Foreword

Australia is presently engaged in an undeclared war that has multiple fronts involving a diverse groups of protagonists; huge business corporations, wealthy elites, Marxist ideologues and Nation States. This assault would be better countered and even neutralised if Australia had competent people in Parliament, a Public Service which is not poorly led, a system of Government that did not confer upon the politicians excessive power over the citizens whose interests and concerns they are supposed to represent and a Constitution that had as one of its aims the protection of citizens' rights as well as limiting the power of politicians. Put simply, the present dangerous and lamentable situation is due to:

• poor quality political candidates, combined with;
• poorly conducted elections, leading to;
• poor quality parliamentarians, who have;
• far too much power, because of;
• the present Structure of our Government; and
• deficiencies in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

This essay is actually part one of a three part series dealing with:

1. how it might be possible to improve the quality of those persons who are elected to Parliament,
2. changes that I believe are necessary to Australia's system of Government in order that there been good governance, and
3. changes necessary to the Constitutions, at all levels throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, both to codify the two reforms touched upon above and to put in place the necessary protections and limitations of power such that the rights of citizens are protected and Government delivers its services in the most cost effective manner.

IDEAS THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF AUSTRALIA'S ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

Introduction

Sensible Australians would agree it is in everyone's interest that those persons elected to office are of the highest calibre possible. A study of the history of Australia makes one suspicious the country has suffered because the political and electoral system conspire against this ideal. If these deficiencies are not energetically remedied, it is possible that Australia could be permanently ruined or even taken over by a foreign power. No system is perfect but it is possible to maximise the chances of having the best people in Parliament by:

1. making it less onerous for a person to put themselves forward to the electorate for consideration for public office;
2. ensuring all candidates have the opportunity to inform voters of their attitude to matters, deemed by the electorate to be important, and their ideas as to how these issues might be effectively addressed;
3. providing a convenient means by which voters can be fully informed about each candidate;
4. inducing voters through education and encouragement to give a lot of thought to the qualifications, achievements and character of candidates as well as to the various issues confronting their electorate (and country) and, as a consequence, cause voters to cast a well-considered, judicious vote;
5. enforcing rules for voting that mitigate the effect of uninterested voters and which do not favour a particular interest group, wealthy corporations or wealthy individuals or a political party; and
6. having a system of voting that is, as much as is practicable, immune to fraud.

I will now deal with each of these items in some detail.

Making it Easier for People to Run for Public Office - The Disadvantages that Independent Candidates Suffer.

Candidates running for election broadly fall into three categories:

1. Independent Candidates,
2. Candidates that belong to a Group, and
3. Candidates that belong to a Political Party.

Political Parties and Those Candidates supported by the Wealthy or Activist Groups

At this point in the discussion, it should be noted that political Parties are useful in a democracy in that they allow people to come together to form policies as to what would be best for whatever they would govern should they be elected to office. They also can be useful for vetting prospective candidates within their group, by way of a pre-selection (or "Primary" as the Americans call it); deciding who would be best to go forth as a candidate representing the Party. Unfortunately, political Parties are not good for democracy. Their failings were detailed by President George Washington in his departing address in 1796. Importantly, when a person belongs to a political Party, should the policies of the Party conflict with the interests of the electorate, the political Party policies will take precedence over the interests and concerns of an elected representatives electorate.

In a similar vein, candidates that are supported by wealthy individuals or interest groups will likely owe those entities a debt of gratitude should be they be elected. Once again, there is the probability such candidates will not always properly represent the interests and concerns of the people that elected them but, instead, do the bidding of those that enabled their election.

