[Politics] Votes for 16 year olds

[abc]

I'm quite intrigued by the part of this thread discussing tests or qualifications to vote (regardless of age). I am not sure that any such thing would be practically possible but changes to the school curriculum could be. It would be hard to remove political bias but a compulsory subject designed to help someone by the age of 16 to be able to disseminate different parties' policies and claims would probably make the average 16 year old more 'qualified' to vote than half the current 18+ population. A few ideas for inclusion in this new subject:

1. Learn about the causes of war eg WW1 when the balance of power was lost between heavily militarised nations that wanted to empire build and believed winning was possible (rather than a level of mutual destruction) and WW2 which had its roots in how the WW1 victors forgot to win the peace and almost all wars when militant bully nations are not stood up to at the first opportunity (eg Hitler and Putin)
2. Learn about the Holocaust and the events leading up to it as the example of what any form of racism, discrimination, persecution and intolerance can lead to.
3. Economics: Not full on economic theory but to deliver some basic understanding of inflation, interest rates, gov borrowing etc

Obviously not an exhaustive list but surely more useful than learning about Tudors and battle dates in history or simultaneous equations in maths. The objective of creating a more educated and aware electorate must be worth pursuing.

 

[abc]

The Conservative Party are perfectly okay with 15 year olds voting to choose a PM but not to vote at a general election.
Seems more than a little hypocritical

Is that really true?! If so, genuinely shocked and a very well made point

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The Conservative Party are perfectly okay with 15 year olds voting to choose a PM but not to vote at a general election.
Seems more than a little hypocritical

I guess the argument is it's a private members club

Not saying I agree

 

[Eeyore]

There's a lot of talk of competency, but given that 25% of folks are still voting Tory in the election one assumes that horse bolted long ago.

Joking aside, you only have to look at BREXIT referendum and how, on both sides, people were blindly vomiting newspaper headlines to realise that even those over 18 don't think for themselves. I don't think throwing 16 year olds in makes much difference. All reminds me of of this spitting image sketch.

 

[Zeberdi]

I'm quite intrigued by the part of this thread discussing tests or qualifications to vote (regardless of age). I am not sure that any such thing would be practically possible but changes to the school curriculum could be. It would be hard to remove political bias but a compulsory subject designed to help someone by the age of 16 to be able to disseminate different parties' policies and claims would probably make the average 16 year old more 'qualified' to vote than half the current 18+ population. A few ideas for inclusion in this new subject:

Again, the National Curriculum’s compulsory Citizenship classes at key-stage 3 and 4 does all that already without the political bias - (it is also taught in primary school) discussions would allow for political ideology and what the main parties are generally proposing in their manifestos but the main parties have made some quite radical pragmatic departure from their traditional core principles , it would be impossible to teach students a general ideological perspective of what each party stood for at any given time - they’d be as confused as the rest of us

(Edit - I studied Politics A’ level so there was some overlap with what you are suggesting there too but it is obviously just an elective subject)

National curriculum in England: citizenship programmes of study for key stages 3 and 4

www.gov.uk

 

[BadFish]

If introducing this is only to add more left leaning votes then surely not introducing it is only to stop a load more left leaning votes. Surely this cancels its self out so we should focus on the other reasons to do this?

If 16 year olds can work and pay tax then surely they should be able to have a say in how it is spent.


As someone also mentioned their focus will be on the future improvements.

Although you would think this would be the same for grandparents wanting to leave the country in a better state for their grandchildren.

Not sure I hold with the whole time on the planet=more politically aware thing. My son at 16/17 was incredibly integrated in politics and remains so. Far more so that many 50 year old people I know. I also feel like this extrapolates into people needed to prove a level of political nous to register to vote, which is fraught with danger.

I can't help but feel that some bright eyes young optimism might shake this stale system up a bit.

 

[Giraffe]

If introducing this is only to add more left leaning votes then surely not introducing it is only to stop a load more left leaning votes. Surely this cancels its self out so we should focus on the other reasons to do this?

