Excellent.

As the author stated, "...young adults over 16 years increasingly have work experience, get taxed, have sex, write and share more ideas, are better informed and are more savvy with technology than any previous generation. Wiltshire can bemoan our “throwing of young people in the deep end” all he likes but the days of shielding young teenagers from “adult realities” are over, I’m afraid the internet and television inevitably won that bout.

But the best reason for lowering the age barrier is that the senior years of high school are the best, and possibly the last, opportunity we have to sit future generations down, promote collaborative discussion on issues they feel are important; explain why every vote matters; why it’s worth filling out an enrolment form; and above all, and if they choose to do so, the value of walking down to the ballot box that weekend with their peers and participating in Australia's democracy..."

And 16 year olds are permitted (in most states) to drive. If they are old enough to drive, then they are old enough to vote. Admittedly there are adults who never achieve sufficient maturity to perform any of the above, fortunately they are in they minority. Treating teens as children will only result in them behaving as such.

When youngsters err, we are now told that the human brain is not fully developed until the again of 25; drink and drugs is bad for the ‘developing brain’.

If the brain has not fully developed prior to age 25 it is, of course, totally and dangerously wrong to suggest that 16 year olds be given the right to vote.

Knowing more about technology than their elders, driving cars and having sex, are not good reasons for having the vote. In fact, rather than thinking about the possibility of giving kids the vote at 16, we should give consideration to lifting the driving age to 18. The statistics for under 25 death and maiming on the roads are horrendous, as are the observations made daily of P-platers performing stunts in cars

This suject really is one that should be dismissed as not worth discussion.

Of course 16 year olds do NOT have the maturity to make a rational vote, in fact the voting age should be raised to 21, at least. their decissions are purely on sex hormones and their interest is only on their appearance and the other gender. One only has to take a stroll around a shopping centre to see this. Or see the action in the CBD on Saturday night to see how mature the young really are. Or how about the young uni students demostrating at a financial conference. Or the silly antics of the PETA organization.

In view of the road death toll of young drivers, the age to get a car licence should also go up. Further demostration of the immaturity of the young. what a stupid idea.

The maturity to vote has not a lot to do with age.
We need to establish a criteria other than age ; perhaps an enrolment questionnaire could be devised where a potential voter would need to answer some fundamental questions such as:

What is a Municipal Council and what are it's functions.?
What is a State Government and what are it's responsibilities ?
What is a Portfolio?
What are the functions of the House of Representatives ?
What is a Select Committee ?
What is the purpose of the Senate ?
Name 6 Political Parties in Australia
What is a coalition.?
What is a Trade Union ?
Why do we need Trade Unions?
What is a Parliamentary Democracy ?

If the applicant cannot answer the questions, they learn the answers and try again

Oh no, it's bad enough having the 'sex talk,' I can only imagine that we would now have to go through the 'voting talk'.

Mum: Now young lady, please sit down, there's an election coming up and we need to talk.

Daughter(looking embarrassed): Oh mum, the teachers at school taught us all about voting..

Mum: You listen here, there's things that your teachers won't teach you, like how it's about values and commitment. Before you vote you need to have a very careful think about who you vote for and make a commitment to them, you don't want to be known as a political swinger, or else anyone with a fly-by-night tax reform scheme will try and take advantage of you.

Daughter: Mum, I've got something to tell you...I've already voted.

Mum: WHAT?

Daughter: I already registered and sent in my vote by absentee ballot because the election coincides with schoolies.

MUM: OH MY GOD, who was it? Who did you vote for? It wasn't that Rudd was it? I know he looks all calm and collected but he's got a foul mouth, a bad temper and an even worse ETS. He's trouble in my opinion.
Daughter: Mum! I'll vote who I want to vote for!

Mum: That's what your father said right before the 1996 election, and look what we got, a bloody GST. Don't trust those politicians, they'll make all the promises in the world just to get into your ballot box and then screw you against the wall. I only say this because I love you.

