The right to vote, informal

I have been watching with increasing unease the responses to the Australian election. The #qanda tweets, and the #ausvotes statements have spent a large proportion of their efforts chastising those who voted informally.

In Blaxland, the informal vote was 14% out of less than 73,000 votes. The average swing of the informal vote was (nation-wide) over 5%, and over 5% in NSW. Where I live (ACT) the average informal vote was only 3%. Perhaps this is due to the difference in job, and education.

Several statements I have seen have said something to the effect "you $%^$ people who voted informal, look what you've done" as if, had all the informal voters voted formally, their votes would not have distributed in the same manner as everyone else's. And the fact that a hung parliament is somehow
(a) a bad thing or
(b) in any way anyone within a 5% margin's fault

I did not vote informally, I think doing so is odd, if not down-right silly. But I also believe voting above the line in the senate - and thereby allowing some unknown party official to select who gets my real vote - is also stupid. And I think that voting for One Nation or Family First is stupid - all of which just goes to show that what I think is stupid is not a measure of what should (or should not) be permitted.

Nonetheless, to vote informally is my right. Should I wish to go to the polling booth and draw on it, or write a poem on it, or simply leave it blank, then that is my right. There seem to be several arguments against this, and I'd like to address some of the popular ones

They (whoever they are - WWI vets, WWII vets, some other soldier...) died to give us the right to vote; therefore you should vote properly. Not true. They died giving us the right to a free society In some of the older wars they died upholding status quo which did not allow women, or various other groups to vote. We live in a free society, and that freedom means you choose who you wish to vote for, even if that is no-one.

By not voting you allow bad things - such as hung parliaments - to happen. No, you just don't bother to push toward any particular outcome. Statistically, the people who don't vote, if they were forced to vote formally, would have voted the same conclusion as the one we have now - 50-50. More to the point, just because everyone didn't vote the way you wanted, don't blame the people who didn't bother to vote at all.

It's bad for democracy when people vote informal. No - informal voting at 5% is by far a smaller issue than voluntary voting. In the US, less than 50% voter turn-out is a regular occurrence in the US polls. I don't imagine many people would argue that the US is anti-democratic. It probably gives the clearest sign that people are against status quo, whilst not being for an alternate - and that is impossible to say otherwise.

Informal voting is not a problem. Burying your head in the sand, whilst not a good one, is a valid option. However, voting "1" in a box above the line, and then letting whoever that party was deal out your vote - that is insane.

Here's why. I can't let my mum vote for me. I can't say to my wife "hey, whatever party YOU like, I'll vote for that, so here's my identifying card, go for your life." It's completely anathema. Yet, this is exactly what preference deals by parties amounts to "yo, dude, if you don't get in, put whoever-you-god-damn-please in your place" That sort of abdication of voting responsibility is why we had Steve Fielding, and why many people just don't care who represents them - why would you? I voted for the first guy, but some random next-best got in, not my problem.

So, however badly, I am arguing that one should not be given the option of voting above the line. But that means numbering every single box below. Which is the cynical part. That is, the electoral act which declares any vote which does not number all the boxes below the line to be informal. That is cynical.

Numbering all boxes should not be necessary - after all, there is no reason why a vote which only numbers the first few boxes below the line cannot be counted. If I number ALP 1, LIB 2, GRN 3 and then just stop, it's quite obvious what my intention is: First-ALP, then if they don't get it, LIB and then (and only then) green. AND if none of the above, my vote is null, I don't want any of the remaining lot in.

However, by forcing us to number every box, the major parties cynically ensure that  one of them will capture the preferences of the minor parties and independents. Eventually, your vote is going to hit either ALP & LIB - even if you put them last and second-last. If the other guys don't score enough votes - which is always a likely outcome - then one of the 2 defaults will score a two-party-prefer vote, and claim you as a loyal supporter of whatever their mandate was. And so, in effect, since you can't avoid voting for everyone, you might as well just vote in the first box and be done with it - this cyncism on the part of the major parties means that they always get a chance at scraps.

Ultimately, when we have to number every box, we are forced to discriminate between parties that we do not wish to give any vote to ever. For instance, I never wanted to vote for One Nation. But I had to number them (they got last). At the time I also had to vote for Fred Nile (he got second last) and I feel squeamish that I had to decide between Fred & Pauline which was the lesser of two evils.

My freedom to vote is also my freedom to not vote. And this freedom ought to extend to allow me to choose up to what point I will vote. If I like the first three candidates, and only the first three, then so be it. Sorry number 4, you miss out, not my vote.