[Politics] Votes for 16 year olds

[MJsGhost]

Should be applied to the whole electorate.

That's what I meant to be fair

 

[abc]

For me it is very simple. There is no point in giving more people the vote unless every vote, by those that can currently vote, counts. Bring in PR and then by all means lower the voting age because the 16-18 year olds’ vote will count too.

 

[heathgate]

I think you are deluding yourself about the average awareness of the average punter.

Fortunately I am not judging most folk by your seemingly low personal standards,...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The flip side is that 16 year olds never got a chance to vote in/out of Brexit which arguably had the biggest influence on their future life choices. For that reason alone I’m in favour of giving them the vote.

Exactly.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

For me it is very simple. There is no point in giving more people the vote unless every vote, by those that can currently vote, counts. Bring in PR and then by all means lower the voting age because the 16-18 year olds’ vote will count too.

This.

 

[Zeberdi]

For me it is very simple. There is no point in giving more people the vote unless every vote, by those that can currently vote, counts. Bring in PR and then by all means lower the voting age because the 16-18 year olds’ vote will count too.

By virtue of that argument, the franchise never would have been given to women or the voting age lowered from 21 to 18 in 1969.

Two separate issues - equally valid but shouldn’t be contingent on each other. It is no rational argument to suggest a sector of the population should be denied representation all together because we have a voting system that does not proportionately represent the people that already have a right to vote.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Those 85+ could have 3/4 governments in their life but not allowed to vote?

Never said they weren’t allowed to vote. Just that 16 year olds who are likely to be more affected by the decisions made over the next 5 years are just as entitled to vote IMO.

 

[cunning fergus]

Crap.... most 16 yo won't even know what a manifesto is, let alone it's contents, the attached political party or politicians.

MOST grown-ups are a tad more aware.... not all, but most.

There are no justifiable reasons for extending voting to 16-17 year olds beyond some politicians seeking advantage from more useful idiots joining the electoral franchise, they wouldn’t do it otherwise.

The very same politicians will not similarly reduce the age of marriage, smoking, gambling, drinking or watching porn to 16-17 year olds and that is a telling measure on the contempt they have for democracy itself and the wider electorate.

The very cohort that they are extending the right to vote to are, by law, not able to live like ordinary adults. So just how patronising is that for the very 16-17 year olds that are being given this new responsibility?

It is a biological fact that the adult brain does not mature till 26, hence our gambling laws accommodate this in how bookies treat u25s, a position well understood by the political classes who have recently voted overwhelmingly in support of the new gambling laws.

Stake limits for online slot games will be introduced for the first time in September, including lower limits for young adults, as the Government continues to r…
Source: GOV.UK

New £2 maximum stake for under 25s playing online slots

Stake limits for online slot games will be introduced for the first time in September, including lower limits for young adults, as the Government continues to roll out measures to protect people from gambling harms.

search.app

Anyone supporting this extension of the voting age is either a useful idiot or u25 or a biological outlier with a mental age of 16.

 

[MJsGhost]

There are no justifiable reasons for extending voting to 16-17 year olds beyond some politicians seeking advantage from more useful idiots joining the electoral franchise, they wouldn’t do it otherwise.

The very same politicians will not similarly reduce the age of marriage, smoking, gambling, drinking or watching porn to 16-17 year olds and that is a telling measure on the contempt they have for democracy itself and the wider electorate.

The very cohort that they are extending the right to vote to are, by law, not able to live like ordinary adults. So just how patronising is that for the very 16-17 year olds that are being given this new responsibility?

It is a biological fact that the adult brain does not mature till 26, hence our gambling laws accommodate this in how bookies treat u25s, a position well understood by the political classes who have recently voted overwhelmingly in support of the new gambling laws.

Stake limits for online slot games will be introduced for the first time in September, including lower limits for young adults, as the Government continues to r…
Source: GOV.UK

New £2 maximum stake for under 25s playing online slots

Stake limits for online slot games will be introduced for the first time in September, including lower limits for young adults, as the Government continues to roll out measures to protect people from gambling harms.

search.app

Anyone supporting this extension of the voting age is either a useful idiot or u25 or a biological outlier with a mental age of 16.

