Want to campaign for the 16 year old vote?
Scroll to see replies
You want politicians to care even less then they do now about young people? This is how you do it. Voter turnout in the 18-24 category is low enough as it is, without adding 16 and 17 year olds. I bet this move would only widen the gap in age vs vote. There would be no point to it. for every 'politically active' 16-17 year old there is a hundred who wouldn't give a toss.
Original post by Trapz99
As a 17 year old, I am completely against it. Most 16-17 year olds are far too immature to form their own opinion and even 18 year olds are still too young to have the right to vote. The voting age should ideally be 21 but 18 is the current age and I'm fine with that- just don't bring the age limit even further down. No need whatsoever.
Just wait until you find out how clueless most adults are
Ok then but I want the over 70s denied the vote due to the decrease in mental facultiues.
(edited 7 years ago)
People who call for 16 year olds to vote are usually leftists who want an army of impressionable chattel to push through their loony ideas.
Your other post was just tldr, contained way too much irrelevant information so I skimmed it. I didn't "read things that weren't there", I just read half of what was there haha.
Do you honestly think a vote would be made on an impulse though? You have the months of campaigning beforehand in which you can gather facts, and then make an informed and educated decision. You don't just get to the polling station with the ballot paper in your hand like "im gonna vote the monster raving loony party lol bantz".
Do you honestly think a vote would be made on an impulse though? You have the months of campaigning beforehand in which you can gather facts, and then make an informed and educated decision. You don't just get to the polling station with the ballot paper in your hand like "im gonna vote the monster raving loony party lol bantz".
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Abstract_Prism
Don't worry, you can hear it from someone your own age too!
Our generation is uneducated.
To be honest, it's not even about being educated. 16 - 18 year olds are stupid, and they will always be stupid. No amount of education will change that. Ask any 18 year old if they thought they should have been able to vote when they were 16. Most will say no, because they know their 16 year old brain was too easily influenced and naive to make a good decision.
The only reason I think 18 year olds can even vote is because they start full-time work at that point.
If 16 year olds got the vote, you'd see a revival of the British Communist Party and other stupid ideas.
Besides, people now only want to extend the vote to 16 year olds because they know that if they had the vote Remain would have won.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Our generation is uneducated.
To be honest, it's not even about being educated. 16 - 18 year olds are stupid, and they will always be stupid. No amount of education will change that. Ask any 18 year old if they thought they should have been able to vote when they were 16. Most will say no, because they know their 16 year old brain was too easily influenced and naive to make a good decision.
The only reason I think 18 year olds can even vote is because they start full-time work at that point.
If 16 year olds got the vote, you'd see a revival of the British Communist Party and other stupid ideas.
Besides, people now only want to extend the vote to 16 year olds because they know that if they had the vote Remain would have won.
Posted from TSR Mobile
1) I agree, some of "our generation" are stupid. Can't argue about that. But I, unlike you, believe education can erase some degree of stupidity.
2) 16 year olds, once they finish GCSEs, can work full time (though that might be changing)
3) That's an extreme case, besides, anyone who studied GCSE history would know that communism is a bad idea. There are already some bad ideas anyway, (BNP, anyone?).
Spoiler
4) Actually, the Remain vote wouldn't have won. I posted this on tsr a few weeks ago; a friend on facebook made the following post:
"1,545,382 16 to 17-year-olds living in the UK as according to mid-2013 data: our population is only getting older, so presumably there are fewer 16 to 17-year-olds now, but we'll still use this figure.
100% of this number can be part of the electorate.
we assume the number of 16 to 17 non-citizens studying inside the UK is roughly the same as the number of 16 to 17 citizens studying outside the UK. turnout might be 36%, so 556,337 people would vote.
turnout for 18-24-year-olds was 36% as according to Sky Data: this would potentially be even lower for 16-17-year-olds due to the trend of turnout increasing by age (and starkly vice versa).
72% of these votes might be to remain, meaning 400,563 more remain votes.
conclusion: remain might have lost with a little bit less of a gap (precisely 3.2% of a gap)"
I look at OP's avatar and every time I do, it looks a bit more like Ian Huntley 
There was absolutely no need to call me immature.
All I said was scientific facts about brain development and a teenager's impulsive behaviour are not relevant at all to their political beliefs. I'll do a proper response, if you like, to your previous post:
"One interpretation of all these findings is that in teens, the parts of the brain involved in emotional responses are fully online, or even more active than in adults, while the parts of the brain involved in keeping emotional, impulsive responses in check are still reaching maturity. Such a changing balance might provide clues to a youthful appetite for novelty, and a tendency to act on impulse—without regard for risk."
Teenagers have to live with their decision for the longest; which may make them think more about the vote they're making rather than acting on an impulse. Besides, at this age we're required to make other decisions which impact our lives- decisions about university, A levels etc. I feel like you took the quote out of context to support your point- the article is talking about crime rates and alcohol abuse.
"Most specifically, teenagers lack many of the nerve connections that tie the frontal lobe to the rest of the brain, limiting their ability to think ahead."
"In the teenage brain, these connections aren’t fully formed yet, and it, unsurprisingly, impacts the brain’s ability to process information in a way that looks at the entire picture. It’s been found that the last part of the brain to finish developing its connections is the frontal lobe, which is also the part of the brain that governs attention span, impulses, and motivation."
This, again, was talking about crime rates, mortality etc. This is split-second, impulsive decision making. We are also capable of making long-term, important decisions. It makes no sense that the government give us the opportunity to allow us to make an informed decision about what we want to do with the rest of our lives, yet not allow us to make an informed decision about who we want in Parliament. When I argue that 16+ should get the vote, I don't mean make it happen tomorrow. We should get lessons in school on politics and economics before getting the vote.
"It now appears the brain continues to change into the early 20's with the frontal lobes, responsible for reasoning and problem solving, developing last."
"The frontal lobes help put the brakes on a desire for thrills and taking risk -- a building block of adolescence; but, they're also one of the last areas of the brain to develop fully."
I think by "taking a risk" and a "desire for thrills", this is talking about something like a teenager being more likely to seek an adrenaline rush rather than taking a risk with their futures. In that same article:
"In calm situations, teenagers can rationalize almost as well as adults."
It's talking about teenagers being more likely to be involved in car accidents, though
"Teenagers are capable of learning a lot, but the parts of their brains related to emotions and decision-making are still in the works. As their brains undergo rewiring, teenagers are particularly vulnerable to risky behavior, such as drinking and driving too fast.
Brain immaturity can explain why the teen crash rate is so high."
I absolutely agree that teenagers make some split-second decisions without thinking about long term consequences. However, a political opinion, along with many other things is not one of them.
I hope you respond to my points rather than attack me for being young and immature.
edit: still think most of your post was irrelvant since you took the quotations out of context.
All I said was scientific facts about brain development and a teenager's impulsive behaviour are not relevant at all to their political beliefs. I'll do a proper response, if you like, to your previous post:
"One interpretation of all these findings is that in teens, the parts of the brain involved in emotional responses are fully online, or even more active than in adults, while the parts of the brain involved in keeping emotional, impulsive responses in check are still reaching maturity. Such a changing balance might provide clues to a youthful appetite for novelty, and a tendency to act on impulse—without regard for risk."
Teenagers have to live with their decision for the longest; which may make them think more about the vote they're making rather than acting on an impulse. Besides, at this age we're required to make other decisions which impact our lives- decisions about university, A levels etc. I feel like you took the quote out of context to support your point- the article is talking about crime rates and alcohol abuse.
"Most specifically, teenagers lack many of the nerve connections that tie the frontal lobe to the rest of the brain, limiting their ability to think ahead."
"In the teenage brain, these connections aren’t fully formed yet, and it, unsurprisingly, impacts the brain’s ability to process information in a way that looks at the entire picture. It’s been found that the last part of the brain to finish developing its connections is the frontal lobe, which is also the part of the brain that governs attention span, impulses, and motivation."
