I’m persuaded. Clearly, we need to raise the voting age to 20.
If 18- and 19-year-olds are too dumb, and too irresponsible, and their young brains too inexperienced, unformed and undeveloped to be able to responsibly choose and use their evening tipple, then it is surely without question they are too dumb, too irresponsible, and their brains too raw and undeveloped to be able to choose a government.
The conclusion must surely follow from the premise: If 18- and 19-year-olds can’t be trusted with individual sovereignty over their own consumption of fermented beverages, then how how on earth can they be trusted with choosing those who are sovereign over us all?
It is on that basis, then, that I insist—nay, I demand!—that Parliament move immediately to raise the voting age. Immediately!
And don’t come that conscience vote nonsense with me. On this, I rely on the unassailable arguments of that noted moralist of our age, John Armstrong.
Conscience votes on such legislation have traditionally been granted to MPs on the grounds that voting in parliament on matters like this is a matter of personal choice.
This is a charade which allows parties to abrogate their responsibilities on things like the voting age, on which the firmness of political opinion must trump the thin reed of public opinion.
Parties do not give their MPs free rein to vote as they like on measures dealing with social and economic policy. Yet, as the policies of parties other than the two popular and competent parties demonstrate, the harm caused by voting for the wrong parties is of huge social and economic relevance.
The same transparency, therefore, should apply to voting on the voting age. Yet, sensible policy-making is turfed out the window when it comes to the voting age.
Time to treat children like children, I say! The views and evening entertainments of 18- and 19-year-olds should neither be seen, nor heard!
PS: Naturally, these arguments do not apply to being able to marry, have sex, or go to war. 18- and 19-year-olds may not be able to choose an RTD from a fine wine, or be as unable to stand upright after a hard night as Mark Blumsky or Ruth Dyson, but if we don’t have youngsters unthinkingly pumping out babies and being forced off to fight our wars, where would we be, eh? Eh?
9 comments:
You're on the money there!
I would like to see voting restricted to those not receiving state welfare benefits.
Bludging off the taxpayer AND being able to vote for more of it is double dipping, as I see it.
But that's just me.
And me.
(Form an orderly queue, everyone.)
Another assault on the young for being young.
That young men and women are want to going out and getting a skinful is no excuse for dried up old farts like whatissname face-punch to attempt to exert force over them. Those old bastards forget what they were like at that age and what they got up to (in some instances they were worse than the present young). Well worth them spending the time to recall a few salient episodes.....
It is well worth remembering that the worm turns. When some of these pollies and their tame "researchers" retire their super and various old age services are supposedly to be paid, provided and administered by...... those who number amongst the young. I wonder how well that's going to go. I'm betting on triage and utu.
LGM
.....and they would not be responsible enough to join the armed forces and carry a weapon until they were 20
then it is surely without question they are too dumb, too irresponsible, and their brains too raw and undeveloped to be able to choose a government
This part is demonstrably true...though I don't think the argument can be run in reverse to make this a case for raising the drinking age.
But I say the voting age should indeed be raised, to...oh, I dunno, 150? Something like that.
I would like to see voting restricted to those not receiving state welfare benefits.
This, too!
I would like to see voting restricted to those not receiving state welfare benefits.
YES!
I would like to see voting restricted to those not receiving state welfare benefits.
Hell yeah! In fact: any state benefit, salary, or in kind aid should prevent all voting.
Bludging off the taxpayer AND being able to vote for more of it is double dipping, as I see it.
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!
And its not just bludgers of course. Anyone who has ever had any kind of benefit, or any kind of government or civil service job, including teachers, and those public health system doctors and nurse parasites we're supposed to love so much - anyone except the cops, prison guards & the military - should never be allowed the vote again
Actually, go one further: anyone who ever had state schooling or education. NZ's original constitution - just like that of Australia, the US, the UK - was never designed for indiscriminate franchise.
Only independent adults of independent means should participate in something as important as governing the country.
Not bludgers. not leftists. not civil "sercunts". not unionists.
Anon said, Not bludgers. not leftists. not civil "sercunts". not unionists.
I agreed there completely and I will go further and say, fat motherfuckers in Parliament such as Gerry Brownlee and Parekura Horomia and their likes should be banned from voting.
Post a Comment