According to the ABC …
“A record 542,141 votes were cast in the first day of early voting on Tuesday, smashing the previous 2022 record of about 314,346 as the trend continues of more Australians heading to the ballot box before the official polling day.”

This is up 72% on first day early voting in the 2022 election. In Western Australia, 59,000 people voted on the 1st day, an increase of 115% on the 2022 election.

Is this trend of early voting a good thing? Commentator Chris Berg opinions:
Early voting is a strategic move available to voters to realign political incentives, increase the information quality of election campaigns, reduce the appeal of policy-on-the-run for campaigners, and to discipline their own thinking about the performance of political parties throughout the full parliamentary term.

Charles Richardson (The World is not Enough Blog) points out some negative effects of early voting:
… it's important to note the downside as well. While early voting may eventually change political behavior, until it does, those who vote early are making their decision with incomplete information. It's also bad for ballot security – the extra fortnight multiplies the opportunities for ballot papers to go missing or be tampered with – and the need to staff pre-poll centers imposes a disproportionate burden on minor parties and independents. More intangibly, there's a sense that people getting together to vote at the same time is an important part of the democratic experience, and that without it something has been lost.

It seems the option for early voting is here to stay, and the numbers of those doing so is increasing.

What do you think? Good, bad or neutral?

Hi Aries54,

I voted yesterday, can't see any problem. With Dud Dutton's $21 billon spend announced today on more "bombs" for the military, I think I made the right choice.

If a Federal Election were held now the ALP would be returned to Government with an increased majority with the ALP on 55.5% (up 1% point from a week ago) ahead of the L-NP Coalition on 44.5% (down 1%) on a two-party preferred basis, the latest Roy Morgan survey finds (22/04/2025).

Support for the Greens was unchanged at a six-month high of 14.5% (helping boost the Albanese Government’s two-party preferred result) and support for One Nation was unchanged at 6%. Support for Clive Palmer’s new ‘Trumpet of Patriots’ Party was at 0.5% this week, down 0.5% from a week ago.

If this carries through to May 3rd, Dud Dutton could be heading for a total wipeout

Unless there are pressing reasons - health, absence on the day for example, voting should occur on the day designated.

People who vote before the campaign is over, when they don't really have to, are not serious: they vote the same way every election, or they don't give a toss.

The news that about half of voters are so lackadaisical is just one more example of how disinterested and dopy they are. They get what they deserve.

Retired Labor Senator, Stephen Conroy, believes that politicians are uncomfortable with early voting because they have to be more “organised” earlier. He seems to think that early voting means that people want change.

But, that's just another opinion and, like arseholes, everyone has one. We probably waste too much time and effort expressing opinions when all we get is a periodic vote for the same useless politicians who are not very interested in what we think anyway.

Dear Aries,

«Early voting is a strategic move available to voters to realign political incentives»

This is not the reason why voters vote early: if any do, then they are only a handful. The most common reasons are:

1) The officially allowed reasons (but those using them honestly are a minority).
2) To get that filthy task over with quickly and avoid the anxiety about forgetting about it and getting in trouble.
3) To avoid the humiliation of having to stand in queue while being harassed by political activists as one stands helplessly in the line.
4) To be able to take enough time to study and consider the options, then mark the ballot papers correctly and intelligently without feeling pressured to let the next person in ASAP.
5) To protest the nuisance of election campaigns, including the intrusion of unstoppable junk-mail, much of it is unwholesomely negative about smearing others: If politicians understood that their attack on the public's peace and the mocking of their intelligence, taking them for idiots, does not help them one iota and no last-minute bribe-attempts could possibly help them, then perhaps they will stop their harassment.

Every party and independent has a website with their principles and long-term policies. It is quite impossible to find within a minute or so which parties are contending, especially for the upper-house, then learn properly what they stand for and do justice to democracy.

As a postal voter I have the vantage of getting the list of contending parties early, then go online and read and rank their principles and policies. Once getting my ballot-papers, I make a table of all parties and how they stand on the issues that are important to me - I give them a mark on each issue, then add the marks up and order my preferences accordingly. This time around, this process took me about five hours, plus I used my computer and printer to create the marks-table, something one cannot do in a crowded busy voting station. I already posted my vote on Tuesday, so no last-minute bribing can affect it.

As an increasing trend I think it is a very bad idea.
Sooner or later a last minute relevation might occur or an incident
occur after most have voted which would have changed the vote result.
The decision must be instantaneous and not spread over days and days.

Bezza is right !

Dear Bezza,

«The decision must be instantaneous and not spread over days and days.»

Indeed, but usually when something big changes and is revealed, we wait up to 3 years: what difference do a few days make?

Yuyutsu, true, but there is a solution for that.
Anyone can move a motion of no confidence and if there was an extreme
situation with enormous public demand then if passed the governor can
appoint a government and call an election.

Rankings and tables, 5 hours later, computers, last minute revelations, anyone can move a motion, the governor is in on the act, yada, yada, yada etc. I think some people need a reality check.

Voters today are better informed about issues and policies than ever before through modern media. Turn the clock back to the first federal election in 1901, it was total confusion from the start. Fortunately things have moved on from then.

Dear Bezza,

«Anyone can move a motion of no confidence»

I couldn't agree more.

Yet, there is something even better:

We should all be able to vote on the policies rather than on the people that happen to execute them. While not technically possible past Roman times, technologically this has become pretty easy today.

This does not mean that we need to be experts on everything and vote directly on all issues: we should be able to appoint proxies, and these proxies too should be able to appoint theirs, etc., then we can vote directly only about the issues we know about and care about.

If we vote by the deadline on a particular issue, then it is our vote that counts, otherwise it's our proxy's vote that counts, etc. We should of course be able to re-appoint a different proxy at any time. Selecting and sacking the people to execute our democratic wishes, then becomes just one specific case, one issue among many - we don't even need to have an election-day!

---

Dear Paul,

«Turn the clock back to the first federal election in 1901, it was total confusion from the start. Fortunately things have moved on from then.»

Yes, things have moved on from then, firstly for the better, but then we are now over the peak. In 1901 as you may remember, we suffered from under-information, whereas now we suffer from over-information: somewhere around the 1960's or 1970's, perhaps 1980's, was the optimal time to live in modern history - since then we are in decline.

but then we are now over the peak.
Yuyutsu,
One of your better statements ! Sadly, too many Left voters are not capable of understanding that.

Dear Indyvidual,

«One of your better statements ! Sadly, too many Left voters are not capable of understanding that.»

This last bit is your own statement, not mine to deserve that credit.

We ARE over the peak indeed and the quality of life is worsening, yet I do not attribute it to "Left" or "Right", but mainly to overpopulation, then the addiction to technology. Faith in technology was originally considered a "Leftist" attitude, yet one of the worst monsters living today who promotes it, is Elon Mask, which Wikipedia claims is positioned on the far-Right.

Hi Yuyutsu,

We have had several discussions on "world population", if I recall correctly you are in favour of a dramatic decrease in numbers to around 3% or less of the present 8 plus billion people on the planet. What's not clear is HOW such a dramatic decrease could be achieved without some kind of draconian intervention, or do you favour draconian intervention? The WHO and the end result of it comes into question. I agree there is some scope for population control world wide, the serious problem at the moment is location of people and their access to basic resources, which I believe is totally inequitable on a world scale, and some kind of redistribution of both people and resources is what's required.

Dear Paul,

I do not support coercion, thus making babies should not be criminalised, but it should not be supported or incentivised either, rather it should be shunned as an anti-social behaviour, perhaps akin to smoking.

Given a fair advance-warning to allow for those babies already conceived, this means for example no further maternity leave, public-funded childcare, schooling or healthcare, etc. for those born afterwards (except due to rape). Those who insist on the harmful pastime of parenthood should bear the full costs.

I don't expect the reduction in population to happen at once either - it will take a century or two.

«the serious problem at the moment is location of people and their access to basic resources, which I believe is totally inequitable on a world scale, and some kind of redistribution of both people and resources is what's required.»

That is a separate issue altogether, which may also need to be addressed in the interim.

Hi again Yuyutsu,

<<I (Yuyutsu) do not support coercion>>

Then you need some kind of incentive for people not to have children. BTW, not having children is counter productive, all it gives is a rapidly ageing population of non productive's. Therefore to reduce the population, and at the same time maintain support through productivity you have to attack the other end of the scale, the old people. Putting it bluntly, you have to reduce life expectancy, for most to around 65. The slogan could be "Pop One Out, Bump One Off". Its the Chook Pen Principle; "Keep your layers, and its the chopping block for the old boilers"! Gee, unfortunately that would be the end of this forum!

No matter when people vote - whether or not they hear all they should before they vote - they will still be dragging their sorry arses along the ground for another three years after next Saturday.

The only two parties capable of forming a government, without or without some help from minorities, are too similar in: defence (or the lack of thereof); climate and Net Zero nonsense; immigration: transgenderism; woke; self-interest: education and indoctrination; big spending; big government; anti-family; ripping an average $30k taxation off workers - and wasting it. There is little if anything they don’t agree on.

Australia is well and truly rooted, thanks to poor quality, self-serving career politicians and advisers, a vicious mainstream media and, last but not least, a gormless electorate.

Dear Paul,

«Then you need some kind of incentive for people not to have children.»

I estimate the basic costs of raising a baby till they can support themselves, including schooling and healthcare and time off work without any subsidies, at around $2M.

Isn't saving this money a sufficient incentive?

There is also the social element, where public opinion changes and those still having children will be looked down at with contempt.

«not having children is counter productive, all it gives is a rapidly ageing population of non productive's.»

A vast proportion of present employment is unproductive anyway.
A lot of products and services are also superfluous and extravagant luxuries, some even harmful.
As people become older and wiser, they will no longer consume rubbish and support this parasitic class, who will therefore have to start doing something truly productive for living.

We will still need farmers, doctors, nurses and more aged-carers during the transition,
but many of these positions will be filled by present school-teachers and full-time parents.
While the number of capable home-builders will reduce, no new homes will be needed, only the old ones repaired, then eventually abandoned but there will still be plenty left around, same for cars, roads and power.
A fall in nominal productivity is not a bad thing when demand falls as well.
As population reduces and people get to know more each other in person, a larger portion of the economy will become informal, with increased volunteering and bartering.

Those of any age who had enough life on earth and wish to leave will be welcome, honoured and if necessary assisted, but there should be no pressure whatsoever on anyone to do so.

The end of this forum?
Not to worry - when population is reduced, we shall instead sit face to face in the respected forum of the elders in the city's gates.

There's the old fart, crying in his beer again, moaning about decent Australians, "dragging their sorry arses along the ground for another three years after next Saturday". I believe this bloke is totally negative, living in the past, totally regressive, living of aged welfare, provided by the very people he likes to run into the ground, the so called arse draggers. These old fart's need a kick up the arse to stop all their negativity and drubbing of Australia and it decent hard working people.

BTW, I've voted, I didn't vote for the LNP, but should by some catastrophic coincidence they win the election, it won't be the end of the world for me, or Australia. Imagine if that grand pair of fools, Palmer and Hanson were elected to run the country, now that would be the end of the world for me, and Australia!

Dear Paul,

«now that would be the end of the world for me, and Australia!»

Never mind Australia, could you please elabourate why that would be the end of the world for you personally?

Like or not the other controversial policies of this pair (Palmer and Hanson), and we really don't have to like them, especially not their nationalist rubbish, but at least they have it strongly on their agenda to keep cash. Labor supports cash lukewarmly, and while the Greens did not publish it officially, they told me privately that they do believe in cash. Only the so-called "Liberals" want to deny us the possibility to use cash and moreover push and incentivise businesses to use and force on us even more filthy digital technology - this is because they want to come down on tradies who don't pay their taxes, no matter who else will be hurt. I read their agenda and can summarise it in three words: "Punish, Punish, Punish" - I do find them much worse than that pair you seem to be so afraid of.

Hi once more Yuyutsu,

"now that would be the end of the world for me, and Australia!" What's called a throw away line, not to be taken literally but figuratively. As for cash, or a cashless society, I think there is a place for both cash and card at present. The disadvantage for the consumer is costs imposed by the seller. In the case of cash those costs are hidden in the transaction, as a cost of doing business. With cards that cost is up front and hopefully transparent to the consumer, unfortunately double charging by the seller is often the case, with a hidden cost in the transaction and a disclosed cost on the bill itself.

Had an interesting episode a couple of weeks back; Took my wife for a seafood lunch, very enjoyable, the meal cost $103, fair for what we had, the bill however was $107.50. I questioned the two charges of $3 credit card charge, when in fact I used a debit card, and $1.50 all cards charge on top, hummm. The girl was of little help, claiming that's what it is, and she could take it up with the owner later, as he was not there at the time. I said never mine, I wont be back, and for the $3 you have bought yourself an appropriate 1 star comment on social media from me.

Watched Dutton make an egg of himself on TV last night. The egg didn't know how much a dozen eggs costs at the supermarket, he said $4, wrong, then claimed the misses buys the eggs, that's the little woman's job, real men don't buy eggs, or some such crap! LOSER!