It's a strange time in politics. Despite being decisively beaten at the polls less than a fortnight ago, there is an air of positivity in the Labor Party that hasn’t been seen for some time.

For the first time in three years, there is no leadership speculation between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. It wasn’t just Australian voters that had enough of that. The ALP grassroots members absolutely hated it. The latter watched in absolute horror as their party - while managing to achieve so much good in government - ruined it all with infighting and disunity, and with it, handed power to their conservative opponents.

But the positivity that flows through the party isn't just because two PMs have left the picture. For the first time in the its 122-year history, Labor members will have a say in who is the next federal party leader. The impact of this should not be understated.

Allowing party members to be involved in something as fundamental as who leads the party, and with it, who is the alternative Prime Minister, is a tremendous step forward for the democratisation of the ALP. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either lying or hasn’t given it enough thought.

More democracy can never be a bad thing. While the system may not be without its potential flaws, each will be resolved in time. In the long run, a contested ballot where members are able to vote will be of tremendous good to the party. It removes the criticisms relating to the ‘faceless men’, and by opening up the process to the masses - some 40,000 members are eligible to vote in the coming weeks - it engages members in a way, and on a scale, that has never been seen before in Australia.

Nominations close on Friday. So far there have been two people that have put their hand up: Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten.

Albanese, or ‘Albo’ as he is affectionately known, hails from the left of the party, and has been the federal member of the inner city Sydney seat of Grayndler since 1996. Shorten has been touted as a future leader seemingly ever since his election to parliament in 2007. He is the member for Maribyrnong, located in Melbourne’s inner north west. Both were senior ministers in both the Rudd and Gillard governments.

Regardless of who emerges triumphant, he will have his work cut out for him. Since the Second World War, each time a Labor government has lost at the ballot box, a newly appointed leader has never been able to achieve electoral success from opposition.

But if you listen to Mr Albanese and Mr Shorten, it's clear they're not without hope.

The next few weeks allow the two candidates to outline their vision for the party they hope to lead. For Labor to be in a competitive position in 2016 it needs to show the wider electorate what it stands for. That means in with the policy, vision and plans for the nation and out with the personal, caustic division. Both candidates have gone out of their way to ensure that this contest is not personal, and rightly so. This needs to be about the type of Labor Party that they want to lead, the type of government that they hope to lead, and with it, what kind of Australia they see for us all.

The ballot will be conducted by a postal vote. Party members will receive their paperwork after nominations close on Friday, September 20 and will have two weeks to return their vote. Votes will be counted three days after the close of the popular ballot. The final result will not be known until after members of the parliamentary caucus cast their votes. The result is then determined by giving equal weight - 50/50 - to the membership ballot and the caucus ballot. During the process, which is tipped to take a month and be resolved before parliament resumes, the role of acting Labor leader will fall to Chris Bowen. Other front bench roles remain unchanged until the new team is in place.

Many have been quick to criticise the process, dismissing it as yet more evidence that the party cannot stop talking about itself. But the feeling within the party is very, very different. At the NSW launch of Mr Albanese’s campaign on Tuesday night the excitement within the room was palpable. It's been less than two weeks after an election defeat and Labor people are energised.

They're excited the party they hold so dear can be progressive and forward thinking, and is willing to engage with more stakeholders, not less. It's in sharp contrast with the rickety ideas of a Prime Minister-elect who can’t find more than one woman suitable for his cabinet of 20, and overlooks science, climate change, disability services and mental health when determining his ministries.

While new to Australia, allowing the rank and file to popularly elect the leader of a party is a common democratic phenomenon. US presidential elections have primaries, where registered voters of a particular party decide who their presidential candidate will be. When it comes to the Westminster System, both New Zealand and the United Kingdom have direct election of leaders. In Britain, on which our parliamentary system is based, this has provided for stable leadership for both sides of the politics. Labour elected Ed Milliband as its leader in 2010 in a five-horse race. On current form, he’s a decent chance of toppling Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron come the election.

Going to the membership to elect a leader also means that a party is likely to be less reactive when it comes to opinion polls. The decision to remove a leader will no longer come down to just the Labor caucus. It raises the real possibility of a more sustainable style of leadership. One that looks more at the medium to longer term, rather than the immediate political fix.

Conservative commentators in Australia have been predictably quick to dismiss the changes undergoing Labor. Former Howard Minister Peter Reith quipped this week that his "potatoes will produce a quicker result than the ALP will take to set up the vote of the membership." This kind of disdain is to be expected. Conservative parties are by nature reluctant to change things. Mr Reith’s political commentary is not only shallow - it also shows that he probably should stick to his potatoes.

One can’t help but think that if the Liberal Party had direct election of their leader, a chap named Malcolm may be leading it.

Over the course of the past three years, federal Labor has been to hell and back. Allowing members to have their say in the direction the party takes, while hardly the panacea to solve all the party’s problems, is a good start. If shareholders can have a say in who leads a company, why shouldn’t party members have a similar say?

Every Labor member I have spoken to is excited about the changes ahead, and I share in their optimism. Less than two weeks after an election defeat, that has got to be a positive step forward.

Elliot Giakalis is a lawyer turned communications adviser and is a member of the Australian Labor Party.