[Julii92]

(Original post by dgeorge)
Serving in a war, you aren't serving yourself, you are serving your country.

The only point I see here is that 16 year olds in the army should be allowed to vote. That might be an interesting system.

[Julii92]

(Original post by Quady)
But in two years they'll be ready?

(Original post by Quady)
But they will in the next 24 months?

If the voting age is lowered based on that argument, why not lower the voting age to 14? After all, it's only 24 months, or 2 years. A person changes a lot between the ages of 14 and 16, but also between the ages of 16 and 18, which is why I think the system needs to stay how it is.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Julii92)
The only point I see here is that 16 year olds in the army should be allowed to vote. That might be an interesting system.

If you're old enough to represent your country on the battlefield, then I think you're old enough to decide who you want as your leaders.

However, my main point is, you are deemed old enough to leave school/get a job permanently at 16. I see no reason why voting can't be extended to that age, based on the principle that you're old enough to live your own life.

And yes, there will be quite a few people who won't have the greatest grasp on politics etc. But this is the same for people in any and every demographic.

[Clare~Bear]

I doubt many 16 or 17 year olds would bother to vote and even those that did wouldn't make much of a difference.

[tufc]

(Original post by Bornblue)
Anyone who votes Tory doesn't understand politics well enough.

Oh do go away with your Tory hate.

[maccy]

in hungary, if you're married before the age of 18, you are legally a full adult and so have the right to vote, even though the usual voting age is 18. What do you think of that?

Personally, I think it's a bit silly, since generally the people who get married before 18 arent the brightest sparks (yes I know, hasty generalisation, but not saying its true of all of them )

In general though, I think it should be kept at 18. Yes its true that some 16/17 year olds are in full time employment, but the % of people leaving school at 16 is less than 30% so the amount of 16/17 year olds in full time employment must be less than that. Most of them still live with their parents, so theyre not really full citizens. Ok they can go and fight a war on behalf of the country, but that's their choice- there's nothing forcing them to do it! So I don't really see it as an injustice that they can't vote for 2 extra years- won't make any difference to most people anyway!

[Quady]

(Original post by Julii92)
If the voting age is lowered based on that argument, why not lower the voting age to 14? After all, it's only 24 months, or 2 years. A person changes a lot between the ages of 14 and 16, but also between the ages of 16 and 18, which is why I think the system needs to stay how it is.

Because until 16 parents legally have to care for their children, they are not legally independent. If at 16 children have to make their own way in the world then why can't they vote to influence how that world works.

Its a pretty simple reason.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by aeterno)
God no, if anything it needs to be increased.

The amount of idiotic 18 year olds who don't have a clue what they're voting for is ridiculous enough as it is...no need for more clueless voters (which, let's face it, the majority of 16-17 year olds are especially since their political standing will likely change once they are actually affected by the policies for which they're voting)

That's the problem with democracy. So, then, do you advocate a geniocracy? I like how age groups, particular the younger ones, are singled out for being deemed unworthy to vote but the only group of people I have come across who are all sensible are those who have studied or studying a PhD. Perhaps only those awarded with PhDs should vote then? I see no reason why 16 year olds can't because you get clueless voters of all ages and, as they are taxed through national insurance, they should be represented.

(Original post by Setanta23)
Simple Yes or No Question, Should the voting age in The UK be changed to 16?

What do we all think?

If it helps in making your decision, I would like to point out that currently, In the UK the voting age is 18. Although in The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, the voting age is already 16.

The main argument is that the voting age should be appropriate to ensure that the person is old enough to make an informed and independent choice. My question however is that how can this really truly be defined? I mean if we look at the various ages at which young people are allowed to legally do things in the UK, we find that there really isnt any consensus on at what age someone really becomes an adult.

Indeed if we note that right across the UK the legal age of consent is now 16 years old. The legal age to marry in the uk is 16 in Scotland and 18 (or 16 with parental consent) in the rest of the UK.

The legal age required to purchase alcohol in the uk is 18, although between the ages of 5 and 17, it is legally permissible for children to drink alcohol at home or at a friend's house with the permission of a parent or legal guardian.

The legal age at which a person is able to drive in the UK, is 17.

The legal age to purchase tobacco in the UK is 18, but yet the legal age to smoke it is 16.

The legal age at which someone may join the army in the UK is 16 (although under 18 year olds, require their parents permission).

The age of Criminal Responsibiilty in the UK is 12, (This is when a child becomes criminally responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions and so from the age of 12 onwards, individuals are then considered an adult in the eyes of the law. Therefore, all punishment given by the courts or other law enforcement agencies will rest solely upon them.

The age at which Parental responsibility ends in the UK is when the child reaches the age of 16.

A young person in the UK must stay in school until the last Friday in June of the school year in which they turned 16. After that they are legally allowed to work Full-time and therefore legally required to pay Tax and National Insurance contributions.

In the UK there are also different levels of National Minimum Wage, depending on a persons age.

The current rates (from 1 October 2011) are:

•£6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
•£4.98 - the 18-20 rate
•£3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
•£2.60 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

To be elected to the House of Commons, A person must be aged 18 or over, but to sit in the House of Lords, a person must be 21 or over.

So after reading all that you may be asking what have all these legal ages got to do with the age of voting? Well it is my opinion, they have everything to do with it, because if we take into account all of the above facts about legal ages in the uk, it seems that when it comes to our laws, we really are all over the place in our legal viewpoint for when we consider someone old enough or responsibile enough for their actions.

I am 23 and so I have no real benefit in the goverment lowering the voting age to 16 but it is something that I would support and something that I would vote Yes on (furthermore If it was up to me I would make 16 the legal age for everything but that is a topic for another day). But my main aim for asking this question is to find out what each of you think? Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

All debate and points of view are welcomed

Smoking is now 18. You can sit in the Lords aged 18, this was changed recently I believe.

(Original post by dgeorge)
If you're old enough to represent your country on the battlefield, then I think you're old enough to decide who you want as your leaders.

However, my main point is, you are deemed old enough to leave school/get a job permanently at 16. I see no reason why voting can't be extended to that age, based on the principle that you're old enough to live your own life.

And yes, there will be quite a few people who won't have the greatest grasp on politics etc. But this is the same for people in any and every demographic.

Certainly agree with the military issue. I guess school leaving age being raised to 18 makes this redundant more or less in the future. However, I think 16 year olds in the military still need parental/guardian permission to apply plus you're not on the "front line" until you're 18. That said, you are still serving your country via the armed forces and I find it absurd you can represent your country in the military and not be able to vote.

[Dee Leigh]

(Original post by omgg)
I may sound ignorant but whats all the hype about 16 year olds wanting to vote?
its not like thier one vote is going to change the country #justsaying

You only use hashtags on Twitter.

[CJM13]

(Original post by internetguru)
I remember on some BBC programme they said "if you are old enough to die for your country then you are old enough to vote". People are allowed to join the army at 16 therefore yes it should be lowered.

You can't be deployed on operations until you reach 18.

[Cll_ws]

16 year olds are so easily influenced. If you mention anything to do with lowering university fees you've basically got the whole 16-18 vote in the bag.

[omgg]

(Original post by Dee Leigh)


You only use hashtags on Twitter.

Ok. Is it illegal to use them on studentroom?

[tulley11]

(Original post by SunderX)
I still think there should be a basic test (on the electoral system, manifestos of running parties and major issues) similar to a driving license that people have to pass before they can vote, regardless of age. After all, if the whole system of licenses exists because we won't allow people to drive themselves into walls, why should we allow people who don't understand what they're voting for enough to drive the country into a wall?

This would just increase political apathy, if anything the Government and parents etc should play a leading role in educating people on different parties and politics.

Whilst I do agree that some would be influenced (I was), when you start to appreciate different aspects of politics you start to alter your views which may differ from your parents.

[Coke1]

Absolutely no. People at 16 have way too little knowledge of politics! Not all, but some think they are so clued up about current affairs and politics, and hold ridiculous extreme views on things.

There is a huge difference in maturity between 16 and 18.

[Rakas21]

I vote yes.

The majority of people at 16 are capable of understanding what the parties stand for or reading a manifesto, hence i would support their liberty being increased.

[Dee Leigh]

(Original post by omgg)
Ok. Is it illegal to use them on studentroom?

I didn't say it way illegal.

[Zeffy]

No because the average 16 year old isn't intelligent enough to vote. In fact, the voting system should be completely changed since Democracy doesn't work. How can a society where two idiots can outvote a genius be classed as successful?

The average British person is too stupid and too close-minded to know what's good for them and just follow along with the crowd because they lack the intelligence to come up with their own original thoughts. Most of the people on this forum are like that, a group of sheep who just parror everything they're told by the media and by friends.

The only type of government that would work is a Meritocracy, of course I wouldn't expect any of the cretins who post here to understand that big word but simply, it is a much more effective system of government than a democracy since the idiots amongst us really don't deserve a say since they lack the intellect to know what's good for them.

[JacobW]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
That's the problem with democracy. So, then, do you advocate a geniocracy? I like how age groups, particular the younger ones, are singled out for being deemed unworthy to vote but the only group of people I have come across who are all sensible are those who have studied or studying a PhD. Perhaps only those awarded with PhDs should vote then? I see no reason why 16 year olds can't because you get clueless voters of all ages and, as they are taxed through national insurance, they should be represented.

You're right that it's inconsistent to advocate democracy and then exclude people we deem 'clueless'. Why, then, can't we be open about the fact that the franchise is a priveledge awarded on merit? If it were otherwise, we'd have to allow criminals, lunatics, and toddlers to vote; or have government metaphysicians proved that these people somehow lack a moral right to vote possessed by all other human beings?

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by JacobW)
You're right that it's inconsistent to advocate democracy and then exclude people we deem 'clueless'. Why, then, can't we be open about the fact that the franchise is a priveledge awarded on merit? If it were otherwise, we'd have to allow criminals, lunatics, and toddlers to vote; or have government metaphysicians proved that these people somehow lack a moral right to vote possessed by all other human beings?

I suppose how you judge merit is going to be difficult. I've never placed a value on the social worth of the right to vote but perhaps that's because I think the electoral system is dross and I'm living in a Parliamentary constituency that has a very strong majority. I haven't looked at the eligibility criteria but even if the country did prohibit lunatics I imagine some people who suffer from diseases that affect people's reasoning and behaviour may well be able to vote. There are enough of them.

Old news but: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/479892.stm

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by dgeorge)
If you're old enough to represent your country on the battlefield, then I think you're old enough to decide who you want as your leaders.

I agree and that is already the case because we don't send under 18 year olds onto any battlefield. The most our 16 year olds can decide on within BAF is to go on a rigorous BUT SAFE training course and taking orders.