New South Wales uses optional preferential voting (OPV) for its lower house, unlike every other single-member electorate system for a lower house in Australia, where compulsory preferential voting (CPV) is used. We know that OPV produces lower rates of preference flows, with exhausted votes aiding the candidate leading on primary votes to hold on. But today I wanted to try and assess which seats may have changed hands under CPV.
I find that the Coalition would have missed out on five seats it did actually win if the election was conducted using CPV, with a handful of others a possibility.
I have settled on a basic metric to measure the difference. First I calculate the gap between the primary vote for the leading candidate and the second-placed candidate. Secondly, I calculate the gap between the winning two-candidate-preferred (2CP) candidate and the runner up. In order to compare these two figures, we aren’t using a typical “margin” for the 2CP, but double that. If the winner polled 55% of the 2CP, we would typically describe the margin as 5%. But for this metric it’s 10%.
This chart shows the relationship between these two metrics for all 93 seats in New South Wales.
You can see very clearly that a Labor primary vote leader tends to pick up ground, while a Coalition primary vote leader tends to lose ground. Crossbench members tend to pick up ground if they are running against the Coalition, but lose ground if they are running against Labor.
From now on, I'm going to focus just on contests where Coalition members are leading on the primary vote. I'll also include Gareth Ward in Kiama.
The seats on the chart above that are below the 0% Y-axis line are seats where the primary vote leader was chased down and lost. There were five seats in 2023: East Hills, Monaro, South Coast, Wakehurst and Wollondilly. If Labor manages to win Ryde, that would be six.
This next chart shows how much the margin changed in the Coalition seats where they led by less than 10% on primary votes.
The primary vote margin tended to close by more in the races where independents were trailing the Coalition. They likely had a more favourable preference pool to draw from, with Labor voters generally preferencing them more than the reverse.
The change in margin in classic seats varied, with changes of about 3% in many seats but some seats shifting by more. The shift was quite large in South Coast and Terrigal, and much smaller in Upper Hunter, where you'd expect the preference pool to be more conservative. The preference shift in Kiama was relatively low, which can be explained by the presence of Liberal preferences in the pool.
With the exception of Wollondilly, where the independent won despite trailing by 7% on the primary vote, the primary vote margin in the other seats where the Coalition was chased down were no more than 1.1%.
Now let's look at the same chart for the 2022 federal election. Apart from CPV, that election was quite similar - a big swing against a Coalition government, a wave of independent challenges against Coalition members and a more modest Labor threat in classic races.
The picture is not entirely consistent - the preference shift is negligible in Longman and Forde, and favours the Coalition in Durack and Flynn - but overall the shifts tend to be larger.
Indeed the Coalition lost three seats that fall outside this chart, because they led by primary votes by more than 10%: Higgins, North Sydney and Brisbane.
They also lost Lyons, Gilmore and Boothby despite primary vote margins of over 5%.
So which seats would have changed hands under CPV? There isn't a single metric to apply, but I think we can say confidently that CPV would have led to closing of gaps around 6%, and that would have flipped Holsworthy, Goulburn, Oatley, Ryde and Kiama to the ALP.
The evidence under CPV suggests larger preference flows to independents running against the Liberal Party, so I think Pittwater would have flipped as well.
Balmain would have gone to whichever party received Liberal preferences.
I would also keep an eye on Terrigal, Winston Hills, Miranda and Drummoyne, which would have been close.
This would have added up to 50-55 Labor seats, 11-12 crossbenchers (Pittwater replacing Kiama) and no more than 31 Coalition seats. Which would have been a more decisive landslide defeat than the actual result we have seen.
Overall Labor clearly still benefits from preferences more than the Coalition, but I don't think this picture is entirely clear. There are seats like Upper Hunter where preferences don't favour them. If the right wing were to fracture further the Coalition would become more reliant on preferences, and exhaust rates would cause them more problems.
On the other hand, as you have pointed out in previous posts, left-leaning parties have a much higher rate of preferencing than right-leaning parties, so introducing CPV would favour the Coalition far more than it would favour the ALP (or minors/independents).
Hi Ben,
I like the way you have approached this analysis – using state trends to provide a general indication, rather than the flow of preferences in a seat from those that did not exhaust. The IND in Willoughby has been going on and on that, if not for OPV, she would have won, on the basis that the full pool of preferences would have flowed in the same manner as the smaller pool that did. I note that Willoughby does not make either your graph (Liberal PV lead >10%) or your list of likely IND flips under CPV.
Just a note on the federal election comparison. I think you meant to say: “They also LOST Lyons, Gilmore and Boothby despite primary vote margins of over 5%”.
And finally, shouldn’t North Sydney be in your list of seats that the Coalition lost despite leading by more than 10% on primary. So the list should be Higgins, Brisbane and North Sydney. or am I missing something
David, I don’t think that’s true. The ratio of preferences to Labor vs Coalition is roughly the same under OPV and CPV. There’s just more of them under CPV. So CPV would definitely benefit the left under the current party system.
Thanks for those corrects Insider, quite right about Higgins.
I’m not sure about Willoughby. Penn managed a larger preference gain than Mackellar or Kooyong. I think it is possible she could have won – to be sure you’d need to look at more data points for the seat, including how much of the vote was available as preferences. Don’t take my lack of reference to it as ruling such an outcome out.
So, everyone’s favourite Psephologist expert, Antony Green, has just posted a new analysis where he seems to have pretty much done what I above praised Ben for not doing.
One of his conclusions is that the Liberal’s only won Willoughby due to OPV. He seems to have used the preference flows in North Sydney last year as a proxy for what would have happened in the Willoughby state election, which for me, is a stretch for several reasons. The fact that the IND in Willoughby is a full 16.9% behind on primaries (its grown every time more post count votes have been added) should have given him some pause, I believe. He uses his fairly broad stroke analysis to turn around a 2.6% IND defeat (currently, could expand on Saturday) into a 0.3% win, and doesn’t think it worthwhile to say that there is a very high degree of uncertainty on the prediction.
The Antony Green view will be re-posted very soon on the IND social media pages, as justification for her claiming a moral victory and claiming “we wuz robbed (by OPV)”.
I think you are honour bound Ben to state why you think your approach to the analysis is more robust and why, particularly for Willoughby, you arrived at a different conclusion (if it is correct that you did). I can’t see any other differences in seat flipping predictions but there may be some.
I realise I am probably in the minority here, but I still think OPV is still the better model.
The fact that people HAD the OPTION, but CHOOSE not to exercise that option indicates to me that for whatever reason, people WANTED to extinguish their vote at some point and for what ever reason.
The CPV only exists to FORCE people to eventually vote for one of the big two parties and I suspect that the main proponents of the CPV belong to, or support, the major two parties, because it is in their interest to continual this duopoly.
The trend has been for some time for a declining first preference vote for both sides. Yet they seem to gain comfort from the fact that eventually they will gain government because we are presently corralled into giving our preference to one or the other. We are effectively rewarding incompetence where for many, we feel any such reward is not justified.
My wider point being, the present CPV system, by default, rewards the big two major parties, where the FACTUAL evidence (where allowed) shows that people often don’t want to reward the two major parties. Going by this analysis (with all its qualifications) a CPV would have produced a far different result. At some point you have to ask – which is the most DEMOCRATIC system that reflects the people’s will?
Sorry for capitalisations, but I am trying to emphasis my point.
The way to go , is my opinion to have compulsory preferences but side by side use a savings provision which counts a vote as formal to the extent that a voters intention can be identified.
Penn would have won in 2022 by-election in Willoughby if there was compulsory preferential, assuming that exhausted voters would have voted the same way as those that did indicate preferences. I think we can all agree that the OPV system is neither preferential nor first past the post. It might ‘moderate’ the final percentages on TPP but in many electorates most people get a candidate they DON’T want.
“If the winner polled 55% of the 2CP, we would typically describe the margin as 5%.”
Really?
On my planet, a margin is a margin is a margin … the gap between the winner at the loser.
I doubt it would make too much of a difference in a “classical” contests. I think most people would be aware of the duopoly and would number at least one of them unless they are making a conscious decision.
If one is in a potential cross-bench challenger seat though, that is where I think would complicate. Some people’s attention is all on the Duopoly hence they may not preference a competitive independent because of unawareness (Even when their preferences are clear – any Labor 1 voter would prefer a Teal over a Liberal!)
I know a Labor voter in Lane Cove who was just going to put 1 Labor because the rules said preferences were unneeded to be made. I had to tell him to number the Teals somewhere because every chance existed that she makes final 2 (didn’t happen) and hence the preferences would matter.
The point is, while one could argue that the decision to exhaust preferences would be conscious in a clear Duopoly race (because basically everyone knows them), it is not necessarily a conscious decision in a race where there is a competitive independent/minor party because some voters wouldn’t be aware of them.
If Larissa Penn had been more organised, started earlier etc she would easily have won Willoughby even with OPV. Such a shame.
Hey Damien, I’d be pleased to hear you expand on your thoughts as to why it is such a shame. Did you have an interactions with the three competing campaigns?
Hey Leon, please don’t presume to speak for all Labor votes and how likely they are to preference a Teal over a Liberal!! Candidates matter. In the federal election the decision to preference Ryan over Frydenberg (Kooyong), and Daniel over Wilson (Goldstein), was much different to the North Sydney decision. Some Labor voters and strong supporters definitely preferred Zimmerman over Tink
Insider – I live in willoughby and the community was very shocked and pissed off last year when popular moderate former mayor Gail Giles Gidney was beaten in Liberal pre-selection by a right faction man who didn’t live in the area. Plus there is genuine rage over the savaging of Cammeray Golf Course for tunnelling works.
Larissa Penn almost knocked him off at the by-election when Labor didn’t field a candidate. She could have won at the general election but left her run way too late and barely campaigned. Despite, this she still got a swing towards her. Basically gave the seat away as a decent campaign could have won it for her.
If you can see Larissa Penn’s Facebook page, at about 11am today she put out a post effectively saying that anyone who let their vote exhaust was an idiot who didn’t know what they were doing – and of course linking to Antony Greens assessment discussed above
Damien – and yet despite all this ager and shock – the Liberal candidate got >43% both time in the by election and in the general election and Penn couldn’t crack 30%. Indeed she is sinking below 27% at the moment, though perhaps this will increase on the check count.
I agree with you that she didn’t campaign across the seat – Cammeray is not Chatswood, as the booth results demonstrate.
“If Larissa Penn had been more organised, started earlier etc she would easily have won Willoughby even with OPV. Such a shame.”
It’s her *third* attempt at winning the seat. How does she not understand the basics of campaigning by now? It sounds like she was hoping to coast in on anti-Liberals protest vote without putting in much effort. Maybe she will put in a proper effort in a fourth attempt lol.
The CPV result in Kiama would be 53.95% appx after preferences, favoring Gareth Ward even more than the OPV result.
Looking at the 2023 NSW results… Liberal Primary of 12.0%, and Gareth Ward primary of 39.1% a total to equal 51.1% already. Given Ward being elected as a Liberal member in the past it would be safe to assume Liberal primaries would flow to him in large numbers. The above number is assuming a Greens split of 90:10 ALP:Liberal, and a sustainability Australia with a 50:50 preference distribution.
Neil Flanagan,
I disagree with your analysis because CPV doesn’t necessarily force people into voting for one of the majors. It forces people into voting for one of the two most preferred candidates, who can be from a minor party or be an independent. If anything, CPV may give non-major candidates slightly more of a fighting chance, because the low-effort voters who just vote 1 are more likely to have given their primary vote to a major party. After all, they are the parties that get the most primary votes overall. Major party HTV cards usually preference most non-major candidates before the other major party, unless they’re considered an extremist.
It is also probably erroneous to say that the main proponents of CPV support the two major parties. Multiple independents are in support of CPV, as are the Greens, because they believe it gives them a better chance of victory. If the 2022 federal election were conducted under CPV I fancy both the independents and the Greens would have won fewer seats. OPV has certainly cost the Greens some seats on Brisbane City Council.
I imagine that some people exhausted their vote not out of some deeply-held principle or conviction, but simply because they didn’t want to give more than a minimal level of effort to engaging with democracy. Not as apathetic to donkey vote or spoil their ballot, but not as engaged enough as to consider all options. In that case, I’m less concerned with what is most democratic and more concerned with what gives the electorate the best outcome in terms of governance for all.
If we care more about people’s right to do as they want rather than what gets the best outcome for governance, then we may as well eliminate compulsory voting too. But there are good reasons we don’t do that, firstly because it makes our politics less extreme and polarised as politicians must appeal to the common person rather than just an ideological base, and secondly because it forces people to engage somewhat with democracy where they otherwise might not do so, and in that sense it’s more democratic, even if it’s less free. Similarly to the second reason, CPV forces people to identify which options they can stand the least, which is a form of democratic engagement that they otherwise might not make.
The factual evidence you’ve seen may show that people often don’t want to reward the two major parties, but the factual evidence I’ve seen, the first preference voting results, show that at least 64% of voters do want to reward them, by giving them their first preference votes. I’m sure some of the 36% reward the major parties too, by giving them preferences while not preferencing many non-major candidates. I would rather have the final decision arrived at by everyone rather than just these people.
*if the 2022 federal election were conducted under OPV
My two cents worth,
Like Neil, I am a big fan of OPV for the simple reason that it gives Voters full control. It forces parties to show why they deserve preferences to be allocated, meaning that they do have to present a more positive view and actually give voters a reason to preference, rather than engaging in permanent negative campaigns and taking the voter to pick the lesser of two evils (eventually).
