Parties, governments and pollsters: A new form of patronage?

In its first term, the Howard government hired Australasian Research Strategies (ARS), headed by pollster Mark Textor, to conduct market research for several Commonwealth departments and agencies. This was, the Labor Opposition claimed, a case of the Liberals handing jobs to their 'mates'. Textor played a key role in the Liberals' 1996 and 1998 federal election campaigns. However, Labor's attack rings hollow since in the 1980s the Hawke government similarly contracted Rod Cameron's ANOP to conduct opinion research for Commonwealth departments and agencies. At the time Cameron was Labor's strategic pollster and centrally involved in planning Labor election campaigns. On both sides of Australian politics, governments have begun to channel patronage towards their party's pollsters. In this research note, we suggest that this development cannot be explained as 'jobs for the boys'. Instead, this new form of patronage has its roots in the vital role that pollsters now play in guiding election campaigns, and in the commercial reality that Australian politics provides too little work to sustain specialist political pollsters. Parties in government now appear to utilise incumbency to sustain an ongoing relationship with the commercial polling organisations like ANOP and ARS to whom they will entrust much of the planning of their campaign for re-election.

Holt, Johnson and the 1966 Federal Election. A Question of Causality

US President Lyndon Johnson's state visit to Australia in October 1966, came at the pinnacle of support for Australia's military involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson's visit also occurred just weeks before an election for the House of Representatives at which the ruling Liberal-Country Party Coalition won its eighth successive, and largest victory, The proximity of these events has led many to argue that a causal relationship exists between the two. Advocates of this thesis, however, have failed to support their position with any evidence other than the anecdotal. Contrary to the assertions made by numerous political historians and observers of the period, this paper finds no evidence to support a thesis of causality. This paper argues that the Coalition's landslide victory in 1966 was both a rejection of the tired and lacklustre leadership of Labor's Arthur Calwell and a measure of the electorate's overwhelming support for Holt and his Government's policies of conscription and military involvement in Vietnam.

Deciding who has the right to vote: A comparative analysis of election laws

The paper analyses seven potential restrictions to the right to vote in 63 democracies. Only two of these restrictions have given rise to a near consensus. An overwhelming majority of democracies have decided that the minimum voting age should be 18 and that the right to vote of mentally deficient people should be restricted. There is little consensus about whether the right to vote should be restrcited to citizens, about whether there should be country or electoral district residence requirements, about which electors residing abroad (if any) should retain their right to vote and about which prison inmates (if any) should have the right to vote. The paper also examines two factors that affect right to vote laws: British colonialism and level of political rights. The pattern found with respect to electoral systems, whereby former British colonies emulate their former ruler, is less systematic in the case of right to vote legislation. Finally, “strong” democracies are slightly more inclusive than “weak” ones when deciding who has the right to vote.