Daughter: Ok mum, I'll try and be careful, ok? (hugs)

Yep, a lower voting age would be even more trouble and heartache for parents I can see it.

Australia's compulsory vote puts us in the forefront of democratic nations. Its negative side-effect is that even people who don't think very deeply about civic affairs get to decide the future government. Adding 16 year-olds to this population is unlikely to tip the balance towards less well-informed voting.

The way that politics works, with interest groups and campaign donations playing a major role in determining government policy, until younger people are able to help decide the outcomes of elections, politicians won't take their interests seriously. And they should - young people should have a say over the world they will, in a generation, be responsible for managing. Change is happening apace and two years can make a big difference to, for instance, developing climate change policy which actually reduces carbon emissions.

Perhaps it should be obligatory for people to state their age group when posting on this article? (For the record I am old enough to be a grandmother)

Dear old farts,

"A seven-year study of more than 2,000 healthy people aged 18-60 involved 12 tests of mental agility such as solving puzzles, recalling words and story details, and spotting patterns. For 9 of the 12 tests, the peak performance was achieved on average at age 22. By age 27, scores on the three tests that measure brain speed, reasoning, and visual puzzle-solving ability all began to decline."

Perhaps the argument should not be about allowing young people to vote, but wether or not you yourselves should still be allowed to vote.

Now seriously, it is well established that it is education that most effects responsible drinking/driving/sex, so shouldn't this also be applied to voting? Many posters just reiterate the circular arguments the author criticizes. If intelligence and responsibility were prerequisites for voting, I expect we would have a very low turnout...

The biggest arguement against lowering the voting age to 16 is the huge range in the level of maturity and social responsibility that exists at this age.
Yes, there are 16 year olds who are able to make a more reasoned and responsible decision on who to vote for than most adults. For every one of those there is another who is equally irresponsible and unreasonable.
Yes, the disparity exist for all age demographics, but at 16, it is grossly exaggerated.
So that we don't throw the "baby" out with the bath water, because the ones in the first category are really the ones we do want to vote, how about we make voting optional for 16-18 year olds? Only the ones who are really interested will go to the effort of registering and turning up to vote. I think we may find that most of the examples cited by Mr. Jorgensen have optional voting systems in any case.

Even with the exceptions, I don't think as a group they are mature enough to vote. Most 16 year olds are still developing their ideas while going through the angst of puberty.

Why are we always in such a rush to adultise our kids. It happens naturally with experience and at 18 there are an extra two years on the clock.

Teens may have greater access to information but access has not changed the essential biology and psychological make-up of human beings.

There are lots of ways we can include teens in discussions about politics along this journey to adulthood without necessarily lowering the voting age; such as discussions around the dinner table, active participation in groups and other high school activities.

It is all part of the process.

Until someone is in the workforce or having to manage money - they have little or no idea about value.

So asking 16 year old to make decisions on who best can handle an economy is delusional.

This is a cynical attempt by the ALP to increase the voting pool since most young people vote ALP, towards themselves and staying in power, whatever the cost tot he community. When they get older they tend to change their attitudes somewhat, some may continue to vote ALP but many as they mature see that the world is a different place when it is asking for their financial aid.

This debate is not about idealism or maturity to the ALP, it is about votes. I see many posters agonize over what a 16 year can deal with, but let's face it - they are putty in the hands of master manipulators like the ALP media management organizations and the Union movements money to pay for advertising.

When the PMs office has the biggest media operation in the history of our parliamentary system, and now it has been announced he wants to fund more messages from "Australia (ALP) to the world - I suspect foul play.

It's all about winning the daily news cycle to them, Facebook friends etc - we are about to be taken for a big ride.

The coalition will not stand a chance, fine if you want a one party system - but I don't - I have been a swinging voter all my life and do not want Australia skewed by this sort of abject grab for power.

Wiltshire is right to say, "ALWAYS beware of governments that try to tinker with the voting franchise. Beware especially of the Rudd government's efforts to lower the voting age to 16."

Labor wins either way because if the voting age was ever dropped they would benefit because more younger people vote Labor and if the voting age is not changed, Labor succeeds (as John Howard often did) from yet another exercise in wedge politics.

The Greens, forever superficial and opportunist see the same advantages as Labor in dragging this red herring onto the political stage.

If Mr Rudd wants to improve democratic processes in Australia there are some very easy and obvious things he could do, one of which would be to acknowledge through his and his ministers' behaviour that voters' democratic rights are not exhausted at the polling booth and there should be ongoing consultation on policies with the community.

Come to think of it, the government has conducted grandstanding exercises to 'consult' with youth but absolutely zilch has come of them. So much for a government that pretends it is concerned about the opinion of youth!

This is the inconvenient truth isn't it, that the major parties do not care for consultation with the community between elections and frankly they don't believe in giving out any information either, unless it is to their partisan advantage. If they were to do those things of course all people including youth would be involved in decisions that affect them. But no, none of that is going to happen because this is all wedge politics.

Like Howard, Rudd is no statesman and will one day pay the price for playing politics when he should have been attending to the very serious issues he refuses to even discuss, such as the continuing record numbers of immigrants. This raises another issue which is the Labor government's consistent authoritarian and repressive response to any criticism of its multiculturalism and immigration policies.

Bugsy: should be writing novels that was outstanding.
I am all for raising the driving age to 21.
I am all for raising the drinking age to 21.
I think voting at 18 can be borderline mentality, as far as politics goes.
These kids don't leave school till they are 18. Their best outside knowledge consists of how to get into nightclubs with a fraud ID.
I don't recon you would find a bunch of school kids standing around talking politics, let alone reading the stuff.

I believe all people should become eligible to vote once they have become, & only once they have become, fully self suficient, independent citizens.

While they are still dependent on parents, or government for all, most, or even some, of their income, I don't think they are in a position to make independently reasoned choices.

Students, in particular, are too easily influenced by their teachers/ professors, to be able to cut through the rubbish thrown at them.

No doubt if you are old enough to vote you are old enough to be named when you commit an adult crime. I don't have a lot of confidence in the younger voter. They did give us our present Government which really says it all.

They are not more mature and have less real life experience than before. They tend to be karaoke children if anything and still in nappies at 20. They cling to Mum and Dad till the very last minute. They drive like idiots and have no creativity or ability for rational thinking. Make the voting age 28.

Dear Hughie
If you wish to extend the franchise to sixteen year olds, OK. But how would you handle sixteen year olds being Members of Parliament?

Wasn't Magna Carta @ Runnymede largely about "no taxation without representation". Wasn't the Boston Tea Party about "no taxation without representation". Is there a half-way point? Continue with all Australian citizens who reach 18 years of age required to enrol and vote, but add 16-18 year olds who pay tax (perhaps a threshold level) may enrol and vote. Then we can look at a further step down the track. I am not sold on the obvious maturity of the 18+ year olds in comparison to the 16-18 years olds. I think the 16-18 year olds may show more maturity generally speaking.

Poll Clerk,

Thank you. I am left wing working class. I have no representation as the middle class chardonnay siping basketweaver socialist stole the Labor Party.. I will claim 100% tax back. Cheers.

For this lesson, I shall place two glasses on the table: one short and fat and full of clear liquid, and the other is tall and skinny and empty.

Now watch closely as I take the short and fat full glass and pour the liquid into the tall thin glass.

The questions are:

1. How much liquid is now in the tall skinny glass?
(more, less, equal?)

2. What colour is the liquid?
(blue, clear, red?)

...

If you answered Q1 as 'equal' you were almost correct, because there would remain a small quantity of residue in the short fat glass.

Congratulations! You have the right to vote. You have proven that you understand the physical laws expected of a ten year old citizen regarding the conservation of matter, and that is a fundamental prerequisite of government. Well done!

If you answered 'blue' or 'red' for question two, then you might insist on the right to vote, although 'clear' would have been what Piaget expected.

If you refused to answer because you never saw me actually pour anything from any glass into any other glass right now in this post, and realised that I am spouting vapourware, then you might realise the pointlessness of wasting your time voting in elections. 9-)

seano has been on the grog.
The younger set these days don't have responcability on their mind.
In my day it was to find a lifetime friend of the opposite sex.
Now it is buying a new overpowered car, and living on ya parents.
How can the youth of today be trusted, with a voting right.
Some young bloke said , if ya haven't lost ya licence 3 times you haven't lived.
They recon green house gas is causing problems, it's runs a distant second on the y generation.
Alcohol and drugs on an under developed brain !
The way things are going there won't be the responsible amount of youth around to take charge of any thing.
It all comes back to the parents of course >

'Seano has been on the grog.
The younger set these days don't have responcability on their mind.
In my day it was to find a lifetime friend of the opposite sex.
Now it is buying a new overpowered car, and living on ya parents.
How can the youth of today be trusted, with a voting right.
Some young bloke said , if ya haven't lost ya licence 3 times you haven't lived.
They recon green house gas is causing problems, it's runs a distant second on the y generation.
Alcohol and drugs on an under developed brain !
The way things are going there won't be the responsible amount of youth around to take charge of any thing.
It all comes back to the parents of course >
Posted by Desmond, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 6:55:51 PM'

Best I can do is put that one down to one of your 'senior moments' Des.

I hope that you might be more lucid and less insulting to 42 year old seventh-generation Australians when you get your normal mind back.

No more posts for me in this thread.

I am horrified at the thought that anyone would even consider giving the vote to 16 year olds!

My 17 year old daughter and her friends (all reasonably intelligent) really couldn't give a damn about politics.
They are far too busy with the very difficult and emotionally labile business of being young adolescents.

There are a few of her friends who are into current affairs, but mostly it is sex, boys, fashion, cosmetics, mobiles and....sex!

I also wish the drinking age was back up to 21 (now that I am slightly older than that!) and that the driving age was 18.
I am not sure if I would feel the same way if I had no teenage children however.

I've known 16 year-olds with more political knowledge and acumen than many adults. Conversely - as is often demonstrated in this forum - there are many adults who are pig-ignorant about civics and our political system, but who are required by law to vote in elections.

I think voting in Australia should be optional rather than compulsory, and should only be available to those citizens of any age who can demonstrate a basic knowledge of Australian political and civic systems, possible via a written exam or similar.

CJ

Agree with you completely. I would also add that the requirement for preferential voting be dispensed with.

However, this topic has provided a venue for people to vent hysteria about the behaviour of our youth, just as has been done for generations. The more things change...

Dear Fractelle in Queensland State elections we have optional preferential voting. If you don't wish to exhaust your vote you don't have to.
And CJ the only compulsory part of our voting system is rocking up to a polling station or applying for postal or absentee ballot papers. What you do with the papers then is up to you.

Hugh Jorgensen's concluding paragraph perhaps gives insight into understanding a key element of the proposal to lower the voting age. He says:



"But the best reason for lowering the age barrier
is that the senior years of high school are the best,
and possibly the last, opportunity we have to sit future
generations down, promote collaborative discussion on issues
they feel are important; explain why every vote matters;
why it’s worth filling out an enrolment form;"




Because there are going to be lots of enrolment forms put into the system if this proposal of reducing the voting age is adopted.




There are around 250,000 persons in each of the 16 and 17-year-old cohorts of the Australian population, a total of around half a million potentially eligible new electors. Someone needs more names.

That's what articles like this are 'scenery' for: provision of an at least subliminally acceptable reason explaining what by all other measures would ordinarily be a completely inexplicable influx of new names onto the electoral rolls. That's what happened the last time the voting age was lowered, in March 1973.

