NEWS

Voters invited to rate their voting day experience

Vote Australia today launched a 'Rate your voting experience' campaign through social media inviting Australian voters to rate and comment on their experiences of voting in the 2019 federal election.

The campaign seeks comments from voters about actual experiences of the entire voting process from enrolment to casting their ballots with emphasis on their experience of the voting process at the polling place they visited. 

The social media campaign directs voters to a blog on the Vote Australia website where they can post and share comments about what they experienced.

A simple 5-star rating system lets voters rate their experience.  Voters can also leave comments explaining their rating and can comment on others' blog posts

The focus of the blog is the voter's experience of the polling-place process and procedures and not the candidates, the parties, party, campaigns or policies.

As part of its voter-education and information focus, Vote Australia aims to use insights received from the public during the 2019 federal election to engage voters in future live-event discussions about ways that election processes are working and could work better with a focus on ensuring that the interests of voters are protected.

The 'Rate your voting experience' campaign will run for up to two weeks after election day, Saturday 18 May 2019.

Vote Australia is an incorporated not-for-profit public-interest entity registered in New South Wales. Vote Australia is not affiliated with any political party or organisation and receives no funding from government or from any other organisation. It is funded entirely by public donation and staffed by volunteers whose focus is helping voters navigate Australian democracy.

COMMENTS

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.

  • 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?