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

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3034550 10-Feb-2023 13:08

Ge0rge: And yet parliament can change the Bill of Rights.

So what? The debate isn't about whether the Bill of Rights can be changed, the debate is about the fact that the New Zealand Government is violating it right now.

Ge0rge: And yet parliament can change the Bill of Rights.

It wasn't a sparky comment, it was a legitimate question. You appear to be arguing that a law set by parliament is descriminatory, based on another law set by parliament. If the Bill of Rights was to be amended, then you would no longer have an argument.

It's not a legitimate question, it's whataboutism. New Zealand's constitutional protections, insofar as they exist, state that there must be a justification for discriminating against individuals aged 15 years and older. No valid justification beyond "because" has been presented as to why individuals aged 15 and over should not be entitled to a single vote, just like individuals aged 18 and over currently enjoy.

As to "if the Bill of Rights was to be amended", I would vehemently oppose any Government of any stripes taking such an action to remove rights from any individual that they currently hold, because that is a precedent that should not be countenanced by anyone, even you - lest you become the next target of a removal of rights.

However if the Bill of Rights were altered, abhorrent as that may be, you're right - there would be no argument left. I've made perfectly clear my view, repeatedly, that the argument for why 15-17 year olds should be entitled to vote is that the law says they must because to discriminate against them is prohibited unless there is a valid reason, and no-one has presented one. I vehemently oppose governments breaking the law.

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3034561 10-Feb-2023 13:41

4 was probably a bit factious, I will admit. But what about 14? If a group of 14 year olds got together and suggested that the bill of rights should be lowered, because they felt that they shouldn't be discriminated against, what arguments would be used to justify the current 15? Everything posited would be nothing more than "because" - as you have rightly pointed out for all those saying the voting age should be unchanged from the current 18. Would you be so vehemently opposed to change that increased the rights of a group of individuals?

I know this line is off topic, but I feel as if your arguments for change can be boiled down to "this other law, also decided by parliament, says so".

Note - I am not opposed to lowering the voting age, more just interested in a discussion.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3034578 10-Feb-2023 14:08

Ge0rge: 4 was probably a bit factious, I will admit. But what about 14? If a group of 14 year olds got together and suggested that the bill of rights should be lowered, because they felt that they shouldn't be discriminated against, what arguments would be used to justify the current 15? Everything posited would be nothing more than "because" - as you have rightly pointed out for all those saying the voting age should be unchanged from the current 18. Would you be so vehemently opposed to change that increased the rights of a group of individuals?

I know this line is off topic, but I feel as if your arguments for change can be boiled down to "this other law, also decided by parliament, says so".

That would be a very different discussion, and as you've correctly pointed out, off topic. This topic is about whether or not the voting age should be lowered to comply with the Bill of Rights, not whether the Bill of Rights should be changed to remove rights from a group (or add rights to a group).

At issue here is that people are arguing that 15-17 year olds, that cannot be lawfully discriminated against, should be unlawfully discriminated against simply because they are currently being unlawfully discriminated against.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3034741 10-Feb-2023 18:18

Ge0rge: 4 was probably a bit factious, I will admit. But what about 14? If a group of 14 year olds got together and suggested that the bill of rights should be lowered, because they felt that they shouldn't be discriminated against, what arguments would be used to justify the current 15? Everything posited would be nothing more than "because" - as you have rightly pointed out for all those saying the voting age should be unchanged from the current 18. Would you be so vehemently opposed to change that increased the rights of a group of individuals?

I know this line is off topic, but I feel as if your arguments for change can be boiled down to "this other law, also decided by parliament, says so".

Note - I am not opposed to lowering the voting age, more just interested in a discussion.

Erm... No it hasn't been. The exact opposite is true.

The majority of arguments for lowering age has been because lowering it has actual proven research showing that lowering the age improves voter participation which has been mine and many others who are supportive of lowering the age.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=voter+participation+lowering+age

Again.. less than a second of research with that handy search engine thingie.

Find me one peer reviewed researched argument saying that lowering the voting age doesn't improve long term voter participation. As... I couldn't find any. Only reckons from right wing folks who want to keep the status quo as they don't want to have a younger person who are more likely to find the right wing policies less appealing, hence why they don't want them to be voting.

If only right wing folks could stop gaslighting their main argument against higher voter participation.

ezbee

2658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3101

#3034777 10-Feb-2023 20:10

Problems of participation of youth in politics is not down to the age of starting voting.

