[LINK] Electronic Voting

[Stewart Fist]

Howard writes:

> No longer the case in federal elections.  In '98 the law was changed.
> Now any ballot paper that does not have one. and only one, "1", and does
> not have other non-repeated numbers for a total of N-1 candidates is
> informal.  You are allowed to leave one candidate blank because that is
> assumed to be your last preference.  The law is different in NSW
> elections (I think still)

Surely you are confusing two things here.  One is the sequential marking of
a ballot (ie not allowing two 1s) with the need to fill in every the total
heirarch from top to bottom.

Optional preferential, to me, means that you can number from 1 to any number
you choose, and leave the others blank.  While full preference, means that
you must number all of the candidates, without leaving any blank.

I didn't know the law had been changed to allow you not to number the last
candidate, but if this is so, it still seems to me to be a case of full
preference + some flexibility to allow for idiots.  It was probably
acceptable even under the old laws, because the courts always held a ballot
was valid if it provided a clear indication of the voter's preference (ie.
where people used a tick for one, then numbered the others 2 >> n).


> you are breaking the law if you encourage voters to vote informally (famous
> case about 10 years ago - name eludes me - matter)

It was Albert Langer.
And I think this was a clear case of government abuse of his rights.


-- 
Stewart Fist, writer, journalist, film-maker
70 Middle Harbour Road, LINDFIELD, 2070, NSW, Australia
Ph +61 (2) 9416 7458