Caaanbra: Voter Intent

If you believe the polls of the past few weeks, Prime Minister Gillard’s new semi-hipster specs will be undermined and overthrown by the smoother, newly oranged Tony Abbott and his team of non-communicators. The major Polls – Neilsen, Newspoll, Galaxy, Essential – are all indicating that last year’s steady ascent of Julia Gillard is just so 2012, and that this is the year of the Abbott. Snake. Abbottsnake.

Of course, none of that will happen if the wildcard entry, Mr Kevin “I’m still from Queensland, still trying to help” Rudd ascends to the top of the ALP tree once more. The would be a game-changer. Professional pundits are drooling in anticipation of an ALP Leadership spill, which they seem to believe Kevin Rudd will win. They’re not talking out of their fedoras either: they are reporting the fears of senior ALP ministers, who have stated that the latest polling numbers make it impossible for the ALP to win in September. Many seem to believe that they have to make some changes.

Labor MPs were rocked by recent polls, which showed the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, ahead of Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister, jumping nine points to 49 per cent with her support slipping by five points to 45 per cent.

It followed a poor start to the election year for Labor, which was marred by policy and political errors, the failure of the mining tax, and the prominent emergence of Mr Rudd even as he called on people to ''take a cold shower'' over the leadership.

I really don’t want to discuss polls – there are people far more qualified to talk about them than I am. What fascinates me is what on earth could’ve happened in the past few weeks to turn what was looking like a very close election into a Coalition sure thing, Rudd notwithstanding. It’s not Ms Gillard’s specs, and it’s not Mr Abbott’s fake tan. I doubt it’s the arrest of Craig Thomson, or the whole Peter Slipper/Mal Brough brou-ha-ha. Ha-ha.

Is it policy? Has someone announced something, other than the date of the election, that would edge voters one way or the other? Are Australians more willing to risk a future with Tony Abbott and a sketchy policy than a government without Nicola Roxon and Chris Evans?

Is it absence of policy? Has the Liberal “leak” of Mr Abbott’s plan to build a hundred damns to drought-proof Australia been a winner? Perhaps just a glimmer of a suggestion of the hope of a policy is enough to convince voters that it’s time for change.

Is it the separation of the “other” Coalition, when Greens leader Christine Milne virtually told the government to shove off? I honestly doubt that has much to do with anything, but I thought I should mention the Greens, in case we’re watching the end of their obituary right now. Still, it will be interesting to see how many voters are genuine greenies, and how many were voting green as a way of ensuring a government that was slightly to the left of the other guys, without actually voting for Labor.

Because I am a lefty, I very much doubt that many conservatives read this blog, but for the one or two of you who do, this question is for the conservatives: Can you honestly say that you understand what the lefties are on about? Do you "get" leftie-speak, or is it just JuLiar and nasally accent going "blah blah carbon tax, blah blah misogyny, blah blah Gonski, blah blah blah."

And now, the same sort of questions for my leftie readers: Do you understand the conservative side of politics and the people who support conservative politics? How about conservative priorities, their thought processes, their leadership? When you think of Tony Abbott’s recent public appearances, are you aware of anything other than him turning orange and avoiding any and all serious media interviews?

Perhaps you're one of those progressive types who likes to watch Fox News so you can feel superior to Bill O'Reilly and his Low-Fact Friends in the All-Spin Cycle. Perhaps, like the IPA's James Paterson, you only enjoy QandA for the obscenities that the irrelevant ponces on the ABC trot out week after week. Fine – I’m in favour of mocking, providing some degree of intelligence and awareness of the issues is involved. Without understanding what you’re mocking, it’s not mocking; it’s trolling.

I'm not asking if you agree with the other side; that would be weird, unless you're Malcolm Turnbull. I'm just fascinated to know if you understand what drives the conservative, as opposed to what drives the lefty. At some level, it must come down to "what's in it for me", but that can't be all, particularly when both sides are promising more than they can pay for.

As the disparate sides of Australian politics awkwardly two-step together towards the right, there's not much between the core party platforms. The action, the fun stuff, is at the extremes, with the extremists. Out there, a party’s values still drive policy. It's great television, but not relevant to most average voters. Most Coalition supporters probably don’t support the platforms of the Australian Christian Lobby or the Galileo Movement, just as most Labor supporters aren’t gay Marxist baby-killing tree-huggers. Most of us are here, in the middle, staring at eachother over a wet cigarette paper.

I despair at the level of political debate I hear around me, sometimes on media, sometimes at the water cooler. But what have we done to improve it? What has anyone done? Who has accountability for ensuring that the people in this country who are required by law to turn up at a polling place know what they’re voting for and why?

I support compulsory voting, where everyone has a single, equal vote...and yet, if I vote Liberal in my seat because I don't like Julia Gillard's glasses is it a valid choice? It's definitely a valid vote, but was it made by someone in possession of the facts?

That's one of those horrible questions that keep me awake at night.

Now it's your turn. You can thank me later. 

BTW, there's a silly little poll on this very subject in the right hand column of this very blog. What drives your voting decisions?

