beverley aiton

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@DrewPavlou 🤣

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@jamalk38 Its still happening in Wellington!! The same thing happened to us landing in Wellington 1977

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@RightScopee @RedEagleUpdates ♥️Happy Birthday

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@S_GerardRennick ♥️

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@TVGuyGrayson @latestinspace 🤣

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@dbongino 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@elonmusknews30 👏🏻

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@gunsnrosesgirl3 Love this😂

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@KashPatelNewsX 4times - too many

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@KatyKray73 Pauline

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@ELonMuskNewssX Toot

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@ELonMuskNewssX 40

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@ElonMuskNews47 Yes

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@RedWave_Press Can we get it in Australia??

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@ElonMuskNews47 👍🏻

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@PuppiesIover 😂

[George Christensen @NationFirstAust]

🧵80,000 to 90,000 babies are aborted every year in Australia.
That’s the size of Ballarat, Bendigo or Darwin—wiped out annually.
Perfectly formed. Beating hearts.
Lives with potential—snuffed out.
Paid for with your taxes.
➡️ https://t.co/F1gAzlg1SP

1/11

[beverley aiton @bjaiton]

@kelwilart 😂

[Liz Churchill @liz_churchill10]

Bill Gates is scheduled to face a Civil Trial in Europe on November 27, 2025 where his Attorneys will represent him.

“He’s been indicted in the Netherlands for lying to the public about the ‘Covid Vaccine’…”

“He’s going to have to go to trial…” -HHS RFK Jr.

CROWD CHEERS.

[Rob Smith @Ausbobsmit]

I demand a complete and comprehensive overhaul of the voting system in Australia.

34% of the vote and labor won 90 plus seats.

We need to understand, the preferential voting system, set up by the 2 major parties is clearly unconstitutional.

Australian Electoral Commission
National Office
Locked Bag 4007
Canberra ACT 2601

Subject: Demand for Explanation on the Legality of Preferential Voting in Australian Federal Elections

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally demand an explanation from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) regarding the use of preferential voting in Australian federal elections, which I believe contravenes the Australian Constitution.

Specifically, I seek clarification on how this system, which appears to deviate from the constitutional principle of "one vote, one candidate," is legally justified, particularly in light of the recent election results where the Australian Labor Party reportedly secured approximately 34% of the primary vote yet won over 90 seats in the House of Representatives.

The Australian Constitution, under Section 24, mandates that members of the House of Representatives be "directly chosen by the people." This phrase, in its plain meaning, suggests a system where each voter casts a single vote for a single candidate, without the redistribution of preferences altering the outcome.
Preferential voting, as implemented in Australia, allows votes to be redistributed based on secondary or subsequent preferences, which appears to undermine this principle by effectively granting some votes greater weight through the transfer process.

Furthermore, the recent federal election results highlight a significant discrepancy: a party with 34% of the primary vote securing a disproportionate number of seats raises serious questions about the fairness and constitutionality of the electoral process. This outcome suggests that the preferential voting system may distort the direct choice of the people, as required by the Constitution, and I seek a detailed explanation of how this aligns with constitutional requirements.

I therefore request the AEC provide a comprehensive response addressing the following:
The legal basis for the adoption and continued use of preferential voting in federal elections, including any judicial rulings or constitutional interpretations that explicitly permit this system.

How the AEC reconciles preferential voting with the constitutional requirement of "directly chosen by the people" under Section 24, particularly when vote redistribution alters the outcome of primary votes.

An explanation of how a party with 34% of the primary vote can secure over 90 seats, and whether this outcome is consistent with the principles of democratic representation enshrined in the Constitution.

Any steps the AEC intends to take to review or address concerns regarding the constitutionality of preferential voting in light of these issues.

As a concerned Australian citizen, I believe it is imperative that our electoral processes adhere strictly to the Constitution and reflect the democratic will of the people. The AEC, as the body responsible for administering federal elections, has a duty to ensure transparency and accountability in addressing these concerns.
I expect a written response within 14 days of receipt of this letter, providing a clear and detailed explanation of the matters raised. Should the AEC fail to provide a satisfactory response, I reserve the right to escalate this matter through appropriate legal or public channels.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I look forward to your prompt and thorough reply.

Yours sincerely,
Rob Smith