Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bollocks]

It also makes you wonder why so many youngsters are lefties. Could it have something to do with who's been in government for the last 11 years;

no?
students have been lefties since the dawn of.....students.

as for income tax, these kids are probably like me.
i pay tax, then at the end of the year i get my measly half a k contribution back.

these kids aren't contributing.


as for the 16/17 idea of them being more aware, you may not be wrong, but i think this election has shown the capacity of the kidlets to jump on a bandwagon.

give them a couple of years to leave high school, realise they don't have to care what their blonde friends think and jump off the latest bandwagon.

go to krudd's myspace page, and tell me those 16 and 17 year olds have thought long and hard about their choices.

sure, some 40 year olds will be the same, but generally they are more affected, since they have mortgages and kids, so a lower percentage will be frivolous.

there does have to be a cut-off and 18 isn't a bad one.

besides, how can you celebrate the local member of your choice being elected without a tinny or two?

[Adi]

students have been lefties since the dawn of.....students.

Yeah, I thought someone would say that, it is true. But the current climate certainly doesn't help.

besides, how can you celebrate the local member of your choice being elected without a tinny or two?

Very good point. Pity I don't drink and don't vote for my incumbent. Ah well, viva those who can!

[Shaneoyo]

I feel strongly that they should.  If a 16 yo goes to the effort to register and turn up on the day when it is completely voluntary, they obviously have a real interest and their own opinion.

And to all those saying that many 16 year olds have their decision influenced by kevin rudds flashy slogans, t-shirts and myspace - you are right.  Many people I know jump on the bandwagon while having no interest or knowledge of Labor policy at all.  But consider the fact that anyone this unknowledgeable would not bother to go through the voting process.

I am a 16 year old and my conservative vote is Liberal, though my favourite pollie is Bob Brown (unfortunately I dont agree with Greens policy).

[Truckarella]

If a 16 yo goes to the effort to register and turn up on the day when it is completely voluntary, they obviously have a real interest and their own opinion.

If some jerk goes to the effort and expense of voting in a 60 Minutes phone poll, obviously they have an interest and an opinion, I'm just not convinced it is sensible, representative, or a worthwhile exercise.

[Fritz]

16 year olds should not be given the opportunity to vote. Most of them can't wipe their own arse let alone undertand the workings of the world. For those that are 16, don't bother arguing this as you will only have the ability ot understand what I am saying when you are 30.

Instead, go and do what 16 year olds do, enjoy life with relative freedom and dice with the ability of growing up.

[Adi]

If some jerk goes to the effort and expense of voting in a 60 Minutes phone poll, obviously they have an interest and an opinion, I'm just not convinced it is sensible, representative, or a worthwhile exercise.

 

16 year olds should not be given the opportunity to vote. Most of them can't wipe their own arse let alone undertand the workings of the world. For those that are 16, don't bother arguing this as you will only have the ability ot understand what I am saying when you are 30.

Instead, go and do what 16 year olds do, enjoy life with relative freedom and dice with the ability of growing up.

The point of compulsory voting is that everyone's voice is heard, regardless of how ill-informed, idiotic, extremist or downright dangerous that voice might be. Adding 16/17 year olds is not going to increase the proportion of ill-informed, idiotic, extremist or downright dangerous voters; it will just extend the age limit downwards. And as several people have said, going to the bother of enrolling and voting is sure to be way too much bother for all but relatively few committed youngsters.

I'm not a 16 year old arguing this point, let me make that quite clear. But I'm not 30 either. Does that mean I don't yet have the ability to understand what you're saying? You'll just say yes, won't you. But why?

Are there any other reasons why 16/17 yr olds shouldn't be able to vote, apart from the fact that they seem to be perceived as incompetent fools unable to perform basic everyday tasks, which is patently unfair on the vast majority who are not emos or otherwise challenged? Those who are like that won't change once they turn 18, but no-one is able to exclude them from voting.

[Truckarella]

The point of compulsory voting is that everyone's voice is heard, regardless of how ill-informed, idiotic, extremist or downright dangerous that voice might be. Adding 16/17 year olds is not going to increase the proportion of ill-informed, idiotic, extremist or downright dangerous voters; it will just extend the age limit downwards. And as several people have said, going to the bother of enrolling and voting is sure to be way too much bother for all but relatively few committed youngsters.

True, that is why I take exception to the idea that it be voluntary voting for the 16/17 year olds.  In my SB riddled head, my above post was making that point.  When polls aren't across the board, you get odd results.  If only the passionate teens come out to vote, it will skew things.

[Lord Biscuit©]

Why not just go all the way and let 9 years olds & up vote. They can write can't they? I think Ronald McDonald as PM, and Colonel Sanders as Treasurer a sweet team!

If a 16 year old can't be trusted to drive a car, why can they be trusted with a say in who runs the country?

[Fritz]

The point of compulsory voting is that everyone's voice is heard, regardless of how ill-informed, idiotic, extremist or downright dangerous that voice might be.

No, the point of compulsory voting is to ensure your deomcratic right to make an informed decision on who should Govern our country. Where you are getting "ill-informed, idiotic and and downright dangerous" from is the election campaign of the Labor Party.

Adding 16/17 year olds is not going to increase the proportion of ill-informed, idiotic, extremist or downright dangerous voters; it will just extend the age limit downwards. And as several people have said, going to the bother of enrolling and voting is sure to be way too much bother for all but relatively few committed youngsters.

If you look at it from a completely simplistic view, yes it would just extend the age limit downwards. However, what you have missed entirely is that voting is not really a right, but rather a privellage. Think it as a drivers licence. One must show respect for the road and learn the rules if they are truly to be representative as a infromed driver.

I'm not a 16 year old arguing this point, let me make that quite clear. But I'm not 30 either. Does that mean I don't yet have the ability to understand what you're saying? You'll just say yes, won't you. But why?

See above

Are there any other reasons why 16/17 yr olds shouldn't be able to vote, apart from the fact that they seem to be perceived as incompetent fools unable to perform basic everyday tasks, which is patently unfair on the vast majority who are not emos or otherwise challenged? Those who are like that won't change once they turn 18, but no-one is able to exclude them from voting.

Because to do this would mean having a referendum. Now, what would you rather, more money put into health and education or money to advertising execs and consulatants for another campaign.

[Adi]

Where you are getting "ill-informed, idiotic and and downright dangerous" from is the election campaign of the Labor Party.

No, only from those who vote according to the completely fictional election "promises" that both major parties keep ramming down our throat. As far as I can tell, the only thing dangerous about the ALP's election campaign is that they might screw up the best chance they've had in a decade of actually winning an election. That in itself is idiotic.

However, what you have missed entirely is that voting is not really a right, but rather a privellage. Think it as a drivers licence. One must show respect for the road and learn the rules if they are truly to be representative as a infromed driver.

Yep, a privilege that is afforded to 16 year olds, a significant number of whom have proven they can show respect for the road and learn the rules. Of course there are the hoons, but they're the exception. Apart from fucking tailgaters, many of whom are more than old enough to know better; and vote, for that matter.

A privilege that can be afforded to people younger than 18.

Because to do this would mean having a referendum. Now, what would you rather, more money put into health and education or money to advertising execs and consulatants for another campaign.

Well, at least it's a new answer. What I'd rather is less money being spent on the ridiculous campaign ads I'm enduring at the moment. What I'd rather is money actually being spent on health and education when it becomes available, rather than buying votes with measly tax cuts. That goes for you too, Mr Rudd.

And it couldn't possibly be a bigger waste of money that Howard's comprehensively rigged Republican Referendum.

[Thaluikhain]

No, the point of compulsory voting is to ensure your deomcratic right to make an informed decision on who should Govern our country. Where you are getting "ill-informed, idiotic and and downright dangerous" from is the election campaign of the Labor Party.

Cause everyone who votes for anyone else is clearly always very well informed on everything.

My son, who's nearly 16, would jump at the opportunity to vote. He's very interested in the subject, and he has this one mate with whom he discusses all things political. So that's two intelligent boys who would do a good job voting.

Well, at least we have 2 more years before that happens...I thought your son was younger, though, how many kids do you have?  Or do you mean "nearly 16" in a loose way?

[a passing lunatic]

Why not just go all the way and let 9 years olds & up vote. They can write can't they? I think Ronald McDonald as PM, and Colonel Sanders as Treasurer a sweet team!

If a 16 year old can't be trusted to drive a car, why can they be trusted with a say in who runs the country?

Are you taking the piss?


Kinda reminds me of when someone said "If you don't know the whole national anthem, I don't really think you can call yourself Australian."


If people aren't smart enough to solve a simple problem about sick dogs in villages, why are they smart enough to have a say in who runs the country?



If you ask me, by the way, 18's as good a cut off as any.

[Bookworm.]

Personally, I don't think that 16 yr olds should be allowed to vote. As a 16 yr old myself, it seems to me the amount of idiots that would register would be kinda scary. And people have said that only the dedicated ones (the ones who would have an informed decision) would bother, but I wonder how many would feel they were informed and decide to vote. 16 yr olds get pumped with so many different opinions, that no matter who they decided to vote for, they would just be voting for who ever mum/dad votes for, who ever the chaser didn't target or who ever accepted them as friends on myspace. 18 is a good cut off. Hopefully by then most 18 yr olds would have a better understanding than most 16yr olds would. (Hope there was some semblance of an argument in that...)

[Adi]

Hopefully by then most 18 yr olds would have a better understanding than most 16yr olds would.

I know it's been said before and I know that it's not a useful argument because it's never going to change, but kids don't magically become mature and informed overnight. A friend of mine who's 20, was in my year at school, and is incredibly smart in a maths/science kind of way told me the other day that she thinks she'll just vote liberal because that's what her parents do. She has no idea of either side's policy. I wish I could swap my vote with hers, she's in the most marginal electorate in the state and I'm stuck in a safe one.

[bollocks]

I know it's been said before and I know that it's not a useful argument because it's never going to change, but kids don't magically become mature and informed overnight. A friend of mine who's 20, was in my year at school, and is incredibly smart in a maths/science kind of way told me the other day that she thinks she'll just vote liberal because that's what her parents do. She has no idea of either side's policy. I wish I could swap my vote with hers, she's in the most marginal electorate in the state and I'm stuck in a safe one.

but what about the argument against the voluntary voting skewing the polling?