Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The dead don't vote ...

By Terry Gygar - posted Monday, 14 January 2008


Throughout this process, Wayne Swan continued to be less than enthusiastic and supportive of my efforts to clean up the roll. Bob Bottom, the investigative reporter who retired to Queensland, noted a similar phenomenon on the north coast in the early 1990’s - a whole list of people were enrolled on one side of a beach side road where there was only the sea wall.

Rorting postal votes is also very simple, especially if you have already “seeded” the role with non existent voters.

In my electorate the ALP got a steady 46 per cent of most classifications of votes in most years. The extraordinary postal voting results in Stafford in 1983 therefore raised suspicions. In that year, the number of postal voters increased significantly, and the ALP got an astonishing 72 per cent of the vote!

Advertisement

Why the ALP would get 72 per cent of the postal vote in 1983 is a significant mystery - it seems that about 70 staunch ALP supporters suddenly appeared on the scene in late 1983 and then equally suddenly had disappeared seven months later when a by-election became necessary. When the by-election was held, the then candidate had a different campaign organisation and the ALP postal vote results dropped back below 50 per cent - but only a suspicious minded person would attach any significance to this wouldn’t they?

The enduring mystery in this whole process is that, when they know how easy it is to register false enrolments and for the dead to vote, why does the Electoral Commission so adamantly oppose attempts to ensure the integrity not only of the roll, but of the vote?

In 1989, strong suspicions about potential vote rorting were wide spread in Queensland and the then (Cooper) Government proposed that the Electoral office (then under State control) should computer match the addresses on the electoral roll with those of the State Electricity Commission, based on the reasonable assumption that most inhabited addresses had electricity connected and those that didn’t should be investigated by the Electoral Commission. The screams of protest from the ALP, particularly State Campaign Director Wayne Swan, were almost deafening.

For all the above reasons, phoney postal voting is now a riskier process, and absentee voting is the apparently preferred modus operandi, but there is a very simple way of significantly improving the integrity of the polls - require each voter to present some form of identification when casting their ballot. This was floated by the Federal Liberal Party some years ago, followed by the predictable howls of protest from the ALP.

Yes, there is a risk that this can disadvantage indigent and disadvantaged voters and there are currently cases pending before the US Supreme Court challenging some US State laws which require voters to produce very specific identifying documents. However these objections can easily be over come (in people of good will) by providing only that any official document bearing the name and address of the alleged voter is required.

Realistically, there are very few adults in this country who could not produce a driver’s licence, bank statement, benefits letter or similar. Any special problems (for example, those faced by people in small Indigenous communities, nursing homes, hospices, and so on) could be further overcome by providing that such identification can be waived where the voter is personally known to either the polling officers, a government official or an employee of a relevant institution.

Advertisement

This isn’t rocket science. There is ample evidence of long standing, wide spread, deliberate rorting of our electoral system. A highly effective (even if not perfect) solution is simple, inexpensive and achievable.

Why aren’t we doing it?

Perhaps our Federal Treasurer, as a person with a long history of interest in this topic, might like to look into it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Terry Gygar RFD, LL B (Hons) is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, Bond University.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Terry Gygar
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy