Should 16 year olds have the vote? Watch

Shakespeareson
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 year ago
#61
No. My voting has even changed from when i was 18 as i have matured and began to understand the world more. I cant imagine what i would have voted if i was 16
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 year ago
#62
maybe they could have 1/2 a vote ?

:dontknow:
0
reply
Johnathan94
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 year ago
#63
(Original post by Andrew97)
A 16 year old cannot stand at the election, thus I don’t think they should vote.
A 16-year-old should be allowed to stand in an election but even given the present circumstance where they cannot: why should their inability to be elected preclude their ability to vote?

A 16-year-old is of legal age to join the army in Britain (so your view is that they can commit to die for a foreign policy, but not vote for it), they can marry (so they can participate in civil customs, legally-binding and government endorsed) and most importantly, they pay taxes on their income (so they can fund a government but not choose one, in your view).

Either they need to be removed from income tax and prohibited from joining the military, or they have every claim to a vote. If they are old enough to be utilised by a government, they are old enough to choose one.
0
reply
Le Vagabond
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#64
(Original post by 3121)
No, maybe in previous generations but I wouldn’t be in favour of the current generation of 16 year olds voting and the future ones don’t seem much brighter.

The debate should end with the fact they live in a bubble of education. Little to no experience of the world outside of that bubble, you can barely get a job at 16. It’ll be a joke to them. They can’t take 90% of the stuff seriously, what do they care about energy bills and housing at that age?
That's quite presumptious, i held down two jobs at 16 tbh

Suppose the 'education' bubble has been broken, would we then allow 16 year olds, with low rates of education and having worked at an early age (Dickensian if you ask me) would they then be qualified to vote?
0
reply
Le Vagabond
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#65
(Original post by Shakespeareson)
No. My voting has even changed from when i was 18 as i have matured and began to understand the world more. I cant imagine what i would have voted if i was 16
i'd say same for me too tbh
0
reply
byPaul
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 year ago
#66
(Original post by random_matt)
No, and neither should they at 18.
So what age do you think people should be able to vote? This opens a can of worms with what age is right. People complained that too many older people voted for Brexit when the younger generation didn't want you. You need to look at the bigger picture I think. Where people over the retirement age may have more "life experience", it won't be their future they are shaping (it'll be the future generations).

I think perhaps 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in certain cases but nothing which would directly affect them at present (e.g. Lowering school leaver age, alcohol/gambling age etc).

We need to remember that 16-year-olds are young adults in education eyes. I know at Sixth Form we were given a lot more responsibility and freedom which helps prepare you for the future. I think voting which ties in well at this stage. 16-year-olds can play the lottery, join the army, so why not help shape their future?
2
reply
Johnathan94
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 year ago
#67
(Original post by 3121)
No, maybe in previous generations but I wouldn’t be in favour of the current generation of 16 year olds voting and the future ones don’t seem much brighter.

The debate should end with the fact they live in a bubble of education. Little to no experience of the world outside of that bubble, you can barely get a job at 16. It’ll be a joke to them. They can’t take 90% of the stuff seriously, what do they care about energy bills and housing at that age?
Aye, sure thing.
Not like their parents, who sit down every night with all of the manifestos spread out around them and ponder what it means to be a great nation: "What values should I endorse? Can I rightly back a socially liberal party, or does that conflict with my long-held stance of fiscal conservatism?
Oh if only we had a government as good as the people!"

Leave it out. The average voting 16-year-old will be every bit the uninformed, trigger-happy idiot that the average voting 50-year-old is. Maybe even a little better as they probably don't buy papers.
3
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 year ago
#68
(Original post by Johnathan94)
A 16-year-old should be allowed to stand in an election but even given the present circumstance where they cannot: why should their inability to be elected preclude their ability to vote?

A 16-year-old is of legal age to join the army in Britain (so your view is that they can commit to die for a foreign policy, but not vote for it), they can marry (so they can participate in civil customs, legally-binding and government endorsed) and most importantly, they pay taxes on their income (so they can fund a government but not choose one, in your view).

Either they need to be removed from income tax and prohibited from joining the military, or they have every claim to a vote. If they are old enough to be utilised by a government, they are old enough to choose one.
Parental consent is needed to both join the army and marry aged 16 and 17.

realistically no 16-17 will earn enough to pay tax.
0
reply
Johnathan94
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 year ago
#69
(Original post by Andrew97)
Parental consent is needed to both join the army and marry aged 16 and 17.

realistically no 16-17 will earn enough to pay tax.
Realistically is neither here nor there, legally they have that obligation and as such, legally they ought to have the right to vote. Many of them do earn enough to pay National Insurance, I did at 17.

Also, what does the parental consent have to do with anything? They're able to commit to that choice, providing they have support. It isn't unilateral, sure, but most things aren't. You also need a doctor's endorsement to serve in the army - it doesn't make it any less your choice if you do end up joining.
0
reply
Le Vagabond
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#70
(Original post by Andrew97)
Parental consent is needed to both join the army and marry aged 16 and 17.

realistically no 16-17 will earn enough to pay tax.
Agreed on the former, disagreed on the latter.

I know factory jobs in Enfield London pay £8 regardless of age. They do require you to be 18+ for night shift which is £9.20.

But other than that, suppose you weren't in education and worked 24+ hours, I think you're illegible to pay tax no?
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 year ago
#71
(Original post by Johnathan94)
Realistically is neither here nor there, legally they have that obligation and as such, legally they ought to have the right to vote. Many of them do earn enough to pay National Insurance, I did at 17.

Also, what does the parental consent have to do with anything? They're able to commit to that choice, providing they have support. It isn't unilateral, sure, but most things aren't. You also need a doctor's endorsement to serve in the army - it doesn't make it any less your choice if you do end up joining.
People stop paying class one NI when the reach the pension age. Should they stop voting?

id make all of this start at 18.
1
reply
Johnathan94
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 year ago
#72
(Original post by Andrew97)
People stop paying class one NI when the reach the pension age. Should they stop voting?

id make all of this start at 18.
Very poor argument - a second ago you were saying that because a 16-year-old can't "realistically" make a financial contribution to government they shouldn't be allowed to vote, and now you're standing up for the rights of another group who don't make a financial contribution to vote?

Which is it? To what metric would you like to anchor the right to vote?

EDIT:
Also, that's fine that you would make all of this start at 18. If that was the case then you would have a coherent position, but at present it sits at 16 and thus, so should the voting age.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 year ago
#73
(Original post by Johnathan94)
Very poor argument - a second ago you were saying that because a 16-year-old can't "realistically" make a financial contribution to government they shouldn't be allowed to vote, and now you're standing up for the rights of another group who don't make a financial contribution to vote?

Which is it? To what metric would you like to anchor the right to vote?
I never made the financial argument as a reason for vote denial. I gave my main reason in my original post. You brought up taxation, not me.

Now answer my question, should pensioners have their vote taken away?

Pensioners have made a contribution their entire life.
0
reply
Johnathan94
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 year ago
#74
(Original post by Andrew97)
I never made the financial argument as a reason for vote denial. I gave my main reason in my original post. You brought up taxation, not me.

Now answer my question, should pensioners have their vote taken away?

Pensioners have made a contribution their entire life.
I love that you've dodged nearly every point I've made along the way but now want to tie me down with this question. But of course, I'll answer questions.

Pensioners should not have their votes taken away because they exist legally as adults in our society. Having passed the threshold of 16, they have assumed the role of the citizen:
- They have the authority to live independently (like a 16-year-old)
- They are liable to be taxed on any suitable income (like a 16-year-old)
- They have passed a threshold where they are able to serve in the military (like a 16-year-old)
- They are of age to assume criminal liability and therefore should have a voice in deciding laws and punishments (like a 16-ear-old)
- They are of age to have sex and therefore should have a voice in deciding their reproductive rights (like a 16-year-old)
- They are of age to marry and therefore should have a voice in deciding the legal framework of marriage (you-get-the-idea).

Now, since I answered your question... Is there a hypocrisy between the current treatment of 16-year-olds in law and their inability to vote?
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 year ago
#75
(Original post by Johnathan94)
I love that you've dodged nearly every point I've made along the way but now want to tie me down with this question. But of course, I'll answer questions.

Pensioners should not have their votes taken away because they exist legally as adults in our society. Having passed the threshold of 16, they have assumed the role of the citizen:
- They have the authority to live independently (like a 16-year-old)
- They are liable to be taxed on any suitable income (like a 16-year-old)
- They have passed a threshold where they are able to serve in the military (like a 16-year-old)
- They are of age to assume criminal liability and therefore should have a voice in deciding laws and punishments (like a 16-ear-old)
- They are of age to have sex and therefore should have a voice in deciding their reproductive rights (like a 16-year-old)
- They are of age to marry and therefore should have a voice in deciding the legal framework of marriage (you-get-the-idea).

Now, since I answered your question... Is there a hypocrisy between the current treatment of 16-year-olds in law and their inability to vote?
Probably, but like I said before I would make most if not all of those start at 18.

ive not seen the edits above so will address those in a moment.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 year ago
#76
(Original post by Johnathan94)
Realistically is neither here nor there, legally they have that obligation and as such, legally they ought to have the right to vote. Many of them do earn enough to pay National Insurance, I did at 17.

Also, what does the parental consent have to do with anything? They're able to commit to that choice, providing they have support. It isn't unilateral, sure, but most things aren't. You also need a doctor's endorsement to serve in the army - it doesn't make it any less your choice if you do end up joining.
The need to get parental consent suggests that young people aren’t that independent in making those choices. I’m not sure a doctors note is comparable.
(Original post by Le Vagabond)
Agreed on the former, disagreed on the latter.

I know factory jobs in Enfield London pay £8 regardless of age. They do require you to be 18+ for night shift which is £9.20.

But other than that, suppose you weren't in education and worked 24+ hours, I think you're illegible to pay tax no?
£8 per hour for student on part time hours would not result in taxation being paid.

On your second point, I’m not sure that is possible for a 16-17 year old.
https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school
0
reply
frogglet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 year ago
#77
look at the brexit referendum- so many people taken in by obvious lying. 16 yr olds would be so easy for the politicans to toy with. what I would say though is 16 yr olds could attend an interview to see if they are mature enough to vote, and if they pass it then they can vote. also school in general should teach a lot more about current politics and government so that young people can make more informed voting decisions.
1
reply
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 year ago
#78
(Original post by Le Vagabond)
That's quite presumptious, i held down two jobs at 16 tbh

Suppose the 'education' bubble has been broken, would we then allow 16 year olds, with low rates of education and having worked at an early age (Dickensian if you ask me) would they then be qualified to vote?
How old are you now?

and no because it’s still a contained and controlled environment, when you work at a young age your employer has more responsibility over you and the different rules create a different environment, working at 17 vs 18 at the same company for me was a totally different experience.
0
reply
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 year ago
#79
(Original post by Johnathan94)
Aye, sure thing.
Not like their parents, who sit down every night with all of the manifestos spread out around them and ponder what it means to be a great nation: "What values should I endorse? Can I rightly back a socially liberal party, or does that conflict with my long-held stance of fiscal conservatism?
Oh if only we had a government as good as the people!"

Leave it out. The average voting 16-year-old will be every bit the uninformed, trigger-happy idiot that the average voting 50-year-old is. Maybe even a little better as they probably don't buy papers.
Oh yes because the stuff on social media is so much better than in the papers! Let’s vote for Jeremy Corbyn because banter. The only reason young people actually like Jeremy is because he’s a meme, then people try to politicised that popularity.

You're basically saying the people currently voting are dumb, let’s invite more dumb people to participate? Smart thinking. I don’t expect many people to agree with me since it’s a student website with a left bias, but seriously just look at the people around you that are 16 and 17, you really want them voting?

Just think about how your peers would come to a choice if you’re that age or when you were and think if you really want that reasoning to influence elections.
0
reply
Johnathan94
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 year ago
#80
(Original post by 3121)
Oh yes because the stuff on social media is so much better than in the papers! Let’s vote for Jeremy Corbyn because banter. The only reason young people actually like Jeremy is because he’s a meme, then people try to politicised that popularity.

You're basically saying the people currently voting are dumb, let’s invite more dumb people to participate? Smart thinking. I don’t expect many people to agree with me since it’s a student website with a left bias, but seriously just look at the people around you that are 16 and 17, you really want them voting?

Just think about how your peers would come to a choice if you’re that age or when you were and think if you really want that reasoning to influence elections.
Getting a better-informed electorate is a great idea but my point, of course, was that you don't make it any worse by including 16-year-olds. People vote for stupid reasons and 16-year-olds would be no worse.

I absolutely am saying that the electorate is, broadly speaking, stupid. They go insane every election cycle about their wages. It's been an enormous, key issue, in every recent election. Along comes a party who says "Yeah, you're right - we should raise the minimum wage" and half the country goes nuts and starts screaming about communism. It's like if KFC invented self-slaughtering chickens. And yes, social media (despite its many flaws) is definitely better than most of the UK's rags. They're the reason why the average UK voter has strong feelings about everything, but can quote no facts about anything.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

what's your favourite season?

Summer (12)
27.27%
Spring (7)
15.91%
Autumn/Fall (13)
29.55%
Winter (8)
18.18%
I love them all equally (4)
9.09%

Watched Threads

View All