Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should 16 year olds have the right to vote? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should 16 year olds be allowed to vote?
    Yes
    38.83%
    No
    54.37%
    Not sure
    6.80%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    If you haven't worked in the somewhere in the past 10 years you wouldn't be eligible to vote.
    So, my Saturday job, aged 13, meant I could start voting at 23. :-)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    So, my Saturday job, aged 13, meant I could start voting at 23. :-)
    You paid tax on a Saturday job?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    I don't.

    So, any child with some money in the bank can vote, PhD students can't vote, someone with no qualifications but a part-time job stacking shelves aged 16 can, someone so disabled they can't work can't vote.

    It sounds very complicated.

    Can't we just have an age limit?
    "So, any child with some money in the bank can vote"
    If you'd read what I said I said you'd have had to reach an age of maturity. In addition you would have had to have worked or payed taxes.

    "PhD students can't vote"
    No unless they have contributed to stimulating the economy through being in work or paying taxes. In a lot of cases PhD students are working while studying. As far as I'm aware the government only pay for your undergraduate degree and not your PhD, so they'd have to work & would be eligible to vote.

    "Someone with no qualifications but a part-time job stacking shelves aged 16 can"
    I never mentioned any specified age. As previously said an age of maturity would be needed. In my opinion a 16 year old stacking shelves & earning a wage is doing more for society then someone studying.

    "Someone so disabled they can't work can't vote"
    Disability would be an issue. I've heard that the majority of the severely disabled don't vote anyway. And I'm sure that many would still have worked within a 10 year bracket.

    "It sounds very complicated"
    It's what I'd like to see and simply it's a matter of principle. It isn't that complicated it's just technicalities like "but a student", "but a child with a bank account" that it is making it so.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    So, my Saturday job, aged 13, meant I could start voting at 23. :-)
    You understand the principle but you are nitpicking again :/ you still didn't answer how undergraduates contribute to society while they are studying.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    You paid tax on a Saturday job?
    He changed the rules to say "must have worked".

    But I certainly did when I was working right through the summer holidays.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    "PhD students can't vote"
    No unless they have contributed to stimulating the economy through being in work or paying taxes. In a lot of cases PhD students are working while studying. As far as I'm aware the government only pay for your undergraduate degree and not your PhD, so they'd have to work & would be eligible to vote.
    Well many (in science) receive a tax free stipend of about £14k.

    What do you mean by in work 'or' paying tax?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I think they should. The experience of the Scottish referendum seemed to me to be a good test and support it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Well many (in science) receive a tax free stipend of about £14k.

    What do you mean by in work 'or' paying tax?
    £14k wouldn't cover their whole course and that's just for science...

    If they've worked for several months in the past 10 years (I'm thinking now a lot less would be a better idea) in a job paying or not paying taxes on their income then they'd be eligible to vote. Of course this would be so long as the work they took part in was when they were a reasonable age (I'm thinking around 18). Exceptions to the elderly and to some of the disabled would be made.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    £14k wouldn't cover their whole course and that's just for science...

    If they've worked for several months in the past 10 years (I'm thinking now a lot less would be a better idea) in a job paying or not paying taxes on their income then they'd be eligible to vote. Of course this would be so long as the work they took part in was when they were a reasonable age (I'm thinking around 18). Exceptions to the elderly and to some of the disabled would be made.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I meant £14k/annum (although it varies, £12-18k, but typically 14).

    So you wouldn't give all full time worker's the vote?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's a great idea to lower the voting age to 16. Austria did this, and as far as I know, they were pretty successful. It's good to encourage young people to participate in decision-making and make them feel that their voices are heard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    I meant £14k/annum (although it varies, £12-18k, but typically 14).

    So you wouldn't give all full time worker's the vote?
    I have no idea now what you are going on about but of course if someone is working and paying their way they should be allowed the vote.. As I've been saying again and again


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Should they?

    What're your thoughts on this?
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    someone who isn't old enough to buy a pint shouldn't have right to vote.
    To be honest- I'd raise the voting age to 21 (or maybe even higher) and exclude from it anyone who never worked (apart from handicapped etc). if you have never worked, how are you supposed to know how to manage budget (yes, i know one can work and have a little clue on it...)?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    someone who isn't old enough to buy a pint shouldn't have right to vote.
    To be honest- I'd raise the voting age to 21 (or maybe even higher) and exclude from it anyone who never worked (apart from handicapped etc). if you have never worked, how are you supposed to know how to manage budget (yes, i know one can work and have a little clue on it...)?
    That would mean it was incumbent on the government to ensure there was full employment. If you change the social contract like that it has to be equitably done.

    Unfortunately, full employment is impossible: the price of a knowledge-based, rather than manufacturing-based, economy is a constant rate of 5-10% structural unemployment. Or did everyone just suddenly get lazy in the mid-1980s? :rolleyes: I wonder what they put in the water.

    Also, you do realise people on JSA and other benefits are probably far, far better at managing their budgets than you, because it is always such a tiny amount, and now you are subject to random sanctions on a more or less arbitrary basis, particularly for JSA.

    Needing to find enough money or charity to feed yourself and any dependents in a situation of such income insecurity is something which you will never be able to fathom, I don't suppose. It certainly makes you much better at budgeting than anyone who works and thus earns something approaching a liveable income.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't even agree with the age being 18, should be 21.

    The proposal to let the 16 year old votes is clearly strategic from the Labour Party. Most teachers are left wing, and in terms of education they'll have a huge influence on school pupils. In school, you don't really learn much about law, economics, government & politics and you've not really worked. Why on earth should you be allowed to vote? What benefit will it have?

    Citizenship is the one lesson everyone goes to **** about in, with the one odd child actually wanting to learn something.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why? The typical 16-17 year old is so uninformed. It's not gonna improve the country to give mostly incompetent people a voice.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SA-1)
    In school, you don't really learn much about law, economics, government & politics and you've not really worked. Why on earth should you be allowed to vote? What benefit will it have?
    Yeah, I agree with this. I appreciate that there are teenagers who understand and engage with politics, but I don't think there are that many, and their opinions aren't going to be especially well-grounded in "the real world" (although that is obviously a woolly concept).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kuroki)
    Should they?

    What're your thoughts on this?
    Definitely shift it to 16. I'd be tempted to go as far down as 14. After all, you're living in a society and you should have a say, some of us actually take an interest in politics, are mature and would like a say at a young age. Someone above said you shouldn't vote if you've never worked but most young people have worked in one format or another pre-21. I find it utterly insulting and abhorrent the idea that it'd go to 21, young people hardly have a say as it is. Young people are a lot better informed and well educated at 16 now than has been the case in previous generations. Furthermore, lowering it would bring interest amongst more young people and allow teachers to bring politics alive a bit more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will2348)
    Definitely shift it to 16. I'd be tempted to go as far down as 14. After all, you're living in a society and you should have a say, some of us actually take an interest in politics, are mature and would like a say at a young age. Someone above said you shouldn't vote if you've never worked but most young people have worked in one format or another pre-21. I find it utterly insulting and abhorrent the idea that it'd go to 21, young people hardly have a say as it is. Young people are a lot better informed and well educated at 16 now than has been the case in previous generations. Furthermore, lowering it would bring interest amongst more young people and allow teachers to bring politics alive a bit more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So mature that they can't amoke,drink, do jury service or go to war.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.