Its the problem of relevance when you have your mind on many other things you are trying to sort out.
Careers, Exams, Sports, Relationships, just having fun !
Time to get around to engage with politics may be fleeting.

Idealism may also be a major obstacle when you have not hit some of the hard edges of life.
Politics you never get everything you want. Choices come with compromises.
It may be down to your 'don't wants,' or just giving a minor party a bit more influence to tame the major one.

The ones that are active are quite blind to this, feel everyone is like them, very politically active and sure of their direction.

Greek philosophers of antiquity saw difficulties in preparing young to deal with philosophical discussion and politics.
Some things are easier to understand with life experience.

One day we may find writings from 1000's years earlier lamenting the same thing.

We could just do it like 'Starship Troupers' , you get a vote by doing service.
In the Film it was just Military service, but in the book you could do civil service as well.

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3034793 10-Feb-2023 21:02

BarTender:

Ge0rge: 4 was probably a bit factious, I will admit. But what about 14? If a group of 14 year olds got together and suggested that the bill of rights should be lowered, because they felt that they shouldn't be discriminated against, what arguments would be used to justify the current 15? Everything posited would be nothing more than "because" - as you have rightly pointed out for all those saying the voting age should be unchanged from the current 18. Would you be so vehemently opposed to change that increased the rights of a group of individuals?

I know this line is off topic, but I feel as if your arguments for change can be boiled down to "this other law, also decided by parliament, says so".

Note - I am not opposed to lowering the voting age, more just interested in a discussion.

Erm... No it hasn't been. The exact opposite is true.

The majority of arguments for lowering age has been because lowering it has actual proven research showing that lowering the age improves voter participation which has been mine and many others who are supportive of lowering the age.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=voter+participation+lowering+age

Again.. less than a second of research with that handy search engine thingie.

Find me one peer reviewed researched argument saying that lowering the voting age doesn't improve long term voter participation. As... I couldn't find any. Only reckons from right wing folks who want to keep the status quo as they don't want to have a younger person who are more likely to find the right wing policies less appealing, hence why they don't want them to be voting.

If only right wing folks could stop gaslighting their main argument against higher voter participation.

I'm sorry - but did you even read the conversation between Kyanar and myself? I asked that contributor what arguments could be used to prevent the Age of Discrimination from being reduced from the current 15, down to 14. I then suggested that the arguments by those against reducing the voting age, used in this hypothetical situation, would still amount to nothing more than "because".

Basically it seems that you have told me I am wrong for suggesting we should reduce the age, and that opponents have no legitimate answer or argument to keep the age as it is, and then shown me evidence to prove that opponents have no legitimate answer to keep it at it is, and that we should reduce it.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3034844 10-Feb-2023 23:41

ezbee:

Problems of participation of youth in politics is not down to the age of starting voting.

.. snip of nonsense reckons...

Yes.... Dammit I am going to get so bored pasting this link in here

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=voter+participation+lowering+age

There are TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE RESEARCH PAPERS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES SHOWING LOWERING THE VOTING AGE TO 16 IMPROVES VOTER PARTICIPATION RATES LONG TERM.

Scotland: https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/votes-at-16-in-scotland-study

US Research on Austria since when they made the change in 2007: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4020373/

This information isn't hard to find... it's almost been around for over 15 years showing the longitudinal improvement in voter participation.

Why do you people refuse to even spend half a second searching on Google and reading research?

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3034845 10-Feb-2023 23:47

Ge0rge: I'm sorry - but did you even read the conversation between Kyanar and myself? I asked that contributor what arguments could be used to prevent the Age of Discrimination from being reduced from the current 15, down to 14. I then suggested that the arguments by those against reducing the voting age, used in this hypothetical situation, would still amount to nothing more than "because".

Basically it seems that you have told me I am wrong for suggesting we should reduce the age, and that opponents have no legitimate answer or argument to keep the age as it is, and then shown me evidence to prove that opponents have no legitimate answer to keep it at it is, and that we should reduce it.

I'm getting grumpy because there is JUST SO MUCH RESEARCH showing lowering the age to 16 has long term benefits for voter participation in the countries that have done it and the folks who are typically right wing and anti lowering the age keep on spouting nonsense and not even spending less than a second on Google seeing if the facts back up their reckon.

