PETITION

One Person, One Vote at Every Election

Dear Prime Minister and Premiers, paper-based rolls at polling places make it too easy for anyone in Australia to vote more than one time in an election. 

Please pass legislation enabling the Australian Electoral Commission to replace paper-based rolls with up-to-the minute electronic rolls synchronised to the Master Electronic Roll so that every voter is marked off as having voted when they voted.

 

Who's signing

Digby Maguire
Fei (Tony) Liu
Thomas Berrigan
Erzsebet Bodzsar
Frank P Mcenroe
Craig Evans
Tim Eade
minds.com/adamjsims Adam Sims
graham johnston
Beverley Haydon
Paul Lynch
Marcus Foster
Susan Bennetts
Kristine Pocock
Victor Batten
emmy ross
William O’Connell
Richard White
26 signatures

WILL YOU ADD YOUR SIGNATURE?

  • Digby Maguire
    signed 2022-10-19 11:11:13 +1100
    My vote is for one person only not for preferance
  • Fei (Tony) Liu
    signed 2022-05-21 13:54:01 +1000
    Currently Australia does not even have a one person, one vote policy. Minors, disabled and too old and sick to votes have no vote. It is I think the root cause of some strange policies that kept the house price evaluated for years. So, yes, please update the polling system to an electronic one and please also include the minors, the disabled and the too old and sick to vote (i.e. give their vote to their careers).
  • Thomas Berrigan
    signed via 2021-10-27 14:53:53 +1100
    Thomas Berrigan
  • Erzsebet Bodzsar
    signed 2019-05-27 17:57:48 +1000
    I totally Agree! Voting in Australia by paper is in my opinion is out dated, it’s time that the Australian Government Electorate is Updated to a Secure Identification Online Voting System.

    I went to vote on 18 May 2019 no ID was asked.
  • Frank P Mcenroe
    signed 2019-05-25 09:10:23 +1000
    WE need to change the system if we are to have just one vote for one Party, in the UK the DUP received a total of just over 200.000 votes they won 10 seats, and control the government, two other Party’s received almost 4.000.000 votes each they won 1 seat, that’s the same as having a cricket match where 1 team has 11 players and the other team 168 players . in India the PM s Party received 200.000.000 votes said to be a landslide win, yet 700.000.000 did not vote for him, that’s how the one voting system works, the minority always win, and that is why there is so much corruption in politics,
  • Craig Evans
    signed 2019-05-21 02:02:23 +1000
  • Tim Eade
    signed 2019-05-20 14:00:11 +1000
    I totally agree with this enough of preferential Voting. I’m sick of the politics of who gets my vote … Only one person I need to vote for …
  • minds.com/adamjsims Adam Sims
    @adamjsims tweeted link to this page. 2018-11-26 13:38:55 +1100
  • minds.com/adamjsims Adam Sims
    signed 2018-11-26 13:38:50 +1100
    An honest and fair voting system is essential to a healthy and prosperous nation.
  • graham johnston
    signed 2018-10-19 08:00:06 +1100
  • Beverley Haydon
    signed 2018-08-10 10:04:02 +1000
  • Paul Lynch
    posted about this on Facebook 2018-07-23 12:28:41 +1000
    Sign the petition: One Person, One Vote at Every Election
  • Paul Lynch
    signed 2018-07-23 12:28:24 +1000
  • Marcus Foster
    signed 2018-07-22 21:31:39 +1000
  • Susan Bennetts
    signed 2018-07-22 12:17:20 +1000
    Susan Bennetts
  • Kristine Pocock
    signed 2018-07-22 09:56:20 +1000
  • Victor Batten
    signed 2018-02-24 15:19:48 +1100
    So sensible
  • emmy ross
    signed 2017-10-04 03:06:47 +1100
    This is the only fair way to vote.
  • William O’Connell
    posted about this on Facebook 2017-09-03 17:28:42 +1000
    Sign the petition: One Person, One Vote at Every Election
  • William O’Connell
    signed 2017-09-03 17:28:25 +1000
  • Richard White
    signed 2017-08-13 14:41:12 +1000
    Richard White This is a necessary & overdue ammendment to show that everyone’s vote is equal

JOIN THE FIGHT

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

  • signed One Person, One Vote at Every Election 2022-10-19 11:11:13 +1100
    My vote is for one person only not for preferance

  • commented on A fair voting system 2022-06-23 20:29:52 +1000
    John thanks for taking the time to read PLERS.

    With regards to computer entry, AEC always enters every vote on their computer system and that is what determines the result. Doing an election night manual count would give enough information from 1st and 2nd preferences to predict a PLERS result.

    The chapter I am currently writing uses PLERS Simplified for political elections, which simplifies the count process. For Reps elections 1st pref gets a 1.0, 2nd 0.9, 3rd 0.8, etc till the 11th and all subsequent getting zero (0.0). It’s a simple process, you just add up the vote value and rank the candidates.

    Senate is a little more complex but follows similar lines.

    Regards Erik

  • commented on A fair voting system 2022-06-23 15:53:21 +1000
    John, I have clearly documented how Preferential Voting (PV) can overcome the shortcomings of First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) voting – in BOTH single member electorates and in Proportional Representation systems such as you advocate. You correctly say that PR would make life easier for the voters, the AEC, and government, but then you say “as far as fairness is concerned – [PR] is unbeatable”. The fact is PR does not guarantee a fair count and I have proved this with examples, and proved that Preferential Voting beats PR in fairness.

    I have clearly demonstrated clear numerical examples how the PR system you advocate can get it WRONG, but that those problems can be reduced by adding Preferential Voting and, better still, even totally eliminated by counting the votes via DPAP. DCAP/DPAP totally eliminates the problems of electing Parties or Candidates contrary to voters’ collective preferences. Without PV PR totally ignore everything except first preferences and that risks unfair results.

    DPAP is the ONLY guaranteed fair vote counting method that allow you, John, to vote only for the party you want, while allowing others to use full or partial or split preferential voting as they see fit, and yet every vote still carries exactly the same value. The Borda Count comes close, but can’t handle partial preferential voting. PLERS comes closer, but it does NOT handle partial preferential voting fairly because it does not count partial preferential votes linearly – unless Erik has changed his system to overcome that fault since I pointed it out some months ago in this forum.

    DCAP facilitates high security against electoral fraud. It suits transparent block-chain security with a complete audit trail from paper ballot paper and/or electronic screen voting all the way from polling booth to final declaration. Being totally linear, the results from different polling places, as extremely small digital files, are easily and instantly aggregated as highly secure digital files that are very difficult to alter because they can be checked against the individual votes retained in the polling place machines. The fact that voting machine fraud is widespread in some countries simply highlights the need for legislation for machines and procedures to be rigidly controlled. As outlined in links given previously, individual voters can choose to receive anonymous receipts showing their actual vote as scanned and/or as approved on screen, that they can the check that their vote was actually correctly recorded and counted. Further, the online semi-real-time output summaries from individual polling stations can be made transparent to the media, public, candidates and parties. All this make voting fraud difficult and auditing easy.

    The fact is DCAP/DPAP can fix PR’s serious fault that it can give parties more seats than they deserve – as I have documented. So, your claim that: “(The Israeli system) is a fair system” is clearly not necessarily true. Also, while “Voters would be very reluctant to vote for a party that could form a coalition with a party they despise. (and) Pre-election promises about forming coalitions are usually widely known and adhered to,” there are plenty of Israeli and Kiwi voters, who despair over parties and candidates betraying their trust – plus Aussie voters betrayed where promised policies are ignored etc.
    While traditional Preferential Vote counting is a slow error-prone process because candidates are eliminated and preferences distributed (often more than 100 times in a mathematically chaotic process with numerous unpredictable tipping points) DPAP requires no time-wasting sifting through preferences. DPAP never distributes preferences – but all preferences are taken into account fairly. DPAP never “eliminates” any Candidate or Party in the count, all are accurately rated into a hierarchy. Everything is decided in a quick efficient linear manner.

    In summary, if you want to guarantee a fair and just level playing field, then Preferential Voting using DPAP’s fair counting system is required in a Proportional Representation system, even when voting for a large number of representatives. While voters wanting to ensure a fair and just result need to fill in more preferences, voters have the option to vote as little or much as they choose and all votes are counted equally.

  • commented on A fair voting system 2022-06-23 12:24:58 +1000
    Erik,
    Preferential voting for multiple seats in a single electorate using proportional representation (PR), would not achieve much at all. There would hardly be any difference in outcome compared to voting for a single candidate.
    I agree that PR is difficult to achieve. It would require a constitutional change in Australia. I do not agree that it is difficult to implement. It would make life easier for the voters, the AEC, and government. And as far as fairness is concerned – it is unbeatable.

    I do think your PLERS is a fairer system, compared to existing preferential voting and other alternatives. However, it requires a spreadsheet to process results. The existing system has a method that can be counted manually by stacking and eliminating votes in a process that is easily checked and monitored – by people. It is slow, but traceable.
    Your method (PLERS) requires data-entry into a spreadsheet – which I guarantee you is a much slower and error-prone process. Preferably this would be done on 3 spreadsheets simultaneously, so that the results can be compared. If they don’t match – start again. If you were to combine PLERS with voting for multiple seats in a single electorate using proportional representation, i.e. all of Australia in a federal election, you would also have to combine spreadsheets from regional counting centres in a country-wide spreadsheet. Another error-prone level of complexity. Mistakes are inevitable and voters would lose confidence. I foresee very long wait times before election results are confirmed.
    PLERS would be OK if we got the input for the spreadsheets directly from a voting machine. However voting machines are not allowed in Australia – and I agree with that. It is too easy to manipulate – as is the merging of spreadsheets.

    Forgive me for my opinion, but I still dislike any form of preferential voting – even PLERS, because it is simply too complex and achieves nothing in a PR system.