-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, 28 October 1998 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: /Anita: Democrats, PR, OPV, CPV
>[DG]
>I don't believe the coercion argument against the Electoral Commission
>would
>travel well, as they coulr easilt argue that compulsory voting itself
>can
>coerce you to vote for a lemon when (as is often the case) the entire
>line-up are lemons. Of course against that it could be countered that
>the
>current system forbids you to vote for the candidate(s) of your choice
>without being required also to vote for the worse lemons.
>Disenfranchisement
>rather than coerc ion would be a better word I'd think.
>
>[AL]
>I agree with Alistair's response that compulsory voting does not involve
>coercion to vote for anybody you don't want to vote for. (Personally I
>support
>compulsory voting and have never resented being required to roll up and
>vote informal).
>
>You are right that the AEC could argue that way. Worse they not only
>have, but
>went on to argue that s329A authorized them to prohibit "Vote Informal"
>campaigns.
>In South Australia their colleagues introduced state legislation
>explicitly
>aimed at doing so. The High Court writs issued by myself re Commonwealth
>elections and Patrick Muldowney re SA were in response to that
>intimidation of vote informal campaigns.
>(They actually successfully intimidated anarchist campaigns and later
>charged Patrick
>with "contempt of court" for a vote informal leaflet in a SA
>by-election).
>
>When it reached the High Court the Commonwealth completely withdrew
>their claim that s329A prohibits vote informal campaigns (while
>supporting the SA legislation which clearly did
>do that). This left the judicial lizards in the quandry of having to
>find a way to hold
>that an election in which the Commonwealth had openly engaged in what
>they admitted to
>be unlawful intimidation was nevertheless valid. So they went out of
>their way to
>emphasize that there would be nothing unconstitutional about prohibiting
>vote informal
>campaigns and unanimously held the SA legislation valid (which then had
>to be repealed
>since it was openly defied by Patrick in the same way as s329A was).
>
>The AEC is still mumbling that the legality of vote informal campaigns
>has not been
>tested in court but it is quite clear there will be no further attempts
>to prevent
>them so we need not worry about that argument.
>
>Coercion is the correct term for threatening
>to refuse to count an elector's vote for a candidate they want to vote
>for in
>order to "persuade" them to vote in favor of a candidate they want to
>vote against.
>
>Problem is that people just don't see it that way immediately (and
>lawyers often don't
>see it at all) - they keep thinking it's all about something else. We
>need to
>explain MUCH more clearly that it IS coercion, pure and simple - no
>different
>from any other illegal pressure exerted on voters to prevent them voting
>freely,
>except that it also involves an element of outright ballot-rigging.
>
>The fact that attempts to intimidate vote informal campaigns have been
>dropped
>now - after MANY years of trying (see AEC's book about their efforts
>below),
>confirms that as soon as people DO understand
>the "no repeated numbers" really IS exactly the same sort of "coercion"
>as requiring
>people who reject all the lemons to vote formally, there will be
>widespread opposition
>and they will have no choice but to drop that too.
>
>As far as I can make out the real problem is that the overwhelming
>majority
>do in fact either prefer the ALP to the Coalition or the Coalition to
>the ALP
>at least to the extent that they are WILLING to vote for one to prevent
>the
>other winning. Those interested know that their preference numbers for
>minor
>candidates placed below the ALP or the Coalition will never get counted
>anyway so they never actually FEEL coerced. For the very small minority
>who
>really do reject both, it is perfectly obvious that a requirement to put
>a
>number in every box and not repeat any number is actually a requirement
>to
>vote in favor of a candidate we want to vote against. It becomes obvious
>the moment you reach that point in numbering the ballot paper. But most
>of that very small minority aren't really enthused about voting for any
>of the minor candidates anyway, so even they don't have the strong
>feeling
>of coercion that one would have if one was actually being prevented from
>voting in favor of a candidate one really supports unless one also votes
>in
>favor of a candidate one wants to vote against.
>
>Anybody got any suggestions on how to get across clearly and immediately
>that it is coercion, and therefore that it is criminal and the 1998
>elections
>were invalid?
The ABC Radio National programs: National Interest, Life Matters, Background
Briefing.
>
>[DG]
>Is there a site somewhere for getting hold of the relevant parts of
>Hansard
>and JSCEM? I am unaware of the Democrats' performance in that, and
>especially of Andrew Murray whopm you mentioned. Alternatively I wonder
>if
>you'd mind giving a brief summary of the role of the Democrats and in
>particular of Andrew Murray so that I can do whzat I can to enlighten
>the
>party membership.
>
>Many thanks
>Dion
>
>[AL]
>Much more interesting than Hansard and JSCEM is the AEC's submissions
>re Neither - they wrote a whole damn book on us (plus another volume
>of polling booth by polling booth statistical analysis). Anyone planning
>to put serious effort into Neither should make a point of reading it (we
>need to write one of our own - perhaps collaboratively via web site).
>Get from following link (parent index to submissions
>and opportunity to save download directly).
>
>http://www.aec.gov.au/law/jscem.htm
>
>Most important volume is:
>
>http://www.aec.gov.au/law/cnet.pdf
>
>Actual JSCEM report is at
>http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe/em/elec/elec.pdf
>
>I can't recall Andrew Murray in particular (Anita may). Hansard
>is available from http://www.aph.gov.au both as (large) daily
>Acrobat .pdf files and as (numerous) .html files for each speech,
>so you could look up Democrats from combination of Senate dates
>and names.
>
>Dates for debate on Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill are: House,
>3 Dec 1997 and (1998) 23 24 March, and 1 July.
>
>Senate (1998), 30 March 3 April, 8 April (Govt response to Electoral
>Matters Committee report p2393, 25, 26, 29, 30 June.
>
>We have the .pdf files (also the Bill, Explanatory memoranda and Acts
>before and after
>etc) which the web content group can put on the web site when it gets
>going. (NOW please :-)
>
>These are pretty big and boring so would be better to put just links to
>the originals
>plus links to the original .html of the more interesting bits (e.g. your
>highlighting
>of Democrats stand, which was quite bizarre).
>
>If you (or anyone) are looking them up please bookmark all the links and
>save the
>index pages so it will be easy to forward them to web content group for
>editing into
>neither pages. (Also arrange the links to .html versions for the more
>interesting
>bits and save the actual .html pages - though that can be automated from
>the links).
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
>
>For help with this mailing list, look at
>http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>
