Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
PREFERENTIAL VOTING - The Big Picture Can we UNCONFUSE voters on PREFERENTIAL VOTING??? Preferential voting is a rare gift granted in few democracies. In Australia about 40% vote ALP, 30% Liberal and 10% National. With first-past-the-post, on average, the ALP would be elected in every seat in parliament forever even though 60% dont want them. With preferential voting, when it gets to counting your preferences, it is because your candidate has been beaten. You are left with the same choice as a fighter pilot trapped in a burning plane. He can die alone or crash on the enemy and take a few with him. Any voter who uses optional preferential and votes [1] only, or [1]-[2]-[2]-[2], places his ballot in the exhausted vote box where it no longer counts. This leaves the ALP/LIB/NAT crowd happily counting only their votes. I urge every voter to fill out every square and put the major parties last, second last, and third last in order of dishonour. Deny them the money they pay each other for each primary vote counted. It is hard to pick the least rotten. The major parties sold Australia, taxed us to poverty, regulated us to a standstill, closed many hospitals, allowed the banks to clean us out, forced business to close or flee, bankrupted farmers, timber mills etc. and created a nation of jobless and hopeless. Enough is enough. Kick them all out. Tony Pitt -Original Message- From: Antony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jess Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Wolter Joosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sunday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Queensland Radio' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ourradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Bruce Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Derek Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Neil Baird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ian McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; City Country Alliance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; John Hugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Selwyn Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brian McDermott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; McGuinness, Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dorothy Pratt MLA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Neither Newsgroup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ron Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; John Pasquarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Paterson, Ian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tony Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tom Round <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Paul Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Graham Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Queensland Times' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Darryl Wheeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Letters The Australian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Noel Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Peter Brun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:27 PM Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea >Here we go again. >> >> jess>> They cannot be distributed to other candidates because the elector >> chose not to preference any other candidate and their ballot is kept as >part of >> the total because what is being determined is who has the majority of the >ballot >> with or without preferences. If there is no majority clear winner then >you have >> to >> go to another election with candidates and policies that the majority >agree >> with. >> This way Politicians may actually start representing the electorate >rather than >> is >> the case, their party. > > >That may be what you want, but such a provision does not exist in law. And >once again, the law states that the majority is of "votes remaining in the >count". Votes can only reside with candidates, and if a candidate does not >remain in the count, how can they have votes? > >> >> jess>> So your logic is that in a seat with say 5 candidates running it >is >> possible that >> the "winner" may have won on a little over 1/5 fifth of that electorates >total >> formal votes >> if they all chose not to exercise their preference vote. >> If that is Democracy and a fair election where 4/5 fifths of the >electorate did >> not vote for the winner >> what does that tell you? > >That's not my logic, that's what the act says. If you think it is wrong, >you have to work to change it, but you won't get the wording of an act >re-interpreted for that reason. > >Most of the electoral acts in this country existed before preferential >voting
ABC Duty to Inform Electorates & RE: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
Hi again, and this is truly my last message to this topic In my previous contribution to this debate, I emphasised my concern at the suppression of the democratic truth that DEMOCRATIC, free, and FAIR elections can fail, and called for others to try to help the Governor of Queensland (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) fulfil his sworn duty. The debate is not really about what the law says, but whether it is lawful, or a massive fraud on those who believe in democracy, and that formal ballots DO AND MUST "remain in the count", rather than be removed from final counts. Antony says; "It was a deliberate act to do with the introduction of optional preferential voting, and the intent was to allow a candidate to be elected with less than 50% of the formal vote." If so, and I believe him, it was a deliberate act of fraud, because it deceives so many, including possibly the Governor of Queensland, who continue believing optional preferential ballots are counted fairly, and that the democratic 'bar' of 50% +1 is fixed. Many members of Legislative Assembly of Queensland in 1991, when the bill was debated and passed with 70 (of the possible 89) votes, were what Bernie Fraser called "dickheads" (also in 1991, although he confined himself to Commonwealth ministers), so it is possible many of the 70 were also deceived in the same way Antony seems still to accept, but others who have grasped the democratic truth, never can. We know we were deceived, and are being defrauded of democracy, and in thousands of cases of our franchise. The question is who intended to allow candidates to be elected, by such criminal means, with less than 50% of the formal vote? If, despite efforts to stop him, the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Des O'Shea, returned the Writ for Election of eighty-nine (89) Members of the Legislative Assembly to the Governor of Queensland, on Friday 2nd of March 2001, he has thereby confirmed that he is, for what-ever reason, a willing party to the unlawful fraudulent disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. 