Those with after school jobs pay tax, therefore why shouldn’t they get to vote? Tax paid, they deserve a say in how our country is run.
I think the right is scared that with our younger generation being informed on world news, attending rallies and seeing how our country is currently being run - they’d be likely to vote left.
Not all 16 year olds would vote, some simply don’t care, but why not make it so those that want to can?
So you want to give kids the vote because they stack a few shelves at a Supermarket? I bet if you asked them you can have the vote or you don't have to pay tax until you're 18 90% of them would choose the latter 😉
Is being informed on world news the point? [Not that many are]. Good government can only come of having parliamentarians who are wise and of good character, capable of sensible responses to a rapidly changing world. Only maturity allows one any hope, and a small one at that,of assessing those qualities in candidates.
To start with there's a question as to should there be an age limit for voting at all? Why shouldn't children be able to vote at the age of 5? So there's some kind of maturity reasoning involved...
If a child say even aged 8 earns money say, doing paper runs they'll be paying taxes so why shouldn't they be able to vote? - that's if you think paying taxes is significant.
So I think the "you pay tax you get to vote" argument is necessary, but not sufficient; there is also a maturity argument that comes in. About the only argument I can think of that doesn't fall into an "elitism" trap that could equally apply to people of any age is one based on the maturity of someone actually engaged pretty much fully in sustaining themselves so the decisions that are made by government have a real impact on your life. For me then this means 18.
I think the point is, discussion can clear things up. I don’t follow one specific source only, so anyone with a brain between their ears can figure out what’s true or not.
It’s time we listened to our teens and trusted them to make informed decisions for themselves. They’re the ones that are going to inherit this dumpster fire of a planet, they deserve a say in my book.
well thank you for that. Here's the venerable BBC - once a trusted - THE - trusted source of information, getting caught out in disinformation. So can everyone ("with a brain between their ears") sort it out? Or are the easily led 16 year olds capable of 'sorting it out'? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwqpdy00w2o
And... "dumpster fire of a planet" !! Wow, do you really believe that ?
I think the ‘young minds are impressionable’ argument doesn't stack up. We see far too many adults buying into mis- and dis- information at great harm to themselves and irhers at times for that to be a valid argument. The whole vaccine issue is a perfect and current issue.
Like you Duncan, as a 16 year old I would have been keen to vote as I was actively interested in politics from my early teens but I was definitely in the minority and also did not consider it too much of an issue. I must also admit that my political views at that time were strongly influenced by my parents and my observation at the time was that it was in virtually all others too (it was a low sample size though).
50 years on I don't think 16 year olds should have the vote. My reasons are that:
- if anything 16 year olds are less mature now than they were when I was younger
- they will almost all still be attending school and therefore are not responsible for themselves as adults. I think "standing on your own two feet", as an adult, is a necessary pre-requisite for voting
- I don't buy into the misinfo/disinfo reasons - everyone is potentially influenced by that.
- Given most childtern are liekly to vote liek parents it'll only accentuate the existing balance. i.e. left wing areas more left, right wing areas more right
It's interesting that there's no NZ equivalent of the Government/Politics A-level that many schools in Britain offer. Social studies/ media studies don't quite hit the mark, and over there you're likely to get many kids studying it who are better informed than other voters (and probably some MP's!) who will now be enfranchised: great! If the voting age is reduced, it MUST be accompanied by having compulsory civics/politics/constitution on the curriculum. Naturally Labour, Greens, TPM have a vested interest in introducing it, and naturally the Coalition parties in not introducing it.
The reason for the reduction in age in UK was that Labour hope it will help in the polls and stave off election defeat at the hands of Reform. That's all - its not a good reason. There is also idle chatter in the UK that the vote should be removed from pensioners, because they don't pay tax and they vote conservative. It should also be noted that 54% of UK adults effectively get more in handouts than they pay in tax, so the taxpayer argument is irrelevant.
Lowering the voting age provides an incentive for our young people to actively engage in politics. To see it as relevant to their lives and their future. We need active participation in the parliamentary process if we are to function as a healthy, working democracy and getting young people into the habit of voting would be positive. Will 16 years old's have a propensity to vote left? Hard to know - in my experience it will probably be much the same as the 18-24 demographic but typically voting patterns change as we mature (just like our tastes in fashion, music and what we admire). But there are some habits that seem to endure and voting is one of them. I have met people who have never voted but I am as yet to meet anyone who has voted and now doesn't.
