1/ People with no political interest or knowledge vote.

2/ People vote by tradition rather than who is best. eg "My grandpappy always used to vote labour, so I do.'

3/ It costs more.

Not forgetting that it's undemocratic.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

1/ People with no political interest or knowledge vote.

The worst of those probably cast an informal vote.

It is a worry, though.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades

It was not introduced to be fair, it was introduced to make change difficult.

Straight out of the dictators handbook:

---

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 1:23pm:

Not forgetting that it's undemocratic.

No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal!

I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available

Its time wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available

Then that's their loss because they get no say in shaping this country, which is a shame because I take pride in being able to say my vote counted and I had a say in which direction my country will take. By the way, the figure you're looking for is 5.92% of votes at the 2013 election were marked as "informal" (source: http://electionwatch.edu.au/australia-2013/analysis/informal-voting-rise).

I would be surprised if more than 10% actually had a clue what they were voting for , apathy is rife in this country .

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal!

We have the opposite problem here. We're made to vote even if we don't want to do, otherwise you get fined. Why not do as the Americans do and give people the option of whether or not they want to vote?

Its time wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

I would be surprised if more than 10% actually had a clue what they were voting for , apathy is rife in this country .

Especially among the Left. They don't care why they vote for Labor other than because they don't like Tony Abbott, for example. Yeah, that's a good reason.  ::)

matty wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:23pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! We have the opposite problem here. We're made to vote even if we don't want to do, otherwise you get fined. Why not do as the Americans do and give people the option of whether or not they want to vote?

We need to do two things in this country with regard to voting:

1. Move to electronic voting - presto, no more informal votes and no more incidences of voting multiple times. This would also allow for much swifter reporting of the election result and far greater accuracy of the count.

2. Abolish preferences and move to a "first past the post" system.

... wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 2:30pm:

It was not introduced to be fair, it was introduced to make change difficult.

Incorrect.

It was introduced by a conservative government about a century ago to counter the possibility of unions mobilising their members to vote.

Its time wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available

Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes).

"Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades

Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election. Also, the article in your link says as much: "Blank ballots and those with scribbles, slogans or other protest vote marks were assumed to be intentionally informal."

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:24pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:22pm: I would be surprised if more than 10% actually had a clue what they were voting for , apathy is rife in this country . Especially among the Left. They don't care why they vote for Labor other than because they don't like Tony Abbott, for example. Yeah, that's a good reason.  ::)

I agree, and that is a reason why I think it should be voluntary.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

matty wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:23pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! We have the opposite problem here. We're made to vote even if we don't want to do, otherwise you get fined. Why not do as the Americans do and give people the option of whether or not they want to vote? We need to do two things in this country with regard to voting: 1. Move to electronic voting - presto, no more informal votes and no more incidences of voting multiple times. This would also allow for much swifter reporting of the election result and far greater accuracy of the count.

Electronic voting is highly susceptible to fraud and hacking.


Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

2. Abolish preferences and move to a "first past the post" system.

And entrench conservative governments for excessively long terms? That's highly undemocratic. That's obviously your intention, don't deny it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election.

100% incorrect.

I've been a scrutineer for a lot longer than you.

I can tell you, they don't keep statistics on donkey votes.

Moreover, donkey votes are counted as legitimate votes.

"Definition: A donkey vote occurs when an elector simply numbers the ballot paper from top to bottom (or bottom to top) without regard to the logic of the preference allocation.
A donkey vote is counted as a valid vote because it contains a number “1” and has numbered every square in sequential order."

http://australianpolitics.com/voting-elections/electoral-system/donkey-votes

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:24pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:22pm: I would be surprised if more than 10% actually had a clue what they were voting for , apathy is rife in this country . Especially among the Left. They don't care why they vote for Labor other than because they don't like Tony Abbott, for example. Yeah, that's a good reason.  ::)

No we knew he didnt cut the grade years before you righties, if he was any good he would still be PM yes ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

matty wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:23pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! We have the opposite problem here. We're made to vote even if we don't want to do, otherwise you get fined. Why not do as the Americans do and give people the option of whether or not they want to vote? We need to do two things in this country with regard to voting: 1. Move to electronic voting - presto, no more informal votes and no more incidences of voting multiple times. This would also allow for much swifter reporting of the election result and far greater accuracy of the count. 2. Abolish preferences and move to a "first past the post" system.

I agree with that as well, but why not also move to voluntary voting? Why make people vote when they don't want to vote?

I am a very very conservative person and would never vote for Labor or the Greens. However, I am also very very disillusioned with the federal government and don't want to vote for them. Why force me to go and vote when I don't want to vote for any of them?

8 million voters..

only half vote..

4 million people control who runs the gov t???...

we are lazy by nature.. we are getting lazier....so that 4 mill will become 3.5.million and then 2 million...

going down.. ::)

THE GREATEST MYTH ABOUT DONKEY VOTES

Many people believe that donkey votes are informal. This is not true.

A donkey vote is counted as a valid/formal vote. Provided the voter has marked the number “1” against a candidate and numbered the other candidates in order of preference, the vote will be counted.

http://australianpolitics.com/voting-elections/electoral-system/donkey-votes

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election. Also, the article in your link says as much: "Blank ballots and those with scribbles, slogans or other protest vote marks were assumed to be intentionally informal."

Really? Why is that the case? I had no idea. What if someone genuinely wants to preference from 1 to whatever in the order from top to bottom? Given all the different electorates and all the different voters that is bound to happen. In fact it would be even highly likely in electorates with three or four candidates.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

matty wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:23pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! We have the opposite problem here. We're made to vote even if we don't want to do, otherwise you get fined. Why not do as the Americans do and give people the option of whether or not they want to vote? We need to do two things in this country with regard to voting: 1. Move to electronic voting - presto, no more informal votes and no more incidences of voting multiple times. This would also allow for much swifter reporting of the election result and far greater accuracy of the count. 2. Abolish preferences and move to a "first past the post" system.

Not under any circumstances.

That's how the scumbag Cameron got back in in the UK despite hardly anyone actually wanting him.

FPTP is anything BUT democratic.

Shove it!

matty wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:40pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election. Also, the article in your link says as much: "Blank ballots and those with scribbles, slogans or other protest vote marks were assumed to be intentionally informal." Really?

No, not really.

Donkey votes are definitely counted as legitimate votes.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election. 100% incorrect. I've been a scrutineer for a lot longer than you. I can tell you, they don't keep statistics on donkey votes. Moreover, donkey votes are counted as legitimate votes. "Definition: A donkey vote occurs when an elector simply numbers the ballot paper from top to bottom (or bottom to top) without regard to the logic of the preference allocation. A donkey vote is counted as a valid vote because it contains a number “1” and has numbered every square in sequential order." http://australianpolitics.com/voting-elections/electoral-system/donkey-votes

I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer, because if you had you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks" (I actually saw that one, along with "Tony sucks" all in the same night).

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:41pm:

matty wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:40pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election. Also, the article in your link says as much: "Blank ballots and those with scribbles, slogans or other protest vote marks were assumed to be intentionally informal." Really? No, not really. Donkey votes are definitely counted as legitimate votes.

I meant the votes people write profanities or nothing at all on .

Its time wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:41pm: matty wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:40pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election. Also, the article in your link says as much: "Blank ballots and those with scribbles, slogans or other protest vote marks were assumed to be intentionally informal." Really? No, not really. Donkey votes are definitely counted as legitimate votes. I meant the votes people write profanities or nothing at all on .

That's an informal vote. If you sign your name, it's an informal vote. If you say "Tony sucks", it's an informal vote. If you draw a unicorn on the ballot paper, it's an informal vote. If you place ticks instead of numbers in the boxes on the ballot paper, it's an informal vote. If you place absolutely zero marks on the paper and fold it up and place it in the box on your way out the door, it's an informal vote. The term "donkey vote" is just a slang term used to describe an informal vote.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

The term "donkey vote" is just a slang term used to describe an informal vote.

No.

