That record makes correctly forecasting the result of the ACT Legislative Assembly elections in a year's time difficult. A more useful exercise is to outline the factors at play. Those two recent elections were a forerunner of some likely campaign themes. The 2020 election will in many ways be a rerun of past campaigns.

Not too much has changed. The major government leaders, Andrew Barr and Shane Rattenbury, remain in place. Alistair Coe, replacing Jeremy Hanson as Liberal leader, is a familiar figure with 11 years in the Assembly. Labor, the Liberals and the Greens dominate, holding all the seats, despite the best efforts of minor parties and Independents.

The last ACT election featured a concerted attack by the opposition on the government's record, with the light rail controversy, Mr Fluffy, and higher government rates featuring prominently. According to the opposition, the government was tired after 15 years in office, and it was therefore "time for a change". Some Labor supporters opposed to light rail bewailed the lack of alternatives for their vote.

The Barr government highlighted the conservatism of the opposition, contrasting it with its own more progressive values. It stood both on its economic record and its ability to defend Canberra and the public service community against the federal Coalition government. The latter is a very familiar theme.

In the federal campaign, Liberal advertising tried to link Barr and ACT rates with its attack on Bill Shorten over tax policy, while Labor advertisements against Senator Zed Seselja emphasised his conservative social values, linking him to conservative Liberals like Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton. Climate change was a constant issue.

The important differences included the electoral systems. The last ACT election was also the first for the enlarged Assembly, and many independents saw this as a real opportunity. Some did relatively well, but none were elected. In the federal campaign the progressive lobby GetUp! was active against the Liberals in the Senate sphere, while massive anti-Labor advertising by Clive Palmer's United Australia Party and a campaign by News Corp papers hurt Labor.

READ MORE:

The biggest difference between the issues is the prominence at the territory level of community unease about development politics, poor planning and the corruption of good process by insiders, together with flaws in service delivery in health and public transport.

Barr is undoubtedly right to say that "people play little attention to ACT politics broadly", but that is a mixed blessing for a government. It may mean that it can sail under the radar, insulated by apathy from too much criticism, but it may equally mean that there is little real affection for local political leaders, making them more easily dispensable.

ACT politics can be easily overshadowed or, even worse, patronised by federal ministers and national journalists willing to take a cheap shot. Anti-self-government feeling remains in some circles. Media coverage is less focused on ACT government, or at least more restrained. Barr has been critical of his coverage by The Canberra Times, and City News runs a stable of anti-government columnists, like planner Paul Costigan and former chief minister Jon Stanhope.

Stanhope's role is fascinating to watch, but his electoral impact is unpredictable. There are no other former government leaders around Australia who are so constant in their criticism of their own side of politics on a range of issues. Maybe his criticisms will be a weapon for the opposition to weaken the government by empowering potential Labor deserters to the Liberals - but even Stanhope supporters still must take sides in the ballot box, not just proclaim from the pulpit.

Elections have some familiar components, including leadership, which was generally regarded as a deciding factor in the last federal election. That probably won't be the case locally.

Neither ACT major party leader is well-enough regarded by the general public at the human level to decide the election. Barr keeps his guard up, is not especially popular, and is seen as distant and stand-offish. Coe fails to break through much at all, is also not especially popular, and is largely still unknown. Greens leader Rattenbury may be better known than either of the others in a personal sense.

The Hare-Clark system of five-member electorates with smaller quotas to get elected emphasises candidate-level campaigning more than at a federal election. Yet it means party candidates tend to compete against one another rather than the other side, while independents still find it hard to break through.

Labor has released the names of its 25 candidates. That gives them time to make themselves known to their electorates and vice versa. The sooner other candidates, in addition to sitting members, come forward the better.

Most candidates in 2020, including many of the sitting members, will not be well known to the wider public. That does not mean they are not of high quality, but it does mean that it is harder for voters to judge them.

The best election is one in which big fields of candidates, distinguished by their varied personal characteristics, life experience and policies, enthusiastically face the starter's gun.

Let the race begin. My only prediction is that it will be closely fought.