I read this with interest because I'm a UK citizen and a few years ago it was made compulsory here to show valid photo ID before you could vote, the reason given being to prevent electoral fraud. Opponents said the measure was unnecessary because there was no significant level of electoral fraud here, and that the real purpose was that the Conservatives (who introduced the rule) wanted to discourage the poor from voting (since they would be the group most likely to have neither passport nor driving license, and at the same time the least likely to vote Conservative).
The same argument has occurred in Australia and I have made submissions to parliamentary committees arguing against compulsory photo ID. So far it hasn't been introduced here - and hopefully the other measures to prevent the tiny amount of multiple voting are sufficient. But I have to say I had a great chuckle at Boris Johnson being turned away from voting at local government elections for forgetting his photo ID, despite his government having introduced the law.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I've often been bemused by the uproar over photo IDs in order to vote. In Taiwan, France, India, Mexico, Brazil, the Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, Canada and South Africa (among others) they're a long-standing requirement. The primary justification for this is not that there is widespread voter fraud, but that it is vital to maintain confidence in the process. The 2021 Berlin state election is a good case in point. The Berlin high court overturned the election and ordered a re-run in 2023 due to numerous irregularities and procedural errors. It isn't that there was massive, organised voter fraud -- that wasn't the main issue. The main issue was that the election was so incompetently managed that too many things that should not have happened did happen. Even if voter fraud remains rare, when people see too many issues cropping up, they start to have doubts. This is especially the case in the United States where official incompetence and sloppiness is very much an issue. For example, California sending out ballots to thousands of people who were not only not US citizens, but didn't even have leave to remain in the US. Or, for that matter, Nevada sending out ballots to people who hadn't even lived at an address (or even in the State of Nevada) for years. Again, not fraud per se -- but it's something that shouldn't happen and the fact that it does sparks concerns.
@@constitutionalclarion1901it may be worth noting that it _was_ introduced here, at least at the state level in Queensland, although it was quickly repealed by the new government after the implementing government was voted out at the subsequent election.
@@Bunnyroo7I'm not sure why you are pointing out examples which would not be aided by voter ID as arguments for why voter ID should be implemented. It has almost zero upsides, and many very real downsides. It seeks to solve a problem that does not exist, as this video demonstrates. And yet it creates significant burden by making it much harder for people to vote if they are economically disadvantaged (for example, cannot afford a driver's licence or passport). It also slows down the polling process, which means the AEC would have to hire more staff, which would make it more expensive. And that's assuming we didn't do what Queensland did in the brief time Qld had voter ID laws and add on the _additional_ expense of mailing out a one-time voter ID card to every registered voter. A worthy idea that helps decrease the degree of voter disenfranchisement caused by the law-albeit not totally owing to the difficulty of people experiencing homelessness receiving said mail-but one which also dramatically increases the cost.
I was subject to a Court of Disputed Returns investigation once. My uncle and I share a 1st name and shared an electorate for a short time. He moved, but forgot that he had changed his address, so I had 2 votes cast in my name. Turns out there were only 16 votes in it, the result was called void, a by-election was called and the Goss government came to an end as a result. 1996 Mundingburra state by-election... it wasn't my fault.
Thanks. That's very interesting. Yes, the courts are very cautious about ensuring the probity of elections and requiring an election in an electorate to be re-run if necessary.
Goss needed to go. It is a great story. I am not so sure of the greatness of the story that would be told by the juror in the joh trial. Everyone needs to be accountable.
This video has given me more confidence in our voting system being well managed, I appreciate the amount of thought that has gone in to making sure it can't be corrupted and am glad it is still being looked at so recently. Edited for uncouth brevity
Yes, electoral officials are constantly trying to improve it. I was at a seminar last week where the former NSW Electoral Commissioner explained that the idea of 'designating' the recidivist multiple voters actually came from NSW reforms. It's one of the great things about federation that States can innovate and good ideas get picked up by the other jurisdictions.
Very well presented. I'm getting somewhat tired of conspiracy theorists trying to project the shortcomings of the US electoral system onto the Australian system. One of our greatest assets is having independent Electoral Commissions overseeing Federal and State elections on a consistent set of rules. Not like the US, which has each State, and sometimes each District within a State, determining its own method of counting the votes, often overseen by political appointees. The current calls for voter identification at polling booths is another symptom of this problem. Why should I have to have a licence to vote? Or, to trigger the conspiracy theorists again, is this a ploy to force us into having digital IDs?
Are you aware that voting machines are used in some states. we have a reasonable system that could truly be the "gold standard" with genuine integrity improvements. We have the full time staff to do this .
@@simeonadams6065 Voting machines (ie voters registering their preference on a machine) seriously compromises perceived integrity of voting and offer very few advantages in n return. This is because the average person is unable to establish the integrity of the system. This is very clearly the case, especially in the US where even a recent president has declared the machines 'fraudulant'.
@@jimgraham6722That's the same fraud whose many claims the 2020 election had been stolen were thrown out as lacking merit in every court he took them to and whose lapdog media company copped a US$787.5 million damages bill for its false accusations about that on his behalf. In some cases, the judges throwing his claims out were judges he had appointed!
The big difference between Australia and America is the electoral system is run by the public service, rather than political parties and their appointed boards
Then you have not yet voted outside of your local area. Both my wife and myself voted in another local government area and went through this process. I believe it was for the recent referendum. Normally we always postal vote in advance at election times by the referendum caught us out! NSW in Oz
Pre-Poll, Postal, Absent, and Provisional votes are all Declaration votes. The only ones that can only be cast outside one's own electorate are absent votes. Provisional votes cannot be cast outside one's own electorate. They are all called Declaration votes because the envelope contains a declaration by the voter about who they claim to be and as to their entitlement to vote.
Having lived overseas l have had some serious "discussions" with voting aged residents in several 3rd world countries concerning vote fraud. I've always used Australia's example of compulsory registration,EARC's constant checks and updating before and after elections as my base line, such is my firm faith in our election process.
How about the non-resident electoral roll for the City of Sydney? If you or your company owns property in the CBD you get an extra vote. How non-democratic can you get?
Historically, those who voted for local government were those who paid for it through paying rates on land. Local Government's function was to service that land. If a council covers the central business district of a city, with the owners of those buildings paying the vast majority of the rates to the council, there is at least a plausible argument that they should have some say in who gets on the council and how the money is spent. I'm not saying that I agree with the system, but I can understand why it exists.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I understand why it exists. Its because some people think wealth entitles them to influence. Rich ratepayers already have massive 'say.' Its an idea that justifies privilege, and belongs in the same bin as feudalism. In a video about multiple voting it needs to be mentioned. If I vote twice I'm a criminal. But some people get to vote twice in every council election as though they're more important. Its wrong. At the very least, if someone wants to be on the non-residential roll they need to be taken off the roll for the council they live in, so they only get one vote like the rest of us.
I love your videos so much, I don’t know how to go about this but I have a question about the use of an entrenchment law in Australia, essentially there are some laws in Australia that I really don’t think should be subject to amendment without wide bi-partisan support and perhaps even other protections like a clause “you can’t change that law in the same parliament” (I.e. there needs to be an general election before that law can be amended), Could the parliament pass an act of parliament that creates like a register of protected laws that are protected under some system like this, especially for laws that are really important for our democracy like the 1918 commonwealth electoral act? I’m sure that there are many laws that could benefit from having special protections added to them (note that I think the referendum system we have in this country is a robust mechanism but it can make protecting certain legal institutions difficult) for example should members of parliament be able to override the independence of the Australian electoral commission or pass laws making drugs that may not be safe legal by passing laws that allow them to ignore the advice of independent bodies, if I think about America for a second is it really appropriate for legislators to make laws about medical procedures without taking into account the advice of doctors from my understanding of the system we live under there is not much to stop legislators from doing this. Fortunately we usually have sensible politicians on both sides of politics but this isn’t always the case and may not always be the case. Could it sometimes be prudent to require broad support before certain laws can be changed (although I understand this is the role of the constitution is there like a intermediate zone between laws that don’t really need to be voted on in a referendum but also can’t just be changed by a simple majority either) If done correctly you’d probably want to make a clause that prevents government from entrenching policy decisions to prevent another political parties from implementing its policies. Is there any value to such a law and are their unintended consequences of such a counter-majoritarian measure? Could you pass an act of parliament to implement this reform and if so could that law be protected by itself or would you need a different Act of Parliament to protect that entrenchment law which would in-turn not be covered under that entrenchment law, even more interestingly could a simple majority vote in the House of reps and Senate be used to create a legal system like this even though a law like this might stop a simple majority from abolishing this law or are there constitutional clauses that would stop a parliament from doing this ? If so to what extent does the British idea of Parliamentary sovereignty play into making an entrenchment law like this untenable under our legal system? It would be so cool if you could do video on this… PS I love your work it so important that topics about our constitutional system be explored it’s so refreshing to see media about the Australian system rather then just the US or the UK
What you are talking about is what constitutional lawyers call "manner and form" restrictions - which are restrictions on how a law can be amended or repealed (which could involve a special majority to pass each House of Parliament, or approval in a referendum, or some other kind of restrictions). The short answer is that the States can and do impose some manner and form restrictions, but there is great debate about the extent to which they can and should do this, as well as many unfortunate unintended consequences. At the federal level, this is largely prevented by the Constitution, except for a couple of anomalies. Its a really complex area, but I will try to do a few videos to explain it, as I think it is important that people know about it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 oh my goodness thanks so much, I have always been fascinated about this topic, your Amazing, thanks for introducing me to this amazing term I’ll be sure to look into articles about manner and form. Although I whole heartedly agree with the criteria outlined by Gerard Carney in AN OVERVIEW OF MANNER AND FORM IN AUSTRALIA these being (1) No Act of Parliament can be held invalid by the courts; (2) Parliament cannot bind its successors; (3) There is only one process for enacting sovereign legislation: the joint Act of the Crown, Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled (I haven’t read the entire Australian constitution yet, but I’ve read parts it’s interesting that this sounds awfully similiar to section one of the constitution…) (4) Where two Acts conflict, the later repeals the earlier. Again I really think that this criteria is important but I still think that there is a case to stop parliaments from abolishing compulsory voting and ensuring that any electoral system used by Australia must meet the following criteria, said system must meet the majority loser criterion, the mutual majority criterion, the condorcet loser criterion, Independence of clones criterion, Later-no-harm criterion, later no help criterion, note that this is becuase our current system meets these criteria points already as such a parliament should have the flexibility to change our electoral system so long as those criteria are maintained. Is it not reasonable to expect that all future generations should be able to enjoy the same quality of elections as we do, yes there is always room for improvement but how can one argue that we should be able to dismantle that system, without the express support of the people. Once again I know that you’ve said in other posts that you have a long list of video topics but each topic is engaging and interesting thanks so much for all the work you do :)
Does the ban on 'plural voting' also preclude the introduction of systems like approval voting, cumulative voting, and limited approval voting, even where these give each voter the same power as every other voter?
