The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should 16/17 year olds be allowed to vote in General Elections?

Scroll to see replies

Heaven above no. The last thing any country needs is a group of immature children (obviously not all people in that age group, but still far too many) trolling elections and supporting idiots. Apart from my friends studying politics at uni (and even their grasp of the real deal is weak), I think in general people our age aren't exactly up to task for deciding such things, let alone kids that are either focused on school or fitting into school. That being said, the older generations haven't exactly done a stellar job either so maybe we should just uproot the entire system and start anew
I am 15 years old. i am quite interested in politics and feel like i am quite knowledgeable on the subject (at least compared to other people my age). But i don't feel like other people my age or even a few years older than me understand politics enough to be a major factor in how they're run so my answer would probably be no.
I don't understand why so many of you are using age as the determining factor to whether someone is politically knowledgable or not. An astronomical number of adults would be ineligible to vote according to these standard of 'not knowing enough' or being too 'immature'. I think the Scottish indyref was a good example of 16 year olds being trusted to vote. Did they disappoint us with all this supposed trolling and 'voting for the lulz'? No. They didn't.

Young people shouldn't be so underestimated.
Original post by Reluire
I don't understand why so many of you are using age as the determining factor to whether someone is politically knowledgable or not. An astronomical number of adults would be ineligible to vote according to these standard of 'not knowing enough' or being too 'immature'. I think the Scottish indyref was a good example of 16 year olds being trusted to vote. Did they disappoint us with all this supposed trolling and 'voting for the lulz'? No. They didn't.

Young people shouldn't be so underestimated.


I was about to say this. I think the Scottish referendum proved that 16 and 17 year olds are engaged in politics. Most of the young people I spoke to (and saw on TV) during the referendum campaign were rational and knew their stuff. Their debates were much more mature than the squabbling politicians on Question Time. I don't know if the vote should be given to 16 year olds but dismissing them as immature is frankly ridiculous.
Original post by DiddyDec
No.

I don't even trust most 18 year olds to understand politics.

Posted from TSR Mobile

So then why discriminate against 16+'s that may know more than many others due to citizenship lessons and whatnot?
Original post by alexschmalex
Heaven above no. The last thing any country needs is a group of immature children (obviously not all people in that age group, but still far too many) trolling elections and supporting idiots. Apart from my friends studying politics at uni (and even their grasp of the real deal is weak), I think in general people our age aren't exactly up to task for deciding such things, let alone kids that are either focused on school or fitting into school. That being said, the older generations haven't exactly done a stellar job either so maybe we should just uproot the entire system and start anew

If you're worried about 16/17 yr olds supporting "idiots" just remember that it is adults that are putting UKIP and Nigel Farage 3rd in the polls.
Original post by Jameskeegan
I am 15 years old. i am quite interested in politics and feel like i am quite knowledgeable on the subject (at least compared to other people my age). But i don't feel like other people my age or even a few years older than me understand politics enough to be a major factor in how they're run so my answer would probably be no.


Allowing voting at 16 places this right in line with other aspects of citizenship available at this age, which include the age of consent, the right to marry, entering the field of employment and income tax payment.
Earlier involvement in politics will capture the younger generation and commit them to committed citizenship and foster a great sense of civic pride and duty. It can feed on from citizenship in pre-16 schooling. Developing from the above long term participation rates may rise as a consequence of this reduction.
Knowledge and competence are not significantly lower at 16 than 18. It can be argued that the decision to continue in education and employment are far more personally important issues reached at a younger age than voting.
Involving under 18 will make youth issues a more relevant topic in elections. For instance career options and education are vital for this age group and political parties will have to make this a key topic in an election. It may thus be argued to spend time at the outset of an individual’s career and education is a wise investment.
(edited 9 years ago)
There's nothing to be gained from this.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
There's nothing to be gained from this.

Well lowering the voting age has become Lib Dem policy so....
Just because someone is bright that doesnt mean they understand the deep meaning of every one of their actions so that is why 16 year olds should not be able to vote they just see things in a simple manner .
Original post by drbluebox
Just because someone is bright that doesnt mean they understand the deep meaning of every one of their actions so that is why 16 year olds should not be able to vote they just see things in a simple manner .

There are plenty of adults equally as ignorant. As well as this, there are many married women that simply vote for whom their husband votes for. The immaturity/ignorance/lack of understanding argument is completely irrelevent to the age of a voter/potential voter.
Original post by James Milibanter
There are plenty of adults equally as ignorant. As well as this, there are many married women that simply vote for whom their husband votes for. The immaturity/ignorance/lack of understanding argument is completely irrelevent to the age of a voter/potential voter.


I would say that was a different type of ignorance though.

Why is it irrelevant? What proof do you have of that?
Original post by drbluebox
I would say that was a different type of ignorance though.

Why is it irrelevant? What proof do you have of that?

umm the fact that 35% of the adult electorate didn't turn out to vote in the General election. The Scottish referendum saw many engaged 16/17 yr olds turning out to vote. This different type of ignorance, care to elaborate? Surely ignorance is ignorance.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by James Milibanter
There are plenty of adults equally as ignorant. As well as this, there are many married women that simply vote for whom their husband votes for. The immaturity/ignorance/lack of understanding argument is completely irrelevent to the age of a voter/potential voter.


I don't see how adding more ignorance is helping though, in fact I'd rather see it go the other way. The suggestion would be unpopular but I reckon there should be some sort of level of competency/understanding that must be proven before someone is allowed to vote, regardless of age. I don't know how it'd be implemented exactly but it's silly for people who have no idea to get as much of a say as those who know better.
Original post by James Milibanter
umm the fact that 35% of the adult electorate didn't turn out to vote in the General election. The Scottish referendum saw many engaged 16/17 yr olds turning out to vote. This different type of ignorance, care to elaborate? Surely ignorance is ignorance.


That actually proves nothing, all I will say to that is that young people like to get heard more than people over 25 or 30 because they are still in education their brains are basically flowing with information, that doesnt mean their interpretation is correct.

The ignorance thing is more naivity, they may research what they say but that doesnt mean they understand it whilst a older person may just not know too much.
Original post by James Milibanter
So then why discriminate against 16+'s that may know more than many others due to citizenship lessons and whatnot?


What are citizenship lessons?
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
I don't see how adding more ignorance is helping though, in fact I'd rather see it go the other way. The suggestion would be unpopular but I reckon there should be some sort of level of competency/understanding that must be proven before someone is allowed to vote, regardless of age. I don't know how it'd be implemented exactly but it's silly for people who have no idea to get as much of a say as those who know better.

So you then concede that there is no point in discriminating based on age, seeing as it places no factor in determining one's ignorance.
Original post by DiddyDec
What are citizenship lessons?

Civics, PSHE. citizenship, they are called various things. Once a fortnight, according to the national curriculum, all children must attend two hours of citizenship lessons.
16-18 year olds lack any sense of politics to be honest. They've just come out from school, they won't understand the system and issues in this country as much as older people who work and pay taxes.
I think that the age to vote should be 16 because if you're old enough to have a national insurance number and pay tax at 16 then you are old enough to have a say on how the country. I think it's more democratic.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you