The ultimate targets of the current crop of high-profile independents are mostly sitting Coalition MPs, invariably in safe seats. This applies largely to the House of Representatives, but it applies to the ACT Senate race too.

Whether these independents can be successful is the burning question. What is often neglected in election discussion is the secondary impact of these independents on other parties, including Labor, but especially the Greens, the leading minor party.

The first impact is already being seen when it comes to the limited publicity available to campaigning candidates. The Greens have suffered because there is only so much public airtime to be spread around. They struggle for air anyway, because the Coalition versus Labor is the main game. But the presence now of big-name independents only makes it harder for them.

Polls are already showing a rising vote for "other" candidates. The rise of the independents will probably impact negatively on the overall Greens vote for the House of Representatives. Some who voted Green in the past may choose to give independents their first preferences, because they believe only the latter have a real chance of defeating these Coalition MPs.

This will not matter for the Greens in the small number of inner-city seats in Sydney and Melbourne where the party is a chance of winning and prominent independents are not standing. But it may have an indirect detrimental impact if the Greens end up with a lower national profile. This is clearly something for the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, to be concerned about. The squeeze is on.

Both the independents and the Greens also worry about money, something that is essential to any election campaign, but always in short supply. They may even be in direct competition. The image problem currently faced by the independent member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, regarding her lack of transparency about a $100,000 donation is already a red flag about the many issues which can accompany such money.

One problem for the Greens is that money going to "climate action" independents will probably divert some financial support from their party. The big spender appears to be Simon Holmes à Court's Climate 200 organisation, but there are also many other smaller "green" donors who may reconsider where their money is going this time. It's not necessarily a zero-sum game, because the total pool may increase, but there is some competition.

An issue for independents, on the other hand, is whether even a little support from a substantial donor like Holmes à Court is compatible with the image of a battling, local independent candidate. It is not primarily an ethical question but a strategic one, because it may suggest they are part of a larger network or movement.

Such identification cuts both ways, appealing to some voters by attracting much needed publicity and suggesting momentum, but it may also muddy a David-versus-Goliath framing of the contest. Certainly, rightly or wrongly, the incumbent Coalition MPs will frame it that way during the campaign, and many have already started doing so.

On polling day, the independents need Greens preferences and vice versa, including in Senate races such as in the ACT. Where there is more than one independent, as in the ACT, preference distribution becomes especially complicated.

In our preferential system, preferences are crucial to the ultimate outcome, but they can also be a trap for all concerned, especially new players.

Voters themselves are the ones who actually allocate preferences on their ballot paper. Many are confused about how the distribution of preferences works during the count, and therefore are ripe to be misled.

READ MORE:

Candidates and their campaign teams are the ones responsible, however, for deciding their official stance towards preferences, especially whether they will recommend preferences to voters through their official how-to-vote cards and other forms of advice to voters, like leaflets and media advertisements.

They face a dilemma, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages. They must judge whether reciprocal arrangements serve their interest. Should they strike a deal between rival candidates or not allocate preferences at all (an open ticket)?

The major advantage of the preference distribution system for candidates is that it helps to accumulate and corral votes. For voters, allocating preferences helps their favourite candidate win, and if they don't win it may ensure that their second or even third-preference candidate wins.

The major disadvantage for candidates is that their preference distribution can and will be used against them during the campaign. They are part of their identity as a candidate, and help reveal their values. Like a policy position, it contributes to their brand and image in the community.

For instance, if a centrist independent, as most of the high-profile independents are, allocates preferences to the Greens, their major party rival can then allege that they are really a "Green in disguise". This may turn off some of their potential centrist or centre-right voters. The Coalition candidate will emphasise this to their advantage; just as Labor does when they are threatened by an independent.

Many ballot papers will be more crowded with potential winning candidates at this incredibly messy election. Allegations about money and preferences are already circulating. This may go over the heads of many voters, but some parties and candidates could suffer.