One other thing to point out is that (I believe), OPV also reduces the rate of informal voting, given that a 1st preference is all that need sto be identified for a vote to be counted as formal.
As for what happend in Willoughby, once again, we have seen Damian miss the boat as to what happened with pre-selection with Willougby and a clear mis-representation of the situation with Tim James. Damian, please go back over my entire comments with regards to Willoughby. You will find that every one of your comments has been incorrect.
Not only that but it is clear that Larissa Penn has hit her ceiling. She had two golden chances to win Willoughby, after Gladys resigned and a Liberal Government at the end of its tenure and she couldn’t win at her 3rd attempt. I suggest that she can’t go any further without some solid financial backing to do so.
I support OPV largely for the same reason I support voluntary voting – You’re a muppet if you don’t vote, but you have the right to be a muppet (so long as you don’t harm others). You’re a muppet if you insincerely vote “Just 1”, but you have the right to do so.
I do prefer OPV to CPV – I don’t think it’s ethical to reject ballot papers for not numbering every box, and requiring people to sometimes express insincere preferences. I think you could improve preference flows by changing official instructions to encourage preferencing, possibly ban some forms of blatant “just vote 1” posters, etc.
There’s an awful lot of focus on the partisan impacts of OPV vs CPV when neither system accurately translates votes into seats – I struggle to care much about tinkering around the edges of a bad system.
After looking at analyses of OPV vs CPV and what-ifs, I find one factor that’s overlooked is tactical voting. Voters may want to vote 1 only but only for a candidate that’s most likely to finish in the top two (usually it’s LNP or ALP). They may vote 1 only for various reasons – to get out of the polling booth asap, because it’s too difficult to decide who to put as no. 2, because their vote is going straight to a major party candidate or another candidate (ind/green) with a winning chance, or to protest-vote.
At NSW state elections, tactical voting is more pronounced due to OPV, but not as pronounced as in FPTP systems overseas.
If all PVs remained the same, CPV may’ve saved the Liberals in Camden and Penrith. In both contests, One Nation polled strongly and came third. In Penrith particularly, Liberals beat Labor on PVs by 0.3% and the gap between One Nation and the Greens was pretty substantial. Because One Nation voters are far more likely to exhaust, Labor won after Greens and AJP preferences.
The savings provision I suggested will guard against informal votes. But compulsory preferences is in my opinion best as opv becomes a defacto first past the post system. What has puzzled me is….in 2019 the coalition outpolled Labor by 7% and clearly benefited from opv. This time as I predicted the alp outpolled the coalition by about 2% but opv did not seem to benefit them as much as I would have hoped and as Ben suggested opv cost Labor a majority and cost the teals at least 1 seat.
Hawkeye, my point is that that the result in Willoughby could have been different with more money, strategy advice, boots on the ground and sustained brand building to capitalise on momentum and publicity following the by-election result
But I agree that she’s missed her chance. Her platform will be lost over the next 4 years. Warringah expressway won’t be a building site, harbour tunnel finished, turf laid at Cammeray golf course Labor will cancel beaches link. Anger dies down etc etc
Wilson
The truth is neither you or I really know what goes on in people’s minds when they enter the polling booth under OPV conditions. They could be truly voting how they voted, or they could be following some of the views you expressed, or they could just be muppets.
My starting point is that people are voting the way they do with deliberate intention and therefore their views should be respected whether we agree with them or not. The other two broad possibilities (your views and muppets) speak more to me of a lack of education about the voting system and what can or can’t be done (i.e. civics education). This begs the question do you throw out (what I maintain is a better and more democratic OPV system) because people don’t understand it, or do you better educate people about the system.
I am first and foremost a democrat. We are facing a decline in democratic governments and this does not happen through a big bang, but through a slow drip of hundreds of smaller actions. A dispassionate examination of the American Republic could not come to the view that America is now a fully functional democracy. It is a democracy in decline and even many conservative academics (e.g. Francis Fukuyama) have been sounding this alarm for a number of years and the causes pre-date Trump.
Thus I find your statement that “I’m less concerned with what is most democratic and more concerned with what gives the electorate the best outcome in terms of governance for all” quite insightful into your thinking, but scary. How do you determine what is the “best outcome”? That is a subjective and possibly biased opinion, based in the belief that ONLY good governance can come from one of the two major parties and I am pretty sure there will be strong disagreement between the two major camps as to which “team” provides the “best outcome”. Have we ever had a situation where we HAVEN’T had at least one of the major two parties in power to make a valid comparison of what good / better governance might have looked like? Even if this possible alternative turned bad, I am pretty sure the good voters will take the appropriate action at the next election – that is the nature of democracy.