Parliamentary Hokey Pokey

About two weeks ago, I was so frustrated with the Federal Government that I let loose with a late night post entitled Short & Ranty, a pithy summary of why I think Federal Labor is unspooling.  An awful lot of awful politics has passed in those two weeks, and during this time, we have watched our parliament edge closer to part-soap-opera, part-farce theatre improv. Tears, secret deals, backflips, big money, tricks and a sprint for the door - and that's just the lower house.

The Craig Thomson Distraction is still just that; as more and more is revealed about the HSU, the dodgier the whole saga appears. Is Mr Thomson guilty? The weight of common opinion has him well and truly convicted. I can't get that spelling error out of my mind: the signature on some dockets has Mr Thomson misspelling his own name, by adding a 'p'. That feels significant, but probably isn't.

At some point, the next chapter of Craig Thomson's adventure-mystery series will be revealed, but it won't make a difference at the 2013 Election. The Coalition will probably win, and even if it doesn't, the Thomson Distraction won't be a major factor. The only people who think that Labor can win the next election are Bill Kelty and the Tooth Fairy...unless Tony Abbott unhinges completely, and I don't rule that out.

In other Thomson-related news, Labor MP Ed Husic suggested on Twitter the need for a parliamentary line judge - a reference to the Abbott versus Pyne run to exit the chamber yesterday to ensure that Craig Thomson's surprise vote with the Opposition would be cancelled out. Strange, that of all the issues of conduct around this minority government, the Opposition chose to take a stand on the tainted status of Mr Thomson's vote. 

At the same time, we learn that a record number - over 10% - of eligible Australians are not enrolled to vote. That's 1.5 million Australians that should be enrolled, but aren't.  900,000 of those have never been enrolled. Voting is compulsory - and yet individuals have to take the initiative to register to vote, or they aren't included.*

I'm surprised that number of unenrolled people isn't higher. Who would want any part in a democracy that plays out more like a tv game show than a solemn place where serious men and women decide the future of the nation? Politics - the process, the gravitas, and yes, the politicians - should inspire and lead us. 

Instead of inspiration, we have the parliamentary answer to the Hokey Pokey, for which Tony Abbott must accept responsibility. His bitter reaction to failing to form a government with the Independents has dragged us here.

Australia has sustained economic health despite the GFC, yet it is met with denial and derision by the Opposition, and near silence in the media. Australia is committed to act on Climate Change, yet we're still not sure of the Leader of the Opposition has accepted that Climate Change is real - despite it having been a scientific fact since 1987. There have been about sixty unsuccessful censure motions brought by Mr Abbott, three Speakers in under five years, a new party formed, a party expulsion, a leadership challenge, a former PM on the back benches, members being sin-binned almost daily...it's the most exciting game in town.

In the face of this apparent chaos, the Government keeps on governing. Is Bill Kelty right? Will enough Australians forgive Julia Gillard for knifing Kevin Rudd, then changing her mind on the Carbon Tax? This week's Newspoll had both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader with personal Disapproval ratings at a toxic 60%. Surely these numbers suggest an electorate which is disengaging.

And yet, how can you walk away from the privilege of voting? How can you simply allow others to elect your representatives? Does that not nullify your right to complain when the government makes decisions you don't support? Perhaps if those 1,500,000 eligible Aussies had made the effort to register and learn a bit about their candidates, and then - god forbid - actually vote, today's parliament might be something that does inspire us. 

Decisions are made by those who show up.

* In Process Improvement Land, that's a critical weakness, but also a subject for another day. 

Blame It On The Rain

Today, the democratic process is an imposition, a burden. I have to vote. It's Local Council Elections throughout Queensland today, our second major election in just five weeks. Today's election is the perfect electoral storm: widespread election fatigue, crippling cynicism, largely uninspiring candidates (at least in Brisbane) and rain. Lots and lots of rain.

Why bother?

Here in Australia, voting is compulsory. We are required to turn up at a polling place, have our names marked off the roll, and be given a piece of paper on which to record our choices for public office. For those not engaged with our version of democracy, there's often a fund-raising sausage sizzle or a cake stall as enticement or reward, depending on your perspective.

It's the compulsory nature of our democratic process that provides the minor twist: if your preference is, for example, none of the above, you still need to go through the motions, and have your name checked off a list. Failing to vote can result in a fine. In Queensland, failure to vote fines start at $50.

There are some exceptions, but not many. According to the Human Rights Commission, the right to vote is a human right. While there are restrictions - you must be an adult and a citizen of the country you're voting in - the only exclusions occur if any of these conditions apply:

* You are in prison serving a sentence of three years or more
* You are of unsound mind (incapable of understanding the nature and significance of voting);
* You have been convicted of treason or treachery and have not been pardoned.

So that's it then, if you're not on the restricted list, and you're an adult living in Queensland  (and you weren't as clever as some, and haven't completed a pre-poll or postal vote) you need to get off the couch and vote.

