Victorian Electoral Commission
q
Lowering the Voting Age
A discussion of the issues from the
Victorian Electoral Commission’s perspective
Theoretical framework
To answer the question “Should 16 and/or 17 year olds be entitled to vote in Victorian
elections?”, we need to formulate a framework for answering all questions about who
should be entitled to vote. That way, we can be logical and consistent in terms of
whom we allow to vote. The VEC has developed a two-step test which can act as
such a framework. Essentially, it relies on answering two questions:
1. “Based on what criteria do we decide whether or not to allow people to vote in
Victorian elections?”
2. “Based on what criteria do we decide to exclude people who meet the criteria
in answer to question 1?”
For it to be appropriate for 16/17 year olds to have the vote, they would have to meet the
criteria in answer to question 1 and also not meet the criteria in answer to question 2.
Arguments in favour of lowering the voting age generally focus on showing
that 16/17 year olds meet the criteria of question 1, but do not address question 2.
Based on what criteria do we decide whether or not to allow people to vote in
Victorian elections?
Though an original criterion was the possession of a substantial financial stake in the
State’s governance, that criterion was eliminated a long time age, so that all people
who have a substantial stake (i.e. citizens) in the State’s governance are now included
(apart from those people who are exceptions because of question 2). Therefore, to
answer this question, we must determine – do 16 and 17 year olds have a substantial
stake in the governance of Victoria?

Those in school or intending to start university in the near future are certainly
affected by decisions about education.

Those working are certainly affected by government decisions on a number of
areas. In addition, they may also pay income tax and certainly contribute their
1
own money in GST, thereby having some claim to a financial stake as well as
other stakes.

Those receiving support from the government clearly have a stake in
government policy as well.
It is hard to think of an argument that would show that 16 and 17 year olds do not
have a substantial stake in government decisions. Even if they have only a limited
stake at 16/17, they can be expected to have a larger stake before the next election
(i.e. when they are 19/20), and an argument could be made in favour of giving them a
say based on their impending stake. Indeed, arguments cited for not giving 16/17 year
olds the vote generally rely on reasons to exclude them rather than on denying their
stake.
Based on what criteria do we decide to exclude people who meet the criteria in
answer to question 1?
These categories of people are excluded from voting:
1. non-citizens;
2. any person who renounces their Australian citizenship;
3. Australian citizens permanently living overseas who do not have a fixed
intention of returning to Australia;
4. prisoners serving a sentence of five years or more;
5. people who have been convicted of treason and not pardoned; and
6. people who, by reason of being of unsound mind, are incapable of
understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting.
The first three exclusions presumably rely on the fact that these people do not (or no
longer) have a stake in the future of Australia, and consequently do not meet the
criteria from question 1. The fourth and fifth exclusions are people who do meet the
criteria, but whose voting rights have been forfeited as punishment.
The final
exclusion rests on the fact that, although these people meet the criteria, they are not
able to make appropriate decisions on electoral matters.
As 16 and 17 year olds do meet the criteria of question 1, and as there is no
reason to punish them as a whole, to exclude 16 and 17 year olds for reasons
consistent with these other exclusions, one would have to show them to be incapable
of making appropriate decisions, presumably on the same grounds as people of
unsound mind, i.e. incapacity “of understanding the nature and significance of
2
enrolment and voting”. The case for seeing 16/17 year olds in this way is generally
made on four primary bases:
1. lack of maturity;
2. not enough life experience on which to base decisions;
3. lack of interest;
4. ignorance.
In each case, this suggests an inability to make appropriate decisions, perhaps in line
with the reason for excluding those of unsound mind, i.e. incapacity “of
understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting”.
Earlier
exclusions from voting in Australia (e.g. women, non-Europeans, 18-20 year olds)
presumably also reflected the belief that these groups were unable to make
appropriate decisions, and the cessation of excluding these groups came when this
belief was no longer generally held about these groups.
A survey of the British public commissioned by the U.K. Electoral
Commission,1 showed the relative proportions of these factors (and vaguer ones) as
reasons for people’s belief that voting age should not be lowered to 16:
The case for 16 and 17 year olds meeting the four criteria of exclusion set out above
can be dealt with individually.
1. Lack of maturity
Maturity is difficult to define, but we might be helped in this matter by Aristotle’s
conception of the young as people whose rationality does not have complete authority
over their irrationality in decision-making. Is this the case for 16/17 year olds?
A question about reasons for selecting a particular party in a survey of British
11-18 year olds suggests rational reasons generally being used:2
1
2
The Electoral Commission (2004), Age of Electoral Majority, p. 82.
The Electoral Commission (2004), Age of Electoral Majority, p. 84.
3
and an irony suggested by the U.K. Electoral Commission is that one of the reasons
many 16/17 year olds give for thinking they should not be entitled to the vote is that
they do not feel sufficiently informed and would rather not vote than vote in
ignorance, an attitude showing maturity and an understanding of the importance of
voting.3
In general, society considers 16/17 year olds capable of making a number of
decisions about themselves, though still incapable of making many important
decisions (see below). Decisions about government are clearly different from any of
these decisions, and a matter for separate debate, though some level of contradiction
may be perceived in granting 16/17 year olds governance of the State before granting
them full governance of themselves.
2. Not enough life experience
Certainly, 16/17 year olds have less life experience than older people. But this is also
true of 18 year olds, 25 year olds, 30 year olds etc. The question then becomes – what
is a sufficient level of life experience to vote? Whatever life experience people have
at 16 or 17, they are unlikely to undergo substantial additional life-experience
between 16/17 and 18, suggesting that this is not a major factor on which we exclude
people 16/17 year olds anyway.
At any rate, substantial life experience does not seem necessary in order to
“understand the nature and significance of enrolment and voting”. Moreover, 16/17
year olds do have experience of aspects of life related to politics (see above) – which
may be judged a sufficient level – and, moreover, the experience they have had will
3
The Electoral Commission (2004), Age of Electoral Majority, p. 60.
4
be different to that of older people, giving them a valuable insight, the inclusion of
which should enhance the level of democracy.
3. Lack of interest
One argument often cited against giving younger people the vote is a supposed apathy
towards politics. In support of this, the following are cited:

