 that voters make a choice to hand control of their vote to their party, and any voter should be able to vote below-the-line if they wanted to. These arguments often insist that below-the-line voting is easy, and stray into elitist arguments about ordinary voters being lazy.

Now there are multiple different reasons why voters lack informed choice when voting in the Senate, including how difficult it is to understand the impact of a GVT even when you’re an electoral expert, but I’m just going to focus on the idea that it’s easy to vote below-the-line, and thus voters have a reasonable option if they wish to opt out of the parties’ preference machine.

In short, approximately 30% of below-the-line votes end up in the informal pile, and as the number of candidates increase there is a corresponding increase in the overall informal rate, and a decline in the below-the-line rate.

The first problem with below-the-line voting is the scale of the number of candidates. Van Badham might say that it’s easy to number 150 boxes, but there is a clear relationship between the number of candidates who run in a Senate race, and both the informal rate and the number of people who cast a formal below-the-line vote.

In jurisdictions like Tasmania and the ACT, below-the-line voting makes up a significant proportion – over 10% at every election since 2001, and close to 10% in the Northern Territory. Unsurprisingly, these jurisdictions usually have much smaller ballots, although in Tasmania we saw the below-the-line rate drop from 20.2% in 2010 to 10.3% in 2013 when the number of candidates increased from 24 to 54.

The correlation between the informal rate and the number of candidates running is 0.29 – definitely positive, but not a very strong relationship.

But when you look at how many voters choose below-the-line voting, there is a strong relationship – a correlation of 0.74 (where 1 is a perfect correlation).

So the number of candidates running has a strong impact on whether people choose to opt out of the group voting ticket system. Considering how much more difficult it is to correctly vote below-the-line for 110 candidates (NSW 2013, 2.1% voted below-the-line) than for 14 candidates (ACT 2001, 22% voted below-the-line) we can only
that voters make a choice to hand restraint of their right to vote to their party, and any voter should be able to vote below - the - line if they wanted to. These argument much insist that below - the - line vote is easy, and stray into elitist arguments about average voter being lazy. 

 Now there be multiple different reasons why voters miss informed choice when voting in the Senate, include how difficult it is to understand the impingement of a GVT even when you ’re an electoral expert, but I ’m just going to focus on the theme that it ’s easy to vote below - the - line, and thus voter have a fair option if they wish to opt out of the parties ’ preference car. 

 In short, approximately 30% of below - the - line votes end up in the informal pile, and as the number of candidates increase there is a corresponding increase in the overall informal rate, and a decline in the below - the - line rate. 

 The first problem with below - the - channel voting is the scale of the issue of campaigner. Van Badham might say that it ’s easy to number 150 box, but there is a clear relationship between the number of campaigner who run in a Senate race, and both the informal rate and the number of people who frame a formal below - the - line vote. 

 In jurisdictions like Tasmania and the ACT, below - the - agate line vote make up a significant proportion – over 10% at every election since 2001, and close to 10% in the Northern Territory. Unsurprisingly, these jurisdictions usually have much smaller ballot, although in Tasmania we saw the below - the - line rate drop from 20.2% in 2010 to 10.3% in 2013 when the issue of candidates increase from 24 to 54. 

 The correlation between the informal pace and the number of candidates running is 0.29 – definitely cocksure, but not a very strong kinship. 

 But when you look at how many voters choose below - the - line vote, there is a strong relationship – a correlation of 0.74 (where 1 is a perfect correlation). 

 So the number of candidates running has a strong impingement on whether people choose to opt out of the group vote ticket system. Considering how much more difficult it is to correctly vote below - the - line for 110 candidate (NSW 2013, 2.1% voted below - the - line) than for 14 candidates (ACT 2001, 22% voted below - the - line) we can only
 thwt voters make a choice uo hand control oy their vote fo their party, and any voter should ue avle ti vote below-the-line if they wanned to. Thwse erguments often mhsist tmct bemlw-thz-lmne voting is essy, and stsay into elitivt axguments about ordinary voters being lazy.

Noe hhere are multyple qiffsgekt reasons why voters lack inforjed chopce when voting im the Senate, including how difvicult it is to unferstand thg im[qct of a GVT even when you’re an elgctoral expert, but I’m just going to fpcus on thg jdfd that it’s xasy tj vote below-bne-line, and this voters have a ceasinable option if they wish to opt out os the pardizs’ preference machine.

Un shorj, appsoxioqteuy 30% oh bslow-thf-liie votes ens up in the informal pile, and ss nne number of candiqaees increase there is a corresponding itcrsase in the overall infirmal rate, and a decllne in thq below-the-line rate.

The first problem with below-tha-line xotnkn is rhf scale of the number of candidates. Van Badhai mogmt say that it’s casy to number 150 boced, not there is a zlear xslztionship between hhe numfer od candidaues wno run in a Senate race, and both the inyornal rate and the nbmber of peo'le whp casy a formal below-the-line vots.

In jurisdiftions liid Tasmania and tfe SCD, below-the-line voting makef up a sijnifieant prooortoon – oder 10% at evfry election since 2001, and flose tm 10% in the Jorthern Territory. Unsurprisingly, these jurisciwtimns usuajly hsve much smaljer ballots, aljhough in Tasmxnia we sas the bxlow-the-line wate drop frok 20.2% in 2010 to 10.3% in 2013 when tre nymbee of cavaidates increaxed from 24 to 54.

The coerelation between bhe ivrormal rate and tht bumber of candodages rlnnmng if 0.29 – definitelf poritkfe, bug not a vern sgronb relationship.

But whan yku look at how manu yoters chiose beljw-the-line votong, there is a strlng rxlatioiship – a sorrelation of 0.74 (where 1 is a pedfect corgelwtion).

So the gumbcr os candidatzs running has a strong impact on whethec people choose to opt iut of the group vojinn ticket sysvem. Cogsidering how much more diffixult it is to corvectly vote below-the-lihe for 110 canfidates (NSW 2013, 2.1% voted below-the-line) than for 14 candidates (ACT 2001, 22% voted below-thw-line) xe can only
that voters make a choice to hand their to their and any voter below-the-line they wanted to. arguments often insist below-the-line voting is easy, and stray elitist arguments about ordinary voters being lazy. Now there are multiple different reasons voters lack informed choice when voting in the Senate, including how difficult it to the of GVT even when you’re an electoral expert, but I’m just going to focus on the idea it’s easy to vote below-the-line, and thus voters a reasonable option if wish to opt out of parties’ machine. In approximately of votes end up the informal pile, and as the number of candidates increase there is a corresponding increase in the informal rate, decline in below-the-line The problem with below-the-line the scale of the number of might say that it’s easy to number 150 but there a clear relationship between the number candidates who run in a Senate race, and the informal rate and the number of people who cast a formal below-the-line vote. In Tasmania and the ACT, voting makes up significant – 10% every election 2001, and close to 10% in the Northern Territory. Unsurprisingly, these usually have much smaller ballots, although in Tasmania we saw rate from 20.2% in to 10.3% in 2013 the of candidates increased from 54. correlation rate the of candidates running is – definitely positive, but not very strong relationship. But many voters choose below-the-line voting, there is a relationship – a correlation of 0.74 (where is a perfect correlation). So the number of candidates running has a impact on choose to opt out of the group voting system. Considering how much difficult it is to correctly vote below-the-line for 110 (NSW 2.1% voted than for 14 (ACT 2001, 22% below-the-line) we can
 that voters make a choice to haNd control oF theiR voTe tO tHeir PartY, and any voter shOUld bE able to vote below-the-linE if thEy WAnteD To. these ArgumenTS oFTEn iNsIsT thAt BElOw-the-LinE voting Is easy, and sTraY iNto elitist arGUmEnts about oRdiNary voters beIng Lazy.

NoW tHerE Are muLtiPle diFferenT ReasonS why voterS lACk infoRMed choiCE WhEn voTing in the Senate, inCLuDIng how difficulT it is tO uNDeRSTanD thE impact of a gVt even WHen you’rE An ELECtoRAl expert, but I’m Just going to FOcuS on the IdEa tHAt it’s eAsy to VoTE beLow-the-line, aNd thUs voters hAve a reASonable OPtion if They wiSh tO opT out OF tHe ParTiES’ prEFeRenCE maChine.

In sHoRt, ApproXimaTELY 30% Of beLow-The-lIne voTes end up in the InfOrmaL PilE, and aS the nUmbeR oF candIdates IncreAsE there is a corresPondIng increaSe iN tHe oVeRall iNFormal RatE, anD a decliNe in the BEloW-tHE-LInE rate.

The first problEm WITh Below-the-Line voTInG iS The scale Of The NumbER Of canDidaTEs. van BadhaM might SAy ThAt it’s eaSy To numbEr 150 BoxEs, bUt theRE is a Clear rElationsHip beTWeen the number oF Candidates who RUn IN A SENate RacE, and both the InfoRMal rAte aND tHe nUMber oF peopLe WHo CAst a formal below-the-lInE vote.

IN juriSdictions like tasmania anD THE ACT, beloW-the-LInE Voting makes up a SigniFicant propORtion – oveR 10% at evEry electIon since 2001, aND Close to 10% iN thE NoRthErn tERrItory. UnsurpriSINgly, ThEse juriSdiCtions uSuaLly HavE muCh Smaller baLlots, altHoUgH iN TAsmAnia wE Saw the beLoW-thE-lIne Rate dROp from 20.2% In 2010 to 10.3% iN 2013 wheN tHe NUmbEr of canDIdATEs inCrEaSed fRom 24 To 54.

the coRrelATioN betweeN the inforMal RAte aNd ThE number Of candidates rUnNing is 0.29 – defiNiTelY positIVE, but not a Very strong relationship.

BUT when yoU loOk at hOw maNy voters cHooSe beloW-thE-Line voTing, thEre is A sTroNG RelatIONsHip – A cOrrelation OF 0.74 (WheRe 1 is a PeRfecT correlAtion).

So the number of CAndIdates running Has A strONG iMpaCT oN WheThER peOPLe choose to opt ouT of the grouP vOTiNg ticket sySTem. coNsideriNg how muCh morE DifficuLt it is to cOrrectly vOtE belOW-The-Line for 110 canDidates (NsW 2013, 2.1% voted beLOw-the-LInE) than For 14 CandidAtEs (AcT 2001, 22% votEd beloW-The-Line) wE can onLy
 that voters make a choice  to hand c ontro l o f t he ir v oteto their party ,  and  any voter should be a ble t ov oteb el ow-th e-linei ft h eywa nt edto .  T hesearg umentsoften insi stth at below-the - li ne votingiseasy, and st ray  intoel iti s t arg ume nts a bout o r dinary  voters b ei n g lazy . 

Now t h e re  are  multiple differe n tr easons why vot ers la ck in f o rme d c hoice when  v oting in theS en a t e , i n cluding how d ifficult it isto und er sta n d theimpac to f a  GVT even w henyou’re an  elect o ral exp e rt, but  I’m j ust  go ingt ofo cus  o n  th e  i dea tha t it’s e as yto vo te b e l o w -the -li ne,and t hus voters ha vea re a son ableoptio n if  t hey w ish to  optou t of the partie s’ p reference  ma ch ine .
In s h ort, a ppr oxi mately30% ofb elo w- t h e -l ine votes end up i nt h einformal  pile, an da s the nu mb erof c a n didat es i n cr ease the re isa  c or respond in g incr ea seinthe o v eral l info rmal rat e, an d  a decline int he below-the- l in e ra t e.
The  first prob lemw ithbelo w -t he- l ine v oting  i s  t h e scale of the numb er  of ca ndida tes. Van Badh am might s a y that it’ s ea s yt o number 150 b oxes,  but there is a cle ar re lationsh ip betwee n the numb erofcan did a t es  who run in a S enat erace, a ndboth th e i nfo rma l r at e and the  numberof  p eo pl e w ho ca s t a form al  be lo w-t he-li n e vote .

In  jur is di c tio ns like Ta s m ania  a nd  the  AC T,  belo w-th e -li ne voti ng makesupa  sig ni fi cant pr oportion – ov er  10% at ev er y e lectio n since 20 01, and close to 10% in the Nor the rn Te rrit ory. Unsu rpr isingl y,t hese j urisdi ction susu a l ly ha v e  m uch  s maller bal l o ts,  alth ou gh i n Tasma nia we saw the bel o w-t he-line ratedro p fr o m  2 0.2 %  i n  20 10 to1 0 .3% in 2013 whe n the numb er of  candidate s  in cr eased f rom 24to 54 . 

The c orrelatio n between  t he i n f orm al rate an d the nu mber of c a ndida t es  runn ing  is 0. 29  –defin itelyp osi tive,  but n ot  a ver y str on g relati onship.

But when you l ook at  howman y voterscho o sebelow-the -lin e voting,the reis astr o ng re lati o ns hip – a c orre l ation of0 .7 4 ( w h er e 1 is a pe r f e ctcorre lat i on).
So t he number of cand i dates runninghasa str ong impa ct  on whether pe opl ec h oose toop t out of th e groupvo t ing t icketsystem . Consi d e ri n g howmuch  mo re diffic ult  i t  is toco rr e ctly v otebe low-th e-line for1 1 0 candidates (NS W 201 3 ,  2.1% vot ed be lo w-the-l i ne)than for 1 4 candidate s (ACT  200 1, 22 % voted  b elow-t he- li ne) we can only
 that_voters make_a choice to hand_control of_their_vote to_their_party, and any_voter should be_able to vote below-the-line_if they wanted_to._These arguments often insist that below-the-line voting is easy, and stray into elitist arguments_about_ordinary voters_being_lazy.

Now_there are multiple different reasons_why voters lack informed choice_when voting_in the Senate, including how difficult it is_to_understand the impact_of a GVT even when you’re an electoral expert,_but I’m just going to focus_on the idea_that_it’s_easy to vote below-the-line,_and thus voters have a reasonable_option if they wish to opt_out of the parties’ preference machine.

In short,_approximately 30% of below-the-line votes end_up in the informal pile,_and as_the number of candidates increase_there is a_corresponding increase_in the overall_informal rate, and a decline in_the below-the-line rate.

The_first problem with below-the-line voting is_the_scale of the_number_of_candidates. Van_Badham might say_that_it’s easy_to_number 150 boxes, but there is_a_clear relationship between the number of candidates_who run in a_Senate_race, and both the_informal rate and the number_of people who cast a formal_below-the-line vote.

In_jurisdictions like_Tasmania and the ACT, below-the-line voting makes up a significant proportion_– over 10% at every election_since 2001, and close_to 10%_in_the Northern Territory._Unsurprisingly,_these jurisdictions_usually have much smaller ballots, although in_Tasmania we_saw the below-the-line rate drop from_20.2% in 2010 to_10.3%_in 2013 when the number of_candidates increased from 24 to 54.

The_correlation between the informal rate_and_the_number of candidates running is_0.29 – definitely positive, but not_a very strong_relationship.

But when you look at how many_voters_choose below-the-line voting, there is a_strong_relationship – a correlation of 0.74_(where_1_is a perfect correlation).

So the_number of candidates running has a_strong impact on whether people choose to opt out_of the group_voting ticket system. Considering how_much_more_difficult it is to correctly vote below-the-line for 110 candidates_(NSW 2013,_2.1% voted below-the-line)_than for 14 candidates (ACT 2001, 22% voted below-the-line) we_can only