• Home
  • The Issues
    • Compulsory voting
    • Identifying voters
    • A fair voting system
    • Unwanted influences on the voting system
  • Our Vision
  • Blockchain Voting
  • News
  • Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Subscribe
  • Contact us
  • Members Area
    • Login
  • Home
  • The Issues
    • Compulsory voting
    • Identifying voters
    • A fair voting system
    • Unwanted influences on the voting system
  • Our Vision
  • Blockchain Voting
  • News
  • Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Subscribe
  • Contact us
  • Members Area
    • Login

NEWS

share our cause
  • Home /
  • News /
  • Vote Australia ramps up campaign for Voter ID

Vote Australia ramps up campaign for Voter ID

POSTED ON 11 February, 2019

Vote Australia today launches a campaign that helps Australians demand that laws be passed to better protect voters’ identities from theft and abuse at this year’s 2019 federal election.

The campaign tells Australians that current law does not require voters to present proper identification when they go to vote and that people voting in the names of other voters could cause election results in marginal seats that are not the will of the voting majority.

“Australians have long known that something is wrong with the way they can vote without showing identification.  We understand that law-abiding Australians of all political persuasions are appalled that a person can vote as any person they like in as many polling places as they like and get away with it,” says Mr. Kirkpatrick, President of Vote Australia.

Voter-identification was a recommendation of the Chairman of the Federal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its final report on the 2016 election released in December 2018. 

Vote Australia is a non-partisan advocacy group that aims to educate voters about their electoral system and their rights as voters.

The campaign can be found here:  www.voteaustralia.org.au/voter_id_campaign_2019

 

Contact: 

Bill O'Connell
Secretary
[email protected]

 

Download press release here.  

voter identification 2019 federal election polling fraud fraudulent petition booth social media laws regulations impersonation impersonate fake ID
Do you like this post?
Tweet

SHARE

COMMENTS


Sign in with...

Facebook
Twitter
or

Or sign in with email

    Create an account


    Create an account

      or Sign in with email
      Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

      JOIN THE FIGHT

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


      • Peter Newland 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.

      • John de Wit 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.

      • Peter Newland 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.

      • Peter Newland 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.

      sign in
      WHITE PAPERS

      • THE ISSUES
      • Compulsory Voting
      • Identifying Voters
      • A Fair Voting System
      • Unwanted Influences on the Voting System
      • Blockchain Voting
      • GET INVOLVED
      • Subscribe
      • Donate
      • MEMBERS AREA
      • Sign In
      • OUR VISION
      • NEWS
      • CONTACT US
      • RESOURCES

      (c) 2019 Vote Australia Incorporated. Authorised by W. O'Connell, Level 19, 207 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. View our Privacy Policy. Site by WebEdge

      JOIN THE FIGHT

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


      (c) 2019 Vote Australia Incorporated. Authorised by W. O'Connell, Level 19, 207 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. View our Privacy Policy. Site by WebEdge

      Join The Fight