An interesting tidbit appeared in the news this week: State Labour MP Evan Thornley has suggested a reform to the electoral system, theoretically giving the vote to children and teenagers. He has spun this as the next step in the continuing expansion of suffrage – to include the unpropertied, to include women, and now children. The problem? That Thornley’s idea would not actually enable those under the age of eighteen to vote, in person, as they wish to – rather, their parents would be able to vote once for themselves, and once again for each child.

Thornley claims that his proposition would encourage long-term thinking, planning for future generations, giving Australia a better attitude toward the environment, education and so on. I must say, though, that I’m skeptical. Parents might vote according to their children’s future needs; they might not. They might talk to to their children about politics; they might not. Giving them extra political clout will in no way guarantee that they will use it responsibly or vote according to their children’s wishes. It could, rather, be read as attempt to flatter the family lobby, which, if implemented, would make young adults, childless couples and those whose relationships aren’t legally recognisd – Labor certainly haven’t made any great moves toward recognising same-sex couples – second-class citizens. At the very least, it would lessen the relative voting power of those who normally support long-term thinking, the environment and education!

Why propose such a contradictory scheme? Thornley’s a prominent Fabian, not normally the sort to pander to the family values crowd. Perhaps because he was elected with only .18% of the primary vote – as is the nature of upper-house party tickets, he fared rather poorly in primaries, and only received his seat on preferences. Even I got a higher percentage of the vote than that, back in 2004! So Mr Thornley might find simultaneous lip service to the progressive vote and the family vote quite useful. One quote I found particularly telling, though, was that “parents [could] cast additional votes on behalf of their kids until the kids turn 18 when they cast their own vote.” Why is this important? Because the Greens have had the policy of allowing voluntary voting for teens aged sixteen to eighteen for years – that is, a genuine extension of the franchise, young people actually casting their votes, without relying on their parents. That would encourage discussion of the issues in families, but young people wouldn’t have to agree with their parents to be represented! They’re the party empowering the youth, and the ALP might be wishing to steal their thunder.

As a tangental postscript, I’m dubious of an absolute notion of ‘progress’ – of an all-encompassing force making things bigger, better, faster, shinier, which we have to keep up with or we’ll fall BEHIND and be BACKWARD. An evolutionary metaphor is apt. Living things don’t all evolve toward the same ideal; rather, they evolve to, and to exist in harmony with, the world around them. Australia was once a land of giant, fantastic creatures – but the environment changed, and they evolved, and now we have small, cuddly creatures. They seem less powerful, more awkward, but they’re just the animals we need for living in the land we have and being part of the ecosystems we have. We need to to the same – to do what’s right, what’s smart and helps us fit into our world, not just makes us feel modern and powerful.

But, the ideology of progress is pervasive. Consider even the humble historical costume drama! The characters we are to recognise as clever are the ones who protest social problems which we have solved by modern day, while the characters we are to recognise as utter cranks are the ones who protest social problems which we haven’t. The hero opposes feudalism, autocracy and tightlacing, while the ideologue or hypocrite opposes capitalism, militarism and short hair on men. The heroine who loves without her parent’s consent receives a happier ending than the heroine who loves within her own sex. Progressivism would be nothing without conservatism, and carries it wherever it goes; to undo a bad decision is a greater wrong than to have made it in the first place, and ultimately the status quot is enforced all the same.