Bradford wants voting age lowered to 16
Sue Bradford has announced she plans to submit a bill which would lower the age of voting from 18 to 16.
Yes you can’t trust a 16 year old with the decision whether or not they can buy a pie from the school tuckshop, but you should give them the vote!
This is part of a global Green push, no doubt motivated by self interest that much much more of their voters comes from younger voters. Greens are pushing for this in Australia, Austria, Netherlands and the UK.
But that does not mean it is necessarily a bad idea, just because the Greens are pushing it for selfish reasons. Let’s first take a look at the situation around the world:
Of the 223 countries I can find data on, 192 have a voting age of 18. 21 countries have an age from 19 to 25 (Uzbekistan).A total of ten countries have a voting age of under 18 – five at 16 and five at 17. They are:
16
Austria (from 1 July 2007)
Brazil
Cuba
Isle of Man
Nicaragua
17
East Timor
Indonesia
North Korea
Seychelles
Sudan
Now of course in several of those countries, voting is more symbolic than actual. cough North Korea cough.
So very few countries have an age of under 18, and Austria is the only OECD country which does. But should NZ?
I personally am a huge advocate of young people getting involved in politics and voting. I think it is great when young people take an interest in politics. I certainly started following politics at eight years old.
But I do not think there is a good case to lower the voting age to 16. At 16 most people are in their 5th form at school. Only a small minority show much interest in politics. Most are concerned with passing their exams and pretending they have had sex.
Sure one can argue for 16. You can also argue for 12? Or even eight? I mean at eight years old I had a view on who to vote for. All age restrictions are somewhat arbitrary. So the issue is, which age has the better justification?
At 16 most of your rights are only partial and need parental consent. You can have sex, and can leave school and home.
At 18 you have finished the full 13 years of school. At 18 you are no longer deemed a child under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. You can not bet at the TAB until 18. You can’t marry without parental consent until 18. Generally you can’t get a benefit until you are 18. You can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol until 18. You can’t rent a flat in your own name until 18. You can’t even operate a credit card or cheque account in your own name.
If the law says one can’t do all that until 18, I can’t see a case for saying one gets to vote. I supported the drinking age being the same as the voting age. If you lower the voting age to 18, then you should lower the drinking age, tobacco purchase age, gambling age etc etc. Does Sue Bradford think 16 year olds should be able to go to Casinos?
The Young Nationals have said that the voting age should remain 18, noting:
At the age of 18 we are deemed to have ‘come of age’ – that is when we can purchase alcohol, smoke and get married without consent. By that age the vast majority of young people are independent and ready to make an informed decision.
In comparison, the majority of 16 and 17 year olds are still dependent on their parents and in full-time education. To allow young people to vote at such a young age risks many casting their vote on a whim.
In that respect any move to introduce civics education into the national curriculum statements has merit.
Mr Patterson says that the Young Nationals have faith in the youth of New Zealand, but that Ms Bradford’s proposal is a step too far; “at 16 young people should be left to enjoy the twilight years of their childhood”
I think that sums it up nicely. The NZ Herald readers seem to agree. No Right Turn supports 16 though.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I’m sorry, but I disagree with NRT (again). The basis of democracy is not simply that everyone gets a say. It was that everyone that contributes in a meaningful way should have a say. There is no meaningful contribution to society by most sixteen y/o’s, as DPF points out. What they might value is not necessarily what is important by those that contribute to society through working, paying taxes, raising children and so forth.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Another retarded effort by bradford upon first glance, but then have a look at what she is trying to acheive? Many young voters are idealistic, lord knows I was before I had grown up and faced the cold hard reality of watching left wing politicians commit social treason over the last 20 years. This would be a massive vote increase for the watermelons.
Unfortunately Sues anti smacking bill did not save the 16 month old that was beaten to death this week (report on the herald site) so there is one young person who will never get to vote for the watermelons. Only the mentally infirm and mentally immature vote green, can’t get more votes? Just lower the voting age.
A referendum on returning to fpp would be a better idea. Even better lets restrict voting to citizens who are A. Old enough and B. contributing as opposed to hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries and twats who never left school.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Why not give the vote to anyone who pays income tax (whilst removing the exemption that young people have)? This would include responsible young people (ie those who have a job), whilst excluding those who would prefer to spend their time “pretending they have had sex”.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:50 pm
DPF’s argument is rock solid. This is clearly yet another stunt from the left. I agree with Barnsley, yet another child is killed in NZ and the left pre occupy themselves with self gratifying posturing!
June 21st, 2007 at 11:57 pm
The law also says you can’t discriminate based on age above 16. I think it (the Human Rights Act, and by extension, the Bill of Rights) should say 18, but it doesn’t.
