This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Why does people on reddit always criticizes a 21-23 year old dating someone 18/19?
- erin11 asks...have you registered to vote yet?
- what shops employ 16 year olds?
- Funding for 16 year old British passport holding living in Asia
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- Rishi Sunak proposes the Advanced British Standard
- night life in Manchester at the age of 17
- Am I able to start College at the 18
- Your Perfect Country
- Jobs for a 14 yr old
- scared he wont be able to fit inside me
- Questions about moving into a new school as an immigrant 17 year old
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Shops that offer jobs to 15 y/o's?
- Studying 120 credits as a 16 year old Care Leaver
- apprenticeship with a part time job at 16
- Jobs at 15
- shouldn't all young people register to vote now because
Should 16-year-olds be able to vote?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by flugelr
No, I say that 18 year olds could be conscripted and that 18 year olds can serve on the frontline. Furthermore, while you are right that 16 year olds can join the army, they can only join with the written permission of their parent/guardian and until they reach the age of 18 they are under different terms of service. This means that, for example, it is much easier to leave the army if you are under 18 than if you join as an adult recruit.
So the age off conscription would be different? So is the age for sex, drinking, driving and smoking, are they relevant too? I still don't see where the "if you vote you should be able to be conscripted" argument is coming from. Our Scientists and Engineers and Teachers all vote too, but they wouldn't be conscripted? Conscription still happens (more often than not) in undemocratic countries, anyway. I just don't see the link you're making.
Original post by flugelr
I'd hardly say that democracy and the idea of citizenship are different entities. they are inexorably linked to each other.
You're right, Democracy does empower their citizens. But giving this power to young adults doesn't create a direct link with other areas of society. Maybe your argument is that, if they can decide who to vote for, they can be completely responsible about everything else in society, too? In which case you would argue that along with the lowered voting age and jury duty age would come the driving age and smoking age and drinking age?
Original post by LShirley95
So the age off conscription would be different? So is the age for sex, drinking, driving and smoking, are they relevant too? I still don't see where the "if you vote you should be able to be conscripted" argument is coming from. Our Scientists and Engineers and Teachers all vote too, but they wouldn't be conscripted? Conscription still happens (more often than not) in undemocratic countries, anyway. I just don't see the link you're making.
The point I'm making is that as a "full" citizen, with the right to vote etc, you also have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is that in the event of a major war there is a possibility that you could be conscripted by the Government and you will have to fight for your country.
In addition to that, when conscription isn't in force, then only people of 18 years and over can serve on the frontline.
Original post by LShirley95
You're right, Democracy does empower their citizens. But giving this power to young adults doesn't create a direct link with other areas of society. Maybe your argument is that, if they can decide who to vote for, they can be completely responsible about everything else in society, too? In which case you would argue that along with the lowered voting age and jury duty age would come the driving age and smoking age and drinking age?
You're right, Democracy does empower their citizens. But giving this power to young adults doesn't create a direct link with other areas of society. Maybe your argument is that, if they can decide who to vote for, they can be completely responsible about everything else in society, too? In which case you would argue that along with the lowered voting age and jury duty age would come the driving age and smoking age and drinking age?
the basic belief I have is that being a citizen is something involving give and take. You get to choose your representatives, but you also have to submit to the state's authority and you have to be prepared to make a contribution to the state (for example, as a juror).
I think that you have got to have an arbitrary cut off point. Whether that is 16 or 18 I don't really mind, but it seems to me that a gradual evolution period (between 16 and 18 where you mature and gradually get to drive, drink and so on) would be the best way to do things.
Well, I'm 15, and I have an interest in politics and am a member of Young Labour. My birthday's on the 24th May, and the election's on something like the 9th May 2015, 2 weeks before I turn 18. I'm pretty pissed.
I think what most people are missing out here is that a lot of people who have the sort of "all dose ****in pakis takin r jobs nd bein gay is disgusting nd ****" view on British politics would normally not vote, or probably end up forgetting to vote. There'd also be a group of people who didn't care at one point beginning to take an interest in it, because they begin to understand politics more because they can actually be a part of it. There's also a Government & Politics A Level, and I know that a lot of people in my year want to take it (seems more than the amount of people who were entered into AS last year, anyway), so that could be indicative of a spike in interest.
Sure, there'd be people who'd vote parties like the BNP because of something they read off the Daily Mail, but there are also 30 year olds who don't know whether to use there, they're or their. It's not like adding two extra years to the voting pool would turn the tables immensely, anyway.
16-18 year olds should probably be kept out of jury service for major crimes, and crimes where the accused is under 18, though.
I think what most people are missing out here is that a lot of people who have the sort of "all dose ****in pakis takin r jobs nd bein gay is disgusting nd ****" view on British politics would normally not vote, or probably end up forgetting to vote. There'd also be a group of people who didn't care at one point beginning to take an interest in it, because they begin to understand politics more because they can actually be a part of it. There's also a Government & Politics A Level, and I know that a lot of people in my year want to take it (seems more than the amount of people who were entered into AS last year, anyway), so that could be indicative of a spike in interest.
Sure, there'd be people who'd vote parties like the BNP because of something they read off the Daily Mail, but there are also 30 year olds who don't know whether to use there, they're or their. It's not like adding two extra years to the voting pool would turn the tables immensely, anyway.
16-18 year olds should probably be kept out of jury service for major crimes, and crimes where the accused is under 18, though.
(edited 11 years ago)
I've never heard a single rational argument for lowering the voting age. The amount of disinformation ("you pay tax at 16!", "you can fight for your country!") is shocking.
I say no. Voting should be a right you gain once you've become sufficiently involved in our civic life. If anything, we are infantilising teenagers more than ever, moving them away from this involvement.
I say no. Voting should be a right you gain once you've become sufficiently involved in our civic life. If anything, we are infantilising teenagers more than ever, moving them away from this involvement.
Original post by L i b
I've never heard a single rational argument for lowering the voting age. The amount of disinformation ("you pay tax at 16!", "you can fight for your country!") is shocking.
I say no. Voting should be a right you gain once you've become sufficiently involved in our civic life. If anything, we are infantilising teenagers more than ever, moving them away from this involvement.
I say no. Voting should be a right you gain once you've become sufficiently involved in our civic life. If anything, we are infantilising teenagers more than ever, moving them away from this involvement.
Funnily enough, I've never heard a single rational argument for not lowering the voting age.
If 16-18 year olds aren't involved enough in civic life because - as you freely admit - we are "infantilising teenagers more than ever", then whose fault is that? The conclusion from this shouldn't be "Therefore 16-18 year olds shouldn't be given the vote", the conclusion should be "Therefore we should involve them more in civic life so we can give them the vote".
Original post by Alex-Torres
I'm 16 and I'm not as politically ignorant as some are implying here. I see plenty of uneducated folk on the News, and they lecture that we shouldn't be doing this, that and another, when they don't know how much we're in a defecit and are considering facts. I, in no way follow my parent's views, and probably have a better knowledge of politics/economics than your 40 year lay man.
I respect that there are 16 year olds out there that more than merit the vote over some of their 18 year old counterparts. But I believe that you are in the minority, unfortunately.
I believe that, although the majority of 16-17 year-olds are utter buffoons, that shouldn't be enough to prevent those of us whose two brain cells actually connect from having a say. Maybe there should be voter registration tests for 16 and 17 year-olds, or something to that effect. But I would love to be able to vote, and I'll be too young by a matter of days at the next general election. If there's a chance that I'll be able to vote, then I don't feel the dim-witted ignorance of my generation as a whole should prevent me from getting that chance.
But then would the cost to the government for these tests worth however many thousands of these tests being taken and marked...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm generally supportive given the number of other things you can do at 16.
With that said, in an ideal world i would limit voting to those with a degree education who are working given that they are more likely to make an informed decision rather than vote for a single issue like tuition fees.
With that said, in an ideal world i would limit voting to those with a degree education who are working given that they are more likely to make an informed decision rather than vote for a single issue like tuition fees.
The only problem with the argument of 16 year olds 'not knowing enough' is that, generally speaking, most adults have an equally small grasp on political reality. I back the reduction in voting age but before that I would like to see Politics become a mandatory subject in secondary schools. People should know how the engine of their country works.
Original post by L i b
Voting should be a right you gain once you've become sufficiently involved in our civic life.
How do you become sufficiently involved in our civic life?
18 should be fixed
The main arguments seem to be 'sixteen year olds arent intrested in politics' and 'sixteen year olds are idiots'
to the first, the fact that a section of the demographic are uninterested in politics is irrelivant. A large section of those over 18 are also indifferent to the political world in the UK but we don't restrict the whole demographic from having the vote. People who are interested have their say and people who are not do not regardless of age. i know 16 year olds that crave the ability to have their say in how their country is run and i know 40 year olds that throw away their vote with absolutely no concept of what it means. i find this VERY unfair.
to the second, some sixteen year olds may lack the intelligence to make an informed desicion about their chosen political party but i would argue the exact same is true for the majority of the population with the vote. how else would parties like the BNP have the stupid amount of supporters they have considering how ****ing retarded and socially backwards their ideology is.
to the first, the fact that a section of the demographic are uninterested in politics is irrelivant. A large section of those over 18 are also indifferent to the political world in the UK but we don't restrict the whole demographic from having the vote. People who are interested have their say and people who are not do not regardless of age. i know 16 year olds that crave the ability to have their say in how their country is run and i know 40 year olds that throw away their vote with absolutely no concept of what it means. i find this VERY unfair.
to the second, some sixteen year olds may lack the intelligence to make an informed desicion about their chosen political party but i would argue the exact same is true for the majority of the population with the vote. how else would parties like the BNP have the stupid amount of supporters they have considering how ****ing retarded and socially backwards their ideology is.
Original post by the mezzil
Neither are most 40 year olds.
Even more clueless people voting then. Just what a country needs (Y)
No.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by shooks
At what age should we be allowed to vote? MPs are today debating a bid to have the voting age lowered to 16.
The motion has been tabled by Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams, who says the bid has wide parliamentary support and that it would enable 1.5m 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.
Both Labour and the Lib Dems are in support of this - what do you think? Is 16 too young to have a vote? Or is it unfair that people old enough to work, have sex and fight wars do not yet have the right to vote?
-----
This thread has been featured on the TSR New and now page - home of the top content on TSR
-----
The motion has been tabled by Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams, who says the bid has wide parliamentary support and that it would enable 1.5m 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.
Both Labour and the Lib Dems are in support of this - what do you think? Is 16 too young to have a vote? Or is it unfair that people old enough to work, have sex and fight wars do not yet have the right to vote?
-----
This thread has been featured on the TSR New and now page - home of the top content on TSR
-----
Thats wrong... I mean how can you have sex and produce babies and fight in the war and not be able to vote.....
Original post by Ryan Needhan
The main arguments seem to be 'sixteen year olds arent intrested in politics' and 'sixteen year olds are idiots'
No. The argument is that too many children aren't interested enough in politics for a sufficient amount of time before their sixteenth birthday. Arguing over whether sixteen year olds care is missing the point - in order to make a well-informed decision, you have to have been paying attention beforehand (i.e. when you were 14 or 15). Almost all children do not do this.
18 is fine. Some may argue there isn't much difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old because it's just a two year age gap. But there really is a difference. Some of my views have changed and/or developed since I was 16 and there are some things I would have done then that I definitely wouldn't do now. Of course there are rational and intelligent 16 year olds that are passionate about politics but there isn't harm in waiting until they're legal.
No. I had a very similar argument with one of my friends last week about it, and he was saying how he thought he should be allowed the vote (he's 14)... I said, "yes, you are one of the smart ones that enjoys politics and keeps up with the news, but a lot of people in your year wouldn't be able to list more than the three main political parties, and they certainly don't keep up with their policies. Its a stupid idea. I wouldn't even trust half the people that I know that are in my year (15/16) with the vote."
Original post by originaltitle
Why is everybody on this thread treating 16 year olds as though hey were 10? Perhaps the age shouldn't be lowered, that's fine; but that doesn't mean no 16 year old is interested in politics, and it doesn't mean 16 year olds are all immature. People above 16 can be immature too.
Because people look back at their 16 year old self and realise how stupid they were.
Related discussions
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Why does people on reddit always criticizes a 21-23 year old dating someone 18/19?
- erin11 asks...have you registered to vote yet?
- what shops employ 16 year olds?
- Funding for 16 year old British passport holding living in Asia
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- Rishi Sunak proposes the Advanced British Standard
- night life in Manchester at the age of 17
- Am I able to start College at the 18
- Your Perfect Country
- Jobs for a 14 yr old
- scared he wont be able to fit inside me
- Questions about moving into a new school as an immigrant 17 year old
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Shops that offer jobs to 15 y/o's?
- Studying 120 credits as a 16 year old Care Leaver
- apprenticeship with a part time job at 16
- Jobs at 15
- shouldn't all young people register to vote now because
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
