• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Voting at 16 (2 Viewers)

Should Australians over the age of sixteen be allowed voting rights?


  • Total voters
    48

Jimmy Recard

Banned
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
555
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
voting should be optional. see when it was brought up that 16 year olds should be able to vote, i immediately thought back to year 10 and the amount of dead-shit/fucking idiots we had in our year. the idea of them having a say on our political institutions makes me mad. then i thought, wait a second, the fact is they still are more than likely drooling idiots today.

summary: people are dumb and it saddens me
exactly

people dont just automatically become informed or start caring about politics when they turn 18

chances are if they dont before that they probably wont care after they turn 18
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I used to be a trot and was I able to vote when I was 16 I would have voted against the glorious John Howard (PBUH) whereas when I was over 18 and old enough to vote I realised that he was a hero (hero) and saviour (saviour messiah) of Australia
 

writer'sblock

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
152
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
If you can be taxed, you can vote.
democracy is an odd idea in the history of political thought.
So as far as i'm concerned the justifications for voting are intersted as a political science student.
The idea that all people of a certain age can vote is radical insofar as it removes the technical power of the governing class. those out of the governing class have not the specialised knowledge of running the state nor its internal working. hence the argument that if you have knowledge, or merit you ought control the reins of society is an odd on.
technically the term for this rule of the best is called aristocracy.
What prevents democracy, rule of the people from becoming Ochlocracy, rule of the masses or mob rule.
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,909
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
writers block thinks that society should be run by a bunch of enlightened oligarchs who are somehow magically omniscient and benevolent
 
Last edited:

Bloodstriker

Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
202
Location
Big Shell
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Politicains say kids are stupid and immature?
Politicians are stupid and immature
therefore i have come to the conclusion politcians are under the age of 18
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Personally I don't think we should even have a government to voting be on however that is not my point. Yes it is true most people around the ages of 16-18 do not care about politics and if they do, they are highly susceptible to the demagogy that all parties ascribe to. Having said all of this, I believe the vote should be given to those who pay tax regardless of their age. If the state is stealing your money you should have 'a say' in where it goes. Yes you can also deduce from that statement that if you are over 18 and you do not pay tax you should not be given the vote. This of course is pointed towards dole bluggers. Then again exceptions can be made for example old age pensioners who have worked all their life and men who have fought for this country in the armed forces.
 

Lolsmith

kill all boomers
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
4,570
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Personally I don't think we should even have a government to voting be on however that is not my point. Yes it is true most people around the ages of 16-18 do not care about politics and if they do, they are highly susceptible to the demagogy that all parties ascribe to. Having said all of this, I believe the vote should be given to those who pay tax regardless of their age. If the state is stealing your money you should have 'a say' in where it goes. Yes you can also deduce from that statement that if you are over 18 and you do not pay tax you should not be given the vote. This of course is pointed towards dole bluggers. Then again exceptions can be made for example old age pensioners who have worked all their life and men who have fought for this country in the armed forces.
What about those who receive welfare, as well as pay tax? Would those who receive more than they pay be excluded from voting?
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Migrant workers and tourists pay all kinds of taxes.

Whether the state is a coercive/illegitimate/larcenous institution is irrelevant. That the payment of a fee be the precondition for suffrage in the aforementioned institution is obviously a ridiculous notion and clearly does the opposite of maximising liberty.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I believe the vote should be given to those who pay tax regardless of their age. If the state is stealing your money you should have 'a say' in where it goes. Yes you can also deduce from that statement that if you are over 18 and you do not pay tax you should not be given the vote.
Cut out the middleman and just put law reform up to the highest bidder, purchase individual aspects of law reform, bid against opposing interests, this is consistent.
 
Last edited:

Hagaren

The Fresh Prince
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
1,026
Location
Bel Air
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
If you pay tax you can vote, but you sure as fuck shouldn't have to.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
What about those who receive welfare, as well as pay tax? Would those who receive more than they pay be excluded from voting?
Fair question, can you prehaps give an example?

Migrant workers and tourists pay all kinds of taxes.

Whether the state is a coercive/illegitimate/larcenous institution is irrelevant. That the payment of a fee be the precondition for suffrage in the aforementioned institution is obviously a ridiculous notion and clearly does the opposite of maximising liberty.
when did i say anything about maximising liberity? if you have a state you already have thrown out the concept of liberity, I'm just trying to work within this shitty framework. In addition would you really want people who contribute nothing to society and than proceed to leach off of it, to be deciding the methods that you are to be opressed by laws made for you not by you? This further allows government to appeal to these kinds of people if they have the vote. "We'll up the dole if you vote for us!!!!". getting support for a policy which has no benefits to anyone as a whole.

Cut out the middleman and just put law reform up to the highest bidder, purchase individual aspects of law reform, bid against opposing interests, this is consistent.
Or further cut out the middleman and get rid of the whole system of oppression? but yes that is consistent as far as I can see
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top