Talk:Electoral system of Australia/Archive 2011

Do not edit this page. This is the archive of Talk:Electoral system of Australia for the year 2011. (Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.)
See the annual archives for 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

Compulsory to be marked off, or compulsory to vote?

I've heard "it's not compulsory to vote, only to get your name checked off the electoral roll" from many people. However, none of them so far have offered a cite for this claim; "hard to prosecute" doesn't mean "legal".

The Electoral Act[1] is quite clear: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election." It repeatedly refers thereafter to "failure to vote" in the regulations concerning punishment for non-voting.

AFAICT, the confusion arises from other portions of the Act which note that failure to get marked off the rolls can be considered as evidence of failure to vote (and in practice, that's the usual form of evidence). However, I'm yet to see anything saying that this is the *only* form of evidence that would be accepted.

If I walk in, get my name checked off, tear up the ballot I'm given in front of the officials and other witnesses, then sign a stat dec. confirming that I did not vote... it seems to me that I could well and truly be fined under section 245. --Calair 02:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The counter example to this claim would be the electoral system in the ACT - specifically electronic voting. You are allowed by the computer programme to cast an invalid vote, or even submit a "blank" ballot (ie no vote cast), although it will apparently try to gently persuade you to actually vote formal. This would suggest something greater than mere acceptance of something that is hard to prevent, and at least a pseudo-legality to informal voting in the ACT.

--Jlsa 14:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no system in place for people who have their names marked off the roll and then tear up the ballot paper. If such a thing was witnessed by an electoral officer, the persons name would not then be "unmarked' from the roll (if they could even remember the persons name by that point, given thousands of people move through each polling booth), therefore they would not receive a Failure to Vote notice. - drewga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.55.1 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you take the effort to get your name marked off, they do not care if you voted or not. plus there would be no eveidence that you put in a blank ballot, except someones word, somehow i dont think they care enough to prosecute with such flimsy evidence. Phil Ian Manning (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Playmander

Whoever wrote that section, either through ignorance or malice, chose not to attribute any blame for the Playmander to the LCL, instead wholely handing it to the constitution. Reason? Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Playmander article is equally confused, stating the 2:1 ratio was set by the 1856 constitution but then reached as the result of an increase in the 1930s.

I think the text of the 1856 constitution is available at Documenting Democracy and it doesn't say anything about rural:urban ratios for either House. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)