Letter to the Editor
In 1900 we inherited the English method of voting, First-Past-the-Post or one-man-one-vote, which the UK still has.
Sections 8 & 30 of An Act To Constitute The Commonwealth Of Australia 1900 (UK) 63 64 Victoria Cap 12, it is clear that each elector is limited to ONE VOTE.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act – section 8
Qualification of electors
The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each state that which is prescribed by this constitution, or by the parliament, as the qualifications for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.
Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act – section 30
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives shall be in each state that which is prescribed by the law of the state as the qualification of electors of the more numerous House of parliament of the state; but in choosing of members each elector shall vote only once.
Clearly each elector is only entitled to ONE VOTE for each of the two houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
The wording of OUR constitution was brought over to the Electoral Act.
Therefore each elector is not constitutionally bound to put anything other than a 1 (one) for that voter’s choice of his or her chosen candidate on a ballot paper. By consequential logic there is only one vote for each house and preferential voting is unconstitutional as it allows an unknown member of the public to use their “power” to make further votes for the voter, even although the voter is prohibited from doing so.
I do not know of anybody who has said by contract that if my candidate does not win you can pass my vote down the line. It is not only unconstitutional, it is fraudulent, unconscionable, and a means of sedition by a corrupt government against the candidate lawfully receiving the greater number of electors choice.
Albert Langer voted in an election using his 1,2,2,2,2,2 method and a court found it to be a formal vote, Little Johnny Howard made it illegal to tell anybody about this method even although it is a legitimate way to vote.
Len Clampett
NSW
Preferential voting IS unlawful.
Section 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (9th July 1900)
Application of Colonial Boundaries Act.
“After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895, shall not apply to any Colony which becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a SELF GOVERNING COLONY, for the purpose of that Act.” That’s pretty clear, we are still a COLONY of Great Britain.
Chapter 1-The Parliament
Part 1-General
1. Legislative power. Shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, consisting of the King, a Senate, and a House of Representatives. SANS prime minister.
Section 8. Qualification of electors.
The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State that which is prescribed in the Constitution or by the Parliament , as the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of Senators, each elector shall vote only ONCE. That’s pretty clear, ONCE means ONCE! or 1 vote, not 6, or 12 or whatever ONCE.
Section 30.
Qualifications of electors, same as section 8, in the choosing of the members of the House of Representatives, each elector shall vote only ONCE!
Oath, the OATH to be sworn before any member takes his/her seat in the Parliament, “I, A.B., do swear that I shall be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III , His heirs and successors according to law SO HELP ME GOD!
England is changing from first-past-the-post voting to proportional representation to prevent Nigel Farage from wining in their next election. They have probably investigated Australia’s system and seen how the “main” parties keep winning under the foul, vile proportional system. So much for those who support our present system.
I am pleased that we still live in a country, at the moment, where we can disagree with each other. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Monarchy, where the Monarch appears to bow down to the criminals-in-charge of OUR Parliament of the Commonwealth, at the moment.
For those who disagree with my opining please note that the UK is going to change to “optional preferential” voting away from “First past the post” because Nigel Farage will win under first-past-the-post. I note that in OUR last Federal Election the use of preferences got the twin parties up to the lousy vote they got and may have not had we had one vote, one Value. Is it shown anywhere how many first preferences One Nation got? Can we have a breakdown of who got first preferences under OUR lousy system so we can see if first-past-the-post would have given us a winner other than the twins?
Excellent news, because the skunks in office have over the years turned the Preferential Voting system into the Tasmanian version i.e Hare-Clark , which has been slowly introduced outside Tasmania. This `system’ leads from a clear cut result to multi-party messes where there are no clear winners. Hence you get a multiplicity of parties as government, and unclear policies. Suits those who want to rort the tax-payers ad infinitum. Maybe unlawful? Chuck them all out.
Well of course “vote once” actually means that you can’t turn up at the local polling booth and cast a vote, only to then go around to subsequent booths and casting additional votes. It has nothing to do with the process of filling out the ballot itself which is covered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918.
That said, I am now a fierce opponent of the preferential voting system and wish for debates and extensive consultancy to be carried out regarding going back to either first past the post or a hybrid system (whereby individual voters can simply fill in as few or as many preferences as they wish). Both alternatives just described, however, have their own shortcomings though it is my belief that the downsides to first past the post or a hybrid system are now significantly less than those of a preferential voting system.
We must understand that when preferential voting was formally documented back in 1917, it was a totally different world. And that “totally different world” actually existed all the way up until the mid 1990s in Australia. Up until then, the two “preferred” parties were not only on different sides of the centre, but relatively close to it whilst also being equidistant from it. Aside from the Whitlam era, the aims of politicians on both sides were remarkably similar – it was more nuances of execution and demographics that were the order of they day rather than radical philosophical departures across the narrow spectrum.
But since the mid 90s, the winning party primary vote has continuously fallen and it is now regularly at a level where a first past the post candidate would likely have a substantially higher vote in a single winner take all count. But the worst of it is that the Overton Window has shifted massively to the left and both “preferred” parties have been dragged along in a leftward direction with it. Therefore, there is no longer a choice of left or right as preferred parties – only significantly left or extremely left. This might be great news for those on the left who can take advantage of the preferential system in order to cast a vote virtually guaranteed to count toward a candidate that particular elector favours. But for centrists such as myself and outright conservatives, objectively speaking they no longer have a choice at all. By the time their vote actually carries through to the final run off, the party they have voted for is almost certainly a party that elector does not wish to be in politics. And that is not democracy. It is an authoritarian form of coercion that is the antithesis of “free and fair”.
Commenter northerner
That’s exactly right and the crooked Purple Party makes sure not to provide information when you go along and stand in their queue, instead they apparently provide sausages.
In the local government the candidates provide an insipid profile of one paragraph or so saying something like they support the sport club so if your sport club needs a few million for a refurb you can try voting for them.
Our crooked Canberra politicians should be REQUIRED to submit a mission statement before every election and be held to it because over there in Canberra nobody here knows what they are up to, it’s designed that way.
We had an AEC official come out to boss everyone around and make them go behind a line and not wave the signs or whatever, then she tripped backwards on a parking-spot bump-stop and fell on her arse. They can’t even get their signage right. The organisation is very dodgy, they know they can tweak things a bit.
We should NOT HAVE COMPULSORY PREFERENTIAL VOTING.
Preferences should be OPTIONAL. I could accept Optional Preferential Voting happily which we had in Queensland until that ignorant Anna Palaszczuk changed this to CPV in 2018 with the support of the KATTER PARTY BOYS – Shane Knuth and Robbie Katter!!!! Even Peter Beattie had sense not to make COMPULSORY PV the rule for Qld. I do not know why FEDERAL has CPV as this is so wrong. It is also most time consuming as well when counting of votes after polls close.
Why should voters vote for people they have NO IDEA about to MAKE THEIR VOTE COUNT?
Everthing about our so called Australian governments, courts, police, councils etc.are unlawful, they are corporations, run by unlawful foreign corporations!
Well folks,
The article headline says “… Preferential voting could be unlawful…”.
Hmmmm, could be, could be…
… except of course NONE of this has ANY of relevance AT ALL to our downtrodden subordinated subjugated reality because here in Australia THERE IS NO LAW, only foreign-owned CORPORATE POLICY. You can value your “vote” maybe as much as your Flybuys card, and guess what, you don’t control or have any influence over the terms and conditions applying to EITHER, because they’re BOTH CORPORATE schemes to accomplish CORPORATE objectives. All curated, choreographed and managed by yet ANOTHER known sold-out paid-off corporate secret society child-trafficking paedophile Mr. Tom Rogers. Surprise!
And just BTW, folks, YOU don’t have any tangible or meaningful say in ANYTHING because you’re not “shareholders”, you’re not even “stakeholders”, all you are is Useless Eaters to be exploited, harvested and exterminated by the Luciferian corporation that has HIJACKED our country out from under us when apparently no-one was watching or even cared.
