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

4785 posts

Uber Geek

#3000769 24-Nov-2022 10:50

Kyanar:

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.

But how is it different from the drinking age as just one example, isn't that just as discriminatory? Wouldn't lowering the voting age open Pandora's box?

Norton

Get easy to use, easy to install Norton antivirus protection against advanced online threats (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17234 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000783 24-Nov-2022 11:30

I don’t have a strong opinion on the voting age though my ‘feeling’ tells me 16 is probably on the young side. But I don’t think it would be a disaster if the age did go down. Most 16 year-olds probably wouldn’t bother to vote, and those who did would probably be mature and informed enough to make good decisions.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#3000792 24-Nov-2022 11:53

Paul1977:

But how is it different from the drinking age as just one example, isn't that just as discriminatory? Wouldn't lowering the voting age open Pandora's box?

It's different because the drinking age legislation has justifications - it's not just "because" like the voting age. The Bill of Rights Act guarantees that no-one over the age of 16 is subject to unjustified discrimination. Public health is an easy sell on the justification front.

sir1963

2245 posts

Uber Geek

#3000812 24-Nov-2022 12:58

Rikkitic:

I don’t have a strong opinion on the voting age though my ‘feeling’ tells me 16 is probably on the young side. But I don’t think it would be a disaster if the age did go down. Most 16 year-olds probably wouldn’t bother to vote, and those who did would probably be mature and informed enough to make good decisions.

Ah yes...like the Boaty Mc Boatface vote....

Paul1977

4785 posts

Uber Geek

#3000817 24-Nov-2022 13:13

Kyanar:

It's different because the drinking age legislation has justifications - it's not just "because" like the voting age. The Bill of Rights Act guarantees that no-one over the age of 16 is subject to unjustified discrimination. Public health is an easy sell on the justification front.

Fair enough I guess. In that case I think the finding that it's unjustified is just wrong. I would have thought they fact that a 16 year old isn't considered an adult in many areas of the law is enough justification.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17234 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000818 24-Nov-2022 13:13

sir1963:

Rikkitic:

I don’t have a strong opinion on the voting age though my ‘feeling’ tells me 16 is probably on the young side. But I don’t think it would be a disaster if the age did go down. Most 16 year-olds probably wouldn’t bother to vote, and those who did would probably be mature and informed enough to make good decisions.

Ah yes...like the Boaty Mc Boatface vote....

Which was ignored by the Man. Not groovy at all!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

4785 posts

Uber Geek

#3000825 24-Nov-2022 13:24

Rikkitic:

I don’t have a strong opinion on the voting age though my ‘feeling’ tells me 16 is probably on the young side. But I don’t think it would be a disaster if the age did go down. Most 16 year-olds probably wouldn’t bother to vote, and those who did would probably be mature and informed enough to make good decisions.

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#3000830 24-Nov-2022 13:46

Paul1977:

Fair enough I guess. In that case I think the finding that it's unjustified is just wrong. I would have thought they fact that a 16 year old isn't considered an adult in many areas of the law is enough justification.

That's not a justification by any stretch. There needs to be relevant facts that give support to a compelling reason why the discrimination is justified. Whether you realised it or not, your justification there was just "because".

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17234 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000831 24-Nov-2022 13:47

Actually, there were some 16 year-olds being interviewed the other day on this subject, and they were pretty impressive in terms of the knowledge and maturity they demonstrated. Of course not all are like this, but the activists with an interest in politics generally are. Apart from general ageist dismissal of their capabilities, I personally know a significant number of middle-aged voters who are not nearly as clued in as some of these kids. Although I agree that 16 is too young, so is 20 or 30 or 40 for a lot of voters. Age is a very crude measurement here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#3000833 24-Nov-2022 13:49

sir1963:

Ah yes...like the Boaty Mc Boatface vote....

I'm sure you have evidence that was driven entirely by 16 and 17 year olds?

(I'll answer for you, you don't. You just have an ideological distaste for letting young people have a say in their own futures, because their opinions would not align with your own).

Paul1977

4785 posts

Uber Geek

#3000880 24-Nov-2022 13:54

Kyanar:

That's not a justification by any stretch. There needs to be relevant facts that give support to a compelling reason why the discrimination is justified. Whether you realised it or not, your justification there was just "because".