I think the problem here is that we all use different terminology for types of voting. Plural voting is directed as a person having a right to vote in a number of different electorates in the same election due to owning property in them, or having some other connection with them. The Constitution otherwise leaves the choice of a voting system to the Parliament to decide. So, for example, preferential voting can be used, allowing a person's vote to transfer through their preferences until it elects a candidate.
It's a simple solution provide photo ZID when you get a ballot paper. In Melbourne the government demanded we provide proof of who we were to go to a hardware store / restaurant etc so why not to a polling booth, then there won't even be a discussion about this. There are plenty of ways to get a photo ID without any cost, join a volunteer organisation and you will get a working with children ID for example.
It is much harder in remote areas, particularly for people who don't have a birth certificate. Even when people have voter ID, they can still be denied a vote if they forget to bring it with them. That happened to Boris Johnson, who was responsible for the law demanding ID, and then failed to bring it with him to vote.
And I live in Melbourne, you've never had to show ID to enter a hardware store not even during Covid when the state government decided to implement unconstitutional curfews and restrictions on movement.
I have worked as a Polling Clerk, and also been a Scrutineer. What happens with Early Votes? How are they stored/secured? What is the Chain of Custody?
The chain of custody for early votes is the same as regular votes. The ballot boxes are sealed with witnesses present and not unsealed except after the election when it is time to count ballots.
These are all short questions which require lengthy answers so I will try to be brief, and I’ll assume you want an AEC style answer (because I’m not going to cover variations for every state and territory electoral commission). Early voting is available for two weeks prior to polling day at Pre-Poll Voting Centres (PPVCs). The ballot papers and ballot boxes (of the plastic tub variety with a combination of metal and plastic seals) are kept in a securely locked area on-site when polling is not in progress. Once a ballot box is full to capacity it may be securely transferred to the electoral division’s outposted centre (OPC) which is the warehouse base of operations where on polling day, after 4pm, the ballot boxes will eventually get opened to prepare for counting (by unfolding ballot papers). Each ballot box has a document pocket attached to the box containing a record of seals, which has to be signed and witnessed every time the box has been sealed and unsealed. When transferring ballot boxes from the PPVC to the OPC there is again official paperwork to record the signatures of the officer-in-charge and a witness at the PPVC; the logistics officer transferring the ballot boxes to the OPC using a vehicle; and the officers who receive the ballot boxes at the OPC. This sounds like a lot of bureaucratic paperwork (and there is a lot of it) however the AEC does not want a repeat of any events like the haphazard transfer of ballot papers that occurred during the 2013 Western Australia Senate recount, where consignments of ballot papers went missing during transport and invalidated the results, requiring a fresh election in 2014.
@@Xanthe_Cat Thanks. I have handed out HTV's on Polling Day. been invited by the Returning officer to sign for the seal on a ballot box, and sign for the same box at 6:00pm
The Pre-Poll votes don't go to a warehouse. They go to the AEC Divisional office in they are cast. Any Pre-Poll votes cast for that electorate can be put through the preliminary scrutiny so as to determine whether the vote can be counted. They are then kept in a sealed ballot box until 6pm on polling night, after which the envelopes are opened and the votes counted. Any Pre-Poll votes cast for other electorate are just kept in ballot boxes until after the close of polling. They are then sorted by electorate and dispatched to a central exchange center for that state, from where they are sent on to the destination electorates.
So, according to the AFP, there’s (probably?) no excuse for Australians electing the Abbott government - although, at the time, very few people admitted to doing it. 😂
you may understand as an American why this title give me the worst feeling of Deja Vu. I was worried you were gonna go full trump! But excellent Video as always. it seems like more education is the answer and thankfully your providing that. But small question how is it decided which declarative vote to count if there's more then one? and did the consitutional ban on plural voting affect the change to a Ranked system ? thank you once again
Sorry to disturb you equilibrium! I'm not absolutely sure how they decide which declaration vote to admit to the count, but I assume that if they are all from the one person (and you have to sign the outside of the envelope, so the signatures can be compared), then presumably all the votes will be the same, so they randomly choose one. That's my guess, at least. Plural voting here means having a right to vote in one election to elect members in different electorates. It doesn't mean voting for more than one person in a multi-member electorate or giving preferences to different candidates in single one electorate.
Again to reply to an old comment: sometimes the AEC receives multiple declaration votes from the one voter (in highly unusual circumstances, obviously!) and there may be some effort to select the envelope which is most likely to reflect the voter’s intention, if that is at all possible for the returning officer to discern, rather than just picking one randomly. However it is resolved, only one envelope is ever accepted for the purposes of counting. A weird example I recall was where two pre-poll envelopes for the same voter were received from the same polling place, one of which likely contained only a House of Reps ballot paper (thin), while the other envelope definitely contained a Senate paper (not so thin!). This was obviously a mistake that had been made at the polling place - you are supposed to put both ballot papers in the same envelope. However, when processing the two envelopes together it became clear the issuing officer (besides doing everything else wrong) had given the voter a House of Reps ballot paper for a different electorate to the one where they were actually enrolled. So the envelope with the Senate paper was accepted, while the one containing the House of Reps ballot had to be rejected.
@@andrewrollason4963 only works if the consent is INFORMED consent. and unfortunately most people dont get informed , or worse are lied to. Democracy, or to be precise 'representative democracy ' doesn't work. but don't worry nothing else dose ether .
If plural voting is banned by the constitution, then why can businesses vote in local elections? Is that a breach of the constitution of do local elections have a exemption?
Great video. I'm a little concerned by the creation of designated voters. Any restriction of the franchise should be viewed with great scepticism. I think the best defence against multiple voting is the number of people that would need to be involved. A quick check of the AEC site suggests that the average electorate is about 115,000 to 120,000. To rig an election with multiple voting would require a conspiracy of thousands in each of the.150 seats. If 150,000 to 300,000 people were conspiring to rig an election, the rest of us would know about it.
A little more detail on how designated voting works: It's basically the same process you would go through if you were doing an absentee ballot. For example if you're from Newcastle but happen to be in Sydney on election day. Instead of going to the regular line, you go to the Declaration Vote Issuing Officers (incidentally, I'm familiar with this process because I was issuing Dec Votes during last year's referendum). They record your details on the outside of an envelope and give you your ballot. You vote as normal, but give your ballot back to Issuing Officer to place in the envelope. The details on the envelope are checked, and if it is determined that you are allowed to vote (e.g., they did _not_ find that you had voted twice), the envelope is opened and your ballot placed in a pile to be counted. Still completely anonymous because nobody ever looks at what is on your ballot at the time they have the envelope. It's an incredibly robust system that allows everyone to vote regardless of circumstances.
I used to work for the AEC (and elsewhere there’s a long comment from me regarding the size of the problem of multiple voting) and so I completed in-house training on electoral fraud which included multiple voting, inter alia; and after accounting for the two main causes of accidental or apparent multiple voting (which Professor Twomey correctly discusses) you are left with the deliberate instances of multiple voting, some of which were provided in the training as case studies, and are really quite few in number (and the AEC doesn’t talk in too great detail about them for the obvious reason of not giving people ideas!). Having worked at several elections I saw on one occasion a deliberate case of multiple voting that was not due to malicious intent by individual voters, but which occurred at an overseas voting centre due to a persistent misunderstanding of the procedure for issuing pre-poll votes (so there are other causes too). Anyone who has worked in the “back office” of the AEC to see how declaration votes are processed will have an immediate appreciation for how apt and suitable the use of making some voters “designated voters” is as a solution to the problem, but it is probably not obvious to the general public without that experience. It doesn’t interfere with the voter’s franchise, but merely obliges them to cast a declaration vote rather than an ordinary vote. The statistic that only 37 voters (out of over 17.2 million on the roll) were advised that they would be designated voters at 2022 is indicative of the real nature of deliberate multiple voting; it really is exceedingly rare. Enjoy your democracy sausage!
@@Xanthe_Cat Thanks. Yes, when I was younger I worked for the AEC on one election and was impressed by the integrity of the system, including in relation to declaration votes. It is most frustrating when people constantly seek to undermine it, when it is actually something we should be really proud of.
I must toddle to bed, but now I understand the Concept of "Binge" watching. I have an issue, I have worked for the AEC and ECSA at very low levels. We don't quite have compulsory enrollment. Please investigate We don't have compulsory voting, we have compulsory attendance which has widened in concept with Prepoll & postal. Please Investigate I have had several double votes. In pre Howard times, I was a member of a Liberal Party. I was a member of a State Electoral Committee, a Federal Electoral Committee and State Council. Where we preselect Candidates for State & Federal Lwr House seats and State & Federal Upper House. I never renewed my membership after Alexander stepped down for Howard. Might you do a lecture on Party Membership, any party, and the extra influence we have?
