One of the issues raised at the 2020 Youth Summit was the idea that the voting age should be lowered to 16.
My own feeling is that the average 16 yr old does not have sufficient experience of the world to make an informed decision. I wonder if even the average 18 yr old has sufficient experience to make an informed decision. I know others will disagree but is there a difference between knowing what you want and having some idea of what is possible?
We all need to be better informed about many things before we vote but are teenagers too idealistic and too prone to the influences of peer pressure, advertising etc?
Do we need to take into account the biological development of the human brain which is still occurring at that age?
If voting was to be lowered to 16 should it perhaps be allowed to first elect some youth representation to local government so that young people can learn more about how elections function? Would that encourage more informed participation later?

I'm for it, but should be optional rather than compulsory. A sixteen year old will reach adulthood in the term of the elected government, and it's not unreasonable for that child to have a say in who that government is.

A lot of sixteen-year-olds are interested in politics. It is likely that they might vote as their parents do — or exactly opposite the way their parents do — but it's a way of involving them in the issues starting them off on a lifetime of political engagment.

No way. They are still children and, it is now popular for apologists for these kids to 'explain' to us that the human brain is not fully mature until the age of 25.

Voting age, driving age, drinking age, should be raised, not lowered.

I think that there shouldn't be any age limits on voting at all - rather, voting rights should be restricted to those who can demonstrate a basic knowledge of Australia's electoral systems and forms of government, perhaps by passing a written test.

Voting shouldn't be compulsory for anybody.

I'm for it.

That said, I didn't develop any interest in politics until I was into my 20s. However, that is not the point. There are many at 16 who are more politically astute than those at 60. It would also be relevant at school in political studies if these young people felt that they had something to say (by casting a vote) than simply studying politics at a removed and theoretical level. But it should not be compulsory, at least until 20, if at all. My personal jury is still out on the pros and cons of compulsory voting.

BTW Mr Right

Are you connected in anyway to Leigh? - you possess the same level of joie de vivre - I'm being ironic of course.

I'm with those proposing optional voting from 16. As others have said, age has little to do with how well informed we are. As for brain development, there are plenty of arguments on the other side of the coin. Should the elderly be prevented from voting since there's a reasonable chance of dementia?

Plenty of policy is formulated with young people in mind, so it's reasonable for young people to at least have the option of being part of the process.

I’m against it. I can’t see how lowering the voting age would improve our governance. Surely that is the bottom line here.

We should be looking at things like banishing the disgusting compulsory preferential voting system, making it formal to vote for no candidate where a voter feels than none on offer deserve their vote, and many others.

I reckon voting should remain compulsory. But I agree with CJ that there should be some requirement to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge about electoral systems, government and key issues before you get to vote. You’d forego your right to vote if you didn’t pass, and pay a fine instead.

The human brain matures at 25 [case against?]. Teenagers rate higher than most adults on Lawrence Kolberg's Morality Pysch. Code [case for?]. Perhaps, 16 year olds should able to vote in referenda only on matters affecting youth.

Ludwig & Oliver

You're both against 16 year olds having a say in governance, where do you stand on driving? In Australia teens can drive at 16, 17 or 18, depending on the state.

Would you make young people wait until their 20's before they could drive as well?

For the record in Victoria, 18 is the legal age for a driver's licence, but I was driving cars and riding motorbikes around the back roads when I was 16 and glad of the experience.

Given the dangers on the road, compared with casting a vote - I fail to see why you both are against introducing young people to politics at 16. Just saying the brain hasn't developed enough is not good enough, should we start applying IQ tests for potential voters as well?

I'm for it.

But I also agree that it should be optional rather than compulsory.

Sixteen year olds should be able to have a say in something that will
affect them greatly, i.e. - their future.

Imagine letting people have a say - people who can actually see possibilities, instead of problems...

I think lowering the voting age will go a long way towards making all of us consider our future in a different light. Perhaps it will motivate some of us to be active rather than passive - and it will certainly allow the young to participate more fully in shaping their destiny.

Surely the only thing holding us back now is not believing that they have the ability to take big steps. Lowering the voting age will help us believe.

