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.