Does your senate vote really count?

How did we ever get to this point? Ironically it turns out it was a deal done between the ALP and the Democrats in late 1983 that created the current Senate voting system which I think makes such a mockery of democratic process in Australia.

Why is this so?

Consider this. When you vote in the next Senate election (half senate elections will be co-ordinated with the next Federal poll due in October this year) you will be presented with two options: either vote above the line (option A) or below the line (option B).

Option A is simple - you select 1 box and your preferences (down to the last name in the long list that usually appears below the line) will be automatically allocated according to a group voting ticket notification lodged prior to the poll by the people whose box you ticked (i.e. your preferred political party will have already told the Electoral Commission how it wants your preferences to be allocated).

“Too easy” I hear you say. In fact ticket voting above the line has proven so easy (compared to its alternative) that 96 per cent of voters chose this option at the last federal election in 2004. No doubt about it, it’s more popular than sliced bread.

Option B (as it stands) is really reserved for those few crazed loners out there (mainly school teachers and political science students) who want to meticulously number each box below the line. No ifs, buts or maybes here either. You tick a box instead of numbering it and your vote is dead in the water. You mix up the numbers or double-up and the same applies.

Compared with ticket voting the chances of casting an informal vote via Option B are (hopefully) obvious.

But what's really wrong with this?

Well, if you're a back room Party strategist I'd guess you'd say "Not a lot, thank you very much."

And if you’re a micro party attempting to storm the gates on a single issue you’d no doubt agree.

But if you're someone who actually wants their vote to reflect their democratic view on a given day (say POLLING day for example) I would submit your response should be "How do we get rid of this beast?"

Of course you have to appreciate the sheer genius behind the whole idea of the line voting system and how ticket voting has exploited its weaknesses. Give voters two choices, one very easy, the other extremely onerous. It's a no-brainer which way people will go and the statistics back me up.

But if you asked anyone who voted above the line how their preferences were allocated (the real prize in a preferential voting system) I would bet my super the vast majority would have no idea.

So giving preference to a group you loathe over someone you love might be a direct consequence of ticking a box for your favourite political party “above the line”.

But how would you know?

Try asking the AEC staff at the polling station come Election Day to explain the various ticket voting permutations and you might be surprised at how few know what you are talking about.

They might not even know that your preferred Party gets up to three bites of the voting ticket cherry, so they can engage in a variety of deals (and double-deals) aimed at not only maximising their vote but also maximising their influence on the make up of the entire Senate chamber.

"Preference harvesting" and "preference corralling" are terms I'd never heard of until I started to explore the murky world of "ticket voting" but if even half of what I've read about them is true we have a seriously compromised electoral system when Senators are elected.

Can it be fixed?

Yes, and very simply. Contrary to some of the surprisingly daft feedback I have received from MPs I recently surveyed on the topic, all it would take is a simple amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

But rather than advocate throwing away the "ticket" voting system I am prepared to let the “market” decide. That is, I am happy for the humble voter to prove my point for me.

I suggest we introduce a rule that permits voters to select one or more boxes below the line (i.e. not have to number a box for every candidate named below the line, just the ones they want to support). Keep the current system above the line - but maybe “fess” up to voters about how Byzantine and counter-intuitive some of the ticket "deals" have become.

That will go a long way to providing voters trying to simply express their democratic opinion a more level playing field. So maybe at some future election 96 per cent of voters will not find it too hard to bother with below the line and actually cast a vote that reflects how they are really feeling on the day.

Interestingly it looks as if the ALP, at least one Green and the Independent Peter Andren would support creating optional preferential voting below the line in Senate elections.

Who knows, we may be onto something.