NEWS

Plebiscite Result Vulnerable To Counterfeit Votes

Results of the Same Sex Marriage plebiscite may be entirely unreliable due to the counterfeiting of postal votes, says Australian electoral reform group, Vote Australia Inc. 

Vote Australia says risk to the result of the plebiscite stems from legislation that hasn't been fixed.

It’s a fact that any person in any electorate can vote multiple times and those votes can influence voting results. The existing legislation makes enrolling to vote with multiple identities far too easy,” says Vote Australia president, Lex Stewart.

The concerns about the plebiscite are part of a campaign by Vote Australia to involve all Australians, political parties and community groups in demanding urgent reforms to electoral laws before public mistrust in election results deepens further.

The new campaign website, freeandfair.org.au, identifies four specific weaknesses with Australian electoral procedures that could taint outcomes of the plebiscite:

  • Counterfeit votes
  • Faulty voter rolls
  • Faulty procedures
  • Protected Bureaucracy

This plebiscite is an opportunity for our nation’s leaders to focus on fixing the problems with our electoral system so that voting outcomes are free and fair for all Australians.” says Mr Stewart.

Vote Australia does not take a 'Yes' or 'No' position in this postal plebiscite. It encourages all Australians to vote honestly.

 

Contact: Lex Stewart, President, Vote Australia Inc. 0424 077 746

 

Vote Australia is a grassroots organisation of concerned Australians. Its Free and Fair campaign champions the rights of honest citizens to participate in elections conducted honestly and fairly and which produce results that Australians can trust. Vote Australia in no way condones or encourages people to break Australian laws. Vote Australia is not affiliated with any political party or organisation and receives no funding from government or from any other organisation. It is funded by public donation.

COMMENTS

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • WebEdge Marketing
    published this page in News 2018-10-16 17:05:00 +1100

JOIN THE FIGHT

Add your name and let’s keep Australian elections free and fair.

  • signed up on Subscribe 2024-04-18 16:11:18 +1000

  • commented on Unwanted influences on the voting system 2023-11-23 12:15:44 +1100
    Please I need your vote

  • signed Mark Off Voters Electronically 2023-10-04 12:37:02 +1100
    This must be done to ensure that a voter casts only one vote, besides proposed changes in this petition there should be way for voter to cross check their voting status (voted/yet to vote) for every election event

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 22:49:29 +1000
    John de Wit, less empty negative comments please.

    I’m happy to answer real questions if you’re not yet clear how DCAP works to guarantee fair results. I sympathise – it took me ages to fully understand why current voting systems fail voters and then years to work out how to correct it and then to twig to the simple maths behind it and finally to be able to give simple examples that demonstrate it.

    E.g. it is not obvious that my DCAP system is correct when it will declare that Party D, of 4 parties standing, and with 45% first preferences is the winner despite Party A having 51% first preferences. But that is correct IF, repeat IF, in the election Party A had 49% of 4th (or LAST) preferences and party D had 55% of 2nd preferences. I have proved that particular case, no matter what preferences parties B and C get within the values I specified. Can anyone prove me mathematically &/or logically wrong there? No way! The correct Proportional results in a 100 seat electorate is NOT A=51 seats and D=45 Seats. The correct results is A=27 Seats and D=41 seats with B&C sharing the remaining 33 seats.

    So, it will not be a majority Government for A in its own right. Rather, it will be a minority government, of probably D in coalition with B or C; or, a slim chance of A running a minority government. Apart from the speculation of who will arrange a coalition; who can logically prove I’m wrong and that that voters preferences showed that they collectively wanted A as a majority government? It can’t be done unless you ignore voters’ clear collective preferences. The fact is that a marginal “absolute majorities” may be a real win; or, a travesty of electoral justice simply because Distribution of Preferences (AKA Instant Run Off) and First-Past-The-Post systems are inherently incapable of guaranteeing a fair result.

    I have proved that. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.