As for casinos … even 18 year-olds cant gamble in them.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 am
Can someone tell me if Sue Bradford is mentally retarded? She hasn’t got one single contribution in Parliament that advances the society in terms of wealth creation.
Wasn’t she campaigned hard for the poor in the past? What happens to that motto of yours Sue? You’re now a legislator, then bloody do something for the poor?
You come up with a useless bill one after another , which doesn’t help the poor at all? You’re simply getting paid in Parliament to propose useless bill. This amounts to someone who sleeps in the house, thus waking up occasionally to vote, and not knowing what the issue is about.
Resign from Parliament now Bradford.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 am
The ‘Civics Education’ part is a lot more important than the actual voting age which, as DPF points out, is ultimately an arbitrary measure that varies around the world.
In a free democratic society governments govern with the consent of the people. However what we appear to be seeing here is a statuatory mandate for the government to manufacture that consent through a compulsory education program. Who will decide the curriculum? How would dissenting views find their way into the program?
It is incredibly unfortunate that Matt Patterson can’t see this, clearly the Blue Lib project needs more Lib and less blue.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 am
Kiwi’s should be inoculated from the ludicrous ravings of a mad bush pig .
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 am
Seriously, would you trust an education department so wrapped up in it’s own dogma to get teachers who are mostly union members to teach “civics” in anything resembling a fair manner? I certainly don’t. I think we will see even more indoctrination.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 am
What an opportunity for an MP with a sense of the bizarre to put up a private members bill to irrevocably tie the drinking, driving, gambling, contracts, criminal etc ages to the voting age.
The idiot Bradford would absolutely knot her tubes trying to oppose this without declaring that 16 year olds lacked the rational decision-making ability necessary to make logical choices on representation. It would be better than the circus for entertainment.
The woman is a nutter in the common sense of the word.
Why oh why don’t we have an annual phsychological fitness test for MPs?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 am
This from the woman who doesn’t trust adults to raise their kids, doesn’t trust teenagers to choose their own food & wants the drinking age raised back to 20?
Has there ever been a more transparent effort to create a voter pool?
As DS sates above, the scariest part of this is the civics education. The very idea of what that might entail scares me.
I am sure it will never see the light of day, but geez, what is this women on.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:58 am
What ever the voting age, some people are disfranchised for up to nearly 3 years. At present people whose 18th birthday falls after election day, although possibly paying taxes and are married, will have had no say in the selection of government, and will not for the next 3 years.
Do we then drop the voting age to 15? If the voting age becomes 16 what about 13 year olds?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 am
Bradford has not thought this through.
Yes, a 16 year old can marry, but only with parental permission.
So- should a 16 year old only be allowed to vote with parental permission? (That would kill off the Greens attempt to boost their vote with the young and impressionable)
The most worrying aspect is not so much the concept of lowering the voting age as the insidious attempt to introduce state political indoctrination of children.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
16 is fine for me. But as for 12 or 8 as you suggested, get real.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
Are we seeing the begining of Sues run for Jeanettes job?
Scary ain’t it?
As many people have pointed out in other forums – At 16 you should be thinking about going to the beach and hanging out with your friends not having the responsibility for who’s running the country. It seems to be part of the lefts ongoing drive to make children into small adults.
Let kids be kids -they’ll have adulthood soon enough and forever.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
Only a small minority show much interest in politics. Most are concerned with passing their exams and pretending they have had sex.
Only a small minority of adults are really interested in politics. Most are concerned with increasing their pay packets and actually having sex. Most adults vote for self-interest. Well I’d say most teenagers are pretty self-interested too.
Sure one can argue for 16. You can also argue for 12? Or even eight? I mean at eight years old I had a view on who to vote for. All age restrictions are somewhat arbitrary. So the issue is, which age has the better justification?
It should be the age at which you can be charged as an adult in criminal proceedings. At eight you are still a child in all definitions of the word. At 16 you are not.
At 18 you have finished the full 13 years of school. At 18 you are no longer deemed a child under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. You can not bet at the TAB until 18. You can’t marry without parental consent until 18. Generally you can’t get a benefit until you are 18. You can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol until 18. You can’t rent a flat in your own name until 18. You can’t even operate a credit card or cheque account in your own name.
What about people who leave school at 16? If you haven’t completed 13 years of school should you just never be allowed to vote?
At 18 you can’t go to the casino. So are you really a full-grown adult?
You can’t get insurance for fast cars until you’re 25, maybe that should be the age?
In comparison, the majority of 16 and 17 year olds are still dependent on their parents and in full-time education. To allow young people to vote at such a young age risks many casting their vote on a whim.
A hell of a lot of 20 year olds live at home and go to uni fulltime. And a lot of these ‘adults’ vote for who their parents vote for. Hell, a lot of 50 year olds vote for Labour or National because their families have always voted for Labour or National.
