Since it's election time I thought I'd bring up the issue of the voting age. Commonly it is suggested that it should be lowered to 16 years. Last year this was raised in the senate by a private bill. This bill and the public comments about it covered some of the standard reasons for lowering it. eg:
- The fact that 16-17 year olds are able to work full time and pay taxes and yet not vote on the policies that affect them (but it should be noted that in reality that it is only a small and decreasing minority of youth at this age who do work full time)
- Recognise that young people are disengaged from politics and should be recognised as a constituency in order to foster civic participation.
- Also other reasons such as human rights under UN treaties or that they can be punished for crimes the same as adults, etc.

But against this is the argument that the age should be raised instead of lowered. Reasons for this include:
- Human development of the brain means that mental maturity is not achieved until early/mid twenties,
- Because the complexity of society has continually increased it takes longer for adolescents/young adults to experience and appreciate the intricacies and interdependence of it (eg: today's society is vastly different from even 40 years ago- due to multiculturalism, environmentalism, feminism and all the other "-isms", technology, increases in specialization and division of labour, the increased interconnection of countries by trade and other global issues, etc. The majority of 16-20 year olds simply haven't had enough contact with a broad enough cross section of society to form well-informed opinions of many of these important issues.
- Youth/young adults are more dependent on their providers for longer then previously- it is typical that a young person will not achieve full independence until into their early twenties.
- They are also delaying having families (commonly into late 20's and early 30's) so they have very little direct experience/contact with the social and economic issues involved/arising with having kids.

So what I propose is a voting system that tries to balance this:

Basically you give people more voting power as they mature by having fractional votes. For example:

1) citizens aged 16-17 get 1/3 of a vote,
2) those 18-21 get 2/3 of vote,
3) and lastly those 21 and over have a full vote.

(PS: Actually, personally I think only people over 25 should have 100%,so maybe: 16-17yrs old:25%, 18-21:50%, 22-25:75% and 25+:100% but it would be simpler with just 3 age divisions like above and also historically 21 was the age of majority)

Thikabit no doubt you know those who benefit from lowering the age will support it
My ALP, so I support it
Not sure I can super lesser value for different ages
good subject however

There's two issues to consider: how much people know, and how much they care.

People do learn a lot more as they get older, but not everything they think they know is actually true, and most people support bad policies in the mistaken belief that they'll have a good effect.

And many of the older people take an "I'm alright Jack" attitude. They don't care about the problems the younger generations face, and think that long term environmental problems are safe to ignore.

We should have a license to vote, full stop ! The Constitution needs to be taught in Primary school. People should comprehend the differences in party policies. Once people fully understand we would then get the Govt. people vote for, no preferences no nothing.
If that meant no Labor & no Greens then so be it !

In fact, the voting age should be raised to 25 years of age, which is when the brain is fully matured, according to the experts. It's not surprising that Labor wants to get kids while they are young and silly: most people do become more mature and conservative as they grow older.

Dear Belly,

Mass shootings would increase anti-gun sentiments, thus tilt the votes towards Labor.

Does this mean that you would direct the police to overtly ignore gun-threats and rejoice whenever psychopaths kill people at random? After all, this would surely help your ALP!

No consideration of pros, cons, correctness or morality - only whatever happens to promote your clan... Rather than allowing babies to vote, would it not be even more efficient to deny the voting-rights of senior-citizens? Why not simply eat the other tribe so they will have less votes!

yuyutsu
WHAT?
Find me a single word, one word, that sees me talking about guns
Are you smoking the front lawn?
YOUTH as we know, is more connected with things like climate change and in the end building a better world
As opposed to the self funded retirees who are just to the right of reality
Going to frame my only post here till now and your charge too funny

Licensed voters sounds good. At least half the population wouldn't pass test.

Questioning the voting age?

People under 18 can (and d0) leave school, get a job, drive
a car, and pay taxes. They can join the Navy, Army, or
Air Force at 16 years, 6 months - they can join the
Australian Defence Force at 17 (but start their application
earlier if they wish).

Decisions made by elected governments especially in areas
such as jobs, education, health, housing, energy - all
impact on young people. So why can't they vote?

I agree - lower the voting age to 16.

We don't question the maturity of adults (or their
mental capacity) we should give young people the same
opportunities. Many 16 year olds are quite mature.
Many adults are immature. It will balance out.

