Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should 16 year olds be aloud to vote? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I found myself in the odd position of being able to vote in the Scottish referendum but then unable to vote in the last general election and I think that 16 year olds should be able to vote.


    Politics affects all of us & 16 is a pivotal age. At that point, we are preparing to leave school & go on to higher education, apprenticeships or work & will be eligible to pay taxes & National Insurance & such adult responsibilities should come with adult rights & adequate representation. Politicians chase votes & if the youth can't vote, will politicians ever truly represent their interests? If we are not given a say at 16, then it's potentially a long wait until the opportunity presents itself again.


    It can also be argued that empowerment can lead to engagement. Surely people who are politically disengaged just do not use their vote - regardless of their age - so arguing that all 16 year olds lack sufficient capacity/ maturity/ knowledge doesn't really add up.


    Lowering the voting age may not be the panacea to improve the lives of young people but by giving them a real stake in both their futures and their present lives it could encourage them to become informed, involved, active citizens & that can only be a good thing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Call me bigoted if you must, but I personally think that no one with an IQ lower than 120 should be allowed to vote or run for elections. Stupid people have caused far too much damage already and I feel that this is one of the few ways we can prevent the imminent disasters predicted by the five basic laws of human stupidity.
    http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basi...man-stupidity/
    I don't think this is reasonable because a 120 IQ is in the 90th percentile. Such criteria would exclude 90% of the population from political participation. Furthermore, how would you know of the IQ levels of the voters without administering an IQ test? IQ tests cost lots of time and money to administer.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Tbh, most adults shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone 16 year olds.

    Call me bigoted if you must, but I personally think that no one with an IQ lower than 120 should be allowed to vote or run for elections. Stupid people have caused far too much damage already and I feel that this is one of the few ways we can prevent the imminent disasters predicted by the five basic laws of human stupidity.

    Now you may say that IQ isn't the only test of intelligence but I must refute you on that. "Emotional intelligence" means jack. Since the definition of intelligence according to the Oxford English Dictionary is: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills," EQ doesn't apply. Only IQ is a true test of this trait. EQ exists only because high IQ doesn't always produce success and psychologists wanted to find a reason for this. The reason is simple, success requires both intelligence *and* people skills. EQ just measures people skills.

    http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basi...man-stupidity/
    I'd love to know if your iq is greater than 120! However, I'm pretty sure iq tests don't measure political knowledge. It's widely known that iq tests aren't excellent at measuring the intelligence of an individual, merely an individuals ability to distinguish patterns etc


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LordMallard)
    Well then that teacher should be reported and dealt with to stop them trying to influence their pupils politically.
    Well the Headmaster, head of english, 4 english teachers, all drama teachers, all art teachers and 4 science teachers all openly support Green/socialist worker and tell their pupils that they are correct.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Not if they are too thick to know the difference between aloud and allowed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    Well the Headmaster, head of english, 4 english teachers, all drama teachers, all art teachers and 4 science teachers all openly support Green/socialist worker and tell their pupils that they are correct.
    Personally report them to Michael Gove and Nicky Morgan. Get Michael Gove to go to the school and give a rally advocating capitalism and Brexit. Then have Michael Gove sack them personally.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sacred Ground)
    I'd love to know if your iq is greater than 120! However, I'm pretty sure iq tests don't measure political knowledge. It's widely known that iq tests aren't excellent at measuring the intelligence of an individual, merely an individuals ability to distinguish patterns etc


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Tbh that all depends on the test. If it's a properly done one like Mensa's tests it'll be pretty accurate otherwise they're kind of crap. Since you asked, my IQ was around 150 last time it was tested. It was one of the proper ones not a free rubbish one. It was when I got diagnosed with high functioning autism actually so about... 6 years ago-ish.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Tbh, most adults shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone 16 year olds.

    Call me bigoted if you must, but I personally think that no one with an IQ lower than 120 should be allowed to vote or run for elections. Stupid people have caused far too much damage already and I feel that this is one of the few ways we can prevent the imminent disasters predicted by the five basic laws of human stupidity.

    Now you may say that IQ isn't the only test of intelligence but I must refute you on that. "Emotional intelligence" means jack. Since the definition of intelligence according to the Oxford English Dictionary is: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills," EQ doesn't apply. Only IQ is a true test of this trait. EQ exists only because high IQ doesn't always produce success and psychologists wanted to find a reason for this. The reason is simple, success requires both intelligence *and* people skills. EQ just measures people skills.

    http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basi...man-stupidity/
    I actually agree with this. A lot of people who vote are either incapable or unwilling of understanding when they're wrong. They'll believe whatever they hear, they don't or can't think critically, they don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, they can't evaluate their views. People hate to hear it but it's the truth that most people simply can't understand the intricacies and implications of most political decisions.

    But even a lot of people who are capable of understanding these decisions just don't want to. We take our right to vote for granted. Everyone wants to vote, but very few people will actually bother to research any big issues past reading their tabloid of choice.

    I think we should have tests of intelligence AND knowledge to determine who gets to vote, although it's much easier said than done. I might not pass the tests, but I still think the UK would be a better place if tests like this were in place.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm 16






    NOPE
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't think they should be allowed to vote because I feel like many still don't know what they want to do in their life let alone anything about how to country should govern.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblewrap167)
    No, I don't think they should be allowed to vote because I feel like many still don't know what they want to do in their life let alone anything about how to country should govern.
    Many 16 year olds will know more about how a country should be run than many adults. It's also the case that many people in their late teens and 20s don't know what they want to do in life. Do you advocate disenfranchising them too? Since when has 'knowing what to do with your life' been a qualification for voting?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Have you ever watched Young Person's Question Time? It's a great advert for raising the voting age if anything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Have you ever watched Young Person's Question Time? It's a great advert for raising the voting age if anything.
    i would like to see Andrew Neil versus a naive teenager. That would be top quality television.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with 16 years being able to vote has already been said. 16 year olds typically hold populist, liberal views not because they believe in them but simply because they have not experienced the real world yet and everything can be solved by everyone beeing nicer to one another. Of course, this is not true, and far from it; therefore, by simple deduction it would be a tremendous error to allow such volatile "kids" to possibly have the final say in a vote, when they don't particularly know, care or are aware of the real problem at hand.

    Im sure i sound like an annoying piece of **** to everyone reading this who is 16, however, when you grow older and notice many things to be different from how you thought they were you will realise why the vast majority of people agree that it should not be allowed and for good reason to.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alphaxavier)
    I would like to propose a debate. The question being:

    "Should people in the UK over the age of 16 be allowed to vote in all UK elections and referendums?"

    All age groups are welcome to comment.
    Should you be *allowed* to post with awful spelling
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daniel9998)
    No. 18 is fine. I dont want thousands of wannabe pikey little shits voting, who the majority have no idea what they are talking about
    Yeah I agree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    You can only get married or join the army at 16 with a parent's permission.
    Perhaps you should be able to vote with parents permission...it fits the trend, anyway.

    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    You cannot be deployed anywhere 'to fight for your country' until you're 18. Let's stop using that as an argument shall we?
    Ah. My bad, I assumed joining meant you could fight. But either way you can get a job, army or otherwise, meaning you contribute to the country long before you can actually have a say in how it's run.

    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    Whatever age is chosen it's going to be an arbitrary number which some people won't like. Why can we drive at 17 but only buy alcohol at 18 etc.
    Agreed there. Or how we can smoke cigarettes at 16 but can't buy them until 18. Not something I'm into but an example of something that isn't based on age but a rule/tradition that hasn't been particularly relevant for years.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    in my opinion definitely not ...
    In fact I would love to see the age raised ...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No one should, restore absolute monarchy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BradleyLawrence)
    The problem with 16 years being able to vote has already been said. 16 year olds typically hold populist, liberal views not because they believe in them but simply because they have not experienced the real world yet and everything can be solved by everyone beeing nicer to one another. Of course, this is not true, and far from it; therefore, by simple deduction it would be a tremendous error to allow such volatile "kids" to possibly have the final say in a vote, when they don't particularly know, care or are aware of the real problem at hand.

    Im sure i sound like an annoying piece of **** to everyone reading this who is 16, however, when you grow older and notice many things to be different from how you thought they were you will realise why the vast majority of people agree that it should not be allowed and for good reason to.
    I disagree with you. The majority in England perhaps but not in Scotland. The referendum showed quite clearly that when engaged with politics 16 year olds can make as much a contribution to the political agenda as any other age group and can be far more politically aware than many twice their age. It is also the case that it encourages them to feel included and a valued part of society - their opinions matter, their voice can be heard and as such they are more likely to invest in society.

    Regarding your argument reopulist views- thank goodness for that because quite frankly that's the perfect antidote to the seeping expansion of extreme conservatism that prevails in the south of England in particular thanks to many adults being incapable of reading past the pages of DM, Sun and the Torygraph while they fail to question what the TV tells them to think. Ie: the rise of 'The Sheep'
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.