If the campaign is lost the war is still won

Yet the "Yes" case is full of celebrity marketing, particularly by people who live in Sydney and Melbourne, and politicians. This is a turn-off for people with incomes less than $30,000 a year who live anywhere else. No wonder the campaign is lagging in the outlying states.

By contrast the "No" campaign features people who were virtually unknown before this campaign. In a vox populi who would even know who Kerry Jones was? But a fair number of us recognize Malcolm Turnbull. So the "No" case appears to be more grass roots, despite the fact that the argument is run by millionaires on both sides.

Another negative aspect has been the decision of the ALP to campaign for a "Yes" vote. This reinforces the theme of a politician’s republic (as do the complaints of some coalition MP’s who felt their integrity impugned by the "No" case theme). It also potentially alienates some non-Labor voters. True, Howard’s tactical abandonment of the field to his lieutenants is a political gambit as well, but will not be read as such.

There is also the question of campaign discipline. Political campaigns are generally a conversation between two large opponents. Supporters stand on the sideline and barrack, but they don’t tend to get involved. In this campaign, the two teams are fragmented to start with, and there are all sorts of well-wishers on both sides who want to run on to the field and see their names in the headlines. The "No" case seems to have been more successful in limiting these infractions, perhaps because their support tends to come from people who do not have as much access to the media in the first place.

The "No" case has also been more successful in finding common ground between its various factions. While it initially looked like being more fragmented the Monarchists and Direct Election Republicans have settled down well together. Their slogan is flexible enough to accommodate both of them.

This masks one of the features of the campaign, and that is that the only type of government that either side accepts as legitimate is a Republican form. No-one of any weight is defending the Monarchy on the basis of loyalty to the Queen. The "No" case doesn’t admit this, because they have to maintain a delicate balancing act. A hard core of their supporters does believe that the Queen ought to be centre stage, and these are the ones most likely to man polling booths. But to the intellectual Constitutional Monarchists she is just a convenient part of the historical furniture. The real power, such as it is, is with the Governor-General.

On the "Yes" case side something similar happens with the role of the President. Here the balancing act is between those who want to maintain the Westminster system of government, who have to believe that the President represents hardly any change at all, and those who want something else, who have to be convinced that the role of President is something quite important. As the minimalist crowd is least likely to turn out with How-to-Vote cards, the argument has to appear to be slanted towards the importance of the President.

However, the tension has crippled the Republican campaign. They need to demonstrate strong benefits in the change for people to ditch the current system, but if they are too strident, then they will lose a number of minimalists. The "No" case has the luxury of being able to be both in favour of radical change, and no change at all.

Polls suggest that the referendum will be lost. Polls can be, and often are, wrong. They might even now be playing a part in which side wins. If the public believes the proposition will go down, then those who oppose the concept, given that they are drawn from the group least interested in politics, may use that as a reason for not bothering to vote. That it appears lost, but by a narrow margin, might also invigorate the grass roots of the "Yes" campaign.

One area where the "Yes" campaign has outgunned the "No" case has been in the use of the internet. Their website is easy to navigate, informative, and most importantly, interactive. I subscribe to the "Yes" email newsletter, but if there is one put out by the "No" case, I have yet to work out how to get on the list. There are 3,100 net surfers registered on the "Yes" Honour roll, and probably more on their supporters list. If bodies on the day is an issue, then the "Yes" case has a powerful tool to mobilize workers which the "No" case seems to have neglected.

Good ideas can win through, even if they are not marketed well. If the Turnbull model’s time has come, then it may carry the day, despite the factors against it. But whether it does or not, the struggle to get it up has surely done one thing, and that is that our view of our current system has changed radically. Queen and Country has become a thing of the past for most Australians, even those who cherish the institution.