Opposition leader Peter Dutton is seeking to change how referendum votes are counted ahead of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. He says it is “completely outrageous” that a tick can be accepted as a ‘Yes’ vote but a cross cannot be accepted as a ‘No’ vote.
The Opposition leader has called on the Prime Minister to consider changing the legislation so that one side is not favoured over the other. Voters will be told ahead of the Voice referendum, to write “yes” or “no” on the ballot paper.
Peter Dutton Challenges AEC’s Voting Method in Voice Referendum
Australian politician Peter Dutton has voiced his concerns about the voting method proposed by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) for the upcoming voice referendum. Dutton argues that the method, which counts ticks as formal votes but not crosses, is unfair and could potentially favor the ‘Yes’ vote. He plans to express his disagreement with the method in a letter to the AEC.
However, the AEC defends their position, stating that the voting method has been in place since 1988 and is based on long-standing legal advice.
Key Takeaways
- Peter Dutton criticizes the vote counting method as completely outrageous and plans to write a letter to the AEC expressing his strong disagreement.
- The AEC has been using this vote counting method since 1988 for elections and referendums, and expects the majority of voters to follow the instructions.
- The AEC defends the method, stating that a tick can be accepted as a formal vote, but a cross cannot. They also emphasize that the method is based on long-standing legal advice.
- The government source dismisses Mr. Dutton’s concerns as ‘fantasy and fiction’, highlighting the strength and robustness of Australia’s democracy.
Peter Dutton’s Concerns: Outrageous Vote Counting Method
Peter Dutton strongly disagrees with the vote counting method and plans to write a letter to the AEC expressing his concerns. He criticizes the method as completely outrageous and believes that it favors the ‘Yes’ vote. Dutton asserts that it is unfair to provide favoritism in a democratic election.
He will co-write the letter with Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash. However, the government source dismisses Mr. Dutton’s concerns as ‘fantasy and fiction.’
The AEC, on the other hand, states that the method is not new and has been in place since 1988. They have no discretion to ignore savings provisions as they are a legislative requirement. The AEC’s position is based on long-standing legal advice, and they emphasize that the vast majority of voters are expected to follow the instructions.
AEC’s Reasoning: Interpretation and Scrutiny Challenges
The AEC spokesperson explains that the method of vote counting allows for interpretation and potential challenges by scrutineers. They clarify that a cross can be interpreted as a check mark, which can indicate a ‘yes’ vote. However, the clarity of a tick mark may determine whether it counts as a valid vote.
The AEC maintains that this method, which has been in place since 1988 and is based on legal advice, leaves room for scrutineers to challenge and interpret the votes. They emphasize that the vast majority of voters are expected to follow the instructions provided.
Additionally, the AEC points out that the rate of informal votes in the 1999 referendum was low, at only 0.86%, and not all of them were related to ticks and crosses.
Historical Precedent: AEC’s Voting Method Since 1988
Since 1988, the AEC has implemented a vote counting method that allows for interpretation and scrutiny challenges. This method has been in place for both elections and referendums.
The AEC spokesperson explains that the method leaves room for interpretation or challenge by a scrutineer and is based on legal advice. The clarity of a tick mark may also determine whether it counts as a valid vote.
The AEC emphasizes that the provision has been in place since 1988 and is not new. They have no discretion to ignore savings provisions as they are a legislative requirement. The AEC’s position is based on long-standing legal advice, and they point out that the rate of informal votes in the 1999 referendum was low, indicating that most voters followed the instructions.
Hypocrisy Accusations: Dutton’s Previous Support for Referendum Legislation
Despite previously supporting legislation related to referendums, the accusations of hypocrisy are now being directed towards Peter Dutton.
The Federal government has accused Dutton of hypocrisy for his recent criticism of the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) voting method in the voice referendum. Dutton had previously supported the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which aimed to modernize referendum processes.
However, Dutton now expresses strong disagreement with the AEC’s method, claiming that allowing ticks but not crosses would favor the ‘Yes’ vote and is unfair in a democratic election.
In response, Dutton plans to write a letter to the AEC, co-writing it with Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash.