Political Parties are potentially an impediment to having the best possible person in Parliament as well as being a threat to democracy because:

• The Quality of Candidates is diminished by Party Intrigues. Politics and intrigues within a Party can interfere with the selection of the best person to run as a candidate. To some extent this deleterious effect may be reduced by:
  • Requiring all members of a branch vote during pre-selections of electoral candidates. (It is generally the practice with most political parties that only those persons who attend the meeting on the night of the preselection election will vote.)
  • Making it illegal for any entity, external to a branch, "parachuting" a pre-selection candidate into the Branch without first having the consent of the majority of the branch.
• Party Policies Override the Interests of Constituents. Where Party policies do not align with the interests and concerns of an electorate, in most Parties, these polices take precedence, in which case elected representatives often do not properly represent the people who put them into office. 
• Political Parties can degrade the Protection Intended by the Bicameral System of Parliament. Political Parties weaken the protection against capricious Government intended by having an Upper and Lower House (called a bicameral system). The Upper House is intended to be a house of review and the electoral system was deliberately designed with the intention of the Upper House having a different political complexion to that of the Lower House. Unfortunately, what the framers of the Australian system of Government had not anticipated was the effect that political parties might have in nullifying the safeguard intended by having a bicameral system. If a particular party, or a coalition of Parties, is dominant in the Upper and Lower House, it is likely, especially in the case of Labor and the Greens Party, that the Upper House will not properly fulfil its function as the "House of Review".

For these reasons, political Parties may not actually be working in the best interests of the community nor the country; especially if influential members of that party have been captured by foreign or wealthy interests (like, for example, The World Economic Forum, The United Nations, George Soros, Simon Homes a Court, the CCP, the Defence Industrial Complex and Pharmaceutical Industries… to name but a few!).

It is therefore important, for true democracy, that every opportunity should be given to truly independent candidates to compete with candidates being supported by political Parties and the wealthy or interest groups. This means that the electoral system should afford to these truly independent candidates as much assistance as is reasonable without showing favouritism to any candidate, regardless of their affiliation

Persons who run as independents or as members of a group face a disadvantage under the present law, compared to those candidates that are members of a political Party:

1. Inability for Independents to campaign and accept donations before they are registered: 
1. Under present law, persons who do not belong to a political Party are not allowed to formally campaign nor are they allowed to accept campaign donations until they are registered. Registration does not open until around 6 weeks before election day. Recently pre-polling has been introduced where, in some cases, voters may vote up to 2 weeks before election day. Up to 70% of voters in the 2024 NSW Council elections voted early. This only gives independent candidates around 4 to 5 weeks to accept donations, design and purchase election signage and literature and try to make themselves known to the electorate. On the other hand, persons who belong to a Party may campaign all year round in the name of the Party, become known to the electorate and the Party can accept donations and fees from its members at any time and this money will fund the activities of prospective candidates who are, de facto, campaigning for the next election. In the case of persons who are already holding elected office, the disadvantage is even more extreme. The elected person may send out literature, using public money, to effectively advertise themselves under the guise of informating the public what "their government" is doing for them.
2. The simple solution to this is that registration for an election should be available to independents up to 2 years before an election is due to be held. If a person registers their interest in running for election, they could go through the normal steps to be registered and even obtain nominations at that time. They could also open up a special bank account specifically for the purposes of accepting donations for the purposes of conducting their campaign.
2. Independents lack the Resources that are Available to Candidates that Belong to Parties. Unless an independent candidate is backed by wealthy supporters, they will lack the resources that are available to candidates that belong to political Parties. These resources extend beyond being financial in that, in most cases, the membership of the Party is also there to support Party candidates; doing such things as door-knocking and delivering advertising material to letter boxes. The challenge for any candidate is to become known to the electorate. Given most electorates have between 50,000 and 100,000 voters, it is impossible for an individual to meet all of the voters by knocking on doors, visiting markets and walking the streets and shopping centres. Reaching voters requires advertising. Lots of it! and that in most cases, costs a lot of money and can consume a lot of manpower. This money and effort enhances the chances of a candidate being elected but just because a candidate is backed by considerable resources does not necessarily mean they are the best person to be elected to Parliament.

Ensuring all Candidates have the opportunity to inform Voters - The Role Electoral Commissions could play

Electoral Commissions could play a vital role in ensuring the best candidates are elected to office by:

1. Informing the Public of an Election. When an election has been called, the Electoral Commission could send to every voter, on the pertinent voter roll, a letter, email and/or SMS notifying voters:
   1. of their obligation to vote,
   2. where they can vote, and
   3. when they are required to vote.
This letter could also have a barcode that is unique to the voter. Voters could be offered the opportunity to provide to the electoral commission their driver's licence number or Government issued ID number with the approval for the licensing authority to provide to the electoral commission the photo that is on their licence or ID. When the letter is produced at the polling station this could facilitate voter registration and thereby speed up the process of voting. Not only would this reduce any chance of voter fraud, it would also reduce the number of people required to process voters at polling stations and therefore reduce the cost of an election.
2. Create Website for Voters to Learn about Candidates and Candidates to make themselves known to their Electorate. This same letter, that is used to notify electors of a forthcoming election, could have on it a QR Code that, if scanned, would take the elector to the Electoral Commissions Website which would have the following features:
   • Candidates Conveniently Listed. Each candidate for a particular election would be conveniently grouped by election and then the relevant electorate or State, as would be the case, for example, with the Federal Senate Election for the State of New South Wales.
   • User Friendliness Essential. The emphasis at all times has to be convenience and ease of use for the voter. User friendliness of the webpage must be of paramount importance.
   • Electoral Commission must not be allowed to censor or edit Candidate's Statement. Next to each Candidate's photograph would be, say, 250 words of verbiage which the candidate would provide to convince voters that he or she should be elected. The Electoral Commission, by law, would be forbidden from altering this text in any way without the written permission of the Candidate. The Candidate would have the ability to alter the text at any time they wished.
   • Link to Candidates Website for Greater Detail on Candidate. When a voter clicks on a candidate, they would be taken to that candidate’s web-page where the candidate may say and show anything they wished in order to convince the voter they are worthy of their vote. 
   • Provide the means by which Voters can create their own How-To-Vote Pamphlet.  When visiting the Electoral Commission web-page, and once the voter had reviewed the qualifications, life-experience, achievements and policies of candidates, by clicking on something similar to a PayPal icon, the voter could go to a secure site where it would be possible to anonymously produce a "How-To-Vote" pamphlet which they can then take to the polling booth on election day.
     • This facility would ensure that voters had given some thought before the day of voting as to who is the best candidate for them.
     • The entitlement to use the express lane at the polling station would be an inducement for electors to create their own "How to Vote" card.
     • It would help all candidates become known to the electors regardless of the backing they may or may not be receiving from their political Party, wealthy individuals or interest groups.
   • Create an "Express-Lane Ticket". This Electoral Commission website could also create a "registration ticket" with a barcode for those voters that use this facility. This piece of paper would then entitle the voter to join an express lane at the polling booths because the barcode could be quickly scanned to register them as attending the polling booth. (Not unlike a ticket for boarding an commercial flight.) For added security, this system could also incorporate a picture of the voter which would be used by the person handing out the ballot papers, to further ensure that the holder of the letter was indeed the eligible voter.
   • Networking Prevents Elector Fraud. If the system of voter registration at polling stations on election day was networked, it would be possible to quickly determine if someone was trying to vote twice.

Ensuring all Candidates have the opportunity to inform Voters - The Role Local Councils could play

Councils could play a constructive role in making it easier for candidates to become known to electors and for electors to be better informed regarding who they are voting for:

1. Councils to Allocate by Lottery, Public Spaces for the Display of Election Signage. At present any candidate wishing to display signage has to seek the approval of private property owners or pay for advertising space on a billboard. There are two problems with this approach. The first is that a lot of people do not want to advertise their political allegiances. That is the whole point of a secret ballot. The next is that the hiring of advertising space on, say, bus-stops and roadside signs, costs money and once again favours those candidates that are well resourced financially. This is not in the best interests of all constituents. As a consequence, Councils should allocate space for the display of candidate signage by lottery and, once that is done, notify each candidate of their allotment. As at the time of writing, candidates who display signs on public land in Ballina Shire could face fines of up to $3,000.
2. Councils to Include on all Correspondence, within the Address Fields, the Ward in which the Addressee Resides. This comment is specifically directed to Council elections. From my own personal experience, I found that around 20% of people arrive at polling stations unsure of what Ward they belong to. The question must be asked, "If they don't know what Ward they live in, how can they possibly cast a considered vote for a candidate?!" The short answer is, "They can't". How the effect of these uninterested voters can be nullified will be dealt with later in this paper.

