Election Fraud and the Australian Election Commission

Election Fraud and the Australian Election Commission, by Geoffrey Luck.

After the 2016 federal election, 18,343 people were asked to explain why their names had been crossed off more than once. Some 7,743 allegations of voter fraud were referred to the Australian Federal Police, only 65 were investigated, and none was prosecuted.

Things haven’t changed much. In 2007, 20,633 letters were sent to apparent multiple voters; 18,037 or 87% responded; 1167 admitted to multiple voting of whom 955 or 82% were excused due to confusion, poor comprehension or age; 10 were referred to the AFP and absolutely zero were prosecuted.

Australia’s much-vaunted democracy, based on compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting, is entirely dependent on the honesty of individual declarations. At enrollment, and on voting. In fact the system is wide open to deceit at almost every level. And especially in tight elections in marginal electorates, there is every incentive for unscrupulous operatives – or even pranksters – to rort the system. (In one South Australian election a family voted 159 times as a joke). …

There is really nothing to stop a person enrolling with a fake name at a real address, a fake name at a fake address, under-age or as a non-citizen, with the real name of a voter now dead, or in an eligible real name deliberately at the wrong address (e.g. another electorate). …

Clearly the AEC has no idea how accurate the roll is. Yet it continues to dismiss concerns of fraud as a “straw man”.

An honour system that would quickly bankrupt most businesses now extends to the polling. A person entitled to vote may vote several times under his or her name at different polling places, under the name of another person, or under fictional names. By presenting at a different division, a voter may be given an absentee vote, without a check on whether he or she has already voted in the correct division. All these practices are illegal, but prosecution is virtually impossible because no identification is required, and therefore the identity of the offender can not be proven.

The AEC remains complacent, and no real enquiries are made, especially to clean the roll before the election. If any instances of deliberate deception should be later detected , it will be too late to undo the damage in a close contest which may have been decided by a handful of votes. …

Vote Australia Inc has published a 10-point plan to overcome Australia’s voting deficiencies. They range from demands for valid identification for enrolment and voting, to restoration of the Habitation Reviews that were stopped in 1995, to a master electronic roll replacing paper rolls, to ink pens instead of pencils in voting booths. Its boldest call is for the abolition of the Australian Electoral Commission and a return to the Ministerial responsibility in place from 1901 to 1984.

Hmmm, elections are run by the bureaucracy, and standards are relaxed and not enforced. Who does the bureaucracy favor politically? And which side has less respect for rules and is more likely to cheat, justified by “higher” justice?