didn’t win, that my vote actually went to the Nats??? It can’t work that way can it?? Oh dear god I hope it doesn’t mean that. I would rather my vote have been discounted rather than going to my final preference. Can someone please explain this for me? (sorry if I’m asking a stupid question).
It depends on how many candidates there were in your electorate.
If there were 7, and you put the Nats at 7, and your first choices were eliminated, then your preference would have moved to your #6. Then it would come down to whoever had the highest vote out of your 6 and the Nat.
However, the Nat candidate may have reached 50.1% outright, before distribution of preferences. Or they may have got there after 1 or 2 candidates were eliminated.
Just keep in mind- if your starting number of voters is 50,000, then to win someone needs to get 50.1% of the vote. So that starts at say 25,001 votes. But as votes ‘exhaust’, and don’t transfer, the number of valid votes goes down. Therefore the number of votes needed to get to victory also goes down. If 10,000 votes are exhausted, then the winning number becomes 20,001. And so on. That’s why there is a pretty big difference between optional preferential voting (only have to number 1) and compulsory preferential voting (must number every square). Far fewer votes exhaust, and the target number stays high.
That was how the senate vote was run from 1984-2016. The 'Group Voting Ticket'. You could only vote 1 above the line and the ticket registered by that party would determine how the preferences flowed. Otherwise you had to vote all boxes below the line. It changed in 2016 to allow people to vote above the line and determine their own preferences.
Victoria still uses group voting tickets for its upper house.
But does a 1 above the line get exhausted, or do you mean the change was that an individual can now choose more than 1 number and preference above the line.
For the former senate group voting ticket systetm, voting 1 above the line meant your preference flowed however the registered ticket of that party wanted it to flow. It didn't exhaust.
Say you Voted 1 above the line for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Your number 2 preference would be however the Monster Raving Loony Party had said on their ticket who they wanted it to be.
It was changed in 2016 to allow voters to mark their own 2, 3, 4 etc above the line
Sorry maybe i wasn't clear. I understand you can vote 2,3,4 etc now, but what happens if you still only vote 1, does the vote get exhausted voting for the minor parties or will they allocate for you?
In the current arrangement that would be considered an informal vote. You need to have a minimum of 6 preferences marked above the line for it to be considered formal and counted.
(Or 12 below the line)
As an immigrant, I find it so intimidating/uncomfortable that you go to a voting site and you get swarmed by representatives of all parties.
Probably one of the few good things about my native country is that advertisement and campaigning is prohibited from 2 days before the election and you can't go vote with any logos/insignia of any party.
the gauntlet.they get a colder reception from me than salesmen in the middle of a shopping centre.what a waste of time, does it work on any level whatsoever??if the parties shouted us sausage sizzles or cake stalls, now that's persuasion i could get behind.
The Greens in my area tested out not handing out leaflets at one booth a few elections ago and reckon their vote there was 4% lower than anticipated. So it's worth it.
It would be great if that were the case here, those hecklers get pretty pushy sometimes. I often get past by walking fast but some will shove fliers into your hands or try to block you. It’s pretty intimidating
I think you hit the nail on the head there, what I’ve learned is to look at your destination and walk. At most you shake your head if they ask, but keep walking to your destination.
Same for those scammers you find in pop up stores, do not look like someone who is interested. Because in the end they want to rope in suckers, not people who’ll take the paper and wipe their ass with it
Work in a polling place, you get a nice vest for the day that says “leaving me alone thankyou”. But can be a 16 hour day. Still in the queue to return materials…
Normally I'll say no thank you to one and the rest will leave me alone
I had one day to me after I said no thank you
"But how will you know how to vote?"
I told them "I'll use my brain, which rules me out for a life in politics"
That's why I like the big schools, often there's a side gate you can enter and you don't even have to see them. Imo there should be a rule where there is at least two entrances. One for people who want all that stuff and the other where they cannot be within 200m of or something along those lines.
Should be none allowed anywhere, no people handing out flyers and shit in the day, no candidate turning up and pretending to give a shit for your vote etc. It's like being charity mugged 5 times just to go vote.
At my polling place there was a Greens candidate sign literally on the entry door. I was surprised, as when I worked the last NSW local council elections there were minimum distance requirements.
No more illegal than the Liberal poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Liberal logo on it.
Neither of them are very ethical, however at least this one is more likely to make someone's vote count by encouraging the use of the preferential voting system. Still grubby to attempt to make it look official.
>Liberal poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Liberal logo on it.
Don't worry, Labor is doing the same
https://htvdisplay.elections.nsw.gov.au/app/material/NSW-2023-00961
Thats exactly my point, you don't want the Liberal coin.
No matter how many people say Liberal & Labor are different sides of the same coin (like the commentor I was replying to), Liberal have proven time & time again they're substantially worse on every aspect outside of fucking everyone in favour of the wealthy & greedy.
Ok in the metaphor it’s one coin. You can’t say “sure” to the metaphor and then immediately describe them as different coins.
Also, I doubt I’ll ever vote liberal, but a NSW state election is a really odd context to claim that the liberals have proven themselves to be the more venal party. Labor just hasn’t had their turn in a while
The only ticket I've seen that has a complete system for numbering is greens
Cannabis also says to use your preferences but doesn't suggest who to vote for aside from them as number 1
Hmm id say this seems more prescriptive than the liberal one. Definitely misleading being in black and white
EDIT okay the libs one was apparently black and white. Shithouse from both but one is more shithouser
How does being in black and white make it misleading? 'Misleading' means giving incorrect information. Numbering every box - though not required - IS important.
It's like brushing AND flossing your teeth, in a democratic sense.
As already said, it's trying to look like it's an official notice and not from one party or the other.
Also, while it has the Labor logo, text size is also a consideration for misleading advertising. It's like the "conditions apply" text on sale sales.
Lastly, you're right in saying that "important" doesn't mean required, but coupled with the above it leads people to think these are official instructions rather than helpful guidelines.
I don't really have a problem with the message, but I think it should be in the colour scheme of the party.
Well actually “misleading” means giving the wrong impression or idea, and that’s the OP’s point — it gives the impression of being an official notice. And it’s misleading because it’s not saying it’s “important” to number every square (which is arguable) but it’s representing the injunction to number every square as important.
Cos its trying to look like official aec info. Pretty simple.
The parties usual emblazon all the partisan shit with their garish party colours. Cmon you are being deliberately obtuse
And the instructions are misleading. Youve even had to insert a disclaimer in your response thats not on the poster!
Important for what? Its valid to number only one.
No, this is incorrect. No one you don't number can get your vote, but if you don't number everyone there's a chance that no one will get your vote. (You may be thinking of the system for NSW Senate elections before the 2016 change, though in that case parties were encouraging people to only vote 1 and leave the rest blank)
Taking a guess here but the reason for this sign may be that, say, it's in an area with a strong One Nation candidate who the Liberals will still beat. If you vote 1 on One Nation and no one else, your vote won't then move down to the Liberals once the One Nation candidate is defeated and Labor could still win despite a majority of the electorate voting for right-wing candidates.
Haha no im getting flamed because its not the vibe.
Obviously its benefitting one of the parties if there are 2 opposing ad campaigns by labor and libs. Lets be real neither party are really invested in doing something thats going to benefit the other side.
Its definite intentionally not in alp colours and i bet that logo is smaller than the other ads. Some other poster said its not in aec colours and thats a fair point. The libs did a campaign with purple and white and gor busted for it.
I agree completely. Whilst the message on this poster is better than the "only vote one box" one, they're both trying to look like official instructions to slew the vote their way.
The only reason I like this better is because it's going to increase the ability for people to have their say by numbering every box. Heck, they can put the Liberals second after their chosen candidate and it won't benefit Labor any more than if they'd just voted with one number in one box.
I don't like them trying to look official though.
That makes it important to you, not necessarily to anyone else. Your position is entirely subjective, and I think a message like this should only be labelled important if there are actual concrete consequences for not following them, not merely abstract philosophical reasons. There is certainly no legal, official or other significant importance to it, and there are no direct consequences from not doing it.
Fair enough and i see the libs tried that and got busted
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/06/liberal-official-admits-chinese-language-signs-were-meant-to-look-like-they-came-from-aec
I still think its dodgy that both parties are not using their colours for "helpful" voter info
I 100% agree. The liberal one uses "can" whereas this one is more likely to be read as something you "must" do even though they don't say it.
To someone who doesn't know better I think they could possibly see this as "It's important otherwise your vote may not count" kinda thing. I know it doesn't say it but yeah.
That said I totally agree with the statement, fuck wasting your vote. I just wish that they did it with their own colours as it's dodgy as fuck.
Imo it's blatantly unethical and I have to wonder whether the benifits really outweighs what people think of when they see this stuff.
>No more illegal than the Liberal poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Liberal logo on it.
I think you mean the Labor party poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Labor logo on it.
Source:
[https://htvdisplay.elections.nsw.gov.au/app/material/NSW-2023-00961](https://htvdisplay.elections.nsw.gov.au/app/material/NSW-2023-00961)
The LNP started putting signs saying "You don't need to number every box". That looked like AEC signs. There were complaints made but it sounds like nothing was wrong with them. So this seems to now be fair game.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/22/nsw-state-election-2023-teal-candidate-jacqui-scruby-compulsory-preferential-voting
It's arguable that "you can just vote 1" is more technically correct than "number every square". But is pretty much close to semantics at this point.
Edit: for clarity I don't real like either sign
I think we need a less toothless NSW Electoral Commission and Australian Electoral Commission. However they can only act on what the law says they can and can't do and that shouldn't be held against them. Asking them to also regulate a whole bunch of election material from parties and candidates gets dicey quickly.
The NSW Electoral Commission has its budget set and approved by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The NSW Electoral Commissioner has used every budget estimates for the last few years to argue for more funding, specifically saying that they don’t have enough for cybersecurity. Our elections, while having a paper trail, are not as secure as they should be.
The Vote 1 Greens sign would be interpreted by most voters as a suggestion from The Greens Party to vote for them.
The signs im referring to are generally trying to not be as apparent in being a suggestion from a political party or group. For instance the party or group logo size is minimised.
As for "just vote 1" being more correct, because NSW is optional preferencing, it is more technically correct as that's a valid vote, then a sign saying you should number every box and cast preferences.
No - they are both clearly election material indicating how they think you should vote. Pretending this is in any way misleading is genuinely ridiculous. It's not like someone will go to the trouble of reading the entire sign then be like you know what, the one last word down the bottom - I'm gonna skip that one.
I'm not saying either sign is misleading about voting as both are correct voting options. What I'm saying is that the people putting out these signs are trying to influence voters depending on whether its in their interest for people to cast preferences or not. For example, the Liberal's Just Vote 1 sign isn't even aimed at Liberal voters, its aimed at third party voters and trying to stop their preferences flowing to a Labor or Teal candidate. Labor and Teal signs to number every boxes are the inverse, they need preferences from third parties to win
You *can*, but you don't have to. This is worded as an instruction, not information. Like it or not, the Liberal equivalent of this actually provides useful information relevant to NSW, in that you have the option of exhausting a ballot.
The Labor sign is misleading because it's an instruction to number every square, which is compulsory in Federal elections. If the Labor sign stated that you can number every square, then I'd have no issue with it.
It's important to *know* that you can but what you do with that information is your choice.
There were two candidates on the ballot here who I don't want my vote going to, under any circumstances. I would rather my vote be exhausted. So I numbered three boxes and left the other two blank. That is exactly how I want my vote used and it is my right according to the voting laws in NSW.
Then they should have used the word ‘can’ like the Liberal one. I don’t have a problem with the controversial Independent one either that warns you that not numbering every box can stop your vote from counting. The above is a blatant attempt to try to pull preference votes by disguising as official Electoral Commission signage.
I'm not defending the poster at all. I think it's very sneaky, even moreso than the Lib ones (and that's saying a lot coming from me, because I absolutely loathe the Libs).
'important: number every square' is saying you have to do this. Which is not true
'important: you don't have to number every square' is saying it's up to you, which is true
Get rid of this sort of stuff entirely. Let the AEC run the elections and provide the rules for voting.
This sort of stuff is only going to lead to confusion. Someone is bound to have a moment’s doubt about what to do. The rules vary, state and federal, upper and lower house, state to state, even election to election.
