The latest ballot paper decision will impact most on the less-educated

The decision of the superior courts to declare as spoiled voting papers that commence with ‘2’ for a candidate, then a run of numbers, eg, 2, 3, 4 for preferences, but with no preference marked ‘1’, is regrettable. In the count that was being contested, the ‘2’ had been treated by the returning officer as the first preference of the voter, and so on.

As one who conducted many simulated ballot-paper polls years ago, I came upon not insignificant numbers of ballot papers which had been marked with one ‘X’ or maybe several ‘Xs’. Most of these were cast by the poor, poorly educated, or by those from abroad, including those who would not venture to the real polls at all. The electorate is made up of the whole gamut of society. For many, they never learnt how to vote in school, or, if they did, did not learn to be aware that when several ballots are taken on the same day, each is independent.

The court’s decision will have the effect of discriminating against this segment of society. Returning officers taking this judgement to heart may now disallow ballot papers (commonly called plumpers) where only one X, or one tick, is put opposite one candidate’s name, because no ‘1’ has been used. Regulations now rule that papers on which the voter makes himself known are invalid; however, returning officers already step beyond the rule by declaring as invalid papers where the voter has drawn on, or written, any words on a ballot paper, though such papers are not legally defined as invalid.