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

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7829

Lifetime subscriber

#3031562 3-Feb-2023 22:41

tdgeek: Will a 15/16yo vote for the betterment of NZ than a 30/40/50 yo? I don't feel so. I will classify myself as a good person, but as a 15/16 its ALL about me.

Do people over 18 carefully consider what is best first for NZ and vote that way. Nope.

Fuzzi9986

52 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 26

ID Verified

Trusted

#3031570 3-Feb-2023 23:59

gzt:
tdgeek: Will a 15/16yo vote for the betterment of NZ than a 30/40/50 yo? I don't feel so. I will classify myself as a good person, but as a 15/16 its ALL about me.

Do people over 18 carefully consider what is best first for NZ and vote that way. Nope.

Exactly, everyone will vote in their own best interests. It's the same no matter how old you are

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3031572 4-Feb-2023 02:01

networkn:

Twaddle. You want evidence that age affects decision-making?

When the legal age for drinking was 20, the occasional 20-year-old was giving 18-year-olds alcohol then a small number of those were giving them to 16-year-olds.

When they lowered the drinking age (incredibly stupidly) to 18, then the 18 year olds were giving alcohol to 14 and 15 year olds, who were then in turn giving it to 10 and 11 year olds. (I am sure you saw all the videos of the 10 and 11 year olds puking up all over the cops on queen st a few years ago. Still happens most weekends. Instances of it prior to the drop in drinking age were isolated at best.

Generally as a rule, the older you get (to a point) the more you understand the consequences of your actions BEFORE they are consequences. Suggesting otherwise just because anecdotally you know a mature teen here and there, doesn't change that. As a parent, I discriminate on age all the time, anytime I make a decision on whether my kid(s) are safe in a particular environment if they are safe to ride to school or catch a bus. It's how I keep my kids safe. We make decisions all day every day around age and what it allows us to do and not do, otherwise we would let 11-year-olds drive cars.

Lots of words, but no valid argument. Once again, your argument boils down to "I don't trust them to vote the way I want".

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3031573 4-Feb-2023 02:03

tdgeek:

Not sure if thats ageist or not. Or decrying every older person that bought a house? Younger people dont skew left they skew Green, big difference.

Maybe we could ban voting by beneficiaries as I guess all of them are sitting cushy on their career choice???? That mindset appears to be your agenda.

Basically discriminatory. When you brand any group no matter what group as the cause of your ills, thats a bit poor. I have a mate in his early 50's who bought a house 3 years ago. Low income. What group is he in?

Ironic, since you did the exact same thing.

Actual irony. Not Alanis Morrissette irony.

Fuzzi9986

52 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 26

ID Verified

Trusted

#3031635 4-Feb-2023 08:48

tdgeek:
Younger people dont skew left they skew Green, big difference.

Not a big difference.

Green is the only left party that will make it over the 5% threshold. If there were other left parties that would make it over or the threshold was lowered or removed many of us "green" voters would move to those parties.

Labour is center

National is center right

Act is far right

NZ first cares only about the pensioners

Greens are the only party on the left of center line that get in

mudguard

2328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3031639 4-Feb-2023 09:18

If my racist, slightly senile 94 year old grandmother is still allowed to vote,I don't have an issue with 16 year olds voting.

I used to love saying to my grandmother than maybe we should have an option once we reach 65, take Super but lose the vote. That used to set her off.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031643 4-Feb-2023 09:28

Fuzzi9986:

Not a big difference.

Green is the only left party that will make it over the 5% threshold. If there were other left parties that would make it over or the threshold was lowered or removed many of us "green" voters would move to those parties.

Labour is center

National is center right

Act is far right

NZ first cares only about the pensioners

Greens are the only party on the left of center line that get in

You missed the point. If voting age was lowered, the far left Greens will just roll out frenzied kid friendly policies to hoover up the votes. Nothing to do with normal parties running the country votes

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031650 4-Feb-2023 09:46

Kyanar:

Lots of words, but no valid argument. Once again, your argument boils down to "I don't trust them to vote the way I want".

My 11 year old doesn't drive the way I want!

No matter how obtuse you try to be, you'll still be wrong. Age is a factor in decision-making. That is how you discriminate (correctly) to leave the voting age as it is.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3031899 4-Feb-2023 19:43

networkn:

My 11 year old doesn't drive the way I want!

No matter how obtuse you try to be, you'll still be wrong. Age is a factor in decision-making. That is how you discriminate (correctly) to leave the voting age as it is.

More words with no valid argument - this seems to be a trend from conservatives. Driving restrictions are about learning in a controlled manner to operate a two ton death machine. A vote is... a one in seven million say as to who runs the country. Besides, ample evidence has shown that the next generation are more likely to vote in the best interests of the country than the boomers and Gen X, who persistently seem to vote for things like tax cuts and against things like climate response. Yet the boomers and Gen X seem to be allowed to vote.