Fractelle, I’m not against 16 years-olds having a say in government. In fact, I’d very strongly encourage them to do so. But there are much better ways of facilitating it, for the small portion that would be interested, than to give the vote to all 16 year-olds.

I wouldn’t have a problem with 16 year-olds driving if we had a rigorous driver-training program that was compulsory in order to get a licence and a policing regime that effectively kept drivers (of all ages) operating safely.

We don’t have those things. Not by a long shot. So I would say resoundingly that 16 year-olds should not be driving.

I'd cast my thoughts in with optional voting for 16 and 17 year olds.

If they're genuinely interested enough to go out and vote at 16, then odds are, they're more politically informed than the majority of Australians.

As for brains 'not being formed until 25' heck, I've seen plenty of evidence that brains aren't necessarily 'formed' at much older ages than that...

Okay but nobody has yet addressed my suggestion that, if the age is lowered, then it should just apply to local government elections first. How would people feel about young people voting in such elections to put a young person onto their local council? Would this be a way of getting young people involved and increasing their understanding of the entire system before they had to take on the responsibility of voting in an election with a much more complex set of issues?

While some kids are interested in politics at that age and may even exhibit a degree of understanding, I believe that 16 (school-age) is too young to vote. Youth at this age are still growing into their abilities to reason and to empathise and are dealing with the many complex issues of adolescence.

The time for our kids to enjoy the real fruits and lessons of childhood seem to be ever decreasing while we as a society seem to be ever forcing them into premature adulthood (not talking about voting as such here but the many other pressures).

There are many ways our youth can learn about politics and become involved at school in various clubs and debating teams. A better way would be to include politics in the school curriculum to include topics such as the parliamentary system, the Constitution, democracy etc.

Dear Communicat,

If you're going to lower the voting age to sixteen - why put restrictions on it - for only local Council elections?

That's like saying, "Look here's a box of chocolates - but you can
only look at them - not eat them!"

Come on ...

Voting at 16 , Absolutely not .

Personally I believe 18 is to young to make an informed & considered choice .

Calls to further lower the voting age conspicuously come from the political left .
Obviously the object of these calls is to create a new voter block of impressionable young souls readily accessed through the classroom .
With that in mind the very suggestion that lowering the voting age is somehow intended to be in the interest of being fair to those effected age groups is a clear indication of the depths the socialists will go to gain electoral advantage .
They have no interest in young people beyond their usefulness in furthering a political agenda . Honestly I find the intent disgusting .

There is indeed an unfairness in relation to voter age regarding taxation .
I believe it is entirely wrong to require a citizen to pay income tax when that person is not entitled to vote due to age . Many young people have jobs & if they don’t get a say they should not have to pay .

Jamo, I don’t think that there are ugly connotations attached to any desire to allow 16 year-olds to vote.

But more significantly, I think that if they are working, they should be paying taxes. The notion of some people being exempt from paying taxes does not gel with me at all.

Voting is only one means of expressing one’s political leanings – and a very poor one at that. 16 year-olds can have their political say in numerous much more effective and meaningful ways.

Foxy I think it is more like saying, "Here's a Coke or a Pepsi because you are not quite old enough to handle alcohol yet."
Several years ago someone I know was involved in interviewing students for Rotary exchange scholarships. One of the questions he kept asking these students was, "How are we governed?" The thing that really got to him and the other interviewers was the fact that these bright, smart would-be ambassadors had almost no idea. Only one of the candidates mentioned local government - perhaps because her father was actually a local councillor. Almost all did not understand the difference between state and federal government responsibilities.
There is a case for teaching more about these things in schools but it is difficult to do so without bias creeping in. Young people are often highly impressionable and merely liking or disliking a teacher at that point can influence their thinking for life as can friends or family. Kids will also join a youth section of a political group merely because their current best friend is a member. Those things do not involve thinking about the policies. My guess many of those who actually belong to a political party could not tell you where their party stood on many issues but have joined because their family always votes 'x' or there is just one issue they agree with.
As such I still think 16 yrs is far too young to vote.

One of the points raised is that 16 years old are too impressionable to be taught politics. Yet kids are indoctrinated into their parents' religious beliefs from day one.

The other hypocrisy is that no-one has commented that teenagers are considered adult enough to sit behind the wheel of a car and join the rest of us out on the roads. At least with motorbikes you have to stay for 12 months on a 250cc.

This point has been repeatedly ignored, while the same people refrain "16 is too young to vote" because they believe 16 is too immature.

If that's what you really believe then call for the age of driving to be increased AND the age of consent. If you can't select a pollie to vote for how can you be mature enough at 16 to know who you'd like to sleep with.

Unbelievable.

I can still remember what I was like at 16; I'd already had sex, knew how to drive a car, and even though I wasn't all that into politics (it certainly wasn't taught at school) I do remember who was Prime Minister back then. So I guess I wasn't completely incompetent. And I don't think that most of the current crop of 16 Y.O.s are either. Even my 11 year old nephew can name the past and current P.M. and their political parties.

Talk about wrapping kids in cotton wool - lets ban children from doing and learning about anything.

What a bunch of old codgers we have here at OLO.

The last time the voting age was lowered (from 21 to 18) was in March 1973, four months after the electoral rolls closed for the historic 2 December 1972 Federal elections. The Whitlam government was elected in a landslide at those elections. Total electoral enrolments at that time appeared to stand at 100.58% of the total number eligible for enrolment in the entire Australian population.

A total of around 923,000 persons became eligible to enroll for the first time in their lives between the end of October 1972 and the end of October 1973, largely as a consequence of lowering the voting age.

A referendum was held on 8 December 1973, for which the electoral rolls closed early in the preceding month. There had been a nett increase of 716,070 enrolments across Australia between the two roll closures. That meant there had been around 795,00 NEW enrolments during this year, as around 79,000 persons 18 or over had died and would have had their names removed from the rolls during this period.

The question is, how many new enrolments should have been expected?

Australian Electoral Commission research shows that only 38.5% of newly eligible persons typically effect their enrolment within 12 months of becoming qualified. It would seem that only around 350,000 new enrolments would have been expected between the 1972 and 1973 electoral events. Where could the extra 445,000 enrolments actually recorded during this period have come from?

Section 58 of the CEA, inserted in 1983, requires monthly enrolment levels in all Divisions to be published in the Commonwealth Government Gazette. Former Electoral Commissioner, Professor Emeritus Colin Hughes, has commented in a paper submitted to the Democratic Audit of Australia that for some months prior to the calling of the 2007 Federal elections this requirement of the Act was not fulfilled. It appears he may be correct: I certainly could not get the Government Notices edition of the Gazette online in the months before the 2007 elections.

The Rudd government was elected in a reported landslide at the 2007 Federal elections.

Most people, take little active part in politics.

Polls show that only about 8% of the population belong to a
political organisation, and less than 20% have ever contacted a local, state, or national official on any political issue.

If the young were allowed to be involved perhaps we would have a major political party that directly addressed their issues (such as education, job prospectives, training schemes et cetera).

At the moment the young don't have any political influence.

It is their future we're talking about - why shouldn't they be involved?

As another poster pointed out - how many older voters really know what they're doing in the political scheme of things?

The young do not have a monopoly on political ignorance. About a month after the 2007 federal election a man waiting at the local supermarket checkout was trying to convince a middle aged woman that John Howard had lost the election. She wouldn't believe him until several bystanders chimed in.

That level of ignorance is probably unusual, but I'd be willing to bet an awful lot of adults would have trouble naming a politician other than the PM and maybe their state premier. I'd also suspect that ignorance is even higher when it comes to local politics which don't get the same level of news coverage as state and federal.

This issue of lowering the voting age was raised at the Youth 2020 Summit which also raised other issues of youth concern. Climate change is a biggie, and so are Aboriginal reconciliation and positive programs for young people. They want better organisation and funding of creative industries as well, which makes sense since most of them will be working in the information economy and supporting service industries.

We could do with more forward thinking from younger people concerned with with future.

Some of the argument that are being used by the pro-voting at 16 group could be true of any age.

Why not make the voting age 10 then, or 12 ....think of a number. Why should these children not have a say in their future. Most of us agree that there has to be a cut off point. Would a 12 or 14 year old be ready to vote? If not why not?

The issue of driving, having sex et al is a different topic and just because someone is having sex at a particular age does not mean that it is okay. A schoolmate of my daughter had sex at 13, she was very mixed up, largely raised herself and craved affection. She now regrets it. Sex is easy, anyone can do it but we would not legalise it for children for obvious reasons.

What I am saying (awkwardly probably :))is that referring to sex, drinking or driving in this debate about voting is irrelevant. There are many arguing and lobbying for the driving and drinking age to be raised.

Good spread of views. Which is to be expected when there is patently no "right" answer to the question.

I don't think I have ever been more politically aware than I was between the ages of 15 and 18. Over the years, the options seem to have subsided into some form of intellectual grey goo.

If I could, I'd happily give my (compulsory) vote to a sixteen year-old, confident that they would treat it more reverently and thoughtfully than I.

But all voting should be voluntary. It makes no sense at all to force people to choose between dumb and dumber.

Or, in the specific case of State politics, corrupt and corrupter. I live in NSW, say no more.

I'm for it. There is no real argument against it. There are literally thousands of ignorant adults or completely disengaged voters who do more harm than anyone. Yet young people do have a certain ability to care about the future of the country than others who do not have the time or inclination to spend thinking about. They increase the spread of ideas in society as well.

Pelican

No-one is suggesting 10 or 12 as suitable ages, you are trying to use the "slippery slope' argument here and it just doesn't any merit.

If a young adult is deemed old enough to have sex and drive a car (not at the same time) then they are old enough to vote. Having sex and getting a driver's licence are about taking on adult responsibilities and therefore completely relevant as examples where we do give adult choices to teenagers.

Not all young people immediately go drive a car or have sex, just because they are old enough. I'm not sure about what your point was with the 13 year old.

The only difference I can see for 16 year olds is that it not be compulsory. Then the people who are interested can vote if they want to.

It would then be a matter of choice - just as it is to drive or have sex.

Hi Fractelle

My argument about the sex bit was just to demonstrate that just because someone 'can' do something doesn't mean it should provide the benchmark for determining the legal age.

Pericles is right there is no patently wrong or right answer here just the difference between people who think 16 is too young and others who don't. :)

The proliferation of ignorant adults is not in itself an argument for lowering the voting age.

Pelican

I haven't mentioned ignorant adults at all in my argument in favour of giving the vote to 16 Y.O.s.

There will always be ignorant people irrespective of age.

I can't see any good reason why if we treat 16 Y.O.'s as adults in some cases, that they shouldn't have the choice to vote. In fact, I think it is hypocritical not to given that they are entitled to other adult responsibilities.

Just claiming that they are too immature doesn't convince me. If voting isn't compulsory, then I posit that it would mostly be the more mature ones who would vote anyway.

Fractelle I don't remember using the term slippery slope here -it is not applicable to the argument.

I raised the ignorant adult argument because it was raised by others (not you) - sorry I should have made that clearer, I just lumped my responses in the one post.

I stand by my very first post on this topic. Sixteen year olds are immature some less so than others, some adults are still immature. On average 16 year olds are still learning and developing into adulthood, forming their own opinions and becoming more aware about the world outside themselves. At 18 they have had another two years of development and experience

As the person who started this thread I have to say that I do not believe 16yr olds are generally mature enough to drive responsibly, nor are they old enough to have sex responsibly - if only because they are most certainly not old enough to parent responsibly, nor do they have the financial capacity to parent. Being responsible is almost certainly lacking in thrills or the adrenalin rush brought on by something like deliberately breaking road rules. It's 'boring' and a majority of teenagers are not ready for 'boring'. Biology dictates behaviour all too often at this age.

From my own observations, most people under the age of 25, or at least the ones with a low educational standard, have little knowledge of life or politics and are therefore not qualified to make any judgment in a polling booth. I am reliably informed that 50% of adults have some sort of a literacy problem anyway, but I realise that trying to impose an educational standard would be unacceptable. Driving or serving in the armed forces is not in the same category. To quote Winston Churchill - "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" So I guess we will have to muddle through with the existing voting age.

