I've summarised the voting tickets for each of the parties and grouped independents in the 2014 Legislative Council election.

A voting ticket is the document containing the below the line preferences for a particular party or group of independents. If you vote above the line for a party, then your vote will be treated as a vote in accordance with that party's voting ticket.

You can see the summary table in the embedded spreadsheet below, or see the full detail here (in larger text too). See below for how this was made.

There are 63 candidates in total, and 27 voting tickets. It is difficult to compare voting tickets by looking at them on the Electoral Commission of SA website, as you need to compare 27 different pieces of paper numbered from 1 to 63. This table summarises the information in one document.

**How to read the table**

Each of the columns in the table represents a party or group's voting ticket. There are 24 parties or groups of independent candidates in the election, and one independent ungrouped candidate. The ungrouped independent is not allowed to lodge a voting ticket (as you cannot vote above the line for them). Three groups lodged two voting tickets (I - Stop Population Growth Now, T - Nick Xenophon Team, and X - Your Voice Matters), while the rest lodged one. So there are 27 columns in total.

For example, If you wanted to know the order that The Nationals preferenced the other groups, you would read down column J. Number 1 is the first preference group (The Nationals in this example), number 2 is the second preference (Family First), and so on.

Preferences are also coloured, with gradating from bright green for high preferences to bright red for low preferences (with white in the middle).

View the full sheet (with some other stats calculated on it) on Google Sheets here.

**Methodology**

This table simplifies comparison of voting tickets by reducing the numbering required from 63 to 24. The candidates for each party and group are collapsed into just one number and each voting ticket is summarised using only these 24 groups.

The ungrouped independent candidate is excluded entirely from this as he did not lodge a voting ticket and the assumption is made that he has no serious chance of being elected.

In the vast majority of cases, groups number their voting ticket by ordering each of the candidates within each group with consecutive numbers. That is, they number all candidates within a group with consecutive numbers, move to another group, and so on.

This makes simplifying the voting ticket easy - you can just collapse the candidates together and the ranking of groups becomes obvious.

Special cases occur when groups choose *not *to preference all candidates within a group together. These cases, and the decision taken are:

*Stop Population Growth Now (ticket 1)*: Candidates in groups C, D, G, N, O, P, Q, R, S, U, V, X are all numbered non-consecutively. In all of these groups except D the only candidate with a significant chance of election is the first listed candidate and it is overwhelmingly likely the second listed candidate will be eliminated. Thus I have not regarded these groups as preferenced until the*first*candidate is listed. In the case of group D (The Greens), the first candidate Mark Parnell is preferenced 3 where the second candidate Ruth Beach is preferenced 17. Thus, if The Greens exceed one quota then preferences on this ticket will automatically flow past Parnell, but they will stop at Parnell if The Greens do not exceed a quota. It is difficult to predict which of these will eventuate, so I have just taken the results of this Advertiser-Galaxy poll, which indicates that The Greens will*not*exceed one full quota (albeit this is a lower house poll, not Legislative Council). That is, I have applied the same rule to group D as I have with the other groups noted above.*Stop Population Growth Now (ticket 2)*: The same groups as the other Stop Population Growth ticket are numbered non-consecutively, and the same decisions have been made.*Independent Joseph Masika*: Group E (Liberal Party) is numbered non-consecutively. I have made the assumption that the Liberal Party will achieve four quotas on first preference votes, and so their fifth candidate is the one that preferences will rest with. Thus I do not regard Group E as having been preferenced until their fifth candidate has been preferenced.*Independent Legal Voluntary Euthanasia*: Group A (ALP) and Group E (Liberal Party) are numbered non-consecutively. Again, I regard Group as having been preferenced when the fifth candidate is numbered. For the ALP, I have made the assumption that they will achieve three quotas on first preferences, and so do not regard Group A as having been preferenced until their fourth candidate has been preferenced.*Independent Mark Aldridge Alliance*: Groups A, D and E are numbered non-consecutively. I have applied the same rules as outlined above. Note that The Greens first two candidates are consecutive on this ticket so the assumption that they do not achieve a quota on first preferences is not required here.*Independent Environment Education Disability*: This is by far the most mixed up and wacky voting ticket. 13 groups are numbered non-consecutively here, with numbers at points appearing almost random. The same rules are applied as in the previous cases.

**Comments**

Coming soon...