Electoral Law

Why Australia Doesn’t Have Novelty Candidates like Count Binface

As I wait to hear the result of the UK’s Clacton by-election, I thought I should ponder the question of why Australia doesn’t have novelty candidates.

The Clacton by-election was triggered by the resignation of Reform Party Leader Nigel Farage. The announcement came amid parliamentary scrutiny of Farage’s personal finances, and allegations concerning undeclared gifts and support. He is re-contesting the seat to, as he puts it, let the people rather than the establishment decide his fate.

It has rather backfired on Farage as none of the ‘establishment’ parties are contesting. His major opponent has turned out to be serial novelty candidate Count Binface, in real life known as Jonathan David Harvey, an Oxford classics graduate and television comedy writer.

The record field of 34 also includes Nick the Incredible Flying Brick, Howling Laud Hope and Baron Von Thunderclap, candidates for Britain’s ‘establishment’ novelty party, the Monster Raving Loony Party.

So how is this allowed and why doesn’t it occur in Australia?

Well, it sort of used to occur, but the law was tightened after several protest candidates representing the Abolish Child Support/Family Court Party adopted vvvveeerrrryyyy lloonngg names to contest the 1998 Federal election.Read More »Why Australia Doesn’t Have Novelty Candidates like Count Binface

How GVTs Have Distorted Victorian Legislative Council Elections

Summary: Change is coming to the Victorian Legislative Council’s electoral system for November’s state election. Victoria becomes the last jurisdiction to abolish group voting tickets, a system that allowed parties to control preference flows and distort election results. Voters will now control between-party preferences and the method of voting mimics the Senate system in use since 2016. The change favours parties that campaign for votes over parties that rely on preferences. Based on past results, the big losers will be minor parties whose election from low votes has been achieved by “preference harvesting” tactics, something that is impossible with group voting tickets abolished.

The Victorian Labor government’s bill to abolish group voting tickets (GVTs) for Legislative Council elections was introduced on Tuesday 28 July, passed the lower house the next day with no opposition, and will be debated in the the upper house on Tuesday 11 August.

The bill is supported by the government, opposition and Greens and will pass by week’s end. The new voting rules will be in place for November’s state election.

(Update 9:30pm 11 August: the bill passed the upper house without amendment. The next step is royal assent by the Governor at which point the amendments in the bill are incorporated into the Electoral Act.)

Inside this post I look back at the five Victorian elections that have used GVTs and estimate how the results might have looked without GVTs. In summary –

  • The new system will favour parties that attract significant first preference support and disadvantage parties that rely heavily on preferences. Based on my analysis of post-GVT Senate results, (see this post), weaker preference flows will make it very difficult for a party to be elected with less than 6% in a region.
  • Across the 2014, 2018 and 2022 elections, 24 leading candidates who began the preference distribution with more than 6% of the vote were defeated by lower polling candidates. Three of the defeated candidates polled above 12% or 0.7 quotas.
  • At the same elections there were 20 candidates elected from under 6%, including nine that polled below 3%.
  • Without GVTs, the 2014 election would have seen five fewer minor party MLCs elected, the seats instead going one Labor, two Coalition and two Greens.
  • Without GVTs, the 2018 election would have seen seven fewer minor party MLCs elected, the seats instead going one Labor, three Coalition and three Greens.
  • Without GVTs, the 2022 result would have seen six fewer minor party MLCs elected, the seats instead going one Labor, one Coalition and four Greens.
  • Over the last three elections, the number of non-Green minor party members would have fallen from 22 to 4. The number of Greens elected would have risen from 10 to 19, Labor from 47 to 50, and the Coalition from 41 to 47.

Table 1 below shows a four party breakdown of seats won at elections since 2006, along with my estimated results had there been no GVTs. My estimates assume the same parties contested election and the same party vote shares were recorded. I explain my method for estimating results inside the post.

Table 1 – Legislative Council Seats 2006-2022 – With and Without GVTs
Election Alternatives ALP L/NP GRN OTH
2006 Actual result 19 17 3 1
Estimate without GVTs 20 17 3 ..
2010 Actual result 16 21 3 ..
Estimate without GVTs 16 21 3 ..
2014 Actual result 14 16 5 5
Estimate without GVTs 15 18 7 ..
2018 Actual result 18 11 1 10
Estimate without GVTs 19 14 4 3
2022 Actual result 15 14 4 7
Estimate without GVTs 16 15 8 1

Source: Estimated results without GVTs calculated by Antony Green as set out in the post.

The changed results are due to weaker preference flows with the abolition of GVTs. Preference ‘deals’ implemented by GVTs were previously used to engineer results. Even the smallest parties could deliver preference flows above 90%. GVT deals could deliver victory to parties with little electoral support at the expense parties with up to 14 times the vote. These remarkable come from behind victories were created by GVT preference deals, not by the actions of voters.

Three of the more remarkable results occurred in 2018. In Eastern Metropolitan Region, the Transport Matters Party was elected from 0.62%, defeating a Greens candidate who began the count with 9.0%. In Southern-Eastern Metropolitan Region, the Liberal Democrats polled just 0.84% but defeated the second Liberal candidate who began the count with 12.3%. In Southern Metropolitan Region, the Sustainable Australia Party polled 1.32% but defeated the Greens on 13.5%. (Data in this paragraph has been corrected.)

Results such as these could only happen under an electoral system where voters are herded into voting for above-the-line for tickets with preferences controlled by parties.

A decade of experience with Senate elections since GVTs were abolished, and evidence from Legislative Council elections in other states, shows that preference flows are much weaker without GVTs. Larger parties that campaign actively can still influence preference decisions and create stronger preference flows, but the flows of smaller parties become almost random. This decreases the ability of parties to win from trailing positions.

When voters control preferences rather than parties, the system rewards parties that attract first preference votes over parties that rely on opaque and labyrinthine preference deals. The days of preference ‘whisperers’, preference ‘harvesting’ and ‘corralling’ preferences disappear when GVTs are abolished. Voters first preference party choices play a greater role in determining which parties elect members.

But I need to stress that the analysis in this post is about the parties that have contested the last five Victorian Legislative Council elections, not the parties contested the 2026 election.

It is clear from polls that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will poll strongly, will elect MLCs, and probably outpoll the Greens. I make no comment on whether abolishing GVTs increases or decreases the number of MLCs that One Nation might elect.

What is certain is that abolishing GVTs will see the number of MLCs elected by party more accurately reflect vote share by party. The new system will better translate the will of the electorate into representation than any election conducted with GVTs.

Read More »How GVTs Have Distorted Victorian Legislative Council Elections

The Impact on Senate Election Results of Abolishing GVTs – the Lessons for Victoria

Over the next week I will publish several posts looking at the abolition of Group Voting Tickets (GVTs) in Victoria and the implications this has for the state’s Legislative Council election in November.

Work I’ve undertaken in the past, about Senate elections both before and after the abolition of GVTs, produces clear conclusions.

Abolishing GVTs will increase the importance of first preference votes and diminish the value of preference transfers. Abolishing GVTs advantages parties that campaign for votes and disadvantages those that rely on deals and transfers to be elected.

Abolishing GVTs also ends the ability of parties to conspire and use GVTs to block the election of high polling parties. It also stops parties using GVTs to elect low-polling parties that few voters have heard of into important upper house balance of power seats.

The key aim of abolishing GVTs is to end party control over between-party preferences and leave it to voters to make the decision. With 95% of votes tied up in party tickets, too many elections had been decided by opaque preferences deals that voters had little knowledge of. A new form of above-the-line (ATL) voting was created allowing voters to show preferences for parties rather than candidates. Voters still had the option to vote below-the-line (BTL) for individual candidates of any party.

