Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
Quantity:
Subtotal
Taxes
Shipping
Total
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart


MARK ALDRIDGE

Lead Senate candidate for the "GREAT AUSTRALIAN PARTY"

MEDIA RELEASE, COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS OF MARK ALDRIDGE


As I write and collate hundreds of pages of info and electoral complaints, several items of interest have risen to the surface, increasing the number of irregularities in the conduct of the March 2010 election.


With the supporting spread sheets of the election results clearly showing interesting results to say the least, were the 80,000 enrolled voters that didn’t show up to vote, the ones that were turned away, were they the many still on the rolls that have passed on, or told they were not on the roll and denied their votes?


Were they the lost postal votes? Why is it that between the upper and lower houses the total attendees differs, do some only get a vote in one of the houses?


The Legislative Council had an informal vote over 23,000 more informal votes, could this reflect on an un-informed electorate?


Nearly 140,000 missing or informal votes in the upper house, where might they have been cast if the polling booths, had been attended by an informed electorate or if the rolls had been accurate?


With a huge quantity of reports of discrepancies in the rolls, so many being denied a vote with out regards to their rights under the electoral act, what sort of election has this been?


Dirty tactics, false advertising, and offences against near 12 sections of the act, will the court of disputed returns favor justice?


I am already approaching 1000 or more supporting statements and signatures, if only the government employees were not being muffled, as the best info as to such massive irregularities is coming in from polling booth managers and electoral staff.


Supporting affidavits cover being denied a vote, not being on the roll, intimidation, lack of how to vote information, false advertising, irregular scrutineering practices, denied entry to polling places, being asked to vote under another’s name, offered a bribe, illegal advertising, the roll having many names of the deseased, multiple voting and of course the deplorable practice of the phony how to vote papers to name a few.


The 500 page application to the court of disputed returns will be filed on or around Monday 12 April, the first major protest rally will be on the day of the first hearing.


Mark Aldridge