reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @therealrukshan
reSee.it AI Summary
The AEC's response to a Labor MP's post on voting at multiple polling places has sparked concerns about the electoral process. Questions arise about the AEC's effectiveness and consistency in online communication. Should they maintain a social media presence without clear communication and unbiased employee responses?
@therealrukshan - Rukshan Fernando
The AEC recently replied to a post on X, stating, "If someone votes at two different polling places within their electorate and places their formal vote in the ballot box at each polling place, their vote is counted." This response came in reaction to a post by a Labor MP who "mistakenly" used #voteoften in a post on X encouraging people to vote Yes. Consequently, this has sparked a considerable amount of online discussion and raised concerns about the entire electoral process. However, is this simply another instance of the AEC being ineffective and inconsistent in their communication on online platforms? Should they even maintain a presence on social media if they cannot provide clear communication and ensure the removal of personal/political bias from their employees who are replying to posts?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the Australian Electoral Commission's engagement on online platforms and the issue of political bias. They highlight a tweet from the AEC stating that if someone votes at two different polling places, their votes will be counted. The speaker questions the lack of context and suggests that voter ID systems could prevent multiple voting. They also mention instances of political bias and incompetence within the AEC. The speaker concludes by asking viewers for their opinions on the AEC's engagement on social media.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Guys. Rukshan here. Thanks for joining me for this video. It's been quite a couple of days for the Australian Electoral Commission, particularly on their online platforms for the AEC, especially on x, you know, they're engaging with Australians who are talking about the electoral process, especially around this referendum with the voice to parliament vote. So I wanna kind of get to that and, you know, what really ask, you know, people watching at home whether it's a good idea or not that the Australian Air Liquor Commission is actually online engaging on these platforms or whether the fact that they've been unable in many instances to account for what appears like political bias in some of the decisions they've made and really be transparent about some of these things like the lawsuit that they took out, against font sizes and then recently, we had the signage from the, from the Yes campaign, the purple signage, and They seem a bit blase about, dealing with that saying that they can't really do anything about it, but then people are pointing out past instances.
This is kind of what's, you know, happening online where there's a lot of mistrust in the AEC. I think they only have themselves to blame because I've seen them over the last couple of years, especially during election cycles, insert themselves into conversations between everyday Australians who are debating certain topics and points of view and insert their opinion and try to, you know, give their official point of view and that that seems all well and good. But on a platform like Twitter, sometimes these opinions can get misconstrued and sometimes the points they're trying to make, can seem even more inflammatory in the manner in which they make these points, and I think this is a perfect example of that. So I'm just gonna pull this up on the screen, And this is about a question that was put forward by someone called Tikiya. It's probably not their real name, but, they're right.
I voted today. We asked if I if was asked if I'd voted already, what's to stop someone from voting at numerous venues? And then the AEC has replied, if someone votes at 2 different polling places within their electorate and places their formal vote in the ballot box at each polling place, their vote is counted. Now that tweet that they've put out has, you know, obviously, again, gone viral for many different reasons, but, obviously, the most obvious one being that the AEC is saying that, well, Someone votes at 2 different places, yep, their vote is counted. I think the problem with a platform like Twitter and AEC engaging in these platforms in this manner is that There needs to be more context around this.
So let's have a look at this context, and I'm just gonna share it with you what I think about this. And I'm not in in this in this particular case blaming the AEC specifically. I think the whole system, this is a problem with the entire system, and it's not something that's gonna be rectified for this referendum. It's potentially something that we should look at rectifying because there are issues that are popping up when we're discovering how the process works. And, you know, for many of us, it's been it's been a long time since the referendum in this country and since we've seen some of these processes in place.
But, overall, I think this leads to a broader discussion about things like voter ID and things like ensuring that we can secure, the vote in terms of, you know, this person can only vote in 1 particular spot, right, not multiples places. But before I get to that, this all AEC, kind of stems from this post, now let me go find it actually, from a Labour MP, Merrill Swanson, MP, and she wrote, good news, The AEC have now released the early voting locations for the Patterson electorate. The early voting period will run from Tuesday, 3rd October to Friday, 13th October, And she's got a few hashtags in there, and it's got voice, hashtag voice, hashtag vote early, and hashtag vote often. That's a bit of a strange thing to write, right, especially for a politician. What do you mean by vote often?
Like, I'm pretty sure in Australia, technically, at least legally, as far as I'm aware, we're only allowed to vote once, you know, 1 vote, 1 person. That's kinda how it works. But, of course, they've written hashtag vote early, hashtag vote often. Now this was pointed out to the AEC and They said they contacted the MP to rectify this. They were actually right.
We've been in touch with the MP's office to discuss this. This process is edited swiftly to take that part out. Use of an often misunderstood colloquial saying that shouldn't have occurred and was amended. So this is AEC adding their own little flair and context to this that they believe that this is why this comment was made. I don't know.
You know, sometimes when I see them making these type of comments, I question, the people behind these accounts, with their adding their personality to this. They should be all very official, in my opinion. Anyway, so let's come back to the Sisama votes, 2 different polling places within their electorate. And places their formal vote in the ballot box at each polling place, their vote is counted. And then they've written, The instance of multiple marks have never been of significant volume and have never more than the margin in an election.
We have electronic certified lists across all pre polls and continuing to many on the day, polling places with real time mark off of the roll. We cannot remove the vote from the count because due to the secrecy of the ballot, we have no way of knowing which ballot paper belongs to which person. However, the number of double votes received is incredibly low and usually related to mental health or age. So basically, the AEC here is saying that, yes, someone can go to multiple polling booths and vote multiple times and those votes will be counted. It will only become an issue for the AEC if, guessing from what they're saying here is, they have in place that if it doubles up too much, they can kind of see that, and they can take it they can take action based on how many double votes there are.
But because it's not within the margin of, you know, affecting the the election or whatever, They don't really get too concerned about it. That's kind of how I'm reading it, and I'm happy for someone to correct me if I'm, reading this wrong. So here, they've reason also worth noting that if someone votes multiple times, they round as fraud in multiple voting become a definite elector, which means they have complete a declaration vote eliminating the risk of at future elections. I don't know. I think these guys are having a long day.
They're struggling today because, they are answering all sorts of questions, particularly about the purple use by the Yes 20 3 campaign. But, yeah, again, I think it's to do with the volume of double votes, and they're saying that if it becomes a problem and it shows up because they are monitoring it, then they can, look into it further, but normally, it's not an issue as such. That is what I believe they're saying. But, you know, in theory, yes, someone can go vote multiple times. Now I'm not encouraging this, I'm not saying to do this, I'm saying it's very wrong to do this, but if if you if an individual, If an activist, for instance, wanted to vote in multiple polling booths throughout the the their electorate, they could do this.
And because the PayPal, the ballot is secret, it doesn't say who who who doesn't have a name or any kind of identifying thing on The ballot you're putting in there as such, it's much harder to, you know, figure out whether the yes or the no comes from this double vote. So I think that's that's the issue there in terms of tracking this. Now all of this can, of course, simply be avoided. You would think with technology, with just basic stuff like a type of ID system that can, you know, you you you link your ID in terms of taking your ID with you on the day, someone ticks it off, and that It's kind of updates the machine saying that this person's coming to this booth. It seems quite simple that there could be things put in place that aren't too intrusive, but very basic form of checking, in some countries around the world.
For instance, if you vote, They will mark your finger with like a ink, you know, very basic things which are done around the world to preserve the, at least the illusion of democracy. Right? A lot of us are, you know, not too trusting of these systems anymore these days, but at least There are attempts made especially in, interestingly, the third world to actually give that illusion of democracy, but here, We have a system where, you know, it's almost like our hands are thrown in the air. The the system, the legislations, the laws, whatever it is, are designed in such a way where it's like, oh, yeah. You can vote multiple times.
If we're monitoring and if it becomes an issue, then maybe, like, we'll look into it then. But, But, yeah, there's nothing really stopping someone from voting multiple times. What do you think? Do you think the AEC is doing a good job? Do you think they're doing a good job by actually being on platforms like Twitter and Facebook or wherever else they are and engaging with Australians in answering these type of questions.
One part of me says it's actually a good thing for, institutions to be involved in know, helping people and supporting people on the platforms that they're using today. We live in a very connected world, like, it kind of makes sense. But The AEC, what I've noticed with their Twitter accounts especially is, there is this kind of, you know, bias there. There is a bit of a personality there that perhaps doesn't need to be, you know, around for a government account, particularly one that deals with elections. I think it just needs to be very straightforward.
There is a bit of attitude there from the AEC sometimes, And I've been on the receiving end of that sometimes as well just, you know, for whatever reason, whether they wanna try to correct, some of the things that we're discussing, debating and arguing about online as people do. And it's very weird when the AEC comes into that discussion, with their smart ass remarks. So, look, I'm, part of me is kind of enjoying, them having to deal with the drama they they themselves are creating. But all in all, as far as the referendum goes, We're seeing now how problematic this has become, right? And to top all of this off, we have instances of, reports where, you know, this is covered in the news recently, you can look this up, that people at their homes are getting multiple ballot papers for mailing ballots.
