Roughly 95% of Australians vote above the line in the senate. This makes voting far easier and gives considerable negotiating power to the party you vote for. The downside is that many people are unaware of how their favourite party distributes preferences and may not agree with where their vote ends up. The table below makes it easier for people to figure what will happen to their senate vote. The information is from the Australian Electoral Commission website. It is based on the senate group voting tickets provided by each party in NSW for the last federal election (other state senate tickets are likely to be very similar – check the aec website if you have concerns). New tickets will be issued after the next federal election is called.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html

or you could vote 'independent', and break the standover gangs that currently run oz.

You think every party and unaffiliated group of candidates represents some kind of standover gang that is qualitiatively different from independent candidates? The way I see it, the only difference is that the independents are less organised. If they were popular enough a group or party would form behind them. To reject such help while trying to gain a seat representing an entire state is just foolish.

As a person who has been standing in various elections as a candidate and who is a “constitutionalist” I make it clear that only a fool would accept we have FAIR and PROPER elections.
The framers of the Constitution made clear that even the “POOR” SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND AS A CANDIDATE.
Well, lets see, political parties can spend ahead of the election on television commercials, etc, because they know that about 40 million dollars will be paid to them for the $1.95 per primary vote. An independent candidate does not have this. In any event this payment is unconstitutional.

A Independent candidate has to do a “mini-election” designed to thwart of candidates so they have to get 50 nominations. An Independent sitting Member of Parliament does not have to do so and neither a candidate belonging to a political party.
An independent candidate has to fork out his own campaign cost, a candidate who is a Member of Parliament has tens of thousands of dollars worth of postage and other facilities at cost of the taxpayers.

And on and on it goes.

Then, in 2001 I detected that all writs issued for the federal election were unconstitutional/defective in law and so took it to the Courts (before the elections were held). The courts refused to allow the case to proceed and the PURPORTED elections were held in 2001 and later also on 2004.
Albeit I was a candidate in both elections I refused to vote on various grounds such as;

- all writs were unconstitutional hence no valid election was being held
- all writs were defective and hence no valid election was being held
- the Commonwealth of Australia was specifically denied any legislative powers to make voting compulsory

and a lot more.

On 19 July 2006 I succeeded, after a 5-year legal battle, on all grounds UNCHALLENGED!

Without a FAIR and PROPER election I will continue to vote in a fictional election!
At least I had the backbone to stand up for my rights.

Consider-this,-as-the-2001-and-2004-federal-elections-were-constitutionally-invalid,-as-I-succeeded-on-this-in-Court,-then-who-and-what-is-John-Howard-you-may-ask! Certainly not being a Prime Minister!

As a person who has been standing in various elections as a candidate and who is a “constitutionalist” I make it clear that only a fool would accept we have FAIR and PROPER elections.
The framers of the Constitution made clear that even the “POOR” SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND AS A CANDIDATE.
Well, lets see, political parties can spend ahead of the election on television commercials, etc, because they know that about 40 million dollars will be paid to them for the $1.95 per primary vote. An independent candidate does not have this. In any event this payment is unconstitutional.

A Independent candidate has to do a “mini-election” designed to thwart of candidates so they have to get 50 nominations. An Independent sitting Member of Parliament does not have to do so and neither a candidate belonging to a political party.
An independent candidate has to fork out his own campaign cost, a candidate who is a Member of Parliament has tens of thousands of dollars worth of postage and other facilities at cost of the taxpayers.

And on and on it goes.

Then, in 2001 I detected that all writs issued for the federal election were unconstitutional/defective in law and so took it to the Courts (before the elections were held). The courts refused to allow the case to proceed and the PURPORTED elections were held in 2001 and later also on 2004.
Albeit I was a candidate in both elections I refused to vote on various grounds such as;

- all writs were unconstitutional hence no valid election was being held
- all writs were defective and hence no valid election was being held
- the Commonwealth of Australia was specifically denied any legislative powers to make voting compulsory

and a lot more.

On 19 July 2006 I succeeded, after a 5-year legal battle, on all grounds UNCHALLENGED!

Without a FAIR and PROPER election I will continue to REFUSE to vote in a fictional election!
At least I had the backbone to stand up for my rights.

Consider-this,-as-the-2001-and-2004-federal-elections-were-constitutionally-invalid,-as-I-succeeded-on-this-in-Court,-then-who-and-what-is-John-Howard-you-may-ask! Certainly not being a Prime Minister!

"An independent candidate has to fork out his own campaign cost, a candidate who is a Member of Parliament has tens of thousands of dollars worth of postage and other facilities at cost of the taxpayers."

Are they allowed to spend that on their election campaign?

"On 19 July 2006 I succeeded, after a 5-year legal battle, on all grounds UNCHALLENGED!"

Succeeded with what exactly? Can you link to some more info?

Why are you standing for election when you object to the election and don't even vote yourself? Do you tell your supporters not to vote?

Prior to the 2001 purported Federal election I challenged all writs on that they were defective and no valid election could be held, but the Federal Court of Australia refused to hear the matter. Likewise so the High Court of Australia subsequently. But as I held there was no valid election I stood my ground to refuse to vote.
I also made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to force anyone to vote. And a lot more. My website shows various books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® that have all relevant information, including copies of Court documents, in it. Because I was first convicted by a magistrate for twice FAILING TO VOTE, he refused to give a REASON OF JUDGMENT, on appeal I succeed and the convictions were set aside! Because I proved on all constitutional issues that I was right.

When I stand as a candidate I do not ask people at all to vote for me or anyone else. In fact people offered to run an election campaign for me but I refused this. I am very known by people, and even a successful candidate made known to me that people talk about it that I stand as a candidate but refuse to vote and do not campaign and refuse other to do so.
While it has cost me nevertheless a lot of money, it is my kind of campaign to expose the rot with elections. Why should a poor person be denied a reasonable opportunity to be a candidate if they cannot afford for example the $350.00?
Why should I as a candidate be forced to vote for my opponents, as is with preference voting?
As the Framers of the Constitution made known even the “POOR” should be able to be a candidate and my campaign is to highlight their denial to do so.

BECAUSE A PERSON CANNOT AFFORD WASTING $350.00 DOES NOT MEAN THIS PERSON MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD PARLIAMENTARIAN!
THE $350.00 WAS IMPLEMENTED TO SEEK TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STANDING AS A CANDIDATE, WHICH TO ME IS AN ABSURDITY, IT-FAVOURS-THE-POLITICAL-PARTIES!

"THE $350.00 WAS IMPLEMENTED TO SEEK TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STANDING AS A CANDIDATE, WHICH TO ME IS AN ABSURDITY, IT-FAVOURS-THE-POLITICAL-PARTIES! "

How does it favour the parties? If you had any hope of getting elected at all, the $350 would be a trivial expense.

Freedriver

Obviously you didn’t get my point. I have been standing as a candidate being able to afford the $350.00 but my issue is that many cannot and are wrongly denied doing so. In fact it was the AEC who pursued the deposit and also the 50 signatures. They also pursued the reduction from 11 to 10 days. Now, to me the AEC should be independent and not therefore be bias to what may suit them.

If you were to read the High Court of Australia judgments in
THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 and
JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA F.C. 96/001
Then you might just hold that voting is compulsory but I am about to publish Chapter 000J which sets out what really is applicable and that the judges fabricate their own version regardless how unconstitutional.

This, I succeed upon in the courts when raising those constitutional issues.

My issue is not that I can’t afford standing as a candidate but that the deposit denies certain people to stand as a candidate for financial reasons and that the 50 signatures required forces an INDEPENDENT candidate to do some mini election which in itself is unconstitutional.
If trade unions were to apply this kind of nonsense the Federal government would be the first to lag into the unions for unfair election practices.
Say a union official can stand without needing “x” amount of signatures but anyone not being a union official were to have to get “x” amount of nominations!

Then the Union could also introduce its above the line ballot that a Union official can use a box above the line but a non union official cannot and so those voting for a non official first will have to fill in all squares on the ballot paper, causing a more likelihood of errors being made.
“elections are to be free” has been embedded in the Constitution and they are not if special rules are made against INDEPENDENTS.

By-refusing-to-vote,-I-make-my-point. And-again,-the-Federal-Government-lawyers-lost-against-me-after-a-5-year-legal-battle,-on-all-constitutional-issues.

"but my issue is that many cannot and are wrongly denied doing so.

Why is it wrong? If you can't get together $350 in donations, you have no hope of governing effectively anyway.

"the 50 signatures required forces an INDEPENDENT candidate to do some mini election which in itself is unconstitutional

Again, if you can't get 50 signatures, you are wasting everyone's time.

Getting on the ballot is not a right that should be open to everyone. There is good reason to cut it back to serious candidates. Voting is a right we all have. If you want to get your name on the ballot, it is not unreasonable to be expected to demonstrate that you have a bare minimum capability of running something and that there are people willing to support you. If you cannot get together $350 in donations then there is no point asking people to trust you with millions of dollars in taxpayer's money.

You obviously can’t get it, do you?

A person can be poor, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear beyond his fault. It should not deny the person to then be a candidate as they made clear any elector, other then those in breach of Section 44 of the Constitution is entitled to be a candidate. Hence, any condition is unconstitutional.
Also, most people vote for a party and even if the candidate was a donkey they would still vote for it. Sure, they are stupid, but still the political parties get the deposits back but most independent don’t because they do not have the huge funds the political parties spend knowing they are going to get it back from the votings.