They are two different things.

From the AEC:

"Donkey vote

"A ballot paper marked 1, 2, 3, 4 straight down (or up) a ballot paper."

http://www.aec.gov.au/footer/glossary.htm

And:

"For some reason, many people think that a donkey vote is the same as an informal vote. IT’S NOT!

"Definition of a donkey vote: A donkey vote occurs when a voter numbers every box on the ballot paper in order from top to bottom, without regard to the logic of the preferences. In some cases, a voter might start at the bottom of the ballot paper and number them in order to the top.

"A DONKEY VOTE IS A FORMAL VOTE. IT WILL BE COUNTED AND IT WILL GO TO WHOEVER IS MARKED NUMBER 1."

http://australianpolitics.com/2013/09/04/what-happens-to-donkey-votes.html

If voting was compulsory Labor would never get in. Many working class people and ethnics don't give a crap about politics.

double plus good wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

If voting was compulsory Labor would never get in. Many working class people and ethnics don't give a crap about politics.

Link?

double plus good wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

If voting was compulsory Labor would never get in. Many working class people and ethnics don't give a crap about politics.

Voting is compulsory, Homo.

Its time wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 4:16pm: If voting was compulsory Labor would never get in. Many working class people and ethnics don't give a crap about politics. Link?

That's my opinion and a damned good one.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

double plus good wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 4:16pm: If voting was compulsory Labor would never get in. Many working class people and ethnics don't give a crap about politics. Voting is compulsory, Homo.

wasn't pecca. it was a typo.

Mr Peccary is quite correct.  If there are eight candidates, and all the numbers 1-8 appear, one in each box, it is a formal vote.  They decide 'doubtfuls' on the basis of whether the voter's intent was clear.

I did not see it.....but I reckon that provided all the required numbers appear once in each box, it likely would not invalidate the vote if 'Abbott sux' was also written on it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:36pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Informal votes, not donkey votes (they don't keep statistics on the number of donkey votes). "Last September's total rate of informal votes - 5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives - was the largest in Australia since 1984." http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/12/australias-rate-informal-votes-highest-decades Sorry, but you're wrong about the donkey votes. Donkey votes are included in the statistics as informal votes because a donkey vote is classed as an informal vote. How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election. 100% incorrect. I've been a scrutineer for a lot longer than you. I can tell you, they don't keep statistics on donkey votes. Moreover, donkey votes are counted as legitimate votes. "Definition: A donkey vote occurs when an elector simply numbers the ballot paper from top to bottom (or bottom to top) without regard to the logic of the preference allocation. A donkey vote is counted as a valid vote because it contains a number “1” and has numbered every square in sequential order." http://australianpolitics.com/voting-elections/electoral-system/donkey-votes I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer, because if you had you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks" (I actually saw that one, along with "Tony sucks" all in the same night).

Which of the following are valid votes on a ballot paper with seven candidates:

Ballot Paper 1: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Ballot Paper 2: [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G]
Ballot Paper 3: [I] [II] [III] [IV] [V] [VI] [VII]
Ballot paper 4: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] plus a stick figure labelled "Abbott' copulating with a map of Australia
Ballot Paper 5: [2]1 [1]2 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

All are, except # 2.

does it enable the weird small parties?

'How do I know? I was an election scrutineer at the 2013 election'.

Armpit, your best ever. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer ...

I couldn't care less what you believe, but I've scrutinised at at least six elections (state and federal).


Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

... you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks"...

What I said, to correct you, is that donkey votes and informal votes are not the same thing.

Donkey votes are not regarded as informal.

A donkey vote is one that numbers all boxes in sequential order, either from top to bottom or bottom to top.

They are perfectly legitimate, and they are not put aside as informal - they are included in the tally.

You got it wrong.  Time to move on.

Aussie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

All are, except # 2.

Numbers written as words are also acceptable.

e.g.

one

three

four

two

etc.

Also, the numbers do not have to be inside the box in order to be a formal vote: they can be placed to the right of the candidates' name.

Bam wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

... wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 2:30pm: It was not introduced to be fair, it was introduced to make change difficult. Incorrect. It was introduced by a conservative government about a century ago to counter the possibility of unions mobilising their members to vote.

In other words, to make change more difficult.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

1/ People with no political interest or knowledge vote. 2/ People vote by tradition rather than who is best. eg "My grandpappy always used to vote labour, so I do.' 3/ It costs more.

And it legitimises, scumbag pollies, into believing their mediocre attributes is what gets them them money.

More lies equals more votes, more votes equals more money for the coffers of these cretins.


Don't register and you won't have to vote, the AEC is populated by dysfunctional clock watchers; over 1 million Australians can't be wrong.  :)




"The AEC studied the 2010 election and found more than 3 million Australians did not vote.

Of those 1.5 million people were not enrolled, 900,000 people were enrolled but did not vote and nearly 750,0000 people cast an informal vote."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/figures-show-25-per-cent-of-young-people-failed-to-enrol-to-vote/4903292

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer ... I couldn't care less what you believe, but I've scrutinised at at least six elections (state and federal). Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: ... you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks"... What I said, to correct you, is that donkey votes and informal votes are not the same thing. Donkey votes are not regarded as informal. WRONG!!! A donkey vote is one that numbers all boxes in sequential order, either from top to bottom or bottom to top. They are perfectly legitimate, and they are not put aside as informal - they are included in the tally. You got it wrong.  Time to move on.

Aussie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

All are, except # 2.

Actually, using letters does count as a formal vote, provided that the letters start at "A" or "a" and the rest of the boxes follow the alphabet in sequence. It counts because it clearly indicates the first preference and indicates a clear order of preference.

However, I do not recommend using the alphabet to mark ballot papers in case it is rejected as informal by someone who is unaware of these technicalities. When marking a valid vote, always use consecutive Arabic numbers starting from 1 and number all boxes.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer ... I couldn't care less what you believe, but I've scrutinised at at least six elections (state and federal). Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: ... you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks"... What I said, to correct you, is that donkey votes and informal votes are not the same thing. Donkey votes are not regarded as informal. WRONG!!! A donkey vote is one that numbers all boxes in sequential order, either from top to bottom or bottom to top. They are perfectly legitimate, and they are not put aside as informal - they are included in the tally. You got it wrong.  Time to move on.

If you disagree, please provide a link to a reputable source.

Mr Peccary:


Quote:

Donkey votes are not regarded as informal.

Mr Armpit:


Quote:

WRONG!!!

Would you care to explain why Mr Armpit?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer ... I couldn't care less what you believe, but I've scrutinised at at least six elections (state and federal). Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: ... you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks"... What I said, to correct you, is that donkey votes and informal votes are not the same thing. Donkey votes are not regarded as informal. WRONG!!! A donkey vote is one that numbers all boxes in sequential order, either from top to bottom or bottom to top. They are perfectly legitimate, and they are not put aside as informal - they are included in the tally. You got it wrong.  Time to move on.

No, I'm 100% correct.

Donkey votes are not informal votes.

They are completely legitimate, and they are included in the final tally.

"Definition of a donkey vote: A donkey vote occurs when a voter numbers every box on the ballot paper in order from top to bottom, without regard to the logic of the preferences. In some cases, a voter might start at the bottom of the ballot paper and number them in order to the top.

"A DONKEY VOTE IS A FORMAL VOTE. IT WILL BE COUNTED AND IT WILL GO TO WHOEVER IS MARKED NUMBER 1."

http://australianpolitics.com/2013/09/04/what-happens-to-donkey-votes.html

"A vote is regarded as informal if the ballot paper has not been completed properly. Informal ballot papers are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside.

"According to section 268 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918), a vote is informal if:

"the ballot paper is not marked at all

"the ballot paper does not have the official mark and has not been initialled by the polling official, and the ballot paper is not authentic in the opinion of the Divisional Returning Officer (DRO)

"the ballot paper has writing on it which identifies the voter
in the case of an absent vote, the ballot paper is not contained in the declaration envelope

"the voter has not completed a full preferential vote. There are savings measures to keep formal some ballot papers marked incompletely or incorrectly."

"Donkey vote

"A ballot paper marked 1, 2, 3, 4 straight down (or up) a ballot paper."

http://www.aec.gov.au/footer/Glossary.htm

And, from Antony Green:

"The Sustainable Population Party polled just 0.9% of the vote but delivered a remarkable 72.5% of preferences to Labor, this high flow from a low vote largely due to the donkey vote."

"The fact that Liberal Andrew Hastie is higher on the ballot paper than Labor's Matt Keogh gives Hastie a narrow advantage by the donkey vote, but the advantage is unchanged on the 2013 election when Don Randall drew top spot on the ballot.

"So the donkey vote favours the Liberal Party in Canning, but it is neutral in its impact on the swing needed compared to the 2013 election because the Liberal Party had the donkey vote advantage in 2013 and again in 2015."

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/09/preferences-donkey-votes-and-the-canning-by-election.html

Quote:

And, from Antony Green: "The Sustainable Population Party polled just 0.9% of the vote but delivered a remarkable 72.5% of preferences to Labor, this high flow from a low vote largely due to the donkey vote."

As you have already posted, the 'donkey vote' numbers are never recorded, so Green is speculating.

Aussie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

Quote: And, from Antony Green: "The Sustainable Population Party polled just 0.9% of the vote but delivered a remarkable 72.5% of preferences to Labor, this high flow from a low vote largely due to the donkey vote." As you have already posted, the 'donkey vote' numbers are never recorded, so Green is speculating.

Yes.

However, they are counted.

That's the bit Armpit doesn't seem to understand.

For some strange reason, he thinks that donkey votes are informal.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal!

We all have our own opinion, even an arsewipe like you.

Once again arsewipe IMO compulsory voting is undemocratic...

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

1/ People with no political interest or knowledge vote. 2/ People vote by tradition rather than who is best. eg "My grandpappy always used to vote labour, so I do.' 3/ It costs more.

Quote:

People with no political interest or knowledge vote.

Many may still vote if it were optional.


Quote:

People vote by tradition rather than who is best

They will still vote for the same reasons only their traditional vote would have a larger impact on the result.


Quote:

It costs more

With a huge pool of people not voting the cost of preventing these votes being harvested to vote by proxy could be immense. It could conceivable cost a lot more.

I like the way we do it.

If you are Australian you are expected to vote, it is part of the responsibility of being Australian.

You don't want to vote you don't want to be Australian.

"We're lucky we have that right."  - armchair politician


That's just a cliche coming out of your rear. Anything compulsory is not a right, it's a dictatorial command punishable if not complied with. So much for free elections ...


Article 21. ( From UN Human Rights, if you believe in them, and it seems the Libs and Labs do given that they've turned OZ over to the UN)

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


Compulsory voting also violates this UN Human Right ...

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.


Politicians often say "You can't fool the voters', they are intelligent" ... It'll be interesting to see if they drop compulsory voting when and if we get a Republic

Dnarever wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:

If you are Australian you are expected to vote, it is part of the responsibility of being Australian. You don't want to vote you don't want to be Australian.

Hogwash. voting doesn't determine if you are Australian or not.


If you are Australian you are expected to vote,

Yes, expected to the point of being punished if you don't, typical of dictatorial Libs and Labs. Glad to get rid of youse if we get a Republic

So it shouldn't be difficult for you all to now clearly determine that compulsory voting is not democratic and is not a right ... it's a punishable dictatorial command that violates ...

Human Rights Article 4 (Freedom from Slavery)

Human Rights Article 21  (3) (Adoption of Free elections)

Natural Human right of being free to vote or not ... (who would really want to vote for the dictatorial Libs and Labs any more ? we all know they're driving us up the wall)


Australia is NOT a free and democratic nation, it's a Soviet dictatorship with fries

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Then that's their loss because they get no say in shaping this country, which is a shame because I take pride in being able to say my vote counted and I had a say in which direction my country will take. By the way, the figure you're looking for is 5.92% of votes at the 2013 election were marked as "informal" (source: http://electionwatch.edu.au/australia-2013/analysis/informal-voting-rise).

weren't you one of the righties claiming you would cast a informal vote rather than vote for turncoat or labor at the next election? :D :D :D

Best chance is to stand as - say - Aaron Aabaac?

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude;

ohh please ... you want to liken voting to slavery? Get real :D :D

rubbish .... the only reason some of the far right want to scrap compulsory voting is because they believe it will improve their chances of winning an election

Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded.
I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 8:42pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:04pm: 1/ People with no political interest or knowledge vote. 2/ People vote by tradition rather than who is best. eg "My grandpappy always used to vote labour, so I do.' 3/ It costs more. Quote: People with no political interest or knowledge vote. Many may still vote if it were optional. [quote]People vote by tradition rather than who is best

They will still vote for the same reasons only their traditional vote would have a larger impact on the result.


Quote:

It costs more

With a huge pool of people not voting the cost of preventing these votes being harvested to vote by proxy could be immense. It could conceivable cost a lot more.

I like the way we do it.[/quote]

thanks for responding in a mature manner.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:17pm:

Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it.

there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:20pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D

Yeah because of the voting system.
That'll be it John....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:20pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D Yeah because of the voting system. That'll be it John....

prove it

Somebody called somebody on here a dz dopey hairyback dh with the IQ of an amoeba
, i can assure you i have no idea why on earth they would call this individual  a dopey dz dh that has the IQ of an amoeba but there seems to be confusion with identities on this site, perhaps somebody can clarify what all these false allegations are against my user name and why i am be8ng confused as Aussie , my record has shown i dont indulge in personal abuse , i expect the same in return and a full apology .

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:04pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 9:51pm: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; ohh please ... you want to liken voting to slavery? Get real :D :D

Ahh well, you prove politicians wrong when they say the electorate is intelligent, you for one can't comprehend what the thread is about ... have another go John, try Compulsory Voting ... gezz you might get it sooner or later

In case you don't - Compulsory Voting is likened to slavery or servatude


So what interest would you have in compulsory voting, it helps you lefties out somehow ? everybody knows you lot are not big on freedoms, nor are the Lib righties, so do you always want the Labs and Libs to win elections ? let's have your lame cliche dictatorial reasons like:

You can't have a democracy without compulsory voting

If you don't vote in a compulsory voting system, you don't deserve a say

If you want services, you must put your compulsory vote in


... and I hope you're not one of those who say "A vote for a minor party is a wasted vote" .. or: "A vote for a minor party creates instability" What ratbags say that I wonder

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:20pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D

I doubt it's because of the voting system. Australia is incredibly apolitical, and the reason for that is compulsory voting; no one cares when we are forced to vote between sh1t and sh1t.  Having optional voting would at least smarten the electorate up and make it more about ideology as opposed to who offers better tax cuts.

voting isnt compolsoury in this country. you people are arguing against something which doesnt exist.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:16am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:20pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D I doubt it's because of the voting system. Australia is incredibly apolitical, and the reason for that is compulsory voting; no one cares when we are forced to vote between sh1t and sh1t.  Having optional voting would at least smarten the electorate up and make it more about ideology as opposed to who offers better tax cuts.

You're making sense for a change. OZ is at a tipping point, any more socialism, any more debt, any more expansion of government, then we'll start to go under. Massive debt will be the main culprit, even now we can't get any big infrastructure projects underway

Now we've got Herr Baird spruiking "We need a Republic" - one would hope he's also willing to stamp out the idea of perpetual debt as a continued solution for the future. Most of the Lib Lab politicians are nothing more than madmen

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:37am:

voting isnt compolsoury in this country. you people are arguing against something which doesnt exist.

Well tell us all about it then, I listening

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:37am: voting isnt compolsoury in this country. you people are arguing against something which doesnt exist. Well tell us all about it then, I listening

i just did. What arent you understanding exactly?

Well there is a fine to pay if you don't vote. So are you suggesting the fine is for something else ?

the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting.

