Government-Appointed Panel Advocates for Lower Voting Age, Prisoner Rights in Electoral Process Overhaul

35

Democracy is not a static structure; rather it changes and adapts over time in response to societal evolution, particular demands, and established norms. This invokes ongoing discussions about determining the qualifications to partake in the democratic process, primarily voting rights.

An independent panel, appointed by the Government, proposes that our electoral process necessitates modern enhancements, especially concerning the exclusion of specific societal segments.

Follow us on Google News! ✔️


The comprehensive report proposes insights concerning voting age, political contributions, election thresholds, as well as redefining the parameters for voting eligibility.

Throughout an episode on The Front Page podcast, Professor Andrew Geddis, a legal savant from Otago University, expounded that the panel’s conception in 2022 had the primary focus of meticulously examining all aspects of our electoral process. The goal was to discern the functional elements and pinpoint areas that need reconsideration to fortify democratic resilience in the future.

Pivotal modifications in the report include lowering the voting age to 16 and reinstating voting rights to prisoners. These recommendations are deemed controversial with political factions in disagreement.

The panel contended in favor of decreasing the voting age to 16, citing the age of non-discrimination, legally recognized in our society. It challenges the societal tendency to treat 16-year-olds as a distinct group from other age brackets, seeking justification for this differential treatment. Contrary to general belief, neuroscientific evidence reveals insignificant developmental differences between 16 and 18-year-olds.

In the current state of the law, prisoners sentenced for three years or more are denied the right to vote. However, the panel argues this restriction needs redressal, given that voting is a fundamental human right. They question the validity of revoking this right as a consequence of criminal misconduct, where the linkage between the two is tenuous. The penal stance, they argue, is inadequate justification for the suspension of voting rights.

Nevertheless, the report’s scope is diverse, including several recommendations on a myriad of concerns. These range from reconsidering the 5 percent threshold, determining when new residents acquire the voting rights, enhancing democratic participation, bracing for the impact of disinformation, and revisiting the norms of political donations and lobbying within the nation.