I can't open those links albert. I think it must be the system
administrator, is there any way around this?
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 1998 1:39
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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to be repealed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?
[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