On the issue of electronic voting, my understanding is that purposely doing an 'informal vote' is not against the law or constitution, but all of the stuff that I have seen indicates that the electronic voting will not allow an informal vote. What's your opinion?
First, it depends upon how the electronic voting system is set up as to whether it allows informal voting. As to whether informal voting is allowed by the law, that's a matter of debate. It is expressly permitted in South Australia, for example. At the Commonwealth level, it depends on your interpretation of the meaning of 'vote' in the legislation. It seems to have been deliberately left ambiguous. Most people argue that because of the secret ballot, people can vote informally because there is no available evidence for their prosecution. But just saying that there is no evidence upon which you could be prosecuted, does not mean that an act is lawful.
@@adelarsen9776 I think that ‘quick law check’ is only sort of true. Electoral commissions are guided by the electoral acts which are passed as legislation, and it is true there are a number of specified offences which may be justiciable. However, because electoral commissions are also federal or state agencies, they are also empowered to issue regulations that may also have some legal standing. Immediately before every election you will find the electoral commissioner issuing regulations for the conduct of the election, which add to the list of what is permitted, and what is not permitted. And even that isn’t the end of it; as a simple example, there was probably a time when you could smoke in polling booths while voting. Since we are now in the era where that can’t be done, we passed through a period where the regulations (for clarity and uniformity) might have mentioned somewhere that smoking is or isn’t allowed (rather than reserving it for the discretion of the officer-in-charge of a polling place). So there’s these possibilities: (a) something is so ubiquitously commonplace it doesn’t need to be mentioned in the regulations; (b) something is allowed by regulations; (c) something is disallowed by regulations; (d) something is so unlikely to happen that it doesn’t need to be mentioned, since in this case and also in case (a), the power can be delegated to the officer-in-charge to use their common sense. Upshot: there are plenty of things that are not offences, but are also not allowed.
@@Xanthe_Cat Thank you. There's Case Law, Common Law and Legislation. The basic tenet of law is that if something is not an offence then it's legal. It's as simple as that. Don't over think it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I have an (unreliable) recollection from some years ago of a court determination that, while personally voting informally is not illegal, or at least not prosecutable, encouraging others to vote informally could be a breach of electoral laws.
@@grosvenorclub It says 'but in the choosing of members each elector shall vote only once' (s 30). It was a reaction against plural voting on a property franchise that existed in some States and might otherwise have applied because s 30 also said that until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of electors for the House of Representatives shall be that of the more numerous House of Parliament in a State.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So when you tick a couple of boxes aren't you voting twice ? I would not expect you to agree as you have been brought up with the system and no doubt trained by "the system "
The beauty also of common electoral rolls - Commonwealth, State and Local Government. In practice it is the State Electoral officials who receive the data from Births, Deaths and Marriages and amend the State entry which means it is updated across the three jurisdictions. The "Tasmanian Dodge" does still occur.... Declaration votes can also be lodged where the person has been missed off the electoral roll for some reason (in pre-electronic rolls in particular). Electronic rolls are not infallible. Last Commonwealth Election I was "pinged" for not voting (along with thousands of other voters) but I had but the polling official was apparently unsure how the system worked (a problem with non-professional "casual" officials....)
Are you aware that the US has even shorter terms - 2 years for House of Representatives and overlapping four-year terms for Senators? This is why party discipline is not so strict in the US, as representatives have to be more attentive to the voters than to the party machine than in Australia.
@@someguy8375 As well as a Constitution that sets the maximum length of those terms and can only be changed by consent of the people. I recall a fair bit of discussion around increasing the House of Representatives term to four years, but which fell at the hurdle of increasing Senate terms to eight years or decreasing them to four years, in addition to the clear public view that pollies could not be trusted with longer terms. We also rejected the attempt to break the 2:1 ratio between the House and the Senate.
@allenjenkins7947 I think the three year term is important, just long enough for energetic politicians to exercise their mandate and short enough that the electorate can pass judgement one way or another. Australia has other absolutely fundamental differences, significant minor parties, independents, serve to constrain wannabe dictators. Preferential voting and most importantly high voter turn out, 90%plus helps maintain majoritarian rule without disenfranchising the minority.
Thank you for your clear exposition of the safeguards preventing voting fraud in Australian elections and referenda. IMO, the Australian voting system of compulsory registration and voting stands as a go-to model of representative democracy for the rest of the world. By comparison, the US system, in addition to having the disadvantages of voluntary voting and registration, is further burdened with an state based electoral college as an additional filter thru which the primary vote is passed; an obvious opportunity for electoral finagling.
You said voting is compulsory! It's not compulsory, getting your name crossed off IS compulsory. Once in the booth it's their choice if they cast a legitimate vote or make it informal.
More partial nonsense. The AEC is legally required to provide you with ballot papers. If your stupid enough not to use the correctly - that's on you and they will be recorded as discarded
Voting _is_ compulsory. Getting your name marked off is not sufficient. People who do that then throw their ballot paper in the bin or straight into the ballot box may find themselves on the receiving end of a fine for not voting. Deliberately casting an informal vote is also illegal, though that's much less likely to be detected. Bragging about it isn't especially sharp. Aside from shouting that you're dishonest, you might find yourself caught up by the new laws directed at people bragging about their law-breaking.
Question: From a Libertarian perspective, one should not be forced to vote (upon pain of a fine if one doesn't). Is compulsory voting necessary for the integrity of the democratic process? Thank you!
I think compulsory voting is a pretty strong safe guard against a lot of types of voter fraud. There are ethical questions around forcing someone to vote. But even beyond that there are effects on outcomes of elections to which there is no right or wrong answer. In countries where voting is not compulsory, energy or enthusiasm for candidates plays a much bigger role. This means that if there is an issue that is greatly impacting a minority of the population and to which the larger population is ambivalent, a candidate or party that seeks to address that issue has a greater chance of winning as they can motivate more people to vote. A system of compulsory voting favours the status quo. This does not just mean that an unenthused voter will vote for the incumbent party or candidate, but rather that parties and candidates will avoid taking more radical positions knowing that the type of voter who in a non-compulsory system would just stay home, in a compulsory system will be voting and will likely be put off by anything too far from the status quo. The Australian political system in general is set up to favour stability over radical change. At least when compared to many other nations. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to you.
I agree that one should not be forced to vote for someone to whom one objects. Hence it is important, in a system of compulsory voting, that a person be free to give an 'informal vote' (eg leave the ballot paper blank - or write some choice words of objection on it, which quite a few Australians do!) I also support optional preferential voting in Australia, where one is not obliged to give a preference to every candidate and can choose to let a vote exhaust rather than elect a person to whom one objects. I will do a video about this at some point, because it is interesting. But for the moment, I will just note that because of the existence of the secret ballot in Australia, people can cast their ballot and choose not to fill it in validly. This means that compulsory voting is essentially a requirement to make the effort to turn up and place a ballot in a box - not to submit a valid vote. But in practice, once people make the effort to turn up to cast their ballot, they usually then choose to give a formal vote. It is a way of nudging them to turn their mind to making a choice.
Brazil also has compulsory voting, but I find their alternate take on it useful. It's a citizens responsibility to vote, they are free to not vote, but many of your rights as a citizen are curtailed if you don't vote - for a few years things like renewing passports or drivers licence become difficult and the large state owned banking sector won't deal with you. I find it useful way of framing the situation.
@@DeGuerre Yes, one of my first jobs as an 18 year old was as a poll clerk in a federal election. Because I was the only one with a brain capable of understanding the rules regarding informal votes, I was the one who had to assess them. I did it for the Senate vote too. I got to see an awful lot of rude words!
I can assure you that electoral rolls are NOT updated monthly from BDM. In the last referendum, in September 2023, I opened letters from the electoral commission months after the voting, claiming my partner had not voted and was liable to pay a fine although she had died at the end of June 2023, all the legal work was done promptly and virtually settled by the end of September.. I ignored the letters until they said she would have to appear in court when I sent the certificate. So electoral commission does not regularly update the rolls. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and it is insulting when the electoral commission is too bone lazy to check the BDM or do a simple google search on death or funeral notices for months after the event. I found it incredibly distressing and writing this, relives this trauma. The Australian electoral commission is as dumb as dog sheet.
I am really sorry to hear that - it must have been very distressing. I'm guessing that the problem is that the electoral rolls close at a certain date before the election/referendum, usually about a month before it, and no updates are made to them after that in relation to that election/referendum. So if all the paperwork concerning your partner's death was settled by the end of September, it would not have been done by the cut-off date of the close of the rolls (and even if it had been done earlier, the previous monthly update from Births Deaths and Marriages, could have been up to four weeks before the close of the rolls). So according to the details held by the AEC, your partner would have still been on the rolls and not voted. Later updates to the rolls would not have been applied to procedures regarding failure to vote for those people who were still on the rolls at the time they closed. In those circumstances, you just have to tell the AEC. Nonetheless, it must have been an awful experience, and you have my sympathy.
My son was called for jury duty in NSW 12 months from his old address, 12 months after he changed his name on the electoral role. The tenant in his previous house was dumping the notices. He only found out after the tenant moved out and a summons turned up in the letter box. His name was on two electoral roles - Wollondilly and Parramatta at the same time. NO the roles are not updated frequently.
If it is any assistance, I used to work on the electoral roll for the Australian electoral commission The AEC manages the electoral roll, and the NSW commission get a snapshot of the roll from them for their elections The aec gets automatic updates from different government bodies such as rta and birth death marriages. These updates are usually processed each month, but some departments will send these through in one batch. An example is citizenship, where they have sent through updates after 2 months The fastest way to have an update go through the electoral commission is to call them or submit the paperwork over the internet. Calling to remove someone from the roll requires you to provide your electoral details, so if that person votes or contacts the commission, they will investigate using you as a starting point. There is also the cutoff period where the roll cannot be updated, as they will need to put the roll into print, where for obvious reasons the roll cannot be bulk edited. Unfortunately I can tell from the event described, that the problem came from the NSW electoral commission, or other state commission. The AEC does not have any actual power to enforce voting, but the state commissions are linked to the rta and similar services, and will suspend your license and similar punishments. If you ever receive a fine for not voting, make sure you call the AEC, as they will be able to let you know who it came from, and amend the roll if needed for you. Easy way to picture it: The state commisuon runs state, council, and local elections, and is very interested in making sure everyone votes The Australian electoral commission is more interested in making sure everyone’s details are correct on the roll. Also in response to just check births deaths and marriages, people are employed to check every piece of paperwork carefully to ensure that it has been translated by the computer correctly. If we were to check births deaths and marriages, we would need to do this for every person that doesn’t vote, and it would need to be checked again by a human for any errors anyway if it was automated Don’t know if this is helpful at all, but working at the AEC around election time is non stop, even with just ensuring the addresses are up to date 😅 If people move house, we would sometimes only find out long after they, when they updated their license.
Wrong. BDM do send the AEC death data to be processed - which it is. You forget that there is ALWAYS a Close of Rolls (only 1 at the federal election) - the deadline is 7 days after the writ is issued. If the BDM data is not accurate then matching to an elector who is alive is both unfortunate and embarrassing for all
I believe we should have photo voter ID. At 18 issued by the AEC. At no cost. Periodically having a photo upgraded. Said ID would and should replace proof of age cards and be valid ID for anything. Further, there should be a link between Health and AEC to remove people have "lost capacity". I had no provision, as a relative had not quite list capacity:yet, to stop them and had to watch them vote. After they lost capacity, it was a rigmoral to have them removed from the roll.
@peterroach3377 it's dual purpose. It's a proff of age or photo I'd for those that have no photo I'd, it proves who you are voting. I could get up real real early be first to vote, use your vote, then go do my vote elsewhere. Photo ID would stop that. Plus have an incentive to get it as other photo I'd if you don't drive
@davidleonard1813 nope. Ordinary voters (in Australia) are marked off manually from the certified lists (paper rolls), and the rolls are not scanned back til after polling day
@peterroach3377 yeah I know that. Not much you can yell me about it. I have been an AEC worker. I've scrutineered for both sides. If we got paper roles, and even digital, anyone can vote in your name if they got your details. Only way to stop that is photo ID.
@davidleonard1813 again, nope. The issue really is GETTING people to vote at all. The cases of people voting for someone else are minimal. Your solution is looking for a problem
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Australia is an arm of the American empire, you are given a choice of two parties which will more or less do the same thing as they are contained in the same small area(metaphorically), that area is dictated by the hegemon. Significant change will only ever come from within if the hegemon grants us sovereignty or we amass enough power for the right of greater sovereignty.
More nonsense. The AEC visits nursing homes an hospitals and will take advice from staff about dementia patients. Many dementia patients have been legally removed from the roll or have had incapable notations recorded against their enrolment.
What they actually do - Liberals, Nationals, Labor, Greens, One Nation, Palmer, etc., etc. - is 'help' the residents apply for postal votes. That is a major contributor to multiple voting, because some are registered postal voters anyway and most others will be visited by the AEC's mobile polling teams. Hence, these people are liable to end up getting both the postal votes the parties 'help' them apply for along with whatever other voting arrangement is already in place. Worse, the parties are often slow at passing the applications on to the AEC, due to inputting the personal details into their own databases for future canvassing.
If you have evidence of vote-rigging, provide it to the authorities. If you don't, it is presumably because you actually don't have any evidence, in which case, stop spreading falsehoods.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I have already reported this matter and the Electoral Officer has been dismissed, the voting irregularities are still happening but I cannot tell exactly when the interference is now occurring.
@@ianshears5341 If this is true (and I have no evidence that it is), then action was taken, which is a good thing. But it is a great mystery to me how an AEC worker could actually open postboxes, as he or she would not have a key to do so. It sounds suspiciously like a made-up story.
What I found non-sense is that instead of voting for one, you have to vote for all, keeping in the system forever the corrupt, unfit, proved scoundrels forever!
You know you don't have to (at least in 90% of states) put preferences beyond your first choice right? And if preferential voting wasn't there, you would essentially be forced into voting for the 2 major parties, keeping the "scoundrels" in even more. Your comment doesn't make sense.
@@peterroach3377First past the post is the greatest number of votes received by a candidate. It has nothing to do with how many people are enrolled or even obtaining a majority of the votes. For example, if there are 3 candidates and 10,000 formal votes cast, and two of those candidates, with very similar policies, obtain 3,333 votes each, the remaining candidate, who got 3,334 votes, wins. And that's the problem with first past the post systems. In the example given, 66.66% of the electorate didn't want the winning candidate or their policies.
Plural voting is bad enough, what’s the constitutionality of preferences? It seems to be against the premise of democracy that a government is put in power after achieving less than 1/3 of the popular vote. Then to rub salt in the wounds they make policies under the guise of having a ‘mandate’. Preference voting must be abolished!
Actually, preference voting ensures that the views of the majority are respected, rather than being lost because their vote is divided between two candidates of the same political persuasion. For example, under first past the post, if there was a majority of conservative voters in an electorate (eg 60%) and a minority of socialist voters (40%), and two candidates with conservative views ran, achieving 30% each, then the socialist candidate with 40% of the vote would win under first past the post. Have a look at the writings of Kevin Bonham who is very good on this point.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I understand what you are saying but I do not believe that the majority of Australians wanted what the current government is giving us. Subjective opinion I know but the validity of my statement will be known at the next election. We will discover if the majority of Australians are left wing, borderline socialist climate zealots, or are in fact centre right who simply protest voted because scomo betrayed us and did nothing but try to appease the globalist climate cult.
Kevin would be the first to point out that you can always devise scenarios where even worse outcomes occur. At least under full preferential voting you will *always* be able to find one candidate who receives 50% or more of the vote in a two-candidate-preferred distribution. Under optional preferential voting you have exhaustion of some votes which might reduce the winner’s share below 50%, but most voters still declare enough preferences to candidates they would like to see elected, as opposed to those they would not. If preferences are abolished then you might obtain even more absurd results in a typical first past the post election (since running multiple runoff elections with gradual elimination of losing candidates is prohibitively expensive). Say you have a dozen candidates for a seat who each receive fairly similar numbers of votes; the winner might be elected with 10% of the votes.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 That's a scenario which has played out quite a few times in the UK. In both directions. For example, I think that it's unlikely that Mrs Thatcher would have had many preferences from Labour or the Social Democrats and I doubt that Keir Starmer would have had much of a preference flow from Conservative or Reform voters.
Of course it happens, marginal seats especially, the “Left” is notorious for the practise (on an organised basis), but not limited to the Left. Ethnic minorities are notorious for doing it on an organised basis. The real drama is of pre-selection rorts in the major parties.
@@Macropod_ Hello Macropod, care to explain WHY there is NOT a requirement to provide ID at the Polling Booth? The ONLY explanation is that the “authorities” don’t want to verify that the people casting votes are those registered to vote.
@@anthonyburke5656 For the simple reason it's a solution looking for a problem and would cause a bigger problem than the one it's supposed to solve. Many people don't carry any form of photo ID around with them, especially the old, the hospitalized, aboriginals, and young adults. You'd end up denying many more people the right to fulfil the legal obligation to vote than the number of fraudulent votes that are actually cast. And what about the ever increasing number of people having postal votes? How & when is anyone going to check their IDs?
TLDR
" multiple voting has never been a major problem in Australia "
Yep.
Labor moto, Vote early, vote often. And " what ever it takes"
@@tedmeeuwsen712 "aping American politics ..." (That was the Democrats, back in the 50s, I believe)
Good analysis. I am so glad I am an Australian and not an American.
Yeah & for many reasons more than heard here me too 🙃👎
I read this with interest because I'm a UK citizen and a few years ago it was made compulsory here to show valid photo ID before you could vote, the reason given being to prevent electoral fraud. Opponents said the measure was unnecessary because there was no significant level of electoral fraud here, and that the real purpose was that the Conservatives (who introduced the rule) wanted to discourage the poor from voting (since they would be the group most likely to have neither passport nor driving license, and at the same time the least likely to vote Conservative).
The same argument has occurred in Australia and I have made submissions to parliamentary committees arguing against compulsory photo ID. So far it hasn't been introduced here - and hopefully the other measures to prevent the tiny amount of multiple voting are sufficient.
But I have to say I had a great chuckle at Boris Johnson being turned away from voting at local government elections for forgetting his photo ID, despite his government having introduced the law.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes, it was ironic!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I've often been bemused by the uproar over photo IDs in order to vote. In Taiwan, France, India, Mexico, Brazil, the Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, Canada and South Africa (among others) they're a long-standing requirement. The primary justification for this is not that there is widespread voter fraud, but that it is vital to maintain confidence in the process. The 2021 Berlin state election is a good case in point. The Berlin high court overturned the election and ordered a re-run in 2023 due to numerous irregularities and procedural errors. It isn't that there was massive, organised voter fraud -- that wasn't the main issue. The main issue was that the election was so incompetently managed that too many things that should not have happened did happen. Even if voter fraud remains rare, when people see too many issues cropping up, they start to have doubts. This is especially the case in the United States where official incompetence and sloppiness is very much an issue. For example, California sending out ballots to thousands of people who were not only not US citizens, but didn't even have leave to remain in the US. Or, for that matter, Nevada sending out ballots to people who hadn't even lived at an address (or even in the State of Nevada) for years. Again, not fraud per se -- but it's something that shouldn't happen and the fact that it does sparks concerns.
@@constitutionalclarion1901it may be worth noting that it _was_ introduced here, at least at the state level in Queensland, although it was quickly repealed by the new government after the implementing government was voted out at the subsequent election.
@@Bunnyroo7I'm not sure why you are pointing out examples which would not be aided by voter ID as arguments for why voter ID should be implemented. It has almost zero upsides, and many very real downsides. It seeks to solve a problem that does not exist, as this video demonstrates. And yet it creates significant burden by making it much harder for people to vote if they are economically disadvantaged (for example, cannot afford a driver's licence or passport). It also slows down the polling process, which means the AEC would have to hire more staff, which would make it more expensive. And that's assuming we didn't do what Queensland did in the brief time Qld had voter ID laws and add on the _additional_ expense of mailing out a one-time voter ID card to every registered voter. A worthy idea that helps decrease the degree of voter disenfranchisement caused by the law-albeit not totally owing to the difficulty of people experiencing homelessness receiving said mail-but one which also dramatically increases the cost.
I was subject to a Court of Disputed Returns investigation once. My uncle and I share a 1st name and shared an electorate for a short time. He moved, but forgot that he had changed his address, so I had 2 votes cast in my name.
Turns out there were only 16 votes in it, the result was called void, a by-election was called and the Goss government came to an end as a result.
1996 Mundingburra state by-election... it wasn't my fault.
Thanks. That's very interesting. Yes, the courts are very cautious about ensuring the probity of elections and requiring an election in an electorate to be re-run if necessary.
Goss needed to go. It is a great story. I am not so sure of the greatness of the story that would be told by the juror in the joh trial. Everyone needs to be accountable.
This video has given me more confidence in our voting system being well managed, I appreciate the amount of thought that has gone in to making sure it can't be corrupted and am glad it is still being looked at so recently.
Edited for uncouth brevity
Yes, electoral officials are constantly trying to improve it. I was at a seminar last week where the former NSW Electoral Commissioner explained that the idea of 'designating' the recidivist multiple voters actually came from NSW reforms. It's one of the great things about federation that States can innovate and good ideas get picked up by the other jurisdictions.
You have my upright thumb for the uncouth brevity alone 👏
Very well presented. I'm getting somewhat tired of conspiracy theorists trying to project the shortcomings of the US electoral system onto the Australian system. One of our greatest assets is having independent Electoral Commissions overseeing Federal and State elections on a consistent set of rules. Not like the US, which has each State, and sometimes each District within a State, determining its own method of counting the votes, often overseen by political appointees.
The current calls for voter identification at polling booths is another symptom of this problem. Why should I have to have a licence to vote? Or, to trigger the conspiracy theorists again, is this a ploy to force us into having digital IDs?
In my view the integrity of the Australian electoral system is very high. Indeed rolled gold.
Quite so. It is sad that people seem to feel the need to denigrate it, particularly when they just parrot American complaints.
Are you aware that voting machines are used in some states.
we have a reasonable system that could truly be the "gold standard" with genuine integrity improvements. We have the full time staff to do this .
@@simeonadams6065 Voting machines (ie voters registering their preference on a machine) seriously compromises perceived integrity of voting and offer very few advantages in n return. This is because the average person is unable to establish the integrity of the system. This is very clearly the case, especially in the US where even a recent president has declared the machines 'fraudulant'.
@@jimgraham6722That's the same fraud whose many claims the 2020 election had been stolen were thrown out as lacking merit in every court he took them to and whose lapdog media company copped a US$787.5 million damages bill for its false accusations about that on his behalf. In some cases, the judges throwing his claims out were judges he had appointed!
The big difference between Australia and America is the electoral system is run by the public service, rather than political parties and their appointed boards
Wow! “Declaration votes” are an amazing thing!!! I’d not heard of them before!
Then you have not yet voted outside of your local area. Both my wife and myself voted in another local government area and went through this process. I believe it was for the recent referendum. Normally we always postal vote in advance at election times by the referendum caught us out! NSW in Oz
Pre-Poll, Postal, Absent, and Provisional votes are all Declaration votes. The only ones that can only be cast outside one's own electorate are absent votes. Provisional votes cannot be cast outside one's own electorate.
They are all called Declaration votes because the envelope contains a declaration by the voter about who they claim to be and as to their entitlement to vote.
A clear and crisp delivery.
Supporting that, a very high standard in dress in all her orations. This is rare and should be a model for the serious.
Thanks.
Having lived overseas l have had some serious "discussions" with voting aged residents in several 3rd world countries concerning vote fraud. I've always used Australia's example of compulsory registration,EARC's constant checks and updating before and after elections as my base line, such is my firm faith in our election process.
This an excellent briefing and I’m encouraged.
It is probably a good thing that journalism is moving away from generalists to people with deep subject matter knowledge.
How about the non-resident electoral roll for the City of Sydney? If you or your company owns property in the CBD you get an extra vote. How non-democratic can you get?
Historically, those who voted for local government were those who paid for it through paying rates on land. Local Government's function was to service that land. If a council covers the central business district of a city, with the owners of those buildings paying the vast majority of the rates to the council, there is at least a plausible argument that they should have some say in who gets on the council and how the money is spent. I'm not saying that I agree with the system, but I can understand why it exists.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I understand why it exists. Its because some people think wealth entitles them to influence. Rich ratepayers already have massive 'say.' Its an idea that justifies privilege, and belongs in the same bin as feudalism. In a video about multiple voting it needs to be mentioned. If I vote twice I'm a criminal. But some people get to vote twice in every council election as though they're more important. Its wrong. At the very least, if someone wants to be on the non-residential roll they need to be taken off the roll for the council they live in, so they only get one vote like the rest of us.
I love your videos so much, I don’t know how to go about this but I have a question about the use of an entrenchment law in Australia, essentially there are some laws in Australia that I really don’t think should be subject to amendment without wide bi-partisan support and perhaps even other protections like a clause “you can’t change that law in the same parliament” (I.e. there needs to be an general election before that law can be amended),
Could the parliament pass an act of parliament that creates like a register of protected laws that are protected under some system like this, especially for laws that are really important for our democracy like the 1918 commonwealth electoral act?
I’m sure that there are many laws that could benefit from having special protections added to them (note that I think the referendum system we have in this country is a robust mechanism but it can make protecting certain legal institutions difficult) for example should members of parliament be able to override the independence of the Australian electoral commission or pass laws making drugs that may not be safe legal by passing laws that allow them to ignore the advice of independent bodies, if I think about America for a second is it really appropriate for legislators to make laws about medical procedures without taking into account the advice of doctors from my understanding of the system we live under there is not much to stop legislators from doing this.
Fortunately we usually have sensible politicians on both sides of politics but this isn’t always the case and may not always be the case. Could it sometimes be prudent to require broad support before certain laws can be changed (although I understand this is the role of the constitution is there like a intermediate zone between laws that don’t really need to be voted on in a referendum but also can’t just be changed by a simple majority either)
If done correctly you’d probably want to make a clause that prevents government from entrenching policy decisions to prevent another political parties from implementing its policies.
Is there any value to such a law and are their unintended consequences of such a counter-majoritarian measure? Could you pass an act of parliament to implement this reform and if so could that law be protected by itself or would you need a different Act of Parliament to protect that entrenchment law which would in-turn not be covered under that entrenchment law, even more interestingly could a simple majority vote in the House of reps and Senate be used to create a legal system like this even though a law like this might stop a simple majority from abolishing this law or are there constitutional clauses that would stop a parliament from doing this ? If so to what extent does the British idea of Parliamentary sovereignty play into making an entrenchment law like this untenable under our legal system? It would be so cool if you could do video on this…
PS I love your work it so important that topics about our constitutional system be explored it’s so refreshing to see media about the Australian system rather then just the US or the UK
What you are talking about is what constitutional lawyers call "manner and form" restrictions - which are restrictions on how a law can be amended or repealed (which could involve a special majority to pass each House of Parliament, or approval in a referendum, or some other kind of restrictions). The short answer is that the States can and do impose some manner and form restrictions, but there is great debate about the extent to which they can and should do this, as well as many unfortunate unintended consequences. At the federal level, this is largely prevented by the Constitution, except for a couple of anomalies. Its a really complex area, but I will try to do a few videos to explain it, as I think it is important that people know about it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 oh my goodness thanks so much, I have always been fascinated about this topic, your Amazing, thanks for introducing me to this amazing term I’ll be sure to look into articles about manner and form.
Although I whole heartedly agree with the criteria outlined by Gerard Carney in AN OVERVIEW OF MANNER AND FORM IN AUSTRALIA these being
(1) No Act of Parliament can be held invalid by the courts;
(2) Parliament cannot bind its successors;
(3) There is only one process for enacting sovereign legislation: the joint Act of the Crown, Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled (I haven’t read the entire Australian constitution yet, but I’ve read parts it’s interesting that this sounds awfully similiar to section one of the constitution…)
(4) Where two Acts conflict, the later repeals the earlier.
Again I really think that this criteria is important but I still think that there is a case to stop parliaments from abolishing compulsory voting and ensuring that any electoral system used by Australia must meet the following criteria, said system must meet the majority loser criterion, the mutual majority criterion, the condorcet loser criterion, Independence of clones criterion, Later-no-harm criterion, later no help criterion, note that this is becuase our current system meets these criteria points already as such a parliament should have the flexibility to change our electoral system so long as those criteria are maintained. Is it not reasonable to expect that all future generations should be able to enjoy the same quality of elections as we do, yes there is always room for improvement but how can one argue that we should be able to dismantle that system, without the express support of the people. Once again I know that you’ve said in other posts that you have a long list of video topics but each topic is engaging and interesting thanks so much for all the work you do :)
Does the ban on 'plural voting' also preclude the introduction of systems like approval voting, cumulative voting, and limited approval voting, even where these give each voter the same power as every other voter?
I think the problem here is that we all use different terminology for types of voting. Plural voting is directed as a person having a right to vote in a number of different electorates in the same election due to owning property in them, or having some other connection with them. The Constitution otherwise leaves the choice of a voting system to the Parliament to decide. So, for example, preferential voting can be used, allowing a person's vote to transfer through their preferences until it elects a candidate.
