Interesting article.

Parliaments are indeed a relic of information-processing technology from an age when, in order to get input from the public, you needed to elect a person to get on his horse and ride to a central place for deliberation in which only a minority, literally an elite, could participate.

That excuse is now gone, as the Electoral Commission is proving by its extension of internet voting; and by the widespread proliferation of internet banking, tax, etc. I'm not necessarily advocating it, but by the logic of democracy, there is no reason why this should not be extended, and there's no reason why it should be to elect "representatives" (ha ha) rather than to vote directly on issues.

It is not answer to say it might lead to "administrative gridlock" or "lame duck governments". This would be to presume that governments have primacy, and the will of the people comes strictly second - that governments are our masters, and we are their servants - precisely the opposite of the foundational assumption of modern democracy.

A simple though experiment proves that, if the people were to vote directly on proposed laws or executive actions, the results would almost certainly run counter to the agendas of established governments. This only goes to disprove the assumption that the elitism, coercion and incompetence of elected governments is more representative of the people, than the *voluntary* actions of the people are in the first place.

I must be missing some subtleties here.

The present system has little to do with horses.

"...the role of periodic elections and parliaments are revealed as what they are: technologies of a horse-drawn age<<

(The role "are" revealed, Mr Chen? Tch tch)

I disagree. It is more to do with profit-and-loss reports versus balance sheets. In business, you can be in profit one month, but make a loss the next. One thing that you don't do in that situation, is to make key decisions on the basis of the current-month's performance, since it might be misleading. At the end of the period - the balance-sheet date - you will be in a better position to determine whether your business is healthy.

Similarly with elections.

Historically, any government tends to be "on the nose" up to the halfway point of its term. Some - as this one - find themselves on a continuing downward path, while others claw their way back into contention. But making a decision on who should govern on a daily, weekly, monthly or even annual basis, is a recipe for administrative chaos.

"Voting early" denies the individual the right to change their mind, since - if I read the system correctly - once a candidate has "met their quota", he or she is (somehow) elected.

But to what? The existing parliament? The next one?

"Had NSW had this type of system, the election would have been over long ago."

True. But that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

For a start, it would have given the incoming government carte blanche to announce any policy they felt inclined, safe in the knowledge that the outcome is assured. How does that help? Could I revoke the vote, that I made "months, if not a year" ago, should I disapprove of these policies?

If not, why not? And if so, how would my early vote change the situation?

There is plenty wrong with our various political systems in Australia. But I don't think this proposal is likely to solve anything.

Internet voting is greatly to be preferred over the current system, if only for the reason that two factor identification is required.

For some reason that escapes me in this modern day and age, voters are NOT required to produce ID when they are voting. This opens up the reality, oft expressed by the Labor Party at election time - Vote Early, Vote Often - whereby motivated individuals could rock up to all twenty voting booths in an electorate, claim to be a particular individual at a particular address, and vote 20 times.

Those 20 votes in the ballot box are anonymous, and would certainly be counted. Do that with 50 motivated individuals, and you can soon see that the outcome can be influenced.

The only sanction that the Electoral Commission has is that some time after the election, its computers will identify that those individual voters voted multiple times. They will go and knock on his door and ask him about it. All he has to do is deny that he voted multiple times, and claim that he cast his vote at a particular voting booth at a particular time. Given that no ID was required, the Electoral Commission doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Internet voting, with two factor identification, overcomes this serious deficiency in the current system.

Herbert makes a valid point about the high risk of electoral fraud under the current archaic system of voting where no ID is required in Australia. In contrast, Ghana, a West African country with 21 million people, requires a current, high security, photo voter's ID card and the application of indelible ink to the finger nail of the voter; two good measures to prevent electoral fraud.

There’s certainly no reason why the current Australian electoral systems for internet voting with two forms of ID cannot be used for every Australian elector. Internet booths for those who do not have home internet. The cost savings would be massive and the final poll results would be in within a few minutes of polls closing.

An interesting thought, Herbert Stencil.

>>...motivated individuals could rock up to all twenty voting booths in an electorate, claim to be a particular individual at a particular address, and vote 20 times<<

Every time I have been to a polling booth, my name has been firmly ruled through on their print-out, with a thick black line.

Maybe naively, I had assumed that the Electoral Commission had a system where the different booths did a cross-check at the end of the day, and sent a strongly-worded "please explain" to anyone whose name had been crossed off more than once.

Is this not the case? Are they really that stupid?

Nothing about government business and administration ever surprises me.

But that would come damn close.

Pericles
If I was to attempt electoral fraud using multiple votes, I’d pick someone else’s name not my own. So when the poor patsy whose name I used is approached by the electoral commission, they’d be able to say honestly that it’s not their fault