There are three days to go before Victorians make what is arguably one of the most important decisions they will come to in the next four years: who will receive their vote. The choice is between the Labor, Liberal and National parties, the Greens, one of the minor parties or an independent.

Whatever decision voters make it is likely to have a greater impact on their lives than they may appreciate. Their decision will influence: the state taxes they and other Victorians pay: the job opportunities available to those seeking employment: the standard of healthcare received; the effectiveness of education policy; what will be done to address, in a meaningful way, the looming crises that will inevitably accompany further climate change; crime prevention and community safety measures; and the assistance given to allow Victorians to care compassionately and respectfully for their aged parents, relations and friends and for those with disabilities.

One of the dilemmas voters face as they weigh up the pros and cons of the plethora of promises made in relation to the above issues, is whether they can trust MPs and political parties to honour their pre-election commitments post election.

In relation to the major political parties in particular, it seems that unless a promise is labelled “non-negotiable”, and is written down not just promised verbally, then it isn’t really a promise. It is something else, but those making the original promise have not adequately explained what constitutes that something else. The other thing that voters need to be aware of is that specific promises made on a particular issue, must be seen in the context of other promises. It is left to voters to try to work that out for themselves. They can listen to convoluted, unconvincing explanations long after they have cast their vote, but of course it is too late by then, as they are unable (if they wish) to make another choice until 2018. Nevertheless, if they pay close attention to post-election explanations for broken promises, they will know exactly what answers to seek before they vote in the next election.

Another thing that voters should contemplate is that a candidate’s “winning personality” and the capacity to make a brief, favourable impression, either in person or via various forms of media, does not translate into trustworthiness, decency, reliability, fairness and respect for voters, once they have cast their vote.

So what are voters to do – how can they possibly make an informed choice on Saturday and be confident that the promises that informed their vote will exist post the election?

While not a guarantee, a guide might be found in political parties and candidates’ attitude to Victoria’s integrity regime. These are the institutions, policies and procedures that are supposed to deliver transparency and accountability in relation to the decisions of elected representatives, governments, the public service, and any government-business relationship that involve taxpayers’ funds.

The integrity regime includes IBAC, the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, Freedom of Information laws and the rules and regulations surrounding political donations. All of these relate one way or another to the promises and policies areas referred to earlier.

It is not too late for voters to send an email to candidates standing for election and to various political parties asking them to explain, in detail, exactly what they will do to address the shortfalls in Victoria’s integrity regime and precisely when they will implement policies to address areas like political funding, which at the moment is shamefully nearly non-existent. Voters need to remember to get a response in writing.

None of these requests should be beyond the capacity of any person standing for office on Saturday or for political parties. If it is, it clearly demonstrates that they have not given sufficient attention to important transparency and accountability issues. The question then becomes, why not?

If whoever is elected to government breaks promises, it is incumbent of the electorate to listen to any plausible explanation and decide if circumstances genuinely dictate a change in direction. The electorate will believe the explanation only if it is comprehensive and persuasive and delivered without the usual spin that no one believes, not even those doing the spinning.

Spin degrades truth in politics and is responsible in large part for the decline in political standards.  Acclaimed philosopher and author Raimond Gaita argues strongly that, “We are suffering not just a decline in the standards of political behaviour but a serious illiteracy about the nature of politics”.

When people cast their vote they may wish to consider Gaita’s highly insightful comment and vote for whomever they believe will adhere to higher ethical standards than have been evident in Victorian public life of late.

As Gaita warned when writing Breach of Trust: truth, morality and politics, “I do not think that we seriously have an option but to think harder than we do, to hold each other intellectually more to account that we do.” Voters are part of the “we” and like members of parliament they too have obligations to themselves and the Victorian community when they cast their vote.

Dr Colleen Lewis is an adjunct professor in the National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University.