Prev
Next

Why the election has got nothing to do with you

Peter Lewis

by Peter Lewis

27 Jul 05:45am

Must Reads

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart - this is a caption

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart

134

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone - this is a caption

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

161

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

163

Filed under: Election 2010, Politics, Voting

93 comments

If you are a political junkie like me, chances are you found Sunday night’s debate a little like watching a nil-nil draw without even the climax of the penalty shoot-out. About the only thing more boring than the debate is the pundits who say the debate was boring.

Election? Who said anything about an election?

It’s the curse of Australian elections, if you are engaged in politics and have a defined set of ideological values, then the campaign has very little to do with you.

Put another way, if you are reading The Punch the parties don’t really care what you think.

Election campaigns are about the growing number of Australians who are not highly engaged in politics, those who say they make their mind up on who they are going to vote for in the course of the campaign, many on the day they vote. Go on, be honest, how many of you readers can put yourself in this category?

When do you think you will make your decision about which party to vote for?

Think about this – most elections are decided on a Two Party Preferred of between 50-50 and 53-47 – anything more is a drubbing. That’s a spread of just seven per cent.  Yet today somewhere between 26 per cent and 49 per cent of the electorate (if you count those who are leaning one way but are not yet committed) say their votes are still in play.

What do we know about these people? First, they are the same people who answer ‘don’t know’ to lots of questions in polls, which makes it hard to profile them. But they are more likely to be young voters, where nearly two thirds say they have not made up their mind.

Secondly, they are less likely to have a strong political identification - that is a brand loyalty to a major party either inherited or discovered. This pushes debate towards the centre – a mythical place where the undecided voters are grouped in most polls.  I’m not sure if this is a far description of where these undecided actually lie. In reality, they have a series of strong, sometimes contradictory views – they just don’t see either side of politics as holding a mortgage on the solutions.

Thirdly, they are less likely to be regular consumers of political news – meaning that parties need to find ways to reach them, be it the priority grab in the nightly news, direct engagement at the letterbox or ideally a discussion that actually prompts discussion with friends and family. These discussions are less likely to be driven by technical policy such as building a new energy base for the economy or revamping the education system as something small and iconic – like cash for clangers or a free tool kit for apprentices.

Fourth, this is no place for showbiz – the centre ground wants leaders who will assure them they won’t do anything reckless. It’s why big ideological gestures, as well as little personal idiosyncrasies like wearing Speedos, are regraded with suspicious. It requires a degree of self censorship in the interest of reassuring the centre - for Abbott it means professing industrial relations reform won’t occur despite his conviction this is needed; for Gillard it means holding up action on climate change in the face of scientific consensus that urgent action is needed now.

Finally, in the midst of all this playing to the Centre, the parties will still need to convince voters that in some way they are different; that theirs is the party that is really on their side. Traditionally, the fault lines were Labor for working people and the Liberals for small business. This faded during the Howard era, up until the point he bought back WorkChoices. (which is why Labor will continue to hammer away on this issue).

The election will be determined by the leader who can convince this section of the public that they are the safest pair of hands; sober, sensible,  commonsense solutions – not too negative, not too ideologically driven, not too up themselves. It takes a lot of technical skill – but inspiring people does not count as a key requirement.

So is there a different way? It has always been regarded as a no go area for the Left of Australian politics, but imagine how the election would play out if leaders had to convince people like you and me to stump up to vote. Political parties in Australia have a captive audience, they don’t need to inspire people to vote because it is illegal not to – all they need to do is convince people they are the less of two evils.

There are many flaws with US politics, but it’s worth thinking about whether the idea of voluntary voting is one of them – if forcing the candidates to inspire people to turn out to vote wouldn’t raise the standard of political debate. It’s more costly, tougher to organise, more intensive, but maybe it would make our debates –and the entire campaign – a little more inspiring for those of us who actually care.

Most commented

353Lay off the tatts and have a debate about the real issues
304Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
286Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
232I'm Labor, I'm pro-life and I'm no political hypocrite
226Is an act of crime ever too trivial for investigation?
225Home births are prone to many complications
213Blame no one – and everyone – for the Oz Day debacle
185A fair day's pay for a fair day's play

93 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      07:24am | 27/07/10

      Of course, the party campaigns aren’t aimed at political junkies. But it’s wrong to say the election has nothing to do with us - we’re the ones doing the campaigning, whether on behalf of a party or for our own reasons.

      Reply

    • Evan Findlay says:

      10:23am | 27/07/10

      Eric,
      How many people do you honestly think you have persuaded to your cause? Most of the political junkies that subscribe to these forums have already cast their vote. Even if you or I managed to tear down an opponents argument, leaving them floundering in embarrassment at their lack of knowledge about policy or political history, do you think they will change their vote? Do you think anything you post will change my vote and reciprocally anything I post change yours? Why do you think political parties target marginal seats rather then the safe ones!

    • SkepDad says:

      11:24am | 27/07/10

      One of the key problems with Australian elections is they end up focused on influencing swinging voters in marginal electorates with narrowly-focused handouts, to the exclusion of any real national policy, strategy or vision.

      A vote from someone forced to vote is a useless vote.  The election *should* be about those people who care enough to educate themselves on the issues - or even just those who can be arsed to turn up on the day when they aren’t legally required to.

      I agree Mr Lewis - voluntary voting would raise the standard of debate and would remove those who have no interest, and thus no contribution to make, from the process.  Bring it on.

    • Richard says:

      11:48am | 27/07/10

      Ideas are energy i.e. Ideas are a particular pattern of electricity firing through the neuron’s of the brain in a particular order. As such, these patterns of thought are “contagious”, because humans (like monkeys) learn by imitation.

      We are the very frontline soldiers of this campaign my friends: by formulating and articulating political ideas we are giving shape to the ideas that will cross into the minds of of thousands of people before this election is finished.

      Don’t let cynacal sore losers like Peter Lewis discourage you.

    • Banicks says:

      02:26pm | 27/07/10

      I’m 24 years old, and I already know that no matter who you vote for they lie and don’t change a thing that matters. So there is no point. Politicians are about their own views, unfortunately no-one in politics shares my opinions because they’re not politically correct, and most likely would be branded as racism. So when I go into an election, I draw a pretty picture on the paper, and null my vote.

    • Rob G says:

      02:46pm | 27/07/10

      One of the problems is that teachers are predominantly socialists, as are most public servants. Young people join the work force as idealists having been brain washed by schools and Universities.
      It is only when they go out into the big bad world that reality hits. Once they are married, have children, have a mortgage; have to make it all work out without the support of family (or government),; they become more pragmatic.
      That is when they really wonder which party will best serve the country and indirectly their own interests. That is when they truly become swinging voters!

    • Matthew says:

      03:16pm | 27/07/10

      Skepdad, it wouldn’t increase the standard of debate.  The smart people are the ones that waste their votes.  Banicks points it out exactly, voting is pointless, both sides are stupid (and as a 23yo single working male they have nothing to offer me at all).  They should make voting voluntary and link it directly to parliamental wages.  Then they’d actually care about doing what’s best for the majority of the country.

    • BobM says:

      03:41pm | 27/07/10

      Banicks, it doesn’t matter how long you eventually live for, you are NEVER going to get a politician that you agree 100% with - god knows, three people in a group can’t even agree on most things.  You just have to go with the one you agree THE MOST with. Otherwise vote for Peter Best.

    • Eric says:

      04:30pm | 27/07/10

      Evan, I was talking about political junkies in general.

      Who are the Members of Parliament? Political junkies. Who are their staff? Political junkies. Who are the volunteers who hand out leaflets at the polling booths? Political junkies. Who are the journalists that report on all this? Political junkies.

      Of course the minds of political junkies won’t be changed - not easily. But the political junkies are the ones who are actually trying to persuade everyone else, with varying degrees of success.

      Without the kind of people who read The Punch - and especially those who comment on it - there wouldn’t be an election campaign in the first place.

    • MetalRat says:

      06:24pm | 27/07/10

      Bring in non compulsory voting and tie payrises for politicians to the voter turn out. E.G. for > 70% turnout 2% payrise a year for the term of the parliament and for every 10% of voters over the 70% and extra 1% payrise; this way pollies would have to engage the electorate and show their worth and productivity to the voters!

    • John A Neve says:

      07:50am | 27/07/10

      Rusted on voters subscribe to the “hear no evil, see no evil and say no evil.
      They like their decisions made for them, then when things go wrong, they can blame some one else. It’s a cowards form of democracy.

      What ever the front page of the papers tell them or their chosen TV news, is what will infuence their vote.

      To think our ancestors fought and died for the right to have a say!!!!

      Reply

    • watty says:

      09:40am | 27/07/10

      That has all changed John with the appointment of the 150 strong “Citizen’s Assembly” to advise the “moving forward” Government on how and when to implement an ETS (or not?)

    • joe says:

      10:14am | 27/07/10

      John I think you are confusing the Labor rusted on voters with conservative rusted on voters - they are different. I agree that many Labor voters just vote labor “cause their folks did.” Alternatively remember it was the rusted on conservatives who helped get rid of Turnbull over the huge ground swell of contact they made with their senators to tell them they didn’t want an ETS. So they weren’t just following a party line, they were getting the party to follow what they truly believed in.

      (Contrast that with Rudd’s knifing where faction bosses knifed him at a time of their choosing over a few bad polls.)

    • Evan Findlay says:

      02:09pm | 27/07/10

      Joe,
      So, by huge ground swell you mean one! Because at the end of the day it was one vote that dismissed Mr Turnbull from the role of opposition leader.
      I just love your generaliztions by the way.  “Many Labor voters just vote Labor because their folks did” That’s like saying I vote conservative because I lack the intellectual fortitude to read or understand policy!

    • BobM says:

      03:57pm | 27/07/10

      watty, Gillard is only ‘talking’ about it, she hasn’t actually DONE anything about it.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:12am | 27/07/10

      Girls and boys, left, right, or indifferent, this election campaign is brain hurting .
      For the next 4 weeks LNP supporters will bag everything Labor says or does, and Labor supporters will do the same to the coalition.
      Punters and pundits from both sides will then inform us how right their homeboy / girl is.  Disagreement will be met with sarcasm and , often, name calling. 
      Until now, it has been fun and humorous. Now days it is becoming boring and repetitive from both sides.
      We need more interesting pollies like Sideshow Bob and Mayor Quimbys (even if they are staunch Republicans )
      This elecftion we have Kang and Kodos - two of the same creature.

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      08:55am | 27/07/10

      Actually Quimby is a democrat. His character was based off various members of the Kennedy clan.

      But I always did like Sideshow Bob’s campaign raspberry

      “Your guilty consciences may force you to vote Democratic, but secretly you yearn for a cold-hearted Republican who’ll cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!”

      At least you know where he stands raspberry. You know what Quimby does? He flip-flops!

      *does backflip*.

      Ahh Sideshow Bob. You need to be the villain in the next Simpsons movie.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:31am | 27/07/10

      Tim, I stand corrected. I cant recall is , is McBain / Wolfcastle also govenor at some stage? He features in part of the evil gathering of Republicans that nominate SideShow Bob for Mayor.

    • TimB says:

      09:52am | 27/07/10

      McBain was part of the Republican group that conspired to get Bob elected, yes.

      He was also *kinda* the President in the movie, although technically that was Arnold Schwarzenegger. The character was identical to McBain/Wolfcastle in every way though.

    • Will says:

      12:59pm | 27/07/10

      I totally agree with you T.Chong

      If Abbott grew an Afro and if Gillard started speaking like a New Yawker I would actually be interested in what they have to say :D

    • Rob G says:

      02:54pm | 27/07/10

      Actually with the knowledge young people have of politics these days, its a wonder some candidate hasnt changed his name to Aadler AArdvark to get the donkey vote. (or have they changed that order?)

    • Stewart Henstock says:

      09:07am | 27/07/10

      For starters how can you call the US a democracy when they barley get 50% of the electorate to vote.As for their Primaries,the debates were just as tedious as ours and if it wasn’t for the use of Town Halls i doubt anyone outside political affiliations would vote.
      As for our system opinions are generated mostly from media sound bytes.If Gillard rocked up to a press conference with purple hair instead of red i’m sure their would be a swing in the polls,that’s how meaningless elections are for most people.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      09:30am | 27/07/10

      Stewart,
      Isn’t the fact that many Americans chose not to vote a sign of true democracy? How can you claim forcing people to vote is democratic?

      I suggest you don’t look at America’s system, rather you look at ours.

    • Stewart Henstock says:

      10:28am | 27/07/10

      John it’s a sign people in the US don’t see their electoral system as truly representative of the populace…if it was more people would vote and i never said forcing people to vote was democratic.
      Considering the US system was mentioned in the above article i see no problem in making my point and as for our system i don’t have a problem in forcing people to vote. Although i do have a problem with the Senate if it holds the balance of power dictating policy.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:32am | 27/07/10

      Stewart,
      You will have to explain yourself a little more fully for me. You state “I never said forcing people to vote was democratic” then you go on to say “I don’t have a problem with forcing people to vote”!!!!!  Sorry Stewart, but I find that somewhat confusing.

      I agree based on what little I know about the American system, that many Americans feel disenfranchised with their system. But I am not sure that is why many don’t vote. I believe it is more likely they just don’t care or don’t understand. Look at the number of non voters or invalid votes in this country.

    • Dino says:

      11:40am | 27/07/10

      One thing I learned from watching the West Wing is that USA is not really a democracy. It is a representative republic. In a true democracy, everyone would vote on every issue (if they wanted to). In USA, the public elects reprepsentives who “manage” the issues. So, is Australia also not a democracy but a westminster parliment.

    • Hamish says:

      11:50am | 27/07/10

      You guys should check up on your Australian political history. The reason we switched to compulsory voting was that 50% became an absolutely massive turnout in Australia. You shouldn’t be so quick to jump on US voter apathy. In Australia we would seriously struggle to get 50% if we didn’t have compulsory voting.

    • Hamish says:

      11:58am | 27/07/10

      I must correct myself, voter turnout in Australia pre-compulsory voting was about 50% of the electoral roll although it was believed many people did not put themselves on the rolls.

    • Nick says:

      12:55pm | 27/07/10

      And, Hamish, compulsory voting was a backroom deal between both major parties who saw it as a way to save money when campaigning by locking down safe seats and only having to campaign in truly swinging electorates. Thus the malaise of most political campaigning being aimed at a small set of electorates was born all the way back in, if memory serves me right, 1927. Compulsory voting is the most corrupt fix around.

    • Graham S says:

      01:05pm | 27/07/10

      The main problem with the American system with low voter turn out is the power of the lobby groups who can galvanise their followers in putting real and effective pressure on the candidates. The NRA, the Christian conservatives, the anti abortionist et al who force the parties to dance to their tune. The same type of groups here get relatively short shrift because everybody votes thus diminishing their pressure value

    • Brett says:

      01:51pm | 27/07/10

      A truer example of a democracy would be Switzerland. Look it up. There a large enough petition can cause a referendum and the people can vote down any piece of legislation or any ammendment. That is true democracy, the people voting for something directly via majority rules.

      We vote for a person who will never again listen to us and will tow the party line instead, or throw our vote away to any other party which results in the vote going to a preference. and we are forced to do so. Its retarded. If you live in a safe seat (Lib or Labor) then neither party cares about you as one can’t take your seat and the other has you stitched up.

    • Mick D says:

      09:25am | 27/07/10

      We get the pollies we deserve.  Because many many voters really wouldn’t know their Labor from their Liberal from their left buttock, we tend to remember slogans and one-liners.  The truth is not important - in fact the truth can be an inconvenient trigger to have to actually think about something.  Personally, I think voting should not be compulsory.  Too much rides on the naive vote of those that don’t know what the real issues are and don’t care anyway.

      Reply

    • BMJ says:

      10:22am | 27/07/10

      I could not agree more.

    • Brad Price says:

      11:19am | 27/07/10

      Could you imagine non compulsory voting? The Greens would be lucky to get a seat!

      As for Labor well…... I don’t think the Socialists will support non compulsory voting without a citizens assembly firmly in control of the country. It would be the end of Labor party as we know it.

    • Bitten says:

      11:49am | 27/07/10

      I object - I can precisely recall the dimensions of my left buttock. The right one, not so much…*sigh* where did I leave it again?

    • HappyCynic says:

      12:15pm | 27/07/10

      Wait there’s truth in politics????  Since when?

      I disagree with you about the voting, I think compulsory voting keeps those extremist loons who think they know better than the “ignorant masses” from gaining too much power.

      Really there are no “real” issues in Australia, mostly it’s a safe, happy, stable, wealthy country to live in and just because most people don’t enjoy listening to a couple of grumpy old farts in suits dribbling sh*t then being forced every 3 years to choose which sh*t they prefer the taste of doesn’t mean that their votes will do anything to change this great country in fact it’s far more likely to force both sides of politics to keep the status quo

    • Stewart Henstock says:

      12:22pm | 27/07/10

      If you didn’t have compulsory voting the ruling Government could be elected by a minority factional group….anything would be possible.
      The answer is not getting rid of the donkey but transforming the donkey into a thoroughbred.
      We need some form of outlet which can educate the average voter and we need more responsibility by the media in covering the issues.

    • Miles says:

      03:28pm | 27/07/10

      I think people need to be tested on their political knowledge prior to being allowed to vote so they actually know what they are doing.  The fact that the wide spread apathy amongst Australians leaves them not having a clue about what each of the parties really stands for (and subsequent consequences of their election) is scary and results in parties campaigning in such populist ways.  Also, anybody who votes for a particular party all the time, regardless of policy as one would barrack for a football team should also be barred - it makes a mockery of the process.

    • BobM says:

      03:55pm | 27/07/10

      Most people couldn’t give a rip about politics unless it hurts them in the hip pocket. Then, they usually favour whoever is going to give them the biggest handout. Bit sad, really.

    • Gimme says:

      10:07am | 27/07/10

      This is the first election where I find myself wondering who I will vote for.

      I usually lean slightly to the left where you’d find Bob Carr and Paul Keating.

      This time I’d love to be able to find a party that weren’t using 1,300 “illegal immigrants” as a political football to get votes from the ignorant rednecks worried about the dangers of overpopulation in one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet.

      I’d love the find a party that was going to build MORE schools, MORE hospitals, MORE trains, MORE train stations and MORE roads but I don’t think there is one.

      I have undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications in economics so understand the need for a budget deficit right now. But economic credentials of both parties are about even so that’s not swaying my vote. I also know that the free market is not the be all and end all that the neo-cons think it is and it must be tempered with sensible policies that take the edge off.

      I’d love to find a party that was credible on the environment and would support real action but none of them really cut the mustard.

      I’d love to find a place in Sydney that cost less than $500,000 that wasn’t an hour one-way from the CBD or a dilapidated dog box. And I’m only talking about something 5 times my salary here and I don’t think any party has any real solution to this.

      I just don’t think there is anything there.

      Reply

    • Jarrod says:

      05:01pm | 27/07/10

      Spot On!
      I couldn’t agree more. I too find myself wondering who to vote for for the first time and I can’t seem to find any debate centered around what really matters.

      I am not interested in where a refugee processing centre is given the rediculously small amount of refugees we are talking about. I don’t care wether our next PM is male or female. I don’t care what he or she used to say or do. I don’t care who wears speedo’s or who has red hair.

      I want to know that my healthcare system is functioning and how that is going to continue.