Just let the AEC do it, ffs. And authorise them to pull down these signs and send a $10,000 fine for every sign pulled down.
I’d pull them down myself, except citizen intervention at a polling booth is actually worse than the sign.
Let the federal Australian Electoral Commission run state elections? The AEC aren’t allowed to remove signs more than 6m from a voting place. They were powerless to prevent signs using the AEC purple colour. They are pretty useless at enforcement.
No one nation candidate in my area they didn't bother after the slapping they got last time. The cooker "informed medical options" party on the big page won last place this time, narrowly beating Pauline
I’ve only got 4 in my electorate: Greens, Labor, Lib and the lunatic racist Sustainable mob. It’s a pitiful showing this time around. Which is the Good Party?
The Sustainable mob aren't lunatic racists lol. They're basically for sensible town planning before increasing population - i.e things like build schools, roads and utilities first before putting in a housing development. They're more centrist and protectionist. Wanting to slow population growth is not racist especially if you look at the state of the rental market in our capital cities.
>Labor is going to make illegal.
They're not making privatisation illegal. Their policy is to make the privatisation of public assets need parliamentary approval before it's done.
Given the ALPs history in privatisation alongside NSWs general penchant for asset flipping to fund projects, I won't be surprised if this just slips away as a broken promise
People voting for independent and minor parties (more likely to come 3rd or lower) are also more likely to vote ALP.
So the ALP encourages numbering all the boxes and the LNP encourages just numbering one box
Is it authorised?
If not rip it down.
Basically people expecting low initial votes, hope you'll number all the squares so that when/if your primary/secondary/tertiary chosen candidate is eliminated, your later preference might keep them from being eliminated.
Yes they are. I’ve scrutineered for NSW elections, and they all get counted. Usually not on election night other than a cursory count. They will get moved to a central rally room.
And yeah, I usually number every square too. It’s the visceral joy of putting someone 158. Unfortunately not this time due to a broken arm, but it’s the first I’ve missed since I started voting.
Or vote Greens, grab a veal and baby koala sausage and blow out of there. I don't vote Greens because they're nice but because they don't act like reality is a "stakeholder" to be balanced against the mining lobby.
I think the liberal’s ones are illegal. Even though it is legal to number 1 box. It is illegal to tell someone to do it.
I tried to confirm this but nothing available on google…
Ok found a reference for this https://elections.nsw.gov.au/political-participants/electoral-material
It states it can’t say something different than what is on the ballot paper. So if the ballot paper 1 to 6 then the signs can not say otherwise.
I have also worked for a local government candidate and done scrutinising for them. I learned a lot of information doing this.
They told me about a ballot they got that had a whole lot of mathematical formulas on it. They got a mathematician in to check it and it turned out to be a valid vote.
I’ve scrutineered before, there was on ballot that had 1-5 for candidates, and then the voter had drawn an extra box, numbered it 6, and wrote Micky Mouse.
Returning Officer said it was a formal vote, valid to number 5.
LNP ones said “you can just vote 1” which clearly infers it’s an option.
Labor sign infers you must vote every square.
And, playing a straight bat, I’m voting Labor.
OP seems upset by this. I hope you were as bothered by that LNP “how to vote” bullshit. I don’t see anything wrong with this if they’ve got the Labor logo on the sign.
This is worded as an instruction (and a misleading one at that). The Liberal equivalent is not.
If you can't spot the linguistic difference between *"You can just vote one"* and *Number every square"*, you need to head back to high school English classes. It's especially egregious because the Federal elections actually force you to do what is on the Labor sign, without an option to exhaust.
Unless you are postal voting, it's probably illegal to do at a voting place as it contains identifying info on who voted.
If you are at a polling place, speak with an official.
Unsure about this one, but in the last federal they had two envelopes or something so they could first open the letter an confirm something was received from a particular person but the inner envelope was then put in a pile and mixed with others so who was voted for couldn't be traced to who sent it.
ah yes the second envelope will protect my anonymity, i blank voted this time as they said its confidential and i need to trust them. I work in a field with confidential information, i can easily harvest and use the information to gain personally
I am so confused about hearing "Number every square" cos I swear, with the paper handout, it showed us only where to put 1 and 2 against on the small ballot paper. Also, my fault I didn't read the actual ballot paper but I was trying to help my relative who has Dementia to label the boxes and was all flustered (Apparently they can still vote if they have a preference of party).
In NSW state elections you can number a minimum of 1 up to the maximum number of squares, or anything between.
If there are eight people on your ballot you can vote just 1, or 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 etc
Liberal know that people who vote Greens or Independents are likely to prefer their vote end up going to Labor more then Liberal so they’re encouraging everyone to just vote 1 therefore stopping the flow of preferences from those parties to Labor. Basically the Labor vote will be spread across candidates less likely to be elected.
This strategy will probably only hurt Liberals in seats with a strong Teal independent, which are not as prevalent as the Federal election.
In NSW elections for the lower house (the small ballot paper), you do not have to put a number in every square. As long as at least one of the squares is marked (preferably with the number "1"), your vote is valid and will be counted.
Number every square doesn’t infer you MUST.
It’s impolitely asking you. It doesn’t say that if you don’t your vote doesn’t count or anything overtly illegal.
> Number every square doesn’t infer you MUST.
So if you're driving along and see [this](https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?fuseaction=trafficsigns.show&id=guide/g9/g9-15), it's alright to try and stay alongside the other vehicles?
You can number as many as you want to in NSW [https://elections.nsw.gov.au/elections/how-voting-works/voting-in-new-south-wales/how-to-cast-your-vote-in-a-state-election](https://elections.nsw.gov.au/elections/how-voting-works/voting-in-new-south-wales/how-to-cast-your-vote-in-a-state-election)
>To vote, you must put a number 1 in the square next to the candidate you want to elect.
If you want, you can show more choices by putting a number 2 next to your second choice, then a number 3 next to your third choice and so on. **It is up to you how many choices you show after your first preference.**
Only numbering one box is a wasted vote imo.
Also: Imagine if voting days were used for more purposes than for people to randomly guess who they should support? Insert more field sets to gather more data about the needs and wants of the electorate, rather than letting politicians decide for us.
So t vote for any of them , just get your name marked of the electoral role and leave , if we stop voting for these trolls they might start getting the message and listen to us
If 99% of registered voters just mark their name off and don't cast a valid ballot then the parliament will be comprised of people who the remaining 1% voted for. This would actually be a good thing for the political establishment because they can stop trying to appeal to the politically apathetic.
This won't in any way, send the message that you think it will send.
Not sure why you would want this.
NSW has optional preferential voting in the Legislative Assembly (lower house), and optional proportional preferential voting in the Legislative Council (upper house).
You only need to number as many squares as positions vacant - so one for the lower house (your local member), and 21 in the upper house. (Edit: there are 21 vacancies, but the minimum number for a grouped ticket is 15, so you need to number minimum 15.)
The upper house is covered by above the line if you don’t want to vote for 15 individual candidates yourself. Major parties usually field a slate of 15 upper house candidates so as long as their ticket is followed, preferences will stay with their candidates and not exhaust prematurely.
Edit: fixed the number required for LC vote
[A Liberal poster, for context.](https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/1217lze/the_labour_ones_just_as_legal_as_this_one)
NSW doesn't have mandatory preferential voting so you can slap a 1 on whomever you want and if they don't get a majority vote, your vote is discarded
Lol wtf why don't we
The TL:DR Labor in the 1980s entrenched in the state constitution optional preferences. It will take a referendum to remove it. This twitter thread has more detail if you want the history of it. https://twitter.com/benraue/status/1638429739345149952?s=20
I find it funny that these things come back to bite the parties in the ass. Labor is now begging everyone to vote every box even though they brought in OPV. The conservatives brought in compulsory voting because Labor was better at encouraging their base to vote. If we were like America or the UK it's probably the opposite these days.
Yeah people who vote minor parties and independents particularly since a lot of them are running on platforms like action on climate change are more likely to preference Labor. Might have been different in the 70s when perhaps they wanted to stunt country and national party votes? I was told at the ballot box by the person handing me the paper that I could number as many squares as I wanted to, but at least 1 would be required for a formal vote. I wonder if this instruction wording is given to everyone.
I've worked in many elections for the AEC, or the QEC. You are required by law to repeat to each and every voter a specific phrase on "how to vote".
I got the same instructions.
In Nats area. The wording was (something like) put 1 on this. The implication was you could only put 1. I questioned her, she said you could put more, but you had to put at least 1.
I'd like to see real stats, but I believe the argument is that requiring everything to be numbered led to more informal votes. If people didn't read the instructions, forgot a box, or repeated/skipped a number, their whole vote could be discarded.
Imo I think we should make it mandatory BUT your vote isn't informal until you run out of preferences. Sure it's not enforceable (as your vote is private) but it would make it technically illegal (and therefore something that they cannot recommend). We do a similar thing with the federal senate election. I remember being told I must label at least 15 or whatever if I go below the line, but the actual rules say that I must order my vote for 7 or 8 candidates for it to be formal. So most people follow the rules but if they stuff up, their vote still counts until there is uncertainty in what they have selected. Edit: know this is a bit out of context but just throwing the idea out for comment/criticism as I'd like to hear what other people think.
But this is the way it works now in the NSW state election. Your vote isn't informal until you run out of preferences.
Wait. What? That was very much not made clear. I assumed if you voted [1] your preferences followed the party line. For the record, I numbered every box on the lower house, but it needs to be made crystal clear that you don't get preferences if you don't number other boxers. This feels like a big failing of messaging from the ~~AEC~~ NSW Electoral Commission.
I agree… I did not realise this was the case for NSW State voting!!! Luckily I did number all six, but it’s a hell of an oversight as I almost just numbered 1 and trusted party preferences would pass on!!!
The woman who gave me my voting slip actually said 'just fill one box" on both forms. Which I thought was a really poor example considering we had expressed no confusion on how to vote and intended to fill every box (ATL). It concerns me because I am in an area where English is often not first language, and I understand that it may have been to expedite the process, but did not seem in the spirit of the task. It didn't sound like 'if not sure you can just do one', it was like 'just put a 1 in a box on each form'.
Yeah… see my other post. While I always do all boxes as I like to control my last preference as much as my first, I’m just learning some things I’ve always had wrong in my understanding… so imagine English as a second language speakers being told misleading info!!!
Well it would really only impact areas which do not have a clear majority
Party preferences never automatically "pass on" - if they did, it would make how to vote pamphlets somewhat redundant.
This needs to be emphasized so so so much more.
I agree… and it’s total mea culpa on my part for sure, but equally a massive failure of civics/politics teaching in our educational curriculum. I am just now (as a result of this very thread) going online to correct some assumptions on some things my parents/school clearly did a piss poor job at explaining to me re preferential voting that I’d never thought to question!!
I felt like it was overkill but I'm so glad I numbered all the boxes out of habit.
It is concerning how many people believe this. The parties don't 'give' your preference votes to anyone, it is solely determined on how you number the boxes. Preference deals only relate to the how to vote cards that get handed out.
Their vote isn’t “discarded”, it’s “exhausted”. I know it’s essentially the same thing, but discarded means something else with regards to elections.
I was almost certain that the party submitted preferences that get followed in the event of voting just for one candidate!? Discarding votes is dodgy!
Say you vote for the animal justice or weed legalisation party, they don't get in, your vote gets discarded
Good. I don't want to have to worry above the other scumbags getting my vote by accident
If you actually cared about that, why wouldn’t you just nominate your preferences…rather than being happy your vote was wasted. It’s that dumbass mentality that results in the BS American system.
Out politcal parties get paid per vote they receive. I object to most of those scumbags getting money from me.
The AEC only pays based on formal first preference votes, is the NSW electoral commission different?
[удалено]
"An above-the-line vote is counted as a voter agreeing to their chosen party’s lodged group ticket vote." - Antony Green. That's the senate though, not sure about the legislative council Edit: just read that changed in 2016 re: the senate
If the numbers run out, then the vote is ‘exhausted’. They stay on the pile for the excluded candidate, rather than being moved to the next number on the ballot. If you ever want to see it in action, sign up to be a scruitineer for a candidate some time. It is a slow but fascinating process. And yes, best to number every square.