Poorly worded due to laziness. What I meant was that the justifications used in a myriad of other arenas that preclude a 16 year old could surely be used here.

Paul1977

4785 posts

Uber Geek

#3000883 24-Nov-2022 14:06

Kyanar:

sir1963:

Ah yes...like the Boaty Mc Boatface vote....

I'm sure you have evidence that was driven entirely by 16 and 17 year olds?

(I'll answer for you, you don't. You just have an ideological distaste for letting young people have a say in their own futures, because their opinions would not align with your own).

I agree, there's no evidence that Boaty McBoatface was driven by any age group. In my opinion it was a travesty that "The Man" ignored public opinion on such an important issue.

But on a more serious note...

@sir1963 is perfectly capable of depending their own position, but are you suggesting that anyone opposed lowering the voting age is against it on ideological grounds? If so, I think an equally compelling case can be made that those who are suggesting it are also doing so on ideological grounds because the 16-17 age group is overwhelming left leaning. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

EDIT: The Age of Majority Act says "For all the purposes of the law of New Zealand a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of 20 years". So unless defined differently in specifics acts, the default age of adulthood in NZ is 20. It seems to me that the voting age of 18 is special privilege extended to 18-19 year olds, not a discrimination against 16-17 year olds.

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#3000898 24-Nov-2022 14:33

Paul1977:

I agree, there's no evidence that Boaty McBoatface was driven by any age group. In my opinion it was a travesty that "The Man" ignored public opinion on such an important issue.

But on a more serious note...

@sir1963 is perfectly capable of depending their own position, but are you suggesting that anyone opposed lowering the voting age is against it on ideological grounds? If so, I think an equally compelling case can be made that those who are suggesting it are also doing so on ideological grounds because the 16-17 age group is overwhelming left leaning. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

No, because most people opposing it are trying to make arguments against it, rather than just saying "it's only being pushed by the greens". I don't agree with their arguments, and neither does the Supreme Court, but an attempt was made.

There's also evidence that of the 16-17 year olds that are actually of the mindset to be politically active range just as far to the other side too, meaning that conservative parties like ACT would also pick up votes.

Paul1977:

EDIT: The Age of Majority Act says "For all the purposes of the law of New Zealand a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of 20 years". So unless defined differently in specifics acts, the default age of adulthood in NZ is 20. It seems to me that the voting age of 18 is special privilege extended to 18-19 year olds, not a discrimination against 16-17 year olds.

Irrelevant, since the Bill of Rights Act says that any discrimination against someone 16 or over must be justified. "They haven't reached the age of majority" is not a justification, you've just summed the entire argument down to "just because".

Paul1977

4785 posts

Uber Geek

#3000904 24-Nov-2022 14:45

Kyanar:

No, because most people opposing it are trying to make arguments against it, rather than just saying "it's only being pushed by the greens". I don't agree with their arguments, and neither does the Supreme Court, but an attempt was made.

There's also evidence that of the 16-17 year olds that are actually of the mindset to be politically active range just as far to the other side too, meaning that conservative parties like ACT would also pick up votes

All parties would pick up votes, left leaning parties would pick up proportionally more. If this wasn't the case the Greens wouldn't be pushing it. But that's not to say that's a good reason to not consider lowering the voting age, it isn't.

Paul1977:

EDIT: The Age of Majority Act says "For all the purposes of the law of New Zealand a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of 20 years". So unless defined differently in specifics acts, the default age of adulthood in NZ is 20. It seems to me that the voting age of 18 is special privilege extended to 18-19 year olds, not a discrimination against 16-17 year olds.

Irrelevant, since the Bill of Rights Act says that any discrimination against someone 16 or over must be justified. "They haven't reached the age of majority" is not a justification, you've just summed the entire argument down to "just because".

I don't see this as a "just because" argument, the argument is that 16-17 year olds are not adults in NZ law. Obviously the supreme court disagrees, but NZ has a defined age of adulthood and if this is meaningless and irrelevant then why does it exist? Surely it exists so we don't need to individually justify it every time society agrees that a child shouldn't have certain privileges that are afforded to adults.

floydbloke

3172 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3029820 31-Jan-2023 07:22

Letter to the editor in today's (31/1/2023) DomPost. Marty has a point.

After I was born, I didn't talk to my parents for two years.

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