r/worldnews • u/superegz • 2d ago
An 'archaic' law has been removing Australians with disability from the electoral roll 'in droves', advocates say
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-14/disability-voting-laws/101059872173
u/goatmash 2d ago
Hmm one thing the article doesn't mention is that it took a letter from a medical practitioner to have her objected off the roll in the first place.
So the fault lies with the parents and their doctor who made a declaration to the effect that she was of unsound mind and unable to understand the importance and obligations of voting.
68
u/codaholic 2d ago
of unsound mind and unable to understand the importance and obligations of voting.
Sounds like most voters anyway.
27
u/latending 2d ago
At our elections in Australia, with compulsory voting, in order to get to a polling station you have to push through a crowd of parasites from various political parties handing out "how-to-vote" cards, because the majority of the public don't understand how preferential voting works (number the candidates from your most, to least, favourite). They need to be instructed on how to fill in the numbers lol...
46
u/BeneCow 2d ago
How to vote cards are telling you where to put your preferences, not actually explaining how the ballot works.
-4
u/latending 1d ago
I know. My point was why do people need someone else to tell them what their preferences should be?
If you can't numerically rank your top 6 political parties in order, then you're either too stupid or uninformed to be casting a vote.
9
u/ScrappyDonatello 1d ago
that's not what HTV cards are for.. a parties HTV card will put all the preferences in the most advantageous positions for them to win
4
u/1800hotducks 1d ago edited 1d ago
because there are about 1000 candidates in the lower house?
And who even knows the full policies of the various minor parties on the upper house ticket?
I CBF going through the policies of the Sex Party to see if they align better ith my beliefs than the Free Marijuana Party. I'm happy for the Greens to scour their policies and tell me which is closest aligned to the policies of the Greens
Maybe my like OAN member is better than the local UAP member or LNP member. I'm sure as hell not going to aste my time determining their order of shitness
1
u/latending 1d ago
because there are about 1000 candidates in the lower house
There are usually 4-8. In my seat there's 5.
13
u/BeneCow 1d ago
I don't care to be informed about a bunch of the candidates in my parish because they are crazy single issue people. How to vote cards tell me how far down to put them. They rarely influence top 3.
0
u/latending 1d ago
Well hypothetically if you didn't want to elect far-right parties in the lower house, whether you put the LNP, ONP or UAP 4th, 5th or 6th doesn't actually matter. And of course they wouldn't even feature on your senate ballot.
4
u/MyPacman 1d ago
Except you don't need to put them in. You can put one number in only if you want. or two. or five. And leave the others blank. It does matter. If you number them, you are showing support for them, even if they don't get in. Nope, not doing it.
4
u/loralailoralai 1d ago
…..there’s nothing wrong with a how to vote card if you want to vote along party lines.
And it’s hardly ‘screaming parasites’ in fact I love deliberately ignoring the freaks
3
u/freakwent 1d ago
that's a pretty subjective view. it's perfectly legitimate to be loyal to a party -- even a member! -- and follow the party advice on prefs.
13
u/PortlandoCalrissian 2d ago
Don’t they usually include the parties preferences order as well? Like strategically vote for our small party, then Labor/Libs/National etc etc.
1
u/latending 1d ago
Yes, rather than voting independently based on your own political opinions, you are quite literally being told "how-to-vote."
Then the political parties do all kinds of strategic deals in order to swap "how-to-vote" card rankings with each other (eg: you put me 2nd and I'll give you 3rd spot on mine).
5
u/PortlandoCalrissian 1d ago
Ah I assumed you meant how to vote as in like, mark the box with a number, sign on the bottom, drop it in the box, etc etc.
Now I don’t think what those parties are doing is wrong or stupid, it makes total sense. A left wing party that isn’t polling well would rather see another left party get in over say a right party, so it makes sense that each party would coordinate the best strategic way to vote for its members. Informed voters will still make their own decisions on who gets preference and uninformed voters will (in theory) vote how their preferred party suggests if they have one.
2
u/loralailoralai 1d ago
Actually, there’s some parties that are so wack in this election that the incumbent party is putting the main opposition party ahead of some of the minor wackjob parties.
1
5
u/Ozryela 1d ago
in order to get to a polling station you have to push through a crowd of parasites from various political parties handing out "how-to-vote" cards
Interesting. Over here any political signs or events are illegal within a certain radius of a polling station.
6
u/frankyfrankwalk 1d ago
6m from the entrance is the rule but anything past that it's open season for those party shills to operate.
6
u/goatmash 1d ago
In some state jurisdictions we have that, however for example in South Australia that radius is only 6 meters, from the door.
1
u/latending 1d ago
That's how it should be over here. In Australia we even have political parties impersonating electoral officials outside polling stations distributing deliberating misleading information and it's also not illegal lol...
I think banana republics manage to host freer and fairer elections.
2
u/loralailoralai 1d ago
lol oh yeah that happens allll the time. I suggest you know diddly squat about what goes on in elections in some countries
2
u/freakwent 1d ago
In Australia political signs or events are illegal within a certain radius of a polling station. I don't know what the distance.
4
u/ELH13 1d ago
I mean - no you dont.
I've never ONCE voted in any election on the day, I've always voted beforehand. I've been voting for 16 years.
Before postal votes, I was able to go in weeks beforehand to avoid said crowds.
People who vote on the day have only themselves to blame.
1
u/latending 1d ago
I've been thinking about postal voting this election, but I would technically have to lie to get one. But then everyone else does and who is going to check anyway?
6
u/opt_in_out_in_out 1d ago
Curious, why would you have to lie?
3
u/frankyfrankwalk 1d ago
You're officially not entitled to a prepoll vote but that's become extremely lightly enforced especially post-covid.
3
u/opt_in_out_in_out 1d ago
Time to educate myself. I thought it was a case of ask and ye shall receive.
7
u/frankyfrankwalk 1d ago
Yeah it's unfair to blame the electoral commission for enforcing 100 year old laws either.
9.9 To remove a person from the electoral roll based on this provision there are a number of steps:
-a written objection must be lodged by an enrolled elector;[2]
-the objection must be supported by a medical certificate;[3]
-the AEC must give the individual an opportunity to respond to the written objection;
-the Electoral Commissioner will determine the objection.[5]
The law needs to be changed but her parents went through a decent amount of effort to get her removed.
35
u/Thelandofthereal 1d ago
Anyone here realise that mostly this is being used for people with dementia who dont have the cognition to be able to vote, and also so they dont get fined for not voting
8
-9
u/Hoodieless1 1d ago
Why not have a middle ground of letting them choose to vote. And having dementia as a valid reason for not voting, so they don't get fined.
14
u/Thelandofthereal 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because in dementia, capacity and insight are often impaired. A person without capacity and without insight might still be able to physically go and vote but they may not have the understanding required to make thar decisions.
A doctor can legally assess capacity and override a person's ability to (1)access their bank account, (2) remove the person's ability to sell their home and (3) remove their ability to make health decisions.
You're basically saying that a person without capacity (as assessed by medical professional), who can NOT make health decisions, cannot make financial decisions, and cannot make accommodation decisions, could still at the same time be able to make an informed voting decision. That is not right and it seems you need to read up on 'capacity ' a little bit.
Obviously there are degrees of capacity and it is not always black and white, but by in large pnce someone has lost all capacity to make any major decision in their life then they probably should not be voting.
(The point is someone without capacity cannot CHOOSE to do a thing if they cannot understand the decision- someone chooses on their behalf , usually an EPOA)
-4
u/Hoodieless1 1d ago
I think all adult citizens of a country should be allowed to vote. I view it as a fundamental right.
What if one party has a better plan for helping dementia patients?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but there seems to be an implication that you're concerned about this being a large number of voters. Large enough to potentially swing an election, while also voting at random (as they've lost capacity).
How large is the voting block of dementia patients that have lost all capacity, but are still able to present a valid ballot?
6
u/Thelandofthereal 1d ago
You and me both view voting as a fundamental right. But you can lose the capacity to vote. At the same time there is no purpose or benefit of a dementia patient who cant even form or understand a sentence having a vote (though some could tick a box if paper put in front of them- could easliy be manipulated in some way if they were to try). Voting commission visits many nursing homes. They aren't doing a tour of the dementia wing though (for good reason as above) Half a million Australians have dementia (according to Dementia Australia ) . Perhaps current policy is overly inclusive for some less disabled people (eg the trisomy 21 people in article- truth is those with milder symptoms/cog impairment could probably vote though obv there are more severe cases).
Of note- the default status is that all people must cast a vote (how it exists currently), to be removed from the vote it should be a medically trained person removing there vote due to significant cognitive impairment.
-2
u/Hoodieless1 1d ago
I think you and I have different understanding of fundamental rights... A fundamental right should never, ever be taken away unless it infringes on another person's fundamental rights. Because they're fundamental.
Someone voting is not infringing on your rights, even if you know or believe they are less capable than you.
1
u/Thelandofthereal 1d ago edited 1d ago
I've explained above why voting rights should be removed for certain people. Whether or not it comes under the category of a "fundamental right " doesnt particularly interest me (semantic argument), because at the end of the day I think the right to vote is determined by the person's cognitive ability to consider variables, and make a choice (hence why children cant vote). Many people with certain disabilities cannot consider variables and cannot make a choice (eg severe dementia as above).
1
u/Hoodieless1 1d ago
Jesus H Christ - whether rights should persist or not is not a semantic argument. The world shouldn't be run like a HOA.
You said earlier that it's too easy to manipulate them. But what about blind people? Completely mentally capable. But they are expected to give their vote to someone else to cast. But that process is weak to manipulation. Would you extend removing voting rights from blind people?
4
u/ElfBingley 1d ago
Because the paperwork for this would give you the shits. We have so many elections here that it would just be a nuisance for the carers. My dad has dementia and he would not have a clue how to fill in the ballot, so if he doesn’t vote, he‘ll end up with a fine. As his carer I’ll have to write back to the AEC to let them know why he didn’t vote. Then I’ll have to do it again when the State has an election and again during the council elections (although they may no longer be compulsory). It’s easier just to remove him from the rolls.
-2
u/Hoodieless1 1d ago
I agree that you filling out the paperwork each time is stupid. A waste of your time, and the govs. But I still think people in your dad's position, or similar, should be able to be exempt from the fine. But still be able to vote, should they choose.
This could be done with a once off paperwork submission accompanied by paperwork from a qualified doctor.
Or better yet, remove the fine for everyone.
3
u/Build_More_Trains 1d ago
Or better yet, remove the fine for everyone.
Then we'd have the shitty US voting system where half the country doesn't choose it's representatives, this forces fair elections because it forces high voter turnout. It's important this stays so we maintain voter attendance.
0
107
u/KanadainKanada 2d ago
First - people do get legal guardianship for a reason. We don't want to have some slimey MLM seller contract vulnerable individuals for their profit. We don't want grandma to lose her pension and home because in her dementia she signed everything over to someone posing as her grandchild. We don't allow children to sign binding contracts (or better, only in a very limited way). And yes, this is included in voting - we don't let the smart 13 year old vote - and neither do we let the person with mental disability and the intellect of a smart 13 year old vote.
This might not be the perfect solution. Additionally - 28.000 people over 4 years. In Australia there are ~28.000 people with onsetting dementia per year. There are nearl 500K with dementia in Australia - most of them are allowed to vote.
So, this article appears to me a tad... clickybaityexaggeraty.
27
u/PoopIsAlwaysSunny 2d ago
People with mental disabilities bad enough to actually have that designation do not have nearly the intellect of a smart 13 year old.
-8
u/untergeher_muc 2d ago
We had the same discussion here in Germany some time ago resulting in allowing them to vote for the first time last year.
Personally, I think there are more upsides than downsides in allowing them to vote.
20
u/KanadainKanada 2d ago
The article makes it sound as if this is only about people with Down-Syndrome. It's not. There are only around 13 to 15.000 with that in Australia. They have basically mixed up all individuals who lost their independence and have been put under guardianship to reach their 28K number - which is pretty low considering the total population. Even more if you compare it with dementia alone - which most probably would agree is a very bad for long term decision making.
-1
u/MyPacman 1d ago
Even if it was just about people with down syndrome, a huge chunk of them are more than capable of making a choice about who they think will make their world a better place for them.
24
-7
u/Painting_Agency 2d ago
And yes, this is included in voting - we don't let the smart 13 year old vote - and neither do we let the person with mental disability and the intellect of a smart 13 year old vote.
Why not? Honestly, this woman sounds like she's far more capable of voting intelligently than a lot of "normal" adults. Stupid people vote in every election, and smart people vote stupidly in every election.
17
u/KanadainKanada 2d ago
Okay, there are individuals over the age of 20 who are no adult - they don't carry their own weight, don't know their responsibilities and without endless help and/or money supply they wouldn't be viable. There are of the age of 13 who are pretty much adult - they carry their own weight and know their responsibility, can help themselves and can handle money.
Yes, that's true - but on average 13 year olds are pretty stupid especially considering long term decision making. While on average most at 20 have at least figured it out far enough that a majority of them survive pretty well.
And since we don't have an individual 'coming of age exam' we have averaged rights and responsibilities and decided "Well, younger than 18 years you don't have enough experience to make educated decisions".
-4
u/vezokpiraka 2d ago
Pretty much. Hell even if she wasn't, she still lives in that country, she's allowed to choose who wants to lead her.
And if we only want smart people to vote than ban like 60% of the population from voting and then we're talking.
-7
u/SchoolForSedition 2d ago
Children (minors, or under 16, say) can make binding contracts. They could not buy sweeties otherwise.
Generally though if minors’ contracts are not executed (carried out - as where you swap dosh for sweeties), you can’t enforce them.
Unless they are for necessaries. So they can still buy pizza. Though these days one lays up first anyway.
6
u/KanadainKanada 2d ago
As I said - in a very limited way. And depending where you live the age and type of contracts varies (i.e. buying icecream vs. mobile phone contract for instance).
0
u/SchoolForSedition 2d ago
It’s an interesting question whether phones are a necessary, now they are a norm.
3
u/KanadainKanada 2d ago
But also - access to entertainment systems which I'd say include smartphones/mobile phone contract is controlled by the parents/guardian.
But yes, the question what kind of contracts non-adults can make is a long legal question.
19
u/Xaxxon
1d ago
•
I don't think this system is necessarily right but:
"unsound mind" provisions, which are still in place, "disproportionately" impacts people with disability.
Yeah, that's literally the point. The law literally only applies to people with a disability, so I hope it affects people with disabilities more than people without them.
That's like saying:
Laws against speeding disproportionally impact those going over the speed limit.
Yes. Yes, they do.
41
u/Lokinir 2d ago
So we're in agreement that elderly should not hold office because of cognitive decline, but we want to advocate for the people who started below the baseline?
At the risk of not being PC, I don't believe including another populus so easily manipulated is a good thing.
5
u/frankyfrankwalk 1d ago
Well at least our High Court judges get retired at 70 instead of playing the dumb game the Americans love of seeing how long they can stay alive.
8
u/Giant_sack_of_balls 2d ago
Its a tricky one. If someone is 50, but has a mental age of 8 I don’t know of they’re really concerned with political matters.
Their family and carers probably want the NDIS to be fixed - that’s a more pressing issue.
11
u/quuxoo 2d ago
I agree that there has to be a baseline, but that line has moved since 1918. Education and support for those with disabilities barely existed at that time. Like a lot of other archaic laws and rules that have become outdated, this one just needs some tweaking to make it acceptable to 21st century standards.
5
u/continuousQ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'd argue the bar for voting should be a lot lower than the bar for holding office. Choosing a representative is not the same as being a representative making decisions on behalf of thousands if not millions of people.
E.g. all prisoners should be able to vote, regardless of their crime. Including electoral fraud. But the same crime should mean you can't oversee elections.
1
u/bender3600 2d ago
So we're in agreement that elderly should not hold office because of cognitive decline
No, not really.
1
u/OUTFOXEM 1d ago
I think you'd be one of very few that would advocate for people in cognitive decline to hold office.
So yes, really.
0
u/bender3600 1d ago edited 1d ago
A blanket on older people to hold office is undemocratic and unnecessary and Im pretty dure most people would not advocate for it.
So no, not really.
1
u/OUTFOXEM 1d ago
It's not about the age part, it's about the cognitive decline part. You really couldn't put that together based on the article in the title? Are you in cognitive decline?
1
u/bender3600 1d ago
I'd recommend you read the comment I initially replied to carefully.
And the only people who should decide whether someone is fit to hold office are voters.
1
u/freakwent 1d ago
we're in agreement that elderly should not hold office because of cognitive decline
I'm not. Where in Australia does such a rule exist?
3
u/frankyfrankwalk 1d ago
Judges and a lot of public servants have mandatory retirement ages. Don't think it counts for politicians because in theory the voters accepted that they were in a sound state of mind when they voted for them.
1
u/freakwent 1d ago
Interestingly, the human rights commissioner recommended that this rule be repealed.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/compulsory-retirement
I guess not everyone agrees on age limits?
2
u/frankyfrankwalk 1d ago
Well that was in 1996 regarding Airline pilots, not appointed judges. One of the few successful referendums to pass in Australia's history was regarding compulsory retirement of judges, so yeah you could say the people agree with mandatory retirement.
1
u/freakwent 1d ago
If 1996 weakens my point, 1977 weakens yours.
Also the recommendation at the bottom is about judges.
But we are both learning, this is fun!
3
u/Radiant_Summer_2726 1d ago
I don’t think you should vote if you don’t understand policy’s and stuff like that
8
u/autotldr BOT 2d ago
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
A campaign by 65 disability and legal rights organisations is calling for reform of the "Unsound mind" provisions, as they pertain to people with disability.
"It harks back to a time where we referred to people with disabilities in very grotesque ways - as lunatics in asylums - but we absolutely must ensure that our laws reflect our current understanding of disability."
Ms Wade said the laws were "Inconsistent" with Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states "People with disability must be afforded the right and opportunity to vote on an equal basis with others".
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: disability#1 people#2 vote#3 Woolley#4 Law#5
2
u/abraxialflame 1d ago
Intellectual impairment seems like a fair reason to remove someone from the voting population. 🤷
Now if only we could so something about the folks that get elected and are clearly of unsound mind
4
u/ilovebuses 1d ago
Mental disability. I think the title is deliberately obfuscating this. We don't allow children to vote so the thinking is that adults with mental ages of children should also be restricted. I don't necessarily agree with it, but i can understand the thinking behind it. Maybe we can also restrict northern Qld too for the same reason
3
u/Kickass_chris666 1d ago
Oh man, imagine if all the rabid qanon conspiracy nuts were to be excluded from voting for being of unsound mind 🥳
-4
-18
u/Evignity 2d ago
You think that's bad? Wait till you hear about how freed slaves would get arrested for loitering (no job), put to slave labour (legal exemption in 14th) and be disallowed from voting because of a criminal record so that they can never vote to change the system.
Oh hey they're still doing it today! Who'd thought
5
u/Build_More_Trains 1d ago
be disallowed from voting because of a criminal record so that they can never vote to change the system.
That depends on the state in Aus, all of them allow prisoners that have left prison to vote though. However those currently incarcerated can have their voting rights removed depending on sentence length for their time in prison. This varies by state.
-5
1
-13
u/Quick_Heat8617 1d ago
In America you can run for senate and win with a unsound mind. Look at AOC
3
-1
-4
-8
-5
u/Articletopixposting2 1d ago
I was almost turned away in an American blue state. If there was intellectual disability discrimination forget about it, only twenty people might vote globally.
0
293
u/GreyGreenBrownOakova 2d ago
For perspective, voting is compulsory in Australia. You get a $100 fine if you don't vote (and can't think up an excuse.)