      I want a functioning infastructure network in the city of my residence.

      I want to hear what action each party will take on climate change.

      Really, I just want to know their policies yet that seems to be too much to ask for at this stage.

    • Chris says:

      08:15pm | 27/07/10

      I’d love to find someone who has the balls to do something about the constant strain overpopulation is putting on the infrastructure and the upward pressure it is putting on the already overinflated realestate industry instead of believing the bleeding heart BS others spew about how much land we have even though it’s mostly desert.

      And no I don’t have a problem with so called boat people arriving here if they are genuinely fleeing war and oppression.

      I’d love to find a party who will actually give a rats about single low to middle income people and childless couples who aren’t up themselves because they went to Uni.

    • joe says:

      10:19am | 27/07/10

      When you think about it, it is a bit of a disgrace that those who care least and pay the least attention to the election basically have the most power.

      So at the end of the day it isn’t the pollie with the best nation building plan or best background or best tax reform strategy that gets up. Instead it is the pollie who manages to get their cheap pitch on the most commercial tv shows and FM radio stations. So a useless hand out like cash for clunkers which might sound good in a 10 second grab, or a uniform tax rebate in a few years time might win the election.

      Reply

    • Hamish says:

      10:37am | 27/07/10

      I have an ideological problem with compulsory voting, but in practice I very much support it. The strength of democracy is not getting the government you want, but getting a government you can tolerate. This is why two-party systems are the strongest, most practical and most secure form of democratic government. Making voting compulsory further reinforces this and it means everyone is complicit in the electing of the government of the day.

      Australians are so apathetic about voting that if voting was not compulsory everyone would be beholden to well organised fringe groups (think Weimar Germany for instance) and parties would be forced to present far more divisive policies to draw their supporters out to vote. While I deplore the race to the middle which is the hallmark of Australian elections (at present we have an old school labour movement socialist masquerading as a centrist), it helps make Australia one of the most cohesive, most secure and least violent polities in the world.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      01:54pm | 27/07/10

      Yes, Hamish, Australia may exhibit all those virtues, but other countries do as well which do not have compulsory voting. Many commenters here write as if the US were one of few places where voluntary voting is the norm - the opposite is true. By my recollection, Belgium and Brazil are the only other two (arbitrarily-selected) serious countries that actually enforce compulsory voting.

      I don’t agree that it is compulsory voting that is responsible for Australia’s stability, rather it is our political culture and system of two-party preferntial voting. The greater evils in terms of democratic stability are radicalised polities (South Africa, France and Indonesia) and the horror of low-barrier, proportional representation voting (Italy, Australia’s senate, NZ, etc).

    • Richard says:

      10:39am | 27/07/10

      Peter Lewis betrays his bias in the very first paragraph: Its a truism of this campaign that all Labor supporters have repeatedly tried to descibe the recent leader’s debate as “boring” or a “nil-nil draw”. To everyone else its very obvious Tony Abbott put in a commanding performance, (just like he did again on the 7:30 Report last night.)
      Here’s a hint Peter, if Julia Gillard had won the debate, or even drawn it, you and all the other star-crossed sycophants would have been waxing lyrical about how intelligent she is and what a polished performer she is etc. The fact that you all try to trivialize it and tell everyone that its was lame, prooves that your totally opposed to letting undecided voters make up their minds based on the facts laid bare with the spin stripped away.

      Reply

    • Adam says:

      11:16am | 27/07/10

      And you are clearly showing YOUR bias by calling ALL Gillard supporters “star-crossed sycophants” - it’s exactly this sort of language that has many people, such as yourself, picking up the scraps from Abbott’s table, as the only real ideology the Liberal party currently has is “lets all get together and make fun of Gillard”.

    • Dean says:

      01:50pm | 27/07/10

      Adam, but there is so much to make fun of smile... (on both sides)

    • Nicole says:

      11:30am | 27/07/10

      “The election will be determined by the leader who can convince this section of the public that they are the safest pair of hands; sober, sensible,  commonsense solutions – not too negative, not too ideologically driven, not too up themselves.”
      What an excellent summary of Tony Abbott Peter. I wholeheartedly agree.

      Reply

    • Brissy Boy says:

      11:30am | 27/07/10

      I doubt it would ever happen while a labor government is in power and if the liberals tried to introduce voluntary voting there would be howls of protest.  Labor would be out of government for a huge amount of time.  A significant portion of the labor voters are those who wouldn’t bother to vote at all, let alone take an interest in politics.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      11:47am | 27/07/10

      What sort of polling mechanism revealed this gem?

      “Labor would be out of government for a huge amount of time.  A significant portion of the labor voters are those who wouldn’t bother to vote at all, let alone take an interest in politics.”

      And when the Boy became a man he put away the notions of childhood.

    • Alfred Deakin says:

      12:02pm | 27/07/10

      The irony is that compulsory voting was introduced by a Conservative Government in the 1920s because they were worried that apathy among conservative voters would let Labor get in!

      Abandoning compulsory voting would probably only change results where unpopular governments are returned (eg NSW 2007) because the opposition are equally unpalatable.

    • DD Ball says:

      11:41am | 27/07/10

      I find Mr Abbott fascinating. He speaks sensibly and thoughtfully. He has strong policy support and he remains on message. He answers questions honestly and directly. I find Gillard fascinating too, like watching a train wreck in slow motion. She obfuscates and becomes abusive over direct questions. She has no policy beyond the money grab. I guess those who don’t like watching the two are those who don’t want the Liberals to win.

      Reply

    • Graham S says:

      01:14pm | 27/07/10

      Regretably DD Ball, apart from Abbott’s good points you elude to he is an arch conservative, Catholic Church controlled Monarchist which may well have appealed to the electorate pre ALP/DLP split in the ‘50’s but is grossly out of touch today. And sadly, if he is the best option the Libs can put forward then the Party is in deep do-do

    • Debbie says:

      05:29pm | 27/07/10

      Are there two Tony Abbotts? Tthe man you describe here is not the one who is trying to get his arse into the lodge. Maybe you ARE Tony Abbott. And don’t bother coming back with some retort about me being a Labor stooge or whatever because I don’t think much of any of the current or wannabee politicians.

    • Steve says:

      12:29pm | 27/07/10

      Right now I feel like I may as well be asked to vote between a tree and a rock to run the country, I dont believe either of them will do well at all. I would suggest also scrapping preferences. Make it so that a party actually has to try to win, and explain policy better. Maybe I wouldnt so powerless if people got in by merit rather than by default.

      Reply

    • Beagle says:

      12:47pm | 27/07/10

      I vote for the tree. At least it can adapt over time to changes in it’s environment.

      Regardless of who wins, it will be the same. Nothing of substance will change except who rides the gravy train.

    • LFG says:

      01:02pm | 27/07/10

      Correct, and all the more reason to abolish compulsory voting so that the really interested can start getting politicians who will actually do the job they are paid to do. Dopes are not needed when it comes to electing good quality politicians.

      Reply

    • Saden says:

      01:33pm | 27/07/10

      Who said voting is compulsary? You should be so lucky, there are parts of the country where people dont even have the chance to vote let alone, have a say.

    • Darren says:

      01:20pm | 27/07/10

      i don’t vote - it only encourages them

      Reply

    • Graham S says:

      01:41pm | 27/07/10

      The only way to have true representation is for multi-member electorates. Instead of ridiculously safe seats on both sides,particularly NP and where the election is determined by a handful of seats in the marginals which is precisely where Gillard & Abbott are spending their time and not tramping the streets of Altona or the North Shore. Firstly divide the existing electorates by 5 and have 5 members per super electorate where everybody’s vote counts.You may get 1 of the 5 opposing candidates in a super safe electorate or 2 or none or maybe a Green or an independent. The 5 top primary vote getters are in and you get rid of preferential voting. To reduce the number of electorates ,for we are well & truly over governed, get rid of State borders from a Federal perspective and reconfigure the electorates on population centres not state boundaries. If people live and work in different states, Tweed/Gold Coast, Albury/Wodonga etc the politicians can just as easily adapt. personaly I don’t bother to vote, it’s a waste of time in an electorate with a 15% margin but things would change if the electorate changed. Plus we’d get rid of the rusted on hacks, lazy, do nothing seat warming, over-paid drudges from both sides in double quick time

      Reply

    • Saskia says:

      01:42pm | 27/07/10

      Why has there been no comment made about Gillards bizarre ear lobes during the debate?  Or her obvious forehead botox?

      She looked like a freakshow.

      Reply

    • Nicole says:

      01:59pm | 27/07/10

      @Saskia, I simply just find it hard to look at her. She makes my eyes water.

    • Sven Gali says:

      10:57pm | 27/07/10

      Why not, Saskia ? Because that would be pathetic. That’s why not. And with the Liberals in their worst position since Billy McMahon, are you really sure you want this election to be a referendum on ears ?

    • PJK Rulz says:

      01:50pm | 27/07/10

      Not sure its the voting system that is responsible for this yawn. It wasn’t that long ago that pollies like Hawke, Keating, Howard and Whitlam had big ideas and big visions for the nation and they laid them out in election campaigns where voting was compulsory. All they look for now is the favourable grab on TV, FB, Twitter or at least one that doesn’t do damage.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      01:59pm | 27/07/10

      If they want to continue to force us to vote, they need to ADD one more option to every ballot paper.
      That option being - NONE of the candidates offered are representative of my view or opinions.
      If the majority choose this option then the election needs to be run again with NONE of the previous candidates being allowed to run again in that electorate and election.
      Simple realy, but it will never happen as it is too great a risk for the major parties and we might actualy have some real representatives in parliment.

      Reply

    • Craig says:

      03:05pm | 27/07/10

      It is not compulsory to vote. It is only compulsory to turn up and get your name checked off the roll.

      Then you take your pieces of paper, fold them up and drop them into the ballot box. If you don’t want to vote - don’t!

    • Sven Gali says:

      03:58pm | 27/07/10

      @Craig Sorry, Craig, but you’re wrong. It is NOT the case, as you claim, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, as has been upheld by these legal decisions:
      - High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
      - Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
      - High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
      - Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
      Krosch [1974] QdR 107
      - ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13

    • Al says:

      02:04pm | 27/07/10

      Saden re: “Q: Who said voting is compulsary?”  A: The LAW .
      “there are parts of the country where people dont even have the chance to vote let alone, have a say. “
      Actualy, again, you are wrong. Everyone has the opurtunity to cast an absentee ballot (i.e. Vote) if they are gouing to be unavailable during polling day. That includes people overseas.
      Name a SINGLE part of the country where ‘people dont even have the chance to vote’ and I will respect your comment.
      Otherwise you are simply talking crap.

      Reply

    • Darren says:

      02:28pm | 27/07/10

      people serving time in prison are denied the vote -

    • Nicole says:

      02:43pm | 27/07/10

      Darren, only if they’re serving a sentence longer than three years.

    • Darren says:

      03:44pm | 27/07/10

      @nicole - so some people are denied the vote!

    • Nicole says:

      04:20pm | 27/07/10

      Yep.

    • Dodgie says:

      02:27pm | 27/07/10

      If compulsory voting is to remain then we need to introduce compulsory intelligence. Very easy to instigate by placing three multiple choice questions on each ballot paper. Simple stuff like name the leader of the opposition, what does GPD stand for and how much did it cost to burn down 40 odd houses during the insulation debacle? Your vote only counts if you get all three correct and demands the voters have a minimum interest and knowledge of the electoral process. Otherwise this election may be decided by someones choice of togs. What a great country, shame about the inhabitants.

      Reply

    • Miles says:

      03:31pm | 27/07/10

      Ha ha - love it!!  I’m all for a pre-vote political intelligence test.  These current pollies treat the Australian public like children because when it comes to the political knowledge, they are for the most part.

    • SK says:

      02:39pm | 27/07/10

      This is some of the best analysis I’ve seen on The Punch. It’s food for thought, and I am particularly engaged by the submission of the voluntary voting idea in the best argument I’ve seen for it.

      Reply

    • James A says:

      03:19pm | 27/07/10

      Peter - excellent article.

      Totally agree however the ALP will never agree to it as the ‘donkey’ vote is the only thing that keeps them in power.

      A true voluntary vote would see the the Coalition untouchable and in power for decades.

      Sadly we have the great Westminster system coupled with Eastern Block compulsory voting.  We are a laughing stock in the West with this.

      Thanks Labor.

      Reply

    • Alfred Deakin says:

      06:22pm | 27/07/10

      You should be aware that it was the Conservative side of politics which introduced compulsory voting in the 1920s as a weapon against Labor.

    • Lucy says:

      11:14am | 28/07/10

      How can the ‘donkey’ vote keep Labor in power when ballot position is decided by a secret ballot? Do you actually know what a donkey vote is?

    • Randal says:

      03:33pm | 27/07/10

      Brilliant Peter and exactly spot on and we have now been left with a system where those who do not care who is in charge determining the outcome and this has pandered to politics of the bland, where sound bites are the king and being a small target is everything.

      This campaign in particular has been the most uninspiring I can recall with neither side willing to announce policies of significance for fear of being outed as reckless.

      A move to non-compulsory voting would perhaps alter this brain dead reality and actually force politicians to grab the attention of the potential electorate by announcing policies that excite, and offer leadership and inspiration.

      Although you should be careful watch you wish for Peter, as any data that I have seen on such a move would impact votes from the lower middle class down and as this is the ALP heartland and such a move could consign the ALP to decades in the political wilderness.

      Reply

    • Kevin says:

      05:59pm | 27/07/10

      “Votes from the lower middle class down”?  You mean the “Howard battlers”?  Wouldn’t affect the votes of the inner city latte set.

    • gelfen says:

      04:01pm | 27/07/10

      Australia does NOT have compulsory voting, and to claim otherwise shows a fundamental or wilful misunderstanding of our electoral system.  Nobody is forced to vote.  Every person has the right to lodge a blank ballot paper or other “informal vote” if they so choose.

      What we do not have is the right not to have it recorded that we made a decision of some kind – in other words, the right not to have your name ticked off the list.  In practice this means that the overwhelming majority of people actually do vote, but the right not to still exists as a deliberate choice instead of as the default option.

      The end result of this illusory “compulsory voting” is therefore a more democratic outcome.  Almost every eligible person votes, almost every vote they cast is legitimate, and almost all of them have put some level of thought into it no matter how trivial.  The lazy option is discouraged, but not prohibited.

      At the very extreme, it is also one of the few measures that protect our fundamental democracy from being controlled by those with enough money and power to bribe, confuse or intimidate the electorate.  By encouraging almost universal voter participation, our system protects itself by sheer weight of numbers – there are simply too many electors for an undue influence to put the result beyond doubt.

