Ms Ryan said that she planned to introduce another private member’s bill during the upcoming term of federal parliament, after an initial bill in 2018 failed to pass.
I was gonna say that it felt fair that if you’re working, and getting taxed, that you should have a voice.
Then I did a search for Australia minimum working age and woooof. What a shitshow that is in all the states & territories…
I’m inclined to support 18 as the age of full legal responsibility in society, which is why I favour moving the voting age to 17.
In Australia, adults in prison who are expected to be released during the upcoming electoral term are allowed to vote, as they will return to society during that term. I think a similar principle should apply to 17-year-olds: they will be 18 for the majority of the term being voted on and should have a say in the government that will represent them when they are an adult.
The average 17-year-old is about 17.5 years old at any point in the year. This means that, on average, they miss out on roughly 2.5 to 3 years of democratic representation if they cannot vote in the election preceding their 18th birthday. While age thresholds are somewhat arbitrary, they are necessary for consistency in law in balancing different rates of maturity uniformly. And although many 16-year-olds may be as intellectually capable as adults, the difference in maturity and development year-on-year at these younger ages are still significant.
I believe the case for including 17-year-olds is much stronger than for 16-year-olds. The average 17-year-old misses out on about 30 months of representation, compared to around 18 months for the average 16-year-old. A meaningful difference.
TL;DR: For these reasons, I support allowing 17-year-olds to vote, on behalf of their adult selves, for the government that will represent them for most of the term, once they turn 18.
Interesting way of thinking about the issue even if I’m inclined to support lowering the age to 16. I wonder what all the 16 and 17 year olds think.
These kids will need to be driven to the voting booth by their parents, and if the parents know and disapprove of the child’s political views then that’ll give the more controlling parents effectively more than one vote.
Influx of teenage polling booth volunteers handing out how-to-votes.
Let’s push for a voting age cap.
Make it non-compulsory for over-65’s.
Although that would 100% give license to the LNP to make it non-compulsory for everyone, and our compulsory voting system is what makes us immune to populist demagogues (that and our country not crumbling before our very eyes).
I disagree. Many older people are more conservative. However, they have a right to their views. We shouldn’t disenfranchise anyone.
Teenagers are quite literally disenfranchised.
Yes, but not legally considered adults until later. This proposal is to change that.
The argument isn’t that they shouldn’t vote because they’re conservative. It’s that they shouldn’t vote because they literally won’t experience the long term consequences of their decisions.
My personal preference is to allow 16 year olds to vote without creating a maximum voting age, but if in some weird world the only way to allow 16 year olds to vote was to ban those over 80 from voting, I would support that in a heartbeat.
How old do you think the cut off should be? What do you think the typical life expectancy is at that age? What is the typical term of government?
Tajing your example of age 80, in the USA, that would give a life expectancy of 9 years for women and 7 years for men. That’s 2 elections minimum.
Of particular note for them to vote on - health care, pensions, right to end life, hospice care, inheritance, general issues that affect their family,.
Eligible to vote at 16.
Mandatory at 18.Votes are then weighted based on age:
Your vote is worth 100% until 20, then decreases 5% at every birthday ending in 0.
The older you get, the less you’re exposed to policy decisions made at the time.
There should also be strict term limits for, and mandatory exclusion and retirement from, elected positions. You can still hold advisory roles, but you shouldn’t be making decisions that affect a population when you’re in the upper 20% band of life expectancy.
I agree with weighted voting, but not based on age. I really think your vote should come with a questionnaire that covers current issues and policies. If your answers show you have no clue what’s going on, your vote means less.
Age and competency aren’t mutually exclusive for weighting. I think age should be a mandatory erosion, but it can be offset with achievements such as academic study or public service.
Over time it diminishes, but slower for those with proven social engagement.
You had me until you said public servant. The public service, specifically Victorian, is just assholes pushing other down for their own benefit; once you’ve been in the public service long enough you become institutionalised and it shows on many many people.
16 makes sense to me. In some states, like SA, it is the minimum age at which you can choose to begin transitioning into the broader adult society. If someone is driving on the same roads as me, working the same hours as me and paying the same tax as me then they should definitely have the right to vote like me too. I don’t think the argument needs to get any more complex or philosophical than this, it’s just obviously a fair and rational change to make.
100% agree. We shouldn’t be gate keeping this away from humans that in every other way we deem them an adult.
Daily reminder for what this independent stands for. She is a big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist.
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan
[Edit: I reckon what I wrote below here was probably a bit extreme. I still don’t like Monique Ryan, but yeah, she is at least sane when it comes to climate and identity.
I still think it’s fair to post this criticism under every single thing she says. But I will concede that her being a wanker doesn’t necessarily mean giving 16 year olds the vote is culture war.
I don’t take back anything about her being shit. If you’re voting against criminalising wage theft, you are a shit person.
