Is 16 too young to vote?

Rudd is pushing for lowering the age of voting to 16 and remember this is compulsory. Also can lead to lowering the age for other commitments like contracts etc.

[quote]Sixteen and too immature to vote.Kenneth Wiltshire | October 15, 2009.
ALWAYS beware of governments that try to tinker with the voting franchise. Beware especially of the Rudd government's efforts to lower the voting age to 16.
.
Does anyone seriously think that 16-year-olds have the maturity to vote on matters that will materially affect the nation? Not the rest of the world, apparently, because in almost all countries the universal voting age is 18. In Japan it is 20, in Malaysia 21, in Singapore 21, and in some African, Arab and Pacific countries, 21 or 25. In a number of counties the voting age for election to upper houses is set at 25. In the US a candidate for the Senate must be 30.
.
The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in Australia and the US only to accompany conscription for the Vietnam War. The US changed its voting age to 18 by the 26th amendment to the constitution, overruling the verdict of the courts, which had favoured retaining the 21 age limit. It was the Vietnam War that produced the popular groundswell with the slogan "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote". The age for the military draft had been lowered to 18 for World War II.
.
Historically, when the right to vote was won in almost all democratic systems, the voting age was set at 21, which was also the age of majority. In many democracies the voting age, like many other aspects of universal suffrage, was considered of such importance that it was enshrined in the constitution to prevent capricious governments from changing it to suit themselves.
.
This is exactly what the Rudd government is trying to do, and since the Australian voting age is not contained in the Constitution, it can be changed by mere legislation.
.
Labor constantly out polls the Coalition in the younger age groups and so it comes as no surprise that this attempt is being made. Despite all the sweet talk from Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig in his discussion paper to the contrary, this is nothing less than a cynical attempt to manipulate the franchise to suit the Labor Party. The Greens will back Labor in the Senate because the bulk of their support also comes from the teenage population, not least because of their lax policy on drugs and social practices, as well as their professed commitment to protecting the environment. The Coalition will inevitably oppose it, so the fate of this measure in the Senate will rest with independent Nick Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding. If Fielding has any political astuteness he will quickly realise the threat this measure poses to family values. To date the Australian public has responded to the proposal with a gaping yawn, not realising what is at stake.
.
It may be true that young people are maturing biologically at an earlier age but does this mean that they are also maturing mentally at the same pace? Do we really want young people driving cars, taking out loans and engaging in a wide range of commercial and social behaviours at 16 as if they were adults? Because that is what would immediately follow the lowering of the voting age to 16. Even our film censorship laws recognise 18 as a benchmark, yet these too would be under threat from a lowering of the voting age. You can hear it now from all those purveyors of misery in our community: "old enough to vote, old enough to view violence and pornography, old enough to get into irretrievable debt, old enough to gamble your life away, old enough to smash a car and kill others on the roads, old enough to drink to a state of inebriation, old enough to shoot guns (as the Shooters Party in NSW has been advocating in the state's upper house).
.
There will always be debate about the age at which people become mature and all individuals are different. But in Australia we have a special responsibility on this issue as we are one of the very few countries with compulsory voting. The advocates of 16-year-old voting invariably argue that it would encourage greater civic interest and participation among teenagers, but there is little evidence to support this. (It is reminiscent of those who advocate lowering the age of consent; they often have some vested interest.)
.
Indeed, although we have compulsory voting, our schools' civics education is poor and we do precious little to educate migrants in the values, practices and objectives of our democratic system.
.
We have young people leaving school at 15 who are poorly prepared because of the abysmal career and personal counselling in our schools; we have students rocking up to university at the age of 17, even 16, totally unprepared for all the conceptual demands that tertiary education requires. In North America and most of Europe they would not exit the education system until 20 or 21, after several years of college or work experience to prepare them for life and the workplace. In Australia we have a very cavalier approach to our young people, throwing them in the deep end to sink or swim at far too young an age. Because of the structure of our school systems and curriculum, at the age of about 13 they have to choose either a literate of numerate educational pathway, and at the age of about 15 they have to choose an academic or vocational one. This is far too young for such momentous decisions.
.
There are some decisions in life that require a certain degree of maturity and 16 is far too young to be making them. Society should not force this on our young people; it should put all its efforts into preparing them for these challenges.
.
- to be continued on following post as article is too long for this field.

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)
18 comments

With a wee bit of luck Turnbull will be gone but then I am not lucky that way.



Whatever. I will not vote Labor as they offer me nothing but more pain in the back pocket as usual and if their ETS gets up it will be more pain than many can bear and although Rudd says he will compensate the pensioners low income earners etc - it will be nothing like the extra cost we will all face - a 40% rise in cost of living is well within the ball park and he will give us $5 if lucky - why - because he has to find the billions for his new voters from somewhere - just like he had to give us a sop when we had a hike on oil prices which got eaten up months before the singles got it and they got $30 - I got $5 a week and whilst out had to take my pills and so had a coffee and OMG it was $4.40 for a cup!! I haven't eaten out for years nor bought a drink could not believe the price. Usually carry small bottle of water for my pills forgot it.

Yes everything has gone up WAY out of the reach of many--sometimes well over 100% and it is to get MUCh worse

We seem to have drifted off the subject slightly. However, the cost of living is actually relevant to this subject. I asked my grandson and a few of his friends about voting, they are 16 and still at school. They are well educated and informed BUT have no idea of the actual cost of living, nor how it will be affected by the emissions trading scheme. Their understanding of our tax system is sadly lacking, they thought that the government paid for everything mainly from GST revenue and topped up by personal taxes. They had no understanding of how hospitals are funded. The general opinion was that health funds paid for hospitals. When I asked them who funded Medicare they looked blankly at me. I asked them the same question about our armed services, public servants, politicians salaries and their travel. Most of these children (and they are still children) are not directly affected by the decisions of Government, so how can we expect them to make considered and well informed decisions about government. These are all children who go to a good private school in Canberra where they are probably subject to more political information than others who don't live in this political environment.



Interestingly his 18 year old brother who has a part time job was much more informed because he pays tax on his earnings and is coming to terms with the fact that even though he pays tax, if he saves his money he gets taxed on the interest he's earned.



The one thing that has come out of this conversation is that these kids are talking about it and asking their parents questions. Hopefully by the time they can vote they will be aware of the effect that governments have on society. Try this with your young acquaintances, I think you will be gobsmacked at some of their perceptions.

Pommie good on you for bring this to their attention--there would be many/most that would have NO idea of the running of the household let alone the country, maybe you have given them food for thought.

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)
18 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment