Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Yeah. Thinking 16 year olds don't deserve the vote is sooo narrow minded it's unbelievable :rolleyes: Grow up, ok?
    I was actually saying your arguments were based on your narrow world view, not that you were narrow-minded.

    For example: 'I go to a chavvy school. Every sixteen year old I know doesn't know anything about politics. Therefore every sixteen year old in the country knows nothing about politics. I don't know anyone who left school at sixteen. Therefore no one leaves school at sixteen.'

    It's that sort of thing which is just completely astonishing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -WhySoSerious?)
    No, because the majority of people at 16 are immature little *****
    This :rolleyes:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    16 year olds shouldn't get the vote. Why? Because there are more immature 16 year olds than there are 18 year olds. Sure you get a small minority that are politically aware but on the whole its a bad idea.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    no because they're nubs
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rayel)
    16 year olds shouldn't get the vote. Why? Because there are more immature 16 year olds than there are 18 year olds. Sure you get a small minority that are politically aware but on the whole its a bad idea.
    There are more senile 70 year olds than 60 year olds, maybe we should impose an upper limit on voting too?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Age should not be the criteria for deciding who gets the vote, it should be intelligence and political savvy.

    There are many intelligent under-16s capable of making informed decisions, and there are many over-16s morons who shouldn't be in charge of deciding which shirt they should wear that day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rayel)
    16 year olds shouldn't get the vote. Why? Because there are more immature 16 year olds than there are 18 year olds. Sure you get a small minority that are politically aware but on the whole its a bad idea.
    I would understand the argument if voting itself was compulsory for everyone who qualified but it's not- there may be less politically aware people than there are non-politically aware people at 16/17 but the vast majority of the non-politically aware bracket wouldn't exercise their vote anyway. Sure, a few would an make ill informed decisions. And sure, a few would vote radically or for 'nonesense' parties for the hell of it- but the 'cost' of this would be outweighed by greater numbers of well informed 16/17 year olds who chose to vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rayel)
    16 year olds shouldn't get the vote. Why? Because there are more immature 16 year olds than there are 18 year olds. Sure you get a small minority that are politically aware but on the whole its a bad idea.
    But there are more immature 18 year olds than there are 20 year olds and so on. Only a small minority of 18 year olds are politically aware- yet they can all still vote. And why aren't elections a farce? Because the majority of these immature people don't choose to vote. The same would be true of the majority of immature 16 year olds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Yeah. Thinking 16 year olds don't deserve the vote is sooo narrow minded it's unbelievable :rolleyes: Grow up, ok?
    Again I have to agree with JustCallMeKate when she says that the assumptions you've made at various points devalue your whole argument. It's not that what you're arguing for is necessarily wrong- after all, this is a debate haha, technically no one can be wrong- it's that your assumptions themselves are narrow-minded and are based on often misconceived generalisations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    A lot of people at 18 barely have a clue about politics or the way they want the country run, why should 16 year olds?

    because theyre still tax payers.... i know lots of people at 16 who have started working and are paying tax yet arent able to contribute to the decision as to what the money will be spent on. the people who dont really care about it and are abit immature just wont vote, but others should be allowed the chance....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    While I understand the point you are making, the popularity of the BNP cannot be the yardstick by which we measure whether people are politically aware. It seems logical to suggest that the next general election will see the biggest number of votes ever for the BNP in ageneral election- even without the 16/17 year olds that aren't sensible that you mention. Sure, a few 'laugh-seeking' youngsters would vote BNP- but even more would vote Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    Again I have to agree with JustCallMeKate when she says that the assumptions you've made at various points devalue your whole argument. It's not that what you're arguing for is necessarily wrong- after all, this is a debate haha, technically no one can be wrong- it's that your assumptions themselves are narrow-minded and are based on often misconceived generalisations.
    It's a view. Narrow minded/ ignorant would be no one over the age of 18 deserves to do A Levels. And the govt agrees with me :p:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    While I understand the point you are making, the popularity of the BNP cannot be the yardstick by which we measure whether people are politically aware. It seems logical to suggest that the next general election will see the biggest number of votes ever for the BNP in ageneral election- even without the 16/17 year olds that aren't sensible that you mention. Sure, a few 'laugh-seeking' youngsters would vote BNP- but even more would vote Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem etc.
    I don't think people of that age would really vote for mainstream parties, to be honest. For every 16 year old voting Labour, a similar amount would vote BNP and the more liberal minded might go for the Green Party. :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    I don't think people of that age would really vote for mainstream parties, to be honest. For every 16 year old voting Labour, a similar amount would vote BNP and the more liberal minded might go for the Green Party. :dontknow:
    Of course, on both sides, we're hypothesising here, but I truly get the feeling people are overplaying the motivation of people not clued up that they will actually bother to vote- a handful will, but nothing sizable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    It's a view. Narrow minded/ ignorant would be no one over the age of 18 deserves to do A Levels. And the govt agrees with me :p:
    I have no idea what that has to do with anything?

    I was referring to the assumption JustCallMeKate detailed in her earlier post... :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    Of course, on both sides, we're hypothesising here, but I truly get the feeling people are overplaying the motivation of people not clued up that they will actually bother to vote- a handful will, but nothing sizable.
    If it's not going to be a sizable enough proportion then why bother debating the issue in Parliament and the having it put through the House of Lords and finally made into the legislature. This bears significant time and effort for the MPs and Lords, all of which translates into significant cost to the taxpayer!

    Yes, you would get your ability to vote on how your tax money is spent but at such a significant cost it wouldn't be worth it for how much tax under-18 generate and for how many people would utilise the privelige
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    A lot of people at 18 barely have a clue about politics or the way they want the country run, why should 16 year olds?
    This.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    I have no idea what that has to do with anything?

    I was referring to the assumption JustCallMeKate detailed in her earlier post... :rolleyes:
    Hehe, I wish you luck, comrade :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Longorefisher)
    If it's not going to be a sizable enough proportion then why bother debating the issue in Parliament and the having it put through the House of Lords and finally made into the legislature. This bears significant time and effort for the MPs and Lords, all of which translates into significant cost to the taxpayer!

    Yes, you would get your ability to vote on how your tax money is spent but at such a significant cost it wouldn't be worth it for how much tax under-18 generate and for how many people would utilise the privelige
    I was saying the uneducated, immature and 'just for laughs' votes wouldn't be sizable. While the votes of 16/17 year olds who were in tune with politics and wanted to exercise their right would be able to. And the talk of cost is inappropriate- the right to vote is something that we can't put a price on. People have fought and died for the right to have it so if extending it to 16/17 year olds is the right thing to do then it shouldn't be avoided simply on a cost basis.

    Also, you mention 'you would get your ability to vote.' Just to clarify; I'm 20 so am not making a case for personally being given the vote...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LincolnHawk)
    This.
    If that were true, why would there even be a campaign to give votes to sixteen year olds?

    Moreover, the relative ignorance of sixteen year olds has been debated to death in this thread. Even if a minority wanted to vote, how is it right to deny them this because of a 'oh, yeah, kids these days don't know anything about politics' mentality?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,579

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
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.