Stalling tactics remove a genuine choice for voters

TONY Windsor wants to know whom I will preference.

Unlike him, if elected by New England voters and it was again a hung parliament, I would clearly support the major party that garnered the most votes in this election.

In other words, I would support the democratic right of voters, and never betray them.

I’m happy to put this in writing so the voters know that they won’t be betrayed by an independent in this election.

If elected I would no longer remain an independent, as I would immediately switch to representing the 21st Century Australia Party which the AEC conveniently is delaying to October to be finalised to ensure Australians don’t get a genuine, legitimate alternative to Rudd or Abbott this election, but are forced to wait at least three more years.

It’s great the AEC is such a supporter of the duopoly, sorry, I meant the democracy we have in Australia.

Our country routinely attacks other non-democratic nations over interference in fair and honest elections, yet our elections don’t even allow an emerging threat to the duopoly and the party of the future be on the ballot paper.

They then try and lie to the Australian public that they are just following policies and procedures.

What policies and procedures state, in the event of a new emerging alternative party (not a single- issue party) the AEC is to deliberately delay, using every tactic available to not register the party until the exact date required to ensure it’s not on the ballot paper for this year’s election?

What policy says it has to take over four months before a new party can be on the ballot paper?

When, if I asked one of my employees to do a simple task, for example, here is a list of 550 names, please quickly cross-check against this other database to find 500, and please complete the task in three hours.

In the private sector that would not be considered to be an unreasonable time frame to complete such a simple, low-skilled task.

And if you can’t find 500 that are matching, simply ask me for some more names as a list of 1000 to find 500 from.

Now a smart employee who can do basic mathematics would perhaps also say, well why not give me the list of 1000 to match 500 on this other database as that would actually be quicker as I only have to find one in every two names to get the 500 outcome, or 50 per cent.

But if I can only be given 550 names then to find 500 to match requires 90 per cent, a much more difficult mathematical task.

Unless, of course you want the task to take longer, then by all means, only allow me 550 names to cross-check.

Even though an average paid person in Australia could compete such a task in three hours, perhaps even 30 minutes. 

How long does the AEC, a supposedly highly-efficient, honest, transparent department require?

Thirty minutes? Three hours? Three days? Three weeks? Three months? Four months?

More than four months – and that’s only if they really want to; if they don’t want to achieve the outcome of the task, then indefinitely.

It’s certainly something to think about.

This is the government department meant to be upholding democracy that wants you to vote in elections but doesn’t want you to be able to vote for any serious alternate to Labor and Liberal.

And we expect to trust they can actually count.


Discuss "Stalling tactics remove a genuine choice for voters"

Please note: All comments made or shown here are bound by the Online Discussion Terms & Conditions.