A bigger threat to democracy
Since the Supreme Court decision on voting rights there have been the usual outpourings about 16-year-olds having no real understanding of public issues. They, accordingly, have no claim on the right to vote.
That argument is not totally without merit but it does seem to presume that those currently eligible to vote are well-informed devotees of democracy.
Yet, at the last general election, about 500,000 registered electors did not even bother to exercise their hardwon right to vote. Furthermore, about 12% of those eligible by age and residence did not trouble themselves to enrol at all.
Voting systems are never perfect but the neglect of so many should-be voters seems to me to present a bigger threat to democracy than the perceived lack of life experience of those younger folk, who do, at the very least, have a strong desire to vote. Dave Smith, Tawa
Equal treatment
If we lower the voting age to 16, then 16 and 17-years-olds cannot be treated differently or more leniently in the courts. If they are mature enough to vote, they are mature enough to have the same consequences in the legal system as every other mature adult. Allan Kirk, Masterton
Landmark ruling
The Supreme Court’s ruling in support of the case to lower the voting age may prove to be the most significant decision in respect of human rights this century.
Not only does it validate the persuasive case to extend the right to vote to younger people, it will quite properly shift the balance of influence at a critical time in national policy development to a very well-informed younger generation.
Our Parliament needs to give immediate effect to this landmark ruling.
Susan Wauchop, Christchurch
Bed and booths
Perhaps we should allow the wee mites to vote while they still know everything, assuming they’ll get out of bed to do so. And voting booths at schools might reduce truancy and ram-raiding, at least on the day. Fortunately, any such change requires the support of 75% of MPs.
Jim Young, Belmont
Young brains
After all the bleating of the past
10 years about how young car thieves can’t be held responsible for their dangerous driving in cars full of other people under 25, or why people under 18 can’t possibly be held accountable for assaults, thefts, ramraids and the myriad other harms to ordinary citizens, it seems incredible that anyone would countenance, much less advocate, lowering the voting age below 18.
We all now know young brains aren’t developed enough to understand risk, or make moral choices, until they are at least 25.
Some stupid lack of reasoning and consistency at work here?
Ian Simmonds, central Christchurch