Voting.
Well, election time is coming up again and we have to brace ourselves for a barrage of advertising of the ‘virtues of various candidates’ and of course their parties. We will be told of all of the wonderful things they will do for us, but will probably be less forthcoming on what they will do to us.
Interspersed among these in Australia will of course be some by the Electoral Commission warning us that voting is compulsory and that failure to do so, will incur fines.
Yes folks, in this great democracy of ours the right to vote has been taken away and replaced with a compulsion to vote. The reason I say that the right to vote has been removed is that a right is something that the individual can choose to do or not do as free will decides. I have the right to drink, but if I do not choose to do so I don’t.
No publican has the right to lay criminal charges, or sue me for failing to do so. Some of them may have a beef about this, but are not likely to be taken seriously. I will not be fined for failing to drink; therefore my right to drink is untainted.
Voting needs to be reformed, if for no better reason than that the disinterested people who go along to vote because they are compelled to, probably skew results. How many people have been voted in or out by people who essentially don’t care enough about the process enough to vote voluntarily.
I have some modest suggestions for reform here.
(1) Voluntary voting.
(2) Optional preferences. Queensland is as far as I know the only state where it is not compulsory to allocate preferences. A vote for only one candidate elsewhere without preference allocation is invalid despite clearly being for that candidate.
(3) An extra box on bottom of the ballot paper marked “None of the above”. This gives the voter the right to vote that none of those candidates are acceptable. If ‘none of the above’ were to win, then a by-election must be held with the original candidates disqualified from standing.
(4) Public campaign funding should be abolished.
Politicians will be opposed to these reforms because they offer the threat of demonstrating how little interest that they arouse in the electorates in some cases, and because public funding is based on the number of votes they get.
There can be no justification for public funding. It can not even be claimed that political parties deserve this through ‘Public Interest’ as the only support they deserve is that which the public is prepared to voluntarily give them. Arguments have been made that public funding reduces corruption, however the best method of achieving this would be for the politicians to be less corrupt.
42 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
Andrew Russell on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
jc on Minimum wages frozen 
Juel Briggs on A Call For Radical Utopianism … Weekend Essays on Li… on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
Tinos on America’s version of… jc on America’s version of… 
papachango on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
Michael C on What Type Of Libertarian Are… jc on Minimum wages frozen 
nicholas gray on Discussion 
Bee on What Type Of Libertarian Are… nicholas gray on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on What Type Of Libertarian Are…
-
LINKS
-
Featured Book
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
Spot on Jim,
I think there is a lot of grassroots support for Voluntary voting. The LDP should really be flogging during the election campaign. That and abolition of the minimum wage (kidding).
Maybe a leaflet on election day along the lines of: Would you rather be in Bed or at the Pub right now? Vote for the Liberal Democratic Party to make voting Voluntary!
Well said Jim.
There was a campaign a while ago to register a party called “none of the above” and try to get that option on the ballots around Australia. They never succeeded.
Continuing the tangent… there was a party that ran in the first ACT election called “no self government party” and they ran on abolishing the legislative assembly and giving power back to federal bureaucrats. Several of them were elected and then they didn’t know what to do next.
Extending the tangent further, there were also parties in the ACT election called “fried green tomato party” and my personal favourite, “party party party party”.
Does anyone have any thoughts on non-anonymous voting?
(including in the USA and other countries…)
A trackable voting system would make vote fraud very difficult. (perhaps partially secure, ie everyone is given a pin which would allow them to check their vote)
“There was a campaign a while ago to register a party called “none of the above” and try to get that option on the ballots around Australia.
Heh, that’s like the NEE party in belgium. Anyone looking for some political action?
And good post Jim, well articulated.
Ben, abolishing the minimum wage is the LDP position. It is outlined in the tax policy. The LDP position advocates a minimum income via a negative income tax but it is quite clearly in favour of removing the problematic price floor on labour skills.
Jim,
Broadly speaking I agree with and applaud your suggestions. However I don’t think politians can be made less corrupt by mere pleading or wishful thinking. Institutional factors are enormously significant in defining the culture and the outcome. I agree that public funding of parties is unnecessary and counter productive. It is biased towards incumbant parties and I’m very much in favour of an open system. However I’m also reasonable comfortable with other measures to combat corruption such as disclosure rules.
Regards,
Terje.
