Article content continued

So, too, the emphasis in the above on how the vote splits, and on the strategies parties devise, or demand voters adopt, in response. Perhaps we find it normal for voters to be told, in every election, that they cannot vote for the party they actually support, but must vote for a party they dislike to forestall the election of a party they detest. But in the vast majority of the world’s democracies that use some form of proportional representation the idea would seem absurd, not to say presumptuous. It is for voters to tell parties what to do, not the reverse.

Third, there’s the emphasis on turnout. Every time you read about parties trying to “mobilize their base” or “depress” their opponents, that is what is meant. That’s another reason why our campaigns are typically so nasty, negative and narrowly focused. It’s not about expanding your support, but intensifying it. But in countries such as Australia, where voting is mandatory and turnout near universal, turnout strategies are irrelevant.

Last, there’s the obsession with the horse race: where the parties are in the polls, and what strategies they are likely to pursue in response. That’s valid, up to a point. Some voters might find it useful to know which party is most likely to form a government. And strategy analysis may help voters understand why the parties behave as they do.

But it’s a question of proportion. Some coverage of the horse race is in order, but not to the exclusion of what most voters, and readers, really want to know: who the candidates are and what they would do if elected.

Again, this is partly a phenomenon of first past the post, and the winner-take-all mentality that accompanies it. The point of an election is not just to find out who won, but what the public wants. And the point of election coverage is not just to report who’s winning, but what the winners would do with the mandate they seek.