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.

  • 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.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 16:17:29 +1000
    For those interested, the simple arithmetic to convert my earlier example with preferences
    1 2 3
    A 40 0 60
    B 40 60 0
    C 20 40 40
    into number of seats earned under Proportional Preferential counted by Borda or DCAP
    First, Preference AVerages (PAVs)
    PAVa = (40×1 + 0×2 + 60×3)/100votes = 2.2
    PAVb = (40×1 + 60×2 + 0×3)/100votes = 1.6
    PAVc = (20×1 + 40×2 + 40×3)/100votes = 2.2
    B, with PAV = 1.6 is clearly the closest to unanimously first preference of PAV=1.
    A and C tie for second place with PAVs = 2.2.
    A’s downfall is that it is significantly more unpopular than it is popular.

    Then, to translate that into seats, first calculate DCAP scores where
    DCAP=100x(1-(PAV-1)/(Cn-1)).
    DCAPa= 40, DCAPb=70, and DCAPc=40 , which adds to 150.
    So, scaling that to the 100 seat vacancies and with rounding (arbitrarily, in favour of 1st preference tallies to remove the dead heat for 2nd place),
    we get A=27 seats, B=47 seats and C=26 seats.

    For more explanation, including on Borda, see https://tinyurl.com/ElectoralReformOz starting with the 1-page [Absolute Majority v Democracy.pdf] and then perhaps browse the [0-Voting Reform – how … ] directory.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 15:21:54 +1000
    John de Wit, those arguments are seriously flawed.
    Using Proportional Representation without Preferences, as you propose, effectively assumes that a vote for a party totally agrees with that party and has no preference for any of the other parties. No wonder people are reluctant to vote under such conditions – who could possibly endorse every policy of a party???

    More to the point, the arguments you gave in no way refutes my proof that Preferential Proportional representation adds value because it is well able to discriminate between parties with equal primary votes based on the collective preferences of the voters.