I think the main problem is that the ages you’re allowed to do different things are all different. Yes choosing an age is arbitrary. But let’s just choose one age when you become an ‘adult’, and that should be the age you can do everything. Including being treated as an adult under the law.
I also favour a voting-license test. A bit like the drivers-license test. Yes voting is a right, but so are freedom of speech and religion and we have exceptions to those (you can’t actually say or believe just anything.) This test would obviously have to be simple and non-political…
But I don’t think people who can’t name the National and Labour leaders should be allowed to vote, no matter how old they are.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:53 am
It is an indictment on this country that a complete fuckwit like Sue Bradford can make it into parliament let alone get the unwarranted publicity she does. She is delusional after the “success” of her smacking bill and actually thinks she is making a difference. The EB’s had it right at the last election highlighting how dangerous the Greens really are. They masquerade as Green but the reality is they are the deepest shade of Red. It is becoming patently obvious to even to the grannies of the world like my mother who thinks she is helping the environment by giving them a party vote. Not this time though Sue.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 am
In my opinion, anyone who gets married at 16 is too dumb to vote anyway.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 am
You seem to be suggesting the only options are 16 or 18. I tend to think 16 is too young. But 17 I would not be so strongly opposed to. As someone else commented, you could be 16 or 17 when an election falls due, so you’re not going to be able to vote until you’re 19 or 20 – so the age of 18 is actually not the effective voting age for many people.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
” … just because the Greens are pushing it for selfish reasons”
sod off with that spin Farrar, you’re as bad as nrt and his ‘rich-mates’ lines. Bradford has been a spokesperson for youth rights as long as I can remember, and you know this. From s59 to the youth minimum wage, etc etc.
And regarding the tuck-shop she is not trying to stop 16 year olds from buying fatty food, she is attempting to stop state schools from profiting by an activity that is essentially bad for children. That is not about youth rights and you know it. It would be about youth rights if she was pushing for a BAN on the sales of unhealthy food to children, but she is not advocating that, it is a measure aimed at state school responsibility.
If you think this is a ‘selfish measure’ because of some possible small advantage then National’s tax cuts must be all about given money to their ‘rich mates’, right?
16 year old rights is entirely consistent with Green philosophy and nothing to do with any potential perceived gain.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Vladimar Putin worte -
“Can someone tell me if Sue Bradford is mentally retarded? She hasn’t got one single contribution in Parliament that advances the society in terms of wealth creation.”
Obviously, the sole role of an MP is not to advnace society in terms of wealth creation, there are many other factors in making a better society that an MP can be part of – eg making a less arbitary legal framework or changing the alw so it does not tolarate inhumanity towards certian grousp of people, tackling long-term unemployment and its accompanying social costs.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 am
“At present people whose 18th birthday falls after election day,”
I was in that category myself. It didn’t adversely affect my life as I got to vote in every election AFTER that one.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 am
mad bush pig
yet more intelligent comment on the topic at hand from d4j.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 am
DPF -
223 countries? Are you including US states? There are only 192 members of the UN that’s pretty much the gold standard on being a recognised sovereign country now Switzerland is in, and not all of them have elections.
I, to, am dubious on the 16 voting age, 18 seems fine. What about the teaching Civics in schools part though? Seems like a damn fine idea to me.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
“….activity that is essentially bad for children.”
Ok, so the Greens want to be able to decide what is bad for Children….i.e not have rights.
but wait, there’s more…
“16 year old rights is entirely consistent with Green philosophy….”
So, the Greens DO want 16 yr olds to have rights.
I’m confused, or maybe James is…
You are advocating they have the same rights as a legal adult? Yet you refer to them as children.
Unless of course Green philosophy dictates that they should be given rights…in some areas..when it suits…
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 am
“What about the teaching Civics in schools part though”
I’m old enough to remember when it was taught. I still have memories of my Social Studies (do they still have that class?) teacher explaining the various political viewpoints, philosophy’s etc in NZ & some overseas countries. We had to do a project on the subject. (at about age 12 I think)
I shudder to think how ‘balanced’ a curriculum written in NZ today would be.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Voting, essentially, determines who decides how taxes are spent (and how much they will be).
If a change it to be made it should be away from age-based determination of voting rights and towards some kind of measure of financial independence. In the past only those who owned real estate could vote. I think that’s taking it a bit far. But perhaps only those who pay net positive tax (less benefits) should vote? Perhaps even in proportion to how much tax they pay.
I voted at 18, at the end of my first year of university, and I voted stupidly. The next time, at 21 in the middle of my fourth year of university (snap election), I voted much more intelligently.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
“eg making a less arbitary legal framework or changing the alw so it does not tolarate inhumanity towards certian grousp of people, tackling long-term unemployment and its accompanying social costs.”
