Some of this sounds surprisingly like a string of articles I read in the paper when election season was about here, not too long ago.
In particular, it was focusing on factors like the irrelevant **** people were taking into account when placing preferences during opinion polls and the like; the horrendous ear-rings of the Labor female candidate (the incumbent) were rather hilarious a point of call, and then there was the fact that she was a woman, which spawned a whole other tangent of discussion.
And people bending to match party policy is something I see in my very own political science class.

Which in itself is a hilarious representation of the Australian voting demographic, 70-80% hard-core party supporters with 20% swinging.
Also, for anyone who looks back to the 'true to the Constitution' days of early democracy...lolololololol. I'm reading about how you were supposed to win an election back in the 18th century, which was: you were expected to supply alcohol to voters. James Madison owes his only lost election to his failure to do so in that one case. George Washington won an early Virginia election on the strength of 160 gallons.
This seems like an extension of pork-barreling. 'I'll spend money on your booze if you vote for me.' Can't say the same thing wouldn't work today in some voting constituencies.