Online Resources

'A Crisis in the Integrity of Voting'
Remarks by Mark Latham at the inaugural conference of Australians For Honest Elections (now Vote Australia), Parliament of New South Wales, Jubilee Room, 2 August 2017


'The Reality of Vote Fraud'
Remarks by Lex Stewart at the inaugural conference of Australians For Honest Elections (now Vote Australia), Parliament of New South Wales, Jubilee Room, 2 August 2017

 

IN THE MEDIA - 2015 By-Election - Electorate of Canning (WA)

 

IN THE MEDIA - 2013 Federal Election - Indi / Cathy McGowan / Sophie Mirabella

 

IN THE MEDIA - 2013 Federal Election - WA Senate Recount

 

IN THE MEDIA - 2013 Federal Election

 

IN THE MEDIA - 2010 Federal Election

 

IN THE MEDIA - 2007 Federal Election


ONLINE DOCUMENTS


DOWNLOADABLES

  • Keelty Report - Inquiry into the 2013 WA Senate Election with findings and recommendations
    Download File
  • Multiple Voting & Voter Identification - A Report Prepared for the NSWEC by Prof. Rodney Smith
    Download File


OFFICIAL SITES


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.