So, is such voter suppression a "thing of the right"?....

If so, why should they not be happy to be elected according to the freely and fairly, Democratically expressed will of as many people as is possible? ...

I fail to see how requiring voters to produce ID is a form of 'voter suppression' or how it is a 'thing of the right'.  We in Australia have the best electoral system in the world and though voter ID is not required at the moment I can see a time in the near future when it will be. Is it strictly necessary? Probably not, however it is not some sort of right wing conspiracy either.

Fair point there.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 7:00am:

Requiring voters to produce ID without also requiring the state to provide acceptable ID to ALL citizens on request will inevitably disenfranchise those voters who cannot provide acceptable ID. Such ID is usually in a form that assumes voters have some level of wealth, such as a home to live in, a bank account or the ability to drive a motor vehicle. Those who cannot meet this level of wealth will be disenfranchised - and so it is a tool of the right to disenfranchise and punish voters who would not vote for them.

Right is as Right does, sah - when someone acts like a Fascist, breathes like a Fascist, speaks like a Fascist, imposes like a Fascist - that person is a Fascist regardless of which 'side' of the political fence they say they are on.

Stalin - Russia's Greatest Tsar - he, as the epitome of the 'Left', merely expanded all the evils of the past (weak) Tsars by utilising the resources of the State entirely to purge any potential enemies of his grand vision for the future and to advance the interests of self and mates.... CCP China is the same - all aspects of the State are utilised in the service of the ruling clique .... just like any Extreme Right Wing Empire.

SAYING you are 'of the people' doesn't make it so....

Nothing different to be seen here in Australia, folks - though I advise you not to move on, but to stand a while, take a good look, and come to your senses before the next election, and actually think about what you're voting for for a change.

Jasin wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 6:54am:



How about actually answering a question in straight-forward fashion, for once.

In fact, answer a second also:

Why is it that you always go off on a tangent when asked a question, specifically (and I suspect deliberately) avoiding the central thrust of the issue being discussed?

lee wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 12:41pm:


Clearly you read the article; esp. the bit about the Newman Government (again Right Wing) introducing a system whereby Stat Decs weren't universally accepted. (That and scrapping electoral funding for minor Parties, but that's another issue).

From the article:

Quote:


Again, the central question remains: Is this kind of disenfranchisement...a "solution seeking a problem"...a "Right Wing" thing?

I can't remember Labor here (or the Democrats in the 'States) ever introducing rules designed to disenfranchise people. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true, in that they would generally be the party to introduce measures specifically to encourage more people to vote (to "Exercise a Democratic right", if you will).

@Belgarion...Your response is a bit strange. On the one hand, you say that we "have the best electoral system in the world", and on the other, you defend the idea of changing it to force people to carry and show ID at polling stations (and presumably the other measures the LNP are seeking to introduce - strict enforcement of pre-poll voting rules and reduction of pre-poll periods etc.)

My question to you, then, would be "If the current system is "the best in the world", why would we be seeking to change it to, in effect, make it less so?"

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 4:15pm:


Yes, I remember the outcry over the Australia Card. ID cards were for totalitarian dictatorships and European socialist regimes, not for Australians.  Since then however we have all, in fact, become accustomed to having to carry ID.
Many, if not most, large companies require their staff to have ID cards that access the building, their computers etc. We all have a medicare card, most have a drivers licence, many have a passport. Sad it may be, but the days of being able to go through life with out any formal identification are gone.
While we need ID to make our day to day lives function, what would really offend me is if it became compulsory to carry ID at all times, under pain of some sort of penalty.
However, I digress. The idea of a photo medicare card is the simplest and most common sense way to provide ID for all voters. Therefore it will probably never happen.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 7:00am:


Tend to agree for Australia.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 8:22pm:


Like our Constitutional Monarchy?

Setanta wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 9:37pm:



Have a look at what happened in the US today ? You really want to have a whine about our system ? Really ?

I don't think the Australian system could cope with a population like America. The PM would be a homeless person and Parliment House wouldn't be able to pay its electricity bills.

Setanta wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 9:44pm:


I was making my own point. No disrespect to your view meant.

However I do think some of the same tactics would work against disenfranchising the wealthy.

I) wipe the voter rolls and don't tell them. In the US after an election the republicans commence working towards having the rolls in democrat areas wiped. This means that anyone in this region will have to register to vote even though they believe they are already registered. Lots turn up on polling day to find that they cannot vote.

Remove all the voting boxes.

Remove all or most of the polling stations. In the US Republican areas tend to have a queue to vote time under 20 minutes much like in Australia. In poor more Democrat areas the queue can be 12 hours. I am fairly sure this would be at least an equal disincentive for wealthy republicans.

Voting requirements that are not possible to be met.

There were Indian American groups who resided on reservation with 1 generic address. The voting rule was change to an individual address requirement, they simply didn't have one so they could not register to vote. While this would typically not work in republican voting areas I can think of options that would do the same thing to them like re zoning and leaving them out of any zone or requiring a certain identification and then refusing to issue it to them or issue faulty versions. In general you are right it isn't done. Democrats don't do this.

... and yet the critics of the Republicans constantly state that their supporters are knuckle-dragging, low- earning, low-education, low-status types........

How odd........ I suppose that's American politics for you - same as saying all the Democrats are effete poofters etc.... saves any brainwork working out the real issues - which kinda has a parallel or fifty here....

Now why would a US Air Force Veteran of four tours be in a protest in Washington?  Nothing to do with a general unrest about Veteran benefits and health treatment and Veteran homelessness and joblessness, is it?  That one crosses all party lines while the politicians fatten nicely.... as usual....

lee wrote on Jan 8^th, 2021 at 12:21pm:


I beg to differ.

I made the case quite clearly that the system as it stands is "the best in the world", and does not need to be changed.

You suggested that "making the change" would ensure it remained "the best in the world", without having a clue about how it would do so, or what problem/s the mooted change/s are intended to fix.

I would contend, therefore, that it is you who has not made a case for change.

Which part of "the system works effectively as it stands without the need for any change whatsoever" do you not get?

There has been NO case made for change, based on "fixing failings inherent in the system".

As I noted in a couple of earlier posts, It is "a solution, looking for a non-existent problem to fix".

Please...feel free to make a cogent case* for change, rather than having me make a case - again - to NOT change something that isn't broken as it currently stands.


*"Cogent", would include what is currently wrong with the current system as it stands, and how the proposed changes would fix what is wrong with it.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 7^th, 2021 at 2:05pm:

No, it isn't. The Coalition parties are always seeking to limit the vote to people who vote for them. They have form on this, see Queensland 2012.

The JSCEM (the Electoral Committee in the Parliament) examined the conduct of the 2019 election and came up with this ID proposal when there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. This government-dominated committee did not examine the impersonation of the Electoral Commission by the Liberal party with Chinese-language signs in AEC colours telling voters that the "correct" way to vote was to vote Liberal. That shows the JSCEM recommendations are driven by partisan political considerations and are not objective.

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2021 at 6:09pm:



So nothing in the last 8 years?  They must be trying really, really hard.

But tell us how some electoral officials not allowing votes without ID was voter suppression. It seems as I said earlier that the officials needed training.