It's a simple solution provide photo ZID when you get a ballot paper. In Melbourne the government demanded we provide proof of who we were to go to a hardware store / restaurant etc so why not to a polling booth, then there won't even be a discussion about this. There are plenty of ways to get a photo ID without any cost, join a volunteer organisation and you will get a working with children ID for example.
It is much harder in remote areas, particularly for people who don't have a birth certificate.
Even when people have voter ID, they can still be denied a vote if they forget to bring it with them. That happened to Boris Johnson, who was responsible for the law demanding ID, and then failed to bring it with him to vote.
A solution to a problem that doesn't exist, mind you.
And I live in Melbourne, you've never had to show ID to enter a hardware store not even during Covid when the state government decided to implement unconstitutional curfews and restrictions on movement.
I have worked as a Polling Clerk, and also been a Scrutineer. What happens with Early Votes? How are they stored/secured? What is the Chain of Custody?
The chain of custody for early votes is the same as regular votes. The ballot boxes are sealed with witnesses present and not unsealed except after the election when it is time to count ballots.
These are all short questions which require lengthy answers so I will try to be brief, and I’ll assume you want an AEC style answer (because I’m not going to cover variations for every state and territory electoral commission).
Early voting is available for two weeks prior to polling day at Pre-Poll Voting Centres (PPVCs). The ballot papers and ballot boxes (of the plastic tub variety with a combination of metal and plastic seals) are kept in a securely locked area on-site when polling is not in progress. Once a ballot box is full to capacity it may be securely transferred to the electoral division’s outposted centre (OPC) which is the warehouse base of operations where on polling day, after 4pm, the ballot boxes will eventually get opened to prepare for counting (by unfolding ballot papers). Each ballot box has a document pocket attached to the box containing a record of seals, which has to be signed and witnessed every time the box has been sealed and unsealed. When transferring ballot boxes from the PPVC to the OPC there is again official paperwork to record the signatures of the officer-in-charge and a witness at the PPVC; the logistics officer transferring the ballot boxes to the OPC using a vehicle; and the officers who receive the ballot boxes at the OPC. This sounds like a lot of bureaucratic paperwork (and there is a lot of it) however the AEC does not want a repeat of any events like the haphazard transfer of ballot papers that occurred during the 2013 Western Australia Senate recount, where consignments of ballot papers went missing during transport and invalidated the results, requiring a fresh election in 2014.
@@Xanthe_Cat Thanks. I have handed out HTV's on Polling Day. been invited by the Returning officer to sign for the seal on a ballot box, and sign for the same box at 6:00pm
The Pre-Poll votes don't go to a warehouse. They go to the AEC Divisional office in they are cast.
Any Pre-Poll votes cast for that electorate can be put through the preliminary scrutiny so as to determine whether the vote can be counted. They are then kept in a sealed ballot box until 6pm on polling night, after which the envelopes are opened and the votes counted.
Any Pre-Poll votes cast for other electorate are just kept in ballot boxes until after the close of polling. They are then sorted by electorate and dispatched to a central exchange center for that state, from where they are sent on to the destination electorates.
So, according to the AFP, there’s (probably?) no excuse for Australians electing the Abbott government - although, at the time, very few people admitted to doing it. 😂
you may understand as an American why this title give me the worst feeling of Deja Vu. I was worried you were gonna go full trump!
But excellent Video as always. it seems like more education is the answer and thankfully your providing that. But small question
how is it decided which declarative vote to count if there's more then one? and did the consitutional ban on plural voting affect the change to a Ranked system ?
thank you once again
Sorry to disturb you equilibrium! I'm not absolutely sure how they decide which declaration vote to admit to the count, but I assume that if they are all from the one person (and you have to sign the outside of the envelope, so the signatures can be compared), then presumably all the votes will be the same, so they randomly choose one. That's my guess, at least.
Plural voting here means having a right to vote in one election to elect members in different electorates. It doesn't mean voting for more than one person in a multi-member electorate or giving preferences to different candidates in single one electorate.
Plural voting got quashed when our constitution was implemented.
Again to reply to an old comment: sometimes the AEC receives multiple declaration votes from the one voter (in highly unusual circumstances, obviously!) and there may be some effort to select the envelope which is most likely to reflect the voter’s intention, if that is at all possible for the returning officer to discern, rather than just picking one randomly. However it is resolved, only one envelope is ever accepted for the purposes of counting.
A weird example I recall was where two pre-poll envelopes for the same voter were received from the same polling place, one of which likely contained only a House of Reps ballot paper (thin), while the other envelope definitely contained a Senate paper (not so thin!). This was obviously a mistake that had been made at the polling place - you are supposed to put both ballot papers in the same envelope. However, when processing the two envelopes together it became clear the issuing officer (besides doing everything else wrong) had given the voter a House of Reps ballot paper for a different electorate to the one where they were actually enrolled. So the envelope with the Senate paper was accepted, while the one containing the House of Reps ballot had to be rejected.
Do you mean that you don't hatch eggs in the ballot box in Australia? like the Americans and us in Africa?
given the choice most Australian people wouldn't vote at all.
I'm not sure that's true. Studies suggest a majority would still vote, but not as many as vote under the current system.
If what you say is true, then that's the reason why voting MUST be compulsory.
You can not gain consent of the public if they are not asked.
@@andrewrollason4963 You can ask, but people can still make a choice to respond in a way that does not give a valid vote.
@@andrewrollason4963 only works if the consent is INFORMED consent. and unfortunately most people dont get informed , or worse are lied to. Democracy, or to be precise 'representative democracy ' doesn't work. but don't worry nothing else dose ether .
@@hansolo-mx4xt So you want to limit the franchise to people who you deem intelligent enough?
Okay, actual nazi.
Hear ye, hear ye !
If plural voting is banned by the constitution, then why can businesses vote in local elections? Is that a breach of the constitution of do local elections have a exemption?
The provision in the Commonwealth Constitution only applies to Commonwealth elections - not State elections of local government elections.
Great video. I'm a little concerned by the creation of designated voters. Any restriction of the franchise should be viewed with great scepticism. I think the best defence against multiple voting is the number of people that would need to be involved. A quick check of the AEC site suggests that the average electorate is about 115,000 to 120,000. To rig an election with multiple voting would require a conspiracy of thousands in each of the.150 seats. If 150,000 to 300,000 people were conspiring to rig an election, the rest of us would know about it.
The designated voters can still vote - but only once (which seems fair enough).
A little more detail on how designated voting works:
It's basically the same process you would go through if you were doing an absentee ballot. For example if you're from Newcastle but happen to be in Sydney on election day. Instead of going to the regular line, you go to the Declaration Vote Issuing Officers (incidentally, I'm familiar with this process because I was issuing Dec Votes during last year's referendum). They record your details on the outside of an envelope and give you your ballot. You vote as normal, but give your ballot back to Issuing Officer to place in the envelope. The details on the envelope are checked, and if it is determined that you are allowed to vote (e.g., they did _not_ find that you had voted twice), the envelope is opened and your ballot placed in a pile to be counted. Still completely anonymous because nobody ever looks at what is on your ballot at the time they have the envelope. It's an incredibly robust system that allows everyone to vote regardless of circumstances.
@@JimCullen Thanks. Yes, I agree, it's a good system.
I used to work for the AEC (and elsewhere there’s a long comment from me regarding the size of the problem of multiple voting) and so I completed in-house training on electoral fraud which included multiple voting, inter alia; and after accounting for the two main causes of accidental or apparent multiple voting (which Professor Twomey correctly discusses) you are left with the deliberate instances of multiple voting, some of which were provided in the training as case studies, and are really quite few in number (and the AEC doesn’t talk in too great detail about them for the obvious reason of not giving people ideas!).
Having worked at several elections I saw on one occasion a deliberate case of multiple voting that was not due to malicious intent by individual voters, but which occurred at an overseas voting centre due to a persistent misunderstanding of the procedure for issuing pre-poll votes (so there are other causes too).
Anyone who has worked in the “back office” of the AEC to see how declaration votes are processed will have an immediate appreciation for how apt and suitable the use of making some voters “designated voters” is as a solution to the problem, but it is probably not obvious to the general public without that experience. It doesn’t interfere with the voter’s franchise, but merely obliges them to cast a declaration vote rather than an ordinary vote. The statistic that only 37 voters (out of over 17.2 million on the roll) were advised that they would be designated voters at 2022 is indicative of the real nature of deliberate multiple voting; it really is exceedingly rare. Enjoy your democracy sausage!
@@Xanthe_Cat Thanks. Yes, when I was younger I worked for the AEC on one election and was impressed by the integrity of the system, including in relation to declaration votes. It is most frustrating when people constantly seek to undermine it, when it is actually something we should be really proud of.
I must toddle to bed, but now I understand the Concept of "Binge" watching.
I have an issue, I have worked for the AEC and ECSA at very low levels.
We don't quite have compulsory enrollment. Please investigate
We don't have compulsory voting, we have compulsory attendance which has widened in concept with Prepoll & postal. Please Investigate
I have had several double votes. In pre Howard times, I was a member of a Liberal Party. I was a member of a State Electoral Committee, a Federal Electoral Committee and State Council. Where we preselect Candidates for State & Federal Lwr House seats and State & Federal Upper House. I never renewed my membership after Alexander stepped down for Howard. Might you do a lecture on Party Membership, any party, and the extra influence we have?
I've done a separate video on compulsory voting. Check it out.
On the issue of electronic voting, my understanding is that purposely doing an 'informal vote' is not against the law or constitution, but all of the stuff that I have seen indicates that the electronic voting will not allow an informal vote. What's your opinion?
First, it depends upon how the electronic voting system is set up as to whether it allows informal voting.
