Those who will take up broadsheet and digital column inches analysing voter sentiment today in terms of beliefs, quite frankly, will be missing the mark.

The young woman who I saw run 200 metres to catch her train and gave up with 30 metres to go didn’t change her beliefs when she stopped. She’d reached that spontaneous split second trigger in decision making between struggling to breathe and her assessed probability of catching the train – in other words physical discomfort against the likely payoff. Perhaps it was factoring in the rummaging around in her handbag for the Myki that did it. But her belief that it was important to be on time for work didn’t change in that split second. Just her behaviour did.

Let’s exclude for a moment those who would always have voted Labour or the Coalition, because they’re not relevant in this election mayhem (or this blog post). Perhaps all those who were in love with Malcolm Turnbull 8 months ago had reached their threshold. Yes, you could argue they changed their beliefs about him but I’ve not heard one person suggest that to me. The job of trying to stay in power and please everyone is seemingly harder than first thought. Just ask all recent PMs! Sending up test buoys on new policies and registering the voter impact turned them into crash test dummies. You can try to stand for something but if you’re imprisoned by the fatal flaw of politics (get in power, stay in power), you end up standing for nothing much more than flip flopping on important stuff. And leaders exist to make sense of things. Not to create confusion or doubt.

Some of those who thought Bill Shorten engaged in unethical “Mediscare” mongering, voted for him anyway. If they thought he sat on the questionable side of ethics, it didn’t deter them. More interestingly to me, some of those who had previously believed they could never turn on the Coalition may have reached their threshold of tolerance and fear on Medicare and superannuation. That’s not to say they switched sides and voted Labour. But there was a tantalising array of independents, wasn’t there?

The Threshold Model of Collective Behaviour was first postulated by Mark Granovetter in 1978. Intellectual tradition until that point explained our behaviour as being largely driven by deep-seated beliefs. But, Granovetter said: Get enough low threshold typically non-violent people to turn up to a demonstration, and they may just turn violent if enough other people have done so. And that decision is made on impulse, not belief. So if lots of my friends are talking about switching sides or more importantly lots of “undecideds” are leaning towards Labour and my threshold is low, I might act uncharacteristically for me at the polling booth.

Rick Barry was an NBA basketballer and Hall of Famer with an extraordinary shooting record. His free-throw style meant that he averaged a .9 record on free throws for his career. His technique was legal, albeit unconventional. Malcolm Gladwell’s analysis of why Barry was willing to throw underarm from the free throw line to crowd taunts that he was “throwing like a sissy” (the underhand style is also called a “granny shot”) pointed to a low resistance threshold, that is, having a willingness to do it differently if it brought about a better result. He was more intent on the result than how he was perceived. The fact that he was not hugely popular and was often branded “arrogant” adds strength to the theory. This can’t happen in politics if your primary objective is getting in/staying in power. It automatically dictates the need for an acute sensitivity to others’ perceptions and, as an extension, to their likely behaviour. That’s why Malcolm Turnbull begged Australia not to “waste” their vote on independent candidates. Bill Shorten also knew that when he made Medicare an issue. Fear and mortality are primary motivators even if the fear may turn out to stand for False Evidence Appearing Real. Not that it can’t work on both sides of the political divide. John Howard dined out on a fear strategy (border protection) for two successive campaigns.

Politicians aren’t exactly up there in voter perceptions as pillars of community. We are sceptical borne of vast experience. So what they’re prepared to do to meet their strategic objective – get in, stay in (and possibly do some good things) is to be anticipated even if we’re not impressed by it. But our reactions to their actions are far more interesting and unpredictable.

Shaquille (Shaq) O’Neill, rated one of the top 10 NBA players ever, said he’d rather never score than take free throw shots underhanded. Neither of our two main political parties was prepared to throw the granny shot, so maybe that’s why no one has won. No mandate. And little focus in the foreseeable future on running the country.

We’ve heard in the last week about Brexit regret. Will our nation with a rejuvenated dose of One Nation live to suffer our own full measure of “bet regret” because our collective thresholds on healthcare, superannuation, immigration and refugees were well and truly triggered.

Comments on the thoughts expressed in the post are soooo welcome but no rants for or against any side of the political divide, please.