Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
David Guiza

Would you give 16 and 17 year olds the vote?

Would you give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds?  

132 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds?

    • Yes
      45
    • No
      81
    • Yes with caveats - please explain if so.
      6


Recommended Posts

I'm surprised by this, I thought most people would be for it.

 

IMO if they can be in a position to pay tax they should have a say in how that tax is spent. I also think there are 17 year olds who study politics at school who know much more than 90% of people who vote.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Finnaldo said:

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? 

Absolutely not, that's an even worse idea than all of the getting the vote,

You either believe in Universal Suffrage or you don't, there shouldn't be any "qualifications" for this. Soon as you start adding external non age related rules to who can vote you are gerrymandering democracy.

 

Edited by MattP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Guiza said:

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.  

 

whilst you can sign up you cant serve on the front line in a combat area. perversely you have to sign up for six years not four so cant leave until you are 22 where as if you join at 18 you can serve for four years and leave at 22.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Absolutely not, that's an even worse idea than all of the getting the vote,

You either believe in Universal Suffrage or you don't, there shouldn't be any "qualifications" for this. Soon as you start adding external non age related rules to who can vote you are gerrymandering democracy.

 

Bosnia let those in full time employment vote at 16.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twoleftfeet said:

whilst you can sign up you cant serve on the front line in a combat area. perversely you have to sign up for six years not four so cant leave until you are 22 where as if you join at 18 you can serve for four years and leave at 22.

So you are making the decision to serve in a combat area before you are 18? I know there are ways to leave but ultimately that is the principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MattP said:

Absolutely not, that's an even worse idea than all of the getting the vote,

You either believe in Universal Suffrage or you don't, there shouldn't be any "qualifications" for this. Soon as you start adding external non age related rules to who can vote you are gerrymandering democracy.

 

 

Like Citizenship? Convicted prisoners can't vote either.

 

'16 having finished school & GCSEs' doesn't have to mean you passed, it's a time event as much as a birthday and in my opinion at least adds more credibility to 16 year olds voting. My main issue is that it's probably difficult to track and another expense if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

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 don't think it should be allowed.

 

35 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

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 :whistle:!

It's not exactly a secret that most teachers/lecturers hold left wing views is it? I often work in schools and I do see the literature in the staff rooms (I also enjoy reading it):D Because of that bias it makes it pretty much impossible to teach politics at school, parents have to have total trust in it being impartial and I many others wouldn't be able to have that.

 

I mean look at the absolute state of this, I wouldn't want her teaching my childen English, let alone politics.

 

 

Edited by MattP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Stadt said:

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

18-21 can barely be arsed, so 16 and 17 year olds certainly won't be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Absolutely not, that's an even worse idea than all of the getting the vote,

You either believe in Universal Suffrage or you don't, there shouldn't be any "qualifications" for this. Soon as you start adding external non age related rules to who can vote you are gerrymandering democracy.

 

Sounds like someone failed their  GCSE's. lol

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bmt said:

I'm surprised by this, I thought most people would be for it.

 

IMO if they can be in a position to pay tax they should have a say in how that tax is spent. I also think there are 17 year olds who study politics at school who know much more than 90% of people who vote.

You can pay tax at any age if you earn enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Nothing to do with the way I vote, but I have 2 sons, one of whom will turn 16 next month and one who is 19. It scares me slightly that my eldest will be able to vote, my other son wouldn't have a clue. Plus I could probably persuade him to vote however I told him to, so it wouldn't be his vote at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattP said:

I don't think it should be allowed.

 

It's not exactly a secret that most teachers/lecturers hold left wing views is it? I often work in schools and I do see the literature in the staff rooms (I also enjoy reading it):D Because of that bias it makes it pretty much impossible to teach politics at school, parents have to have total trust in it being impartial and I many others wouldn't be able to have that.

 

I mean look at the absolute state of this, I wouldn't want her teaching my childen English, let alone politics.

 

 

I did Government & Politics at A Level and felt the education we received was impartial. Besides, if schools were the leftie propaganda factories you reckon they are it's not like teenagers are the types to do as their teachers tell them anyway...

 

Not sure making politics a compulsory GCSE is a good idea either by the way, but we really could do with beefing up PSE/citizenship (whatever they're called these days) classes to help prepare kids for life in the real world and give them a better understanding of the society they're entering and the systems that make it function - and that includes helping them have a working knowledge of politics and government. The lessons we had on that score were fvcking crap when I was at school.

 

And that tweet definitely didn't happen by the way. What is wrong with some people, making up lies about children for social media numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

The Army argument doesn't really hold water in my opinion, when you join at 16/17 you can't serve in an active unit and you are a "Junior Soldier", so people saying "you can die for your country before you can vote" are wrong. 

I can't say I'm well read on the ins and out of the army, I just know that we seem to differ from much of Europe/the West on the age on which you can sign up. Still, being given the opportunity to make that decision at the age of 16 shows faith in that age group to make a reasoned and informed decision?

 

12 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

whilst you can sign up you cant serve on the front line in a combat area. perversely you have to sign up for six years not four so cant leave until you are 22 where as if you join at 18 you can serve for four years and leave at 22.

Thanks for that, you learn something new each day! 

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

1. I don't think it should be allowed.

 

2. It's not exactly a secret that most teachers/lecturers hold left wing views is it? I often work in schools and I do see the literature in the staff rooms (I also enjoy reading it):D Because of that bias it makes it pretty much impossible to teach politics at school, parents have to have total trust in it being impartial and I many others wouldn't be able to have that.

 

3. I mean look at the absolute state of this, I wouldn't want her teaching my childen English, let alone politics.

 

 

1. Appreciated. It does seem bizarre that a 15 year old Tory member had more of a say on the current leader of our nation(s) than I did, though I guess the same could be said were the boot on Labour's foot etc. 

 

 2. Absolutely, practically all of my wife's colleagues that I've met are left/centre left from what I would make out and one was concerned that he'd 'caught Tory' when having to spend a few hours with Gavin Williamson the other week. I would caveat that by saying that most of the colleagues I've met are also English teachers with an arts based background and, generally speaking, that is a particular subject that lends it hand to Labour/Green etc supporters. I would be interested to see if the same were the case with Science and Maths teachers, for example.

I would also think that the vast majority of teachers are intelligent and reasonable enough to teach a subject objectively and not subjectively. Particularly if they are teaching something like Politics/Religious Education or anything in that ball park.

 

As an aside, my wife did work at a Catholic School during her training and told me that the Religious Studies teacher there always has to be a Catholic, which I still can't make my mind up on. 

 

3. I did see that pop up on Twitter earlier as it happens, think it made it's way onto the Did Not Happen Twitter page too! It's interesting that her profile is so public and that she's so open about her politics as a teacher. Most/all teachers I know are forbidden from having any sort of public profile on social media. All my wife's accounts are private and don't include her surname etc. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I can't say I'm well read on the ins and out of the army, I just know that we seem to differ from much of Europe/the West on the age on which you can sign up. Still, being given the opportunity to make that decision at the age of 16 shows faith in that age group to make a reasoned and informed decision?

Yes I'd agree with this but like I say you've got to draw the line somewhere. Say we moved it to 16, who's to say that 15 year old won't then be using the same arguments to get the vote? "I'm 15 and 11 months why's someone who is 5 weeks older than me deemed mature enough to vote while I'm not?". 

 

And on and on it goes. Best just to leave it in line with when you're legally deemed to be an adult. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm edging to no, simply because at 16 you're not an adult. There's a plethora of things an 18 year-old can do, that a 16 year-old cannot do.

That's the way our system works, I think only changing one thing is stupid. If you're loweribng voting age, then lower the rest of the stuff you can't do until you're 18.

 

If you can vote for a government at 16, why can't you drink alcohol yet?

You can vote for a government but not enter a casino...

 

Seems dumb.

Do it all at 16, make  that age the official "adult" age, and I'd be on board.

Edited by Beechey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I did Government & Politics at A Level and felt the education we received was impartial. Besides, if schools were the leftie propaganda factories you reckon they are it's not like teenagers are the types to do as their teachers tell them anyway...

 

Not sure making politics a compulsory GCSE is a good idea either by the way, but we really could do with beefing up PSE/citizenship (whatever they're called these days) classes to help prepare kids for life in the real world and give them a better understanding of the society they're entering and the systems that make it function - and that includes helping them have a working knowledge of politics and government. The lessons we had on that score were fvcking crap when I was at school.

 

And that tweet definitely didn't happen by the way. What is wrong with some people, making up lies about children for social media numbers?

Yeah I don't think it's a particularly good idea, I imagine that would any make teenagers less interested in the subject as a result if compulsory religious studies is anything to go by during my time at school. As you mention though, I certainly think there needs to be more done in terms of preparing teens for post education world. 

 

Finland has an interesting structure for education, and they are often at the forefront of educational reform, whereby subject learning is undertaken through life experience, ie understanding Maths, Economics and Business through introducing a school bank etc. Whereas our education system is not overly different to colonial times in terms of how we study and what we study. 

Edited by David Guiza
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Guiza said:

Yeah I don't think it's a particularly good idea, I imagine that would any make teenagers less interested in the subject as a result if compulsory religious studies is anything to go by during my time at school. As you mention though, there certainly think there needs to be more done in terms of preparing teens for post education world. 

 

Finland has an interesting structure for education, and they are often at the forefront of educational reform, whereby subject learning is undertaken through life experience, ie understanding Maths, Economics and Business through introducing a school bank etc. Whereas our education system is not overly different to colonial times in terms of how we study and what we study. 

Now that is a good idea - far better than Holly Rigby just shouting at students they can have free shit and only work two days a week if they vote Labour.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Now that is a good idea - far better than Holly Rigby just shouting at students they can have free shit and only work two days a week if they vote Labour.

It's really interesting if you have the time to read up on it. Unfortunately the most radical reform we've seen in our education system is changing from letters to numbers on grading. 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MattP said:

You can pay tax at any age if you earn enough.

Genuinely didn't know that, I stand corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

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.  

 

British Army soldiers can sign up at the age of 16 but they cannot be sent to fight in a war zone or engage in a hostile situation until the age of 18.

 

 

Edited by les-tah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...