I am not adverse to lowering it further to 14 or 15... How about we get to 16, see that the world doesn't end and that the younger voters do continue to stay engaged... and then look to lower it further.

ezbee

2658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3101

#3035243 11-Feb-2023 21:22

BarTender,

Ok I did look through The Scottish one and...
It seems a bit mixed.

For 2021 Scottish Parliament election turnout (Separate from General Election)

The 20-21 years olds who first voted at 16 in LE17 worse by 5-10% than 18yr groups.
20% worse for 29-31 18 yr first voters in GE10

21-22 year olds who first voted in 16 in SP16 were
Worse than 24-26 year olds first voting indyref at 18 by a few % (5?).
Better by a few % (5?) than 19-20 year olds first vote 18 indyref
Maybe 1-2% better than 28-29 first voting 18yr in SP11
10% worse than 29-31 first voting at 18 GE10

22-24 year olds who first voted at 16 in Indyref
Same as 29-31 year olds who first voted at 18 in GE10
In other 18 yr groups beat 24-26 by 5%ish, 27-28 by 17%ish, 28-29 by 10%ish.

The star were those for whom 2021 was their first and only election at 16.
Ahead of all other 18 groups measured by 20-30%

Due to sample size many error bars are in the 10-30% range soooo, a bit mixed.

You have elections like the Muldoon 'Snap' with charged atmosphere probably draws in more voters.
As well as the current topical issues varying in interest.

The Austrian one seemed to be measuring different things.
Like higher score on demonstrations and collecting signatures for under 16's seemed to be used to measure more engagement, vs other factors with less variation.

I'm not against decreasing the voting age.
Just it may not be much different depending on nature of major events around that election.
To get results you want it may require more effort to engage young people is my thing really.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#3036459 14-Feb-2023 16:31

Kyanar:

Conservatives are people who insist on maintaining the status quo because "that's the way we've always done it". I'm not trying to tar you as that, you paint yourself as that pretty plainly.

Ummmm, OK. But I don't actually think that's me at all. In my other posts I have, for instance, supported changes to the status quo - including strongly supporting the legalisation of cannabis (and indeed other drugs as well). So I don't think tarring me as some crusty old reactionary who just opposes change is accurate. Although I did think that the age to purchase cannabis should have been set at 18, not the higher age proposed in the bill, for the same reasons I think the voting age should be 18, because that's when people are generally considered adults.

Kyanar:

Which is it? No parliament can bind a future parliament? Or it can, but only if you agree with it?

The former. Clearly. It's a legal fact that no parliament can bind a future parliament, and I remember that being beaten into us in my first law paper. If you read my post more carefully it should be obvious that was what I was saying. My point on entrenchment was that it was entrenchment serves a signalling role, but I clearly stated that it's also ineffective if a future parliament didn't like what had been entrenched. Because the entrenching clause isn't itself entrenched, and no parliament can bind a future parliament.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#3036469 14-Feb-2023 16:45

Ge0rge: So essentially you're saying that there should be no minimum age for voting at all? That four year olds' vote is only one in several million...

Now there's a plan. Although based on my pre-schooler's current political preferences, it's unclear whether those votes would go to the Purple Wiggle or Rubble from the Paw Patrol.

Samsung

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

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3036483 14-Feb-2023 17:26

JimmyH:

Ummmm, OK. But I don't actually think that's me at all. In my other posts I have, for instance, supported changes to the status quo - including strongly supporting the legalisation of cannabis (and indeed other drugs as well). So I don't think tarring me as some crusty old reactionary who just opposes change is accurate. Although I did think that the age to purchase cannabis should have been set at 18, not the higher age proposed in the bill, for the same reasons I think the voting age should be 18, because that's when people are generally considered adults.

You keep using "people are generally considered adults at 18" (by people who are over 18, and therefore unaffected by this arbitrary line) as justification. It is not. It's "see this status quo? I agree with it (and am unaffected by it), so it should stay". You, like many others, have provided absolutely no legitimate justification for this discrimination.

JimmyH:

The former. Clearly. It's a legal fact that no parliament can bind a future parliament, and I remember that being beaten into us in my first law paper. If you read my post more carefully it should be obvious that was what I was saying. My point on entrenchment was that it was entrenchment serves a signalling role, but I clearly stated that it's also ineffective if a future parliament didn't like what had been entrenched. Because the entrenching clause isn't itself entrenched, and no parliament can bind a future parliament.

