Faulty Voter Rolls

ZEG_Candidate-knocks_Out-of-date_Electoral-roll_Dwg3_v3.jpg

 

Picture this:

  • The average electorate has 100,000 names on its voter list
  • Elections are won on less than 30, 20, 12 or even 7 votes out of 100,000 votes
  • Not everyone who votes is entitled to vote
  • When Australians go to vote, they need to trust the rolls to trust the results.


The problems:

  1. Fake names
  2. Fake addresses
  3. Addresses not being physically checked door-to-door

 

Example

In NSW, on 13 September 2014:

  • There were 102,427 electors enrolled at more than one address
  • The NSW electoral roll showed 139,898 more electors than the federal roll
  • Both voter lists should have been identical

 

Better ways must be found to make sure people listed on voter rolls:

  • Are who they say they are
  • Actually live at addresses where they claim to live
  • Cannot temporarily enrol in other electorates for the purpose of an election
  • Cannot be listed more than once on any voter list
  • Cannot vote as someone else
  • Cannot vote more than once in an election

 

Voter rolls are supposed to keep elections honest but:

  • 1 in five Australians moves house every year on average
  • Up to 60% of Australians moves house between federal elections.
  • The law allows names to be added automatically but not removed automatically. They must be removed manually and only after phoney enrolments have been expressly contested by concerned citizens.

 

How do we fix this?

  • 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.
  • Voter lists need to be checked more often door-to-door
  • Australians should demand electronic certified lists in all polling places instead of paper lists
  • Australians need to tell Canberra to change the legislation to allow enrolment of voters on the federal roll who are already on state rolls without needing signed enrolment forms.
  • Australians need to tell their state governments to echo the federal legislation and give up maintaining state rolls.

Do you agree?   Click here to sign our petition!


JOIN THE FIGHT

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

  • 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.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 16:55:04 +1000
    Peter Newland,
    Your arithmetic is very complex compared to a single vote for the party of your choice. There is no assumption that you should agree with every policy of that party. You just choose the party and candidate you think is best.