The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Electoral roll makes a mockery of the election > Comments

Electoral roll makes a mockery of the election : Comments

By George Williams, published 20/7/2010

All evidence points to the fact 1.4 million Australians are missing from the roll and will be unable to vote.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
On line registration for voting sounds like an open invitation to end democracy.

We see enough problems now from branch stacking of our ALP, imagine if this little temptation was put in front of them.

Getup! were trying to skew the system, I'm so glad they failed in their little plan to subvert the system and basically stack the electoral system. Getup! were only enrolling ALP voters weren't they? Of course they were, for what reason? To ensure the ALP was elected - if they were doing this without favour, then I'd support it, but it's a typical ALP tactic.

if people don't enrol, so what, that's their right.

it may not suit you, but if they are too lazy to enroll, then it should not be to the advantage of one group to automatically be able to bring them in. Then again, weren't the ALP busing people to enroll in the last election in the seat of Bennelong? Wasn't that handy!

We all know most young people vote ALP or Green, but that's the whole point isn't it - some folks just can't stand the fact the conservatives might have a chance. So let's dispense with the current system, as skewed as it is and skew it even further.

Would you like to get rid of voting completely mate, and just have the ALP run things?

Seriously, I'm not being facetious .. do you want to live in an ALP dictatorship?
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 9:42:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

I just have to be the first to thank you for this article. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Not since 'Frozen Continent' have I enjoyed one of your contributions so much.

So many absolutely beautiful lines upon which to hang so hopefully many posts, so little time to post them in!

In all, a most perfect mirror in which I am confident shall be reflected the enormous degree of communal ignorance, complacency, and naivety as to matters touching upon the electoral rolls and the integrity of elections.

Time is desperately short, but the public's need to know is even more urgent.

I hereby place your article upon the index.

To the lists!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 9:44:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dayyum!

But that's OK. Amicus makes some good points.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 9:49:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not consider, George, that the absence of 1.4 million Australians from the Electoral Roll represents a "mockery" of the election.

[mockery n.
1. Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.
2. A specific act of ridicule or derision.
3. An object of scorn or ridicule
4. Something ludicrously futile or unsuitable]

Do you perhaps have evidence that those "miyyuns" of folk would have an impact on the election outcome? I know quite a few statisticians who would argue otherwise.

I would perhaps tentatively agree that you might make a case that it moves against the concept of compulsory voting - although I wouldn't consider it a "mockery", just a fact of life.

The entire concept of compulsory voting is flawed anyway - as poster Ludwig points out elsewhere, it is after all merely compulsion to attend, not to register a vote. That would require the State to be looking over your shoulder, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

As an advert for GetUp, the article also fails the sincerity test.

All in all, just sound and fury, signifying nothing of particular interest or relevance.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:01:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, perhaps you should accept that some people simply aren't interested in politics and don't want to vote. Of course, people should be encouraged to exercise the democratic rights that our predecessors fought for, but making it an offence not to vote or agonising over other people's decisions not to enrol, is disrespectful. Their choice, not yours !
Posted by huonian, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 11:05:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The number of people off the rolls erodes the legitimacy of the election. On August 21, our next government may be decided by a few thousand votes in a few key marginal seats. A higher level of enrolment could lead to a different outcome."

This appears to be GW's core concern.

I would have thought that if they were that interested they would have kept AEC up to date but if doing so is so hard then I guess we should provide simpler mechanisms for this to occur.

We should make it as simple as possible for the apathetic to participate so they can exact their revenge on those who are not by voting informally, donkey voting etc.

It's the only way we'll ever learn.

George, there really are more important topics to raise when it comes to electoral processes, e.g. the deplorable and corrupt preference deals that occur, especially in the Senate.
Posted by bitey, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 11:37:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do Australians really take pride in our democratic system? The 1.4 million not on the electoral roll certainly do not; and with what the Australian electorate tolerates from our third rate politicians, it appears that not many of the rest of us value democracy either.

According to George Williams, only HALF of Australia’s 18 year olds are on the roll. So much for all the indignation when we old farts rightly criticise the young. Older people complain about injustices to the young in the fields of employment, wages, education and so on, but it is clear that it is the young themselves who couldn’t give a damn, and it is they who are responsible for the growth in casual, part-time work with zero benefits and general lack of opportunity in Australia now. They don’t care, and they don’t listen.

Why does George care about this? Because his side of politics is missing out on votes because the young have very recently been – or are still being, in tertiary education – brainwashed by members of the extreme Left education unions. He also knows that, without compulsory voting (another non-democratic archaism) Labor would suffer the most.

We shouldn’t be concerned about people not wanting to vote. If they are that stupid, they don’t deserve a say. Leave it to those who do value our democracy, and see it slipping away from us thanks to the lack of interest in voting, even from those who do vote, but vote the way someone else tells them to via a party card.

Instead of worrying about dead heads who don’t want to vote, and couldn’t care less about keeping control of our politicians, we should abolish compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing, encouraging those who can and want to think for themselves to do so
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 11:38:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For once I agree with George- whose only point he has been trying to convey is that we lack easy and effective methods to enrol to vote- nothing more, nothing less.
And until the government agree to provide a channel of their own to do what GetUp are currently doing, I am perfectly content that GetUp is handling this matter itself.

This topic has NOTHING to do with compulsory voting at all.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:04:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Invalid Election if it takes place on the allocated date given the legislation regarding compulsory voting.

Australians do have the right to refuse to vote and may strike; a labor ploy!

...until the situation, which lies with government and private enterprise, is rectified.

Start striking Australians!
Posted by we are unique, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:50:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course it is a serious problem that a large percentage of eligible voters are not on the roll and many of these are probably young people who have recently attained adulthood or will do so before the election.

It points to a common enough problem which is that many young people attaining adulthood may not know what new responsibilities and accountabilities they have acquired. This is often apparent where young people undertake financial contracts for instance and where they might come into conflict with the law.

It is unfortunate that some young people do not have adults in their lives who are concerned enough about them to given them advice and show leadership. It seems a simple enough thing to do to download an electoral enrolment form, assist the teen to complete it and send the reply paid envelope on its way. Probably some parents don't bother to have discussions with their young adults either and show them the comparative details of political candidates in newspapers.

It is through civics education and the encouragement of their parents that young people gain civic knowledge and skills that will allow them to form the right attitudes and properly engage in the democratic process. That is their right and it is rather poor that somehow the youth of Australia being let down, again. Australia, the home of the self-raising, minimum-care child.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:59:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's not the way I read it, King Hazza.

>>This topic has NOTHING to do with compulsory voting at all<<

If this were the case, why would the author introduce the issue himself, in the second paragraph of his piece?

"One in 10 eligible Australians not even being enrolled makes a mockery of the idea of compulsory attendance at the ballot box."

In fact, given that it is the very first concern that he raises, having introduced the item with some facts... "We are heading to a federal election... 1.4 million Australians are missing from the roll and will be unable to vote", the impression is given that the dichotomy "compulsory vote/but 1.4 million missing", is key to his argument.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

More interesting, could be why you consider that it is not relevant. Care to enlighten?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 8:22:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My advice to those not on the electoral roll is to STAY OFF. Enrolling is a complete waste of time: your vote will make absolutely no difference to whoever gets elected, you will not be offered the chance to vote for the things that are important to you, but only for someone who purports to "represent" you, and who then goes on to do whatever his/her party wants once elected.

This is especially important for the young, who are fresh from the government's schools indoctrination of how wonderful democracy is, and how it theoretically works. Without years of experience of how the real world works, observing the lies, half-truths, opportunism, hiding of facts, and whipping up of unimportant issues that is presented as politics by our politicians and media, the young perhaps don't yet realize that neither of Australia's major parties are worth voting for.

These are my conclusions after nearly 40 years of voting, after I foolishly enrolled when young. Can anyone tell me how I can cancel my enrollment so the government's bureaucrats will not hassle me with fines for failing to attend one of their polling places?
Posted by Forkes, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 10:43:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George Williams, in the fourth paragraph of the article, says:

"The problem [of the state of the electoral rolls
making a mockery of the elections] works especially
against interests of young people. They make up
most of Australia's missing voters, with only
one-in-two 18-year-olds currently enrolled."

According to the chapter on population in Year Book Australia, it appears the 18-year-old cohort of the population in 2010 numbers around 240,000 persons. Half of that number, the number claimed by George to be unenrolled, comes to around 120,000 persons. I have difficulty in understanding the claim that such young people 'make up MOST of Australia's missing voters'. It seems to me that this group, on the face of it, accounts for only a small proportion of the allegedly missing 1.4 million persons eligible, but unenrolled.

Of course, to be fair, it would have to be admitted that the 19, 20, and 21-year-old cohorts could also have been meant by George to have been included in the description 'young people'. Accepting that this might be so, and that a propensity for a declining, but nevertheless significant, proportion of each cohort to remain unenrolled exists, it would seem that unenrolled young people could still only account for around at most 250,000 of the claimed 1.4 million missing from the rolls.

How are the allegedly outstanding other 1.15 million missing enrolments accounted for, George?

You say in your opening paragraph that "all the evidence points to the fact that 1.4 million Australians are missing from the roll[s]". What evidence is that George? Links would be good.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 10:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The electoral commission has an enrolment system in place so as to avoid fraud.

If you cannot change the system, instead of whining, try and work within it. There is nothing stopping you automatically posting a semi completed reply paid envelope to the individuals that would be acceptable to the IEC.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 2:05:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course Pericles- to me, George only really seems to be advocating alternative, easier methods to enroll electronically as far as direct propositions go.
Whether he actually does support compulsory voting or not, he doesn't seem to be endorsing much in the way of reinforcing the 'compulsion' part to voting, merely the access- and that I can't really criticize that alone, even if he does believe compulsory voting is good.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 5:36:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, George seems to be a bit slow coming back with the results of any research, or links thereto in respect to the accounting for the outstanding 1.15 million eligible claimed to not be enrolled, so I'll put up what I've been able to find.

To begin with, the Special Minister of State, as recently as November 2009, was claiming only a total of 1.1 million to be unenrolled as at the 2007 Federal elections. See this twitpic of a post to the dpmc forum on the Electoral Reform Green Paper: http://twitpic.com/27ewoz . Yet George's claim has that number having increased by 300,000 in less than three years. How is that?

Here is a link to the dpmc forum on the Electoral Reform Green Paper, for those who wish to navigate their way around for themselves: http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper . Note that there are three web pages of comments. A viewer can move forward or backward by clicking the page numbers at the bottom of any page. Just to confuse viewers, the second page of comments shows as 'page 1' in its URL, thus: http://forums.pmc.gov.au/Electoral_Reform_Green_Paper?page=1 , and similarly the third as 'page 2'. Take care if you wish to avoid missing anything.

Getting back to the 1.15 million eligible seemingly unaccounted for, is it possible that by a process of weasel-wording it is being represented that the million or so 'ten pound poms' and their then children are now statistically regarded as being eligible for enrolment due to the 2002 legislation that permitted them to take out Australian citizenship without having to abandon their British citizenship? See this twitpic of a relevant post to the dpmc forum: http://twitpic.com/27ewoz

If this is so, has anybody told these permanently resident British citizens this wonderful news?

Should they even need to take out Australian citizenship? See: http://twitpic.com/27g2y2
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:25:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Compulsory voting is what makes the nonsense - anyone who really is interested will enrol. Mandatory voting is not what was intended and lets the candidates off the hook to just use postal means TV or hanging around in shopping centres instead of having to actually work for your vote as they still do in the UK where it is still free choice.

Also would most likely save us all taxpayer funds.

Plus go back to first past the post.

