Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 605

Preference votes matter

If the recent polls are anything to go by, we are headed for a minority government at the upcoming federal election. So more than ever, Australians need to give serious consideration not only to their first preference vote, but also to their second and subsequent votes on the ballot sheet. Such is the system of preferential voting we have in Australia.

How preferential voting began

It hasn’t always been this way. Prior to 1918, we had the first-past-the-post system (FPTP) where a candidate just needed the most votes to win. Then the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 replaced FPTP with preferential voting. 

This came about because a new party, the Country Party (the National Party predecessor) arrived on the scene, and split the non-Labor Party vote in country areas. So preferential voting was introduced to remove the distortions of vote splitting, and secure the survival of Labor-opposing parties. 

Over time, preferential voting ensured fairer representation, with the system requiring majority support for a candidate to win after the distribution of preferences. It favoured broad support for election, and was deemed a fairer system.

The preferential voting system is such that, the least supported first preference candidate is eliminated from counting, with their next preference votes transferred to the remaining candidates. That process continues until a candidate has more than 50% of the votes and is declared the winner.

How it evolved

For many elections after the 1918 Act, preference votes didn’t come into play for the majority of electorates. Even nearly sixty years later in the 1975 election for example, just 24 of the 127 federal seats were decided by distributing preferences. The remainder winning on first preference votes. The combined two-major party vote was 84.6%.

So for most seats in 1975, it was still basically a two-party contest, with a smattering of minor parties and independents votes.

Fast forward to the 2022 election, and a whopping 136 of 151 seats were decided by preference votes, with a combined two-party vote of just 68.3%. 

The increased significance of preference voting reflects a shifting electoral profile, with a decline in the two-party system, and a rise in minor parties and independents. In 2022, almost a third of the primary vote went to the latter, with the Labor Party securing just 32.6% of the primary vote before going on to form government after preferences.

Strategic preference deals

We now have a political setting that is more fragmented and competitive, with the minor party and independent vote really gaining traction. This in turn means a heavy reliance on the distribution of preferences. It also means that strategic voting and preference deals have become prominent. One such preference-gaming strategy involves the following.

One of the two major parties has an unpopular policy with locals, like say offshore wind farms. An independent candidate opposing the wind farms is otherwise aligned to the major party’s policies. Angry voters who would normally vote for that major party instead give their vote to the independent. The independent’s how-to-vote card directs preferences back to the major party, and it is elected anyway.

What began as a protest vote, ultimately had no effect. And no-one would be any wiser as to whether the independent ran with the major party’s blessings or not.

Preference harvesting is another strategy. This is more prevalent in upper house elections, with group voting tickets ‘above the line’. Minor parties collude, exchanging preferences with each other, getting over the top of more popular candidates. This has on occasions, resulted in the election of candidates with a tiny share of first preference votes.

An obvious question today is, have the distortionary effects of preferential voting gone too far? Has our parliament become so fragmented that genuine reform is too difficult to implement? Will majority governments eventually become a thing of the past? Where will it end? 

Optional preferential voting may reduce the impact to some extent. Currently used in NSW state elections, it is a system where voters have the choice of not ranking all candidates, and in fact may only give a primary vote if they want. It could be considered a hybrid of FPTP and compulsory preference voting, and where it sits on that spectrum depends on the rate at which preferences are not given. Under this system, a candidate can win with less than a majority of total votes cast. 

An optional preference arrangement weakens the influence of minor parties and independents. The more primary votes they receive without trailing preferences, the less impact they can have on major party tallies and the shape of the parliament, lessening the need for major parties to deal with them.

And optional preferencing dampens the effect of preference gaming strategies, because fewer preference votes are on the table, and many voters who intend not to preference all candidates, will not bother with how-to-vote cards.

Make your vote count

In the end, the voter needs to be vigilant if they want to avoid the pitfalls of preference gaming. This can be achieved by researching all candidates. 

If considering an independent or minority outfits, check if they have any past affiliations with major parties. How many big issues are they campaigning on? Have they received large donations or campaign funding from sources invested in certain policy areas? In other words, follow the money.

And don’t necessarily strictly follow how-to-vote cards. At least check if there are any unusual preference arrangements. Maybe also check cards in neighbouring electorates for preferencing patterns between parties and independents. Alternatively, if the voter has scrutinised candidates, how-to-vote cards may be dispensed with altogether.

Finally. In upper house elections, always vote ‘below the line’ to prevent group ticket preference flows.

On election day, we celebrate our democratic right to have a say in who governs the country. Let’s make our votes count.

 

Tony Dillon is a freelance writer and former actuary.

 

22 Comments
David
April 07, 2025

The election of Trump in America and its chaotic consequences should allow every Australian voter to understand the consequences of an unresearched and casual complacence in voting. We have two good things in Australia that the Americans don't have. Compulsory voting (where it is compulsory to turn up and have your name marked off, but not necessarily to vote sensibly or at all) and an independent electoral commission to see that the elections are held according to the law. In my opinion they do a good job.

sidah
April 12, 2025

I'm not sure why you think Americans voted ignorantly. They were very pointed in their preference by voting for Trump. It wasn't a mistake given the downward spiral of the country in the last 4 years. But agree, Australians need to be informed before they vote and vote accordingly.

Denise
April 07, 2025

I don't like that on the ballot papers for the lower house, they often don't indicate what party the person represents so unless you can be bothered to research that [ and many won't bother ] you wouldn't know what you're voting for

Chris
April 06, 2025

Have voted Liberal for 50 years but now have a liberal candidate that keeps "crossing the floor" and voting with Labor on no less than half a dozen times in the last few years....I personally don't like the candidate but voted Liberal again last time because as a previous small business owner found Labor not good for me (health professional)... I vote for the party not the person and I expect them to tow the party line on party issues and not vote with Labor!!! Do not know who to vote for this year as it they all seem equally dysfunctional these days! Time we introduced 4 or 5 year terms so decent policy changes can be implemented and parties are not scared after 2 short years in power of the next upcoming election !!!

Gee Haich
April 06, 2025

The word 'teal' is a media confection. A true independent uses their representation on behalf of their electorate (vs following the party line.) Aren't we lucky to be educated and to be able to choose who we vote for, rather than being told!

Jules Verkooijen
April 09, 2025

The "Teals" are part of Climate 200 funded by Simon Holmes a Court. Looking into others who work in the party, in back office/admin used to be employed in the Labor or Greens parties. It is purported that the Teals voted for the "Radical" Greens 60/70% of the time, or Labor. Definitely not, LNP. The Greens Party's policies are not recognised any more such as when Bob Brown was the Leader. Now it is a radical party with very negative ideologies which can be detrimental to mainstream Australia.

Andy
April 06, 2025

A good summary of our voting system, but please extend your comments to cover the Tasmanian/ACT Hare Clark system.
Wikipedia seems to provide some detail but does not rate the system from the point of what is the best democratic voting system.

Micko
April 06, 2025

Preferential voting should be optional. If my party doesn’t get in then I don’t want my vote going to another.

JohnS
April 06, 2025

If you don't want to use your vote to the full value, that is your choice, but a vote that uses all its preferences is a more valuable vote

It seems smart to me to maximise the value of my vote

Jack
April 05, 2025

Preferential voting is like going to a restaurant only to find your favourite meal is no longer available, so you have choose an alternative. Rather than asking you to come back 5 or 6 times to choose from the remaining alternatives, you are asked to list your choices in order of preference on one piece of paper as each alternative is eliminated because they had the lowest number of votes in each round of counting.?

Note these are your choices, not the party’s, unless you slavishly follow the how-to-vote card. Then, you are handing your preferences to the party to distribute - just like most people do in voting in the Senate by voting above the line.

You are simply asked to list the nominated candidates in order of your preference so that if your first preference is not elected, you would want your second preference and so on down the list.

Because it is compulsory preferential, very ballot paper ends up on one of two piles at the end of counting and one candidate with the largest pile with more than 50% of the total is elected. That is the two-party preferred vote. Optional preferential means some votes do not get counted in the final tally.

Peter B
April 04, 2025

Preferential voting now has similar outcomes to proportional representation which leads to unstable coalitions and excessive influence by minorities.

