With a week and a half still to go, the federal election is already over for around a million voters who have abandoned the rituals of election day in favour of the convenience of pre-poll voting.
A consensus is taking hold that this is a trend that’s gone too far, with perhaps as many as a third of all votes now expected to be lodged at pre-poll voting centres during the designated three-week period.
In the United States, debates about early voting occur against a broader backdrop of partisan warfare over voter suppression. Democrats favour longer periods to facilitate ease of voting and Republicans oppose them, reflecting the fact that conservative voters are on balance wealthier and have greater flexibility with their time.
In Australia though, Crikey’s own Bernard Keane was almost a lone wolf last week in arguing against the notion that democracy loses something if voters are not appraised of the full gamut of parties’ campaign pitches before making their choice.
Whatever the rights or wrongs, the development is presenting electoral authorities with a major challenge in getting the votes counted promptly — and also to media outlets in calling the result.
The Australian Electoral Commission yesterday offered the reassurance that all votes cast at pre-poll voting centres will be counted on election night. What this means in practice is that election day polling booths, which typically trade in hundreds or a few thousand ballot papers, will mostly have their votes in the system by around 9pm. The larger pre-poll centres, where totals can run into five figures, may have to wait until around midnight.
As the Victorian election and Wentworth byelection showed, pre-poll centres don’t always replicate the election day swings that are used to project results and call seats as won or lost.
While the reality in Victoria was quite bad enough for the Liberals, it was less extreme than it was made to appear early on the night, when such unimpeachable blue-ribbon strongholds as Brighton, Sandringham and Caulfield were being called for Labor.
For whatever reason, it appeared the wealthy inner-urban variety of Liberal had caught the pre-polling bug in particularly large numbers. A good deal of the furniture was saved when their votes were eventually added to the count.
It was a similar story in Wentworth, which Antony Green called for Kerryn Phelps at an early stage of the ABC’s televised coverage, only to have to move it back to “in doubt” when the anti-Liberal swing on election day wasn’t borne out on the pre-polls.
However, it should not be concluded that the pre-poll count will always be one-way traffic in favour of the conservatives, as there was little to distinguish pre-poll and election day swings in New South Wales.
As such, it’s impossible to be entirely confident how pre-polls will play out until the votes are counted and the numbers are in the system – and this means the suspense of election night is likely to be protracted if we are looking at any kind of a close result.
The implications of this can go beyond the simple matter of the theatre of election night. Whether one leader or another is decisively able to claim victory before the networks close shop can have a material impact on the public’s perception of the strength of their mandate and authority in office.
For such reasons, politicians have motivations of their own in raising doubts about the democratic merits of pre-poll voting as currently practiced.
While Scott Morrison made discouraging noises yesterday, suggestions have been raised on both sides of the fence that it might do well to pare the three-week period back to a fortnight, consistent with the practice at state level everywhere except Western Australia.
However, the most recent experience suggests this would only do so much to diminish the public’s growing enthusiasm for pre-poll voting: the rate increased from 26% to 36.9% at the Victorian election in November, and from 19.5% to 28.6% at the New South Wales election in March.
Whether politicians like it or not, early voting is now entrenched in Australian political culture, such that it is no longer politically feasible for them to do anything to seriously inhibit its exercise.
Some surveys have found that people have made up their mind well and truly before the election about how they will vote. The LNP have been found to be untrustworthy, then we have extreme policies being presented by extreme groups such as PHON, Anning and Palmer. In some rural areas there are few choices as far as carrying parties.
There is no damage to democracy. The politicians themselves do that through mistreating the truth, making promises which will not be kept, by poorly administering programs, misspending of resources.
Climate change from my point of view is the most important matter, everything hinges on strong policy, the LNP are pissing into a strong wind with this matter. We do not need the Abbotts, Joyces, Kanavans, Kellys et al controlling the policy of the LNP.
We need a fresh team.
Very funny – “appraised of the full gamut of parties’ campaign pitches”? As if history tells us they’re likely to adhere to those pitches …… Non-core promises and all?
Yes, the whole “appraised of the whole gamut of parties’ campaign pitches” is a very neo-liberal understanding of voters as fully-informed, detached market participants rather than people trying to go about their lives, wanting the best for their families amidst endless election noise.
Voters should be ‘apprised’ of campaign pitches in order to have ‘appraised’ them.
If the last six years haven’t “appraised” you of the quality of the contenders you really have not been paying attention, or are super wealthy and don’t care…
I am going to vote this afternoon. Two reasons.
