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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=MrJAKEE;53030673]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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    The typical infant is uninformed and incompetent. Should they get the vote too?
    Yup.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yup.
    Okay then
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Would you mind if you didn't get to vote because you lacked the required level?
    I don't vote because I lack the required level. I know I'm too ignorant for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There are some really stupid 16 year olds so i dont think so...(im only 17 so im not being harsh)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.

    16 year olds can understand the implications....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD8897)
    There are some really stupid 16 year olds so i dont think so...(im only 17 so im not being harsh)
    But there aren't really stupid 40 year olds?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix.forllz)
    Yes.

    16 year olds can understand the implications....
    But miraculously by 18 they can...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    But miraculously by 18 they can...?
    Eh? I wouldnt know...i only ans2ewred saying it should be 16.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    But there aren't really stupid 40 year olds?
    ok good point, but more 16 year olds as a % of their age group would vote for the likes of UKIP i think
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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.