Micromandering in WA Local Government

Definition

Micromandering (noun): A localised form of political manipulation, adapted from gerrymandering, where small factions work to control community perception, discussion spaces, and informal influence networks to secure advantage in local government.

Gerrymander — “manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favour one party or class; achieve (a result) by gerrymandering; ‘an attempt to gerrymander the election result’.”
— Oxford Languages (definition for context)

Unlike classic gerrymandering (redrawing maps), Micromandering manipulates the social boundaries of information, influence, and participation within a community to wilfully gain coercive control over council matters and shire-wide decision-making.

How it plays out in WA (no-ward councils included)

In shires like Toodyay that no longer run wards — where every councillor is meant to represent the entire district — the goal isn’t to “win a patch”; it’s to tilt the whole shire. Common tactics include:

• Conversation control: dominating community groups (online or in-person), limiting opposing views, coordinating posts/letters to keep a one-sided narrative.
• Gatekeeping: sidelining or ejecting dissenters from “community” organisations to present artificial consensus.
• Problem invention: creating or exaggerating issues to present themselves as the only solution.
• Minority noise → majority illusion: mobilising a small but vocal base to appear broadly representative.
• Old-network leverage: using old-money/old-school business relationships and historic family names to keep influence entrenched.
• Commercial opportunism: steering sentiment, zoning, or approvals toward mining, property, or industrial outcomes that favour a connected few.
• Badge shopping: selecting a candidate from any group they can influence (sporting club, hobby group, social association, “community” org) to borrow credibility and access a ready audience.
• Leap-frogging: using a council seat to springboard into State/Federal politics — name recognition built at the community’s expense.

Why we keep electioneering out of our spaces

The Morangup Residents Group exists to connect locals, share genuine information, and help each other. Election-season tactics like Micromandering divide communities, pressure newcomers, and bury practical issues under political noise. That’s why we have a clear policy:

No candidate promotions, no factional campaigning, no soft “drip-feed” electioneering. Take it elsewhere.

Plain-English policy (easy version)

• We don’t endorse candidates or parties.
• We won’t host campaigning. Posts designed to steer votes will be removed.
• We welcome discussion of real issues that affect all residents — minus the election spin.
• Respect across viewpoints. Disagreement is fine; intimidation and factional pile-ons are not.

Spotting Micromandering quickly

• Posts that push “we know best — we’ve been here longest,” while dismissing other locals.
• Copy-paste talking points turning up across multiple groups at once.
• “What have you done for our community?” guilt trips that mean “our clique,” not the whole district.
• Manufactured “crises” followed by instant “solutions” from the same small circle.

Smear campaigning: how it reinforces Micromandering

Micromandering is often supported by smear campaigning — a tactic that avoids open debate and instead works to undermine the credibility, confidence, or standing of people who question a preferred agenda.

Rather than responding to ideas on their merits, smear campaigns aim to make participation feel risky, uncomfortable, or socially costly — particularly in small communities where reputation matters.

How smear campaigning typically operates in local settings

• Vague reputation seeding: “just be careful” comments without specifics.
• Question framing: raising suspicion without making direct claims.
• Motive reframing: portraying legitimate concern as ego or malice.
• Selective amplification: repeating minor errors while ignoring substance.
• Private briefings: reputational damage done where rebuttal is impossible.
• Social freezing: discouraging engagement to isolate voices quietly.

Why this matters: disenfranchisement by attrition

Smear campaigning doesn’t just target individuals — it reduces who feels safe or welcome to participate. Over time, this leads to:

• Capable residents disengaging from discussion or nomination
• Newcomers learning quickly to “keep their heads down”
• Public silence being mistaken for agreement
• Decisions shaped by default rather than genuine consent

The result is not stronger governance, but concentrated influence, lower trust, and fewer voices at the table.

Early onboarding and influence capture

Another common feature of Micromandering is early-stage onboarding — targeting people as they arrive in an area and shaping their understanding of “how things work” before they’ve had time to observe the community for themselves.

New residents are often welcomed warmly, offered help, information, or social connection — but alongside this, they may be quietly steered toward particular narratives, groups, or positions framed as representing “the community” or “local consensus”.

In practice, this can look like:

• Fast-tracked inclusion: encouraging newcomers to join specific groups or causes immediately, before they’ve met a broad cross-section of locals.
• Pre-framed context: presenting local history, disputes, or issues through a single lens, with alternative perspectives omitted or dismissed.
• Borrowed legitimacy: using the presence of new residents to signal growing support or momentum for a particular agenda.
• Identity blending: blurring the line between genuine community groups and politically active networks.

This approach is effective because it happens before people have local reference points. Over time, it can normalise factional positions as “just how things are done here”.

Why local groups and organisations should pause and reconcile

Community groups, associations, and informal organisations play an important role in welcoming newcomers. That role also comes with responsibility.

Before aligning with external agendas or becoming a conduit for political activity, groups are encouraged to:

• Pause before amplifying: avoid acting as a launch pad for issues or campaigns they haven’t independently assessed.
• Reconcile claims: check whether information being shared reflects multiple perspectives or only one network’s interests.
• Maintain separation: keep clear boundaries between community connection and political mobilisation.
• Protect newcomers: allow new residents time to form their own views without pressure to “pick a side”.

Healthy communities grow through informed participation, not early capture. Ensuring space for observation, learning, and independent judgement benefits everyone — including those who arrive last.

Private outreach and trust-building through discrediting

In some cases, early onboarding does not happen publicly at all. Instead, it occurs through private contact — messaging new members shortly after they join a community space, before they’ve had time to form their own impressions.

This form of outreach is often framed as friendly help or guidance, but may be paired with quiet discrediting of existing groups, admins, or long-standing community members as a way to establish trust and alignment.

Common features of this approach include:

• Immediate private messages and/or Phone calls: contacting newcomers as soon as they appear, rather than engaging openly in the group.
• Confidence-building through contrast: positioning the sender as helpful or “in the know” by portraying others as untrustworthy, biased, or problematic.
• Pre-emptive framing: encouraging scepticism toward moderators or established groups before any direct interaction has occurred.
• Isolation by narrative: subtly discouraging newcomers from relying on public discussion or forming their own broad connections.

This dynamic mirrors playground-style trust games — not through overt hostility, but by winning confidence via the undermining of others. In small communities, the impact can be outsized.

Why this matters

When trust is built by discrediting others rather than sharing verifiable information, it:

• Distorts a newcomer’s understanding of the community
• Undermines transparent discussion
• Creates unnecessary suspicion and division
• Shifts influence away from open, accountable spaces

Healthy communities rely on open participation and visible discussion. Private persuasion that depends on smearing others erodes that foundation — regardless of the cause it claims to serve.

For new residents

You moved here for the lifestyle and community — not to be dragged into someone else’s political machine. Voting in WA local government elections is voluntary. If you choose to vote, make up your own mind based on issues that matter to you, not pressure in Facebook groups or politcally motivated entities looking to further thier wares under the premise of Community.

---

Have evidence of Micromandering behaviour affecting Morangup or the greater region? Share responsibly with admins and moderators via the contact page or MRG inbox.
Contact us

---