Labour to propose Parliament votes to lower voting age to 16, but National and ACT say they’ll oppose it, which would make required 75% ‘super-majority’ almost impossible; Possible for councils though
Not only should 16+ get to vote, but they should get 3 votes until 30; 30-60 get 2 votes; and 60+ get 1 vote. Their 'civics education' will come from the weight of responsibility that they have an outsized influence in their own future
Release please Bernard. The same predominately older white property owning voters are also Climate change deniers and if not stopped will destroy it all for the young.
Could you shed a bit of light on how the court system works? I'm struggling to understand how the supreme court could rule that not dropping the voting age to 16 is a violation of the bill of rights act, but parliament still needs to make this happen (and 3/4 vote nonetheless!)? Surely if they've ruled this was inconsistent with the law, it would not be allowed to continue?
I think the starting point for the right to vote should be everyone gets to vote and there then needs to be a strong justification for why someone should be denied that right. I fail to see a good justification for why 16 and 17 year olds should be denied the vote.
If you are mature enough to vote, then does that mean you are mature enough to face the consequences of your actions in regular court, not the Youth Court?
Ditto the drinking age.
Personally, I believe that 'grown up' rights for teenagers should be allowed in steps and that everything isn't handed out at once: - drivers licences, alcohol, voting, Youth Court, etc.
The demographic tide in the USA skews heavily toward Democrat voting in the younger age groups.I suspect it will be the same here in Aotearoa New Zealand.Except Labour/Green/Te Parti Maori /TOP.In that context National and ACT coming out against lowering the voting age makes perfect sense.Selfish turkeys don't vote for an early Xmas.Also as their dry run in Auckland shows playing to the boomer vote gets good results electorally.
David Seymour has a great idea in only letting taxpayers vote.
We'll convert National Super to being tax-free and have a threshold of the first, say, $15,000 of income being untaxed. Voila, 90% plus of over 65's have just lost their vote.
But hang on you say. Everyone pays GST so everyone is a taxpayer. Why this fixation on income tax being the be-all and end-all of what is thought of as tax?
Great points on voters being engaged in the education system, and helping to sustain habits. I missed out by months for the 2011 election. The policies ended up affecting me with student allowance costs, particularly with the removal of student allowance for post graduate students. At least another 10k of student debt, thanks to that decision of the National government. Same for my wife, who had to take out massive loans for post graduate teaching education, to pay for living costs.
Funny how David Seymour and the libertarian mindset of 'no taxation without representation' doesn't apply here for future taxpayers. Perhaps he would support removal of voting rights for those aged 65, who draw more on our tax (ridiculous claim, I know)?
If only the left would state the bleeding obvious that voting from 16 would screw the scrum in its favour. But no, truth eludes them while they cynically waffle about human rights and fairness. What bollocks.....just say yep, works for us cos more voters for us. We all see through the utter contemptuous hypocrisy of the left and its disdain for the great unwashed.
At least the other side admit openly it would not be in their interests...they should also drop the waffle about brains not being fully developed excuses. Plenty of grown-ups who are worse and they vote.
This latest NO from National confirms an unfortunate trend. When one thinks back over the past few months, whether it be 3 Waters, Maori Health Authority, Voting age or RMA reforms (amongst others), whatever Labour proposes, National then opposes. It wasn't always like this, as an opposition party exists to improve legislation as well as oppose some legislation outright. By just threatening to throw out legislation if elected, National is making a rod for it's own back as over the past 50 or so years Labour legislation while in office has instead often been improved by a succeeding National government.
Here's an even better way to reduce the democratic deficit: New Zealand needs to follow the century-long law in Australia, and make voting mandatory for everyone who is eligible to vote and is present in the country on election day. Participating in elections, both national and local, should be a duty of citizenship.
Compare the voter turnout in Australia for the House of Representatives (91.01% in 2016, 91.89% in 2019, 89.62% in 2022) with voter turnout in New Zealand: in 2014 76.77%, in 2017 79.8%, in 2020 81.54% of registered voters.
Break those 2020 numbers down: 89% of people aged 65 to 69 voted, only 74% of those aged between 25 and 34, and even fewer, 65%, of eligible Maori in their late 20s. The young, especially the Maori young, surrender their futures to the old.
And the proportion of eligible voters who vote in local-body elections is only half that low voter turnout for general elections.
In 2017, RNZ interviewed politicians on whether voting should become mandatory. Former National prime minister Jim Bolger said he used to oppose compulsory voting, but now wondered whether it should be "a requirement of citizenship". "You can deface your vote if you like, but you have at least come up there and said ‘I don't like any of them’."
Former Labour prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer said it should be against the law to stay home from the voting booth. "If you are going to live in a democracy, which is supposed to be conducted by the people, for the people, then the people should have some duties. They should participate and they should vote."
In Australia, voting is compulsory in federal elections (since 1924) and in all state elections. In all states except South Australia and Western Australia voting for local council elections is also mandatory.
Tasmania made voting mandatory for council elections only in 2022. "We want to lift the community's engagement with the local government sector, and I am confident the passing of this legislation will do that," Tasmania’s Local Government Minister Nic Street said when he announced the change in June. "By making voting compulsory, we will lift community's perception of local government and its importance by bringing local council elections into line with state and federal elections."
In an essay ‘Australia’s experience of compulsory voting’ (abc.net.au 10feb2022) Matteo Bonotti and Paul Strangio write that: ‘Compulsory voting has a century-long history in this nation. Not only is it a durable feature of Australian democracy, but it is universally applied. Whenever an election is called, whether it be at the national, state or territory level, voters are obliged to turn out....'
They say compulsory voting in Australia has had a century of unambiguous success in achieving high voter turnout.
‘Perhaps most remarkable is how broadly supportive of the practice has been the public. This has been demonstrated by any number of public opinion polls and decades of Australian Election Study survey data….
‘Compulsory voting,’ they argue, ‘can help to realise political legitimacy better than voluntary-voting systems, thanks to its easy use and accessibility, its ability to produce high and socially even turnout, and its propensity to often … encourage greater levels of information, attention, and critical engagement among the public.
'Furthermore, compulsory voting can also contribute to political legitimacy understood in a slightly different way — namely, as the idea that laws and policies are politically legitimate only if they are justified by appealing to reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation.
'More specifically, in a parliamentary democracy … compulsory voting can contribute to public reasoning and political legitimacy by compelling public officials to pay great attention to a broad range of worldviews, interests, and demands, and, based on that information, provide reasons for laws and policies that appeal to the common good rather than to any specific sectarian interests.’
Here in New Zealand mandatory voting, in both general and local elections, would help to overcome that democratic deficit where the young, the brown, the renters surrender the course of their lives to governments chosen by the old and white and propertied.
So, the adults in this country collectively refuse to take responsibility for passing it on to the next generation in at least as good a condition as it was when they became adults. Is the only answer to let children make the decisions?
Not only should 16+ get to vote, but they should get 3 votes until 30; 30-60 get 2 votes; and 60+ get 1 vote. Their 'civics education' will come from the weight of responsibility that they have an outsized influence in their own future
Release please Bernard. The same predominately older white property owning voters are also Climate change deniers and if not stopped will destroy it all for the young.
Patrick Medlicott
Could you shed a bit of light on how the court system works? I'm struggling to understand how the supreme court could rule that not dropping the voting age to 16 is a violation of the bill of rights act, but parliament still needs to make this happen (and 3/4 vote nonetheless!)? Surely if they've ruled this was inconsistent with the law, it would not be allowed to continue?
How many children do you have and what are their ages Bernard ?
I think the starting point for the right to vote should be everyone gets to vote and there then needs to be a strong justification for why someone should be denied that right. I fail to see a good justification for why 16 and 17 year olds should be denied the vote.
If you are mature enough to vote, then does that mean you are mature enough to face the consequences of your actions in regular court, not the Youth Court?
Ditto the drinking age.
Personally, I believe that 'grown up' rights for teenagers should be allowed in steps and that everything isn't handed out at once: - drivers licences, alcohol, voting, Youth Court, etc.
The demographic tide in the USA skews heavily toward Democrat voting in the younger age groups.I suspect it will be the same here in Aotearoa New Zealand.Except Labour/Green/Te Parti Maori /TOP.In that context National and ACT coming out against lowering the voting age makes perfect sense.Selfish turkeys don't vote for an early Xmas.Also as their dry run in Auckland shows playing to the boomer vote gets good results electorally.
David Seymour has a great idea in only letting taxpayers vote.
We'll convert National Super to being tax-free and have a threshold of the first, say, $15,000 of income being untaxed. Voila, 90% plus of over 65's have just lost their vote.
But hang on you say. Everyone pays GST so everyone is a taxpayer. Why this fixation on income tax being the be-all and end-all of what is thought of as tax?
Great points on voters being engaged in the education system, and helping to sustain habits. I missed out by months for the 2011 election. The policies ended up affecting me with student allowance costs, particularly with the removal of student allowance for post graduate students. At least another 10k of student debt, thanks to that decision of the National government. Same for my wife, who had to take out massive loans for post graduate teaching education, to pay for living costs.
