Potential Issues with the AEC


The changes to the Electoral Act in 1983-4 established the AEC as a Statutory Authority no longer responsible to Parliament.

The Commission is managed by three members: 
  • the Chairman (who must be an active or retired judge of the Federal Court of Australia)
  • the Electoral Commissioner
  • the Australian Statistician (head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics)
In a 1998 interview, the then Electoral Commissioner stated that the aim of the Commission was to make as many electorates as possible marginal by redistributions at specified periods. The optimum population size in each electorate  is around 80,000-90,000 persons.

Decisions on boundaries are negotiated with and between the political parties based on the advice of the Australian Statistician.

Disputes arise with both Federal and State decisions about electorate boundaries. Submissions often follow to both the Federal and State Joint Standing Committees (JSCEMs) on Electoral matters. Cases affecting the outcomes of elections, dependent on evidence submitted, reflect on the reputation of the AEC and its officials.

The officials are meant to be politically impartial but evidence has been submitted to the JSCEMs claiming that bias exists amongst AEC employees working on election days. 

The investigation in early 2014 by former Federal Police Commission Mick Keelty into the loss of 1370 votes by the AEC in the 7 September 2013 WA Senate election showed inadequacies and incompetence by the AEC and the unchecked opportunities for political bias. Download the full report.


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.