Steve
April 03, 2025

We have an "independent" candidate in our electorate this year. I say "independent" as she is in fact a Teal, but there is nothing anywhere in her advertising to divulge this fact (you need to use google). All sunshine and motherhood statements, zero actual policy or topics of interest to her. And not a single word to say which party she may support in the event of a minority government which is a high possibility and therefore should be disclosed in the interests of "integrity" (I have to make an assumption which I'm pretty sure about). Yet again our electorate has a sitting Liberal member - do Teals ever run in Labor or Green seats? I think that last question tells you which way they will vote in a minority government.

Mart
April 04, 2025

Steve - with respect might I suggest the clue is in the word 'independent' ? I'd imagine she will vote on individual issues as per the wishes she interprets that her electorate would want (assuming they vote her in). Not along pre-determined party lines. If you don't like that approach then don't vote for her - simples ! As to why independents / Teals tend to run in sitting Liberal seats, the last election showed that there are a significant number of folk that would typically vote Liberal that weren't happy with the Libs (climate focus, women's representation, Scott M factor etc). I think that last statement tells you why they voted for an independent. It's called democracy ! I too am in an electorate that sounds similar to yours .... it'll be interesting to see what happens this time (i.e. were the independents / Teals a 'one off' in reaction to ScoMo?)

Stephen
April 04, 2025

Well said Mart. The people who cannot understand the Teal appeal, cannot see how far to the right the Coalition has drifted.

The Teals are small “ l “ liberals, a political species now all but extinct in the LNP. The decline of small “l” liberalism in the LNP is not a recent development. Except for Turnbull, for the last 30 years the right wing of the federal LNP has been in the ascendancy and has led that party.

Teal supporters are generally tertiary educated with neither big business nor union affinity, who believe in a market economy and individual rights but are not social conservatives.

In other words they share the values of a large proportion of the modern Australian population. They are not a passing fad or gimmick. They represent people who have not felt represented for decades.

Steve
April 04, 2025

I think you missed the main point which is the candidate makes no mention that she is a Teal (and will hardly be independent but follow the Teal group) and the absence of any actual policy or support in the case of a minority government. For a group that run on integrity this is just a tad disingenuous. Just be open and honest. And if these ladies are really small l liberal would they not have more clout supporting a coalition government and extract some small l liberal concessions. This would be their golden opportunity to shape future coalition policies. But I feel they will actually support a Labor/Green government, which makes them more small g Greens.

Stephen
April 07, 2025

Steve, you complain that the Teals will not reveal who they would back in the case of a minority government.

That assumes the major parties have actually revealed their policies to address the real issues facing Australia. They haven’t, or more likely, they don’t have any.

What we get from the two major parties are short term insincere gimmicks to sway disinterested voters. No medium term policies on housing, tax, energy and climate, immigration, foreign relations, defence or the other big issues facing the nation.

It’s no wonder the major party share of primary votes is falling.

Sarah Lukeman
April 09, 2025

This is a great article about preferential bolting that I will be sharing widely.
Steve has made no comment about the article but gone on a rant about an independent in his electorate. It’s unfortunate that this is the first comment under the article.

‘Teal’ is not a party.
They do not all vote the same way on legislation. They do not have a party requiring them to vote a certain way, even if that is against their own belief.
Some independents who have won a previously Liberal held seats would have been traditional liberal voters in the past, but they happen to believe climate change is happening and we need to act quickly before it is too late.
You don’t mention Steve that most of the ‘Teals’ are also women, who have traditionally struggled to get through pre-selection in the Liberal party.

Robert G
April 03, 2025

IMHO the problem is that the methodology of the preferential voting system is not known or understood by a large proportion of the voting public, let alone applied.
Therefore. unfortunately we end up with the government we voted for.
Along with financial matters, the workings of our complicated political system needs to be taught as part of the high school curriculum.
It's part of education for life.

Trevor
April 03, 2025

Compulsory preferential voting goes against the grain for me personally. NSW has optional preferential voting and it seems to work.

Perhaps the AEC should outlaw how to vote cards to force people to think about their vote rather than blindly following instructions like sheep.

JohnS
April 04, 2025

With first past the post voting (the ultimate extension of optional preferential) you could end up with a situation of there being five candidates. Four of which have very similar policies, and the fifth vastly different. Theoretically, the three of the four similar candidates could get 20% of the vote each, the fourth of that group 19.9% and the vastly different candidate 20.1% of the vote. The vastly different candidate would get elected in spite of the fact that 79.9% of the people wanted someone from the other point of view.

To me, not using EVERY preference is not taking the full value of your ballot. your vote is valuable, why would you not use it for its full value and number every preference

Trevor
April 04, 2025

Optional preferential voting works in NSW.

In my electorate there will be a labor, a teal and possibly a greens candidate. I don’t want to give any of them my preference vote but under the current system I’m forced to in order to cast a valid vote. That's what I object to

billy
April 03, 2025

In our local council elections (where we have optional preference voting) we had a right wing leaning independent, a liberal and a labor candidate. The combined independent and liberal votes outnumbered the labor vote, but liberal "how to vote" cards only suggested putting a 1, next to the liberal candidate. The labor candidate got elected.

In a neighboring council area, they had a greens candidate, a labor candidate and an independent candidate. Similarly, the combined green/labor vote was higher than the independent candidate's. But again the greens only suggested a "1" vote. The result, the independent got elected.

In both councils, it was pretty obvious that if preferences were compulsory, then the right wind independent, and the labor candidates would have been elected.

But people didn't use their vote to its full value, by not preferencing.

Please preference, it makes your vote more valuable

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

Reader Survey on the Federal election 2022

Who is Stephen Jones, aspiring Minister for Financial Services?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Finding the best income-yielding assets

With fixed term deposit rates declining and bank hybrids being phased out, what are the best options for investors seeking income? This goes through the choices, and the opportunities and risks involved.

What history reveals about market corrections and crashes

The S&P 500's recent correction raises concerns about a bear market. History shows corrections are driven by high rates, unemployment, or global shocks, and that there's reason for optimism for nervous investors today. 

Howard Marks: the investing game has changed

The famed investor says the rapid switch from globalisation to trade wars is the biggest upheaval in the investing environment since World War Two. And a new world requires a different investment approach.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 605 with weekend update

Trump's tariffs and China's retaliatory strike have sent the Nasdaq into a bear market with the S&P 500 not far behind. What are the implications for the economy and markets, and what should investors do now? 

  • 3 April 2025

Designing a life, with money to spare

Are you living your life by default or by design? It strikes me that many people are doing the former and living according to others’ expectations of them, leading to poor choices including with their finances.

World's largest asset manager wants to revolutionise your portfolio

Larry Fink is one of the smartest people in the finance industry. In his latest shareholder letter, the Blackrock CEO outlines his quest to become the biggest player in private assets and upend investor portfolios.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

An enlightened dividend path

While many chase high yields, true investment power lies in companies that steadily grow dividends. This strategy, rooted in patience and discipline, quietly compounds wealth and anchors investors through market turbulence.

Investment strategies

Don't let Trump derail your wealth creation plans

If you want to build wealth over the long-term, trying to guess the stock market's next move is generally a bad idea. In a month where this might be more tempting than ever, here is what you should focus on instead.

Economics

Pros and cons of Labor's home batteries scheme

Labor has announced a $2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program, aimed at slashing the cost of home batteries. The goal is to turbocharge battery uptake, though practical difficulties may prevent that happening.

Investment strategies

Will China's EV boom end in tears?

China's EV dominance is reshaping global auto markets - but with soaring tariffs, overcapacity, and rising scrutiny, the industry’s meteoric rise may face a turbulent road ahead. Can China maintain its lead - or will it stall?

Investment strategies

REITs: a haven in a Trumpian world?

Equity markets have been lashed by Trump's tariff policies, yet REITs have outperformed. Not only are they largely unaffected by tariffs, but they offer a unique combination of growth, sound fundamentals, and value.

Shares

Why Europe is back on the global investor map

European equities are surging ahead of the U.S this year, driven by strong earnings, undervaluation, and fiscal stimulus. With quality founder-led firms and a strengthening Euro, Europe may be the next global investment hotspot.

Chalmers' disingenuous budget claims

The Treasurer often touts a $207 billion improvement in Australia's financial position. A deeper look at the numbers reveals something less impressive, caused far more by commodity price surprises than policy.

Fixed interest

Duration: Friend or foe in a defensive allocation?

Duration is back. After years in the doghouse, shifting markets and higher yields are restoring its role as a reliable diversifier and income source - offering defensive strength in today’s uncertain environment.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.