It’s why every election just about everywhere in the western world always has the contestants telling everyone who will listen that the result will be closer than it looks.

From an ALP voting swinger at this election, the ALP doesnt need to generate any bandwagon effect through things like win expectations because the polls are doing that for them. So now the ALP have to nuance having the win expectations by not looking arrogant – hence the “it will be close spiel”. That’s to their voters.

From a Coalition voting swinger at this election, the Coalition have to generate a few win expectations to prevent the bandwagon effect for Labor from pinching anymore of their votes. So the Coalition starts talking about how the election will actually be close, and fought seat by seat in the maginals (it also helps keep morale up in the party).The Coalition doesnt need to worry about arrogance because the polls show they’re a fair way behind.

It’s not about a zero sum gain, its about managing the prism through which each parties support views the party they are thinking about voting for.

I have been stunned to see the coalition actually banging about this. What next? Bigger bins? fencing disputes?

I just don’t see it as theoretically possible that both parties’ vote can go up at the same time (given in this context we’re not interested in the minor parties).

You seem to be missing the key element that one party can only gain at the expense of the other – it’s a zero sum game.

Either that or I’m blind to the obvious, which is entirely possible!

The safe vote for either side (including the party members themselves) and the swinging voters that each side currently has.

By saying that the polls will be close for the ALP helps them with the former (by keeping them working to the last minute of the campaign) and helps them with the latter because it shows their swingers that they arent arrogant (which turns people off).

With the Libs, saying its close helps them with their former (by boosting morale in the former and getting them to continue the fight) and helps with the latter by telling them that “sure we might be behind, but we’re not a write off”. For some reason, a fair number of swinging voters just like voting for the winner.

The story pretty much in a nutshell and throw in they have never really liked Howard always the devil they preferred. Enter Kevin Rudd, two arms two legs and a heart beat and smart enough to know what things they liked in the Howard story and what things people will cop and wont cop. Ready to offer a vision and comfort and that was that.

The best campaign I have ever seen by either side in a long time has to be awarded to Labor and the most divisive stupid piece of overt terrorism masking as a values debate election run by the coalition. Every one of their messages was coiled and twisted upon itself.

In a 2 party contest, where one gains only at the expense of the other, a variable can be good for one side, good for the other, or neutral. No?

The ALP would be quite happy to have people believe they are going to win, but they dont want themselves to look like they are being smug about it.

Likewise, the Coalition would love to have people believe that they will win (but arent in a position to look smug about it to begin with – so that’s not a danger to them).

Your system is self-contradictory and self-defeating. In order for your elitist system to work, you would have to make voting for the elite compulsory! If no one at all voted, rest assured this would not preclude the assumption of government by one party/group or another.
Furthermore, as the proportion of those who would be entitled to vote would be self evidently quite small, any government so elected would no doubt disregard the voters’ will when it suited it by claiming that it was governing for the majority of the people.

Voluntary voting does not equate with more ‘democracy’ or create more ‘freedom’. The tinier the proportion of people who vote, the more arrogant, autocratic and dismissive the government will become.