Sam, you must be so utterly disappointed with this current government then. In fact most past governments as well..
I can tell you mean this sincerely, as you have obviously written it in a hurry, or with emotion controlling your fingers, which is unlike you.
My view of what you have written, is this:
Governments should legislate peoples behaviour thereby outlawing human nature.
or, Why can’t we just be nice to each other and treat each other right. As long as you follow my definition of what is right.
There are many countries that have this system in place already, although funnily enough, not many of them allow their people to vote.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
CraigM-
“Governments should[n't] legislate peoples behaviour”
Really Craig, what else do you think a Government does then set parameters for people’s behaviour, facilatiting or funding some behaviours, requiring others, discouraging or banning still others and creating consequences for those behaviours or failure to comply?
Whole parts of the normal spectrum of ‘human nature’ are ‘outlawed’ ie people find them so destructive they have used their collective power through the State to prohibit or tightly control them – homocide being but the most obvious example.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Voting, essentially, determines who decides how taxes are spent (and how much they will be).
Um yeah, no. Voting leads to a lot of decisions that have nothing to do with taxes. The government might decide, for example, that every 18 year old should conscripted and sent to Iraq. Or that it’s not rape if you bought her a drink beforehand. What do these have to do with taxes?
But perhaps only those who pay net positive tax (less benefits) should vote? Perhaps even in proportion to how much tax they pay.
Yeah so you don’t really understand the whole ‘democracy’ thing do you?
I voted at 18, at the end of my first year of university, and I voted stupidly. The next time, at 21 in the middle of my fourth year of university (snap election), I voted much more intelligently.
And it’s not hard to imagine you regretting your current choices when you’ve been retired for a couple of years. But the fact that you voted stupidly doesn’t mean every 18 year old votes stupidly.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“And regarding the tuck-shop she is not trying to stop 16 year olds from buying fatty food, she is attempting to stop state schools from profiting by an activity that is essentially bad for children.”
And she wasn’t trying to ban smacking.
The spin starts already.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
James Cairney, shoot yourself in the head and save the rest of us your drivel.
I saw on the the news this morning two fine examples of 16 or 17 year old voters.
“I would vote for the Greens, fo’ sure!”
Whilst pulling a ‘west-side’ of similar sign with his fingers.
Also
“I’ll probably vote for Labour. Aw, and the Maori Party as well.”
Apparently we can cast two votes now.
Sensational.
And civics education? Yes, that will be a totally fair and balanced lesson plan won’t it?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Sue Bradfords idea of ‘Civic Studies” will be the leftie teachers brain washing the kids with communist ideology.
IMHO and I have said this for years all who wish to vote should be subjected to an IQ test and a knowledge test of the politicans the parties and their policies . Pass the test you get to vote fail and you dont have the intelligence to make an informed decision.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
As far as teaching civics in schools goes, I’d vote for whoever promised to teach grammar and spelling in schools again.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Of course The Greens want to lower the voting age. It’s well known that only The Young And The Stupid vote Green.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“I’ll probably vote for Labour. Aw, and the Maori Party as well.”
Apparently we can cast two votes now.
Sensational.
Yes indeed – it’s called MMP. Candidate and party vote.
These kids are better informed than you are.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Seamonkey Madness, it may come as a surprise to you but yes, we do get two votes these days. We get a party vote and an electorate vote. That boy interviewed can vote for both Labour and the Maori by splitting his vote, just a people in Epsom did with Rodney and National. Also with the other one saying he would quote “I would vote for the Greens, fo’ sure!” is no different to a lot of middle class white people saying “I’m voting for National for sure, they’re going to give tax cuts”. It is a personal thing.
If you’re so concerned they are not ‘intelligent’ ‘capable’ and ‘up to it’ why do we let the over 65′s vote? They are old, senile and out of touch with most of the world, surely their votes are not well thought out and informed. Also people who call talk back radio and those who seem to live on this blog (you know who you are) rarely display signs of competency and intelligence, yet they are allowed to vote.
This was the same fears men held when it was proposed to give women the vote in 1893. Just because there wasn’t a precedent in other British or western countries didn’t stop them and male fears of women as incompetent and unable to think for themselves proved fruitless.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Sorry Woppo, two party votes.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Why are people concerned that most under 18′s will vote for the Greens because of liberal policies, when the say that parents will have huge influence who they will vote for when only 5% voted Greens. Surely if they are influenced by family the election results will be largely the same bu with more turnout and people voting?
This issue is not about who they will vote for, its about realising that around 25% of society is disenfranchised and have no real mandated representation in Parliament. Franchising those 16 and 17 years will go to some length in redressing that issue as well as acknowledging that ‘young people’ have a respected place in society.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“global Green push, no doubt motivated by self interest that much much more of their voters comes from younger voters”.
