If we argue that 16-year-olds shouldn't vote because we think their ideas about politics are ill-informed or wacky, we should remember that several forum favourites like StarValleyWy and STANG have been able to vote for decades. The truth is that age is a very poor measure of political awareness: for example, older people may have a tendency to miss the point because they've latched onto the political debate of 20 or 30 years ago.
I would be surprised if turnout would be high enough among 16-year-olds to make a difference, and those teenagers who did vote would tend to be those who are more engaged with politics and hence less likely to respond to fashions. Mainstream politics isn't something that appeals to young people as a fashion statement, which means it's fine to let them vote. So what if they vote for electorally irrelevant parties like the Greens?
Having said that, there's a serious lack of knowledge of politics in the UK (and probably other countries as well). I do think that some political education should be compulsory in schools (no, I don't mean indoctrination: I mean factual information like how parliament works, how the various EU institutions interact with British government, etc etc, together with open discussions about political issues in class). If we do this properly, young people might well become the most well-informed voters in the country.
Originally posted by AcolyteWhat about 15-yr-olds? Or 10? My 5-year-old is pretty bright.
If we argue that 16-year-olds shouldn't vote because we think their ideas about politics are ill-informed or wacky, we should remember that several forum favourites like StarValleyWy and STANG have been able to vote for decades. The truth is that age is a very poor measure of political awareness: for example, older people may have a tendency to miss the po ...[text shortened]... e do this properly, young people might well become the most well-informed voters in the country.
What about imposing some relatively easy-to-achieve educational qualification instead, at the level of a high school diploma/GCSE. This seems more in line with the real point of age restrictions, since there is not a very strong correlation between age and literacy, political awareness and 'responsibility' given a population of 16-20 years olds.
Originally posted by Acolytewe call it modern studies...
If we argue that 16-year-olds shouldn't vote because we think their ideas about politics are ill-informed or wacky, we should remember that several forum favourites like StarValleyWy and STANG have been able to vote for decades. The truth is that age is a very poor measure of political awareness: for example, older people may have a tendency to miss the po ...[text shortened]... e do this properly, young people might well become the most well-informed voters in the country.
Originally posted by Acolyteit's not compulsory? ....
Having said that, there's a serious lack of knowledge of politics in the UK (and probably other countries as well). I do think that some political education should be compulsory in schools (no, I don't mean indoctrination: I mean factual information like how parliament works, how the various EU institutions interact with British government, etc etc, toget ...[text shortened]... e do this properly, young people might well become the most well-informed voters in the country.
Originally posted by zeeblebotOK, maybe it is now. They have citizenship on the National Curriculum, but I can't tell how much is compulsory, or if people take exams in it. I'm having trouble getting info out of the National Curriculum website, and I can't speak from personal experience as it looks like citizenship was only introduced in 2002.
it's not compulsory? ....
My children at 16yrs were brighter in most respects than I am now. lol not hard..
Truth is most 16 year old would vote for what effects them now with no thought for their future. Vote for cheaper university fees and lower drinking age ahead of health and superanuation for the future. They come out of that about 22-24yrs and start thinking a little more laterally?
I'm starting to come round to the vote test idea, but not IQ... just three questions at the top of the voting slip ie Which party formed the last government, is the minimun wage more or less than X and name the leaders of the three parties standing at this election.
Surely if you can't manage that you shouldn't vote reardless of age.. and thousands couldn't!
Originally posted by RingtailhunterAll the evidence I see strongly suggests that most people aren't mature enough to vote EVER. Heck, forget politics, try watching a few episodes of any TV show where the outcome is decided by the public and try to prove that the result makes sense.
I don't think most people are mature enough to vote at 24 years of age.
RTh
Oh wait, the people voting on most of those shows are teenagers, right? Which brings us back to...
Originally posted by orfeoI'd support lowering the age of enfranchisement to 16. Treat 16-year-olds as kids and they'll behave like kids, and all the voting they'll do is for TV shows - the outcomes don't make sense because no-one takes it seriously because everyone knows it doesn't matter.
All the evidence I see strongly suggests that most people aren't mature enough to vote EVER. Heck, forget politics, try watching a few episodes of any TV show where the outcome is decided by the public and try to prove that the result makes sense.
Oh wait, the people voting on most of those shows are teenagers, right? Which brings us back to...
Treat 16-year-olds as adults, and you'll soon find they're perfectly capable of voting as responsibly as anyone else (which may not be saying as much as we'd like, but hey, that's democracy).
The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 by Labour, who knew they'd get more of the 18-20 year old votes than the Conservatives: the right move for the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by invigoratePensioners on the whole earned the right to by voting and paying tax for most of their lives.. snot nosed 16 year olds have it ahead of them they'll be old enough at the next vote.
Pensioners vote for what suits them now too.
Take this in conjunction with my earlier post about a uniform age of consent which I favour. If you give them a vote, then next it's drinking, pubs and porn all legal at 16yrs.
I'm not ready to have 16 year olds in the pubs and clubs and never will be. As an ex cop I've locked to many of them up and scraped up and bagged too many more..
It's my opinion "most" 16 year olds are not ready to make such decisions and shouldn't have a vote. I'd favour 20 years over 16 years as the age of consent.
Originally posted by Officer DibbleFair argument. Gets a rec from me.
I'd support lowering the age of enfranchisement to 16. Treat 16-year-olds as kids and they'll behave like kids, and all the voting they'll do is for TV shows - the outcomes don't make sense because no-one takes it seriously because everyone knows it doesn't matter.
Treat 16-year-olds as adults, and you'll soon find they're perfectly capable ...[text shortened]... more of the 18-20 year old votes than the Conservatives: the right move for the wrong reasons.