Herald on Twyford’s Children Vote Proposal
The NZ Herald is scathing of Phil Twyford’s proposal to give children the vote through their parents:
The idea of giving children the right to vote – through their parents – is not new. Five or so years ago, a leftist British think-tank suggested it, along with lowering the voting age to 14. Now, the concept has popped up here in similar surroundings, through Labour MP Phil Twyford on his party’s Red Alert blog site. Not surprisingly, it has been roundly scorned.
I find it amusing that some MPs support a voting age of 14 but a drinking age of 20.
Worse still, it is obvious why the concept of a parent with eight children having nine votes has sprung from left-of-centre sources. Parties of that inclination tend to garner support from large families, if only because of the welfare packages. One person, nine votes would redraw the political landscape. Childless people would feel like second-class citizens. As proposals go, this is one of the more palpably absurd.
I mentioned in one of my blogs from DC that the aim of the “Takers” coalition was to get over 50% of voting NZers dependent on the state, so they would be incentivised to vote for parties promising to take more and more money from other people and give it to them. Twyford’s proposal, as the Herald concludes, is part of that aim.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Of course it was a stupid idea. It was as stupid as Susan Bradford’s notion a year or two back to lower the voting age to 16.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Can’t say I’m surprised by completely stupid ideas like this coming out of Labour.
What would Twyford get on a productivity or value to NZ scale? We would be better of disestablishing his position and spending the money on Lotto tickets.
Surely there should be a 3 dumb ideas and your out rule for MP’s. This would probably equate to instant dismissal its so stupid.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
It’s not accidental that only lefties propose policies like this. The reason is, kids are naive and naive people are leftists.
You could also unkindly observe that it’s a fact that the poorer you are, the more kids you tend to have and again, poorer people tend to be lefties. At least they were, until Hulun pissed them off with her social engineering, but they’ll get over that.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
It must be noted that Phil merely raised this as a discussion point rather than openly supporting it, or that is my understanding. The idea was actually raised by the Auckland University Economics Lecturer, and former Treasury Economist Dr. Rhema Vathianathan. When you look at what they were actually trying to achieve, it becomes less incredulous, however I don’t know why Mr. Twyford would want to get involved with this idea. It’s simply never going to happen here, nor would I support such a measure.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I don’t think Twyford was seriously raising this idea as something to “go for”, but rather as an interesting concept. It has certainly got “Red Alert” a lot of press, which was perhaps half the point.
I agree it’s a silly idea, but there is certainly an issue of inter-generational inequity that needs to be looked into. While this isn’t the best way to address that issue, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an issue.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Reid>The reason is, kids are naive and naive people are leftists.
The theory was that young people would vote for the long term, rather than the short. And assumes that a person with lots of children would walk in to the polling place, cast his or her own vote on the basis of some short term populist bribe being offered by Labour, but his or her childrens votes for the long term sustainable growth offered by National or ACT. But of course the reality is that all the votes will be cast for Labour because they promise an increase in benefits for solo parents, or have just bought the voter KFC on the way to the polling place, or whatever idiot policy Labour have on offer.
Twyford knows it too. If he’d come out and said it, then you could at least recognise him for his honesty.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
As an aside, I happened to have watched Mr Arbury make his submission as part of a group to the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee on Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill.
There was a very “New Zealand moment” when John Carter briefly ducked out of the Chair and came down the back of the room and invited Mr Arbury’s girlfriend to come up and sit beside him.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Newsflash – labour in retarded attempt to game the electoral process in their favour. Film at 11…
July 11th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
The voting age needs to be raised to 21.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“…his or her children votes for the long term sustainable growth offered by National or ACT.”
If that was the given justification then he’s an even bigger idiot than I thought. Most adults find it difficult enough to see through the advertising to get to the substance of political policies, which is easily established by talking to people about why they voted the way they did. Expecting kids to do it is just so impractical as to be laughable.
