Replies (1)

• @Dinkenfunkle@mastodon.au 2026-10-05 01:07

  @Snoro@mastodon.social I agree with @Lats comment above. Further, the vast majority of (under 18s) will be affected by many social and economic issues. Are we to extend the same notion to inflation, housing affordability, industrial relations, &c? This idea, lowering the voting age, has been floated before. Strangely enough, almost always by the political party (and their supporters) that believes that they will benefit electorally from such a change. (IIRC) The last reduction in voting age, from 21 down to 18, was initiated by Whitlam's Labor government in the early 70's. The argument then was that people of 18-21 years were liable for military conscription, and therefore should be allowed to vote. One might ask why they didn't argue for increasing the conscription age to 21, but as Whitlam was set to abolish conscription altogether, the question is moot. I do wonder though, why it was necessary to reduce the voting age because of conscription when he was about to abolish it? Could it be that the ALP thought that it was to their electoral advantage? (Gasp! Say it isn't so!) The argument usually devolves down to: "but some 16 year olds are mature enough to vote!". And that statement is true. It is also true that some 20 year olds are not mature enough. But unless we are going to develop and apply individual political maturity tests, and permit those duly certified to vote, the limit has to be applied somewhere. While the present voting age limit is indeed arbitrary, it is at least consistent with most other 'legal adulthood' limits. My understanding is that legal age limits pertaining to under 18s is designed to minimise exploitation of young people, and also protect them and others from errors of judgement that are more likely before that age. Any argument to reduce age limits will need to convincingly address that concern. #auspol

  Open ##4950482