Page 800 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Educator and youth rights theorist John Holt points out that if youth “think their choices and decisions make a difference to them, in their own lives, they will have every reason to try to choose and decide more wisely. But if what they think makes no difference, why bother to think?” Many opponents to lowering the voting age assume that youth are apathetic and will act no differently when given the right to vote. This is wrong. Responsibility comes with rights, not the other way around. Granting youth the right to vote will have a direct effect on their character, intelligence and sense of responsibility.
I would like to consider the argument that young people aged 16 and 17 should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions. This is a valid argument only if we apply it to all citizens with the right to vote. There are many voters over 18 years who would not meet the unrealistic standard that opponents to youth voting propose. Do a survey in Civic and see how many people can name the ACT government ministry, the first Australian Prime Minister or the number of states and territories in Australia. You will be very disappointed.
Maturity arguments used against young people are the same as were used in the past to justify why women and indigenous people should not have the right to vote. But the fact is: intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted. If that were the case, all voters would need to pass a test before voting. The right to vote is granted on the basis that the legitimate power of government comes from the consent of the governed. As it stands now, youth are governed but do not consent.
Let us assume for a minute that the maturity argument did matter. Young people today become physically mature at an earlier age. The average age of puberty has declined from about 15 in 1900 to about 12 today. Today’s youth are smarter than their parents’ generation. And they know it! Studies have shown that IQ scores improved by 17 points during the period from 1947 through to 2001. A child scoring in the top three per cent of an IQ test in 1932 would only rank in the top 25 per cent today. Do not tell the kids that! It is often the case that students know more about politics and government than some adults, as they study history, government, law and economics in school due to our very excellent curriculum.
Let us not forget that we live in Canberra, home to the national parliament. Many of our young people can expect to become public servants or work in industries that service government. If they do not have more awareness than young people in other states and territories, then we really do have problems.
Our young people are engaged in and are aware of political processes. Take, for example, a survey conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission in 2004. It found that 55 per cent of secondary school students signed petitions, 21 per cent collected signatures for a petition, 15 per cent took part in rallies or demonstrations, 12 per cent wrote to the media and eight per cent wrote to the Prime Minister. I wonder how this measures up against the rest of the population.
Some opponents to youth voting say young people do not really know whom they are voting for. But how can we judge whether a voter voted wrongly? Did voters choose poorly when they elected Howard in 1996? Labor would say so. Did voters choose poorly when they elected the Stanhope government in 2001? Liberals would say so. If
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .