Psephologist (Kevin Bonham) says Dutton marriage equaltiy postal vote …

… “AN INSULT TO OPINION POLLING”

Respected psephologist, Dr Kevin Bonham, has criticised Peter Dutton’s proposal for a voluntary postal vote on marriage equality, saying it is as “a serious insult to opinion polling”, will be skewed against marriage equality supporters, will have no Government oversight and could see an increase in the letter boxing of gay hate materials.

Dr Bonham is a regular commentator on national elections, as well as elections in his home state of Tasmania. In a recent post on his website, he wrote:

‘Bill Shorten has said “A postal vote, which is non-binding – it is an opinion poll”. This is in fact a serious insult to opinion polling. A postal plebiscite would not be even that.’

‘Experience with all-postal elections (such as Tasmanian local government votes) suggests there could be an increase in letterboxing. It would be surprising if the vote finished without at least some instances of letterboxing of gay-hate fliers.’

Dr Bonham also expressed concern about skewing of the vote:

‘There is a fear that virtually every opponent (including those weakly opposed) would vote in a plebiscite while weak supporters might mostly not bother and even some strong supporters might not get their act together.’

‘Elderly voters more often use postal voting than younger voters in elections, because it is the most convenient voting form for those who lack physical mobility. Optional all-postal votes in local government elections in my home state show a massive skew in participation towards elderly voters.’

Dr Bonham qualified his concerns about the age skew with the hope young voters would be more highly motivated to participate in a marriage equality vote because of their strong support for the reform.

Dr Bonham reserved his greatest concern for the lack of Government oversight of the voting process.

‘There would be no enforceable requirement to authorise electoral material, and hence nothing to prevent the letterboxing of unauthorised gay-hate material. There would be no offence of publishing false or misleading material about the mechanics of the vote. There would be no legal process for challenging irregularities or errors and having an official correction declared. There would be no parliamentary oversight of the question wording to ensure neutrality. There would not even be any clear mechanism to prohibit vote-buying.’

Dr Bonham concluded that the real reason for a voluntary postal vote is to placate opponents of marriage equality:

‘A national plebiscite – whatever the outcome – is effectively a statement by a government that an issue is genuinely difficult and that both sides of the issue are equally valid. It tells those who are opposed to equal marriage that their concerns were so legitimate that it was acceptable to ask the whole nation to express a view. It shows “the base” they have been well and truly listened to and given a platform from which to lecture society. Moreover, the vote is bound to equip opponents with endless grievances so they can claim that they were robbed, and we can see this already with the complaints about the widespread public support for change by major Australian companies.’

Dr Bonham’s full article can be found here:

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/postal-plebiscite-australias-biggest.html

Dr Bonham can be contacted via: k_bonham@tassie.net.au
Rodney Croome, Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group