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:03am:

the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting.

Look at any Office of  State Revenue voting fine notice Ian, it says at the top: "Fine for failure to vote"

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 10:56pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:07pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Then that's their loss because they get no say in shaping this country, which is a shame because I take pride in being able to say my vote counted and I had a say in which direction my country will take. By the way, the figure you're looking for is 5.92% of votes at the 2013 election were marked as "informal" (source: http://electionwatch.edu.au/australia-2013/analysis/informal-voting-rise). weren't you one of the righties claiming you would cast a informal vote rather than vote for turncoat or labor at the next election? :D :D :D

No dopey, I said if Turncoat leads the party into the next election I would not vote Liberal, and I also said I would never under any circumstances vote Labor or Green. I didn't say I would cast an "informal" vote. But this illustrates why IMO compulsory voting is undemocratic. Being compelled to vote even though you disagree with a party or having to cast an 'informal vote' as a result, because not voting or attending the polling station (freedom of choice) is punishable by a fine is undemocratic.

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:44am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:07pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Then that's their loss because they get no say in shaping this country, which is a shame because I take pride in being able to say my vote counted and I had a say in which direction my country will take. By the way, the figure you're looking for is 5.92% of votes at the 2013 election were marked as "informal" (source: http://electionwatch.edu.au/australia-2013/analysis/informal-voting-rise). weren't you one of the righties claiming you would cast a informal vote rather than vote for turncoat or labor at the next election? :D :D :D No dopey, I said if Turncoat leads the party into the next election I would not vote Liberal, and I also said I would never under any circumstances vote Labor or Green. I didn't say I would cast an "informal" vote.

I said the same thing, as did several others.  ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 7:33pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 7:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer ... I couldn't care less what you believe, but I've scrutinised at at least six elections (state and federal). Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: ... you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks"... What I said, to correct you, is that donkey votes and informal votes are not the same thing. Donkey votes are not regarded as informal. WRONG!!! A donkey vote is one that numbers all boxes in sequential order, either from top to bottom or bottom to top. They are perfectly legitimate, and they are not put aside as informal - they are included in the tally. You got it wrong.  Time to move on. No, I'm 100% correct. Donkey votes are not informal votes. They are completely legitimate, and they are included in the final tally. "Definition of a donkey vote: A donkey vote occurs when a voter numbers every box on the ballot paper in order from top to bottom, without regard to the logic of the preferences. In some cases, a voter might start at the bottom of the ballot paper and number them in order to the top. "A DONKEY VOTE IS A FORMAL VOTE. IT WILL BE COUNTED AND IT WILL GO TO WHOEVER IS MARKED NUMBER 1." http://australianpolitics.com/2013/09/04/what-happens-to-donkey-votes.html "A vote is regarded as informal if the ballot paper has not been completed properly. Informal ballot papers are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside. "According to section 268 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918), a vote is informal if: "the ballot paper is not marked at all "the ballot paper does not have the official mark and has not been initialled by the polling official, and the ballot paper is not authentic in the opinion of the Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) "the ballot paper has writing on it which identifies the voter in the case of an absent vote, the ballot paper is not contained in the declaration envelope "the voter has not completed a full preferential vote. There are savings measures to keep formal some ballot papers marked incompletely or incorrectly." "Donkey vote "A ballot paper marked 1, 2, 3, 4 straight down (or up) a ballot paper." http://www.aec.gov.au/footer/Glossary.htm And, from Antony Green: "The Sustainable Population Party polled just 0.9% of the vote but delivered a remarkable 72.5% of preferences to Labor, this high flow from a low vote largely due to the donkey vote." "The fact that Liberal Andrew Hastie is higher on the ballot paper than Labor's Matt Keogh gives Hastie a narrow advantage by the donkey vote, but the advantage is unchanged on the 2013 election when Don Randall drew top spot on the ballot. "So the donkey vote favours the Liberal Party in Canning, but it is neutral in its impact on the swing needed compared to the 2013 election because the Liberal Party had the donkey vote advantage in 2013 and again in 2015." http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/09/preferences-donkey-votes-and-the-canning-by-election.html

Yeah, you're still wrong and just digging yourself a deeper hole. Now try finding a way out of it.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

Compulsory voting also violates this UN Human Right ... Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Compulsory voting does not meet the definition of slavery simply because it is something one must do to escape a penalty. Otherwise everything that attracts a penalty would meet this definition.

Slavery is forced labour for no pay with threat of punishment. It's far more similar to Work for the Dole than the modest impost of voting once every three years.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:57am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 7:33pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 7:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer ... I couldn't care less what you believe, but I've scrutinised at at least six elections (state and federal). Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: ... you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks"... What I said, to correct you, is that donkey votes and informal votes are not the same thing. Donkey votes are not regarded as informal. WRONG!!! A donkey vote is one that numbers all boxes in sequential order, either from top to bottom or bottom to top. They are perfectly legitimate, and they are not put aside as informal - they are included in the tally. You got it wrong.  Time to move on. No, I'm 100% correct. Donkey votes are not informal votes. They are completely legitimate, and they are included in the final tally. "Definition of a donkey vote: A donkey vote occurs when a voter numbers every box on the ballot paper in order from top to bottom, without regard to the logic of the preferences. In some cases, a voter might start at the bottom of the ballot paper and number them in order to the top. "A DONKEY VOTE IS A FORMAL VOTE. IT WILL BE COUNTED AND IT WILL GO TO WHOEVER IS MARKED NUMBER 1." http://australianpolitics.com/2013/09/04/what-happens-to-donkey-votes.html "A vote is regarded as informal if the ballot paper has not been completed properly. Informal ballot papers are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside. "According to section 268 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918), a vote is informal if: "the ballot paper is not marked at all "the ballot paper does not have the official mark and has not been initialled by the polling official, and the ballot paper is not authentic in the opinion of the Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) "the ballot paper has writing on it which identifies the voter in the case of an absent vote, the ballot paper is not contained in the declaration envelope "the voter has not completed a full preferential vote. There are savings measures to keep formal some ballot papers marked incompletely or incorrectly." "Donkey vote "A ballot paper marked 1, 2, 3, 4 straight down (or up) a ballot paper." http://www.aec.gov.au/footer/Glossary.htm And, from Antony Green: "The Sustainable Population Party polled just 0.9% of the vote but delivered a remarkable 72.5% of preferences to Labor, this high flow from a low vote largely due to the donkey vote." "The fact that Liberal Andrew Hastie is higher on the ballot paper than Labor's Matt Keogh gives Hastie a narrow advantage by the donkey vote, but the advantage is unchanged on the 2013 election when Don Randall drew top spot on the ballot. "So the donkey vote favours the Liberal Party in Canning, but it is neutral in its impact on the swing needed compared to the 2013 election because the Liberal Party had the donkey vote advantage in 2013 and again in 2015." http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/09/preferences-donkey-votes-and-the-canning-by-election.html Yeah, you're still wrong and just digging yourself a deeper hole. Now try finding a way out of it.

And your evidence? Just your say so?

Greg has offered proof. You have not. Now, who do you think is mounting a more convincing argument? Not you! See, you have offered no evidence. Not one shred of evidence to support your point. Just endless bleating: "You're wrong! You're wrong!"

No, YOU'RE the one that is wrong, obviously because you do not seem to know what a donkey vote actually is. Now grow a pair and admit you were wrong.

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:03am:

the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting.

EXACTLY!... shh some have trouble with that... ::) ::).

plus dont turn up pay the fine...its like speeding fines... does anyone say its COMPULSORY NOT TO SPEED............

no its just if you do this is what happens...

same with voting... if you dont this is what happens..

if it breaks your heart to VOTE....then pay the small fine  ::) ::) ::)

its not as if they will cut off your hand is it?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:

If you are Australian you are expected to vote, it is part of the responsibility of being Australian. You don't want to vote you don't want to be Australian.

Bullsh1t!

Nearly every single first world democracy other than us, has the right to vote and I dare say every eligible person of these countries consider themselves citizens whether they vote or not.

What a typically stupid comment from the compulsory voting fascists.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:16am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:20pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D I doubt it's because of the voting system. Australia is incredibly apolitical, and the reason for that is compulsory voting; no one cares when we are forced to vote between sh1t and sh1t.  Having optional voting would at least smarten the electorate up and make it more about ideology as opposed to who offers better tax cuts.

smarten the electorate up and make it more about ideology

You don't see the rusted on vote on ideology people as being a big problem.

It may well be the uninterested who have a brief look at politics every 3 years who actually make a dispassionate logical vote for what they believe to be the best option for Australia and who most often determine the election result.

Swinging voters are on the whole probably not concentrated among the day to day knowledgeable political followers.

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 11:20pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D

And compulsory voting has absolutely nothing to do with it and only a cretin would imply it did.

The only reason we have compulsory voting is there is free money for politicians, the more people forced to vote the more chance of making free money for yourself or your arty.

It is a scam and you cretins are too stupid to realise your are being done over.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:15am:

ave another go John, try Compulsory Voting ... gezz you might get it sooner or later

ohh, silly me ... I forgot how anally stupid you were ... I'll try again


ohh please ... you want to liken compulsory voting to slavery? Get real  :D :D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:16am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:20pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D I doubt it's because of the voting system. Australia is incredibly apolitical, and the reason for that is compulsory voting; no one cares when we are forced to vote between sh1t and sh1t.  Having optional voting would at least smarten the electorate up and make it more about ideology as opposed to who offers better tax cuts.

our voting system determines our political outcomes which in turn determine how we live.

Scrapping compulsory voting would see the biggest reduction mainly from the working class. The same class that a lot of polices are made to target in order to buy votes.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:39am:

You're making sense for a change. OZ is at a tipping point, any more socialism, any more debt, any more expansion of government, then we'll start to go under.

any more socialism? stop acting like such drama queens. we're a long way from socialism

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:20am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 8:45pm: If you are Australian you are expected to vote, it is part of the responsibility of being Australian. You don't want to vote you don't want to be Australian. Bullsh1t! Nearly every single first world democracy other than us, has the right to vote and I dare say every eligible person of these countries consider themselves citizens whether they vote or not. What a typically stupid comment from the compulsory voting fascists.

Nearly every single first world democracy other than us

Every one of them are not us.

Do you want to emulate a sheep or is there some logical point ?

I like that we have a great system that is different and in fact in Australia it is considered to be your responsibility as an Australian to vote.

As an Australian you get the benefits and a few responsibilities. Being expected to vote once every few years is hardly unreasonable.

One of the benefits is that we do get representative government even though we don't always like the result. There have been instances in these other countries where they can not claim to have got a representative election result.

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:44am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:07pm: Its time wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 1:23pm: Not forgetting that it's undemocratic. No it's not. Furthermore, do you know how many people living under undemocratic rule would give their right arm to be able to cast a vote? We're lucky we have that right. Is it really that much of an obligation to be asked to tick a few boxes on some paper every few years? Poor petal! I cant remember the figures but there was a lot of no shows and donkey votes last elecrion , unsurprising given what was available Then that's their loss because they get no say in shaping this country, which is a shame because I take pride in being able to say my vote counted and I had a say in which direction my country will take. By the way, the figure you're looking for is 5.92% of votes at the 2013 election were marked as "informal" (source: http://electionwatch.edu.au/australia-2013/analysis/informal-voting-rise). weren't you one of the righties claiming you would cast a informal vote rather than vote for turncoat or labor at the next election? :D :D :D No dopey, I said if Turncoat leads the party into the next election I would not vote Liberal, and I also said I would never under any circumstances vote Labor or Green. I didn't say I would cast an "informal" vote. But this illustrates why IMO compulsory voting is undemocratic. Being compelled to vote even though you disagree with a party or having to cast an 'informal vote' as a result, because not voting or attending the polling station (freedom of choice) is punishable by a fine is undemocratic.

was I talking to you fool? My reply was to armpits comment, not yours.  :D :D

when I see more and more people getting elected thanks to preferences...

then shortly after the elections they are allowed to dump the team that got them elected and morph into an independent...

the more I am inclined to think..

whats the point! >:(

Bam wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:08am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 9:51pm: Compulsory voting also violates this UN Human Right ... Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Compulsory voting does not meet the definition of slavery simply because it is something one must do to escape a penalty. Otherwise everything that attracts a penalty would meet this definition. Slavery is forced labour for no pay with threat of punishment. It's far more similar to Work for the Dole than the modest impost of voting once every three years.

"slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." From that, it's reasonable to deduce that ... Slavery shall be prohibited in all it's forms



servitude
noun
born into a life of servitude: slavery, enslavement, bondage, subjugation, subjection, domination; historical serfdom. ANTONYMS liberty.

Note that the antonym of servitude is "liberty"


What would you want if we become a Republic, are you one of those who would say "A republic won't work without compulsory voting ? Answer that

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:20pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D And compulsory voting has absolutely nothing to do with it and only a cretin would imply it did. The only reason we have compulsory voting is there is free money for politicians, the more people forced to vote the more chance of making free money for yourself or your arty. It is a scam and you cretins are too stupid to realise your are being done over.

yeah, I know bigol ... it's so hard for you to go and vote once every 4 yrs. I mean, you have to remember your name when you get to the booth so they can tick it off.  How dare they  :D :D :D

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:03am:

the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting.

In practical terms for most people you are correct. However it is mandatory to vote and there have been a few instances where people not voting have been fined. This has primarily been when someone has announced that they didn't vote.

The reason you can mark your name off and not vote is because you can get away with it not because it is allowed, if caught you would be fined for not voting. It is just that it is almost impossible to get caught if you don't admit to it.

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

yeah, I know bigol ... it's so hard for you to go and vote once every 4 yrs. I mean, you have to remember your name when you get to the booth so they can tick it off.  How dare they

And it takes the threat of a fine to get you off your arse to do anything, hey John

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:25am: John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:20pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D And compulsory voting has absolutely nothing to do with it and only a cretin would imply it did. The only reason we have compulsory voting is there is free money for politicians, the more people forced to vote the more chance of making free money for yourself or your arty. It is a scam and you cretins are too stupid to realise your are being done over. yeah, I know bigol ... it's so hard for you to go and vote once every 4 yrs. I mean, you have to remember your name when you get to the booth so they can tick it off.  How dare they  :D :D :D

For once, I agree. It's not a hard thing to do. You don't even need to show ID, which is stupid. You can even vote more than once, which is also stupid. But there are many people living under dictators around the world who'd love to take part in a free and fair election, just like those that we're forced to spend a few minutes every few years taking part in. I don't see voting so much as being a right as an obligation and it's an obligation I'm happy to carry out.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:44am: yeah, I know bigol ... it's so hard for you to go and vote once every 4 yrs. I mean, you have to remember your name when you get to the booth so they can tick it off.  How dare they And it takes the threat of a fine to get you off your arse to do anything, hey John

really? and you base that on?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:48am:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. In practical terms for most people you are correct. However it is mandatory to vote and there have been a few instances where people not voting have been fined. This has primarily been when someone has announced that they didn't vote. The reason you can mark your name off and not vote is because you can get away with it not because it is allowed, if caught you would be fined for not voting. It is just that it is almost impossible to get caught if you don't admit to it.

Online voting would eliminate this. It would also eliminate the incidence of voting multiple times.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:48am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. In practical terms for most people you are correct. However it is mandatory to vote and there have been a few instances where people not voting have been fined. This has primarily been when someone has announced that they didn't vote. The reason you can mark your name off and not vote is because you can get away with it not because it is allowed, if caught you would be fined for not voting. It is just that it is almost impossible to get caught if you don't admit to it. Online voting would eliminate this. It would also eliminate the incidence of voting multiple times.

it's not secure enough yet to go online. we'll get there one day, but we aren't there yet. A good hacker will be able to get in and cast as many votes as they like.

