[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
And that's also the reason why all the 16 and 17 year olds on here are whining about not being able to vote: it's because they can't join in the fun.

Are you sure about that? I would vote because it allows me to have a voice plus I don't want to be run by some upper-class angry-birds-playing politician who is not down to Earth and more concerned about riding a woman's horse rather than fixing the economy and deficit. And I feel kind of sorry for that guy. He set up the 'Leveson Enquiry' which is now turning against him. Plus, I don't like Labour either but they are the only alternate I can see.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
'Stupid people' is not a valid point. People aren't doomed to be stupid like some disability.

Ah so should we have an upper age limit to weed out pensioners who suffer from dementia? Or any disease that affects cognitive processes? The age limit is completely arbitrary and is merely an illustration that democracy is not real, otherwise everyone would vote. You can only be a partial representative democracy if you ignore a part of society.

In terms of most politically aware, in my expereince, that tends to be people who are currently studying for PhDs or who have completed them. I imagine turning Britain into a fusion of technocracy and geniocracy will be met with criticism and would be seen as a violation of human rights by the prawn sandwich brigade in Strasbourg.

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by iSoftie)
Come on most 16 year olds have never heard of the Lib Dems or the UKIP for that reason -_-

No way.
I'm 16 and even though I keep up with how this country is being runned I can never discuss politics with my 'homies' lol. I mean come on?

If 16 year olds could vote:

Me: "Have you heard what's happened lately with Baroness Warsi?"
Friend: "Yes I heard, I thought that was a bit of a backstab from her whistle-blowing friend whom she dear trusted!"

I mean I've never heard any of these conversations going on with kids my age.

Real life:

Me: "The coalition aren't doing much I'm afraid :/ hopefully they won't mess up with the Euro zone."
Friend: "What you smokin'?!??!?!"


Exeunt.

Maybe it's for that reason.




If more people had the opportunity to vote at the younger age, maybe they'd care more about where their vote is going and actually learn about what is going on.




Like a post*#2 mentions, why is it they could do other things such as join the army before they could vote?

[harrietx123x]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
Yes, given most people at 16 can make just as educated a vote as an 18 year old.

This is true, seeing at (at the moment) many leave school at 16, it doesn't mean they are any less educated than 18 year olds if they have already left school.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by JamalAhmed)
Are you sure about that? I would vote because it allows me to have a voice plus I don't want to be run by some upper-class angry-birds-playing politician who is not down to Earth and more concerned about riding a woman's horse rather than fixing the economy and deficit. And I feel kind of sorry for that guy. He set up the 'Leveson Enquiry' which is now turning against him. Plus, I don't like Labour either but they are the only alternate I can see.

Perfect example of why 16 year olds shouldn't vote. You don't want to vote for the Conservatives because they're too upper class and too close to the Murdoch press. Your solution: vote for Labour, the "only" alternative, who definitely aren't full of privately education politicians who would suck up to the Murdochs.

On a more serious note, however, you have just proved my point with the way you tried to vilify Cameron by calling him "some upper class politician". Elections are all about the theatre. If you want influence at the age of 16, donate some money to your favourite activist group / political party.

[JacobW]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Ah so should we have an upper age limit to weed out pensioners who suffer from dementia? Or any disease that affects cognitive processes? The age limit is completely arbitrary and is merely an illustration that democracy is not real, otherwise everyone would vote. You can only be a partial representative democracy if you ignore a part of society.

Of course it's arbitrary. That our electoral system was not designed from scratch in accordance with some kind of political revelation, but rather developed over centuries in response to practical neccessity, is one of its chief strengths. Arbitrary the restriction may be, but the salient question is whether giving votes to sixteen-year-olds would dilute the quality of the electorate. Clearly the answer is yes.

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
In terms of most politically aware, in my expereince, that tends to be people who are currently studying for PhDs or who have completed them. I imagine turning Britain into a fusion of technocracy and geniocracy will be met with criticism and would be seen as a violation of human rights by the prawn sandwich brigade in Strasbourg.

Nobody is advocating the principle "only people who meet x level of political awareness are entitled to the franchise". I reject the idea that any universal principles need underpin the constitution at all; rather, we need to climb down from our ivory towers and consider the practical consequences of change rather than their conformity to bizzare and implausible political ideals.

[Wawasan]

(Original post by Psyk)
If that MP had a child with a 16 year old, good luck remaining an MP!

I think there's still many cases where 16 year olds are not treated as full adults. Isn't the school leaving age sort of rising to 17 in England anyway? I think you have to stay in some kind of education or training until 17. So you could get an apprenticeship, but not any old full time job.

Yes, true. Like said, the downfall of these youngsters getting the vote is generally lack of awareness and social acceptance of politics and how it would influence them.

Oh and I see you're from Leamington. I'm a Coventry man :P.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Wawasan)
Yes, true. Like said, the downfall of these youngsters getting the vote is generally lack of awareness and social acceptance of politics and how it would influence them.

Oh and I see you're from Leamington. I'm a Coventry man :P.

I maintain that I'm not from Leamington But I suppose if I stay here much longer I'll be a naturalised Leamingtonian.

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
Perfect example of why 16 year olds shouldn't vote. You don't want to vote for the Conservatives because they're too upper class and too close to the Murdoch press. Your solution: vote for Labour, the "only" alternative, who definitely aren't full of privately education politicians who would suck up to the Murdochs.

On a more serious note, however, you have just proved my point with the way you tried to vilify Cameron by calling him "some upper class politician". Elections are all about the theatre. If you want influence at the age of 16, donate some money to your favourite activist group / political party.

My point was that upper class people do not represent the average person and they are not down to earth. Plus, I don't like Labour but they are definitely better than Conservatives with all their cuts. And David Cameron doesn't listen to the public. For example, he didn't listen to the strikes set by NUT/NASUWT but instead he ignorantly insulted it.

[laprenti]

isn't that the problem with voting and the uk political system anyway? The only parties in with a chance are as bad as each other or just 'less worse', they just pass the baton every few years, and there's no point even participating/voting.

[L i b]

(Original post by Tycho)
Voting isn't a huge responsibility, it's should be a right for anyone who is legally an adult, and in Scotland you are legally an adult at 16.

You're past your sell-by date on that one. There's no straightforward concept of minority or majority in law: people acquire rights at different ages. I think my preference would actually be to stop children marrying until they are 18 - but then, I'm sure the religious and family types would complain about an age of consent for sex which is different from the age for marriage as legally endorsing sex outside of the marital institution.

It's bile. 16-year-olds are not inherently less educated or intelligent than the general population.

They are inherently mess mature in their outlook and judgement. I wouldn't want them voting.

[Libertarian_Walrus]

At 16 I didn't really care about politics, but would probably have voted Labour simply because i was still under the wings of my parents.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by JamalAhmed)
My point was that upper class people do not represent the average person and they are not down to earth. Plus, I don't like Labour but they are definitely better than Conservatives with all their cuts. And David Cameron doesn't listen to the public. For example, he didn't listen to the strikes set by NUT/NASUWT but instead he ignorantly insulted it.

Of course he listens to the public. He's a politician. If he's ignored what the NUT/NASUWT want, that's probably because people either mostly disagree with them or aren't that bothered. That said, I don't see why it's a good thing if politicians blindly pander to popular opinion on everything.

[rmpr97]

If a 16 year old pays tax on his wage then that 16 year old should have a say on who that 16 year old pays it to.

[Harolinho]

Isn't a 16 year old basically an 18 year old who hasn't experienced the slightly harder drugs yet?

[TheGrandmaster]

(Original post by Mazzini)
No, because all the 'hipsters' would vote without reading their manifestos so the left-wing would get lots of free votes...

All about the communist party, they're the only party that isn't like totally mainstream

[Automaton]

I'm of the opinion that the less people that vote, the better. How to increase turnout is a bogus debate, as it implies the need to do so. As for 16 and 17 year olds voting, the difference of 2 years isn't enough to warrant any complaining from the 16 year olds, however it is enough time for them to research and become more politically intelligent. I suggest people take a look at this video:

[starkey]

I'm 16 and have an interest in politics, so would therefore like to have a say about how our country is run, as would anyone else who holds an interest in politics. However I am aware that many 16 year olds don't have the same interest, but neither do some adults who are still allowed to cast a vote. Therefore I agree that we should have a vote, but I'm biased
16 year olds are considered somewhat mature and able to make their own decisions for themselves (ie. age of consent) so why can't this be applied to casting a vote?

[qwe11rty22]

no.

if you can vote, you have a right to be listened to.

if you have a right to be listened to, why are we teaching you?

[freakymonkey]

The point is, and I'm sure it's been made before in this thread, that the staggered introduction of rights in this country seems odd.

At 16, you can have sex (though not buy porn, which seems interesting), get married, get a full time job, leave education, enlist in the army (I believe, though you may not be sent to war at this age). Also there was talk of moving the age of buying cigarettes to 18, but I think it's still 18
At 17, you can learn to drive.
At 18, you can buy drink, adult films and vote.

Why this strange in-between period where teenagers are neither adults nor children. Legally, there should be a definite line. I personally would give 16 year olds the vote, as engaging them in politics from a young age would increase voter turnout, rather than disenfranchising them as they watch politicians vote on how to screw up their futures (so I was 16 when we let the tories in and they raised tuition fees, doesn't make me biased or anything :P )