An average of 5.2% (800k votes) not counting - called “informal” in Australia (as it is here in New Zealand), you might also see “spoiled”.
However the question is, with 89.9% turnout and 5.2% spoil, are they still achieving better voter engagement overall than we did in NZ with 78.2% turnout but only 0.6% spoiled?
You could probably argue either way; as some people definitely wouldn’t consider showing up but voting for no-one, will they check a box at random (and does this benefit the first party in the list alphabetically?). I’m sure someone has written a paper on this.
There’s an easier solution in place. Just don’t fill out the paperwork.
You are required to show up at a polling place, you aren’t required to put in a legitimate vote.
This I think is from their previous election: https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseInformalByState-27966.htm
An average of 5.2% (800k votes) not counting - called “informal” in Australia (as it is here in New Zealand), you might also see “spoiled”.
However the question is, with 89.9% turnout and 5.2% spoil, are they still achieving better voter engagement overall than we did in NZ with 78.2% turnout but only 0.6% spoiled?
You could probably argue either way; as some people definitely wouldn’t consider showing up but voting for no-one, will they check a box at random (and does this benefit the first party in the list alphabetically?). I’m sure someone has written a paper on this.
Ballot order is randomised at different polling stations to avoid the issue of the first name on the list having an advantage