Build your own neutral election research file

The short answer

Build your own neutral election research file

A neutral election research file is a personal document in which you collect the same set of questions for every party or candidate, save primary-source documents with dates, separate factual claims from the evidence offered to support them, and record your own uncertainty where the evidence is incomplete. The file is not a scorecard, a ranking, or an endorsement. It is a structured record that lets you compare options on your own terms, without relying on second-hand summaries or partisan curation. The method works for any election and any level of government because it does not assume a particular set of political issues. You define the questions that matter to you based on what the office being contested can actually do. The Australian Electoral Commission's Stop and Consider campaign provides guidance on evaluating electoral communication critically, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority publishes resources on media literacy.

This guide helps verify public political material. It does not infer a person’s motive from one post and does not treat disagreement as proof of deception.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

Define your question set before you look at any answers

The research file begins with a list of questions, not a list of candidates. Write down the matters that will affect your vote and restrict these to matters that the office being contested can influence. If you are voting in a federal election, your questions should address federal responsibilities: taxation, foreign affairs, defence, immigration, social security, Medicare, aged care and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Questions about public transport, local roads or school zoning belong to state or local elections. For each question, frame it neutrally. Instead of asking which party has the best climate policy, ask what does each party's published position say about emissions reduction targets, the mechanism for achieving them and the estimated cost. A neutral question solicits a factual answer, not a preference. Limiting yourself to a finite question set also prevents the file from becoming unmanageably large.

Evidence review

Go to primary documents, not summaries

For each question, seek the primary document that contains the party's or candidate's published position. A policy document published on a party's website, a speech recorded in Hansard, a media release published by the candidate, or a budget paper that projects the cost of a measure: these are primary sources. A news article summarising a policy, a social media post describing it, or an opponent's characterisation of it is a secondary source. Always trace a claim back to the original document. Save a copy or record the URL and the date you accessed it, because websites change. If the primary document is a video, note the timestamp of the relevant segment so you can return to it. If a source does not address one of your questions, it does not belong in the file.

Evidence review

Separate claims from evidence and record the source quality

For each entry in your file, distinguish between what a party or candidate claims, and what independent evidence supports or contradicts the claim. A claim that a policy will cost X dollars is a prediction, not a fact. The Parliamentary Budget Office may have costed it, or it may be an internal party estimate with no independent verification. Record the nature of the evidence: whether it is from an independent statutory body like the PBO or the ABS, from a think tank with a known orientation, from an academic study, from industry modelling, or from internal party analysis. Note where evidence is absent. A candidate who makes a factual claim without citing a verifiable source is giving you less to work with than one who does.

Evidence review

Record uncertainty and update when new evidence appears

An honest research file records what you do not know. If a party has not released a policy on a question you have posed, note that gap. If the costings for a proposal have not been independently verified, note that as uncertainty. If two reputable sources conflict, note the discrepancy and why it might exist. The file is not a finished product but a living document that you update as the campaign progresses and new policies, costings and debates emerge. When stronger material appears, record it and note whether it changes your assessment of earlier entries. A file updated once at the start of a campaign and never revisited is no more reliable than informal impressions.

Evidence review

Use official electoral and media literacy resources

The AEC's Stop and Consider campaign is an official public education initiative that encourages voters to stop and check the source, consider the information carefully, and verify before sharing electoral content. The AEC website provides fact sheets and guidance materials that explain how electoral communications are regulated, what an authorisation statement should look like, and what questions to ask when evaluating electoral material. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, as the regulator for broadcasting and telecommunications, publishes research and resources on media literacy and how Australians encounter political content across different platforms. ACMA does not adjudicate individual content complaints about political advertising, but its research can help you understand the broader media environment. These are independent, publicly funded resources designed to support informed electoral participation.

Evidence review

What the file is not

Your research file is not a scorecard that awards points to parties and produces a winner. It is not a recommendation to anyone else about how to vote. It is not a election prediction, or an assessment of who is more electable. It is not a compilation of everything you heard or read during the campaign. It is a targeted, question-driven collection of primary evidence. It is not permanent: you can and should update it as new information appears. And it is not a substitute for your own judgement. The file organises evidence so you can make your decision; it does not make the decision for you. If you find yourself using the file to rank candidates or score parties, you have drifted from the neutral research method into evaluation, which is a different exercise. Return to the original question set and let your own values, applied consistently, determine how you interpret the evidence.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer