Local elections always bamboozle me. A whole bunch of names I'm not familiar with. It's just so difficult to figure out what they're on about. Why do so many candidates resort to meaningless euphemisms to describe themselves? I'm always terrified I will be seduced by a warm and fuzzy tagline, only to discover later that what they describe as "progress" is my idea of hideous destruction.

It's my annual ritual to sit down with the local paper the day before council elections, read through all the candidate's advertisements, and figure out how I'm going to vote. It's not an exact science, but at least there's satisfaction in the process. This Saturday I found myself caught short of time - I had to go vote, I hadn't done any research, and I couldn't get my hands on a paper.

My predicament called for a new approach. Rather than avoiding eye contact whilst maintaining a brisk pace up the driveway to the Masonic hall, I was forced to rely upon those I normally shun.  This year, I had to talk to those 6 volunteers, armed with 6 how-to-vote flyers, to get some answers upon which to base my decision. They were all I had access to as none of the actual candidates were present.

My opening line to each was, "So, what does your candidate stand for"?  

Their consistent replies came:

"The community".

"Our community".

"The local community".

"The electorate".

"Community values", and not surprisingly  

"The community".  

Reassured as I was about our strong sense of community, it wasn't very helpful in distinguishing one candidate from another.

"Why have you volunteered for them"? I enquired, thinking this was a rather sly way of re-phrasing my original question to extract more information. It was disappointing to hear:

 "He's my Dad".

"He's a good bloke".

"He's my son".

"He's my Husband".

"He's my neighbour", and the infuriating,

"She's a woman".  

At least such candour was genuine. It's terrific these personal affiliations were being disclosed transparently; but what disturbs me is that these were the only reasons being proffered to win my vote. Being the same gender isn't enough to get my allegiance, and none of them are my friends or family so why should I care?

Our local area health service is severely over-stretched, so I questioned, "What is this candidate planning to do for the poly-clinic"? I didn't get any arguments about the problem, but I didn't get any answers either: 

"Yes, isn't it terrible".

"Make a difference".

"Do something about it". "

I'm not sure exactly...but something". "

Their best", and a precise summation in the vernacular,

"Um, it's a bit dodgy". 

Aaargh! Are you starting to sense my frustration?

It really irks me that amongst the proliferation of campaign material being doled out, or on display, there was not a single policy position being offered. I came home with a lovely photo of each of the potentials though. All six of them are apparently well-dressed, respectable and presumably therefore trustworthy individuals: polished poker-faces

I understand the tactic of keeping your cards close to your chest. I do it all the time.  But I'm not running for public office.  In this context I think it's gutless. More importantly, I think it grossly underestimates the public.

The pragmatist in me accepts that charm is necessary in politics: the idealist in me refuses to accept it should be sufficient. Personality politicking is a bit crass, but selling nothing except a name and face is just plain crude.

I've never considered abstaining. Compulsory voting is an Australian value I hold really dear; but I have to confess, I wasn't very convincing in my defence of this position at a neighbourhood BBQ on Saturday night. More than one of my fellow guests admitted they hadn't bothered voting, consciously opting to just cop a fine. Their collective reasoning was that, well, it all feels a bit meaningless when you're not sure who or what you're voting for.

Is there really any difference between uninformed votes, donkey votes and non-votes? No essentially. They're all wasted opportunities for people to use their precious vote to mandate the sorts of policies they want to see enacted. 

Considering it's compulsory we choose we deserve access to all the information we need to make a real choice.

Here's an idea. All candidates should have to answer the same set of short answer questions and make their answers available in advance on public display and online, and available in hard copy on election day at every polling booth. The questionnaires could be customised for each electorate, to ensure the most pertinent issues were addressed.

Sure, the answers wouldn't provide any guarantees; but at least we'd get the benefit of a glimpse at their hand before placing our bets.