|
REFLECTIONS. My only experience in voting systems and electoral
processes came after I had an opportunity to travel to the sovereign nation of
Venezuela in late 2006 and participate as an UN International Election Observer
on behalf that country's national electoral commission known as CNE.
International Elections Observers are bound by UN policies to remain
impartial during the electoral process and are encouraged to help ensure
local voting communities and the various political parties that the process was
a fair and transparent one. After two days of lectures from various local and
international speakers on the history of voting, the technology and other
electoral related information, we as some 400 observers were better equipped to
perform the task in the days ahead. In a potentially polarized political
climate, I was satisfied that what took place was indeed the result that the
majority of Venezuelans wanted. My report as submitted to CNE can be read
here. (12MB, graphic intensive Word document)
Interestingly during the process and having stayed at the Gran Melia Caracas
Hotel in somewhat guilty opulence, I started to think about voting machines,
their manufacturers and voting processes in general. Having access to the
internet, I discovered a documentary called Hacking Democracy. I was somewhat
surprised (and not so surprised) to learn of a story of an ordinary US
grandmother who had stumbled across Diebold's (No. 1 US voting machine
manufacturer) website and its then unsecured FTP section and had downloaded the
GEMS software to her PC. Hacking Democracy is a true story of an ordinary person
taking on the Big Guys and its shocking ramifications for democracy in the USA.
It explores the relationships between various US political parties and voting
machine manufacturers and the $$$ paid to the latter to guarantee a
pre-determined outcome. See Black Box
Voting for more information.
HERE IN AUSTRALIA.
My experience overseas left me wondering whether any hocus-pocus goes on in
our beloved country. And although I was already aware of the Lima Declaration of
1975 and Australia's bowing at the knee to offshore foreign policies, I became
increasingly concerned about democratic values in my own country. I also know
that I am not alone. What was needed was a way to test our voting process and to
see if indeed we were not subject to the same luring away from good conscience
as our counterparts were overseas.
The idea of informal voting came to me after reading the short 35 page book called
Your Will Be Done written by Arthur A. Chresby.
The author, now sadly deceased, was a former research analyst in Constitutional Law and formerly a Federal MP for electorate of Griffith (QLD, 1958-1961) in the House of Representatives. Your Will Be Done
brings to the readers attention in simple layman's terms the true legal functions within the
hierarchy of Australian Government. The book sheds light
on the roles of the Queen, the Governor General, our State Governors, our Parliament,
our Parliamentarians, and most importantly ourselves, We the People.
The idea of informal voting was the impetus which led to the creation of the original Play It Forward Australia letter.
In that somewhat lengthy letter, I wanted to highlight the fact that the state of Australian politics is too exclusive,
as evident in the USA and possibly Britain. I for one, as an Australian
citizen felt that there existed a barrier of disassociation between the People and elected Government bodies.
Some of you, through virtue of your own experiences with such people know
exactly what I mean.
My own experience with my Federal MP over a particular issue, despite calling
his office 6 times and their subsequent promises to return my calls left me
feeling somewhat betrayed. I have had this problem with other government
departments also and am currently in court facing
criminal charges for refusing
the 2006 Census. Why? Because I had a few questions I wanted answered first. See
here. Of the latter, I was most interested to read the following article. See
here. Of the former. needless to say when no calls were returned, this
amplified my distrust for the current state of affairs. I had often wondered why
Parliament House was called the People's Parliament if a majority of MPs, who perform whatever it is they do, act with exclusivity of the People
to whom they purport to serve.
THE ISSUE AT HAND.
In Australia, a Federal election is held every 3 years.
A lot of things in our society can change in that time. Recently we have seen
contentions across the broad with the Liberal Party's wanting to tighten
Industrial Workplace Relations Laws. It is not surprising that an issue of this
nature caused such a stir. And there are others, of which I am sure many others
are more qualified to speak of. If this is you, why not post your thoughts on
various issues in our online Play It Forward
Forum?
I was somewhat surprised and somewhat not so surprised to discover that at every Federal
Election, a certain percentage of the votes cast were deemed informal anyway.
Arthur Chresby states that to vote informally means that:-
"you have legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot
paper meet with your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast
your vote against all of them." (Chapter 1, page 3).
According to the
APH website, informal voters accounted for approximately 5.4%
(approx 640,000 Australians) of the combined electorates in 2004. A number of reasons have been attributed to
this. The
Australian Politics website also has some older statistics on informal
voting.
It is interesting to note that the political parties consider informal voting
as a spoiling of ones ballot paper and a wasting of one's and the
Electoral Commission's time. Whilst it may be true that some Australians have
cast ballots forms in haste or without due care, the very fact that this has
taken place in the past is indicative of their perceived lack of trust to whoever is on the
form OR the lack of perceived democracy in Australia in general. I honestly
believe that laziness or incompetence would not be used as a "blame factor" for some
Australians, if they were given a reason to believe and experience a proper
democratic form of government. Word of mouth is very compelling. Actions on
behalf of those whom act on our behalf even more so.
Using this method of informal voting on purpose, we
would not be casting a vote in laziness or incompetence, but rather in the knowledge and the belief
that things need to change. More importantly, we should aim to ensure that the
people who represent us in elected government are not those who display the
"distance the electors" syndrome via human disassociation. If so, these people should never have had the
opportunity to represent Us and therefore need to be removed. Those MP's who
remain themselves after years in the machine, if such a thing is possible, are
the ones to whom our trust should be placed.
Even if a large proportion of electors cast an
informal vote, what guarantees would be in place to ensure that the Australian
Electoral Commission would reflect the wills of the People? Answer: There are no
guarantees, but having a fair go may bring to light any potential discrepancies
in the system.
Although informal voting is not illegal, readers may
also be interested to know that casting an
informal vote is an action of conscience and the inalienable right to do so are
covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These international laws takes
precedence over any entities, including S.240 of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act.
RESOURCES.
Albert Langer
|
Forum
