We have a vote to use; to vote for, or not to vote for, is that the question?
Our laws say eligible citizens are required to enrol to vote, and voting is compulsory. But - what is told us in the four Gospels about being an elector in 2018? Easy direct question, with direct answer - nothing! Or, is that simply so - see below.
Consider for relevance the record of a telling incident from close to the end of Jesus’ time on earth (reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke). Here it is:
Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him (Mark 12:12-17, NIV).
Neither the Caesar, nor, perhaps, his representative (Pilate), knew anything of this exchange. Of course if Jesus had given the opposition some ground they would have taken a report to the government without delay. Whether considered tax, or tribute (see Luke), it could not be withheld without dire consequences. If any subject decided compliance was not the right thing, they would suffer for it. The three accounts are very similar. This inclusion in the three, and other NT evidence (see below), illustrates that for people of the time, unsurprisingly, their relation to Rome was a live issue still. Jesus deals with the reality of their situation - Rome was well and truly there! Authority was exercised for Caesar. As they well knew, at that time the system operated at the behest of and in the interests of the Augustus (or Caesar), Tiberius. Why pretend otherwise? They had no “opt out”, apart from migration to some distant jurisdiction far from their own country.
Luke (and Paul) use a particular word for “tax”, which was frequent in the Septuagint for tribute. Luke alone reports that eventually Pilate did hear (falsely) that Jesus had inserted himself negatively into the Empire’s ability to rake in money! And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2, ESV). Pilate held office in accordance with the stated or delegated decision of the Caesar. Pilate would have been compelled to take both accusations seriously. We have his response in verses 14-15: “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod…” (NIV). There was no credible hint that Jesus provoked people to rebel against the civil power.
Just a little later, face to face with imposition of the extreme penalty, Jesus’ attitude to a shaken Pilate was unflinching: When Pilate heard this, he was more frightened than ever. He took Jesus back into the headquarters[a] again and asked him, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave no answer. “Why don’t you talk to me?” Pilate demanded. “Don’t you realize that I have the power to release you or crucify you?”. Then Jesus said, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin”(John 19:8-11, NLT). Jesus acknowledged that, although guilty, Pilate had a legitimate role that day; a role given him by Caesar, but actually by God! Pilate was the decision-maker. Jesus knew that to be true.
Luke mentioned another instance of that civil power exercised by Pilate in Judaea: About this same time Jesus was told that Pilate had given orders for some people from Galilee to be killed while they were offering sacrifices. Jesus replied: Do you think that these people were worse sinners than everyone else in Galilee just because of what happened to them? Not at all! But you can be sure that if you don’t turn back to God, every one of you will also be killed (Luke 13:1-3, CEV). Pilate did not show up in good light there! We are given no detail of the circumstances but Jesus is notably silent on any failure on the part of Pilate, the representative of the dominant power of the day. He was responsible. The implication is that soldiers under orders unleashed bloodshed on Galilean Jews going about their religious duties in the Temple. Jesus did make it clear it was wrong to think in terms of any victims' failings.
The New Testament (NT) character portrait of Governor Pilate (praefectus), such as we have it, is not flattering. Other ancient writers reflect similar views (so, Bond, 2013). Perhaps legate Vitellius considered Pilate was guilty of malfeasance or use of excess force? Jesus gave no space to such issues as that. Or, did he?
Neighbouring Galilee and Perea were ruled (for Rome) by a Herod descendant. Herod Antipas had been disturbed by what he heard of Jesus. Towards the end he apparently took a more active stance: At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem’ (Luke 13:31-33, ESV). I wonder if Jesus’ somewhat puzzling message did get back to Herod? I wonder if the Pharisees were honest? Jesus was not cowed by the reported Herodian plan and does not sound particularly respectful of that man of political importance. (Pilate was in charge of Judaea and Jerusalem; he did send Jesus to Herod in the final hours - see above.)
I think then, Jesus gave honour to whom honour was due. He did not treat them as above human and incapable of error. We deplore the injustice but Jesus was accepting of authority, even authority gained by military action, as seen above and at his arrest and trial. The same concept occurs in Paul; for example: Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you. If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. But you should obey the rulers because you know it is the right thing to do, and not just because of God’s anger. You must also pay your taxes. The authorities are God’s servants, and it is their duty to take care of these matters. Pay all that you owe, whether it is taxes and fees or respect and honor. (Romans 13:1-7, CEV). These rulers are ones we would describe as venal, corrupt and bloodthirsty! They knew nothing of “human rights”. They grievously fail in their moral duty but that is not seen as cancelling the need for compliance. The coinage in use had their images and messages on them. Armed soldiers were present to do their bidding. (Paul may well have written during the period he was prisoner in Caesarea of that Roman authority.)
In about 57 CE (AD) Paul returned for the last time to the Temple. He had spent about 10 years (see the book of Acts) proclaiming around the eastern Mediterranean that the Kingdom of God is fulfilled in the Kingdom of Jesus; that salvation came/comes through the death of Jesus, who is Lord and Christ and saviour for all; that direct entry to God’s kingdom was(is) available to non-Jews. The unconverted Jerusalem Jews recognised his message as wiping out the Temple with the sacrificial system and Jewish priority. They saw Paul as their enemy and set about his destruction. The Romans became involved and received the complaints. Paul was kept in prison, for he, unlike Jesus, was a Roman Citizen. Eventually he appealed (Acts 25ff) for a hearing in Rome. He thus himself respected the provisions of the Empire’s law, and used it.
We are the voters!
Jesus and Paul modelled obedience and doing the right thing. Apart from a possible penalty then, they show reason of conscience (the right thing) to comply with the electoral law. I do not claim the foregoing sets all the parameters of your vote. Different individuals may well, and do, come to opposite decisions of for whom they vote, or even if they give their vote to anyone.
We have no Caesar equivalent - our Sovereign hardly exercises a power anything like the Caesars. The Sovereign as our Head of State formally represents the powers that rule in Australia. Who rules? The three levels of government exercise control and issue the orders in accordance with the law, which is constantly in development. The controlling individuals employed in those levels of Australian government are selected from a list of nominees by the voters, not by themselves or the Sovereign. Any elector may nominate. You and I, voter, are the rulers now! Well - for that one day!
Our law makes participation in voting compulsory. Many point out that it is actually a hard-earned privilege to get that entitlement. It is also true that our system is strongly “secret” and no one else should know what, if anything, you put on your ballot paper.
Accidentally, or deliberately, to incorrectly fill in the boxes (e.g. repeated “1”), or leave the boxes blank, creates an informal (invalid) ballot paper which can not influence the result, nor be traced back to the specific “voter”. It is in fact a wasted vote. Please note that elections are rarely, if ever, decided by one valid vote. (That circumstance would be re-counted and doubtless referred for Court scrutiny.) No number of informals ever decides an election.
But, for whom or for what party to vote? Only one candidate can win! What is the order of preference? What is the “right thing” at that point? Each individual follower of Jesus has the challenge. I know that very often the choice is one of this party or that party, rather than the personal qualities of an individual candidate. This then may lead to consideration of party or candidate platforms - which party is the least selfish and most sincere, with plans that are needed? Which comes next? Which candidate or party is of like mind with me?
If your electorate is “marginal”, a vote away from the incumbent may tip the balance. However, parties/candidates want as many votes as they can get, not least because they are calculated by the system and return election funds to the campaigns accordingly. A valid vote may have cash value.
It would be nice to think we have a perfect system that works perfectly! Surely the reports say otherwise. I believe some of us consider the “right thing”, the “wise” way, is to take no part in worthless deeds of evil and darkness. This is the “opt out” but remain here option. (If so, the “please explain” will arrive in due course.)
Similar consideration would apply to an individual's direct participation in the political system. Someone might think (and they are entitled) to stand independently for election. Another might engage with the party system and seek to be nominated for election... Very little can be ruled out! The personal and subjective looms large, along with philosophy of life. Some people will pray privately and seek prayer support, as for other life matters.
In our parliaments a "free" vote is uncommon. Party members meet in secret and decide their policies, etc. These decisions are taken out on to the floor of parliament and adhered to by all disciplined ("faithful') members, on ultimate pain of being unendorsed next election. Members may argue the contrary in their party meeting, but majority rules!
Great care is mandated for transparent and accountable election procedures. The processes are required to be followed in detail, with full compliance. In 2013 the Australian Electoral Commission in WA managed, incredibly and uniquely, to lose 1,375 senate votes wanted for a recount. The system then eventually, inconveniently, required an expensive new WA election (and a different result followed). This illustrates the standard to be maintained, even when there has been error. (System changes have been made by AEC!)