As you say jarbury, the idea was probably to get press coverage rather than a substantive belief. Which just goes to show how profoundly stupid most of the MSM really are.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Kingi said “The idea was actually raised by the Auckland University Economics Lecturer, and former Treasury Economist Dr. Rhema Vathianathan.”
Now, let me see – that would be the same Dr Rhema Vathianathan who contested the Labour nomination for Mt Albert would it not? That hardly makes Dr Rhema Vathianathan a neutral observer does it?
Then again, the Herald fell for it on the eve of the self-same by-election
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/06/we-smell-rat.html
July 11th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
You mean about how the baby boomers have proven themselves to be the most selfish generation in history? I agree. What do you suggest? Shall we kill em?
July 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Raider: top idea. What about a 3 porkies rule too?
I heard part of an interview with Dr Vatican on … believe it or not … Radio Pinko. The theory in essence is that the old pricks are making decisions in their own interest on the way out, and that disenfranchises the kids. This idea supposedly enables the parents to vote in the interests of the future of their children.
Given the way the grey greedies supported Rob the Goblin, one could almost have some sympathy for the idea. Almost, for about one nano second in fact.
The amusing aspect was comment from Mora’s “panellists” about how much kids seem to like Key; contrary to the expectation that this would favour the Flapping Seagull party.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Chris D>There was a very “New Zealand moment” when John Carter briefly ducked out of the Chair and came down the back of the room and invited Mr Arbury’s girlfriend to come up and sit beside him.
So Carter hit on Arbury’s bird, and probably fondled her leg while they sat together. You’d think that what happened to Worth would have deterred him from doing that. But what did Arbury do?… Gave him a slap, or pretended not to notice as he talked about the evils of cars for half an hour?
July 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Given that childless couples are the ones who make great contributions to the tax base while receiving the least services in return, this is a great way for labour to say goodbye to those votes.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Of course, we all thought changing the law regarding “the rights of parents to raise their kids” and lowering the drinking age from 20 to 18 were just ‘silly’ suggestions from the left … until they became law.
Maybe there’ll be another ‘silly’ suggestion for ‘minoroty groups’ [fill in the blank] to get double points when they vote because they’re ‘under-represented’.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The voting age is fine as it is, the only change they should make to the eligibility rules is to remove the vote from anybody who is on the dole and the DPB.
Why should bludgers like Phool have a say in how our money is spent?.
Only those who contribute to the system should have a vote.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
But they already have the right to vote!
Some of the today’s Labour supporters and voters may have an adult’s physique and body, but undeniably the mind and underdeveloped intellect of children.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“Some of the today’s Labour supporters and voters may have an adult’s physique and body, but undeniably the mind and underdeveloped intellect of children.”
Only some?
Oh right, the self-aware ones are the evil lefties. I forgot there are TWO types…
July 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“It’s not accidental that only lefties propose policies like this. The reason is, kids are naive and naive people are leftists.”
So they want more naive people that don’t vote not to vote.
It seems the naive kids of yesturday are now the naive leaders of today.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I agree completely Big Bruv.
You’re not completely dumb after all
I’d add a test to ensure voters were both knowledgeable and able to distinguish fact from blather.
In the mean time (and this time I’m VERY serious) anyone using “inter-generational inequity” in public without warning signs should be immediately strung up – with a meat hook.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The mentally ill should also not be voting.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494
July 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“It’s simply never going to happen here, ”
Kingi — wacky ideas do have a way of becoming acceptable, and the law
Ten years ago I believed that parents would never be prosecuted for smacking their children to correct their disobedience, or, and despite what the police and the other anti-smackers say, having to explain themselves as parents to people outside the family.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
50% on welfare and the other 50% will leave the country and leave them to it.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Let’s not forget that back when rural areas had the largest families National decided to game the system by having electorate boundaries determined by total population not voting age population. Effectively meaning that National needed fewer votes per MP. With MMP that makes no difference but if/when we go back to FPP Labour will benefit.
Twyford’s suggestion is obviously unfair but that doesn’t mean National wouldn’t propose it or just do it if they gained from it.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
The proposal deserves to considered as nothing short of flagrant gerrymandering.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I could see conflict throughout the country if this lunacy was to come to pass. What say dad likes to kick some smart kids arse’s sometimes but the mum would rather not touch the little dears. So what parent would get the kid’s proxy vote, now let me guess??????????
July 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I’m not surprised that Labour and/or the Greens would advocate this. Kids are being indoctrinated at school with all the green/environmental/global warming hogwash (and where Al Gore is considered worthy of sainthood) and so are more likely to vote for a left/green parties.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Sonny Blount (1:48pm): excellent link – thanks!
July 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
side show bob 2:37 pm,
Of course, if “dad likes to kick some smart kids arse’s”, and then gets locked up in the clink [under the current law], and we take away the rights of those in prison to vote [a 'silly' idea now made law] then, I guess, the left wins again.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
This would obviously benefit the Greens and Labour. Nice try guys but it wont happen!
Many of us have very different political opinions as adults than we did as children, and children are likely to vote based on their parents, friends and whoever feeds them their propaganda.
I don’t think many children will form their own opinions based on their own views and research.
Maybe we should restrict voting to those above a certain IQ…
July 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Is there any point in getting TIAT over something that has no hope of happening?
Why does the “poor me” attitude seem so prevalent on the right?
July 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I think this is a leftie neutralisation tactic – introduce an utterly ridiculous idea, so their real agenda (to reduce voting age to 16) seems less ridiculous by comparision…
July 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I call this proposal so stupid its absolutely retarded. There is so many flaws in this e.g One can easily take advantage of this law by falsely claiming a large number of children and, far from giving their children a voice, they can bulk vote for one party – definitely biased in my opinion. Lie’n'bore just keep falling and falling.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
We could negate this debate instantly, and vastly improve the quality of our governance with one simple initiative.
A test before voting.
If you’re so wilfully ignorant you don’t know a few basic facts about this country, its political system and what its parties stand for, you shouldn’t have a say in determining its future.
If you’ve taken the trouble to study and think about these issues and you’re 16 years old, I have no problem with you casting a vote.
If the first time you’ve thought about it is to ask your neighbour who’ll do most to line your pocket as you stroll from the pub to the polling booth, then regardless of whether you’re 26 or 86 you should be told to bugger off.
The questions could be set much as the boundaries are now, by a neutral Commission after input from the parties and the public.
And of course the whole system lends itself perfectly to secure online voting, which would then allow those same intelligent, informed citizens of any age to determine many other issues along the way.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Cerium: Exactly. Bang on.
“I mentioned in one of my blogs from DC that the aim of the “Takers” coalition was to get over 50% of voting NZers dependent on the state, so they would be incentivised to vote for parties promising to take more and more money from other people and give it to them.”
How nice to be right-wing and know that you’re making a difference in creating a better society. To be nothing like those bloody lefties who only want to redistribute wealth to satisfy their own base desires – motivated by a lust for power and forcing their nanny state on the unwitting ordinary decent people who are sick and tired of this PC rubbish.
“I’m not surprised that Labour and/or the Greens would advocate this”
The Greens didn’t advocate this (neither did they advocated voting at 16, that was Sue B), Labour didn’t – it was Twyford.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Sounds like a good idea Rex. With something like the upcoming referendum you should have to show you understand S59 properly before you vote. Normally it would be good to show you understand the question but on this one it would be too difficult to test that.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Cerium
No hope of happening??
Ten years ago an Act banning freedom of speech in an election year would have had no hope of happening. Ten years ago the prospect of a government stealing public money and retrospectively legitimising that theft would have been unthinkable. Ten years ago a Prime Minister would never have raised the prospect of censoring the press and freedom of speech generally.
If you want to share what’s on your mind (sic) then perhaps you should just trundle down to the bottom of the garden and speak to the vegetables.
