KEY POINTS:
A massive survey suggests most New Zealanders think the voting age should be raised to 35, in stark contrast to the voting age of 16 proposed by MP Sue Bradford.
One of the country's top political scientists, Professor Jeff Chop, believes most people need to observe the MMP
system of government from a distance for at least 10 years before they are confident enough, or indeed qualified enough to try voting in it.
He believes that this is precisely why the likes of Sue Bradford are so keen on lowering the voting age. "If it wasn't for the confusion of MMP, people like Sue Bradford wouldn't even be anywhere near Parliament, so, just as a small percentage of people are beginning to understand how the system works, she proposes lowering the voting age to inject fresh chaos."
If the voting age was lowered to 16, our half-arsed Big Wednesday style of government would be reduced to a country tavern meat-raffle style of Parliament, and nobody wants that except those who benefit - such as Bradford.
Most intelligent New Zealanders agree that 16-year-olds have far too many human rights as it is. So what qualifies Bradford to conjure the magical age of 16 rather than 13 or 5, the day they start school?
Bradford suggests that countries such as Holland and Brazil have lowered their voting age to 16 so we should as well, but where is the logic in that? Who cares what they do? When have we ever cared? The closest New Zealand has ever come to resembling Brazil was when we had the Hero Parade. But that was for one night a year. And let's face it, just because it might work over there, and there is no proof that it does, it doesn't mean it will work over here. New Zealand has far more bogans than Brazil or Holland.
And since we are so obsessed with how countries such as Holland and Brazil do things, why don't we let them vote in our elections as well? What better and more efficient way of ensuring we do things more like them?
Southland professor of politics and part-time dance instructor Graeme Silverside believes that raising the age is more socially beneficial.
"If we raised the age that you could fight for your country from 18 to 35, there would probably be far fewer wars, as those proposing war would be the ones who would have to go."
He also believes that since the introduction of the anti-smacking bill, Bradford has become like a crazed moth craving the political limelight.
The latest high-tech online research clearly indicates that most people believe politicians should be allowed to suggest only one ridiculous piece of legislation a year, and most New Zealanders would agree that Bradford has already had her bite of the cherry. People are tiring of expensive, time-wasting, irrelevant changes, especially when there is clearly no need for any change.
While I was researching this column some top-secret documents from Bradford's office were anonymously leaked to me by Ian Wishart. These documents suggest that more changes are on the cards if Bradford gets momentum on changing the voting age. Other proposed changes are to raise the drinking age to 19, lower the driving age to 13, raise the age of consent to 35, and leaving the consensual fishing age where it is. The age for starting school will be raised to 9 and the school leaving age lowered to 11 (apparently it's what the kids want).
The legal age for using drugs will be dropped to 12 for illegal party pills and to 29 for serious narcotics. The age at which somebody celebrates their 21st will be dropped to 19, your 40th will be celebrated on your 30th, your 30th celebrated when your 21st used to be, and your 50th will be celebrated when you are 51 or 52, which is what a lot of people do anyway.
The age for watching TV will be raised to 2, while partaking in reality TV will be dropped to 7, text voting on TV will be raised to 16, which brings us full circle back to the voting age. All voting will be by done by texting.
Professor of politics Steve Cutlet expressed many people's view when he said: "Bradford should be concerned that another MP doesn't propose that the level of IQ necessary to vote be raised a couple of notches, as she may not be able to."
Professor Ian Sirloin, the country's most respected political commentator, has the final word on this issue: "Bradford is an idiot."
