The ABC has defended its Vote Compass tool from people who were upset after being informed which party their policy views most closely align with.
Each election cycle, the ABC works with international Vox Pop Labs to provide an Australian version of the Vote Compass, an online tool that uses a brief questionnaire to graph a person’s political views relative to Australia’s major parties.
The Vote Compass tool is upfront about only taking each party’s policies into consideration and not other factors such as representation and track record. These policy positions are prepared by a team of political scientists who then check with the political parties to ensure they are accurate, according to the Vote Compass methodology.
Just under 300,000 people have used Vote Compass so far this year. Some of them are taking issue with the tool because it didn’t give them the response they wanted.
In particular, many people who identified as Labor voters have been told their views more closely align with the Greens. One particularly viral tweet from @JohnGar77003277 questioned the results: “Just completed ABC ‘Vote Compass.’ It says I’m a Green voter. Actually I’m a social Democrat who votes Labor. How did this result happen?”
Dozens of people replied in chorus, lamenting the same result. Guardian Australia columnist Van Badham even criticised Vote Compass as being “deceptive” for not taking into consideration “the likelihood of a party being able to deliver the policies you like”, despite the tool explicitly saying it only considers policy preferences and not other factors.
Some people also noticed that Labor had been moved further towards the conservative side of the social issues axis compared with previous iterations.
Chris Salisbury worked on the University of Queensland team that helped devise the 2015 Vote Compass for the state election that year. He responded on Twitter to people’s criticisms by saying that parties were responsible for the changes in their position on the political grid.
He also offered a barb to those criticising the tool in bad faith: “What hasn’t changed is people misconstruing Vote Compass as ‘ABC bias’, as ‘defective’/‘deceptive’ or as advocating who to vote for.”
In a statement provided to Crikey, an ABC spokesperson reiterated the stated purpose and limitations of the tool: “[Vote Compass] is designed to get people engaged in the democratic process. Sometimes users are surprised at their results. The user then has the opportunity to explore party policies more in-depth.
“Vote Compass does not tell people how to vote,” the spokesperson said.
If people voted according to actual policy rather than brand or personality cult, the Greens would be a shoo-in.
Also, if Labor don’t like where they are sitting on the compass, they should stop drifting to the right!
In attempting to present a small target to the Turdoch bots they (ALP) may appear to be moving further right. But I’m hoping that if they gain power we will see far better outcomes than anything we’ll get from a putrid LNP. Greens have always been fairly silent on non climate policies – and that (in my opinion) does them harm (economic management for example). But the sad state of our “democracy” means that in reality, we’re unlikely to get many polititions in power who would be capable of running a Bunings Sausage Sizzle.
No, the Greens are not fairly silent on anything
But they are generally unheard as they are not the LNP.
The triumph of optimism over experience if ever I saw it. Labor governments (and UK Labour governments) reliably deliver less than they promised. When Labor is promising this little, if it wins it will deliver next to nothing. Though I can agree with you that Labor delivering next to nothing might still be a relief after all the crap the Coalition delivers.
Your stab at the Green Party is also ill-informed. It has a pretty full range of policies for this election, all on its web site of course. The Green Party’s big problem is that it gets little attention compared to the main parties, the attention it does get is usually hostile and it has never had a chance to show what it can do so anybody can believe almost anything about it; such as the myth that it is only concerned with climate issues.
We were very impressed with Adam Bants’s speech and ideas today at the press club, however, one politician a party doth not make!
Labor governments in Australia rarely, if ever, have had the luxury of also having a majority in the Senate, unlike the LNP. The same has pertained with UK Labour and the House of Lords, until recently. Green enthusiasts, particularly those who previously tried and failed to inject the ALP with their more radical views, always paint the ALP as a pale imitation of the Liberals, but a more considered study of the records of the Whitlam, Hawke and Rudd/Gillard governments does not support this. Lenin had the same dim view of the Australian labour movement after visiting during his exile, which may be instructive for some. The Greens can have all the policies they like, but they’ll never get a chance to implement them simply because Labor voters tend to regard them as a bunch of well-off dilettantes with no real empathy for the less-advantaged, and even less idea of how the rest of the world works. That’s why they tend to stay Labor voters, and not switch their votes to the Greens.
“The Green Party’s big problem is that it gets little attention compared to the main parties,”
That’s the main part of the issue I was alluding to. They need to do more to get their full range of policies out there (few people will visit their web site).
To be honest – I’d probably be more inclined to vote Green. As Vote Compass stated – I do allign closer to the Greens than to the ALP. BUT – for the last two elections I’ve voted ALP first and Greens second – because I believe we desperately need to get rid of the Scummo and his vile dung beetles. Best way to achieve that (IMO) is to first preferance the acceptable / tolerable opposition that stands the best chance of getting the LNP out of office.
“They need to do more to get their full range of policies out there”\
Duh! Any suggestions? The Green Party does not control the Australian media and those who do are not its friends. It can buy advertising space of course but it has very little money. So what should it do? Make a deal with Clive Palmer?
“I’ve voted ALP first and Greens second”
How would putting the Green Party ahead of Labor be any less effective for the objective of removing the Morrison Gang from government? This is a serious question. Given how our voting system operates, if you put both Labor and the Greens ahead of the Liberals and Nationals it seems to me you have done as much as is possible to elect one of them instead of a Liberal / National. Which way around you put Labor or Greens does not matter for that, but as a separate issue it would make sense to put the party you prefer, out of the two, ahead of the other.
“ They need to do more to get their full range of policies out there”
How? Your ABC’s Q&A gave their seat at the Budget 2022 table to bloody News Corpse! How are the Greens supposed to get their policies out when not even the national broadcaster will give them a platform? All they’re ever offered is a sound bite on climate change!
Social media can only do so much.
Like many Australians, you don’t understand preferencing. Labor has continued to fuel this ignorance so they can continue to argue the Greens are a marginal party. If you put Greens first ahead of Labor second in your preferences, your vote will still go to Labor if/when the Greens drop out of the count. However, the count would show that your first preference was Greens/ their policies and therefore flag to Labor they need to move to the left instead of continuing to drift right. By putting Greens second after Labor, you ensure that preference is only counted and known if the Greens and Liberals/Independent are both ahead of Labor and are fighting it out on preferences for the seat. Then when your vote fails to save Labor, your preference goes to the Greens. But for most seats, your Greens preference second will be unknown and irrelevant.
If true that “…I’ve voted ALP first and Greens second…” then you have no idea how STV (Reps) and PR/STV (Senate) electoral system works.
In both cases, not only did your vote stop with ‘Labor’ but the Greens were deprived of the $2.82@ for all primary votes above 5% – which it might have received even though not winning the seat.
We have a relatively simple, fair voting system (a pox on FptP as in UK, Canada & USA) which can/could/should be used tactically if one live in an unchanging ‘safe for stupid‘ seat.
It behoves all who claim an interest & concern for the nation’s well being to understand and use it with intelligence.
Crikey, take note.
Could you create a simple, clear “explainer”, with examples of tactical voting and post it on your website – not behind the paywall. The AEC should do this, of course, but apparently don’t make it a priority.
The Juice Media already made one https://youtu.be/rnzaiYrvvrw
Thanks, Wayne, just looked at it now. Brilliant!
Agree
Keith, the replies to my concern have clarified it for me.
I agree our voting system is far superior to FptP (it would be even better if lower houses were elected by PR with multi-member electorates), and I agree with the idea of smart, tactical voting.
But my problem with our STV system (correct me if I’m wrong) is that preference-counting starts with the votes for the least popular candidates and stops when one candidate has received > 50% of the vote. So your scenario above works fine if there are three candidates (Lib, ALP, Greens), but what happens when (as is common these days) there are 9 candidates, with Lib and ALP battling it out for top spot with Greens third but with relatively few votes? By the time the preference-counting reaches the Greens, Lib or ALP might be over the line, and Greens preferences would not be counted, thereby wasting the Green votes.
Happy to be corrected, but if my understanding is correct, in a 9-candidate contest, it’s smart to vote for a really minor party, but not a major-minor party like the Greens. This conclusion does depend on the size of the Lib/ALP/Greens primary votes, of course.
The Single Transferable Vote is a measure of the voter’s druthers in declining order.
I really want Bloggs so I allocate #1 but can live with Smith so give #2, Jones makes me ill but will receive #3 and although an idiot Bozo isn’t crooked so gets #4 and so on, no matter how many no-hopers, freeks, fakes and false flaggers are on the ballot.
(NB It is essential to understand that, unlike in some state elections, ALL the candidates must be numbered to submit a formal vote in the Reps.)
When the count is finished, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their #2 allocated as directed as well as their other preferences for other candidates.
After each allocation of preferences the candidate then with the fewest votes is eliminated and so on upwards until all but two candidates remain.
It is not unusual, with preference whisperers and Fat Miners harvesting preferences for the lead to shift back and forth.
The same procedure applies in Multiple Member Electorates (MME) such as Aotearoa & the Merkin Isle and many Euroland countries, the most familiar being Ireland.
