The Student Room Group

Article: Three reasons why 16-17 year olds should have the right to vote

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TimmonaPortella

The ideas that they are left-leaning and also politically apathetic as a group are perfectly consistent.


Right, so we should not give young people the vote because we don't like their views. How authoritarian. There is no other way round it. To not give 16-17 year olds the vote just because we don't like their political views is authoritarian.

It's a deplorable view point. Especially from the right who posture on being the defenders of liberty. They are utterly dishonest hypocrites on this view.

They can not be left leaning and political apathetic. Politics goes much deeper. For example, as much as I despise Russel Brand and his don't vote stance, his view is a political one. It is not the result of political apathy. Top think otherwise shows a complete lack of meta awareness.
Most 16-17 year olds don't know **** about real life and are still living on the bank of mum and dad. They will vote Labour or Green because they have no concept of reality and are moronic. The voting age should be raised, not lowered. It should go up to 21 and adults should need 3 years of experience in the real world before being able to vote on matters that concern taxpayers.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Right, so we should not give young people the vote because we don't like their views. How authoritarian. There is no other way round it. To not give 16-17 year olds the vote just because we don't like their political views is authoritarian.

It's a deplorable view point. Especially from the right who posture on being the defenders of liberty. They are utterly dishonest hypocrites on this view.

They can not be left leaning and political apathetic. Politics goes much deeper. For example, as much as I despise Russel Brand and his don't vote stance, his view is a political one. It is not the result of political apathy. Top think otherwise shows a complete lack of meta awareness.


I didn't say that. I said they shouldn't be given the vote because I don't think they're competent to vote or that we should care what people that young think even if they were, given they're very unlikely to have contributed to the functioning of the state or done anything in their lives except consume public services. I'd personally raise the voting age substantially for all those reasons.

Of course they can be left leaning and apathetic. They don't vote in great numbers. Those who do vote tend to vote for left wing parties. Therefore, as a group, they are left leaning and apathetic. That's what I mean by apathetic anyway, and that's what voter apathy usually means. If you want to pick a different definition then that's a different debate.
Pretty crap article.

The first point is a meaningless platitude. Politics affects babies and prisoners too, but it doesn't mean they should be allowed to vote.

The second point supposes that politics adapting to people with no life experience who don't have to pay for any of the policies suggested is a good thing. I don't think it is.
"The problem is that everyone treats teenagers like they're stupid."

-----
Also the argument 'they should be in full time work' completely falls down because there are plenty adults out there who have probably never had a full time job and have just been scrounging off the state or ''stay at home mummies''. You would also have to decline absolutely everyone who hasn't had full-time employment, which extends to people who are still in university - what a dreadful, dreadful argument to make.

I think IF some form of economics or politics class was compulsory in the secondary school curriculum, then 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote as they would all have the basic foundations to develop a political perspective from an earlier age.
Reply 25
Avatar for t0sin
t0sin
4
The reason you don't want young people to vote is because you don't like their views. Please tell me how this is "democracy" you selfish right-wing bastards.
Original post by Inexorably
"The problem is that everyone treats teenagers like they're stupid."

-----
Also the argument 'they should be in full time work' completely falls down because there are plenty adults out there who have probably never had a full time job and have just been scrounging off the state or ''stay at home mummies''. You would also have to decline absolutely everyone who hasn't had full-time employment, which extends to people who are still in university - what a dreadful, dreadful argument to make.

I think IF some form of economics or politics class was compulsory in the secondary school curriculum, then 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote as they would all have the basic foundations to develop a political perspective from an earlier age.


Teenagers are stupid, but that's not the point. The point is that they have no experience.

Just repeating that it's dreadful doesn't get you anywhere. It doesn't require you to reject anyone who hasn't worked. Since the age is arbitrary anyway, we could set it as a level at which the majority of people, if they're ever going to work full-time and contribute to the upkeep of the state, will have done. My suggestion is 25 years old.

I don't see why anyone should care what university students think either. They still haven't contributed to anything, they've still spent the majority of their lives consuming public services, including university, and they still haven't known what it's like to be entirely independent, have taxes taken out of their wages, or anything of the sort.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Teenagers are stupid


Didn't bother reading after you made a sweeping generalisation.
Original post by Inexorably
Didn't bother reading after you made a sweeping generalisation.


Your loss.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Your loss.


:dontknow:
I'm not really sure what I think about 16-17 year olds being able to vote, but the only thing I'd say looking at arguments here would be that the reason you'd cap it at 16 (despite a lot of arguments for 16 year old voters applying to those under 16 too) would be that at 16 you can leave school, get a job, move out, get married (with permission), join the army etc. - it's not what we'd classify as an adult but it's a point when a lot of people have to start seriously thinking about housing, wages, education etc. so this is a debate worth having - no idea where I stand though :')
Can I give you another reason against.

This country has a bright line regarding adulthood. If you are 18 you are an adult, an autonomous individual. Up to 18 the law extends some but not all privileges of adulthood to you. Once someone is 18 there are very few things that a person cannot do. There are some issues with driving HGVs and giving driving lessons but not much else.

Once you give people who can't drive, marry without parental consent, enlist in the Army without parental consent, incur debt, own property and rent property the right to vote you have eroded that bright line. If the right to vote is detached from being fully adult, then there is no magic why the other rights of adulthood should automatically be given at 18. Why shouldn't the age for buying alcohol be raised to 23; why shouldn't there be a minimum age for inheriting property of 25; why shouldn't compulsory education be extended to 21; why shouldn't 20 year olds be prohibited from driving at night?

With so many people entering higher education rather than earning a living or marrying in their teens, young people are less autonomous now than they have ever been. Give 16 year olds the vote, and there is no longer an anchor that keeps the barrier between being a child and being an adult in place and young people may well find that very easily the restrictions of childhood last long after they are 18.
Just reading the bold bits all I have to say is: based on this logic why bother having a voting and at all?

Posted from TSR Mobile
The student mindset is that voting Labour is a 'studenty' thing to do, and voting Green is the 'nice' thing to do. And everyone else will follow like sheep.

The percentage of students who actually make a proper, informed decision is close to 0.
I remember watching the Uk youth parlt debate this on TV a while back and I just remember this one guys quote

"At 16, you are old enough to have sex with your MP .. but you are not allowed to vote for who the MP is"
Original post by TorpidPhil
Anyone who's on benefits needs to lose their vote too.


So half of the working population then...
Original post by tehforum
So half of the working population then...


Twas satire :P
They shouldn't have the right to vote.

The vast majority are immature and have no knowledge of politics - many of them think the Green Party are actually capable of being in Government! - so they shouldn't be allowed.

I'd rather seem compulsory voting for everyone in the UK instead.
I'm still not getting why students are naive about things the left wing want to tax high earners large amounts and these earners will be earning so much it shouldn't affect them too much.The fact that students have relied on services makes them aware of how crucial how public services are and why they need to be protected.

I think when we get into arguments about "paying for services" it can get confusing what people actually earn the Government could change taxation so that was took first away directly from businesses before coming on your payslip and now you wouldn't be paying for it and yet you would still take home the same amount, I think a lot of leftists view taxation for what it really is a correction of your income and what the money you get out of it is what you have actually earned.
Original post by nebelbon


I'd rather seem compulsory voting for everyone in the UK instead.


No, please. It is a mercy that many of the least capable voters voluntarily spare us the burden of having to account for their opinion. Forcing people who know and care nothing about politics to have a say in politics would be awful.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you