Influences that Adversely Affect the Quality of Parliamentarians

There are presently a number of influences that do not contribute to this ideal of having an informed voter cast a considered vote. Nor, in some instances is there a system that causes the elector to cast their vote directly for a candidate without an intermediary, such as a political party or wealthy entity, interposing itself between the elector and the choice of candidate. These debasing influences are as follows:

1. The Effect of Compulsory Voting and Volitional Voting.  The factors related to compulsory and volitional voting are as follows:
1. Reasoning underpinning Compulsory Voting. Compulsory voting was introduced by Queensland in 1915. The Federal Government followed suit soon after in 1922. The pretext for the introduction of compulsory voting was poor voter turnout. This speaks to the general apathy of the Australian public when it comes to matters political. It also demonstrates that the powers of the day were not inclined to exercise their imagination as to how voters might be induced to vote. For example, it might have been possible to reward everyone who voted with a gift of some sort as distinct from paying people to vote for a particular candidate. Advocates of compulsory voting justify it by saying:
• If everyone votes, no one has grounds for complaint about the result.
• If voting were not compulsory, it is likely only those persons with extreme viewpoints would vote and this could possibly result in persons with extreme political viewpoints being elected. If this were to be the case, there is the possibility that the country or municipalities would oscillate from one extreme ideology to the other; something that is not good for overall societal stability and good governance.
• When voting is not compulsory and some sort of non-partisan inducement is not provided by the Government, far greater resources, in terms of money and personnel, are needed to inveigle people to vote. This favours those groups that are well organised and well funded. These groups or organisations may not necessarily be acting in the interests of the whole community but instead are driven by a sectional or profit motive. In the US, it is typical that candidates have to raise millions of dollars in order to stand a chance of being elected. In that process, they usually have to do deals with wealthy elites who are looking to influence the Government to pass laws which will benefit them, often-times at the expense of the community and even national security.


2. The Major Disadvantage of Compulsory Voting - The Uninterested Voter. The major disadvantage of compulsory voting is that the outcome of an election could be decided by voters who are not well informed, not discerning and generally not interested in politics. The effect of the uninterested voters poorly informed and injudicious decisions is potentially very harmful to the prosperity of this nation and the well-being of its people. Here are some points to consider in this regard:
   • 

     Fig 1. Victoria's Public Debt Since Andrews Government

     A significant portion of the Australian populace is apathetic and not engaged with the politics of the country. (Poor participation is a factor in all Western countries where voting is not compulsory.) That was the reason given for introducing compulsory voting in Queensland in 1918 and Federally in 1922.
   • The uninterested voter tends either to simply number the ballot serially, called "The Donkey Voter", or, at the last moment, takes a "How to Vote" leaflet from someone outside a polling station and effectively delegates their voting choice to a Party or a group funded by a wealthy entity without giving much thought as to the character, achievements and ability of the candidates being promoted by that entity.
   • The order of candidates listed on the ballot are decided by lottery. It is generally accepted that if one is fortunate enough to be at the top of a ballot, it can result in a 2% to 5% advantage and that can be, at times, the difference between not being elected and being elected.
   • Similarly an uninterested voter is unlikely expend any time or effort to explore beyond the headlines, presented by a biased media, in order to determine the real truth of various issues of importance to the community and country. Often controversies are complex and there is not a perfect answer to solving them. It requires effort and thought something the uninterested voter is not prepared to give. This situation of complacency, favours the group that has the most number of volunteers handing out "How to Vote" leaflets and has control of the media.
   • Independent candidates who may be of a far higher quality than their competing Party-appointed candidate, favoured by the media, are at a distinct disadvantage. By way of anecdotal example, when I was running as an Independent for the Seat of Ballina, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation visited the polling station at which I was campaigning. They interviewed the Labor, Nationals and Greens candidate but declined to interview me. In similar vein, the Labor Party can harness the manpower of Labor Unions as exemplified by the Victorian elections that saw the Andrews' Labor Government gain power.


