MARK M ALDRIDGE - The "Last Stand" 4 Democracy            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; }                                                                        So what are we fighting for?   The Australian public want to see change, yet the only input we have is our precious vote, so every few years we cast our vote for a representative to do our will.   The way in which we vote is controlled by those we elect, as such the voting system should be a reflection of the will of the electorate, yet we endure a 2 party system of voting, which is clearly the result of the will of the 2 major parties.   So it becomes evident that those we elect to do our will, in fact protect the will of their respective parties, and this reflection is cast right across the legislative change in this country, with out regard to the will of the people.   The joint standing committee on electoral matters has for many years found that the people of this fine country do not support the current electoral system, yet their findings fall on the deaf ears of our supposed representatives blinded by structural biases towards their respective parties own self interest.   The result is very simple here in South Australia for instance, we are not guaranteed access to enough information regarding our choices of candidates, yet we must attend to vote, and if we wish to exercise our right to vote, we must have a preference for even those we do not know or even oppose.   The 2 party preferred count does the rest ensuring exactly that, one of the 2 parties receives your vote, whether you like it or not.   This situation is somewhat impossible to change, as the will of the electorate, no longer has any standing, making matters worse is that every time they put forward electoral reform, it takes away more of our fundamental rights and liberties. The latest changes put forward by our state government include, deregistering more minor parties, demanding any media talk back includes our personal details including our home address, trying to dismantle the upper house checks and balances and the like, all deliberately designed to increase their control at the expense of what little hard earned rights we have left.   THIS DEPLORABLE SITUATION HAS JUST GOT WORSE IN LEAPS AND BOUNDS.   The 2010 State Election has just endured the worst attacks on what little democracy we have left ever seen in this countries history.   First the gerrymander ensured the party with the least public support took office for the third time in the past few elections, not happy with all they had done to democracy, the Labor Party then took the election conduct to all time lows, dressing up as another party and handing out dodgy how to vote cards, they registered the name of the opposition leaders name (Isobel Redmond) as their reply paid postal address to dupe innocent voters.   No, that wasn’t enough; the electoral commission ran what can only be described as a discount election. The new easy voter card took precedence over genuine how to vote information, Postal ballots went missing, the electoral rolls buggered up, with hundreds if not many thousands of voters being denied their vote.   From the hundreds of written complaints I initially received and that are stilling coming in, include that people who had passed away many years ago, names were still on the roll, yet the same families who had voted for may years were not, in most cases these people were denied their rights under the Act to an absentee vote, in fact reports of polling booths running out of absentee forms became evident.   How to vote information like the “how to vote guide” usually sent to every home did not arrive and the usual how to vote card information displayed in the polling booths, was not there. Some voters were denied entry to the polling booths due to their attire others were not, and reports of misleading advertising, the illegal use of signage et all are staggering.   I shall not try to list all the complaints here, non the less, thousands of people were either denied their vote, or were uninformed of how to vote, casting serious doubt on the validity of the election results across the board.   Here is where it becomes a total mess; I put together a petition to the court of disputed returns to have the election results scrutinized, having studied the rules of the court, and ensuring it mimicked petitions that had been accepted in the past.   The petition was handed in on Monday the 19 of April, after what appeared several stalling tactics it was rejected on Wednesday the following week, on the grounds I had no standing to submit the petition, the statutory declarations included had to be affidavits, and their was no rights under the Act to have an election result deemed invalid.   With a strict time line to lodge such petitions of 40 days from the return of the writ, and little to no energy left, I am doing my best to rework the petition to comply, even though it appears to meet the standards of the court or disputed returns rules.   Here are the rules from the Act, 106—Principles to be observed (1) The Court is to be guided by good conscience and the substantial merits of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities. (2) The Court is not bound by the rules of evidence.    107—Orders that the Court is empowered to make (c) an order declaring an election void and requiring a new election to be held.    104—Requisites of petition (1) A petition disputing an election or return must— (a) set out the facts relied on to invalidate the election or return; (b) set out the relief to which the petitioner claims to be entitled; (c) be signed by a candidate at the election in dispute or by a person who was qualified to vote at the election; (d) be attested by 2 witnesses whose occupations and addresses are stated; (e) be filed in the Court within 40 days after the return of the writ. (2) At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner must deposit with the Registrar of the Supreme Court $200 as security for costs.    The court registrar via Judge Burley expect the following,   “If you choose to file another document it is suggested that:     it be in the correct form    it be supported by affidavits, not statutory declarations    it be confined to election results relating to  the Legislative Council; and the seat in which you stood or was eligible to vote. We will consider any further document(s) you may wish to lodge”.   The CODR says with out regards to legal forms and technicalities, yet statutory declarations v affidavits seems contradictory, the rules of evidence do not apply, well they are being applied in a very technical manner, and “in correct form”, relates to the use of the word election, which I have used as it appears in the Act.   The question raised by the reply from the registry is one of Election v Electorate, the electoral act says an election can be deemed void, the registrar has decided an election in fact is and electorate, in other words even if we have adequate proof the whole election process has been so irregular that it has adversely affected the validity of the outcome, we may only be able to pick one electorate to have a by election, and every person in the state would have to go back to the polls, but only for the upper house, such arguments are best decided by legal argument, rather than one mans views at the early stage of lodgment.   Dare we allow our right to dispute an election wanting of fair play and a fair go, to be the sole domain of the best legal minds and the largest wallet, or should it remain as it was designed, a court designed to allow a candidate or voter the right to judicial review in a fair and timely manner?   We are hoping the Petition will be re-submitted on Monday the 3 of May at around 12.00, when we hold a rally for democracy and an Honest Election in Victoria Square at the same time, and we will be staying until we find out the results, how ever long that takes.   If the results of this election are allowed to stand, it opens the doors to even more abuse and inappropriate conduct, and not one South Australian voter dare allow that the happen.   “The Last Stand Rally” will be the first time since the Eureka Stockade that Australians have united for Democracy, I hope and pray that one and all will stand with us, for with out honest democracy, the free will of the people will become a thing of the past.   Mark M Aldridge  About UsOur company is based on the belief that our customers' needs are of the utmost importance. Our entire team is committed to meeting those needs. As a result, a high percentage of our business is from repeat customers and referrals. We would welcome the opportunity to earn your trust and deliver you the best service in the industry.Location:P O Box 1073 Virginia SA 5120Adelaide, 5120Hours:Mon - Fri: 9AM - 5PMSat: 10AM - 5PMSun: Closed   Driving Directions                         Website provided by Vistaprint       MapQuest Terms and Conditions Maps/Directions are informational only. User assumes all risk of use. MapQuest, Vistaprint, and their suppliers make no representations or warranties about content, road conditions, route usability, or speed.     createMap('_f1780fbaeb1e4a17b24a725b9d0ceba5', -34.66787, 138.529053, 0.5625, 250, 250, '69636-91931-9G6', false);