Election stuffup

[Discomark]

Thought i'd vote early so I could take advantage of the good weather and head out bush.
Just realised I voted for the Liberal democrats rather than the Liberal party as the first box on the big white sheet is Liberal Democrats. Must say I know as much about politics as I do about Cricket but apparently many many other voters have already made the same mistake in NSW. So careful which box you tick.
Cluey Voter: Step 1 of voting below the line: Order groups (http://www.clueyvoter.com/order-groups/?election=au-nsw-2013-09-07)

[FeatherWeightDriver]

I had a double take when I voted tonight as well, the real Liberals are buried in the middle of the bed sheet.

[Chucaro]

Are the preferences going to the HEMP party? :D

[mikehzz]

I have to say that I was expecting better from the Sex Party. My hopes were high until I read their policies. It's false advertising to be a Sex Party but have your main policies about drugs and euthanasia. Should be Dull Party?

[101RRS]

I see the AEC gave out NSW Senate voting sheets instead of the Qld Senate voting sheets for pre-poll voting in the FNQ seat of Leichardt and it was not picked up for a while.

[Pickles2]

Liberal Democrats?...Never heard of them...what do they stand for?
Cheers, Pickles.

[FeatherWeightDriver]

I have to say that I was expecting better from the Sex Party. My hopes were high until I read their policies. It's false advertising to be a Sex Party but have your main policies about drugs and euthanasia. Should be Dull Party?

They do know how to make a good ad though. (safe for work, lots of bleeps!)

Australian Sex Party Campaign Ad 2013 - YouTube

[THE BOOGER]

Liberal Democrats?...Never heard of them...what do they stand for?
Cheers, Pickles.

I just looked them up hadn't heard of them either:o

Liberal Democratic Party (http://ldp.org.au/)

[weeds]

I see the AEC gave out NSW Senate voting sheets instead of the Qld Senate voting sheets for pre-poll voting in the FNQ seat of Leichardt and it was not picked up for a while.

that just show how many people don't even know the names of their local member........

[waz]

I believe they are further to the right than LNP, or SFP.

Big on individual freedom and responsibility, and limiting government interference.

I think that they are linked to ORP in some way too. I think there is some sneaky deal where they are run by the same people and preference each other.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Nothing wrong with wearing out a couple of pencils and voting below the line. Then there are no preference deals.

Unfortunately polling stations are only open for the day, so you probably don't have time to vote below the line, even if you arrive before the polls open.

Diana

[Judo]

Nothing wrong with wearing out a couple of pencils and voting below the line. Then there are no preference deals.

Unfortunately polling stations are only open for the day, so you probably don't have time to vote below the line, even if you arrive before the polls open.

Diana
:lol2:

Have you seen this site?

belowtheline.org.au

Drag and drop to reorder everything, then take a print out with you. The printout will match the ballot order, but tell you what numbers to write down (if that makes sense). Very easy if you wish to vote below the line.

Useful tip - you can vote both above and below the line. Below takes priority, but if you make a mistake they will take above the line.

[Chucaro]

Nothing wrong with wearing out a couple of pencils and voting below the line. Then there are no preference deals.

Unfortunately polling stations are only open for the day, so you probably don't have time to vote below the line, even if you arrive before the polls open.

Diana

Voting bellow the line is how I have done today and in every election since 1974. I dictate my preferences not the politicians :)

[Davo]

I couldn't believe it - the white sheet was about a metre long this time! All that was missing was that it wasn't absorbent paper and then we'd be all set.

[isuzurover]

Thought i'd vote early so I could take advantage of the good weather and head out bush.
Just realised I voted for the Liberal democrats rather than the Liberal party as the first box on the big white sheet is Liberal Democrats. Must say I know as much about politics as I do about Cricket but apparently many many other voters have already made the same mistake in NSW. So careful which box you tick.
Cluey Voter: Step 1 of voting below the line: Order groups (http://www.clueyvoter.com/order-groups/?election=au-nsw-2013-09-07)

Looks like there were a lot of people in the same boat as you...




NSW sends pro-gun Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm to Senate
By state political reporter Liz Foschia and Mhairi McClymont


David Leyonhjelm Photo: NSW Liberal Democrat Senator-elect David Leyonhjelm (Supplied: baronsp.com)


The man elected to take one of six Senate seats in New South Wales says allowing the general public to carry weapons is one way of curbing gun crime in western Sydney.