One party simply sells books and offer you for FREE 6-monthly issues of their newsletter if you sign for this. The signature is in fact that you are a member of their party. As such, the deception allows dishonest people to stand as candidates.
One person was refused by the electoral commissioner to be registered because it was claimed the person had only 49 valid nominations and she was not allowed to go out to get one more as it was claimed that nominations was just closed. However, as I proved years later the writs were defective and actually nominations were at the very least closed one day too early. As such, the women had at least another day coming to her but the electoral Officer simply did it his way.
There are other cases where people were wrongly denied to be a candidate!

As for 50 signatures, if you cannot get this. Well, why then not have all parliamentarians also doing so?
I have had no problem in the past to get 50 signatures but the issue is that it is unconstitutional as it is to create an obstacle course and denies a fair and proper election. Today it might be 50 and in time to come they may make it 500 or whatever. The point is that it robs everyone of fair and proper elections.

"You obviously can’t get it, do you?

I do get it. I just disagree with you. Got it?

"As for 50 signatures, if you cannot get this. Well, why then not have all parliamentarians also doing so?

I agree that it should be the same for all candidates. However, at least as far as the major parties are concerned, 50 signatures is trivial compared to what candidates have to do to achieve preselection.

"It should not deny the person to then be a candidate as they made clear any elector, other then those in breach of Section 44 of the Constitution is entitled to be a candidate

I prefer to rely on common sense. If candidacy was free, there would be a thousand nutcases on the ballot paper. I think it is perfectly reasonable to place conditions, provided that they are not so severe as to actually prevent a poor person from running who has a chance of winning, or even getting a significant percentage of the votes.

"There are other cases where people were wrongly denied to be a candidate!

Interpretting the rules incorrectly does not mean the rules themselves are wrong.

Freediver

If one has not read the debates behind the constitution then one should do so.

It is these debates that created the constitution and why.

This also includes rights

As I have said before

our

Govenor General is constitutionally corrupt and inept
Australian Electoral Commission is constitutionally corrupt and inept
Political parties are constitutionally corrupt and inept
Parliamentarians are constitutionally corrupt and inept

So since i am not in court yet I am correct, and the constitution says I am correct.

So FD one should go through the debates and understand before going the high horse.
If you do not want it right do it you way,
But
If you want it right the peoples way, then the constitution is required reading.

You can go via
www.aph.gov.au
do a search
put in constitutional debates
collection change to constitution
one will find 97 debates there.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Freedriver, as Stuart Ulrich, Independent Candidate for Charlton, makes clear read the Debates.

If you desire to have "common sense" used then you are free to pursue a referendum where you can argue that the Commonwealth of Australia is entitled to ignore the RULE OF LAW (CONSTITUTION) where it by its political views deem "COMMON SENSE" requires whatever they may desire at the time.
Without successful REFERENDUM, you simply have to accept the RULE OF LAW, even if you do not like it.


When I was a candidate for the seat of Swan Hill (Mallee) many a farmer complained that they did not use WATER other then what they themselves caught with their dams yet still had nevertheless to pay thousands of dollars to water authorities. "Common sense" would hold this is ridiculous, but the RULE OF LAW required them to pay it.
As such, if we apply "COMMON SENSE" as whatever every person for themselves may deem it stands for, then why have any laws at all? After all, what may be “COMMON SENSE” for one may be completely the opposite to another!

The Constitution does not permit for some candidates to hold a “mini election” but only provides for one election!

“common sense dictates to get rid of all politicians so as to avoid the huge cost and the fraudulent conduct by them, but “common sense” also dictates that we need someone to be in charge of Departments, as that is constitutionally required.

I suggest you check out my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and you may just get some better perception as to what is so wrong and why we need to reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights and hold judges and politicians accountable

"If you desire to have "common sense" used then you are free to pursue a referendum where you can argue that the Commonwealth of Australia is entitled to ignore the RULE OF LAW

That's just silly. You would just hold a referendum to change the cosntitution where it is lacking.

"Common sense" would hold this is ridiculous

No it wouldn't. Farmers do not have the right to destroy natural water courses and stop the rivers flowing.

"The Constitution does not permit for some candidates to hold a “mini election” but only provides for one election!

What mini election are you talking about? If you mean preselection, the suggestion that the constitution forbids that is absurd.

"common sense dictates to get rid of all politicians so as to avoid the huge cost and the fraudulent conduct by them

No it doesn't.

Freediver you sound like a pollie

Nows that something isnt right

but stuff it

Read the debates

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Freediver,

For your patience you deserve a medal.

As Winston Churchill once said, the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Sad but true.

Cheers