What a load of absolute bollocks.

Who is to say that a mind is only mature enough to process a voting decision when it has finally stopped developing?

It's like telling a kid she can't go on a fairground ride because, even though she's over 1m tall, she's still growing. "Come back when you're reached your full adult height love, you'll be perfectly safe on the Cyclone then"

Jesus wept, I hope you're significantly under 26, or you've got no hope.

EDIT: I hope you're also all for removing the vote at 60, when cognitive function starts to deteriorate?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

By virtue of that argument, the franchise never would have been given to women or the voting age lowered from 21 to 18 in 1969.

Two separate issues - equally valid but shouldn’t be contingent on each other. It is no rational argument to suggest a sector of the population should be denied representation all together because we have a voting system that does not proportionately represent the people that already have a right to vote.

Britain is already divided by some 16 year olds able to vote and some not.

 

[Seaview Seagull]

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't say that.

My question as to whether there is any evidence for the view that they are likely to vote for a left-ish party remains unanswered.... although you suggest that they would tend to vote Conservative if the current party had a more extreme right wing leader like Thatcher, which I guess is the opposite to what Starmer thinks.

How they might vote is irrelevant to the question. It might be relevant to why Labour are advocating it. In my view they should be able to vote just as an 85 year old should. It's not an either or argument. Just for balance I might point out that at the age of 74 I have never voted conservative in my life and neither has my wife.

 

[abc]

By virtue of that argument, the franchise never would have been given to women or the voting age lowered from 21 to 18 in 1969.

Two separate issues - equally valid but shouldn’t be contingent on each other. It is no rational argument to suggest a sector of the population should be denied representation all together because we have a voting system that does not proportionately represent the people that already have a right to vote.

Fair point so they should be implemented together.

I struggle to think of a better illustration of the cynical nature of our politics than this situation. Labour want to lower the voting age because they see electoral advantage. The Tories don't want to because they see disadvantage. Both will argue their stance based on what they claim is best for the democracy and pretend it is based on 'values' rather than self interest. PR will, by definition, improve our democracy because every vote counts, but neither Labour or the Tories will advocate it because their cosy 'its either you our me' relationship would end and they would both see their power diminished.

The truth is we are all being royally shafted by both parties.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Fair point so they should be implemented together.

I struggle to think of a better illustration of the cynical nature of our politics than this situation. Labour want to lower the voting age because they see electoral advantage. The Tories don't want to because they see disadvantage. Both will argue their stance based on what they claim is best for the democracy and pretend it is based on 'values' rather than self interest. PR will, by definition, improve our democracy because every vote counts, but neither Labour or the Tories will advocate it because their cosy 'its either you our me' relationship would end and they would both see their power diminished.

The truth is we are all being royally shafted by both parties.

I agree with you, but until we do get a more democratic system which actually reflects the votes of the electorate, which I will also continue to advocate, these are the rules of you getting any sort of say.

So, in a two horse race it's simply which horse you want to govern you (Control taxes, NHS, Welfare services, Infrastructure, Policing, etc etc) for the next 5 years, or you can leave it for others to decide on your behalf

 

[dippy2449]

You can in the RN.

Please excuse my incredulity but are you suggesting that a young person of 16 turns up for his first day, is allocated to a ship and then sent to an operational area with zero training?
My limited knowledge of the RN is that at least 12 - 18 Months (more for engineers) training is carried out before there are posted to a vessel.

 

[abc]

I agree with you, but until we do get a more democratic system which actually reflects the votes of the electorate, which I will also continue to advocate, these are the rules of you getting any sort of say.

So, in a two horse race it's simply which horse you want to govern you (Control taxes, NHS, Welfare services, Infrastructure, Policing, etc etc) for the next 5 years, or you can leave it for others to decide on your behalf

But in my constituency I don't get any sort of say because the Tory candidate will always win, even this year. What I would like is a parliament with MPs from a range of different parties that reflect the political views of the whole electorate on the day of the GE. If I voted Green then my vote would increase the chances of having a Green MP in Westminster but voting Green today is simply pointless where I live.
I have to accept the limitations of the current first past the post/2 party franchise and therefore I am 100% hoping to see a Labour government. But voting Labour is pointless in my constituency, so I will probably vote for a party I do not want to be in government (Lib Dem) in the vain hope that the Tory candidate will lose.

