|
|
 ANALYSIS |
|
|
|
|
Politics
Are swinging voters more democratic?
Mike Dobbie, June 2007
The federal election will be decided by a comparative handful of voters in marginal seats. Are swinging voters the guardians of democracy? Mike Dobbie investigates
Are you “rusted on”? Or are you wooed by “pork”? Will you vote for the same party at the next election or will you switch your vote depending on policies or your preference for one politician over another?
Swinging voters, despite the power they wield, haven’t exercised it to a great extent. In the 14 years since 1983 election of the Hawke Labor government, the political party that has assumed power in Canberra has changed only once. Labor was in power for 13 years in that cycle, the Coalition has sat on the government benches for 11 years.
While noting that there is no firm data, the ABC’s election analyst Anthony Green believes that the proportion of swinging voters in the electorate is about 30 per cent of the total, but Green adds “Many of these people will in the end stay with their traditional party, but parties still have to spend plenty of time making sure that they do.”
Green says the majority of Australians vote the same way their entire adult lives. So the millions of dollars spent in an election campaign on political advertising, revealing new policies and preening party leaders, is aimed squarely at less than a third of all voters– and after all that effort, most swinging voters will stick with the same crowd.
In the coming months the political equation to be determined at the federal election is a relatively simple one: Labor needs to seize 16 lower house seats from the Coalition to form the government.
Of course, many swinging voters won’t influence the outcome at all. Most Australians live in “safe” seats that are firmly in the hands of one party. Only marginal seats will record a sufficient swing to change. And that means only a comparative handful of swinging voters will be able to determine the make-up of the parliament.
It’s easy to say that the swinging voter exercises greater democratic benefit by determining who, according to them, the best candidate is. But the swinging voter also distorts the democratic process.
Pork barrelling is a problem because it is usually targeted at swinging voters, special interests and marginal seats- what about the rest of us?
Then there is the increasing presidential approach to electioneering, where the televisual style of a party leader overrides the substance of their party’s policies. Ad campaigns, character assassinations, mud-slinging are all seeking to influence swinging voters – they rarely delve deep into policies.
Australia’s domination by two political camps, Labor and the Coalition, has allowed us to avoid the fractured political landscape of many other countries. Small parties, which tend to appeal to swinging voters dissatisfied with the major parties, often cannot get the traction to make an impact, except in the Senate where proportional voting works in their favour. However, as the recent experience of the Australian Democrats shows, small parties rapidly wither if disgruntled swinging voters abandon them.
Compulsory voting in Australia, introduced after a dramatic slump in voter turnout at the 1922 federal election, forces everyone to make a choice. Entrenched voters don’t actively seek change but the fickleness of swinging voters skews the political process in favour of the few at the expense of the many.
What type of voter are you when you mark your ballot paper on election day?
Whatever your views, you can discuss this article - or any of Mike's articles - on our message board Your 2 Cents, in the Analysis section.
Mike Dobbie is business consultant. He is a former managing editor with Fairfax Business Magazines.
 Email to a friend
 Print this article
|
|