If 16 year olds can work and pay tax then surely they should be able to have a say in how it is spent.


As someone also mentioned their focus will be on the future improvements.

Although you would think this would be the same for grandparents wanting to leave the country in a better state for their grandchildren.

Not sure I hold with the whole time on the planet=more politically aware thing. My son at 16/17 was incredibly integrated in politics and remains so. Far more so that many 50 year old people I know. I also feel like this extrapolates into people needed to prove a level of political nous to register to vote, which is fraught with danger.

I can't help but feel that some bright eyes young optimism might shake this stale system up a bit.

How many 16 year olds “work and pay tax”? I don’t know any.

I’d be very happy for those that do to have a vote though.

 

[BadFish]

How many 16 year olds “work and pay tax”? I don’t know any.

I’d be very happy for those that do to have a vote though.

If you go with the idea of only giving those that work and pay tax the vote, do you have to do this with all ages?

This feel like a bit of a tricky one for me.

 

[cunning fergus]

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?

Your point only makes some sense if you want to compare an adolescent’s right to access to a fairground ride with the right to actively participate in the nation’s democratic process. There is absolute bollocks right there.

The point you’ve failed to process is a simple one, but maybe not for the likes of you.

If the Govt of the day determines that 16 -17 year olds are mature enough to vote, then they should equalise the laws so they also have the other rights of 18 year olds to smoke, drink, get married, gamble watch porn and fight on the frontline.

Failure to do this will mark out this decision as at best electoral slight of hand or worse a view by the political classes and their useful idiot supporters that exercising a vote in elections requires less maturity (cognitive or otherwise) than placing a bet on a horse in the Grand National.

Re your 60 year old point, If you are seeking to manage the electoral franchise, maybe we could look at an algorithm whereby your vote is weighted on your contribution to the country at large. Many 60 year olds would have paid in vast sums of tax in their lifetimes, maybe if 16-17 years get the vote 60 year olds should essentially exercise a vote worth a factor of 4 to those exercised by the kinder.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Your point only makes some sense if you want to compare an adolescent’s right to access to a fairground ride with the right to actively participate in the nation’s democratic process. There is absolute bollocks right there.

The point you’ve failed to process is a simple one, but maybe not for the likes of you.

If the Govt of the day determines that 16 -17 year olds are mature enough to vote, then they should equalise the laws so they also have the other rights of 18 year olds to smoke, drink, get married, gamble watch porn and fight on the frontline.

Failure to do this will mark out this decision as at best electoral slight of hand or worse a view by the political classes and their useful idiot supporters that exercising a vote in elections requires less maturity (cognitive or otherwise) than placing a bet on a horse in the Grand National.

Re your 60 year old point, If you are seeking to manage the electoral franchise, maybe we could look at an algorithm whereby your vote is weighted on your contribution to the country at large. Many 60 year olds would have paid in vast sums of tax in their lifetimes, maybe if 16-17 years get the vote 60 year olds should essentially exercise a vote worth a factor of 4 to those exercised by the kinder.

This is some phenomenal Tory logic here.

 

[cunning fergus]

If you go with the idea of only giving those that work and pay tax the vote, do you have to do this with all ages?

This feel like a bit of a tricky one for me.

The required salary for a “net contributor” taxpayer in the U.K. is circa 50k pa with a lifetime tax take of £2.45m. Anyone that has paid over £2.45m should get a knighthood and the vote. Those on their way (say past 1m) should vote. Anyone that hasn’t contributed 1m should not be allowed to vote.

No taxation without representation (as they said in New England) now makes sense.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Can't find it now, but saw a survey showing more women than not are against giving 16-17 year olds the vote. I'm guessing mothers of said age group have most interaction with this age group in families and as the saying goes 'mother knows best'.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

How many 16 year olds “work and pay tax”? I don’t know any.

I’d be very happy for those that do to have a vote though.

How many pensioners pay tax?