This was my knee-jerk reaction:]
To me, this is more culture war bullshit that right-wingers love to distract us with.
The voting age is perfectly fine where it is and is in line with practically all other age restrictions.
She voted against criminalising wage theft. Teals are not not-shit candidates, despite what The Juice Media might be peddling.
To me, this is more culture war bullshit that right-wingers love to distract us with.
Lowering the voting age is culture war bullshit?
Guess we’re making the term culture war meaningless now
Yeah. I’m gonna do something rare on the internet: you’re right to call me out on this.
I let my dislike for a class enemy get the better of me in the way I expressed myself. Instead of commenting on the topic of voter age.
She’s still a wanker for being against wage theft criminalisation. I’ll stand by that.
I just don’t see why any of this is relevant here. Someone can be wrong in one area and right in another. They can even be wrong in most areas and right in this one area. You are the one bringing “culture war bullshit” to “distract us” from the conversation at hand here. Discuss the question on its merits, or don’t discuss it at all, IMO. Don’t distract by attacking the person who happens to be the messenger in this specific case.
This is fair. And I’m sorry for how I responded because of my strong dislike for her.
I should have just left the reminder that she’s anti-worker as an off-topic aside.
The rest of it, as you rightly point out, is not my best work.
Yeah for sure. If it had been presented as an aside, like “btw don’t let her support of this good idea distract from all the other bad stuff she’s done”, I think there would have been significantly less pushback.
I don’t think suggesting younger teenagers be allowed to vote is “culture war bullshit”. It certainly wouldn’t do her any favours considering that young people tend to overwhelmingly vote for left parties.
This is fair, my language is perhaps a little strong. Still a distraction in my opinion.
Teenagers are in school, and many are very knowledgeable and engaged.
But I don’t really think there is much need to change the voting age
If teenagers are well educated and know how to make a good decision that supports there views then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to vote.
Younger people voting for there future is better.
Education isn’t a pre-requisite for voting, but unless we’re planning on fundamentally changing how we treat 16 to 18 year olds (which I’m in favour of, by the way), I don’t see why 16 should be the new arbitrary age we choose.
Why not 14?
18 is the arbitrary age we’ve already chosen to confer adulthood.
And when I was 16, I felt much the same way. I had my opinions, and I wouldn’t have been against being given the vote. But we also don’t let 16 year olds drive. Should we let them do that too?
Honestly, I dunno.
16 year olds aren’t stupid, but we just gotta pick some arbitrary line where we think the average person has had enough life experience to be entrusted with voting.
And honestly, it’s probably a good thing for people to have the chance of being more numerate and literate via schooling in year 11 and 12, or in a trade or TAFE before they start voting.
Learning accelerates (at least, in my experience) a lot in those last years of secondary schooling.
I’m not necessarily against changing it. I just very dislike Monique Ryan because she hates working people (fact, not opinion, since she’s voted against criminalising wage theft), and think this is somewhat a distraction from the economic woes which this kind of ideology produces.
What is actually wrong with the proposal, though? Or are you simply objecting because the idea came from “the other side”, even though The Greens have been pushing this since 2018?
I’m not necessarily opposed, but beyond “they deserve a say in their future” I’m not really sure what the argument for it is.
There’s a lot of learning that goes on between the ages of 16 and 18. Like the level of stuff you’re learning accelerates quite a lot.
While education isn’t a pre-requisite for voting, we gotta set a line somewhere. 18 is the line we’ve set for a bunch of other things.
I would need more convincing that this line should be changed.
You’re right, education is not a prerequisite. Neither is intelligence, or brain development, or familiarity with the political system, or any of the other tired old arguments right wingers repeat. No one 18 and upwards is tested against any of these metrics when they first enrol. 16 year olds can leave school (in some states), drive on public roads, work a regular full time week and pay taxes. These are all things that clearly distinguish them from children 15 and under, and someone who can legally do all of those things alongside adults obviously deserves the right to vote alongside us too.
It’s quite ironic really that you were the one who tried to frame this as a right wing culture war issue, and yet your position is that of Pauline Hanson, leader of THE right wing culture war party in this country.
Yeah, you probably wouldn’t see much need for it if you aren’t sixteen. Meanwhile, if you were, you’d probably be sitting there wondering why the rest of us keep fluffing up the climate that you’d have to live with.
When I was 16 I also didn’t see much of a need for it (this topic is raised every couple of years). Even though I was much more engaged with politics than the average person at that age, at the time.
I’m not saying 16 year olds are unqualified to vote, but we gotta draw the line somewhere.
Adulthood isn’t totally arbitrary because of how we’ve structured our society (though, the age at which this is, depends on when people are leaving school/are legally defined as independent).
The reason I think this is a distraction is because this has been suggested time and time again, and it’s not likely to get off the ground and it wouldn’t make huge swings in voter numbers.