In other states this has been implemented with full optional preferential voting. A voter must indicate a first preference for a formal vote, but further preferences were optional. At elections conducted under the new rules, only a third of ATL ballot papers have preferences beyond ‘1’ and exhausted preferences have come to play a part in deciding who wins the final seats. (See my previous post that covered experience with the change in NSW.)

By contrast, the Senate instructions after the abolition of GVTs has been to mark at least six preferences, though a savings provision allows any first preference vote to remain formal. Under these instructions, around 95% of ballot papers are completed above the line (ATL) with between-party preferences. Given the exhaustion rate of preferences for minor party votes, there hasn’t been much difference between the role of preferences in the two ballot marking systems.

Abolishing GVTs makes it nearly impossible to win from a low vote AND from behind on preferences. Abolishing GVTs does not prevent a party winning from a low vote, nor prevent a trailing candidate from winning on preferences, though it does make it harder. But is becomes extremely difficult to do both at the same time.

A party winning from a low vote is possible without GVTs if there is an even split of vote between remaining parties. The United Australia Party’s Ralph Babet won a Victorian Senate seat in 2022 from only 0.28 quotas (4.0%). This was because there were five parties between 0.20 and 0.28 quotas competing for one seat. Without GVTs, preference flows were relatively weak and Babet maintained his lead to win the final seat. Preferences were not responsible for his victory.

And coming from behind is possible. In NSW at the 2025 Federal election, strong preference flows from the Coalition and small right-wing parties allowed One Nation on 0.42 quotas (6.1%) to pass Labor’s third candidate on 0.63 quotas (9.1%).

Without GVTs, the classic 2013 Victorian Senate case of Ricky Muir (Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party) on 0.5% defeating Helen Kroger (Liberal) on 11.6% would be impossible. Muir’s election was the equivalent of a lower house candidate on 1.7% defeating a candidate with 40%.

As One Nation showed in 2025, is is possible for a candidate with two-thirds of another candidate’s vote to come from behind and win on preference transfers. Voters still have their say on preferences, but without GVTs, results can’t be engineered. Muir’s case of winning from behind with only one-23rd of the winning candidate’s vote is absolutely impossible without GVTs.

And to date, every jurisdiction except except Victoria has understood this inherent problem with GVTs and abolished them. Next week it appears Victoria will be the last to join the club.

Based on One Nation’s two come from behind Senate victories in 2025, I think around 0.4 quotas is the minimum a party needs for victory, 6.5% translated into Victorian Legislative Council numbers. That’s unless you get a case like Ralph Babet’s where a seat remains to be filled and all remaining parties have a low vote.

Looking at how many parties have been elected from trailing positions, the difference produced by the abolition of GVTs for Senate elections is clear.

At the 2013 half-Senate election, the last to use GVTs, 9 of the 36 state Senate positions were won by trailing candidates. At three half-Senate elections since the abolition of GVTs, only 2 of 108 state Senate seats have been won by trailing candidates.

And both of those trailing wins were aided by Senate instructions to mark 6 preferences. Trailing wins may be even harder under instructions for ‘1’ with further preferences optional.
Read More »The Impact on Senate Election Results of Abolishing GVTs – the Lessons for Victoria

SA2026 – it turns out the count ain’t over

Tuesday 21 April: To the acute embarrassment of ECSA, another story broke about “found” ballot papers. In fact the ballot papers were located a week or two ago, after the declaration of the polls but their existence only broke today. These are all absent votes, a small number taken at retirement homes in Newland, and absent votes taken on election day in Enfield polling places. This produced votes for other electorates, none of which were delivered to their home district in time to make the count. Hence ECSA’s press release being in a strange past tense with reference to the small number of ballots not having made it in to the count in other districts. The numbers involved are no more than a handful for any district and the districts involved had large margins.

Update – the votes have been counted and confirmed the victory of One Nation’s Chantelle Thomas. Here’s the text of the release by Acting Electoral Commissioner Leah McLay.

A count of Narungga ballot papers retrieved from the district of Stuart occurred at the Electoral Commission this morning.

The purpose of the count was for the Commission to determine whether the result in Narungga would have differed, had those ballots been included in the initial count and subsequent recount.

There were 81 ballot papers opened in the presence of scrutineers. Of those, 1 was rejected and 4 were deemed informal. Of the 76 votes counted in a two-party preferred count, 46 were for Chantelle Thomas, One Nation and 30 were for Tania Stock, Liberals. Had the ballot papers been included in the original count and subsequent recount, the margin in favour of Chantelle Thomas One Nation would have increased from 58 to 74.

I have therefore determined that the result in Narungga would not have differed had the ballots been included.

More info: An update on the votes. Liberal received 24 votes plus 6 preferences received for 30 votes after preferences. One Nation received 33 votes and 13 preferences for 46 after preferences. The votes were 57 Absent Early Votes and 19 Absent polling day votes.

My original commentary is now inside the post.

Read More »SA2026 – it turns out the count ain’t over

SA2026 – Does the SA Ticket Vote Savings Provision Matter

One Nation was accused of using South Australia’s ticket vote savings provision to harvest preferences at the state election. In fact One Nation’s tickets were entirely in line with the party’s promise of no deals on preferences. But it appears that registered how-to-votes should be clearer in saying number all squares.

As I explained earlier this week, South Australia has a unique provision in its Electoral Act that applies registered preference tickets to ‘save’ votes that would otherwise be informal.

Misunderstanding of the provision generated commentary during the election campaign about parties controlling preferences through the tickets. In particular there was criticism of One Nation’s how-to-votes that did not recommend preferences. The how-to-votes recommended voting ‘1’ for the One Nation candidate before saying to number all the other squares.

Was this just a way of encouraging One Nation voters to vote ‘1’ and then grab control of the vote’s preferences through the application of the ticket vote?

I’ll get on to the mechanics of the One Nation how-to-vote in 2026 inside the post, but first want to look at how the provision has worked in the past .

The purpose of the registered tickets is not to grab preferences. It is to ‘save’ votes votes that would otherwise be informal, to count votes that would be informal at a Federal election.

Some confusion is understandable as any mention of ‘ticket voting’ invokes memory of the now abolished group voting ticket system that distorted Senate elections until abolished in 2016.

The two systems are not comparable. Senate ticket voting turned preferences into a tradeable commodity allowing the engineering of election results with parties electing Senators despite tiny first preference vote shares.

That was possible because Senate ticket votes represented around 95% of all votes. In stark contrast, the South Australian ticket system applies only to a small percentage of votes, votes that would otherwise have been informal. The percentage of formal votes that have had tickets applied has been, wait for it, between 3% and 6% over the past 40 years.

And of those ballot papers that were saved, more than two-thirds were never counted out as preferences. They were saved by the ticket vote provision and only their first preferences were counted.

(For more information on the tickets, read this backgrounder produced by the Electoral Commission of South Australia.
Read More »SA2026 – Does the SA Ticket Vote Savings Provision Matter

From the archives – the South Australian Ticket Vote Savings Provision

One of the most muddled aspects of the recent South Australian election was reference to lower house ticket votes.

I’d started to write a post on the subject referring to an Electoral Backgrounder published by the Electoral Commission of South Australia (ECSA) in 2020. The backgrounder explains how the system works, provides background statistics on its use, and summarises the arguments for and against the provision. It’s difficult to link to the backgrounder so I’ve made it available on my site here.

The backgrounder references an article I published on the subject as part of the ABC’s 2006 South Australian election site. I barely remember it and the old election sites are no longer available. But digging around on the ABC’s old content server, I found the original article.

I intend to cover the subject in more detail tomorrow with statistics on how many votes are saved by the ticket voting system. But until then, I’m re-publishing my article from 2006. I’ve added a few notes in the text where the rules have been changed since 2006.
Read More »From the archives – the South Australian Ticket Vote Savings Provision

Why does NSW have a 12-month Delay on Registered Parties being granted the Benefits of Registration?

Before nominations for the Kiama by-election (background here) closed on Thursday, Family First issued a press release stating the party had withdrawn from the contest.

Family First’s registered officer, Lyle Shelton, stated that “Family First has been BANNED from running in the Kiama by-election – not by the voters, but by petty rules designed by the big parties to protect themselves.”

“Our candidate Kyle Napoleoni was ready to give locals a family-friendly choice, but NSW law says new parties must sit on the sidelines for 12 months after registration.”

Shelton states the position more correctly later in the press release writing “The NSW Electoral Commission this week advised the party it could not accept candidate Kyle Napoleoni’s nomination.”

“Banned” is not what happened. Rather, the NSWEC refused the nomination because it was lodged by the party’s registered officer. Family First was registered to contest NSW elections in April this year. In every other Australian jurisdiction the nomination would have been accepted and the party’s name and logo printed on the ballot paper. But not in NSW where a registered party does not have these rights until 12 months after being registered.

Kyle Napoleoni could still have nominated, but not as the candidate of a registered party. He would have needed nomination with signatures by 25 electors on the Kiama electoral roll. I presume Family First did not have time to arrange signatures after the central nomination was rejected. But even with nominators, Napoleoni would have been denied a party name and logo on the ballot paper.

So why does NSW have this strange rule? It all goes back to the 1999 NSW Legislative Council election and its infamous “tablecloth” ballot paper.

And rather than being a rule put in place to benefit only the big parties, its implementation was backed by the minor parties in parliament at the time.

Let me explain how we got here.Read More »Why does NSW have a 12-month Delay on Registered Parties being granted the Benefits of Registration?

FED2025 – Bradfield Update and where to next?

UPDATE: This post was published on 19 May before the official distribution of preferences. The produced a finally tally where Liberal Gisele Kapterian led Independent Nicolette Boele by 8 votes. A full re-count of all first preference votes, a re-check of all informal votes, and a new distribution of preferences will now take place. Apart from this additional detail updating the final count, the rest of the post remains correct.

Bradfield, once the Liberal Party’s safest metropolitan seat, has turned out to be an absolute squeaker at the 2025 election.

After all primary votes have been officially tallied, the indicative preference count has Independent Nicolette Boele defeating Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian by 39 votes.

The narrowing of the result in the last week has been a surprise. Independents do not traditionally do well on Postal, Absent and Pre-Poll Declaration votes. And if you look at the primary votes, Ms Boele has not done well.

But the Greens and Labor HAVE been doing well on Absent and Pre-Poll Declaration votes, and it is these that have boosted Ms Boele’s after preferences count in her second attempt to win Bradfield.

So where does it go from here. Let me try and explain.Read More »FED2025 – Bradfield Update and where to next?

Dunstan By-election Updates plus problems with the SA Electoral Act

After looking the clear winner of the Dunstan by-election on Saturday night, Labor has finished with a narrower margin than expected.

Dunstan had been held by former Liberal Premier Steven Marshall since 2010. He squeaked home with a narrow 0.5% margin at the 2022 state election which meant the seat was always going to be a hotly contested by-election on his retirement. (For background on the by-election and the results see my profile on the ABC Elections website. Final figures published.)

On election night the Labor Party finished on 53.8%, boosted to 54.0% on Sunday by check counting. At that point, based on declaration vote trends at the 2022 state election, Labor would have expected to finish with 52.7% once all votes were counted.

In fact the race has been much closer. On Thursday 28 March, Labor’s Cressida O’Hanlon is on 50.8% after preferences with a lead over Liberal Anna Finizio of 347 votes. The count is at 80.5% of enrolment with only a handful of outstanding postal votes remaining to be counted. Due to Good Friday, postal vote return closes on Tuesday 2 April to be followed by the formnal distribution of preferences.

Labor will win after a swing of 1.4%, down substantially on the 4.5% swing seen on election night.

The table below shows how the count narrowed with the release of each successive declaration vote count.Read More »Dunstan By-election Updates plus problems with the SA Electoral Act