A personal historical note: Years ago, when I first became involved in managing electoral processes in polling places, it was improper for officials to mention political parties. Nowadays, helpfully, we have party affiliation, or non-affiliation, stated on the ballot paper with the name of the candidate. That would have been heresy back then! It would be nice to think we are just to concern ourselves with the qualities and ideas of the specific candidate. Over time the reality was acknowledged in the law by registering political parties and putting allegiances in print. Knowingly and deliberately, or not, majority parliamentarians think the voters want the party to be identified, etc, rather than only personally determining the individual merits of the candidates.
Consider for relevance the record of a telling incident from close to the end of Jesus’ time on earth (reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke). Here it is:
Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him (Mark 12:12-17, NIV).
Neither the Caesar, nor, perhaps, his representative (Pilate), knew anything of this exchange. Of course if Jesus had given the opposition some ground they would have taken a report to the government without delay. Whether considered tax, or tribute (see Luke), it could not be withheld without dire consequences. If any subject decided compliance was not the right thing, they would suffer for it. The three accounts are very similar. This inclusion in the three, and other NT evidence (see below), illustrates that for people of the time, unsurprisingly, their relation to Rome was a live issue still. Jesus deals with the reality of their situation - Rome was well and truly there! Authority was exercised for Caesar. As they well knew, at that time the system operated at the behest of and in the interests of the Augustus (or Caesar), Tiberius. Why pretend otherwise? They had no “opt out”, apart from migration to some distant jurisdiction far from their own country.
Luke (and Paul) use a particular word for “tax”, which was frequent in the Septuagint for tribute. Luke alone reports that eventually Pilate did hear (falsely) that Jesus had inserted himself negatively into the Empire’s ability to rake in money! And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2, ESV). Pilate held office in accordance with the stated or delegated decision of the Caesar. Pilate would have been compelled to take both accusations seriously. We have his response in verses 14-15: “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod…” (NIV). There was no credible hint that Jesus provoked people to rebel against the civil power.
Just a little later, face to face with imposition of the extreme penalty, Jesus’ attitude to a shaken Pilate was unflinching: When Pilate heard this, he was more frightened than ever. He took Jesus back into the headquarters[a] again and asked him, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave no answer. “Why don’t you talk to me?” Pilate demanded. “Don’t you realize that I have the power to release you or crucify you?”. Then Jesus said, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin”(John 19:8-11, NLT). Jesus acknowledged that, although guilty, Pilate had a legitimate role that day; a role given him by Caesar, but actually by God! Pilate was the decision-maker. Jesus knew that to be true.
Luke mentioned another instance of that civil power exercised by Pilate in Judaea: About this same time Jesus was told that Pilate had given orders for some people from Galilee to be killed while they were offering sacrifices. Jesus replied: Do you think that these people were worse sinners than everyone else in Galilee just because of what happened to them? Not at all! But you can be sure that if you don’t turn back to God, every one of you will also be killed (Luke 13:1-3, CEV). Pilate did not show up in good light there! We are given no detail of the circumstances but Jesus is notably silent on any failure on the part of Pilate, the representative of the dominant power of the day. He was responsible. The implication is that soldiers under orders unleashed bloodshed on Galilean Jews going about their religious duties in the Temple. Jesus did make it clear it was wrong to think in terms of any victims' failings.
The New Testament (NT) character portrait of Governor Pilate (praefectus), such as we have it, is not flattering. Other ancient writers reflect similar views (so, Bond, 2013). Perhaps legate Vitellius considered Pilate was guilty of malfeasance or use of excess force? Jesus gave no space to such issues as that. Or, did he?
Neighbouring Galilee and Perea were ruled (for Rome) by a Herod descendant. Herod Antipas had been disturbed by what he heard of Jesus. Towards the end he apparently took a more active stance: At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem’ (Luke 13:31-33, ESV). I wonder if Jesus’ somewhat puzzling message did get back to Herod? I wonder if the Pharisees were honest? Jesus was not cowed by the reported Herodian plan and does not sound particularly respectful of that man of political importance. (Pilate was in charge of Judaea and Jerusalem; he did send Jesus to Herod in the final hours - see above.)