IMO the commentary in general is just riscibly adorably NAIVE, with terms like “unlawful” and “unconstitutional” and “illegal” being tossed around here and there, because NONE of that has any down-home tangible palpable appreciable MEANING in a land WITHOUT LAW, none of the chooks clucking and squawking is going to make a single microscopic SKERRICK of difference, not a solitary SHRED of consequence or repercussion when the foxes OWN the hen house.
Because they don’t work for us, and they don’t answer to us. Period.
And they NEVER back down, they only ever DOUBLE DOWN, and the ONLY way that they’re EVER gonna be taken down is when Mr. Rope and Mr. Lamp Post ride into town. Clearly by the decidely muted clueless aimless and utterly indecisive disposition of the flock, we’ve got all the time in the WORLD to wait for THAT – around another five or six years is what I’ve heard.
To commenter Dennis
We can only pray that you are correct.
The Banks have already been gifted money in the past that they have squandered and if they exist in any form they must be Nationalized before they get anything… if they are pegged to go then good riddance.
Correction to those that falsely believe that we are a Democracy, we are clearly not and any concept of going to the High Court in a hope of fixing the problem is doomed. Any Government so called authority that has an ABN are part of the problem ..
The “Trustees” have called for an Audit of the Big Four Banks and cannot wait to see them get their comeuppance.
Our Founding Fathers created a “Constitutional Monarchy” style of Government that was “Public” not Private and copyrighted as we endure at the moment.
Our Founding Fathers created a “Public” system of Government that was only answerable to “Whereas the People”…
The Australian Government (so called in the District of Columbia, Washinton DC/US where it was registered as a business for profit/just a corporation, obviously not an
Australian entity or a government entity) is not a government or a business any more as President Trump bankrupted The District of Columbia in Washington and all it’s registrations are now annulled.
So the UNIPARTY/Labour/ Liberal/etc., do not officially exist anymore even as a fake corporation, let alone a government.
That is why our Strawman accounts that our fake government created using our Birth Certificates in Capitols/ dead persons are now being given to us full of all the money that they multiplied into. Some will get Billions of dollars, fines and penalties refunded, some taxes which were all illegally imposed, all bankloans from the present and your past will be refunded with interest, all calculated by the deep States of all Western Nations, and used to payout your loans, etc., when you first took them out, and then they still charged you for your own capitol again with interest on top. And I heard they also gifted the bank the same amount again to use to fund the banking scams we all pay for, all out of your Strawman Account that you are listed as the beneficiary of.
So justice is coming and banks will gradually disappear, and you will be rich and become your own bank.
This is happening now and is called GESARA (NESARA for Americans, G for Global)
Before the last election I made comments on various websites indicating the illegality of preferential voting, quoting s.8 & s.30 of the Constitution. All to no avail. Maybe, now that Len Clampett has raised the issue again, and added the reference to the Electoral Act, the message may get through to the voting public. Whether the country is destroyed before the next election, or we stop short of the cliff edge, will depend on how effectively this message is promoted and received, and whether the government is challenged over unconstitutional voting.
At he last election, Labor secured majority government with 34% of the popular vote. How many of its seats were obtained through preferential voting fraud and not from simple majority? An investigation into the number of members elected through preferential voting might show that many are occupying their positions illegally. Further, any legislation passed with the support of those ‘illegal’ members might render it invalid. This would set the cat amongst the pigeons. But who is going to check the numbers and make the challenge?
Sorry Len Clampett- I totally agree with Lex Stewart, and let me assure you that he has the background of experience and credibility to back up his words.
Constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey has written on what used to be referred to as The Langer Method. Not sure if this link will work here, but readers can still enter it manually anyway:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/1996/7.pdf
Further to the above, there has been a classic piece of misinformation spread by supporters of the Lib/Lab duopoly for years saying that; “a vote for a Minor Party is a wasted vote.” Anybody who wishes to exercise their skills in critical thinking will easily recognize that as a lie.
As a simple example of the pitfalls here, let’s look at electors who live in an electorate that comprises a 60% of Conservative voters, split say- 31% Libs and 29% Nats and the remaining 40% being Labor supporters.
