AS the old saying goes, a week is a long time in politics. So does that mean a two-week pre-polling period is too long?
David Paull stood down as the Greens candidate for Parkes after it came to light he had posted comments on social media, which stated he did not believe Martin Bryant was responsible for the 35 murders at Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
Despite the controversy Mr Paull will still stand as an independent.
While some might think little of the situation - the Greens have historically polled in the low single figures in both Parkes and New England - it does highlight the problem with the pre-polling system.
What if, instead of a Greens candidate, it was a prominent Nationals candidate who suddenly became an independent candidate?
Depending on the circumstances, it's fair to say this would make many residents second guess or change their vote.
But wait a minute - thousands of people have already cast their vote. In New England, more than 28,400 people have voted, or more than a quarter of the electorate, while in Parkes more than 23,500 people have voted, or one in every five residents.
Too late, their vote still goes to that candidate.
As this hypothetical shows, there is definitely room for a national conversation around pre-polling.
And to start that conversation, let's throw a number out there - to be conservative, let's halve the length of the pre-polling to just a week.
That should give anyone who is going to be legitimately busy on election day ample time to get to a pre-polling booth.
How about we take the conversation further and address the elephant in the room? Digital voting.
We can move massive amounts of money safely and securely. Surely we can develop a secure voting system.
To avoid the overload issue we saw with the 2016 census website, we could start off semi-digital - people could have the option to pre-poll online the week before the election.