Poll: Voting System

Essential Research

Comment: 48% to 44% of voters favour a preferential voting system over a first past thial te post ballot.   Those favoriong an Optional Preferential ballot do not realise or undertand the impact of optional preferential voting on the counting of the results of the election.  In 2010 the Victorian Electoral Commission advocated that voters only number one to five below-the-line.  The commission should be advocting that voters allocate a preference for all candidates in order of the voters' preferred choice.  In advoctaing the minimum the Commision devalued the value of the vote and became an active particpant in the electiion outcome as oposed to being independent and unaligned.



Q. Which of the following voting systems would you prefer when voting for the Federal House of Representatives.

• A preferential voting system where voters rank all candidates in order of preference.
• An optional preferential system where voters can rank one, some, or all candidates in order of preference.
• A “first past the post” system, where voters only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins.

	Total	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens
Preferential	22%	31%	18%	30%
Optional preferential	26%	26%	24%	33%
First past the post	44%	40%	53%	31%
Don’t know	7%	4%	4%	6%

Of the three voting options given, 44% favoured “first past the post”, 26% optional preferential and 22% the current preferential system.
Optional preferential was most preferred by those aged under 35 (35%) while older groups strongly favoured first past the post (50% of aged 35-54 and 54% of aged 55+).

Poll: Voluntary Voting

Essential Research

Q. If voting at elections was voluntary (i.e. not compulsory) – how likely would you be to vote in the next Federal election?

	Total	Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens
Total definitely/probably vote	82%	85%	89%	78%
Total definitely/probably not vote	14%	12%	9%	19%
Would definitely vote	59%	62%	65%	61%
Would probably vote	23%	23%	24%	17%
Probably wouldn’t vote	10%	8%	7%	18%
Definitely wouldn’t vote	4%	4%	2%	1%
Don’t know	4%	3%	1%	3%

82% said they would definitely or probably vote if voting was voluntary. 14% said they definitely or probably would not vote.
Coalition and Labor voters were more likely to vote and Greens voters somewhat less likely.
By age, 73% of those aged under 35 said they would vote compared to 82% of those aged 35-54 and 91% of those aged 55+.
The estimated vote excluding those who would probably or definitely not vote produces a first preference vote of 52% Liberal/National, 30% Labor, 11% Greens and 7% other. The two-party preferred estimate is 58% Liberal/National and 42% Labor (compared to the current estimate of 57%/43%) – suggesting that voluntary voting would only very slightly advantage the Coalition.

Essential Research: Latest Polling

Essential Research has published its latest polling.  It has the ALP trailing the Coalition primary vote 32% to 46% (44% to 56% TPP) respectively.

Equally alarming is the economic trend which shows Australia's strong economic performance backed up by the Mining sector and good economic management by the Federal Government is not being reflected in consumer confidence.  Much of this has to do with the Baby boomers entering retirement as the burden on taxation beocmes greater along with the ned to make ends meet on what is a igherning peronsal housld budget.  This is not helped by profit takers who are benefiting from the high dollar and massive increases in supermarket pricing over the last two months.  Our dollar is performing well yet the price of energy and petrol is increasing.

On the political front the change in the Senate with the Greens claining balance of power (Fact is the Greens olnly hold the blanace of power if the Coalition opposes Government inititives - which has more to do with political opportunism then what is the best policy for the Nation.)

Hanson a victim of fraud. Yet NSW EC continues to deny access to BTL vote data

Pauline Hanson vote challenge has been derailed with evidence lead in court that the allegation of missing votes was fraudulent.  (ABC News).  Mr. Sean Castle, the man behind the fraudulent allegations is likely to face court costs associated with Hanson challenge after he admitted to faking the allegations but will escape public prosecution in return for goving evidence..

"Mr Castle, a father of three, was granted protection from prosecution before being compelled to answer questions relating to the purported Electoral Commission email.

Under questioning, he said "he had never received any email from the commission and that he had created it himself". He also admitted he has never known anyone who has worked for the Electoral Commission."


Notwithstanding Hanson's case the NSW Electoral commission still has failed to publish details of the Below-the-line election results which continue to bring the NSW EC into disrepute

Julia Gillard preferred prime minister

Source:p Essential Report.

Better Prime Minister

Q. Who do you think would make the better Prime Minister out of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott?

	5 Jul 2010	17 Jan 2011	14 Feb	14 Mar	11 Apr	9 May	14 June
Julia Gillard	53%	47%	48%	44%	42%	43%	41%
Tony Abbott	26%	32%	31%	33%	33%	35%	36%
Don’t know	21%	21%	20%	23%	24%	22%	24%

41% believe Julia Gillard would make the better Prime Minister and 36% prefer Tony Abbott

Pauline Hanson: Source of allegations of 'Dodgy vote counting' by NSW Electoral Commission confronts court

Not to be denied the thrills and spill, a man who claims he is the source of allegations made against NSW Electoral Commission has fronted court to give evidence. The man whose real name is Sean Castle used a pseudonym ‘Michael Rattner’. when he first contacted Pauline Hanson with revelations of a 1,200 vote discrepancy in the NSW election count. It was claimed that the staff had miscounted the votes that should have been allocated to Pauline Hanson instead they were discarded as informal.

The allegation of "dodgy vote counting" comes on the back of the NSW Electoral Commission's refusal to publish the detailed below-the-line preference computer data-files which were used to tabulate the results of the March election.  Without access to this data it is impossible to verify the correctness and validity of the election count.

Public elections MUST be open and transparent if public confidence is to be maintained in the electoral process.  The failure of the NSW election commission to publish this data has and continues to bring the Commission into disrepute and leave then open to allegations of corruption.

The NSW Court case has been adjourned until next week

Missing witness, missing votes and missing data - Please explain?

Missing Witness

Pauline Hanson's court case has suffered a set back as her star witness to allegations of corruption and dodgy electoral practices against the NSW Electoral Commission failed to show up in court.

Missing Votes

Pauline Hanson is challenging the integrity and results of the 2011 NSW State election in which Ian Brightwell has been implicated in claims that he had sent out a eMail alleging that 1,200 votes for Ms Hanson had been miscounted..

Missing Data

Could Ian Brightwell, please explain why the NSW EC has refused to publish details of the below-the-line preference data files that were used to determine the results of the NSW State upper house election?  This information should have been publicly available and subject to scrutiny?  The detailed preference file for the NSW Senate election have been published why not the State?  Without access to this data it is impossible to verify the integrity of the computer count.

The conduct of public elections must be open and transparent. The results of the NSW Election most certainly is not open or transparent. Why has the Commission refused to published the data file and subject it to public scrutiny? What does the NSW Electoral Commission have to hide?