Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Why Are Labour So Desperate To Get The Voting Age Reduced?
45 Answers
http://
Could it be that they want to benefit from the new left wing suporters churned out by left wing teachers before they grow older and locate some sense?
Could it be that they want to benefit from the new left wing suporters churned out by left wing teachers before they grow older and locate some sense?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I can't think of a single good reason for not lowering the voting age.
The 'don't (mainly) pay tax argument is a poor one. Lots of people who don't pay tax are eligible to vote.
Eligible to fight? Eligible to vote. Parental consent is irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure Cameron was looking at lowering the voting age for the referendum at one point. A shame it's been canned by his party.
And as long as my party behaves like schoolchildren there is little prospect of their grip on power being overturned
The 'don't (mainly) pay tax argument is a poor one. Lots of people who don't pay tax are eligible to vote.
Eligible to fight? Eligible to vote. Parental consent is irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure Cameron was looking at lowering the voting age for the referendum at one point. A shame it's been canned by his party.
And as long as my party behaves like schoolchildren there is little prospect of their grip on power being overturned
“It is most certainly *not* a legitimate reason to deny people the vote because you fear they are going to vote "the wrong way".”
I quite agree, Jim. That was not the basis of my argument. The question was why some politicians want the voting age lowered. I tried to answer that question and my contention is that it is the politicians’ expectations of voting intentions which drives their desire to lower the age. The conclusion to that argument is similar to yours except that, conversely, it is granting the vote in the expectation of favourable polls which drives the desire for change. In essence this is no different to denying the vote for fear of adverse results. My explanation which included the way the newly enfranchised youngsters might vote was to demonstrate that point.
The age until young people continue in compulsory education or training has just been raised to eighteen (presumably because it is considered it will now take two years longer than previously to educate children to a decent standard). It is inconsistent therefore to concomitantly lower the voting age to below that age. If young people are not old enough to leave compulsory education they are not old enough to vote.
Regards the “old enough to fight” argument, as I mentioned above now that the new Education and Skills Act is in force young people cannot simply go to work at age 16. Those between 16 and 18 who have not achieved a level 3 qualification must either remain in full time education, engage in work based training (e.g. an apprenticeship) or undertake part time training alongside work or volunteering. If the Armed Forces recruit anybody under 18 they will have to comply with those requirements and that means they most certainly will not be deemed “old enough to fight”.
So, Ikky, rather than blandly say “I cannot think of a single reason to lower the voting age” I’ve given a few (of which there are many). Your statement (with no expansion) may well apply to lowering the age to 14 or 12 or 10. But that's not the argument here anyway so it doesn't matter.
I quite agree, Jim. That was not the basis of my argument. The question was why some politicians want the voting age lowered. I tried to answer that question and my contention is that it is the politicians’ expectations of voting intentions which drives their desire to lower the age. The conclusion to that argument is similar to yours except that, conversely, it is granting the vote in the expectation of favourable polls which drives the desire for change. In essence this is no different to denying the vote for fear of adverse results. My explanation which included the way the newly enfranchised youngsters might vote was to demonstrate that point.
The age until young people continue in compulsory education or training has just been raised to eighteen (presumably because it is considered it will now take two years longer than previously to educate children to a decent standard). It is inconsistent therefore to concomitantly lower the voting age to below that age. If young people are not old enough to leave compulsory education they are not old enough to vote.
Regards the “old enough to fight” argument, as I mentioned above now that the new Education and Skills Act is in force young people cannot simply go to work at age 16. Those between 16 and 18 who have not achieved a level 3 qualification must either remain in full time education, engage in work based training (e.g. an apprenticeship) or undertake part time training alongside work or volunteering. If the Armed Forces recruit anybody under 18 they will have to comply with those requirements and that means they most certainly will not be deemed “old enough to fight”.
So, Ikky, rather than blandly say “I cannot think of a single reason to lower the voting age” I’ve given a few (of which there are many). Your statement (with no expansion) may well apply to lowering the age to 14 or 12 or 10. But that's not the argument here anyway so it doesn't matter.
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Shopping & Style46 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.