Funny how David Seymour and the libertarian mindset of 'no taxation without representation' doesn't apply here for future taxpayers. Perhaps he would support removal of voting rights for those aged 65, who draw more on our tax (ridiculous claim, I know)?
If only the left would state the bleeding obvious that voting from 16 would screw the scrum in its favour. But no, truth eludes them while they cynically waffle about human rights and fairness. What bollocks.....just say yep, works for us cos more voters for us. We all see through the utter contemptuous hypocrisy of the left and its disdain for the great unwashed.
At least the other side admit openly it would not be in their interests...they should also drop the waffle about brains not being fully developed excuses. Plenty of grown-ups who are worse and they vote.
This latest NO from National confirms an unfortunate trend. When one thinks back over the past few months, whether it be 3 Waters, Maori Health Authority, Voting age or RMA reforms (amongst others), whatever Labour proposes, National then opposes. It wasn't always like this, as an opposition party exists to improve legislation as well as oppose some legislation outright. By just threatening to throw out legislation if elected, National is making a rod for it's own back as over the past 50 or so years Labour legislation while in office has instead often been improved by a succeeding National government.
Here's an even better way to reduce the democratic deficit: New Zealand needs to follow the century-long law in Australia, and make voting mandatory for everyone who is eligible to vote and is present in the country on election day. Participating in elections, both national and local, should be a duty of citizenship.
Compare the voter turnout in Australia for the House of Representatives (91.01% in 2016, 91.89% in 2019, 89.62% in 2022) with voter turnout in New Zealand: in 2014 76.77%, in 2017 79.8%, in 2020 81.54% of registered voters.
Break those 2020 numbers down: 89% of people aged 65 to 69 voted, only 74% of those aged between 25 and 34, and even fewer, 65%, of eligible Maori in their late 20s. The young, especially the Maori young, surrender their futures to the old.
And the proportion of eligible voters who vote in local-body elections is only half that low voter turnout for general elections.
In 2017, RNZ interviewed politicians on whether voting should become mandatory. Former National prime minister Jim Bolger said he used to oppose compulsory voting, but now wondered whether it should be "a requirement of citizenship". "You can deface your vote if you like, but you have at least come up there and said ‘I don't like any of them’."
Former Labour prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer said it should be against the law to stay home from the voting booth. "If you are going to live in a democracy, which is supposed to be conducted by the people, for the people, then the people should have some duties. They should participate and they should vote."
In Australia, voting is compulsory in federal elections (since 1924) and in all state elections. In all states except South Australia and Western Australia voting for local council elections is also mandatory.
Tasmania made voting mandatory for council elections only in 2022. "We want to lift the community's engagement with the local government sector, and I am confident the passing of this legislation will do that," Tasmania’s Local Government Minister Nic Street said when he announced the change in June. "By making voting compulsory, we will lift community's perception of local government and its importance by bringing local council elections into line with state and federal elections."
In an essay ‘Australia’s experience of compulsory voting’ (abc.net.au 10feb2022) Matteo Bonotti and Paul Strangio write that: ‘Compulsory voting has a century-long history in this nation. Not only is it a durable feature of Australian democracy, but it is universally applied. Whenever an election is called, whether it be at the national, state or territory level, voters are obliged to turn out....'
They say compulsory voting in Australia has had a century of unambiguous success in achieving high voter turnout.
‘Perhaps most remarkable is how broadly supportive of the practice has been the public. This has been demonstrated by any number of public opinion polls and decades of Australian Election Study survey data….
‘Compulsory voting,’ they argue, ‘can help to realise political legitimacy better than voluntary-voting systems, thanks to its easy use and accessibility, its ability to produce high and socially even turnout, and its propensity to often … encourage greater levels of information, attention, and critical engagement among the public.
'Furthermore, compulsory voting can also contribute to political legitimacy understood in a slightly different way — namely, as the idea that laws and policies are politically legitimate only if they are justified by appealing to reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation.
'More specifically, in a parliamentary democracy … compulsory voting can contribute to public reasoning and political legitimacy by compelling public officials to pay great attention to a broad range of worldviews, interests, and demands, and, based on that information, provide reasons for laws and policies that appeal to the common good rather than to any specific sectarian interests.’
Here in New Zealand mandatory voting, in both general and local elections, would help to overcome that democratic deficit where the young, the brown, the renters surrender the course of their lives to governments chosen by the old and white and propertied.
So, the adults in this country collectively refuse to take responsibility for passing it on to the next generation in at least as good a condition as it was when they became adults. Is the only answer to let children make the decisions?
Why is it such a big deal, let them vote
Those pushing against it in Parliament is a fine indicator of who doesn't represent their interests
Such a great post Bernard thank you so much.