The Student Room Group

Want to campaign for the 16 year old vote?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by The_Opinion
It is called common sense.

1st, Women often have children, perhaps you don't know this. Men don't have children, perhaps you also don't know this. When a woman has a child, she usually stops working for a while, sometimes several years. The man does not have children, so generally will not stop working. He will then go on to have a good career, getting promoted and gaining a higher salary. This is not hard to understand.

2nd, the ratio of men and women as MP's doesn't actually matter, and again, you are forgetting key issues, men and women are not the exact same, they have different interests, hobbies and skills, all of which effect which jobs they are most likely to apply for and perform successfully.

There are more female primary school teachers than male, do I claim that it is a problem? No, I don't, it is the result of women applying more for those positions, not the sign of some conspiracy.

You need to increase your general knowledge and rationality skills.


What was missed out is simply a greater willingness of men to do the more important parts of jobs, they tend to be more willing to do the bad hours and the dangerous roles; the engineer that will go out in a storm in the middle of the night is far more valuable than the one that will only work during the day when the sun is out.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 181
Where's the campaign to continue ensuring children do not get to decide such important decisions?

When did TSR decide this would be their official standpoint on the issue? *
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by moggis
I havnt read all of this thread but you've done enough to win the argument imao.

It's not an issue I particularly care about but there is one reason over and above anything I saw on this thread that I think demands that 16 year old should be given the vote.

Our political system is hugely swayed towards those who own property.
And not enough people in government really give a damn.
And the reason they don't,apart from the fact that most MPs benefit from the housing crisis ,is because there are too many property owning voters compared to non property owning voters.

One way to alleviate this gross unfairness in our system is to allow 16 year olds to vote.

The only thing is though it really won't make much difference at all to the status quo.

Not under our fptp system.

As for people saying there are too many idiotic 16 year olds or already too many idiots voting ,there's a lot I could say about that but suffice it to say that if 'idiots' manage to vote in a government that does really badly would they not also vote them out again?
Or do people think idiots like having less money etc?

Anyway, if this country turns out to be significantly worse off by voting leave in the referendum who will be the bigger idiot- Oxford educated Cameron who chose to put a referendum in the Tory manifesto or an ordinary leave voter whose vote made not one iota of difference to the outcome?

I can certainly say that when I observe modern (mainly British) society Im never entirely sure who the smart people are.


Very true
People will learn from their mistakes
And thank you


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
What was missed out is simply a greater willingness of men to do the more important parts of jobs, they tend to be more willing to do the bad hours and the dangerous roles; the engineer that will go out in a storm in the middle of the night is far more valuable than the one that will only work during the day when the sun is out.

Posted from TSR Mobile


All true, just couldn't be bothered to type it all out. Unfortunately people who type the rubbish that was typed originally don't care about facts and logic.
Original post by Reue
Where's the campaign to continue ensuring children do not get to decide such important decisions?

When did TSR decide this would be their official standpoint on the issue? *

Age will always be contingent to perspective. If it changed to 16, 16+ will be viewed as adults. Same if it changed to 21+ etc
Reply 185
Original post by I feel myself
Age will always be contingent to perspective. If it changed to 16, 16+ will be viewed as adults. Same if it changed to 21+ etc


Agreed, so keep the age at 18.
Original post by Elastichedgehog
If this was even a viable option there'd have to be some kind of mandatory political class in school. Seriously, I knew nothing about politics when I was 16.

Edit: I think there should be anyway. I'm 18 and I'm still incredibly ill informed. Just a little less so because I've decided to read up on things.


I knew sod all until well into my twenties. It's a biased idea put forward by a remainer.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
I knew sod all until well into my twenties. It's a biased idea put forward by a remainer.


The idea of mandatory political education is the biased idea? or the 16 year old vote? The fact that you didn't know anything about politics into your twenties shows that the nation would benefit from some sort of political education.
Original post by Good bloke
You want ten-year-olds to be given the vote?


yes....yes i do
With mandatory political education, I don't think this is a bad idea. With everything that 16 year olds are allowed to do, I think they should be able to vote. Hell, they can have a child. Should they not be voting to benefit their child's future? There are many uninformed people that still go out and vote almost randomly. It's not just young people. You could even say that only 16 year olds who have finished school would be eligible to vote. People can make their own decisions about whether they believe this is a good idea or not, but that's my opinion. This is a very interesting idea and if possible, I'd like to get involved.
Another subject to add to the over packed listed of subjects that need to be taught.

Yea of course there will be no bias in its teaching.




Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Elastichedgehog
The idea of mandatory political education is the biased idea? or the 16 year old vote? The fact that you didn't know anything about politics into your twenties shows that the nation would benefit from some sort of political education.


The 16yr old vote. But I'm not sure about education, it can be heavily politicized, teach people what to think not how to think. Surely it's peoples level of general education, everything from philosophy to logic to intellectual curiosity, plus their interest in politics. I don't think it's a matter of politics courses, so much as that real world experience touches people in a much more direct and potent way, and makes them viscerally involved in politics, and hence they get more informed and preferences and ideas evolve. It's only ever put that the older vote is regressive or stale, not that their understanding could have matured like wine or cheese.
Original post by Elastichedgehog
The idea of mandatory political education is the biased idea? or the 16 year old vote? The fact that you didn't know anything about politics into your twenties shows that the nation would benefit from some sort of political education.


The problem with mandatory political education is the government of the day will try to push it in favour of their stance, and the teachers will try to teach it with a pro left bias, in other words it becomes a massive cluster**** of political bias and nobody learns anything.
Original post by the bear
yes....yes i do


I am speechless.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending