Mum jailed for letting a 10 year old go for a walk
39 minutes ago
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Another Bradford bill
What is the rationale for the current voting age? Any ideas? Sue Bradford wants it lowered to 16. Strikes me that the Greens would be the major benefactor of such a change. But driving at 15, working, paying taxes, having babies and going on benefits all happen at 16 and 17. Has she got a point? These arguments are always fraught because rules can't take account of the individual. If 16 is too young why isn't 18?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
When they have a sentencing by peers situation (I saw it on TV) the young people are more judgemental. Maybe they would vote to scrub the DPB etc.. 16 year olds tend to be full of emotion and short of experience.. the ideal Green/left voter
Democracy certainly has its problems and under mmp individual potiticians seem to have more power than they should have.
What exactly is wrong with exercising judgement?
Danny Watson summed it up very well on NewstalkZB just after noon today. Not an exact quote but the following is the thrust of what he said.
`This woman who does not trust 16 & 17 year olds to choose the right food in the school tuck shop now wants them to choose who will govern us.
She is a bloody idiot and a continuing danger to NZ
The problem with them exercising their judgement is that they have no experience to benchmark against. Look at all the young girls who decide to make having kids and the DPB a career - only to find that being a single parent sucks.
There are around 60,000 16 and 17 year-old girls. About 1% get pregnant and go on a benefit. Then there are around 60,000 18 and 19 years old. About 5% are on the DPB. More 18 and 19 year-olds than 16 and 17 year-old appear to be making poor decisions yet we let them vote.
That's the question I asked. What is the rationale for making 18 the voting age?
Raise the voting age to 21 and only for land owners! Our forefathers had more sense than we credited them with!
That should get rid of the 'Bread & circus' voters!
Why stop a sixteen?
After all there were some twelve year old pregnancies last year, so why not twelve.
Or why not ten
or five
or when you are born.
I say give the foetus the Vote.
Why do we let an unelected Communist bring up these lefty bills??
Hopefully she will not have this abortion of an idea drawn in the ballot.
Sue B was a member of the Progressive Youth Movement in the 60's. I wonder if there is television footage of the march where they chanted "take a walk, come on down and see the pigs that run our town" as they march down to the police station.
I actually agree with the bill despite it coming from a person I generally don't agree with, and I think the theorised harm it would do to right-leaning parties is over-exaggerated.
In my opinion, 18 is a hang-up from a past era. Now, the age of accountability and maturity is 16. At this age many young people leave home and school and assume positions in the working world. It is unfair to deny them the right to participate in the forming of laws that affect them.
The theorised harm this law change will do to the Right is likely overexaggerated. At the moment, there is no need for right-leaning parties to court 16-year olds save for PR purposes. The political opinions of 16 year olds are based on single-issues like the legalisation of cannabis that are hot-topics in the school yard. How different would their opinions be if young people were targeted and courted on a wider variety of issues? Would they really be in favour of tax hikes for their parents? Would working young people really be in favour of more of those ridiculous OSH regulations that cause them so frustration at their places of work?
The change will also result in a wider number of people being engaged in the political process. Those who display an early interest are more likely to maintain this interest late in life. You are more likely to take an early interest in the process if you have the ability to participate in it.
What happens at the moment is that at the time when they grow to become individuals they also get disenfranchised by the political process because they face very little need to follow it(as they can't participate in it) and they carry this apathy on with them when they turn 18.
Someone on Frgblog pointing out that if they are old enough to vote they can shoulder more responsibility for their actions, but Bradford/ Locke would be against that.
There are plenty of people under 18 who would be better voters than those over. The solution is easy - no-one under 18 can vote unless they really want to.
This can be achieved by making registering to vote for under-18s:
* voluntary
* not promoted or encouraged in schools
* needlessly complicated
Your thoughts?
"There are plenty of people under 18 who would be better voters than those over."
Agreed. So let's make it more difficult for everybody - not just under 18s - then only those with a real interest would do it. If people can only be bothered voting if it's a nice day (we know they exist) they shouldn't be voting.
Post a Comment