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.

5 Comments
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.

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

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

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever, updated

This time last year, I highlighted 16 ASX stocks that investors could own indefinitely. One year on, I look at whether there should be any changes to the list of stocks as well as which companies are worth buying now. 

2025-26 super thresholds – key changes and implications

The ABS recently released figures which are used to determine key superannuation rates and thresholds that will apply from 1 July 2025. This outlines the rates and thresholds that are changing and those that aren’t.  

Is Gen X ready for retirement?

With the arrival of the new year, the first members of ‘Generation X’ turned 60, marking the start of the MTV generation’s collective journey towards retirement. Are Gen Xers and our retirement system ready for the transition?

Why the $5.4 trillion wealth transfer is a generational tragedy

The intergenerational wealth transfer, largely driven by a housing boom, exacerbates economic inequality, stifles productivity, and impedes social mobility. Solutions lie in addressing the housing problem, not taxing wealth.

What Warren Buffett isn’t saying speaks volumes

Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter has been fixture for avid investors for decades. In his latest letter, Buffett is reticent on many key topics, but his actions rather than words are sending clear signals to investors.

The 2025 Australian Federal election – implications for investors

With an election due by 17 May, we are effectively in campaign mode with the Government announcing numerous spending promises since January and the Coalition often matching them. Here's what the election means for investors.

Latest Updates

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.

Economy

Australia's economic report card heading into the polls

Our economy grew by a nominal rate of 7% per annum from 2017 to 2024, but it benefited from the largesse of fiscal and monetary policies, both of which are now fading. We need a new, credible economic growth agenda.

Preference votes matter

If the recent polls are anything to go by, we are headed for a hung parliament at the upcoming federal election. So more than ever, Australians need to give serious consideration to their preference votes.

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Tips for the last member standing

It’s common for people as they age to seek more help in running their SMSF if their capacity declines. An alternate director may be a great solution for someone just planning for short-term help in the meantime.

Wilson Asset Management on markets and its new income fund

In this interview, Matthew Haupt from Wilson Asset Management discusses his outloook for the ASX, sectors such as REITs that he likes, and his firm's launch of a new income-oriented listed investment company.  

Planning

‘Life expectancy’ – and why I don’t like the expression

Life expectancy isn't just a number - it's a concept that changes with survival rates over time. This article breaks down how age, survival, and societal factors shape our understanding of life expectancy, especially post-Covid. 

The shine is back on gold, and gold miners

Gold mining stocks outperformed in 2024 and are expected to do well in 2025. At this point in the rally, it's worth considering what has driven gold prices higher and why miners could still have some catching up to do.

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.