- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Friday, June 22, 2007

MPs cool on voting at 16

Alt Tv/Fleet FM Breakfast News
MPs cool on voting at 16
A bill to lower the voting age to 16 and make civic education compulsory in schools has the support of youth groups, but has found little favour among MPs. Green MP Sue Bradford yesterday announced her intention of adding the Civics Education and Voting Age Bill to the parliamentary ballot. "Youths are as knowledgeable and responsible as a big portion of the voting population. That's the whole point, really," Ms Bradford said. But she faces an uphill struggle as some senior politicians dismissed the bill and others questioned how responsible the average 16-year-old was. If you can be taxed at 16 and society wants to charge you criminally like an adult at 12, why shouldn’t you be able to vote? Taxation without representation is unacceptable in a democracy, especially when that democracy is hell bent to argue that teenagers can be charged like an adult when they do something wrong.


At 22/6/07 10:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a pathetic post, let kids be kids why should they have avote at 16. They cannt even eat what they want (without regulations) at 16. yes they can get married (parents permission) yes they can pay taxes but what the f&5* Vote, hell they cannt even think for themselves at 16. Sue Bradford needs to go live with that creep bomber for a while If she hasnt already that is. They would make great bed partners.
Billy T

At 22/6/07 10:52 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah right. Not much naked self interest from the Greens hear ay...Move on nothing to see :)

At 22/6/07 11:28 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Raise the drinking age, lower the voting age, raise the licence age, lower the 'try as an adult' age, youth pay rates, ... poor teenagers won't know what the bloody hell is going on!


At 22/6/07 1:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sue Bradford is a f*cking retard. And she is in love with the limelight after all the attention her smacking bill got her, so she comes up with this ridiculous idea.
Why not extend the vote to toddlers and household pets?

At 22/6/07 2:27 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

But Deano you would be the first to demand children be charged as adults wouldn't you? Wanna charge em like adults, but give them none of the benefits as tax payers?

At 22/6/07 2:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Other than incredibly intelligent and media savvy kids, teenagers at 16 don't have the knowledge or understanding of the political system to vote. This is too important an issue to be played around with because of PCness.


At 22/6/07 2:47 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most 16 year olds are still in school and maybe in part-time employment, so their tax contribution isn't a lot Bomb.

I have no problem with different ages for different responsibilities. You develop different abilities at different ages. A 16 year old knows the implications of killing someone. They may or may not be able to vote responsibly, however. I certainly wouldn't have been an informed rational voter at 16.

At 22/6/07 3:10 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

I know a lot more adults who are uninformed and irrational voters - I mean if we are demanding a level of understanding which seems to be the main excuse for not expanding the franchise of Democracy to 16 year olds who will see the full ramification of democratic decisions (seeing as they will live longest through them) - should we test adults to see how aware they are? What about a age cap on voting? Once you hit 65 you can't vote anymore, at 65 you've been lied to by so many governmnets and the drone of life has worn you down into a frightened shell of a human being so much so that you start voting for NZ First.

NZ was the first country to give women the vote, why not continue the tradition of strong democracy by expanding the franchise to 16 year olds in conjunction with a civics course at school explaining the resposibilities of citizenship and the vote - why not get young people involved with politics? What are old people so scared of?

At 22/6/07 8:44 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as I know there is no lower (or higher) age limit on paying tax.. If someone has taxable income at any age the government wants their cut.

My son got his first taxable income at 14 working after school in a supermarket, it was a very welcome addition to the household income, I felt a bit sorry for him that the harder and longer he was prepared to work the more he got stung but that’s life for those who choose to work.

In rich families (you will have to ask some of your rich friends about that one) I think they have ways of distributing their income to a new-borns or children to take advantage of the tax free threshold and lower rates. People visiting from overseas on temporary work permits pay tax but I am fairly sure they can’t vote.

Then you have people who pay no-tax but who are eligible to vote. Some because they are out of the work-force looking after children or studying, others because they operate in the black economy, Australians can live and work in NZ (and visa versa) but may not be able to vote, daresay there are other reasons as well.

Generally when a person acquires the right to vote they also have the right to stand for office. I know MP’s behave like bullying 12 year olds most of the time but I think actually having 16 years old in parliament might not be much of an improvement.

Anyway it seems to me paying tax, voting and being eligible to stand for public office are separate issues, some of the time of the time at least.

When I am the victim of crime (as I have been several times) I don’t much care about the age of the culprit I just want some consideration and justice, of course what I want and what I get (nothing) are two different things. All I ever get is the grief, frustration and loss, guess that’s OK.

It is often suggested that the parents should be responsible. I met the parents of one little thug, I quickly saw why the horrible brat was what he was, what can you do put them into care. That was a few years ago now so he has probably graduated to jail by this time or maybe he became a lawyer – all I know was no-one was responsible (except me) for what he did or interested in how I was going to sort it out or pay for the damage caused and replace what was stolen and wrecked.

Don’t think letting children off with a bedtime story and hot milk (which is what happened with this thieving vandal) works myself, parents didn’t care so it is no surprise that brat didn’t either. Either way I lost out (again) I am getting rather used to being treated like a piece of irrelevant dirt, strangely enough I am sick of it and look forward to a time when no-one can hurt me again.

At 22/6/07 8:55 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to see an abstention option added to voting forms.

Having been screwed by both sides there is nothing for me to vote for, if you can tell me who is in favour of voluntary euthanasia I might vote for them I suppose.

These lying, cheating, animals have created a world not fit for any honest, hardworking, decent person to live in and then won’t allow you to get the Nembutal to escape.

If I had my time again I would join the ranks of the beneficiaries, work the system and join the black economy when I needed extra cash.

Anyone who sticks to the rules, pays their bills, works hard, saves, accepts sacrifices and tries to get ahead and provide for themselves and their family is a bloody fool. We end up with nothing and sneered at and hated by everybody.

I hope the next criminal who targets me cuts my throat and ends my misery once and for all. Lets hope it is only 15 then Bomber will have a new cause and can beat his chest about how hard done by the poor little thing is.

At 22/6/07 9:33 pm, Blogger karlos said...

If they can vote.... they need to be allowed to drink too.

With great responsibility comes greater responsibility.

At 22/6/07 9:52 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Youths are as knowledgeable and responsible as a big portion of the voting population. That's the whole point, really," Ms Bradford said."

Some 16 year olds are informed and intelligent enough, some aren't. Some 30 year olds are informed and intelligent enough, some aren't. The difference is 30 year olds are working full time, raising families, own property and have much more of a vested interest in the political process and the ramifications of their vote.

But here's idea - instead of giving 16 year olds the full vote, how about separate roll for 14-18 year olds where they can vote for candidates of their own age who would take on a part time advisory role in parliament?

At 23/6/07 12:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being on the electoral register also makes people eligible for jury duty, apart from the fact most trials are desperately boring there is likely to some grizzly evidence that I don’t think appropriate for a 16 year old.

We don't have 16 year old surgeons, lawyers, therapists, truck drivers, police officers, accountants, social welfare client officers, prison officers, taxi drivers, pub managers, prostitutes.....

We do of course have 16 year old (and younger) parents, recipe for disaster I reckon. The only times I have seen child parents work out is when one or both of the children had responsible, intelligent parents who were able to offer a high level of support and also act as substitute parents for the first 3-5 years while their children grew up a bit.

I have some experience of young kids (mostly male) who think they are great IT geniuses, they are not but they have been encouraged to think they know it all by often well meaning teachers and parents. I suspect there is a good reason why we don’t see 16 year old business managers.

There are a select few who are genuine geniuses but they lack a lot of other skills and experience required for adult responsibilities.

Don’t studies done on young children who get early entry to top universities show these kids have brains but lack maturity and experience.

Now if you are going to suggest that anyone who wants to vote should pass intelligence, social responsibly and maturity tests that is another thing.

If you are going to make payment of tax your criteria maybe should people get votes allocated to them based on the amount of tax they pay – so those who don’t pay any tax don’t get a vote, those who pay back a small amount from a benefit might get one vote then on a rising scale to those on the highest rate of tax get say 10 votes.

The more you pay the more say in representation you get, it has some logic but still seems unworkable to me.

It is said 30 is the new 20, 50 is the new 40 etc. My observation is 16 is the new 10.

Most actions of recent years seem to be working towards removing responsibility from children. School leaving ages have been raised, we used to hang children, we don’t see 6 year olds working the mills, or 12 years old going down mines wanting to give children the vote seems to be going against every other policy.

The legal age to become a prostitute in NZ is 18, are you going to campaign for that to be reduced to 16 on the grounds of age equality, there are many who would just love that.

It is age discrimination to have the legal age for consenting to sex at 16, why not remove that or lower it to 14 or 10 perhaps, that would save the perverts the air fair to Bangkok.

At 23/6/07 3:52 pm, Blogger Cactus Kate said...

"Wanna charge em like adults, but give them none of the benefits as tax payers?"

That's the answer right there Bomber, weighted voting.

Those who pay more tax get more votes regardless of their age.

I don't see why beneficiaries get the same vote as someone who pays hundreds of thousands in tax and the beneficiaries can effectively join in with other losers of similar ilk and vote themselves an income.

At 24/6/07 8:34 pm, Blogger Luke said...

"Taxation without representation is unacceptable in a democracy, especially when that democracy is hell bent to argue that teenagers can be charged like an adult when they do something wrong."

Amen Bombs!
I'm 18, i go to high school, I'm a teen and i had a political view at 15 so i agree with 16 the voting age.

For those who oppose above, if giving responsibility and word to youth is made then you'll get a better understanding of how the world works at a younger age so that means your going to get less lawbreakers because their views will be accepted.
And to those who want to say that 2yrs doesn't make it a much younger age then look back, the two years between 16 and 18 are a HUGE impact to a teens growth into adulthood in the sense of decision making.

At 25/6/07 2:23 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cactus Kate said... I don't see why beneficiaries get the same vote as someone who pays hundreds of thousands in tax and the beneficiaries can effectively join in with other losers of similar ilk and vote themselves an income.

LOL Cactus Kate, you high and mighter... fuk you self righteous pricks make me sick... Should of been you in the van instead of Liam

Hated by Most

At 25/6/07 7:38 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I reckon 17 might be a better age to vote than 18 but 16 is a little too young. It would be cool to have it as part of the school curriculem a kind of goodbye to school and hello to the real political world we live in. School is a controlled environment as is the real world... so I don't see the harm in introducing 7th formers to the idea of voting at school as doing any harm.

16 is a bit too young and also they might be influenced by teachers or parents... so perhaps only age 17 would be better so that it is only 1 year when they would be influenced by people in a superior position to them selfs(insofar as it lowers the proportions of such an effect) is better than 2 years.

At 25/6/07 11:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does it work both ways -

... Representation without taxation is unacceptable in a democracy .....

There is a lot of it about. What about representation without working to contribute to society, is that fair.

People are full of knowing their 'rights' ask those same people how much they know about their ‘responsibilities’ and which is the priority in their lives. Responsibilities first right second, I doubt it this is the me me me sense of entitlement generation.

Most 16 year olds would follow the patterns of their parents, just like they follow their parents to their church, pub, brand of washing powder or whatever. It’s only later that a few break away from childhood brainwashing. "Once A Catholic" and all that.

One thing I have noticed, when children want a new (free) skate park or other facility they are called 'youth’, for other things they are teens, when bomber wants them let off crime they become children, everyone wants it whatever way suits the demand of the moment.

People, including children, want everything but many don't want to pay or sacrifice for it, any sort of earning what they want is a totally alien concept. Our 'youth' above did not mention when s/he began working and paying tax from their earnings. Does bomber want all children to get the vote or just those who pay tax and why 16, what not 14, 12, 10 …..

Does bomber expect adults to look out for children including16 years olds and protect them, do we have more responsibility to go to the aid of a 16 year old in any sort of distress or problem than we do with a 40 year old. If a 40 year old gets stuck somewhere without cab fair we could justify leaving them to walk home rather than encourage and enable them, but a 16 year old is far more vulnerable and we all have a greater responsibility towards them.

Prostitution and pornography are good examples, I believe as individuals and society we have a responsibility to protect 16 years old from the sex industry but I have to accept that someone older has the legal right to make their own choice. Give children the vote and you remove any extra protection they have at the same time, unless you are from the have it both ways school of thought.

With life expectancy rising to 80+, in 20 years it may be 90+, then 100+, I reckon 60 years or more of voting is more than enough.

At 16 you want, expect and demand everything isn't it for real adults to explain that is not how the world works.

At 25/6/07 12:28 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Perhaps we need to cap the age you can vote, I mean once you hit 60 you seem bitter and angry with life and vote NZ First.

Lowering the vote to 16 would be a great expansion of the franchise of democracy - I simply find it amusing that so many of the same voices that demand children be charged as adults would never gove them the rights of adults. I don't think Prostitution or porn should be lowered to 16, I think those issues require a higher threshold (18) to attempt to restrict manipulation of 16 or 17 year olds by older people - however the issue of should they vote I see as different. 16 year olds can already claim a level of independence from adults and legal guardians and by having a civics course that teaches 16 year olds about their civic responsibilities prior to implementing voting changes would be a great way of teaching young people about their responsibilities and rights. I love how this isn't seen as an opportunity to expand such responsibilities, I hear the same tired arguments used when NZ gave women the vote, the exact same counters were made then, nice to see NZ hasn't changed much.

The above anonymous poster demands why not all children, well because 16 is an established age of maturity (sexual consent, legal independence from guardians) and as such that has become the age that is being debated, getting young people involved at an early age in their civic duties and responsibilities is a positive, not a negative.

Oh and this At 16 you want, expect and demand everything isn't it for real adults to explain that is not how the world works just sums up an arogance that comes with adulthood, it is that mindset that desperatly needs to be challenged.

At 25/6/07 3:56 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical selective, arrogant and nasty response from bomber, the arrogance of those who spent to long at school perhaps.

If payment tax is the criteria for voting age becomes irrelevant, all we need is a tax return. This is another example of putting (unearned) rights ahead of responsibilities.

Anyone who has ever employed 16 years olds or had teenage kids and their friends at their house, will be amused by bombers rose coloured glasses view of ‘responsible’ teens. Funny how the childless are the experts on children.

Which group is it that kills itself the most, drunk driving, drugs, violence, etc. young ‘bullet proof’ males I believe, it that an arrogant adult prejudice or it is a statistical fact. I understand is to do with brain development resulting in an inability to predict consequences. I will leave it to bomber to expand on the science and research on that topic.

Aren't many professionals in the field writing about the sense of entitlement that is prevalent today, 30 years olds still living with mummy and daddy, avoiding adulthood and its responsibilities. Expecting to immediately have the standard of living their parents worked 30 years or more to acquire. Bomber works on his opinions (which are like him perfect in every way) without wasting time presenting evidence or facts. This whole thing is flying the face of every other trend, age of marriage and childbirth is rising as is the age of leaving education, all would be higher than the statistics show if it weren’t for the teenage drop outs who are going the other way.

We already have this trend of sexualizing young people, especially girls, forcing them to become adults before they have a chance to be children. On the one hand we are over-protecting children slowing down their development, on the other children are under pressure to become adults before their time.

Just how do you explain to your children that they are mature enough to do something as grown up as vote, but to young to have children, drive a truck or drink. Personally I think 16 is to young for sexual relationships and I think most parents advise against it, realistically of course we know many children are sexual. I think placing more adult responsibilities on children is giving a mixed message, its hard enough bringing up children already this will make it worse.

It is giving adults a mixed message as well. Is a 16 year old a child or an adult, in my view they are a child, if the state decides they are adults I predict the harm from that will far outweigh any benefit.

Bombers abuse has made me re-think how I will view 16 years olds in future, maybe I have been wrong in my mindset of believing I had a special, social responsibly towards children, is that my arrogant adult mindset. In the past I have intervened a couple of times with teenage children, in ways I would not have done if I thought they were over 18 or so. I genuinely thought I was doing the right thing now I see that was arrogant and wrong for me to interfere with their adult rights. I feel if I did that now I would be criticised as being patronising, arrogant and worse.

If we have to have legal prostitution I would say a preferable legal age would be 21, but the reality is once an age threshold comes in its tends to spread. It is not my place (or right) to interfere with or protect anyone who is legally considered an adult and of voting age.

On a personal note, I was re-doing my will recently and age of inheritance is something that is entered. If you want it to be over 18 you have to state it. I have put 25 but am considering raising it to 30, no doubt there will come a time when children will be encouraged to challenge this.

Bomber you complete lack of empathy or compasion towards people who have been hurt by life make me sick. Some people are doing it hard and your contempt towards them is totally misplaced.

At 25/6/07 4:01 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have succeded in challenging my mindset. I now accept your advice, 16 year olds are adults and have a right to be treated as such. I will never leave myself open to your contempt again by steping in as if they are children. Fortunatly my own children are now over 20.

Be careful what you wish for ....

At 25/6/07 4:06 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

got all that out of your system love? Need a hug and a cup of tea? I think you are missing what I'm saying - how do you expect 16year olds to grow into good citizens if we don't teach them and involve them young? I think lowering the age of the vote is a good idea because it would bring more people into the franchise of democracy and you end up saying Bomber you complete lack of empathy or compasion towards people who have been hurt by life make me sick. Some people are doing it hard and your contempt towards them is totally misplaced. - r-i-g-h-t

At 25/6/07 6:14 pm, Blogger Luke said...

"how do you expect 16year olds to grow into good citizens if we don't teach them and involve them young?"

too right! This is the key to having a generation that doesn't become so close minded when they're older because there won't be any obstruction to their free will to speak at a younger age. Which has been the problem in the past, just like how women were denied the vote.

At 26/6/07 5:32 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sue bradford retard,
she gross and ugly
green wake up,
yous deserve better,


Post a comment

<< Home