I believe that 16 yo should be permitted to enrol and vote but it should be voluntary with a provisional roll .
Compulsory voting should retained for adults . This really means you must attend a polling booth and have your name crossed off the roll not neccessarily cast a valid vote

So you have blanket generalisations about this age group from fro example Communicat, and you expect to be taken seriously? And you call them immature.

The reason adults being ignorant is relevant is because that should be one key benchmark for voting. You can't vote on issues if you know nothing about them. So any argument with the premise they are immature or don't know anything is complete nonsense, since many adults exhibit these exact deficiencies.

I was not talking about voting in my last post Steel. I was talking, since the subject was brought up by others, about having sex and driving. The potential consequences of these activities are such that any responsible society sets limits.
Your other argument about people being ignorant of the issues they are voting about is surely one of the strongest arguments there is for non-compulsory attendance at the ballot box. Despite that some people continue to believe that 'compulsory voting' is democratic and the responsibility of all citizens. The major parties want to keep it because they believe it benefits them. If 16 yr olds were given the vote it would be for the same reason - not because those in power believe that 16yr olds can make an informed decision.

Its interesting to see the view expressed by some who while agreeing that the voting age be lowered to 16, consider that voting should only be voluntary for these under-18 cohorts.

I have good news for them, should the voting age be lowered. The Australian Electoral Commission's own research over the years has highlighted the fact that enrolment take-up by the newly eligible is relatively slow. Amongst 18-year-olds only around 38% typically enroll within the first year after becoming qualified. Among 16-year-olds the figure may be even lower; we have yet to see.

The point is that by failing to enroll, probably two thirds of the newly eligible effectively make voting voluntary for themselves. Only those who enroll subject themselves to effective compulsion and have to deal with the 'please explain' if they don't vote.

Likewise all the other concerns as to the possible undesirability of lowering the voting age are only about one third as significant in actual fact as they might otherwise numerically appear to be.

There is a point I should make clear from my earlier post that gave some historical background to the last voting-age lowering. There was in 1972-73 no monthly publication of enrolment numbers for all Australian electoral Divisions. There was thus a greatly reduced likelihood of any but the most arcane of psephologists coming to the knowledge in real-time of there being more names on the rolls than population statistics indicated could possibly be qualified.

After the event it has become clear that there was apparent over-enrolment at the time of the 1972 Federal elections. My question is: Was this fact known to anyone in or close to the machinery of government at the time, and was the voting age lowering proposal promoted to aspirants to elected office in order to provide after-the-event cover for this momentary statistical exposure of over-enrolment in November 1972? The apparent enrolment level had retreated from 100.58% to 99.03% by November 1973.

Does similar over-enrolment need like retrospective cover today?

I wonder if those agreeing to lowering the voting age to 16 have given it a lot of thought. Some 18 year olds are mature enough but many are not and could not care less. Their appearance, sexuality, music and sport seem to be all important to most.

A few years ago, in the small city of Goulburn, a group of young people thought it would be a great joke to talk a local eccentric into standing for the LG election. This fellow used to walk around dirty, unkempt and collect cans and other rubbish from the garbage bins in the main street and park. He was not adverse to eating others left over food and drink from the bins as well. Many young people, in on the joke, voted for him and he won a place on council. The council had to live with this for the term. This really demonstrates just how seriously the young take their civic responsibilities.

I can clearly see some drugged up rocker or empty head pop star getting a Senate seat. Or a sports hero like Warne or an overnight hero like Corey Whats his name, getting elected. No, I think there are other nore practical things , like non compulsory voting and doing away with compulsory preferential voting, that need doing.

As much as I hate to admit it, CJMs suggestion of a test on electoral law and the constitution is worth thinking about. At least that would ensure that some had basic knowledge.

Someone also said we should have an IQ test. When I read the daily news I think that also has merrit. There is plenty of idiots around now we don't need to add to that. Maybe put the voting age up.

Leave the children alone!

The Kills from Keep On Your Mean Side, 'young kids like to f.ck and fight in the basement'. Don't bother them.

Or from a friend, '18- all freedom, no responsibility'.

your friend, Warm and Fuzzy