      It also makes the system self-correcting against single issue candidates or voting blocs who are erratic, ignorant or downright dangerous when it comes to the big picture.  A candidate might be able to mobilise sufficient support to get into parliament on a particular issue, but only a broader understanding of the electoral and policy landscape will keep them there.

      Reply

    • Betelnut says:

      04:30pm | 27/07/10

      At the end of the day, being a part of the Australian society comes with responsibilities as well as rights.  Voting is and should be considered no different than paying taxes, abiding by the law, jury duty and a million other obligations the state imposes upon the induvidual.  I find it immensly distasteful that whilst millions of people in the world have never had an opportunity to influence the political direction of their respective countries, fat apathetic Australians complain about having to drag their sorry arses to a primary school once every three years.

      Finally, I do not know a single Australian who would trade our politcal system for that of the USA and the increasinly polarised society it creates.  All the arguments for compulsory voting can be allayed with a simple None of the Above box.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      06:05pm | 27/07/10

      You argue in favour of Non compulsory voting with a belief that it wouldn’t be the exact same 50% of undecided voters that the politicians would have to try and persuade to vote anyway. The North Shore of Sydney will always be Liberal, much like the safe Labor seats of the Western Suburbs - non compulsory voting won’t change that. The problem right now is the media averse politicians, not the voting system.

      And our system may not be 100%, but I’d rather push everyone to have to get out of their house for five minutes, get their name marked off and cast some sort of vote than the alternative (and yes getting your name marked off - taking the ballot to a booth, drawing a box on it that says “none of the above” folding it up and handing it in is a perfectly legal vote).

      All our system prevents is people not showing up due to apathy or laziness - theres no gun pointed at your head once you are in the little booth.

      Reply

    • NCG says:

      06:12pm | 27/07/10

      I can’t say that I support compulsory voting. It means that those who don’t care or are to inept to understand the policies each party is pitching and how they will impact on the greater nation, are forced to cast their vote. These are the same people swayed by the 10 second grabs on the evening news highlights before switching channels to something that requires fewer active brain cells.

      Reply

    • Baal says:

      06:20pm | 27/07/10

      I was a political junkie before I realised that Australia’s strength is not in it political parties but in the fact that we are politically mediocre. Nothing much really happens, when something super irritating happens we protest vote. Referendums almost never succeed because we are suspicious of passion and idealism. I was enrolled, I am no longer enrolled and I am more than happy to sit back and watch nothing much happen until something has to happen at which point we will do something because someone has to do it. All you political junkies are like hamsters in a cage. Your world is very interesting to you but the rest of us look in at you with amusement when we time after work.

      Reply

    • Bob" says:

      07:26pm | 27/07/10

      Apart from a dip in the middle this forum has not descended to the barracking and name calling of other blogs and it is refreshing to see respect for the great institution of democracy .There is no better safeguard to political mismanagement than having your say every three years.Even if my vote isnt telling-i dont discount the value of those whose do-they often reflect an understandable mood in the wider community.

      Reply

    • DMc says:

      10:00pm | 27/07/10

      Where best to find those in the “Centre”?

      Centrelink, of course!

      Reply

    • Mark M Aldridge Independent says:

      10:21am | 28/07/10

      How can anyone have made an informed choice when not one of us know who all the candidates are until after this week end, let alone put them under and type of informed scrutiny, here in lay’s the answer as to why politics is failing us.

      Reply

    • Birdman says:

      10:58am | 28/07/10

      I have to agree with Baal - Australia is characterised by political mediocrity. Our political leaders are like unemployed (or unemployable) people holding up a sign that says “please vote for me - I need my job back because I have nowhere else to go”.

      Last Sunday night, SBS ran a program on Robert Kennedy, whose convictions were in stark contrast to those of the politicans on show in the “Grate Debate”.

      Perhaps our standard of living is so good that there is no perceived cause left that is worth being passionate about. Only the Greens have conviction in anything - and their philosophy seems to be limited to high taxation and low pollution.

      Reply

    • PJK Rulz says:

      04:22pm | 28/07/10

      Birdman, say it aint so! The problem is not with the pollies but with electorate apthy. People buy this crap that there is no difference between the parties, that all pollies are corrupt and it makes no difference.
      It does make a difference and we the people need to engage more. There are always causes, always issues. One thing worse than not having a democacy is having a disengaged democracy! You and me Birdman, we will form a party and we’ll get involved!

    • PeterinBrisbane says:

      11:12am | 28/07/10

      Anyone who thinks that voluntary voting would raise the standard of anything obviously hasn’t looked at elections in USA or Britian over the last half century.

      Reply

    • Sickemrex says:

      09:05pm | 28/07/10

      Campaign Trainwreck 2010.  Never have I been more engrossed, yet cared less about the result.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 05:55PM

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:32PM

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:31PM

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:09PM

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

by Laurie Oakes

92

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

by Mark Kenny

64

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

by Wendy Tuohy

25

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed