In his novel 1984, George Orwell wrote about the “Two Minutes of Hate”, that period wherein the Oceania proletariat channelled their frenzied loathing at enemies of the ruling party.

For Martin Hamilton-Smith, it’s more like “Four Years Of Revenge”.

And isn’t he enjoying it?

Although, Marty’s malignance isn’t frenzied and brutish, it is calculating, patient and seemingly designed to inflict the worst political damage on the party that spurned him as leader.

From the tenor of comments both to me and on these pages when InDaily broke the news this week that MHS would front the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission to explain how the Liberals shot themselves in the foot through successive elections, it is clear the prevailing mood is: “Who cares what he says?”

He is bitter at losing the leadership, they say. Who will take any notice of a turncoat? If he thinks this latest salvo will undermine the Liberals in his electorate, he is much mistaken.

All of which may be true.

But it’s not the point.

He is not trying to undermine the Liberals in his electorate, or any other.

He is trying to undermine them in the inquiry that will determine the lay of the electoral land for the 2018 state election.

And the only people he needs to convince are the members of the panel that will decide the boundaries of the crucial marginal seats at that poll – the same marginal seats that Labor has successfully sandbagged for the past two elections.

As such, this represents more than just another salvo, and far more than a mere intemperate swipe at the former colleagues that thwarted his leadership ambitions.

If he is successful in his mission, Hamilton-Smith could potentially land a bigger blow to the Liberals’ 2018 election hopes than anything Jay Weatherill could manage on the campaign trail.

The Liberals argue his arguments are legally flawed, but they don’t need to convince me. They need to convince the panel that comprises the boundaries commission – a panel which, in various guises over the years, has never been convinced of the need for wholesale changes to the electoral boundaries.

Put simply, Hamilton-Smith’s foray into this debate could damage his former party far more than he did when he quit for Jay Weatherill’s frontbench.

One imagines the Liberals will not be so passive this time round. They know, even more starkly after 2014, that the next election could be won or lost within the next few months.

Ahead of the 2014 election, the commission made minimal changes, noting “it is pertinent to reconfirm the findings of the 1991 Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission”.

That original review had argued that the slate had been cleared for both parties, but that “the Commission has no control over, and can accept no responsibility for, the quality of the candidates, policies and campaigns”.

In other words: “It’s not our fault if you get the campaign wrong.”

This is the mentality to which Hamilton-Smith will address his reflections.

“As a former leader of the SA parliamentary Liberal Party I have a detailed and well-informed understanding of the 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 election campaigns,” he wrote in his brief submission, upon which he will elaborate in person next month.

“In my opinion, the SA Liberal Party has won the two-party preferred vote whilst losing the majority of seats through failings in their election campaigning, principally: the lack of a party platform, confusion over party values, an absence of cogent and targeted policy development and flawed marginal seat campaigning.”

His testimony will make the task more difficult, but the Liberals must argue that any question about the success or otherwise of their campaign is, in essence, neither here nor there.

They must argue that such debates relate only to whether they should have had a one-seat majority or ten.

Because the fact is, they won the popular vote.

According to the constitution, that alone should allow them to form Government – as far as practicable.

And there’s the rub.

“On any view [the party] won more than 50 per cent of the votes cast,” the Liberals’ own submission argues.

“The fairness objective was not, however, achieved.”

This is unarguable.

What is arguable is whether the fairness objective can ever be achieved.

The Liberal mindset has become something redolent of SA’s collective myopia – a victim mentality, convinced the odds are stacked against it.

It’s understandable, of course.

But is it demonstrable?

The Liberals have won the popular vote in three of the last four elections, and won government in none.

They argue that the constitution says any party with more than 50 per cent of the two-party vote should – ideally – hold power.

They should also argue that a party that wins 53 per cent of the two-party vote should hold power by a comfortable margin.

The one election in the past 14 years in which Labor won the popular vote was 2006, and it was a smashing.

Mike Rann’s Labor won 56.8 per cent of the statewide two-party vote. They picked up six seats.

Four years later, the Liberals turned the tables with 51.6 per cent of the statewide 2PP, but won back just three Labor seats, plus another from Labor-aligned National Karlene Maywald.

Our electoral system does not appear to be overly responsive to significant changes in the political tide.

The Liberal submission to the commission makes a sensible, detailed argument, pressing a case that the methodology historically employed to determine the nominal candidates in independent-held seats is flawed.

Four years ago, the equivalent submission went through the state seat by seat recommending changes. This time round the party has eschewed this approach.

But it is taking the matter seriously, as it should. There are those in Liberal circles astounded with the lack of urgency shown by the party in the past on the boundary question.

For a party that pours money into safe and marginal seats, it’s arguable a more sensible investment could have been to hire the best legal minds in the business to press their case, instead of leaving it to in-house lawyers and former MPs.

And while there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the last redistribution in 2012, the party didn’t even pursue its legal options to challenge the commission’s findings.

One imagines the Liberals will not be so passive this time round. They know, even more starkly after 2014, that the next election could be won or lost within the next few months.

Their best hope will be to cement the principle – a principle many have argued is fundamentally compromised – that whichever party garners a statewide majority should seize government.

That leaves them one final problem.

At the last Newspoll in January, the two-party preferred margin was 51-49. Labor’s way.

How ironic if the SA Liberal Party finally gets its way on electoral fairness – and Jay Weatherill becomes the beneficiary.

It would be the culmination of Hamilton-Smith’s Four Years of Revenge.

Tom Richardson is a senior journalist with InDaily. His political column is published on Fridays.