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:25am: John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:20pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 11:17pm: Compulsory voting is absolutely retarded. I have always believed this. There is a reason pretty much every other country in the western world doesn't do it. there is a reason why pretty much absolutely every other country ranks below Australia (with the exception of Norway) when ranking best countries to live in  :D :D :D :D And compulsory voting has absolutely nothing to do with it and only a cretin would imply it did. The only reason we have compulsory voting is there is free money for politicians, the more people forced to vote the more chance of making free money for yourself or your arty. It is a scam and you cretins are too stupid to realise your are being done over. yeah, I know bigol ... it's so hard for you to go and vote once every 4 yrs. I mean, you have to remember your name when you get to the booth so they can tick it off.  How dare they  :D :D :D

Only you could conceive that the only reason people don't vote was due to complexity of carrying out this task. ;D ;D ;D


If you and the rest of your Downie mates can tick a box when told to by the government, then 'difficulty' isn't the issue now is it?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 6:57am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 7:33pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 7:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: I don't believe you've ever been a scrutineer ... I couldn't care less what you believe, but I've scrutinised at at least six elections (state and federal). Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 25th, 2016 at 3:50pm: ... you'd know that informal votes include those marked incorrectly (i.e. incorrectly numbering boxes or putting ticks or crosses or circles around candidate names, etc), those with unauthorised marks (eg signatures or initials other than a mark by an election official in the corner of the ballot paper) and also those with drawings of fairies or words like "Rudd sucks"... What I said, to correct you, is that donkey votes and informal votes are not the same thing. Donkey votes are not regarded as informal. WRONG!!! A donkey vote is one that numbers all boxes in sequential order, either from top to bottom or bottom to top. They are perfectly legitimate, and they are not put aside as informal - they are included in the tally. You got it wrong.  Time to move on. No, I'm 100% correct. Donkey votes are not informal votes. They are completely legitimate, and they are included in the final tally. "Definition of a donkey vote: A donkey vote occurs when a voter numbers every box on the ballot paper in order from top to bottom, without regard to the logic of the preferences. In some cases, a voter might start at the bottom of the ballot paper and number them in order to the top. "A DONKEY VOTE IS A FORMAL VOTE. IT WILL BE COUNTED AND IT WILL GO TO WHOEVER IS MARKED NUMBER 1." http://australianpolitics.com/2013/09/04/what-happens-to-donkey-votes.html "A vote is regarded as informal if the ballot paper has not been completed properly. Informal ballot papers are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside. "According to section 268 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918), a vote is informal if: "the ballot paper is not marked at all "the ballot paper does not have the official mark and has not been initialled by the polling official, and the ballot paper is not authentic in the opinion of the Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) "the ballot paper has writing on it which identifies the voter in the case of an absent vote, the ballot paper is not contained in the declaration envelope "the voter has not completed a full preferential vote. There are savings measures to keep formal some ballot papers marked incompletely or incorrectly." "Donkey vote "A ballot paper marked 1, 2, 3, 4 straight down (or up) a ballot paper." http://www.aec.gov.au/footer/Glossary.htm And, from Antony Green: "The Sustainable Population Party polled just 0.9% of the vote but delivered a remarkable 72.5% of preferences to Labor, this high flow from a low vote largely due to the donkey vote." "The fact that Liberal Andrew Hastie is higher on the ballot paper than Labor's Matt Keogh gives Hastie a narrow advantage by the donkey vote, but the advantage is unchanged on the 2013 election when Don Randall drew top spot on the ballot. "So the donkey vote favours the Liberal Party in Canning, but it is neutral in its impact on the swing needed compared to the 2013 election because the Liberal Party had the donkey vote advantage in 2013 and again in 2015." http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/09/preferences-donkey-votes-and-the-canning-by-election.html Yeah, you're still wrong and just digging yourself a deeper hole. Now try finding a way out of it.

I am 100% correct.

Donkey votes are not informal votes.

If you think otherwise, you'll need to take it up with the AEC.

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:03am:

the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election".

Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:

High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380

Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807

High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271

Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte

Krosch [1974] QdR 107

ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

I am 100% correct. Donkey votes are not informal votes. If you think otherwise, you'll need to take it up with the AEC.

This is the only time I will ever agree with you. Marking your ballot from the top, down is not invalid, just lazy.


I cast a donkey vote in my very first election and labor got in, so I never did that again, lesson learned.  :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

I am 100% correct. Donkey votes are not informal votes. If you think otherwise, you'll need to take it up with the AEC.

Yes you are right.

It would not be possible to differentiate between a donkey vote and someone who really wanted to vote that way. There are instances where voting sequentially 1 to 5 say down the list would be the desired vote.

I recall once seeing it as the recommended vote from a major party at the election booth.

It would be a neat trick if say placing a legitimate vote for the Liberals turned out to be a donkey vote.

Anyway in electorates like Warringah you actually have the opportunity to vote for a donkey.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:57am: I am 100% correct. Donkey votes are not informal votes. If you think otherwise, you'll need to take it up with the AEC. This is the only time I will ever agree with you. Marking your ballot from the top, down is not invalid, just lazy. I cast a donkey vote in my very first election and labor got in, so I never did that again, lesson learned.  :)

It is a fact that the record number of informal votes seen Tony Abbott elected.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:56am:

Only you could conceive that the only reason people don't vote was due to complexity of carrying out this task

no, I'm sure others have come to realise that about you too!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:51am:

I don't see voting so much as being a right as an obligation and it's an obligation I'm happy to carry out.

There's nothing wrong with that and I'm guessing you would feel the same if voting was voluntary, would I be right ? What we need to do is to get everyone to be just as enthusiastic as you but it won't be done by continuing compulsory voting which only causes resentment, not a good way going forward if you ask me. Only the Libs and Labs would want to keep us in servitude in the 21st century, they find it easy to misuse power, they misuse it because they can, all they're doing is administering cowards punches

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:15am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:56am: Only you could conceive that the only reason people don't vote was due to complexity of carrying out this task no, I'm sure others have come to realise that about you too!

Luckily you have a functional delete button, so removing half my post makes your reply less moronic.


You and only you, believes that voting is difficult, a monumental task that must be conquered, being a functional retard would make it seem that way, wouldn't it genius?

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:54am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:48am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. In practical terms for most people you are correct. However it is mandatory to vote and there have been a few instances where people not voting have been fined. This has primarily been when someone has announced that they didn't vote. The reason you can mark your name off and not vote is because you can get away with it not because it is allowed, if caught you would be fined for not voting. It is just that it is almost impossible to get caught if you don't admit to it. Online voting would eliminate this. It would also eliminate the incidence of voting multiple times. it's not secure enough yet to go online. we'll get there one day, but we aren't there yet. A good hacker will be able to get in and cast as many votes as they like.

Then the voting is taken offline, with votes stored on a secure drive at each voting centre. Following the conclusion of voting at the end of the day, the contents of that drive are then securely transmitted using military-grade encryption to a central server for final tallying of votes. This negates the effect of hackers.

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:20am:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. EXACTLY!... shh some have trouble with that... ::) ::). plus dont turn up pay the fine...its like speeding fines... does anyone say its COMPULSORY NOT TO SPEED............ no its just if you do this is what happens... same with voting... if you dont this is what happens.. if it breaks your heart to VOTE....then pay the small fine  ::) ::) ::) its not as if they will cut off your hand is it?

Quoted for truth.  [smiley=thumbup.gif]

All we ever get is Labor or Liberal -

a 2 party system of people who don't represent us.

I don't know what the alternative is but
it should be the right of not to vote.

Best alternative?

Just vote for anyone who isn't Labor or Liberal.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:48am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. In practical terms for most people you are correct. However it is mandatory to vote and there have been a few instances where people not voting have been fined. This has primarily been when someone has announced that they didn't vote. The reason you can mark your name off and not vote is because you can get away with it not because it is allowed, if caught you would be fined for not voting. It is just that it is almost impossible to get caught if you don't admit to it. Online voting would eliminate this. It would also eliminate the incidence of voting multiple times.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Online voting will do no such thing.

