The Youth Vote - What the AntiBrigade Said

Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- P94/2007 - principles 26 September 2007

Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-


If you are 16 or 17 years old, these are the people who voted against the age coming down last year.

Senator Leonard Norman
Senator Terence John Le Main
Senator Ben Edward Shenton
Senator James Leslie Perchard
Connétable Thomas John du Feu
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré
Deputy Guy William John de Faye
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

A few choice quotes from Hansard, which shows exactly how some States members regard young people! I've added my comments!

5.1.2 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:
I think I have to say that since this original Law was passed I have had a number of voters and constituency residents from a number of parts of the Island who have all approached me on this issue and said exactly the same thing, unambiguously and unequivocally, that they could not believe that the States had passed this Law to reduce the age to 16. They basically felt that States' members had, and the general quote was, "taken leave of their senses". I have to say that in light of all the responses that I have had I will not be voting in favour of the Appointed Day Act.


But when pressed by Paul le Claire, he would not give numbers at all! Which reminds me of the wonderful cope out - "people are saying..." usually used to justify the speaker's own lack of support. As minister responsible for putting in an order to allow developers to dig up other people's gardens without consent, and who was responsible for £1 million roadwork at Bel Royal and forgot to check with emergency services whether they could get past with his new design, he is a fine one to talk about "taking leave of one's senses".

5.1.5 Senator B.E. Shenton:
I will be brief. I spoke and voted against this originally, the concept of giving children the vote. A lot has been made of the fact that they were asked what they thought and a lot of them said yes. I carried out my own straw poll. I asked a number of 16 year-olds whether they thought they should be allowed to drive and they all said yes. I asked them also whether they thought they should be allowed in pubs and they all said yes. This sort of unscientific way of judging whether this is right or wrong is wrong and I will be voting against it.


By the same token, you could ask adults this kind of question, and thereby I am sure prove that they are unable to judge matters properly as well. Just ask: should income tax be abolished for incomes below £40,000? Or look at the poll against GST. It is in fact Senator Shenton who is being unscientific in his approach and not applying moral principles.

5.1.6 Senator J.L. Perchard:
It is uncanny how often I am agreeing with Senator Shenton these days. Sir, like Senator Shenton and Deputy de Faye, I am still unable to support the lowering of the voting age to 16. I think, and I will ask members to consider, when we deem somebody not old enough at 16 to buy cigarettes or alcohol or drive a car or, more importantly, be held criminally responsible for their actions, how then can we deem them sufficiently adult to vote? I think there is some confusion as to what age an adult is but I certainly will draw the line in the sand in a different place to the good Deputy of Grouville. I think if you are adult enough to buy cigarettes you are probably adult enough to vote and alcohol, et cetera, and I just cannot see that we could possibly seek to lower the age of voting, even at this late stage, Sir.


And yet young people can have sex and marry at 16. An omission to the logic chopping of Senator Perchard. And if old people are restricted from driving (or made to have a re-test every five years after a particular age), does this mean - by Perchard Logic - that they are to lose the vote as well?


5.1.7 Senator T.J. Le Main:
I have to agree completely with the last speaker. In fact, what I would like to say is last year I was invited to address 16 and 17 year-olds at Victoria College on this subject and a vote was taken and it was unanimously voted down. They did not want to vote at the age of 16.

Wow! And if the majority of the public wanted to bring back hanging, and a meeting voted unanimously for it, would the Senator agree with a proposition in the States.


5.1.17 Connétable P.F.M Hanning of St. Saviour:
Like the last speaker, I was not here for this vote and I find it rather difficult. I agree with a lot of what the last speaker has said. We all want to encourage youngsters to vote, to get involved with politics and to generally be interested in the society but I think we have a problem. We are saying: "Yes, you can do that but you are not old enough to make a basic decision about your own health, i.e. you can smoke. You are not old enough or responsible enough to make a basic decision which is to go out and have a drink. You are not responsible enough to do that" but we are saying: "You can vote." Therefore, the impression that this is giving is that this is less important than drinking or smoking. It is trivialising the whole thing.

Another one who seems to have forgotten marrying, sex and the age of consent. Shame!


5.1.18 Senator L. Norman:
Where I part company with Senator Syvret on this issue is that intelligence is not the criterion that should or can or will be used to decide whether someone is able to vote or not. The criteria I think are probably maturity and experience. Children of six, seven, eight, nine, even younger, have got intelligence but surely that is not going to be the criterion by which the right to vote is judged because if that were the case, if you had to take an I.Q. test before you could vote, many children of that age would pass that test but many people of our age, over the age of 18 - yes, we are all over the age of 18 - would not pass that test so would be debarred from voting. It is an absolute nonsense

Given the paucity of logic in this debate, I think it highly likely that a number of members would not be able to vote on the grounds of intelligence. What in heaven's name does Senator Norman mean by "maturity and experience" and how does it effect how people vote? Let me give a counter-example. In his comic one-man stage play, actor Toby Hadoke mentions that when he was acting the part of vicar in Coronation street, he got fan-mail from people asking him - as a vicar - if he was free to come and marry them that summer, and he comments - "And these people have the right to vote!" Are these people - and I'm sure there are some in Jersey over 18 - lacking intelligence (obviously) but somehow blessed with "maturity and experience"?

5.1.21 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:
I have not changed my mind; my original concerns remain. How much have those individuals made their own minds up and how much have they been influenced by their parents and their teachers? What pressure will be brought upon the youngsters to vote one way or another? How worldly wise are they? Wisdom, as we were told by Senator Norman, comes with age. I will not embarrass my Chairman; as a member of the sponsoring Committee I shall abstain from the vote, as opposed to voting against.

An extremely silly argument from the Deputy. Presumably when he goes electioneering, he wants to influence members of the public to vote for him. Does that necessarily mean that they cannot make up their own minds? Surely a false dichotomy. Moreover, people at 18 may still be at school, are they influenced by their teachers? Or if living at home (very likely even at 18), influenced by parents?

Regarding wisdom, there is much truth in the anonymous quote:

Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone