Our Vision

A Strong Democracy

Australia is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world.  We have free speech and freedom of association, but they are constantly under threat.  Our only protection is through an electoral system that gives each of us an equal vote in choosing who will govern us.  If that system is corrupted by unfair or coercive practices, we are at risk.

Vote Australia believes that a strong electoral system is underpinned by:

  1. Informed voters who understand our parliamentary system and process of voting, so that when they go to the ballot box they understand the election issues and the profile and policies of the candidates standing for election.  Education is the key to achieving this.
  2. Secure voting where people can be sure their vote counts, free of manipulation from fake votes and multiple voting.  Reforming electoral laws will achieve this.
  3. Effortless voting where people are easily able to vote safely and securely.  Blockchain technology is the way.

If informed voters are able to vote in a secure and effortless way, they will do their part in electing the right representatives to parliament - the custodians of our strong democracy in Australia.



About Vote Australia

Vote Australia doesn’t care who gets elected as long as it’s the will of the people.  We champion the rights of honest citizens to participate in elections conducted honestly and fairly and which produce election results that Australians can trust.

To achieve this, Vote Australia is:

  • conducting research into electoral systems in Australia
  • informing the Australian public about electoral systems in Australia
  • informing stakeholders about alternative elections processes that can improve the integrity of Australian elections
  • drawing attention to critical issues relating to electoral fraud, and
  • lobbying state and federal governments on behalf of fair-minded Australians to reform our laws to prevent vote fraud and improve the participation experience for all Australians who are eligible to vote.

Vote Australia is an incorporated not-for-profit entity registered in New South Wales.  Vote Australia in no way condones or encourages people to break Australian laws. Vote Australia is not affiliated with any political party or organisation, commercial or otherwise, and receives no funding from government or from any other organisation. It is funded entirely by public donation and staffed by volunteers. 

Share the campaign with people you know on Facebook and Twitter.

Support the campaign. Help protect your right to free and fair elections in Australia.


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

  • donated 2023-05-19 19:20:45 +1000

  • commented on A fair voting system 2023-04-30 16:55:07 +1000
    A summary/update of my earlier comments.
    Only, repeat ONLY, Borda-style counts guarantee fair counting of preferential voting elections for single or multimember electorates. Historically, Borda counts have been rejected (18 to 20th century, e.g. “Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem”) because they will contradict an “Absolute Majority” – but that’s only when the voters make it clear that the “absolute” majority is weak AND that preferences prove that there is a MORE-preferred candidate.

    E.g., If Candidate A gets 51% of first preferences and 49% of last preferences, but Candidate D (of 4 candidates) gets 0% 1st preferences but 100% of 2nd preferences (extremely unlikely but this is s reductio-ad-absurdum proof) hence Candidate D is clearly the preferred candidate with an average preference of 2.000 which is much closer to average 1st preferences than A’s average of 2.470. Another way of expressing that is is that A is only 51.000% of the way to winning unanimously, whereas D is (1-(2.000-1)/(4-1)) = 66.667% of the way towards unanimous 1st preferences – (two steps out of 3 steps from last of 4th to 2nd out of 4). That’s my DCAP count where DCAP=100x(1-(PrefAv-1)/(Candidates-1). The Borda count applicable is Borda=DCAPx(Candidates-1)xVoters = 153 for A for 100 voters, and 200 for D in the above example.

    DCAP easily accepts Partial Preferential Votes and SPLIT Partial Preferential Votes (e.g., if there are 9 candidates and a voter votes 1st 2nd & 3rd preferences and 8th & 9th preferences then DCAP “normalises” that vote by filling the 4 empty preference boxes with the average (5.5) of the 4 missing numbers (4, 5, 6 & 7). Further DCAP can often correct voters errors such as omitting a number of duplicating a number, provided that the voter’s intention is logically clear. “Normalising” ensures that every vote carries exactly the same weight as every other vote.

    DCAP is the “Candidate” version count for single-member electorates, whereas DPAP is the “Party” version which allows for fair proportional representation on a Party basis in multi-member electorates.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-04-30 16:06:02 +1000
    I plead ignorance re block-chain techniques. But yes we need robust voter ID. My main concern is as I’ve expressed in the “A Fair Voting System”. This section is about Compulsory Voting which I strongly endorse as a Responsibility to earn our Rights.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-04-30 14:37:12 +1000
    Which consensus do you guys suggest? PoW? PoET?