The government source dismisses Dutton’s concerns as ‘fantasy and fiction,’ highlighting the strength and robustness of Australia’s democracy.
Unfair Favoritism: Allowing Ticks but Not Crosses
Accusing unfair favoritism, critics argue that allowing ticks but not crosses in the vote counting method could sway the outcome of the referendum. They believe that this method could potentially favor the ‘Yes’ vote and undermine the democratic process.
Peter Dutton, a prominent critic, strongly disagrees with this approach and plans to write a letter to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) expressing his concerns. He believes that it is unjust to provide such favoritism in a democratic election. Dutton intends to co-write the letter with Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash, highlighting their opposition to this method.
However, a government source dismisses Dutton’s concerns as mere ‘fantasy and fiction.’
The AEC, on the other hand, maintains that this vote counting method has been in place since 1988 and is based on long-standing legal advice. They emphasize that the majority of voters are expected to follow the instructions, minimizing the impact of any potential unfairness.
Opposition Leader’s Response: Writing a Letter to AEC
In response to the concerns raised about the vote counting method, the Opposition Leader plans to write a letter to the Australian Electoral Commission expressing his strong disagreement with the approach.
Peter Dutton believes that allowing ticks but not crosses would unfairly favor the ‘Yes’ vote in the voice referendum. He asserts that it is unjust to provide such favoritism in a democratic election.
To voice his dissent, Dutton will co-write the letter with Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash. However, the government source dismisses Dutton’s concerns as mere ‘fantasy and fiction.’
On the other hand, the AEC maintains its position, stating that the method has been in place since 1988 and is based on long-standing legal advice. They emphasize that the vast majority of voters are expected to follow the instructions provided.
AEC’s Position: Long-standing Legal Advice and Legislative Requirements
The Australian Electoral Commission’s position on the vote counting method is based on long-standing legal advice and is in accordance with legislative requirements. The AEC states that the method has been in place since 1988 and is not new.
The AEC spokesperson emphasizes that the vast majority of voters are expected to follow the instructions on how to cast their vote. They point out that the rate of informal votes in the 1999 referendum was low, and most voters followed the instructions.
The AEC has no discretion to ignore savings provisions as they are a legislative requirement. The AEC’s position is grounded in their commitment to following legal advice and ensuring that the electoral process is fair and transparent.
Majority Compliance: AEC’s Expectation of Voters Following Instructions
Most voters are expected to comply with the instructions provided by the Australian Electoral Commission regarding the vote counting method. The AEC has a strong belief that the majority of voters will follow the guidelines and cast their votes accordingly.
The AEC spokesperson emphasizes that their position is based on long-standing legal advice, and they have no discretion to ignore the legislative requirements. They also point out that the rate of informal votes in the 1999 referendum was low, indicating that most voters followed the instructions.
While there may be concerns voiced by individuals like Peter Dutton, the AEC remains confident in the effectiveness of their method and the ability of voters to understand and follow the instructions provided.
Dismissing Concerns: Government Source Calls Dutton’s Claims Fiction
Previously, the discussion focused on the AEC’s expectation of voters to follow the instructions on how to cast their votes in the voice referendum.
Now, attention shifts to the reaction of a government source towards Peter Dutton’s concerns about the voting method. This source dismisses Dutton’s claims as ‘fantasy and fiction.’ They argue that the AEC’s position is based on long-standing legal advice and emphasize that the majority of voters are expected to comply with the instructions. This response highlights the government’s confidence in the strength and robustness of Australia’s democracy.
Despite this dismissal, Dutton remains firm in his disagreement with the method and plans to write a letter to the AEC expressing his concerns. He believes that allowing ticks but not crosses would give an advantage to the ‘Yes’ vote, which he sees as unfair in a democratic election. Dutton will collaborate with Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash in drafting the letter.
Albion News is a great place to find informative, up-to-date news articles. We provide a wide range of unique articles that offer an interesting perspective on current events from around the world and from various different sources. You can easily search for the topics that matter most to you and explore in-depth pieces that provide insight into the issues and important debates occurring today. Albion News helps you stay informed with carefully researched and credible stories!