Every time a teenager buys clothes or trainers, buys a cinema ticket, a bottle of pop or goes to a football match, they pay tax.

 

[Milano]

How many pensioners pay tax?

Every time a teenager buys clothes or trainers, buys a cinema ticket, a bottle of pop or goes to a football match, they pay tax.

This.
If you have a mental illness e.g. dementia, you can still vote (my mum still received her polling card until the end and she didn’t know her own name anymore). It’s their future, let them join in.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I personally think it's ridiculous. Remembering back to being 16 I wouldn't have had a clue. I was more interested in football, girls and trying to get served in wine rack! Having fun as a 16 year old.
As a parent of 2 children now beyond 16, I wouldn't have seen them being ready to vote.
While there are no doubt children of 16 who get it, I'm confident many won't give a care to politics and don't have the life experience to make an informed choice. I was probably still politically niave into my early 20s.
Absolutely ridiculous policy, I see being in service being mentioned as an argument for dropping voting age, they can't be deployed until they are an adult at 18 years old.

There are plenty of people who go through their lives not giving a care to politics, being politically naive and still voting, perhaps voting for the candidate with the nicest hair.

there are plenty of 16 to 18 year olds who are very engaged. Mrs DiS had a lifetime in sixth form education and would confirm that…….. and it is their future we are deciding.

give them the vote.

 

[BadFish]

The required salary for a “net contributor” taxpayer in the U.K. is circa 50k pa with a lifetime tax take of £2.45m. Anyone that has paid over £2.45m should get a knighthood and the vote. Those on their way (say past 1m) should vote. Anyone that hasn’t contributed 1m should not be allowed to vote.

No taxation without representation (as they said in New England) now makes sense.

Wow! So how many people in the UK earn more than 50k?

Surely this is an argument for a more levelled distribution of wealth?

I wonder if the tax take would be more if the income was more evenly spread, what with tax evasion/avoidance andthe like?

 

[cunning fergus]

This is

How many pensioners pay tax?

Every time a teenager buys clothes or trainers, buys a cinema ticket, a bottle of pop or goes to a football match, they pay tax.

Surely pensioners pay VAT unless they don’t buy clothes, cinema etc. and let’s be honest they definitely go to the football if the Amex is any measure.

If voting is to reduced to those that pay VAT then we may as well give the vote to 5 year olds that buy chocolate with their pocket money.

Yet another decision has emerged from the tax tribunals on the VAT treatment of sweet snacks, this time finding that giant marshmallows for roasting over a barb…
https://search.app/t5TPbXqWAAQ6x6vL9

This reduction in voting age is evidently the thin end of the wedge…….I expect some of the useful idiots on here will be lining up reasons for family pets to be given the vote next?

 

[cunning fergus]

Wow! So how many people in the UK earn more than 50k?

Surely this is an argument for a more levelled distribution of wealth?

I wonder if the tax take would be more if the income was more evenly spread, what with tax evasion/avoidance andthe like?

I suspect you would argue “for a more levelled distribution of wealth” on a thread about the offensive merits of the 4-3-3 formation.

If people want to pay more tax in the UK then HMRC can facilitate that situation and I doff my cap to those that voluntarily do so, including smokers.

That isn’t your argument though, because the issue really at hand is that you want those people earning more than you to pay more tax than you.

The sort of petty adolescent argument most people grow out of by the time their brain has fully developed by 25yo (according to the U.K. Govt research).

 

[The Merry Prankster]

They're voting for their future, whilst we have an aging population who seem to largely vote for an imaginairy past. It's a yes from me

 

[cunning fergus]

They're voting for their future, whilst we have an aging population who seem to largely vote for an imaginairy past. It's a yes from me

Everyone that voted now votes for their future. The point is everyone that voted now can also fight for their country, watch porn, gamble, smoke and get married amongst other life choices currently denied to 16-17 year olds.

How is it that 16-17 year olds can be trusted to vote in elections but not have a pint down their local?