By Saturday 8 December 1973, the occasion of a referendum, and the printing of up-to-date electoral roll supplementary lists, there was "a total of around 550,000 enrolments ... on the rolls without satisfactory explanation ...". The words quoted come from page 27 of a study titled "Australia: Aggregate Enrolment Levels 1947-1987", which formed part of a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of the Australian Parliament. That study can be downloaded as a .pdf document by clicking on Submission No. 123 in the list of submissions on this web page:

http://aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm

If, in the circumstance of reducing the voting age to 16, the public can be encouraged to believe that the bulk of the 16 and 17-year-old cohorts were to have been sat down while still at school to complete electoral enrolment forms, the aggregate enrolment level credibility gap can be closed.

Time to ask yourself a few questions, Hugh.

The reason that insurance companies have premiums on drivers below 25 is not because they are inexperienced (new drivers at 30 are not penalised) but because their judgement is not fully developed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-teen-brain-too-rat

For those without subscriptions to Scientific American, the gist of the article is that while by 18 their judgement of right and wrong is developed, their ability to accurately evaluate consequences is only completely developed by 25 (but mostly by 20).

Below 18 the law considers that even their lowered ability for reason provides them protection from the full force of the law (see legal competence) which is hardly a resounding endorsement to vote.

The previous voting age or age of majority was 21 which would be more in line with fully developed reasoning, however, as at 18, we are deemed to adult and can serve in the military, one cannot raise the voting age above 18.

Lowering the voting age will not deliver many votes based on sound independent judgement..

CJ, whilst some at 16 might show signs of insight most do not.

SM,
You beat me to the punch, I understand it has something to do with the development of the frontal cortex the decision making part of the brain.

Other research has shown there are other short coming in thee immature brain that can and does impede the value of their thinking ability. However, simply having the equipment doesn't guarantee it will be used or properly.

Prof Greenfields (world renown specialist) also cautions not to under estimate the importance of conditioning (nurture).

NB Because these conclusions are based on statistical conclusions it therefore it therefore has the potential for statistical aberration or exceptions.

This would indicate that the ideal would be on a case by case exception. For all practical reasons I guess I would err on the side of the lowest common denominator.... and vote a (qualified) No.

C'mon CJ and Fractelle

You are better than that, it is not hysteria - just a different point of view.

I am not sure that the incompetency of some adults is an argument for inviting more incompetence albeit a younger age group.

I won't lose any sleep if 16 year olds are given the vote but there are certainly far more electoral reforms I can think of to improve the system, than giving younger people the vote, including a greater expansion of participatory democracy via referenda.

Hi pelican - I didn't say anything about hysteria. What I did say is that I think that voting in Australian elections shouldn't be compulsory, but rather should be restricted to those citizens of any age who can demonstrate that they understand our political system and civic institutions.

I agree that there are other electoral reforms that are at least as urgent. On preferential voting (which is one aspect of our system that relatively few current voters actually understand), I'd be hesitant about moving to a 'first past the post' system that can effectively disenfranchise the majority of voters in any given election. Indeed, Beattie's introduction of optional preferential voting in Queensland has effectively locked out the minor parties and guaranteed the ALP over a decade in office, despite manifest incompetence and undemocratic behaviour.

I'd like to see some form of proportional representation in State Lower Houses and the Federal House of Representatives, similar perhaps to the Hare-Clark system that operates in Tasmania, or indeed that which operates in the Senate.

Not so sure about citizen initiated referenda - they sound good in principle but it worries me that they seem to be championed principally by lunatic fringe far right groups.

Left right center, who cares. Has political persuasion got top come into every debate ?
This is not a foot6ball match.
Isn't the side with the most plausable situation the winner on the day./
There are exceptions to the rule, being far between'\

In this town we have a 19 yr old councilor.
This is great,
He got involved in investigating night clubs for his own knowledge and got a belting for his troubles. And ended in hospital.
Does this tell tell you something. Or is that just one of those thing that happen.

Examinator,

Appreciated.

The argument to lower the voting age normally comes from the lunatic fringe who think that their agenda is hip and cool, and because the old farts over 25 can't be persuaded, the teens can.

I can just imagine them handing out lollies with the voter advice.

I was very political when I was young. Idealist. We would solve the problems of the world over dinners served on coffee tables surrounded by incense, pampas grass decor and the long awaited, long out of date arrival of The Guardian from London. Knew all the answers. It was all so easy. I had posters on the wall of Gough Whitlam. He was my idol, my hero and his poster shared my wallspace with Jimi Hendrix. That is the trouble with youth, they need idols, poster causes and pot.:)

The Missus <"That is the trouble with youth, they need idols, poster causes and pot.:)"

Lol! I like your style Missus!

I find C J Morgan's assertion that "there are many adults who are pig-ignorant about civics and our political system, but who are required by law to vote in elections" and that the vote should be limited to "those citizens of any age who can demonstrate a basic knowledge of Australian political and civic systems, possible via a written exam or similar" to be quite repugnant.

Should C J Morgan ever care to mingle with the ignorant herd he is so contemptuous of he might be surprised by the common sense, judgement and wisdom that abound in so many people who may not have had the benefit of a formal education and the often elegant, practical solutions they have for common problems.

But so much for democracy in your world, CJ - a totalitarian world where people have no right to vote unless qualified to do so through passing a test of your choosing.

Then you go on to say that voting should be optional too. Why so, when you have already put prospective voters through your sieve to ensure only the 'right' people are allowed in the door on polling say?

Cornflower in CJ's defence.
What makes you think we have democracy? Perhaps you can explain to me how the party system works to give democratic choice to the people?
What makes you think that the majority WANT to vote?

I think there's a fine line between mob rule (lynch party mentality and mass fear) and democracy. Democracy comes with some responsibilities one of which is to make some effort to know what they're talking about and think about the issues.

To suggest that simply admitting that Australia's electorate is imperfect doesn't= someone who doesn't respect people rights or dislikes people is preposterous. It simply means they're telling as it is and isn't that what you wanted on another post?

I would point out that it is because of our indifference, recalcitrance we have such a flawed system.

The idea that popular locally automatically means best for the country is farcical. Pauline Hanson had appeal but displayed little or no understanding beyond her own unsupportable prejudices.

Ask the average Qlder what differentiates their parliament form all others and you'll get some amazing answers. Their state was run by a premier who didn't know what the separation of powers were? And look at the mess that left. Yet some OLOers want him back.

We're talking about something serious here not who going to win the cricket or the AFL next year. In every other endeavour we demand the people know what their on about why not how the country is to be run?

If its good enough for new citizens to be demanded to know something about our country why not the rest? Knowledge comes with effort not genetically or through osmosis.

"I would point out that it is because of our indifference, recalcitrance we have such a flawed system.
The idea that popular locally automatically means best for the country is farcical. Pauline Hanson had appeal but displayed little or no understanding beyond her own unsupportable prejudices."
Examinator why not simply say: "I have my view of how the people of Australia should be governed and by whom. Other views simply don't count". Our current system is flawed, after all people supported Pauline Hanson and Heaven forbid Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Further evidence of this flawed system must be Bob Brown sitting in the Senate.
By the way I am surprised CJ proposes an electoral system that would disenfranchise most of the Indigenous population of Australia.

blaibar,
your first two sentences in your last post could not be more spot-on.
I feel however, the rest of the comment has shades of a 56 year old having been 16 for forty years.

It's quite interesting to me that the idea that people should know what they're doing when they vote can be described as "repugnant". My proposal is not for voters to have attained a particular level of education, rather they should be able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of our democratic process, perhaps along the lines of the questionnaire that maracas1 suggested early in the thread.

I know many people who didn't reach Year 12 at high school, but who are perfectly capable of answering those questions. On the other hand, I know more than a few people with university degrees who couldn't.

We don't let people drive without knowing the road rules, so why do we require people to vote in elections without knowing the basics of Australian democracy?

Dear Pelican

I stand guilty of using the word "hysteria", not aimed at all who disagreed with me and certainly not aimed at you personally. I guess I should've clarified my post a bit more. There are those who simply jump in and condemn a group of people, in this case; 16 year olds as if they were a single homogenous group, for example blanket statements like this from The Missus:

<< They are not more mature and have less real life experience than before. They tend to be karaoke children if anything and still in nappies at 20. They cling to Mum and Dad till the very last minute. They drive like idiots and have no creativity or ability for rational thinking. Make the voting age 28. >>

Not helpful or even reasonable.

As I have stated previously, some people never mature sufficiently to ever vote intelligently, whereas there are 16 years olds who most definitely are capable. What is required is introduction, as you stated, to understanding the political system such as it is in Australia. Voting should not be mandatory for 16 years olds, however having the option to vote, having studied politics, would provide increased gravitas (and maybe inspire interest) for the young person, than keeping the subject to theory only.

I see learning to drive or attempting to govern one's hormones at age 16 as far more challenging, difficult and risky than being able to cast a vote if one so chooses.

The kiddies love voting. Just make it like Australian Idol!

This episode reminds me of when the mean and tricky rodent gave people until 8pm on the day the writs were issued to enrol to vote, shortening it from a week. It was a sad attempt to exclude the automatically un-enrolled long term overseas lefties, as well as young people.

The Rudd-ster definitely is rodent-light. Pity the media wont pick up on the obvious motives as they did with the rodent.

'Why do we need Trade Unions? '
Bit of a leading question that one...

Actually with the influence of all the Green Left Weekly waving teachers this could be very prosperous for The Rudd-ster.

C J Morgan, "It's quite interesting to me that the idea that people should know what they're doing when they vote can be described as 'repugnant'."

You said you would take away the universal right to vote. To become eligible to vote, people would have to pass your test.

In a democracy sure that was repugnant as was your sneering contempt for the commonsense, goodwill and judgement of ordinary people.

Blairbar,

Obvious that is your interpretation albeit the extreme. Clearly it confuses style with content.

Your conclusions are not what I intended or I would have said so.
The CONTEXT lies in the entire post not in some of the words.

Think of it like this, my prose aren't as good as say Noam Chomsky nor are they as well informed (researched). So to say my prose is equal in value to his is absurd.

If it is reasonable to insist that I lift my game to be a multi million seller like him ( a discretionary activity as book sales), why then isn't it reasonable for me to assert that voters (and politicians) have at least a working knowledge of the political system? Given it is far more important than selling books?

Clearly neither PH or Joh did (a bit like driving a car not knowing the road rules or that it needs oil.).

BTW Brown did and does.

I was advocating the obvious, voters should have some knowledge of what they intend to govern. I was NOT decrying different opinions, only that voters be ABLE to make more informed choices. I'm not advocating Rhodes Scholars merely a responsible knowledge. This is the same about buying anything.
We as a whole shouldn't be held to pay for the wanton ignorance of a minority.

PS read the whole post.

"my prose aren't as good as say Noam Chomsky nor are they as well informed". Sure ain't Examinator; neither is your grammar.
So Joh and Pauline Hanson did not have "a working knowledge of the political system?" Pauline Hanson was the elected Liberal Party Member for Oxley though disendorsed by the Party. Joh outfoxed Gough and helped bring about the landslide win of Malcolm Fraser. You mighn't like their politics but they were smart political operators.
"I was NOT decrying different opinions, only that voters be ABLE to make more informed choices." Well how come Examinator that in Australia the poor ignorant voters do change their preferences and sometimes vote incumbent governments out? I guess the election of the Rudd-led Labor government is a clear example of us as a whole being held to pay for the wanton ignorance of a minority of ALP and Green voters.