Just like the 18th and 19th Century Tory Party was staunchly opposed to enlarge the franchise because it would dilute their landed interest in politics, we now see the Young Gnats using the same arguments against lowering the voting age. Plus ca change.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Sam, I wrote an incredibly intelligent & long reply to your comments and then, as is want to happen with this blog from time to time, it failed to upload and I lost it.
Fucked if I’m going to write it out again.
Suffice to say it was superb.
Cheers
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
CraigM -
I’ll take your word for it.
Assuming the obvious superbness of your post would have had a profund effect on my outlook, I now cheerfully concede that you are correct on this and all future issues.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“You are advocating they have the same rights as a legal adult? Yet you refer to them as children”
Well firstly Craig, I am advocating no such thing, and I imagine the Greens are not advocating that per se either.
Secondly, my reference to ‘children’ was to people at school in regards to the tuck-shop example. I was not referring explicitly to 16 year olds, you should not quote out of context.
I assume you realise that people under 16 are in this group as well (in the majority I imagine) and school ‘children’ is ordinary parlance.
Spam, she *was* trying to ban smacking, and she succeeded, with support from the entire National party. I think it you who is spinning!
seamonkey: “I saw on the the news this morning two fine examples of 16 or 17 year old voters” well that settles it then, little bit of anecdotal evidence is all that is required to draw sweeping conclusions in monkey’s mind, so that should be good enough for us all. Except I never stated that the greens would not benefit, so nice strawman.
And this is gold: “Yes indeed – it’s called MMP. Candidate and party vote. These kids are better informed than you are.” That was woppo totally pasting you, and saving me the trouble. And you can draw no such conclusion from that person’s “Maori and Labour” as to whether they were talking exclusively about party vote. Many people who split their vote refer to it in that manner. I suggest you need civic lessons.
And Craig, I do not have a liquor license, that means I do not have the *right* to sell you alcohol, that is an infingement on my rights (if anyone’s) not your rights, as you can buy elsewhere. Similarly, the state not having the *right* to sell school children unhealthy food is not an infringement on children’s rights, as they can buy elsewhere. This is not to say that the policy is not paternalistic, but you are wide of the mark with your ‘rights’ claims (or delving into sophistry perhaps?).
Again, if a policy accords with a party’s philosophy, which these policies do, then you cannot claim it is motivated by self-interest based on some non-specific perceived benefit. That applies equally to all parties.
And this is hardcase “Fucked if I’m going to write it out again. Suffice to say it was superb.” I too trust your opinion and sympathise.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“and male fears of women as incompetent and unable to think for themselves proved fruitless.”
They did ? We never expected them to end up running the bloody country tho! Oh, hindsight where art thou….
Talk about reap what you sow.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Perhaps HC is porking Sue, and getting her to do all her dirty work.
If 16 year olds get the vote, they will no doubt vote Labia and Greens
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
With the Anti Smacking Bill we are already indoctrinating our children, at a very early age in civics, by teaching them to recognise their civil rigts by reporting to the appropriate authorities, their parents disciplinary measures taken against them.
Remember that Nazi Germany, Terrorist Groups taught their children civics! Who would determine what was taught in NZ schools? Would we teach them that integrity doesn’t count? We were promised a review by referendum of our MMP – A written constitution – a review of the Police Comlaints Authority. Hollow promises by Hollow politicians?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
James Cairney : It would be about youth rights if she was pushing for a BAN on the sales of unhealthy food to children, but she is not advocating that, it is a measure aimed at state school responsibility.
James, the toilet cleaning job is still available if you want to apply. Just flick me your CV and I will arrange for an interview.
People who can’t take personal responsibility are always looking for the State to take care of them and nanny them around. This group in society are mainly the toilet-cleaners in which you are one.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“I suggest you need civic lessons.
James, I don’t need civic lessons. I think I am an informed enough voter to not vote for the corrupt regime that is Labour.
” Except I never stated that the greens would not benefit, so nice strawman.”
So why did you tell DPF to “sod off” when he said that “the Greens are pushing it for selfish reasons”?
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
And the prize for most misogynist comment of the day goes to:
“Perhaps HC is porking Sue, and getting her to do all her dirty work. If 16 year olds get the vote, they will no doubt vote Labia and Greens
Posted by haggis | June 22, 2007 2:22 PM”
- Congratulations Haggis, the competition was tough.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
In order to change the voting age in New Zealand there needs to be a 75% majority in Parliament as that section along with the bit talking about length in between elections and another part of the Electoral Act are entrenched meaning that around 90 MPs will have to vote for it. As well I find it hilarious that this Bill hasn’t even been drawn from the ballot yet meaning it could never see the light of day in its current form, yet people are already crying foul as if it will pass into law tomorrow. Your lives must be void of something.
And to “Take it away” I knew when I wrote that comment some pathetic being would say something long the lines of what you wrote. You must be one of those people who cast ‘informed’ and ‘knowledgeable’ votes that 16 and 17 year olds are incapable to do.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Sam wrote:
“…Obviously, the sole role of an MP is not to advnace society in terms of wealth creation, there are many other factors in making a better society that an MP can be part of – eg making a less arbitary legal framework or changing the alw so it does not tolarate inhumanity towards certian grousp of people, tackling long-term unemployment and its accompanying social costs.”
Well Sam you just got the words arse about.
It should have been:
Sue Bradford’s sole role is to not advance society …..
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Well, IQ research has found that scores in IQ tests flatten out at the age of 16 (or shortly before or after). IQ measures ability to understand concepts/information. So by this reasoning it can be said that 16 is the most rational age for people to be allowed to start voting.
http://rogernome.blogspot.
P.S. Decided my old mane blows – so I decided to reinvent myself as “rogernome”.
Cheers.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Sam says “And the prize for most misogynist comment of the day goes to:”
Well, Sam, I dont really think I am a misogynist,considering I am of the female gender. I dont hate women.
Its more the fact that I can see that HC is using Sue as her pawn. And thick as Bradford is, she falls for it. Bradford is acting like a lovesick puppy dog, willing to do anything that HC requests, hence my comment about pork.
It is well within the Labia party and Greens to get the younger vote, because they are certainly struggling to get any other vote!!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“Well, Sam, I dont really think I am a misogynist,considering I am of the female gender. I dont hate women.”
There’s no reason why a woman can’t be a misogynist – i.e. prejudice is prejudice regardless of the bigot’s gender. In fact patriarchy, like many systems of oppression aren’t possible if a significant proportion of the oppressed don’t buy into the hegemon’s philosophy. i.e. think feudalism and the populace’s belief in the divine right to rule.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Roger Nome do not suggest that I am misogynist.
I am embarrassed for women that HC and SB belong to our gender.
And be careful who you call a bigot. That is a misguided an opinion.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Haggis:
I didn’t call you a bigot. Just pointed out a logical fallacy in your argument.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
seamus,
Thanks for raising the bit about the 75% majority.
Very interesting.
Bradford has about almost zero chance of getting that size of majority (in the event that her bill is drawn from the ballot).
Lets assume that she is aware that the proposal would fall foul of the entrenchment laws. This means that she would still be short of the required majority even if she were able to get all the non-National votes in the house.
The question has to be asked then why she is bothering?
Judging by the tone of talkback calls, and the reader responses on the Herald web site, this move is about as popular as the anti smacking legislation.
So why is she deliberately stirring when Labour is facing so many problems already?
Sure, she is not a Labour MP, but the S59 bill tied Labour & the Greens together in people’s perception, and Labour is the Green’s first choice for government- so something like this reflects badly on Labour because of the S59 bill.
I’ve got to ask the question, is Bradford may be deliberately harming Labour in the hope that the Greens will guarantee 3 more years representation at Labour’s expense?
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Dear Seamus,
‘Take it away’ asked me to tell you that you need to lighten up. He knows a bait when he sees one and thought it would be funny to give you what you were wanting. It was written totally tongue in cheek, which you will see if you give it more than 1 seconds thought.
I concure with him. I thought it was funny.
Peace and love
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“P.S. Decided my old mane blows – so I decided to reinvent myself as “rogernome”.
PJ /rogernome – any chance you could reinvent yourself as non-academic conservative while your at it?
Just asking.
Cheers
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
pj you missed the g in “gnome”, nome is a place in alaska
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
“” Except I never stated that the greens would not benefit, so nice strawman.” So why did you tell DPF to “sod off” when he said that “the Greens are pushing it for selfish reasons”?”
Seamonkey are you kidding? Where in what I stated did I deny any benefit?
As I said, the Bill fits with Green philosophy, and that is why they are pushing it, plain and simple. Any benefit the Greens may or may not receive does not automatically qualify it as a ‘selfish’ undertaking, any more than National giving tax cuts does. DPF was wrong to make that claim.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“PJ /rogernome – any chance you could reinvent yourself as non-academic conservative while your at it?”
Was that supposed to be funny?
“pj you missed the g in “gnome”, nome is a place in alaska”
I’ve been toying with the idea of putting the g in, but I wanted the name to stay true to my worship of Roger Douglas.
Cheers.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The bearded ladies in the green freakshow need a shave and a lobotomy in the first instance , clearly these slimy champagne engineering socialists are headstrong – misfits !!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“clearly these slimy champagne engineering socialists are headstrong – misfits !!!”
D4J: what exactly does a champagne engineer do? Just curious.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
They make stupid smacking law and they want children to be full adults voting for a bunch of delirious socialist delinquents before the age of 16 , however maybe insane sue was thinking of James Sleep the georgy thingy’s play toy boy .
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Bradford is unfit for Parliament !
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Replace “giving the vote to 16 year olds” with “giving the vote to women”. Now reflect on your comments.
Why can 16 year olds drive and pay taxes but not vote?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Matt – a psychologist on National Radio today said the idea was absurd.
Will Bradford hypercritical moronic fool explain to the 16-year-old voter that their government idealism does not recognise the family as the corner stone of a stable society?
Will the half -wit Sew tell the young male voter why the labour/greens do not treat males and females the same?
Will the illiberal Bradfart tell the kids that her idea is just political expediency to buy votes promoted by a former criminal political activist who has no genuine interest in the welfare of the country’s children and their parents?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“a psychologist on National Radio today said the idea was absurd.”
So how is an 18 more qualified psychologically to vote than a 16 year old? What reasons were given?
Of course you would rather the voices of our youth were trampled into the ground. Yes I remember when you threatened to pummel 16 year old James Sleep for having an alternative view to you. Disgraceful behaviour by anyone’s standards. Would you ever speak in such a way to your own children?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
“Disgraceful behaviour by anyone’s standards. Would you ever speak in such a way to your own children?”
My children don’t call me a kid f##ker or paedophile you twisted creep !!
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
“My children don’t call me a kid f##ker or paedophile you twisted creep”
Sorry D4J, that just doesn’t cut it. Not even close.
Because of this type of behaviour I suspect you can say this to you kids (the chorus that is)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFol3bmcPWA&mode=related&search=
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Elliott Smith not my cup of tea diarrhoea snake.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
yeah, thought that Elliott might not be “tough guy” enough for you. I should have linked to a “music to beat kids to” compilation album or something. Russell Crow did something along those lines didn’t he?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
In lieu of Bradford lacking functioning neuron transmitters I wonder if she would like to come with me to the TV quiz show the weakest stink hosted by a graduate from the school of laughing yoga ?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
The motivation for this is clear. There is no way this will come into law. In 12-16 months there will be an election. She is appealing to those who are now….12-16 months away from voting age. Its another example of the left playing tactics, rather than the real issues ( failed health, education and a failing economy). I really think they are desperate. I believe H1 and H2 would not be too far away from this diversion…to be a fly on the wall on the ninth floor.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I had to laugh when the very spotty boy, who didn’t know what all the fuss was about was asked for his views , he replied on TV “ the greens are cool as they want to make dak legal .”
Hey what’s green, sticky and filthy, and sold at bogey fairs?
Bradross.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
That’s right fredrico – it’s yet another stinking communist conspiracy. No, i’m afraid that you join Red Baiter and D4J in the modern-day McCarthyist bin old fella.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
PJ or roger or whatever, wait a second. I think my point is valid. Im saying this is a tactic, not a conspiracy. There are real issues to be addressed and this is what we get. Labour are down in the polls and it is conceiveable that tactically they are creating diversions. I do believe the left have a covert agenda, the same way you believe the right do. “Binning” me is er….reactionary. I actually enjoyed and respected your posts up until now
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Rogered PJ – Oh shut up – you demented baked pepper !
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
“music to beat kids to” compilation album or something. Russell Crow did something along those lines didn’t he?
think again fredrico when you say you respected this feminazi whore rogered PJ .
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Frederico:
Some on the right are saying that this a ploy by the greens to cannibalise labour’s vote. Others such as your self are saying that it’s a devious plot by a colluding left block to curry the favour of young voters. However, the Greens are anything but a populist party. In fact they are often criticised for lacking Machiavellian strategising. The smacking bill is a prime example. It was something that the green party believed in, and they pursued it despite it being strategically questionable. No, this is far from cynical plotting between the greens and labour. In fact the most likely explanation is that it fits with the Greens’ philosophy, and it’s as simple as that.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Frederico:
Some on the right are saying that this a ploy by the greens to cannibalise labour’s vote. Others such as your self are saying that it’s a devious plot by a colluding left block to curry the favour of young voters. However, the Greens are anything but a populist party. In fact they are often criticised for lacking Machiavellian strategising. The smacking bill is a prime example. It was something that the green party believed in, and they pursued it despite it being strategically questionable. No, this is far from cynical plotting between the greens and labour. In fact the most likely explanation is that it fits with the Greens’ philosophy, and it’s as simple as that.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Well we will have to agree to disagree. I think the greens do have a populist streak and this is an example of it. It may well be typical of green policy, but I still think its diversionary and oppurtunistic. Anyway I am the first to comment on your blog…I think, and good luck
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
“Rogered PJ – Oh shut up – you demented baked pepper!”
D4J: I know I’ve said this before, but It’s the pub or kiwiblog mate. You shouldn’t be doing both at the same time as it’s bad for the quality of the thread. Now put that whisky down, grab a jug of water, go to bed and sleep it off. There’s a good daddy.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Frederico:
I’m not saying that the greens are without political guile. It’s just that to me this smacks of their tendency to put principal over strategy. It’s probably not going to be a popular proposal amongst the electorate, yet they’re pursuing it. In fact, I suspect that it could loose them more votes than it brings them.
BTW: Thanks for your kind words here and over at my blog. As you can imagine, I don’t tend to receive too many of them here. I should also say that I generally wouldn’t put you in the same category as Baiter of D4J – My comparison of you to them was in fact more than a little hyperbolic and unfair.
Cheers.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Thanks Roger Nome, but from now on….its war!!!! Look ,the more we debate the differences rather than the prejudices the better. I think thats the whay DPF wanted for kiwiblog. CHEERS
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:25 am
The Whay….what an idiot…er too much shiraz.
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 am
More Labour voters, hahahahahaha
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 am
Oh come on ladies, we all know what Bradford wants to do here. She and her mates at UNITE are trying to mobilise the youth and unskilled workers for their new political movement. UNITE were not to long ago paying for busses to pick up kids from schools to protest against McDonalds.
Although I suspect she is also trying to get a lot of support from the yoof for the upcoming Youth Parliament.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:26 am
We haven’t seen the results of her last bill yet. I don’t imagine the police are going to be that impressed about having to report on every case of smacking – even light smacking.
How will they have the resources?
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 am
Front page Ch Ch Press – “Report damns police recruits ” – looks like the corrupt police are lacking suitable resources .
Be worried New Zealanders – as Helen Clark and her feminazi dogs and made in NZ male wimps are directing us to condone anarchistic behaviour from people in authority .
This country is a shocking indictment, how long are the public going to suffer from a lost the plot big time government ?
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 am
I hope no one gets smacked today, as the hospital is shut and the Minister of Health and Police are in lalaland !!
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
Get a life d4j .Police have helped me with a Christchurch incident and a USA misjudgement .
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 am
Morning dad4justice, have a good weekend, go the blacks/team NZ,and keep those pussy lefties,in their place (a down position)
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Yes Mr I.P.Freely I hope our sporting teams on land and water bring some honour and dignity to our once proud nation that has plummented into social chaos by sinister political humanoids .
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Before the leftie purist language twits start ; I meant to say this sick government has plummeted our country into a quagmire of appalling social statistic’s like child abuse and infanticide.
When you got to a job well you got to give the other side hell.Live and let die !!
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
James – “Why can 16 year olds drive and pay taxes but not vote?
Why indeed James?
June 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Matt, not James.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
No vote, no tax.
I don’t believe that 16 year olds should vote (im 18 by the way), but I would like to see 16 year olds not being taxed. It’s just not fair. When I was trying to save for Uni last year, I was being taxed 150 – 200 dollars a week. I would rather see that went into a savings account than funding the kindergarten that is politics.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
No vote, no tax.
I don’t believe that 16 year olds should vote (im 18 by the way), but I would like to see 16 year olds not being taxed. It’s just not fair. When I was trying to save for Uni last year, I was being taxed 150 – 200 dollars a week. I would rather see that went into a savings account than funding the kindergarten that is politics.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
No vote, no tax.
I don’t believe that 16 year olds should vote (im 18 by the way), but I would like to see 16 year olds not being taxed. It’s just not fair. When I was trying to save for Uni last year, I was being taxed 150 – 200 dollars a week. I would rather see that went into a savings account than funding the kindergarten that is politics in which we don’t get a say anyway.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:51 am
i think that it should remain 18 but have an examption for 16/17 they should do a test and pass before they could vote i think that 16 is old enough to vote if you know about politics i am 16 myself
July 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
As a 15 year old who is constantly in the environment and company of 16 year old peers,I know that 16 year olds should not be able to vote.
Sue Bradford knows shes not too crash hot with voters after she pulled the anti-smacking stint so now shes at it again trying to brainwash youth. Everyone knows that the greens are relatively popular amongst youth and by lowering the voting age, Bradford will have a comfortable majority to stay in parliament.
She does not care for youth – she wants their vote. Her secret Agenda to brainwash youth and build a support base for the greens is undemocratic and unfair. Her conflict of interest discredits her motion to lower the voting age.
We need to provide a non-partisan approach to ciivics and legal studies before we give youth a vote.