It was supposedly to make sure both majors got in but it seems that it works find in the UK and seems to me to save hard work on the part of the politicians or would be. UK has 3 major parties on the old system but we cant manage it on this tweaked one. Cynical?
Posted by Worried man, Thursday, 22 July 2010 2:37:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Worried Man I agree completely.
Welcome to the forum!
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 22 July 2010 6:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Cornflower for presenting an alternative view of these 'young scoundrels' who fail to live up to their civic duties. There really is a great big hole both in school education and parental guidance as far as civic responsibilities are concerned. In this case, I think a greater focus on civics would be a valuable add-on in education. While I oppose the increase in parental duties expected of teachers, I think it is a crime that students go through 12/13 years of schooling without ever having to come to terms with the non-employment parts of adult life. Schools should be developing citizens, not just employees. Likewise, parents need to take responsibility for their children's awareness in this area. Schools shouldn't be dumping it on the parents, but parents shouldn't be dumping it on schools, either. If students get it from both ends, they have no excuse for ignorance.

Further to this, as in most Australian states most students turn 18 while still at school, there is room for distribution of electoral enrolment forms at school. I received my tax file number through my school, which made it a lot easier for me. I wouldn't have known how to go about it otherwise. I think some kids feel the same way about electoral enrolment. Curse them for laziness, sure, but when we have an efficient way of getting the message out, we should be using it.

Thanks also to Forrest Gumpp for raising the glaringly obvious issue of numbers that don't add up. I was alarmed when my calculations revealed that there must be more than 1.4 million 18 year-olds in Australia (1 in 2 18 year-olds adding up to more than half of the 1.4 million unenrolled voters). That would have been a hell of a baby boom in the early 90s! While the sentiments of the article are fine (we all have the right to have our say), the numbers just don't add up.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 22 July 2010 7:56:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I made reference in my first post in this thread (the one where I mistakenly thought I was making the first response to the article but got beaten to the punch by Amicus, dayyum) to George Williams' OLO article 'Frozen Continent'. This post of mine to that article's comments thread might explain the seeming slowness of response in provision of links to references providing 'all the evidence' for the claimed 1.4 million unenrolled: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7187#110112 . This matter has now become topical in the comments to the article 'Punishing poverty, published on 8 July. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10659#176320

George has really led with his chin with this current article. Perhaps he does not want a repeat of what happened on the 'Frozen continent' thread. While dealing with matters of disclosure, I'll take the opportunity of asking whether George Williams has ever worked or consulted for the Australian Electoral Commission, and whether he is, or intends being, a candidate at these upcoming elections?

It is good to see Otokonoko's recognition that the numbers do not appear to add up. Things could be very much worse than that, however. Far from it being that there is a significant number of eligible persons not enrolled, it may be that the Australian electoral rolls are in reality already fully subscribed. That is exactly what a study submitted to the Parliament's JSCEM claimed to have been the case during the years from 1961 to 1987. What should be believed to be official estimates of enrolment levels submitted by the AEC as a basis to the government's Electoral Reform Green Paper only cover the years from 1999 to 2009.

It is absolutely astounding that, in the circumstances of what seems to have been a reasonably well documented claim of near to 100% enrolment having existed from 1961 to 1987, any gap should have been left before the AEC figures began to, claimedly, show enrolment levels from 1999 to 2009.

Astounding, too, that there were apparently no OFFICIAL statements of enrolment levels prior to 1999!

What's been going on?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 23 July 2010 7:24:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George Williams says, in the seventh paragraph of the article, that:

"We lack a system of automatic enrolment
and Australians have not been permitted
to enrol online."

I'm not at all sure that George is correct in making this claim with respect to his first assertion. The numbers seemingly give the statement that "We lack a system of automatic enrolment" the lie. If the study claiming full enrolment between 1961 and 1987 was anywhere near correct, and that such level of enrolment persisted for significantly longer into the gap period 1987 - 1999 not covered by any study, official or otherwise, there is every indication that there may have been, and continue to be, a system of 'automatic' enrolment operating, albeit not one that legitimately operates in the name of 'us', that is, Australians.

There exists a conundrum, one in which that while on the one hand formal studies (done by the AEC itself) indicate that only around 85% of eligible persons effect or maintain their enrolment, the statutory reports of enrolments on the other hand bear witness to full, near full, or even over-full, enrolment levels.

I speculate that there has existed, and does exist, a system of 'automatic' enrolment, its just that it doesn't belong to us, as Australians, nor is it one operating within the law.

George's call for such a system, should it be heeded, would provide a perfect cover-up for a perversion of the Australian electoral process that is, perhaps, at long last starting to fray around the edges, and might shortly have to face the light of day.

The silence on this thread with respect to the numbers, by implication George's numbers, which don't add up, is positively deafening so far.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 24 July 2010 6:55:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokono- agree, there must be a civics education course in Australian schools- it is boggling that such a thing to the contrary be allowed, especially considering the sheer hours students are expected to devote learning useless rubbish like Shakespeare or religious indoctrination.
It should of course simply outline precisely what citizens rights and powers are, the precise nature of voting (something most Australians clearly have no idea about), and precisely the workings of government.
Maybe a little bit about other DEMOCRATIC governments so we know better about where we stand in the world.

A compulsory automatic enrolment I have no problem with so long as those on the list were permitted to simply NOT vote (Which in our case simply is not so unfortunately).
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 24 July 2010 7:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those thinking that the absence of numbers that add up is making a mockery of the Article's claim that 1.4 million eligible electors are missing from the electoral rolls, I offer the following information that perhaps goes some way toward explaining the discrepancy between the author's 1.4 million and the Electoral Commissioner's 1.2 million unenrolled.

It would be particularly interesting to know how many of us in the OLOverse of opinionation were/are aware of the fact that 16-year-olds are now lawfully able to be upon the electoral rolls as provisional electors. It seems to me that this change to electoral law has been kept relatively quiet. See: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/legislation/act1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/71640FB013A9A734CA25776200169BCA

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9605

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9605#154715

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Act 2010, Act No. 110 of 2010, received the Royal assent on 14 July 2010.

Act No. 110 of 2010 permitted 16-year-olds to be, as provisional electors, upon the electoral rolls!

The 16 and 17-year-old cohorts of the population would each contain around 250,000 persons. I wonder, if George Williams was including these 500,000 young people entitled to be on the rolls as provisional electors in his estimates as being unenrolled, why no mention was made of this recent change to the law in his article.

17-year-olds have been entitled to provisional enrolment for quite some years, although I am of the understanding relatively few have taken it up. The new cohort of around 250,000 16-year-olds could explain the difference between the author's and the Electoral Commissioner's respective claims.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 25 July 2010 1:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An Australian Electoral Commission table, 'Elector Count by Division, Age Groups and Gender', can be downloaded as a PDF from this page: http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/elector_count/1006.htm

It shows 59,831 17-year-old provisional electors enrolled nationally as at 30 June 2010. That represents approximately one in four persons of the 17-year-old cohort.

It also shows 353,705 electors 19-20 years of age enrolled nationally as at the same date. Again estimating the size of these two cohorts by projecting forward using an age-sex pyramid for 1999 printed in YBA 2001, and making no allowance for either mortality or non-citizenship, each cohort would appear to contain around 250,000 persons. This represents an average enrolment level over the two cohorts of around 71%.

The same table shows 1,096,562 electors 20-24 years of age enrolled. The maximum size of these five cohorts in aggregate appears to be around 1,270,000 persons. This represents an average enrolment level over the five cohorts of around 86%. If, however, George Williams is correct in claiming half the 18-year-olds are not enrolled, then around 91% of the 19-year-olds must be enrolled.

Given that the average enrolment level over the 25-29-year-old cohorts is around 87% unadjusted for mortality and non-citizenship, and that of the 20-24 bracket is 86%, it seems unlikely that even among the 18-year-olds enrolment is as low as 50%.

It seems we are getting no closer to an explanation as to how to account for the claimed missing 1.4 million enrolments. Indeed it seems we have moved away a bit from it if anything.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:29:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luv yer work, Forrest Gumpp.

Your problem is, of course, that you are looking for facts, not headlines.

I wonder where the author got his numbers from.

It's not as if they were even worth inventing, given the flimsy nature of the rest of his argument.

So, Mr Williams: any comment on the arithmetic?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 11:34:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for the compliment, Pericles.

It is nice to know that at least one other person is following this thread. It really is a shame that the author included no links to 'all [the] evidence', nor has he come back with any explanation of his claims in the light of their seeming contradiction with respect to the enrolment levels of young people (of which he makes so much) in the current AEC figures.

The phrase ' a shrinking electoral roll' was for some reason running around in my head during the last day or so, so I googled it in 'pages from Australia'. The top listing was this:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7poIY16yFfkJ:arts.anu.edu.au/democraticaudit/papers/20080214brent_autoenrol.pdf+"A+shrinking+electoral+roll"&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg8ggYNMbCZgnowK9Ob0peFxwUgEgQu2YRp7KcGtPbm5GtGpySlmRlogjUhIyOSqX1EJLqt62ZyV4I2u5tKOt5M2ykmiq9PJEjUuKzAuxFVPLX1JUuoL7NDzzX8_4SO77ZfXGP9&sig=AHIEtbTzgM_W1qR5ylHNpAZmrBYEbv-Daw

The link is to the Google quick view of a paper written by Peter Brent and published under the auspices of the Democratic Audit of Australia, an ANU related organisation, titled 'Time to introduce automatic enrolment in Australia'. It can be downloaded as a PDF. It is difficult to believe it is a paper of which George Williams would be unaware, given automatic enrolment is something championed in his article.

It alerted me to the fact that he and I may be talking about different things. It may be that only around half of the 18-year-old cohort is currently enrolled. I have been talking about published official figures resulting from the processing of pieces of paper in the form of enrolment applications by the AEC.

The current real figures for 18-year-olds, obscured from our view by inclusion in a two cohort bracketing, may indeed reflect only 50% enrolment in that group, and thereby may hang a tale.

The current 17, 18, and 19-year-old enrolments reflected in the official figures represent enrolment applications processed since the introduction of 'proof of identity' requirements in April(?) 2007. Could it be that the 'proof of identity' requirement has started to bite, and if so, what might that really be telling those of us with eyes to see?

That dodgy enrolments purporting to be made by young persons were entering onto the electoral rolls?

Automatic enrolment: the road to secret dictatorship.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 9:17:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A news item on page 11 of the Sydney Sun-Herald of 1 August 2010 was headlined "1.3 million voters left in cold in election day". See: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/13-million-voters-left-in-cold-on-election-day-20100731-110jp.html

It claimed:

"There were 85,996 additions to the roll
before it was closed, bringing the total
number who can vote to 14.03 million."

Sadly, Stephanie Peatling did not make it clear in the news item since when it was that the 85,996 additions to the rolls had been made.

There were, according to AEC figures published on its website, 13,961,671 electors enrolled for all of Australia as at 30 June 2010. See: http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/elector_count/index.htm . By the close of the rolls on 22 July 2010 there had been a nett increase of 68,857 enrolments nationally, to a total of 14,030,528 enrolled.

The discrepancy between Stephanie Peatling's figure of 85,996 and the AEC nett increase as at CoR of 68,857 over the total as at 30 June 2010 is presumably explained by there having been not less than 17,139 removals of names from the roll during the same period. The relevant statistics are really the total numbers of additions compared to the total removals. Seemingly not given. Dismal reportage.

Should it be that Stephanie Peatling's 85,996 represents the number of new enrolment applications lodged on just Monday 18 July, then it is worth observing that that amounts to an average of around 573 new enrolments per Division. Given the short time available for effecting such enrolments following the call of the election being announced on the preceding Saturday, it is to be expected that most of such enrolments would have been lodged at Divisional offices on that Monday.

