16 Year Old Voting
June 28, 2007 by scrubone
Oppose.
Ok, so you want a more detailed opinion?
Learning is a function of time. As one gets older, one learns things.
We learn what it meant when people said “you can’t say/do that”. Turns out they were right.
We learn that we’re not 10 foot tall and bullet-proof.
We learn the problems with the welfare state. High taxes, tarrifs, free trade, war, apeasement. We learn about all sorts of things.
Sure, we forget things. Everyone does. We forget what the last government was like (actually, Labour have made sure we don’t in the most recent case). We forget what it was like to look in your bank account and find nothing left, and no means to get more.
But that doesn’t mean that 16 year olds should get the vote. I understand that these days, many 16 year olds work hard to earn money. They then spend this money on cellphones, ipods etc. So they do pay tax.
But there’s a vast difference between paying $5,000 a year tax and spending all the rest on clothes and texting, and paying $15,000 a year tax and spending all the rest on food, electricity, mortgage, and doctors bills.
Sure, many 18 year olds are like this too. But most are not. They are flatting, have left him and are starting to find out about these things. They have started to take on the mantle of adulthood.
Jordan’s response to the proposals is a Brer Rabbit one - “throw me in the briar patch”.
I suspect it would favour the right, teenagers generally being quite conservative on a range of issues, but partisan advantage or disadvantage shouldn’t be the point of such a change. More successfully introducing people to their role as citizens - a role the fundamentalist marketeers always wish to diminish - is a good idea, pure and simple.
Ah, yes. So noble. Nothing whatsoever to do with the leftwards tendency of schools and other educational institutions these kids get most of their information from. Nope.
Because that’s what this is about. The left are loosing the electorate. Recent polls show National could goven on it’s own. It’s transparent politics.
Don’t believe me? Have a look at the Green’s Children’ policy. The word “vote” doesn’t get a mention once. Given that Sue’s just cross one of the biggies of this list, why is she now working on something that isn’t even on it?
Answer: if you are going to implement your policies, you have to find some voters who will let you implement them. Having called 83% of the electorate child abusers, who’s left?
I think that either the voting age should be lowered to 16 years because 16 year olds can leave school, leave home, drive, have sex, get married, etc, or the age to do those things (leave school, leave home, etc) should be raised to 18 years. Either way, there needs to be an age where people are legally classed as adults from then on.
I am glad that the Green Party, and in particular Sue Bradford, are keen to introduce legislation which makes it fairer for teenagers.
I think lowering the voting age would be the best way to go. Currently, we have 18 year olds paying taxes, paying rent, raising children, getting into long-term relationships, and taking up additional adult responsibilities. Unfortunately, though, under the current system, the majority of people do not start voting until they are older than 18 years.
I’m interested to hear why having a vote will make things “fairer” for you. What policies discriminate against 16 year olds now that you do not approve of?
Why exactly should there be one tidy age for a range of very different things? What if that age was 21?
16 year olds can get married, but not without parental permission - maybe they should show their folks the vote card prior to dropping it in the ballet box?
Not all 16 year old’s pay taxes. Do the ones that dont pay taxes miss out on the vote? Do all people not paying taxes lose the vote? My 10 year old pays taxes. Does he get the vote? Why can’t he get the vote?
You realise of course, if we lower the voting age to 16, then the majority (2/3) of 16 year olds will miss out voting anyway. Maybe it should be 15? 15 year olds can get a license to drive…
Sue Bradford just wants your vote. She’s also the one that said you are too young to be able to resist buying a meat pie in school. Maybe you should check with her, to see what other things she wants to ban for your benefit, providing you give her your vote.
I am not actually a teenager, ‘ZenTiger’, although it is understandable that you assumed that I was a teenager, considering that there are so many other adults out there that have a very opressive view towards the rights of teenagers, unfortunately.
If someone is legally allowed to leave school (15) or to leave home (15), then they should have the right to be able to vote. But, to me, 15 years seems like it is slightly too young an age to vote, leave school, and leave home, so I think it would be appropriate for people to be legally allowed to do all those things (leave school, leave home, vote) at 16 years of age.
“I am not actually a teenager, ‘ZenTiger’, although it is understandable that you assumed that I was a teenager, considering that there are so many other adults out there that have a very oppressive view towards the rights of teenagers, unfortunately.”
