Voting Age Lowered To Sixteen, Does Anyone Think It's A Good Idea?

[dave50]

This is what the Liberal Democrats are proposing, only because they think they will hoover up all their votes. It's actually very unfair because the vast majority will not be working so will not be paying any tax or national insurance so why should they get a vote, ie have a say on public spending? They are bound to vote for a party who promises free services for this that and the other as they are not contributing.

[Mamyalynne]

There was recently a debate here on this , I think the idea has merit.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1549039.html

[youngmafbog]

The idea has no merit.

The young are lefties as they have been trained by left wing teachers.

Many adjust their views once they start paying for things.

[New Judge]

As I've said in the past, it's most unfair on the rest of us to let those people who still know everything have a vote. This is especially so when they cannot leave school for another two years (bar starting an approved apprenticeship or going on to further education (i.e. school)) and who cannot be sentenced in accordance with adult sentencing guidelines when they commit a crime.

[jim360]

Well, whether or not it's a good idea, it's certainly not a bad idea because young people are mostly lefties. The way young people will vote should have no bearing on their right to.

As it happens I don't think it's worthwhile.

[Garaman]

As I have said in the past, it seems no unfairer than letting old people vote who aren't working. Even if they still have all their faculties, they are often unable to adapt to way the world is changing and pine for life as it was in 1948.

[youngmafbog]

I disagree jim, if they are being indoctrinated by the education system.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ you appear to have forgotten my telling you that the law about the school leaving age is different outwith England.

Anyway if paying tax or NI is a requirement, should adults in receipt of some benefits have the vote removed if they have never pid tax or NI?

[youngmafbog]

What an excellent idea 'LOON.

[anneasquith]

Excellent idea, serve you're country, marry , procreate, but can't vote, ludicrous.

[jim360]

Do you think that the indoctrination magically disappears at age 18?

This indoctrination/brainwashing stuff is crap and deserves to be treated like crap. If you truly believe that young people have been indoctrinated then...well, I guess you've been brainwashed.

[youngmafbog]

So you deny that the education system is left wing then?

[Kromovaracun]

The only reason anyone has given against this is because they don't like how they might vote.

There are plenty of thick people over the age of 18 (and over the age of 50) who have the vote. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking our voting system controls for quality.

They can have sex, they can marry, they can pay tax. That is just about all that qualifies anyone else to vote, so why not?

[anneasquith]

For each 16/17 year old who votes, a 70/80 year old person ( mostly men ) are removed from the voters roll ? ;-)

[New Judge]

"NJ you appear to have forgotten my telling you that the law about the school leaving age is different outwith England."

Thanks for the reminder, Corby. No I hadn't forgotten. It's just that the rest of the UK is all a bit of a closed book to me and is of little interest. This became exaggerated when Mr Blair's ridiculous devolution arrangements were put in place which permitted differences like the one you mention.

[jim360]

I fancy I went through it more recently than you did. I can assure you that I didn't know the political views of *any* of my teachers; I'm sure that a great many of them were left-wing, but we weren't indoctrinated as such.

And besides, whom do you think children pay more attention to? Their parents, or their teachers? It's invariably the former.

[Deskdiary]

No.

This is a spectacularly bad idea.

I see the hackneyed arguments about being able to join the army at 16 and get married at 16 are being trotted out again, but that doesn't mean it is this is right. I find it an absurdity that you can get married at 16 but you can't buy a packet of fags or go into a pub and buy a pint of beer at 16.

With the exception of necessities, children under 18 are not allowed to enter into contracts.

What we should strive for is a uniform age for things like joining the army or getting married, or buying a packet of fags - and that age should be 18.

What happens if 16 year olds are given the vote? Will we be debating in a few years time whether 14 years should be allowed? or 12 year olds?

It is a breathtakingly stupid idea.

I note in the past it has been Labour that has suggested this. Could that be, perchance, because kids tend to be more left-leaning? I certainly was when I was in the 6th form.

[emmie]

i don't think its a good idea overall, as others have said
teaching seems to be somewhat left leaning these days, so they could unduly influence the young who are more to the left as it is.

[anneasquith]

I'm stunned where all these left wing teachers are. Maybe in the 60's, ?????certainly not now.

[sunny-dave]

I think the idea of 'extra votes for extra things' has more merit.

So - we all get

1 : one vote for having survived to age 16
2: an extra vote for basic educational achievement (GCSEs or whatever)
3 : an extra vote for further educational achievement (A levels, BTech or whatever)
4: an extra vote for higher educational achievement (degree or equivalent)
5: an extra vote for a period of military service (or a suitable community service alternative)
6: an extra vote for paying more than £xxxx pounds in tax that year
7: a vote deducted for being in prison (or equivalent) for more than six months that year

Any other ideas?

[woofgang]

I am not sure why being in the army should allow an extra vote or why it should be seen as an equivalent to community service?.....or in fact why a soldier should get an extra vote but a doctor, other medic or medical profession, lawyer or teacher should not?