ajdlinux
Mod: ANU, ATAR/HSC Marks
How much would the parties start paying them?jcurry said:i second that, i know plenty of people under 18 who have much more of an idea about politics than more than a few adults
How much would the parties start paying them?jcurry said:i second that, i know plenty of people under 18 who have much more of an idea about politics than more than a few adults
yes, and so do i. But for every one student who is aware of what is happening in the world and is economically informed there is 100 kids who don't.jcurry said:i second that, i know plenty of people under 18 who have much more of an idea about politics than more than a few adults
hey i have an amazing ideaspiny norman said:I think perhaps bringing in voluntary voting for people aged 16-18 is an idea, so that those who do have some opinion on politics are given the opportunity to vote if they so want.
How does this not also apply to the rest of the population?BackCountrySnow said:yes, and so do i. But for every one student who is aware of what is happening in the world and is economically informed there is 100 kids who don't.
16 year olds, in general, are so easily persuaded by factors which are totally irrelevent.
but if its voluntary 99%of those kids who arent informed won't vote and im sure theres more than a few 18-21yr olds who could be just as easily persuaded as a 16yrold and they can voteBackCountrySnow said:yes, and so do i. But for every one student who is aware of what is happening in the world and is economically informed there is 100 kids who don't.
16 year olds, in general, are so easily persuaded by factors which are totally irrelevent.
no actually what will happen is uniformed 16 year olds will be used by their parents to vote for the party the parents wantjcurry said:but if its voluntary 99%of those kids who arent informed won't vote and im sure theres more than a few 18-21yr olds who could be just as easily persuaded as a 16yrold and they can vote
I second that. I mean, I know someone who voted family first, where the hell did that come from? Evidently not a well-informed decision.ajdlinux said:I think the idea of a test can be taken even further.
We need to develop a Maturity Quotient test. It would be taken initially at the age of 10, then 15, 20, 25 and 30, then every 10 years then after.
The result of your MQ test would be used to determine your eligibility to vote, get a drivers licence, get married, leave school, and so on. Hopefully it would eliminate donkey voters and crazy P-platers.
Now to write the test...
family first would win because of all the people that don't beleive in contraception.Captain Gh3y said:no actually what will happen is uniformed 16 year olds will be used by their parents to vote for the party the parents want
to take it to an extreme if you let 5+ year olds vote then obviously the party whose supporters had the most children on average would win since all children's votes would be used this way
It'd probably help Labor the most since that's who poor people tend to vote forDownInFlames said:family first would win because of all the people that don't beleive in contraception.
Greens too: http://greens.org.au/about/policy/policy.php?policy_id=36sweet_as said:I used to be a member of the Democrats - and from memory they were the only party to advocate voting at 16.
This is out of the Democrats Youth Policy (found on the Young Democrats website)
2. Work to lower the age of enfranchisement to 16, with voluntary enrolment until 18, and compulsory voting once enrolled.
The Australian Greens will:
...
17. support the following electoral reforms:
* all Australian citizens over the age of 16 to be eligible to vote;
FUCK I HATE THAT SO MUCH. I saw it on that SBS show, where they had a massive audience and this lady asked them questions and shit.Captain Gh3y said:You guys give the average Australian adult way to much credit when it comes to the reasons for who they vote for.
A slogan isn't really a much better or worse reason than "It's who our family/parents always vote for"