Clearly, under the First Past the Post system, Labor’s candidate would win with a minority of the votes!!!
Is that Democracy?
Learn to use your preferences wisely. I always give my first preference to a good Minor Party or Independent candidate, as (unless they gain more than 4% of the votes cast) that cuts off the Electoral Funding payment, currently indexed at over $3.00 per vote, from going to those who don’t deserve it (usually the Major Parties). I then fill in other boxes according to my best judgement, until it is then only a matter of deciding in which order I will number the Liberal, Labor or Greens candidates in the LAST three positions.
The entire voting system is corrupted by Party Politics and when the Mass wake the fu(k up to their corporate game they will have nowhere to hide.
The valid Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 created the rules for the 1903 Election and is recognised as a valid Act contrary to the assumption that the 1918 Electoral Act is.
The 1918 Electoral Act that they quote is unconstitutional as there was no referendum to alter the original Commonwealth Constitution Electoral Act derived from the application of the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 .
The AEC (ABN 21 133 285 851) have corrupted our names into a probated form (CAPITALS) plus they are using minors of the age of eighteen to fill their electoral ranks. Twenty-one years is the age of majority and that is the law…
So the question must be asked “Why are they enlisting minors into their Corporate Electoral Role”?
It was pointed out to them that they were holding false names on file and they still do. If you make them aware of this and attempt to correct them they ignore you as this name on file is not yours to alter. It appears to me that what they do is ask you your name then they look it up and cross it off and at that point you have inadvertently contracted with them to be that probated name. Games over you are a dead man/woman walking and you have fallen for their bait and unknowingly voted in their corporate election of a new Board of Directors.
We have to go back “De Novo” to the beginning and start again with the wealth of knowledge that we have gained.
We need to encourage the good honest Representatives to occupy the original Parliament House and start again. If Edward Gough Whitlam could create a corporate system of government without a referendum in 1973 then surely Representatives under their valid Oath of Office can in 2026 form a valid Government subject to the People and start again.
The “Law of the land” is on their side.
It is unlawful
There was never a referendum to allow it and I have been stating this for over 2yrs now
I disagree with this interpretation of the Constitution that preferential voting could be unlawful. Of course one can only find out the correct interpretation by running (at a cost) a case in the High Court and getting a decision. The wording of the Constitution in my view does not transfer the English ‘first past the post’ method of voting, which I have reasons to think is worse than Australia’s various preferential systems. House of Representative elections have compulsory preferential voting, and a voter is able to do a sort of ‘protest’ vote by firstly voting for a minor candidate (such as One Nation or Animal Justice etc, who have no prospect of winning the HoR seat) and then somewhere in the numbering of every square (there are often 7 or more candidates) then the only important thing is if the voter numbers the ALP before or after the Coalition candidate, as to selecting which of the two Major sides of politics will form government. That is our system of government, as Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, but it is the least worst of all the alternatives”.
Looking back – It is beyond time for politicians to be cut off from stealing the wealth produced by taxpayers to run the nation. We may then get honest people whose desire is to rid the nation of our foreign owned RBA whose interest charges leave Australia never to come back. Bring back a government bank to serve the nation interest and debt free.
Time for Bill Shorten to stop lying about the Emma Husar bullying – fraud investigation
by Shane Dowling
Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten is in a lot of trouble with his claim that he was only made aware of the bullying and fraud allegations against federal MP Emma Husar when he was approached recently by BuzzFeed News journalist Alice Workman. It is totally unbelievable, and it has already been reported he knew last […]
“………….With Emma Husar the writing was on the wall so to speak (actually on Facebook) back in 2016 just before the federal election when Emma Husar was caught deleting embarrassing posts. One Facbook post said:
“politicians, I want to be one, you can lie, steal, cheat and use other people’s money to go on holidays – the best job in the world”. (Click here to read more)
https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2018/07/21/time-for-bill-shorten-to-stop-lying-about-the-emma-husar-bullying-fraud-investigation/
D’oh!
[…] Source link […]