In 2019, the High Court of Australia used the term ‘level playing field’ no less than 18 times when considering limits on electoral campaign expenditure. This article examines the usefulness of this metaphor when assessing the opportunity to compete in elections on an equal basis. It shows that the metaphor is often used in electoral jurisprudence and by electoral monitoring bodies, but rarely subject to analysis. One place where it has been analysed is in the democratisation literature, where it is defined in terms of access to state resources, media, and the law. However, it needs further elaboration to make it useful in analysing the fairness of electoral competition in established democracies. The assumption of only two teams, incumbents and opposition, needs to be modified through considering the hierarchy of incumbency benefits. A case study of the 2019 Australian federal election illustrates the differential access to state resources of electoral contenders as well as the need to add the role of private money to the attributes of the playing field. It finds that although there has been some levelling of the playing field at the State and Territory level, at the federal level there has been further tilting.

中文翻译：

---

公平竞争的理念：评估选举竞争的公平性

在考虑限制竞选活动支出时，澳大利亚高等法院在2019年使用了至少18次``公平竞争环境''一词。本文在评估在平等基础上参加竞选的机会时，研究了这个隐喻的有用性。它表明，隐喻通常用于选举法学和选举监督机构，但很少进行分析。在民主化文献中曾对此进行过分析，其中一个方面是根据对国家资源，媒体和法律的访问权限来定义的。但是，它需要进一步阐述，以使其有助于分析已建立的民主国家中选举竞争的公平性。需要通过考虑在职人员福利的层次结构来修改在职人员和反对者只有两个团队的假设。对2019年澳大利亚联邦大选的案例研究表明，选举竞争者获得州资源的方式有所不同，以及需要在竞争环境的属性中增加私人资金的作用。调查发现，尽管州和领地一级的运动场已有一定程度的平整，但在联邦一级，这种情况仍在进一步倾斜。