But wwhhyyyy? asks the whiney little voice inside. I can do almost everything else online from the couch - pay my bills, complete the Australian Census form, perform most of my job, renew my drivers licence, car registration and insurance, manage all of my banking, conduct all of my shopping, apply for jobs, interact with friends, plan an entire school reunion, gamble away my family's future, publish my own musings - why can't I vote online?

In 2012,  my little voice has a valid point, and it's a point being investigated, though at a glacial pace. Electronic voting was trialled in Australia in 2007, but with two groups who have had difficulties voting: those voters with a vision impairment, and ADF personnel posted overseas. Electronic voting isn't online voting though; electronic voting still requires the voter to register in person at a polling booth on a specific date. It's the mechanism that changes, from pencil and paper to an electronic terminal.

So why don't we have electronic voting? Software companies are vying to be 'the one' to get their product out there first, yet most major democracies are reluctant to take the step.

Security and cost are the main issues. Tom Stoppard said that it wasn't the voting that was the heart of democracy; it was the counting. Obviously he's not thinking of the electronic process of counting votes; computers have been doing that flawlessly for well over half a century. He's suggesting that it's during the results phase of the process - the counting - that any democratic system is most vulnerable to fraud. This is how dictatorships hold "free and fair" elections yet continue to get elected. Comprehensive (and entirely biased) arguments against electronic voting can be found here.

Online Voting is a vastly more complicated proposition. All of the security challenges of the counting phase exist, plus the issues around identity and privacy during the voting phase, and the inevitable technical problems that will impact individual voters. I'm having one now - my wireless broadband service throws a tantrum every time it rains and my electronic connectedness is blasted back to 1982.

Back in 2012,  it's off to the polling booth for me. I'm imagining the parking nightmares, queues of voters huddling under inadequate umbrellas, bemoaning the sad state of the sausage sizzle and the economy, all to have their say in an election that few seem to care about.

But that's our democracy, in all it's imperfect glory. We get to vote, and no-one shoots at us.

(Go on. You know you want to.)

Electoral Disconnect

It seems that we’re always in an election campaign period of some kind.

Here in Queensland, we’re just over halfway through a five week campaign which ends with the state election on March 24. Local Government elections are being held in late April, and while the Federal Election isn’t due until the second half of 2013, the campaigning never stops in a hung parliament. Add to that the ongoing coverage of Putin’s election maneouvres in Russia, and the never-ending round of Republican primaries in the USA.

The problem is the majority of this activity is just bad campaigning.  It’s not engaging; it’s not policy-driven; it’s not fair to voters.

The Campaigners

Q:           What is the purpose of an election campaign?

A:            To win an election.

Q:            How does a campaign help you to win an election?

A:            By convincing enough people to vote for you.

Q:            How do you convince people to vote for you?

This is where life – or politics – gets interesting. There are two simple answers to this question. You can do some or all of the following:

·         Promise to introduce policies that people want

·         Promise to end situations they don’t like (particularly good if you’re in opposition)

·         Convince people that your opposition’s policies are bad – or worse than yours

·         Make your opposition look untrustworthy, dishonest, weak, morally questionable or worse

The Electorate

                Q:           Why vote?

               

                A:            To influence the outcome of an election; to help my “team” win.

               

                Q:           Which is your “team”?

                A:            The one which is going to best improve my life and look after my issues

               

                Q:           How do you know which team that is?

And again, this is where the rubber hits the electoral road. It will be the best combination of these options:

·         The team that promises to implement the policies that support my issues

·         The team that promises to end policies that make my life harder, or that conflict with my belief systems

·         The team that appeals to me more

·         The team that seems most honest and trustworthy, committed, and with my values

I could ask how we, the humble members of the electorate, make these decisions, but to be honest, I’m a little scared of the answers. I mentioned in a previous blog that one voter stated that she wasn’t going to vote for the party she thought would lose. Other factors that help determine how a voter will vote include a combination of policy, personal appeal, past experiences, name recognition, candidate’s reputation, gut feel and sheer luck.

Despite all of these people running for election, what are we hearing most about? We’re hearing about the personal and family finances of candidates, ancient drink-driving offences, swingers parties, porn on websites, racist comments, who lives where, the name of the candidate’s holiday property, uncertainty around leadership, the usual bullshit about marriage status / children / sexual orientation / ethnicity / religious affiliation and favourite jacket.

I’m sure all of that is interesting to someone, but not much of it helps me to make up my mind about who to vote for.

I’m fortunate in that I have an excellent local member. He communicates well so we know what he’s doing, and he’s always accessible. He has earned my vote, though not through any campaigning activities. He’s just a great local member who scraped in in 2009 and has worked hard.

For me, it’s not necessarily about the campaigning, which is a good thing, because on the basis of the last three weeks alone, I’m not impressed enough with anyone to consider voting for them.

Of course, the media is focussing on two areas: the leaders, and Ashgrove…or they would be, were it not for the constant stream of distractions that are clogging up the news feed. There seems to be an ever-widening gap between what the campaigns want, what the media want and what the voters want.

As voters, we own the outcome. We need to take more responsibility for ensuring that we have the information we need.