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.

[sunny-dave]

Just random ideas Woofie - pick your own categories, but does it work in principle?

[Smowball]

No vote if you've ever murdered anybody?

[kvalidir]

It's a great idea, let people vote who have all their faculties,as tragic though dementia is I really don't want the 850,000 people who have it voting on the countries future, but no-one ever thinks of stopping them, I'd rather let someone who is younger and more in touch counteract those votes. I actually think anyone regardless of financial situation over 16 ought to be able to vote, not paying NI or Tax does not negate anyone's ability to make decent choices, just as paying it doesn't mean they necessarily will, and as for 'left wing teachers' that's a fairy tale dreamed up by aging right wingers trying to justify why they don't themselves represent the country's own youth.

[jno]

couldn't agree more, kvalidir. Unless of course there are graphs and pie charts and things proving leftwinginess, or perhaps an internationally agreed blacklist of its lethal symptoms.

[jim360]

I don't see why people left emmie and ymb don't come out and say that if you intend to vote for a "leftie" party then that automatically excludes you from being allowed to vite. That's basically what their case amounts to.

Sure, if you think that voting is for adulthood, and adulthood begins at 18, then fair enough -- but any argument that amounts to "they're mostly left and brainwashed" is beneath contempt. The right to vote has nothing -- nothing -- to do with the choice of whom to vote for.

[Deskdiary]

As we have been told a lot lately by Labour that the "rich" who earn over £80k should carry the heavier tax burden than others (while completely and conveniently failing to answer the point posed to them on many occasions that they already do) and therefore are contributing more to the public coffers than others, how about allowing the "rich" who earn over £80k a vote which counts for double than the poor earning below £80k?

[Kromovaracun]

Because that's a stupid idea.

[Old_Geezer]

This subject crops up regularly. The correct answer will always be the same, that is, it is irresponsible and foolish to even contemplate giving children the vote.

The Liberals do so because either their leaders are hard of thinking, or they are simply cynically ignoring the consequences of immoral action in the hope of getting additional votes. I leave working out which it is as an exercise for the reader.

[whiskeryron]

The Limp Dums are at it again. I swear they are not living on the same planet as the rest of us. Perhaps we should make allowances for them, poor souls .

[Old_Geezer]

I see deskdiary has grasped the complex details of democracy with ease. The rich should get more power and their say goes, while the majority poor can go flog themselves (not forgetting to tug their forelocks while doing do) as penance for working hard yet allowing others to grab the lion's share of the cake.

[Deskdiary]

Kromo - of course it is a stupid idea. As is giving the vote to children.

[Kromovaracun]

If a 16 year old is a child, why can they a) have sex b) join the army c) marry.

And just to save us some time - calling this observation "hackneyed" does not render it untrue.

[Old_Geezer]

Why shouldn't they be able to ? I see no divine command carved in stone that children can't have sex, in fact, that they can is a problem. As for marrying and military, every country makes it's own rules. Never heard of child brides nor child soldiers ? But of course none of that has anything at all to do with fitness to make a political choice of representative.

[Kromovaracun]

Not saying it does. But generally having sex with a child or enlisting them in war is not something that civilised societies permit in the modern day. The fact that the UK has collectively agreed on 16 as the cut-off point where you can do those things to someone and they are legally considered an adult suggests that a 16 year old is not a child, no?

[Kromovaracun]

Also please stop with this expectation that we're only supposed to give the vote to people who can make good decisions. If we controlled for how good someone's decision making was when granting the vote, the vast majority of the current electorate would be disqualified in a heartbeat.

You should be able to vote once you reach adulthood. I'd say the balance of rights 16 year olds currently have put them squarely in that category. Like Jim, though, I also wouldn't think it illogical if some of those rights were rolled back and reserved for 18 year olds.

[New Judge]

“And just to save us some time - calling this observation "hackneyed" does not render it untrue.”

It’s not untrue but it is somewhat simplistic.

In the UK the age at which “adulthood” is achieved varies depending on what is being allowed at reaching that age. So to call those below the prescribed age “children” is perhaps not very helpful as far as this topic goes. Yes people of sixteen (and considerably younger) can have sex. This does not, in my view, demonstrate some sort of intellectual maturity (quite often the reverse is true) and is not a good indicator. Certainly in England (and for the reasons pointed out in my earlier answer, I neither know nor care about the rest of the UK) they can only marry or join the armed forces with parental consent. This would seem to indicate that the authorities see people under 18 as perhaps not always capable of making the right decisions. (It also makes the rather rash assumption that the parents have the capacity which their offspring lacks, but that is another debate).

Perhaps an answer to the problem (if indeed one exists) would be to allow voting at 16 only with parental consent.

[Old_Geezer]

No. It indicates that folk are ready for different things during the period of turning from child to adult and do are allowed to do more as that period passes. No one goes to bed one night a child, and wakes up next morning an adult. Something as vital as how to run a country is an unsuitable task for the average 26 year old child. Physical military training and starting a relationship is less critical to the country.

[Old_Geezer]

AND SO ARE ...

[Rosetta]

You need parental consent to join the army if you are under 18, and in England and Wales you need parental consent to marry if you are under 18 years of age, so the argument that 16 year olds, in general, are able to make fully independent judgements doesn't hold water.

[Kromovaracun]

"Something as vital as how to run a country is an unsuitable task for the average 26 year old child."

Blimey. Do you consider me a child, O_G? :P

New Judge: Yeah, that's fair enough. I will also confess this is not exactly an issue which keeps me up at night. It'll also never happen because everyone who actually cares enough about the issue to organise around it - i.e. 16 and 17 year olds - promptly forget about it when they turn 18.