the significant proportion of 18-30s who aren’t enrolled (35% of Victorian 18
year olds were not enrolled on 30/6/20034);

poor rates of provisional enrolments (only 17% of Victorian 17 year olds were
enrolled on 30/6/20035); and

a world-wide trend of poor voter participation rates amongst 18-24 year olds
in advanced industrial democracies.6
It is argued that the apathy of these age groups would also be found in 16/17 year
olds. However, there are a number of reasons why this might not be the case.
In 1995 in Lower Saxony, Germany, the voting age was reduced from 18 to 16
for municipality elections.
Other districts subsequently followed suit.
Voter
participation rates suggest that the apathy levels do not translate to the younger age
bracket:7
Place:
16-17 year olds
18-24 year olds
overall
Hanover
56.5%
49.1%
57%
Braunschweig
50.4%
44.5%
57.9%
Saxony-Anhalt
33%
32% [18-21 y.o.]/
38%
24% [21-25 y.o.]
One might note that evidence from the 1970 U.K. elections (the first after the
voting age was reduced from 21 to 18) showed a different result, though in this case it
is the generally-apathetic 18-21 year olds who had a low turnout8:
18-21 year olds
21-25 year olds
over 25
64.7%
77.2%
82.7%
4
Electoral Council of Australia, Continuous Roll Update Report 2002-2003, p. 28.
Electoral Council of Australia, Continuous Roll Update Report 2002-2003, p. 28.
6
The Electoral Commission (2004), Political Engagement Among Young People: An Update, pp. 8f.
7
The Electoral Commission (2004), Age of Electoral Majority, pp. 15f.
8
The Electoral Commission (2004), Age of Electoral Majority, p. 47.
5
5
This does, however, suggest that it may have been more than just the novelty factor of
being newly enfranchised that caused the rise in the participation rate of the youngest
age bracket in Germany.
More importantly, the idea that younger people are apathetic about politics is
not borne out by research. Instead, research shows that young people are apathetic
about the effectiveness of voting or the extent to which politicians are actually
interested in them, but are interested in political issues.9 Indeed, the fact that 16/17
year olds lack the vote was suggested in one qualitative study in the U.K. as a
confirmation that politicians were not interested in young people (and was
presumably therefore a cause in the lack of interest in voting).10
Evidence and arguments as to the long-term effects of voting at a younger age
are inconclusive, although many suggest that people who gain an interest in politics
early will maintain that interest (and that if people do not gain an interest early, then
interest will not arise later). Introducing voting whilst most people are still at school
(16/17) allows a unique opportunity to combat a number of these problems by
introducing civics classes at the same age as first voting. One great advantage of this
is that the lessons are directly and immediately relevant to people’s lives, rather than
being about something that a person will not be a part for two or three years. The
combination of early voting and civics classes would therefore not only reduce the
problems of having young people vote, but also reduce voter ignorance in general,
and represents an interesting opportunity.
In sum, the granting of voting rights to 16/17 year olds is likely to give
younger people a feeling of greater empowerment and inclusion and has the potential
to reduce apathy towards politics, rather than add more apathetic individuals to the
electoral roll. At any rate, the importance of apathy levels in a system of compulsory
voting could well be questioned.
9
The Electoral Commission (2004), Political Engagement Among Young People: An Update, pp. 1014
10
Therese O’Toole et al. (2003), “Political Literacy Cuts Both Ways”, The Political Quarterly, pp.
356f.
6
4. Ignorance
A number of studies in the U.K. have found a substantial level of ignorance about
politics among 16-24 year olds compared to older people.11 Young people themselves
are aware of their ignorance and have cited it as a reason for which they should not
vote.12 More pertinent than the above studies, however, would be a comparison of
16/17 year olds with 18 year olds (whom we do judge sufficiently knowledgeable).
The significance of comparing younger people with older people can be questioned –
there may be nothing noteworthy about the fact that people learn more about politics
as they get older, as they also learn more about many other things. What is important
is only that voters have sufficient knowledge to understand what they’re doing.
Even if 16/17 year olds were shown to be lacking this knowledge, this may in
part be because the 16/17 year olds don’t have a vote and therefore take less interest
in politics. In any case, this problem could be reduced by combining lowering the
voting age with an education package.
In response to these suggested criteria of exclusion, one might well note this letter to a
newspaper from a 17 year old:
Research currently being undertaken by the University of Sydney, ANU and
the AEC will provide evidence about Australian youth and their attitudes, and should
provide useful information for assessing the extent to which findings from the U.K.
and Germany are relevant to Victoria.
11
The Electoral Commission (2004), Political Engagement Among Young People: An Update, pp. 1517.
12
