I think it's a pretty ludicrous idea but then, since it's the Local Council elections he wants to try it out on, I suppose there's no harm in it. Giving 16-year-olds the vote, I mean. Dr Joseph Muscat, in one of the kite-flying exercises he seems to indulge in periodically, suggested that the idea should be "tested" in the Local Council election round.

Precisely what it is he wants to test is not immediately clear to me: does he want to see if the MLP gets on better by attracting teenybopper voters? Does he mean "test" as in see whether your cohort of common or garden 16-year-olds takes up the idea or whether they will just grunt "woqevah" when it comes to trying to remember where they've left their voting document and tear themselves away from MTV to struggle down to the voting station, and then try to remember what it is they're supposed to be doing?

As I said, it's not entirely clear what he means by suggesting that the idea is tested, because as far as I know, no-one can tell who voted how after the slip is slipped into the slot.

Predictably, many of the comments (though not all) on the electronic Times broke down into pro and contra along party lines, with the Lil'Elves generally saying that this is evidence of the dynamic ideas put forward by the progressive young leader and whoever is against them is against dynamism, progressiveness and forward thinking. The contras tended to concentrate more on the issue of whether 16-year-olds are mature enough to exercise their democratic power, though truth be told, some did seem to be against the idea because it was Joe Muscat who had proposed it. This is silly; if it's a silly idea, it's a silly idea, no matter who proposes it.

I've met 16-year-olds who were much more politically aware and mature than many so-called adults, but the thing is, you have to draw the line somewhere, and you can't put your hand on your heart and say that it's more likely than not that an average 16-year-old will be mature enough to vote properly. You can't legislate for the exception or on the basis of anecdotal evidence, for all that this latter method seems to be the preferred method of proceeding even for so-called worthy organisations such as the Foundation Anti All-development.

Just for the benefit of those of you who missed my last very erudite point, I'm referring to the contretemps about the proposed developments around St John's Co-Cathedral, where a concerted chorus (any other type?) of objecting howls has been raised before there has been full and expert consideration of all the relevant issues. Just to be clear, I'm not shooting my own mouth off (for a change).

Just suggesting that before "NO" is trumpeted all over the place, shouldn't the facts be taken into account? After all, this isn't some bloated plutocrat proposing to erect a block of flats instead of Ħaġar Qim, or a night-club in a green and pleasant valley.

Getting back to the votes-for-youth idea, though, which is where we should be, hadn't we better just shelve this peculiar notion? You can't choose between mature 16-year-olds and normal ones, just as you can't choose between mature adults and not so-savvy ones, though that might not be such a bad idea, and since the actuarial data is pretty clear, there doesn't seem to be a compelling argument to give a kid the same power that an adult has.

I wonder why Muscat came up with this bright idea. It's not original; liberal-minded types have mooted it before now but it's not been taken up by anywhere significant that I can see. One of the "it's Joseph's idea therefore it's a good one" brigade pointed out that none other than Gordon Brown, soon to suffer the same fate as Alfred Sant from all the indications, looks on the idea with favour. To this, my response is, somewhat in the mould of your average 16-year-old, "duh?" or, more eloquently, "and your point is?" Just because one Labour leader, albeit one with slightly more gravitas than the callow youth currently leading the local Labour bunch, favours an idea doesn't make it a good one.

Quite the contrary, actually, if you ask me.

I know intelligence or the ability to communicate or receive ideas aren't a sine qua non for being given the vote (would that it were, if you'll forgive my elitist tendencies giving themselves an airing) but if you'll permit me (and even if you don't, this is my column) I'll close with a quote lifted directly and without editing from a comment that falls squarely into the "in favour" camp. I'll spare the commenter's blushes and not name him.

He wrote: "it is good idea wether it is proposed by ad or by mlp . we should extend for the general election causei think youths should be involved into politics directly . We would like to see the goverments point of view cause first we see him surrounded for meetings with 16 year olds then when we come to real facts we do not even hear his voice . Good idea."

OK, let's give 16-year-olds the vote, then, shall we, provided they can translate the previous paragraph into something approximating proper English - or, for that matter, proper Maltese?