2. Eliminating the Downside of Compulsory Voting thereby making it the Best System.When the pros and the cons of compulsory and non-compulsory voting are considered, compulsory voting is far better for democracy provided the effect of the uninterested voter is nullified. The main reason compulsory voting is attractive, besides the fact it engages the entire population, is that the whole process is less influenced by money which means it is a more faithful representation of the 'will of the people' than is the case when voting is voluntary. It is therefore necessary that thought be given as to how it might be possible to ameliorate the effect of uninterested voters such that votes are cast, to the maximum extent possible, by discerning, informed and politically-engaged voters. There are also things which can be done to lessen even further the effect money might have on the outcome of an election such that the best candidate, rather than the best resourced, is elected to public office. How that might be achieved will largely take up the rest of this essay.


3. What should be the Voting Age? There is the saying that, "If at 18 years of age you are not a socialist you have no heart. If you are still a socialist at 30, you have no brain." It has been the subject of much debate in the past as to the age the brain is considered “fully mature” or developed. Whilst it is permissible, even unavoidable and, indeed advantageous to development, that young people make poor decisions (and hopefully learn from that experience), it is not acceptable that these low quality decisions affect the whole nation as occurs when these immature persons are permitted to vote. There is a need for serious debate as to what the age should be for citizens to be eligible to vote. Here are some thoughts that may form the basis for further debate on this subject:
   • At what age is the human brain fully mature? In the past, many experts believed that the brain may have been fully developed in the mid to late teens. This opinion changed as a consequence of evidence suggesting the intellectual maturity of a person may not be fully complete until the age of 20. These days, a consensus of neuroscientists agree that brain development likely persists until at least the mid-20s – possibly until the 30s. The fact that the brains of most citizens aren't developed until the mid 20s means that “legal adults” (those aged 18+) are allowed to make adult decisions, without fully mature brains. Someone who is 18 may make riskier decisions than someone in their mid-20s in part due to lack of experience, but primarily due to an underdeveloped brain and a poor education system that has lately become one of indoctrination rather than education. All behaviours and experiences a person endures until the age of 25 will likely have a beneficial impact on their general maturity.
   • What has been the result of lowering the eligible age of voters? With the lowering of the voting age, Parties such as the Greens and Labor, which are overtly socialist in their ideology, have gained traction. This is particularly the case with the Greens whose policies on the surface appear to be both benign and laudable but, underneath, there is a strong vein of cultural Marxism; something that has been proven to be destructive to any society in which it held sway. The innate nature of humans is such that socialism, the extreme of which is communism, invariably results in a lower standard of living and prosperity for all; not to mention the misery caused by the consequential repression of individual liberty and privacy.
   • Why reducing the age of voters is appealing to some Parties? The primary reason the Labor Party, and now The Greens Party, are so enamoured of allowing 18+ year olds to vote is that they will likely vote for socialism; especially if they are in the clutches of academia where a significant proportion of educators are adherents of this type of economic and social system. In the case of the Greens they are now campaigning for the voting age to be dropped to 16 years of age. The tactic here is to further corrupt the quality of the vote. The matter of what should be the legal age for voting when this change was made was never put to a plebiscite.
   • What is the Justification for lowering the age of the voter? The main justification for allowing persons from 18 years of age to vote rested upon the fact that some persons of this age pay taxes and can be drafted for military service.
