Independent MP to push for lowering of Australian voting age
Independent MP to push for lowering of Australian voting age
Ms Ryan said that she planned to introduce another private member's bill during the upcoming term of federal parliament, after an initial bill in 2018 failed to pass.
You're viewing a single thread.
Daily reminder for what this independent stands for. She is a big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist.
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan
[Edit: I reckon what I wrote below here was probably a bit extreme. I still don't like Monique Ryan, but yeah, she is at least sane when it comes to climate and identity.
I still think it's fair to post this criticism under every single thing she says. But I will concede that her being a wanker doesn't necessarily mean giving 16 year olds the vote is culture war.
I don't take back anything about her being shit. If you're voting against criminalising wage theft, you are a shit person.
This was my knee-jerk reaction:]
To me, this is more culture war bullshit that right-wingers love to distract us with.
The voting age is perfectly fine where it is and is in line with practically all other age restrictions.
She voted against criminalising wage theft. Teals are not not-shit candidates, despite what The Juice Media might be peddling.
I don't think suggesting younger teenagers be allowed to vote is "culture war bullshit". It certainly wouldn't do her any favours considering that young people tend to overwhelmingly vote for left parties.
This is fair, my language is perhaps a little strong. Still a distraction in my opinion.
Teenagers are in school, and many are very knowledgeable and engaged.
But I don't really think there is much need to change the voting age
If teenagers are well educated and know how to make a good decision that supports there views then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to vote.
Younger people voting for there future is better.
Education isn't a pre-requisite for voting, but unless we're planning on fundamentally changing how we treat 16 to 18 year olds (which I'm in favour of, by the way), I don't see why 16 should be the new arbitrary age we choose.
Why not 14?
18 is the arbitrary age we've already chosen to confer adulthood.
And when I was 16, I felt much the same way. I had my opinions, and I wouldn't have been against being given the vote. But we also don't let 16 year olds drive. Should we let them do that too?
Honestly, I dunno.
16 year olds aren't stupid, but we just gotta pick some arbitrary line where we think the average person has had enough life experience to be entrusted with voting.
And honestly, it's probably a good thing for people to have the chance of being more numerate and literate via schooling in year 11 and 12, or in a trade or TAFE before they start voting.
Learning accelerates (at least, in my experience) a lot in those last years of secondary schooling.
I'm not necessarily against changing it. I just very dislike Monique Ryan because she hates working people (fact, not opinion, since she's voted against criminalising wage theft), and think this is somewhat a distraction from the economic woes which this kind of ideology produces.
What is actually wrong with the proposal, though? Or are you simply objecting because the idea came from "the other side", even though The Greens have been pushing this since 2018?
I'm not necessarily opposed, but beyond "they deserve a say in their future" I'm not really sure what the argument for it is.
There's a lot of learning that goes on between the ages of 16 and 18. Like the level of stuff you're learning accelerates quite a lot.
While education isn't a pre-requisite for voting, we gotta set a line somewhere. 18 is the line we've set for a bunch of other things.
I would need more convincing that this line should be changed.
You're right, education is not a prerequisite. Neither is intelligence, or brain development, or familiarity with the political system, or any of the other tired old arguments right wingers repeat. No one 18 and upwards is tested against any of these metrics when they first enrol. 16 year olds can leave school (in some states), drive on public roads, work a regular full time week and pay taxes. These are all things that clearly distinguish them from children 15 and under, and someone who can legally do all of those things alongside adults obviously deserves the right to vote alongside us too.
It's quite ironic really that you were the one who tried to frame this as a right wing culture war issue, and yet your position is that of Pauline Hanson, leader of THE right wing culture war party in this country.
Yeah, you probably wouldn't see much need for it if you aren't sixteen. Meanwhile, if you were, you'd probably be sitting there wondering why the rest of us keep fluffing up the climate that you'd have to live with.
When I was 16 I also didn't see much of a need for it (this topic is raised every couple of years). Even though I was much more engaged with politics than the average person at that age, at the time.
I'm not saying 16 year olds are unqualified to vote, but we gotta draw the line somewhere.
Adulthood isn't totally arbitrary because of how we've structured our society (though, the age at which this is, depends on when people are leaving school/are legally defined as independent).
The reason I think this is a distraction is because this has been suggested time and time again, and it's not likely to get off the ground and it wouldn't make huge swings in voter numbers.
I dunno. As in my edited comment, I just think Monique Ryan is a wanker, who I happen to agree with on wanting to do something urgently about the climate.
We can draw the line with 16 years since it's backed by science
You also talked about, in that comment, the age all other things are defined as adulthood, but that's not even clear. Contract law says 18, unless you qualify for unreasonable to live at home, where you can sign contracts at 16. The driving age is 17 in several states. Medical privacy takes effect at 15. Age of consent nationwide is 16 (as long as the other person doesn't have a duty of care over you). So there's already a lot of precedent for a younger age of adulthood.