Thanks Terje,
I know it is. My point was that the LDP may want to make a bit more noise about Voluntary voting. Although Reform 30/30 makes sense and will help the poor a whole lot more than the empty gesture of minimum wage. Minimum wage is a sacred cow and it’s difficult to even have a conversation with people about it’s merits (or lack thereof).
People I’ve spoken to love the ideas behind Reform 30/30 right up until the point where you mention abolition of minimum wage. Even when you explain that it’s negated by the NIT. It’s like a switch flicks in their brain and they assume they are having a conversation with Satan.
Over the last few years when there’s an election campaingn, the Chaser, that show on ABC that’s really popular now, will do a segment where they go up to some feral in the street, get him/her to say something stupid or make a fool of themselves, then a big red stamp appears across the screen saying, “This person votes”.
Perhaps a way to sell voluntary voting would be to highlight the fact that you can irradicate some of the voters who really don’t care or have an opinion either way and who are obviously just going to vote on a whim or vote how they are told to by their friends/family.
Tim, that was exactly what i was thinking.
If voting were made optional, in my opinion it would only be the yippies or extremely unintelligent who would choose not to vote, as most other people could recognise that it is an integral part of a democracy and is their civic duty to vote. And besides, most of the people that would elect not to vote would very probably be voting for the greens or other leftist groups anyway.
Perry,
Are you saying that voting is a duty? Given the personal utility of a single vote (ie nil) I think there is a reasonable argument about voting and democracy being a public good. However I am not sure I buy the argument. On balance I do think voting should be voluntary.
Regards,
Terje.
P.S. In the scheme of things compulsory voting seems like a pretty low key issue. It is mostly symbolic. Compulsory voting forces you to expend an hour or two at every election. Lets say it equates to about half an hour per annum for federal elections. Given that tax freedom day is around 25 April the impost of compulsory voting on liberty seems pretty low to me. Even if you include voting at three levels of government we might say it amounts to 1.5 hours of compulsion per annum against the 100+ days imposed by the tax system.
Even if it is only a small imposition, it still should not exist. If you want to vote, then you vote. If you don’t want to, or couldn’t be bothered, then all the parties have failed, since they failed to engage your interests.
In any case, I prefer not to have representative government, but direct democracy. The strongest unit of governance should be the local canton, or county, or shire. We should be free to pay to be citizens, who then have the right to vote on all issues, directly. No middle-men politicians. Or, we should be free to choose to be citizens, and time-share all government functions (part-time volunteer firefighters and street patrollers etc.), and time-share voting as well. That way we would all be part of the government- it wouldn’t be something outside of ourselves.
So, buckle up, young Terje! None of this defeatist nonesense about putting up with it, it’s only a little thing. A small rock can cause a massive avalanche! Even little things matter!
Nicholas – I definintely agree that local government should be the strongest unit of governance.
In agreement Jim, refreshing to hear this – not something I hear much of, all too often quite the contrary.
No political party should have the natural right to exist, sell your ideas (or lack thereof)and people will support you (or not) with their hard earned dough. Tax payer funding for them is ludicrous, especially as they spend much of their airtime slagging off ordinary people for becoming welfare dependent when their services become no longer required by market forces.
The ‘none of the above’ thing – would that be necessary if we were able to vote with our feet i.e. as almost most people do in the freer US and UK? Counting the increasing votes with the feet in those countries is far more interesting – as is the classic response of ‘political leaders’ that the problem is the average voter is just too feckless to walk 20 minutes to the local school hall. Wishful thinking on their behalf indeed!
If we introduced voluntary voting maybe the political parties here may perform a bit better if their electorate were not always guaranteed. Maybe wishful thinking on my behalf tho’, as in UK and US political leaders are prone to do crazy things in attempts to reconnect with their lost electorates.
Someone told me it is against the law to advocate to others to spoil one’s vote, is this true?
There is a summary of the arguments for and against compulsory voting on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting It looks like it was written by a libertarian.
The entry also lists the countries that, like Australia, have compulsory voting. There aren’t many.
NSW has optional preferential voting in state elections.
Public funding of election campaigns should absolutely be abolished, but not without increased safeguards against corruption. People who are desperate to get elected are always at risk of abandoning moral principles. I suggest disclosure obligations be accompanied by criminal penalties and a lifetime ban on future candidacy for transgressors.
Someone told me it is against the law to advocate to others to spoil one’s vote, is this true?