2080 of these are in the Kawana Electorate. They cast formal ballots with "just [1]" for Kevin Savage, the ONP candidate. The official results for Kawana Electorate, submitted by returning officer M R Stubbins, clearly shows the number of votes cast for Mr Cummins (ALP) is 431 votes less than all the formal ballots. Thousands more are in other electorates, still awaiting ECQ release. As part of the fraud, the legally meaningless term 'valid votes' reduces by 2080 between the first and last count. Each formal ballot represents the STV (single transferable vote) of each voter performing his/her democratic duty. As candidates preferred by voters are removed from successive counts, the ballots may exhaust, but the STV represented by the ballots remain formal does not disappear from the count, as implied by reducing legally meaningless term 'valid votes' by the number of voters who indicate no preference for remaining candidates. Nor does the democratic 'bar' of 11807 votes drop by 2080 votes, to defraud all who believe that the democratic 'bar' of 50% +1 is the reason preferences must be counted, as the Act itself states! Despite repeated requests (since 13 February) for any authority for such disenfranchisement, Mr O'Shea and his colleagues have failed to respond. These are the issues needing public debate to promote Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed electorate." If Mr O'Shea and his colleagues are doing their duty, they will want the chance to defuse what will otherwise become a growing conviction that they are criminals defrauding all who believe we have democracy and fair elections in Queensland. Finally I repeat my previous point that "in the circumstances not only do ABC radio and/or TV have public duties to this, but doing so would rapidly revive public support for it, both in and beyond Queensland." To continue to suppress debate in defiance of Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change is an expression of the will of an informed electorate" will only justify and ensure the 'death' its people seem to dread! Why not start with Des O'Shea, by forwarding this e-mail (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]), and if he's too 'busy' to respond call him on 07 32277249 to arrange an interview. Also call Mr Cummins (5493 2662) or his campaign contact Linda Holliday (3844 8101), to ask how he feels about being returned at the expense of the 2080 Des O'Shea wants to disenfranchise. Invite him to meet publicly with the 2080 voters to say whether he will accept such an offer! Regards, and looking forward to the ABC doing its duty (and even scooping its rivals). Jim Stewart Phone:+617 3411 7646 Mobile: 04 1427 4420 (voice-mail) PS: I'll attach the only response so far from ABC Local Radio Qld, and keep trying for a human response from mail
Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
WHY NOT PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS READ THE QLD ACT READ THE COMMONWEALTH ACT WRITE DOWN THE CONFLICTING SECTIONS ( REMEMBER THE CTH ONE PREVAILS OVER THE QLD ONES) CHECK WHOSE NAME THE ELECTION WRIT WAS TAKEN OUT IN CHECK IF THE ELECTROL ROLL IS CTH OR QLD CHECK IF ANYONE PUBLISHED DECEPTIVE HOW TO VOTE OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL CHECK SECTION 154 ELECTROL ACT 1992 QLD CHECK IF AN OFFENCE AGAINST SECTION 154 VACATES A MEMBERS SEAT UNDER SECTION 7(2) LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLEY ACT 1876 QLD THEN ASK YOURSELF A QUESTION If Section 109 Constitution has a destructive effect on State Legislation, and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, provides for only one voting system, the Writ for Election in the States are issued by the Queen of Australia, the electoral roll is provided by the Commonwealth, is it lawful and equitable for a State to enact legislation, which purports to directly contravene the Federal provisions for elections of popular houses of Parliament. A CLUE TO THIS FRAUD An Elector Barron River Electorate Cairns The Editor Cairns Post Dear Sir, In 1991 the Anti Discrimination Act 1991 , was passed into Queensland law, and that law in Section 101, provides that discrimination in any government program whatsoever is unlawful. It says a person who- performs any function or exercises any power under State Law must not discriminate in --- The performance of the function or the exercise of the power, or the carrying out of the responsibility. The Act was passed to signify that Queensland is obliged to respect the principles of dignity and equality for everyone. The Electoral Act 1992 (Q) says , in Section 113 (2) that there can be two classes of elector in Queensland, those who vote just 1, and those who mark preferences. The people who mark their preferences are being discriminated against by allowing a vote, which has only one mark on it, to be treated as equal to theirs. This pretence has, in Barron River resulted in an elected representative who is probably unable to prove the support of a majority of electors. It is quite alright to talk about voting rorts, but when in Barron River, on figures published on Monday by the Electoral Commission, 12,583 electors expressed a first preference for someone else than Dr Lesley Clark. She cannot claim to be the legitimate choice. Exhausted votes are a legal fiction, and a fraud. If a person votes 1 then that person intends to follow the How To Vote card of the person they put one. The intent of the voters in Barron River was crystal clear. They do not want Dr Lesley Clark. Equity looks to the intent. rather than the form. To call a vote informal after only reading One, is to use form to defeat intent. Eliminate all exhausted votes, or eliminate none. To