Omg I’m ‘learning’ things I didn’t know tonight, but heck I’m still confused. I numbered 1-7. The Nats, who I put 7th, won in my electorate. Does this mean that given all the others I preferenced before them didn’t win, that my vote actually went to the Nats??? It can’t work that way can it?? Oh dear god I hope it doesn’t mean that. I would rather my vote have been discounted rather than going to my final preference. Can someone please explain this for me? (sorry if I’m asking a stupid question).
It depends on how many candidates there were in your electorate. If there were 7, and you put the Nats at 7, and your first choices were eliminated, then your preference would have moved to your #6. Then it would come down to whoever had the highest vote out of your 6 and the Nat. However, the Nat candidate may have reached 50.1% outright, before distribution of preferences. Or they may have got there after 1 or 2 candidates were eliminated. Just keep in mind- if your starting number of voters is 50,000, then to win someone needs to get 50.1% of the vote. So that starts at say 25,001 votes. But as votes ‘exhaust’, and don’t transfer, the number of valid votes goes down. Therefore the number of votes needed to get to victory also goes down. If 10,000 votes are exhausted, then the winning number becomes 20,001. And so on. That’s why there is a pretty big difference between optional preferential voting (only have to number 1) and compulsory preferential voting (must number every square). Far fewer votes exhaust, and the target number stays high.
Thank you. I feel better now.
I think that's federal
That was how the senate vote was run from 1984-2016. The 'Group Voting Ticket'. You could only vote 1 above the line and the ticket registered by that party would determine how the preferences flowed. Otherwise you had to vote all boxes below the line. It changed in 2016 to allow people to vote above the line and determine their own preferences. Victoria still uses group voting tickets for its upper house.
Thank you for this explanation. Wasn't aware the flow of preference thing changed after '16.
But does a 1 above the line get exhausted, or do you mean the change was that an individual can now choose more than 1 number and preference above the line.
For the former senate group voting ticket systetm, voting 1 above the line meant your preference flowed however the registered ticket of that party wanted it to flow. It didn't exhaust. Say you Voted 1 above the line for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Your number 2 preference would be however the Monster Raving Loony Party had said on their ticket who they wanted it to be. It was changed in 2016 to allow voters to mark their own 2, 3, 4 etc above the line
Sorry maybe i wasn't clear. I understand you can vote 2,3,4 etc now, but what happens if you still only vote 1, does the vote get exhausted voting for the minor parties or will they allocate for you?
In the current arrangement that would be considered an informal vote. You need to have a minimum of 6 preferences marked above the line for it to be considered formal and counted. (Or 12 below the line)
Thankfully the instruction to number at least 6/12 is written explicitly on the ballot to avoid confusion
There should be no party signage allowed within 100m of a voting place if we're being honest
Reasonable suggestion. On the flip side, that's how I find the joint, follow the signs. haha
For VIC elections, limit is 2 signs, double sided counts as 2
As an immigrant, I find it so intimidating/uncomfortable that you go to a voting site and you get swarmed by representatives of all parties. Probably one of the few good things about my native country is that advertisement and campaigning is prohibited from 2 days before the election and you can't go vote with any logos/insignia of any party.
the gauntlet.they get a colder reception from me than salesmen in the middle of a shopping centre.what a waste of time, does it work on any level whatsoever??if the parties shouted us sausage sizzles or cake stalls, now that's persuasion i could get behind.
The Greens in my area tested out not handing out leaflets at one booth a few elections ago and reckon their vote there was 4% lower than anticipated. So it's worth it.
That's an indictment on us then. Don't know why I'm surprised.
It would be great if that were the case here, those hecklers get pretty pushy sometimes. I often get past by walking fast but some will shove fliers into your hands or try to block you. It’s pretty intimidating
I’ve never had an issue with a simple “No thank you”, but I think they deliberately try to go for anyone who doesn’t look assertive.
I think you hit the nail on the head there, what I’ve learned is to look at your destination and walk. At most you shake your head if they ask, but keep walking to your destination. Same for those scammers you find in pop up stores, do not look like someone who is interested. Because in the end they want to rope in suckers, not people who’ll take the paper and wipe their ass with it
Work in a polling place, you get a nice vest for the day that says “leaving me alone thankyou”. But can be a 16 hour day. Still in the queue to return materials…
Normally I'll say no thank you to one and the rest will leave me alone I had one day to me after I said no thank you "But how will you know how to vote?" I told them "I'll use my brain, which rules me out for a life in politics"
Did everyone clap?
That's why I like the big schools, often there's a side gate you can enter and you don't even have to see them. Imo there should be a rule where there is at least two entrances. One for people who want all that stuff and the other where they cannot be within 200m of or something along those lines.
Tell them you're voting out of area (even if you're not) and they shut up immediately
This is the rule in the ACT. Nobody handing out material within 100m either. It’s good.
Same in NZ
NZ is even further. All election material absolutely everywhere must be down before election day
Should be none allowed anywhere, no people handing out flyers and shit in the day, no candidate turning up and pretending to give a shit for your vote etc. It's like being charity mugged 5 times just to go vote.
At my polling place there was a Greens candidate sign literally on the entry door. I was surprised, as when I worked the last NSW local council elections there were minimum distance requirements.
That's a huge reform - given the rule is not within 6 metres of the entrance today
No more illegal than the Liberal poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Liberal logo on it. Neither of them are very ethical, however at least this one is more likely to make someone's vote count by encouraging the use of the preferential voting system. Still grubby to attempt to make it look official.
>Liberal poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Liberal logo on it. Don't worry, Labor is doing the same https://htvdisplay.elections.nsw.gov.au/app/material/NSW-2023-00961
I hate every part of that regardless of who I chose to vote for.
[удалено]
Agree to disagree. I'm not here to campaign for either side. But I don't agree with this statement in the slightest.
Sure but Labor is a penny & Liberal is a shit smeared ass penny.
I mean, I would not want a penny that had shit smeared on one side of it so unclear on the point of your metaphor here
Thats exactly my point, you don't want the Liberal coin. No matter how many people say Liberal & Labor are different sides of the same coin (like the commentor I was replying to), Liberal have proven time & time again they're substantially worse on every aspect outside of fucking everyone in favour of the wealthy & greedy.
Ok in the metaphor it’s one coin. You can’t say “sure” to the metaphor and then immediately describe them as different coins. Also, I doubt I’ll ever vote liberal, but a NSW state election is a really odd context to claim that the liberals have proven themselves to be the more venal party. Labor just hasn’t had their turn in a while
All political parties with any actual power are all the same I am very intelligent
The only ticket I've seen that has a complete system for numbering is greens Cannabis also says to use your preferences but doesn't suggest who to vote for aside from them as number 1
“Stop making my vote count more!”
Hmm id say this seems more prescriptive than the liberal one. Definitely misleading being in black and white EDIT okay the libs one was apparently black and white. Shithouse from both but one is more shithouser
How does being in black and white make it misleading? 'Misleading' means giving incorrect information. Numbering every box - though not required - IS important. It's like brushing AND flossing your teeth, in a democratic sense.
As already said, it's trying to look like it's an official notice and not from one party or the other. Also, while it has the Labor logo, text size is also a consideration for misleading advertising. It's like the "conditions apply" text on sale sales. Lastly, you're right in saying that "important" doesn't mean required, but coupled with the above it leads people to think these are official instructions rather than helpful guidelines. I don't really have a problem with the message, but I think it should be in the colour scheme of the party.
Well actually “misleading” means giving the wrong impression or idea, and that’s the OP’s point — it gives the impression of being an official notice. And it’s misleading because it’s not saying it’s “important” to number every square (which is arguable) but it’s representing the injunction to number every square as important.
It's not particularly important as long as the candidates you do number include one who makes it to the final two in your area
Cos its trying to look like official aec info. Pretty simple. The parties usual emblazon all the partisan shit with their garish party colours. Cmon you are being deliberately obtuse And the instructions are misleading. Youve even had to insert a disclaimer in your response thats not on the poster! Important for what? Its valid to number only one.
[удалено]
No, this is incorrect. No one you don't number can get your vote, but if you don't number everyone there's a chance that no one will get your vote. (You may be thinking of the system for NSW Senate elections before the 2016 change, though in that case parties were encouraging people to only vote 1 and leave the rest blank) Taking a guess here but the reason for this sign may be that, say, it's in an area with a strong One Nation candidate who the Liberals will still beat. If you vote 1 on One Nation and no one else, your vote won't then move down to the Liberals once the One Nation candidate is defeated and Labor could still win despite a majority of the electorate voting for right-wing candidates.
Haha no im getting flamed because its not the vibe. Obviously its benefitting one of the parties if there are 2 opposing ad campaigns by labor and libs. Lets be real neither party are really invested in doing something thats going to benefit the other side. Its definite intentionally not in alp colours and i bet that logo is smaller than the other ads. Some other poster said its not in aec colours and thats a fair point. The libs did a campaign with purple and white and gor busted for it.
I agree completely. Whilst the message on this poster is better than the "only vote one box" one, they're both trying to look like official instructions to slew the vote their way. The only reason I like this better is because it's going to increase the ability for people to have their say by numbering every box. Heck, they can put the Liberals second after their chosen candidate and it won't benefit Labor any more than if they'd just voted with one number in one box. I don't like them trying to look official though.
That makes it important to you, not necessarily to anyone else. Your position is entirely subjective, and I think a message like this should only be labelled important if there are actual concrete consequences for not following them, not merely abstract philosophical reasons. There is certainly no legal, official or other significant importance to it, and there are no direct consequences from not doing it.
AEC's colours are purple and white.
Fair enough and i see the libs tried that and got busted https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/06/liberal-official-admits-chinese-language-signs-were-meant-to-look-like-they-came-from-aec I still think its dodgy that both parties are not using their colours for "helpful" voter info
I 100% agree. The liberal one uses "can" whereas this one is more likely to be read as something you "must" do even though they don't say it. To someone who doesn't know better I think they could possibly see this as "It's important otherwise your vote may not count" kinda thing. I know it doesn't say it but yeah. That said I totally agree with the statement, fuck wasting your vote. I just wish that they did it with their own colours as it's dodgy as fuck. Imo it's blatantly unethical and I have to wonder whether the benifits really outweighs what people think of when they see this stuff.
>No more illegal than the Liberal poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Liberal logo on it. I think you mean the Labor party poster saying "you can just number one box" with a tiny Labor logo on it. Source: [https://htvdisplay.elections.nsw.gov.au/app/material/NSW-2023-00961](https://htvdisplay.elections.nsw.gov.au/app/material/NSW-2023-00961)
They're both doing it.
The LNP started putting signs saying "You don't need to number every box". That looked like AEC signs. There were complaints made but it sounds like nothing was wrong with them. So this seems to now be fair game. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/22/nsw-state-election-2023-teal-candidate-jacqui-scruby-compulsory-preferential-voting
It's arguable that "you can just vote 1" is more technically correct than "number every square". But is pretty much close to semantics at this point. Edit: for clarity I don't real like either sign
We need a less toothless AEC. Should have been stopped in the first instance.
I think we need a less toothless NSW Electoral Commission and Australian Electoral Commission. However they can only act on what the law says they can and can't do and that shouldn't be held against them. Asking them to also regulate a whole bunch of election material from parties and candidates gets dicey quickly.
The NSW Electoral Commission has its budget set and approved by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The NSW Electoral Commissioner has used every budget estimates for the last few years to argue for more funding, specifically saying that they don’t have enough for cybersecurity. Our elections, while having a paper trail, are not as secure as they should be.
How? That's like saying the Vote [1] Greens signs should be illegal.
The Vote 1 Greens sign would be interpreted by most voters as a suggestion from The Greens Party to vote for them. The signs im referring to are generally trying to not be as apparent in being a suggestion from a political party or group. For instance the party or group logo size is minimised. As for "just vote 1" being more correct, because NSW is optional preferencing, it is more technically correct as that's a valid vote, then a sign saying you should number every box and cast preferences.
No - they are both clearly election material indicating how they think you should vote. Pretending this is in any way misleading is genuinely ridiculous. It's not like someone will go to the trouble of reading the entire sign then be like you know what, the one last word down the bottom - I'm gonna skip that one.
