In short:

A high number of informal votes in a rural NSW electorate with a record number of candidates has been labelled "shameful" by the region's MP.

By May 6 more than 11,000 informal votes had been recorded in the Riverina electorate, accounting for more than 10 per cent of the voter turnout.

What's next?

Riverina MP Michael McCormack and political scientist Dominic O'Sullivan say the voting system should be reformed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] No1@aussie.zone 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

My understanding is that an informal vote IS a valid way of voting. It may not be what I do, or what you do, or what he does. But people have the right to vote as they wish, and if that results in an invalid vote, then so be it. They are entitled to vote that way.

Is he really whinging that they didn't vote for him?

One other possibility that wasn't covered in the article is that perhaps there were so many informal votes in that electorate because the voters in that electorate are, on average, more stupid than elsewhere in Australia and simply were unable to cast a valid vote. I really would like to see have seen some hard data on that. If that is actually the case, then this guy's complaint that stupid people can't vote properly may be seen by some people as, well, er, stupid.

So, that sends us into the twilight zone, as it begs question: Could Michael McCormack have voted informally?

brain asplodes

[–] techno_analyst@aussie.zone 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day 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.

https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-31496-250.htm

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 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)!

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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)

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day 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?

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day 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.