[starkrush]

People finish education aged 16 and can go out and work. They have nothing more to learn from our education system, so as far as the government is concerned, they should be full citizens. While I agree that many 16-year-olds aren't mature enough, I don't think the two years up to 18 are what changes them.

I'm personally for voting the lower age, but it is frustrating that it's often centred around "are they mature?" There will always be people within any age bracket who may be deemed inappropriate to vote. The point is that the system leads towards citizenship aged 16, with the ability to (crucially) pay tax. If you are contributing to the taxes, you surely have the right to have a say in how it's used? This also applies to raising compulsory education to 18 - but personally I wouldn't want to force people into education beyond 16 since for many people it's inappropriate.

[nerimon18]

I think it should be lowered to 16. Many of the decisions politicians make effect the majority of 16 year-olds in society, so they should have the right to vote to involve themselves in politics.

[ieatcheeseyo]

(Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
absolutely not. It's hard enough for adults to decide who should run the country, let alone allowing 16 year olds to do it. As Mazzini says, they simply wouldn't be mature enough for that sort of decision.
Whilst we're at it, the age of consent should be raised to 18. If somebody isn't mature enough to drive or vote, they sure as hell aren't mature enough to raise a child.

The age to join the army is 16?
I can die for Great Britain/ England before I have the chance to vote for the leaders?
Most 16 year old's will be too immature and/or lazy to vote... the same number will be too lazy to join the army etc, so those guys WONT VOTE ANYWAY... the teens that are actually interested will vote...
But what about those that are sensible enough to understand whats going on and have their own say?

If under 18's aren't mature enough to drive/ vote?

Kids in america can drive from 16?
Their drinking age is higher... that supposedly works, so what's to say I wouldn't be able to drive right now?
The laws put in place by the government? (That I didn't get to vote for?)

So against you logic, I have enough understanding to vote... and I might be able to drive... so then why should the age of consent go up?
What IF I wanted a child "early"?
What if I'm old enough/ responsible to raise a child?

(And yeah, the age of consent should go up/ there should be more to stop teen pregnancies etc. Just saying in my example... I can Die fighting for this country... before I can vote for the leaders)

[SilverArch]

16 year olds up to this point (I know this is changing soon), can leave school and take on a full time job once they are 16 and have finished Y11. I think if you are working and paying tax, then you must absolutely have the right to vote

[curtis871]

(Original post by ccfcadam36)
if there are going to be decisions made like cutting EMA that effect the age group directlythen we should be able to vote.

5 year olds have to go to school. Lets let them vote .


Currently no it shouldn't be lowered. If they taught politics well and in an unbiased way before that age then possibly.

[The Phelps]

I will say it. I don't think the majority of our population are 'smart' enough to vote even if I put aside people with conflicting ideologies. The only reason I don't want the age lowered is that new group of 16 and 17 year old would be very easy to buy. If you're the only party to bring back EMA I would imagine for no other reason than that you would get the majority of that age groups vote. I'm not saying that older people aren't sold a political party merely on one idea or one idea that benefits them, but it would be an easy one to implement that would secure the majority win of that demographic.

[AlmostChicGeek]

Nope, they are not legally adults, so aren't classed as mature enough to make life changing decisions like that. Don't think the majority of adults actually take time to read all the manifestos and such like - as policies of party's change over the years, how can we expect 16 year olds to? At 16 you are usually in a completely different situation to when you are an adult, at least most 16 year olds I know were. I.e didn't have to worry about paying all of the bills and looking after themselves.

The majority of 16 year olds that I knew when I was 16, didn't take the time to research parties, and just purely went by what their parents voted for - me included.

It is only when I became an adult and became responsible for myself that I took an interest in the parties, because that is when I felt I would be directly affected by it.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
Neither are a lot of adults.

Well that says something about our society, doesn't it?

[chavalis]

(Original post by Jaki_B)
Tbh, I think they should pass a test or something to prove they take enough notice of politics to deserve the vote.

Straight up. To be fair, I think everyone should, but I'm sure that would be an infringement on civil liberties or summink.

From what I heard from some people at my school they were just quoting whatever they heard from their parents. Two girls in particular (one conservative one liberal) used to get into these massive shouting matches about politics (most notably the subject of benefits) and spout the most inane drivel. However, when questioned by one of the gov and pol students, neither had any idea about either party's actual policies.

I think anyone who can make a rational decision based on their own opinions and knowledge of politics should be allowed to vote.

[Unsworth]

I think it should definitely remain as it is. The vast majority of 16 year olds will not have the knowledge of politics, nor the experience of having to work and pay tax to enable them to make a justified decision.

Yes people will say "oh at age 16 I had the breadth of knowledge and maturity required to vote on our country's leaders", but these are in the minority. Politics is rarely taught within state schools at GCSE level (I'm unsure how common it is to find public schools teaching it at this level) and so how do you expect budding year 11 students to have any rational idea as to who should lead this country? There are people who obviously read around and understand politics at this age, but I think you will find it is a very small amount.

[johndoranglasgow]

Jesus, no.
Jesus, Jesus Christ no.

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by ccfcadam36)
if there are going to be decisions made like cutting EMA that effect the age group directlythen we should be able to vote.

That's exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to vote...

[Whangdoodle]

No way. About half of my year are 16 (Year 11) and I don't imagine any of us are informed enough to decide what would be best for the country as a whole - the stuff I hear fellow students saying in Citizenship lessons is ridiculous. Most of us really don't have a clue! (Myself included)

[PinkMobilePhone]

(Original post by ieatcheeseyo)
The age to join the army is 16?
I can die for Great Britain/ England before I have the chance to vote for the leaders?

explain these to me then :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-present.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Call-Duty.html

[Malabarista]

(Original post by Unsworth)
I think it should definitely remain as it is. The vast majority of 16 year olds will not have the knowledge of politics, nor the experience of having to work and pay tax to enable them to make a justified decision.

However, 16 year olds can be taxed and therefore should have the right to vote, as soon as someone can be taxed, they must be able to vote, other wise they are trapped (at least for two years) in a system they cannot vote themselves out of.

On top of that, you make the absurd point that the vast majority of teenagers having no knowledge of politics should rule that age group out of voting, if this logic were to be applied to every age group, no one would be able to vote. You seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of 'adults' also have no political knowledge.

[Usernamecensored]

Of course 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, in fact I am sure there are quite a few children still in primary school who have the maturity to vote, and it would be arrogant and ignorant to assume otherwise based on our inaccurate and time-addled memories of that age.

However, there would of course be problems with children this young simply being instructed by their parents to vote for a certain party, and everyone with children suddenly gets an extra vote. 16 is old enough to prevent this too much, and young enough that you are not cutting out a huge amount of politically-interested people with an opinion, who are, let's not forget, actually going to be affected by the government's policies.

Those saying 16 year-olds aren't mature enough either weren't very mature themselves at that age or have forgotten about being 16, maturity rarely has very much to do with age. At my school, almost everyone in the sixth form would be much more mature and would cast a much more reasoned vote than a significant proportion of registered adults.

And to those who say we should test people and then decide whether they should be allowed to vote, how are you enjoying your holiday from your role in China's government, or North Korea's, or Zimbabwe's? Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship you're on the road towards there. I agree young people would need more education in politics if the voting age was lowered as at the moment it is virtually non-existent, but again, I bet there are a lot more hopelessly misinformed and prejudiced adults voting BNP than there would be under 18s given a bit of teaching on basic economics etc.

[Psyk]

I don't have any major objection to reducing the voting age to 16 in general, but one thing I definitely don't agree with is politicians lowering it for one particular vote because it clearly suits their agenda. Alex Salmond's suggestion that 16 year olds should be able to vote in the independence referendum is ridiculous. I'd go as far as calling it undemocratic. If the voting age is going to be changed it should not be changed specifically for one referendum. To do so is clearly manipulating the vote. If the UK voting age had been clearly established as 16 before then, it wouldn't be a problem. But otherwise is basically age-wise gerrymandering.

[fuzzybear]

NO. Even the voting age as it stands is a little dubious, most 18 year olds literally just follow who their parents vote or have little knowledge of politics, but I suppose most of the population are guilty of this. I can't help but think it'll make the voting system somewhat more farcical by giving 16 year olds the vote.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

what's the point?

[t0ffee]

Personally i think there should be a 'time' of absolute consent - the 1st of the year after you finish your gcses. Then you should be considered an adult and be able to do everything those 18 and over now can do.

GCSEs should also be omitted from university applications - as it doesn't seem fair to essentially have the same rights as a child, but responsible enough to work to affect your uni application -> your future as an adult.