I for one was hoping very strongly that the Teals would have gotten the balance of power at the last election, because I think there is a lot more democratic reform that needs to be enacted. Now they may have turned into a complete disaster, but there has been many a times in the past where I REALLY resented giving a number to either of the major two parties, but to cast a valid vote and not be a muppet, I was FORCED to do so. That to me is NOT democracy.
Wilson
To go to your specific points.
“It forces people into voting for one of the two most preferred candidates, who can be from a minor party or be an independent.” But what if I DON’T want to give my vote to certain candidates? There may be some candidates that actually sickens me as to what they are standing for, but under CVP I am forced to put a number against their name. Imagine being a Holocaust survivor and being forced to give a vote, no matter how low down the list, to a Holocaust denier (and there were a few standing at the last Federal election). It should be my right to deny a number to anyone whose views I find abhorrent, for whatever reason.
“It is also probably erroneous to say that the main proponents of CPV support the two major parties.” I could go along with this to a certain extent, but I think it is a matter of magnitude. Yes independents and Greens do benefit from CPV. But I would also argue that the two major parties have become fat, lazy and complacent knowing that they just need to sit back and eventually the votes will flow their way. I think you have your last two sentences in this paragraph back to front – The Federal election was CPV and the Queensland Local Government elections were also CPV.
“I imagine that some people exhausted their vote not out of some deeply-held principle or conviction, but simply because they didn’t want to give more than a minimal level of effort to engaging with democracy.” As mentioned in my previous post, neither of us know what goes in in people’s minds when they step into the ballot box – it is an unprovable proposition. Lots of views and stories, but no way to prove it conclusively.
“If we care more about people’s right to do as they want rather than what gets the best outcome for governance, then we may as well eliminate compulsory voting too.” I have osculated between compulsory and non-compulsory voting for a number of decades. I have always landed on the compulsory side, more for negating the likely unintentional consequences. But to be true to myself, non-compulsory voting is the ultimate form of democracy – choosing not to vote for whatever reason. I am also not certain that “CPV forces people to identify which options they can stand the least”. People are disengaged from politics for hundreds of different reasons. I don’t believe that CPV will magically make them engaged – just listen to the hundreds of vox populi on various media around election time – this is not the expression of people engaged in the political process.
“The factual evidence you’ve seen may show that people often don’t want to reward the two major parties, but the factual evidence I’ve seen, the first preference voting results, show that at least 64% of voters do want to reward them, by giving them their first preference votes.” You are just playing with numbers here.
I just have to comment on one of Neil’s points. Australia does not have compulsory voting. You can have yourself taken off the electoral role if you do not wish to vote and in fact getting onto the electoral role in the first place is opt-in and not automatic. Secondly, even if you are on the roll, you are still not required to vote. All you are required to do is to turn up at a polling station and have your name crossed off. What you do with the voting form after that is up to you. Filling in the voting form and putting it in the box is 100% optional.
That aside, I 100% agree with your reasons against CPV. There are many scenarios in which the thought of giving a preference, no matter how distant, to one or more candidates may be morally objectionable. OPV can make the difference between being able to vote at all or not if you can’t bring yourself to give a preference to someone (or some party) you strongly object to. Even a situation as simple as being politically opposed to one major party and disgusted at the behavior of the other to the point of being strongly unwilling to even preference them. With CPV your only option is to informal vote, whilst with OPV you can vote for such candidates you are willing to vote for. OPV allows you to vote for the candidates you would like to vote for and also effectively vote against (by not preferencing) those candidates & parties you do not want to vote for.
“The truth is neither you or I really know what goes on in people’s minds when they enter the polling booth under OPV conditions.”
This is true to an extent but I think there is strong reason to think that some people exhaust out of a deeply held principle, others do it out of a deliberate strategic decision to withhold a preference from someone they do prefer to the alternative (legitimate IMO), but some others just don’t bother to mark preferences because they aren’t encouraged to do so. There’s plenty of evidence – look at the 2PP in the seat of Sydney.
“I’m less concerned with what is most democratic and more concerned with what gives the electorate the best outcome in terms of governance for all”
If we want to accurately represent what voters want, we should use PR. So much attention is paid to ensuring that the two big parties get treated fairly while ignoring that the whole system is unfair.
Ben
I will start by saying I am not a psephologist, so I often think this is the wrong site for me to post comments on, because most commentators here are looking purely at the numbers. While I am interested in the analysis provided on this site, I am more interested in the democratic and policy sides of politics. So I find that these two views don’t always intersect neatly.
That said, I think your comment reinforces my point. There is no way to objectively test why people vote the way they do, unless you ask and categorised each and every voter’s reasoning to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to why they vote the way they do. You offered three possibilities and I have done all three and I can think of many other reasons why I chose to vote different ways in different elections. For me it is always a matter of the context surrounding the election at that time and the choices I am being offered. So my voting method will vary accordingly in each election and at each level of government and whether I am being offered OPV or not.
Long time reader, first time poster. Thanks for your article, Ben.
It’s surprising to me that you and some others here favour OPV, as I much prefer CPV due to it being more democratic than OPV. (I also support PR, but that’s another topic…)
The best outcome in NSW would be Mick’s suggestion for CPV plus a savings mechanism.
My argument for CPV is also informed by hundreds of door knocking conversations:
1. Citizens have both rights and responsibilities, and Australian citizens have a responsibility to vote (or at least to turn up). This responsibility should extend to forming an opinion of preferences between all the candidates, to ensure that every formal voter has an influence in determining the final outcome. Numbering all the boxes could be considered a civic duty in NSW, as this is already the case federally.
2. While civic education can always be improved, voting systems must be clear and consistent. NSW is the only state with OPV, and this appears to be a source of continual confusion for NSW voters between state and federal elections. The solution to this inconsistency is for NSW to change to CPV.
3. Voting systems must also be intuitive. CPV meets this requirement because all candidates (even the most abhorrent) can be ranked. OPV fails this requirement, because it misleads voters into thinking that an exhausted vote is neutral to all candidates who the voter chose not to number – but this is wrong! An exhausted vote favours the leading candidate by lowering the threshold of final votes. It is a big problem that many NSW voters don’t know about this core function of OPV.
4. OPV leads to a terrible distraction upon voting *strategy*, especially since all candidates and voters should be focused on *policy*. This was evident in the last NSW election, where the Liberals’ “just vote 1” suggestions contrasted with the Independents’ “number every box”. It is ridiculous that competing candidates would need to spend precious time and money arguing about preferencing strategies. It is especially abhorrent that the Liberal’s message was targeted at non-Liberal voters, and that they mimicked official election signage. CPV would remove voting strategy as a point of contention, enabling candidates and voters to focus on what really matters.
5. It is important to capture a voter’s intent as accurately as possible. Any argument against CPV due to the risk of invalid votes rising needs to take into account;
A) The suggestion for a savings mechanism, and
B) The (unknown) proportion of votes under OPV that unwittingly exhaust. I have spoken to several minor party voters who genuinely thought that if they voted 1 for their minor party, then that party would distribute their preferences on the voter’s behalf. These people all erroneously thought that their vote would influence the final outcome.
Ultimately, CPV has a much clearer alignment between voters’ intentions and the final outcome, ensuring that every elected representative has the preference of over 50% of the electorate. The same cannot be said for OPV.
David
In the case of a morally objectionable candidate, let’s recognise that your right to avoid voting for someone competes with someone else’s right to stand for election (assuming they have met election nomination requirements).
In CPV, of course you should put the most objectionable candidates last, especially with the knowledge that this is bottom placement is equivalent to choosing not voting for those candidates in OPV.
Besides, in many circumstances, a candidate is morally objectionable to some will be unlikely to attract many votes. Instead of choosing our voting system around eliminating the worst candidates, our voting system should be refined to maximise the democratic selection between the most preferred candidates – which places CPV over OPV.
Also, you have said:
“OPV allows you to vote for the candidates you would like to vote for and also effectively vote against (by not preferencing) those candidates & parties you do not want to vote for.”
This is not quite correct, because OPV is misleading you into thinking that you have voted equally against all parties that you didn’t number. But if you didn’t number either of the top two candidates, then you have, in effect, preferenced the leading candidate.
I would argue that a significant majority of people whose votes are exhausted are unaware that they have favoured the leading candidate, and that this is a flaw in our democracy in NSW.
Peter, I’ll give an example to make things clearer. One’s electorate has 4 candidates, ON, Greens, Liberal and ALP. A strongly left leaning voter would not want their vote, even with preferences, go to either ON or the Libs, but the left leaning voter is reluctant to vote for the ALP at this election due to the ALP’s soft stance on gambling and the party’s pro-coal stance. Under an OPV system that voter could vote for the Green’s candidate with no preferences (choosing to have their vote extinguish after that). One could propose a similar example for a strongly right leaning voter. In either case under a CPV the voter would be forced to either give their eventual preference to a party they did not want to win or they are forced to make an informal vote.
And as for OPV being a flaw in democracy, there is no such thing as a perfect democratic system. Every single one, known and yet to be devised, will have flaws. IMO the flaws of OPV are far outweighed by those of CPV.
As for a morally objectionable candidate unlikely to attract many votes, I refer you to Kiama. And that is by no means not the only case. There are however many candidates that only a minority of voters would find morally objectionable. A typical ON voter would likely find the prospect of voting for either the ALP, the Liberals (let alone any left party) to be morally objectionable. Not a majority view but still a valid view.
In an election quite a few decades ago I faced the choice of an independent, a dodgy used car salesman who did not live in the electorate and a candidate fighting a sexual assault charge. Under OPV one could vote for the independent and neither of the other two candidates, under the CPV one was forced to vote for one of those unpalatable candidates. I was forced to vote informal.
David, you’re right that there is no perfect system, and it is true that we don’t always get great or even good candidates to choose from. However, we can only choose between those who have put themselves forward for nomination.
Your theoretical example has a series of competing policy interests to evaluate, and the the real example in Kiama has a series of competing rights to respect. Democracy is messy.
The least that a voter can do – once every 3-4 years – is to make a judgement on who is most and least preferred. (And they are welcome to defer to their #1 candidate’s how to vote recommendation to find appropriate numbers for each box).
Besides, if we can do this for a federal election, then shouldn’t we be able to do it for a state election too?
Given the imperfections of the system and of the candidates, voters need to make some judgement calls using CPV – whether that’s…
1. a best-effort formal vote,
2. an informal vote,
3. or another action that improves the quality of the choices available:
3A. lobby a candidate to improve their policy,
3B. discuss with your community to see if you would all like to find someone better, or
3C. nominate to run yourself!
Democracy isn’t a spectator sport, after all.
While I recognise that you like OPV due to its focus on avoiding the worst candidate choices, wouldn’t it be better to move to CPV since it optimises the electorate’s best (most preferred) candidate choice?
In a one word answer .. no. 🙂
Peter
We will have to agree to disagree, but I am not convinced by your arguments. We are both putting more weight on very different matters.
I think your starting proposition is that 100% of the voting public is / should be engaged in the political process and they SHOULD take the time to engage in the policies and make rational choices. Having also spent a lot of time engaged with the public in policy matters (not politics) I can draw on my own experience (granted, not a big representative sample) and say that humans are often a ball of emotions held together by skin. I take my voting very seriously and I spend the time to look at policies and all candidates to make my choice, but I suspect that I would represent at best 0.5% of the voting public who go to this level. A general rule of thumb for me is that 85% of the population are “rusted on” voters who vote the way their party tells them. The rest of the 15% are the true swinging voters and often their decision is based on “gut” rather than analysis. Now I am not naive enough to think that everyone should do as I do – that is crazy – we are dealing with humans here with all their peculiarities.
I have already outlined my reasons why I think OPV is better and as I said at the beginning, I don’t think I would persuade you over to my side. c’est la vie.
I would make one other point. I could go along with CPV IF we had the option of equally numbering all the other candidates we don’t want with the same preference number. For example in a field of 6, you may have your clear cut first and second preferred candidates (1 & 2 on your ballot), but all the rest you don’t want for whatever reason, you would equally number them as 3 and effectively extinguishing your preferences after 2. This USED to be a valid option a few years ago. I am a bit shady on the details, but my recollection is both major parties jointly supported amendments to the relevant legislation to outlaw this previously valid option. Another rule of thumb I have is when BOTH major parties support legislation then it is usually – defence related, or IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS of maintaining the status quo of power sharing. If we continue on with CPV we will ONLY ultimately ever get to tweedledum or tweedledee, mainly because the voting public are conditioned to believe that there is only one of two ways.
My suggestion cpv with a savings provision based on voter intention.
I would not outlaw a 1 23444. Type vote
If people wish to do that they can.
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your arguments. I note that you’ve previously stated that your primary interest is as a democrat, an interest which I wholeheartedly share. Where we differ appears to that you prioritise the rights of the individual voter to have the utmost choice to express themselves as much or as little as they like, whereas I prioritise the rights of all the voters to have the utmost influence in a preferential outcome.
Yes, not everyone will ever be politically engaged, and that’s fine. Nevertheless, CPV *encourages* better engagement because it asks voters to form an opinion to number all the boxes. Conversely, OPV provides an easy-out for disengaged voters. My biggest problem with OPV is that although the engaged voters have more choice, the disengaged voters are more easily disenfranchised when they “just vote 1” for non-major party candidates without realising that their exhausted vote helps the top-ranked candidate get elected.