I agree with the comment of Mark Winsley. Having voted in several Australian elections—Federal and State—the single transferable vote (STV) method adopted in Australia led to the introduction of "How To Vote" cards handed out by political parties at polling booths, which were followed by some voters because they were not sufficiently interested to figure out their own opinion, but didn't wish to be fined. Perhaps, more importantly, it resulted in "fringe" parties whose aim was not to gain political power for itself, but to keep another party out of power by getting voters to follow their How to Vote card and transfer votes to the party they wished to win the election.
The issue of whether forcing the eligible population to vote is a whole other debate. I can't remember if you have done that, Grant, but if not, it might be a topic for the future.
I would like to see evidence that “young [16-17 in this case] are still 'impressionable” compared to all other age groups, concerning disinformation or ingrained attitudes. For comparison, could you provide details on how long and which age groups believed the Earth was flat?
The claim that 16-17 year olds would “not make all that much difference to any election, as that age cohort is still a minority and may not have a high turnout rate” does not gel with the stats from the 2023 general election in which 18-24 age group was the 6th largest % of voters enrolled and the 5th in non voters out of 11 age range categories. Furthermore, the 18-24 group was the fourth-largest group in terms of numbers within the same range, with 242,536 voters. The largest group of non-voters was in the 65-69 age group.
My experience does not support the assumption that 16-17-year-olds are substantially more deficient in their social/political capital than those who are older. The opposite is likely true, as the younger generation is less bound by convention, expectations, and peer pressure (both socially and politically, as well as in their work environment) and is less susceptible to political propaganda (through traditional and new media) than older voters.
Furthermore, they are entering a world (social, political, economic, and environmental) that has been shaped by past generations of voters and the political parties and policies they have supported. Taking just financial, food, and housing insecurity for starters, before entering into the murk of a natural environment that has been indiscriminately raped and pillaged for profit and denigrated without any regard for the younger generation and those following.
The participation of 16- to 24-year-olds (the new generation) may inspire a cohort that has long been ignored, and may hopefully find the will and the way to become a political force (left, centre, or right wing, all being redundant concepts) to be reckoned with and recognised as central to New Zealand's future.
Alternatively, they will continue as they are in droves. Packing their bags and booking a one-way international ticket, thinking there must be a better life than the 100% Pure BS that is New Zealand.
At 16 years old, they are attuned to their circumstances, yet not fully aware of the structural mechanisms that determined their situation and the possibilities for their future.
I support that “some extra civics education and encouragement in schools to register as voters can be a stimulus to higher turnouts – and hence towards more democratically legitimate elections.” However, that is dependent on the government, its education policies, the education system and its personnel to implement that.
The current government does not appear enthusiastic about that, preferring the status quo. As per their myopic, dystopian vision to ride the road to growth, this approach, like their trickle-down effect fantasy, has proven as robust as a sandcastle on a West Coast beach in a cyclone.
I cannot find anything that gives me cause to feel confident that New Zealand’s approach to education will be transformative and lead to a new era in which young people have a greater voice in their future. Socially, politically, economically, or environmentally.
Current government policies include;
Focus on reading, writing, and mathematics.
Managing school property
No more open-plan classrooms
School lunches
Yup, that will do it.
The airports are busy, as young New Zealanders must now rank among our highest exports.
Surely they should have a say in that. Not all (many even) will take the opportunity perhaps, but it is only fair that they have the chance to isn't it?
It would be nice to believe that all (or even most) voters are voting for the future wellbeing of the nation. Do they? Or do they vote for the party that promises most spending of other people's money, regardless of long term harms.
If a 16 year old can prove that he is paying taxes, he could be eligible to vote. But most 16 year olds are not contributing financially to the country yet. Their contribution to the state is still covered by parents. The 16 year old should be concentrating on education instead.
Why only 16 year olds? Sadly an ever-increasing proportion of our population are locked into inter-generational welfare dependency. Limiting the vote to those who earn more than they receive as state benefits would favour election of governments which spend wisely.
I would have thought todays 16 year olds are less mature than, say, a 14 year old in the 1930's.
Perhaps there is an argument to increase the voting age!
And I fully agree that social media would corrupt the outcomes. This will only get worse as AI develops. A few more years for our young folks to come to understand that, could be a good idea.
A 14 year old in the 1930s may well have been out working, perhaps as an apprentice, and had to wait to turn 21 to vote. By 21, a lot were starting their families. But I'm not sure if the past is our best guide.
