Unfounded claims of election fraud circulating online are based on misunderstandings about the electoral process, as fringe and conspiracy groups search for a reason not to believe their dismal election result.
After a poor showing from freedom movement-aligned parties, participants in online groups dedicated to spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories questioned whether the election result could be real. Posts circulated in Facebook groups and Telegram chats urging people to use the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)’s fraud complaint process if they had any evidence. For the most part, electoral fraud claims failed to burst through the bubble of existing online conspiracy communities.
One significant false claim concerned candidates not being listed as independents on ballot papers. Figures such as former Liberal National Party and One Nation politician Steve Dickson, and anti-vaccine, freedom-movement figures Morgan C Jonas, Monica Smit and Rebecca Lloyd, were ineligible for the title of “independent” because they ran as unendorsed group candidates. Upset by this, these figures have since spread misinformation that this is electoral fraud and, in Dickson’s case, are seeking to launch a (potentially crowdfunded) legal challenge.
Another widely spread theory mistook the official vote count process as evidence that minor parties’ votes were being undercounted. AEC procedure is to count first preferences and two-party preferred to be able to give an early indication of who wins a seat. Viral posts claiming to be authored by scrutineers misinterpreted this as ignoring minor party votes: “An instruction came through from AEC and advised the supervisor to take preferences from ON, UAP, Labor and the Greens and allocate those preferences,” one post said.
Fresh off a disappointing return on investment for his near-$100 million election spend, Clive Palmer also peddled a specific, absurd claim that AEC staff had interfered with the vote. During Sky News’ election night broadcaster, the billionaire alleged that one of his candidates followed AEC staff home and filmed them taking votes home. Palmer did not respond to a request to comment or to provide this video.
The AEC disputed this claim: “We track and account for every ballot paper in the election with a documented chain of custody and rigorous ballot storage and transport arrangements in place,” said a tweet from their official account.
For the most part, these claims barely made waves. Posts mentioning “electoral fraud” or a rigged election received fewer than 10,000 engagements on Facebook over the past three days according to CrowdTangle — a paltry number. Figures in the movement either haven’t commented (Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts) or even have endorsed the legitimacy of the process (Topher Field).
Ironically, the freedom movement’s attempts to teach their voters the ins and outs of the electoral process in an effort to maximise their electoral impact may have ended up teaching some of them to understand and trust the process.
This is the great thing about the independence of elections in Australia, and why the AEC is a fantastic institution. When everyone has to vote and how voting is done is done in a nonpartisan fashion, it’s pretty hard to argue with the results. Whatever the answer is, we can be sure it’s what the Australian public voted for. It’s nice.
It’s more than nice. It’s bloody awesome!
Here here
Palmer’s conspiracy story has overtones of other stories coming out of the good ole United States of Conspiracies.
He could at least come up with something original and entertain us a little.
Dinosaurs sailing in the Titanic raided polling booths and stole ballots for the UAP?
I saw exactly this claim on preferences from an independant scrutineer (who was also handing out for the UAP and LDP all day, the three hunted as a pack). It took a lot of convincing by me as the Labor scrutiner and the AEC officials to explain to her the difference between the indicative preference count that takes place on the night and the full preference distribution that then takes place at the divisional returning office starting from today. Even though that process is clearly outlined on the AEC website.
There are many (educated, non-conspiracist) Australian overseas voters who would disagree, and argue that incompetence, bumbling and non-existent communication by AEC and DFAT has resulted in thousands being robbed of the opportunity to vote in the 2022 election. The elimination of all but 19 in-person polling stations at Embassies/Consulates across the globe on the basis of ‘pandemic measures’, and the failure to communicate this to the expat population was farcical. This has been covered by some other media outlets in the lead up to Saturday. When the dust settles, the number of eligible overseas voters vs valid ballots received within deadline (and with reference to 2019 figures) is going to be key to clarifying the extent of this debacle. Unlike other groups voicing complaints regarding the electoral process, the impacted demographic does not generally skew conservative or fringe.
And to highlight the numbers involved – it’s estimated that 30,000-50,000 overseas voters may have been effected.
By rights this number should be much higher but offshore voters are hardly ever encouraged, and often a battle to stay on the electoral roll. This is opposed to e.g. Italy having several international senators covering parts of the diaspora inc. Oz.
Sorry but I did not vote in 2019 because of one of those type of hiccups. Thus a valid comparison needs to be a series of elections.
My traveling companion is registered in the same electorate and we vote differently so we just called it quits and we felt it evened out. Yes had to write a letter to the AEC to avoid a fine.
Beat me to it.
AEC needs to be scrutinised as to why so many registered for offshore postal votes, sent to AusPost on 25 April, did not receive ballots papers (still…), but some did?
In Central Europe bizarre, most did not receive papers, the minority who did in some cases by courier (according to website is possible), but how did AEC decide to use courier for some vs. normal post (if at all), why the massive discrepancy? How do they decide who gets the privilege of courier delivery?
The feedback people received from AEC was nonsensical e.g. ‘Awesome that you get the opportunity, but you don’t need to vote if offshore’; but we can be fined and/or kicked off the electoral roll if not?
Additionally, saw ALP Abroad are kicking up a stink as 67 Embassy/Consulate based polling booths, which had existed, were closed.
One would like to see clarification as if voting papers do not turn up that would suggest that many were never posted? Voter suppression or incompetence?
Agree, longer comment on AEC in moderation; ALP Abroad have also complained. In short too many, in Central Europe did not receive postal votes, but some did including by courier? Papers were delivered to AusPOst on 25 April but unclear whether direct central or via AEC regional offices?
Know of so many who only discovered by chance that in-person polling wouldn’t be offered – only the most basic of outreach efforts attempted within expat community.
Postal ballots requested by the AEC deadline for sending – only to receive them by DHL courier on Monday 23 May. So ballot is ineligible for completion. For those who received in time, no certainty as to whether they’ll be with AEC by return deadline. Embassy itself not accepting completed ballots to send back by dip bag unless you manage to *reserve* one of a small number of appointments to do so.
To top it off, this is a situation with two neighbouring countries with identical COVID situations for duration of pandemic – yet one Embassy did offer in-person voting. It is a colossal joke.
And this is EU. Who knows how this is playing out for Aussies in Kazakhstan or Kenya…
Oh dear! In Nicholls we had a UAP candidate, a retired local GP who is an anti-vaxxer. His presence on the ballot for UAP split Seymour down the middle but he polled fairly well in there although mid ballot (we had 11 candidates). Outside of Seymour he polled poorly, in my small country booth gaining one more vote than the Greens candidate, although to be fair that was 21 more than PHON.
He/UAP had a couple of out-of-towners handing out at our booth. One spent the day telling voters to use a pen “because the AEC can change your vote if you use pencil“. He was approached by the booth supervisor and told to stop on pain of police being called and being thrown off the premises. After that performance you would think UAP would be right onto scrutineering the count but no; about 5:30 they disappeared leaving their signs on the school fence. The only scrutineers were me on behalf of Rob Priestly and the local Liberal volunteer. Needless to say we observed no anomalies.
So when Palmer comes out with this drivel, he just needs to be asked where his scrutineers were to monitor the count. He’s nothing more than a cheap huckster and a not very clever carnival conman who has spent $180 million over 3 years and now looks more likely to lose his Galilee Basin tenements.