Voters in New South Wales have chosen Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm for the Senate after the party appeared in the top left hand corner of ballot papers.

The seldom-mentioned party gained 8.89 per cent of the initial vote allocation, ahead of the Greens' 7.77 per cent.

The party, which believes in social libertarianism, a free market economy and small government now joins a key group of minor party and independent senators set to hold the balance of power after July next year.

David Leyonhjelm is a former vet who runs an agribusiness consulting company in Sydney.

His biography says he has been a member of Young Labor, the Liberals and the Shooters Party since getting into politics in the early 1970's.

He left the Liberals because of John Howard's crackdown on guns following the Port Arthur Massacre, describing it as "a disgraceful attack on law-abiding citizens."
Would allowing the public to carry weapons curb gun crime? Have your say.

He also says it is an "objective fact" that the Sandy Hook school massacre in the United States could have been avoided if teachers had been armed.

Mr Leyonhjelm says a new approach is needed to help tackle the spate of shootings in Sydney.

"What happens is that criminals don't know who's carrying a gun and they're very wary of using a gun themselves because they don't know who's going to shoot back at them," he said.

"In actual fact it's a massive deterrent. You don't make a safer society by taking the guns off the good guys and leaving the bad guys to have the guns."

Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos says he does not believe Tony Abbott will water down gun laws.

"I think if Tony Abbott were answering this question he would say we are not going to water down what we have done on gun laws, certainly not on the gun laws after Port Arthur," he said

"He's made it clear, and certainly in fact we have certain commitments how we stop the importation of guns to try and deal directly with the sort of problems the Liberal Democrat was talking about."


Votes gained in error

Mr Leyonhjelm accepts his party probably gained votes in error, with voters thinking they were choosing the Liberals.

The name has been raised as an issue before - in 2007 the Liberal Party objected and they ran as the Liberty and Democracy Party.

Mr Leyonhjelm the massively-long NSW senate ballot paper may also have pushed votes to the Liberal Democrats.
NSW sends pro-gun Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm to Senate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/nsw-sends-liberal-democrat-to-senate/4945080)

[Judo]

Awesome. :(

[Judo]

It's always a worry when people can get elected in error...

To be honest, it seems like the party name should not be allowed. It's a clear conflict with the Librals if you ask me. This just proves it.

[Chucaro]

I do not like David Leyonhjelm at all, I cannot understand why the people voted for him :(
I hope that for the next election they change the name of the party to The Red Neck Party :mad:

[vnx205]

I do not like David Leyonhjelm at all, I cannot understand why the people voted for him :(

I don't think many people actually voted for him. They simply ticked the box above the line for the party. in some cases they may have ticked that box because it was the first one, but the evidence seems pretty clear that a significant number voted for that party because of the confusion about the name.

So the answer to the question of why so many people voted for David Leyonhjelm is that they didn't vote for him.

I hope that for the next election they change the name of the party to The Red Neck Party :mad:

:D :D

[waz]

I do not like David Leyonhjelm at all, I cannot understand why the people voted for him :(
I hope that for the next election they change the name of the party to The Red Neck Party :mad:

I don't particularly like him either, and I sure as heck didn't vote for them. But why the Red Neck Party? Is it because they support marriage equality? Is it because they want to legalise marijuana? Or is it just because they believe in an individual right to self-defence? What is your definition of a Redneck?

[Davo]

I'd comment further on this, but I'm just on my way out to register the Liberal Labor National Greens party that I'm starting up for next time.

[disco2hse]

This is an interesting twist:

Australia's Ricky Muir | Kangaroo Poo Video | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/9143892/Aussie-politician-in-faeces-throwing-row)

"Voters in Victoria will likely be represented in Canberra's upper house come July by Ricky Muir, of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party"

[disco2hse]

I'd comment further on this, but I'm just on my way out to register the Liberal Labor National Greens party that I'm starting up for next time.

That'll be the party that despises the National Green Labour Liberals, right? :D

[isuzurover]

When two senate candidates can get elected with only 0.22% and 0.53% of the primary vote, I think that is a sign that the senate voting system needs reform...

A couple of options:
1. First past the post voting in the senate
2. Only candidates/parties with an elected representative in the lower house can nominate candidates for the senate (currently that would be Nats / Libs (LNP) / Labor / Greens / KAP / PUP / Wilkie)

[Davo]

That'll be the party that despises the National Green Labour Liberals, right? :D

Mortal enemies, dammit!