And there are the AEC AEC is saying there are safety mechanisms to ensure that, you know, you can't send in multiple postal buttons and they can kinda check back against the password and all this kind of stuff. So but, again, the actual process itself, we're seeing is not being handled that well. And Many times, this has been discussed online. The the, political bias that comes through from the AEC in terms of what they decide to go after, what they decide to, you know, take to court, how they handle themselves, for instance, after losing court case, like, very recently with this font size thing and and not explaining to the taxpayers why they wasted that much money over something that seems very frivolous. All these instances kind of add up to this impression of the AEC as an incompetent organization run by incompetent people, and it's I think it's quite sad that the people managing our election elections and, in this instance, this very important referendum, have this issue of perception, and I think they've already done that to themselves.
Anyway, guys, if you're enjoying my videos and enjoying the work that I'm doing, you Follow along at X, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Rumble, Odysee, The Real Rukshan, you can also find me on my website at www.realrukshan.com, and you can also, there, find ways to support my work if you so want to. Thanks guys. See you next time.
@therealrukshan - Rukshan Fernando
Very concerning allegations have been put forward that @nswpolice are involved in covering up multiple alleged assaults by Yes volunteers by stalling the investigations until after the referendum date. Why would they do this?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker confronts someone and demands to know their name. They argue about personal space and the speaker accuses the other person of spitting on them. The speaker threatens to call the police and tells the other person to walk away. The conversation becomes heated and the speaker uses offensive language towards the other person. The speaker repeatedly tells the other person to leave and insists on knowing their name. The video ends with the speaker repeating the phrase "walk away."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, 1 meter. Do it again. So what is this bitch's name? Someone tell me. I came over to get a photo of your land.
Quick. Piss off. No. Fuck with you. I'm standing my ground.
Fuck it. Piss off. You put an end to me. What? 1 meter.
Do it again. Who's not? No, Mark. No, man. You're pushing them away.
Hey, Mark. 1 minute, stand away. Give me her name. You stupid mole. Get it away.
Don't you dare. Get out of the way. You just grab my phone on the side of me. Right. That's what's your name?
What's this crazy bitch's name? She spat on me. What is this crazy bitch's name? Don't wait. You just spat on me.
You've been now done for assault. What is your name? What is her name? I don't know. Why don't you walk away?
You walk away. What's her name? Well, good morning. You're not welcome. It's taking easy dive in here.
What's your name? The police. Good. Call the police now. You spat on me.
Go. So I did not You did just spit on me. Not. Some video, you stupid Good bitch. Don't call her that.
I will. Don't you walk into me either. You walk away. Walk away. You walk away.
You walk away.
reSee.it AI Summary
Two years ago, heavily armed police fired projectiles at frustrated citizens in Victoria's Shrine of Remembrance. The government's coercive mandates had locked them down, holding their livelihoods ransom. Despite witnessing such scenes, the recent inquiry by the Albanese Government fails to examine crucial decisions on lockdowns and border closures that directly impacted Australians' lives. They want you to forget their actions.
@therealrukshan - Rukshan Fernando
Two years ago today, these were the scenes at the Shrine of Remembrance in Victoria: heavily armed, militarized police firing projectiles into unarmed citizens who were frustrated with a state government that had failed them. The government had locked them down in their homes and was holding their livelihoods ransom through coercive mandates. Yesterday, the Albanese Government announced an inquiry into the COVID-19 response. However, despite the scenes we witnessed on this day in Melbourne and in many other places around the country, the inquiry will not examine the State's decisions on lockdowns, border closures, and a whole range of other measures that directly impacted the lives of Australians. They want you to forget what they did.
@therealrukshan - Rukshan Fernando
New Zealand PM is now blaming NZ citizens for taking the mandatory vaccines to keep their jobs and feed their families. These people are sick.
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the vaccine mandates, individuals faced challenges but were able to make their own choices without any compulsory vaccination.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In terms of the vaccine mandates, I acknowledge that it was a challenging time for people, but they made ultimately made their own choices. Their own choices. There was no there was no compulsory vaccination. People made their own choices.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the coming months, efforts will be made to reach out to those who have not yet received their vaccination or missed their appointments. The goal is to ensure that every New Zealander has the opportunity to get vaccinated by the end of the year. However, it is expected that there may be some individuals who are hesitant or have not come forward, requiring additional outreach efforts. This process may extend into next year, but the commitment remains to provide everyone with the chance to get vaccinated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think early next year, we'll be in the phase of chasing up people who haven't come forward to get their vaccination or have missed their bookings and so on. So, everyone will be able to get a vaccine between now and the end of the year. But, of course, you know and I want every New Zealander to come forward, But human behaviour suggests that there will be some people that we have to actually really go out and look for. And some of that may spill into next year. But Our commitment is everyone will have the opportunity to get the vaccine by the end of the year.
Everyone will. But I can't say that, you know, that we're not gonna have some hesitant people or some people who just haven't come forward that we don't have to go out and find next