MARTYN BRADBURY’S turbulent political career is notable for its passionate and unwavering commitment to the interests of young New Zealanders. From his stint as the editor of the University of Auckland’s student newspaper, Craccum, to his Sunday night polemics on the youth-oriented Channel Z radio station, “Bomber” Bradbury’s pitch has always been to those condemned to live with the consequences of contemporary politicians’ mistakes.
“Bomber” is part old-time preacher. (Who else greets his audiences with an all-encompassing “Brothers and Sisters!”?) But he is also a user of the very latest communications technology. Loud, brash, occasionally reckless, Martyn Bradbury may not be universally liked, or invariably correct, but his determination to mobilise the young in their own defence cannot be disputed.
His latest crusade on behalf of younger Kiwis calls for a lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16 years. This radical extension of the franchise would be accompanied by the inclusion of a new and comprehensive programme of civics education in the nation’s secondary school curriculum.
In Martyn’s own words: “The sudden influx of tens of thousands of new voters with their own concerns and their own voice finally being heard could be the very means of not only lifting our participation rates, but reinvigorating the very value of our democracy.”
Very similar arguments were advanced by the champions of young people’s rights more than 40 years ago. The late 1960s and early 1970s marked the high point of what left-wing sociologists were already calling the “radical youth counter-culture”.
The slogan of the so-called “Baby Boom” generation, then in their teens and twenties, was uncompromising: “Don’t trust anyone over thirty!” And, political activists among their ranks were convinced that if 18-year-olds were given the right to vote, then their “revolutionary” generation wouldn’t hesitate to sock-it-to the squares in the Establishment and usher-in the long-awaited Age of Aquarius.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Establishment were only too happy to oblige. In 1971, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution declared: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Young activists in the Democratic Party wasted little time in flexing their political muscles. At the 1972 Democratic Party Convention, an army of young delegates, veterans of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War struggles in the streets of America, turned the tables on the old “pols” of the Democratic Party “machine”. (The same machine which, just four years earlier, had unleashed the Chicago Police on anti-war convention delegates.) Using the new party rules which the Chicago debacle had inspired, these youngsters comprehensively out-organised their much older right-wing opponents and secured the nomination for George McGovern, the most left-wing presidential candidate since Franklin Roosevelt.
With millions of new voters eligible to participate, and a candidate committed to fulfilling a sizeable chunk of the youth agenda of economic, social and political reforms, the scene seemed set for a sea-change in American politics.
If only.
In the presidential election of 1968, when the voting threshold was still set at 21-years-of-age, voter turn-out had been 60.8 percent (a high figure by American standards). With 18-year-olds entitled to vote, and a radical candidate for them to vote for, the turn-out in 1972 was 55.2 percent – a participation rate 5.6 percentage points lower than the previous election. To make matters worse, the radical candidate, George McGovern, suffered one of the most humiliating defeats in American political history. His conservative opponent, the Republican Party incumbent, Richard Nixon, was swept back into the White House with 60.7 percent of the popular vote!
Eighteen-year-olds got the vote in New Zealand in 1974. The Labour Government of Norman Kirk had not only enfranchised the young, but he had also ticked-off a great many items on the New Zealand youth agenda for change. He’d abolished compulsory military training, withdrawn the last military personnel from Vietnam, sent a frigate to Mururoa Atoll to protest French atmospheric nuclear testing, and called off the 1973 Springbok Tour. And that wasn’t all: Kirk had even subsidised the creation of “Ohus” – rural communes situated on Crown land.
How did the newly enlarged electorate respond one year later, at the General Election of 1975?
The turn-out in 1972, when the voting age was 20, had been 89.1 percent. Three years later, with tens-of-thousands of “Baby Boomers” enfranchised, the participation rate fell by 6.6 points to 82.5 percent. Even worse, the Third Labour Government (the last to evince genuinely left-wing beliefs) was hurled from office by the pugnacious National Party leader, Rob Muldoon. The swing from left to right was savage: Labour’s vote plummeted from 48.4 percent in 1972, to just 39.6 percent in 1975. [Mind you, what wouldn’t Labour give for “just” 39.6 percent support in 2017!?]
Much as I can understand why Martyn believes extending the franchise to 16-year-olds would harm the re-election prospects of John Key and the Right, I’m equally aware that the historical record argues precisely the opposite.
Taken in aggregate, young people have consistently demonstrated that they have other, more pressing, priorities than closely engaging with the electoral process. In this respect, the 18-25-year-old “Baby Boomers” of 1975 – the very same people who, forty years later (as Bomber so rightly laments) play such a crucial role in determining New Zealand’s electoral outcomes – proved to be no exception.
When they bother to vote at all, it’s true that young people tend to vote for the parties of the Left. But, equally, there is no disputing the fact that their massive and consistent non-participation in the electoral process continues to be of overwhelming benefit to the Right.
I’ve always been a little dubious that lowering the voting age would be a positive for the left (or right for that matter). At 16 most (not all!) are still very much under the influence of their parents, and will thusly vote according to perceived family interests.
Sounds like when the voting age was lowered, the older voters voted against the youth.
Is there any evidence from a proportional voting system? I would assume that many young people in the past looked at a two party system and not bother voting for either of them. At the same time older voters voted against the voice of youth.
All I can see from the evidence in this post is that rightwing parties mobilise their potential voters into ring-fencing political power; they exclude the voice of youth. Happened in NZ last year.
For me, the Internet Party didn’t so much fail. Instead, it proved that mainstream politics is no place for youth. Perhaps there are instances outside of Anglo-Saxon countries where the voice of youth is included more, but not in NZ, Aust, UK, USA etc.
Not to long ago in the 90’s if I had of asked my parents what contracts they where on I would have been stoned walled until they could come up with a really cynical answer.
If you raise the voting age to 50 participation rates would rise dramatically and likewise if you lower them to 10 they will fall precipitously.
All I know is that I was very frustrated at being unable to vote during an election when I was 17.
Would it be the right thing to do?
I think so. If we oldies were doing such a good job of running the world that we dare not risk it being messed up, there might be some justification for barring ignorant youth from voting.
Since, however, we have succeeded in turning the world into a rapidly disintegrating disaster, there is no serious likelihood that young voters would make things worse, and a chance, too late not to take, that they would significantly improve things.
Would it work?
Chris gives two examples from the past where it ‘didn’t work’, where the opposite effect to the one wished for was achieved. However, that was before proportional representation and instant viral mass communication.
I believe the result today would be very different from those back then.As the realisation sinks into the young that being the first generation to be worse off than its parents, to the extent of maybe not even having a livable planet, is what we have done to them, and will continue to do unless they do something about it, they might just decide to take some quite drastic steps in the direction of staying alive.
And good for them.
Yes, I appreciate your caution, Chris, as I share your concerns.
At age 16 and 17, even many aged 18, the interests tend to be more towards “self” and personal ambition and preferences, with little foresight for the longer term future. I was that age once, like most of us, if not all reading this blog. I dare say that few at age 16 will follow this particular blog, nor the Standard, nor even Kiwiblog or what else there may be.
Civic studies are important, but they must bear fruit before you can expect the younger than 18 year old youth to vote as informed citizens.
This may sound a bit arrogant to some, but I believe that some at that age may well be quite insightful and competent to vote, but many are by my observations not so.
It is easy to use methods to expand the vote, and all parties have tried this. For that sake, both Labour and National have embraced new migrants, Labour did get a lot of support for lobbying in their favour from Pacific Islanders and Indians, and National and ACT get support for lobbying various “business minded” and “aspiring” or “hard working” migrants from various places, they seem to do well in attracting many from East Asian nations, South Africa and the UK.
I do not like such agendas and attempts to get easy votes, by promising certain favours or benefits, whether based on migrant status, on age or whatsoever.
We need to treat people as individuals and at the same time responsible citizens of one nation, that is New Zealand.
Many aged 16 or 17 are just learning to comprehend what life and society and so forth are about. It may be easy to attract some interest and votes by making promises to them, but this can quickly back-fire. As for the younger generation around that age as we have it now, they seem to be the ones loving TV programs like the Block, or that listen to radio shows where the PM admits urinating while having a shower.
So do we want such focus or wait for some maturing, and those aged 18 to 29 are already a generation that we should first focus on, to interest and involve them. The Gen Y quick fix and little commitment attitude will not serve our political interest and our future.
Rights and responsibilities are important, and any involvement in a democratic society will only work with some knowledge and with informed decision-making.
Therefore I think that we should not try such easy solutions, and hope the younger ones “love” our revolutionary ideas and simply embrace these and vote for them. They may actually be much more self interested and selfish than we may like, and rather vote such ones as David Seymour from ACT. Do we really want that, I ask?
Indeed, Mike.
I recall my own politics in my teens and 20s, and except for supporting environmental issues (not milling our few remaining native forests), I was naive, reactionary, and right-wing. In short, perfect for ACT.
Now look at you – jaded, cynical and left-wing. In short, perfect for ALCP.
Hell I was inducted into the NZ Army when I was 20 and wasn’t allowed to vote till 21.
Today I favour a lower age to vote as the 16/17yr olds are getting screwed by this Government now.
Being setup by a Government that is now incurring massive crown debt and are being saddled with mountains of debt in their future so they should have some way to fight back, and voting is the only way now.
Two examples hardly defines a trend.
Monsiuer Trottoir, you need a truckload more data than that…
No he doesn’t
He’s not proposing the change.
By citing two counterexamples Chris has demolished Martyn’s argument.
No, he hasn’t.
J S Bark is right
Trotter points out two floors in Bombers arguments which could be elaborated on again.
floors?
OMG!
You right Andrew? You read like your more stupid today. Wana talk?
>> By citing two counterexamples Chris has demolished Martyn’s argument. <<
The plural of anecdote is *not* data. Chris has cherry-picked two counterexamples that fit his confirmation bias. This proves nothing except that Chris has an axe to grind against allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote.
The price of democracy is the freedom of all people to participate, even if they make collective decisions you or I don’t like. If it is right for voting age to be 16 we become calculating cynics if we look for electoral advantage from the change. And when we are young we tend not to respond positively to older cynics.
[…] The ever brilliant Chris Trotter and the sadly pitiful Cameron Slater have taken an interest in this idea of lowering the age to 16 […]
Probably best to increase funding for things like youth councils, and youth parliaments, etc.
The Association of Consumers and Taxpayers and all like-minded New Zealanders believe that people need to be productive members of society before they have the right to vote.
The reality is, people in jail, beneficiaries and those being sent back from Australian detention centres should have their rights to vote rescinded.
Young people in reality should be means-tested before they get the right to vote. If their parents are productive taxpayers and consumers, they should inherit the reward of democracy from successful parents.
Also the reality is that, older people, who waste their votes on the likes of Winston’s Party should seriously consider where their best future lies.
And that is with a reality with a centre-right government.
That’s not centre right. That’s extreme right, on the periphery.
Machiavelli referred to the five great emperors of Rome, he said the first five emperors where great because they where appointed.
As soon as Rome enacted inherited laws. It all fell apart with Commodus. They made a movie about it called Gladiator, Russel Crow won an Oscar for his lead role.
Neither is history or the centre vote believe restrictions should be placed on voting because they are afraid of Winston Peters.
How you can come to such stupid conclusions is amazing.
Ummm… I believe it was an attempte at satire. One which has seemingly gone right over your head as well as being about as funny as a turd in a swimming pool but an attempt none the less.
Thedailyblog.co.nz – Internet Police are searching for a person who posted a thread asking if users of the Thedailyblog.co.nz forum use satire to get their point across.
The pointless comment, believed to have no entertainment or intellectual value, was first sighted at 4:32 PM (GMT+13) on Sunday, 11/01/2015. Its poster, “GOSMAN, aka goose.,” is not known to have had previous dealings with law enforcement.
Users are advised to contact the Internet Police at internet.policeman to report any information about this crime.
See you can also do unfunny satire as well.
See, Gosman, you can do posts without ending in a questionmark.
First things first, I have no confidence that voting is the solution we need. People have been voting since the 1980s, and things just continue to get worse. One direction action campaign shutting down a fossil fuel mining operation is worth a thousand votes, if not a million.
Second, voting is a choice. As long as everybody has the right to vote (within whatever rules are agreed for elections), it doesn’t matter what proportion of people choose to vote *for* a candidate or party, and what proportion choose to vote *against* the whole rotten, corrupt system by not voting. Thus, strategies for increasing voter turnout – whether digital voting or changing the age of franchise – are missing the point, focusing on elections and political parties, as if that’s where all the power lies.
What really matters is not what people do (or don’t do) on election day, once every three years, but what they do about politics the rest of the time. What determines that, is what story they are enacting about the world. As long as the majority are enacting the delusional story of neoliberalism, whatever party wins elections will be forced to enact their policies within this neoliberal frame of reference. What we urgently need to do is shake off this toxic legacy, and start enacting a new story. For example, one based on mutual aid, and peer production within a variety of commons, from the environmental commons of climate and wild nature to the digital commons of software and the internet (see economics professor Yochai Benkler’s brilliant talk on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CwkpTdfo7Y). If we can do that, then whatever party wins elections will have to enact their policies within that frame, and that’s how we, the 99%, win.
Daniel, you need to think this through a bit more.
If it’s OK for you and your radical pals to take “direct” (and likely illegal) action against a venture which is both legal and has passed appropriate resource consent hurdles, then it’s equally right for your equally radical opponents to firebomb Labour headquarters.
Yours is an approach that leads to anarchy, which isn’t a good place to be.
Hey Andrew. That is exactly the sentiment that lost New Zealand it’s clean green image. The moron runs deep in you today
Leave the kids alone, they don’t need to be burdened with that responsibility at 16.
It’s not easy working out which set of lies you prefer over the other sets of lies and I suspect that Crosby-Textor would have a field day.
New Zealand has a more important problem which voter turn out and its well known that the more people who vote, the better the left do. The less people who vote the better the right do.
Now I don’t know if lowering the voting age to 16 will actually do anything positive for the left because I suspect that kids are likely to vote along with their parents preferences.
But Australia has compulsory voting and penalise people who do not vote with fines and jail time.
So I suggest that we push for compulsory voting and this will improve the lefts chances of regaining power.
Comments are closed.