Samara was automatically suss when a friend sent her a video on Facebook claiming that she could punt the entire lot of current politicians in one fell swoop.

In short, she told Hack she wasn't buying it.

I considered what the video said then fact checked it and realised it was not true or possible.

"I think it's encouraging people to throw away their votes but it's getting a lot of shares and some people really believe it will kick out the government," Samara said.

So Hack decided to do a bit of investigating of our own.

The video was initially posted by a Facebook user by the name of Karen Brewer. Hack tried to contact Karen to see if she was a psephologist - that is, someone who studies elections and campaigning. Think: our ABC colleague Antony Green.

Skip Twitter Tweet FireFox NVDA users - To access the following content, press 'M' to enter the iFrame.

When we didn't hear back from Karen, we thought the best way to deal with this kind of video was to fact check it, line by line.

Claim: "An intentionally informal vote is a vote to sack the Government"

First of all, let's clear something up. All elections are about voting governments in or out. Every single one. That's literally the point of an election - to determine who wins and therefore makes the rules from there on in.

'Government' refers to the ruling party or formal coalition of parties who have the most seats in the House of Reps.

When you head to the polls for the upcoming federal election, you'll vote on the seat you live in, to determine who you want to be your local representative. If you don't like whoever is currently in Government, there's a really easy way to sack them - just don't vote for that party. If other voters around the country feel the same way as you do, and that party loses its majority, it's no longer the Government.

This video uses 'government' when what Karen means is 'Parliament'. Parliament refers to all the MPs and Senators who are elected, in every state and territory, at a federal level.

I'm sorry to inform you that you can't actually sack the Parliament. If you think your vote in Byron Bay can bounce someone else's representative in Burnie - well, that's just not how it works. And isn't that a good thing? Who else knows the local issues that people in your area care about, if not the people who actually live there?

Claim: "Vote to sack all the governments, every representative and every senator"

Nope. We have different levels of government in Australia - local, state/territory and federal. You vote for each level of government at different times, and the outcome of one doesn't effect the other. For example, if one party is decimated at a state level and doesn't get any seats, that doesn't mean they can't run at a federal level. They're completely different elections.

Even in normal elections, only half the Senate is voted on each time. Senators have six year terms, while MPs have three years. The drafters of the Constitution did that deliberately so there'd be continuity from one parliament to the next. The only time ALL MPs and senators are sacked at a federal level, is during a double dissolution election.

Claim: Drawing a line through every name and writing "no suitable candidate to follow my will" is a valid vote

Again, nope. There's no such thing as a valid informal vote. The only thing that voting in this way will do is render your vote useless. Which means that the candidate with the most votes, with or without your informal vote, will win that seat.

Here's what the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has to say about it:

"We are advising people quite clearly that a vote like this (i.e. where a line is drawn through each candidate's name and 'no suitable candidate to meet my will' written on the ballot paper) is an informal vote and therefore not included in the count," the spokesperson told Hack.

The information about no confidence in any candidate resulting in a new election has no basis in law either under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 or the Constitution.

In other words: the video's advice is complete BS.

Claim: The only way to reduce the influence of the major parties is to vote informally

OK this is wrong on A LOT of levels.

Historically, the Coalition (the formal agreement between the Liberal Party and National Party) and Labor get the majority of primary votes.

So if you're voting informally because you HATE the major parties, the people who win out most from that situation are... the major parties! Congratulations, you've shot yourself in the foot.

There's no doubt that disillusion about the major parties is on the rise. In the last election, one-quarter of primary votes went to minor parties and independents. That's the highest on record.

Share Facebook

Twitter

Mail

Whatsapp

Disillusion with the Liberal Party's handling of leadership issues was a massive factor in turning the seat of Wentworth in New South Wales (Malcolm Turnbull's old seat) from a safe Liberal seat, to a seat held by Independent Kerryn Phelps.

So the best way to reduce the influence of the major parties is not to vote altogether, but to vote for someone else.

Before you come at me with that "all the candidates are shit!" stuff, consider this: nearly everyone who can vote can also stand for election. If you're unhappy with the people who are nominated to represent you, consider joining a political party, or standing as an independent.

But for the love of God, don't listen to uninformed conspiracy theorists on the internet who want you to waste your vote.

Claim: "Every ballot paper is counted"

Every FORMAL ballot paper is counted, yes. We'll be going to go through how exactly to fill out a ballot paper on Hack pretty soon (watch this space), but here are the basics: follow the instructions on how to properly number your preferred candidates, or your vote won't be counted.

Skip Twitter Tweet FireFox NVDA users - To access the following content, press 'M' to enter the iFrame.

If it's not properly filled out, or there's something in the margins that obscures the vote counting, then it doesn't go to the final outcome of the seat.

The AEC says even if more than half of all voters fill out a ballot informally, the person who wins the most formal votes still wins.

Australia has compulsory voting, and the overall number of informal votes in any given election is generally pretty low - about five per cent of people voted informally in the House of Representatives in the 2016 federal election.

And of those, the AEC reckons about half intentionally left their papers blank, while the other half just stuffed up and filled it out wrong.

So I say it again: read the instructions carefully before filling out your ballot. Make your voice heard.

Claim: the AEC 'pays' the major parties when you vote for them

Electoral funding is a complex beast, but here's the easy version: candidates who get more than four per cent of the primary vote (i.e. first votes, not votes from preferences) are eligible for funding, and the amount of funding goes up the more votes you get.

That applies to ALL candidates, not just major party ones. That includes independents, and minor parties like One Nation. They get paid in a fairly transparent process AFTER the election count has finished. The idea of that is to reduce the influence of private donations on political parties.

The last federal election, which was a suuuuuper long one because it was a double dissolution, cost taxpayers $286 million. That's $17 per voter.

Of course, political parties can and do seek private donations. However, the process of private donations is a lot murkier - it's pretty easy for individuals to hide their donations, or donate small amounts that fly under the disclosure rules.