Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Whatever the result on May 3, even people within the Liberals think they have run a very poor national campaign. Not just poor, but odd.

Nothing makes the point more strongly than this week’s release of the opposition’s defence policy.

As events played out, its Wednesday launch in Perth was overshadowed by the death of Pope Francis on Monday. But regardless of that unforeseeable event, the timing was extraordinarily late. Early birds had started voting at pre-poll places on Tuesday. The popularity of pre-polling means that, for many voters, the tail end of the formal campaign is irrelevant.

The Coalition regards defence and national security as its natural territory. It is pledging to boost defence spending to 2.5% of GDP within five years – $21 billion extra – and to 3% within a decade. The policy set up a contrast with Labor.

So why leave its release until the campaign’s penultimate week? The opposition’s line is that it wanted to see what money was available. Dutton said, “It would have been imprudent for us to announce early on, without knowing the bottom line”. The explanation doesn’t wash. If defence is such a priority, it should have been towards the front of the queue for funds.

That wasn’t the whole of the problem. The announcement consisted literally of only these two figures, wrapped in rhetoric. It didn’t come with any meat, any policy document setting out how a Coalition government would rethink or redo defence.

Shadow minister Andrew Hastie was at the launch, but he has been hardly seen nationally in recent months. He says he’s been working behind the scenes, and also he has a highly marginal Western Australian seat (Canning) to defend.

But Hastie, 42, has been underused. From the party’s conservative wing, he is regarded as one of the (few) bright young things in the Liberal parliamentary party. He has been touted as a possible future leader. Given the general weakness of the Coalition frontbench, wasting Hastie has been strange.

A captain in the Special Air Service Regiment who served in Afghanistan, Hastie has seen his share of combat. In 2018, he expressed the view that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles, saying “my personal view is the fighting DNA of close combat units is best preserved when it’s exclusively male”.

This week he was peppered with questions about his opinion (questioning triggered by a similar view being expressed by a disqualified Liberal candidate). But the issue is a red herring.

Hastie, a former assistant minister for defence, says he accepts the Coalition’s position that all defence roles are and should be open to qualified women. In the Westminster system, the obligation is for ministers to adhere to the agreed policy – that doesn’t mean someone might not have a different personal view.

Putting together an election campaign requires judgements at many levels, ranging from how big or small a target to be, and the balance between negative and positive campaigning, to candidate selection and which seats the leader visits.

The length of the formal campaign is in the prime minister’s hands. Anthony Albanese has sensibly kept this one to the typical five weeks, but a couple of past PMs made bad decisions, by running very long campaigns: Bob Hawke in 1984 and Malcolm Turnbull in 2016. Both lost seats, while retaining power.

While keeping the formal campaign short, Albanese was canny in hitting the road as the year started with a series of announcements. That gave him
momentum and some clear air. This also became more important when Easter and the Anzac holiday weekend intruded on the formal campaign. The Coalition looked dozy in January.

In the event of a Coalition loss, the nuclear policy will be seen as a drag. In campaigning terms, it has been a bold throw of the dice, although admittedly not nearly as bold as the Coalition’s sweeping Fightback blueprint for economic reform in the early 1990s. That looked for a while as if it might fly, but was eventually demolished by Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Elections are not conducted in vacuums. Context can be important, and it has been particularly so in this campaign.

As has repeatedly been said, Donald Trump hovers over these weeks, and it’s the Coalition that is disadvantaged. This is not just because Dutton struggles to deal with the government’s barbs that he is Trump-like – more generally, some voters who might have been willing to change their vote appear to be thinking now is not the time.

If the Coalition defies the current apparent trend to Labor and scores a win in minority government, critics of its campaign will be eating humble pie. Seasoned election watchers remember the salutary lessons of 1993 and 2019, when the polls were wrong. In those elections, the government was returned.

Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud have both suggested the Coalition’s internal polling, which concentrates on marginal seats, is better for it than the media’s national polls.

If Labor loses this election, it will be left wondering how an apparently textbook campaign failed to nail the votes.

If the Liberals lose, their post-mortem reviewers will home in on various faults. One will be the policy lateness (not just the defence policy), meaning voters didn’t have time to absorb the offerings. Another will be the fact some policies were not fully thought through, or road tested. The consequences of the foray on working-from-home should have been anticipated. “Shadows” have often put policy preparedness behind going for a political hit on the day.

Read more:
Election Diary: Dutton backs down on working-from-home crackdown after outcry threatens to cost votes

Even now, the opposition is struggling when quizzed about its plan to cut 41,000 from the public service. Dutton says the numbers will only go (by attrition or voluntary redundancy) from those working in Canberra. The Coalition also says frontline services and national security areas will be protected.

A source familiar with the public service points out, “If you sacked 41,000 in Canberra, you would decimate the national security bureaucracy and if you exempted national security you would barely have 41,000 public servants to sack”.

If the Coalition has a disastrous loss, with few or no net gains, the criticism of its campaign will be scarifying. If it loses by only a little, the critics will say that a better planned and organised campaign, preceded by a lot more policy work, might have pushed it across the line.

To be successful, an opposition needs a great deal of elbow grease, and so far the Coalition doesn’t look as though it has used enough of that.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Coalition’s campaign lacks good planning and enough elbow grease – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-coalitions-campaign-lacks-good-planning-and-enough-elbow-grease-254992

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

For each Australian federal election, there are two different ways you get to vote.

Whether you vote early, by post or on polling day on May 3, each eligible voter will be given two ballot papers: one for the House of Representatives (the “lower house”) and one for the Senate (the “upper house”). Each of these two ballots uses a slightly different system, so it’s worth understanding how your numbered boxes translate into real results.

Knowing how preferences work is key to making your vote count, before you get to enjoy your hard-earned democracy sausage.

The House of Representatives (lower house)

Australia is divided into 150 electorates, each of which is represented by one member in the House of Representatives. To elect them, we use a system called full preferential voting.

On your green lower house ballot paper, all the candidates will be listed in a random order. You write a “1” in the box beside the candidate who is your first choice. This is called your first preference. You then write a “2” beside your second-choice candidate (your “second preference”), and so on until every candidate has a number.

To make sure your vote counts, you need to number every box. If you skip a number, use the same number twice, or leave a box blank, your vote becomes informal and won’t count. So, it’s important to double-check. If you do make a mistake, don’t worry – you can just ask for a new ballot paper from a polling official.

Once voting closes, the counting part is where things get interesting.

First, officials from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) – an independent and impartial body – sort the ballot papers into piles according to each ballot paper’s first preference, then count them. If any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, they win and are declared elected.

If no one gets over 50%, the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is knocked out (the technical term is “excluded”). Their ballot papers are then “redistributed” to the second preference candidate marked. This continues – eliminating the lowest-polling candidates and redistributing their preferences – until someone crosses the 50% threshold. This preference distribution process helps ensure the winner has majority support.

But what does this look like? You can find out by numbering your preferences in the great farm animal election.

As you’ll see, your first pick may be knocked out during vote counting, but maybe your second or third preference will get across the line.

The Senate (Upper House)

There are 76 members of the Senate: 12 from each state and two from each territory. Voting for senators is a bit different from the lower house in that it is partial preferential, and you can vote either “above the line” or “below the line”.

Your white senate ballot paper will have several columns listing parties and groups. Party names appear above the thick black line, and individual candidates appear below it.

If you vote above the line, you must number at least six boxes. When it comes to counting the votes, your preferences will then be distributed to candidates in the party in the order that their party has listed them. Parties decide this order beforehand.

So, say you put a 1 next to the Liberal Party, which has three candidates, a 2 next to Labor, which also has three candidates, then number four more boxes. Your first three preferences would be for the three Liberal candidates, then your fourth to sixth preferences would be for the Labor candidates because you put them second. This then continues for each of the six boxes you numbered.

You can try voting above or below the line with this sample senate ballot. It will tell you to keep numbering boxes to ensure your vote is valid.

If you vote below the line, for individual candidates, you must number at least 12 boxes. But you can number all of them if you want – it can be satisfying to put someone last!

Just like in the House of Representatives, you put 1 beside your first choice, 2 beside your second, and so on. You don’t have to stay within the same column – you could have a Greens candidate as your first choice, a Liberal as your second, then another Greens candidate as your third, for example.

Because the upper house elects multiple candidates per state, using a combination of voting methods and a quota system, the Senate count is more complex.

One thing to be mindful of is the “exhausted” vote. If you only number the minimum (six above the line or 12 below) and all your preferred candidates are excluded, your vote can no longer be redistributed. But any of your preferences used to elect a candidate before that point still count.

Make your vote count

Australia’s voting system is designed to make sure your vote has an impact, even if your first-choice candidate doesn’t win. That’s why understanding how preferences flow is so important.

For those of us who have grown up here, it’s easy to think of voting as a chore rather than a privilege. But we’re so lucky to be able to go to a polling place without fearing violence or intimidation.

To be able to cast a vote in a system that – despite some flaws – is free and fair is a global rarity. So make sure you double-check your numbers, and think carefully about where your preferences are going – then enjoy that democracy sausage knowing you’ve made your vote count.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is preferential voting and how does it work? Your guide to making your vote count – https://theconversation.com/what-is-preferential-voting-and-how-does-it-work-your-guide-to-making-your-vote-count-254286