See the examples cited in The Electoral Commission (2004), Age of Electoral Majority, p. 25.
7
All and some
Of course, there will be some 16/17 year olds lacking the ability to make appropriate
decisions and some with that ability. Similarly, however, there are some 18 year olds
(and even older people) with the ability and some lacking it. With each of these four
criteria, what is important is whether a sufficient proportion has the ability, not
whether all have it. It becomes a question for society to answer what proportion is
sufficient. Some guidance about this might come from the levels of responsibility
generally considered appropriate for 16 and 17 year olds.
Levels of responsibility currently considered appropriate
In terms of judging 16/17 year olds capable of self-determination, Victoria takes a
mixed view.
Parliament has deemed people capable of making the following
decisions at the following ages:
at 16, one can take
at 17, one can take
at 18, one can take
responsibility for:
responsibility for:
responsibility for:
 leaving school (one can do
 joining the army
 entering into a contract
 leaving home
 getting a passport without
that at 15)
 working full-time
 being questioned by the
parental consent
 driving with supervision
police without a
 buying alcohol
 having sex (in most
guardian
 buying tobacco
circumstances)
 being tried as an adult
 making independent
 gambling
 driving without supervision
 viewing sexually-explicit
decisions about medical
matters
material
 getting married (with
 serving on a jury
 getting married without
approval from a judge or
magistrate and parents)
parental consent
 owning a firearm and using
one without supervision
 getting a tattoo
8
The age of 18 also corresponds with the age at which many people finish school and
consequently move into environments (such as university or work) that require greater
self-determination and responsibility.
Public opinion and international practice on voting ages
The question is – where should voting fit into this? Some of these decisions which 16
and 17 year olds are permitted to make constitute taking a significant degree of
responsibility. In terms of what the general public considers appropriate, surveys
commissioned in the U.K. by the Electoral Commission13 found that most people did
not support lowering the voting age to 16, including most young people:
A slight majority was found to favour 16 in a survey of 11-18 year olds:
A vast majority was found to favour the reduction of the age to 16 in responses to the
Commission’s consultation paper on the issue, but this is hardly representative.
In Australia, the Democrats have also done some research on 15-20 year olds
around the country through their annual Youth Polls. One of the questions asked in
those is “Should the voting age be lowered to 16?”. The responses are reasonably
consistent:
Year:
2000
2001
2002
2003
Yes:
37%
35%
31%
24%
No:
63%
65%
69%
76%
One might note that all of the above-cited surveys investigated lowering the
voting age to 16. There may well be an important difference between the public’s
opinion of lowering the age to 16 and the public’s opinion of lowering it to 17.
At present in Australia, the Greens and other smaller groups (e.g. the
Democratic Socialist Perspective within the Socialist Alliance) have called for the
13
The Electoral Commission (2004), Age of Electoral Majority, pp. 82, 83.
9
voting age to be lowered to 16. Australian Young Labor adopted lowering the voting
age to 16 as a platform at their 2000 National Conference. A small number of other
countries have minimum voting ages below 18 either wholly or in part:
Country:
min. voting age:
Central African Republic, Fiji, Gabon, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Malaysia, Maldives, Monaco, Morocco, Pakistan, Samoa,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga
21
Cameroon, Japan, South Korea, Nauru, Taiwan, Tunisia
20
All EU nations,* USA,* Canada, Australia, New Zealand
18
East Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, the Seychelles, the Sudan
17
Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua
16
Iran
15
* some municipalities in Germany, Austria and states in the USA have reduced voting
age for municipality/state elections to 16; in Italy, one must be 25 to vote for the Senate
Non-compulsory voting for 16/17 year olds
It has also been suggested that voting should be non-compulsory for 16/17 year olds.
Thus, they would self-select for sufficient maturity, knowledge etc. before voting. A
consequence of this, however, may be some level of confusion over the age at which
voting becomes compulsory. It may also open up the question of why voting is
compulsory for people over 18, though people are quite accustomed to probationary
rights being given to 16/17 year olds, such as with driving. Non-compulsory voting
for certain groups does have a precedent at the Federal level, in that Aborigines were
entitled to vote from 1962 (or in some cases 1949), but it was not compulsory until 1984.
The electoral perspective
On this theoretical framework, we have examined a number of possible reasons for
excluding 16/17 year olds, but we have seen that research conducted in the U.K. and
Germany indicates that many of these suggested reasons might not be valid.
From an electoral perspective, there are a number of advantages to lowering
the voting age:

lowering the voting age to an age when people are still in school would allow
more effective education programmes due to them being more relevant to
students’ immediate lives;
10

in addition, it would be appropriate for the VEC to send 16/17 year olds a
specially-targeted information package when they enrol;

these changes would reduce voter ignorance overall;

they could also be seen as increasing the status of democracy, in that people
would now be introduced to voting with an education programme rather than
without any assistance;

this would also reduce people’s concerns about the ignorance of 16/17 year olds;

younger voters may be less apathetic about voting – voter involvement
beginning when people are young and enthusiastic might lead to people being
more interested in voting when older;

by not dismissing younger voters, fewer young people may develop an attitude
of “politicians don’t care about me” which continues into later life; and

democracy will be enhanced by the inclusion of additional viewpoints with a
different perspective and the encouragement of politicians to take these
perspectives into account when formulating policy.
The following disadvantages may come from Victoria unilaterally lowering the voting age:

possible confusion among the public about who is entitled to vote due to
different entitlements at State and Federal levels;

possible confusion if voting is not compulsory for 16/17 year olds but
compulsory for people over 18; and

administrative difficulties from having different criteria for being on the State
electoral roll versus the Federal roll.
However, these potential disadvantages could be substantially minimised if:

the voting age were lowered to 17 rather than 16;

voting were not compulsory for 17 year olds; and

an education package were sent out with enrolment.
If the voting age were lowered to 17, and voting were voluntary for 17 year olds, there
would be no disruption to the present co-operative enrolment arrangement between
Victoria and the Commonwealth. People could still be added to both Federal and
State rolls at the same time (as at present). All that would need to be changed is that
one’s enrolment would be recognised as full rather than provisional at the State level.
Voluntary voting would also have the advantage that only those 17 year olds who
11
were sufficiently interested would vote – and these young people would be more
interested in the education package and less likely to be confused. The education
package would not only provide a more informed entry into voting, but would also
minimise any possible confusion from the different entitlements at State and Federal
levels. In addition, it would smooth the transition from the present arrangements to
the new system.
As the situations in Germany, Austria, Italy and parts of the U.S.A. show, it is
possible to manage a system in which there are different voting ages for different
levels of government.
Other possible approaches to the issue would be for the States and the
Commonwealth to co-operate in passing legislation to lower the voting age.
However, should Victoria act alone, the other States and the Federal parliament may
follow. The issue has been raised in other States, and a decision on Victoria’s part
could act as a catalyst for action. Historically, there have been a number of occasions
where a change to the electoral system by one Australian State has relatively rapidly
been taken up by other States:
Secret ballot (amongst the States independent by 1855):
1856 Vic. & SA; 1858 NSW & Tas.
All males 21+ (amongst the States independent by 1855):
1856 SA; 1857 Vic.; 1858 NSW; 1896 Tas.
Women 21+:
1894 SA; 1899 WA; 1902 Federal & NSW; 1903 Tas.; 1905 Qld; 1908 Vic.
Christopher Gribbin
Policy Officer
Victorian Electoral Commission
20 August 2004
12