<< My husband feels the same way as Poirot.
He's telling me that he's simply going to
front up on election day, have his name crossed
off the list and hand in a blank sheet.
I'm furious at him. >>

But Foxy, it is part of our democratic right to choose to not vote for any candidate if we feel that none is worthy, or if we are left feeling apathetic or disaffected by their rantings.

Voting for on one is not necessarily a sign of apathy. It could well be a carefully considered decision.

Let’s face it, there is a large portion of the voting public that don’t like either the Labs or Libs, but are going to vote for whichever one they think is the slightly less putrid!

They SHOULDN’T!!

They should vote for no one, unless they feel that one or other party really does deserve their vote… or … that they want one party to win because they feel that the other one really would be significantly worse.

What sort of a system have we got anyway if a large portion of the votes gained by the winning party are based on the 'slightly lesser of two evils' (SLOTE) motivation?

And by all indications, the SLOTE factor will indeed be very large!

Dear Ludwig,

My husband will change his mind on
Election Day - because he, like myself,
may not be all that crazy about Julia
Gillard, but when we consider the alternative,
AHHHHHHHHHH!

Well Foxy, if you and your hub genuinely think that the babbling Abbott is significantly worse than the dithering Dillard, well so be it. But I can’t see it. They are two ‘me-tooist’ peas in a pod….and I don’t think that any caring person should be voting for EITHER of em! Grrr |:>{

As the counting starts and the voters are gone the Aussie comes out in the party people standing around the table.
All day you may have swapped little insults or views but once only the count remains a calm comes over us all, mostly.
That rude young girl who was an official all day broke every rule but she is not the only one.
My usual booth far away from home saw the public servant earning extra income swearing as votes went to his most disliked party.
He stopped only after both I and that sides person told him to stop.

Ludwig says, in his post of Thursday, 29 July 2010 at 9:18:35 PM, that:

"Voting for no one is not necessarily a sign of apathy.
It could well be a carefully considered decision."

[There, I've fixed the typo!]

As this is a thread about scrutineering after the close of the poll, it is important to note that what Ludwig claims might well be a carefully considered decision (ie. leaving the ballot paper blank) is in fact recognised as potentially being such by the Constitution itself. When it is a referendum question, as distinct from an election of a member or senator, the Constitution recognises nothing other than a 'Yes' vote as approving proposed change to the Constitution. A blank ballot paper, classed as informal though it may be, and unwise as it may be to leave a blank ballot paper for potential tampering with during the count, is effectively regarded as an expression of a voter being unable to decide the merit of the proposal, and thus counts, in the end, as if it were a formal 'No' vote.

I mention this because the AEC at the last referendum (in 1999) tried to tell its officials, and scrutineers, differently.

Thankfully, Sir David Smith, in a submission to the JSCEM, drew this serious error to the attention of the Parliament. The AEC 'Electoral Backgrounder 10' web document was subsequently taken down. I mention it again so that if any viewer is scrutineering at a referendum in the future, they may not be taken in by any such claim that an informal vote does not affect the result. It does.

This Federal election, were large numbers of voters to leave the ballot paper blank, even as a conscious decision as described by Ludwig, it would be that much more vital for scrutineers to be present during the count to ensure no secretly, or openly, partisan electoral official filled any such blank ballot papers in. Recording the number of informals, and countersigning the acquittal sheet, is vital scrutineering.

The original VTR in 2007 didn't publish the ordinary vote informals!

I am voting for the party with the best history of Treasurer [and Economist]! Shall avoid the dilemma having to think about either AA or JG......always room for improvement and should restore this country of ours to health; cheers Belly you patriotic Laborite, please note: you give me some special fun filled moments reading your posts].