It’s definitely true for federal elections. Haven’t looked at the state legislation.
So does that mean you can’t legally tell people to vote for the Greens?
I know your parents always told you to eat your Greens, good advice for any age-group, but mine never told me to VOTE for them! Be sure to eat up your Reds (Meat) and your greens, and you’ll have a well-balanced political diet!
For those who are interested in LEGAL REALITY rather then LEGAL FICTION may just discover that “voting” is not compulsory at all, regardless that many people have been convicted for FAILING TO VOTE. How is that you may ask? Well, in 2001 I challenged the validity of all writs of the federal election and challenged the validity of Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as to obligate anyone to vote. This resulted in a 5-year legal battle between the Federal government lawyers and myself. I filed a Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS challenging the constitutional validity of compulsory voting, and numerous other constitutional issues. A Magistrate on 17 November 2005 simply could not care less and convicted me for FAILING TO VOTE on 10 November 2001 and FAILING TO VOTE on 1 January 2005. OK on 1 January 2005 there never was a federal election but to the magistrate it made not one of iota difference as he refused to provide me with a REASON OF JUDGMENT also, despite that I pointed out that by law I was entitled to have it.
It must be made known that I was a candidate in the 2001 and 2004 federal elections but that makes not one iota different to my “right” to vote or not to vote.
I also argued that the political funding attached to a persons vote was unconstitutional. Likewise that I as a candidate would be forced to vote for an opponent.
After the convictions the lawyers for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions could not resit to make clear to me that without them having challenged my constitutional issues I was totally defeated by the convictions on all issues I had raised.
I appealed, and published another book on 6 July 2006 titled;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
In this book I did set out that I had REFUSED TO VOTE on both occasions and it was my right to do so. The book included all legal documents filed in Court. I then filed the book as evidence in the trial due for 19 July 2006 before the County Court of Victoria.
OK many may think it might be silly to publish a book admitting not having voted just before a criminal trial takes place (as it is a criminal trial) but it served my purpose. Both appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside and the Summonses were struck out.
You see, while the High Court of Australia made in the past numerous decisions about voting being compulsory (consider Albert Lange case, John Murray Abbott case, etc) none ever had been a “constitutionalist” as I am and so never argued and were not able to present what was constitutionally applicable and permissible.
My 27-5-2006 published book about how unconstitutional WorkChoices legislation is, despite what the High Court of Australia stated in its 14 November 2006 judgment, also underlines that we lack competent judges to deal with legal matters as to what is constitutionally applicable. Hence, as a “constitutionalist” I defeat lawyers/judges as they lack to comprehend what is applicable.
In the last Victorian State election I attended and stated that I refuse to vote. So, the Electoral Officer, after I left the room – not aware I was looking through the window – then simply lodged the forms I refused to accept himself in the ballot boxes. Sure, it is unlawful for him to do so but it seems they do not want another defeat against me in the Courts. I did question the Electoral Officer about this and he stated I could make a formal complaint. I did, but still have no response.
This post does not allow me to set out matters extensively but those interested in reading more can always check out my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com or my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
I proved that voting is not compulsory!
Reading D McCarthy’s comment reminds me of an issue I have namely, Should an anarcho-capitalist vote?
I think if non-voting were done by a majority of people it would be a good way to non-violently express resistance to a coercive government system that infringes upon human rights. (As it is illegal to deliberately donkey vote, I won’t admit to it in writing).
The non-voting anarcho-capitalist hopes that the move towards a more free society would come about via non-violent civil disobedience. If enough people don’t cooperate, the problem goes away. This idea is similar to how social change can mean certain laws are no longer enforced such as the anti-sodomy laws in Tasmania or anti-prostitution laws in South Australia.
This approach is also opperating on the idea that by voting you are supporting and thus partly responsible for the current democratic system itself. And that the ends can never justify the means.
However the counter argument to the non-voting anarcho-capitalist is based on the fact that you are forced into this particular democratic system.
Hence, you are not responsible for this state of affairs and are therefore not supporting nor endorsing the system itself.
In addition, you are 99.99% sure that for the next four years you will be forced to abide by legislation you disagree with. I do think by voting, you are taking on a partial responsibility for the actions of a political party you choose to vote for. But seen as you are forced to operate within the current system there is no other option, you should therefore vote for the political party you think will do the least damage.
I must admit to finding the decision of who to vote for or whether to vote at all, quite difficult.
I think that if Natasha were still in the Democrats, then I might have voted for them if she promised to wear hot pants and short skirts. IS there any other good eye-candy in either party? If they’re going to infantilise us by making us vote, let’s do them better and not think at all, just react to the prettiest face and figure we can see!
Tim R, purposely non voting where voting is not compulsory is one way of offering peaceful resistance to a coercive government. It could also be seen as an impotent shrug of the shoulders – but a better shrug of the shoulders than just ticking the boxes out of sense of duty rather than political inspiration.
Contemporary discourse often forgets democracy should not just be about ticking a box (coercing people to vote encourages this narrow view), tick the box and off you go into the distance for the next 3-4 years. It’s merely the money-shot. Bit cheeky to expect that without engaging and inspiring me first!
And another thing, that eerie AEC advert where the woman has a glowing box on her dressing table next to her jewellery and perfumes deliberately gives the impression the voting thing is a gift to treasure. Again, ‘if you do nothing else you can at least dust off your precious gift now again and leave the rest of that democracy business to those that know better’. And of course if you don’t use your ‘gift’…..
IS there any other good eye-candy in either party?
Mate, since Amanda Vanstone retired it’s been a desert. Nothing but skinny ho’s and crackers
If telling people that they do not have to vote if they do not desire to do so in federal elections is a criminal offence, and considering I publish books setting it out in details, then why is the Federal Government not taking me to court (again)? Perhaps because I proved that Section 245 of the Constitution is unconstitutional and as such you cannot commit an offence in that regard.
In 1897 the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to give the Commonwealth of Australia powers to make registration and voting compulsory.
In 1915 the Commonwealth of Australia aborted its Section 128 referendum to obtain an amendment to allow it to make voting compulsory!
As such, it never gained any powers to make voting compulsory, but in 1923 a Private Members Bill was passed to make voting compulsory, regardless it was unconstitutional!
Hence consider the following:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
Hence, fool you if you allow yourself to be terrorised by unconstitutional demands!
Is there any other good eye-candy in either party?
Kate Ellis is a little cutey. That’s why they have her dial over the shoulder of any ALP speaker televised from the HoR.
Libertarians often talk about unintended consequences. This one-two combo would have very dire consequences: it would give us a voluntary plurality voting system. You know, the same voting system which plagues US politics.
JR; I don’t notice many ladies in the party; therefore I don’t think we can offer the sort of incentives your link does.
Terje; one of the arguments used to promote public funding was that it would remove the deals for money aspects to election funding.
It is in fact my contention that nobody corrupts another. The ‘corrupted party’ has to be willing to accept corrupt payments in the first place for this to happen and is therefore already corrupt. ‘Corrupting politicians’, or whoever else should not be an offence as the person doing the paying is simply meeting an already existing market. Making a corrupt payment is a moral judgement and is not the concern of the state.
A person who accepts such payments is presumably in breach of the standards of the position held, and should be liable to consequences.
Perry; An unintelligent person has the right to vote, my concern is that a disinterested person, forced to vote would probably in fact make a less informed value judgement than an ‘unintelligent’ voter who wishes to vote. By not forcing people to vote elections become more likely to yield a meaningful result.
David; Michael definitely has better taste than you.
Jchester; I totally disagree. The system in the US is first past the post. This virtually means that any vote for candidates outside the main parties has no chance and is ‘wasted’ except as a method of protest.
If preferences were optional, then those voters who wish to vote, say Libertarian could have the option to give a preference to (probably) the Republican candidate and so still have an impact on the real result.
For example Republicans in the US are doing a lot better in recent by-elections than the press reports indicate they are likely to. They recently won with 78% in SC for the Senate, 58% for the mayor of Dallas, and two Republicans will face off in the runoff election in Georgia. It is probable that they are still competitive for the Presidency.
One of the difficulties they face is that the Libertarian Party are likely to stand Wayne Allyn Root, who is remarkably charismatic, and running a well organized campaign and may regrettably cruel the chances of the Republicans.
If preferences were an option then most of his vote, (unless he wins) would go back to the Republicans. At present I believe the Republicans only chance of winning would be a cross party Thompson/Root ticket.
Annoying that this tags me as ‘jchester’, not Jacques Chester. Anyway.
Plurality (aka First Past the Post aka FPTP) is what the yanks have. The point I didn’t properly make is that FPTP is a special case of optional preferential voting. In the case where people choose to “vote 1″ and stop there, the two methods are essentially equivalent.
This causes important strategic voting effects. For example, it guts the vote of minor parties where there is a stable two-party system. It also guts any group with factional divisions: the continuing trials and tribulations of the Queensland Nats and Libs can be blamed on Qld’s optional preferential system and the Labor “Just Vote 1″ campaign.
Voting theory is actually quite complicated and nuanced. It doesn’t lend itself very well to policy decisions based on first-attempt applications of libertarian principles – there is an impedance mismatch between the naive application and the mathematics which suggest different tradeoffs. Arrow’s theorem is the starting point which shows every voting system is flawed, but some are much more flawed than others. Voluntary FPTP is about as bad as it gets.
correction: for “can be blamed on” read “can be blamed in part”.
G.H.
Your points seem good- is there any way to publicize them in a compact form, so that the average person gets to know about his rights? Could it be done before the Federal Election?
Tim R.,
My views are very close to Anarcho-Capitalism, so my reason for voting at all is that we do have some good parties to choose- ie, the Liberal Democratic Party is a vote in the right direction.
Another reason, since I don’t intend to be militant about my views, is to go along with the system until I can change it from within, both by voting and by propagating anarcho-capitalistic opinions. I can do this best by staying below the radar of the law.
Thirdly, I don’t object to voting- I call my system direct democracy, because I believe that we should all vote directly on all Public laws (which would only affect local public properties such as roads, etc.). Thus voting should be broadened for all public interest issues, and we should eliminate the politician middle-people (whether physically or metaphysically doesn’t matter.).
Jacques;
I take your point, however I think the problem in Qld. Is caused by;
(1) The coalition in Queensland has not deserved to win on the basis of their campaigns.
(2) Joh successfully broadened the support base of the Nationals, while maintaining the traditional support of the rural sector. Rob Borbige went further, and then they lost their traditional support to One Nation.
(3) One nation filled the rural void with a campaign hostile to the Nats.
(4) None of the non-Labor parties have even tried to counter the just vote one push.
(5) The coalition campaign in the last election was a disastrous schemozzle.
(6) The amalgamation of the coalition parties should go ahead if they want to win.
My support of optional preferences is basically on the principle that people should be free to allocate or not allocate preferences as they wish. Incidentally as a scruiteneer at elections I saw quite a few votes declared informal despite clearly voting for a candidate, because they did not give preferences.
My major point was voluntary voting and I think that with the disinterested voters out of the way, the problems that you see with the optionality of preferences would not be such a problem.
Nicholas Grey,
I appreciate your comment and I intend to provide for this on my website very soon.
One thing you need to keep in mind is that lawyers working for the Federal Government will wear you down as much as they can and threaten to seek huge cost against you. meaning, most people, other then the die hard dare to stand their ground. Even then people usually loose the battle because judges tend to disregard what a party pursues and side with the lawyers on BIAS views. (Albert Lange, John Abbotto, etc)
The old trick that the High Court of Australia decided that voting is compulsory deters many to refuse to vote as they are scared off. As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I stood my ground, and succeeded, because I had extensively research matters and pursued all legal requirements, including a Section 78B of the Judiciary Act (Cth) NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS which in the end remained UNCHALLENGED!
Personally I like to vote, but to make my position clear that no one can force me to vote because of the constitutional freedom enshrined in the Constitution I make a stand time and again.
I would not recommend to anyone to do as I did, as while it might be your constitutional rights, do keep in mind that if you loose you can face a huge legal bill, even if you loose because the judge refuses to allow your material to be considered. Basically you could be set up to loose, regardless that you are right.
Whatever I view as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” to be applicable, I have never asked another person, so to say, to take up the battle for this as I do it myself and do not place others at risk.
To me the “CONSTITUTION” is too important to have vandalised by politicians/judges and we need to protect it, as it contains the rights others so hard fought for and we are merely the temporary holders of this to protect and nurture it for those who come after us.
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, you did not win. A win is when the courts find in your favour or the government changes the law. They didn’t do either – they gave up on you because it wasn’t worth the effort. It had nothing to do with the constitution either.
Compulsory voting should be resisted, as you did. Unless there is a valid choice available such as the LDP, refusing to vote is a rational option. But don’t kid yourself that you changed anything. It will take a lot more than that.
BTW, the Australian constitution contains very few rights and was never fought for. I think you are confused with the US constitution and Bill of Rights.
I’d resist compulsory voting except that I’m also interested in asserting my right to vote.
changing what law?
I proved on constitutional grounds that there was no constitutional powers to compel anyone to vote! No change of law was required as the legislation purporting it to be compulsotry is ULTRA VIRES (WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE)
Consider the following;
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
As for no rights inb the Constitution, they are EMBEDDED in it, just that it is not particularly known to people as they are , so to say, brainwashed by whatever political party is in power. the bill of rights is as much part of the Australian constitution as it is in the US Constitution!
I proved on constitutional grounds that there was no constitutional powers to compel anyone to vote! No change of law was required as the legislation purporting it to be compulsotry is ULTRA VIRES (WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE)
You proved no such thing. A single magistrate merely decided not to convict you.
If you had “proved” that compulsory voting was ultra vires the constitution, nobody would now be required to vote. That’s obviously not the case – try it again and see what happens. Encourage others not to vote and see what happens. Big Brother will come after you and the constitution won’t save you.
the bill of rights is as much part of the Australian constitution as it is in the US Constitution!
Complete and utter garbage. The US Bill of Rights applies to the US, not Australia. We have no Bill of Rights. We also have almost no rights embedded in our constitution.
David,
We inherited the tradition of the English Bill of Rights, along with all our laws, as part of our legacy at Federation, but this is almost completely worthless, because Judges routinely decide that Parliament can make laws that infringe on the Bill as Parliament sees fit. The Bill of Rights is simply a wish-list of rights- which has one good side-effect. The Bill originally only gave Protestants the right to bear arms. That has since been modified, and the government is now trying to disarm everyone equally.
I think, though, that you are right that GHSH is lucky in his choice of magistrate; if more people tried it, they would close the loophole, and make it mandatory.
The right to bear arms in that context simply meant that the government could not afford high level rights to one group (Catholics) without giving them to others. It was a really bad way of trying to enshrine equality under law.
In my personal opinion the English Bill of Rights is badly written, full of gaping holes and generally pathetic in a modern sense. The closest we’ve ever come to getting it right is the US Bill of Rights which in my opinion is 90% of the way there (probably need some protection for free trade and limitations on the federal government, plus some other smaller stuff and rewordings).
Nicholas, the English Bill of Rights theoretically still operates in Australia as part of the Common Law. However, Common Law applies only to the extent that neither subsequent judgements nor legislation contradict it. Obviously during the course of 318 years there have been a vast number of court decisions and legislation, so it is now irrelevant. It also has nothing to do with the Australian constitution.
GHSH is lucky in his choice of magistrate; if more people tried it, they would close the loophole, and make it mandatory
There is no loophole. Magistrates throw out cases on a whim quite regularly. Voting is still mandatory – trust me.
Nicholas Gray is correct in that we have a Bill of Rights. the fact that the Courts may ignore it does not make their conduct legal.
Also, I was (twice) convicted by a magistrate, refusing to give a reason of judgment, but on Appeals to the County Court of Victoria before a judge succeeded on all constitutional grounds UNCHALLENGED and the convictions were set aside. The cases lasted 5-years!
AS SECTION 245 OF THE COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS TO COMPEL A PERSON TO VOTE, I FOR THIS SPECIFICALLY REFUSE TO VOTE.
An unconstitutional law is no law at all!
Politicians bully people into voting and I took a stand against that and refused to vote while being a candidate in each election. In the coming election I will again refuse to vote!
Anyone who think that the judge was a push over ignored the thousands upon thousands of pages of material I relied upon, including a book on CD I had published!
Despite that the High Court in previous cases had ruled that voting is compulsory I prove the High Court to be wrong and the lawyers were certainly not going to try me further where I had overwhelmingly evidence to prove my case.
Lawyers learn how to manipulate legislation in favour of their clients but I, as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” was the master on constitutional issues and they could not defeat me.
The cases are to complicated to set out in a post, hence my books reveal it all.
See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
I found a good definition/quote: -
A Libertarian is an Anarchist who votes” –Augustus Esterhazy ..
[...] themes of my previous entry: the ease with which ideology can derail practical outsomes. The LDP is looking at voting policy. Unlike debates about gun laws, this one hasn’t descended into name-calling, but it does [...]
Pingback by Club Troppo » Libertarian Distractions revisited. | August 8, 2007