Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)
    Yeah, but the 16 year olds will vote for David Cameron as he is down with the kids.
    David Cameron is wells klz blud :p:

    So yeah, results day starts at 10.30am for A2s. Was thinking, you me and Imran, outside TVU gate at 10am to talk e.t.c?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    No harm. But more ignorance about the voting system.
    But ignorance of the voting system alone has no bad effect unless all 16/17 year olds chose to exercise their votes (which they wouldn't) including both those clued up on politics and those who are not. As I've said before, yes there would be a very small minority voting just for fun for radical and notorious parties- e.g. MRLP- for the sheer hell of it, but you seem to be overplaying this side-effect completely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Fine. How many 16 year old you know that's done just that.

    Exactly.
    The point is you can do this.

    Plus, a quick google seach has told me that sixteen percent of teenagers leave school after completing their GCSEs i.e. at sixteen. I'd say that was a fair few.

    http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/s...l_leavers_2006
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Of course people who are 16 should be allowed to vote.

    What I mean is that they HAVE THE RIGHT to vote.

    This is because at 16 they are liable to be taxed and should have some right in where their (Probably meagre) contribution goes.

    In practice, given the demographics of this country where most people are old (babyboomers), extending the vote to 16 probably wouldn't have too much effect unless over 90% actually CHOSE to vte.

    Regards whether 16 year olds are immature or not - THIS IS BESIDES THE POINT!!! Many women are ditzy and spend more time flicking their bean than thinking about politics but they still have the RIGHT to vote.

    In actual fact those 16 year olds who care about politics will go out and vote (even if they are a tiny minority) and people who don't care won't vote. I can't see what the problemo is. 16 yr olds aren't just going to vote as a joke are they? 40 year olds who don't care about politics don't bother to vote, so why would 16 yr olds who are apathetic care either? But they option should still be there for anyone over 16 to vote.

    squish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jellybean91)
    how many people do you know who have done that though in reality? wasnt there something recently about how they were going to make school compulsary until 18 anyway? im not going to get too involved in all this cos im not a huge politics fan but ill just say that i got to vote 2 days after my 18th this year and i thought that it was really nice. like a rite of passage or something. youre legally an adult and can go and have your say on how this country is run (and if im being brutally honest, voting was a bit of a let down lol. it was built up to be really exciting but at the end of the day it was just a load of old people in a quiet room. not the most excting day of my life lol)
    Seriously, what did you expect it to be like? It's a form, you put an X on it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jellybean91)
    how many people do you know who have done that though in reality? wasnt there something recently about how they were going to make school compulsary until 18 anyway? im not going to get too involved in all this cos im not a huge politics fan but ill just say that i got to vote 2 days after my 18th this year and i thought that it was really nice. like a rite of passage or something. youre legally an adult and can go and have your say on how this country is run (and if im being brutally honest, voting was a bit of a let down lol. it was built up to be really exciting but at the end of the day it was just a load of old people in a quiet room. not the most excting day of my life lol)
    To be honest, I know about 5-10 people who have done this, but as I go to a grammar school, I'm aware that my view of sixteen year olds isn't exactly going to be representative. It's very rare for someone to leave without A-Levels from my school. Also, I'm repeating myself, but the point is you can do this and so should be allowed to have a say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    But ignorance of the voting system alone has no bad effect unless all 16/17 year olds chose to exercise their votes (which they wouldn't) including both those clued up on politics and those who are not. As I've said before, yes there would be a very small minority voting just for fun for radical and notorious parties- e.g. MRLP- for the sheer hell of it, but you seem to be overplaying this side-effect completely.
    Look I joined up for e-mails for a right wing party for no tuiton fees when 17, seems dodgy now. You're more gullible at that age.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    The point is you can do this.

    Plus, a quick google seach has told me that sixteen percent of teenagers leave school after completing their GCSEs i.e. at sixteen. I'd say that was a fair few.

    http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/s...l_leavers_2006
    Starting at Imperial in 2009... (sigh) you went to private school right?

    Well wrong. Most teenagers from lower socio economic backgrounds leave home at 18. I've never meet anyone who has left home at 16 years old. And I went to a chavvy school and a chavvy college. Go figure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Look I joined up for e-mails for a right wing party for no tuiton fees when 17, seems dodgy now. You're more gullible at that age.
    I have no idea why you've mentioned tuition fees haha- subscription maybe haha?

    So you're gullible at 17- but magically that disappears at 18? You're arguments about a 'cut-off point' have no legitimacy if you argue you're willing to accept uneducated voters at 18 that you wouldn't at 17...
    I'd understand more if you, like some previous posters, were arguing for a political competency test which would have be taken by all voters but you're not. You can't judge all people who vote BNP etc to be politically uneducated, some choose to vote for them after making a decision based on a close study of current affairs etc. Not me, you understand, but some. Anyway, sorry to digress onto the BNP when there's already a million threads on here about them but so far you haven't made a case at all for 16/17 year olds not having the vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Starting at Imperial in 2009... (sigh) you went to private school right?

    Well wrong. Most teenagers from lower socio economic backgrounds leave home at 18. I've never meet anyone who has left home at 16 years old. And I went to a chavvy school and a chavvy college. Go figure.
    No, actually, I've never been privately educated and thank you so much for proving how much I should value your opinion. There was no need to get personal; even if I was privately educated, that doesn't mean my opinion wouldn't be valid.

    I've given you a freaking source. Some sixteen year olds clearly do leave home at sixteen and... oh jeez... the point is you can leave home and go into full-time employment!

    I usually don't get so short with people, but this has to be akin to running head first into a brick wall over and over again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    I have no idea why you've mentioned tuition fees haha- subscription maybe haha?

    So you're gullible at 17- but magically that disappears at 18? You're arguments about a 'cut-off point' have no legitimacy if you argue you're willing to accept uneducated voters at 18 that you wouldn't at 17...
    I'd understand more if you, like some previous posters, were arguing for a political competency test which would have be taken by all voters but you're not. You can't judge all people who vote BNP etc to be politically uneducated, some choose to vote for them after making a decision based on a close study of current affairs etc. Not me, you understand, but some. Anyway, sorry to digress onto the BNP when there's already a million threads on here about them but so far you haven't made a case at all for 16/17 year olds not having the vote.
    Look, everything needs a cut off point ok? By 18 the govt hopes everyone is mature enough to vote. And some people mature before others...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Look, everything needs a cut off point ok? By 18 the govt hopes everyone is mature enough to vote. And some people mature before others...
    Yeah, everything needs a cut off point- and the most sensible one with respect to voting is 16. Kapiche?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    No, actually, I've never been privately educated and thank you so much for proving how much I should value your opinion. There was no need to get personal; even if I was privately educated, that doesn't mean my opinion wouldn't be valid.

    I've given you a freaking source. Some sixteen year olds clearly do leave home at sixteen and... oh jeez... the point is you can leave home and go into full-time employment!

    I usually don't get so short with people, but this has to be akin to running head first into a brick wall over and over again.
    Wow. There're the smart ones, and don't get any benefits from the govt at all... :rolleyes:

    Not being privately educated is a bad thing, you just might not know the lower socio economic backgrounds as well. I had one girl at D of E ask me 'How much do your parents pay for your school tuition fees?'. Naive or what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Wow. There're the smart ones, and don't get any benefits from the govt at all... :rolleyes:

    Not being privately educated is a bad thing, you just might not know the lower socio economic backgrounds as well. I had one girl at D of E ask me 'How much do your parents pay for your school tuition fees?'. Naive or what?

    I don't think you're making sense anymore.... Still, I'll do my best.

    Yes, maybe school leavers get benefits, so do adults. Do they not deserve to vote either? I have no idea what you mean by that.

    Also, I wasn't privately educated, so I think this is a bit of a moot point and I'm not getting into a discussion about the relative merits of private schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    Yeah, everything needs a cut off point- and the most sensible one with respect to voting is 16. Kapiche?
    Let's agree to disagree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    I don't think you're making sense anymore.... Still, I'll do my best.

    Yes, maybe school leavers get benefits, so do adults. Do they not deserve to vote either? I have no idea what you mean by that.

    Also, I wasn't privately educated, so I think this is a bit of a moot point and I'm not getting into a discussion about the relative merits of private schools.
    Well, they'll get the vote. But have to wait 2 years, you see. It doesn't change the govts mind no matter how much you argue with me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Well, they'll get the vote. But have to wait 2 years, you see. It doesn't change the govts mind no matter how much you argue with me.
    This whole debate is about why waiting two years isn't fair and why the age should be lowered to sixteen. So far, you've yet to really present any sort of (coherent) argument as to why this shouldn't be the case. At least, not one which isn't based on your extremely narrow world view.

    And yes, I'm aware a debate on a student forum isn't going to change the government's mind, but that was hardly my aim, was it? It's a debate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If you're considered old enough to join the army on one basis or another, then you should be able to vote on who commands your army.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    This whole debate is about why waiting two years isn't fair and why the age should be lowered to sixteen. So far, you've yet to really present any sort of (coherent) argument as to why this shouldn't be the case. At least, not one which isn't based on your extremely narrow world view.

    And yes, I'm aware a debate on a student forum isn't going to change the government's mind, but that was hardly my aim, was it? It's a debate.
    Yeah. Thinking 16 year olds don't deserve the vote is sooo narrow minded it's unbelievable :rolleyes: Grow up, ok?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why are 18-year olds any better?

    I think 16 is a bit too young to vote. People at that age are even less sensible than they are at 18.

    And I bet the BNP's vote would increase.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.