|
Vote-tracing in disputed elections
Comparative
Reports of the virtues of ‘secure voting’ versus
‘secret voting’
to guide the British government as to which system
to adopt in 1871-
that which allowed vote-tracing or that which did
not.
 The Colonial Secretary, Lord
Kimberley asked the Australian Governors if “the
power of identification of the voter had been used
for purposes not contemplated by the law, or has
tended to diminish the security which the system of
secret voting was intended to give to the voter.”
1. Report - Viscount Canterbury,
Governor of Victoria on the success of the ‘secure
vote.’
 “The system in operation here, which imposes no
obstacle to a scrutiny, is far superior to any
system under which a secret vote is cast. The
secrecy intended to afford a vote has not been
practically diminished by the power of
identification. Any inability to institute an
efficient scrutiny, after an election is closed, may
become a powerful incentive to the use of illegal
means for procuring a colourable majority at the
poll (Dispatches to
Governor.N.S.W. 1871 370l.”
2. Report – Earl of Belmore,
Governor of New South Wales on the failing of the
‘secret ballot.’
 “(Im) personation is not happily put down. It is
said that, in regard to this offence, the Victorian
system is better than ours. That (im) personation is
so often attempted in New South Wales arises in some
degree from the lax way in which the returning and
presiding officers deal with those detected in
attempting to commit fraud. There is also an
apparent unwillingness to prosecute offenders. The
feeling is very prevalent that, after the election
is over, all animosity should cease. There is the
possibility that on both sides the friends of the
candidates are open to the charge. The evil is a
serious one. I have no doubt our Legislature will
have to provide more effective machinery for
detecting and punishing those who are guilty of
committing the offence (op cit.364)."
3. Report – Mr. Du Cane, Governor of
Tasmania, on problems of the ‘absolute secret
ballot.
 “Absolute secrecy leads to the impossibility of
subsequently discovering how any voter’s vote had
been actually given. It would rather tend, than not,
to facilitate the entering into such corrupt
compacts by rendering the chances of their
subsequent detection extremely difficult, if not
altogether impossible. There would, under any system
of absolute secrecy, always be the danger of
candidates, and their agents being able to enter in
corrupt compacts with a number of the constituency
sufficient to turn the election on the understanding
that the return of the candidate was to be the
condition of payment. This was particularly the case
where the opportunity for great ambitions existed
(op cit 382).”
4. Report - Sir James Ferguson,
Governor of South Australia, on its ‘absolute secret
ballot’.
 “It had proved popular, peaceful and free of
political excitement. Personation, intimidation and
bribery had been extremely rare. Treating,
certainly, had been resorted to on ‘a pretty large
and extensive scale, and no doubt idle and destitute
voters were accessible to trifling inducements to
give pledged votes – but not on a scale to affect
the result. It cannot be said as yet to have felt
the strain of trial, or to have had brought to bear
on it the ingenuity of zealous and unscrupulous
manipulators
(op cit 379).”
 |
"That the electoral system is open to
manipulation is beyond question
... Fraudulent enrolment is almost impossible to prevent."
(NSW Electoral Commissioners, Messrs R.
Cundy and Ian Dickson, NSW Government
Inquiry 1989) |
 |
|