   • How to raise the age and overcome objections? Raising the age for service in combat operations to 25 for those persons who are conscripted during a National emergency would eliminate one of the justifications for lowering the eligible age of voters. Volunteers could still enter the military at the age of 18 and participate in combat operations when deemed to be suitably trained and capable. With regard to persons from 18 to 25 years of age paying taxes and therefore requiring representation through the vote, this can be solved by exempting citizens from taxation until they reach the age of 25. Having carried out a rough poll, I have found that many persons in this age group were actually keen for such a change in voting policy if, indeed, they were exempted from paying tax until they reached voting age. Given many persons up to 25 years of age are not in regular employment and those that are, are generally not highly paid, the loss of taxation revenue is likely to be affordable to the nation when one considers the likely benefit of having mature persons determine its fate.
   • This is a Debate that the Nation has never had but, for the good of all, really should. To improve the quality of vote cast, it is imperative that serious consideration be given to raising the voting age to 25 years of age. Given that the Greens Party wants to lower the age of voting to 16 years of age, for the obvious reason of further degrading the quality of the vote, it would be very difficult for any politician to cause the age of voting to be raised to 25. This should be a matter for a Referendum as politicians should never be allowed to decide on electoral matters because they are compromised by venal self-interest. Though this issue may seem to be one that could not be won at a referendum, it must be remembered that the Australian public rejected "The Voice" Referendum despite the Government and Corporations spending in excess of $600 million trying to convince them to vote "Yes". The real obstacle will be getting Parliament to vote in favour of a Referendum on this issue.
4. Above and Below the Line Ballot Layout. In 1984, Australia implemented, without plebiscite, a system where, for the Upper House, Parties and Groups appear above a line on the ballot paper whereas individual, independent candidates are listed separately below this line. (This is often referred to as "Above and Below the Line Voting") Since this system of voting was introduced, there has not been a truly independent candidate elected to the Senate. The order of preference of persons appearing above the line is determined by their political party. Voters have no choice in preferencing candidates who are listed above the line within a grouping and that means Party intrigue could result in the best candidate within a Party not being elected. When a voter casts their vote they may number one or a few boxes above the line or they are expected to put a number in ascending order of magnitude, and serially numbered, against a large number of individual candidates listed below the line. Voting above the line is considerably easier than voting below the line. For example, in the NSW State Election of 2023, voters only had to put the number 1 in one of the boxes above the line but had to number candidates from 1 to 15 if voting below the line. Not only is voting below the line considerably more difficult and inconvenient than voting above the line, there is a far greater chance, when voting below the line, of casting an informal vote due to misnumbering. As a consequence of this system, it is most unlikely an independent candidate will ever be elected to the Upper House, yet it is in the Upper House, the "House of Review", where independent thought is most needed. This is not good for Australia's system of democracy because the whole purpose of the bicameral system of Parliament is for the Senate shall be the house of review. That is one of the reasons the electoral cycle for the Senate is different to that of the House of Representatives; the intended purpose of this being founded in the desire the Senate be of a different political complexion to that of the House of Representatives. (This same logic applies to the Legislative Assemblies and the Legislative Councils in those States that have a bicameral system of Parliament.) If, however, the same party, or coalition of parties, is dominant in the Upper House and the Lower House, the bicameral safeguard against capricious and imprudent legislation is greatly degraded.

Suggested Reforms that would Counter those Influences which degrade the Quality of the Vote

From the above, I concluded that Compulsory Voting is, for a number of reasons, a better system than voluntary voting. The disadvantage of this system is that the uninterested voter can have a significant effect on the outcome of an election to the detriment of the nation. It is therefore necessary that thought be given to how it might be possible to nullify the effect uninterested voters might have on the outcome of an election. Put simply, I believe we need to have the following reforms to our electoral process in order to counter the effects of the uninterested voter and sectional interest groups, such as Unions, Radical Activists and Wealthy Elites who may exploit the inherent vulnerabilities of the present electoral system to gain an advantage which is not in the best interests of the majority of Australians:

