The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Med Student
Instead of rioting, they could have simply voted against a party.

If they had a vote and the government posted the rise in tuition fees, well by democracy, its the party's loss.

Riots are the only way students can show the government they care. In fact, votes for 16 provides an alternative and ensures these sorts of situations don't arise.

If people have a vote, parties will want to get that vote. Everyone's interests and needs must to be considered.


Or they could have understood that sacrifices need to be made, sat down and accepted it as a necessary evil. They rioted because they didn't do enough research to understand the effect tuition rises would have on them, if they want to be able to vote they should show they have the maturity to understand what's going on, the sense to research the impact of proposals and the ability to simply accept something they dont like. No solution is going to make everyone happy, no party has the answers to the countries problems and most 16 year olds are too young to accept what they dont like without tearing down the walls, if they're rioting then they have a warped sense of morality and sensibility, people who think rioting is an acceptable way of getting what they want shouldn't get a say in how the country is run.
Original post by Care-Free
Or they could have understood that sacrifices need to be made, sat down and accepted it as a necessary evil. They rioted because they didn't do enough research to understand the effect tuition rises would have on them, if they want to be able to vote they should show they have the maturity to understand what's going on, the sense to research the impact of proposals and the ability to simply accept something they dont like. No solution is going to make everyone happy, no party has the answers to the countries problems and most 16 year olds are too young to accept what they dont like without tearing down the walls, if they're rioting then they have a warped sense of morality and sensibility, people who think rioting is an acceptable way of getting what they want shouldn't get a say in how the country is run.


A rather gross generalisation, don't you think? Besides, maturity isn't "the ability to simply accept something they dont like", it's knowing what to speak out against and how to do it. We live in a democracy after all, and to suggest people should just accept what they don't like is clearly counter-intuitive to this system.

Yes, the riots weren't pleasant, but to extrapolate that into what you've suggested in bold is ridiculous - riots involving adults have happened since time immemorial, should we make the generalisation that adults can't accept what they don't like without tearing down walls and deny them the vote? The small minority of 16-18 year olds who did riot shouldn't be seen as representing the vast majority who didn't. Interestingly enough, students who present their grievances in a decent and mature way doesn't make for a great newspaper headline.

You say that "No solution is going to make everyone happy, no party has the answers to the countries problems", but what has this got to do with solely 16 year olds? People of all ages convey anger when they are being dealt a short straw, even if it is the "right" solution, even if "No solution is going to make everyone happy". Why should those people be allowed to exercise their democratic right to voice their irritation whilst 16 year olds ought to just suck it up and deal with it with "maturity"?
Noo I think this is a VERY bad idea. In my view, it ain´t gonna happen anyway.
Original post by Muppetmad
A rather gross generalisation, don't you think? Besides, maturity isn't "the ability to simply accept something they dont like", it's knowing what to speak out against and how to do it. We live in a democracy after all, and to suggest people should just accept what they don't like is clearly counter-intuitive to this system.

Yes, the riots weren't pleasant, but to extrapolate that into what you've suggested in bold is ridiculous - riots involving adults have happened since time immemorial, should we make the generalisation that adults can't accept what they don't like without tearing down walls and deny them the vote? The small minority of 16-18 year olds who did riot shouldn't be seen as representing the vast majority who didn't. Interestingly enough, students who present their grievances in a decent and mature way doesn't make for a great newspaper headline.

You say that "No solution is going to make everyone happy, no party has the answers to the countries problems", but what has this got to do with solely 16 year olds? People of all ages convey anger when they are being dealt a short straw, even if it is the "right" solution, even if "No solution is going to make everyone happy". Why should those people be allowed to exercise their democratic right to voice their irritation whilst 16 year olds ought to just suck it up and deal with it with "maturity"?


wasn't generalising, i did make an effort to add "most, some, a lot of" before i wrote "16 year olds" might have missed a couple, i was one of the 16 year olds who didnt riot, amongsts hundreds of others, i was one of the 16 year olds being put to shame by these idiots, but i was also one of the 16 year olds able to see what a lot of 16 year olds are like, i wouldnt have wanted them voting then and i dont want them voting now, in the same way that im now a 19 year old at uni amongst hundreds of other 19 year olds at uni and even at our age, in fact, even more so at our age, barely any of us are mature enough to to vote. if i had it my way i'd have the voting age raised.