I think then, Jesus gave honour to whom honour was due. He did not treat them as above human and incapable of error. We deplore the injustice but Jesus was accepting of authority, even authority gained by military action, as seen above and at his arrest and trial. The same concept occurs in Paul; for example: Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you. If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. But you should obey the rulers because you know it is the right thing to do, and not just because of God’s anger. You must also pay your taxes. The authorities are God’s servants, and it is their duty to take care of these matters. Pay all that you owe, whether it is taxes and fees or respect and honor. (Romans 13:1-7, CEV). These rulers are ones we would describe as venal, corrupt and bloodthirsty! They knew nothing of “human rights”. They grievously fail in their moral duty but that is not seen as cancelling the need for compliance. The coinage in use had their images and messages on them. Armed soldiers were present to do their bidding. (Paul may well have written during the period he was prisoner in Caesarea of that Roman authority.)
In about 57 CE (AD) Paul returned for the last time to the Temple. He had spent about 10 years (see the book of Acts) proclaiming around the eastern Mediterranean that the Kingdom of God is fulfilled in the Kingdom of Jesus; that salvation came/comes through the death of Jesus, who is Lord and Christ and saviour for all; that direct entry to God’s kingdom was(is) available to non-Jews. The unconverted Jerusalem Jews recognised his message as wiping out the Temple with the sacrificial system and Jewish priority. They saw Paul as their enemy and set about his destruction. The Romans became involved and received the complaints. Paul was kept in prison, for he, unlike Jesus, was a Roman Citizen. Eventually he appealed (Acts 25ff) for a hearing in Rome. He thus himself respected the provisions of the Empire’s law, and used it.
We are the voters!
Jesus and Paul modelled obedience and doing the right thing. Apart from a possible penalty then, they show reason of conscience (the right thing) to comply with the electoral law. I do not claim the foregoing sets all the parameters of your vote. Different individuals may well, and do, come to opposite decisions of for whom they vote, or even if they give their vote to anyone.
We have no Caesar equivalent - our Sovereign hardly exercises a power anything like the Caesars. The Sovereign as our Head of State formally represents the powers that rule in Australia. Who rules? The three levels of government exercise control and issue the orders in accordance with the law, which is constantly in development. The controlling individuals employed in those levels of Australian government are selected from a list of nominees by the voters, not by themselves or the Sovereign. Any elector may nominate. You and I, voter, are the rulers now! Well - for that one day!
Our law makes participation in voting compulsory. Many point out that it is actually a hard-earned privilege to get that entitlement. It is also true that our system is strongly “secret” and no one else should know what, if anything, you put on your ballot paper.
Accidentally, or deliberately, to incorrectly fill in the boxes (e.g. repeated “1”), or leave the boxes blank, creates an informal (invalid) ballot paper which can not influence the result, nor be traced back to the specific “voter”. It is in fact a wasted vote. Please note that elections are rarely, if ever, decided by one valid vote. (That circumstance would be re-counted and doubtless referred for Court scrutiny.) No number of informals ever decides an election.
But, for whom or for what party to vote? Only one candidate can win! What is the order of preference? What is the “right thing” at that point? Each individual follower of Jesus has the challenge. I know that very often the choice is one of this party or that party, rather than the personal qualities of an individual candidate. This then may lead to consideration of party or candidate platforms - which party is the least selfish and most sincere, with plans that are needed? Which comes next? Which candidate or party is of like mind with me?
If your electorate is “marginal”, a vote away from the incumbent may tip the balance. However, parties/candidates want as many votes as they can get, not least because they are calculated by the system and return election funds to the campaigns accordingly. A valid vote may have cash value.
It would be nice to think we have a perfect system that works perfectly! Surely the reports say otherwise. I believe some of us consider the “right thing”, the “wise” way, is to take no part in worthless deeds of evil and darkness. This is the “opt out” but remain here option. (If so, the “please explain” will arrive in due course.)
Similar consideration would apply to an individual's direct participation in the political system. Someone might think (and they are entitled) to stand independently for election. Another might engage with the party system and seek to be nominated for election... Very little can be ruled out! The personal and subjective looms large, along with philosophy of life. Some people will pray privately and seek prayer support, as for other life matters.
In our parliaments a "free" vote is uncommon. Party members meet in secret and decide their policies, etc. These decisions are taken out on to the floor of parliament and adhered to by all disciplined ("faithful') members, on ultimate pain of being unendorsed next election. Members may argue the contrary in their party meeting, but majority rules!
Great care is mandated for transparent and accountable election procedures. The processes are required to be followed in detail, with full compliance. In 2013 the Australian Electoral Commission in WA managed, incredibly and uniquely, to lose 1,375 senate votes wanted for a recount. The system then eventually, inconveniently, required an expensive new WA election (and a different result followed). This illustrates the standard to be maintained, even when there has been error. (System changes have been made by AEC!)
A personal historical note: Years ago, when I first became involved in managing electoral processes in polling places, it was improper for officials to mention political parties. Nowadays, helpfully, we have party affiliation, or non-affiliation, stated on the ballot paper with the name of the candidate. That would have been heresy back then! It would be nice to think we are just to concern ourselves with the qualities and ideas of the specific candidate. Over time the reality was acknowledged in the law by registering political parties and putting allegiances in print. Knowingly and deliberately, or not, majority parliamentarians think the voters want the party to be identified, etc, rather than only personally determining the individual merits of the candidates.
Our laws are determined by our parliaments. Our parliaments may decide to make changes in the law. Only members of parliament make those decisions. In actual effect, the prior decisions are made in the party room, or rooms.
Our elected representatives are holding jobs, with pay and conditions determined by themselves. Very few are indifferent to the possibility of losing their job as MP. That means that "public opinion" has weight from that angle. Not that the opinion of the public is so easily determined. In a real sense, the only clear indication is obtained on the "one day" - polling day (and it may not be valid much longer than the one day/poll). These days the early votes are more significant and may change the picture.
By the way, your vote is private and secret, therefore free. However, an elector who wants assistance with voting is entitled to have it.
Decision time
This brings us to the point of effectively using your vote to participate in selecting our decision-makers, the government, or their opposition, or not. At the very least every elected member (MP, or Councillor) may have a say on a matter and possibly represent and vote the views of those who elected them. Only possibly represent you, even if you voted for them, because we live in a diverse society and the responsibility is delegated to them until the next election. (Unfortunately we do not have a “recall” system, nor “Citizen-initiated-referendum” process.)
Your representative may support your views in their party room. If their party agrees, they will support that view in votes in the parliament.
I do not think it practicable to think these things through in the voting compartment. Once you have your ballot papers there is enough to do and there are probably voter queues! Voting instructions (e.g., number each square; vote either above the line or below the line) are printed on the ballot papers and will be on display. No need for a memory test there! There are squares to be numbered - it is helpful to have your preferences worked out. If you make a mistake filling in your ballot paper - you can exchange it for a new one. Any corrections need to be clear and certain, but NEVER initialled. (I am assuming "attendance voting", which is actually becoming less common.)
I am launching a new blog, "Victorian Voters", intending to include specific information which may help in "casting" your vote.
Unfortunately, the large Upper House ballot paper with its above/below heavy black line and voting groups (like “teams”) is the most challenging. (Remember, if you make a mistake, get a new one.) The Upper House voting system is quite different from the other - for Victoria 2018 the URL follows.
Our elected representatives are holding jobs, with pay and conditions determined by themselves. Very few are indifferent to the possibility of losing their job as MP. That means that "public opinion" has weight from that angle. Not that the opinion of the public is so easily determined. In a real sense, the only clear indication is obtained on the "one day" - polling day (and it may not be valid much longer than the one day/poll). These days the early votes are more significant and may change the picture.
By the way, your vote is private and secret, therefore free. However, an elector who wants assistance with voting is entitled to have it.
Decision time
This brings us to the point of effectively using your vote to participate in selecting our decision-makers, the government, or their opposition, or not. At the very least every elected member (MP, or Councillor) may have a say on a matter and possibly represent and vote the views of those who elected them. Only possibly represent you, even if you voted for them, because we live in a diverse society and the responsibility is delegated to them until the next election. (Unfortunately we do not have a “recall” system, nor “Citizen-initiated-referendum” process.)
Your representative may support your views in their party room. If their party agrees, they will support that view in votes in the parliament.
I do not think it practicable to think these things through in the voting compartment. Once you have your ballot papers there is enough to do and there are probably voter queues! Voting instructions (e.g., number each square; vote either above the line or below the line) are printed on the ballot papers and will be on display. No need for a memory test there! There are squares to be numbered - it is helpful to have your preferences worked out. If you make a mistake filling in your ballot paper - you can exchange it for a new one. Any corrections need to be clear and certain, but NEVER initialled. (I am assuming "attendance voting", which is actually becoming less common.)
Unfortunately, the large Upper House ballot paper with its above/below heavy black line and voting groups (like “teams”) is the most challenging. (Remember, if you make a mistake, get a new one.) The Upper House voting system is quite different from the other - for Victoria 2018 the URL follows.