“Poor me”? You silly fellow.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“…there is certainly an issue of inter-generational inequity that needs to be looked into.”
I’d like to see the actuarial system that could handle such a complex set of relations. Since Labour aren’t bothering to talk about how this could be implemented all I can conlude is that it’s a form of wedge politics – an attempt to set the young against the old.
Think about it, how do you compare women and men baby boomers – shouldn’t women form a less woman-friendly generation not have some sort of consideration? And then there’s race and class to consider not to mention actual age – people don’t really divide up neatly into generations.
But Labour has tried to use this as a political tool without without thinking it through in the least.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Ok, not no hope. Changes to the electoral system are usually put to referendum, if the people want it….
Still, I can’t see it coming close. Raises some interesting things – if two parents had 1 child do they get 1.5 votes each? And what about mixed marriages? DNA tests? The only way it would work is for mothers to get all the kids votes.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Rex W is onto it.
It was tragic to see the street interviews during the last election campaign with people who couldn’t even name political party leaders/deputies, let alone policies, knowing that they were entitled to vote. (Having said that, and to be fair, Liarbore didn’t actually ever announce any policies.)
July 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Cerium, or is that Delerium.
You mean like the second referendum we were promised about MMP?
Glad that YOU can’t see it coming close. Certainly puts my mind at rest.
And when are you proposing to pop back through the Looking Glass?
July 11th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Your mind should be at rest (on that issue) for the next 2 and half years at least, probably 5 and a half years at least.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
No representation without taxation?
July 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Proportional on tax paid? Might improve the tax take.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Allowing children to vote is a retarded idea. Just as retarded as not allowing people on benefits to vote and insisting on a “test” in order to vote.
It’s funny how righties are all about individual freedom, right up until they see the chance to trample on the freedom of their perceived enemies. You choose to live in this country, and accept that democracy is the best way to go about things, then you suck it up and accept that everyone above a certain age gets to vote, no matter what. You think that more educated people would vote for your team, then for fuck’s sake, do something that educates the people. You think there are too many people on welfare, then for fucks sake do something that gets people off it and into jobs. Dispossessing them of the basic right to vote is a simpletons option, the choice someone with absoltuely no answers, no vision and no idea of how the world works would have the gall to make with a straight face.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Gotta love those thumbs down! Sure beats thinking
July 11th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Tranny
You are of course right at the grand scheme level. But based on what we have seen in previous elections, it is clear that assuming some of these walkup interviewees actually do vote, they have no idea of who or what they are voting for.
And the increasing popularity of National is just as likely to be a product of the fact that people like Key because he seems like a good bloke. Or that he is making an effort to differentiate this Government from the dodgy sandpit politics of Full Moon King, Cunners, Duckman and the other residue of Klerkingrad. It is just as likely to have nothing to do with the Government.
Ultimately, we just have to rely on the fact that there are more sensible people than stupid people. Unfortuntately that didn’t work very well over the last 9 years. And that entitles the Phil Ures of this world to vote for other people to subsidise their lifestyle choices.h
July 11th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Obviously the left coulod like the idea becuase of the saying “If you are not leftwing when you are young you have no heart and if you are not rightwing by the time you are fifty you have no brain” When I read Nevil Shute’s book “In the Wet” [?]way back I was quite taken with the Nine Vote system, even though I doubt if I would have had more than three votes. But today I’m not sure I would like to be controlled by the egg-heads.
July 11th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
@tdvm
No doubt, there are tonnes of (politically) ignorant voters out there, but I don’t think there’s any significant skew towards one party over another. An example (which is not meant to stand as a trend, but interesting nonetheless), a good friend of mine who is a relatively high earner, uni educated, but totally not into politics at all who voted for Rodney Hide because, and I quote “He’s the only one I’ve heard of”.
It is a separate issue to those on welfare, who – let’s face it – are going to overwhelmingly vote Labour. Government is more than just tax distribution – it also includes law-making, which encompasses everyone. So there is no justification for not allowing those people to vote – even if they vote for the other team. Instead, politicians need to do their friggin’ job and actually work on effective policy and getting more people into work. I’m not going to suggest anything specific, because I’m still a novice in that respect, and would need a hell of a lot more information, but one thing I do know is that no truly free country would ever disallow someone from voting because they didn’t work.
July 11th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
transmogrifier – you may very well think that only stupid people vote for leftwing parties. I disagree. In my experience stupidity is pretty evenly spread, with greater concentration in those minor parties which require no thinking at all (e.g. the BNP and their ilk).
As thedavincimode notes:
Indeed the whole “vote for that nice Mr Key” mindset regularly vexes commentators on leftwing blogs, and rightly so.
I’m not talking an IQ test, I’m talking about an engagement test. Demanding a level of basic engagement in the country and the issues facing it before voting doesn’t preclude improving education and welfare. In fact I suspect an engaged populace would plave a greater value on those things.
And you have a point – we should be teaching civics in schools.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Not forgetting the that teachers unions run RAMPANT at our schools. I remember when the Unite union was bussing kids from secondary schools to boost numbers at the fast food worker protests. Matt McCarten was dead impressed with how easily he was able to mobile students under 18 to get on the streets to “stick it to capitalism”.
If kids were able to vote, of course the left will see it as an opportunity to win every election til the end of time. They have captured universities and the teachers are quasi Labour members through the PPTA. Remember the days of communism in Europe when kids were mobilised to support the regimes and to spy on parents.
It’s all part of a wider plan.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Which guy were you Chris – the one who just about sent me to sleep harping on an incoherent rant about water, rates and whatever else came into his head? Or the other two submitters who actually did make a bit of sense?
I think my gf was called up to the table so she could actually hear what was going on. What did you actually think of my submission?
July 12th, 2009 at 12:24 am
I don’t mind people debating the issues that are raised but this is pretty offensive. Please delete it DPF.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:00 am
I’m not so sure it would benefit the left. At least in the US, exit polling shows parents with children living at home to be more Republican than other groups. Obviously there is less of a religious influence in New Zealand but it still might be significant enough to outweigh the beneficiaries.
Then again, it might rather have the effect of creating more beneficiaries afterwards if parents vote for children subsidies.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Twyford nicks some old crank labour UK ideas and spews forth onto the domestic stage like a blocked sewer errupting after a heavy rainfall – the same result, a pile of stinking filth that no-one wants.
Labour are more irrelevant than the Greens. Ha ah ah ahaha.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Rex, that sounds good, but I don’t know how you would get a lot of people engaged. Many seem to not be bothered thinking or trying to understand.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Twyford is still a tosser Cerium.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:50 am
On this he is for sure.
July 12th, 2009 at 9:46 am
I have a serious question.
Do you guys think that NZ is full of really clever, witty and satirical people, who come to Kiwiblog and hang out? Surely statements like this
“I agree it’s a silly idea, but there is certainly an issue of inter-generational inequity that needs to be looked into. While this isn’t the best way to address that issue, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an issue.” is a brilliant bit of comedy? There is not one person in the world with an IQ over 2 and a half that can really mean this.
I cannot believe that I never insisted that my son drive me to work when he was 4. Or that he bought his own beer and shouted me down at the pub when he was 6. I am so stupid for not getting him into the workforce at 10 and why did I not supply him with condoms at 11. God what a stupid pathetic parent. No sense of equality or justice.
To think that I prevented him from going down the pub until he was 20, and from driving until he was 16. And i am so happy that I did not have any daughters. I might have thought that they need protection (how dare I ) through their teens.
Sometimes I just dispair at the lunacy that is the majority of the “left” there is a very old saying yet a true saying, “…. not a socialist at 20, no heart…. Not a capitalist (read torie) at 40 , no brain..” There is a reason for that. There is a reason why dont let kids under 15 drive, it is the same reason.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The left would do quite well out of this change. It’s gerrymandering using demographics rather than geography.