[vnx205]

I know a lot of people get all bent out of shape when preferential voting doesn't produce the result they want, but it could be argued that first past the post disenfranchises anyone who doesn't put one of the popular candidates at the top of their list.

Imagine a vote for the best 4WD was as follows with the top two to be announced. First preferences are:
Land Cruiser 11
Defender 10
Hilux 9
Disco 8
RAV4 7

All the RAV4 voters have Disco as second preference, so numbers become:
Land Cruiser 11
Disco 15
Defender 10
Hilux 9

All Hilux voters have Defender as second choice, so numbers become:
Defender 19
Disco 15
Land Cruiser 11

So the vote for the best two selects the Defender and the Disco.

If first past the post voting is used, then anyone who votes for the Hilux, Disco or RAV4 as number 1 has no say at all in the outcome. Surely having the Disco or the Defender as second choice indicates a desire to have one of them as one of the top two.

[Ferret]

2. Only candidates/parties with an elected representative in the lower house can nominate candidates for the senate (currently that would be Nats / Libs (LNP) / Labor / Greens / KAP / PUP / Wilkie)

So what happens to people like Xenophon? Probably gained more direct votes than the entire candidates of most of these major parties.

But yeah, the preference voting system in the senate is broken and needs fixing. Shouldn't involve disqualifying people though just because they have no party affiliation in the lower house.

[incisor]

But yeah, the preference voting system in the senate is broken and needs fixing.

please explain?

[incisor]

When two senate candidates can get elected with only 0.22% and 0.53% of the primary vote, I think that is a sign that the senate voting system needs reform...

imho it is only partially broken

i think what needs changing is that political parties can declare preferences.

ie is, there is an above the line section.

the top of the paper needs scraping and it should be that people have to mark a minimum of 1 to 10 from the list of those on the ballot paper. if they mark more, then the better be it...

but with an all time record donkey vote, any reform could end up anywhere.

the idea that a lower house mandate should negate the upper houses role as a house of review is folly.

it is a house of review, to make sure the lower house can prove that what they are doing is of value and viable.

qld is the perfect example of what happens when it is abolished.

[one_iota]

My simple view:

Exercising one's democratic right by voting also requires taking the responsibility that attends that right.

In the case of the Senate if there are 110 candidates (NSW) then you have the choice either to pick one grouping above the line and let the preferences cascade from there or choose each and every one below the line.

If you choose to vote above the line then you should do so knowing how those preferences are likely to be distributed. There are resources available to inform that decision such as Crikey or belowtheline.com with links to each aspirant's "policies".

If you don't like the way the cookie will crumble you can choose to vote below the line and then those resources will inform your choice and you will then fully exercise your rights.

There can be no excuse. It takes time before you vote to understand what it is that you are doing. If you don't do your home work then you will get what you didn't want.

As Inc say's the Senate is what makes our system work.

The only criticism I have is struggling with a 100cm piece of paper in a 45cm cardboard cubicle in a dimly lit hall numbering 1 to 110 with a blunt HB pencil tied to a short bit of string.:p

[Ferret]

please explain?

A person gets 1900 direct votes and gets elected. You can't tell some one who gets 1900 votes nationally represents anybodies compromise choice if they can't get their own first choice across the line.

[wrinklearthur]

Try this, Tasmania's Hare-Clark Electoral System.

Tasmanian Electoral Commission (http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/ElectoralInformation/HareClark.html)
.

[Chucaro]

My simple view:

Exercising one's democratic right by voting also requires taking the responsibility that attends that right.

In the case of the Senate if there are 110 candidates (NSW) then you have the choice either to pick one grouping above the line and let the preferences cascade from there or choose each and every one below the line.

If you choose to vote above the line then you should do so knowing how those preferences are likely to be distributed. There are resources available to inform that decision such as Crikey or belowtheline.com with links to each aspirant's "policies".

If you don't like the way the cookie will crumble you can choose to vote below the line and then those resources will inform your choice and you will then fully exercise your rights.

There can be no excuse. It takes time before you vote to understand what it is that you are doing. If you don't do your home work then you will get what you didn't want.

As Inc say's the Senate is what makes our system work.

The only criticism I have is struggling with a 100cm piece of paper in a 45cm cardboard cubicle in a dimly lit hall numbering 1 to 110 with a blunt HB pencil tied to a short bit of string.:p

I share your view 100%, I always select my preferences by voting bellow the line.
It takes only 5 minutes or less to fill the paper and then your wright it is protected.

[isuzurover]

I know a lot of people get all bent out of shape when preferential voting doesn't produce the result they want, but it could be argued that first past the post disenfranchises anyone who doesn't put one of the popular candidates at the top of their list.


I think preferential voting clearly works in the lower house.

But clearly not in the senate where almost nobody bothers voting below the line.

Explain why you think these results make sense:
in WA



Party / votes / &
Liberal 0 340,816 39.50% 2.7647
Australian Labor Party 0 232,861 26.99% 1.8890
The Greens (WA) 0 85,782 9.94% 0.6958
Palmer United Party 0 45,213 5.24% 0.3667
The Nationals 0 37,140 4.30% 0.3012
Liberal Democrats 0 29,538 3.42% 0.2396
Australian Christians 0 14,037 1.63% 0.1138
Sex Party 0 12,376 1.43% 0.1003
Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party 0 8,864 1.03% 0.0719
Shooters and Fishers 0 7,920 0.92% 0.0642
The Wikileaks Party 0 6,127 0.71% 0.0497
Animal Justice Party 0 6,080 0.70% 0.0493
Smokers Rights 0 5,656 0.66% 0.0458
Family First Party 0 5,389 0.62% 0.0437
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party 0 4,856 0.56% 0.0393
Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party 0 3,107 0.36% 0.0252
Australian Democrats 0 2,510 0.29% 0.0203
Rise Up Australia Party 0 2,467 0.29% 0.0200
Australian Independents 0 2,451 0.28% 0.0198
Katter's Australian Party 0 2,099 0.24% 0.0170
Australian Sports Party 0 1,908 0.22% 0.0154

But elected will be:

1 David JOHNSTON Liberal Party
2 Joe BULLOCK Australian Labor Party
3 Michaelia CASH Liberal Party
4 Linda REYNOLDS Liberal Party
5 Wayne DROPULICH Australian Sports Party
6 Scott LUDLAM Australian Greens

Note that the ASP party was one of the lowest on the list and only got 1908 unique votes! Yet they end up getting a seat before the greens, which got the 3rd highest number of primary votes...

I think FPTP voting makes clear sense in the senate.

[Chucaro]

I think preferential voting clearly works in the lower house.

But clearly not in the senate where almost nobody bothers voting below the line.
................

That is not a problem of the system it is that the people do not care or do not bother to be informed.
IMO if something have to be change is eliminating the option of voting over the line.
The other improvement should be provision to vote for a second person in case that a senator resign.

[vnx205]

The phenomenon of the ASP being elected ahead of the Greens is not indicative of a problem with preferential voting. Obviously the ASP received a lot of second or third preferences from the votes of other people whose first choice candidate was unsuccessful.

The problem is not with preferential voting. The problem in this case, (if you consider that there is a problem) is the lack of transparency about preference deals.

If the information was available about preference deals and if people knew where the preferences would flow, then there would be no grounds for complaint. If people are unhappy about where the parties have organised for their preferences to flow, then they can direct preferences in the way they would prefer by voting below the line.

Rejecting the whole system of preferential voting because someone has legitimately manipulated things to achieve an unexpected result smacks of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

There are ways to reduce the likelihood of results like the election of candidates like the ASP without taking away from people the right to have some influence on the final result if their first choice is unsuccessful.

[isuzurover]

...

If the information was available about preference deals and if people knew where the preferences would flow, then there would be no grounds for complaint. If people are unhappy about where the parties have organised for their preferences to flow, then they can direct preferences in the way they would prefer by voting below the line.

...

That is all well and good, however the information is of course available (all parties must publish their group voting tickets). Most people vote above the line, but I am sure most people who helped the ASP get elected would not be happy that their preferences went to the ASP.

[vnx205]

That is all well and good, however the information is of course available (all parties must publish their group voting tickets). Most people vote above the line, but I am sure most people who helped the ASP get elected would not be happy that their preferences went to the ASP.

That's true.

I do realise that I am describing a rather utopian system where all voters take the trouble to educate themselves and take their democratic responsibilities seriously.

EDIT
Actually people should not be surprised that we now have some senators from micro-parties. In the week before the election, in both the print and electronic media, there was some information about deals between micro-party candidates and a prediction that it could lead to the election of candidates with quite a low first preference vote.

So we were warned!

[wrinklearthur]

I voted above the line, why?

I only wanted to vote for my party of choice.

To go below the line, I would have felt embarrassed to spend all the time to fill out that huge clumsy inept form, then on the point of the preferences being not disclosed, to find out that I had inadvertently supported a party that I hated would cause me no end of personal grief.

Electronic voting setup at the polling booths is a move in the right direction along with proving who you are by showing some suitable Id, if a one off ID is sent to the registered voter, that would be the key for that voter's security.

Just how many people have been sent a 'please explain' after an election? Because some identity thief has used their name in other booths to vote multiple times, maybe a person with a vendetta .

It's too easy for a imposter to answer 'No' when asked, 'Have you voted before in THIS election?'.
.

[TonyC]

I voted above the line, why?

I only wanted to vote for my party of choice.

To go below the line, I would have felt embarrassed to spend all the time to fill out that huge clumsy inept form, then on the point of the preferences being not disclosed, to find out that I had inadvertently supported a party that I hated would cause me no end of personal grief.


.

Hi Arthur,
The problem with voting above the line is that it has achieved the opposite of what you want.
The ONLY way to direct preferences that YOU want is to do your homework before going to the polling booth and then vote below the line.

Have a look at this site.
Below The Line (http://belowtheline.org.au/)
Put in your electorate then select your senate choice and see who you really voted for.
I hope this does not cause you to much grief.

Tony

[Davehoos]

each year I vote bellow the line-this year I voted in hospital -as the volenteers wondered around are impartial they offered no advise.
I decided to vote this way as it would give me time-but-was unable to pick issues that made sence that deserved my vote.

[incisor]

this is a discussion of process

leave the party political comments out of it please

[isuzurover]

I voted above the line, why?

I only wanted to vote for my party of choice.

... to find out that I had inadvertently supported a party that I hated would cause me no end of personal grief.



Not picking on you personally Arthur, but this demonstrates the lack of understanding about senate voting that most of the public share. By voting above the line you may have suported a party you didn't know or like.

I was also at a party on election night and most people in the room (though all highly intelligent professionals) were not aware that only half the senate is elected each federal election.

[waz]

This was the first year I have voted above the line; but only because I had done the research and was comfortable with where that party was directing their preferences.

[sam_d]

This is the third Federal election I have been in Australia for but the first I have been eligible (got my citizenship early last year). I voted below the line and yes, it took bloody ages, but at least I knew where my preferences were going.

I spent a bit of time researching the parties (okay, not all of them but some you know about already and some give you enough of an idea based on their name!) so that I didn't end up just unthinkingly ticking a box.

Sure, voting below the line and researching the parties does take longer than just a dumb tick in a box above the line but it's only once every 3 years and that 'Below the line' web site helps a lot. I printed out my dummy sheet from the website and took it with me to make it easier.

The only thing that did cause me problems was having to order some of the parties right at the bottom of my preferences list - I wanted to put so many of them last!

[Ferret]

This might turn out to be interesting. David Leyonhjelm of the LDP appears to control 4 of the micro political parties listed on the senate ballot sheet.

Revealed: the libertarian Right’s micro-party links (http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/22/revealed-the-libertarian-rights-micro-party-links/)


Are right-wing micro-parties merely dummies to funnel votes to each other? Crikey catches them out breaching electoral laws. Now the AEC is investigating.

[Judo]

This is the third Federal election I have been in Australia for but the first I have been eligible (got my citizenship early last year). I voted below the line and yes, it took bloody ages, but at least I knew where my preferences were going.

I spent a bit of time researching the parties (okay, not all of them but some you know about already and some give you enough of an idea based on their name!) so that I didn't end up just unthinkingly ticking a box.

Sure, voting below the line and researching the parties does take longer than just a dumb tick in a box above the line but it's only once every 3 years and that 'Below the line' web site helps a lot. I printed out my dummy sheet from the website and took it with me to make it easier.

The only thing that did cause me problems was having to order some of the parties right at the bottom of my preferences list - I wanted to put so many of them last!
I did the same - an hour of research before hand on the internet, then re-order them on "below the line" website. Took in a print out and took less than 5 minutes to fill in all the boxes.

Without the pre-voting effort, below the line would be ridiculous on the day and I can understand why people go above. It does take some planning ahead, but as you say, 1-2 hours effort every few years to vote for what you really believe is such a tiny price to pay for conveying your views. It seems funny that so many people will spend hours and days discussing and debating politics for 3 years, but then neglect to spend a few hours making their vote match their views.

I wonder if there should be more accountability on the AEC for educating people? They don't seem to go any further than trying to avoid informal votes. Past that, they don't appear to put any effort into teaching people how to vote. Clearly with systems like the Senate, it is not as simple as numbering a box or two. I personally spend quite some time refreshing myself on how it all worked, which influenced my preferences. It would be great if the AEC made it their mission to ensure everyone in Australia understood the voting systems. Sure we can change the system, but then who's going to explain that system to everyone?

[sam_d]

It would be great if the AEC made it their mission to ensure everyone in Australia understood the voting systems. Sure we can change the system, but then who's going to explain that system to everyone?

I'm pretty sure the AEC is already on to this and trying to improve things for those who don't have English as a first language or just find the whole process of being able to vote a bit alien.

I speak pretty good English (what with being from England and all that) and have a decent idea on how the poling process works but even I thought "WTF?" when I first came to Australia and learned about the Senate election process!

Unfortunately I don't think the AEC can fix voter apathy.

[Judo]

^ Fair enough. Typing the first thing that came to mind. :)

This article has some good suggested changes IMO:

https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-the-senate-voting-system-work-17768

[Chucaro]

Interesting article by Antony Green

Hand the power of preferences back to the people (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/green-hand-the-power-of-preferences-back-to-the-people/4951020)

[isuzurover]

Interesting article by Antony Green

Hand the power of preferences back to the people (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/green-hand-the-power-of-preferences-back-to-the-people/4951020)


I found this bit interesting:

Tighten the regulation of parties

Federal law requires only 500 members to register a party, where applying the same standards as NSW would require more than 2,000. NSW also requires that parties be registered 12 months before an election, a provision very much driven by the Labor Party's shock at the sudden emergence of the No Aircraft Noise Party ahead of the 1995 election.

A surge of newly registered parties was a feature of the 1999 NSW election and was repeated ahead of the 2013 federal election, helped by micro-parties having some idea of when the election was due to be held. Some delay in party registrations becoming effective will help in weeding out less serious parties.

Stopping over-lapping party membership is also important. David Leyonhjelm, set to be elected as the Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW, is the registered office of both the Liberal Democrats and the Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop the Greens). Members of his party also seem to be closely associated with the Smokers Rights Party.

Political parties should be more heavily regulated as registration brings with it significant advantages. Parties are able to have their names printed on the ballot paper, and have the major advantage of being able to nominate candidates for any contest in the country without the need for local nominators. The Liberal Democrats took advantage of this provision to nominate NSW-based candidates for the Tasmanian Senate election.

[Judo]

lol So much for preference deals being an issue. It goes much further than that. It sounds like David Leyonhjelm preferenced himself by being involved in 3+ parties.... Sounds very scam like to me.

[Davo]

1) Find loophole.
2) Walk through.

[isuzurover]

September 13, 2013
The Preference Deals behind the Strange Election of Ricky Muir and Wayne Dropulich

If Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party wins a Senate seat in Victoria, and Wayne Dropulich a Senate seat from Western Australia, they will have achieved the most remarkable victories in Australian, indeed world, electoral history.

Based on the progressive count on Friday 13 September, Muir's party currently lies 13th with 0.50% of the vote. He has turned this vote into the 14.3% required for election by harvesting the preferences from an astonishing 25 parties plus his own first preferences. Nine of these parties polled more votes than the Australian Motoring Enthusists Party.

Dropulich's victory is equally astonishing, the Australian Sports Party finishing 21st on first preferences with just 0.22% of the vote. He has turned this vote into the 14.3% required for election by harvesting preferences from 18 parties plus his own first preferences. Revealing how complex these preferences deals were, an astonishing 14 of these parties polled more votes than the Australian Sports Party.

No electoral system where voters distributed their own preferences would have delivered victory to these two parties. Even the most strictly proportional electoral system in the world would not have delivered election to these two parties ahead of the many parties that polled more votes.

The victories of Muir and Dropulich are entirely due to the unique system of preference deals permitted by the Senate's electoral system.

Below is the list of the parties, as well as the votes and percentage votes achieved by each, that helped to elect Muir and Dropulich.

Both Muir and Drupulich have managed to gain the preferences of both Family First and the Australian Sex Party, a remarkable bringing together of strange bedfellows.
Antony Green's Election Blog: The Preference Deals behind the Strange Election of Ricky Muir and Wayne Dropulich (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/09/the-preference-deals-behind-the-strange-election-of-ricky-muir-and-wayne-dropulich-.html)