Victoria*: The quick and easy way favoured by politicians and used by most voters is to just put a “1” in one of the boxes above the line. BUT, that means you vote according to the political deals done by that group; they, not you, direct where the preferences flow. Your vote could possibly benefit a candidate you do not want to be elected. The antidote to that - vote below the line by numbering 5 (or more) squares the way you want.
See reference: https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/voting/how-voting-works/preferential-voting
See reference: https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/voting/how-voting-works/preferential-voting
Edited 22/04/2024: The Victorian system may change? To remove the party controlled sharing of preferences (deals) will mean less convenience for voters who just want to get it "over and done with", without need to think.Seems to me unlikely to happen.
Regardless of elections we do have the standing invitation and opportunity to be engaged in the running of our country; to be informed; to participate. These opportunities are laid down and regulated by law. The matters coming up for decision by our representatives are published. There are consultations and surveys. Very little is confidential. You can write or email - someone will respond. The avenues are open to all. God invites us to pray.
Official websites contain non-party information about voting, including early voting and postal voting.
Australian Electoral Commission: https://www.aec.gov.au/
Victorian Electoral Commission: https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/
or your relevant body, including the Parliaments.
*Victorian Upper House voting. There is a recommendation for significant change. The "group voting ticket" would go. I wonder if it will happen - it has to be enacted by Victorian MPs...
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/4a272d/contentassets/635f48542714461cb587013aad2ab765/emc-60-01_conduct-of-the-2022-vic-state-election_vol-1.pdf
PS: Addendum - The "Vote Tampering" Case
Fine $20,000; Community Corrections Order (CCO) 18 months
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-25/rigging-ballots-milad-el-halabi-moreland-councillor-court-date/100862608
https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/about-us/media/former-merri-bek-councillor-pleads-guilty-to-vote-tampering
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-27/moreland-councillor-fined-for-rigging-ballot/104032504
The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) website and the media have reports of the 2020 instance of serious vote fraud in the postal election for Moreland (now called Merri-bek) City Council. I think the unusual crime must be unique, though I do not regularly read electoral websites. The particular crime depended on the fact that all ballot papers were being delivered to home addresses by mail.
Local council elections will be held in Victoria by post this October, 2024, for all councils except Moira Shire Council.Enrol or update your enrolment by 4 pm on Wednesday 7 August (adapted from VEC website).
COMMENT
Postal voting is sufficiently secure and trustworthy. The VEC says it has increased security and will use a phased mail out in 2024.
(The challenge is greater when the use of mail is general and is based on enrolment, not based on application. Without an application, there is nothing for the official to compare.)
Letter boxes are manifestly insecure. That is true and will remain so.
Security! The pitiful "Vote Tampering Case" nicely illustrates the security of our elections. Yes, ballot papers may be stolen. Yes, ballot papers may be fraudulently used. Yes, people may multiple vote. Yes, people may impersonate someone. NO - it will NOT remain a secret. The processes will reveal the fact of the crime(s), even if not, usually, identifying the offender(s). A contaminated election may be legally overturned. The laws are in place to deal with any detected crime.
May God preserve us from the kind of angry mob anti-result violence seen in the USA on Capitol Hill in 2021.
PS I am, of course, conscious of the 2024 election in the USA. Their system is different to ours but at its base is decided by the voters. May God grant them peace and order; may justice be done. That, humanly speaking, depends upon sufficient people keeping their law. May they do so! Please God, stir up and inform their consciences and wills.
May their politicians, and ours, and we, be able, with Paul on trial, to say honestly:
Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people (Acts 24:16 NRSVUE).
Bibliography: H.K. Bond, “Pontius Pilate”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Ed 2), (Downers Grove, Il: IVP, 2013)
Scripture quotations marked (CEV) are from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society, Used by Permission. Scripture quotations marked (CSB) are from the Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Note. I retain in the publishers' text where they occur the references to footnotes (eg, [a], [b]), but usually not the notes. You can check them out by viewing the text on-line. Often they are replicated in different translations.
Scripture quotations marked (CEV) are from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society, Used by Permission. Scripture quotations marked (CSB) are from the Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Note. I retain in the publishers' text where they occur the references to footnotes (eg, [a], [b]), but usually not the notes. You can check them out by viewing the text on-line. Often they are replicated in different translations.
AL
22/07/24
30/07/24
14/10/24
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Allen Hampton