Turn on thread page Beta

Should the vote be given to 16 year olds? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just to be controversial: yes, I honestly do.

    No taxation without representation is of course the main one. Also, at sixteen you can fight and die for your country, have a kid, get married, work full-time; why shouldn't you be able to have a say in what sort of country your child grows up in/wars you fight in/employment regulations etc.

    I agree that there is a bit of a yobbish culture and all that, but I doubt that you go from being an 'ignorant ****' to responsible adult in two years. Also, if that were the case, surely we should not allow other 'ignorant ****'s to vote. For example, people with a subscription to The Sun. Or, maybe we should have an upper limit too. Most old people are senile, old-fashioned and aren't really going to be around when everything really goes to hell. Yes, I am being extremist and I don't believe these views; but surely they are just as ridiculous in terms of generalisation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No because even if 16 year olds could they wouldnt and its too young im 21 now and the way I understand politics is very different because I think at 18 your perception of the world I different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grape:))
    All of the immature ones wont bother, and those who have political interest can then rightfully express their opinion through a vote that they have earned as citizens effected by many many british policies and laws.

    x
    I completely agree with Grape- the distinction between being able to vote at 16 and 18 is minimal and the comments about 'unsuitability', 'radical voting just because they can' and 'not bothering' are as true for older voters as they are for younger ones. The apathetic 16 year olds will do exactly the same as the apathetic 18, 33, and 65 year olds- they won't vote. Whereas, those that do have an interest and a desire to exercise the privelege can do so to improve the electoral system. In my eyes, there is no negative result that can come out of extending the vote to people of 16.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone saying no because 16 year olds know nothing about politics: Alot of over-18s know nothing about politics and we don't disqualify them from voting because they aren't well enough informed, do we..?

    As some are saying, people have a right to vote on where their money is getting spent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itszednotzee)
    I think if 16 year olds want to vote they should take some sort of test to determine whether they are politically aware etc so you dont get a whole bunch of chavs doing it for a laugh.
    I was aware enough at 16 (taking A level politics) and would have loved the chance to vote - if there was the choice/an election :p:
    I think it's a bit of a leap to assume everyone over sixteen is 'politically aware' just because they are over sixteen. Surely it would only be fair to make this test a prerequisite for everyone who intended to vote?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poppy1992)
    No. I'm 16 and, like most of my friends, have no interest in politics so I wouldn't vote anyway!
    Thus indicating that some proportion of your friends are interested in politics- why should they be denied the right to vote just because you wouldn't care to exercise the right if it were granted to you?

    I'm 20, and, unlike most of my friends, do have an interest in politics. Yet they have the right to vote- and a 16 year old with a strong interest and a desire to be involved in politics cannot be...surely this is wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azzer)
    I don't think they should be allowed to. My younger brother is 16 and doesn't have a clue about politics. I don't think he even likes a party. So who would he vote for?

    Leave the voting age at 18.
    Well, as voting isn't compulsory he would, more than likely, not vote. However, any of his friends who did have clue about politics, who did like a party etc. would be able to vote if they wanted to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    I think it's a bit of a leap to assume everyone over sixteen is 'politically aware' just because they are over sixteen. Surely it would only be fair to make this test a prerequisite for everyone who intended to vote?
    Oh, I didnt mean to say it that way. I meant that if anyone 16/17 wanted to vote they should take a test just to make sure that they are politically aware - otherwise there is no point in them voting.

    I wasn't trying to say that all 16 year olds were politically aware :confused: ......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. Just no.

    Plus I went to a Politics seminar a while ago and the lecturer was talking about something quite fascinating. If somebody is given the vote at 16, there is a large chance they won't actually vote. About 92% he said. He also said that the very first time you vote also predicts if you shall vote in the future. If someone missed the chance to vote at 18 - then there was a 88% chance they'd never vote again. So I suppose lowering the age would lower the electorate somewhat (if you believed his research...)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itszednotzee)
    Oh, I didnt mean to say it that way. I meant that if anyone 16/17 wanted to vote they should take a test just to make sure that they are politically aware - otherwise there is no point in them voting.

    I wasn't trying to say that all 16 year olds were politically aware :confused: ......
    No, I'm aware of what you meant, but it seems like we've got out wires crossed.

    You believe 16/17 year olds should take a test to prove themselves politically aware before being allowed to vote. Why shouldn't everyone take this test? I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that everyone over this age is assuredly politically aware, just because they are older than 16/17.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itszednotzee)
    I think if 16 year olds want to vote they should take some sort of test to determine whether they are politically aware etc so you dont get a whole bunch of chavs doing it for a laugh.
    I was aware enough at 16 (taking A level politics) and would have loved the chance to vote - if there was the choice/an election :p:
    I have to agree with Kate in that such a test is surely required of the whole electorate rather than just prospective 16 year-old voters. It seems to me that a lot of people are over-estimating the amount of people that vote simply for the "LOLZ" as one person put it; how entertaining is it exactly for a few 16 year-olds to vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party in a constituency and still watch them come last etc.?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OK, gotcha.