Likewise, I would have voted at 16, but didn't consider it unfair I couldn't, and would have voted as my father did, who held strong views about one party.
Every right incurs a responsibility, so then 16yr olds would be prosecuted as adults, and heaven forbid, if we ever need military conscription again, 16yr olds would be included.
It's part of a worldwide issue where the centre is no longer holding for established major parties. And among younger voters there appears to be a visible gender chasm, especially with South Korea's "incel election".
Specifically in Britain's case, Keir Starmer is widely seen as a Tory in Labour clothes (aka "Blue Labour"), who only won because the Tories massively screwed up and Farage's Reform Party spoilered their vote. The way things are going, the Greens, Lib Dems, and the Sultana-Corbyn movement could well do the same with Starmer. Starmer also did a U-turn on electoral reform proposals, making a half-baked argument in defence of FPTP voting on the basis of "locality is important".
If there's just 1 policy Starmer can push through to get his Left flank back on board, it's closing all the Overseas Territories tax loopholes. The documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" is a handy run-down of the whole affair:
OMG 61% in your poll say no to letting 16 year olds vote. Air NZ will be selling one way tickets to young Kiwis, to anywhere but here, like a lolly scramble at a primary school.
Those with after school jobs pay tax, therefore why shouldn’t they get to vote? Tax paid, they deserve a say in how our country is run.
I think the right is scared that with our younger generation being informed on world news, attending rallies and seeing how our country is currently being run - they’d be likely to vote left.
Not all 16 year olds would vote, some simply don’t care, but why not make it so those that want to can?
So you want to give kids the vote because they stack a few shelves at a Supermarket? I bet if you asked them you can have the vote or you don't have to pay tax until you're 18 90% of them would choose the latter 😉
Is being informed on world news the point? [Not that many are]. Good government can only come of having parliamentarians who are wise and of good character, capable of sensible responses to a rapidly changing world. Only maturity allows one any hope, and a small one at that,of assessing those qualities in candidates.
To start with there's a question as to should there be an age limit for voting at all? Why shouldn't children be able to vote at the age of 5? So there's some kind of maturity reasoning involved...
If a child say even aged 8 earns money say, doing paper runs they'll be paying taxes so why shouldn't they be able to vote? - that's if you think paying taxes is significant.
So I think the "you pay tax you get to vote" argument is necessary, but not sufficient; there is also a maturity argument that comes in. About the only argument I can think of that doesn't fall into an "elitism" trap that could equally apply to people of any age is one based on the maturity of someone actually engaged pretty much fully in sustaining themselves so the decisions that are made by government have a real impact on your life. For me then this means 18.
Where do they get 'information on world news'. The media ? Their parents or their teachers?
Same place as you or I. Why should that matter?
My teen watches the news with us so we can have rational, informed discussions. Not everyone has gone down the rabbit hole of disinformation.
and you think today's MSM is free from disinformation? I think you are very wrong.
I think the point is, discussion can clear things up. I don’t follow one specific source only, so anyone with a brain between their ears can figure out what’s true or not.
It’s time we listened to our teens and trusted them to make informed decisions for themselves. They’re the ones that are going to inherit this dumpster fire of a planet, they deserve a say in my book.
You’re welcome to your opinion though.
well thank you for that. Here's the venerable BBC - once a trusted - THE - trusted source of information, getting caught out in disinformation. So can everyone ("with a brain between their ears") sort it out? Or are the easily led 16 year olds capable of 'sorting it out'? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwqpdy00w2o
And... "dumpster fire of a planet" !! Wow, do you really believe that ?
I wouldn't trust them as far as I can kick them
I think the ‘young minds are impressionable’ argument doesn't stack up. We see far too many adults buying into mis- and dis- information at great harm to themselves and irhers at times for that to be a valid argument. The whole vaccine issue is a perfect and current issue.
Like you Duncan, as a 16 year old I would have been keen to vote as I was actively interested in politics from my early teens but I was definitely in the minority and also did not consider it too much of an issue. I must also admit that my political views at that time were strongly influenced by my parents and my observation at the time was that it was in virtually all others too (it was a low sample size though).
50 years on I don't think 16 year olds should have the vote. My reasons are that:
- if anything 16 year olds are less mature now than they were when I was younger
- they will almost all still be attending school and therefore are not responsible for themselves as adults. I think "standing on your own two feet", as an adult, is a necessary pre-requisite for voting
- I don't buy into the misinfo/disinfo reasons - everyone is potentially influenced by that.