The first is that I have been able to read the policy outlines/ideologies of all parties, Reps and Senate, on the ABC website so I don’t need to wait to decide which ones to vote for. And also a lot of information comes through Facebook.
Secondly this election campaign is just awful. We are bombarded with promises of goodies by the two major parties to an extent that we can’t possibly know what they have promised to whom. If you were to rely on the election campaign to make a judgement about who is competent to run the country, it would be impossible through the noise of the goodies auction and ScoMo’s reduction of everything to being Bill shorten’s fault. There is very little coverage or evaluation of the policy offerings of the two major parties in the media (it is still covered like a horse race) and virtually no coverage of the policies of any other party. Maybe a bit for the Greens but not much.
There is also no historical context, no evaluation of how the parties have performed over the last 3-6 years and therefore of their likely competence in government.
So I have made by own judgement about who I think is competent based on historical performance and on the policy announcements mostly made before the election campaign started.
I must say it is difficult to find more than few parties to preference on the Victorian Senate ticket. There are an awful lot of nutters out there.
Luckily you only have to go from 12 to whatever below the senate line – let the nutters play with themselves.
Ben Oquist & Richard Dennis have pointed out, in the grauniad & on RN, that only voting the minimum (1-6 or 1-12) tends to give the crazies & worse a chance of dnaffling the last Senate seats through exhausted preferences.
They suggest that to ensure the depraved/despotic don’t benefit from one’s disgust that it is necessary to go a’numberin through the whole rogues gallery so that they aren’t elected in the tail end because too many voted for a party Above the Line which had done a deal – like Scummo or the gNats with Clive & PHON.
That’s right AR – there’s no shortcut, you’ve gotta keep choosing between the lesser weevils right to the bitter end. Remember that sawmill bloke from Gippsland, he wasn’t too bad.
If I’d cooda I wooda voted for him after watching him grow into the job – a few more Ricky Muirs and a lot less Party fodder would be a great improvement.
Better a bad Independent – who may improve – that a mindless apparatchik whose only vision is the gold plated pension and a shiny arse.
Yes, I’ve already voted because I will be away on the day, and I just want these current clowns out so I don’t have to listen to Shouty Slippery any more.
“Whether one leader or another is decisively able to claim victory before the networks close shop can have a material impact on the public’s perception of the strength of their mandate and authority in office.”
Dumbest thing I’ve read today.
Tough competition with the multiple bursts of dumb from our temporary agriculture minister, but yep – it is up there.
I voted yesterday, and have known for 6 years which way I would vote – no amount of Labor incompetence and dodginess could match what the LNP have produced in those long years ..!!
I do not need to follow debates or commentary (even on the now pretty pointless ABC) to know that Morrison has nothing except more of the same excruciating leadership failure to offer, and to know that Labor have done their homework with preparation of good policy, and put their debilitating internal squabbles well behind them…not perfect but infinitely better than the LNP.
I do feel a bit sorry for those gullible or selfish voters being lead astray by LNP lies and manipulation as promulgated by the MSM, but there is good information available for those keen and fair enough to look and think for themselves.
+1
That doesn’t explain why you chose to vote out of step with the rest of the country, as if it was just an irksome chore, something you wouldn’t do if you didn’t have to.
I think voting is important and take it seriously. But knowing who I wanted to vote for and how I wanted to allocate my preferences and because I I knew I was going past the pre-polling station, I thought I might as well do it.
Maybe now I can switch off from the cacophony that is the election campaign but I doubt it.
And maybe you can feel superior to the drones that endured/took part in/observed/mulled over/etc the election to the death.
It’s hardly an arduous test of character—you know, participate symbolically and actually in an essential part of public life by not copping out before it ends—but plenty of Crikey readers seem to have dudded it.
Personally I fail to see why the pre-polling votes can’t be secretly counted in advance and released as soon as polling closes on the day….but I prefer to dodge the queues and spend polling day assisting my preferred party at the local booth.
Please explain the relevance of deeming a “vote out of step with the rest of the country” (apart from the other 1M+ prepollers) to be “an irksome chore”.
Surely it is more like a bounding sense of eagerness to make a mark?
There’s a bit of competition but gotta be a front runner.
Elections are about voters not candidates or commentators – even our beloved Anthony Green. I’m sure it’s all Bill Shorten’s fault though whatever the problem.
Naughty voters.
Imagine not taking into account the needs of the commentariat when deciding how to cast your vote.
Go to your room. No internet for you until 19 May.
Fancy, a commentariat faffing away and no one paying attention to their infallibility?