Would you give 16 and 17 year olds the vote?

[orangecity23]

Let's be honest, unless they live in a marginal seat, then it doesn't matter if the kids vote or not. Live in a safe seat, and every general election vote in your life probably won't be worth a bean to the result. Look at Leicester. If you want to vote for Labour, they'll win by a landslide whether you vote for them or not. If you vote against them, then the candidate you back has sod all chance of winning.

[JR99]

For me yes, I was 16 at the time of Brexit and wanted a say as it was my future being massively impacted... although I have my head screwed on and would struggle to trust alot of people my age 😂 for me stuff like abolishing tuition fees etc is ridiculous because I know the money has to come from somewhere but other people at uni would see that and be won over instantly. I've also always been in a job since 16 and I'm now an engineer on placement so since I've paid tax since 16 working alot of hours I feel I should have got a say

[indierich06]

If you're old enough to work, pay tax, get married, have kids and join the army, you're old enough to vote. No taxation without representation. All I've seen the past few days is people saying 'well my son's a complete idiot who can't even drag himself out of bed, let alone vote' - seems a bit weird to criticise your own parenting, but fine - he doesn't have to vote. But there are plenty of 16-17 year olds out there who are just as educated on the issues as the general population, some of them even more so, and the outcome of this election is likely to have a profound effect on their future - those who want to make their voice heard should be allowed to.

[Mickey O'Neil]

22 hours 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) 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.

 

 

Fvcking melt. Glad I don't have kids being taught by her 

[Guest MattP]

I presume all these people shouting "no taxation without representation" also want to deny the unemployed the vote?

 

You can pay tax at any point - we are not going to start giving the vote to 11 year olds because of it 

[bmt]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

I presume all these people shouting "no taxation without representation" also want to deny the unemployed the vote?

No that would be 'no representation without taxation'. I think absurd statements like that lessen from your argument, which is otherwise solid (although I disagree).

 

After doing a bit more research 16 is the age you start paying national insurance too which could be used in place of taxation in arguments to get round the 'tax at any age argument'. I just don't feel there's that much difference between 16 and 18.

[twoleftfeet]

 

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I presume all these people shouting "no taxation without representation" also want to deny the unemployed the vote?

 

You can pay tax at any point - we are not going to start giving the vote to 11 year olds because of it 

As MattP says Taxation isn't age related and indeed the one element that people think of as taxation  income tax and national insurance account for  25% and 19% respectively VAT which can be paid at any age accounts for 18% of the revenue raised by the Government. What about the working poor who gain more in working families and working tax credits should they also be excluded along with the unemployed. the top 10% of earner pay 70% of the income tax do they get more votes?  

[Les-TA-Jon]

In an increasingly aging society, with a system that is increasingly stacked against younger people - I'd say it should certainly be 16 and could be even lowered. But the ruling class doesn't want a politically motivated, enfranchised or interested younger generation/population. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic 

 

 

[David Guiza]

34 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

In an increasingly aging society, with a system that is increasingly stacked against younger people - I'd say it should certainly be 16 and could be even lowered. But the ruling class doesn't want a politically motivated, enfranchised or interested younger generation/population. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic 

 

 

I went to Shakespeare's school the other day, because I know how to have fun as a mid 20s man, and something one of the employees there said was really interesting and along the lines of what you're saying.

 

He was answering a question about why education was free, given of course that it seems quite unlikely and out of character in the 16th century, and he noted that it was because those in power realised that an educated and knowledgeable society would result in a more obedient and less ignorant society.

 

Of course those who could afford to go to school were still from reasonably wealthy families and not exactly the working class, because they were then missing out on a daily wage for the family whilst attending school, but it allowed future generations to escape their shackles and pre-arranged destiny and forge their own futures, Shakespeare being one of them. It made me think how, if anything, we've stepped away from the mindset with the way we treat and discount 'millennials', and whilst University is generally encouraged in schools, many are put off by the £10,000 per year fees they will be riddled with post study.

 

The idea that lowering the voting age could increase the knowledge and interest in politics for future generations isn't something that would ever be entertained by the current Government and the cynic in me thinks it would only be entertained by the opposition because it may result in more votes. 

[Izzy]

43 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic 

 

 

Yeah give 6 year olds the vote. Can’t believe this bloke is serious 

 

Imagine the poor sods counting the ballot papers sifting through pictures of bums and willies in crayon.

 

Honestly...

[filbertway]

Id say have a test that checks whether you have read all the manifesto's. If you pass that then you're allowed to vote. Otherwise you've got idiots going "blues are gammon racists" and "reds are soft liberal snowflakes". You'd get about 10-15 people off this board that deserve to vote based on that.

I would not pass the test out of laziness.

[yorkie1999]

8 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Yeah give 6 year olds the vote. Can’t believe this bloke is serious 

 

Imagine the poor sods counting the ballot papers sifting through pictures of bums and willies in crayon.

 

Honestly...

Are kids growing up that much earlier nowadays. Six years old and drawing bums and willies, it was the sort of thing i'd be doing at 14.

