Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
When I was 16 my opinions were not mature enough and I would have cast a vote based on stupid factors. Half of the people I know would have voted for the BNP just for the lols at that age.
I just don't think most 16 year olds care, though. I'd rather see a concerted campaign getting 18-24 year olds, who are aware of politics, to vote, rather than giving the vote to children.
and can join the army and die for their country?
every arguement you make can also be applied to the idea of lowering it from 21 to 18. i'm sure if someone had come on here in the late 1960s and said, "hey, do you want to give the vote to a bunch of 19 year old students who have no real experience of the real world and live off their parents?" loads of people would've been OH HELL NO but it's an accepted norm now
but (without wishing to sound condescending) how many 16 year olds do you actually know? Round my way most of them are either racist, totally unaware of anything political- and you can't blame them- or otherwise not mature people. Most of the 16 year olds I have on facebook and elsewhere have listed their political affiliation as either 'FUCK IT THERE ALL LIERS' or Monster Raving Loony.
I'm all for more education, and I do agree that paying taxes should mean you get a say, but I'm not sure whether, for most teenagers at that age, that say ought to be voting in general elections.
Please don't distort simple points for debate's sake.
There's generalisations aplenty here, but I still think I'm *broadly* correct. *Most* 16 year olds in my comparatively limited experience of them, are not socially aware or mature enough to be let anywhere near a polling booth. I'm sure there are extremely mature and aware 16 year olds too, but I don't know any and I certainly wasn't one of them.
Imo, a government should be elected by all citizens with the necessary rational capabilities and level of understanding. They can elect Thatcherites for 80 years if they like, as long as the populace doing the voting is aware of the consequences of their actions. Most 16 year olds really aren't aware of much beyond which girl they're going to fail to pull at the weekend. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel.
I'd bar all DiSers
...and you think at 18 everyone is suddenly magically blessed with superior political awareness? I know plenty of irresponsible knobsocks who are well over the voting age, so to frame the argument around depth of political understanding raises a bunch of other questions about people *over* the voting age. Should my mate who doesn't really understand or give a shit about politics have his right to vote taken away from him because of that?
aged 16. 18 is the minimum for operational tours
I didn't know that. Fair do.WITHDRAWN
Better argument for not having 16 year olds as combat troops.
Army of children an' all that.
it was the 16 year olds in the year below who were asking questions which were too difficult for her to answer.
no taxation without representation
Then again, I don't really follow the logic that has it set at 18 now either.
I find the 'no taxation without representation' argument interesting though, given that what really, really fucks young people over is not the fact that 16 year olds can't vote. It's that retired people do, in ridiculously high numbers.
now the party that the majority of students voted for dropped it's pants and did a huge steaming shit over the lot of them.
I remember when I was about 16 and was kicking off about not being able to vote and my old man was like `Of course people of your age can't vote - you can't be trusted to make sensible decisions about the future of this country`.
The older I get, the more I meet fully grown adults who disprove his theory entirely. I don't think most of the population can be trusted to make sensible decisions about the future of this country, let alone 16 year olds.
If adults don't have a clue, 16 year olds can only be- and are- even worse.
I really don't think any of you have met any teenagers in quite a while. They're an utter fucking mess, by and large. I know a lot of adults are too, but that doesn't change the point at issue. There's no way 16 year olds should be voting, there's too much they need to sort out within themselves first.
Plus you make it sound like voting actually changes things hahaha SATIRE.
You might not agree with my argument, but it hangs together fine, thank you.
This is going to be a bit of a weird post, and I'll probably get called out for attention seeking, but I don't really get the negative reaction I receive in threads like this. I've made simple and clear points which make logical sense. Though they contain generalisations, that's inevitable when the group in question is so large. I think people just don't like someone who disagrees with them.
('People' =/= a dig at you)
And plus, I don't think it's the fact people disagree with you that you get a bit of stick, it's that you use inflammatory and, often, poorly-thought through language to make your points.
Not saying you're worse than a lot of others mind, I just think in this thread you're making a generalisation that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
I don't really see how this argument can be done without generalising, in this case, because '16 year olds' are such a big group. It's only ever really going to be based upon our personal opinions of 16 year olds.
Maybe I just need to know better 16 year olds. That's what she said, or something, idk.
Problem is as well that you are making a generalisation about a group of which you admit upthread that you have limited experience. I work with quite a lot of 16-year-olds and younger, and am often impressed with how engaged they are with the world around them
'If adults don't have a clue, 16 year olds can only be- and are- even worse'
Quantify 'worse' than not having 'a clue'.
I think it's unlikely though, given your evasive response. It's a shame, because I tried to engage with you.
It's about the bare fact that a lot of 16 year olds aren't responsible enough to vote. Whether adults are is neither here nor there.
*(Though stupidsexyflanders has said that s/he works with 16 year olds and they're actually not like that at all. I'd be surprised if young people have really changed dramatically in the 3 years since I was 16, but I'm prepared to retract my comments now).
ADULT and stick with it for everything, to be honest (Full-Time work; voting; marriage; driving; sex etc etc etc).
I nominate 34.
If they're making school compulsory to the age of 18 (which I think they are), they should also remove income tax from anyone under the age of 18 too - allow them to save more for university.
(I'd scrap VAT totally myself, too).
I bet turnout in the 16-18 age group would be woeful even if they were given the vote.
would be precisely to combat this though. Not sure it'd be particularly successful at enfranchising young people and establishing lifelong participation myself but I can see the logic behind thinking that.
The first time young'uns get to vote they'd jump at the chance I reckon. Chance to act all grown up and that. It's the 2nd and 3rd times they'd get to vote they wouldn't bother...
by reference to amount of tax paid in the previous tax year
although i would prefer everyone gets representation in the aspects that they understand to an extent, they should be able to articulate (to indicate that it is their own opinion, not just a rent a slogan from the mail or sun or mirror)
of course this is wildly impractical and unfeasible....but people like asking <what if> questions when something isnt even on the cards
but maybe more reasoned and analysed opinions should be given more of a say
In your face, thick cunts!
so far reaching that they make that one thing <out of context with the rest> seem completely different.
e.g. Since my aim would be to ensure that it is not just people with iqs less than 100 cleaning toilets that others have used, who are then paid a shit wage, yes there is a reason for specialisation of work according to ability, but then to apply further aspects to it (like poverty) seems to be wrong.
Perhaps dictatorship would be easier to achieve my aims.
Considering improvement (or any change to the democratic system) seems to be impossible (witness the lib dems main central policy for years collapse hopelessly)
And how do you test that? Who makes that judgement call?
as long as they own at least seven hectares.
by voting in local or regional elections, for example.
to what problem?
But yeah, I can see the advantage of formalising it into a qualification. I'd like to see the equivalent of a PPE.
There's a definite advantage to formalising it, but I wouldn't let Michael Gove anywhere NEAR it.
I never did any sort of civics. We had PSE, but that was just watching videos about Leah Betts, nothing to do with politics.
Obviously I can guess, but is this something that is actually taught? They didn't do it at my school.
Is it like General Studies? They did that at my school, but didn't make it a formal GCSE/A Level like the more plebby schools do in an attempt to bump up the grade curve.
I think Civics is generally taught as Citizenship now, at KS3 and KS4. You can take a GCSE at it at KS4, but I don't *think* it's mandatory.
I think it should be lowered because 16-year-olds can be married, full-time workers, and it seems stupid to say that they can't vote.
I think there'll be plenty who don't give a fuck and won't bother voting, some who don't give a fuck and will vote for a laugh and some who will engage completely with it. That's not too dissimilar to people in their twenties.
and even then I only did it because CG pressured me and I got it wrong so my vote was void.
I'm a firm no
who here can honestly say that, at 16, they had a good enough understanding and awareness of politics and of the potential consequences of their vote, to make voting worth their while had they been allowed to?
Don't mind what answer you give, just wondering.
and I'm almost 24.
I need to keep up to date.
As one was leaving, she turned to me to double check: 'So, the Tories, that's another word for Labour, right?'
She could vote but I couldn't. I would have liked to. I should have been able to.
I don’t have any particular views either way.
But, as said above, I don’t think it is fair that you can be married, join the forces, have (legal) consensual sex and pay taxes at 16; whilst you can’t drive till 17, can’t vote till 18, can’t buy tobacco till 18 and can’t buy alcohol till 18 (amongst other things).
I think there is an argument at bringing (most) of these together to be the same age.
to just below Stockport. draw a wobbly line across the country to exclude the bits verging on Cheshire and include Merseyside.
and also limited to the under-65s. old people can't think long-term, so they can't make informed long-term decisions. it's irresponsible and dangerous to allow them to have say in a governmental system
They wanted to discuss the election and who I voted for. I told them. They declared me an idiot for voting for the party that broadly aligned with my beliefs. They said they voted Conservative. They didn't like Tory policies, and thought Cameron *was a a twat* but they were the most likely to win and it would be good for the country.
I probed further on this but the most I got was you should vote for the party most likely to win, because they were good. Regardless of what they did.
Anyone fancy a dictatorship?
Really it's not that important what the voting age is if you don't have political parties that represent people's beliefs and parties consistently fail to connect with the electorate.
and you know what- I miss that. I still cared about moral issues I just didn't think government action affected me.
Now I over-estimate how much it affects me. Not sure I want to inflict that on 16 year olds.
lowered to 70.
And what a nifty piece of political manoeuvring in getting the pledged* votes for 16year olds by ditching the sacrificial two question referendum lamb (no matter how much the media took the bait and tried to hype it up as anything else - one question = better prospects of an outright 'yes').
I've no doubt the Westminster gov gets /something/ out of this, but I've not worked out what that is yet.
*pledged by labour and the lib dems, too, it ought to be said (but obviously not important enough to actually bring out in when they were in power. standard.).
the referendum should be a simple in/out and binding whichever way the vote goes. It's utterly unfair on the other 55 million of us if Scots Nats get some sort of independence-lite whereby they do their own thing, but piggyback on the rest of the nation when it suits them.
Besides, if independence is such a great option, presumably they'll win the referendum anyway?
The trickery and skullduggery works both ways, the SNP most likely know that they are unlikely to convince a majority of the Scots electorate to vote for independence so the two-question option was their fallback position. Well, too bad. Additionally, the only reason that they want 16/17 year olds to vote (and hey, they appear to have had that wish granted) is that they seem to think that they'll be more likely to vote for independence. If 16/17 year olds were predominantly rampant unionists they would be throwing a hissyfit at the very idea of allowing them to vote.