The UK wants to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the next general election in 2029. 5 experts give their verdicts on if Australia should do the same.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dracs@programming.dev 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'd quite like to see the voting age lowered to 16. I'd lean towards it being made compulsory over allowing voluntary voting in Australia.

As the one expert mentioned we could use some more education on voting in the curriculum to help prepare students for it. Teaching them how prefferential voting works, how to research candidates, etc.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Compulsory voting (along with preferential voting, a proportional senate and a permanent, nonpartisan electoral commission) is one of the success stories of Australian democracy. (Making showing up to vote — or formally lodging a reasonable excuse — compulsory makes declining to vote a deliberate act, and prevents anyone from winning merely by riling up a base of hardliners and counting on apathy on the other side, as happens often in the US.) Ditching it would be a retrograde step for Australian democracy.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago

compulsory makes declining to vote a deliberate act

As I've said before to many people, the only compulsory action required of you is to show up, get your name ticked off the electoral roll and put your ballots in the boxes.

[–] womjunru@lemmy.cafe 2 points 3 months ago

US here, I’d love compulsory voting… and preferential voting.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ditching it would be a retrograde step for Australian democracy.

I don't think anybody is suggesting ditching it. Just not implementing it for 16 and 17 year-olds.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

That seems like a dangerous first step to ditching it though.

[–] dockedatthewrongworf@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

Agreed, if anything I'd like to see mandatory civic classes added to the curriculum before reducing the voting age. There's no point in lowering the voting age if people fundamentally don't understand how our democracy works.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It rankled with me when I was 15-17 that I had to pay income tax as a kid making ~$70-$90 per day. My paltry income would be doing nothing for Mr tax man, but that money would be much better given to me on payday. I think I would have signed up to vote and get a say in how it was spent. But there are also a lot of 16 year old morons who would act in predictable ways if forced to vote.

Maybe introduce it as optional until you are 18? And then it goes compulsory.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

My paltry income would be doing nothing for Mr tax man, but that money would be much better given to me on payday.

Everyone thinks exactly this. Though the rich also think their money should not be going to help the lazy, dirty poors.

[–] jagungal@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

A 16 or 17 year-old earning 90$/day shouldn't pay ANY tax IMHO. As a teenager I and my classmates weren't using roads, the hospital system, the courts, or most of the facilities that public funds go towards anywhere near the extent that we use them as adults. I hope I can pay it all forward when I get a full time gig given how much public money I've been directly involved in spending.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

I hear you - if I no longer paid my tax now, it wouldn't make a difference to the ATO financially. However, if all middle-income taxpayers in my demographic who pay between around $30,000 and $80,000 in tax were to stop paying the ATO, they would feel that.

I forget the tax brackets decades later, but $90x2-3 days a week was getting taxed enough that I was losing about two hours per shift on tax. I remember thinking of it in hours at work. The first two hours paid Mr. tax man, the remaining six were for me. I remember that I was making $7 per hour. My annual tax came out at less than $2k, before deductions etc. If all the kids in the same boat as me didn't have to pay tax, I doubt it'd make much difference to the ATO.

[–] Insane_Turnip@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Maybe introduce it as optional until you are 18? And then it goes compulsory.

This is the answer. It will give a (small) voice to the next generation who has to suffer under the piss-poor legislation that our government creates, so they can at least fight back. They're the ones who are on the border for a lot of things (or even partaking of some 'over-18' activities, like tax) and they should get a say in it.

Imagine if every 16-17 year old voted down the clowns in parliament so they (for example) have at least some chance of buying a house one day? The older generation (boomers) has already lost the majority voting base, and the Lib/Lab duopoly is feeling the hurt because of it.

[–] greeneyed@europe.pub 1 points 3 months ago

Well since the underage cannot socialise online anymore - it would seem they are excluded from all the discord adults are privy to

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Somewhat only tangentially related, but I personally would like to see what impact having an age threshold for voting on the top-end.

Like, once you’ve got retirement age — you are no longer eligible to vote.

It would prioritise the will of those most affected by any new laws, and incentivises the older cohort to vote with an eye for the future, as screwing over the next generation would have discernible impact.

While we’re at it, the same thresholds should also apply to eligibility to run for a political position.

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

I don't think it's fair to categorise old people as "less impacted by new laws". This would disproportionately impact the older people who have the least already, those without family, or with not much money.