MARK M ALDRIDGE - DEMOCRACY DENIED 2010
a.userlink {
color: #000000;
}
a.userlink:visited {
color: #25120d;
}
a.userlink:hover {
color: #25120d;
}
font[size="1"] { font-size:10px; }
font[size="2"] { font-size:13px; }
font[size="3"] { font-size:16px; }
font[size="4"] { font-size:18px; }
font[size="5"] { font-size:24px; }
font[size="6"] { font-size:32px; }
font[size="7"] { font-size:48px; }
.GuestBookMessage {
font-family: Times New Roman; color: #25120d; font-size: 13px;
}
.GuestBookMessageRow {
font-family: Times New Roman; color: #25120d; font-size: 12px;
}
.GuestBookHeader {
font-family: Times New Roman; color: #25120d; font-size: 12px;
}
A Quick History and reasons I went to the court of disputed
returns, and the outcome.
In 2002 I ran as an independent with my wife Helen for the
senate, the ballot paper left our names of the ballot paper above the line, I
thought this very un fair and undemocratic so I tried to apply to the court of
disputed returns with another candidate from the same election, the registrar
referred the petition to a judge who labeled it vexatious, due to the fact that
the complaint was not a defect in the conduct, as the electoral Act did not
allow non party candidates having their name next to their voting box on the
ballot paper.
Since that date I became very interested in the voting
system and politics in general, and it became clear the structural biases
inherent in the system was due to those that write the laws having a vested
interest in such biases.
During the 2006 State Election I had given up any idea of
putting forward my candidacy, and simply decided to cast the most informed vote
I could. The Advertiser advertised that their would be a lift out on all the
candidates on the Wednesday before the election, I purchased the paper to find
only a list of the Labor candidates, I was appalled, I could not find details
of who was running anywhere, not being computer literate at the time, not that
it would have helped.
Again I lodged a petition before the court of disputed
returns as a voter, arguing my right to access of the choice of candidates I
had, and in particular the use of the word intention in the Act. (a story in
itself) I lodged the petition with a filing fee of $200, and was given a
hearing date immediately, on the day of the first hearing the electoral
commissioners crown solicitors tried to have the matter labeled vexatious, at
least this time I knew what that meant.
The Judge (Chief Justice Doyle) allowed the matter to
continue saying their was a case to answer, he made me aware that the
constitution and HREOC et al. Would not support my petition, so I was left
arguing the word intention and its use in the Act, and the electoral
commissions role in ensuring the electorate were adequately informed.
On the second hearing the chief justice put the government
on notice and asked for written argument from both sides on the word intention,
I lost the case, the findings being that the electoral commissions role in
regards to public education related strictly to “How to Vote” rather than
information regarding my choices, and that the word intention related to
conforming to the designated how to vote information rather than the genuine
intention of the voter, again a rather large story.
The outcome was one of the process offending the genuine
rights of the voter, so bugger the electoral system sucks, and that is how it
was.
I was then approached by a political party, and ended up
running as their lead senate candidate and spokesperson in 2007, only suffering
the usual media bias, and I had no problems with the electoral system, because
I already knew its many short comings.
I decided to run in march 2010 as an independent to bring
attention to many short falls in our state, including the attorneys roll in
legislative change, the plight of our children in particular those with
disabilities, issues including human and civil rights, and uncovering
corruption as many will know.
On the Friday before the election I was inundated with phone
calls, as it appeared many voters were searching the net under “How to vote in
SA” and I had a web site of the same name, by the Saturday I was receiving more
calls than I could answer from a very confused electorate, most had no idea
what an upper and lower house was, who was running and where they had to go to
vote.
Then the phone went mad on the days after the election,
friends phoning to say they went to vote for me, but were told they could not
vote as they were no longer on the roll, people who never received their postal
votes, people turned away from the polling booth due to what they were wearing,
the calls were staggering, and all of them were pissed of at missing out on their
vote for one reason or another.
I then called for the complaints in writing, and started
collating the many emails and on line complaints I had received, then the
statutory declarations started coming in, so I managed by putting many to a
page to collate over 260 pages of some 1000 to 1700 written complaints, many
asking if I could help.
I drew up an application to the court of disputed returns in
the same manner I had in 2006, and attached the many documents (as attachments)
by way of statutory declaration and submitted it along with petitions and
professional surveys as evidence, and lodged it with the Supreme Court acting
as the court of disputed returns.
This time I did not receive a hearing date as I had in 2006,
and the registrar took all my copies, I made enquiries as to why I could not
retain my copy, so they sent me a receipt for their lodgment.
By the following Tuesday, I had still not received any
feedback as to what was happening, so I phoned the court, they told me they
were working out fees.
On Wednesday 28 a week and a half later I
attended the court in person to see what was happening, they said they had sent
me an email and to return home and read it, instead I phoned my wife from the
court to have her read the email to me.
It appears the petition before the court was not to be
accepted? I went back over to the registry and again asked what was happening
and they returned all the copies of the application to me, with a covering
letter, basically saying I had no right to lodge the application, the Statutory
declarations should have been affidavits, and that I had no right to ask for an
election to be deemed void, had the rules changed since 2006?
No they bloody haven’t, her are the rules; 103—The Court of Disputed Returns
(1) The Supreme Court is the Court of Disputed
Returns.
(2) The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, when
sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns
under this Act, is
exercisable by a single judge.