Great to have these numbers - puts this question into context. The numbers are scary in regards to low enrolment of the 18-24 demographic year and getting 16 years olds involved in voting early could well be step in the right direction. Not only are they likely to continue to vote but to also see themselves as part of broader society and develop the confidence to contribute and make a difference. We definitely need our young people to learn more about civics in schools and lowering the voting age would incentivize schools to make this happen.
Too immature to vote? I am not convinced by the 'maturity to vote' argument because if this is to hold water, we need to be able to justify why it is currently 18. To be consistent, proponents of this view should be calling to raise the voting age. We know a lot more about the brain than we did 25 years ago and our brains are not fully able to make rational, reasoned decisions until we are in our mid-20s. So if the ability to weigh up consequences etc. (mature thinking) is to be a criteria, we should at the very least switch back to 21.
I think there is a maturity argument to make, otherwise we'd set the age at 5. I hear you scoffing but why not?
There is no objective definition of maturity that you could use as a bar to voting though so I settle on a relatively arbitrary age where a person is likely to be "standing on their own two feet"and therefore have an incentive to participate in their own system of governance. For me 18 is appropriate as by then they've left school and will generally be in the workforce in some reasonable capacity. Even university students spend a fair amount of time trying to make "ends meet"
Interesting data Grant but I don't buy the argument of reducing age to increase voting participation because if you really want maximum participation why not, as they do in Australia, just make it mandatory to vote?
The fact that young people don't tend to vote until their late 20's or 30's proves that when people are free to choose they vote when they see the value in voting. There is no point in "forcing" by law or getting high school 16 year olds to vote via class room "coercion".
Now I'd be very supportive of adjusting education to provide much more civil ethics study, debate etc but as you and others have noted both the NZ education system and western democracy is seriously in decline viz its ethical foundation and tolerance of dissent. I'd suggest, in the current state, such education would become another indoctrination with a left wing smell...
I'd suggest, in fact, that the whole "should we reduce the voting age to 16" is yet another one of those pointless, left wing diversionary tactics, to focus on "human rights"while "Rome is burning" - we should really be worrying about improving our democracy in terms of representation, balance, tolerance, active engagement and media failure in the same.
Thanks, Malcolm. I should address compulsory voting at some stage. Australians are accustomed to it, but I would expect quite a battle to get the idea accepted in NZ.
I would largely agree. While I do see some merit in lowering the voting age, it is not a major issue and it is unlikely to address the sort of structural reform we need to happen if our parliamentary model it to be more authentically representative.
Well put Malcolm. What you have said echos my thoughts exactly.
I have a child halfway through secondary education. He's politically aware ( I've allowed him to find his own path on that) and it's very interesting to hear his friends talk about the "indoctrination" at school.
He had to change high school in year 9 as his science teacher had decided Matauranga Maori science was 100% equivalent to modern science and would only teach that.
The kids in class that loved their science, seem to have developed a deep distrust of what is taught at school.
I oppose mandatory voting. Why is it so important to make reluctant folks to vote?
Our current electoral commission seems fixated on high voting percentage instead of security of elections. Our current system is wide open to fraudulent manipulation of all kinds.
I agree. Low voting turn out reflects a number of things including disinterest and disenfranchisement/alienation. That is a concern to a healthy democracy in which the idea is a high level of participation in the democratic process (and not just voting!).
But the idea that because it's low we should a) reduce the age or b) make it mandatory to vote are non-solutions to the real problem. It's typical of today's shallow thinking political landscape to try and clutch at simple solutions to complex problems, meanwhile being distracted from addressing the real issues (it's a politicians ploy to hoodwink the proletariat and keep themselves in power and able to say "look what great changes we've made")... Meanwhile Rome is burning...
Always interests me the arguments people give for not lowering the voting age are the same arguments that were made against granting the franchise to women.
It depends when elections fall! You don’t get to vote as soon as you turn 16 or 18 but at the next election after that birthday. (Or rarely, on your birthday)
Anecdote: my son turned 18 one week after election day. The next general fell when he was 21…
This may be an analogous situation but is not the same. As Grant points out if you're 16 you only have to wait 2 years i.e. there is an "arbitrary maturity" criterion involved that disappears for the individual over time. The women's franchise was a strict bar that couldn't be overcome - though if it survived to today you could declare your gender as male and gain the vote!
I was speaking at UK political meetings at age 15, with all the fire of a working-class boy who gained access to the grammar-school system through the 11+ exam, but without the cap-doffing deference of my parents. Of course, then the virtuous intention of the grammar-school was to propel the best of the working class into managerial positions such as had been achieved by the likes of Harold Wilson, James Callaghan etc. Little did I know that the heritors of these greats of my childhood were to re-invent themselves as a self-serving managerial power.
The few that now choose politics as a career are subsumed by these managerial powers. Only those compliant to managerialism need apply.
"Having taught first-year university students about the NZ system of government, I am aware (and they are aware) of how little they’ve learned (if anything other than the Treaty) at school – especially when compared with exchange students, and especially those from the US where they have a handy document called “The US Constitution” from which to learn. It’s easy enough in principle to design a school curriculum for Kiwis on the topic (see for example my talk about the electoral system), but I can imagine an argument erupting: should it teach children that the parliamentary system was imposed by white supremacists and imperialists in 1852–54, or that it’s a noble tradition that’s upheld our liberties since the thirteenth century, or a bit of both? And I’ll let readers comment sagely on that."
I know which teaching I favour for New Zealand: and it's NOT the "Aotearoa" activists preferred tribal system! I agree that the minimum age to "qualify" to vote should be at least 21 years... preferably 25 plus... Or (if a workable system can be developed) based on tax paid on income EARNED (NOT taxpayer-funded "benefits").
I favour lowering the voting age to 16. I’m enjoying this thought-provoking discussion, but it occurs to me that at the other end of the age spectrum my demographic - the elderly retired - has a disproportionate power at the ballot box. There are a lot of us, and many of us are less informed and discerning than our grandchildren. Many of our concerns and beliefs are arguably less relevant than those of the young, who will need to shape the future they will be living through.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Kath. It's numerically a fact that the older folks dominate elections, and hence policy, and even more so at local elections. Cheers.
Hi Grant, thank you for writing about this, it’s a topic I’m passionate about. As you’ve outlined there are numerous arguments for and against extending the vote to 16-year-olds, but I don’t think it should be considered in isolation, and while voter turnout is a useful metric I don’t think it should be the focus. If we were to pay everyone $100 to vote and get a 99.9% turnout. So what? I doubt it would do much to strengthen our democracy. As you’ve noted, civics education is an important part of the discussion. As I understand it, nothing much as changed in this respect since I was at high school ~30 years ago. I was never taught that more than half of the world’s population live not as free citizens in a self-governing community, but as subjects under various levels of authoritarian control. I was never taught just how desperately precious and fragile our democracy is. It was all just taken for granted. By my estimation, most adults (including many of our politicians) still haven’t grasped the gravity of these things. Certainly, our education ministers to date appear not to have. These concepts form the very fabric of our way of life, which without maintenance tend towards very dark ends. So it is insane that we do not instil them at the earliest opportunity.
Some would argue that young people should be able to live their youth without such burdens. Wouldn’t that be nice! But if we look around the world at the state of liberal democracy, we simply can’t afford to have generation after generation politically asleep at the wheel.
My proposal is that civics ought to be a key aspect of education that gets introduced lightly, gradually increasing in intensity, and culminating in voting at 16. What an exciting field trip! This would not only influence those at school, but it would become a topic at the dinner table. Perhaps teenagers could make parents feel a little irresponsible for their cavalier attitudes toward freedom and democracy. I believe such an approach would change the face of our politics, which today can reasonably be described as pathetic.
Some might think that civics education in schools would be too contentious given the “culture wars” but this draws me back to my old hobby horse. If the curriculum strictly avoids specific issues and ideologies and focuses on the meta-aspects of politics, I believe we could avoid a “history in schools shit fight”. I.e. focus on democracy, its evil alternatives, civic responsibility, participation, and how people with differing views can work together constructively.
Thanks again for you work Grant, you’re a true moderate, and gosh that’s not easy today.
Thank you for your thoughts, Rhys! It wouldn't be hard to design a "meta-aspects" curriculum. But, given the present times, I'm afraid that too many people (including many academics) would prefer to engage in culture wars, rather than just explain how elections work, and we'd be back at square one.
You're probably right Grant, but you know I'm a dreamer. We ought to make a start. We ought to aim upwards. After all, present times won't be present forever, and while the ground may be infertile today, that can change.
I agree, Rhys. A good start would be for university-level politics to get back to core topics of elections, government, public policy – and less of (to quote a recent ad) this kind of thing: "Beyond ballots: How culture shapes control. Learn about politics beyond government structures" . Talking as if culture mattered more than elections is inviting more 'culture wars' and not encouraging young people to vote.
The potential for the manipulation of 16 year olds with regards to voting in general elections within the school environment is enormous. These young adolescents are part of an Institution and like many schools promote a culture and identity associated with "belonging" to the school community.The potential for them to become ideologically captured within that institutional setting is great. It is unavoidable, and inevitable that the staff from headmaster down will exercise a political influence on that school culture, particularly over contentious issues, once "votes" are up for grabs. We know the influence of peer pressure on teenagers, over wanting to belong and fit in, and how easily that could be manipulated. Granting 16 year olds the right to vote is a cynical, and desperate attempt by some to garner political support for agendas that are clearly not supported currently by the majority of adult voters.
The potential for manipulation of adults is enormous - witness the climate change deniers, anti-cogovernance mob, and so on. Especially via social media.
I'd say similar arguments apply to the climate change supporters. It's not actually a question of whether there is climate change or not - there obviously is. The question is the extent to which humans are responsible and what can be done about it...
A far from simple dillemma. BUT it seems the "majority"of adults these days, for example, buy entirely into the narrative "we should adopt electric vehicles as soon as possible" and entirely fail to understand the complexities in that choice...
Yes the potential for manipulation of everyone is always there especially when the free exchange of information and debating of opposing views is increasingly portrayed as a bad, or dangerous thing needing to be controlled by ever expanding censorship laws. There is no consensus on issues such as climate change, or co governance, which is precisely why they should be openly discussed, without one side claiming a moral high ground.
Great to have these numbers - puts this question into context. The numbers are scary in regards to low enrolment of the 18-24 demographic year and getting 16 years olds involved in voting early could well be step in the right direction. Not only are they likely to continue to vote but to also see themselves as part of broader society and develop the confidence to contribute and make a difference. We definitely need our young people to learn more about civics in schools and lowering the voting age would incentivize schools to make this happen.
Too immature to vote? I am not convinced by the 'maturity to vote' argument because if this is to hold water, we need to be able to justify why it is currently 18. To be consistent, proponents of this view should be calling to raise the voting age. We know a lot more about the brain than we did 25 years ago and our brains are not fully able to make rational, reasoned decisions until we are in our mid-20s. So if the ability to weigh up consequences etc. (mature thinking) is to be a criteria, we should at the very least switch back to 21.
I think there is a maturity argument to make, otherwise we'd set the age at 5. I hear you scoffing but why not?
There is no objective definition of maturity that you could use as a bar to voting though so I settle on a relatively arbitrary age where a person is likely to be "standing on their own two feet"and therefore have an incentive to participate in their own system of governance. For me 18 is appropriate as by then they've left school and will generally be in the workforce in some reasonable capacity. Even university students spend a fair amount of time trying to make "ends meet"
Interesting data Grant but I don't buy the argument of reducing age to increase voting participation because if you really want maximum participation why not, as they do in Australia, just make it mandatory to vote?
The fact that young people don't tend to vote until their late 20's or 30's proves that when people are free to choose they vote when they see the value in voting. There is no point in "forcing" by law or getting high school 16 year olds to vote via class room "coercion".
Now I'd be very supportive of adjusting education to provide much more civil ethics study, debate etc but as you and others have noted both the NZ education system and western democracy is seriously in decline viz its ethical foundation and tolerance of dissent. I'd suggest, in the current state, such education would become another indoctrination with a left wing smell...
I'd suggest, in fact, that the whole "should we reduce the voting age to 16" is yet another one of those pointless, left wing diversionary tactics, to focus on "human rights"while "Rome is burning" - we should really be worrying about improving our democracy in terms of representation, balance, tolerance, active engagement and media failure in the same.
Thanks, Malcolm. I should address compulsory voting at some stage. Australians are accustomed to it, but I would expect quite a battle to get the idea accepted in NZ.
I would largely agree. While I do see some merit in lowering the voting age, it is not a major issue and it is unlikely to address the sort of structural reform we need to happen if our parliamentary model it to be more authentically representative.
Well put Malcolm. What you have said echos my thoughts exactly.
I have a child halfway through secondary education. He's politically aware ( I've allowed him to find his own path on that) and it's very interesting to hear his friends talk about the "indoctrination" at school.
He had to change high school in year 9 as his science teacher had decided Matauranga Maori science was 100% equivalent to modern science and would only teach that.
The kids in class that loved their science, seem to have developed a deep distrust of what is taught at school.
I oppose mandatory voting. Why is it so important to make reluctant folks to vote?
Our current electoral commission seems fixated on high voting percentage instead of security of elections. Our current system is wide open to fraudulent manipulation of all kinds.
I agree. Low voting turn out reflects a number of things including disinterest and disenfranchisement/alienation. That is a concern to a healthy democracy in which the idea is a high level of participation in the democratic process (and not just voting!).
But the idea that because it's low we should a) reduce the age or b) make it mandatory to vote are non-solutions to the real problem. It's typical of today's shallow thinking political landscape to try and clutch at simple solutions to complex problems, meanwhile being distracted from addressing the real issues (it's a politicians ploy to hoodwink the proletariat and keep themselves in power and able to say "look what great changes we've made")... Meanwhile Rome is burning...
Always interests me the arguments people give for not lowering the voting age are the same arguments that were made against granting the franchise to women.
True. But, if you're 16, you only have to wait two years!
It depends when elections fall! You don’t get to vote as soon as you turn 16 or 18 but at the next election after that birthday. (Or rarely, on your birthday)
Anecdote: my son turned 18 one week after election day. The next general fell when he was 21…
Similarly, if the eligiblity had been at 16 when I was that age, I still wasn't able to vote in a general election till I was 18 anyway.
Which is why the assumption that voting happens the moment someone turns 16 is misplaced.
This may be an analogous situation but is not the same. As Grant points out if you're 16 you only have to wait 2 years i.e. there is an "arbitrary maturity" criterion involved that disappears for the individual over time. The women's franchise was a strict bar that couldn't be overcome - though if it survived to today you could declare your gender as male and gain the vote!
I was speaking at UK political meetings at age 15, with all the fire of a working-class boy who gained access to the grammar-school system through the 11+ exam, but without the cap-doffing deference of my parents. Of course, then the virtuous intention of the grammar-school was to propel the best of the working class into managerial positions such as had been achieved by the likes of Harold Wilson, James Callaghan etc. Little did I know that the heritors of these greats of my childhood were to re-invent themselves as a self-serving managerial power.
The few that now choose politics as a career are subsumed by these managerial powers. Only those compliant to managerialism need apply.
A useful post thanks Grant.
But I quote:
"Having taught first-year university students about the NZ system of government, I am aware (and they are aware) of how little they’ve learned (if anything other than the Treaty) at school – especially when compared with exchange students, and especially those from the US where they have a handy document called “The US Constitution” from which to learn. It’s easy enough in principle to design a school curriculum for Kiwis on the topic (see for example my talk about the electoral system), but I can imagine an argument erupting: should it teach children that the parliamentary system was imposed by white supremacists and imperialists in 1852–54, or that it’s a noble tradition that’s upheld our liberties since the thirteenth century, or a bit of both? And I’ll let readers comment sagely on that."
I know which teaching I favour for New Zealand: and it's NOT the "Aotearoa" activists preferred tribal system! I agree that the minimum age to "qualify" to vote should be at least 21 years... preferably 25 plus... Or (if a workable system can be developed) based on tax paid on income EARNED (NOT taxpayer-funded "benefits").
I favour lowering the voting age to 16. I’m enjoying this thought-provoking discussion, but it occurs to me that at the other end of the age spectrum my demographic - the elderly retired - has a disproportionate power at the ballot box. There are a lot of us, and many of us are less informed and discerning than our grandchildren. Many of our concerns and beliefs are arguably less relevant than those of the young, who will need to shape the future they will be living through.
Let’s give them that power.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Kath. It's numerically a fact that the older folks dominate elections, and hence policy, and even more so at local elections. Cheers.
Hi Grant, thank you for writing about this, it’s a topic I’m passionate about. As you’ve outlined there are numerous arguments for and against extending the vote to 16-year-olds, but I don’t think it should be considered in isolation, and while voter turnout is a useful metric I don’t think it should be the focus. If we were to pay everyone $100 to vote and get a 99.9% turnout. So what? I doubt it would do much to strengthen our democracy. As you’ve noted, civics education is an important part of the discussion. As I understand it, nothing much as changed in this respect since I was at high school ~30 years ago. I was never taught that more than half of the world’s population live not as free citizens in a self-governing community, but as subjects under various levels of authoritarian control. I was never taught just how desperately precious and fragile our democracy is. It was all just taken for granted. By my estimation, most adults (including many of our politicians) still haven’t grasped the gravity of these things. Certainly, our education ministers to date appear not to have. These concepts form the very fabric of our way of life, which without maintenance tend towards very dark ends. So it is insane that we do not instil them at the earliest opportunity.
Some would argue that young people should be able to live their youth without such burdens. Wouldn’t that be nice! But if we look around the world at the state of liberal democracy, we simply can’t afford to have generation after generation politically asleep at the wheel.
My proposal is that civics ought to be a key aspect of education that gets introduced lightly, gradually increasing in intensity, and culminating in voting at 16. What an exciting field trip! This would not only influence those at school, but it would become a topic at the dinner table. Perhaps teenagers could make parents feel a little irresponsible for their cavalier attitudes toward freedom and democracy. I believe such an approach would change the face of our politics, which today can reasonably be described as pathetic.
Some might think that civics education in schools would be too contentious given the “culture wars” but this draws me back to my old hobby horse. If the curriculum strictly avoids specific issues and ideologies and focuses on the meta-aspects of politics, I believe we could avoid a “history in schools shit fight”. I.e. focus on democracy, its evil alternatives, civic responsibility, participation, and how people with differing views can work together constructively.
Thanks again for you work Grant, you’re a true moderate, and gosh that’s not easy today.
Aroha nui
Rhys
Thank you for your thoughts, Rhys! It wouldn't be hard to design a "meta-aspects" curriculum. But, given the present times, I'm afraid that too many people (including many academics) would prefer to engage in culture wars, rather than just explain how elections work, and we'd be back at square one.
You're probably right Grant, but you know I'm a dreamer. We ought to make a start. We ought to aim upwards. After all, present times won't be present forever, and while the ground may be infertile today, that can change.
I agree, Rhys. A good start would be for university-level politics to get back to core topics of elections, government, public policy – and less of (to quote a recent ad) this kind of thing: "Beyond ballots: How culture shapes control. Learn about politics beyond government structures" . Talking as if culture mattered more than elections is inviting more 'culture wars' and not encouraging young people to vote.
Our cousins across the ditch are having the same conversation.
https://theconversation.com/should-australia-lower-the-voting-age-to-16-like-the-uk-we-asked-5-experts-261469
Thank you for alerting me to that!
The potential for the manipulation of 16 year olds with regards to voting in general elections within the school environment is enormous. These young adolescents are part of an Institution and like many schools promote a culture and identity associated with "belonging" to the school community.The potential for them to become ideologically captured within that institutional setting is great. It is unavoidable, and inevitable that the staff from headmaster down will exercise a political influence on that school culture, particularly over contentious issues, once "votes" are up for grabs. We know the influence of peer pressure on teenagers, over wanting to belong and fit in, and how easily that could be manipulated. Granting 16 year olds the right to vote is a cynical, and desperate attempt by some to garner political support for agendas that are clearly not supported currently by the majority of adult voters.
Fair comment, Sean. Unfortunately, many teachers would find it too hard to talk about elections in a politically impartial manner.
The potential for manipulation of adults is enormous - witness the climate change deniers, anti-cogovernance mob, and so on. Especially via social media.
I'd say similar arguments apply to the climate change supporters. It's not actually a question of whether there is climate change or not - there obviously is. The question is the extent to which humans are responsible and what can be done about it...
A far from simple dillemma. BUT it seems the "majority"of adults these days, for example, buy entirely into the narrative "we should adopt electric vehicles as soon as possible" and entirely fail to understand the complexities in that choice...
Yes the potential for manipulation of everyone is always there especially when the free exchange of information and debating of opposing views is increasingly portrayed as a bad, or dangerous thing needing to be controlled by ever expanding censorship laws. There is no consensus on issues such as climate change, or co governance, which is precisely why they should be openly discussed, without one side claiming a moral high ground.