eliminate exhausted votes cast for Peter Starr, Lyn Warwick, Sno Bonneau, and Kevin Walls, and not eliminate the exhausted votes from Dr Lesley Clark is discriminatory. With Peter Starr one vote behind Lyn Warwick, and Sno Bonneau ahead of both of them, by some 600 votes, a distribution of preferences done without discrimination, should see Peter Starrs preferences flow to Sno, Lyn Warwicks also flow to Sno, and the new member for Barron River should be Sno Bonneau. If the bulk of Kevin Walls preferences flowed to Dr Clark, it would still not be enough. It is time someone went to the Court of Disputed Returns and insisted the Electoral Commissioner desisted from discriminatory practices in counting votes, and obtain a recount of the votes in Barron River with the object of returning a legitimate representative. The Court, under Section 136 (1) Electoral Act 1992, may make any order the court considers just and equitable. It is just and equitable that the majority of electors in Barron River must not be made to suffer an unwanted representative, due to an electoral rort. Equitable principles make it clear the electors want someone other than Dr Lesley Clark. The court must make orders that give effect to the will of the people, even if it must call a new election, with Section 113 (2) Electoral Act 1992 eliminated from the scene. Then a true representative will be elected. Yours Disgruntled. ( NOT PUBLISHED OF COURSE) A FEW MORE CLUES The execution of this civil process must be in the manner and form prescribed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Section 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 states, This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be binding on the courts, judges and people of every State, and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State: Section 109 Constitution says "when a law of a State is inconsistent
Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
Jess & ALL
Tell ALL where and when the
exhausted votes are ever again considered.
Tony
-Original Message-From:
Jess Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
Antony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc:
Wolter Joosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sunday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
'Queensland Radio' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Ourradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Bruce
Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Derek Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Neil Baird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Ian McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
City Country Alliance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
John Hugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Selwyn
Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brian
McDermott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
McGuinness, Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dorothy
Pratt MLA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Neither Newsgroup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ron
Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
John Pasquarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Paterson, Ian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tony
Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tom
Round <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Paul Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Graham Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
'Queensland Times' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Darryl Wheeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Letters The
Australian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Noel
Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Peter Brun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jim
Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date:
Friday, March 02, 2001 3:36 PMSubject: Re: Evidence of
disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr
O'Shea
Antony,
As you have supplied the extract from the Queensland
Electoral Act, I again bring to your attention that the Act does not give
anyone the Authority to remove exhausted ballots from the count. It
only states that,
(7) On the second count--
(a) the
candidate who has the fewest first preference votes must beexcluded; and
(b) each ballot paper recording a
first preference vote for thatcandidate that is not exhausted must be
transferred to the candidate next in the
order of the voter's preference; and
(it does not contiune saying that exhausted
ballot papers are to be removed from the count.)
(c) that ballot paper must be
counted as a vote for that candidate.
It does not state that the exhausted ballot paper
must be excluded from the count, just the candidate is excluded from
the count.
That is why preferences that are not exhausted are passed
to the remaining candidates according to the preference indicated on the
ballot.
An election win is based 50% plus 1 of 100% of formal
ballots not 92.1% of formal ballots as in the KAWANA seat where 8.8% of the
ballot papers have been removed from the ballot/count.
I can understand your confusion being so involved in the
Election Process, "that you can't see the forest for the
trees".
Regards Jess Perez
- Original Message -
From: "Antony Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jess Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 02 March, 2001 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real
chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
The following extract is
from the Queensland Electoral Act. You will notethat Section Nine
specifies that the majority of votes is defined as beingof those votes
remaining in the count.As preferences can only be distributed to
continuing candidates, if aballot paper for an excluded candidate has no
preferences, it cannot betransferred to a continuing candidate, and as
only continuing candidatesremain in the count, exhausted votes therefore
can't be seen as part of thevotes remaining in the count.Antony
GreenELECTORAL ACT 1992 - SECT 119 Official
counting of votes 119.(1) As soon as practicable after polling day,
the returning officer foreach electoral district must ensure that
thecommission's staff follow the procedures set out in this section.
