A Brazilian electoral worker shows an electronic ballot box in Sao Paulo - in 2002.
The sign has gone up on the front door of Australia, proudly declaring in a sensible typeface that things are "under new management". But while the election result was definitive (no matter how much euphemistic "furniture" was saved), that hasn't stopped the arguing over what it actually means.
Witness the debate over whether or not Labor, the Greens and the krazy krew in the Senate should permit the Coalition to scrap the carbon tax. The Coalition argues that it won - the tribe has spoken - so it should get to implement its policy. But others have argued that the tribe did not speak specifically about the carbon tax. Or that there were different tribes who had said something different to Labor and the Greens in the election.
The election also recorded a relatively high informal vote. As of Friday, some 5.95 per cent of the lower house vote was informal. While this has not reached the dizzying heights of the 1984 result (6.34 per cent), it is up on the 2010 and 2007 results (5.55 per cent and 3.95 per cent respectively).
Even through he is not a minister just yet, Malcolm Turnbull stepped out to say that something had to be done about informal voting.
"There are some people who write 'damn you all, down with politicians'," Turnbull conceded, but the vast majority of people who vote informally didn't mean to do so. But do they?
An analysis by the Australian Electoral Commission of informal lower house votes at the 2010 election found that 28.9 per cent were blank ballots and 16.9 per cent had scribbles, slogans or "other protest marks" (the number of anatomical diagrams was unspecified).
The proportion of ballots that had only a "1" was 27.8 per cent, ticks and crosses accounted for 11.8 per cent and 9.2 per cent had non-sequential numbering.
The AEC says that factors like English language proficiency and the numbers of candidates on ballot papers continue to be associated with levels of informal voting.
But it is still not clear from these numbers exactly what message informal voters are trying to send. Are they annoyed about giving up their weekend time? Was the queue to vote too long? Do they detest their local or national options more?
On a broader level, Labor MPs have been confidently saying that they lost the election because they had been talking about themselves (notice how they have spent a whole week so far talking about how they shouldn't talk about themselves?).
But the Coalition has claimed victory in the name of its superior plans for running the country. At an anecdotal level, voters have expressed fist-thumping frustration with the state of federal politics. How do we know which interpretation is correct?
Turnbull's suggested answer to the informal vote situation is to introduce electronic voting. People could be prompted on a screen if they were about to cast a dud vote, allowing them to correct the situation if they wanted to, he reasons.
While introducing electronic voting is not straightforward (the AEC has been looking at the idea for the best part of a decade), an e-system does open up some important opportunities to clarify what voters really think - beyond addressing the informal issue.
For starters, we should introduce "none of the above" and "other (please specify)" boxes in the candidates list and then have a short questionnaire along the lines of: Did you vote for your first preference because a) you like them as a local representative b) you like the party they represent c) you shook their hand at the station last Tuesday d) you think "climate change" is a two-word slogan.
This would be followed with questions such as: When did you make up your mind about who to vote for? Who did you vote for in the last election (do you even remember)? Do you always vote for the same party anyway?
There should also be a box to tick to register one's broader feelings. For example: Despite voting for candidate x, please do not take this as a sign that I think party y has done a good job. I simply find them slightly more palatable than party z.
And last, there should also be a basic general knowledge quiz, such as: how many houses make up the Federal Parliament?
Granted, these questions could also be asked on paper, but at great expense and great hassle. And true, the online option would raise some (addressable) privacy concerns.
But if they were answered - with relative ease - online, this would open up huge possibilities to do mind-popping analyses. Think about the cross-referencing with census data. We might be appalled by the results, but equally, we may also be amazed. And at least then, when the tribe spoke, we would know what they were actually saying.
Judith Ireland is a Fairfax Media journalist.