Labour wants to let 16 & 17 year olds vote? Watch

SausageMan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
From my prospective, I think is that such a policy may engage Young people in the political process. As it did during the Scottish referendum.
0
reply
Asolare
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
IF teaching politics (from a somehow unbias standpoint) in school was introduced as compulsory, then I would support.

Though I don't disagree with the principle of 16/17 year olds voting at present either. I understand the arguments against it, but I know many of my friends (when aged 17/18) had no intention to register to vote or even bother to vote - so I think the same would apply for 16/17 yr olds
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by Zander01)
The point is responsibility. Which is what it ultimately comes down to. If you can't see that then...


You've demonstrated quite clearly that you're concerned over this due to the likelihood of the youth voting for left wing parties. (Which you correlate with naivety which I find to be amusing)
Actually, I couldn't give a fig if they get the vote. All power to them. It's a shame you've jumped to conclusions so rapidly. I am merely indicating that the arguments that people use both for and against them getting the vote could also be used to extend the vote even younger or restricting it to even older.

As far as I'm concerned, the voting age is entirely arbitrary, wherever you place it. It's currently at 18. It may change to 16. If it does, I will not care. But the discourse on is pretty appalling, and you've just indulged in it in your responses here.

Seems like the right wingers aren't too keen on engaging youth in politics and eradicating the disillusionment of politics by the UK public. After all, why should they when it doesn't benefit them first and foremost?
I doubt it. There's plenty of young right-wingers, and the number of 16 years olds, even assuming they all vote, is pretty small. I doubt they are opposing it based on some kind of left-wing benefit it would imply.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by aoxa)
Labour just want to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote because they think that that age group will be more predisposed to voting for them. More votes, more seats, better chance to win. That's all there is behind it.
Lib Dems also support this and what student in their right mind would vote for them? We also have an electoral system that doesn't give seats for number of votes, it's per constituency.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by noumenon)
Labour want to give 16-17 year olds the vote because, typically, that age group is more socially left-wing and therefore they will secure a high proportion of that vote. That's it. Beyond that, I actually can't think of a reason why 16-17 year olds should have the vote.
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.
0
reply
aoxa
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Lib Dems also support this and what student in their right mind would vote for them? We also have an electoral system that doesn't give seats for number of votes, it's per constituency.
Students are more likely to be Liberal/Left wing, so there are likely to be students who would vote for the Lib Dems, despite what you think. Many students probably would still vote for them, if it hadn't been for the tuition fee rise.

I don't get what you're saying about the electoral system. My earlier point still essentially stands - more predisposition to vote for x party - more votes - more seats. Yes, it's divided up into constituencies, which make up the seat, but more votes, more constituencies for x party, gain more seats.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by aoxa)
Students are more likely to be Liberal/Left wing, so there are likely to be students who would vote for the Lib Dems, despite what you think. Many students probably would still vote for them, if it hadn't been for the tuition fee rise.

I don't get what you're saying about the electoral system. My earlier point still essentially stands - more predisposition to vote for x party - more votes - more seats. Yes, it's divided up into constituencies, which make up the seat, but more votes, more constituencies for x party, gain more seats.
If you see the student room poll, it will show labour as first and the conservatives at second. These completely reflect the results of polls where only those eligible to vote can take part. As I said, no student in their right mind would vote LibDem and yet they are still in favour of lowering the voting age.

In 2010 UKIP got over 1 million votes whilst the Green party only got 250,000. The Green Party got a seat and UKIP did not. Votes do not equal seats.
0
reply
neal95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
i think most 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote or understand many policies. yes. i am extremely condescending and offensive, but right
0
reply
German123
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
Well, I don't really know a thing about politics.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Inexorably)
IF teaching politics (from a somehow unbias standpoint) in school was introduced as compulsory, then I would support.

Though I don't disagree with the principle of 16/17 year olds voting at present either. I understand the arguments against it, but I know many of my friends (when aged 17/18) had no intention to register to vote or even bother to vote - so I think the same would apply for 16/17 yr olds
Shouldn't they have freedom to decide for themselves though?
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by neal95)
i think most 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote or understand many policies. yes. i am extremely condescending and offensive, but right
Are you right though? Do you have any actual proof of this hypothesis or is your entire evidence going to be anecdotal? Because I have actual evidence that proves otherwise.
0
reply
aoxa
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by James Milibanter)
If you see the student room poll, it will show labour as first and the conservatives at second. These completely reflect the results of polls where only those eligible to vote can take part. As I said, no student in their right mind would vote LibDem and yet they are still in favour of lowering the voting age.