    Well then why don't 16/17 year olds get the vote now? What you are saying is that not everyone over the age of 18 is politically aware. I get that. 16 and 17 year olds are probably at a similar level of political awareness (as you dont gain it simply by turning 18) but when you turn 18 you suddenly are allowed to vote. Why then is it not fair to let 16/17year olds vote?

    (Hmm im not sure if I worded that quite right..)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itszednotzee)
    OK, gotcha.

    Well then why don't 16/17 year olds get the vote now? What you are saying is that not everyone over the age of 18 is politically aware. I get that. 16 and 17 year olds are probably at a similar level of political awareness (as you dont gain it simply by turning 18) but when you turn 18 you suddenly are allowed to vote. Why then is it not fair to let 16/17year olds vote?

    (Hmm im not sure if I worded that quite right..)
    Precisely.

    I do think 16/17 year olds should be allowed to vote.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We shouldn't, but if I was paying tax now I would be pissed off I couldn't.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roosel4)
    But 16 year olds contribute tax money, so why don't they get a say in where it's spent?
    silly argument, 5 year olds are affected by schooling legislation controlled by the government, so why not give them the vote?,
    And besides hardly any 16 year olds are earning significant amounts of money.
    At 18 one becomes a legal adult, a proper citizen, and takes on the responsibilites, and also the rights. I think any adult rates should be charged at this age as well but thats another issue.
    A more valid debate would be whether one should become a legal adult at 16, and all the associated implications.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itszednotzee)
    OK, gotcha.

    Well then why don't 16/17 year olds get the vote now? What you are saying is that not everyone over the age of 18 is politically aware. I get that. 16 and 17 year olds are probably at a similar level of political awareness (as you dont gain it simply by turning 18) but when you turn 18 you suddenly are allowed to vote. Why then is it not fair to let 16/17year olds vote?

    (Hmm im not sure if I worded that quite right..)
    Well no one seems quite sure- the issue was voted on in 1999 and heavily defeated but it appears to be on the agenda again. Supposedly, Scottish 16 year-olds might be getting the vote by 2011 for their elections but nothing set in stone yet. Ed Miliband has been one of the main advocates of extending the vote but it appears to be a very minor issue for Westminster as a whole.

    A point to conisder though as that extending the vote to 16-year olds might be part of an election manifesto for any/all of the main parties next year to tie in with a wider programme of constitutional reform. This could be an obvious way to be seen to be 'shaking up' the electoral system without actually having to change the system itself...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wootwootwoot)
    silly argument, 5 year olds are affected by schooling legislation controlled by the government, so why not give them the vote?,
    And besides hardly any 16 year olds are earning significant amounts of money.
    At 18 one becomes a legal adult, a proper citizen, and takes on the responsibilites, and also the rights. I think any adult rates should be charged at this age as well but thats another issue.
    A more valid debate would be whether one should become a legal adult at 16, and all the associated implications.
    You can leave school and work full-time at sixteen; theoretically earning as much as any other similarly qualified adult. I'd say that was indeed a significant amount of money.

    Oh, and five year olds don't pay tax. I feel this is going to become a well-worn line: no taxation without representation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wootwootwoot)
    silly argument, 5 year olds are affected by schooling legislation controlled by the government, so why not give them the vote?,
    And besides hardly any 16 year olds are earning significant amounts of money.
    At 18 one becomes a legal adult, a proper citizen, and takes on the responsibilites, and also the rights. I think any adult rates should be charged at this age as well but thats another issue.
    A more valid debate would be whether one should become a legal adult at 16, and all the associated implications.
    ok sorry for putting across my opinion.


    it's not silly, read above me...

    Just watch that show on iPlayer and it shows you how ignorant people over 18 are with politics.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Without a doubt.

    I'm 17. In my experience, I know far more about politics than 99% of the adult population. I work, I pay tax.

    As already highlighted, there's no reason to believe that 16/17 year olds are any more likely to vote recklessly than the rest of the adult population. Furthermore, in a democratic society, judging people on their 'ability' to vote is a slippery slope. Will an IQ boundary be next as well as age restriction? If people are forced to contribute to society, they must be given an opportunity to consent to that contribution. Plus the FPTP system (as much as I detest it) guards against random votes.

    This is just symptomatic of a wider problem, however, the inability to define a clear point at which an individual passes from childhood to adulthood. & this will never be solved.

    Don't bother watching the BBC thing though, it was ****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -WhySoSerious?)
    No, because the majority of people at 16 are immature little *****
    Yes. And a lot of them don't even know what they're voting for , what are the elections lmao ? I'm so baffled about all this voting shizzle !
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.