I think you’ve missed my point and your reply subsequently fails to reassure me that there are scenarios where Greens preferences may not be counted because Lib or ALP have achieved 50% + 1 (not ‘until all but two candidates remain’) on the basis of other minor party preferences before the count reaches Greens preferences (ie, not all preferences are necessarily counted).
Obviously, if a candidate has 50%+1 of primary votes then they win – it is numerically impossible for another candidate have more – the Rootbeeter being an example with 54.8% of primary votes on the first count.
Nonetheless the count would continue as required until only two candidates remain which is how the 2PP figure is calculated.
You have previously demonstrated a stubborn refusal to accept plain fact – aka obduracy.
Whether this is a failure of reading comprehension or deliberately being obtuse is for you to consider.
If you are really interested in rational discussion (rather than grand-standing), you may care to answer the problem with our STV system that I posed above. If your reading comprehension is not up to the task, then the following theoretical scenario may help.
There are 100 voters in an electorate. After first preferences are counted, Libs have 44 first preference votes, ALP 44, Green 5, PHON 4, UAP 3. Second preferences are counted starting with UAP until one candidate reaches 51 votes (not until there are two candidates remaining – crucial difference). Assuming all the UAP and PHON second preferences go to the Libs, the Liberal candidate would have 51 votes and would have won the seat without the count getting to the Greens preferences. Greens votes preferencing ALP would all be wasted.
If my understanding is correct, there may be scenarios where Roberto above is correct to vote ALP if his priority is to get rid of Scummo, even though he is inclined more toward Greens policies, especially with 9-candidate seats (= the norm these days) and vote-harvesting and preference deals.
If someone can prove me wrong, I would be very grateful. Epimenides doesn’t seem to be up to the task.
No, your ‘understanding’ is not correct.
You cannot be simply too dumb so, as on many previous occasions with other posters, your sole purpose can only be to obfuscate, mislead and bore people to distraction.
It’s called rigorous enquiry and critical thinking, Epimenides. If these things irk you, maybe you should be posting on Murdoch’s tabloids rather than Crikey.
Which part of my understanding is incorrect? More information and less ad-hominem abuse would be useful.
TIME WASTER.
In this scenario, if the Coalition makes 50%+1 on other preferences, then obviously it makes no difference whether your 1st preference was Greens or Labor. because the Coalition candidate was going to win anyway. Please present some simplified numbers to show how you think it could possibly work any other way.
Good point. I’ll think about it.
Maybe that’s the answer to my problem – Greens preferences are not counted only in those circumstances where they would not have made a difference to the outcome anyway. I would still like that confirmed by someone who understands the arithmetic of it all better than I do.
Thanks MAC. You’ve put your finger on the flaw in my concern. My understanding was correct (there may well be scenarios where the second-preference distribution does not get to the party with the third-highest primary vote, usually the Greens, whose votes are therefore ‘wasted’), but only when it doesn’t matter to the outcome. Appreciate your time.
You haven’t got the example you need: the ALP plus Greens is only 49. What you need is an example where two parties have more than 50 votes when second preferences are counted but only the “first past the post” gets elected depending on which minor parties’ preferences are distributed first. That does not seem possible to me. The best you can do is get two parties on 50 votes in your example, because you have the first preferences adding up to 100. To have two parties with first preferences plus second preferences to add up to more than 50, you will need first preferences for all parties to add up to more than 100. Does that make it clear to you why your example is not going to work?
Thanks, Ian, for spotting the numerical flaw in my concern and for your very clear explanation. I was so hung-up on the party with the third-highest primary vote not having their second preferences counted that I didn’t move on to see that it was only going to be in those scenarios where it was not going to alter the outcome anyway. Appreciate your time.
Actually, putting Greens second achieves nothing after your primary vote for Labor is counted. Nobody will ever see it or count it. If you put The Greens first, that pile of primary votes will be smaller than the pile of Labor primary votes, so, being smaller, The Greens’ pile will be redistributed according to the second preferences.
If you really want The Greens in and support their policies and want to keep the LNP out, the way to do it is to put The Greens first, and your vote will ultimately go to Labor as long as you put Labor second. Of course, if enough people did vote 1 Greens, The Greens could actually be voted into government!
Preferential voting, people. Know how to use it to achieve the result you want.
I sympathise with your dilemma, Roberto. You may be interested in the problem scenario (below) I replied to Epimenides with, which he fails to grapple with.
(above), actually
Have you heard of preferential voting? Do you understand how it works?
Richard, I would be glad if you could answer my query above since that great Grandstander, Epimenides, seems interested only in ad-hominem abuse and blowing his own trumpet rather than engaging in rigorous analysis.
Radical Red explained, as well as the point that if someone gets 50%, they win, it doesn’t matter if you put your party 1st or second if someone else gets 50%. The 5% primary vote to get funding is an interesting point too.
Thanks Richard. MAC089 and Ian Hunt also did a good job of pointing out the numerical impossibility of my concern. And yes, Epimenides’ point about the 5% primary vote for funding purposes is also worth remembering.
Roberto, read the explanations to my concern, which clarified it for me.
At this point anyone who isn’t trying to actively take us backwards would be a nice change.
The Libs are not taking us backward, they are taking us forward into a new, dark place.
For years I was disappointed that the Lib/Nats seemed to be taking us back to 1950.
Now I’m alarmed: their destination looks more like 1940…
“UK Labour governments”?
What are they? In the past 43 years there’s only been one (Blair’s), so I’m not sure the plural is justified.
Greens Derangement Syndrome. The derisory opinion many seem to hold of the Greens isn’t based on their policies, nor anything real, just some fusty old preconceptions about ‘greenies’.
I don’t know about Bunings, but if their sausages are as good as Bunnings I’m up for it!
Unlike IKEA, Bunnings does not sell food.
The sausage sizzles are usually a local group (school, SES, nursery etc) raising funds and source the snags where they can which is rarely in the plumbing or tools aisles.
Not the Green members I have known, although a ‘broad church’, rather than focus upon fossil fuels as needing constraints & pricing, they prefer to bang on about immigration, population growth and the need for ‘control’ as an environmental ‘hygiene’ issue; straight from the eugenics movement.
Why should it be a shock to people that they are actually ethical individuals with integrity who care about the future of the planet?
That’s a good question. However, I suspect the real disjunction in the thinking of the discombobulated is the gap between the Labor Party in their heads and the one actually campaigning in this election. Thanks to the efforts of the Murdoch mob and other liars they imagine Labor stands for all sorts of good things it in fact abandoned long ago in its unceasing efforts to shadow the Liberals as closely as possible. Clive Palmer’s advertising, for example, portrays a quite wonderful but sadly imaginary Labor Party we can only wish for.
Weird isn’t it?
Often when I hear Scummo or the usual suspects accusing ‘Labor’ of planning to do something I think “If only that were true!”.
True true sadly true. The Compass got it right imo. Failing to immediately raise job keeper and raise millions out of abject poverty – and for sake of preserving democracy as well and indicating support for tier 3 tax cuts caused me to unsubscribe to Labor mails and donate to the Greens as I could no longer rationale their policy drift as solely due to trying to be a small target after 2019.
I suspect it goes much further than that. I suspect it’s more a case of LNP supporters finding they’re more aligned with ALP and Green polities
Would be a shock for Liberals!
Except they’re aren’t. Given a choice between self interest and the welfare of others, self interest will win every time, irregardless of people’s professed good intentions.
From what I’ve heard, the research shows otherwise. We are ‘hardwired’ as social animals. Margaret Thatcher was deluded to deny the existence of society.
There is a difference between caring about “us” and caring about “those people not like me”.
Vote Compas says explicitly on its web site:
Even Crikey’s email headline for this has “ is informing Labor supporters they should be voting for the Greens “.
It does not.
It reveals, of each party’s stated policy positions, how closely your views match. It has obvious gaps — discussed in their methodology — regarding ‘small target’ campaigns and parties which routinely lie about their policies.
Pretty obvious to me that those who are concerned that their views align more closely with the Greens than Labor lose the courage of their convictions as soon as they enter the ballot box.
No, they actually say in that Twitter thread that they’ll be voting Labor because they’re Labor voters, always have been and could never vote Green. The fact that the Vote Compass told them they’re Green apparently means that it’s broken. Or somehow rigged to lure Labor voters away from Labor(!?!) And these are probably the same people who complain about ‘rusted on’, ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ Coalition voters who ‘vote against their own interests’. Yes, face meet mirror.
“I’m a social Democrat who votes Labor. How did this result happen?”
I bought some no-alcohol beer and didn’t get drunk. How did that happen?
Nicely put.
You make the same point, more crisply & sharply, than Einstein’s observation about expecting a different result.
There’s no evidence for Einstein as the source of the irritating, trite and obviously wrong saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Anyone who ever flipped a coin several times has disproven it. Einstein deserves better.
It was John Cage who said, “If something is boring for one minute, try doing it for two minutes. If it’s still boring after two minutes, try it for four minutes..”
Also practicing a musical instrument.
Perhaps it is a misattribution due to ad verecundiam?