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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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