Comments on: Give kids the vote, or at least give it to their parents

By: icehawk

icehawk — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:58:34 +0000

A quick aside on the voting age:

For practical purposes the voting population is not those who are 18 and older. It is those who will be (a) alive, (b) in NZ and (c) 18 or older at the next election.

As for Kate’s wonderful little comment:

“No taxation without representation, and no representation unless you are a net New Zealand tax payer.”

Interesting to see Kate proposing something that by demographics that would almost certainly have given us a Labour/Green govt.

National Super is by far our biggest welfare payout system, and their net health consumption is very high, while elderly NZers tend not to pay so much tax because they have wealth rather than income. I’m now wondering how big an effect it’d have: my guess is that Kate’s proposing cutting the votes to around 60% of those over 65 in this country. That would probably see Act kicked out of parliament too…

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:03:05 +0000

So these people get 10 votes between them and Helen C and Peter D would have 2. hmmm….

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2586396/Police-claim-dad-sold-girl-at-McDonalds

By: Won’t somebody stop thinking of the children? « The Dim-Post

Won’t somebody stop thinking of the children? « The Dim-Post — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:07:01 +0000

[...] Politics — danylmc @ 8:05 am Via I/S, Phil Twyford has suggested parents be given the right to vote on behalf of their children. This doesn’t look like a serious suggestion, more an attempt to make a point about [...]

By: Spud

Spud — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:45:25 +0000

I agree with Max Percy, children are already having to grow up too fast – let them be children! Those children will eventually turn 18 and get their chance and will have the maturity to vote anyway. I can remember being 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 – my priorities were a lot different!

By: Stuart Hawkins

Stuart Hawkins — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:29:32 +0000

APOLOGIES FOR SPELLING ETC
What the hell? Democracy is already a vile debased system but to give people more power purely on the basis of how many children they have is the ultimate insult and the single most oppressive anti-individualistic step and triablistic nonsense I have ever heard disguised as a plausible idea. It really does show that Labour (particularly the person who proposed or endorses this idea) does not care for those who chose not to have children. To simply answer the question posited at the end of the article, No it it not worth considering. Let me phrase a counter question ‘Why should the single parent of three down the road be ‘democratically’ more significant than any person who does not have children? This is to say why should their opinion be given more weight solely because they have children and if we really want to make it more explicit why should they have more “rights” because they have under-age children? Also let me follow that up with another question “Will they act in a way that the children, for which they are acting as proxy, would find acceptable given the capacity to reason and freedom of thought necessary for the vote to ‘mean’ something? All of this ignores the fact that Democracy (in all of its varied forms) is one of the worst political systems there is with flaws so large that there is no way to reconcile its moral inadequacies.
To anyone who thinks that the parents would vote for the best interests of the child I can only say ‘You are not perfect example of why so many of the philosophical criticisms of democracy hold true’.
Here is a perfect solution to all the problems this is supposed to fix, bind the government to the objective code of moral action (the non-initiation of foce principle)

By: Maynard J

Maynard J — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:20:59 +0000

“Lunatic apartheid”…I suppose it is tautological by definition.

The entire post is been about the case for including younger votes to remove an electoral distortion, I could probably pick another twenty comments to further present that argument but I will just leave you to read them.

Hell, I will briefly make the point. Kate is arguing that it is not fair that those who do not financially contribute get to vote. The point here is that decisions that affect people across generations are not made with the consent of all those generations – they do not get the vote. A certain generation seems to have voted to ensure super is safe for them without it being secure for future generations. In this fashion, the youth are affected but do not get to have their say. I do not think this is a useful solution either, let me make that clear, but it is worth acknowledging the problem instead of getting deeply aggrieved by a hypothetical solution.

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:13:34 +0000

Manyard J:

“Lunatic apartheid”? If you want to be abusive, could you try coming up with something that makes sense?

If you want to talk about “practical application”, I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that there are many things minors can’t do for themselves — and I can’t do on their behalf.

Meanwhile, if you want to make a case for lowering the voting age to remedy any “distortions” you perceive, please do. But I’m rather bemused at the idea that undermining the concept of one person, ONE vote is some victory for democracy. As I said, interesting thought experiment — horrifying reality.

By: Max Percy

Max Percy — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:19:24 +0000

How bloody ridiculous is this suggestion? I wonder sometimes who thinks up such stupid suggestions.
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us.
Just more of this nanny state thinking.
For goodness sake. Kids are just that kids. Already we place to much importance in what they say. They haven’t the wisdom or experience of knowing about life and need to be treated as what they are, children with a lot of growing up to do and life experiences to participate in.
We already witness kids being dragged along to protest marches and protest ,waving their banner being spured on by adults and they wouldn’t have a clue in the world what it is all about.

By: Natalie

Natalie — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:15:02 +0000

I think to apply the Demeny principle would be inherently undemocratic as it artificially skews the results. I do not think that a childless member of the community (of voting age) should have less influence than another member of the community with a child. There is no guarantee that the parent will consider the full implications for the child when casting a vote for them. It would also be silly to lower the voting age – I am 21 and just missed out on voting in the 2005 election, I had more interest in politics and the outcome than many of my schoolmates who were 18 already. Even last election I found myself defending Helen Clark’s teeth to those (strange) university students who call themselves conservatives! How about a political maturity test, rather than a set age or more votes for parents?

In addition, this would have done little to avoid the issue we are faced now: National abandoning its’ responsibility to the future superannuitants of New Zealand. The Nats did not advertise their intentions for the superfund during the election campaign and as a result the same voters (whether they had 1 vote or 3) would have fallen into the same trap!

The bigger issue is surely one of ensuring voters are educated enough, engaged, and able to reason and rationally form a political opinion based on both what is good for them and their families, and New Zealand as a whole.

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:00:02 +0000

This idea was discussed on Nat Radio’s Panel this afternoon, although Red Alert not mentioned. Great idea to float, that people consider more than just themselves in casting their vote, but hope this actual system doesn’t eventuate in reality. Instead two approaches: encourage the life long learning of civics, and take the risk and lower the voting age progressively over a decade or so 16,14,12 maybe even 10 years (after all it wasn’t long ago that men thought women unworthy of enfranchisement).