Optional preferential voting: Difference between revisions
Enthusiast01 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Altered pages. Added date. Formatted dashes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Pancho507 | Linked from User:Pancho507/sandbox/2 | #UCB_webform_linked 1747/3850 |
||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Type of preferential voting system}} |
|||
'''Optional preferential voting''' (OPV) is a type of [[preferential voting system]] under which voters indicate the order of their preferences by numbers. [[Full-preferential voting]] requires a preference to be indicated for each candidate. Under OPV voters may choose to mark a preference for as many candidates as they want. Although complete numbering is not required under OPV, single-preference voters may be required to use a '1' rather than a tick or cross. Some jurisdictions allow ticks or crosses as the voter's intention is clear. Some jurisdictions use '''semi-optional preferential voting''', when a minimum number of preferences are required to be expressed. |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}} |
|||
[[File:Preferential ballot.svg|right|thumb|Example of an optional preferential ballot paper]] |
|||
One of the ways in which [[ranked voting]] systems vary is whether an individual vote must express a minimum number of preferences to avoid being considered [[spoilt vote|invalid]] ("spoiled" or "informal" or "rejected"). |
|||
Possibilities are: |
|||
| ⚫ | OPV is used in elections in [[New South Wales]]<ref>[http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/about_elections/voting_and_counting_systems/optional_preferential Optional Preferential: Elections NSW]</ref> |
||
* '''Full preferential voting''' (FPV) requires all candidates to be ranked |
|||
* '''Optional preferential voting''' (OPV) requires only one candidate, the voter's first preference, to be indicated |
|||
* '''Semi-optional preferential voting''' requires ranking more than one candidate but not necessary to rank all the candidates. |
|||
Ranked-voting systems typically use a ballot paper in which the voter is required to write numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. opposite the name of the candidate who is their first, second, third, etc. preference. In OPV and semi-optional systems, candidates not explicitly ranked by the voter are implicitly ranked lower than all numbered candidates. Some OPV jurisdictions permit a ballot expressing a single preference to use some other mark than the digit '1', such as a cross or tick-mark, opposite the preferred candidate's name, on the basis that the voter's intention is clear; other do not, arguing for example that an 'X' might be an expression of dislike. FPV may not be possible if [[write-in candidate]]s are allowed. |
|||
| ⚫ | In both the [[Tasmanian House of Assembly]] and the [[Tasmanian Legislative Council]], semi-optional voting is used, with a minimum number of preferences required to be expressed |
||
In a transferable-vote system like the [[single transferable vote]] (STV) or [[instant runoff voting]] (IRV), a ballot is initially allocated to the first-preference candidate but if the first preference candidate is elected or found to be un-electable, the vote may be transferred one or more times to successively lower preferences. If there is no lower preference available when such a transfer is applicable, the ballot is said to be ''exhausted''. |
|||
In the [[Victorian Legislative Council]], semi-optional voting is used if a voter chooses to vote [[Above-the-line voting|below the line]]. |
|||
FPV prevents exhausted ballots. On the other hand, FPV increases the risk of invalid ballots: the more numbers a voter is required to mark, the greater the opportunity for mistakes, by repeating or skipping numbers or skipping candidates. The Australian election systems used in almost all the state lower houses (all except Tasmania and New South Wales) and in the ACT mandate FPV but they reduce the number of informal (invalid) votes by adding [[group voting ticket]]s "above the line" on ballot papers. These allow voters to select a complete party list prepared by one of the parties, instead of manually entering personal preferences marked for individual candidates "below the line". |
|||
| ⚫ | The [[Australian Senate]] voting reform of 2016 switched from full |
||
Ranked vote systems vary in that some cast aside, at the start of the vote count, a ballot not correctly filled out but other systems allow a vote even if not fully and correctly marked to be used until the first mistake annuls the ballot. That was the case in federal Australian elections prior to 1998 (a [[Langer vote]]) but after 1998 Australia classified those votes as informal (invalid). Australia now allows ballots to express less than complete preferences ([[optional preferential voting]]) for Senate elections but full preferential voting is still used in the instant-runoff voting system used to elect members of Australia's House of Representatives.<ref>Bryant v Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 1242 (30 September 1998)</ref> |
|||
In other countries, such as [[Malta]], the [[Republic of Ireland]], and [[Northern Ireland]], full preferences are not required. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | The |
||
The terms OPV and FPV are used mainly in Australia, in relation to elections at [[Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories|state and territory]] and [[Australian electoral system|Commonwealth]] (federal) level, which use [[proportional representation]] ([[Single transferable voting]]/STV) or [[preferential voting]] (IRV). |
|||
| ⚫ | OPV is used in elections in the Australian state of [[New South Wales]].<ref>[http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/about_elections/voting_and_counting_systems/optional_preferential Optional Preferential: Elections NSW]</ref> It was used in [[Queensland|Queensland's]] system of [[instant-runoff voting]]<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stevens |first1=Bronwyn |title=Are Queenslanders in danger of 'wasting' their votes |url=https://www.theconversation.com/amp/are-queenslanders-in-danger-of-wasting-their-votes-35919 |access-date=28 November 2020 |website=The Conversation |date=27 January 2015 |language=en}}</ref> from 1992<ref>{{cite web|title=The Queensland Electoral System|url=https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Visit-and-learn/About-Us/The-Queensland-Electoral-System|website=Queensland Parliament|access-date=24 September 2024}}</ref> to 2015, when it was replaced by full-preferential voting.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Burke|first1=Gail|title=Compulsory preferential voting returns to Queensland as Parliament passes bill for more MPs|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-21/compulsory-prefential-voting-returns-qld-parliament-passes-bill/7348172|access-date=15 December 2017|publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=22 April 2016}}</ref> |
||
OPV was adopted in the [[Northern Territory]] in 2016.<ref>[http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/02/northern-territory-adopts-optional-preferential-voting-and-bans-campaigning-near-polling-places.html Northern Territory Adopts Optional Preferential Voting and Bans Campaigning Near Polling Places]: [[Antony Green]] ABC 11 February 2016</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Elections for all other Australian lower houses use full-preferential voting. |
|||
In the [[New South Wales Legislative Council]], semi-optional preferential voting has been used since 1978, with a minimum 10 preferences required for 15 seats before 1991, and 15 preferences for 21 seats since. Voters also have the option since 1984 of voting "above the line". |
|||
In the [[Victorian Legislative Council]], semi-optional preferential voting is used if a voter chooses to vote below the line. Voting above the line requires only a '1' being placed in one box, and [[group voting ticket]]s voting has applied since 1988.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/crb1988520.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> |
|||
Around 1999 Melbourne's [[Albert Langer]] engaged in a campaign to assist voters to mark fewer than all the candidates but still have their vote not deemed informal and rejected. This was a way to use the vote as if under the optional preferential voting system.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Farrell and McAllister |title=The Australian Electoral System |pages=56–57}}</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | The [[Australian Senate]] voting reform of 2016 switched from full preferential voting to optional preferential voting. A minimum number is specified in the instructions on the ballot paper. Since in the past a single number '1' above the line was valid, that is still a formal vote even though voters are encouraged to rank six candidates. |
||
==Elsewhere== |
|||
| ⚫ | STV Elections [[Elections in Malta|in Malta]], [[Elections in the Republic of Ireland|in the Republic of Ireland]], and [[Elections in Northern Ireland|in Northern Ireland]] use OPV. The [[Instant-runoff voting in the United States|ranked-choice voting]] system used in [[Maine]], United States, [[Instant-runoff voting]], can be considered optional-preferential as voters are allowed to rank just one candidate. The system also allows voters to skip one ranking (e.g. marking a first choice and a third choice, but not a second choice). In that case, the next ranking would be advanced to the next highest ranking, but more than one skip exhausts the ballot. |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
{{poli-stub}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Instant-runoff voting]] |
[[Category:Instant-runoff voting]] |
||
Latest revision as of 16:42, 13 December 2024
One of the ways in which ranked voting systems vary is whether an individual vote must express a minimum number of preferences to avoid being considered invalid ("spoiled" or "informal" or "rejected").
Possibilities are:
- Full preferential voting (FPV) requires all candidates to be ranked
- Optional preferential voting (OPV) requires only one candidate, the voter's first preference, to be indicated
- Semi-optional preferential voting requires ranking more than one candidate but not necessary to rank all the candidates.
Ranked-voting systems typically use a ballot paper in which the voter is required to write numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. opposite the name of the candidate who is their first, second, third, etc. preference. In OPV and semi-optional systems, candidates not explicitly ranked by the voter are implicitly ranked lower than all numbered candidates. Some OPV jurisdictions permit a ballot expressing a single preference to use some other mark than the digit '1', such as a cross or tick-mark, opposite the preferred candidate's name, on the basis that the voter's intention is clear; other do not, arguing for example that an 'X' might be an expression of dislike. FPV may not be possible if write-in candidates are allowed.
In a transferable-vote system like the single transferable vote (STV) or instant runoff voting (IRV), a ballot is initially allocated to the first-preference candidate but if the first preference candidate is elected or found to be un-electable, the vote may be transferred one or more times to successively lower preferences. If there is no lower preference available when such a transfer is applicable, the ballot is said to be exhausted.
FPV prevents exhausted ballots. On the other hand, FPV increases the risk of invalid ballots: the more numbers a voter is required to mark, the greater the opportunity for mistakes, by repeating or skipping numbers or skipping candidates. The Australian election systems used in almost all the state lower houses (all except Tasmania and New South Wales) and in the ACT mandate FPV but they reduce the number of informal (invalid) votes by adding group voting tickets "above the line" on ballot papers. These allow voters to select a complete party list prepared by one of the parties, instead of manually entering personal preferences marked for individual candidates "below the line".
Ranked vote systems vary in that some cast aside, at the start of the vote count, a ballot not correctly filled out but other systems allow a vote even if not fully and correctly marked to be used until the first mistake annuls the ballot. That was the case in federal Australian elections prior to 1998 (a Langer vote) but after 1998 Australia classified those votes as informal (invalid). Australia now allows ballots to express less than complete preferences (optional preferential voting) for Senate elections but full preferential voting is still used in the instant-runoff voting system used to elect members of Australia's House of Representatives.[1]
Australia
[edit]The terms OPV and FPV are used mainly in Australia, in relation to elections at state and territory and Commonwealth (federal) level, which use proportional representation (Single transferable voting/STV) or preferential voting (IRV).
OPV is used in elections in the Australian state of New South Wales.[2] It was used in Queensland's system of instant-runoff voting[3] from 1992[4] to 2015, when it was replaced by full-preferential voting.[5]
OPV was adopted in the Northern Territory in 2016.[6]
In both the Tasmanian House of Assembly and the Tasmanian Legislative Council, semi-optional voting is used, with a minimum number of preferences required to be expressed. There is no requirement to complete the entire ballot paper (rank all the candidates).
Elections for all other Australian lower houses use full-preferential voting.
In the New South Wales Legislative Council, semi-optional preferential voting has been used since 1978, with a minimum 10 preferences required for 15 seats before 1991, and 15 preferences for 21 seats since. Voters also have the option since 1984 of voting "above the line".
In the Victorian Legislative Council, semi-optional preferential voting is used if a voter chooses to vote below the line. Voting above the line requires only a '1' being placed in one box, and group voting tickets voting has applied since 1988.[7]
Around 1999 Melbourne's Albert Langer engaged in a campaign to assist voters to mark fewer than all the candidates but still have their vote not deemed informal and rejected. This was a way to use the vote as if under the optional preferential voting system.[8]
The Australian Senate voting reform of 2016 switched from full preferential voting to optional preferential voting. A minimum number is specified in the instructions on the ballot paper. Since in the past a single number '1' above the line was valid, that is still a formal vote even though voters are encouraged to rank six candidates.
Elsewhere
[edit]STV Elections in Malta, in the Republic of Ireland, and in Northern Ireland use OPV. The ranked-choice voting system used in Maine, United States, Instant-runoff voting, can be considered optional-preferential as voters are allowed to rank just one candidate. The system also allows voters to skip one ranking (e.g. marking a first choice and a third choice, but not a second choice). In that case, the next ranking would be advanced to the next highest ranking, but more than one skip exhausts the ballot.
References
[edit]- ^ Bryant v Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 1242 (30 September 1998)
- ^ Optional Preferential: Elections NSW
- ^ Stevens, Bronwyn (27 January 2015). "Are Queenslanders in danger of 'wasting' their votes". The Conversation. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
- ^ "The Queensland Electoral System". Queensland Parliament. Retrieved 24 September 2024.
- ^ Burke, Gail (22 April 2016). "Compulsory preferential voting returns to Queensland as Parliament passes bill for more MPs". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 15 December 2017.
- ^ Northern Territory Adopts Optional Preferential Voting and Bans Campaigning Near Polling Places: Antony Green ABC 11 February 2016
- ^ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/crb1988520.pdf [bare URL PDF]
- ^ Farrell and McAllister. The Australian Electoral System. pp. 56–57.