Dear Belly,

Suppose indeed that YOUTH support more of the policies that you and your party believe in: is this a proof of their intellectual and emotional capacity?

Suppose indeed that self-funded retirees support your party and its policies less, does this imply that they are too senile and/or less worthy to vote (as opposed to those on the age-pension who are not as senile and/or more worthy)?

It is my view that anyone of any age, even 1-year olds, who passes a basic test to prove their understanding of the political system, the issues it faces and their ability to read and understand political agendas, should be allowed to vote (and be elected). However, this view of mine is based on moral-considerations rather than on political interests.

At 16-18 they're the right age to get enlightenment & that's why it is a good age for starting an apprenticeship or enter higher education. At 16-18 a human being lacks maturity but has an abundance of idealism. That makes them highly vulnerable to political manipulation & that's why the voting age needs to be at least 21 if not higher.
I mean Mozart was 4 when he wrote his first symphony but the Austrians didn't then turn around & made the voting age 4 !
Those who are pushing for a lower voting age are a prime example of having missed out on growing up with the blessing of common sense !

One factor no one has mentioned because it is politically incorrect is
that the school leavers leave with the teacher's brain washing.
Note how the children are reacting to anything that teachers oppose.
When they leave school they start to pick up contrary information in
the real world that they inhabit. One problem is that at university
they will no longer be exposed to the contrary information due to the
current left wing enforced opinion.
It seems that everything not left has very little support.
The school leavers may adversely affect an otherwise decision which
gives weight to return the voting age to 21.
A bit unfair to 18 year old soldiers.

A bit unfair to 18 year old soldiers.
Bazz,
Simple, have soldiers in actual action younger than 21 exempt ! Equally simple would be not to send soldiers under 21 into battle !

Well, we had this during the Vietnam War, when the warmongers in the Coalition government, were conscripting 20 year old boys to be cannon fodder in Vietnam, but not allowing them to have a vote, because they were not 21.

Military conscription should never be allowed!

Belly,

It is well known in neuroscience and by insurers that the human brain's decision making capability is not fully mature until about 25, which is why car insurance is prohibitive before this and why voting was originally restricted to over 21.

The dropping of the voting age to 18 was based on the legal system allocating full responsibility and emancipation to person's over 18 for practical purposes (incl enlisting in the army)

That persons under 18 are treated as minors and not fully responsible for their actions should be a wake up call for those calling to lower the voting age.

yuyutsu I had just came to the conclusion I could understand you
Even admired what I thought was a stream of caring for humanity coming from you
But gee you lost me here, mate are you telling me only one side of politics is human?
That us centerists [lefty's for the lessor informed] are always wrong
SHADOW MINISTER we have crossed swords for a decade,maybe more,we will never agree
But after the election, if permitted, I intend to start a thread, about how both sides, have, often,stolen the others policies
Further, putting the view, both sides will do this very much faster as both seek a new middle ground , a place voters are already in, waiting for us to catch up
And maybe your first step in understanding that is knowing kids, even if only 16, often know more than us old foggy's

Belly,

" ..... kids, even if only 16, often know more than us old fogey's."

From distant memory, I THOUGHT I knew more than old people when I was sixteen. But like most people, I had learnt a bit more by the time I was thirty; and more again by forty; and so on.

Anyway, suggestions on this thread range from dropping the voting age to 16, raising it to 25, and eating old people. I'm not sure yet how relevant that last suggestion is, but one must point out that young people would probably be much better eating, unless you like eating old boots. Oops, Belly, you and me wouldn't be eaters, we'd both be eatees: so that would be a bit like cannibalism.

As a centrist, I would respectfully suggest that the discussion range across the 18-21 age-groups. Personally, I would prefer kicking the age back up to 21 when young people have been out of kindergarten that little bit longer. So I suppose I'm a right-leaning centrist on this issue :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Belly,

«But gee you lost me here, mate are you telling me only one side of politics is human?»

Where have I said such a thing?

I condemn the very notion as if politics has two sides and I condemn the identification with ANY of those "sides".

I believe that one ought to consider the issues and policies on their own merit rather than follow a herd, ANY herd.

".... kids, even if only 16, often know more than us old fogey's."

Unbelievable! I'm not even going to bother looking to see who made that wild statement.

Belly,

If a child of 16 isn't considered old enough and responsible enough to drive, to drink, to buy cigarettes or to sign a contract what on earth gives you the idea that they are responsible enough to decide on government.

When my daughter was 12 she could show me a lot about computers etc, but I still wouldn't give her the vote.

SM we continue to hold different views
yuyutsu we too hold different views
See it remains my view minorities only damage democracy
Majorities are there because they are the most wanted
And are you sure many who vote now, at any age, understand who and why they are voting for

I have always approved of the old US revolutionaries slogan of no taxation without representation. It just sounds right.

So why not reverse it. No representation without taxation. Surely it would not be too much to expect the vote be qualified to those who pay tax, & have done so for a minimum of 2 years or so. This would prevent the major danger with democracy, that too many people end up voting for a living, rather than working for a living, & voting for the best interest of the country.

We see in this election with Shorten trying to buy every yobbo's vote & Palmer offering the same type of handouts. Birds of a feather?

Stay at home mums should be qualified by their husband, but students should have to become taxpayers before getting a say in how the money is spent.

I expect howls from the communists among us at this, but it would be the fairest way of collecting government funds & electing those who will spend them.

Start paying tax at 18 & present a license to vote at 21 !

Hasbeen, you're not the first to come up with that terrible idea. The problem it's a solution to is a figment of many people's imaginations.

In reality the people who vote in their own interest rather than the national interest are spread across all income groups. And disenfranchising those who aren't successful yet would create class warfare, as some rich people would cement their own power by denying opportunities to others.

Dear Belly,

«And are you sure many who vote now, at any age, understand who and why they are voting for»

Quite the contrary - and therefore those who do not understand what this is all about should not be forced to vote.

«Majorities are there because they are the most wanted»

Majorities are currently there due to a skewed electoral system that perpetuates their power.

The average elector, especially the average young elector who is too busy to add politics and elections to their busy schedule, knows only two things about politics:

1) The existence of the major parties - because the media talks about them all the time, almost exclusively and even present their debates; and
2) That if they failed to vote then they will be fined.

Anecdotally, in class at the gym the instructor just suggested: "don't waste your time voting on Saturday - come to this class instead", then she asked: "BTW, what's the fine for not voting? $20 I think?", then someone answered mentioning the additional $60 victims-of-crimes levy. "Oh, she said, in that case I suppose you must vote, but please do it AFTER class".

In theory, the electors can vote for anyone, but in practice they are not coordinated, so one happens to hear about this minor party and another hears about another minor party, but never at the same time. The small parties (and independents) just do not have the necessary funds to make themselves known.

In my view, parliament should consist of many small parties that represent the concerns of real people in the community, then they negotiate and bargain between them so that every citizen can get at least those things that are most important on their list.

This would mean that parliament actually serves the people rather than parties - what a contemptible/antithetical idea for present professional politicians.

parliament should consist of many small parties that represent the concerns of real people in the community
Yuyutsu,
If you vote for one of the bigger parties apart from ALP/LNP we could go the first step towards such a system. As long as the two majors only have a sabotaging opposition rather than a proper controller keeping them in line, things won't change.
Right now, thanks to the Coalition, the Nation is in recovery mode & to put a stop to that mid-way to let proven squanderers to drag us back into the permanent debt cycle would get us into unrecoverable social & economic mayhem ! A third party controller would help the Coalition to govern instead of perpetually fighting off the opposition for opposing's sake !

The idea of voting is so that everyone votes for the ideas that they
like best, then those who have the greater number put in those that
best suit the majority.
Vote to suit yourself and the majority gets what it wants.

Ever since I have had kids, I have always voted for those I thought offered the best future for them.

Now I have grand kids I vote for the group or groups that I believe will offer them the best future. Offering me a hand out is the quickest way to lose my vote.

When it comes to voting, has anyone given thought to the other end of the scale, those suffering from old farts syndrome? I'm sure a simple test could be devised for the geriatric brigade to find out if they are compos mentis and deserving of the vote.

A typical question would be;

There was Papa Bear, Mama Bear, and who was the other bear?

Answers like, Rumpelstiltskin and Goldlocks would result in immediate disqualification from voting.

I'm sure that question alone would knock out several of the Forum's Usual Suspects who are already off with the fairies.

Dear Paul,

Please do not leave us in suspension - who was that other bear?

(perhaps this question is used to weed out those who grew up in different cultures, so they never heard English/European bed-time stories as they grew up?)

«find out if they are compos mentis and deserving of the vote.»

Some older people might not be capable of voting (or driving) responsibly, all right, but you also seem to consider them undeserving? Is this your private view or of the Greens party?

Another problem when you quiz people, presumably to find whether they are compos mentis, is the danger of politically directed questions, such as "what happens when carbon-dioxide molecules reach the atmosphere?"
(answer: they feed plants)

Rumpelstiltskin and Goldlock
Paul1405,
As in Bill & Tanya ?

Our current batch of youngsters are the dumbest, least educated, most parent-dependent lot ever. It's doubtful that they will ever be capable of making any sort of decision, including how to vote. When Mummy and Daddy die, they won't survive either.

As someone with 25 grandchildren I’m horrified by the idea of lowering the voting age. I think it should actually be increased. Teenagers are generally the most egocentric group in society and very bad at looking at long term consequences. At that age they think 30 is old and age 40 is beyond imagining in their ideas. At that age most are still totally dependent on their parents and have no experience or imagination to understand what is meant by self sufficiency in society. I’ve never known anyone of that age who truly understands that no government actually has any money of its own.

The other point to consider is that if 16 year olds are presumed to have the maturity to vote, then it follows that they have the maturity to understand right from wrong and should be tried as adults for any crimes they commit. Who wants to see 16 year olds locked up in an adult prison?

Big Nana,
When you pay taxes, you cease to own the money; the government owns it instead. Therefore the teenagers have a better understanding of the situation than you: the government does have money of its own.

The other thing to understand is that the vast majority of 16 year olds do have the maturity to know right from wrong. Most don't commit crimes. And most of the crimes that 16 year olds commit are contraventions of laws designed to protect them.

When do you get to voting age Aidan? I certainly hope it gives you time to grow up a bit.

Looking at your posts, if you are of voting age, sure explains the crazy results we get at our elections.

Another thing about these sadly dumb youngsters: their 'helicopter' parents are now hovering over universities as they did when their kids were at primary and secondary school and, for heaven's sake, they are even interfering in their workplaces, according to my daughter, a senior executive. By the time they start working, they still haven't developed the social skills necessary to deal with problems at work, and Mummy or Daddy have to bail up the people providing them with jobs.

Paul,

you would then have blocked Bob hawke from voting if he had not passed away.

Auden, I have yet to meet the 16 year old who understands economics on a community scale. Most have problems understanding even personal fiscal responsibility.
As for lawbreaking, I wonder how much experience you have with juvenile criminals. Home invasions, sexual assault, stealing and burning cars and scooters, Throwing bricks at passing cars, knocking down old ladies to snatch handbags. All common occurrences where I live. Committed by kids 16 and younger. Do you really want those 16 year olds in an adult prison?

Hey Big Nana,

"Do you really want those 16 year olds in an adult prison?"

Yeah, why not?

After all if you're the victim, what does it matter if you were carjacked by a 16 year old or a 20 year old anyway?

Kids are doing stuff adults would get years in jail for and both society and the law is turning a blind eye to it.

And what happens when someone gets run over and killed?
Or someone else's kids get run over and killed?

Then it will be plastered all over the news.

- The Horror -

But it won't be a tragedy.
It's incompetence on a policy level.

They're empowering these kids to do whatever they want with little or no consequences, and by the time they're legal adults they're already well and truly hardened criminals.

When they start bringing harm upon the rest of society something has to change.

I didn't known my test question would be so difficult for the crusty old conserves, but it is! Yuyutsu no probs with the non English speaking voters, we'll have them sing 'Advance Australia Fair' second verse of course, and with Little Johnny Howard being the judge, should they get one word wrong, then its OUT The DOOR! No vote for you mate!

Dear Paul,

«I didn't known my test question would be»

Should be "know", not "known", verb, not adjective.

«then its OUT The DOOR»

"it is" or "it's" with an apostrophe for short - "its" means "which belongs to it".

And I do actually come from non-English-speaking background.
I bet I sang the second verse of "Advance Australia Fair" more times than you, in choir - I wish more Australian-born people knew this relatively-unknown verse.

Hi Aidan,

Just to pick you up on your comment:

"Big Nana,
When you pay taxes, you cease to own the money; the government owns it instead. Therefore the teenagers have a better understanding of the situation than you: the government does have money of its own."

