Election batshittery!

[highlyeccentric]

1. The libs are running a NINETEEN YEAR OLD UNDERGRADUATE in my electorate. Not that I had any intention of voting liberal, but - what, he can't get on the SRC so he runs for parliament

[ETA: It has been pointed out to me that I should be focusing on Mr Dore's lack of experience rather than his chronological age. My apologies; it was not my intent to slight Mr Dore's political ambitions (although it is my intent to mock the USyd Liberal students club for their long tradition of not getting into power in the SRC and Union and then apparently holding a grudge against student unionism during their later political careers; see also, John Howard). It seems to me, however, that Mr Dore's candidacy suggests that the Liberals have given up on the seat of Marrickville: he lacks both political experience and any sort of platform on local issues (so far as I know), and is not a serious candidate to oppose Anthony Albanese.]

2. The Democrats are attempting to return from the dead! I went and read all their policy statements, and was vaguely charmed. They do try so hard. On the other hand, they oppose the Mining Tax apparently on the grounds of states rights, of all things. This strikes me as exceedingly strange.

3. The Socialist Alliance have some truly batshit policies. Eg, they wish to fund public housing reforms using "state taxes and superannuation". I RATHER THINK PEOPLE WILL WANT THEIR SUPERANNUATION. They also wish to cap rents at 20% of income, which, as far as I can tell, will just mean that poor people can't find a house.

4. I thought the Socialist Alliance were the outer edge, but then I discovered the Socialist Equality Party are also running in my electorate. Their website seems to have no policies at all, just an "Election Statement" which details their support for workers rights, etc, but no plans on how to achieve this. Also apparently they're a branch of something called the Fourth International (Fourth International WHAT?), which appears to be a Trotskyist group.

5. I discovered down in the depths of the Greens policy documents the intention to institute "intersex" as "a gender recognised by law". On the one hand, props to them for trying, but I think they've managed to fail a little on the sex/gender distinction. Am I right that "intersex" is a physical/biological distinction and "genderqueer" would be the appropriate non-binary gender option? But of course then you'd have to decide whether you wanted to collect government data on the basis of *sex* or on the basis of *gender*, which I don't think is a question anyone has thought about (I can see good reasons for collecting either set of information, and you could do some complex data analysis if you had both sets; but you'd have to have a population who could understand why they were being asked for both sets of data).

Comments

[holyschist]

The town I grew up in had a high schooler who ended up in local politics (town council? I forget exactly). He did quite well, and I think is still active in local politics. Depends on the 19-year-old, I should think.

but you'd have to have a population who could understand why they were being asked for both sets of data

I also suspect some chunk of that population would not trust the gov't with that information.

[highlyeccentric]

You're right, it does depend on the nineteen-year-old; this candidate is obviously quite savvy if the Libs are willing to nominate him, even in a dead loss seat like the one in which I live (it's safe Labour, and the last serious threat to Labour was a couple of elections ago when it almost swung Green). But I think the *level* of politics also plays into it - a nineteen-year-old on local council makes sense to me, a nineteen-year-old in Federal parliament sounds a bit... unachievable. With bonus hilarity since it's pretty much a fact that the Young Liberals have trouble getting any serious representation in the Sydney Uni SRC and Union, and go off into their later political careers with a serious grudge against student unions. Mr Alexander Dore is getting a head start here!

I also suspect some chunk of that population would not trust the gov't with that information.

That too!

[holyschist]

But I think the *level* of politics also plays into it - a nineteen-year-old on local council makes sense to me, a nineteen-year-old in Federal parliament sounds a bit... unachievable.

Definitely! Local politics are very different from high level stuff everywhere, I think.

[highlyeccentric]

Following a discussion in my LJ, I have added an ETA to my comments regarding Mr Dore.

[viklikesfic]

Yeah, you're right on the sex/gender distinction there. Oops, Greens. I was writing about something similar the other day, gender vs. sex and genderqueer, because of course you have people like me who are totally cool with their biological sex and don't identify with the binary gender spectrum and then you have people who are not cool with their biological sex and they're two separate questions.

[highlyeccentric]

I've been informed on LJ that there are people who don't identify with the binary gender system but also don't identify as "genderqueer", so that might not be the best solution. I think "other" would probably cover it - and not cause a statistical nightmare as people have to try to decide whether previous and future information gathered on "males" and "females" is gender or sex data. Eventually policymakers and analysis *will* have to think about the sex/gender distinction, but I have a feeling we're not ready for that yet.

[viklikesfic]

*nod* I was sort of feeling just, gender ambiguous, but genderqueer is a good word for me if I sort of make its meaning match what I want it to. I don't know if I would have the courage to check an "other" box, it's kind of tricky.