As to whether informal voting is allowed by the law, that's a matter of debate. It is expressly permitted in South Australia, for example. At the Commonwealth level, it depends on your interpretation of the meaning of 'vote' in the legislation. It seems to have been deliberately left ambiguous.
Most people argue that because of the secret ballot, people can vote informally because there is no available evidence for their prosecution. But just saying that there is no evidence upon which you could be prosecuted, does not mean that an act is lawful.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Quick Law Check - If something is not an offence then it's allowed.
@@adelarsen9776 I think that ‘quick law check’ is only sort of true.
Electoral commissions are guided by the electoral acts which are passed as legislation, and it is true there are a number of specified offences which may be justiciable. However, because electoral commissions are also federal or state agencies, they are also empowered to issue regulations that may also have some legal standing. Immediately before every election you will find the electoral commissioner issuing regulations for the conduct of the election, which add to the list of what is permitted, and what is not permitted.
And even that isn’t the end of it; as a simple example, there was probably a time when you could smoke in polling booths while voting. Since we are now in the era where that can’t be done, we passed through a period where the regulations (for clarity and uniformity) might have mentioned somewhere that smoking is or isn’t allowed (rather than reserving it for the discretion of the officer-in-charge of a polling place). So there’s these possibilities:
(a) something is so ubiquitously commonplace it doesn’t need to be mentioned in the regulations;
(b) something is allowed by regulations;
(c) something is disallowed by regulations;
(d) something is so unlikely to happen that it doesn’t need to be mentioned, since in this case and also in case (a), the power can be delegated to the officer-in-charge to use their common sense.
Upshot: there are plenty of things that are not offences, but are also not allowed.
@@Xanthe_Cat Thank you.
There's Case Law, Common Law and Legislation.
The basic tenet of law is that if something is not an offence then it's legal.
It's as simple as that. Don't over think it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I have an (unreliable) recollection from some years ago of a court determination that, while personally voting informally is not illegal, or at least not prosecutable, encouraging others to vote informally could be a breach of electoral laws.
Keep going.
Australia depends on your ability to wake the giant
❤👌🪃🇦🇺🙏
Voting more than once is incredibly easy
As explained in the video, it is rare and usually a result of confusion amongst the elderly.
Surely our preferential voting system is a plural voting system ?
No. Plural voting involved a person voting separately in different electorates where they owned property.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Is that the precise wording in the "constitution" ?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Is that the precise wording or an interpretation ?
@@grosvenorclub It says 'but in the choosing of members each elector shall vote only once' (s 30). It was a reaction against plural voting on a property franchise that existed in some States and might otherwise have applied because s 30 also said that until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of electors for the House of Representatives shall be that of the more numerous House of Parliament in a State.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So when you tick a couple of boxes aren't you voting twice ? I would not expect you to agree as you have been brought up with the system and no doubt trained by "the system "
The question should be.. how do you gain power with only 32% of the vote
Emigrate to America?
Ask Keir.
Because it's not who votes. It's who counts the votes. Nobody gets elected. They all get selected.
@@AnthonyChase-h5b It's not who votes. It's who counts the votes, that decides.
That depends on the electoral system and what you mean by "32% of the vote"
I saw those tweets!!
The beauty also of common electoral rolls - Commonwealth, State and Local Government. In practice it is the State Electoral officials who receive the data from Births, Deaths and Marriages and amend the State entry which means it is updated across the three jurisdictions.
The "Tasmanian Dodge" does still occur....
Declaration votes can also be lodged where the person has been missed off the electoral roll for some reason (in pre-electronic rolls in particular).
Electronic rolls are not infallible. Last Commonwealth Election I was "pinged" for not voting (along with thousands of other voters) but I had but the polling official was apparently unsure how the system worked (a problem with non-professional "casual" officials....)
A great advantage of the Australian system is three year terms. Keeps the pollies on a short leash.
australia has a lot of advantages between short terms, ranked choice, and mandatory voting
Are you aware that the US has even shorter terms - 2 years for House of Representatives and overlapping four-year terms for Senators? This is why party discipline is not so strict in the US, as representatives have to be more attentive to the voters than to the party machine than in Australia.
@@someguy8375 As well as a Constitution that sets the maximum length of those terms and can only be changed by consent of the people. I recall a fair bit of discussion around increasing the House of Representatives term to four years, but which fell at the hurdle of increasing Senate terms to eight years or decreasing them to four years, in addition to the clear public view that pollies could not be trusted with longer terms. We also rejected the attempt to break the 2:1 ratio between the House and the Senate.
@allenjenkins7947 I think the three year term is important, just long enough for energetic politicians to exercise their mandate and short enough that the electorate can pass judgement one way or another.
Australia has other absolutely fundamental differences, significant minor parties, independents, serve to constrain wannabe dictators. Preferential voting and most importantly high voter turn out, 90%plus helps maintain majoritarian rule without disenfranchising the minority.
@@allenjenkins7947 Unfortunately they have to be even more attentive to the people/corporations who their campaigns.
Thank you for your clear exposition of the safeguards preventing voting fraud in Australian elections and referenda. IMO, the Australian voting system of compulsory registration and voting stands as a go-to model of representative democracy for the rest of the world. By comparison, the US system, in addition to having the disadvantages of voluntary voting and registration, is further burdened with an state based electoral college as an additional filter thru which the primary vote is passed; an obvious opportunity for electoral finagling.
You said voting is compulsory! It's not compulsory, getting your name crossed off IS compulsory. Once in the booth it's their choice if they cast a legitimate vote or make it informal.
I've done another video on compulsory voting where all of this is fully explained: ruclips.net/video/y7YJciGycB0/видео.html.
More partial nonsense. The AEC is legally required to provide you with ballot papers. If your stupid enough not to use the correctly - that's on you and they will be recorded as discarded
Voting _is_ compulsory. Getting your name marked off is not sufficient. People who do that then throw their ballot paper in the bin or straight into the ballot box may find themselves on the receiving end of a fine for not voting. Deliberately casting an informal vote is also illegal, though that's much less likely to be detected. Bragging about it isn't especially sharp. Aside from shouting that you're dishonest, you might find yourself caught up by the new laws directed at people bragging about their law-breaking.
Question: From a Libertarian perspective, one should not be forced to vote (upon pain of a fine if one doesn't). Is compulsory voting necessary for the integrity of the democratic process? Thank you!
I think compulsory voting is a pretty strong safe guard against a lot of types of voter fraud.
There are ethical questions around forcing someone to vote. But even beyond that there are effects on outcomes of elections to which there is no right or wrong answer.
In countries where voting is not compulsory, energy or enthusiasm for candidates plays a much bigger role. This means that if there is an issue that is greatly impacting a minority of the population and to which the larger population is ambivalent, a candidate or party that seeks to address that issue has a greater chance of winning as they can motivate more people to vote.
A system of compulsory voting favours the status quo. This does not just mean that an unenthused voter will vote for the incumbent party or candidate, but rather that parties and candidates will avoid taking more radical positions knowing that the type of voter who in a non-compulsory system would just stay home, in a compulsory system will be voting and will likely be put off by anything too far from the status quo.
The Australian political system in general is set up to favour stability over radical change. At least when compared to many other nations. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to you.
I agree that one should not be forced to vote for someone to whom one objects. Hence it is important, in a system of compulsory voting, that a person be free to give an 'informal vote' (eg leave the ballot paper blank - or write some choice words of objection on it, which quite a few Australians do!) I also support optional preferential voting in Australia, where one is not obliged to give a preference to every candidate and can choose to let a vote exhaust rather than elect a person to whom one objects.
I will do a video about this at some point, because it is interesting. But for the moment, I will just note that because of the existence of the secret ballot in Australia, people can cast their ballot and choose not to fill it in validly. This means that compulsory voting is essentially a requirement to make the effort to turn up and place a ballot in a box - not to submit a valid vote. But in practice, once people make the effort to turn up to cast their ballot, they usually then choose to give a formal vote. It is a way of nudging them to turn their mind to making a choice.
Brazil also has compulsory voting, but I find their alternate take on it useful. It's a citizens responsibility to vote, they are free to not vote, but many of your rights as a citizen are curtailed if you don't vote - for a few years things like renewing passports or drivers licence become difficult and the large state owned banking sector won't deal with you. I find it useful way of framing the situation.
Ah, the "choice words of objection", sometimes accompanied with illustrations. Sadly, only electoral workers and scrutineers ever get to see them.
@@DeGuerre Yes, one of my first jobs as an 18 year old was as a poll clerk in a federal election. Because I was the only one with a brain capable of understanding the rules regarding informal votes, I was the one who had to assess them. I did it for the Senate vote too. I got to see an awful lot of rude words!
I can assure you that electoral rolls are NOT updated monthly from BDM. In the last referendum, in September 2023, I opened letters from the electoral commission months after the voting, claiming my partner had not voted and was liable to pay a fine although she had died at the end of June 2023, all the legal work was done promptly and virtually settled by the end of September.. I ignored the letters until they said she would have to appear in court when I sent the certificate. So electoral commission does not regularly update the rolls. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and it is insulting when the electoral commission is too bone lazy to check the BDM or do a simple google search on death or funeral notices for months after the event. I found it incredibly distressing and writing this, relives this trauma. The Australian electoral commission is as dumb as dog sheet.
I am really sorry to hear that - it must have been very distressing.
I'm guessing that the problem is that the electoral rolls close at a certain date before the election/referendum, usually about a month before it, and no updates are made to them after that in relation to that election/referendum. So if all the paperwork concerning your partner's death was settled by the end of September, it would not have been done by the cut-off date of the close of the rolls (and even if it had been done earlier, the previous monthly update from Births Deaths and Marriages, could have been up to four weeks before the close of the rolls). So according to the details held by the AEC, your partner would have still been on the rolls and not voted.
Later updates to the rolls would not have been applied to procedures regarding failure to vote for those people who were still on the rolls at the time they closed. In those circumstances, you just have to tell the AEC.
Nonetheless, it must have been an awful experience, and you have my sympathy.
My son was called for jury duty in NSW 12 months from his old address, 12 months after he changed his name on the electoral role. The tenant in his previous house was dumping the notices. He only found out after the tenant moved out and a summons turned up in the letter box. His name was on two electoral roles - Wollondilly and Parramatta at the same time. NO the roles are not updated frequently.
If it is any assistance, I used to work on the electoral roll for the Australian electoral commission
The AEC manages the electoral roll, and the NSW commission get a snapshot of the roll from them for their elections
The aec gets automatic updates from different government bodies such as rta and birth death marriages. These updates are usually processed each month, but some departments will send these through in one batch. An example is citizenship, where they have sent through updates after 2 months
The fastest way to have an update go through the electoral commission is to call them or submit the paperwork over the internet. Calling to remove someone from the roll requires you to provide your electoral details, so if that person votes or contacts the commission, they will investigate using you as a starting point.
There is also the cutoff period where the roll cannot be updated, as they will need to put the roll into print, where for obvious reasons the roll cannot be bulk edited.
Unfortunately I can tell from the event described, that the problem came from the NSW electoral commission, or other state commission.
The AEC does not have any actual power to enforce voting, but the state commissions are linked to the rta and similar services, and will suspend your license and similar punishments.
If you ever receive a fine for not voting, make sure you call the AEC, as they will be able to let you know who it came from, and amend the roll if needed for you.
Easy way to picture it:
The state commisuon runs state, council, and local elections, and is very interested in making sure everyone votes
The Australian electoral commission is more interested in making sure everyone’s details are correct on the roll.
Also in response to just check births deaths and marriages, people are employed to check every piece of paperwork carefully to ensure that it has been translated by the computer correctly. If we were to check births deaths and marriages, we would need to do this for every person that doesn’t vote, and it would need to be checked again by a human for any errors anyway if it was automated
Don’t know if this is helpful at all, but working at the AEC around election time is non stop, even with just ensuring the addresses are up to date 😅
If people move house, we would sometimes only find out long after they, when they updated their license.
@@matthewcampbell149 Thanks for providing all that information. It is very helpful.
Wrong. BDM do send the AEC death data to be processed - which it is. You forget that there is ALWAYS a Close of Rolls (only 1 at the federal election) - the deadline is 7 days after the writ is issued. If the BDM data is not accurate then matching to an elector who is alive is both unfortunate and embarrassing for all
I believe we should have photo voter ID. At 18 issued by the AEC. At no cost. Periodically having a photo upgraded. Said ID would and should replace proof of age cards and be valid ID for anything. Further, there should be a link between Health and AEC to remove people have "lost capacity". I had no provision, as a relative had not quite list capacity:yet, to stop them and had to watch them vote. After they lost capacity, it was a rigmoral to have them removed from the roll.
Nope. Federal Direct Enrolment had to be introduced because people are too lazy to keep their Enrolment up-to-date. So I'd say nope to this idea
@peterroach3377 it's dual purpose. It's a proff of age or photo I'd for those that have no photo I'd, it proves who you are voting. I could get up real real early be first to vote, use your vote, then go do my vote elsewhere. Photo ID would stop that. Plus have an incentive to get it as other photo I'd if you don't drive
@davidleonard1813 nope. Ordinary voters (in Australia) are marked off manually from the certified lists (paper rolls), and the rolls are not scanned back til after polling day
@peterroach3377 yeah I know that. Not much you can yell me about it. I have been an AEC worker. I've scrutineered for both sides. If we got paper roles, and even digital, anyone can vote in your name if they got your details. Only way to stop that is photo ID.
@davidleonard1813 again, nope. The issue really is GETTING people to vote at all. The cases of people voting for someone else are minimal. Your solution is looking for a problem
Australia is not sovereign so it doesn’t matter 😂
Australia is a sovereign nation. Voting does matter.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Australia is an arm of the American empire, you are given a choice of two parties which will more or less do the same thing as they are contained in the same small area(metaphorically), that area is dictated by the hegemon. Significant change will only ever come from within if the hegemon grants us sovereignty or we amass enough power for the right of greater sovereignty.
Australians determine Australian politics. We get what we vote for.
Exactly! The Liberal Party practice of going into aged care homes and "helping" Alzheimers patients to vote is sickening.
I think you meant the ALP
Yes heard alp goes to all the nursing homes.
Do you have any proof that Liberals did this as my recollection is this is a Labor Party thing. Or are you gaslighting to take the heat off Labor.
More nonsense. The AEC visits nursing homes an hospitals and will take advice from staff about dementia patients. Many dementia patients have been legally removed from the roll or have had incapable notations recorded against their enrolment.
What they actually do - Liberals, Nationals, Labor, Greens, One Nation, Palmer, etc., etc. - is 'help' the residents apply for postal votes.
That is a major contributor to multiple voting, because some are registered postal voters anyway and most others will be visited by the AEC's mobile polling teams. Hence, these people are liable to end up getting both the postal votes the parties 'help' them apply for along with whatever other voting arrangement is already in place.
Worse, the parties are often slow at passing the applications on to the AEC, due to inputting the personal details into their own databases for future canvassing.
Getting your name marked off…without proof is not much of a security
See the video and the evidence about multiple voting in Australia.
When you see people opening postboxes and removing postal votes you know someone with serious clout is operating a vote rigging op in Canberra.
If you have evidence of vote-rigging, provide it to the authorities. If you don't, it is presumably because you actually don't have any evidence, in which case, stop spreading falsehoods.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I have already reported this matter and the Electoral Officer has been dismissed, the voting irregularities are still happening but I cannot tell exactly when the interference is now occurring.
@@ianshears5341 If this is true (and I have no evidence that it is), then action was taken, which is a good thing.
But it is a great mystery to me how an AEC worker could actually open postboxes, as he or she would not have a key to do so. It sounds suspiciously like a made-up story.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 What did Paul Keating say vis a vis who is running the country? It starts with 'Spo...
Things that never happened.
What I found non-sense is that instead of voting for one, you have to vote for all, keeping in the system forever the corrupt, unfit, proved scoundrels forever!
You know you don't have to (at least in 90% of states) put preferences beyond your first choice right? And if preferential voting wasn't there, you would essentially be forced into voting for the 2 major parties, keeping the "scoundrels" in even more. Your comment doesn't make sense.
Oh more rubbish. First Past the Post RARELY gives an absolute majority. (50% +1 of the total enrolment of the electorate)
@@peterroach3377First past the post is the greatest number of votes received by a candidate. It has nothing to do with how many people are enrolled or even obtaining a majority of the votes. For example, if there are 3 candidates and 10,000 formal votes cast, and two of those candidates, with very similar policies, obtain 3,333 votes each, the remaining candidate, who got 3,334 votes, wins. And that's the problem with first past the post systems. In the example given, 66.66% of the electorate didn't want the winning candidate or their policies.
@Macropod_ I am fully aware of this system and its total inferiority to the preferential system used in Australian federal elections
Plural voting is bad enough, what’s the constitutionality of preferences? It seems to be against the premise of democracy that a government is put in power after achieving less than 1/3 of the popular vote. Then to rub salt in the wounds they make policies under the guise of having a ‘mandate’. Preference voting must be abolished!
Actually, preference voting ensures that the views of the majority are respected, rather than being lost because their vote is divided between two candidates of the same political persuasion. For example, under first past the post, if there was a majority of conservative voters in an electorate (eg 60%) and a minority of socialist voters (40%), and two candidates with conservative views ran, achieving 30% each, then the socialist candidate with 40% of the vote would win under first past the post.
Have a look at the writings of Kevin Bonham who is very good on this point.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I understand what you are saying but I do not believe that the majority of Australians wanted what the current government is giving us. Subjective opinion I know but the validity of my statement will be known at the next election. We will discover if the majority of Australians are left wing, borderline socialist climate zealots, or are in fact centre right who simply protest voted because scomo betrayed us and did nothing but try to appease the globalist climate cult.
Kevin would be the first to point out that you can always devise scenarios where even worse outcomes occur. At least under full preferential voting you will *always* be able to find one candidate who receives 50% or more of the vote in a two-candidate-preferred distribution. Under optional preferential voting you have exhaustion of some votes which might reduce the winner’s share below 50%, but most voters still declare enough preferences to candidates they would like to see elected, as opposed to those they would not.
If preferences are abolished then you might obtain even more absurd results in a typical first past the post election (since running multiple runoff elections with gradual elimination of losing candidates is prohibitively expensive). Say you have a dozen candidates for a seat who each receive fairly similar numbers of votes; the winner might be elected with 10% of the votes.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 That's a scenario which has played out quite a few times in the UK. In both directions. For example, I think that it's unlikely that Mrs Thatcher would have had many preferences from Labour or the Social Democrats and I doubt that Keir Starmer would have had much of a preference flow from Conservative or Reform voters.
Of course it happens, marginal seats especially, the “Left” is notorious for the practise (on an organised basis), but not limited to the Left. Ethnic minorities are notorious for doing it on an organised basis. The real drama is of pre-selection rorts in the major parties.
Oh please… don’t start the Trump bullsiht in Australia 😊
Care to explain how get past the protection in place without detection?
Written by a true ignoramus with no interest in the facts!
@@Macropod_ Hello Macropod, care to explain WHY there is NOT a requirement to provide ID at the Polling Booth? The ONLY explanation is that the “authorities” don’t want to verify that the people casting votes are those registered to vote.
@@anthonyburke5656 For the simple reason it's a solution looking for a problem and would cause a bigger problem than the one it's supposed to solve.
Many people don't carry any form of photo ID around with them, especially the old, the hospitalized, aboriginals, and young adults.
You'd end up denying many more people the right to fulfil the legal obligation to vote than the number of fraudulent votes that are actually cast.
And what about the ever increasing number of people having postal votes? How & when is anyone going to check their IDs?