1. Raise the Voting Age to 25. The reasoning underpinning this recommendation is given above. The majority of people are generally not fully mature until they reach the age of 25. This is particularly the case in this modern era where a significant proportion of our youth go to University and don't actually enter the workforce until they are past 21 years of age. Raising the age of the vote to 25 may seem like a hopeless proposition but I suspect it is not if, as a "quid pro quo", persons below 25 years of age were exempted military service in combat operations and from paying income tax. If this matter were put to a referendum, rather than being left to the feckless cabal of politicians that presently populate the benches of parliaments at all levels within the Commonwealth, it is possible the public would agree. Australia has nothing to lose by putting it to a Referendum of the people but it has a lot to lose if this country continues on its present trajectory.


Fig 3. Example Ballot with Candidates in Randomised Order
Click to Enlarge



Fig 2. Ballot with Candidates in Order
Click to Enlarge



2. Ballots Should List Candidates in Random Order. Candidates should appear on the ballot in random order such that each ballot when being issued is different to the one that preceded it and this continues until all the permutations and combinations of the presentation order of these candidates is expended, at which point, the cycle repeats. For example if there are 10 candidates on a ballot, the total number of permutations and combinations would be 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1=3,628,800 different orders of presentation of candidates so, in this case, 3,628,800 ballots would be issued until the first ballot issue repeats itself. This would eliminate the effect of the "Donkey Voter" as well as the uninterested, apathetic voter.  Because Digital Printing Technology is, now, no more expensive than offset printing, printing names on ballots in a random sequence is both practical and economical. Some people have (rightly) opined that doing this would make counting of the ballots difficult. There are a number of ways this difficulty could be overcome. Fig 1 shows a ballot where candidates are listed in an orderly fashion with boxes for each candidate being in a specific column. Fig 2 shows a ballot where the order of presentation of the candidates has been jumbled. In both cases, the candidate's box appears in the same column. This makes counting simpler both for people and for tabulation machines should the latter be used. (On the matter of machines, I am very much opposed to voting on line or the use of machines for tabulation where the latter's detailed operation cannot be randomly and frequently checked in real time by scrutineers as the machine performs its counting function. In both instances it is possible for a person knowledgeable in Computer Science to defraud the system in such a manner that detection of that fraud is almost impossible to detect. A further problem with on-line voting is that one cannot be absolutely sure the person casting the vote is indeed the person on the voting roll nor that the person has not been induced or coerced to vote in a certain way. There is no substitute for in-person secret voting at a properly run polling station on the day of the election with all voters providing an approved ID to establish they are who they say they are.)


3. Party Affliation of Candidates Not Shown on Ballot. Many people give little thought to the candidates; instead trusting the Party to pick the best person. As previously explained, because of factionalism and intrigues within a Party, the best candidate may not be the one selected to run in a particular election. It is therefore best that the Party to which a candidate belongs not be shown on the ballot. This would force voters to do some research before coming to vote instead of simply voting along Party lines. If they do not do that research then the random order of candidates on the ballot will eliminate the effect of those voters who have given no thought as for whom they will vote on election day.


4. No Above and Below the Line Voting for the Senate or Upper House. There should not be an above and below the line system of voting for the Senate and, for that matter, any other Government election held in Australia. Under this proposed arrangement where there is no "above and below" the line voting, it would still be possible to group candidates by their Parties and for each Party to suggest rather than dictate the order of preference to voters but the actual vote (and therefore order of preference) has to be made by the voter filling in a number next to each Candidate's name in the column of Party candidates. In the case of the Upper House elections, there are a set number of positions for which the candidates are vying. In the case of the Senate, for each a State, there are usually 6 Senate vacancies at normal elections, ie, not a double dissolution. In this instance, a voter would be expected to put a 1 next to each of the 6 candidates they wished to elect to the 6 Senatorial vacancies. If preferential voting is required, voters must, for example, put a 2 and a 3 next to other candidates. Under such a system, candidates that receive a 1, 2 or 3 vote score 3,2 and 1 points respectively. The 6 candidates with the most points would be elected to the 6 vacancies. Should there be a tie, the person with the most 1's would win the seat. Similarly if the 1's are tied then you move onto the 2's and then, if necessary, the most 3's to decide the winner. This would level the field for independent candidates and allow voters to have more control over who is actually elected by way of precisely specifying the preferences they wish to allocate without being unduly inconvenienced. It would be possible, using past ballot results to test the practically of this method of preferential voting. Using the aggregated points system ensures that the preferential voting system is a faithful representation of the preference of the entire population of voters. I am suspicious that this is not the case with the present preferential voting system.


5. Pre-poll should be Abolished.  In order for voters to be fully informed, it is necessary that they be exposed to a full campaign.  Pre-poll is destructive to this ideal and therefore should not be allowed.  As it is, the present two weeks of pre-poll:
• adds markedly to the cost of an election which, in the case of Council Elections, is borne by rate-payers;
• favours large political Parties, Unions or wealthy organisations/individuals because it is necessary to man polling booths for the purposes of handing out How-to-Vote leaflets, for however long the pre-poll period runs; and
• presents a significant security issue in that it is very difficult to be sure the ballots have been held securely; especially if there is corruption within the Electoral Commission itself or officials, trusted with securing the ballots, are threatened or coerced.
6. Forbid handing out How-To-Vote Cards/Pamphlets at Polling Booths.  It should be forbidden to give out "How-To-Vote" leaflets at polling booths.  This would have a number of benefits
• The first is that it would induce people to go to the Electoral Commission website which presented the candidates in order for them to create their own “How-To-Vote” leaflet as well as provide them with an "express-lane" letter that would expedite the voting process, reduce cost and provide superior security.
• The second is that if a person can be convinced how to vote a minute before they go to cast their vote, they have not given the serous matter of candidate selection sufficient thought. Should a voter be uninterested in determining who the best candidates are, without a “How-To-Vote” leaflet thrust into their hand at the last minute, the presentation of candidates in random order on the ballot would nullify the effect of these ill-informed voters on the outcome of the election. Just like pre-poll, the handing out of "How-To-Vote" cards at polling stations favours large parties, unions and those candidates backed by wealthy individuals.  This is not good for democracy. The banning of How-to-Vote Leaflets at polling stations will thus improve the chances that the best candidate is elected to Parliament; not the candidate who, upon being elected, is beholden to the rich and powerful.

How to Effect these Reforms and ensure they are Enduring

The challenge therefore is how to effect these reforms.  I think it unlikely those presently in power would be enthusiastic about these ideas.  After all, many are the beneficiaries of the present system.  Even some public servants in the supposedly neutral and apolitical Electoral Commissions may not be enthusiastic about these reforms because, with pre-poll, for example, the cost, size and complexity of elections in Australia have grown. With this has grown the size of permanent and temporary electoral staff and the wages they command. I think, if these ideas are to become a reality, it would most likely be by way of a "people's movement" pressuring politicians to agree to these changes or that the public only elect representatives who would agree to this reform. Such a people's movement could be started by constituents convincing members of their local Council to take the matter to their State Electoral Commission and then take the matter through that conduit to the Government Department that oversees and makes the regulations for the conduct of elections. In the end, it will require changes to the Electoral Acts in each State and the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918, Federally.

Incorporate these reforms into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

Once these changes are generally agreed, they should be the subject of a Referendum and be incorporated into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia with a stipulation that these reforms must apply to all levels of government,ie, at Federal, State, Territory and local Government as applicable. The reason this is necessary, rather than these reforms simply being enacted by conventional Acts of Parliament at Federal, State and Territory level, is that there is the possibility, sometime in the future, politicians would pass amendments to some or all of these Acts so that the arrangements would once again favour the election of people who are supported by Parties, the wealthy and partisan groups, such as Unions; entities which will always put their interests ahead of those of Australia and its citizens.

- End of Paper -