KEY POINTS:
Nothing is less welcome than a cause without a clamour. Even Green MP Sue Bradford, accustomed as she is to promoting unpopular causes, must be surprised at the vehemence of the opposition to her proposal to lower the voting age to 16. Lowering the age of eligibility by two years is hardly radical, and does not impose on anybody else's rights, unlike her last legislative initiative, to outlaw smacking of children. But the response was similar.
"Has this woman nothing better to do?" asked one reader when our website invited discussion of the idea, "Sue Bradford seems to have no real grasp of the nature of her job - she's there to solicit our views, and then articulate them." Said another, "She's using her public office to further her own politics. It is a clear abuse of power."
"One might have guessed that this would be another one of Sue Bradford's brainstorms," wrote a "concerned parent", suggesting the motive that, "16-year-olds would be easier to socially engineer, and more likely to be 'idealistic' and therefore likely to vote for the Greenies."
If Ms Bradford was counting on 16- and 17-year-olds to weigh in behind her proposal, she must be disappointed. They may be old enough to drive, marry and die for their country, as she suggests, but they do not seem desperate to have a say in the country's decisions. Ms Bradford's new bill - yet to be drawn in the lottery for parliamentary time - implicitly recognises their lack of interest by proposing also to make "civics" a compulsory subject in secondary schools.
Exactly the same sentiments have greeted previous extensions of the franchise. Women, it was said when the suffragettes were agitating, had no interest in politics and voting. And earlier, people without property or sufficient social rank were thought to be content to leave affairs of state to those supposed to be better qualified. Most of those without the franchise probably were not thirsting for it but lack of obvious interest is not a reason to exclude any category of potential voters.
So what reason can be agreed for the exclusion of people under 18? A line must be drawn somewhere, of course, and it must reflect the point at which teenagers begin to think for themselves or at least are aware of opinions besides those they hear from their parents. Most reach that point early in their secondary schooling but probably require a few years more to find the confidence to resolve conflicting arguments for themselves.
Ms Bradford points out that by age 16 young people can get married, have children and pay income tax. But surely she would not consider it desirable that young people do any of those things until they are at least a few years older. The maturity they need to make those sort of life decisions is also desirable in those who take part in national decisions through general elections and referendums.
The Green Party purports to see a problem in the relatively low electoral participation of younger people already eligible to vote, and the party suggests their interest may be improved if they were allowed to vote at a younger age and given the benefit of civics lessons. But it is hard to see how those disinclined to vote at age 18 or 19 would be more likely to do so if they have had the right since 16. More likely, their admission to the adult voting community would be valued even less.
"This is a move whose time has come," Ms Bradford says. But it plainly has not. To most people it is a suggestion without a cause, a solution looking for a problem, a needless interference with youth and the maturity of the electorate. The idea has had the reception it deserved.