I wonder whether such volumes of traffic were actually experienced in Divisional offices, and if not, how any deficiency in such traffic might be explained?

What's the true position, I wonder?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 1 August 2010 4:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must make a correction to my post of Tuesday, 27 July 2010 at 10:29:18 AM. The opening sentence of the third paragraph reads:

"It also shows 353,705 electors 19-20 years of age
enrolled nationally as at the same date."

That sentence should read:

"It also shows 353,705 electors 18-19 years of age enrolled nationally as at the same date."
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Monday, 2 August 2010 4:49:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
59,831 17-year-old provisional electors were shown as being enrolled, nationally, as at 30 June 2010. This represented around one in four of the 17-year-old cohort of the population.

The AEC figures for the close of rolls on 22 July 2010 show only 12,252 17-year-olds as being enrolled.




On the face of it, it seems unlikely that 47,579 persons out of the 30 June 2010 total of 59,831 provisional electors would be turning 18 between 30 June and 22 July 2010.





The close of rolls figures for 22 July 2010 show a total of 397,055 electors as being 18 or 19 years old. The figure for 18 and 19-year-olds as at 30 June 2010 was 353,705 electors. There occurred an increase in this age group, of 43,350 electors in 22 days. Without knowing the differentiated numbers of 18 and 19-year-old electors in the grouped total as at 30 June 2010, it is difficult to say for sure that the increase for such a grouped total by 22 July 2010 represents the nett result of both 17-year-olds having turned 18 and 19-year-olds having turned 20, but it seems a reasonable conclusion.

If that be so, then it would seem to indicate that there were around 147,000 18-year-old electors enrolled as at 30 June 2010, representing enrolment of around 60% of the 18-year-old cohort of the population.


What remains unexplained is the apparent concentration among the 17-year-old provisional electors as at 30 June 2010 of birthdates that would see so many seemingly turn 18 in just those 22 days. Even if every 17-year-old in the population had effected provisional enrolment, the most one could expect to see turn 18 over such a period would be around 14,000 persons.

Surely around 47,000 removals of unsubstantiated provisional enrolments could not have occurred in this 22-day period, could there? What explains this seemingly non-statistical change in the number of provisional electors enrolled?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Monday, 2 August 2010 7:40:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With the High Court having ruled upon the unconstitutionality of some of the provisions of the Electoral Integrity Act 2006, it is interesting to note the reactions to that news as reported in The Australian. This is a link to both a news item and all the comments posted in connection therewith: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/getup-wins-high-court-challenge-to-electoral-roll-cut-off/comments-fn59niix-1225902071456

What I find amazing is that there is not one reference among the 91 comments to the fact that, as of 14 July 2010, provisional enrolment of 16-year-olds on the electoral rolls is now permitted.

In this connection, I also note that the AEC Elector Count tabulation of electors by age group that I downloaded from here: http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/elector_count/index.htm , does not have a column provision for 16-year-olds. I would hope and trust that, in the light of the High Court ruling, the AEC will promptly publish an updated version of this document, from which we will be able to see just how many enrolment applications from what age groups were in reality subjects of the court's ruling.

It would also be very helpful if the AEC could make it clear exactly how many of the 12,252 17-year-old provisional electors shown in its pre-high-court-ruling figures will turn 18 by polling day.

The present lack of clarity led to this posting on another thread ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3840#94766 ):

"Whilst this number, 12,252 provisional electors, was it to
represent persons who would turn 18 by polling day, might not
be statistically improbable was the whole of the 17-year-old
cohort of the population to have effected provisional enrolment
prior to 30 June 2010, the fact is that only around one quarter
of that cohort were shown as being enrolled as at that date.
This means, if indeed the 12,252 provisional electors shown in
the CoR figures are ones shown on AEC records as turning 18 by
polling day, that there are around four times as many provisional
electors in this sub-category as would be normally expected."

What is the real position?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 7 August 2010 9:52:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy