[Politics] Votes for 16 year olds

[Poyningsgull]

A majority of 16yo won't have a clue about the various manifestos, but you can say the same for the majority of 'grown-ups'.

 

[fruitnveg]

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?

Of course not. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue is attempting to further alter the vote by gifting it to worldly naive and easily influenced children, who are not even independent of their parents. This is so patently a bad idea for democracy, i find it baffling there are so many proponents for it, though I suppose at this point i shouldn't be surprised to see the depths some are willing to plumb to get their preferred political flag waving over the country.

As i said, disgusting.

 

[GJN1]

Of course not. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue is attempting to further alter the vote by gifting it to worldly naive and easily influenced children, who are not even independent of their parents. This is so patently a bad idea for democracy, i find it baffling there are so many proponents for it, though I suppose at this point i shouldn't be surprised to see the depths some are willing to plumb to get their preferred political flag waving over the country.

As i said, disgusting.

"Worldly naive and easily influenced" could apply to any number of voters, irrespective of age.

 

[MJsGhost]

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.

I can agree with all of this, whilst still (perhaps with a little hypocrisy) thinking that in the cut and thrust of politics, it's perfectly fair to do it. Gerrymandering has been going on for a couple of hundred years now (probably longer before the name was coined), so until they change the rules to stop this kind of thing happening (which I agree that they should), it has to be considered fair game. Tit fer tat politics? Yep. Underhand tactics? Probably. A race to the bottom? Maybe. I currently don't care too much as the party that would suffer from this has for years been happy to f**k over all and sundry, including the very institution they are members of.

Maybe a proper constitution would lay down the rules to follow. Bring on the Republic!

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.

Casting aside the gerrymandering argument, to look at the actual case for it for a moment, this is absolutely bang on IMO.

However, there is also a solution that would achieve the same without lowering voting age... find a way to get more than half of the 18-34 year olds to actually vote!
I actually think this is why the Greens will be a force to reckon with in future elections. If turnout amongst under 35s got anywhere near that of the over 55s, they'd be in business. Aided by Starmer's Labour's lurch to the right of course - a lot of disenfranchised lefties will need a new home.

Bookmark this and have a look in 2050 to see if I'm correct

EDIT: What I would like to see is compulsory voting, so the 18-34 demographic would be forced to engage in the process, even if it's just to the extent that they go along and spoil their ballot paper. That might at least make party manifestos a little more balanced, rather than mostly pandering to the grey vote

 

[GJN1]

Bookmark this and have a look in 2050 to see if I'm correct

By then NSC will just be a chip in our brains.

 

[MJsGhost]

By then NSC will just be a chip in our brains.

A significant number on here will be dead by then*


(this is meant to be a lighthearted jibe at the NSC demographic rather than morbid before anyone takes offence )

 

[Alwaysblue]

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.

And what about the people I know who voted for whomever, cause their husband said so??

 

[GJN1]

A significant number on here will be dead by then*


(this is meant to be a lighthearted jibe at the NSC demographic rather than morbid before anyone takes offence )

We should find NSC's oldest member and make them Father/Mother of NSC

 

[A1X]

likewise i dont get where the tax and representation link has come from.

The major difference, of course, being that the age at which you're taxed is a fact whereas "life experience" is by and large just flim-flam being paraded to justify disliking something people ultimately give them impression of disliking for other reasons.

 

[Diablo]

And what about the people I know who voted for whomever, cause their husband said so??

Good that they talk about it together...Imagine a lot of married couples will be likeminded in their voting.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

You could argue 16 year olds are the perfect voter. No time to have been swayed into "I always vote X", no time to only take in one form of media and surround themselves with solely what they believe in.

They are still in one of the few places that require attendance "in the office" 5 days a week. They are surrounded by different people, classes, religions, sexualities day to day. Their brains are at the age where, sometimes annoyingly, they look at everything and ask "why?" Maybe that's a positive thing.

It's like when I've worked on something all week, am convinced I'm right and then put it before a boss/colleague with fresh eyes and they tear it apart (in a polite way). It's annoying but they also spot all the things I've become blinded to and just say "it's always been that way" with no answer to "why".

 

[Lenny Rider]

The end of any credible, democratic Election, the proposed voting incentives would range from free mobile phones to KFC vouchers.

 

[stoo82!]

How many 5 year olds work? And how many 5 year olds serve in the army?

Just because they are taxed if they buy some sweets, doesn’t merit them the right to vote as they are not mature enough to do so. Whereas, 16 year olds have greater independence and maturity and so should be able to vote on issues that directly affect them.

It was in the replay for 'no taxation without representation' for a reason for 16 year olds to have the right to vote. But yes well done.

 

[MJsGhost]

We should find NSC's oldest member and make them Father/Mother of NSC

Some might want them banned from voting in polls

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

The end of any credible, democratic Election, the proposed voting incentives would range from free mobile phones to KFC vouchers.

Not sure that is much worse than the Conservatives offering the 'quadruple lock' for the stiffs?

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

I think it's a good idea. Not sure it's anything to worry about. As if any but the most politically engaged 16/17 year olds would vote anyway. Why shouldn't they have a say in their future?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And what about the people I know who voted for whomever, cause their husband said so??

Yes, because every wife is very obedient to whatever their husband says.

Come on, do tell us how many people? One, two, ten twenty?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The end of any credible, democratic Election, the proposed voting incentives would range from free mobile phones to KFC vouchers.

Treating is a criminal offence which can be tried in Magistrates or Crown court. But then, of course, you knew that.

 

[Alwaysblue]

Yes, because every wife is very obedient to whatever their husband says.

Come on, do tell us how many people? One, two, ten twenty?

I didn't say that did I?? Its literally people on this thread are saying young people don't know anything and shouldn't vote all I'm saying is that can be said for every age, 16 year old to 100 year old. If you want a number it's 4 from my current work place and 6 from my last that voted for whomever they partner said

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

Funnily enough, 16 is the legal age in Guernsey and the Isle of Man.