The Forum > Article Comments > Fraud and the election: High Court challenge > Comments
Fraud and the election: High Court challenge : Comments
By David Flint, published 9/8/2010Why did GetUp! wait until now to challenge the Howard legislation which closes electoral rolls one day after an election is called?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by mikk, Monday, 9 August 2010 6:35:44 PM
| |
Stiff words for a stiff mkk... on yers.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 9 August 2010 7:00:20 PM
| |
Some of the basic logic of this article is sound, such as why when all we talked about all year is the election haven't these people got themselves registered? I know i went in and filled out my registration on my eighteenth birthday my vote was more important than my licence.
The problem i have with this article is the complete lack of objectivity and more or less out and out conservative dribble that it pushes. This is a discrace and should stand as an example of the type of journalism that is eroding out freedoms and democracy. The High Court has ruled i thought and in favour of Get Up. So is the posting of this article for comment on the 8th ment to undermine the integrity of the High Court. Posted by nairbe, Monday, 9 August 2010 7:19:15 PM
| |
It's a democracy Nairbe, and people can therefore criticise the High Court or any other court. In fact, the High Court has also found an implied right to political free speech in the constitution, making this something that they would presumably approve of. I'm assuming they've probably used some of the reasoning behind the discovery of this right to imply a second right, the right to have a reasonable opportunity to enrol to vote, but I don't know because we don't have reasons for judgement yet.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 9 August 2010 9:22:32 PM
| |
[Deleted for abuse].
Posted by HFR, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 7:32:03 AM
| |
The first comment to this article responded to the by-line of the article with simply the words:
"That is a very good question." Poster 'twistoflime', on Monday, 9 August 2010 at 10:19:47 AM, gave what I thought to be a very good answer, in saying: "Why wait? Because in order to have a plaintiff with an actionable claim then that person needed to be aggrieved by the close of the rolls. This means waiting until this election. ....... It was, if anything, out of procedural necessity." That should have been the end of the matter, in terms of both the by-line and my bald question. The issue didn't overly concern me inasmuch as we are given to understand that the identification at enrolment provisions of the Act were not struck down by the High Court, and that the ruling applied to enrolment applications that had been ACTUALLY RECEIVED by the AEC between 8:00 PM on Monday 19 July and close of business on Monday 26 July, 2010. I am no longer sure that this is what is happening. I note that GrahamY has posted on Monday, 9 August 2010 at 9:22:32 PM, saying in respect to the High Court ruling: "... but I don't know because we don't have reasons for judgement yet." That has been my experience also. In a report submitted by Diet Simon on Mon, 09/08/2010 at 8:50am, to the indymedia website ( http://indymedia.org.au/2010/08/08/getup-wins-high-court-challenge-on-federal-voting-just-turn-up-with-your-id ) the claim was made that: "The court did not publish reasons for its decision, saying a majority had declared the changes invalid." and that, "Advocacy group GetUp!, which supported the action, said the Australian Electoral Commission estimated 100,000 people could have being prevented from registering for the election at the closing time on July 19. 'The commission had indicated it would contact THOSE PEOPLE* to inform them they will be able to vote on polling day', GetUp! Said." That's not the same thing! * Emphasis mine. TBC Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:12:22 AM
|
If abbott wins expect the introduction of electronic voting machines (and the fraudulent right wing use of them) as the libs import the best(sic) of the septic political game to Australia.
Flint you have offered no justification for your stance other than visceral hatred of getup (why? did they call you names or something) and an assertion, not backed by a single shred of evidence mind you, that there may possibly be some opportunity for fraud.
If there were courts filled with voting rorters you might have a case but since I cannot find a single conviction for vote fraud I say you are a poncy little elitist willing to debase our democracy to make sure your friends and bumchums keep their positions of power and you and them can continue your lordly ways.