Should 16 year olds have the right to vote?

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

Why? The typical 16-17 year old is so uninformed. It's not gonna improve the country to give mostly incompetent people a voice.

The typical 40 year old is uninformed and incompetant.

Reply 121

pocahontas lol

1

No. They'd only do it to garner more votes. 16-17 year olds are children, still. I wouldn't want to live in a country knowing that children affected the outcome. I can barely tolerate the choices full grown adults make :colonhash:

Reply 122

saayagain

8

Yes, if politics, political history, economics and philosophy was taught in schools as mandatory subjects.

Currently, no.

The more aware children i.e. upper class well educated children will vote, lower class uneducated children won't vote. Tories are more likely to win.

On the other hand this will bring about the revolution more quickly. There's always a positive side ehh

Reply 123

akupyo

I know a lot of 20+ year olds that are completely uninformed. I would say that 16/17 year olds should be allowed to vote but theres the issue that their parents may pressure them to vote a certain way since the majority of 16/17 y/o live with their parents still.
I do think that 16/17 should have a say because things that are important to students should have students or future students vote on them

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 124

SnoochToTheBooch

17

Original post by Quady

The typical 40 year old is uninformed and incompetant.

Well I don't even think everyone should just be given a vote regardless of age. There should have to be some level of competency shown before you're trusted to help make a decision. Of course this would cause uproar but I don't like that every idiot gets to shout as loudly as the rest.

Reply 125

limetang

19

Original post by Quady

The typical 40 year old is uninformed and incompetant.

The typical infant is uninformed and incompetent. Should they get the vote too?

Reply 126

Quady

20

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

Well I don't even think everyone should just be given a vote regardless of age. There should have to be some level of competency shown before you're trusted to help make a decision. Of course this would cause uproar but I don't like that every idiot gets to shout as loudly as the rest.

Would you mind if you didn't get to vote because you lacked the required level?

Reply 127

lilymoran

16

Original post by MrJAKEE

No they shouldn't, why should someone who hasn't paid a penny to the public pot have any say on what happens with the public pot? Let alone a lot of people at undergraduate level haven't worked a day in their life besides school (which debatably isn't creating any wealth until they have actually worked.

The point about benefits is misleading. The majority of people who are on benefits are in work and are getting it due to bad wages, or have some sort of disability. I'd like to see a system where people get paid benefits in proportion to how long a person has worked and how much a person has put in to the public kitty.

So how would this work?

What if you are disabled and have never worked? Does this means you get nothing?

What if you are a carer for an elderly person, a disabled child, an ill parent?

What if you have worked at a low paid job? There is no relationship necessarily between the importance of work and the amount you earn.

What if you have only worked 1 year and then had an accident, become ill, been made redundant, factory/ office moved to India?

Wouldn't it be better to go on how much people need to live?

Surely it is immoral to refuse payments to people on the basis of contributions when there may be very good reasons why they have made few or none.

Are you saying that all the people mentioned above could be living on the streets, summer and winter, ill, starving, with their only income from begging?

We tried that years ago and the horror of it lead to the establishment of a welfare system. You have to have a very strong stomach indeed to countenance a return to that.

Reply 128

Quady

20

Original post by limetang

The typical infant is uninformed and incompetent. Should they get the vote too?

Yup.

Reply 129

0le

21

Original post by Quady

So perhaps there should be a suitability test to allow people the vote?

That is a nice idea. I'm not entirely sure it would work but it would be better than out right letting all teenagers to vote.

Reply 130

MrJAKEE

5

[QUOTE="pickup;53046889"]

Original post by MrJAKEE

No they shouldn't, why should someone who hasn't paid a penny to the public pot have any say on what happens with the public pot? Let alone a lot of people at undergraduate level haven't worked a day in their life besides school (which debatably isn't creating any wealth until they have actually worked.

The point about benefits is misleading. The majority of people who are on benefits are in work and are getting it due to bad wages, or have some sort of disability. I'd like to see a system where people get paid benefits in proportion to how long a person has worked and how much a person has put in to the public kitty.

So how would this work?

What if you are disabled and have never worked? Does this means you get nothing?

What if you are a carer for an elderly person, a disabled child, an ill parent?

What if you have worked at a low paid job? There is no relationship necessarily between the importance of work and the amount you earn.

What if you have only worked 1 year and then had an accident, become ill, been made redundant, factory/ office moved to India?

Wouldn't it be better to go on how much people need to live?

Surely it is immoral to refuse payments to people on the basis of contributions when there may be very good reasons why they have made few or none.

Are you saying that all the people mentioned above could be living on the streets, summer and winter, ill, starving, with their only income from begging?

We tried that years ago and the horror of it lead to the establishment of a welfare system. You have to have a very strong stomach indeed to countenance a return to that.

This is something completely taken out of proportion from the thread, but I'll answer it.

It was wrong of me to say that it would be the total rule.. It would be the rule though that would be applied to most people. Of course there would be exceptions (I'd like to think Young Jobseekers, means tested disability allowances among others would be among them).

If you are on a low paid job my answer would be simple really, give tax cuts to companies that give their workers the living wage as to incite them to do so. No one is obliged to take a job and so if the wages are too small go for another job or make one for yourself.

(Severe) accidents would be judged on a case by case basis and the person would be allowed a temporary set of benefits judged by some sort of officer for a set amount of time. At the end of the day the NHS would still care for the person during their stay in hospital and the possibility of some sort of free accommodation would be set up as a "stop off" zone for people to get off their feet and get a job.

No one should be left starving/ill unless they literally aren't doing anything when they could be. The rich in society need to pay more taxes and companies should have a moral responsibility for the care of their workers. As a libertarian I think this sort of liberty should be passed on to the lowest of levels, at the end of the day it's the people themselves who have a responsibility for their well-being (not the government), but the government should aid this through practical measures where people can earn (more easily in this climate) change for themselves.

Posted from TSR Mobile