
This systemic problem in our federal elections is not being adequately addressed, and it's growing
This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal.
People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right.
We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear.
That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission.
Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa?
It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election.
Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard.
It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley.
In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent.
Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin.
Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count.
In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes.
In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes.
Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal.
And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate.
In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013.
And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all.
Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above".
About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank.
The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper.
But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted.
The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear.
In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice.
These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed.
It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives.
In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes.
In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number.
Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different.
And he is not the only one calling for a rethink.
Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated.
Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank.
Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting.
The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue.
The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working.
And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one.
There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper.
If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard.
Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts.
After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election.
This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal.
People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right.
We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear.
That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission.
Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa?
It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election.
Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard.
It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley.
In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent.
Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin.
Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count.
In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes.
In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes.
Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal.
And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate.
In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013.
And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all.
Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above".
About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank.
The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper.
But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted.
The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear.
In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice.
These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed.
It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives.
In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes.
In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number.
Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different.
And he is not the only one calling for a rethink.
Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated.
Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank.
Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting.
The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue.
The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working.
And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one.
There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper.
If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard.
Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts.
After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election.
This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal.
People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right.
We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear.
That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission.
Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa?
It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election.
Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard.
It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley.
In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent.
Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin.
Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count.
In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes.
In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes.
Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal.
And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate.
In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013.
And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all.
Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above".
About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank.
The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper.
But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted.
The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear.
In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice.
These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed.
It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives.
In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes.
In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number.
Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different.
And he is not the only one calling for a rethink.
Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated.
Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank.
Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting.
The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue.
The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working.
And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one.
There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper.
If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard.
Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts.
After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election.
This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal.
People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right.
We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear.
That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission.
Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa?
It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election.
Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard.
It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley.
In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent.
Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin.
Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count.
In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes.
In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes.
Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal.
And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate.
In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013.
And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all.
Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above".
About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank.
The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper.
But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted.
The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear.
In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice.
These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed.
It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives.
In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes.
In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number.
Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different.
And he is not the only one calling for a rethink.
Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated.
Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank.
Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting.
The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue.
The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working.
And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one.
There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper.
If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard.
Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


West Australian
24 minutes ago
- West Australian
Ex-governor hits out at Palestine rally 'hate speech'
A former state governor urged political leaders to take stronger action against anti-Semitism and blasted what she described as "hate speech" at pro-Palestine rallies. Former Victorian governor Linda Dessau, who served in the role from 2015 to 2023 and describes herself as a Jewish Australian, said anti-Semitism had erupted in the community. "Right throughout from our political leaders throughout the community, I don't think there's been a strong enough response," she told Nine's Neil Mitchell Asks Why podcast, released on Tuesday. Police are investigating a string of attacks in Melbourne against Jewish places of worship and businesses with ties to Israel, including fires at two synagogues. Recently some protesters at a pro-Palestine rally in Melbourne chanted "Death to the IDF (Israeli Defence Force)" which Ms Dessau described as hate speech. It came the same weekend as one of the synagogue fires and violence erupted outside an Israeli-owned restaurant in the city. "We call it the what it is, totally unacceptable, and we call out the hate speech, and we prosecute people," she said. "We make it clear that we won't accept it, that's very different from saying we don't agree with what Israel's doing in Gaza or elsewhere." The former barrister and magistrate said the Australian community took a stand against Islamophobia in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States and a 2019 mosque massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand. "Jewish Australians, as well as Australians from all different backgrounds, were very quick to ensure that Muslims didn't feel that they were being treated differently because of what had happened on September 11," Ms Dessau told the broadcaster. She said a similar act of solidarity happened after the NZ shooting when people stood "shoulder to shoulder" outside the State Library in central Melbourne. "The (Jewish) community feels let down for the very reasons that you've just pointed out so eloquently," she told the broadcaster. "That in other instances, these things have been stopped right at the source and they should have been here, too." Political leaders including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan have condemned the synagogue fires and attacks on businesses with links to Israel. Two men have separately been charged over those fires. A state anti-hate taskforce has been established and anti-vilification laws are due to come into force in September. The Victorian government is also drafting laws to ban protests outside places of worship and demonstrators wearing face coverings. Jillian Segal, Australia's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, has recommended a review of laws around anti-Semitic and hateful conduct, including violent or intimidating protests.