When I was 16, I was politically involved and I wanted to be able to vote. You could say that anything you're not motivated to care about is a distraction. Plenty of things are tried again in politics as the world progresses. That's like saying we should give up on climate change.
You make valid points. I do think there's still quite a big shift in people's lives when they turn 18 (most), or rather, when they leave secondary school.
Much more so than when they turn 16.
And that learning accelerates a lot in the last 2 years of school.
I will say, I'm not 100% opposed.
And that my previous comments about this being a distraction were not fair statements.
I just don't see why any of this is relevant here. Someone can be wrong in one area and right in another. They can even be wrong in most areas and right in this one area. You are the one bringing "culture war bullshit" to "distract us" from the conversation at hand here. Discuss the question on its merits, or don't discuss it at all, IMO. Don't distract by attacking the person who happens to be the messenger in this specific case.
This is fair. And I'm sorry for how I responded because of my strong dislike for her.
I should have just left the reminder that she's anti-worker as an off-topic aside.
The rest of it, as you rightly point out, is not my best work.
Yeah for sure. If it had been presented as an aside, like "btw don't let her support of this good idea distract from all the other bad stuff she's done", I think there would have been significantly less pushback.
To me, this is more culture war bullshit that right-wingers love to distract us with.
Lowering the voting age is culture war bullshit?
Guess we're making the term culture war meaningless now
Yeah. I'm gonna do something rare on the internet: you're right to call me out on this.
I let my dislike for a class enemy get the better of me in the way I expressed myself. Instead of commenting on the topic of voter age.
She's still a wanker for being against wage theft criminalisation. I'll stand by that.
Daily reminder for what this independent stands for. She is a big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist.
I'm not sure I can agree - using your own source, here are the people which her votes most closely aligned with, in descending order:
| Agreement | Name | Party / Electorate |
|---|---|---|
| 97% | Zoe Daniel | Independent Representative for Goldstein |
| 94% | Kylea Tink | Independent Representative for North Sydney |
| 94% | Sophie Scamps | Independent Representative for Mackellar |
| 92% | Zali Steggall | Independent Representative for Warringah |
| 92% | Allegra Spender | Independent Representative for Wentworth |
| 92% | Kate Chaney | Independent Representative for Curtin |
| 91% | Helen Haines | Independent Representative for Indi |
| 81% | Andrew Wilkie | Independent Representative for Clark |
| 79% | Max Chandler-Mather | Australian Greens Representative for Griffith |
| 77% | Dai Le | Independent Representative for Fowler |
| 77% | Elizabeth Watson-Brown | Australian Greens Representative for Ryan |
| 76% | Stephen Bates | Australian Greens Representative for Brisbane |
| 75% | Adam Bandt | Australian Greens Representative for Melbourne |
Slightly below that are 95% of current/former ALP members ranging from 62% to 42% in one almost-contiguous block, with 95% of current/former LNP members below that at 40% to 18% in another almost-contiguous block. If her voting record was just LNP + [climate change / queer people existing] then these numbers don't make sense.
There look to be (based on this source) several other policy areas that aren't in the bucket of [climate change / queer people existing] where she's voted progressively. I don't think judging based on a single policy is the right way to accurately classify political leanings here.
edit: softened language slightly because I was just broody about something unrelated to this thread when I first replied
On social and environmental issues only. Which is nice, but she's as anti-worker as the moderate Liberals are.
If the majority of her voting positions* don't align with "big L liberals" then it seems an inaccurate way to classify her, even if she's not voting progressively on some key things like workers rights etc. Social and environmental issues (which is a significantly expanded scope compared to the previously stated subsets of just [climate change + queer people existing]!) covers a lot of important policy areas.
Given that her voting record seems to be unambiguously and substantially more progressive than any of the LNP members I glanced at, it would be more accurate to describe her record as broadly-progressive-except-in-X.
relying on this source - I don't know whether this generalizes accurately to her actual voting or not, but I'm assuming it's at least decently accurate
Considering Frog's first comment did specify "big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist", I think it would be fair to redo the analysis excluding environment and LGBT+–related votes. Having not done that analysis myself, I'm not going to comment on how the result would change if you did it.
Her voting record (again with the disclaimer that we're relying on this one source for that information) is thankfully on the short side. If excluding anything that's only "believe in climate change and that queer people exist" (and not the much larger "social and environmental issues" scope), the majority still looks overall progressive to me.
Very non-exhaustive examples:
She then does have the stuff that Frog alluded to:
But even mixed-tending-against can be a sliver more progressive than status quo in a policy area, since status quo typically means voting against all changes.
This is fair and reasoned criticism of my somewhat uncareful expression. And I apologise for being a rage merchant on the internet.
She's better in many ways than the Liberals.
But I'm still going to call her a fuckwit on something as black and white as making wage theft criminal.
There's just no justification for that. Unless your worldview is fundamentally inequitable, where you believe some people are more deserving than others.
Which is why I can never see her as anything other than right-wing, despite all her decent positions as you point out.