The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sixteen and never been pork-barrelled > Comments

Sixteen and never been pork-barrelled : Comments

By Hugh Jorgensen, published 4/11/2009

Do 16-year-olds have 'the maturity to vote on matters that will materially affect the nation?'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
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)
Posted by debj, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 11:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 12:40:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by lilsam, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 1:11:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 1:59:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 2:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 2:49:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy