Albozo and his bunch of clowns are starting to wake up from their vacuous promises after being faced with reality.

https://hbnshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fist.face_.png

Talking about things vacuous, how about the wackjob, Adam Bandt, refusing to stand in front of the Australian flag. But that’s more treasonous than vacuous, of course. To think that elections in Australia can through up rubbish like him!

Terry Barnes has described Bandt in Shakespearean manner, as:

"You elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog", and adding that "even that description’s too good for him".

Dear Ttbn,

«how about the wackjob, Adam Bandt, refusing to stand in front of the Australian flag.»

Adam is supposed to represent his electorate - neither Australia nor his Greens party.
Suppose Adam's voters opposed the Australian flag, then it would be part of Adam's duty to refuse standing in front of it.

Dear Yuyutsu

I love talking to you, your “way out there”.
I’m also “way out there”, but on a different branch of a different tree!

I think on this issue of revolt, your behind the times.

It’s impossible to hide from the X-ray vision of the State. Look at China for example.

The consequence of that reality is, one must be up front and in plain sight. The best place to hide.

Dan

Aidan,

I think you are confusing State and Federal voting systems. In the state system (at least here in NSW) you are allowed to exhaust the preference vote. So essentially, so long as you had a 1 against a candidate (but only one 1) then what happened thereafter could be ignored if it were wrong. I've only been working on elections for the last 10 years but don't recall a procedure in the Federal system like the one you mention.

The laws governing Federal and State elections are different and reflect different issues and different power structures. Its unlikely they'll be harmonised.

Just a couple of points about Paul's post. It is not valid to enter numbers like 63, 75, 99. If there's no '1' then the vote is informal. But you don't have to enter 1. Writing "one", "two" etc is valid. Roman numerals are also valid. "A, B, C" etc isn't. Putting numbers outside the box is valid. Drawing on the paper makes it invalid. Making any marks (eg signature) that might identify the voter makes it invalid.

The AEC's policy is to favour the voter. So any ambiguity as to whether a vote is informal or not is resolved in the favour of the voter. If numbers are not written clearly, all efforts are made to give the voter the benefit of the doubt. Informal votes have to be confirmed as such by at least 4 different AEC officials - if even one thinks it's formal, it's accepted.

As I said, informal votes will come in at about 7% and more than half of that number are intentionally informal. So inadvertent errors at around 3% seems pretty good to me.