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.

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.