Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

If parliament had allowed 16-18 to vote

Scroll to see replies

They deserve the right to vote, mate. It's unfair to say because 'they'll die within the next few years' that you are owed the vote more than them. Kind of disgusting actually.

So many people of the older generation have never had the chance to vote on this issue. They deserved their say.

Yes, they did deserve their say. But so did the many 16 or 17 year olds who will have to live with the consequences of this election for years, possibly for the rest of their lives.

Reply 121

Louise12307

I think the vote should be lowered to AT LEAST 17 because at this point many are in further education (A levels and the like).

Additionally, we need proportional representation in terms of age. We are in an ageing population and so statistically the older you are the more influence your vote has so in a democracy each vote should be of equal weight.

They need to distribute influence accordingly.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 122

Nooglepop

Original post by TheIr0nDuke

Repost.

You mean, you want younger people to vote because they'd agree with your view on things?

16-17 is way too young to take part in moment as important as this. Most adults don't even know the full facts, never mind children.

More easily swayed by fearmongering and propaganda. Absurd proposal.

So a 17 year old a few days off their 18th birthday is significantly less mature than someone who has just turned 18? People underestimate the young - the truth is that 16 year olds are already having to take a lot of responsibility for their lives, and have to make important decisions, such as choosing whether to work, go to college, do an apprenticeship etc. Those who go to college choose their A levels/ BTECs - to make these decisions they have to think about their future plans and make decisions without being influenced by peer pressure. And most teenagers do make the correct decisions. Most adults don't know the full facts, most teenagers don't know the full facts - but the decisions affect both teenagers and adults, so they both 16 - 18s and over 18s deserve the right to have a say in the future of the country.

Reply 123

james813

Leave won over Remain by a majority of 1.3 million. Let's assume from your table 70% of 16/17 year olds would vote remain and 30% who vote would vote leave. There are about 1.5million 16/17 year olds in the UK. For them to cause Remain to win, the turnout would need to be 220% assuming everyone registered to vote.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 124

PilgrimOfTruth

Do kids not realise that those of us who are older, were once 16-18?
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that when I was 18, I was CLUELESS about how the world worked, how politics worked, who really runs countries, how banksters control everything and how business works. At age 16-18 you are going through a stage in life where emotions run high, dating and relationships are high on the agenda and schools/university is still a key element in your life.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 125

hfd

How about if votes were weighted according to age?

Take the UK life expectancy then weight votes according to age (i.e. youngest votes weigh the bear the most significance). Since your age will determine the number of years that you will deal with the consequences of a referendum.

Reply 126

teenhorrorstory

Original post by Cato the Elder

The future does not belong to brainwashed, parasitical, ignorant, selfish youth. The future belongs to the brave, intelligent and patriotic. People who supported Leave. People like me.

Clearly idiotic statement to make.

Reply 127

teenhorrorstory

Original post by hektik

Voting requires a level and maturity, decision-making and knowledge. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and as 18-years-old and over is regarded as adulthood in our society, it makes good sense to make it the legal voting age. When people become old enough and become legal adults, then they gain the right to vote.

Your point about "people who will honestly die within the next 10 years" being part of the EU decision is disgusting, it's arrogant and completely self-centred. These are the people that, with their own eyes, have watched for decades the things that have occurred in this country, and they remember all the little details of the past few decades that don't all make it into the history books and the minds new generation.

In essence, these people know more, have experienced more and hence have more experience from which to draw conclusions. Of course, as any citizen would, they vote with varying degrees of self-interest, but if anybody sees the bigger picture and knows more about what's happening, it's "people who will honestly die within the next 10 years". Maybe they know something you don't.

Again, I am not saying that old people should be denied their vote. I'm saying that it is illogical and extremely frustrating that the elderly, who make up a significant part of the population, are given a vote on issues they will probably not live long to see the effects off WHILE many of those who will be severely impacted are not. Old people should vote, however so should 16 and 17 year olds. At 16 you can work, you can contribute taxes to your country, yet you cannot have a say in how the country should be run? At 16 you are deemed mentally capable of consenting to sexual activity, consenting to your own medical treatment, leaving home, joining the army(with parents consent admittedly), but people here are saying that we 16&17 year olds are too stupid to vote, or that we are too conformist and cannot think for ourselves. When such attitudes are imposed on us, it is no wonder that turn outs tend to be lower for young people. Political engagement should be ENCOURAGED, not dismissed. We are not conformist because the majority of us tend to be left wing. Is it really a surprise that young people are not supportive of the party that tripled tuition fees, scraped maintenance grants, and continue to implement many changes that will affect US the most, yet we cannot vote? The general election is one thing, however it's honestly so disheartening that parliament voted against us voting, and even more disheartening to read some of the posts on here regarding young people.

Reply 128

?Hannah

Stop complaining - the older generations fought two world wars for us, allowing us to live the life that we do.

Reply 129

teenhorrorstory

Original post by hfd

I think that'd be a good idea actually!!

Reply 130

c0mmodity

The issue with arguing that the elderly don't have as much of a say is going against the idea of democracy, but then again, so is limiting the voice of politically-motivated 16-18 year olds.
They'll say we're at an age where we're easy to influence, but then again, didn't many vote Leave for the £350m investment into the NHS (which was then taken back)?

Reply 131

Castro Saint

They should have got the vote. And also all the Brits that live and work in the EU... I find it appalling they weren't allowed.

Reply 132

electrifeye

Original post by ?Hannah

Stop complaining - the older generations fought two world wars for us, allowing us to live the life that we do.