No offence taken Fraccy. :)

I just tend to jump a bit at the world hysteria when it has been used on this forum in the past.

CJ
I agree with your wish list for electoral reform.

The danger for me when we start thinking about using eligibility criteria (other than age suitability) for voting 'rights' is that we move further away from a democratic process.

Even the unintelligent have views and who says the ignorant cannot be right on occassion. Most importantly who would determine suitability for voting rights?

That is the aspect that concerns me. While our system is not perfect, in a democracy it is accepted that we all do have equal rights to choose who represents us.

I agree with CJ that voting should not be compulsory, as this leads to donkey votes based on the latest sound bite. Based on the usual turn up at polls in OECD countries, a good chunk of voters are clueless.

The thought that the result might be swayed depending on how pretty the pictures were in the polling station is frustrating.

However, the requirement for "education" before being allowed to vote, while a nice idea is extremely dangerous.

Any obstacle placed in the way of the inalienable right to vote, especially one that could be construed as indoctrination is an abomination that will simply destroy the democracy it is trying to protect.

Hugh Jorgensen's article is in large measure a rebuttal of the principal thrust of Ken Wiltshire's article published in The Australian on 15 October 2009, 'Sixteen and too immature to vote', which leads off with the statement:



"Always beware of governments that try to tinker with the voting franchise.
Beware especially of the Rudd government's efforts to lower the voting age to 16."



What is really surprising is, that in taking Professor Wiltshire to task as to the principal thrust of his article in The Australian, Hugh Jorgensen seemingly fails to notice a glaring error made by Wiltshire. Wiltshire wrote, in only his second paragraph:

"The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in Australia and
the US only to accompany conscription for the Vietnam War."

So far as Australia was concerned that was a seriously incorrect statement. One of the very first acts of the Whitlam-Barnard ministry immediately after the 2 December 1972 Federal elections was to terminate the then-current National Service scheme, which had seen some 20-year-olds chosen by lottery, conscripted for military service. (The entry age of 20 meant that by the time of any deployment to Vietnam, for which he sort-of volunteered, a National Serviceman would generally have been 21.)

The lowering of the voting age in Australia from 21 to 18 took place in March 1973, well after the termination of the Australian committment to the Vietnam conflict had been made clear. I'm astounded Jorgensen didn't pick that up, which leads me to question what other serious errors of either reasoning or fact may reside in 'Sixteen and never been pork-barrelled'.

Is the whole exchange between Wiltshire and Jorgensen just a poorly constructed 'Dorothy Dix' question-and-answer scenario?

According to the published study linked to in my post of Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 9:57:31 AM, as at 2 December 1972, the percentage of enrolments to persons eligible stood at 100.58%. More names on the rolls than there should have been.

Was lowering the voting age a cover-up?

I chose not to respond to most of the comments posted, as the discussion has unfortunately tended away from the 'central thrust' of my piece to which you refer Mr Gump - which, despite your last comment, had very little to do at all with the lowering of the Voting age post Vietnam (You'll note I considered the point to be irrelevant from the outset and given that 18 year olds have always been allowed to fight...I see little reason why forced conscription should influence contemporary arguments).

However, as you insist on calling me out specifically (and as I'm looking for ways to procrastinate), I should note that the article's purpose was to demonstrate that age relativism and country relativism should matter little when making the case for opening optional voting to young adults while they're still in an educational setting - particularly if your goal is a better educated electorate.

As for your implication that Wiltshire and I are part of some major conspiracy to account for a discrepancy in voter enrollments...what can I say - you got me! - I have in fact spent the last 10 years of my 22 years on this planet as the head of the Illuminati in Australia and only now through your cunning research is my manipulation of Australian elections undone. How my conspiratorial house of cards has fallen...(NB. This is sarcasm).