 |
Chapter 4 - Elections
for the Senate
Formal voting in a Senate election
The tests which apply to acceptance of
a Senate ballot paper as formal are complicated because a Senate vote can be
recorded either by numbering of preferences in the normal way or by recording a
ticket vote. Additionally, a ballot paper may be accepted as formal even where
the voter has erroneously attempted to record both types of votes. Thus three
distinct cases may arise.
One possible case is the ticket vote recorded on its own. The voter is
supposed to record such a vote by placing a single number 1 in one, and only
one, of the squares printed in the ticket voting section in the top part of the
Senate ballot paper. Specific allowance is made, however, for voters who
deviate slightly from this requirement. A tick or a cross is accepted as
equivalent to the number 1.
A second possibility is the preferential vote recorded on its own (on
the bottom part of the Senate ballot paper). In this case, specific allowance
is again made for voters who may have difficulty in fulfilling their
obligations. A ballot paper is formal if:
-
a first preference is shown by the presence of the number 1 in the square
opposite the name of one, and only one, candidate (ticks or crosses are not
acceptable substitutes for a number 1 in this case); and
-
in a case where there are ten or more candidates, there are, in not less than 90
percent of the squares opposite the names of candidates on the ballot paper,
numbers which form a sequence of consecutive numbers beginning with the
number 1 without repetitions, or numbers which would be such a sequence
with changes to not more than three of them; or
-
in a case where there are nine or fewer candidates, there are in all squares
opposite the names of candidates on the ballot paper, or in all but one of
those squares (which is left blank), numbers which form a sequence of
consecutive numbers beginning with the number 1 without repetitions, or numbers
which would be such a sequence with changes to not more than two of them.
A third case arises where the voter has tried to record both a ticket
vote and a preferential vote. This case can be broken down into three distinct
situations:
- where
the ticket vote and the preferential vote would each have been informal if
recorded on its own, the ballot paper is informal;
- where
the ticket vote would have been formal if recorded on its own but the
preferential vote would have been informal if recorded on its own, the ballot
paper is formal and is treated as if the preferential vote had not been
attempted; conversely, where the preferential vote would have been formal if
recorded on its own, but the ticket vote would have been informal if recorded
on its own, the ballot paper is formal and is treated as if the ticket vote had
not been attempted;
- finally,
where the elector records a ticket vote and a preferential vote, each of which
would have been formal if recorded on its own, the ballot paper is formal and
is treated as if the ticket vote had not been attempted, that is, correct
preferential numbering prevails over a correct ticket vote.
As noted in Chapter 6, upon the finding that Senator Wood had not been
eligible to contest an election for the Senate in July 1987, it was determined
that the place should be filled by counting or recounting of ballot papers cast
for candidates for election for the Senate at the election. It was held “that
the ballot papers for an election to the Senate, conducted under the system of
proportional preferential voting prescribed by Part XVIII of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act, for which an unqualified person was a candidate,
were not invalid but indications of voters’ preference for the candidate were
ineffective” (In Re Wood 1988 167
CLR 145).
Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 14 October 2008 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
 |
