Kevin Bonham @ 368: I perhaps didn’t make it clear in my contribution that I was talking about the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

Noted and my figures were wrong anyway; I’ve fixed this on the other thread.

In the Senate, I always vote up a ticket rather than down, precisely to make it less probable that my ballot paper will reach its ultimate destination at a fractional transfer value. Not that it’s likely to make any difference, but understanding how the system works gives me some small pleasure.

It’s impossible for a candidate who polls more than one third of the formal vote to be excluded, so anyone who votes for a candidate certain to poll more than a third is being forced to engage in a pointless charade when marking later preferences.

One-third is for NT and ACT; for other states it’s one-seventh.

While a candidate who polls that well can’t get excluded, when they are elected their votes are distributed at reduced value as a surplus. So it is not true that the voter is wasting their time in numbering preferences.

It is, however, true that if the voter was smart about it they would probably have voted 1 for somebody inconsequential rather than vote 1 for someone who would be elected on the first ballot. Voting 1 for someone who was going to be elected on primaries anyway slightly reduces the effect of your vote. (Can explain this in detail if necessary.)

These are very interesting questions, don’t you think?

I do. What is the tipping point away from principle to dogma? It’s not just identity or self awareness.

What motivates a traditional, small government Liberal to get behind a big government DLP type in Abbott? Or even a high taxing, high spending alleged Liberal in Howard?

The mind boggles.