Pre-poll Problem

The number of Australians voting before polling day is increasing. This is expensive for candidates and voters, and diminishes our democracy. By Tim James.

Pre-election voting in Australia at booths that open before the official voting day has been rapidly increasing since 2010, and now presents a significant problem for our democracy.

Some 4.8 million people voted at these booths in 2019, or 31.6 per cent of the electorate, up from 22 per cent in 2016. In 2013, the total number of pre-poll votes cast at early-opening booths was about 2.5 million, and it 2010, 1.5 million. This is now a long-term trend.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended in 2016 that “the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 be amended to restrict pre-poll voting to no more than two weeks prior to the (election) date.”

Instead, this year pre-poll booths opened three weeks prior – for five days in the first week, six in the second, then five in the third before the actual polling day that Saturday.

Why did the AEC decide to do this? I notice Communications and Arts Minister Paul Fletcher recently said this was “not an appropriate decision for unelected officials to make,” and that such a decision should only be made by the Parliament. Well said, Minister. 

In my Sydney electorate, Warringah, there were four – yes, four – pre-polling booths, plus another three in neighbouring electorates and one in the CBD. The electorate is only 68 square kilometres. Why do we need so many booths over such a long period 

The drain on resources is enormous. Taxpayers are funding what seems to be an extravagant and largely unnecessary exercise. Political parties too are being unduly stretched in the effort to attend all the booths for the whole three weeks.

I recently made a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the 2019 Election that traversed this topic, among others. On prepoll voting, I submitted that three weeks is unnecessarily long and four locations excessive.

“Too many people are not voting on election day because it is simply easier not to do so and a matter of personal preference. Given the array of ways for people to cast a vote before polling day, pre-poll arrangements can be made to be more efficient and economical by being shorter (two weeks is adequate) and confined (two locations per electorate is adequate).”

I’m all for convenience for voters but not at any cost and certainly not when it may call into question the quality and/or currency of the ballot. 

Quality of the process is affected in as much as people who vote pre-poll do not have full, up-to-polling day information (including all policy pronouncements) at their disposal in deciding who to vote for. There is no perfect vote as such, but if there was it would fully take account of all considerations and developments right up to voting day. Imagine if a candidate had an issue affect their candidacy that went to the heart of their integrity but it only became clear a day or so out from polling day. Some people will be left wishing they could change their vote. 

Currency of the process, similarly, is affected as a vote is designed to be a snapshot at a point in time and early votes can sway that (including by being less than fully informed). It’s polling day, not polling month! A better snapshot in time is one that is shorter in time, and at least less than three weeks. 

The AEC publishes criteria for early voting eligibility (ie to vote before polling day). So there’s some intention, or at least there previously was, to not have too many voters voting at a time outside of polling day. The problem is that there’s little or nothing done to enforce those criteria. And word has got around among voters that it’s just much more convenient to avoid voting on polling day.  For an entity that is usually extremely focused on eligibility, the AEC’s lack of regard for its own stated eligibility criteria for early voting is diminishing our democracy. 

It’s also important to note that voters with genuine needs to cast an early vote can do so by postal vote, mobile voting (at hospitals and the like) and telephone voting (for those with special needs).  These alternative arrangements are adequate. 

Another issue that arises in relation to the proliferation of prepoll voting is the resource requirements for candidates and campaign teams.  In Warringah this led at least one candidate (Zali Steggall) to pay people to stand at prepoll polling booths. Liberal volunteers heard feedback that some Zali Steggall campaigners were being paid $30 per hour. 

It’s time for prepoll voting to be pruned back to appropriate levels. Our democracy deserves the most informed, timely and effective means of electing representatives.  Prepoll voting in recent times has run away from these essential requirements. The present election inquiry should recommend it get back to basics.