(2) Firstly, the staff must-- (a)
open all ballot boxes in relation to the electoral district thatha
Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
Here we go again. > > jess>> They cannot be distributed to other candidates because the elector > chose not to preference any other candidate and their ballot is kept as part of > the total because what is being determined is who has the majority of the ballot > with or without preferences. If there is no majority clear winner then you have > to > go to another election with candidates and policies that the majority agree > with. > This way Politicians may actually start representing the electorate rather than > is > the case, their party. That may be what you want, but such a provision does not exist in law. And once again, the law states that the majority is of "votes remaining in the count". Votes can only reside with candidates, and if a candidate does not remain in the count, how can they have votes? > > jess>> So your logic is that in a seat with say 5 candidates running it is > possible that > the "winner" may have won on a little over 1/5 fifth of that electorates total > formal votes > if they all chose not to exercise their preference vote. > If that is Democracy and a fair election where 4/5 fifths of the electorate did > not vote for the winner > what does that tell you? That's not my logic, that's what the act says. If you think it is wrong, you have to work to change it, but you won't get the wording of an act re-interpreted for that reason. Most of the electoral acts in this country existed before preferential voting, using first past the post voting. Elections around the world are regularly decided on that basis, and whether you think that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. I always prefer optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential because I don't see why in the end voters should have to choose between candidate they see no difference between. But if a minority of voters choose not to choose between two candidates, why should the choice of the majority who did have an opinion be overturned? > > jess>> The votes are not the candidates votes. They are ballots on which the > elector has > nominated their preference or preferences for a candidate in the running to > represent them > in that electorate. If enough of the total electors in that electorate agree the > candidate wins > otherwise put up another candidate that the majority will agree to. > > That is why preferences that are not exhausted are passed to the remaining > candidates according to the preference indicated on the ballot. > > An election win is based 50% plus 1 of 100% of formal ballots not 92.1% of > formal ballots as in the KAWANA seat where 8.8% of the ballot papers have > been removed from the ballot/count. > > *** There is not one statement in the electoral act that says that the > majority must be of formal votes, except on the first count. > > jess>>Correct, because the candidates are all in the running while they are > establishing what the total count is, based on total formal first preferences. > In KAWANA that total count was 23612. Because none had the required > 11807 votes majority the second count is started to distribute preferences > to see who gains the required minimum of 11807. After preferences the > closest was Labour with 11376 unfortunately that is 431 votes short of > 50% plus 1 of the count 23612. This seat is a failed election bring on the > candidates that the majority of the electorate agree to. > IT IS NOT A FAILED ELECTION. The act says a majority of votes remaining in the count, not of the formal vote. Just as an example, say what you want applied, and 5% of the electorate did not choose between the final two candidates and the election was voided. Should an election be re-called because 5% said they didn't like the choice of candidates, or should the 95% who did make a decision have their choice validated ? As far as I am concerned, there is nothing in the act that backs your point of view. There has never been a provision in Australian electoral acts that supports the concept of a failed election if no candidate achieves 50% of the vote. The provision that exists in the Federal act is for the case where missing ballot papers make it impossible for a candidate to achieve a majority. Failed elections of that sought are an automatic provision to allow an election to be reconducted if there was something wrong with the conduct of the poll, without the need of a court appeal. For instance, the death of a candidate in Frankston East at the 1999 Victorian election resulted in a failed election and automatic re-election. There is no point continuing to argue this point with me. As far as I can see, the act describes how a majority is achieved with optional preferential voting, and it is of a majority of the votes remaining in the count, that is residing with candidates remaining in the count. If you want it to be considered in any other way, then your recourse is the courts. There is nothing in the act that says a candidate must have a majority of the for
Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
See Below - Original Message - From: "Antony Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jess Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 02 March, 2001 3:27 PM Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea Antony, As you have supplied the extract from the Queensland Electoral Act, I again bring to your attention that the Act does not give anyone the Authority to remove exhausted ballots from the count. It only states that, (7) On the second count-- (a) the candidate who has the fewest first preference votes must be excluded; and (b) each ballot paper recording a first preference vote for that candidate that is not exhausted must be transferred to the candidate next in the order of the voter's preference; and (it does not contiune saying that exhausted ballot papers are to be removed from the count.) *** Well what happens to them. If a ballot paper does not provide a preference for a candidate remaining in the count, why should it be part of determining which of the remaining candidates wins? *** jess>> They cannot be distributed to other candidates because the elector chose not to preference any other candidate and their ballot is kept as part of the total because what is being determined is who has the majority of the ballot with or without preferences. If there is no majority clear winner then you have to go to another election with candidates and policies that the majority agree with. This way Politicians may actually start representing the electorate rather than is the case, their party. (c) that ballot paper must be counted as a vote for that candidate. *** They are not removed from the count, but as they must be with a candidate continuing in the count, and an excluded candidate cannot be a continuing candidate, they become exhausted votes. The only votes remaining in the count are those that lie with candidates still in the count. Votes with candidate not in the count can't actually be votes remaining in the count. *** jess>> So your logic is that in a seat with say 5 candidates running it is possible that the "winner" may have won on a little over 1/5 fifth of that electorates total formal votes if they all chose not to exercise their preference vote. If that is Democracy and a fair election where 4/5 fifths of the electorate did not vote for the winner what does that tell you? It does not state that the exhausted ballot paper must be excluded from the count, just the candidate is excluded from the count. *** But nor can exhausted preferences remain with the excluded candidate, because that candidate is no longer in the count. They are set aside outside of the remaining votes in the count as exhausted.*** jess>> The votes are not the candidates votes. They are ballots on which the elector has nominated their preference or preferences for a candidate in the running to represent them in that electorate. If enough of the total electors in that electorate agree the candidate wins otherwise put up another candidate that the majority will agree to. That is why preferences that are not exhausted are passed to the remaining candidates according to the preference indicated on the ballot. An election win is based 50% plus 1 of 100% of formal ballots not 92.1% of formal ballots as in the KAWANA seat where 8.8% of the ballot papers have been removed from the ballot/count. *** There is not one statement in the electoral act that says that the majority must be of formal votes, except on the first count. jess>>Correct, because the candidates are all in the running while they are establishing what the total count is, based on total formal first preferences. In KAWANA that total count was 23612. Because none had the required 11807 votes majority the second count is started to distribute preferences to see who gains the required minimum of 11807. After preferences the closest was Labour with 11376 unfortunately that is 431 votes short of 50% plus 1 of the count 23612. This seat is a failed election bring on the candidates that the majority of the electorate agree to. I can understand your confusion being so involved in the Election Process, "that you can't see the forest for the trees". *** Gratuitous nonsense. If you want to waste money with lawyers challenging the result on the basis of your argument you are entirely entitled to it. Exhausted votes do not lie with candidate remaining in the count, therefore they cannot be votes in the count. Optional preferential voting has operated in this way in Australia for many decades. You would be asking the courts to re-interpret the laws as they have always been applied and using a semantics argument about what are votes "remaining in the count" which I do not think has any legal basis. *** jess>> It may be Gratuitous nonsense in your view but where will the Dem
Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
Antony, As you have supplied the extract from the Queensland Electoral Act, I again bring to your attention that the Act does not give anyone the Authority to remove exhausted ballots from the count. It only states that, (7) On the second count-- (a) the candidate who has the fewest first preference votes must beexcluded; and (b) each ballot paper recording a first preference vote for thatcandidate that is not exhausted must be transferred to the candidate next in the order of the voter's preference; and (it does not contiune saying that exhausted ballot papers are to be removed from the count.) (c) that ballot paper must be counted as a vote for that candidate. It does not state that the exhausted ballot paper must be excluded from the count, just the candidate is excluded from the count. That is why preferences that are not exhausted are passed to the remaining candidates according to the preference indicated on the ballot. An election win is based 50% plus 1 of 100% of formal ballots not 92.1% of formal ballots as in the KAWANA seat where 8.8% of the ballot papers have been removed from the ballot/count. I can understand your confusion being so involved in the Election Process, "that you can't see the forest for the trees". Regards Jess Perez - Original Message - From: "Antony Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jess Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 02 March, 2001 1:05 PM Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea The following extract is from the Queensland Electoral Act. You will notethat Section Nine specifies that the majority of votes is defined as beingof those votes remaining in the count.As preferences can only be distributed to continuing candidates, if aballot paper for an excluded candidate has no preferences, it cannot betransferred to a continuing candidate, and as only continuing candidatesremain in the count, exhausted votes therefore can't be seen as part of thevotes remaining in the count.Antony GreenELECTORAL ACT 1992 - SECT 119 Official counting of votes 119.