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?