Why you can't vote online yet

Quote:

Home PCs ... are susceptible to a myriad of cyberattacks that could be used to alter a user's vote. "Until we can reliably foil malware and viruses -- and who knows when that will be -- it's hard to consider a system in which we vote from our home computers," Coates says. Such issues have felled some past attempts at online voting in the United States. In 2004, the military began testing the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE), which would have let service members stationed overseas vote online in the general election. But Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz scrapped the plan after government-commissioned studies warned of extensive security flaws. Another oft-cited failure came in 2010, when Washington, D.C., conducted a pilot project to allow overseas or military voters to download and return absentee ballots over the Internet. Before opening the system to real voters, D.C. invited the public to evaluate whether the system could be hacked. It was. Within 36 hours of going live. A University of Michigan team "found and exploited a vulnerability that gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters' secret ballots," professor J. Alex Halderman later wrote in a blog post about the hack. Halderman termed the system "brittle" and proclaimed online voting too dangerous to implement anytime soon.

Do you really want to place your trust in a system that can possibly allow someone to change your vote after you have voted?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm

regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine There are no jack booted nazis at the polling booths ensuring you actually cast a vote, in fact there is no one at the polling booths ensuring you cast a vote.

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:02am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine There are no jack booted nazis at the polling booths ensuring you actually cast a vote, in fact there is no one at the polling booths ensuring you cast a vote.

if we HAVE to believe everything.... ::) ::) ::)

then how come they know you havent voted????

if its meant to be secret voting... ::) ::) ::) ::)


is there something we are not being told...

are our voting forms microchipped so they can tell who is voting for whom???????????....

I have NOT voted a few times... AND NO ONES COME KNOCKING ON MY DOOR.....


SO EXPLAIN PLEASE???????....

wheres the truth?>..

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:02am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine

Incorrect.

From the AEC:

"It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions".

Read the case law.

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:02am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine There are no jack booted nazis at the polling booths ensuring you actually cast a vote, in fact there is no one at the polling booths ensuring you cast a vote. if we HAVE to believe everything.... ::) ::) ::) then how come they know you havent voted???? if its meant to be secret voting... ::) ::) ::) ::) is there something we are not being told... are our voting forms microchipped so they can tell who is voting for whom???????????.... I have NOT voted a few times... AND NO ONES COME KNOCKING ON MY DOOR..... SO EXPLAIN PLEASE???????.... wheres the truth?>..

Read the case law I cited.

Bam wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:45am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:54am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:48am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. In practical terms for most people you are correct. However it is mandatory to vote and there have been a few instances where people not voting have been fined. This has primarily been when someone has announced that they didn't vote. The reason you can mark your name off and not vote is because you can get away with it not because it is allowed, if caught you would be fined for not voting. It is just that it is almost impossible to get caught if you don't admit to it. Online voting would eliminate this. It would also eliminate the incidence of voting multiple times. ;D ;D ;D ;D Online voting will do no such thing. Why you can't vote online yet Quote: Home PCs ... are susceptible to a myriad of cyberattacks that could be used to alter a user's vote. "Until we can reliably foil malware and viruses -- and who knows when that will be -- it's hard to consider a system in which we vote from our home computers," Coates says. Such issues have felled some past attempts at online voting in the United States. In 2004, the military began testing the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE), which would have let service members stationed overseas vote online in the general election. But Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz scrapped the plan after government-commissioned studies warned of extensive security flaws. Another oft-cited failure came in 2010, when Washington, D.C., conducted a pilot project to allow overseas or military voters to download and return absentee ballots over the Internet. Before opening the system to real voters, D.C. invited the public to evaluate whether the system could be hacked. It was. Within 36 hours of going live. A University of Michigan team "found and exploited a vulnerability that gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters' secret ballots," professor J. Alex Halderman later wrote in a blog post about the hack. Halderman termed the system "brittle" and proclaimed online voting too dangerous to implement anytime soon. Do you really want to place your trust in a system that can possibly allow someone to change your vote after you have voted?

I'm talking about voting online at a polling place using a secure system, not your home PC.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:32pm:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:02am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine Incorrect. From the AEC: "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions". Read the case law.

Short of having your name printed on your ballot paper and checked against a roll when counting commences, there is no way of enforcing that law. So in REALITY, all you have to do is attend a polling place, have your name ticked off and once you put the ballot paper in the ballot box, you've fulfilled your legal obligation as far as anyone else knows.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:15am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:51am: I don't see voting so much as being a right as an obligation and it's an obligation I'm happy to carry out. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm guessing you would feel the same if voting was voluntary, would I be right ? What we need to do is to get everyone to be just as enthusiastic as you but it won't be done by continuing compulsory voting which only causes resentment, not a good way going forward if you ask me. Only the Libs and Labs would want to keep us in servitude in the 21st century, they find it easy to misuse power, they misuse it because they can, all they're doing is administering cowards punches

Do you really resent being expected to take part in the voting process, as is our right in a democratic nation?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:57pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:54am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:48am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. In practical terms for most people you are correct. However it is mandatory to vote and there have been a few instances where people not voting have been fined. This has primarily been when someone has announced that they didn't vote. The reason you can mark your name off and not vote is because you can get away with it not because it is allowed, if caught you would be fined for not voting. It is just that it is almost impossible to get caught if you don't admit to it. Online voting would eliminate this. It would also eliminate the incidence of voting multiple times. ;D ;D ;D ;D Online voting will do no such thing. Why you can't vote online yet Quote: Home PCs ... are susceptible to a myriad of cyberattacks that could be used to alter a user's vote. "Until we can reliably foil malware and viruses -- and who knows when that will be -- it's hard to consider a system in which we vote from our home computers," Coates says. Such issues have felled some past attempts at online voting in the United States. In 2004, the military began testing the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE), which would have let service members stationed overseas vote online in the general election. But Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz scrapped the plan after government-commissioned studies warned of extensive security flaws. Another oft-cited failure came in 2010, when Washington, D.C., conducted a pilot project to allow overseas or military voters to download and return absentee ballots over the Internet. Before opening the system to real voters, D.C. invited the public to evaluate whether the system could be hacked. It was. Within 36 hours of going live. A University of Michigan team "found and exploited a vulnerability that gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters' secret ballots," professor J. Alex Halderman later wrote in a blog post about the hack. Halderman termed the system "brittle" and proclaimed online voting too dangerous to implement anytime soon. Do you really want to place your trust in a system that can possibly allow someone to change your vote after you have voted? I'm talking about voting online at a polling place using a secure system, not your home PC.

Secure? ;D Hardly. You place too much faith in modern technology and too little in the tendency of other people to indulge in mischief.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:32pm:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:02am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine Incorrect. From the AEC: "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions". Read the case law.

Can you name 1 person who has been fined after turning up to get their name ticked off and then not voting? Just 1 will do.

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:32pm: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:02am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine Incorrect. From the AEC: "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions". Read the case law. Can you name 1 person who has been fined after turning up to get their name ticked off and then not voting? Just 1 will do.

Don't change the subject when you're losing.

You said: "the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote."

You were wrong.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states:

"It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". ("shall" is an imperative)

Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:

High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380

Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807

High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271

Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte

Krosch [1974] QdR 107

ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:01pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:15am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:51am: I don't see voting so much as being a right as an obligation and it's an obligation I'm happy to carry out. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm guessing you would feel the same if voting was voluntary, would I be right ? What we need to do is to get everyone to be just as enthusiastic as you but it won't be done by continuing compulsory voting which only causes resentment, not a good way going forward if you ask me. Only the Libs and Labs would want to keep us in servitude in the 21st century, they find it easy to misuse power, they misuse it because they can, all they're doing is administering cowards punches Do you really resent being expected to take part in the voting process, as is our right in a democratic nation?

Did you do any schooling, do you know the difference between "compulsory" and "voluntary" ?

It's taking a lot of cyber space to get through to your brain that compulsory voting cancels out "the right to vote" and instead it becomes "coercively compelled to vote"


I can tell you're not very intelligent by the way you keep saying we all should vote no matter what... and at the same time you say if we don't want to vote we can get our names crossed out and just put a blank ballot paper in the box. It's that type of stupidity that myself and others are fighting against. It reminds me of Union voting, if you abstain from voting at a Union meeting, an extra vote automatically goes to the majority. Only Labor supporters could think up such stupidity

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:19pm:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:32pm: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:02am: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 1:03am: the fine is for not turning up at the polling booth and having your name ticked off.. there is no penalty for not voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm regardless, the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote. Just getting your name ticked off is sufficent to avoid the small fine Incorrect. From the AEC: "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions". Read the case law. Can you name 1 person who has been fined after turning up to get their name ticked off and then not voting? Just 1 will do. Don't change the subject when you're losing. You said: "the reality is that it is not compolsory to vote." You were wrong. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election". ("shall" is an imperative) Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm

. No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated..

Quote:

. No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated..

Really?  How about Hinch?

Link.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

1/ People with no political interest or knowledge vote. 2/ People vote by tradition rather than who is best. eg "My grandpappy always used to vote labour, so I do.' 3/ It costs more.

The main effect of voluntary voting is a significant detriment to the election time discourse. Parties put most of their efforts into motivation style preaching to choir - the typical circus you see for American elections. Compulsory voting shifts the attention to trying to gain the rational middle ground, appeal to swinging voters and poach supporters from the other side.

I know which I would prefer. Voting is a responsibility, not a right.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:26am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:15am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:56am: Only you could conceive that the only reason people don't vote was due to complexity of carrying out this task no, I'm sure others have come to realise that about you too! Luckily you have a functional delete button, so removing half my post makes your reply less moronic. You and only you, believes that voting is difficult, a monumental task that must be conquered, being a functional retard would make it seem that way, wouldn't it genius?

Why would I think it was difficult?  I think it's one of the easiest things you'll ever be expected to do. Yet somehow you still struggle with it.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

Quote: . No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated.. Really?  How about Hinch? Link.

And? As i stated and it is really quite simple, the compulsion is in turning up at the polling booth regardless of the details of the fine imposed. Once you have your name ticked off there is no compulsion to vote, no one in history has ever been fined for having their name ticked off and not voting, no one. Compulsion has not been demonstrated.

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:07pm: Quote: . No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated.. Really?  How about Hinch? Link. And? As i stated and it is really quite simple, the compulsion is in turning up at the polling booth regardless of the details of the fine imposed. Once you have your name ticked off there is no compulsion to vote, no one in history has ever been fined for having their name ticked off and not voting, no one. Compulsion has not been demonstrated.

Ah!  You have now moved the goal posts.  You really should not have done that just to please me, ian.

However, your new goal posts are in the correct position.   No-one has ever been fined for turning up, having their name crossed off, going into the booth.....doing nothing.......and bunging the unmarked ballot paper into the box.  Give yourself a pat on the back, ian.  Well done!

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:53pm:

No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated..

Incorrect.

I've been fined for not voting.

Many people have been fined for not voting.

I've even given you case law.

You're so wrong on this, it's not funny.

nothings been changed. Its what I originally stated, there is no compulsion in voting.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:35pm:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:53pm: No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated.. Incorrect. I've been fined for not voting. Many people have been fined for not voting. I've even given you case law. You're so wrong on this, it's not funny.

But to avoid the fine, you didnt have to vote. 

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:07pm: Quote: . No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated.. Really?  How about Hinch? Link. And? As i stated and it is really quite simple, the compulsion is in turning up at the polling booth regardless of the details of the fine imposed. Once you have your name ticked off there is no compulsion to vote...

Incorrect.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states:

"It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election" ("shall" is an imperative).

It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:

High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380

Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807

High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271

Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte

Krosch [1974] QdR 107

ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:35pm: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:53pm: No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated.. Incorrect. I've been fined for not voting. Many people have been fined for not voting. I've even given you case law. You're so wrong on this, it's not funny. But to avoid the fine, you didnt have to vote.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states:

"It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election".

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:07pm: Quote: . No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated.. Really?  How about Hinch? Link. And? As i stated and it is really quite simple, the compulsion is in turning up at the polling booth regardless of the details of the fine imposed. Once you have your name ticked off there is no compulsion to vote, no one in history has ever been fined for having their name ticked off and not voting, no one. Compulsion has not been demonstrated.

You said the same thin in response to a post listing about 6 cases where people were fined and then again here with a Link to an article with another fine documented.


These are mostly cases where people got their names crossed off and didn't vote - the were all fined.

•High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
•Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
•High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
•Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
•Krosch [1974] QdR 107
•ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13



consider the case of Krosch v Springell: ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107. Mr Springell arrived at a polling booth and handed the electoral officer a note saying he did not wish to vote for any candidate, as he found them all to be unworthy. He was prosecuted, and fined, for not voting despite the fact he had made the effort to turn up on Election Day.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:40pm:

ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:35pm: ian wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:53pm: No one in recorded history has been fined for not voting, therefore compulsion has not been demonstrated.. Incorrect. I've been fined for not voting. Many people have been fined for not voting. I've even given you case law. You're so wrong on this, it's not funny. But to avoid the fine, you didnt have to vote.  The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election".

Does not word 'mark' (the ballot paper) appear somewhere?

Quote:

consider the case of Krosch v Springell: ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107. Mr Springell arrived at a polling booth and handed the electoral officer a note saying he did not wish to vote for any candidate, as he found them all to be unworthy. He was prosecuted, and fined, for not voting despite the fact he had made the effort to turn up on Election Day.

I'm not surprised they 'got' him.  They had his own confession he had breached what is required.

In the absence of a witness in the booth or a camera there, or a confession (of some kind) there is no way they can prove a breach once the name is crossed off.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:56pm:

Quote: consider the case of Krosch v Springell: ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107. Mr Springell arrived at a polling booth and handed the electoral officer a note saying he did not wish to vote for any candidate, as he found them all to be unworthy. He was prosecuted, and fined, for not voting despite the fact he had made the effort to turn up on Election Day. I'm not surprised they 'got' him.  They had his own confession he had breached what is required. In the absence of a witness in the booth or a camera there, or a confession (of some kind) there is no way they can prove a breach once the name is crossed off.

Yes but Ian keeps saying that it is incorrect.

ian wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

And? As i stated and it is really quite simple, the compulsion is in turning up at the polling booth regardless of the details of the fine imposed. Once you have your name ticked off there is no compulsion to vote, no one in history has ever been fined for having their name ticked off and not voting, no one. Compulsion has not been demonstrated.

There is a reason for that, because no sane person who is intending to not vote, goes through the process of:

1. Registering to vote, most, like me, just don't register in the first place

2. Wait until election day

3. Travel to their polling place

4. Run the gauntlet of 'How to Vote' spruikers

5. Stand in line, like a child in the Tuck Shop queue

6. Have their name marked off the roll, only to walk out.

A lot of effort for no reward.


They will, like I said knock it on the head at step #1, or at least take the forms and deface them with some lame protest comment.


But if you are so confident, might I suggest you give it a go, get your name marked off and immediately turn around and walk out. If they don't submit you for fines / prosecution then you are absolutely correct, if not; lesson learned.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 25^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

1/ People with no political interest or knowledge vote. 2/ People vote by tradition rather than who is best. eg "My grandpappy always used to vote labour, so I do.' 3/ It costs more.

4/ It causes intense irritation to Sprintcyclist. A mind rash.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:40pm:

4/ It causes intense irritation to Sprintcyclist. A mind rash.

that there is enough of a reason to keep compulsory voting  :D :D :D

How about the windfall dollars the Libs and Labs receive from the AEC because of compulsory voting ? 90% voter turnout ensures million$ for the major parties, compulsory voting maximizes those dollars