In 2010 UKIP got over 1 million votes whilst the Green party only got 250,000. The Green Party got a seat and UKIP did not. Votes do not equal seats.
Some students will vote Lib Dem - just because you think that students won't doesn't mean they will adhere to that. Seen the TSR poll, and I really don't think it's an accurate reflection of how students will vote. Going on that, the UK is broken down into; Labour, Green, SNP and Sinn Fein as the majority parties.

As for the vote matter, the Greens will have gotten a seat because more people in one area voted for them, allowing them to get a seat. UKIPs votes will have been spread more, which meant they didn't get any seats. It was a generalisation - in general, more votes will equal more seats, I know this will not always be the case, but it's a pretty standard rule of thumb.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
In my view the franchise should be restricted compared to what it is currently. The age should be increased to 25 or 30.

No one really knows even a bit of how the world works until they're at least 25. It's silly to think someone who's 16 will have a reasoned vote. It's just an election ploy by Labour to secure another vote bank.

God forbid we've to consider what rowdy 16 year olds think is sensible policy!
0
reply
Asolare
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Shouldn't they have freedom to decide for themselves though?
Absolutely, hence why I don't entirely disagree with it .
0
reply
neal95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Are you right though? Do you have any actual proof of this hypothesis or is your entire evidence going to be anecdotal? Because I have actual evidence that proves otherwise.
my evidence is anecdotal, 100%. im not debating that you are not right, i am just saying that i think 18 is a good age to vote.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by noumenon)
1)There is a significant difference in the mental state of a 16 and an 18 year old. At 16, in the UK, you haven't faced significant pressures yet, but by 18 you've taken gcses and a levels, alongside potentially working. Moreover, at 16 you are much less independent with regard to your thought; you've never been expected to critically approach certain concepts. By the time you get to 18 (especially in the context of the Gov's decision to extend mandatory education) you've had the opportunity and the environment to become more critical in your approach. If you don't buy into this, simply look at any school and you can see/hear the difference between year 11s and year 13s.

2) even if we accept your argument about how their isn't a significant difference between 16-18 year olds, we could equally point out that their isn't a significant one between 16 and 15 year old, etc... A line, albeit an often arbitrary one, has to be drawn. Therefore, your case is dependant on tangible benefits.

This leads too...

3) your presumption that having the vote fosters interest is completely fallacious; if that was so, then why are the current turn out rates so small?

4)Due to the implications of 2) you'll find that your accountability argument becomes moot because 16-17 year olds will most likely be voting for the parties who are popular within their communities and with their family. As they are not critically engaging, on the whole, with these particular issues, the parties won't have an overwhelming pressure to appease them.

5) Accountability to this group is not always appropriate. Firstly because of the implications of 1), but also because this is a transient group. You're only within this group (being affected) for two years. Unlike other major voting groups (i.e. categories of adulthood) the implications of your vote will not actually affect you in the future, because even if you vote when you're 16, by the time the next government is established and is looking to change things such as educational policies, you will probably be 18 and have a completely different set and interests and will no longer be affected by education in schools. This means that you are not instigating change for yourself, but simply predicting the change that future generations will want. This has the implications i. making your accountability point negligible because the benefits of accountability, i.e. getting something done in your interest, will not aid this group, and ii. reducing accountability to some extent because the Gov is accountable to a totally separate group than what it is going to affect.
Yes but instead of giving me a reason not to allow 16 year olds the right to vote you are merely contesting my opinions on why I believe they should be allowed to vote. There's not any reason that you can state as to why they shouldn't be allowed to vote that couldn't then be used on any other age group. You can start full time work at 16 and apprenticeships are a means of supplying education alongside full time work and they are becoming increasingly popular even with the extension of mandatory education. Voter turnout (as shown with the Scottish referendum) would increase, but even if the majority of 16/17 year olds do not turn out to vote they should have the right to decide who will govern them. Allowing 16/17 year olds to vote could see education move from benefitting the establishment to actually benefitting the students on top of this.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by noumenon)
Okay, firstly yes the majority of my last comment served to negate the reasons you gave as to why they should get a vote, but the reason that was so is, if you remember, my original comment was that 'I can't think of a reason why they should be given the vote', not I can think of several reasons why they shouldn't.

Secondly, within my last point I did (quite extensively) cover the harms of this because of the transient nature of the group and how it reduces strict accountability.

Thirdly, using the Scottish referendum as evidence of the willingness of 16-17 year olds to vote is dubious; that event was incredibly hyped up and singular in its widespread interest. Everyday voting is not analogous with referendums. That is why we also tend to have higher turn outs for referendums (admittedly not as high, but i would venture that was because of the nature of and the media coverage surrounding the Scottish one.)

Finally, all this talk of 'right to choice' is really rather offensive. What is it grounded in? I've already explained why the practical reasons in which rights are grounded are non existent in this case. Moreover, appealing to some abstract 'right' is really rather meaningless, especially in the context of the rather arbitrary distinctions you, yourself, hold in age ranges.
1) Then why are you against 16yr olds being able to vote? They can work full time, join the army, get married, pay every single tax that an 18 yr old can and there is not an omnipotence that arrives when someone hits the age of 18.

2) These harms are not exclusive to 16/17 year olds and are therefore irrelevant. For example, if the voting age was currently at 21 and we were speaking of reducing it to 18, those exact same arguments could be made

3) Bonkers. Dismissing evidence because it doesn't agree with your view is ignorant. Also, a general election has an incredibly higher turnout than referendums. There is also no such thing as "everyday voting", not even monthly, and voter fatigue is more of an argument against increased referendum use than it is against lowering the voting age.

4) The right to choose your leadership is an argument for democracy over a dictatorship, which is what 16/17 year olds have. I find it offensive that you believe that this is okay.
0
reply
AdamCee
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
16 year old's the vote?

Sweet Jesus please no.

I fear for the country :lol:
0
reply
TheTechN1304
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
Labour are trying to exploit the fact that younger people tend to be more liberal, and so would be more likely to vote Labour. The reality is that although they're more liberal, they're less likely to vote, so I don't see it making any difference.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by noumenon)
With regard to 2) these harms are exclusive to 16/17 year olds. As I explained the interests of this group is very particular, unlike other groups (ranging 20-40) who have underlying universal concerns, 16-17 year olds are only apposite for that age range. By the time their vote becomes effectual they would have moved out of this category and some one else into it. This means they don't have the benefits of this, but are also condemning others to their decisions (something you seems so vehemently against.)

3) in our country we have poor turn outs for referendums, but across the eu when there are more common referendums they often spike. My argument hear was that we can't directly compare the two. Referendums are on particular issues which are well televised. This means that the effort you have to put into understanding it is lower, and you only have to be interested in the one topic. With regard to general voting, you have to independently research it, and the spectrum of subjects is much wider. Therefore they are not strictly analogous.

With regard to 1) okay so you asked a question and then gave more reasons for being for it (something i've already addressed.) The reason why I disagree with this is not (in the large) about how bad it is, but rather how not good it is. I feel uncomfortable instigating massive constitutional change on the fuzzy ideas you have presented me. Moreover, the problems which I have AGAIN explained are still present.

4) Right, woo 'democracy'. Like just saying the word 'democracy' doesn't justify anything. Democracy isn't some absolute ideal, it's a pragmatic method of rule.
i) Look, if 16-17 year old were under a strict dictatorship (as would 15- i must mention) in which they were being oppressed horribly, then fine, I agree we should increase their political accountability. But they aren't. They have guardians and parent's who vote in their interests. Beyond that they are also safeguarded by a whole wave of voters who, if seeing harm done to them, would speak out. Also, they can instigate change through other political platforms such as marches, youth councils, and by simply speaking out and creating empathetic pressure on the gov.
ii) not only are their no real dangers to avoid, but because of the lack of pragmatic benefits it also becomes very hard to justify it under a liberal democracy.
1) By that logic we shouldn't give 18/19 yr olds the vote.
(i) That's the case for every age range, by that logic nobody should vote. "A pensioner's vote will affect someone that's going to be a pensioner is 5 years time, therefore pensioners should not vote"
(ii) The education system is currently being decided by people whom aren't in education anyway, why not allow 16/17 yr olds to vote on it?

2) Are general elections not televised?
(i) This point is also irrelevant as the same case applies for 16/17 year olds as it does for any other age range.
(ii) It does not take into account the fact that 16/17 year olds have a much wider access to information than more elderly people and therefore is more of a case in favour of reducing the voting age.

3) These ideas are not "fuzzy" at all. You are just refuting them with dodgy evidence.

4) Is this not instigating a "pragmatic" change, and then conforming to the pragmatic rule of law that id Democracy by your definition?
(i) 15 year olds don't have the right to get married, join the army, work full time etc.
(ii) "No taxation without representation" is an ideology which can trace it's routes all the way back to the magna carta.
(ii) Saying that 16/17 year olds should put their votes into other people's hands is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard. What's the point in anyone voting then? There's someone else that will vote in their interests
(iii) You're right, the youth can engage in political activity, but why would they without any political representation or any political engagement due to the fact that they are neglected by the political establishment?
(iv) "Pragmatic benefits"? This is a Liberal Democracy! "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (135)
62.79%
No I haven't decided yet (46)
21.4%
Yes but I might change my mind (34)
15.81%

Watched Threads

View All