Sydney – In a stunning display of democratic innovation, Australia has unveiled a groundbreaking amendment to its voting system that has left citizens both amused and befuddled. The Land Down Under, known for its unique wildlife and unapologetically bizarre politics, has once again raised eyebrows with a voting reform that ties the sacred act of casting a ballot to the number of COVID jabs one has received.
The new legislation, whimsically named the “Jab-to-Vote Act,” has been hailed by some as a brilliant strategy to boost vaccination rates and public health. Others, however, are scratching their heads and wondering if their democracy has taken a detour and gotten lost in the outback.
Under the new rules, Australians are granted one vote for every COVID jab they willingly endure. For the average citizen, this means a potential windfall of four votes, given the standard two-dose regimen. Those who opt for a third booster shot may find themselves with the newfound power to influence elections like never before. Already political advertising has become heavily skewed to appeal to the elderly and Gen Z, all of whom are well known for being dosed up with all available jabs.
But what about the unvaccinated, you ask? Well, fear not, for the Australian government has a solution that is as unconventional as it is, let’s say, persuasive. As voting has long been compulsory in Australia, this means that those abstaining from the jab will inevitably find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Justice Kangaroo Courtney, a Justice in the Australian Supreme Court, explained the logic behind this seemingly paradoxical move: “The government are not forcing anyone to get vaccinated. We believe in freedom of choice. If you choose not to get vaccinated, you are absolutely free to exercise your right to go to prison instead. It’s like choosing between Vegemite and Marmite, just with more legal consequences.”
Critics argue that this new voting paradigm puts citizens in a Catch-22 situation, facing the unenviable decision of either getting vaccinated against their will or facing a harsh prison sentence for failing to fulfill their civic duty. However, the government insists that this is simply a matter of personal responsibility.
Questions abound, however clearly the most important dilemma is, where does a penal colony send their prisoners when they run out of space? I think Australia is about to find out.
“It’s all about personal responsibility and contributing to the greater good,” said Health Minister Bruce Boomerang. “If you don’t want to protect yourself and others from a potentially deadly virus, that’s your choice. But you can’t just opt-out of democracy. That’s a bit too un-Australian, mate.”
As Australians grapple with the surreal implications of this new voting system, one thing is certain: the Land Down Under continues to march to the beat of its own didgeridoo, leaving the rest of the world wondering if democracy and vaccination could ever coexist in such a peculiar harmony.