Except that it is not a legal fact. Parliaments can in fact bind future parliaments, and have (inappropriately) done so, including in the particular case of writing into the Electoral Act that the provision setting the age at 18 cannot be removed by simple majority, and then writing an additional provision preventing that provision from being amended. There is no legislative principle that a parliament cannot bind a future parliament - even if parliament chooses not to.

Legal facts must be backed by actual legislation. No legislation prevents a parliament from passing legislation a future parliament cannot simply change. This is not unique to New Zealand either, many other countries have legislation that parliaments cannot change - in Queensland, there is law preventing an Upper House from being re-established, and an additional law preventing the law preventing the establishment of an Upper House being changed, in the US and Australia they have entire Constitutions that cannot be changed by a single parliament.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#3036747 15-Feb-2023 09:18

Kyanar:

Except that it is not a legal fact. Parliaments can in fact bind future parliaments, and have (inappropriately) done so, including in the particular case of writing into the Electoral Act that the provision setting the age at 18 cannot be removed by simple majority, and then writing an additional provision preventing that provision from being amended. There is no legislative principle that a parliament cannot bind a future parliament - even if parliament chooses not to.

This is starting to veer off topic, so this will be my last comment on entrenchment. You are flat out wrong. Parliament's cannot bind a future parliament. They can use something like entrenchment to signal that something is important, but it's ineffective if a future parliament, by a simple majority, doesn't want to be bound by it. Either by repealing the entrenching clause prior to repealing the entrenched clause. For example, even Geoffrey Palmer (who knows more about the law than anyone here!) pointed out that the entrenchment clause in the three waters bill wouldn't prevent the whole act being repealed in toto by a simple majority, should a future parliament wish to do so.

If you want to understand it better, there is a good write up on entrenchment in NZ here. And I'm not engaging on this distraction further.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#3036871 15-Feb-2023 10:22

JimmyH:

Kyanar:

Except that it is not a legal fact. Parliaments can in fact bind future parliaments, and have (inappropriately) done so, including in the particular case of writing into the Electoral Act that the provision setting the age at 18 cannot be removed by simple majority, and then writing an additional provision preventing that provision from being amended. There is no legislative principle that a parliament cannot bind a future parliament - even if parliament chooses not to.

This is starting to veer off topic, so this will be my last comment on entrenchment. You are flat out wrong. Parliament's cannot bind a future parliament. They can use something like entrenchment to signal that something is important, but it's ineffective if a future parliament, by a simple majority, doesn't want to be bound by it. Either by repealing the entrenching clause prior to repealing the entrenched clause. For example, even Geoffrey Palmer (who knows more about the law than anyone here!) pointed out that the entrenchment clause in the three waters bill wouldn't prevent the whole act being repealed in toto by a simple majority, should a future parliament wish to do so.

If you want to understand it better, there is a good write up on entrenchment in NZ here. And I'm not engaging on this distraction further.

I was under the impression you needed a super majority specified by the entrenchment clause before you could overturn it. So you can say that it needs 80% of MP's to agree to repeal it for example rather than a simple majority.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3036954 15-Feb-2023 11:01

JimmyH:

This is starting to veer off topic, so this will be my last comment on entrenchment. You are flat out wrong. Parliament's cannot bind a future parliament. They can use something like entrenchment to signal that something is important, but it's ineffective if a future parliament, by a simple majority, doesn't want to be bound by it. Either by repealing the entrenching clause prior to repealing the entrenched clause. For example, even Geoffrey Palmer (who knows more about the law than anyone here!) pointed out that the entrenchment clause in the three waters bill wouldn't prevent the whole act being repealed in toto by a simple majority, should a future parliament wish to do so.

If you want to understand it better, there is a good write up on entrenchment in NZ here. And I'm not engaging on this distraction further.

Your reference is a write up that hilariously comes to the conclusion that the highest authorities in the nation have explicitly avoided ever definitively ruling on the matter, and that the solicitor-general is(/was) of the opinion that any legislation passed non-compliant with a so-called entrenchment position is not validly passed legislation. While interesting, the whole thing basically just says "shrug" (out of necessity, might one add). I guess what I'm saying is you're flat out wrong.

And I am done with this discussion, if you can call it a discussion rather than just a bunch of old people shouting at clouds about "those darn kids".

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