Edited 31 October 2019 by yorkie1999

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

In an increasingly aging society, with a system that is increasingly stacked against younger people - I'd say it should certainly be 16 and could be even lowered. But the ruling class doesn't want a politically motivated, enfranchised or interested younger generation/population. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic 

Why should a 6 year old and not a 5 year old get the vote?

[Christoph]

To be honest I don't think you should be able to vote until you're like 24-25 when your brain is actually developed properly. Although I would imagine that would come with complications but lets be honest, an 18 or 19 year old is't much to be relied on either. 

[Finnaldo]

2 minutes ago, Christoph said:

To be honest I don't think you should be able to vote until you're like 24-25 when your brain is actually developed properly. Although I would imagine that would come with complications but lets be honest, an 18 or 19 year old is't much to be relied on either. 

 

You could set up parameters to show most voters aren't fit to vote. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

56 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Yeah give 6 year olds the vote. Can’t believe this bloke is serious 

 

Imagine the poor sods counting the ballot papers sifting through pictures of bums and willies in crayon.

 

Honestly...

 

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why should a 6 year old and not a 5 year old get the vote?

I'm not saying 6 year olds should have the vote - the article was. Just thought it was an interesting and relevant contribution to the debate. I don't think it should be that early, but the general sentiment I wanted to highlight was that the younger generations are increasingly outweighed and underrepresented in today's society and yet they must disprotionally pay for older generations and live with the consequences of present decisions for longer. 

 

So lowering it to 16 isn't radical enough a change to address this imbalance. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

6 hours ago, indierich06 said:

If you're old enough to work, pay tax, get married, have kids and join the army, you're old enough to vote. No taxation without representation. All I've seen the past few days is people saying 'well my son's a complete idiot who can't even drag himself out of bed, let alone vote' - seems a bit weird to criticise your own parenting, but fine - he doesn't have to vote. But there are plenty of 16-17 year olds out there who are just as educated on the issues as the general population, some of them even more so, and the outcome of this election is likely to have a profound effect on their future - those who want to make their voice heard should be allowed to.

Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should be tried as adults in the courts out of interest? 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Why should a 6 year old and not a 5 year old get the vote?

Why should a 5 year old get it if a 4 years and 11 month old doesn't?

[Izzy]

6 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Why should a 5 year old get it if a 4 years and 11 month old doesn't?

This is getting a bit silly now.
We’ll be asking a foetus it’s voting preference during the 20 week ultrasound next 

[David Guiza]

28 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should be tried as adults in the courts out of interest? 

That's quite an abstract an argument, though I get the point you're making.. 

 

It's been a while since I studied Criminal Law and it's understandably pretty complex, but I believe charges of murder/attempted murder are still sent to the Crown Court and 16/17 year olds charged with particular firearm offences are too, though as a caveat it is decided on an individual basis. You are also deemed criminally responsible from the age of 10 and can be given a custodial sentence below the age of 18, the law often deems 21 more appropriate in age based tests rather than 18 too, providing that the crime is severe enough to warrant the same

 

It was only 50 years ago that it was lowered from 21 to 18, I believe, and Scotland allowed 16 year olds and upwards to vote in the Scottish referendum, so it's not as though these things are set in stone and unlikely to change. 

Edited 31 October 2019 by David Guiza

[twoleftfeet]

14 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should be tried as adults in the courts out of interest? 

If they get the vote yes. Its a bit like the raising of the pension age for women it was inevitable it would go to the same as men rather than men be lowered to that of women and some women are worse off. So if they want the vote at 16 give them the fags, the drink, and the fireworks, and take away the child benefit allow them to take on the debt for any more education after the age of 16 they would like. its a two way street you cant have the benefits of being a child in the eyes of the law but the privileges of being an adult  its not pick and mix. And before anyone says education should be free for everyone yes it should but it isn't and never has been in many industries professional qualifications have never been free and may have been paid for by your employer usually in return for an agreed length of service.  

[LiberalFox]

Yes absolutely, votes at 16 and make it easier for resident non-citizens. 

 

I believe it's currently Lib Dem policy too (certainly gets debated a bit) I've had the argument with fellow Liberals and felt like my argument was cast iron but then you realise a lot comes down to opinion, I haven't seen many change their minds.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Yes absolutely, votes at 16 and make it easier for resident non-citizens. 

 

I believe it's currently Lib Dem policy too (certainly gets debated a bit) I've had the argument with fellow Liberals and felt like my argument was cast iron but then you realise a lot comes down to opinion, I haven't seen many change their minds.

Have the Lib Dems put forward the proposals for pets to start voting yet or is that for 2024?

[LiberalFox]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Have the Lib Dems put forward the proposals for pets to start voting yet or is that for 2024?

When I saw you'd replied I was hoping for something a bit better than that 

[Charl91]

17 hours ago, Christoph said:

To be honest I don't think you should be able to vote until you're like 24-25 when your brain is actually developed properly. Although I would imagine that would come with complications but lets be honest, an 18 or 19 year old is't much to be relied on either. 

Does this mean when people get old and senile we stop them voting again?