PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA
	Tel +613 9589 1802	Tel +61429176725	18 Anita Street	BEAUMARIS VIC 3193
		info@prsa.org.au	www.prsa.org.au	12th October 2008

Extremes in Percentage of First Preference Votes for Elected Senators since PR Began in 1949
Source data by courtesy of the Australian Electoral Commission
Compare the Senate pattern below with the pattern for Tasmania’s Hare-Clark elections. The Senate pattern has much less evenness in the spread of first preference votes among the elected candidates within party columns than Hare-Clark. The much greater control that parties exercise for Senate elections is because the Senate’s PR system inherited the pre-existing REGIMENTED system of voting created by the listing of candidates’ names in each party column on the ballot-paper in the order the party determines. The Senate system became even more REGIMENTED in 1983 by the introduction of GROUP VOTING TICKETS. The minimum percentage of first preference votes for an elected senator for Tasmania is 18 times the mean of the minimum percentage for the other States. At Tasmania’s House of Assembly elections, which have never used the REGIMENTED Senate system that discourages voters from choosing the order of their party’s candidates, voters’ individual choices result in first preference votes being much more evenly spread among each party’s candidates than with the stage-managed Senate system, and voters are not misled into giving other parties preferences that they would not be expected to give.
		Minimum Percentage of First Preference Votes										Maximum Percentage of First Preference Votes
Date of General or Periodic Senate Poll	Quota * (%)							Mean of States exc. Tas.	Ratio of Tas. to Mean of Others	Elected Candidate with Lowest % of First Preference Votes								Mean of States exc. Tas.	Elected Candidate with Highest % of First Preference Votes
§ Denotes polls for Senate alone.		Tas.	NSW	Vic.	Qld	SA	WA			Name of Senator with the LOWEST % of first preference votes	Order in Column on Ballot-paper of All Candidates in Column	Tas.	NSW	Vic.	Qld.	SA	WA		Name of Senator with the HIGHEST % of first preference votes	Order in Column on Ballot-paper of All Candidates in Column
2013-09-07	14.29	0.24	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.10	0.02	0.02	7	Simon Birmingham	2nd of 6	36.73	34.12	40.04	41.30	27.29	39.10	36.37	Ian McDonald	1st of 6
2010-08-21	14.29	0.39	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.07	0.01	0.03	14	Matthew Thistlethwaite	2nd of 6	38.25	38.78	37.62	40.97	38.02	42.84	39.65	Matthias Cormann	1st of 6
2007-11-24	14.29	0.33	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.06	0.02	0.03	11	Marise Payne	3rd of 6	40.06	41.97	41.63	40.19	35.25	46.11	41.03	David Johnston	1st of 6
2004-10-09	14.29	0.69	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.04	0.05	0.03	23	Concetta Fierravanti-Wells	2nd of 6	43.36	44.04	44.00	38.17	47.17	49.13	44.5	Christopher Ellison	1st of 6
2001-11-10	14.29	0.31	0.02	0.02	0.09	0.07	0.03	0.05	6	Marise Payne	3rd of 6	35.73	41.65	39.51	34.74	45.27	39.60	40.15	Robert Hill	1st of 6
1998-10-03	14.29	0.98	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.06	0.05	0.04	28	Tsebin Tchen	3rd of 6	39.54	37.93	40.41	32.60	40.28	38.13	37.87	Stephen Conroy	1st of 6
1996-03-02	14.29	1.44	0.04	0.03	0.08	0.06	0.04	0.05	28	Rod Kemp	2nd of 6	39.26	41.23	41.31	35.20	45.66	45.18	41.72	Robert Hill	1st of 6
1993-03-13	14.29	0.40	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	14	Chris Ellison	3rd of 6	37.30	46.77	44.87	39.22	45.48	48.15	44.90	Sue Knowles	1st of 6
1990-03-24	14.29	1.14	0.04	0.03	0.09	0.06	0.07	0.06	19	Barney Cooney	2nd of 6	40.99	40.47	44.23	38.79	41.16	42.89	41.51	Richard Alston	1st of 6
1987-07-11	7.69	0.34	0.03	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.02	16	Robert Ray	4th of 7	36.11	38.66	43.70	41.80	41.14	42.56	41.57	John Button	1st of 7
From after the 1984 polls, a Senate voter could vote EITHER above-the-line using a GROUP VOTING TICKET, which casts a vote in the exact order of preferences a party wants, OR directly and explicitly as he or she wants below-the-line. GVTs increased voters' tendency to vote exactly as urged by their party.
