[Politics] Votes for 16 year olds

[A1X]

Neither do those over retirement age.

So you then say that it applies to anyone who is a British (or Irish) national who is eligible to either pay NI or is entitled to a pension.

Seems a fairly logical and fair system to me.

 

[A1X]

Those begrudging over 80s the vote. They have long life experience and should surely be trusted more than 16year olds !!
I think 18 is right.

I really don’t get where this “life experience” argument comes from. What “life experience” do 80 year olds have that 16 year olds don’t, exactly?

Because as I see it, many 80 year olds have very little experience of the world as it looks right now (my grandmother, bless her, got her entire world view from the Daily Mail and retired in the late 1980s, despite this voting in 9 elections after that point) so the “experience” relates to a world which, put simply, no longer exists.

Ask most 80 year olds what AI is and the issues around it and most (not all, I really don’t care about any exceptions people wish to list as a response) of them wouldn’t have a clue. But I bet a huge number of 16 year olds could.

 

[MJsGhost]

It's gerrymandering.

If the demographic wasn't overwhelmingly going to vote more for Labour, they simply wouldn't propose it.

Dont mind Sir Keir generally, but this is nothing more than his plan to entrench himself in power.

The OP asked about evidence of the voting intentions of 16 year olds, where did you find this out?

OK, so it's not direct evidence of the voting intentions of 16 & 17 year olds, but there's a clear correlation between age and likelihood to vote Tory, or Labour.

If you'll forgive the whataboutry, it's the other side to the same coin as the Tories introducing voter ID. Purely designed to reduce the turnout amongst the demographic most likely to vote Labour (or Green).

I say bring it on, but I recognise that I am going to be in favour of most things that keep the Tories out of power for as long as possible...

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

What “life experience” do 80 year olds have that 16 year olds don’t, exactly?

I'm not saying I'm against 16 year olds voting but that's a very strange comment. To start....

Probably 40+ years of work (and paying Tax/NI)
Possibly : Bringing up and supporting a family.
Probably : Having a mortgage / paying rent, managing household finances etc.
Seeing how decisions Politicians make affect their lives.
Adapting to a world that has changed beyond recognition since they were 16.
If they're BHA fans, they would have 'experienced' 38 different Brighton managers.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It’s like those posts on Twitter where someone’s “2 year old” says “Mummy, why do these nasty men vote for a party who don’t represent us”. It’s completely made up bollocks used for political clout and makes the poster look insane.


View attachment 183253

Because a 2/3 year old is exactly the same as a 6th former aged 17/18. Patronising tosh.

 

[A1X]

I'm not saying I'm against 16 year olds voting but that's a very strange comment. To start....

Probably 40+ years of work (and paying Tax/NI)
Possibly : Bringing up and supporting a family.
Probably : Having a mortgage / paying rent, managing household finances etc.
Seeing how decisions Politicians make affect their lives.
Adapting to a world that has changed beyond recognition since they were 16.
If they're BHA fans, they would have 'experienced' 38 different Brighton managers.

So how is raising a family 50-60 years ago relevant to the modern world? Elections are about the present and the future first and foremost, not (by and large) the distant past.

 

[Diablo]

I really don’t get where this “life experience” argument comes from. What “life experience” do 80 year olds have that 16 year olds don’t, exactly?

Quite simple 80 - 16 = 64 so 64 more years of life experience than a 16 year old.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I really don’t get where this “life experience” argument comes from. What “life experience” do 80 year olds have that 16 year olds don’t, exactly?

Because as I see it, many 80 year olds have very little experience of the world as it looks right now (my grandmother, bless her, got her entire world view from the Daily Mail and retired in the late 1980s, despite this voting in 9 elections after that point) so the “experience” relates to a world which, put simply, no longer exists.

Ask most 80 year olds what AI is and the issues around it and most (not all, I really don’t care about any exceptions people wish to list as a response) of them wouldn’t have a clue. But I bet a huge number of 16 year olds could.

I’m 76 this year, but don’t compare me to your grandmother!

 

[HeaviestTed]

It is a big yes from me because if we encourage more people to vote the better and starting earlier might kick the younger vote into action sooner

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

It's a tough one because on paper I think the 16 year olds should vote, but ironically the system has failed in also helping them with preparing them to make a decision.

NOTHING is taught about money at schools. Nothing on what mortgages are, interest rates, how loans/credit cards work. Nothing on the reality of having to buy a home. The sheer volume of your income that rent will take up. Northing on creating an income/outgoings spreadsheet for budgeting. Nothing on explaining the things you'll have to consider as you get older. Nothing on pensions.

Sure, you could argue that shouldn't be on the state to educate on it but to me it's vital.

If we provided the tools and the education on what the 'real world' post school was like then I wouldn't flinch at suggesting 16 year olds should get to choose.

I think I'm on the side of yes, but the above has always baffled me.

