The election result in this state

was the expected "blood bath".  It is not a good result. Winning by such a large margin is not a good thing for any party.

In this instance it is of particular concern. The party in question has made a lot of "promises". They will be able to fulfill almost none of them.We all know that politics is about the art of lying convincingly but this time they did not even need to do that.

The immediate past government had Covid19 to contend with and I think it would be fair to say has been punished for handling it well. People didn't like the restrictions. They believe, in the perverse way that people will, that the restrictions were not necessary because we didn't have the case numbers they had in the eastern states. That we might have had much higher numbers without those restrictions is not something they seem able to recognise. It played into the hands of those opposed to vaccinations and those opposed to vaccination mandates.

Much was made of "ramping" - ambulances having to wait on arrival at hospitals.  Much was made of delays in getting an ambulance. No mention was made of the increased demand on services because of Covid and the number of unnecessary call outs. No mention was made of the other huge demand for ambulance services - a demand brought on by the incoming government's closure of mental health services.  Attempts to raise these issues in the media failed. The outgoing government tried to get the message across but they failed. The media simply wasn't ready to acknowledge that such a good story was false. 

This election was also held in the midst of still considerable Covid restrictions. There are still large numbers of people in isolation. They were supposed to be able to pick up voting papers from testing stations - one excuse for being able to leave the house. That would not always have been possible. There were no provisions to allow people who were in hospital to vote. In aged care residences people who had postal votes and wished to use them had to rely on staff to help. 

And voting in community housing for people with disabilities? That is always a problem and this time it was an even bigger problem. No, "carers" were not going to take people out to vote on the day. 

I went into a group house on Friday. This was organised by a parent of one of the residents. It was not a popular move with the carers but they didn't quite dare deny me entry. They had already been warned by the parent in question that they would be reported if any of the ballot papers had already been filled out and returned. 

"Do your best Cat...but I really don't think any of them should be voting," I was told.

No, we are not talking about denying anyone the right to vote. This person's child has problems making simple decisions. Asked if they want to wear "this t-shirt or this one?" they find it hard to answer. Choosing the candidate they want is something they find almost impossible. Explaining to them that they must then go on and choose yet more because of "compulsory preferential voting" rules is something harder still. The others who live in the same house are no better at making such choices. They have no idea what the policies of the candidates are. 

I tried to simplify it as much as I could but without any real success. These are not informed votes at all. They may be the free choice of those voting but they are not informed. I was reminded more than once of my maternal grandmother telling me, "I voted for D..... because he looks nice."  I often wonder how many other elderly women did the same.

We have to live with the results of this election for the next four years. Something similar is likely to happen at national level. After that we get a chance of sorts to call those elected to account. It is democracy of a sort but such large majorities are dangerous.