Perhaps instead the vote should be age restricted so only those who will live long enough to feel the effects of the policy of the day are allowed it. Ah, wait, that's illegal. Just like restricting 15 year olds from voting without a valid justification.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031906 4-Feb-2023 19:59

Kyanar:

More words with no valid argument - this seems to be a trend from conservatives. Driving restrictions are about learning in a controlled manner to operate a two ton death machine. A vote is... a one in seven million say as to who runs the country. Besides, ample evidence has shown that the next generation are more likely to vote in the best interests of the country than the boomers and Gen X, who persistently seem to vote for things like tax cuts and against things like climate response. Yet the boomers and Gen X seem to be allowed to vote.

Perhaps instead the vote should be age restricted so only those who will live long enough to feel the effects of the policy of the day are allowed it. Ah, wait, that's illegal. Just like restricting 15 year olds from voting without a valid justification.

Gen X is 1965 to 1980. Boomers before that. Factor in Conservatives born after 1980. That is a lot to exclude in favour of 16yo's, and now it seems 15yo's.

What age limit means you should not be an MP? I assume that means excluding anyone born on or before 1980? And Conservatives born after 1980?

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#3031955 4-Feb-2023 20:09

Kyanar:

Lots of words, but no valid argument. Once again, your argument boils down to "I don't trust them to vote the way I want".

No, it doesn't. Not remotely.

If the argument was that the voting criterion should be set higher or lower to exclude people of a particular political persuasion to change who won elections, then the debate would be a lot wider. As well as arguments to lower the voting age you would be seeing arguments to raise the voting age (to stop those pesky twenty-something lefty voters), to have a maximum age of voting (to stop those pesky right-wing conservative pensioners voting), or to have a property-owning qualification to vote (to stop those pesky people without property from influencing property rights). We, rightly, aren't seeing any of that nonsense.

What the argument boils down to is that it's widely accepted that you have to be an adult to do adult things, and one of those adult things is picking who governs the country. Some people say 18, some say 16, and yes there are others who say higher. It's a question of what you set the age at. And setting it at the widely used age of majority, which determines when you can do a whole raft of other adult things as well, feels about right to me.

If the problem is simply an unexpected court interpretation of the relevant clause I the Bill of Rights then there is a simple option - Parliament can amend that clause. Parliament made the BoR and Parliament can change it.

Put simply the argument boils down to a policy issue: electing a government is an adult thing, what is the appropriate age that someone has to reach before they are an adult and can do that adult thing. There is no "magic age" enshrined in a constitution, so it's about the social consensus as to what is reasonable. Explicit lectio.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3031982 4-Feb-2023 21:19

Fuzzi9986:

Green is the only left party that will make it over the 5% threshold. If there were other left parties that would make it over or the threshold was lowered or removed many of us "green" voters would move to those parties.

Labour is center

National is center right

Act is far right

NZ first cares only about the pensioners

Greens are the only party on the left of center line that get in

I would have thought Labour is Centre Left

The only party I see as Centre doesn't even get 5% that is The Opportunities Party

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3031984 4-Feb-2023 21:27

mudguard: If my racist, slightly senile 94 year old grandmother is still allowed to vote,I don't have an issue with 16 year olds voting.

I used to love saying to my grandmother than maybe we should have an option once we reach 65, take Super but lose the vote. That used to set her off.

Very funny.. but good point.. Maybe an alternative, give every person a weighted vote Average age-actual age (anything older they just get one vote)

So if a person was 18, they would get 75-18=57 weighted votes
and if a person was 65, they would get 75-65=10 weighted votes

That would mean younger people would have much more voice, as they have much more at stake . So if they could happen, wouldn't matter if they started voting at 18

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031993 4-Feb-2023 22:22

Kyanar:

More words with no valid argument

There is a difference between you being able to see and accept what is common sense to most people, and it not being a valid argument. With age comes maturity. THAT is a valid reason to discriminate against 15/16 year olds.

If we lower the voting age, then we should also remove all the legal allowances made in the case of those youth who commit crimes. No punishment discount for age .

Just like restricting 15 year olds from voting without a valid justification.

There is 100% valid justification. I've explained it multiple times. Please don't confuse your inability to understand it with it not being a valid reason.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#3032003 4-Feb-2023 22:40

networkn:

There is a difference between you being able to see and accept what is common sense to most people, and it not being a valid argument. With age comes maturity. THAT is a valid reason to discriminate against 15/16 year olds.

If we lower the voting age, then we should also remove all the legal allowances made in the case of those youth who commit crimes. No punishment discount for age .

I agree with your reasoning but if it is to be applied logically, the voting age should actually be set at about 25 years, which is about when the brain stops developing and individual judgement from life experience is as good as it ever will be until advanced middle age.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

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