When it comes to pre-election party shenanigans, we've learned a lot this week about how the sausage is made.
And while it makes for some pretty good pass-the-popcorn reading, it's also a disappointing reminder that a large proportion of party politics is made up of factional in-fighting and bickering, with little thought of the needs of actual constituents, prospective or otherwise.
No party is immune, although the Canberra Liberals have displayed some spectacular "chaotic scenes" in the last week.
Long-time ally of former ACT senator Zed Seselja, John Cziesla, was voted out of the position to an empty chair during a fiery, hours-long meeting last week.
It's the kind of development that is good for ACT voters to be apprised of, a year or so out from the next election, while still being undeniably unseemly.
ACT Labor's election planning is also in a messy state. Two male candidates were dumped as part of a bitter preselection process that ensured the party met its affirmative action rules. Such rules - most would know them as quotas - are all very well, but when a preferred candidate - factionally unaligned but preselected by members - is dropped to meet a particular requirement, it doesn't feel very democratic, does it?
But then, has it ever been any other way? The ways and means of pre-selecting candidates has little to do with the people who will ultimately vote them in or out.
ACT Labor's requirement that the party run at least two female candidates in each of the five five-member ACT electorates is the best way of ensuring a good gender balance, but almost by necessity, the preferences of actual party members will be cast aside in the process.
The aim is to ensure the candidates "reflect the communities they seek to represent", but how on earth can we ever know if this is truly the case?
It is, in reality, pure politics, the art of playing the game and fighting the good fight, in ways that go well beyond working for the people, standing up for the voiceless and marginalised, making the world a better place, and all those things that politicians like to claim drove them into the job in the first place.
Meanwhile, in Senate-land, former ACT Liberal senator Zed Seselja, who you'd think would be revelling in having left all of this behind for better or worse, is displaying similar behaviour to that of his former colleagues in the capital.
His bid to earn Liberal preselection for the party's NSW federal Senate spot seems to confirm all the reasons he lost his seat here in the first place.
His announcement that he's "joining the exodus" of right-wing Liberals out of "woke" Canberra - to "fight against cancel culture, and the attempts by the government to censor opinions that they don't agree with" - would seem to be ignoring the needs and wishes of his prospective constituents in favour of reactionary, culture-warrior politics.
Does knowing all this change the way we ultimately vote? And do politicians even care?
Most likely, the process is all in the spirit of politicians - and aspiring ones - claiming they ultimately know what's best for voters.
But it's tempting to conclude that most of the time, they're not thinking of us at all, and it's naive to imagine that constituents are ever really top of mind for those ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring of local politics.
Send us a Letter to the Editor
Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published).
Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.