It is my personal view ( see - personal view before you ask for a source :wink: ) that the majority of 16 year olds and the majority of 18 year olds are not mature enough to have the vote, we still get a say, in my home town we had a youth centre where the MP visited and let us make suggestions, so im not suggesting we take away any say in how things are done, im simply saying it is my own personal view that the voting age should be raised not lowered, yes its unfair on the minority who are decent citizens but then when any party is voted in by a majority, they will pass laws and make cuts that are still unfair on the minority. Cant keep everyone happy.
Thinking about myself personally, I would have been able to make an educated choice at 16 if I had voted.
But considering 80% of the other people at school, the ones who are 16 now and the news about other 16 year olds on the news makes me feel that the majority just aren't ready for that sort of thing.

Salmond is only doing it in Scotland in the hope it gets him more votes from people who just dont care about the bigger picture. So long as they split from the accursed English then they don't care.
Reply 105
Original post by Med Student
You clearly don't know 16 year olds. This isn't "Animal Farm." It's life.


I don't plan on knowing any, either.
Reply 106
I would personally say that 16year olds should absolutely not be allowed to vote. I, myself, is 16 and I can be rude, ignorant and half the time I do not understand the British government. I can say that I am speaking on behalf of most 16 year olds. However I do belief that we should have a say in what happens whether that means voting or not.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Care-Free
wasn't generalising, i did make an effort to add "most, some, a lot of" before i wrote "16 year olds" might have missed a couple, i was one of the 16 year olds who didnt riot, amongsts hundreds of others, i was one of the 16 year olds being put to shame by these idiots, but i was also one of the 16 year olds able to see what a lot of 16 year olds are like, i wouldnt have wanted them voting then and i dont want them voting now, in the same way that im now a 19 year old at uni amongst hundreds of other 19 year olds at uni and even at our age, in fact, even more so at our age, barely any of us are mature enough to to vote. if i had it my way i'd have the voting age raised.

It is my personal view ( see - personal view before you ask for a source :wink: ) that the majority of 16 year olds and the majority of 18 year olds are not mature enough to have the vote, we still get a say, in my home town we had a youth centre where the MP visited and let us make suggestions, so im not suggesting we take away any say in how things are done, im simply saying it is my own personal view that the voting age should be raised not lowered, yes its unfair on the minority who are decent citizens but then when any party is voted in by a majority, they will pass laws and make cuts that are still unfair on the minority. Cant keep everyone happy.


Fair enough :smile:
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
So, if a child actor aged 4 pays income tax, they should get to vote?


Of course it would be excellent for the people running for parliament they just need to promise free mars bars to all voters and bam every kid across the land will be voting for them :colone:
Alot of people on this thread are constantly repeating how 16 year olds will be incapable of a mature decision. I think that's a very unfair assumption to make.

Perhaps merely given the priviledge of a vote may actually stimulate a mature approach in 16-17 year olds towards voting and choosing a party.

Giving the vote grants 16 year olds power. At 16, they'd be considering their careers, their future etc. because when in year 12 and a-levels, it's really make or break for them. I think if they are given the chance, i have faith they will go with the mature decision.

Because let's face it. If one party said that they were going to invest in arts, and another party said that they were going to invest in all the chocolate factories of the UK, i'm pretty sure with a legal vote 16 year old's will choose the mature option.

I know ill personally make a responsible decision. I'm pretty sure those on TSR that are under 18 would also.
Reply 110
Original post by Med Student
Alot of people on this thread are constantly repeating how 16 year olds will be incapable of a mature decision. I think that's a very unfair assumption to make.

Perhaps merely given the priviledge of a vote may actually stimulate a mature approach in 16-17 year olds towards voting and choosing a party.

Giving the vote grants 16 year olds power. At 16, they'd be considering their careers, their future etc. because when in year 12 and a-levels, it's really make or break for them. I think if they are given the chance, i have faith they will go with the mature decision.

Because let's face it. If one party said that they were going to invest in arts, and another party said that they were going to invest in all the chocolate factories of the UK, i'm pretty sure with a legal vote 16 year old's will choose the mature option.

I know ill personally make a responsible decision. I'm pretty sure those on TSR that are under 18 would also.


Although I'm on 'the other side of the fence' as some people say, you do make a valid argument and I am actually considering changing my mind.


Posted from TSR Mobile
At 17 I probably know a lot more about politics than most people I know, not to say I'm an expert or anything, most people just don't care much about it. However I think there are a lot more problems that need to be fixed with our electoral system before I even start worrying about this issue anyway.