Perth Now
24 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Ex-governor hits out at Palestine rally 'hate speech'
A former state governor urged political leaders to take stronger action against anti-Semitism and blasted what she described as "hate speech" at pro-Palestine rallies. Former Victorian governor Linda Dessau, who served in the role from 2015 to 2023 and describes herself as a Jewish Australian, said anti-Semitism had erupted in the community. "Right throughout from our political leaders throughout the community, I don't think there's been a strong enough response," she told Nine's Neil Mitchell Asks Why podcast, released on Tuesday. Police are investigating a string of attacks in Melbourne against Jewish places of worship and businesses with ties to Israel, including fires at two synagogues. Recently some protesters at a pro-Palestine rally in Melbourne chanted "Death to the IDF (Israeli Defence Force)" which Ms Dessau described as hate speech. It came the same weekend as one of the synagogue fires and violence erupted outside an Israeli-owned restaurant in the city. "We call it the what it is, totally unacceptable, and we call out the hate speech, and we prosecute people," she said. "We make it clear that we won't accept it, that's very different from saying we don't agree with what Israel's doing in Gaza or elsewhere." The former barrister and magistrate said the Australian community took a stand against Islamophobia in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States and a 2019 mosque massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand. "Jewish Australians, as well as Australians from all different backgrounds, were very quick to ensure that Muslims didn't feel that they were being treated differently because of what had happened on September 11," Ms Dessau told the broadcaster. She said a similar act of solidarity happened after the NZ shooting when people stood "shoulder to shoulder" outside the State Library in central Melbourne. "The (Jewish) community feels let down for the very reasons that you've just pointed out so eloquently," she told the broadcaster. "That in other instances, these things have been stopped right at the source and they should have been here, too." Political leaders including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan have condemned the synagogue fires and attacks on businesses with links to Israel. Two men have separately been charged over those fires. A state anti-hate taskforce has been established and anti-vilification laws are due to come into force in September. The Victorian government is also drafting laws to ban protests outside places of worship and demonstrators wearing face coverings. Jillian Segal, Australia's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, has recommended a review of laws around anti-Semitic and hateful conduct, including violent or intimidating protests.

Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Labor's YouTube ban would face backlash from parents as overwhelming majority say it helps kids learn
Parents overwhelmingly consider YouTube to be a valuable learning resource, with new research revealing just how unpopular Labor' social media ban for children would be. It comes after a growing group of lawmakers expressed frustration that the government backflipped on its previous exemption for YouTube in the under-16 social media ban laws. Labor has considered breaking its promise and dragging YouTube into the ban after being lobbied by Chinese-owned platform TikTok. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has also pressured Labor to break its pledge and ban the video sharing platform. YouTube has since released new research by Oxford Economics which found 72 per cent of parents think the video sharing platform 'helps their children learn'. Head of YouTube Australia Ed Miles said families took advantage of sophisticated parental controls and safety features to make the platform appropriate for learning. 'This new research from Oxford Economics demonstrates that Australian parents not only trust YouTube as a valuable learning resource, but also feel confident in guiding their children to use YouTube responsibly,' he said. 'This reflects parents' active involvement and their comfort in navigating YouTube alongside their children, using our safety features and parental controls.' The research also found: 72 per cent of parents who use YouTube agree that YouTube (or YouTube Kids) helps their children learn. 79 per cent of parents who use YouTube agree that YouTube (or YouTube Kids) provides quality content for their children's learning and/or entertainment. 74 per cent of parents who use YouTube feel confident in their ability to guide their child on how to use YouTube (or YouTube Kids) responsibly. The figures come after revealed Ms Inman Grant misled Labor by suggesting YouTube was an algorithmically dangerous platform, falsely suggesting her comments were based on evidence. "I don't make determinations or write recommendations to the minister based on whether I keep the public onside. I follow the evidence," she said, at the National Press Club in June. "My main concern with these platforms is that harms are happening, but I talked about the pervasive design features. "YouTube has mastered those. Opaque algorithms driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against." Both Labor and eSafety refused to share this research until lodged a Freedom of Information request. Once obtained the research it was clear the findings had been misrepresented. In fact, it found that YouTube was one of the safest platforms for key risk concerns such as grooming, sexual harassment and bullying. Children are more likely to be bullied via text messages than on YouTube. The percentage of teenagers who reported being groomed on YouTube was three per cent, the same percentage as teenagers who reported grooming via text messages. On Snapchat the figure was seven times higher at 23 per cent. On Instagram it was five times higher at 17 per cent. There was no recommendation from Ms Inman Grant to ban text messages for teenagers. Users need to be at least 13-years-old to create a YouTube account, meaning eSafety's proposed ban would only impact teenagers. Sky News Digital Editor Jack Houghton, host of The Media Show, told his audience the survey was a "flawed" way to research the issue as it was based on the perceptions of young children who were being asked to self-identify 'harmful content'.