[gonzo41]

We do have recourse. What you'll see is more independent candidates get voted in to overturn the law. Once the government of the day starts badly implementing it the conservatives who voted with the center left party will split off and start attacking for it's repeal. It's a nothing burger law designed to look tough and do nothing.

[larrysalibra]

under 16 year olds cannot vote, are not represented and have no recourse.

when one group votes to make rules for another group that cannot vote, it can be called many things, but "democracy" is not one of them.

[bluefirebrand]

When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting"

Acting like we should be seriously treating children and teens as an equal political group is a joke

[Timwi]

> When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting"

Is it? Last time I checked I thought that was only when parents or legal guardians do it to a small number of children in their care, not when politicians do it to all children in an entire country.

But even if I accept your premise, your comment makes me wonder if you've never heard of people who are bad at parenting, or who are downright abusive to the children in their care.

[bluefirebrand]

Let me ask you something: Do you support removing liquor laws banning underage people from being sold alcohol? Or removing laws that ban the sale of cigarettes to children? How about gambling or buying lotto tickets for childrenm

I think it's clear that as a society we have already decided that government has a role in establishing legal protections to prevent children from falling afoul of systems that are designed to be predatory

This is just another layer of that

Which also establishes a social norm that letting children drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or gamble is not a good thing, so people who are bad parents know at least some baseline of what they should not be doing

[casey2]

Who defines what a child is? Who defines what a elderly person is? Are these questions also jokes to you? You seem pretty flippant about deciding which groups shouldn't have political power.

Many countries already tried using objective criteria to decide who gets to vote, and this always results in policy that screws nonvoters at the benefit of voters. Do you think the housing crisis all around the western world is an accident? It's not. The electorate chose this because it benefits them. Is it an accident that the last 2 US presidents are pedophiles? Probably, but that would be much less likely with a younger electorate.

A decision was made about how children's lives should function without their input. Right now do you believe that the class of parent voters votes as representatives of the interests of their children and their future? Or do you believe that all persons under 16 have no concept of time or political interests and couldn't even understand if a politician was making them a good deal through a political ad?

Children understand brand new toys better than anyone; by high school, pretty much all of them understand that they get better teachers if you pay more. Are students not interested in getting better grades for "free"?

The government is not anyone's parent, it doesn't give a lick if your kid dies tomorrow, cause kids don't vote.

[amatecha]

Hey, didn't you get the memo that teenagers know everything, have the simple & straightforward solutions to all of life's problems, and are never wrong?? ;)

[pizza]

I'm not sure what's worse: giving parental responsibility to politicians or equating craven paternalism to benevolent parenting.

[eimrine]

> When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting"

Children issue is just the excuse for government to get people obey. Sadly but "kids protecting" propaganda is one of two the most effective ones, works great and there are lots of alternatively gifted persons that do not get the real attitude.

[photonthug]

> Acting like we should be seriously treating children and teens as an equal political group is a joke

Yeah this thread is wild, maybe because those speaking “on behalf” of children here are actually all children?

Age restrictions for social media are as logical and necessary as they are for driving, drinking, etc. It isn’t just a concern about self-harm. The general public has a stake in this too in the long run, and it’s a safety and security issue for them as well. (If you don’t believe this is true, just think about how much power Facebook already has over elections, and how much more they will have if literally everyone alive grows up on Facebook and doesn’t think that power is worth questioning)

Years from now we’ll all be surprised we didn’t arrive at this conclusion sooner.

[threeseed]

> are not represented

Young Greens/Labor/Liberal allow members as young as 14.

And these groups have significant and direct input into political policy.

So simply not true to say that have no representation.