(1) As soon as practicable after polling day, the returning officer foreach electoral district must ensure that thecommission's staff follow the procedures set out in this section. (2) Firstly, the staff must-- (a) open all ballot boxes in relation to the electoral district thathave not previously been opened; and (b) identify all declaration envelopes and keep those in relation todifferent electoral districts in separate parcels; and (c) seal up each parcel of envelopes for an electoral district otherthan the returning officer's electoral district, write on each a description of its contents, sign the description and permitany scrutineers who wish to do so to countersign the description; and (d) send the parcels to the returning officer for the appropriateelectoral district. (3) Secondly, the staff must-- (a) open all sealed parcels of ballot papers sent to the returningofficer under section 118; and (b) arrange all formal ballot papers under the names of the candidatesfor the election by placing in a separate parcel all those on which a first preference vote is indicated for thesame candidate; and (c) count the first preference votes for each candidate on all of theformal ballot papers. (4) Thirdly, the staff must-- (a) open all ballot boxes on hand in which ballot papers fromdeclaration envelopes have been placed under section 116(3); [67] and (b) arrange all formal ballot papers under the names of the candidatesfor the election by placing in a separate parcel all those on which a first preference vote is indicated for thesame candidate; and (c) count the first preference votes for each candidate on all of theformal ballot papers and add the number to that obtained under subsection (3)(c); and (d) reapply paragraphs (a) to (c) as more envelopes are placed inballot boxes under section 116(3), until there are no more envelopes required to be placed in ballot boxes under thatsection. (5) If, because of final counting under subsection (4), a majority of thefirst preference votes is for 1 candidate, that candidate iselected. (6) If not, then a second count must take place. (7) On the second count-- (a) the candidate who has the fewest first preference votes must beexcluded; and (b) each ballot paper recording a first preference vote for thatcandidate that is not exhausted must be transferred to the candidate next in the order of the voter's preference; and (c) that ballot paper must be counted as a vote for that candidate. (8) If, on the second count, a candidate has a majority of the votesremaining in the count, the candidate is elected. (9) If not, the process
The suppressed "democratic truth" & RE: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
Thanks Antony, for your prompt reply It is most encouraging, and much more than we get from Des O'Shea or his colleagues, like Don Schultz. They remain silent, in the face of an increasing barrage of questions. You personally are certainly helping Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed electorate." I expect a majority of all ABC employees are as concerned about democracy and the rule of law, as we are. With your help, they can greatly improve the chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea. If you read all of my submission to the Governor of Queensland, you would have noticed that I quoted you, and denied any authority for what you described (see below), and I am more than happy to debate this. However, the issue which most concerns me, is that the simple but profound "democratic truth" (that DEMOCRATIC, FREE and FAIR elections, can FAIL) has been suppressed for centuries (and in Queensland since 1892, when preferential voting was 1st introduced!) That's very significant, isn't it? Extract from my submission (Lawful Process of Elections or Disenfranchisement of Voters) to the Governor of Queensland: The phrase "remaining in the count" is being (and may have previously been) dishonestly and UNLAWFULLY re-interpreted as authority to optionally disenfranchise voters for not preferring remaining candidates, so that candidates with less than a majority of the first preference votes" can be elected. Not surprisingly, there is nothing in the Act to authorise exclusion of exhausted formal ballot papers from the count of "votes remaining in the count", and the idea that ballots of voters expressing no preference for candidates remaining in the count can be admitted to first counts, but optionally removed from subsequent counts, is so utterly repugnant to democracy and the much-touted term "fair elections", that I expect Mr O'Shea is not a willing agent of such subversion of democracy, but is intimidated by others with stronger, more direct interests in suppressing the democratic truth that democratic, free, and fair elections can fail. So Antony, lets keep debating and spreading the truth, but in a public arena, where His Honour Justice Murray Gleesen, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, would insist it belongs. Will ABC radio and/or TV agree to this? Then we could both explain on air the intended/actual disenfranchisement of the Kawana One Nation supporters, whose 2080 exhausted ballots have been reclassified from valid in the first count, to invalid in the second count. Perhaps Des O'Shea could join us, or, if still too busy, could put Don on stand-by to respond. There will certainly be at least one other Queensland electorate required to soon make another informed expression of their will. A majority of voters in Surfers Paradise have already been denied their choice of 17 February, and should be most interested to hear the ABC broadcast the above sort of debate, and have the new candidates participate in it, or at least respond. What do you think? Shouldn't Kawana and other electorates where elections failed to produce a majority in February, also make another, and much more informed, expression of their will? Should the ABC help such electors hear informed debate of the simple but still suppressed "democratic truth"? Perhaps Don can tell us when the writs for the Surfers Paradise by-election are issued. Regards, and looking forward to a reply - by phone (or can I call you?) Jim Stewart Phone:+617 3411 7646 Mobile: 04 1427 4420 (voice-mail) This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
Antony Green, Can you show me where in the Act it states that they have the authority to remove from the total, formal votes that exhaust early. Thereby stating that unless you vote for one of the major parties your ballot will be removed from the total number of ballots making your vote null and void. Antony, 50% plus 1 of the electorate is exactly that. In the seat of KAWANA; Representative PrimaryVotesPrefFromPHONTotalInc Pref Exhausted PHON ALP 10065 1311 11376 LIB 9023 1133 10156 PHON4524 2080 == === Total Formal Votes 23612 2444 Required 50% plus 1 = (23612 divided by 2) plus 1 = 11807 The reality of this situation is that the exhausted 2080 votes from PHON are excluded from the total count. That is 8.8% of that electorate has been disenfranchised. IE Your vote is not part of the total electorate. So the new Total ballots remaining is reduced by 2080 ballots. IE 23612 - 2080 = new total formal votes 21532. That means that 2080 ballots were valid in the first count and invalid in the second count. Where is the Authority to remove 2080 ballots from the total formal ballots of the seat of KAWANA? If 100% of the ballot is counted to determine who has gained 50% plus 1 of the ballot. Then why are you stating that 2080 ballots will be removed from the ballot. Again where is the Authority to remove those ballots from the total. The whole reason for counting preferences is because no one has got 50% plus 1 ballots of the total formal ballots of the electorate in the first count. So then in the second count 2080 ballots are removed from the total formal ballot. 100% of the Seat of KAWANA is 23612 50% plus 1 of the seat of KAWANA is (23612 divided by 2) plus 1 = 11807 Your version is: 100% is 23612 - 2080ballots = "21532" - What happened to the 2080 people's ballots. 50% plus 1 = (21532 divided by 2) plus 1 = 10767 of your culled electored. If you new who they were you may as well write a letter to those 2080 electors and tell them their ballots will not be required at the next election. Democracy, yeah right 100% of the electorate less 8.8% equals 91.2% of the electorate. That better 50% plus 1 of 91.2% of the electorate, there you go if you fudge the numbers you can make anything look right. I suggest you take out the act and read what it says, not what think it says. Antony I've just realised who you are. You're the guy that was tapping at the notebook computer on election night! Regards Jess - Original Message - From: "Antony Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Wolter Joosse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sunday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Queensland Radio'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ourradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruce Kirkpatrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Derek Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Neil Baird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ian McLeod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "City Country Alliance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Selwyn Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian McDermott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "McGuinness, Paddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dorothy Pratt MLA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Neither Newsgroup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ron Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Pasquarelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paterson, Ian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tony Pitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom Round" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Sheehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Graham Strachan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Queensland Times'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Darryl Wheeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jess Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Letters The Australian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Noel Preston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Peter Brun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 01 March, 2001 11:20 AM Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea Jim, The Queensland electoral act states that for a candidate to be declared elected after preferences, they only require a majority
Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea
Jim, The Queensland electoral act states that for a candidate to be declared elected after preferences, they only require a majority of the votes with continuing preferences remaining in the count. Candidates are validly elected even if they do not have a majority of the formal vote. They only need a majority of votes remaining in the count. There is no such thing as a 'failed election'. This has always been so in both New South Wales and Queensland since the introduction of optional preferential voting. What you are talking about with 'failed' elections exists in some parts of the United States, and are generally followed by run-off elections between leading candidates. Run-off elections were used briefly in NSW between 1910 and 1917, but to my knowledge, have never otherwise been used in Australia. As I have explained to you in the past, the provision in the Commonwealth Electoral Act which you claim can force a 'failed election' is not there for the purpose you claim. This bears no relevance anyway to where optional preferential voting is used. Antony Green This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