But many Aboriginal people, moreso those in remote communities, believe - seriously - that government simply have money, oodles of it; maybe, if people in remote (and not so remote) areas, think about it, that governments make money, print it, churn it out at will. I don't know about the Kimberley where Big Nana has lived for fifty-odd years, but in southern communities, this is often how Aboriginal people in 'communities' think, or at least it was three or four decades ago.

Not only that, but that many Aboriginal people believe that whitefellas get their houses free, their housing maintenance is done free (maybe by fairies at night), and they probably get their cars free: so why aren't Blackfellas getting their houses and cars free, why should they pay rent, since after all it's their country ?

One problem with living in tiny, piddly 'communities' is that you can't easily develop much understanding of the outside world, whether you're Black or White. So you judge by what you occasionally csee: if a whitefella is looking after his front yard, beautifully manicured, etc., then he must have had help from the government, and his well-kept house was probably provided ree as well. Because that's what it looks like. And he's got a nice SUV, so that's probably a gift from the government. Poor Blackfellas have to pay rent, and pay for their own cars. White bastards get it so easy.

Seriously. That's how many people perceive their world. Governments make, i.e. manufacture, money. What's a taxpayer ? So there's often not the slightest awareness that governments accrue income from taxpayers (of many sorts), royalties, import duties, etc. So the government can print more money at will, they make it for whitefellas, so why doesn't it make more for Blackfellas ?

Cheers,

Joe

Armchair critic, I uunderstand your point but I’m in a position to know that many of pthose kids simply don’t know any better. They have just followed the adult role models in their lives and it’s their way of surviving, plus expressing their anger at the hell their lives are.
I’m certainly not saying they shouldn’t be punished but some of those kids are tiny and the thought of them in a adult prison is horrifying.

But back to my initial point. 16 year olds do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to get involved in anything as complex as voting, just as they shouldn’t be accountable for adult crimes unless there are special circumstances.

Joe a mate in PNG was a district officer. He was at Pomio, about 70 miles from Rabaul. He used to rant about the education the kids were getting.

He reckoned the Pomio kids got the best PNG had to offer, but it was all wrong for them. They could read a news paper, understand the words, but had no idea what they were reading. He mentioned trying to explain to these bush kids what a newspaper article about a wharf labourers strike in Rabaul.

They could understand the words, but not the story. How someone with a real job, earning real money could not go to work was beyond their understanding.

They could not picture high rise flats, with lifts, it was just too foreign to them. He reckoned teaching them about things they could never really understand or aspire to simply made them discontent. Another example of unexpected consequences, from well intentioned city folk who were as ignorant of life in Pomio as the kids were of life in a big town or city.

One thought to the voting age. At what age do most people graduate from public school? That might be worth considering the minimum age to consider. (Not the minimum age to vote, but to not consider any age under that age group). The reasoning for this would be that the kids have enough of their focus on school instead of the outside world, causing their vote to be of little thought and little value even though it's impact would be the same for those who are actually taking part in the outside world.

A second though for a voting age. If the exceptions to vote arguments hold up, (you get to vote if you are working, in the military, or otherwise on your own and not under the protection of your parents); then a possible r sponge would be that a tempory voting license be given. Not based on passing a test, but based on involvement in the world and being on your own. The catch? Don't make voting mandatory at younger ages. Just an option if they are holding the responsibilities of mature adults while they are at a younger age.

My personal opinion. 18 is a resonable age to be able to vote. Nothing earlier to be considered unless there's an exception for the people voting because they are in the military, earning an income, or otherwise not counted as dependents on their parents tax forms.

It is not just age, but we really should not have the disinterested voting. I had a bloke in the booth beside me who should not have voted.

He did his house vote looking as if he knew what he wanted. Then the senate. When he looked at the paper he said F me, than asked me how to do it. The girls at the desk were doing a good job explaining how to do it, but he must not have listened.

I explained, he looked at it again, asked another couple of questions, gave up, & numbered 1 to 6 from the left. I wonder how many donkey votes there are on these huge senate papers?

Dear Hasbeen,

Thank you for this contribution, I definitely agree.

One way to stop such donkey-votes is to include on the ballot paper some names of parties which do not exist. If any of them is marked, then the vote is considered informal.

Simple smart idea Yuyutsu.

The left would hate it, as they depend on the not very bright vote to ever get elected.