Manipulative Explanations
The voting explainer video published by AEC is almost entirely manipulative language:
It is possible that such gaslighting language is not intentional but a result of an institutionalised way of explaining the preferential voting system.
Video transcript analysis:
00:24
You don’t need to overthink it. … Just number all of the boxes sequentially.
False reassurance: Reassures voters into compliance, implying that thoughtful voting is overcomplicating things.
Oversimplification: Suppresses critical thinking and questioning of the system. Viewers are discouraged from examining the implications of their vote.
Implied legitimacy: Creates a false sense of clarity and trust, making the viewer feel the system is straightforward and trustworthy—even if it's not.
00:43
You don't have to guess who you think might win, and you can't waste your vote. Your vote will always be in that final telly to decide who is elected and by how much.
Emotional reassurance: “You can't waste your vote” exploits fear of disenfranchisement, pacifying concerns about strategic voting.
Appeal to inevitability: “Always in that final telly” creates an illusion of total influence, ignoring that your top preferences may never matter.
Voter infantilisation: Implies voters are bad at judging frontrunners and need the system to handle that for them.
00:45
If your number one is one of the top two candidates, then that's where your vote stays. Simple, right?
Minimisation of complexity: “Simple, right?” shuts down critical thinking, implying only the confused or contrarian would question it.
False reassurance: Downplays nuance and systemic effects, promoting compliance over scrutiny.
00:52
If your first choice receives the lowest number of votes and gets knocked out, the full value of your vote goes to your second choice, and so on, until your vote counts, at its full value, for one of the two top candidates in the contest. Simple, right?
Framing illusion of empowerment: It frames the outcome as “your vote counts” no matter what, which obscures the fact that your preference may be forced to support a candidate you explicitly didn’t want.
Euphemistic language: “Your vote counts” reframes a lack of meaningful choice as inclusion.
Disguised inevitability: Suggests it’s inevitable your vote will help one of the "top two," subtly discouraging support for non-mainstream candidates.
01:18
Those top two candidates are decided by voters like you and the numbers you put on your ballot paper.
Collective deflection: Blames “voters like you” for the binary outcomes, absolving the system of structural constraints on real choice.
Implied legitimacy: Suggests the system is fair because "you" shaped the outcome, even though the structure itself enforces duopoly and takes away your vote forcefully.
01:24
Just rank candidates according to who you would most like to be elected, first to last, and the preferential voting system takes care of the rest.
Encouragement to disengage: “Takes care of the rest” dissuades deeper scrutiny or understanding, promoting blind trust.
Oversimplification: Avoids mentioning strategic implications or flaws, lulling the viewer into passive compliance.
Authoritative paternalism: Tone implies the system knows best — your role is merely to “rank,” not to challenge.