Lowering the voting age to 16?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Lowering the voting age to 16?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2999939 22-Nov-2022 18:56

Govt drafts voting age legislation requiring 75% vote in parliament to pass into law. There will be a referendum at the next election. Regardless of the referendum outcome 75% vote in parliament is still required after that to change the law.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/479195/voting-age-16-law-to-be-drafted-requiring-three-quarters-of-mps-to-pass-ardern

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3000318 23-Nov-2022 13:09

Paul1977:

The supreme court said it was discrimination, so why stop at 16? That's discriminating against 15 year olds isn't it?

As a 16 year old I thought I should be allowed to vote. But as a 45 year old I can see that at 16 I was an immature idiot in almost every respect.

EDIT: It's pretty widely accepted that people tend to become more conservative as they age, so lowering the voting age to 16 would benefit parties like Green and Labour more.

They stop at 16 because the Bill of Rights Act explicitly permits discrimination without justification of under 16s - meaning it's impossible to unlawfully discriminate against a 15 year old because for them, age is not a protected attribute.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3000319 23-Nov-2022 13:12

networkn:

If they lower the voting age, they should lower the age at which children can be treated as an adult in the criminal justice system. Seems only fair that with greater power you accept some greater responsibility, right?

Are you suggesting that New Zealand aligns the voting age with the age of criminal responsibility?

Great idea, give 10 year olds the vote.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3000383 23-Nov-2022 16:54

sir1963:

But what reason is there for them to vote ?

Everything you've said (apart from being typically self-serving) is irrelevant, because the Bill of Rights Act requires the government to justify why it must discriminate against a protected group, it does not require the protected group being discriminated against to justify why it should not be discriminated against. So gnash your teeth all you like, your arguments are meaningless in this context.

Every other age restricted activity has had a justification debated (typically on public health grounds). Arguments from people like yourselves is just that they might vote against your interests - to which I say, so what? You vote against their interests all the time.

vexxxboy

4337 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2073

#3000391 23-Nov-2022 17:28

gzt: Govt drafts voting age legislation requiring 75% vote in parliament to pass into law. There will be a referendum at the next election. Regardless of the referendum outcome 75% vote in parliament is still required after that to change the law.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/479195/voting-age-16-law-to-be-drafted-requiring-three-quarters-of-mps-to-pass-ardern

good luck with that referendum, every poll i have seen it is around 75 to 80% against lowering the age to 16.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3000441 23-Nov-2022 17:47

vexxxboy:

good luck with that referendum, every poll i have seen it is around 75 to 80% against lowering the age to 16.

It's going to be interesting, since even if the motion is defeated, it doesn't change the fact that the discrimination is "unjustified" and inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Ignoring the Bill of Rights is a slippery slope for any government to go down, because then it becomes a decision for the government of the day which rights you have, and which you do not.

To add, all the government needs to do is repeal the section of the Electoral Act that says a referendum or supermajority is needed, and them -boom- no referendum or supermajority is needed. And doing that requires a simple majority!

Frankly, if you believe in the rule of law, and the absolute protection of human rights, you have no choice but to support that action.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3000445 23-Nov-2022 17:54

I think the flaw with government is that we allow laws to be passed with 51% of parliament
But important laws need 75%

We need all laws to require 75% that would mean more representation than we currently get

And the impact of 16 year olds or fringe parties would have less impact
As it would require both labour and national to form a coalition to pass laws

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3000455 23-Nov-2022 18:27

sir1963:

No, its because they are not adults.

There is even a valid argument that 18 years olds are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their behaviours and should not be placed in prison with older adults.

16 year olds are children.

Agree. Easily swayed by an ad, a free gift, promises of Make NZ Great Again. Marketing experts would make hay

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3000457 23-Nov-2022 18:35

Eitsop: I think the flaw with government is that we allow laws to be passed with 51% of parliament
But important laws need 75%

We need all laws to require 75% that would mean more representation than we currently get

And the impact of 16 year olds or fringe parties would have less impact
As it would require both labour and national to form a coalition to pass laws

Makes sense. What is an important law?

Given that most elections are narrow, the 75% threshold would mean that almost all laws would fail as the Opposition whoever it was would oppose. Only laws that all major parties agree would pass. So, basically no laws would pass.