I understand that you assumed I was a victim, considering there are bad people out there.
Nope, still doesn’t make sense even summarised.
Another person that needs an explanation on one of my comments, sigh …
I think ‘ZenTiger’ assumed I was a teenager because I am a supporter of teenage rights. There are actually some adults, ‘ZenTiger’, who are interested in legislation being implemented which makes society a better place for all people to live in.
“I understand that you assumed I was a victim, considering there are bad people out there” Scrubone, there’s no reason to put words into my mouth, so to speak. Naughty you!
There are actually some adults, who are interested in legislation being implemented which makes society a better place for all people to live in. This is yet another policy showing that none of those adults are in the Green party.
Actually, that’s how I should have summed up my article! Thanks for that.
The Green Party, especially Sue Bradford, care so much about the rights of teenagers and children, they even care more about rights than how many votes they get, which is why they persisted with the anti-smacking bill even though the majority of adults are of course against it.
For many years now, the Green Party have wanted the youth wage to be scrapped because it is age discriminatory and very demeaning to youth; they want the unemployment benefit to be enough to live on, which it is in some cases but not all; they want those who pollute the environment to have to pay for it and those who nurture the environment to derive all types of benefits (not just financial) from it.
The Party that implements policies but does not actually care about people but only really cares about votes, is of course the Labour Party.
Jane, silly me, I misread your comment regarding your age.
I’m still not sure that the default position of “no vote” until 18 is the same as oppressive rights towards 16 year olds.
If anything, ensuring 16 year olds are not legally treated as full adults allows them better protection from contracts and taking full responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
It seems you think 16 just “feels right” for a bunch of automatic rights. I’ve seen people argue very eloquently to lower the age of sexual consent to 12 because it just “feels right”. Certainly, biologically, some 12 year olds are up for it, so why restrict this?
It also “feels right” to some people that 18 or 21 should be the correct age to bestow full rights and responsibilities on our young adults.
I’m undecided, but will argue against it on the blogs because I haven’t seen a lot of good arguments for it, and in the arguing, I learn.
Regards, Zen
That’s strange - my browser did not reveal the recent comments before I made mine. So to clarify:
I think ‘ZenTiger’ assumed I was a teenager because I am a supporter of teenage rights.
No, I fully understand there are many people who are older than teenagers who “support teenage rights”
I simply misread your comment, and thought that you had referred to yourself as a teenager.
I also suggest that people don’t have to lower the voting age to 16 (or 10) to “support teenage rights”. That makes it sound like an either/or proposition. If I don’t support giving 16 year olds the vote, then it doesn’t make me a fascist, youth hating pedophobe (which is where the conversation seems to be going on other blogs discussing this).
Good logic, ‘ZenTiger’. Truly. You really did peg me correctly, so to speak. It’s definitely true that lowering the voting age to 16 years feels right to me. I am not entirely sure why this is, but I guess I just feel that if people are old enough to legally be allowed to leave home and leave school, then they should be able to vote. I also feel that there should be an age where people are legally classed as adults because if the ages are all scattered then it seems to be nothing more than a mass of contradictions.
Maybe people that are able to leave home and leave school (15 years and older, of course) should get a half-vote. What do you think? I mean, they’re old enough to have some adult responsibilities so they should have more adult privileges (a partial vote)?
I’m generally not a big fan of compromise. A compromise is where everyone loses equally. I’m more for win-win. If that cannot be achieved, then one party has to do the honourable thing and step back and give the other team a go.
If something is worth doing, its worth doing right.
So what does that all mean? Well, a half vote is too much like a compromise. And it adds a bureaucratic element. I really, really, hate bureaucracy.
I also suspect that kids who leave home at age 15, are probably doing so for all the wrong reasons (even if they are necessary reasons). A child from a dysfunctional family running out the door and left to survive for themselves is probably sacrificing education, working in a low paying job or living on the whim of the state. Their voting choices will be directed inwards, not outwards.
The richer the society, I think it is more likely the voting choices of the people are going to be about things bigger than themselves. Raising a family is the practice run for this attitude. It no doubt surprises many on the left that my voting choice is not about maximising my tax return, but about what I think the result will be for the country. Some of these people are stuck on socialism and unlimited welfare as the only solution.
