This perhaps caused removal of your post from http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper#comment-836 :




"Is Klaas Woldring's post of Tuesday, 10/11/2009 at 15:31, in relation to the protocols for submission to this forum, an indicator as to how the Australian electoral process is intended to function in the future?

The forum protocols state, under the sub-heading 'Contributing to the discussion':

"Comments are limited to 2000 characters
(approximately 350 words or less).
You may submit multiple comments if required."

So far as I can discern, Klaas' submission of 1802 words, and 11111 characters including spaces, is all one post. Are we all contributing here under the same rules or not? Is there a word/character limit or isn't there?

Not that any implied criticism is directed at Klaas' post. In fact he makes an important observation in saying "... This is not an independent Inquiry. Objectively, it is an Inquiry launched by a major party, the one that is in Government ...".

Indeed, was it not presented as being a major safeguard when the Australian Electoral Commission was established in 1984, that it effectively reported to the Parliament, via the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, a committee selected from all parties in the Parliament, not to what amounts to the executive government of the Commonwealth? Why have the resources that have evidently been made available for this e-democracy initiative through DPMC not been made available to the JSCEM to undertake this initiative?

Sorry to have to be so seemingly negative so early in the day, but this is not a good look with which to commence the solicitation of public input to review of Australia's electoral process. I guess in a perhaps unintended way it has emphasised the requirement for complete and publicly verifiable transparency in all things touching upon electoral matters.

While being so negative, I'll ask why I had to spend so much time looking for what the Special Minister of State refers to as the 1984 review of electoral legislation, only to eventually find that that legislation was enacted in 1983?"




Sorry, Klaas.

Hugh Jorgensen's 4 November 2009 OLO article 'Sixteen and never been pork-barrelled', http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9605 , which earlier today was showing as the second-most-discussed article for the week on the main page, contained a text link to the Australian government Electoral Reform Green Paper, which was apparently released on 23 September 2009 for public comment and lodgement of submissions. This was the first I had known of it.

Klaas Woldring, a regular contributor to OLO, posted, as did I, to the http://forumspmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper open between Monday 9 November and Friday 13 November 2009 for moderated public input and discussion. The http://forums.pmc.gov.au/forum_guidelines impose a 2000 character (including spaces) limit upon posts, equivalent to around 300 to 350 words. You can see above what happened to Klaas' rather longer post there.



I posted the above apology because Klaas made an important point of public interest with his observation that "... This is not an independent Inquiry. Objectively, it is an Inquiry launched by a major party, the one that is in Government ...".



My post objecting to the absence of any effective automatic word limit, such as operates in the OLO software, was also technically in breach of the pmc forums protocols, being 2015 characters in length. So without this apology to Klaas, the very important point he made, and I acknowledged, would never have become known to the electorally-interested public, as neither post would appear on that other forum.

How good is OLO that it is prepared to allow this topic to go up onto the index dealing with a matter that arose elsewhere! It is nevertheless fitting that, as Australia's e-journal of social and political debate, those interested in having some input to the Green Paper should learn a bit about the nature of that process here. So if OLOers are interested, you had better get in quick, because the forum and submissions have a ridiculously short fuze.

Thanks Hugh, for the heads-up, Klaas, for the observation, and GrahamY, for approving this topic.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum .....

Checking my email, I saw that I had received a communication from the Electoral Reform Secretariat intended for one Mr/Mrs/Miss Stakeholder. It bore the annotation 'SEC=UNKLAASIFIED'. So hopefully reproducing it here for the benefit of OLO viewers will not transgress any of the usual prohibitions that apply when an unintended recipient gets an email with legal information in it. Its text was:




"Dear Stakeholder


You may be interested to know that the online discussion forum on the Australian Government’s second electoral reform green paper, Electoral Reform Green Paper – Strengthening Australia’s Democracy, has been extended. The forum will remain open for comment until 5pm on Friday 27 November 2009 (Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time).

If you are interested, we would welcome your views on what changes should be made to our electoral laws and processes. If you would like to participate in the discussion forum, you can login or register at http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper.


In addition to the online discussion forum, written submissions have been invited on the Green Paper by 27 November 2009. Details on how to make submissions are available at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/consultation/elect_reform/strengthening_democracy/index.cfm#how.


You are receiving this email because you are participating in the discussion forum, indicated your interest in being notified about the forum, provided a submission to the Australian Government’s first electoral reform green paper, or provided a suggestion of a topic for inclusion in the second green paper. If you have any concerns about this email, please contact electoralreformsecretariat@pmc.gov.au."




They definitely got klaas there, in that Secretariat, don't they! Must be of the Elect, mustn't they? There you go GrahamY, ya mighta struck a blow for Australian democracy, or at least what passes for it with over a million people wrongly prevented from being on the electoral rolls, letting this topic go up.

Forrest twirled his wooden stake like a miniature baton, thinking what to post next.

Forrest

<< Forrest twirled his wooden stake like a miniature baton, thinking what to post next. >>

He was, as always, a man on a mission. But he needed a minor distraction for a moment or two, something to focus all that nervous energy coursing through his veins. He was going to need a clear head if he was to successfully execute the next line of attack in this latest crusade of his.

"Ah ha, I know, perhaps I could take a minute out to see if Bronwyn's replied to that rather serious allegation I made against her ... er, when was it ... hmmm ... three days ago. Golly, she could be in a bit of a state by now. I did after all accuse her of committing some fairly serious misdemeanours - 'absolute shockers of identity confidentiality security breaches here on OLO' if I remember correctly, and of course I always do. Pretty heavy stuff really. She could be wondering what the hell I'm on about.

Perhaps I should go back and explain myself. I have a bad habit of talking in riddles and expecting everyone to know exactly what I'm saying.

Now, which thread was it ... yes, I know ... now, a minute should do it ... then it's back to the main game. Why, oh why, do I persist with these little throwaway remarks. I should know by now they just get me into trouble!"

That was the problem with becoming a 'journal of record', like what OLO now was getting to be.

There was just so much dry-as-dust stuff that had to be put up on the electronic page. Like links, for example, to the great tomes of information contained within things like the 'Report on the conduct of the 2007 Federal election and matters related thereto', which, as a matter of interest, could be got as a PDF file here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect07/report2.htm

As, too, could the 'Report on the 2007 Federal election electronic voting trials', here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect07/report.htm

The 'Apology to Klaas Woldring' thread was becoming a sort of parallel universe to the PM&C Forums Electoral Reform Green Paper forum. It was a sort of civic obligation for OLO users to visit the relatively ephemeral 'Green Paper forum' that would soon fade. Not that OLO wanted to encourage competition with itself, but it seemingly accepts the need to share its viewers time with such a site as a sort of 'white man's burden of civic responsibility', if one can use a somwhat condescendingly racist expression in a place so otherwise notably free from such political incorrectness. The 'Green Paper forum can be seen here:

http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper

The thing was, the DP&C Forums protocols forbade the posting of links in posts made to that Green Paper forum. You could see those protocols here, if protocols are the sort of things that turn you on:

http://forums.pmc.gov.au/forum_guidelines

It must have been galling in the extreme for GrahamY to see the speed and seeming ease with which the DP&C Forums had had its software modified to instal an automatic-character-limit-exceedance warning just the other day. If only OLO had access to those sort of resources! But GrahamY could bask in the glory of the fact that the Electoral Reform Secretariat had first learned of this little software shortfall from 'world's best forum practice' right here on OLO.

Better than just saying 'sorry', was saying it with Klaas.

PS Oops, nearly forgot! The 523-page Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/0423C540FFCD2645CA25760800109FA7?OpenDocument

Forrest had made several posts to the PM&C Forums Electoral Reform Green Paper forum. One of them, made on Wed, 11/11/2009 at 10:43, had responded with respect to Chapter 8 (f) of the Conclusions' note asking "Alternatively, are there any administrative solutions that you think could be introduced to support compliance with section 44?". In it Forrest had pointed to a necessary implication of the second paragraph of that Section of the Constitution, one that indicated that aspects of the 1982 legislation removing the franchise from permanently resident British subjects not on the electoral roll as at 25 January 1984, might be unconstitutional.

It was interesting to note, in the Supplementary Remarks to the JSCEM Report on the conduct of the 2007 Federal election, the reliance seemingly placed upon the passage of the Australia Act 1986 as validating legislation enacted four years before the Australia Act ostensibly took effect on 3 March 1986.

An OLO discussion topic, 'Australia Day' should Be Held on 'March 3rd', opened by OLO userID 'Sense', on Saturday, 24 October 2009 at 10:58:20 AM, contains a reference to the Australia Act 1986 having perhaps been invalidly proclaimed. The specific post in which that claim is made is here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3162#74632

The whole thread is accessible by scrolling from that specifically targetted post to which the link delivers the viewer.

An earlier post by Forrest Gumpp in that thread makes the observation that in the co-ordination of the respective States' Request and Consent Acts for the UK Parliament at the time of the passage of the Australia Act 1986 in late 1985, the Commonwealth acted outside the provisions of Section 118 of the Constitution.

Just as a matter of convenience for viewers in this parallel universe, this is a link to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/all/search/24D49A876CFCAFC7CA256F71004CAE7C

Another interesting link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8778#139175

It wasn't only Forrest that had seen referendum issues coming. It seems that so, too, has the Electoral Reform Secretariat, for the Green Paper, under the somewhat innocuous heading to Chapter 8 of "Registration of parties, and candidate nominations", under point 8(f), in part, says:

"Noting the requirement for a referendum,
are there any amendments that you think should be
made to section 44 of the Australian Constitution?"

It is interesting to note this media release by the Special Minister of State, Senator Joe Ludwig, in connection with what Klaas Woldring has so rightly pointed out, by way of warning to all Australians, is the party-of-government's electoral reform agenda:

http://www.smos.gov.au/media/2009/mr_362009.html

Some of Forrest's interest in referendum issues centred around vote formality, and the application of that part of Section 128 of the Constitution prescribing how any referendum vote was to be counted that said:

"And if in a majority of the States
a majority of the electors voting
approve the proposed law, and if a majority
of all the electors voting also approve
the proposed law, it shall be presented
to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

Sir David Smith KCVO AO, former Official Secretary to five Governors-General, had also had a thing or two to say in relation to formality issues at referenda. He had said it in a Submission to the JSCEM Inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 Federal elections. His submission, 'How do I say Yes or No: Let me count the ways', No. 159, may be viewed by downloading a PDF file obtainable by clicking on this submission in the list of submissions posted here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm

The thing was, Forrest reckoned that a referendum recorded as having secured a 'double majority', and therefore passed, had not in fact done so when the informal votes at that referendum were dealt with as Section 128 requires. It had been the 1946 Social Security referendum question.

Some background? See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=950#16590 and following posts.

Forrest

I haven't been following this thread closely, so sorry for sounding flippant, but this looks like an interesting conversation you're having with yourself here. :)

If you want some discussion, you know there's a post waiting that if responded to would at least receive a reply.

Or have I offended you?

I'm sorry if I have. I get a bit carried away at times, but you should know I mean well. :)

The Onlineopinion General Discussion topic 'One in five Australians failed to vote....',
a topic opened by OLO userID 'Communicat', on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 11:12:00 AM, attracted a total of 60 posts
over a 16 day period. Discussion archived here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1306&page=0

The 2007 Federal elections had been held on the preceding Saturday, 24 November 2007, and the counting of votes was continuing.

A series of 20 posts to that thread was made by me debunking that ridiculous, but seemingly officially supported, claim of a 20% failure to vote, with the first being on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 2:41:36 PM, and the last on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 7:33:57 AM. The posts were made during the progress of the finalization of the election count as it was recorded as proceeding by the various updates to the AEC Virtual Tally Room website as the count approached finality, as now able to be seen here: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-115.htm



A number of disturbing anomalies came to light as the discussion proceeded.



This post, for example, described the information from the VTR updates as "Pointless and unsatisfactory at best. At worst a possible means of withholding information from the public that might otherwise alert it to prospects of electoral tampering.":

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1306#24016

The Electoral Reform Secretariat within the DPMC really need to digest the stuff put on record in this archived OLO thread if there is genuine interest in transparency in electoral administration. I've already tried to lead into the issue on that forum with this post: http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper#comment-882

Its a one-way street. I can only link here to my own last post, and not to any other, on that forum. The protocols of the PM&C Forums prohibit the posting of links, so I can't post a link there to this post, for example. This allows for an inquiry to proceed without it being obliged to have official knowledge of the existence of problems.

So much for online engagement with government and the ability to advise of these problems.

Brought to you by OLO, Australia's e-journal of social and political debate, and palindromic Journal of Record.

Now for an apology to viewers.

The link, http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-115.htm , given in my post of Tuesday, 17 November 2009 at 11:45:30 AM, to the AEC Virtual Tallyroom for the 2007 Federal elections does not work, it seems. In the browser it simply displays as 'loading', but nothing happens. There is no redirection notice, nor even a '404 Firefox cannot find the server at ...' message. I must admit I simply copied it from one of my posts to the 'One in five Australians did not vote ...' topic: it used to work then, so I assumed it still would.

I did test the link at the time of posting and noted that it did not load, but dismissed that as a temporary problem, perhaps associated with the one warned of by the Electoral Reform Secretariat in an email in response to my reporting inaccessibility of the PM&C Forums website last Saturday. The Secretariat had advised:



".... Unfortunately there was an unexpected outage
on Saturday 14th November due to a major infrastructure cable
being cut during construction work in the area. ..."



As a check, I googled '2007 Federal election results', which yielded, indirectly, this link:

http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2007/vtr_guide.htm

I learned there that "Since the last election the AEC has significantly upgraded the Virtual Tally Room.". Indeed, so it would seem.

Would it be churlish of me to wonder why the page layouts would all have had to be reworked? I grant that, at least to my obviously over-critical eye, the VTR of the 2007 Federal elections certainly demonstrated the need for improvement when reporting future electoral event results. But here was I thinking that the finality of the 2007 elections would have had to be left, for better or worse, to display as it did during the progress of the count, given that election records are themselves matters of critical public importance.

OLO may be a Journal of Record, but it seems the AEC website is not.

Where do we go from here?

To the Governor-General?