I don’t advocate leaving ballot spaces blank as a rule, just pointing it out that it can still be valid as a corollary to the validity of Senate papers, as another little-realized thing in the counting rules, and no, I most certainly wouldn’t advocate doubling up on numbers 1-2-2 or 1 … 57-57. It is disturbing though to recall the Langer case…

On another note, as a longtime lurker with now two posts to my name, thanks to all who’ve participated over the long period, offered morsels for edification, and to William for setting up the site, husbanding it, and marshaling with a light touch.

I would quite like to know what the actual legal situation is, as lack of knowledge of it was about the only thing that stopped me publicly endorsing Fat Cat for Denison this time round.

$12k, eh? Could I claim it as a tax deduction if I were a staffer? (Not that OTH has ever held any full-time or part-time job for any MP union or consultancy)

Dyspnoeia is spot on. In elections with at least 10 (or is it 20?) candidates, if you would have completed at least 90% of the boxes had no more than 3 numbers be changed, then your vote is counted. There’s only a small chance it would not get counted because it would almost certainly be manually entered rather than being set aside as informal.

Just make sure you vote for a weird candidate at a small polling booth (as did OTH) and then you can see that there has been “1″ vote for this BTL candidate, proof that your vote has been counted.

And as kruscica says, just vote a 1 above the line as well, so if you do happen to stuff anything up, then it will revert to an ATL vote.

OTH approves of this method, but would never encourage anyone to vote 1-2-2-2-3-4-5-….-58-59, which actually would have been an accepted vote in Victoria with 68 candidates.

Kruscica . . . the 90% rule holds true nationally. And it’s also possible to exhaust your vote by repeating the same preference more than once (provide you have a single 1st preference indicated). The rule is that as long as by replacing no more than three wrongly-stated (gaps in sequence, repeated numbers, etc.) preferences a valid BTL vote could be registered, the paper is formal. But all preferences expressed after the last correctly indicated sequential preference (i.e. from and following the break, repeat, etc.) exhaust and are not counted.

I am certainly not advocating this practice, for two reasons – one practical, one legal – a) it’s all too easy in the fast flow of the examination/count for the vote to be wrongly set aside as informal; and b) the act of advocating such a vote is illegal (it’s a sort of mini-Langer vote)

Karl, I suppose you could argue that those whose fans that vote BTL who are more likely to stuff it up (ALP?) should have a responsibility to make it as easy as possible to vote BTL by running less candidates, whereas those who are committed, have spare time and are passionate (greens?) can get away with making it harder to vote BTL! But I think that any such effect would be outweighed by the extra exposure and increased noticibility having 6 candidates would get you….

Let’s just hope Ruddy calls a double dissolution. That would be so much fun for amateur psephs like me! I might even run as a senate candidate with 11 mates and hope to get a harvest Quota <8%

Karl, I eagerly await your numbers (if they let you publish)