I don't worry about what the polls say. People are sick of them and things change quickly

Being a pollster now would be a job from hell. Interesting, exciting, but fraught with danger.

So should we take any notice? No, not in my view.

Why would you care if the majority are planning to vote in a different way from you?

Predictions as to the expected outcome are interesting, but don't affect our lives in the way that an interest rate decision would.

The intermittent polling results are just little pieces of information floating past. But they are of interest.

In the 1998 election, then-prime minister John Howard was preparing to give a concession speech, until early booth results came in, giving results inconsistent with what pre-election polling and exit polling had indicated. So what goes wrong?

Their first problem is we are a bit sick of them.

Why would you want to spend any time openly sharing your thoughts with a stranger?

It is easier to say "no thanks" and get off the line.

Unless, of course, you're a bit bored, have a warped sense of humour or just feel like being an arsehole.

In any of those events, you might just stay on the line and set about spinning a web of deceit.

You may think it fair payback for being hassled.

So, we often don't tell the truth. Good pollsters are on to the bad amongst us and will have ways of sifting the recalcitrant, or at least some of them out.

There are other problems. We can change our mind on a whim.

Lots of us are rusted-on voters, but those who aren't have no ties and can change support in the blink of an eye.

We might do that because of some revelation about a candidate, some misbehaviour or stupidity by a key player amongst the leaders or candidates or another broader reason.

It's rumoured that Kim Beazley knew Labor had lost the 2001 election when the Tampa was effectively hijacked on the high seas by people claiming to be asylum seekers.

The election campaign is a moving feast. That's not easy to monitor or predict.

There is particular interest this time because of the so-called teals.

If they didn't have votes that might decide who forms our next government they'd be the funniest sitcom you could write. They are hilarious.

They probably don't realise how pathetic they sound marching around calling themselves independent.

Independent of or from what? The two major parties. Ho hum.

Independent as in completely free of any allegiances, ties or big money funding? Well, no. Not exactly.

Not independent in the true sense, maybe not even at all. Certainly, in receipt of big donations. That's hilarious as well. Somehow, they think they can be independent of their donors, but others cannot.

Has anyone heard from them a decent explanation as to why their funding sources are structured in such a complicated way?

It all looks like a desire to hide where their money is really coming from.

This from people who with a straight face can look down the camera and with doey eyes talk of the need for transparency in politics. If you're so big on transparency why the intricate paper trail? Surely you have nothing to hide.

You wouldn't write it up as a comedy script because people would say it was just a bridge too far. Although maybe Rob Stitch from Frontline/Utopia fame could give it a go.

A recent survey in Wentworth showed one of the more prominent teals, Allegra Spender, as being in a seriously at-risk position.

If, and it's a big if, the punters are being truthful with the pollsters that polling could be a very sick canary in the teal goldmine.

Why they've turned off isn't as important as the fact that they have. She may be more prominent because her father was a previous member for North Sydney and her mother even more famous. Other teals with no such PR advantages will be very worried about her polling and what it might mean for them.

Some if not all of the teals have made some pretty stupid mistakes. A modicum of common sense might have saved them from themselves.

They marketed themselves as saviours of the system. With that in mind, admitting you don't know everything or even much about the day-to-day operation of your new job would not have been a good look.

But it's just an unavoidable fact of life that every job has its intricacies and quirks.

If you're new, you need to be on alert rather than cocky. (Monique Ryan take note). You can, of course, pick up knowledge by listening to people with experience or learn on the job.

But if you go into the job thinking you know better you might miss that learning process.

So as a new member, if you were essentially stupid you might send out a letter to your electorate assuring them that you had been listening to them. You might tell them you heard their concerns. And if you had really listened that would be great.

But if you were overconfident to the point of stupidity, you might list what you wanted to say their concerns were.

You might think you could convince them that the rest of your electorate shared your own concerns, in this case about climate issues.

The trouble is, if they don't and if you don't mention their real concerns, they instantly know you're just bs-ing them.

Sending out material with no reference to cost-of-living issues and focusing on climate change with soaring energy bills is about as out of touch as you could get.

READ MORE:

The letter to win votes loses them. Stupidity has little reward.

Voters may well be sick of both major parties. It's long been a problem that voters don't see the serious debates that go on in party rooms.

Members with wildly divergent views can thrash it out behind closed doors. That sadly leaves the public thinking that maybe everyone is just told by some higher authority what to do.

If they could see more debate they might be happier.

Voters may have had high hopes for this big group of independents. My guess is they have seen a lot of posturing and grandstanding. But they haven't seen anything change for the better. That might not augur well for the independents.

The referendum on the Voice recharged my confidence in voters. Not primarily because of how they voted, albeit I voted that way as well.

To me a "no" vote was the vote most in favour of the truly disadvantaged Indigenous Australians.

A "no" vote was a vote against more middle-class activists getting most of the dollars and attention. But that's not the point.

The point is voters were met with a barrage of "yes" marketing. They were told they'd be racist if they voted "no".

They were told the Voice would make things right. They were told it would be wrong to vote "no".

Polling showed it was on track to win. It lost. Badly. The voter put up with a barrage of manipulative messaging. And ignored it.

Voters did what they wanted. They've now had a taste of the power they've always had. Maybe they've decided to ignore the pollsters, ignore all the hype and just mark the ballot paper on the day as they see fit. Maybe voters have reminded themselves of that power.