Counterfeit Votes

 ZEG_Two-Blokes_PROPER-VOTER-ID_when-voting_Dwg2_v2.jpg

 

Existing laws enable counterfeit votes in four ways:

  1. Enrolling to vote without proper identification
  2. Voting without proper identification
  3. Voting more than once in an election – ‘Multiple voting’
  4. Boomerang voting / relocation voting / electorate shopping  

 

1. Enrolling to vote without proper identification

Enrolment forms make enrolling too easy for fraudsters.

enroll_aec.png

The AEC enrolment form invites  – but does not demand – proper verifiable printable identification for enrolment.  It’s far too easy for imposters to enrol to vote as anyone they like as often as they wish.  Against this, any AEC language such as ‘voters are required…’ has no legal effect.

 

2. Voting without proper identification

No official identification is required of voters at a polling location to prove their right to receive voting papers at that polling location. The three verbal questions required by law about name, address and having voting in the election are not an adequate test of a person's actual identity.

 

3. Voting more than once in an election - 'Multiple voting'

Every Australian of voting age deserves their vote at the ballot box. Some Australians seem to think they deserve two or more votes… even 15 votes. But multiple-voting is too easy to get away with - there is little protection in place to prevent the same person from voting again at another polling place for the same election. The 2010 Federal election was won by less than the number of people who admitted voting more than once.

 

4. Boomerang voting  / relocation voting / electorate shopping  

People can temporarily enrol too easily in other electorates when elections are called.

Picture this scenario:

  1. ‘Sally’ lives in South Australia where she is enrolled.
  2. Her friend is a candidate in a marginal seat in Queensland.
  3. A federal election is about to be called and Sally wants to support her friend.
  4. She goes to the AEC website and changes her address to her friend’s Queensland electorate just before the election.
  5. Sally lodges an absentee vote as a voter living in Queensland.
  6. After the election, she goes back to the AEC website and changes her enrolment back to the South Australian electorate where she lives.
  7. Her friend wins the seat by less than 12 votes.

What can we do to fix this?

  • Electoral commissions must demand a higher standard of proof from people who claim to have moved to another electorate after an election has been called. 
  • Enrolment forms must provide proof of habitation when identifying an address on voter enrolment forms (The AEC forms requires no such proof.  A signed ‘Declaration’ statement is too easy to fabricate and is virtually meaningless unless details are checked.
  • Electoral commissions must tighten enrolment guidelines to prevent people from electorate-squatting.
  • If Australians want fair elections, then elections need better rules to stop people from voting more than once, voting as other electors and voting in multiple electorates during an election.

Do you agree?   Click here to sign our petition!

 

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.