Donkeys To Help Libs Retain Key Seats

Originally inspired by a 2006 news release from the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia.

Democracy, in its purest form, is meant to be the triumph of informed choice. Every vote, a deliberate expression of belief. Every ballot, a level playing field. But what happens when luck – not logic – tips the scales?

That’s the question that resurfaced in March 2006, when the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia (ERSSA) warned that “donkeys” – not the four-legged kind, but the inattentive voters who simply number candidates from top to bottom – could help the Liberal Party retain key marginal seats in the upcoming State Election.

The story, then titled “Donkeys to Help Libs Retain Key Seats,” revealed something quietly unsettling about democracy: sometimes, the order of names on a piece of paper can decide who governs.

The Power of the Donkey Vote

Before diving deeper, it’s worth explaining what a “donkey vote” actually is.

A donkey vote occurs when a voter numbers their ballot sequentially from top to bottom – 1, 2, 3, 4 – without much thought or intent. In Australia’s preferential voting system, this vote still counts. And when elections are tight, the cumulative effect of thousands of half-hearted votes can be decisive.

According to the South Australian Electoral Office, the donkey voting australia can be worth two to three percent of the total vote. That might sound small – until you realize that many state and federal seats are decided by margins far slimmer than that.

In the 2004 Federal Election, for example, South Australia’s marginal seats of Hindmarsh and Kingston were both heavily influenced by ballot order. Labor’s success in Hindmarsh and the Liberals’ win in Kingston were attributed, at least in part, to the positioning advantage. Nationally, there were five seats where the donkey vote determined the outcome.

So when the 2006 State Election loomed, the ERSSA’s warning wasn’t alarmist – it was pragmatic.

Luck of the Draw

When the ballot draw for South Australia’s 2006 House of Assembly was completed, the pattern was clear. Out of the 16 most marginal seats – those held by less than six percent – neither major party had a universal advantage. But luck had definitely smiled more brightly on the Liberals in certain key battlegrounds.

The Liberals drew the top ballot position in Light, Mawson, Newland, and Stuart – all marginal electorates. They also scored first place in Unley, a safer Liberal seat but still one worth guarding.

This seemingly minor detail, the ERSSA suggested, could very well mean the difference between a narrow victory and defeat.

It’s not that voters consciously prefer candidates whose names appear first – but rather that a measurable slice of the electorate simply votes that way out of convenience, confusion, or disinterest. And when that slice is worth a few percentage points, it can swing tight races.

“It Is Absurd That the Draw Can Determine the Result”

Deane Crabb, then Secretary of the Electoral Reform Society, summed up the frustration plainly:

“It is absurd that the draw for places on the ballot-paper can determine the result.”

Crabb’s criticism highlighted a paradox at the heart of modern elections. We spend millions on public information campaigns, polling booths, scrutineers, and electoral oversight – yet we still allow a literal lucky draw to influence outcomes.

In sports, we’d call that unfair. In business, we’d call it bias. In democracy, somehow, it’s tradition.

The Case for Robson Rotation

To fix this, Crabb and the ERSSA proposed adopting the Robson Rotation, a system already in use in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory.

Under Robson Rotation, the order of candidates’ names is rotated across multiple versions of the ballot paper. That means no one candidate benefits disproportionately from appearing first (or last, another position that sometimes gets extra attention).

Each voter sees a slightly different order, and over thousands of ballot papers, the advantage of “top billing” is mathematically cancelled out.

It’s simple, elegant, and – most importantly – fair.

By ensuring that every candidate shares equally in the random benefits of ballot placement, Robson Rotation restores integrity to the process. It ensures that elections are decided by preferences, not by position.

Why Haven’t More States Adopted It?

If Robson Rotation seems like an obvious fix, you might wonder why it hasn’t spread beyond a few Australian jurisdictions. The answer lies partly in cost and partly in complacency.

Printing multiple versions of ballots is more complex and expensive than producing a single, uniform design. Election administrators must track and distribute different versions carefully to ensure every polling place gets a fair mix.

But the deeper reason is inertia. Ballot order effects are subtle and, in most cases, do not change results dramatically. That makes reform a hard sell – especially when incumbent governments might quietly benefit from the existing system.

Yet, as Crabb pointed out, the fact that ballot order can determine a result is enough reason for reform. Even a single seat swayed by ballot position undermines the principle of genuine representation.

Democracy’s Hidden Bias

The story of South Australia’s 2006 election is more than a historical curiosity – it’s a reminder of how fragile democratic fairness can be.

While electoral debates often focus on gerrymandering, campaign finance, or media bias, the ballot paper itself is one of the most overlooked sources of inequality. Something as mundane as the order of names can distort outcomes just as surely as a misleading headline or a skewed map.

In close contests, democracy is not only shaped by ideas and policies but also by psychology and chance.

And that psychology runs deep. Studies in political science and behavioral economics consistently show that humans are influenced by position bias. We tend to select items that appear first in a list – whether it’s a restaurant on Google Maps, a candidate on a ballot, or even a product on a supermarket shelf.

Elections are no exception.

A Lesson Still Relevant Today

Nearly two decades have passed since the ERSSA issued its 2006 warning. Yet the core issue remains unresolved in many parts of Australia and beyond.

In an age when technology allows near-instant customization of everything from online ads to streaming playlists, it seems archaic that democracy still depends on a single, static ballot design.

Introducing ballot rotation – or at least more randomized and transparent systems – could be one of the simplest ways to strengthen electoral fairness without overhauling entire voting systems.

As citizens, we expect elections to reflect our collective will, not our collective laziness. But unless reforms like the Robson Rotation become the norm, the donkey vote will continue to play its quiet, mischievous role.

The Takeaway: Luck Shouldn’t Rule Democracy

The story of the “donkey vote” is more than a quirk of electoral trivia. It’s a warning – that even in mature democracies, fairness can hinge on the smallest, silliest things.

The Liberals’ stroke of luck in 2006 may have helped them hold onto key seats like Light and Newland, but it also spotlighted a deeper flaw in the system. Elections should reward strategy, policy, and persuasion – not the fortune of drawing first place on a piece of paper.

Until every state embraces reforms like the Robson Rotation, democracy will remain, at least in part, a game of chance. And in that game, sometimes the donkey wins.