Yes, voting is emotive, so it’s worth asking, what emotive question is the voter being asked? CPV asks “who do you have the most and the least amount of confidence in?”, making it a race for majority support. OPV asks “who do you like the best?”, making it more of a race for first preferences (since fewer leading candidates are ever caught in OPV).
It’s good to consider other options. CPV with a savings mechanism could allow your 6-candidate voting example of 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 to be recorded as a formal vote that effectively exhausts at 3, because your intent was clear to preference candidates 1 and 2.
“Another rule of thumb I have is when BOTH major parties support legislation then it is usually … maintaining the status quo of power sharing.”
Agreed. And another example might include OPV in NSW, which appears to be in a bi-partisan position between the major parties to keep it, because it’s in their interests to maintain the duopoly.
However…
“If we continue on with CPV we will ONLY ultimately ever get to tweedledum or tweedledee, mainly because the voting public are conditioned to believe that there is only one of two ways.”
With respect, that’s not an accurate conclusion to draw.
CPV does not favour the major parties. It is relatively equal to all candidates despite their different positions after first preferences. It makes the “tweedles” easier to overcome if they haven’t been able to maintain the confidence of the voters.
OPV does favour the major parties. The existing majors are more well known and well resourced than the new challengers, so it is easier for either major party to land in top spot, where OPV makes them harder to beat. This helps to maintain the dominance of the “tweedles”.
Yes, the public has previously been conditioned to only ever expect a major party outcome, one way or the other… But the ongoing trend away from the major parties at federal level is evidence that more people are realising that the alternatives to the major parties are viable in getting elected and effective in making change.
CPV – along with mandatory voting – has been a positive influence in reducing the democratic deficit. It helps bring the composition of the parliament closer to the collective will of the Australian people.
As you can see, I doubt I could be convinced about OPV, so I agree to disagree if you like.
I’m also interested in Ben’s consideration of these ideas, in case he might be somewhat swayed?
Peter
We will only end up going backward and forwards on this issue, but I do have to question your statement that you “prioritise the rights of all the voters to have the utmost influence in a preferential outcome”.
How do you, I or anybody else, other than the voter, know what is their preferential outcome? Some people are quite happy to stop at one and that is as far as they want to go. Shouldn’t they have the right to do this if that is their view and choice. The CVP perspective seem to think that most OPVers are somehow deficient and misguided in how they intended to vote. Some would be, but many others know exactly what they are doing and that is how they wish to vote – why should we force them to do otherwise? I could make the same generalisation about people who simply follow a “how to vote” ticket from their party of choice – are they better engaged in forming an opinion to number all the boxes? Does either example provide sufficient justification to take away their right of voting how they chose to vote? Personally I don’t think so.
I will always argue for what I think is the best democratic solution (i.e. maximising personal freedom and choice). Again I worked in a field where I know perfectly well that we live in a grey world and there is almost never black or white solutions – there is ALWAYS arguments for and against the proposal under consideration. However, decision makers eventually have to make a choice between many conflicting and different points of views. In this case, I just think OPV maximises democratic choice and that is where my preference and weightage lies. Personally I think there are a lot of things that would benefit from an independent (non-parliamentary) Democracy Audit to make a final determination and the outcomes of which should be enacted in legislation that can not be amended unless it has a super majority support across both houses of parliament.
Hi Neil,
“How do you, I or anybody else, other than the voter, know what is their preferential outcome?”
As I have said above, we don’t know what everyone’s preferences are, but we do know that many people misunderstand how OPV works. They assume that their vote cannot go to ANY of the candidates they didn’t number – i.e. that all un-numbered candidates are equally excluded.
But that’s not right. Their exhausted vote directly helps the candidate leading on first preferences by lowering the threshold required to win.
This means that OPV misleads people, because their vote actively helps one of the candidates – a candidate who the voter expressed zero support for.
Ironically, we’re both arguing for what we see as the most democratic outcome. We should also note that democracy isn’t binary – it can be stronger or weaker depending on how it’s set up. Some voting systems are more democratic than others. I would argue CPV is more democratic than OPV, because it ensures that each candidate has majority support.
I too would love to see an independent inquiry. Or, perhaps this would be a good issue for a Citizens’ Assembly, with a consensus model to find agreement?
It already appears that CPV with a savings mechanism could satisfy us both. This would ask voters to fully express their preferences for the candidates, while still enabling those who are absolutely determined to exhaust their vote to do so.
Comments are closed.