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.