Expanding on that, maybe we need an election where the winner got 75% of the vote? Never happen.

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3000474 23-Nov-2022 19:18

tdgeek:

Eitsop:But important laws need 75%

Makes sense. What is an important law?

Given that most elections are narrow, the 75% threshold would mean that almost all laws would fail as the Opposition whoever it was would oppose. Only laws that all major parties agree would pass. So, basically no laws would pass.

Expanding on that, maybe we need an election where the winner got 75% of the vote? Never happen.

I miswrote.. all laws need 75% and a govt can only be formed with 75%. as such Labour and National would need to coalition

Why do we have an opposition, why do we need to have half the country disenfranchised?
Why do we elect a govt and a opposition
Why should we see laws flip-flopped when a new govt gets in
Why do we need a Left or right.
Why do we still have 2 predominant parties?

We need a centre Govt that represents majority of NZ. Is it too wishful to think we could get people to work together?

I would rather have no laws passed when we have partisan parliament
I would rather vote in smart people to parliament, than politicians

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3000476 23-Nov-2022 19:22

tdgeek:

Agree. Easily swayed by an ad, a free gift, promises of Make NZ Great Again. Marketing experts would make hay

Then we should be banning adults from voting too. Easily swayed by an ad, a pension increase, a tax cut, promises of Make NZ Budget Surplus Again. Marketing experts are already making hay.

Your argument is not as "eureka" as you think it is.

Eitsop: I think the flaw with government is that we allow laws to be passed with 51% of parliament
But important laws need 75%

No the flaw is that New Zealand abolished the Legislative Council (Upper House) so there's no second house of parliament to act as a check and balance - you get a majority, you can pass whatever the heck you want. This is bad whether it's Labour or National holding that balance of power because there is no incentive to negotiate in good faith with the cross-bench.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3000477 23-Nov-2022 19:30

Kyanar:
No the flaw is that New Zealand abolished the Legislative Council (Upper House) so there's no second house of parliament to act as a check and balance - you get a majority, you can pass whatever the heck you want. This is bad whether it's Labour or National holding that balance of power because there is no incentive to negotiate in good faith with the cross-bench.

Yes, but there is no guarantee the second house wouldn't be just as partisan.

The flaw in countries around the world, is allowing left and right governments.. we are always alienating half of population. be it labour/national democrat/republican tories/conservatives

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3000498 23-Nov-2022 20:55

Kyanar:

Then we should be banning adults from voting too. Easily swayed by an ad, a pension increase, a tax cut, promises of Make NZ Budget Surplus Again. Marketing experts are already making hay.

Your argument is not as "eureka" as you think it is.

No the flaw is that New Zealand abolished the Legislative Council (Upper House) so there's no second house of parliament to act as a check and balance - you get a majority, you can pass whatever the heck you want. This is bad whether it's Labour or National holding that balance of power because there is no incentive to negotiate in good faith with the cross-bench.

I dont recall portraying my post as a Eureka moment.

Yes adults are easily swayed, but this thread is about 16 year olds.

Upper and Lower House? Thats an option, but the cross bench agreements will be rare. And when party A says lets do this, and Party B agrees, they wont want to be seen to agreeing too much, thats how politics works.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3000499 23-Nov-2022 21:00

Eitsop:

Why do we have an opposition, why do we need to have half the country disenfranchised?
Why do we elect a govt and a opposition
Why should we see laws flip-flopped when a new govt gets in
Why do we need a Left or right.
Why do we still have 2 predominant parties?

We need a centre Govt that represents majority of NZ. Is it too wishful to think we could get people to work together?

I would rather have no laws passed when we have partisan parliament
I would rather vote in smart people to parliament, than politicians

A dictatorship would work.

What you are wanting is a National Labour Coalition. If they worked together they dilute their brand, and thus, their votes.

No laws passed would be the case, unless they were patently obvious, or massively diluted, in which case it wont mean anything.

If only smart people went into Politics, they will be politicians, in name and in action. You cannot change anything unless you get the votes, so you need to politicise your actions.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#3000678 24-Nov-2022 06:32

Please create a new topic to discuss coalitions and all that stuff. I'd be happy to contribute if you do. It is not relevant to the voting age discussion in this topic.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8