I dunno. As in my edited comment, I just think Monique Ryan is a wanker, who I happen to agree with on wanting to do something urgently about the climate.
We can draw the line with 16 years since it’s backed by science
You also talked about, in that comment, the age all other things are defined as adulthood, but that’s not even clear. Contract law says 18, unless you qualify for unreasonable to live at home, where you can sign contracts at 16. The driving age is 17 in several states. Medical privacy takes effect at 15. Age of consent nationwide is 16 (as long as the other person doesn’t have a duty of care over you). So there’s already a lot of precedent for a younger age of adulthood.
When I was 16, I was politically involved and I wanted to be able to vote. You could say that anything you’re not motivated to care about is a distraction. Plenty of things are tried again in politics as the world progresses. That’s like saying we should give up on climate change.
You make valid points. I do think there’s still quite a big shift in people’s lives when they turn 18 (most), or rather, when they leave secondary school.
Much more so than when they turn 16.
And that learning accelerates a lot in the last 2 years of school.
I will say, I’m not 100% opposed.
And that my previous comments about this being a distraction were not fair statements.
Daily reminder for what this independent stands for. She is a big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist.
I’m not sure I can agree - using your own source, here are the people which her votes most closely aligned with, in descending order:
Agreement Name Party / Electorate 97% Zoe Daniel Independent Representative for Goldstein 94% Kylea Tink Independent Representative for North Sydney 94% Sophie Scamps Independent Representative for Mackellar 92% Zali Steggall Independent Representative for Warringah 92% Allegra Spender Independent Representative for Wentworth 92% Kate Chaney Independent Representative for Curtin 91% Helen Haines Independent Representative for Indi 81% Andrew Wilkie Independent Representative for Clark 79% Max Chandler-Mather Australian Greens Representative for Griffith 77% Dai Le Independent Representative for Fowler 77% Elizabeth Watson-Brown Australian Greens Representative for Ryan 76% Stephen Bates Australian Greens Representative for Brisbane 75% Adam Bandt Australian Greens Representative for Melbourne Slightly below that are 95% of current/former ALP members ranging from 62% to 42% in one almost-contiguous block, with 95% of current/former LNP members below that at 40% to 18% in another almost-contiguous block. If her voting record was just LNP + [climate change / queer people existing] then these numbers don’t make sense.
There look to be (based on this source) several other policy areas that aren’t in the bucket of [climate change / queer people existing] where she’s voted progressively. I don’t think judging based on a single policy is the right way to accurately classify political leanings here.
edit: softened language slightly because I was just broody about something unrelated to this thread when I first replied
On social and environmental issues only. Which is nice, but she’s as anti-worker as the moderate Liberals are.
If the majority of her voting positions* don’t align with “big L liberals” then it seems an inaccurate way to classify her, even if she’s not voting progressively on some key things like workers rights etc. Social and environmental issues (which is a significantly expanded scope compared to the previously stated subsets of just [climate change + queer people existing]!) covers a lot of important policy areas.
Given that her voting record seems to be unambiguously and substantially more progressive than any of the LNP members I glanced at, it would be more accurate to describe her record as broadly-progressive-except-in-X.
* relying on this source - I don’t know whether this generalizes accurately to her actual voting or not, but I’m assuming it’s at least decently accurate
Considering Frog’s first comment did specify “big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist”, I think it would be fair to redo the analysis excluding environment and LGBT+–related votes. Having not done that analysis myself, I’m not going to comment on how the result would change if you did it.
Her voting record (again with the disclaimer that we’re relying on this one source for that information) is thankfully on the short side. If excluding anything that’s only “believe in climate change and that queer people exist” (and not the much larger “social and environmental issues” scope), the majority still looks overall progressive to me.
Very non-exhaustive examples:
- [for] Increasing access to subsidised childcare
- [for] Increasing housing affordability
- [for] Ending immigration detention on Nauru
- [for] Reducing tax on lowest income bracket
- [for] The territories being able to legalise euthanasia
- [against] Reducing tax concessions for high socio-economic status
She then does have the stuff that Frog alluded to:
- [against] Criminalising wage theft
- [against] Improving pay and conditions for gig workers
- [mixed] Increasing workplace protections
- [mixed] Increasing workplace protections for women
But even mixed-tending-against can be a sliver more progressive than status quo in a policy area, since status quo typically means voting against all changes.
This is fair and reasoned criticism of my somewhat uncareful expression. And I apologise for being a rage merchant on the internet.
She’s better in many ways than the Liberals.
But I’m still going to call her a fuckwit on something as black and white as making wage theft criminal.
There’s just no justification for that. Unless your worldview is fundamentally inequitable, where you believe some people are more deserving than others.
Which is why I can never see her as anything other than right-wing, despite all her decent positions as you point out.
