ANDREW CARSWELL: Why the indifferent will decide who wins the Federal election 

If you’ve already locked in your vote for the 2025 Federal election, brace yourself for some bad news.

Others will be deciding the final outcome on election night.

That privilege increasingly belongs to a crucial group of undecided voters — those sitting precariously on the fence in the battleground seats, weighing up their options until the very last moment. Usually the final week.

It’s Australia’s fastest growing club, where membership comes with the power to shape the nation’s future — whether its members realise it or not.

The swingers. The soft voters. The unaligned voter whose level of care sits somewhere between non-existent and indifferent. The disinterested who turn their eye to politics perhaps once every three years, before slamming the door abruptly. The ones who stare blankly when asked to name the opposition treasurer, or even the name of their own electorate.

Often minimal understanding of politics, usually maximum ability to control it.

Because in every tight election, they now hold the deciding vote — swayed in the final days by a vision that resonates, the fear of change, or simply by whichever candidate feels right. The one they ultimately trust to do the job as they see it.

This cohort of soft voters is only becoming more powerful with every election, joined by disenfranchised Australians who have grown weary at the two-party political system or those who have looked at both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton and rolled their eyes; undecided only by the uninspiring choice. In their view.

They were the ones that romped home for Scott Morrison in the final week of the 2019 campaign, adding to his numbers on every single day of that last sprint to the finish line. They were the ones that turned their backs on him three years later, once again waiting until the final week to deliver the outcome.

Now we await their verdict on Albanese or Dutton.

This record group of swingers presents different challenges for both leaders. For one, the challenge of convincing frustrated voters that you deserve another chance, despite the extreme disappointment of his government’s first term. The other, the challenge of enticing voters to take a leap of faith, without a lot of detail to inform the decision.

Here, the challenge is arguably more acute for Dutton, which has more to do with voter defensiveness, rather than a judgment of him.

When it comes to personal approval ratings, Dutton currently shades Albanese across the nation and in key segments, with the latter judged fiercely for his mediocre performance.

But when you peel back the surface and look solely at soft voters, the numbers tend to flip.

Not because the undecideds don’t like Dutton, and certainly not because they think Albanese has done a good job, but because history shows they inherently prefer safety than countenance any risk. They are more willing to overlook a Prime Minister’s countless faults, because of his alleged inoffensiveness and banality. They know what he brings to the table. It definitely isn’t much, but one knows what to expect. It’s oatmeal for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Boring is the new black.

This is why you hear the slogan “don’t risk Dutton”. It is Labor preaching to risk-averse soft voters that change is not always beneficial. Labor have spent $2 million on advertising to denigrate Dutton’s character, stooping to the filthy mire to desperately cling to power. The message resoundingly is focussed on risk.

It also explains why the Coalition’s mantra is “Getting Australia Back on Track” — a direct appeal to soft voters who feel things have worsened. Rather than making bold promises about an uncertain future, it reassures them that returning to better times is a safer bet than wholesale change. There is less risk in returning to good times. Because voters have experienced them.

And this is also why Donald Trump is a tricky problem for the opposition leader, with the President’s bizarre antics heightening the risk of change.

Dutton has done nothing to draw such an equivalence, quite the opposite. He has been strong against such buffoonery. But soft voters are drawing conclusions without foundation.

This soft-vote scenario highlights the arduous pathway to victory for the Coalition, whilst also defining the true battleground. Victory will come through picking off these soft voters that lean towards giving Albanese another go, perhaps against their better judgement.

One by one.

It won’t come from beefing up the base and appealing to its right flank. It will come from giving soft voters a genuine reason to leap across the fence, a genuine vision for the future of this country, and a genuine plan to revive Australia’s stagnant economy.

It is entirely achievable; despite the formidable electoral math, despite the allure of safety.

It is there to be won.

But if Dutton can’t persuade them to jump, they’ll stick with the devil they know — however uninspiring, however underwhelming, however much they secretly wish for something better.