Well it's nice that they did that for us. But it doesn't mean they have more of a right to vote than we do. I don't think you can say that mature people who are excluded from a supposedly democratic system are complaining unjustly. People say that we don't have the same experience of life as an adult, but then a 30-year old doesn't have the same life experience as an 80-year old, and the 30-year old can still vote. I think if an unbiased education on politics was given in schools in an environment inspiring debate and discussion, then you'd find that young people can have some fairly developed views. There are a million and one things people can say about how we're too "influenced" or not "mature" enough, but I think they're just excuses. People don't want to give us power because, well, it reduces the democratic power that they themselves have.

It's worth mentioning that looking at the statistics allowing 16&17 year olds vote probably wouldn't have affected the result, although it would have been closer. Also I don't think old people, young people or indeed any other group in society should have less of a right to vote than anyone else. Otherwise it just isn't democracy.

Reply 133

wildleaves

Original post by Nooglepop

Most of the 16 year olds that are uneducated now will remain so in the future, but many of the 'educated' people were also well - informed about politics and intelligent enough to make balanced decisions at 16. I am 15 years old, and I would really liked to have votes. I carefully considered viewpoints on both sides, watching all the referendums and debates, and I also watch the news every night. Am I less informed than many of the 30 or 60 years olds who voted. It's not a question of saying that the elderly or uneducated don't deserve a vote, but saying that young people do. The reason people who are ill - informed and uneducated still get a vote is because the result of the election will still affect them, and so I think 16 and 17 year olds (even maybe 15 year olds?) should have been allowed to vote, because the results will affect my future - university, work, housing, travel. I want to be a translator, interpreter and forensic linguist, travelling across the world as I work (this is perfectly possible). From what I've read, there is a real possibility that this could make travelling and working abroad more difficult. Teenagers aren't automatically ignorant or stupid!

um don't think we disagree at all. I'm highlighting a hypocrisy, 16 year olds are uneducated since they don't have a degree. Personally i have no problem with them voting. The uneducated are still people with rights.

Reply 134

TheMcSame

OP is delusional at best. 16-17 Y/Os wouldn't have thrown the vote over to remain, simply because it would've required a stupidly high turnout and an incredibly high support for remain.

The amount of 16-17 Y/Os in the UK seems to be around 1.5M. Meaning you'd need more than 80% to be in favour of remaining to even out the scores. That's assuming a 100% turnout...

The national turnout was 72.2%, if we were to use this figure, 16-17 year old would have only lessened the gap, in the end we still would've seen a leave majority.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 135

Rk2k14

Original post by Blue_Mason

Oh please, most 16 - 18 year olds are clueless when it comes to politics and making important decisions.

But Bob from down the road with 2 GCSE's is.

Reply 136

teenhorrorstory

Original post by TheMcSame

OP is delusional at best. 16-17 Y/Os wouldn't have thrown the vote over to remain, simply because it's require a stupidly high turnout and an incredibly high support for remain.

The amount of 16-17 Y/Os in the UK seems to be around 1.5M. Meaning you'd need more than 80% to be in favour of remaining to even out the scores. That's assuming a 100% turnout...

The national turnout was 72.2%, if we were to use this figure, 16-17 year old would have only lessened the gap, in the end we still would've seen a leave majority.

This has already been pointed out, and if you read through the thread you'd see that the discussion has moved to whether 16-17 year olds should have been allowed to vote regardless.

Reply 137

faxingstar

Original post by Blue_Mason

Oh please, most 16 - 18 year olds are clueless when it comes to politics and making important decisions.

But its been made very clear from the vote that the age that CAN vote and therefore shouldnt be 'clueless when it comes to politics and making important decisions' 17mil are still clueless enough to vote leave and jepordise this country. If they can be clueless and have a vote, let us 'clueless' younger people vote on the same principle.

Reply 138

irfugigfea

Original post by teenhorrorstory

If 16-18 years old were allowed to vote in the referendum, then it's very likely that remain would have actually won. There's a very clear trend that shows how the elderly are very anti EU while the younger people tend to be pro EU. It's very frustrating for me as a 17 year old to see decisions being made by people who will honestly die within the next 10 years while I am unable to have a say. The future belongs to us, the youth.

I feel exactly the same. This morning I cried because all the old people had ruined my future. Because by the time Brexit is in full effect, it will be my friends and I looking for jobs and housing and not finding any. It's our generation who aren't going to find it easy to work and study abroad.

Reply 139

Et Tu, Brute?

Original post by celloel

disagree really, apart from the right to vote part. 16/17 year olds have grown up in a more liberal and multicultural world, in contrast to the old farts who have ****ed us out of the eu a large number of which would have been bitter about the changing landscape of the UK and living in a 1950's style dream world.

You cannot argue with the fact that the 16/17 year olds who would have likely wanted to keep us in the eu will now be forced out of it, forced to work outside of it, will have limited employment/travel around Europe and who knows how they're employment opportunities within the UK will now be affected, whilst most of those who have voted us out will spend most of their time under a non-eu UK in retirement.

The fact that they were denied a vote by more old farts who knew rightly the 16-17 year olds would make a brexit even more unlikely than it was without them is in fact a complete disgrace.

Sure the old bigots deserved their say just as much as the old non-bigots and the young (non)bigots, but you cannot deny that the effects of this result will be felt much more by those who will be having to find jobs, an education, homes etc etc under a UK without the EU, in my opinion it limits their opportunities and it was limited by people who got their house, job and education while in the EU.

It was a result deciding decision to strip the youth of their voice, probably more important than any propaganda spurted from either side. If such an important result deciding decision was to be decided in the government, then the referendum itself should have been decided there as well. It should never have been handed to the little Englanders who hate anyone who talks or looks different than they do, that much is certain, and now they've as good broken up the union in my opinion, potentially sent instability to the already dodgy peace in Ireland and generally ****ed countless generations out of a more liberal and free world.