This, again, was talking about crime rates, mortality etc. This is split-second, impulsive decision making. We are also capable of making long-term, important decisions. It makes no sense that the government give us the opportunity to allow us to make an informed decision about what we want to do with the rest of our lives, yet not allow us to make an informed decision about who we want in Parliament. When I argue that 16+ should get the vote, I don't mean make it happen tomorrow. We should get lessons in school on politics and economics before getting the vote.
"It now appears the brain continues to change into the early 20's with the frontal lobes, responsible for reasoning and problem solving, developing last."
"The frontal lobes help put the brakes on a desire for thrills and taking risk -- a building block of adolescence; but, they're also one of the last areas of the brain to develop fully."
I think by "taking a risk" and a "desire for thrills", this is talking about something like a teenager being more likely to seek an adrenaline rush rather than taking a risk with their futures. In that same article:
"In calm situations, teenagers can rationalize almost as well as adults."
It's talking about teenagers being more likely to be involved in car accidents, though
"Teenagers are capable of learning a lot, but the parts of their brains related to emotions and decision-making are still in the works. As their brains undergo rewiring, teenagers are particularly vulnerable to risky behavior, such as drinking and driving too fast.
Brain immaturity can explain why the teen crash rate is so high."
I absolutely agree that teenagers make some split-second decisions without thinking about long term consequences. However, a political opinion, along with many other things is not one of them.
I hope you respond to my points rather than attack me for being young and immature.
edit: still think most of your post was irrelvant since you took the quotations out of context.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by WhatIsSleep
Teachers aren't allowed to advocate their political/religious beliefs in the classroom anyway.
And you honestly believe a teacher will be able to hide their feelings towards certain parties/individuals?
Original post by AccountingBabe
And you honestly believe a teacher will be able to hide their feelings towards certain parties/individuals?
You'd definitely need an R.S., history, or politics teacher to take the lessons.
In every single class I've had, whenever debating politics/religion, the teacher always challenges us, even if they don't agree with what they're saying. Hell, I've even had a teacher defend Hitler (as a challenge, of course, to see how the student would respond to the points). As someone who has discussed politics with teachers, they hide their feelings pretty well.
Original post by WhatIsSleep
You'd definitely need an R.S., history, or politics teacher to take the lessons.
In every single class I've had, whenever debating politics/religion, the teacher always challenges us, even if they don't agree with what they're saying. Hell, I've even had a teacher defend Hitler (as a challenge, of course, to see how the student would respond to the points). As someone who has discussed politics with teachers, they hide their feelings pretty well.
In every single class I've had, whenever debating politics/religion, the teacher always challenges us, even if they don't agree with what they're saying. Hell, I've even had a teacher defend Hitler (as a challenge, of course, to see how the student would respond to the points). As someone who has discussed politics with teachers, they hide their feelings pretty well.
So you believe your experiance fits with everyone else?
Original post by AccountingBabe
So you believe your experiance fits with everyone else?
It definitely should. Teachers who advocate political and religious beliefs can lose their jobs.
Original post by WhatIsSleep
It definitely should. Teachers who advocate political and religious beliefs can lose their jobs.
Expectations dont always reflect reality. Its far too easy to manipulate the public through educational propaganda. Best leave the politics to university/self study/experiance.
One only has to look at the BBC now a days to see how biased it has become and its meant to be the most unbiased medium in the world.
Original post by AccountingBabe
Expectations dont always reflect reality. Its far too easy to manipulate the public through educational propaganda. Best leave the politics to university/self study/experiance.
One only has to look at the BBC now a days to see how biased it has become and its meant to be the most unbiased medium in the world.
One only has to look at the BBC now a days to see how biased it has become and its meant to be the most unbiased medium in the world.
News outlets can be biased- there's no rule against that.
The teachers would be talking about politics in a general sense anyway- how much your vote counts, what words like "deficit", "inflation" and other political buzzwords mean etc. They could cover the manifestos, but they'd have to cover the manifesto of (at least) each major political party.
I disagree with you entirely. You need to get young people interested in politics and the only way to do that is to introduce people to it earlier.
(edited 7 years ago)
No way. 16 year olds know nothing about politics, this is coming from a person turning 16 next month, I know what my peers are more interested in...
i completely agree that 16 & 17 year olds should be able to vote. we are entitled and mature enough to have our say.
i am open to helping with anything that needs to be done to ensure that we manage to achieve this.
Posted from TSR Mobile
i am open to helping with anything that needs to be done to ensure that we manage to achieve this.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ChrisN
== We believe 16 and 17 year olds deserve to be heard in elections. If you agree and would like to get involved in researching our approach and then campaigning for change, please get in touch==
Having worked at The Student Room for 10 years, and as a College Governor at Brighton and Hove Sixth Form College, I've been overwhelmed by the number of highly engaged young students having really well informed debates on key political issues. This is sometimes more than can be said for much of the adult population.
As you turn 16 and 17 you gain the rights to get married, have children, join the army, drive, fly planes, as well as the to go to adult prison. As young people, you will also have to live with the consequences of political decisions for longer than any of the rest of us. To me it feels like a relic from the past that your voice is excluded from important political decisions. You have a right for your opinions to be listened to at the highest levels, and on the most important issues.
During the EU referendum our polls showed that 82% of 16 and 17 year olds wanted to Remain, so clearly your views were not well represented by the general voting population. Interestingly though, 16 and 17 year olds polled similarly to 18-24 year olds - 75% of whom voted Remain (YouGov after the vote), so broadly in line with your closest peers.
Scotland lowered the voting age to 16 in 2014 for the independence vote, and are now extending it for all elections. With the current sweeping political change in the UK we feel that the time is right to follow their lead, and to push to get the UK parliament to adopt this progressive position.
So with that in mind, we would like to identify driven members of the TSR community who would like to get involved in researching, refining our position, and campaigning for this change, with the support of TSR to assist with political contacts, public relations and lobbying. We will consider whether to go this alone, or to join up with other organisations.
As TSR is used by 75% of the 16-24 population, and gets 8.5 million visits to our websites each month, we are often approached, and listened to, by the political establishment as well as other media, and we feel it is right to use this position to help drive through a change we feel so passionately about.
If this is a cause that you feel strongly that you would like to help with, then post your interest in here, and we will get a private forum set-up to start discussing the best route forwards.
We want to do our bit to ensure your voice is heard. We hope you do too, and will join us in making this happen.
We understand their will be differences of opinion on this subject, and that's fine too.
Thanks
Chris
Having worked at The Student Room for 10 years, and as a College Governor at Brighton and Hove Sixth Form College, I've been overwhelmed by the number of highly engaged young students having really well informed debates on key political issues. This is sometimes more than can be said for much of the adult population.
As you turn 16 and 17 you gain the rights to get married, have children, join the army, drive, fly planes, as well as the to go to adult prison. As young people, you will also have to live with the consequences of political decisions for longer than any of the rest of us. To me it feels like a relic from the past that your voice is excluded from important political decisions. You have a right for your opinions to be listened to at the highest levels, and on the most important issues.
During the EU referendum our polls showed that 82% of 16 and 17 year olds wanted to Remain, so clearly your views were not well represented by the general voting population. Interestingly though, 16 and 17 year olds polled similarly to 18-24 year olds - 75% of whom voted Remain (YouGov after the vote), so broadly in line with your closest peers.
Scotland lowered the voting age to 16 in 2014 for the independence vote, and are now extending it for all elections. With the current sweeping political change in the UK we feel that the time is right to follow their lead, and to push to get the UK parliament to adopt this progressive position.
So with that in mind, we would like to identify driven members of the TSR community who would like to get involved in researching, refining our position, and campaigning for this change, with the support of TSR to assist with political contacts, public relations and lobbying. We will consider whether to go this alone, or to join up with other organisations.
As TSR is used by 75% of the 16-24 population, and gets 8.5 million visits to our websites each month, we are often approached, and listened to, by the political establishment as well as other media, and we feel it is right to use this position to help drive through a change we feel so passionately about.
If this is a cause that you feel strongly that you would like to help with, then post your interest in here, and we will get a private forum set-up to start discussing the best route forwards.
We want to do our bit to ensure your voice is heard. We hope you do too, and will join us in making this happen.
We understand their will be differences of opinion on this subject, and that's fine too.
Thanks
Chris
HI i'd be interested to help
Original post by WhatIsSleep
2) 16 year olds, once they finish GCSEs, can work full time (though that might be changing)
No, they can't. Either carry on with full-time education or do an apprenticeship, there is no option to go into work full-time.
Original post by WhatIsSleep
3) That's an extreme case, besides, anyone who studied GCSE history would know that communism is a bad idea. There are already some bad ideas anyway, (BNP, anyone?).
3) That's an extreme case, besides, anyone who studied GCSE history would know that communism is a bad idea. There are already some bad ideas anyway, (BNP, anyone?).
Also, the BNP is a perfectly respectable political party. People act as if there is some consensus that the BNP is terrible and it's ok to mock them, even in situations when political neutrality is required. It's embarrassing.
Original post by WhatIsSleep
4) Actually, the Remain vote wouldn't have won. I posted this on tsr a few weeks ago; a friend on facebook made the following post:
"1,545,382 16 to 17-year-olds living in the UK as according to mid-2013 data: our population is only getting older, so presumably there are fewer 16 to 17-year-olds now, but we'll still use this figure.
100% of this number can be part of the electorate.
we assume the number of 16 to 17 non-citizens studying inside the UK is roughly the same as the number of 16 to 17 citizens studying outside the UK. turnout might be 36%, so 556,337 people would vote.
turnout for 18-24-year-olds was 36% as according to Sky Data: this would potentially be even lower for 16-17-year-olds due to the trend of turnout increasing by age (and starkly vice versa).
72% of these votes might be to remain, meaning 400,563 more remain votes.
conclusion: remain might have lost with a little bit less of a gap (precisely 3.2% of a gap)"
4) Actually, the Remain vote wouldn't have won. I posted this on tsr a few weeks ago; a friend on facebook made the following post:
"1,545,382 16 to 17-year-olds living in the UK as according to mid-2013 data: our population is only getting older, so presumably there are fewer 16 to 17-year-olds now, but we'll still use this figure.
100% of this number can be part of the electorate.
we assume the number of 16 to 17 non-citizens studying inside the UK is roughly the same as the number of 16 to 17 citizens studying outside the UK. turnout might be 36%, so 556,337 people would vote.
turnout for 18-24-year-olds was 36% as according to Sky Data: this would potentially be even lower for 16-17-year-olds due to the trend of turnout increasing by age (and starkly vice versa).
72% of these votes might be to remain, meaning 400,563 more remain votes.
conclusion: remain might have lost with a little bit less of a gap (precisely 3.2% of a gap)"
Very interesting, I'll retract my statement then, even though there are more assumptions in that analysis than I'd like. Even so, I do feel that with all the old-people-hate after the referendum, there is some pro-Remain agenda behind extending the franchise to 16-year-olds.
Original post by h3rmit
There are immature people in all age groups, and you don't suddenly become more mature when you reach 18. And, it is younger people's future, and they deserve to have their say. All you can do is engage in mature discussion. Count me in.
Thank you! My views exactly! What is the magic number of 18? I think that if 16 year olds can get a job, married, claim benefits.....they should be represented1
too many idiots our age sorry m8
Original post by MrMackyTv
No way. 16 year olds know nothing about politics, this is coming from a person turning 16 next month, I know what my peers are more interested in...
Having the option to vote does not mean you have to vote.
If your peers are not interested in politics then they wouldn't vote.
And just so you know there are 18, 25, 40 and 70 year olds who also aren't interested in politics.
I don't know why you think that you do not deserve a say in our country.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- erin11 asks...have you registered to vote yet?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Why does people on reddit always criticizes a 21-23 year old dating someone 18/19?
- University of Surrey academics back no confidence vote as 'morale is very low'
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- Politics
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Btec level 3 extended business dimploma
- Participation crisis essay
- Rishi Sunak proposes the Advanced British Standard
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Shops that offer jobs to 15 y/o's?
- Jobs at 15
- Your Perfect Country
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