1984-12-01	12.50#	0.71	0.07	0.10	0.17	0.07	0.23	0.13	5	Bruce Childs	2nd of 5	36.86	41.26	43.81	39.26	41.45	42.97	41.75	Olive Zakharov	1st of 4
1983-03-05	9.09	0.75	0.03	0.02	0.05	0.07	0.05	0.04	18	Robert Ray	4th of 6	30.33	47.01	46.27	38.25	43.88	48.77	44.84	Peter Walsh	1st of 6
1980-10-18	16.67	5.69	0.18	0.14	1.26	0.11	0.20	0.38	15	Robert Hill	2nd of 3	32.57	44.42	40.66	37.94	43.11	43.99	42.02	James McClelland	1st of 3
1977-12-10	16.67	1.84	0.07	0.10	0.26	0.07	0.09	0.12	16	Milivoj Lajovic	2nd of 3	37.99	38.16	37.31	43.58	43.35	41.02	40.68	Kathryn Martin	1st of 3
1975-12-13	9.09	0.60	0.02	0.04	0.06	0.03	0.02	0.03	18	Kerry Sibraa	5th of 6	37.23	49.00	49.56	56.10	50.87	51.22	51.35	Neville Bonner	1st of 7
1974-05-18	9.09	0.73	0.02	0.06	0.10	0.04	0.05	0.06	13	John Carrick	2nd of 6	32.76	49.33	46.23	47.86	46.14	43.96	46.71	Lionel Murphy	1st of 6
1970-11-21§	16.67	4.43	0.21	0.17	0.37	0.22	0.33	0.26	17	George Hannan	3rd of 3	34.70	44.86	37.77	41.06	43.18	42.43	41.86	Tony Mulvihill	1st of 3
1967-11-25§	16.67	2.43	0.35	0.14	0.35	0.44	0.38	0.33	7	Arthur Poyser	2nd of 2	30.44	47.58	40.07	43.23	46.73	41.21	43.76	Douglas McClelland	1st of 3
1964-12-05§	16.67	9.94	0.31	0.24	0.26	0.19	0.40	0.28	35	Clement Ridley	2nd of 3	30.75	47.15	42.33	42.24	50.50	37.75	43.99	James Toohey	1st of 3
1961-12-09	16.67	3.45	0.15	0.23	0.35	0.29	0.62	0.33	11	Lionel Murphy	2nd of 3	31.50	47.15	39.99	42.11	48.77	41.35	43.87	Theophilus Nicholls	1st of 3
1958-11-02	16.67	10.37	0.19	0.36	0.86	0.29	0.52	0.44	23	James Ormonde	2nd of 3	26.19	43.55	43.13	45.05	46.38	39.24	43.47	James Toohey	1st of 3
1955-12-10	16.67	2.91	0.51	0.31	0.89	0.41	0.87	0.60	5	Harrie Wade	2nd of 2	28.79	47.42	44.96	50.86	44.62	43.12	46.20	Walter Cooper	1st of 3
1953-05-09§	16.67¶	5.53	0.45	0.38	0.51	0.35	0.34	0.41	14	John   Harris	3rd of 3	26.02	51.80	50.15	46.96	51.74	46.80	49.49	Stanley Amour	1st of 3
1951-04-28	9.09¶	3.61	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.11	0.39	0.13	29	Magnus Cormack	5th of 5	18.02	46.67	49.55	55.50	48.32	49.51	49.91	Walter Cooper	1st of 6
1949-12-10	12.50#¶	6.06	0.38	0.13	0.23	0.23	0.65	0.32	19	John Gorton	3rd of 4	22.91	50.02	47.89	50.81	46.65	41.51	47.38	Edmund Maher	1st of 4
Mean		3.17	0.16	0.13	0.30	0.16	0.27	0.20	18			34.31	45.02	43.71	43.42	45.47	43.59	17.52
Least Extreme		10.37	0.51	0.38	1.26	0.44	0.87	0.60	5			26.19	37.93	32.60	32.60	40.28	37.75	37.87
Most Extreme		0.34	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	35	Robert Ray		40.99	51.80	50.15	56.10	51.74	51.22	51.35	Neville Bonner
The maximum percentage, and also the minimum percentage, of first preference votes gained by an elected senator, in Australia at any poll above, has occurred in one of the years above in every State but Tasmania, almost certainly because Tasmanian voters, used to the control that Hare-Clark, at State level, gives them over the election outcome, are much more likely than voters in any other State to vote below-the-line. They therefore tend to spread their first preference votes over a range of candidates rather than just concentrating them on the candidate at the head of the party how-to-vote ticket, as has long been typical in all the mainland States.
For an account of the changes in Senate ballot-paper layout and formality rules since 1902, which affect voter practices and vote outcomes, click here.
The 1998 percentage for Stephen Conroy, Senator for Victoria, is based on the official Australian Electoral Commission result, not the incorrect figure in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Handbook.
The 1972-12-02 poll, for only the Lower House and Senate casual vacancies, elected Neville Bonner (Lib, Qld). Such polls elected I.Greenwood (Lib, Vic) on 1969-10-25, & J.Sim (Lib, WA) & L.Wilkinson (ALP, WA) on 1966-11-26.
The only senators elected with an extreme vote were Coalition, in blue type, and ALP shown in red type.
* Until the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 was approved at a referendum, Senate casual vacancies were pooled with periodic or general Senate vacancies at polls. The number of vacancies became larger than normal, so some States sometimes had a lower quota.
# Denotes the election here of 7 senators, in the transition to more senators per State.
¶ At these polls Tasmanians' prior Hare-Clark practice resulted, uniquely, in election of some Liberal and ALP candidates in a different order from the regimented (stage-managed) Senate ballot-paper order. * * * * * * *