I agree.
Obviously a “cross” is more ambiguous than a tick. You can put a cross against something as a “no” but also crossing a box on a form is “yes”. The AEC know what they’re doing, it’s not their first rodeo, and Dutton’s criticism is a joke.
4 Likes
Seems like a beat up and misinformation. AEC says that last time:
And that the overwhelming majoring will be able to follow instructions this time as well.
Current rules have been in place for 40 years.
3 Likes
Australian voters are rightly proud of their electoral system – one of the most transparent and robust voting systems in the world. As a result, there is an intense, and highly appropriate level of public interest in all aspects of that system, and associated commentary online and in mainstream media. Sometimes this commentary is immediate and based on emotion rather than the reality of the law which the AEC must administer.
There has been intense commentary online and in mainstream media regarding what will and will not be a formal vote for the 2023 referendum; specifically around whether or not a ‘tick’ or a ‘cross’ will be able to be counted. Much of that commentary is factually incorrect and ignores:
- the law surrounding ‘savings provisions’,
- the longstanding legal advice regarding the use of ticks and crosses, and
- the decades-long and multi-referendum history of the application of that law and advice.
The AEC completely and utterly rejects the suggestions by some that by transparently following the established, public and known legislative requirements we are undermining the impartiality and fairness of the referendum.
As has been the case at every electoral event, the AEC remains totally focussed on electoral integrity. Indeed, electoral integrity is a central part of the AEC’s published values; underpinned by, and supported through, complete adherence to all relevant laws and regulations.
How to cast a formal vote
The formal voting instructions for the referendum are to clearly write either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, in full, in English.
It is that easy: given the simplicity, the AEC expects the vast, vast majority of Australian voters to follow those instructions and cast a formal vote.
Previous levels of formality
It is important to keep scale, or a lack of it in this instance, and precedent in mind when discussing this matter.
More than 99% of votes cast at the 1999 federal referendum were formal. Even of the 0.86% of informal votes, many would have had no relevance to the use of ticks or crosses.
AEC communication
Instructions for casting a formal vote – to write either yes or no in full, in English, will be:
- part of the AEC’s advertising campaign,
- on the AEC website,
- in the guide delivered to all Australian households,
- an instruction by our polling officials when people are issued with their ballot paper,
- on posters in polling places, and
- on the ballot paper itself.
This is why the level of formal voting at previous referendums has been so high and why the AEC expects the vast, vast majority of voters to follow those instructions.
The law
Like an election, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 includes ‘savings provisions’ - the ability to count a vote where the instructions have not been followed but the voter’s intention is clear.
- The AEC cannot ignore the law and cannot ignore savings provisions.
The law regarding formality in a referendum is long-standing and unchanged through many governments, Parliaments, and multiple referendums. Legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, provided on multiple occasions during the previous three decades, regarding the application of savings provisions to ‘ticks’ and ’crosses’ has been consistent – for decades. This is not new, nor a new AEC determination of any kind for the 2023 referendum. The law regarding savings provisions and the principle around a voter’s intent has been in place for at least 30 years and 6 referendum questions.
The longstanding legal advice provides that a cross can be open to interpretation as to whether it denotes approval or disapproval: many people use it daily to indicate approval in checkboxes on forms. The legal advice provides that for a single referendum question, a clear ‘tick’ should be counted as formal and a ‘cross’ should not.
1 Like
Interesting pool of quotes both arguments have added to the AEC booklet
Yes vote quoted, a WA Senator, a principal, former Chief Justice, 3 sports stars and a film maker.
No vote quoted 4 former judges, 3 professors, 2 senators and a custodian.
And could have been avoided if the AEC representative hadn’t talked about the Savings Provision and kept it it to its “YES” or “NO”
The context in which the mark is made is important here though - the question clearly asks you to write in your answer, so it’s not completely unreasonable to interpret a cross as a No vote.
That said, we’re now trying to litigate something that shouldn’t have been raised in the first place, for the vast majority of people the instructions are clear (that may not be the case for CALD communities though)
Whatever your stance on the voice is, this is clearly some sort of dog-whistling, pathetic attempt at gaslighting by Dutton and co to discredit the legitimacy of the AEC’s methodology when it was the same adopted for decades. It was the same method that was used in the last Republic referendum, I didn’t see him complain about it back then.
If this is the kind of stuff that the likes of Dutton and co keeps pushing on about then you’d like to think Australians are better than this. This is not the kind of thing that should win but then again there will always be some that will lap it up like they’ve lapped up the Coalition for years.
The AEC has to own this monumental blunder, there was no good reason to discuss the savings provision (it exists as a safety net to allow as many votes as possible to be counted if the voters intentions are clear).
Running fair elections and referenda are hard enough (especially in recent years) without friendly fire like this - this has potential to do some real damage to peoples perceptions of how they’re run.
3 Likes
I do think in this day and age there’s an argument for having two boxes and marking the box of your choice.
You could then put ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in several languages beside each box which would help improve accessibility for CALD voters and render this whole issue moot.
Antony Green posted a Twitter thread about this the other day - https://twitter.com/AntonyGreenElec/status/1694851411543244864
It is the first time Farnham has allowed his 1986 hit to be used in a commercial, having agreed to license it for an undisclosed sum to Yes campaign outfit Uluru Dialogue. He hoped allowing the song to support a Yes vote would help make the case for the constitutional change.
I find the whole use of high-profile people and corporates a bit uneasy - the referendum is asking people to make a significantly important decision, We should be encouraging people to make it on the merits of the decision, not because someone famous is voting that way.
If it’s taking a flashy campaign to get people to vote a particular way - something has gone seriously wrong.
5 Likes
I’m the same with you . Any celebrity endorsement sometimes derails the purpose of the vote. Or referendum.
I don’t think Australians are that stupid to vote on an important issue based on a song , but rather being fed bull shit by certain cretins in the media and certain opposition political figures .
But that being said it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. Thank god I have somewhat avoided all the advertisements surrounding this. I’m voting yes I made my decision based on my own research.
With the referendum only 6 weeks away, thought it would be interesting to run a quick poll.
How do you plan to vote for the referendum?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Is Dutton cooked in the head? If people aren’t going to vote ‘Yes’ this referendum then how is it that Dutton expects everyone to vote Yes if he’s running it?
How is he going to justify wasting another few billion dollars in running another referendum of virtually the same thing and expects people to vote another way if he is persuading people to vote no in this referendum when one of his own proposals is in this referendum?
People who vote no will keep voting no and even just voting for Constitutional Recognition will do diddly squat. Then you add in the fact that people will not take well the fact that there is another referendum.
I want some of what he’s smoking.
I think it is very much something that has great face value but little substance and that’s what’s badly missing in the Yes campaign.
There is little substance to both sides arguments, it’s all based on supposition - but that not helped by the reality that we’re voting for what is currently a concept rather deferring any detail to being decided by the Parliament.
He’s aiming for the yes to recognition but no to the voice crowd. Many no voters claim to be that way inclined, personally I don’t think it’s as many as he believes it to be.
2 Likes