My 10 year old son has learned the difference: When he was 5 I gave him pocket money for doing what he wanted with. No strings attached. At 10, he is expected to earn it. Either way he gets a roof, clothes, meals and my love.
Another thing it seems to me is that people are keen to get things “now”. Hire Purchase and Credit Cards at high interest rates have done much to fuel a materialistic and consumeristic view of society, and push the “why wait” mentality.
Patience is a virtue, and things that people pay for are appreciated more than when they get them for free. (This explains my basic attitude to property ownership and that people do not have a right to food etc. As a society, we have an obligation to help those less fortunate, which is a different approach to the government forcing redistribution to support someone else’s “right” - but I digress)
Strangely enough, paying for something via credit card is not the same as saving the money and going in and then deliberately spending it on that specific item.
So, patience waiting for the vote and learning about how to exercise it isn’t a bad thing. Young people can still get involved in politics - handing out brochures, collecting petitions, doing their marches etc. Learning. Speaking.
Are the voices of young people being ignored?
All parties tend to have a Youth Minister, or at least policies targeting the youth group. They know that they will be voters, and the marketing of policy starts early. You don’t need to actually wield a vote for parties not to see the value in listening to future voters.
If 16 year olds get the vote, I bet the various parties, and especially Labour and Greens, would target 13 and 14 year olds and prime them for the time they can choose which marketing campaign “feels” the most right.
It is obvious that some teenagers are quite mature, well educated and can articulate a valid opinion. Of course they deserve the vote, from an intellectual sense.
However, on the whole, most teenagers have a long way to go in their maturation process. This group does well in all of the “stupid thing to do” category, from dangerous driving, binge drinking, experimentation with drugs, rebelling against parents (who, for the most part just want to keep their children safe during a difficult period) and generally thinking about experiencing life. The larger portion of this group do not think and act like adults.
Many adults also do not think and act like adults, but there comes a time when we have to say - you are on your own. Make your decisions and accept the consequences.
For me, that line of adulthood needs to be worth earning, and needs to have responsibilities attached to privileges.
Handing out the privileges before being given the chance to demonstrate the responsibility is too much of this “now” mentality that diminishes the value of the privilege.
So personally, and given this is a bit of an off the cuff response, I’d tend towards making 20 the age of majority. That’s the “feels right” number for me. Perhaps because it is the first year not officially a teenager?
But the current law is 18. That’s a number I can, in good grace, accede to. A bit early, but then again, my strong opinion is held weakly.
Making the age 16 is an age I can see many unscrupulous people and groups exploiting. So, still not convinced 16 is the right age.
Regards, Zen
Wow. Firstly, you’ve left me speechless. Secondly, you’re probably right in most of your views. Thirdly, I see the teenage years as a transition from child to adult. There are responsibilities (leave school, leave home, get a job, pay taxes, pay your bills, etc) and privileges (driving, smoking (not actually a privilege but some people think it is), drinking at 18, etc). However, I think for 16 year olds in particular, the responsibilities a lot of them have outweighs by far the privileges they have.
I think a partial vote would be a win-win situation, but yes, perhaps a bit too bureaucratic. I think that we do need a bit more input from teenagers in terms of who we as a society elect into Government. I am not particularly worried that people will try to exploit 16 year olds if they are given the vote, because most people will still be older than 16 when they vote for the first time.
I am a 16 year old teenager and I must say that my friends and me oppose this bill because we think it is unfair to all those 14 and 15 year olds at New World who pay the same taxes as us and because we KNOW that we are too immature to decide the future of this country even thought we are often told we are mature for our age.
It’s really funny how 16-18 year old boy racers are seen as irresponsible and immature and selfish, not caring if they can kill someone, yet some people are perfectly calm about letting these people into the voting booths and having them decide the foreign, trade, legal, and defence policies. What has the world come to.
Also, we are too reliant on parents. Every time we have an assignment, we run to our parents for advice. Same with voting. I know that there is 99.99% chance I will vote for whoever my parents tell me to vote for because ‘parents know best.’ Basically, our parents will have a double vote. So much for democracy.
You know what else is funny? They don’t want us driving at 16 but it’s okay to let us decide the country’s future!
Another point is that it will definitely be exploited because I guarantee everyone will vote for legalising weed, I promise you that. Even if not a lot of people smoke it, they will still make it legal cause we don’t like boundaries.
That’s all for now.
this is crud!!!~ luv georgie