And some wonder why so many people have disengaged with politics?!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Please excuse my incredulity but are you suggesting that a young person of 16 turns up for his first day, is allocated to a ship and then sent to an operational area with zero training?
My limited knowledge of the RN is that at least 12 - 18 Months (more for engineers) training is carried out before there are posted to a vessel.

6 weeks basic training and around 12 weeks for a seaman, stewards, stores etc. Obviously the more skilled the job, the longer the training.

This was brought home to me quite sharply last weekend when I was in Portsmouth commemorating the sinking of the Hood. All the lost are on a Memorial Board with their ages and home towns.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Indeed - But the fact that in Scotland 16 year olds are allowed to vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament is not an argument however, to deny English 16 year olds to vote in English Parliamentary elections. (Although I don’t think you were suggesting it is!)

Ironic isn’t it, that what upset youngsters I mentioned above most in politics was the Leavers winning the Brexit Referendum yet the voting age in Scotland was lowered at a time specifically to allow youngsters to have a vote in the Independence Referendum - exactly the sort of Constitutional issues I raised above in my earlier post.

Someone said the age of voting shouldn’t be lowered until every vote by the 18 and overs counted - how about, in the current absence of a more preferable voting system, all the 18 and overs actually vote in the first place and exercise their existing rights to franchise - especially women whose right to vote was hard fought for by the Suffragettes. (As you have said yourself TB many times). The increasingly low turnout in elections (due to a disillusioned electorate largely) does more to threaten to undermine democracy than FPTP is doing imo. At least we as adults can do something about the former.

Someone else above mooted the argument that young people have no interest in politics - I disagree - Interesting study of voting behaviour in Scottish 16-18 year olds stated that:

“Allowing 16- and 17-year olds to vote was a good decision taken by the Scottish Parliament. Many younger first-time voters retain a habit of voting and participate in greater numbers than older first-time voters. The findings strengthen the case for enfranchising younger voters across the UK to improve long term voting behaviour. But more can be done. Making sure all young people receive great civic education that includes learning how to discuss political issues well, could help reduce persistent social inequalities in turnout.”

Lowering voting age boosts long-term participation in elections | School of Social and Political Science

www.sps.ed.ac.uk

True - but it doesn’t make the idea of lowering the voting age itself intrinsically a wrong one imo.

I missed out on the lowering of the age of voting as I had just turned 21 when the voting age dropped to 18. Likewise the parental consent to marry.

 

[abc]

Regardless of one's view on the topic, some of the anti 'older voters' rhetoric is unpleasant; 'Stiffs', 'one foot in the grave', 'senile old farts in their dotage' etc. I think we all hope to make it to a ripe old age and not be considered irrelevant or worse. Every single person here would, rightly, call out a hint of homophobia and I don't think discrimination against older citizens should be any different,
Just needed to get that off my chest, thanks. (and no, I'm not yet in that category!)

 

[beorhthelm]

However none of that should be an argument for or against lowering the vote to 16. 16-18 year olds have a moral right to have a political voice that reflects their views - especially on the environment and constitutional matters that directly impact on their future.

as a moral right, the age of becoming an adult with all legal responsibility and privileges should be also be 16, correct?

 

[Zeberdi]

Regardless of one's view on the topic, some of the anti 'older voters' rhetoric is unpleasant; 'Stiffs', 'one foot in the grave', 'senile old farts in their dotage' etc. I think we all hope to make it to a ripe old age and not be considered irrelevant or worse. Every single person here would, rightly, call out a hint of homophobia and I don't think discrimination against older citizens should be any different,
Just needed to get that off my chest, thanks. (and no, I'm not yet in that category!)

There’s been some pretty negative views expressed about young people too - equally unpleasant.