- Given most childtern are liekly to vote liek parents it'll only accentuate the existing balance. i.e. left wing areas more left, right wing areas more right
It's interesting that there's no NZ equivalent of the Government/Politics A-level that many schools in Britain offer. Social studies/ media studies don't quite hit the mark, and over there you're likely to get many kids studying it who are better informed than other voters (and probably some MP's!) who will now be enfranchised: great! If the voting age is reduced, it MUST be accompanied by having compulsory civics/politics/constitution on the curriculum. Naturally Labour, Greens, TPM have a vested interest in introducing it, and naturally the Coalition parties in not introducing it.
The reason for the reduction in age in UK was that Labour hope it will help in the polls and stave off election defeat at the hands of Reform. That's all - its not a good reason. There is also idle chatter in the UK that the vote should be removed from pensioners, because they don't pay tax and they vote conservative. It should also be noted that 54% of UK adults effectively get more in handouts than they pay in tax, so the taxpayer argument is irrelevant.
Lowering the voting age provides an incentive for our young people to actively engage in politics. To see it as relevant to their lives and their future. We need active participation in the parliamentary process if we are to function as a healthy, working democracy and getting young people into the habit of voting would be positive. Will 16 years old's have a propensity to vote left? Hard to know - in my experience it will probably be much the same as the 18-24 demographic but typically voting patterns change as we mature (just like our tastes in fashion, music and what we admire). But there are some habits that seem to endure and voting is one of them. I have met people who have never voted but I am as yet to meet anyone who has voted and now doesn't.
Thanks for the comment, Mark. I have a follow-up post coming on Wednesday, as this one generated so many comments. Cheers!
Great - look forward to it.
Add making voting compulsory (as in Australia.) That would be real reform.
I agree with the comment of Mark Winsley. Having voted in several Australian elections—Federal and State—the single transferable vote (STV) method adopted in Australia led to the introduction of "How To Vote" cards handed out by political parties at polling booths, which were followed by some voters because they were not sufficiently interested to figure out their own opinion, but didn't wish to be fined. Perhaps, more importantly, it resulted in "fringe" parties whose aim was not to gain political power for itself, but to keep another party out of power by getting voters to follow their How to Vote card and transfer votes to the party they wished to win the election.
The issue of whether forcing the eligible population to vote is a whole other debate. I can't remember if you have done that, Grant, but if not, it might be a topic for the future.
All my Aussie mates just ticked random boxes when they were young. How does that make our parliament system better?
To not allow it is taxation without representation! Don't want them to vote don't tax them!!
I would like to see evidence that “young [16-17 in this case] are still 'impressionable” compared to all other age groups, concerning disinformation or ingrained attitudes. For comparison, could you provide details on how long and which age groups believed the Earth was flat?
The claim that 16-17 year olds would “not make all that much difference to any election, as that age cohort is still a minority and may not have a high turnout rate” does not gel with the stats from the 2023 general election in which 18-24 age group was the 6th largest % of voters enrolled and the 5th in non voters out of 11 age range categories. Furthermore, the 18-24 group was the fourth-largest group in terms of numbers within the same range, with 242,536 voters. The largest group of non-voters was in the 65-69 age group.
My experience does not support the assumption that 16-17-year-olds are substantially more deficient in their social/political capital than those who are older. The opposite is likely true, as the younger generation is less bound by convention, expectations, and peer pressure (both socially and politically, as well as in their work environment) and is less susceptible to political propaganda (through traditional and new media) than older voters.
Furthermore, they are entering a world (social, political, economic, and environmental) that has been shaped by past generations of voters and the political parties and policies they have supported. Taking just financial, food, and housing insecurity for starters, before entering into the murk of a natural environment that has been indiscriminately raped and pillaged for profit and denigrated without any regard for the younger generation and those following.
The participation of 16- to 24-year-olds (the new generation) may inspire a cohort that has long been ignored, and may hopefully find the will and the way to become a political force (left, centre, or right wing, all being redundant concepts) to be reckoned with and recognised as central to New Zealand's future.
Alternatively, they will continue as they are in droves. Packing their bags and booking a one-way international ticket, thinking there must be a better life than the 100% Pure BS that is New Zealand.
At 16 years old, they are attuned to their circumstances, yet not fully aware of the structural mechanisms that determined their situation and the possibilities for their future.
I support that “some extra civics education and encouragement in schools to register as voters can be a stimulus to higher turnouts – and hence towards more democratically legitimate elections.” However, that is dependent on the government, its education policies, the education system and its personnel to implement that.
The current government does not appear enthusiastic about that, preferring the status quo. As per their myopic, dystopian vision to ride the road to growth, this approach, like their trickle-down effect fantasy, has proven as robust as a sandcastle on a West Coast beach in a cyclone.
I cannot find anything that gives me cause to feel confident that New Zealand’s approach to education will be transformative and lead to a new era in which young people have a greater voice in their future. Socially, politically, economically, or environmentally.
Current government policies include;
Focus on reading, writing, and mathematics.
Managing school property
No more open-plan classrooms
School lunches
Yup, that will do it.
The airports are busy, as young New Zealanders must now rank among our highest exports.
I'll address some of your points in a follow-up post thanks John.
We're voting for their futures.
Surely they should have a say in that. Not all (many even) will take the opportunity perhaps, but it is only fair that they have the chance to isn't it?
It would be nice to believe that all (or even most) voters are voting for the future wellbeing of the nation. Do they? Or do they vote for the party that promises most spending of other people's money, regardless of long term harms.
I think the state of things currently confirms that voting (or the choices) has not been with an eye on the he future.
It's all what's in it for me, now. Rather than thinking long term and for future generations.
If a 16 year old can prove that he is paying taxes, he could be eligible to vote. But most 16 year olds are not contributing financially to the country yet. Their contribution to the state is still covered by parents. The 16 year old should be concentrating on education instead.
Why only 16 year olds? Sadly an ever-increasing proportion of our population are locked into inter-generational welfare dependency. Limiting the vote to those who earn more than they receive as state benefits would favour election of governments which spend wisely.
I would have thought todays 16 year olds are less mature than, say, a 14 year old in the 1930's.
Perhaps there is an argument to increase the voting age!
And I fully agree that social media would corrupt the outcomes. This will only get worse as AI develops. A few more years for our young folks to come to understand that, could be a good idea.
A 14 year old in the 1930s may well have been out working, perhaps as an apprentice, and had to wait to turn 21 to vote. By 21, a lot were starting their families. But I'm not sure if the past is our best guide.
No, not always. My point is that its really to do with maturity levels, which come from responsibilities.
At 18 I voted McGillicuddy Serious Party after a few beers as I didn't have a clue.
And I had been in the military since 16 yo.
I don't believe that added much to the representation of youth in our parliamentary system.
By 21 I knew who I wanted to vote for, and could give a reason, as policies had affected me.
That's a sample of one of course, but I suspect not an unusual one.
It's also an argument against compulsory voting.
Likewise, I would have voted at 16, but didn't consider it unfair I couldn't, and would have voted as my father did, who held strong views about one party.
Every right incurs a responsibility, so then 16yr olds would be prosecuted as adults, and heaven forbid, if we ever need military conscription again, 16yr olds would be included.
If I had complained at 16, I'm sure someone would have told me to just wait two years. And I did vote at 18.
Voting age lowered? No. No. A thousand times, No!
It would be amusing if the lowered UK voting age led to a boost for the Greens, Lib Dems & the new movement of Zarah Sultana.
And what if it went the opposite way?
https://apnews.com/article/uk-voting-age-16-criticism-debate-f85d8675acbf4bd9ceece51135c369e5
It's part of a worldwide issue where the centre is no longer holding for established major parties. And among younger voters there appears to be a visible gender chasm, especially with South Korea's "incel election".
Specifically in Britain's case, Keir Starmer is widely seen as a Tory in Labour clothes (aka "Blue Labour"), who only won because the Tories massively screwed up and Farage's Reform Party spoilered their vote. The way things are going, the Greens, Lib Dems, and the Sultana-Corbyn movement could well do the same with Starmer. Starmer also did a U-turn on electoral reform proposals, making a half-baked argument in defence of FPTP voting on the basis of "locality is important".
If there's just 1 policy Starmer can push through to get his Left flank back on board, it's closing all the Overseas Territories tax loopholes. The documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" is a handy run-down of the whole affair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfnkLurLA8&pp=ygUcdGhlIHNwaWRlcidzIHdlYiBkb2N1bWVudGFyeQ%3D%3D
OMG 61% in your poll say no to letting 16 year olds vote. Air NZ will be selling one way tickets to young Kiwis, to anywhere but here, like a lolly scramble at a primary school.
The poll isn't a representative sample. But do you think that ineligibility to vote when 16 or 17 is a strong reason to emigrate?