Would you give 16 and 17 year olds the vote?

[David Guiza]

As with any time a General Election is on the horizon, this debate rears up again. I am therefore intrigued as to what the general consensus on here would be.

 

It's been almost 12 years since I was 16, so my recollection of what it's like to be 16 isn't what it once was (though I appreciate that is a damn sight nearer to 16 than a few posters on here ), but I can certainly pinpoint that as being the age that I really started to get into Politics and debate as a whole. It was the age that I began my A-Level studies in Law, Film, English Literature and the compulsory subject of Citizenship - all of which involved a great deal of intelligent debate among my peers and I guess that shaped my desire to go into Law and to get into pointless arguments on the internet too. Sure I was somewhat more naive and less informed than I am now (or at least I hope i'm more rounded and better informed), but the latter years of school provide you with as greater chance to debate, discuss and challenge than perhaps any other time in your life, outside of University and particular careers of course, and as a result of that I think one is more engaged and open to new ideas and discussion. 

 

It goes without saying that there are some aged between 16 and 18 that utter cretins whom I would trust to vote in a Twitter poll about crisp flavours, but until we introduce a minimum IQ for voting I think that problem goes way beyond the age of 17. It is legal for 16 and 17 year olds to do countless important and responsible things like drive, earn a living and to raise a child, so why shouldn't they be entrusted to vote?

 

For further reference, my wife (Adam Buxton voice) is a secondary English teacher and I therefore hear, albeit second hand, about the intelligence, both academic and emotional, of the 16 and 17 year olds that she teaches posses; together with seeing some of their work from time to time also. It's therefore somewhat disappointing that they don't have a real voice in British Politics. Yes you have to wait your turn with many things in life, but I think that ultimately lowering the voting age by 2 years would see be far more beneficial than detrimental. 

 

Also, because I was always told to back up my argument with evidence - here is a prime example of an intelligent 16 year old whom is more switched on politically than some ever will be. Not to mention that some below the age of 18 were able to have a say on Boris Johnson becoming PM:-

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZhF8VdT0D8 

 

 

Edited 30 October 2019 by David Guiza

[Guest MattP]

No, I still think it should be given to adults and not children.I have no problem with them having the vote though if that changes, but it has to change across the board, it can't just change because a few political parties decide 16 year olds are more likely to vote for them so they'll allow it.

 

So if we want to allow 16 year olds to drink, get married, go to war, drive etc then I'm absolutely for it, treat them as adults completely across the board. Level of intelligence should also never be a factor in this, otherrwise you are on a very slippy slope on who you allow to vote and you don't.

 

Why 16 as well? I mean why not 14? Why not 10? Didn't Jacob Rees-Mogg join the Consevratives at eight years old? Why shouldn't he be allowed to vote for them if he could explain his reasons and was intelligent enough?

[Goober]

In my own personal experience, I was an utter melt at that age who thought I knew everything but realistically knew **** all. I still know **** all now but at least I'm aware of that fact.

 

I'd hold off giving people that young the vote purely because of what I was like at that age, though I do appreciate there will be examples of kids who do have their heads screwed on.

 

For me, waiting a couple more years and gaining a bit more knowledge and experience won't hurt them.

[RoboFox]

Lets be honest, largely the ones voting "no" are the right-wingers.

 

The ones voting "yes" are the left-wingers. 

 

Because we all know that right-wing support tends to come from the older generations, and visa versa. 

 

Edited 30 October 2019 by RoboFox

[yorkie1999]

If you're 16 or 17 years old and worried about politics, there's something wrong with you. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

If you're 16 or 17 years old and a young Tory, there's something wrong with you. 

 

[UniFox21]

18 for me, that's when you legally become an adult and it's the point where you go into the real world and not have to be in education of any sort. There's always a few under 18 who have an understanding and wish to contribute to the discussion or vote, but wherever you put the cut off some people will be annoyed. 

Wouldn't be angry with it dropping to 17, but there would need to be a reason for it rather than the parties thinking they'd get more support. 

[Finnaldo]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

No, I still think it should be given to adults and not children.I have no problem with them having the vote though if that changes, but it has to change across the board, it can't just change because a few political parties decide 16 year olds are more likely to vote for them so they'll allow it.

 

So if we want to allow 16 year olds to drink, get married, go to war, drive etc then I'm absolutely for it, treat them as adults completely across the board. Level of intelligence should also never be a factor in this, otherrwise you are on a very slippy slope on who you allow to vote and you don't.

 

Why 16 as well? I mean why not 14? Why not 10? Didn't Jacob Rees-Mogg join the Consevratives at eight years old? Why shouldn't he be allowed to vote for them if he could explain his reasons and was intelligent enough?

 

 

There's pros and cons to that argument to be fair Matt. 

 

Not allowing  them to use a substance that's proven to have a negative impact on development isn't really relevant to voting in my opinion, neither really is driving but the current legal age of 17 is totally arbitrary and I think we can agree is less important than enfranchisement. Most US states have a driving age of 16 anyway. Also am I not wrong in saying 16 year olds can join the Army?

 

Personally I can see 16 being contentious as it includes people who haven't even finished their GCSEs yet, although I have no issue with 17 year olds being given the vote. Perhaps 16 year olds on condition they've sat their GCSEs? Is that really enforceable? 

[Jon the Hat]

Personally I think no.  The reality is that the majority of 16 and 17 year olds still live at home, are in education and are not in fact paying tax (or much else) and are not generally exposed to the issues or the consequences of their vote.

[foxy boxing]

sixteen and seventeen year old's are most likely to vote against the conservatives, that is why they are desperate not to give them the vote and why Labour and Corbyn want them to have the vote. as a sixteen or seventeen year old you are most likely to go with the protest vote.

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

sixteen and seventeen year old's are most likely to vote against the conservatives, that is why they are desperate not to give them the vote and why Labour and Corbyn want them to have the vote. as a sixteen or seventeen year old you are most likely to go with the protest vote.

It is a bit like voting against your parents.  Not a great basis to select a government imo.

[AKCJ]

Absolutely 100% yes.

 

The second you can start working a full time job you should be able to vote.

[David Guiza]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

If you're 16 or 17 years old and worried about politics, there's something wrong with you. 

You do know that it's possible to be concerned/have an interest in more than one thing? I was simultaneously able to begin a lifelong dislike of David Cameron, worry about when I was going to lose my virginity, lose my virginity and think that Harry Worley was going to save us from relegation all at the same time as a 16 year old. That is to say across the year, I wasn't thinking of David Cameron or Harry Worley when losing my virginity. 

 

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

No, I still think it should be given to adults and not children.I have no problem with them having the vote though if that changes, but it has to change across the board, it can't just change because a few political parties decide 16 year olds are more likely to vote for them so they'll allow it.

 

So if we want to allow 16 year olds to drink, get married, go to war, drive etc then I'm absolutely for it, treat them as adults completely across the board. Level of intelligence should also never be a factor in this, otherrwise you are on a very slippy slope on who you allow to vote and you don't.

 

Why 16 as well? I mean why not 14? Why not 10? Didn't Jacob Rees-Mogg join the Consevratives at eight years old? Why shouldn't he be allowed to vote for them if he could explain his reasons and was intelligent enough?

I used to be of that opinion, but being vicariously exposed to the intelligence of 16 and 17 year olds again makes me think otherwise. Particularly with something as divisive and potentially life changing as Brexit, I would be incredibly frustrated as a 17 year old right now and looking at my potential options, be it University, an apprenticeship or whatever, and having so much that I am unable to control and or have a say on. Yes you could say that a 14 year old would make the same argument were it lowered to 16, but I think there is a far greater jump between 14 and 16 than there is between 16 and 18.

 

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek with the level of intelligence thing, I of course don't actually want that to be a factor. Just being flippant about how some 16 year olds are far more informed and intelligent than 46 year olds. On the whole I don't think that the vast majority of 18 year olds are significantly more mature than 16/17 year olds, and it's not really until your early 20s that most become 'adults' with a reasonable understanding of the world.  

 

Out of interest, how do you feel about party members of 15 years old, for example, being able to vote for the leader of their party, particularly with Boris Johnson when they were in effect King makers? 

 

I understand that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but 16 and 17 year olds are far more adult in many respects than they were 20/30 years ago in terms of emotional and academic intelligence. Sure kids in the 50/60/70s etc had to 'grow up' quicker due to the environment that they were in, but those of 2019 are undoubtedly academically smarter due to the advancement in education, resources, technology etc. 

 

Just to play devil's advocate if you are to dismiss 16 year olds for not being intelligent, grown up enough etc, do you introduce a maximum voting age on the basis that some over a certain age are no longer of sound mind to have a say? Of course that would never happen as it seems somewhat totalitarian and Orwellian, and neither do I want it to either, but the some arguments being levelled at 16/17 year olds could easily be given against 86 and 87 year olds. 

 

22 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Lets be honest, largely the ones voting "no" are the right-wingers.

 

The ones voting "yes" are the left-wingers. 

 

Because we all know that right-wing support tends to come from older generations, and visa versa.

That is ultimately what it will come down to, you feel. A Tory Government is not likely to ever bring it to vote because it's a turkeys voting for Christmas situation, but that it's enough of a reason to turn it down, surely? 

 

[Finnegan]

Majority of right wing people: "NO!"

 

Majority of left wing people: "YES!" 

 

Let's be honest, you can write as long a post as you want justifying your bias reasons but we all basically just want whatever would help our chosen "side." 

 

[Ric Flair]

It's a funny one because there might not be much difference between 16 and 18 in terms of a persons experience in life and what's important to them. They might well all still be in education and the things that they would be swayed in a manifesto would likely be free stuff and tuition fees etc. However you might get young people out working straight from school and their priorities are hugely different.

[David Guiza]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

Majority of right wing people: "NO!"

 

Majority of left wing people: "YES!" 

 

Let's be honest, you can write as long a post as you want justifying your bias reasons but we all basically just want whatever would help our chosen "side." 

 

Oh, absolutely. 

 

I'd hope that people would form a balanced opinion based on an understanding of both sides of the coin, even if it meant that it ultimately didn't work in their favour, but that wouldn't happen.

 

The same happens with arguments about FPTP and the alternative vote. Even in 2015 when it meant that UKIP would have had far more of a say, I was in favour of changing the system because it seems ridiculous that 12.6% of the eligible population can vote for the same party and receive one measly seat as a result. The thought of UKIP having a significant say on British Politics is terrifying and completely against my morals and ethics, but you have to take the rough with the smooth I guess. 

 

35 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

 

There's pros and cons to that argument to be fair Matt. 

 

Not allowing  them to use a substance that's proven to have a negative impact on development isn't really relevant to voting in my opinion, neither really is driving but the current legal age of 17 is totally arbitrary and I think we can agree is less important than enfranchisement. Most US states have a driving age of 16 anyway. Also am I not wrong in saying 16 year olds can join the Army?

 

Personally I can see 16 being contentious as it includes people who haven't even finished their GCSEs yet, although I have no issue with 17 year olds being given the vote. Perhaps 16 year olds on condition they've sat their GCSEs? Is that really enforceable? 

As you say, it would difficult to regulate but it's certainly an interesting point. The 2010 election divided my school year as anybody born after May was unable to vote in the GE, despite being at exactly the same point in their academic lives. Of course that problem would still happen with 15/16 year olds, or 16/17 year olds if it were lowered by a year, but the frustration from intelligent 17 year olds being unable to have an equal say as their friends/peers wasn't ideal! 

 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Majority of right wing people: "NO!"

 

Majority of left wing people: "YES!" 

 

Let's be honest, you can write as long a post as you want justifying your bias reasons but we all basically just want whatever would help our chosen "side." 

 

 

You're turning into a jaded old cynic as you age, Finners. 

 

I'm sure what you say applies to the motivation of all the political parties for supporting or opposing this - and of some voters.

 

Personally, I'm purer than pure and would support the idea even if most 16 & 17-year-olds were right-wing rednecks and not unworldly, right-on, virtue-signalling tossers or witless cretins or however others see them.

 

Some people are clueless at 17, some are clueless at 39 and some are clueless at 79. Are 17-year-olds any worse than their elders?

Even if they are slightly, isn't that outweighed by the positives of encouraging more political engagement....we certainly need more of that.

I always get the impression that Brits generally have less understanding of politics & democracy than other nationalities.....go on, people, descend upon my head and give me a good verbal kicking! 

[David Guiza]

As for those voting No, would your opinion be any different if Politics was taken more seriously as a compulsory subject at GCSE level, or at least given more focus in Citizenship/Personal Development whatever that subject is called nowadays?

 

That said there seems to be a conspiracy theory on Twitter and beyond that teachers are indoctrinating their students to vote Labour so I'm not sure that would work !

[Babylon]

40 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Personally I think no.  The reality is that the majority of 16 and 17 year olds still live at home, are in education and are not in fact paying tax (or much else) and are not generally exposed to the issues or the consequences of their vote.

The same can be said for the vast majority of 18 year olds, so for me that's a lame reason. 

 

But if you can't buy a packet of fags, a pint of beer and a multitude of other things,  then it's a bit of a double standard to say you've mature enough to do x but not y.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

There has to be a cut off point and of course people who's birthday is the day after the election will miss out, but 18 is a more suitable cut off point than 16 imo, otherwise you'd have to change the age of a bunch of other stuff and start treating people as adults at 16 generally, including being tried in court as an adult etc. 

[RonnieTodger]

I can see both sides, but I'm leaning towards no. Whilst I had a good understanding of current affairs at that age, I wasn't all that bothered or well versed in how things would affect me. That's not to say I was at 18 however, but you're an adult at that age so it makes more sense.

 

Isn't it compulsory to stay in education until you're 18 now too?

Edited 30 October 2019 by RonnieTodger

[Stadt]

It’s fine as it is, I can’t imagine the 16 & 17 year old voter turnout would be particularly high.

[Jattdogg]

We could flip this and ask is their an age that people should lose the right to vote  as its probably not in their interests anymore long term? 75? 80? 85? 65? 90? 95?

Edited 30 October 2019 by Jattdogg

[Finnaldo]

9 minutes ago, Stadt said:

I can’t imagine the 16 & 17 year old voter turnout would be particularly high.

 

I second this point, there's not all that many in that age group that truly give a toss. Not enough that the left wing hope and right wing fear anyway.

[David Guiza]

14 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

There has to be a cut off point and of course people who's birthday is the day after the election will miss out, but 18 is a more suitable cut off point than 16 imo, otherwise you'd have to change the age of a bunch of other stuff and start treating people as adults at 16 generally, including being tried in court as an adult etc. 

Whilst I appreciate your point, and agree in some respects, that argument can easily be flipped. 

 

I believe the UK is the only country in Europe to allow people to sign up to the army between the ages of 16-18. Surely if you are deemed to be emotionally intelligent and adult enough to raise a child and join the army you are adult enough to vote? 

 

It's certainly a difficult balancing act either way, but I would entrust a 16/17 year old to be able to make a reasoned enough decision when voting on something that is going to affect their lives for a minimum of 5 years (or much less in recent times) than I would for them to join the army or raise a child.