When you have unproportional representation, one of the causes of which being gerrymandering, in a system that mathematically reduces to two parties; when, even with propaganda-propped parties, most of the population are apathetic and/or unknowledgable about the government, you know something must be wrong. And it is definitely not that me and my peers wouldn't be able to vote at our age.
Reply 112
Having a read through the thread, I've noticed a surprising number of people indicating that they believe the vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds to be too ignorant and daft to include in the electorate... I'm sure there were similar attitudes when the franchise was extended to working class men and to women.
Why do so many people assume 16 year olds wont be bothered to vote? No one can actually prove that because they dont the chance to vote. Schools could focus more on politics if they were given the vote.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 114
I believe that when you get the right to vote you should also get the responsibilities. That means jury duty, being able to serve - or be conscripted to serve - on the frontline and so on. I don't think I want to live in a society where people get the 'fun side' of democracy without the tough parts.
Original post by simoncino
The argument that some 40 year olds are as ignorant as some 16 year olds is null for me. Unfortunately widespread ignorance is an indicator of the failure of our educational system, yet this does not mean that they should not be allowed to vote. There is a need for an arbitrary cut off point to divide those from who can vote, and those who cannot. I am in favour of the voting age being at 18 because this is a very symbolic cut off point. It is the age of adulthood and full acceptance of responsibility for your actions in society. Making it at 16 would worry me because there is little official that the age signifies. Many responses to this would be that they can join the Army (not to the frontline however), they can pay taxes, they can marry, they can have sex etc. My response remains the same, being able to have a job and pay taxes =/= adult. Should we remove the right to vote for 35 year old citizens on benefits? Of course not, the right to vote is not a financial one. Yes, a 16 year old may be able to marry and have children, but once again I fail to see why this in any shape or form justifies participation in an election. Please respond to this if you want to challenge any of my opinions.


I 100% agree with you, there has to be a cut off point somewhere and 18 is when you become an adult and you become legally responsible so it makes sense to vote from then on.

tbh most 16 year olds wouldn't be that bothered anyway (I know there are some interested in politics etc but the i'm talking about the majority) and a lot of them would have heard of the big parties but not really know much about them. Most of my mates don't really know/care and they're all 18-19 kind of age so I don't really expect 16 year olds to be any more interested
Original post by flugelr
I believe that when you get the right to vote you should also get the responsibilities. That means jury duty, being able to serve - or be conscripted to serve - on the frontline and so on. I don't think I want to live in a society where people get the 'fun side' of democracy without the tough parts.

You say that as if 18 year olds are conscripted, or that 16 year olds can't join the army, neither of which are true. You also say that as if they are an effect of a democracy, rather than separate entities to be argued over altogether.
Original post by shooks
At what age should we be allowed to vote? MPs are today debating a bid to have the voting age lowered to 16.

The motion has been tabled by Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams, who says the bid has wide parliamentary support and that it would enable 1.5m 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

Both Labour and the Lib Dems are in support of this - what do you think? Is 16 too young to have a vote? Or is it unfair that people old enough to work, have sex and fight wars do not yet have the right to vote?


-----
This thread has been featured on the TSR New and now page - home of the top content on TSR
-----


Where is the option to raise the voting age to 21?

The vast, vast majority of 16 & 17 year olds know nothing about politics, nothing about the economy, nothing about anything important, and so their votes wouldn't be based on anything substantial, it would just end up being people voting for the party that their mates have voted for, or for whichever one is "coolest".
Reply 118
Original post by LShirley95
You say that as if 18 year olds are conscripted, or that 16 year olds can't join the army, neither of which are true.

No, I say that 18 year olds could be conscripted and that 18 year olds can serve on the frontline. Furthermore, while you are right that 16 year olds can join the army, they can only join with the written permission of their parent/guardian and until they reach the age of 18 they are under different terms of service. This means that, for example, it is much easier to leave the army if you are under 18 than if you join as an adult recruit.

Original post by LShirley95
You also say that as if they are an effect of a democracy, rather than separate entities to be argued over altogether.

I'd hardly say that democracy and the idea of citizenship are different entities. they are inexorably linked to each other.
I'm 18 and I'm very lucky to have parents that have deemed it necessary to teach me as much as they could about politics as soon as I hit 18. I was also very luck as they taught us a lot of it in GCSE History. Before my parents explained the parties, they asked me a load of questions and then told me which party they think I would support (Lib dems), only one of my parents are lib dems so it was fair. However, I realist that not everyone has the same sort of luck as me to have parents that explain it (and a Dad that is a political nut).

Latest