Close Menu
Honi Soit
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • Where is the outrage?: National protest against gender-based violence
    • Battling personalities and deadlines: The spectrum of characters in group assessments
    • Another Election? Why the USU Election Matters
    • HackWatch: Who Wants to be a Board Director?
    • 2025 USU Board Candidate Profile: Archie Wolifson
    • 2025 USU Board Candidate Profile: Layla Wang
    • 2025 USU Board Candidate Profile: Annika Wang
    • 2025 USU Board Candidate Profile: Cassidy Newman
    • About
    • Print Edition
    • Student Journalism Conference 2025
    • Writing Comp
    • Advertise
    • Locations
    • Contact
    Facebook Instagram X (Twitter) TikTok
    Honi SoitHoni Soit
    Monday, May 12
    • News
    • Analysis
    • Culture
    • Opinion
    • University
    • Features
    • Perspective
    • Investigation
    • Reviews
    • Comedy
    • Student Journalism Conference 2025
    Honi Soit
    Home»Analysis

    SRC voting: The explainer

    Welcome to day one of psephology school.
    By Honi SoitSeptember 18, 2018 Analysis 3 Mins Read
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    Psephology is the technical term for someone who studies elections and voting. It comes from Ancient Greek psephos, meaning pebble. That’s because in Athenian democracy, citizens voted in certain ballots by placing a coloured pebble in an urn: white pebble for yes, black pebble for no.

    Antony Green, the ABC’s electoral analyst, is a psephologist. We are not psephologists because thank God the SRC vote doesn’t use multicoloured pebbles.

    Instead, it relies on two complicated systems of voting. One of those systems applies to the president and Honi Soit elections. It’s called:

    Instant runoff preferential voting

    This method of voting is handy when multiple candidates are vying for only one position. Voters mark their ballots with a 1 for their favourite candidate. They can stop there, or they can number their second favourite candidate with a 2. They can continue numbering in descending order, stopping whenever they like or once all candidates are numbered.

    Counting the vote is where things get complicated. The winning candidate must have over 50 per cent of the vote—a majority. So if one candidate has over 50 per cent of 1s, that candidate wins and the count is over. If there’s no majority on first preferences, the count moves to round two: the candidate with the least first preferences is eliminated. Then their votes are redistributed, going to the candidate numbered 2 on each of the eliminated candidate’s ballots. Or, if no 2 is marked, the vote ‘exhausts’, meaning it will not count. The remaining candidates’ first and second preferences are totalled; if someone has a majority, they win.

    If no majority emerges, the count moves to round three: the candidate who is now coming last is eliminated and their votes are reallocated. If the newly-eliminated candidate relied on any second preferences in round two, their third preferences are counted instead. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.

    Preference deals

    As in most years’ presidential elections, this crop of candidates have negotiated preference deals. Those deals look a bit like this:

    Candidate A promises candidate B to instruct their voters to give their second preference to candidate B. In return, candidate B usually does the same, instructing their voters to mark candidate A with a 2

    Candidates’ how-to-vote cards present voters with a suggested voting order, which reflect the preference deal. Campaigners distribute these brightly coloured pieces of paper to their walk-and-talk victims. Voter’s don’t have to follow this order: even if they preference candidate A first, they’re not compelled to preference candidate B second—they can choose whoever they like. That said, voters tend to be compliant, maybe because they want the whole agonising walk through a sea of hacks to end (oh god, please let it end). Some voter bases tend to be more disciplined when it comes to the suggested order: the average follow-through is around 60 per cent, but Panda voters have consistently proved to be more compliant.

    This year, there are two mutual preference deals: Jacky He (Panda) has shacked up with Adriana Malavisi (Reboot/Labor Unity), and  Lara Sonnenschein (Grassroots) has negotiated with Alex Yang (Advance).

    elections explainer instant runoff preferences preferential runoff SRC vote voting

    Keep Reading

    Another Election? Why the USU Election Matters

    HackWatch: Who Wants to be a Board Director?

    No Changes to USU Governance: A Rundown of the SGM

    The Smallest Council That Ever Lived: May 2025 SRC Council

    Feminist, inclusive, and post-binary language in French and beyond

    We Fight With Sex Workers Or Not At All

    Just In

    Where is the outrage?: National protest against gender-based violence

    May 12, 2025

    Battling personalities and deadlines: The spectrum of characters in group assessments

    May 12, 2025

    Another Election? Why the USU Election Matters

    May 10, 2025

    HackWatch: Who Wants to be a Board Director?

    May 10, 2025
    Editor's Picks

    We Will Be Remembered As More Than Administrative Errors

    May 7, 2025

    NSW universities in the red as plague of cuts hit students & staff

    April 30, 2025

    Your Compliance Will Not Save You

    April 16, 2025

    Remembering Khanh Tran: How Activists Won the Fight for a Disabilities Room on Campus

    April 9, 2025
    Facebook Instagram X (Twitter) TikTok

    From the mines

    • News
    • Analysis
    • Higher Education
    • Culture
    • Features
    • Investigation
    • Comedy
    • Editorials
    • Letters
    • Misc

     

    • Opinion
    • Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Reviews
    • Science
    • Social
    • Sport
    • SRC Reports
    • Tech

    Admin

    • About
    • Editors
    • Send an Anonymous Tip
    • Write/Produce/Create For Us
    • Print Edition
    • Locations
    • Archive
    • Advertise in Honi Soit
    • Contact Us

    We acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. The University of Sydney – where we write, publish and distribute Honi Soit – is on the sovereign land of these people. As students and journalists, we recognise our complicity in the ongoing colonisation of Indigenous land. In recognition of our privilege, we vow to not only include, but to prioritise and centre the experiences of Indigenous people, and to be reflective when we fail to be a counterpoint to the racism that plagues the mainstream media.

    © 2025 Honi Soit
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms
    • Accessibility

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.