Voting at 16?

Original post by SHallowvale

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying!

Please don’t think I’m being condescending. It’s just one of these things I notice, and get a bit more reflective about.

Reply 23

64Lightbulbs

19

Original post by fallen_acorns

Just get emotional.

I've done this debate to death over many years, and that's the way you win on the 16 side.

You can't win by logically demonstrating its a good idea, because for anyone who actually looks at the arguments - its not. The arguments for voting at 16 are very easy to counter, as they generally fall into misconceptions about what you are/aren't allowed to do (as you made in your OP) or they have the issue that they can be repeated for 14, 12, 10 year olds etc.

Those who support voting at 16 in the real world are those who have something to gain from it. E.g. left-leaning parties who will increase their vote share by doing it. To convince others that it's a good idea they use emotion.. "its the fair thing to do.. think of the children, they are our future, how can you deny them a say in their future, they suffer under rules they can't change, etc. etc." They aren't logically sound arguments, but they are simple appeals to emotion that resonate with a lot of people who are good natured at heart, and don't want children to be disadvantaged.

That route is the way to win the argument - even if it is logically dishonest.

The only logical argument for lowering the age of voting to 16 is to either lower the age of adulthood to 16, or justify why voting should be divorced from adulthood and placed arbitrary at 16, without using any arguments that could also be usedt for 14 year olds (e.g. 'they have longer to live under those rules' is an argument used for voting at 16, that is even more true for those at 14).

the main argument that is logical is just that the part of the brain that does "cold" cognition (used in thought out, strategic actions with long term consequences) develops by about 16.

Reply 24

Original post by 64Lightbulbs

the main argument that is logical is just that the part of the brain that does "cold" cognition (used in thought out, strategic actions with long term consequences) develops by about 16.

Do you have a source for that? If there is good evidence that by 16 a developmental milestone has been reached (on average) then that certainly would be the best argument I've heard for voting at 16.

I was under the impression that development at 16 was just on a continuum, better than 14, worse than 18 etc.

Reply 25

Original post by 64Lightbulbs

the main argument that is logical is just that the part of the brain that does "cold" cognition (used in thought out, strategic actions with long term consequences) develops by about 16.

Strategic actions with long term consequences based on what? Life experience?

The example of joining the army at 16 has been used. We don’t deploy soldiers child Soldiers. 16 and 17 year old soldiers are little more than college students in uniform. The U.K. has even been criticised for recruiting children into the army. The United Nations sees anybody under 18 as a child.

Reply 26

64Lightbulbs

19

Original post by fallen_acorns

Do you have a source for that? If there is good evidence that by 16 a developmental milestone has been reached (on average) then that certainly would be the best argument I've heard for voting at 16.

I was under the impression that development at 16 was just on a continuum, better than 14, worse than 18 etc.

https://sci-hub.se/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19824745/

figure 2 on page 9 has an illustration of it

or "When it comes to decisions that permit more deliberative, reasoned decision making, where emotional and social influences on judgment are minimized or can be mitigated, and where there are consultants who can provide objective information about the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action, adolescents are likely to be just as capable of mature decision making as adults, at least by the time they are 16."

Reply 27

Get the feeling that the real reason people are opposed isn't because of 'life experience'. It's simply that they know 16-18 year olds will vote for more left leaning parties.

I'd respect people more if they just admitted that.

Reply 28

Original post by DSilva

Get the feeling that the real reason people are opposed isn't because of 'life experience'. It's simply that they know 16-18 year olds will vote for more left leaning parties.

I'd respect people more if they just admitted that.

That may very well be the case. That’s why left leaning political parties always advocate it.

However, as we don’t send 18 year olds off to fight, sit on Jury’s and a whole host of other issues. It is where it is.

Then it’s 15 year olds, 14 year olds......toddlers.

Left wing politics seem great. They allow you to spend other people’s money and then borrow money off the magic money tree.

Never a good idea to ask people to vote who’s main information stream is Twitter and Newsround.

Reply 29

Original post by MatureStudent37

That may very well be the case. That’s why left leaning political parties always advocate it.

However, as we don’t send 18 year olds off to fight, sit on Jury’s and a whole host of other issues. It is where it is.

Then it’s 15 year olds, 14 year olds......toddlers.

Left wing politics seem great. They allow you to spend other people’s money and then borrow money off the magic money tree.

Never a good idea to ask people to vote who’s main information stream is Twitter and Newsround.

Oh absolutely, I support it because it means more votes for left wing parties.

Also please stop talking about magic money trees given what the Tories have spent this past year, especially on giving tax payer funded contracts to their mates.

Reply 30

Original post by DSilva

Oh absolutely, I support it because it means more votes for left wing parties.

Also please stop talking about magic money trees given what the Tories have spent this past year, especially on giving tax payer funded contracts to their mates.

I think paying for furlough isn’t really magic money tree stuff.

We’re you upset that Magic Grandpa isn’t Labour leader anymore?

Reply 31

SHallowvale

14

Original post by MatureStudent37

Left wing politics seem great. They allow you to spend other people’s money and then borrow money off the magic money tree.

And right wing politics don't allow that? What we've seen from the last two Conservative governments is a willingness to borrow and pluck money out of thin air.

Reply 32

Original post by SHallowvale

And right wing politics don't allow that? What we've seen from the last two Conservative governments is a willingness to borrow and pluck money out of thin air.

Probably something to do with Labour breaking the bank.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_analysis

Reply 33

SHallowvale

14

Original post by MatureStudent37

Probably something to do with Labour breaking the bank.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_analysis

So Labour, who haven't been in power for at least 10 years, are to blame for the government raising the deficit today?

Reply 34

Original post by MatureStudent37

I think paying for furlough isn’t really magic money tree stuff.

We’re you upset that Magic Grandpa isn’t Labour leader anymore?

A few years ago there was a poster on here by the name of 'MatureStudent'. It was as if he was doing PR for the Tory party, taking their line and defending their position on every issue, even when they u turned.

I'm guessing that was you.

Considering the Tories have spent far more than a Labour were pledging to in 2019, you can't really go on about magic money trees.

Reply 35

Original post by 64Lightbulbs

https://sci-hub.se/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19824745/

figure 2 on page 9 has an illustration of it

or "When it comes to decisions that permit more deliberative, reasoned decision making, where emotional and social influences on judgment are minimized or can be mitigated, and where there are consultants who can provide objective information about the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action, adolescents are likely to be just as capable of mature decision making as adults, at least by the time they are 16."

That's really interesting - thanks.

Table 3, next to it is interesting, showing that psychosocial maturity doesn't really begin to kick in until after 18. This part from the discussion kind of sums it up for me:

"By age 16, adolescents’ general cognitive abilitiesare essentially indistinguishable from those of adults, but adolescents’ psychosocial functioning, even at the age of18, is significantly less mature than that of individuals in their mid-20s."

The quote that you include has one big problem for me:

"where emotional and social influences on judgment can be mitagated....adolescents are likely to be just as capable of mature decision making as adults"

I would argue that this is relevant for controlled environments such as some of the examples in the article, but not for elections which are very obviously full of social and emotional influences, campaigns are pretty much run on them these days.

Reply 36

I'm with the general conservatives on keeping voting at 18...

But the idea that spending can still be used as a stick to beat Labour is just ridiculous. That was a fine argument to have back in 2013.. but today? Boris abandoned austerity and even before the current crisis had reverted back to borrowing and spending. Now that's just been cemented as the approach to the pandemic, and the conservative voices are strongly suggesting that they will try and grow/spend their way out of this crisis, rather than have austerity 2.0.

Boris is a spender by nature, and a vast departure from Cameron/Osborne economic policy. His plan for future campaigns will be the same as the last... offer to spend, but just make sure that their offer is always a bit less than Labour, so the fiscally frugal voters will still back him.

Reply 37

Original post by MatureStudent37

Probably something to do with Labour breaking the bank.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_analysis

It's ironic you state that young people should be taught economics and then pump out tripe like that. Your own source shows the Tories added half a trillion to the debt from 2010 to 2016 and another 0.3 trillion since then.

The debt is far higher today than it ever was under Labour. Labour ran three surpluses, the tories haven't achieved a single one.

But its clear you seem to enjoy your role as an unofficial Conservative party spokesperson.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 38

Original post by DSilva

It's ironic you state that young people should be taught economics and then pump out tripe like that. Your own source shows the Tories added half a trillion to the debt from 2010 to 2016 and another 0.3 trillion since then.

The debt is far higher today than it ever was under Labour. Labour ran three surpluses, the tories haven't achieved a single one.

But its clear you seem to enjoy your role as an unofficial Conservative party spokesperson.

Purely a floating voter.

All I know is that Labour governments tend to leave the U.K. in a bad shape.

Reply 39