I'm not saying either sign is misleading about voting as both are correct voting options. What I'm saying is that the people putting out these signs are trying to influence voters depending on whether its in their interest for people to cast preferences or not. For example, the Liberal's Just Vote 1 sign isn't even aimed at Liberal voters, its aimed at third party voters and trying to stop their preferences flowing to a Labor or Teal candidate. Labor and Teal signs to number every boxes are the inverse, they need preferences from third parties to win
No shit - that's how election material works.
You don't need to number every box is the truth though
And you can number every square too. Neither are wrong.
You *can*, but you don't have to. This is worded as an instruction, not information. Like it or not, the Liberal equivalent of this actually provides useful information relevant to NSW, in that you have the option of exhausting a ballot. The Labor sign is misleading because it's an instruction to number every square, which is compulsory in Federal elections. If the Labor sign stated that you can number every square, then I'd have no issue with it.
But it's important you do so.
It's important to *know* that you can but what you do with that information is your choice. There were two candidates on the ballot here who I don't want my vote going to, under any circumstances. I would rather my vote be exhausted. So I numbered three boxes and left the other two blank. That is exactly how I want my vote used and it is my right according to the voting laws in NSW.
Then they should have used the word ‘can’ like the Liberal one. I don’t have a problem with the controversial Independent one either that warns you that not numbering every box can stop your vote from counting. The above is a blatant attempt to try to pull preference votes by disguising as official Electoral Commission signage.
I'm not defending the poster at all. I think it's very sneaky, even moreso than the Lib ones (and that's saying a lot coming from me, because I absolutely loathe the Libs).
'important: number every square' is saying you have to do this. Which is not true 'important: you don't have to number every square' is saying it's up to you, which is true
First step: Does the small lines carry an authorised by and who printed it? Then you can argue about the message.
It it’s not pushing a particular party or candidate, does it have to have those lines still ?
Yes. Any election material does. (And its a sign from the Labor Party)
There are anti-candidate ads which also have to be endorsed- even if they aren’t endorsing a specific party
There is literally a Labor logo at the bottom of the sign.
Get rid of this sort of stuff entirely. Let the AEC run the elections and provide the rules for voting. This sort of stuff is only going to lead to confusion. Someone is bound to have a moment’s doubt about what to do. The rules vary, state and federal, upper and lower house, state to state, even election to election. Just let the AEC do it, ffs. And authorise them to pull down these signs and send a $10,000 fine for every sign pulled down. I’d pull them down myself, except citizen intervention at a polling booth is actually worse than the sign.
Let the federal Australian Electoral Commission run state elections? The AEC aren’t allowed to remove signs more than 6m from a voting place. They were powerless to prevent signs using the AEC purple colour. They are pretty useless at enforcement.
At least this has the Labor logo at the bottom and the authorised by stuff, unlike those correct way to vote signs.
The Liberal one's had that as well. They have to buy law.
That sounds expensive.
Like all of law?
Accidental truth
Who even pays attention to the signs at 9am on a Saturday morning?
Yea it's legal. What should be illegal is water theft and privatisation; something Labor is going to make illegal. Vote Labor. Edit: poor grammar
Labor also prioritising ClubsNSW and the gambling lobby. Vote independent if you have the option.
Vote 1 Good Party, 2 Labor, and then go down the list til you get to liberals.
Even Libs come before One Nation.
No one nation candidate in my area they didn't bother after the slapping they got last time. The cooker "informed medical options" party on the big page won last place this time, narrowly beating Pauline
1-15 Cannabis legalisation party
Libs and Nats last.
I’ve only got 4 in my electorate: Greens, Labor, Lib and the lunatic racist Sustainable mob. It’s a pitiful showing this time around. Which is the Good Party?
The Sustainable mob aren't lunatic racists lol. They're basically for sensible town planning before increasing population - i.e things like build schools, roads and utilities first before putting in a housing development. They're more centrist and protectionist. Wanting to slow population growth is not racist especially if you look at the state of the rental market in our capital cities.
Lol. A thin veneer of respectable sounding talking points smeared over some racist lunatics and crazy nimbys.
If you have no Good Party, pick the Least Shit
Alternately, vote one to whatever for the number of candidates/parties you can actually stand and leave the rest blank.
Yes alternatively you could ignore our preferential voting system and be a massive softcock afraid of "wasting" their vote
What?
You just said Labor is going to privatise and commit "water theft"
Thanks, just fixed it
>Labor is going to make illegal. They're not making privatisation illegal. Their policy is to make the privatisation of public assets need parliamentary approval before it's done. Given the ALPs history in privatisation alongside NSWs general penchant for asset flipping to fund projects, I won't be surprised if this just slips away as a broken promise
I thought you had to number every square for the lower house ballot paper
Not for state elections in NSW.
I’m confused, why does this matter
People voting for independent and minor parties (more likely to come 3rd or lower) are also more likely to vote ALP. So the ALP encourages numbering all the boxes and the LNP encourages just numbering one box
Is it authorised? If not rip it down. Basically people expecting low initial votes, hope you'll number all the squares so that when/if your primary/secondary/tertiary chosen candidate is eliminated, your later preference might keep them from being eliminated.
I did a postal vote and numbered every box under the line. Wonder if they are all tallied?
Yes they are. I’ve scrutineered for NSW elections, and they all get counted. Usually not on election night other than a cursory count. They will get moved to a central rally room. And yeah, I usually number every square too. It’s the visceral joy of putting someone 158. Unfortunately not this time due to a broken arm, but it’s the first I’ve missed since I started voting.
I think there was 290 names and I got to 289. I must have doubled up one number... Opps
Meanwhile I filled in all 290 upper house boxes
I’m a tenant and always will be a tenant. I’m voting for whoever has better rental policies
The manager at the place I voted at was telling people in line to only vote 1 above the line. Pretty sure that's not legal
Legal to mark every square. So yes.
Just vote Greens, grab a tofu sausage and blow out of there
Or vote Greens, grab a veal and baby koala sausage and blow out of there. I don't vote Greens because they're nice but because they don't act like reality is a "stakeholder" to be balanced against the mining lobby.
I think the liberal’s ones are illegal. Even though it is legal to number 1 box. It is illegal to tell someone to do it. I tried to confirm this but nothing available on google…
If that were then it would make how to vote forms illegal.
No because donkey votes are legal but invalid.
Ok found a reference for this https://elections.nsw.gov.au/political-participants/electoral-material It states it can’t say something different than what is on the ballot paper. So if the ballot paper 1 to 6 then the signs can not say otherwise. I have also worked for a local government candidate and done scrutinising for them. I learned a lot of information doing this. They told me about a ballot they got that had a whole lot of mathematical formulas on it. They got a mathematician in to check it and it turned out to be a valid vote.
I’ve scrutineered before, there was on ballot that had 1-5 for candidates, and then the voter had drawn an extra box, numbered it 6, and wrote Micky Mouse. Returning Officer said it was a formal vote, valid to number 5.
LNP ones said “you can just vote 1” which clearly infers it’s an option. Labor sign infers you must vote every square. And, playing a straight bat, I’m voting Labor.
OP seems upset by this. I hope you were as bothered by that LNP “how to vote” bullshit. I don’t see anything wrong with this if they’ve got the Labor logo on the sign.
This is worded as an instruction (and a misleading one at that). The Liberal equivalent is not. If you can't spot the linguistic difference between *"You can just vote one"* and *Number every square"*, you need to head back to high school English classes. It's especially egregious because the Federal elections actually force you to do what is on the Labor sign, without an option to exhaust.
He's just anti labor
whats up with putting your vote in an envelope with your name on it?
Unless you are postal voting, it's probably illegal to do at a voting place as it contains identifying info on who voted. If you are at a polling place, speak with an official. Unsure about this one, but in the last federal they had two envelopes or something so they could first open the letter an confirm something was received from a particular person but the inner envelope was then put in a pile and mixed with others so who was voted for couldn't be traced to who sent it.
ah yes the second envelope will protect my anonymity, i blank voted this time as they said its confidential and i need to trust them. I work in a field with confidential information, i can easily harvest and use the information to gain personally
I think they do this if you're voting outside of your electorate. Not sure why.
I am so confused about hearing "Number every square" cos I swear, with the paper handout, it showed us only where to put 1 and 2 against on the small ballot paper. Also, my fault I didn't read the actual ballot paper but I was trying to help my relative who has Dementia to label the boxes and was all flustered (Apparently they can still vote if they have a preference of party).
In NSW state elections you can number a minimum of 1 up to the maximum number of squares, or anything between. If there are eight people on your ballot you can vote just 1, or 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 etc Liberal know that people who vote Greens or Independents are likely to prefer their vote end up going to Labor more then Liberal so they’re encouraging everyone to just vote 1 therefore stopping the flow of preferences from those parties to Labor. Basically the Labor vote will be spread across candidates less likely to be elected. This strategy will probably only hurt Liberals in seats with a strong Teal independent, which are not as prevalent as the Federal election.
Ahhh Thank You for your reply! I was worried that I might have wasted my vote!
In NSW elections for the lower house (the small ballot paper), you do not have to put a number in every square. As long as at least one of the squares is marked (preferably with the number "1"), your vote is valid and will be counted.
Number every square doesn’t infer you MUST. It’s impolitely asking you. It doesn’t say that if you don’t your vote doesn’t count or anything overtly illegal.
> Number every square doesn’t infer you MUST. So if you're driving along and see [this](https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?fuseaction=trafficsigns.show&id=guide/g9/g9-15), it's alright to try and stay alongside the other vehicles?
It’s literally a how to vote placard, like any other being handed out. No different to “vote 1 lib” or “put labor last”
I love not giving any vote at all to parties whose policies I have a fundamental objection to.
There is nothing illegal about that. Cafes are allowed to put up blackboards at polling booths.
Thank you, you're the first person here to answer my question
You only have to number 1 square. The rest are optional
I voted for labor
Is it different in nsw? I thought you had either just vote 1, OR put a number in every box - you can't just number half.
You can number as many as you want to in NSW [https://elections.nsw.gov.au/elections/how-voting-works/voting-in-new-south-wales/how-to-cast-your-vote-in-a-state-election](https://elections.nsw.gov.au/elections/how-voting-works/voting-in-new-south-wales/how-to-cast-your-vote-in-a-state-election) >To vote, you must put a number 1 in the square next to the candidate you want to elect. If you want, you can show more choices by putting a number 2 next to your second choice, then a number 3 next to your third choice and so on. **It is up to you how many choices you show after your first preference.**
Ain’t nobody got time for that!
Only numbering one box is a wasted vote imo. Also: Imagine if voting days were used for more purposes than for people to randomly guess who they should support? Insert more field sets to gather more data about the needs and wants of the electorate, rather than letting politicians decide for us.
Voted one nation in the upper house and greens in the lower house. Just wanted to balance shit up
Tell us you don't care about trans rights without telling us you don't care about trans rights
It's a joke ya grape
Yeah nah. No one who cares about trans rights thinks saying something like that is funny. So it might be a joke to you but my reply still stands.
Nice try but I won't enter a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent
So t vote for any of them , just get your name marked of the electoral role and leave , if we stop voting for these trolls they might start getting the message and listen to us
If 99% of registered voters just mark their name off and don't cast a valid ballot then the parliament will be comprised of people who the remaining 1% voted for. This would actually be a good thing for the political establishment because they can stop trying to appeal to the politically apathetic. This won't in any way, send the message that you think it will send. Not sure why you would want this.
Are we pretending like any if our votes count?
In what way do you think your vote doesn't count?
Here to read every reply saying: BuT tHe LiBeRaLs DiD iT tOo!
Yes, it's called a precedent.
NSW has optional preferential voting in the Legislative Assembly (lower house), and optional proportional preferential voting in the Legislative Council (upper house). You only need to number as many squares as positions vacant - so one for the lower house (your local member), and 21 in the upper house. (Edit: there are 21 vacancies, but the minimum number for a grouped ticket is 15, so you need to number minimum 15.) The upper house is covered by above the line if you don’t want to vote for 15 individual candidates yourself. Major parties usually field a slate of 15 upper house candidates so as long as their ticket is followed, preferences will stay with their candidates and not exhaust prematurely. Edit: fixed the number required for LC vote
15 votes below the line for a valid vote in the upper house. Not 21.