Perhaps Douglas Adams had it right. People who want to rule are the least suited to doing it; anybody capable of getting themselves elected should never be allowed to do the job. Nevertheless, election season is once again upon us. For political hopefuls and staffers nation-wide, it is time to answer hard questions.
What wins more votes: making speeches, kissing babies, or digging holes? In the past, economists would have told you that making speeches about policy was the ticket to winning an election. Let’s say that every person has some innate political preference – left, right or somewhere in between. The argument was that people vote for the party who is the closest to their position.
Over time, Australians have become more likely to identify strongly with one side or the other. Yet it is still true that we are most likely to be centrists, and sit on the fence – at least in our own reckoning.
Suppose that politicians and parties are power hungry: they have the sole aim of getting in to parliament, and staying there. If that’s the case, in a two-party system, a party’s best bet is to squarely align its policy platform with the median Jill (or Joe). If both parties get the memo, then their strategies will end up making them close enough together as to be borderline indistinguishable.
If we look at the 2019 federal election, this would imply that both major parties should have had policies a little right of centre. The party perceived as being closer to that position should have won.
Yet – at least according to voters – neither party was all that close to the centre at all. What’s more, the ALP was perceived as being a smidge closer. This would have implied an ALP win.
So the theorem doesn’t quite stack up. There are more than two parties. Our votes are more complex than left-right (even if we could agree on what they are). We place weight on different issues; speeches and policies aimed squarely at the middle are (sadly) not going to be enough.
How about kissing babies?
There are some things we can all agree on. For example: babies are cute. Chocolate is delicious. Politicians should be trustworthy. Good economic management is important. Alas, we can’t yet agree that good climate management is important too.
So, scratch trying to figure out the right-of-centre tax policy that the median voter wants. Instead, work on convincing people that you’re good at the things they care about.
This is why there’s so much focus whether a prime minister is “trustworthy”, “likable” or “competent”. It’s also why we care about which party is a better “economic manager”.
Whether or not a particular party is actually good at something is almost irrelevant. The trick is to convince someone you are. Razzle-dazzle, as it were.
Political parties seem to spend an inordinate amount of money on sparkles. This money can come from donations or private sources.
It also comes from taxpayers.
Any candidate who receives more than 4% of first preference votes gets reimbursed (in part) by the Australian Electoral Commission. Electoral funding has increased over the years. It shows no sign of slowing.
To rub salt into the wound, political advertising does not need to be truthful. The only real requirements are to disclose who has authorised the ad, and not to mislead voters on how to vote. So – razzle-dazzle away!
Does it win votes, though?
It certainly plays a role. Yet it appears Australians aren’t easily hoodwinked. In a paper about the 2013 Rudd/Abbott election, researchers concluded that left-right alignment mattered more to Australian voters than views about leaders. In Britain, the US and Canada, the opposite seems to be true.
It’s more likely some mix between the two. Alignment matters – hence the safe seat. But perceived competence can shift the dial, especially for fence-sitters.
There’s no such thing as a sure thing. Politicians will always make gaffes, and no policy will ever be perfect. Making speeches while kissing babies is hard – and it’s easy to slip up.
So if it’s a close race, parties bet on digging holes. Money comes out of the woodwork and seems to find its way miraculously to big infrastructure spends on marginal seats. These spends are often on worthwhile projects. Yet they are rarely aligned with national priorities.
Like it or not, winning elections has as much to do with marketing as it has to do with economics. My hope is that Australian voters look beyond spin to substance.
Work out the issues which matter to you, do some reading, and vote accordingly. Even if you feel like you’re choosing the lesser of evils, every vote counts.
Jessica Mizrahi is an economic consultant and commentator. She has taught, researched and applied economics for over a decade
