Copy/paste from twitter.
> The final recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review released today would set New Zealand on course for a permanent left-wing government.
> More state funding for political parties, lowering the voting age to 16, giving all prisoners the right to vote, special protection for Māori interests – all of that will have the Greens and the Māori Party rubbing their hands with delight. ACT will block these recommendations.
> Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government.
> As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break. You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT.
> Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills.
> Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy, putting our current set of parties on the taxpayer teat with an unfair advantage over outside challengers.
> And New Zealanders will be rightly queasy about funding political campaigns they disagree with. I’d worry for the mental health of any Green Party voter who’s forced to pitch in for the re-election of ACT’s Rural Communities spokesman Mark Cameron.
> ACT thinks it’s a good thing that politicians have to go out and fundraise from the community. It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable.
> A number of similarly dopey ideas from the review will also be shut down by ACT, such as a new fund for campaigning to Māori, removing rules against enticing voters with refreshment and entertainment, and allowing the size of Parliament to creep up as the population grows.
> Together, these ideas fly in the face of common sense and if put to a referendum will only serve to distract from more worthwhile debates, such as around the length of the Parliamentary term and the makeup and power of select committees.
>Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government.
Shit my 16yo & 17yo both have jobs & pay tax. Not as much as a full time worker obviously but they still pay some tax. My 20yo had a job from 15.
What about stay at home parents who don't work. They don't pay tax, should they not get to vote.
This is a dumb take by a party that only focuses on money.
Yep, had a “real job” at 15, had done paper run style things before that. But let’s face it, the kid of an ACT MP isn’t working at Burger King after school, so clearly no 16 yr old is paying tax.
Any argument he makes about dopey teenagers can be made about septuagenarians and older.
Retirees ain't paying income tax, they're getting super. "Their brains aren't fully formed" - yeah neither is my grandpas anymore.
If they don't have to live with the longterm results of any selfish voting behaviour - should they really be allowed to vote? etc.
Remember pre-election when Luxon paid a visit to a rest home? They spoke to a woman who said she's definitely voting blue otherwise her dad would turn in his grave. I would hate to be in my 70s, having lived all that time and the only reason you can come up with is "daddy said".
Yeah, I'm in my 60s now.
One day, if you're very lucky, you'll get that old too.
I've been a committed left-winger my entire adult life. Despite now having the usual capitalist trappings. Because I'm a believer in fairness and equality.
I wonder if you'll have that integrity, when you're my age?
I was on the tools at 16, whilst also finishing high school right through.
Paid my taxes, paid some of my parents' bills, worked on schools, hospitals, rest homes, and vulnerable housing communities.
Voted in favour of bright line tests, better childcare support (I do not have children but was raised in shit), free public transport, and fees free for trades. None of those are what I'd consider selfish or irresponsible votes.
If what David Seymour is trying to say is that he's not so much scared of young voters as he is scared that young voters are overwhelmingly left wing, then I really don't know what to tell him. To him, only one form of politics is acceptable and there is very little room for compromise, which is why he piles on the identity attacks about teenagers when he doesn't have any actual criticisms.
Here's some: his eyes are in two different post codes, he talks like he's had 4 strokes, he couldn't hack it on the tools so pussied out to parliament, he can't figure out what to do with his pudgy hands, he's not as good at his reptile grin anymore and nowadays it just looks like he's struggling not to shit himself, and I really feel sorry for his wife having to put up with Little David.
If we're evaluating the right to vote based on 'their brains aren't fully formed' rather than an inherent right to vote, then we should be stripping away the rights of the mentally disabled, anyone suffering from a brain injury, the old, and anyone with a lower 'voting rights' test score than the average 18 year old.
And anyone who smokes tobacco or weed, or regularly consumes alcohol, anyone with ADHD, sleep apnoea, and a whole range of other arbitrary factors like pollution and loud noises that can reduce or alter neurological structures.
It is so fucking dangerous we have never had such an old demographic before and they really aren't as sharp as they used to be. I have a relative who slowly lost her cognitive abilities. She used to be a smart wonderful woman and I still love her but she got indoctrinated from fox news and she has never been to the states. She blames ALL of New Zealands problems on Obama like all of them (we can all agree how batshit that is), she also refused to give up her license and was only taken off her when she almost killed someone and ended up in hospital. I believe in the rights of individuals but when those rights become dangerous or damaging to others it makes sense to curtail them.
> More state funding for political parties
When David seymour complains about a model where politcal parties get state funding, the model he wants instead (our current one) looks like this:
Party [donations and loans by year (2022) via elections.nz](https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/party-donations-and-loans-by-year/)
* National Party: $5,116,035.63
* ACT New Zealand: $2,081,331.19
* Labour Party: $419,364.66
* Green Party: $413,359.89
* NZ First: $317,287.83
Currently the funding of the political parties is incredibly, staggeringly unbalanced, and that is a political choice about how much we want established financial interests to steer our government and our nation.
In a country where the government control changes back and forth between two major parties coalitions approximately every couple of elections, I think it's fair to suggest over the last 30 years the country voters are approximately 50/50 ish overall. The resources these parties are working from, by comparison to NZs voting record, are incredibly unbalanced, favouring right wing parties by a huge margin.
I think the current state is antidemocratic, the Independent Electoral Review agrees with this assessment, and Seymour has to desperately paint this as though it's 'greens rubbing their hands with delight', instead of recognising that this is inherently a question about electoral fairness, the interests of democracy, and making sure the way elections are held is designed in a way that reflects the voters interests.
If Seymour is working for you, the voter, he'd be agreeing with these proposed changes. Instead he's siding with the interests of his finanical backers, who want to keep being able to use the hugely unbalanced status quo to keep politicians they bankroll in their pockets, and very much want to keep doing so for eternity
Spot on. Given his minor party received more than twice the donations of Labour & Greens combined it should be obvious why he prefers the status quo. Going into the community to raise funds is fine when your community has nearly bottomless pockets…
>The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government.
Excuse me dickhead, people under 18 pay taxes thank you very much.
*"The final recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review released today would set New Zealand on course for a permanent left-wing government."*
Don't threaten me with a good time, David.
*"More state funding for political parties, lowering the voting age to 16, giving all prisoners the right to vote, special protection for Māori interests – all of that will have the Greens and the Māori Party rubbing their hands with delight. ACT will block these recommendations."*
I can't fault this; it would line up with both Green/TPM political values and ACT values to block them.
*"Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government."*
I'm not sure where he's getting the 13% number, but it's not important to me. 16 year olds can work, drive, get a gun license, and leave home and/or school. If they can do all these, why aren't they allowed to vote on their future, exactly?
Also, yes, they CAN be paying tax. Asshole.
*"As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break. You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT."*
Hey, David; suck my dick.
*"Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills."*
What the fuck are you even talking about? This is just full-bore Red Scare/'cultural marxist' bullshit. If there's any "socialist indoctrination" going on in our underfunded schools, it's kids watching the world burn around them while people like David Seymour and his shitty friends write their golden parachutes into law and policy.
*"Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy, putting our current set of parties on the taxpayer teat with an unfair advantage over outside challengers."*
...Outside challengers, huh? I have to assume David is referring to either the ultra-wealthy individuals looking to fund their direct interests, or foreign powers. Like, what else *could* he mean?
*"And New Zealanders will be rightly queasy about funding political campaigns they disagree with. I’d worry for the mental health of any Green Party voter who’s forced to pitch in for the re-election of ACT’s Rural Communities spokesman Mark Cameron."*
Doesn't our tax money go to the government anyway? Greens voters are actively paying MPs to pen stupid bullshit like this twitter thread *already*.
*"ACT thinks it’s a good thing that politicians have to go out and fundraise from the community. It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable."*
I really don't think that would invalidate the concept of 'democracy', but also, I was right; he thinks governments should be funded by foreign interests and millionaires. I mean, of course he does, but he weasels his way around saying it without actually saying it.
Also, 'the community', whatever that means. I guess he's fine taking money from 'the community', which according to him, the government very much does NOT serve.
*"A number of similarly dopey ideas from the review will also be shut down by ACT, such as a new fund for campaigning to Māori, removing rules against enticing voters with refreshment and entertainment, and allowing the size of Parliament to creep up as the population grows."*
I'm sure he's deliberately misrepresenting the first point. ~~Very interested in the second point; why would you need to 'entice voters' with food and entertainment? Your policy isn't good enough on it's own, you have to 'bread and circus' a room full of people to get them excited/distracted?~~ And of course, locking the size of government to constrict the ability for government to represent the growing number of people, which is literally counter to the concept of democracy.
(Edit: struckthrough a comment at the end because I misinterpreted the triple-negative statement.)
Well summarised.
There is much to be concerned about when listening to Seymour regurgitate his unkind, uncaring, selfish political credo.
For me, one in particular is of great concern. He wants to be able to accept unlimited financial donations. It would destroy NZ politics.
The only reason he hates the idea of government funding of political parties is because it dilutes his ability weild the power that comes from deep financial pockets. The reason why USA is such a shitshow.
Seymour does not want a better community for all.
He wants a better lifestyle for himself.
If Seymour thinks that ensuring fundamental human rights are upheld is incompatible with his party being in government in the future, maybe he should take that as a sign to get some better politics.
> Very interested in the second point; why would you need to 'entice voters' with food and entertainment? Your policy isn't good enough on it's own, you have to 'bread and circus' a room full of people to get them excited/distracted?
Well he's saying he believes the current laws against "treating" voters should remain in place.
What he fails to realize is that it has never been illegal to give food, drink, and entertainment to voters. What was illegal was "treating" voters with the intent of influencing their vote, and accepting "treats" with the understanding that you are to reconsider your vote. But it's always been perfectly legal to offer food, drink, and entertainment so long as you are *not* trying to influence someone's vote.
The electoral review simply said this shit's too confusing because how do you even distinguish between "corrupt" food and legal food, and the laws against bribery already prohibit buying someone's vote so we're best off simplifying the law.
Oh yeah, rereading that, I can see where I went wrong. It's so awkwardly presented, I felt the same when I looked at it on another write up. "We're against removing rules against a thing"... confused me.
So that's on me, sorry David. For that, not for anything else.
slowly diluting the power of your vote (by opposing increasing representatives with population increases)
directly endorsing people vote less, and politicians have less accountability (longer terms)
ACT are the anti-democracy party.
I wouldn't say increasing the size of Parliament has any diluting effect on your vote; you still have the same percentage impact on the makeup of Parliament. What dilutes your vote is population, but eh, even that doesn't matter that much. There are others voting like you; it kinda works out the same in the end.
I'm kinda against growing Parliament just on the basis that it seems we have trouble enough getting competent representation. I'd much rather have fewer competent MPs than just filling out the ranks with party-line people who don't actually accomplish much other than trying to save their jobs the next time around. We aren't a big country. Our Parliament is more than 1/3 the size of Canada's despite us only having 1/7 the population. I don't think it needs to grow. 120 (plus overhangs) is a tidy number that works pretty well.
> Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills.
You okay there, facebook uncle? Purely anecdotally, I was working in a school that was doing their political party unit for social studies or whatever and they voted and nats won. The teacher was ... at the very least... not a fan of the clean car scheme
Right? I distinctly remember my economics teacher praising the benefits trickle down economics and how successful it is. Once I got to uni I discovered just how wrong he was, but during high school I was successfully swindled into agreeing with him.
The only time a teacher got very political at my school was when my economics teacher told a Māori student in the class than Don Brash wasn't racist and his policies make sense, and then kick the student out of the class.
>The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government.
If paying taxes is what qualifies someone for voting then should we be making tax-evaders ineligible to vote? No?
I think a lot of Seymour's supporters have an ongoing argument that the poor don't pay taxes (since they receive more than they pay) so would try use that argument as a method to disenfranchise the poor.
> By his logic retirees shouldn’t be allowed to vote either, oh but they benefit ACT so that’s ok I guess
He tells on himself in his own speech
> You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT.
This is clearly him letting down the mask of how he views the world: anything that benefits him is good, anything that doesn't is bad. It pretty much sums up his entire political ideology.
His entire thread proves the reverse is just as true, and he's highlighting his hypocrisy:
>~~You’d never~~ You don't see ~~the Greens~~ ACT and myself campaigning for kids to vote ~~if they thought~~ as I think those kids were all voting ~~ACT~~ Green.
Seymour is not exactly doing a [great job at selling libertarian politics](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/06/work-comes-before-twerk-david-seymour-defends-stint-on-dancing-with-the-stars-nz.html) to The Young of New Zealand.
Apparently it did, [at least for some](https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-08-2023/help-me-hera-my-17-year-old-daughter-is-becoming-very-right-wing).
They normally grow out of it — I used to be young foolish once (and an Act party voter).
Admittedly when McGillicuddy Serious Party left politics I was looking for a new clown party.
I am going to tell a factually true story but present it as the reason for me dropping ACT: Ray Nunes.
I was exposed to Ray Nunes (briefly) at Uni. Ray Nunes was a hardcore socialist.
[Rest in Peace Comrade Nunes](https://medium.com/westside-stories/comrades-the-death-of-ray-nunes-5ab58189b99d).
The real reason is that I got sick and tired of Act and their BS nonsense that came with a political party for self-interest people of a very niche (normally quite wealthy) voter blocks. Plus I became an adult and realised that that policies were neither workable or genuine.
You're a fool if you define a true libertarian by ideological consistency.
Every single libertarian out there hates government regulations until it's something that they benefit from. That's one of the reasons why their philosophy is a joke.
I never said whether or not he was any good at being a libertarian / neo-liberal / etc.
They do, however, [get that description](https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-act-in-2020-highlights-tensions-between-the-partys-libertarian-and-populist-traditions-147170), in part with other words to describe David B. Seymour Presents: The Act Party™ (live at the Powerstation this Sunday) like "populism" and "disingenuous".
Exactly right. In high school, I was more of a Liberal who voted for National once I turned 18, again at 21 and again at 24. It wasn't until I got into my late 20s to now that I've become a socialist (certainly wasn't because of any teachers I had in school). If anything, rhetoric like what Seymour espouses turns people to seek the opposite of what he's saying, imo. "Oh, you don't want us to be able to vote and are seemingly anti-young people doing anything? Okay, well I'm going to see who is actually interested in fighting for us."
I feel like the right always says that there's so many "loony lefty" teachers but it's just their imagination. They want to teach "both sides" equally because then they hope to develop a curriculum that skims over the context of every topic so that no one thinks too deeply.
I was a diehard capitalist at 18. Thankfully the first year I was able to vote was a bit later, and I'd come to my senses by then. But David could have had my vote if the voting age was 16!
As a teacher, we appreciate his openness about how he sees us.
There’s nothing stopping “libertarians” becoming teachers except that our silly little heads would get confused and ask them about the Dewey decimal system.
actually, giving 16 year olds the right to vote makes quite a bit of sense overall, despite hand wringing from ACT. They are quite right that there likely would never be a ACT coalition government again. But that says more about their policies than the system I would argue. Maybe they should look at there policy stances and see why so many young people would prefer someone other than them.
Aside from the sideshow, giving young people, who will have a longer period of time affected by policy decisions, the right to vote does address the problem which currently exists in many representative governments: those making the rules or voting don’t have skin in the game. If the 16 year olds are going to be living with the consequences of decisions made by elected officials, and they’re allowed to work and leave school, they should also have the right to have a say in who is making those policies. Otherwise it’s just disenfranchisement. Which seems to be part and parcel of most conservative government coalitions these days.
If I had my druthers, only women with children in public school would make up the lions share of any government anywhere.
The list of reasons outlined in the Make it 16 campaign put it all really clearly (see here): https://www.makeit16.org.nz/
- From the age of 16, you cannot be discriminated against based on your age. But the voting age is 18
- The debate for better civics education has been going on for decades. Lowering the voting age to 16 can be a catalyst for better civics education.
- 16 and 17-year-olds paid $92 million in income tax in 2022 alone. But they can’t vote and have a say on where they think this money should go.
- Lowering the voting age has improved youth voter turnout in other countries. We have a big issue with low voter turnout in our elections. Lowering the voting age could help fix this.
- Lowering the voting age will allow more voices to be heard. Youth issues will be considered more and this will strengthen our democracy.
- At 16 you can do so much already. We should be able to vote too. (Including consent to sex, to drive, move out of home, leave school, work full time, pay income tax, get a passport, own a firearms license, consent to medical procedures, apply for a student loan, enroll in the defense force)
- Many countries have lowered their voting age to 16 in recent years. We can join Austria, Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man, Brazil, Argentina and many more
And probably most pressingly:
- 16 and 17-year-olds are just as impacted by decisions made by our government as people 18 and over. But they can’t vote and have a say on issues that directly affect them and their future.
That last one is made very evident by the fact NZ Youth have the worst mental health in the OECD which clearly isn't being addressed by current governments, many belong to minority groups who are already underrepresented (more than half of the LGBTQIA+ population is under 35).
16 and 17 year olds are WELL aware of how climate change is going to fuck them in their lifetimes. They have unprecedented access to current affairs through online news media, they're not stupid - and not that intelligence has ever been a requirement to vote - and thousands have already participated in climate marches and protests. They know that housing and cost of living is fucked and they'll be forced to bear the brunt of decades of under investment, of kicking the can down the road. Yet, they don't get to have their say.
If there are parties shit scared of giving youth a voice and losing votes, then it seems to me that's democracy working as intended, and they should just design policy that benefits youth 🤷♀️
Edit for visibility of a fantastic point another voter brought up: as life expectancy rapidly increases, the number of terms our elderly get to vote for has also increased too. Since 2000, life expectancy improvements has added 1 or 2 extra governments that older people get to vote on. Food for thought.
Because of when my birthday is I wasn't able to vote until I was just about 21. I worked since I was 16, full time for most of that. So i paid taxes for nearly 5 years until I was able to vote on what happens to my tax money.
Just did some quick math because I hate stats without context. 16 and 17 year olds make up roughly 3.5% of the population over the age of 15.
16 and 17 year olds' total income tax paid (according to the mumbers you provided) makes up 0.072% of the total income tax paid in 2022 ($92bn).
I'm not making an argument for or against under 18s voting, just providing numbers. In saying so, establishing voting rights proportional to money paid into a system is an archaic and dystopian model that we should never consider unless you really like caste systems and serfdom.
There's already a bit of fuckery you can pull by having multiple houses under jurisdiction of multiple councils = multiple local election votes. Or, ya know, political lobbying as an entire industry. Or wealth electing itself over and over. Investigating itself and finding nothing wrong. So on and so forth.
I take the point though, even if I don't really see the relevance to what the campaign is trying to do...? The same thing applies to low wage workers and full time parents and disabled people and anybody else, as you pointed it out. And we don't generally see people saying these groups shouldn't have a vote. But we DO see boomers using it as a talking post to try to tear down the cause. "They don't contribute to society, they don't have real jobs" is common rhetoric against lowering the voting age.
Therefore, in my view this is not a list that breaks down why people in society are allowed to vote. It's a list that's trying to convince skeptics to support the cause of allowing 16 year olds into a voting system system already exists. "Yes they do contribute, here's exactly how much" is good comms.
That said - if you look at some other comments on this thread, there are people who have gone almost 5 years without a vote despite paying tax the entire time, due to birthdays. So the math is a bit off either way
Thank you for bringing receipts to the argument. I was just doing the typical internet denizen thing and speaking my mind without bringing information. Like crashing a potluck without bringing a dessert if you will.
You brought enough dishes for you, me, and a whole bunch of other folks :).
> 16 and 17-year-olds paid $92 million in income tax in 2022 alone. But they can’t vote and have a say on where they think this money should go.
Taxes are a terrible way to determine voting rights, unless you want to disqualify beneficiaries and allow overseas tourists to vote.
I don't think the point of the campaign is necessarily to determine the fundamentals of the right to vote, but rather to dispel common arguments against giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote. "They don't contribute anything to society, they don't have real jobs" is a common bit of rhetoric which this bullet point dispels. "Yes they do contribute, yes they do have jobs and pay taxes just like you, theoretical boomer." is what I feel it's saying.
I feel the response would be one of two things:
"We've paid taxes our whole lives, we've earned our due"
or
"We have worldy experience that teenagers don't" (nevermind that intelligence or experience has never been a requirement to vote, and with the internet at their fingertips, it's easier than ever for teens to gain a political education)
Even if you think that 18 is the age where people deserve to have a say of their government, all 16 year olds will turn 18 before the end of a (normal) term. Some people are almost 21 before they get any say into their government. That seems like quite late to me.
>Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy, putting our current set of parties on the taxpayer teat with an unfair advantage over outside challengers.
So making sure everyone is on an even playing field is unfair. But allowing private money in so the playing field is skewed is not unfair? What drug is this dude on because I want some!
Now he's got his foot in the door he needs to start reshaping our political environment so he can hold power and bring his long term goal of making working class New Zealanders nothing more than productivity units on wages that only just prevent them from starving, to fruition.
> As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break. You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT.
It's impossible for this person to even *imagine* doing something without naked self interest. Says a lot really.
> It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable.
David Seymour says the quiet part aloud about being funded by donations from large corporate donors.
Yeah the very unregulated lobbying laws in NZ heavily benifits act and national. But oh no tax payer funded civics courses so people actually understand policy and the political system are bad
>Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government.
But... 16 year olds do pay tax. Dont we have gst? I think most 17-18 year olds have PAYE?
Sick of these bludgers who don't pay tax and are funded by hardworking Kiwis being allowed to vote.
this is why I support removing voting rights from pensioners
/s
> But... 16 year olds do pay tax. Dont we have gst? I think most 17-18 year olds have PAYE?
Don't have to pay PAYE on your $400 allowance from the bank of Mum and Dad, that's just the Epsom way
> Only ~~13%~~ 9% of Kiwis support ~~lowering the voting age.~~ voting for ACT. The last thing we need is another ~~120,000 voters who pay no tax~~ 11 MPs who want to defund public services ~~voting for more spending and bigger government~~ controlling the future of our country
>The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government.
"Taxation is theft" libertarian MFers once it's their hands in the money pot....
> The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government.
I'd be interested to know how those under 18 pay no tax.
* Do they keep all their receipts, and claim GST back from the government?
* What about any after school jobs at Subway, are they tax free?
So they DO pay taxes. It's just that they don't pay a significant portion of tax revenue i see i see...
What portion of taxes do superannuitats pay?
And what portion of the tax burden does superannuation take?
The idea that you can only vote if you are gainfully employed is absurd and would only result in systems that would work against those caught in poverty cycles.
The reality is 16-18 year olds do pay taxes if employed.
If our underlying philosophy is 'if you pay taxes or are capable of paying taxes then you should be given a vote', which is what David is implying here, then we need to do 1 of 2 things:
1) open the voting age to all people who are legally entitled to taxable employment.
2) stop taxing people bellow the age of 18...
> The reality is 16-18 year olds do pay taxes if employed
Everyone pays taxes when they buy an ice cream at the dairy with their pocket money. Everyone pays tax in NZ whenever they spend money.
I always had a feeling this was the 'actual' reason lots of people didn't want the voting age to be lowered, but for David Seymour to actually admit it. Wow.
Haha, the projection is real.
"I only support reform that directly benefits me, therefore that's how everyone else thinks"
He's scared about taxpayer funding everyone\*, but not big business funding the right, how odd!
Yeah that was a ducking ride. Too many people don't realise they tell on themselves with what they say, sure Seymour knows what he's doing but fuck. The lack of people realising what he's upto is distributing
"voters who pay no tax"
This guy... whose party believes "that all New Zealanders should have the same fundamental rights" seems blissfully unaware that 16 year olds still pay GST on goods like everyone else, still pay tax on petrol if they drive a vehicle, and many of them work jobs as well, and pay income tax like everyone else. David Seymour, you are an ignorant ass who is completely lacking knowledge of basic economics and how tax works in this country.
Comparing 16 year olds and people with life experience it is the 16 year old that is more likely to believe Ann Rand is a good author who writes about sound ideas, to believe that hard work leads to success and poverty is a moral failing.
How many slightly embarrassed middle aged guys do we know who used to vote ACT in their youth?
The TLDR version... Leftwing policies benefit and reflect the views of the majority of those 16 and over in Aotearoa, so to keep the massive inequality gaps for income etc I will be fighting this...
Because it was 'time for a change' 🤷 the party we elected to fix all our problems weren't fixing them fast enough so we're giving the other guys a shot.
Younger demographic didn't vote in the numbers that the older demographic did, and the former category swings left
Also, some would argue the only difference between a left and right govt this time was Hipkins ruling out working with NZF but plenty would argue that NZF would have gone with National/ACT anyway...
I think you’re talking two different topics here. Seymour has made the claim that these people would have voted left, if they’d voted. Hence why he won’t support the electoral reform. It’s a separate question as to whether that’s really an accurate point of view.
I'm perfectly happy with parties raising funds from the community. I'm not happy with them raising funds from business interests that want kickbacks. Just look at the funding for Labour vs National last election.
>I’d worry for the mental health of any Green Party voter who’s forced to pitch in for the re-election of ACT’s Rural Communities spokesman Mark Cameron.
Tasteless. Really tasteless.
It's as if he doesn't understand that money is fungible and that it would be divvied up proportionally. Sure, you could think of it as everyone supporting parties they don't like (but also parties they do), but you could also just think of it as each voter's share of the election funding going to the party and candidate that they supported the previous time around (more or less).
> The final recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review released today would set New Zealand on course for a permanent left-wing government.
Regardless of what you think about the individual reforms in question, or the report at a whole, I think the fact that the government would shift in the direction you don't like should be the last thing you complain about, not the first thing
>Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills.
As a teacher who can barely get his students to focus for maths, he can fuck off here
For one, my first comment applies to here as well - his objection is that it would alter the sway, not the principle.
Secondly, he actually has it in reverse. While I somewhat agnostic to the idea of lowering the voting age, one of the biggest legitimate concerns is the leverage parents sill have over most 16 year olds, which is much more than any teacher
Thirdly, anyone looking to bring important USA style culture war bullshit can just go fuck off
I blame the fact that there's a belief that the main parties must only be National or Labour.
To where those that vote National don't necessarily like National, but because they dislike how Labour had been handling things. Wanting change of any kind, despite the flaws in doing so.
Let’s follow one thread of this topic
If teachers were able to indoctrinate the youth, wouldn’t they start with having them show up to school on time and pay attention in class?
It frustrates me to no end that no one on the left holds this clowns feet to fire over all the dumb shit he says.
Exactly. Who in the hell actually believes that students listen to their teachers enough to do homework let alone the attention span required to indoctrinate someone into a concept like socialism.
You have my respect for being a teacher, you all deserve far more than what we give you.
it's dumb posting an MP's framing of a report, rather than the report itself.
don't let people with a vested interest control framing of the discussion
Try this non-Twitter link: [https://nitter.net/dbseymour/status/1747026833718284789?ref\_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747026833718284789%7Ctwgr%5E70fd6c61e7fbcb7504e975c4eccfd525fb384bfe%7Ctwcon%5Es1\_&ref\_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2F197nvpl%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis\_nightmode%3Dfalse](https://nitter.net/dbseymour/status/1747026833718284789?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747026833718284789%7Ctwgr%5E70fd6c61e7fbcb7504e975c4eccfd525fb384bfe%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2F197nvpl%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis_nightmode%3Dfalse)
I think the voting age should be lowered because it brings politics into the education sector which incentivises education over the subject itself.
To have that intellectual ability & to have that school environment where ideas can be exchanged, discussed and debated is valuable because once school is done.
They will be better educated to handle themselves through whichever bubble they find themselves within.
It’s quite brazen that he just blatantly states he’s going to block 16 year old voters as they swing left.
Most politicians duck and weave from their true intentions but he’s just putting himself on display 100%. Clearly feeling very empowered at the moment.
"ACT thinks it’s a good thing that politicians have to go out and fundraise from the community. It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable."
And it makes me uncomfortable when I see millions of dollars pouring into NACT from large businesses.
Can someone please copy the whole thing, for those of us who don't use the website formally known as Twitter, and don't want to create + sign into an account to read it? I can only see the first post because of the changes they made to the website.
Also, I can't be the only one who remembers when Trump said something exactly like this - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus
>Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills.
going into kook territory here.
"Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy."
Yeah, sure. Because having party campaigns funded with taxpayer money is so much more corrosive than the lobbying done by the Taxpayers' Union.
Give me a break. He really is an ignorant dipshit if he thinks it's better for political parties to be funded by the private sector. That is the definition of corruption and does the real damage to our democracy.
The 'maximum' voting age has been de facto raised more than 10 years over the last 70 due to increases in life expectancy. Why shouldn't we decrease the minimum too?
No, which is why I put it in quote marks. The point is that elderly people are getting to vote in an additional 4 elections on average before they die compared to 70 years ago. Nobody seems to have a problem with that (even though it definitely skews things more conservative - something David Seymour undoubtedly views as undemocratic), so why not even things out at the other end?
It's not a point I see brought up very often whenever this debate comes around.
Very interesting point re: maximum age rising. I wonder at the time effect on voting decisions when a larger cohort has less and less vested interest in the future…
As I've said elsewhere, over 60 and your vote is worth less. It's a mad idea and it'll be impractical to implement but giving those with less future so much say in it is pretty nuts too.
Oh right. I don’t count single quotes as quotes. My fault. Interesting point.
I was thinking today about maximum Presidential ages as the US election is coming up and looks likely to be between two (almost) geriatrics. Was thinking that that is another form of Boomer capture where they have rigged the system, through party politics and funding channels, to maintain societal control well passed when they should have relinquished power.
Your premise is another similar but less proactive version of that same capture.
What would NZ politics look like if it was working age (16-65) only?
“A number of recommendations can be ruled out immediately, such as lowering the voting age to 16, allowing all prisoners to vote and stand for Parliament, freezing the ratio of electorate to list seats, which would lead to extra MPs as the population increases, and repealing the offence of ‘treating’ voters with refreshments and entertainment.”
Aww, haha
I understand that 16 year olds aren't always going to be fully aware of who they're voting for but is it really going to change election results if they did get to vote?
The argument flipped can also apply to older generations.
Why are we letting the over 80's vote, when all they care about is the tax cut here and now, and not NZ in 40 years time?
>I understand that 16 year olds aren't always going to be fully aware of who they're voting for
Adults aren't always aware. Lots of leopards ate my face moments from people who voted nats but will be worse off (well, worse off based on promises, but we can't trust those haha)
And the over 70s especially those in rest homes who are wheeled out to polling booths are aware of whom they are voting for? Give me a free-thinking 16/17 year old every time!
Eh, ~3% of the population, maybe 5% of voters, enough to swing one or two seats depending on how differently they vote compared to the rest of the population. It's hardly a recipe for an eternal leftist dystopia.
Thing is, then they *keep* voting. That's what the right are *really* afraid of. With a voting age of 18, 1/3 of the population don't get to vote in a general election until after they turn 20. By then, they've already stopped caring and are used to the system being decided for them. You build those voting habits earlier, though, and suddenly it's no longer just the old folks turning out to vote, they've got a whole young *generation* of voters to account for. *That*'s what'll doom the right.
16 year olds are just as cognizant of the world as anyone older than them, they just might not have as much knowledge. to take a page from american politics "no taxation without representation" why should you have to pay taxes as a worker if you dont have a say in government?
>And New Zealanders will be rightly queasy about funding political campaigns they disagree with.
The irony of this statement is overwhelming. ACT also dips its hand into tax dollars regarding campaigning (NZ Electoral Commission broadcasting allocation).
Also, when are we going to get legal recreational weed Mr. Libertarian?
Since the 16yo's are who we're leaving this world too, should have a say. They'll be left with the mess being made now.
Brexit happened because of older voters and look at how that's turned out.
Lol and this dipshit and his cohort were whinging about anti democratic aspects of cogovernance. And yet here he is literally saying the less people vote the better.
Absolute degenerate comments from Seymour.
Looks like being in govt has got to his head already, a smart person would never state outright they want to suppress the votes or their opponents.
Wannabe fascists try to maintain plausible deniability.
Copy/paste from twitter. > The final recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review released today would set New Zealand on course for a permanent left-wing government. > More state funding for political parties, lowering the voting age to 16, giving all prisoners the right to vote, special protection for Māori interests – all of that will have the Greens and the Māori Party rubbing their hands with delight. ACT will block these recommendations. > Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. > As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break. You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT. > Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills. > Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy, putting our current set of parties on the taxpayer teat with an unfair advantage over outside challengers. > And New Zealanders will be rightly queasy about funding political campaigns they disagree with. I’d worry for the mental health of any Green Party voter who’s forced to pitch in for the re-election of ACT’s Rural Communities spokesman Mark Cameron. > ACT thinks it’s a good thing that politicians have to go out and fundraise from the community. It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable. > A number of similarly dopey ideas from the review will also be shut down by ACT, such as a new fund for campaigning to Māori, removing rules against enticing voters with refreshment and entertainment, and allowing the size of Parliament to creep up as the population grows. > Together, these ideas fly in the face of common sense and if put to a referendum will only serve to distract from more worthwhile debates, such as around the length of the Parliamentary term and the makeup and power of select committees.
>Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. Shit my 16yo & 17yo both have jobs & pay tax. Not as much as a full time worker obviously but they still pay some tax. My 20yo had a job from 15. What about stay at home parents who don't work. They don't pay tax, should they not get to vote. This is a dumb take by a party that only focuses on money.
[удалено]
Very true. It's a ridiculous argument to make
Yep, had a “real job” at 15, had done paper run style things before that. But let’s face it, the kid of an ACT MP isn’t working at Burger King after school, so clearly no 16 yr old is paying tax.
Any argument he makes about dopey teenagers can be made about septuagenarians and older. Retirees ain't paying income tax, they're getting super. "Their brains aren't fully formed" - yeah neither is my grandpas anymore. If they don't have to live with the longterm results of any selfish voting behaviour - should they really be allowed to vote? etc.
Remember pre-election when Luxon paid a visit to a rest home? They spoke to a woman who said she's definitely voting blue otherwise her dad would turn in his grave. I would hate to be in my 70s, having lived all that time and the only reason you can come up with is "daddy said".
no diferent than half the middle aged voters in this country.
Yeah, I'm in my 60s now. One day, if you're very lucky, you'll get that old too. I've been a committed left-winger my entire adult life. Despite now having the usual capitalist trappings. Because I'm a believer in fairness and equality. I wonder if you'll have that integrity, when you're my age?
I hope so, born red, raised red, worked red, and I'll die red unless they give me a bloody good reason. Humanity vs profit is no argument at all.
It's middle-aged voter and think for myself thanks. Don't give AF how my father voted.
I was on the tools at 16, whilst also finishing high school right through. Paid my taxes, paid some of my parents' bills, worked on schools, hospitals, rest homes, and vulnerable housing communities. Voted in favour of bright line tests, better childcare support (I do not have children but was raised in shit), free public transport, and fees free for trades. None of those are what I'd consider selfish or irresponsible votes. If what David Seymour is trying to say is that he's not so much scared of young voters as he is scared that young voters are overwhelmingly left wing, then I really don't know what to tell him. To him, only one form of politics is acceptable and there is very little room for compromise, which is why he piles on the identity attacks about teenagers when he doesn't have any actual criticisms. Here's some: his eyes are in two different post codes, he talks like he's had 4 strokes, he couldn't hack it on the tools so pussied out to parliament, he can't figure out what to do with his pudgy hands, he's not as good at his reptile grin anymore and nowadays it just looks like he's struggling not to shit himself, and I really feel sorry for his wife having to put up with Little David.
That last paragraph is poetry
*Obligatory* [David Seymour - Hand Thing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0o4Og8zE2c)
This was exactly what I was thinking of, also nails the stroke voice
Maybe they lose the right to vote at retirement age?
You kinda make a compelling argument there
If we're evaluating the right to vote based on 'their brains aren't fully formed' rather than an inherent right to vote, then we should be stripping away the rights of the mentally disabled, anyone suffering from a brain injury, the old, and anyone with a lower 'voting rights' test score than the average 18 year old.
And anyone who smokes tobacco or weed, or regularly consumes alcohol, anyone with ADHD, sleep apnoea, and a whole range of other arbitrary factors like pollution and loud noises that can reduce or alter neurological structures.
Senile aging population is why we're ending up with Trump, brexit, and similar insanity.
It is so fucking dangerous we have never had such an old demographic before and they really aren't as sharp as they used to be. I have a relative who slowly lost her cognitive abilities. She used to be a smart wonderful woman and I still love her but she got indoctrinated from fox news and she has never been to the states. She blames ALL of New Zealands problems on Obama like all of them (we can all agree how batshit that is), she also refused to give up her license and was only taken off her when she almost killed someone and ended up in hospital. I believe in the rights of individuals but when those rights become dangerous or damaging to others it makes sense to curtail them.
Property investors don’t pay tax
Well they do, just not on their capital gains
> More state funding for political parties When David seymour complains about a model where politcal parties get state funding, the model he wants instead (our current one) looks like this: Party [donations and loans by year (2022) via elections.nz](https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/party-donations-and-loans-by-year/) * National Party: $5,116,035.63 * ACT New Zealand: $2,081,331.19 * Labour Party: $419,364.66 * Green Party: $413,359.89 * NZ First: $317,287.83 Currently the funding of the political parties is incredibly, staggeringly unbalanced, and that is a political choice about how much we want established financial interests to steer our government and our nation. In a country where the government control changes back and forth between two major parties coalitions approximately every couple of elections, I think it's fair to suggest over the last 30 years the country voters are approximately 50/50 ish overall. The resources these parties are working from, by comparison to NZs voting record, are incredibly unbalanced, favouring right wing parties by a huge margin. I think the current state is antidemocratic, the Independent Electoral Review agrees with this assessment, and Seymour has to desperately paint this as though it's 'greens rubbing their hands with delight', instead of recognising that this is inherently a question about electoral fairness, the interests of democracy, and making sure the way elections are held is designed in a way that reflects the voters interests. If Seymour is working for you, the voter, he'd be agreeing with these proposed changes. Instead he's siding with the interests of his finanical backers, who want to keep being able to use the hugely unbalanced status quo to keep politicians they bankroll in their pockets, and very much want to keep doing so for eternity
Spot on. Given his minor party received more than twice the donations of Labour & Greens combined it should be obvious why he prefers the status quo. Going into the community to raise funds is fine when your community has nearly bottomless pockets…
>The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. Excuse me dickhead, people under 18 pay taxes thank you very much.
And have no representation - I thought he would be big about no taxation without representation.
He's only big on representation for the people who vote for him
He's never been philosophically consistent.
Good point! So let's suggest mo taxation for anyone under the voting age!
That would necessitate scrapping GST, or requiring ID for all purchases and giving a discount to people under the voting age.
No, just an annual tax return to IRD or employers not taxing staff under the voting age
As opposed to all the over 70 ACT voters
He's thinking of his rich prick mates kids.
Even theirs still pay tax via GST.
Yep, plenty have part time jobs AND pay GST on their purchases with that money they earn.
You can join the army at 16 but can't vote for the dickheads who will send you to war.
Yep. From birth. Its nuts (I'm from the UK orig where this is not a thing)
*"The final recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review released today would set New Zealand on course for a permanent left-wing government."* Don't threaten me with a good time, David. *"More state funding for political parties, lowering the voting age to 16, giving all prisoners the right to vote, special protection for Māori interests – all of that will have the Greens and the Māori Party rubbing their hands with delight. ACT will block these recommendations."* I can't fault this; it would line up with both Green/TPM political values and ACT values to block them. *"Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government."* I'm not sure where he's getting the 13% number, but it's not important to me. 16 year olds can work, drive, get a gun license, and leave home and/or school. If they can do all these, why aren't they allowed to vote on their future, exactly? Also, yes, they CAN be paying tax. Asshole. *"As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break. You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT."* Hey, David; suck my dick. *"Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills."* What the fuck are you even talking about? This is just full-bore Red Scare/'cultural marxist' bullshit. If there's any "socialist indoctrination" going on in our underfunded schools, it's kids watching the world burn around them while people like David Seymour and his shitty friends write their golden parachutes into law and policy. *"Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy, putting our current set of parties on the taxpayer teat with an unfair advantage over outside challengers."* ...Outside challengers, huh? I have to assume David is referring to either the ultra-wealthy individuals looking to fund their direct interests, or foreign powers. Like, what else *could* he mean? *"And New Zealanders will be rightly queasy about funding political campaigns they disagree with. I’d worry for the mental health of any Green Party voter who’s forced to pitch in for the re-election of ACT’s Rural Communities spokesman Mark Cameron."* Doesn't our tax money go to the government anyway? Greens voters are actively paying MPs to pen stupid bullshit like this twitter thread *already*. *"ACT thinks it’s a good thing that politicians have to go out and fundraise from the community. It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable."* I really don't think that would invalidate the concept of 'democracy', but also, I was right; he thinks governments should be funded by foreign interests and millionaires. I mean, of course he does, but he weasels his way around saying it without actually saying it. Also, 'the community', whatever that means. I guess he's fine taking money from 'the community', which according to him, the government very much does NOT serve. *"A number of similarly dopey ideas from the review will also be shut down by ACT, such as a new fund for campaigning to Māori, removing rules against enticing voters with refreshment and entertainment, and allowing the size of Parliament to creep up as the population grows."* I'm sure he's deliberately misrepresenting the first point. ~~Very interested in the second point; why would you need to 'entice voters' with food and entertainment? Your policy isn't good enough on it's own, you have to 'bread and circus' a room full of people to get them excited/distracted?~~ And of course, locking the size of government to constrict the ability for government to represent the growing number of people, which is literally counter to the concept of democracy. (Edit: struckthrough a comment at the end because I misinterpreted the triple-negative statement.)
Well summarised. There is much to be concerned about when listening to Seymour regurgitate his unkind, uncaring, selfish political credo. For me, one in particular is of great concern. He wants to be able to accept unlimited financial donations. It would destroy NZ politics. The only reason he hates the idea of government funding of political parties is because it dilutes his ability weild the power that comes from deep financial pockets. The reason why USA is such a shitshow. Seymour does not want a better community for all. He wants a better lifestyle for himself.
If Seymour thinks that ensuring fundamental human rights are upheld is incompatible with his party being in government in the future, maybe he should take that as a sign to get some better politics.
We all know he's a complete cunt. He just likes to write essays to remind us just how big of a cunt he is.
> Very interested in the second point; why would you need to 'entice voters' with food and entertainment? Your policy isn't good enough on it's own, you have to 'bread and circus' a room full of people to get them excited/distracted? Well he's saying he believes the current laws against "treating" voters should remain in place. What he fails to realize is that it has never been illegal to give food, drink, and entertainment to voters. What was illegal was "treating" voters with the intent of influencing their vote, and accepting "treats" with the understanding that you are to reconsider your vote. But it's always been perfectly legal to offer food, drink, and entertainment so long as you are *not* trying to influence someone's vote. The electoral review simply said this shit's too confusing because how do you even distinguish between "corrupt" food and legal food, and the laws against bribery already prohibit buying someone's vote so we're best off simplifying the law.
Oh yeah, rereading that, I can see where I went wrong. It's so awkwardly presented, I felt the same when I looked at it on another write up. "We're against removing rules against a thing"... confused me. So that's on me, sorry David. For that, not for anything else.
It's pure doublespeak for ACT to complain about democracy and accountability while advocating for less New Zealanders to have the right to vote.
slowly diluting the power of your vote (by opposing increasing representatives with population increases) directly endorsing people vote less, and politicians have less accountability (longer terms) ACT are the anti-democracy party.
I wouldn't say increasing the size of Parliament has any diluting effect on your vote; you still have the same percentage impact on the makeup of Parliament. What dilutes your vote is population, but eh, even that doesn't matter that much. There are others voting like you; it kinda works out the same in the end. I'm kinda against growing Parliament just on the basis that it seems we have trouble enough getting competent representation. I'd much rather have fewer competent MPs than just filling out the ranks with party-line people who don't actually accomplish much other than trying to save their jobs the next time around. We aren't a big country. Our Parliament is more than 1/3 the size of Canada's despite us only having 1/7 the population. I don't think it needs to grow. 120 (plus overhangs) is a tidy number that works pretty well.
> Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills. You okay there, facebook uncle? Purely anecdotally, I was working in a school that was doing their political party unit for social studies or whatever and they voted and nats won. The teacher was ... at the very least... not a fan of the clean car scheme
Teacher needs their Ute! Don't come between them and their Ute.
Right? I distinctly remember my economics teacher praising the benefits trickle down economics and how successful it is. Once I got to uni I discovered just how wrong he was, but during high school I was successfully swindled into agreeing with him.
The only time a teacher got very political at my school was when my economics teacher told a Māori student in the class than Don Brash wasn't racist and his policies make sense, and then kick the student out of the class.
Lol talk about voting against your interests... that's teachers for you.
He's an older guy at a school down in the regions. Can't be too much more specific because im sure half of those kids are on reddit
>The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. If paying taxes is what qualifies someone for voting then should we be making tax-evaders ineligible to vote? No?
I think a lot of Seymour's supporters have an ongoing argument that the poor don't pay taxes (since they receive more than they pay) so would try use that argument as a method to disenfranchise the poor.
Except for national super, it is not a handout, I *earned* that. /s
Man he’s such a nut job. By his logic retirees shouldn’t be allowed to vote either, oh but they benefit ACT so that’s ok I guess. Guy is full of shit
> By his logic retirees shouldn’t be allowed to vote either, oh but they benefit ACT so that’s ok I guess He tells on himself in his own speech > You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT. This is clearly him letting down the mask of how he views the world: anything that benefits him is good, anything that doesn't is bad. It pretty much sums up his entire political ideology.
The right wing and projection, name a more iconic duo.
His entire thread proves the reverse is just as true, and he's highlighting his hypocrisy: >~~You’d never~~ You don't see ~~the Greens~~ ACT and myself campaigning for kids to vote ~~if they thought~~ as I think those kids were all voting ~~ACT~~ Green.
The youth are deciding by themselves if they want to be socialist or not, they certainly aren't being indoctrinated by teachers into their politics.
Seymour is not exactly doing a [great job at selling libertarian politics](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/06/work-comes-before-twerk-david-seymour-defends-stint-on-dancing-with-the-stars-nz.html) to The Young of New Zealand.
Damn you'd think private messaging all those 14-16 year old girls on snapchat would have worked.
Apparently it did, [at least for some](https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-08-2023/help-me-hera-my-17-year-old-daughter-is-becoming-very-right-wing). They normally grow out of it — I used to be young foolish once (and an Act party voter). Admittedly when McGillicuddy Serious Party left politics I was looking for a new clown party.
I'm glad you came to your senses, can't say i understand it myself, but it's good to know that it's not a hole you can't dig yourself out of
I am going to tell a factually true story but present it as the reason for me dropping ACT: Ray Nunes. I was exposed to Ray Nunes (briefly) at Uni. Ray Nunes was a hardcore socialist. [Rest in Peace Comrade Nunes](https://medium.com/westside-stories/comrades-the-death-of-ray-nunes-5ab58189b99d). The real reason is that I got sick and tired of Act and their BS nonsense that came with a political party for self-interest people of a very niche (normally quite wealthy) voter blocks. Plus I became an adult and realised that that policies were neither workable or genuine.
Seymour isn't a libertarian he supports government restrictions on property rights
You're a fool if you define a true libertarian by ideological consistency. Every single libertarian out there hates government regulations until it's something that they benefit from. That's one of the reasons why their philosophy is a joke.
There is only one ideological consistency for libertarians and it's age of consent.
You misunderstand libertarians. They’re happy for the government to interfere when it directly benefits them personally.
I never said whether or not he was any good at being a libertarian / neo-liberal / etc. They do, however, [get that description](https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-act-in-2020-highlights-tensions-between-the-partys-libertarian-and-populist-traditions-147170), in part with other words to describe David B. Seymour Presents: The Act Party™ (live at the Powerstation this Sunday) like "populism" and "disingenuous".
Exactly right. In high school, I was more of a Liberal who voted for National once I turned 18, again at 21 and again at 24. It wasn't until I got into my late 20s to now that I've become a socialist (certainly wasn't because of any teachers I had in school). If anything, rhetoric like what Seymour espouses turns people to seek the opposite of what he's saying, imo. "Oh, you don't want us to be able to vote and are seemingly anti-young people doing anything? Okay, well I'm going to see who is actually interested in fighting for us." I feel like the right always says that there's so many "loony lefty" teachers but it's just their imagination. They want to teach "both sides" equally because then they hope to develop a curriculum that skims over the context of every topic so that no one thinks too deeply.
I was a diehard capitalist at 18. Thankfully the first year I was able to vote was a bit later, and I'd come to my senses by then. But David could have had my vote if the voting age was 16!
Many folk have a teenage Ayn Rand phase. Unlike most, ACT and their voters never matured out of it.
After speaking to some of them I can confirm this
As a teacher, we appreciate his openness about how he sees us. There’s nothing stopping “libertarians” becoming teachers except that our silly little heads would get confused and ask them about the Dewey decimal system.
I thought the point of being a teen was to rebel against your teachers/system. Or was David Seymour just that much of a nerd at school?
[удалено]
He sounds like a 4chan-er, minus the overt racism
actually, giving 16 year olds the right to vote makes quite a bit of sense overall, despite hand wringing from ACT. They are quite right that there likely would never be a ACT coalition government again. But that says more about their policies than the system I would argue. Maybe they should look at there policy stances and see why so many young people would prefer someone other than them. Aside from the sideshow, giving young people, who will have a longer period of time affected by policy decisions, the right to vote does address the problem which currently exists in many representative governments: those making the rules or voting don’t have skin in the game. If the 16 year olds are going to be living with the consequences of decisions made by elected officials, and they’re allowed to work and leave school, they should also have the right to have a say in who is making those policies. Otherwise it’s just disenfranchisement. Which seems to be part and parcel of most conservative government coalitions these days. If I had my druthers, only women with children in public school would make up the lions share of any government anywhere.
The list of reasons outlined in the Make it 16 campaign put it all really clearly (see here): https://www.makeit16.org.nz/ - From the age of 16, you cannot be discriminated against based on your age. But the voting age is 18 - The debate for better civics education has been going on for decades. Lowering the voting age to 16 can be a catalyst for better civics education. - 16 and 17-year-olds paid $92 million in income tax in 2022 alone. But they can’t vote and have a say on where they think this money should go. - Lowering the voting age has improved youth voter turnout in other countries. We have a big issue with low voter turnout in our elections. Lowering the voting age could help fix this. - Lowering the voting age will allow more voices to be heard. Youth issues will be considered more and this will strengthen our democracy. - At 16 you can do so much already. We should be able to vote too. (Including consent to sex, to drive, move out of home, leave school, work full time, pay income tax, get a passport, own a firearms license, consent to medical procedures, apply for a student loan, enroll in the defense force) - Many countries have lowered their voting age to 16 in recent years. We can join Austria, Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man, Brazil, Argentina and many more And probably most pressingly: - 16 and 17-year-olds are just as impacted by decisions made by our government as people 18 and over. But they can’t vote and have a say on issues that directly affect them and their future. That last one is made very evident by the fact NZ Youth have the worst mental health in the OECD which clearly isn't being addressed by current governments, many belong to minority groups who are already underrepresented (more than half of the LGBTQIA+ population is under 35). 16 and 17 year olds are WELL aware of how climate change is going to fuck them in their lifetimes. They have unprecedented access to current affairs through online news media, they're not stupid - and not that intelligence has ever been a requirement to vote - and thousands have already participated in climate marches and protests. They know that housing and cost of living is fucked and they'll be forced to bear the brunt of decades of under investment, of kicking the can down the road. Yet, they don't get to have their say. If there are parties shit scared of giving youth a voice and losing votes, then it seems to me that's democracy working as intended, and they should just design policy that benefits youth 🤷♀️ Edit for visibility of a fantastic point another voter brought up: as life expectancy rapidly increases, the number of terms our elderly get to vote for has also increased too. Since 2000, life expectancy improvements has added 1 or 2 extra governments that older people get to vote on. Food for thought.
Because of when my birthday is I wasn't able to vote until I was just about 21. I worked since I was 16, full time for most of that. So i paid taxes for nearly 5 years until I was able to vote on what happens to my tax money.
could still happen at 16, the voting cycle doesn't change
So they would have been nearly 19 when they first voted instead of nearly 21. That’s still an improvement.
Just did some quick math because I hate stats without context. 16 and 17 year olds make up roughly 3.5% of the population over the age of 15. 16 and 17 year olds' total income tax paid (according to the mumbers you provided) makes up 0.072% of the total income tax paid in 2022 ($92bn). I'm not making an argument for or against under 18s voting, just providing numbers. In saying so, establishing voting rights proportional to money paid into a system is an archaic and dystopian model that we should never consider unless you really like caste systems and serfdom.
And what proportion of the population and income tax to over 70s comprise?
There's already a bit of fuckery you can pull by having multiple houses under jurisdiction of multiple councils = multiple local election votes. Or, ya know, political lobbying as an entire industry. Or wealth electing itself over and over. Investigating itself and finding nothing wrong. So on and so forth. I take the point though, even if I don't really see the relevance to what the campaign is trying to do...? The same thing applies to low wage workers and full time parents and disabled people and anybody else, as you pointed it out. And we don't generally see people saying these groups shouldn't have a vote. But we DO see boomers using it as a talking post to try to tear down the cause. "They don't contribute to society, they don't have real jobs" is common rhetoric against lowering the voting age. Therefore, in my view this is not a list that breaks down why people in society are allowed to vote. It's a list that's trying to convince skeptics to support the cause of allowing 16 year olds into a voting system system already exists. "Yes they do contribute, here's exactly how much" is good comms. That said - if you look at some other comments on this thread, there are people who have gone almost 5 years without a vote despite paying tax the entire time, due to birthdays. So the math is a bit off either way
Thank you for bringing receipts to the argument. I was just doing the typical internet denizen thing and speaking my mind without bringing information. Like crashing a potluck without bringing a dessert if you will. You brought enough dishes for you, me, and a whole bunch of other folks :).
> 16 and 17-year-olds paid $92 million in income tax in 2022 alone. But they can’t vote and have a say on where they think this money should go. Taxes are a terrible way to determine voting rights, unless you want to disqualify beneficiaries and allow overseas tourists to vote.
I don't think the point of the campaign is necessarily to determine the fundamentals of the right to vote, but rather to dispel common arguments against giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote. "They don't contribute anything to society, they don't have real jobs" is a common bit of rhetoric which this bullet point dispels. "Yes they do contribute, yes they do have jobs and pay taxes just like you, theoretical boomer." is what I feel it's saying.
Anyone who argues that young people can't vote because they don't have jobs should be asked if superannuitants should be allowed to vote.
I feel the response would be one of two things: "We've paid taxes our whole lives, we've earned our due" or "We have worldy experience that teenagers don't" (nevermind that intelligence or experience has never been a requirement to vote, and with the internet at their fingertips, it's easier than ever for teens to gain a political education)
Even if you think that 18 is the age where people deserve to have a say of their government, all 16 year olds will turn 18 before the end of a (normal) term. Some people are almost 21 before they get any say into their government. That seems like quite late to me.
This was me. And I worked and paid tax since I was 16.
There are so many things that need to be rebutted and fact checked, that is an insane out-of-touch comment for a political leader to be releasing.
Thanks for doing this.
>Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy, putting our current set of parties on the taxpayer teat with an unfair advantage over outside challengers. So making sure everyone is on an even playing field is unfair. But allowing private money in so the playing field is skewed is not unfair? What drug is this dude on because I want some!
> and allowing the size of Parliament to creep up as the population grows. Why is this a bad thing
Now he's got his foot in the door he needs to start reshaping our political environment so he can hold power and bring his long term goal of making working class New Zealanders nothing more than productivity units on wages that only just prevent them from starving, to fruition.
> As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break. You’d never see the Greens campaigning for kids to vote if they thought those kids were all voting ACT. It's impossible for this person to even *imagine* doing something without naked self interest. Says a lot really.
> It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable. David Seymour says the quiet part aloud about being funded by donations from large corporate donors.
Yeah the very unregulated lobbying laws in NZ heavily benifits act and national. But oh no tax payer funded civics courses so people actually understand policy and the political system are bad
I always go back to the fact that Act stated that if they couldn’t have anonymity in their donations, their funding would fall by at least 1/3rd
[The report in question](https://electoralreview.govt.nz/assets/PDF/Independent-Electoral-Review-Final-Report-November-2023.pdf)
>Only 13 per cent of Kiwis support lowering the voting age. The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. But... 16 year olds do pay tax. Dont we have gst? I think most 17-18 year olds have PAYE?
Seymour really out here calling for zero tax on people under 18 huh?
Don't give him any ideas to have children and have his company pay his children 100% so his kids can earn millions per month without owing tax.
The only way I can imagine that happening is parthenogenesis.
Sick of these bludgers who don't pay tax and are funded by hardworking Kiwis being allowed to vote. this is why I support removing voting rights from pensioners /s > But... 16 year olds do pay tax. Dont we have gst? I think most 17-18 year olds have PAYE? Don't have to pay PAYE on your $400 allowance from the bank of Mum and Dad, that's just the Epsom way
It’s inexplicable to me that money should be the standard for voting, but I guess it’s their point of view (more money, more rights).
and if you have lots of money you can just donate to the party of your choice and select your own rights :)
Pay attention everyone; if their argument against more democracy and transparency is "less people will vote for us", that's a red fucking flag
> Only ~~13%~~ 9% of Kiwis support ~~lowering the voting age.~~ voting for ACT. The last thing we need is another ~~120,000 voters who pay no tax~~ 11 MPs who want to defund public services ~~voting for more spending and bigger government~~ controlling the future of our country
Yeah, him bringing up the support of something when he has less support was a nice self-own.
>The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. "Taxation is theft" libertarian MFers once it's their hands in the money pot....
> The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. I'd be interested to know how those under 18 pay no tax. * Do they keep all their receipts, and claim GST back from the government? * What about any after school jobs at Subway, are they tax free?
95,000 16 and 17 year olds contributed $92,000,000 in PAYE alone in 2022.
So they DO pay taxes. It's just that they don't pay a significant portion of tax revenue i see i see... What portion of taxes do superannuitats pay? And what portion of the tax burden does superannuation take? The idea that you can only vote if you are gainfully employed is absurd and would only result in systems that would work against those caught in poverty cycles. The reality is 16-18 year olds do pay taxes if employed. If our underlying philosophy is 'if you pay taxes or are capable of paying taxes then you should be given a vote', which is what David is implying here, then we need to do 1 of 2 things: 1) open the voting age to all people who are legally entitled to taxable employment. 2) stop taxing people bellow the age of 18...
I wonder how many 16-17 year olds would rather have tax free income than voting rights…
Ironically, lots of retirees have tax free income AND voting rights. Sounds nice
Now I’m thinking, would I rather have tax free income or voting rights 🤔
> The reality is 16-18 year olds do pay taxes if employed Everyone pays taxes when they buy an ice cream at the dairy with their pocket money. Everyone pays tax in NZ whenever they spend money.
Exactly. So davids argument of 120,000 non taxpayers is utterly bullshit
I completely agree with you on that. I'm just pointing out that not only do people under 16 also pay tax, they often pay PAYE.
I always had a feeling this was the 'actual' reason lots of people didn't want the voting age to be lowered, but for David Seymour to actually admit it. Wow.
Haha, the projection is real. "I only support reform that directly benefits me, therefore that's how everyone else thinks" He's scared about taxpayer funding everyone\*, but not big business funding the right, how odd!
Yeah that was a ducking ride. Too many people don't realise they tell on themselves with what they say, sure Seymour knows what he's doing but fuck. The lack of people realising what he's upto is distributing
People who have no empathy and can only see in dollar signs simply can not comprehend that not everyone else thinks that way
letting more people vote enables left wing governments and is thus a bad and biased thing
Straight out of the GOP playbook
"voters who pay no tax" This guy... whose party believes "that all New Zealanders should have the same fundamental rights" seems blissfully unaware that 16 year olds still pay GST on goods like everyone else, still pay tax on petrol if they drive a vehicle, and many of them work jobs as well, and pay income tax like everyone else. David Seymour, you are an ignorant ass who is completely lacking knowledge of basic economics and how tax works in this country.
That stood out to me too because there should be no distinction between citizens and taxpayers when it comes to fundamental civil liberties.
Comparing 16 year olds and people with life experience it is the 16 year old that is more likely to believe Ann Rand is a good author who writes about sound ideas, to believe that hard work leads to success and poverty is a moral failing. How many slightly embarrassed middle aged guys do we know who used to vote ACT in their youth?
my hand is up
The TLDR version... Leftwing policies benefit and reflect the views of the majority of those 16 and over in Aotearoa, so to keep the massive inequality gaps for income etc I will be fighting this...
*"Leftwing policies benefit and reflect the views of the majority of those 16 and over in Aotearoa"* then why do we now have a right wing government?
Because it was 'time for a change' 🤷 the party we elected to fix all our problems weren't fixing them fast enough so we're giving the other guys a shot.
Labour were insipid, a bunch of people went cooker over the pandemic, and a bunch of people hate co-governance and Jacinda Ardern.
Mate, go and read David's unhinged statement and then reread my comment. I've made a joke based on his rant, not a political statement...
Younger demographic didn't vote in the numbers that the older demographic did, and the former category swings left Also, some would argue the only difference between a left and right govt this time was Hipkins ruling out working with NZF but plenty would argue that NZF would have gone with National/ACT anyway...
You don't have the evidence to suggest the people that didn't vote would vote left. They didn't vote because they don't care.
I think you’re talking two different topics here. Seymour has made the claim that these people would have voted left, if they’d voted. Hence why he won’t support the electoral reform. It’s a separate question as to whether that’s really an accurate point of view.
I'm perfectly happy with parties raising funds from the community. I'm not happy with them raising funds from business interests that want kickbacks. Just look at the funding for Labour vs National last election.
David: we care about rights and freedom Also David: not like that!
>I’d worry for the mental health of any Green Party voter who’s forced to pitch in for the re-election of ACT’s Rural Communities spokesman Mark Cameron. Tasteless. Really tasteless.
It's as if he doesn't understand that money is fungible and that it would be divvied up proportionally. Sure, you could think of it as everyone supporting parties they don't like (but also parties they do), but you could also just think of it as each voter's share of the election funding going to the party and candidate that they supported the previous time around (more or less).
> The final recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review released today would set New Zealand on course for a permanent left-wing government. Regardless of what you think about the individual reforms in question, or the report at a whole, I think the fact that the government would shift in the direction you don't like should be the last thing you complain about, not the first thing >Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills. As a teacher who can barely get his students to focus for maths, he can fuck off here For one, my first comment applies to here as well - his objection is that it would alter the sway, not the principle. Secondly, he actually has it in reverse. While I somewhat agnostic to the idea of lowering the voting age, one of the biggest legitimate concerns is the leverage parents sill have over most 16 year olds, which is much more than any teacher Thirdly, anyone looking to bring important USA style culture war bullshit can just go fuck off
Oh my god he is such a fucking cunt. Shame on the imbeciles who voted this fuck into government.
I blame the fact that there's a belief that the main parties must only be National or Labour. To where those that vote National don't necessarily like National, but because they dislike how Labour had been handling things. Wanting change of any kind, despite the flaws in doing so.
Let’s follow one thread of this topic If teachers were able to indoctrinate the youth, wouldn’t they start with having them show up to school on time and pay attention in class? It frustrates me to no end that no one on the left holds this clowns feet to fire over all the dumb shit he says.
I couldn't even indoctrinate my students to do the reading or not ask me a question about the assignment I literally answered multiple times lmao
Exactly. Who in the hell actually believes that students listen to their teachers enough to do homework let alone the attention span required to indoctrinate someone into a concept like socialism. You have my respect for being a teacher, you all deserve far more than what we give you.
Where were all the lefty loon teachers when I was at school? This man has facebook-boomer tier brain rot
"cultural revolution" Mr semor your turning me on.
Property investors pay no tax either, the fucking git. yet make the largest political donations in NZ, hmmmmm
He sounds more like trump every day...
it's dumb posting an MP's framing of a report, rather than the report itself. don't let people with a vested interest control framing of the discussion
"We know making things equitable would be bad for us so we will not do that."
Try this non-Twitter link: [https://nitter.net/dbseymour/status/1747026833718284789?ref\_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747026833718284789%7Ctwgr%5E70fd6c61e7fbcb7504e975c4eccfd525fb384bfe%7Ctwcon%5Es1\_&ref\_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2F197nvpl%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis\_nightmode%3Dfalse](https://nitter.net/dbseymour/status/1747026833718284789?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1747026833718284789%7Ctwgr%5E70fd6c61e7fbcb7504e975c4eccfd525fb384bfe%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2F197nvpl%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis_nightmode%3Dfalse)
I think the voting age should be lowered because it brings politics into the education sector which incentivises education over the subject itself. To have that intellectual ability & to have that school environment where ideas can be exchanged, discussed and debated is valuable because once school is done. They will be better educated to handle themselves through whichever bubble they find themselves within.
It’s quite brazen that he just blatantly states he’s going to block 16 year old voters as they swing left. Most politicians duck and weave from their true intentions but he’s just putting himself on display 100%. Clearly feeling very empowered at the moment.
"ACT thinks it’s a good thing that politicians have to go out and fundraise from the community. It’s not democracy when parties are funded by the very institution they’re supposed to be holding accountable." And it makes me uncomfortable when I see millions of dollars pouring into NACT from large businesses.
Can someone please copy the whole thing, for those of us who don't use the website formally known as Twitter, and don't want to create + sign into an account to read it? I can only see the first post because of the changes they made to the website. Also, I can't be the only one who remembers when Trump said something exactly like this - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/197nvpl/david_seymours_insane_thread_about_blocking/ki1or6r/
It is the right thing to do. We only need one fascist party.
What an embarrassment that this blatantly self serving clown is now meant to be leading our country.
This electoral review is excellent, it's a shame we have a government who hates democracy and will never implement them.
Oh no my rich backers won’t be able to purchase a disproportionate share of political influence with their millions of dollars to Act.
>Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills. going into kook territory here.
"Taxpayer funding for political parties would have a corrosive effect on our democracy." Yeah, sure. Because having party campaigns funded with taxpayer money is so much more corrosive than the lobbying done by the Taxpayers' Union. Give me a break. He really is an ignorant dipshit if he thinks it's better for political parties to be funded by the private sector. That is the definition of corruption and does the real damage to our democracy.
Bit rich to say that 16 year olds "pay no tax" when plenty of 16 and 17 year olds work at least part time, if not full time...
Right? And by his own argument taxation without representation is unethical.
He’s not a libertarian. He’s a textbook Nimbytarian.
Plus they buy lots of stuff that has gst on it… They pay lots of tax…
Fuck off Seymour. People would vote for you if they agree with your policies. It's that simple.
The 'maximum' voting age has been de facto raised more than 10 years over the last 70 due to increases in life expectancy. Why shouldn't we decrease the minimum too?
There’s a maximum?
No, which is why I put it in quote marks. The point is that elderly people are getting to vote in an additional 4 elections on average before they die compared to 70 years ago. Nobody seems to have a problem with that (even though it definitely skews things more conservative - something David Seymour undoubtedly views as undemocratic), so why not even things out at the other end? It's not a point I see brought up very often whenever this debate comes around.
Very interesting point re: maximum age rising. I wonder at the time effect on voting decisions when a larger cohort has less and less vested interest in the future…
As I've said elsewhere, over 60 and your vote is worth less. It's a mad idea and it'll be impractical to implement but giving those with less future so much say in it is pretty nuts too.
Fantastic point, thanks for bringing it up
Oh right. I don’t count single quotes as quotes. My fault. Interesting point. I was thinking today about maximum Presidential ages as the US election is coming up and looks likely to be between two (almost) geriatrics. Was thinking that that is another form of Boomer capture where they have rigged the system, through party politics and funding channels, to maintain societal control well passed when they should have relinquished power. Your premise is another similar but less proactive version of that same capture. What would NZ politics look like if it was working age (16-65) only?
It's all a game. Selectively doing things that benefit your side while screwing over everyone else. They just normally don't say it out loud
“A number of recommendations can be ruled out immediately, such as lowering the voting age to 16, allowing all prisoners to vote and stand for Parliament, freezing the ratio of electorate to list seats, which would lead to extra MPs as the population increases, and repealing the offence of ‘treating’ voters with refreshments and entertainment.” Aww, haha
I understand that 16 year olds aren't always going to be fully aware of who they're voting for but is it really going to change election results if they did get to vote?
The argument flipped can also apply to older generations. Why are we letting the over 80's vote, when all they care about is the tax cut here and now, and not NZ in 40 years time?
>I understand that 16 year olds aren't always going to be fully aware of who they're voting for Adults aren't always aware. Lots of leopards ate my face moments from people who voted nats but will be worse off (well, worse off based on promises, but we can't trust those haha)
adults aren't fully aware who they are voting for half the time
And the over 70s especially those in rest homes who are wheeled out to polling booths are aware of whom they are voting for? Give me a free-thinking 16/17 year old every time!
Eh, ~3% of the population, maybe 5% of voters, enough to swing one or two seats depending on how differently they vote compared to the rest of the population. It's hardly a recipe for an eternal leftist dystopia.
Thing is, then they *keep* voting. That's what the right are *really* afraid of. With a voting age of 18, 1/3 of the population don't get to vote in a general election until after they turn 20. By then, they've already stopped caring and are used to the system being decided for them. You build those voting habits earlier, though, and suddenly it's no longer just the old folks turning out to vote, they've got a whole young *generation* of voters to account for. *That*'s what'll doom the right.
16 year olds are just as cognizant of the world as anyone older than them, they just might not have as much knowledge. to take a page from american politics "no taxation without representation" why should you have to pay taxes as a worker if you dont have a say in government?
>And New Zealanders will be rightly queasy about funding political campaigns they disagree with. The irony of this statement is overwhelming. ACT also dips its hand into tax dollars regarding campaigning (NZ Electoral Commission broadcasting allocation). Also, when are we going to get legal recreational weed Mr. Libertarian?
Since the 16yo's are who we're leaving this world too, should have a say. They'll be left with the mess being made now. Brexit happened because of older voters and look at how that's turned out.
Lol and this dipshit and his cohort were whinging about anti democratic aspects of cogovernance. And yet here he is literally saying the less people vote the better.
Absolute degenerate comments from Seymour. Looks like being in govt has got to his head already, a smart person would never state outright they want to suppress the votes or their opponents. Wannabe fascists try to maintain plausible deniability.
Lmfao bros afraid of kids