 

[beorhthelm]

I really don’t get where this “life experience” argument comes from. What “life experience” do 80 year olds have that 16 year olds don’t, exactly?

likewise i dont get where the tax and representation link has come from. 18 has been set (by most countries) as the age to be considered an adult and have full responsibilty for actions and decisions in life, including voting. if we change voting to 16, how many other responsibilities will also change? looks like just voting for unspecified reasons, that people are now trying to backfill with some justifaction.

 

[peterward]

OK, so it's not direct evidence of the voting intentions of 16 & 17 year olds, but there's a clear correlation between age and likelihood to vote Tory, or Labour.

If you'll forgive the whataboutry, it's the other side to the same coin as the Tories introducing voter ID. Purely designed to reduce the turnout amongst the demographic most likely to vote Labour (or Green).

I say bring it on, but I recognise that I am going to be in favour of most things that keep the Tories out of power for as long as possible...

View attachment 183282

Exactly this. If 16-18 year old are allowed to vote they would statistically (by many such similar indicators) overwhelmingly vote for and benefit Labour.

That and only that is the reason Starmer promotes it, not for any other half baked excuse of a reason. If the statistics said they'd overwhelmingly vote Tory, he of course wouldn't.

That's not to say a debate on the issue isn't healthy or they shouldn't be allowed, but maybe such things should be decided by either an independent or cross party body and not without consultation by the party who stands to gain the most.

That is gerrymandering or rigging the deck in your favour.

I'm as against that with Orban in Hungary or De Santis in Florida as any of our political parties.

FPTP is already a rigged system. Would any of those (often left leaning) types on here truly still be advocating this without consultation or independent review if the numbers broke heavily in favour of Tories or Reform etc?

I doubt it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Reducing the voting age to 16 will introduce 2.4 million voters into the electorate. Their concerns will be more concentrated towards jobs, training, education, housing the environment and foreign policy, and less about tax, interest and the economy.

The days when a government could take the piss and rock up in the final year with a tax cut bribe to win another election need to be consigned to the dustbin, so lowering the voting age will help with this.

The starting point is 'No taxation without representation'. It is difficult to argue with that.

And even if you were successful there you'd then have to win the argument that even though you can get married at 16 you'd still need to wait 2 years to vote.

 

[GJN1]

I really don’t get where this “life experience” argument comes from. What “life experience” do 80 year olds have that 16 year olds don’t, exactly?

Because as I see it, many 80 year olds have very little experience of the world as it looks right now (my grandmother, bless her, got her entire world view from the Daily Mail and retired in the late 1980s, despite this voting in 9 elections after that point) so the “experience” relates to a world which, put simply, no longer exists.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that.

 

[Mellotron]

Those who don't like the idea because they think of 16 years old as not having an interest in politics - you don't need to worry, as those without an interest in politics won't bother voting. It's for 16-18 year olds who ARE politically engaged.

 

[fruitnveg]

Awful idea to be implemented simply to sway political scales. This would be no act of benevolence. People need world and life experience to make a judgement on their voting preference, 16 year olds simply do not have it. The majority have not formed their political opinions because they have not had the need to. Why the rush to remove innocence if not for political gain. Disgusting.

I don't care if there are politically switched on 16 year olds either, they are simply the next generation of career politicians and as we are all well aware, career politicans have served is so well over the past 60 odd years.

 

[heathgate]

I understand that's one of Labour's ideas (sorry if there's already a thread on this, but I couldn't see one).

Personally I'm not in favour, based on the fact that they have such little adult life experience (some won't even have taken their GCSEs) and they haven't been exposed to the breadth of political discussion that most of us only got in our first few years at work or during 'free periods' in the 6th Form.

Also, is there any robust evidence that they really are, on the whole, 'left-leaning'? (which seems to be the rationale behind the suggestion).

They will, by the pied piper syndrome, follow the crowd, and in student bodies that is universally a left leaning trend.

 

[heathgate]

Those who don't like the idea because they think of 16 years old as not having an interest in politics - you don't need to worry, as those without an interest in politics won't bother voting. It's for 16-18 year olds who ARE politically engaged.

....which is a tiny % of that age group, not a blanket of opinion across that demographic,.. most of whom are, at 16/17, barely able to name you a politician or a political party.

 

[GJN1]

Awful idea to be implemented simply to sway political scales. This would be no act of benevolence. People need world and life experience to make a judgement on their voting preference, 16 year olds simply do not have it. The majority have not formed their political opinions because they have not had the need to. Why the rush to remove innocence if not for political gain. Disgusting.

I don't care if there are politically switched on 16 year olds either, they are simply the next generation of career politicians and as we are all well aware, career politicans have served is so well over the past 60 odd years.

Patronising. Do you think everyone over 18 always make the right decision? Do you think everyone that voted for Brexit knew exactly what they were voting for?

 

[GJN1]

They will, by the pied piper syndrome, follow the crowd, and in student bodies that is universally a left leaning trend.

Because the Tories never offer them anything other than misery?