davieG Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 What do you think? My initial reaction to this is instead of justifying the vote for 16 and 17 years olds by citing deaths in Iraq we shouldn't be sending them there to fight in the first place. Maybe the should have the vote but this strikes me as twisted logic. The voting age should be dropped to 16, according to a major think-tank.Demos claims that one million people aged 16 and 17 are disenfranchised by "outdated" attitudes, and that the case for change is "stronger than ever". Demos director Richard Reeves said at 16 young people can work and pay tax, or even "take a bullet" for their country but cannot vote in an election. "They are denied the political capital and social responsibility of voting," he said. As the nation prepares to face decisions with "profound" consequences for young adults, those young adults should be given the right to vote, the report said. Demos's research paper warned that an ageing population and the fact older people are more likely to vote meant older people would form the most powerful voting block in future elections. Demos's research suggested that if 16 and 17-year-olds could vote, 41% would vote Labour, 30% would vote Tory and 21% would vote Liberal Democrat. Mr Reeves added: "Of the first 100 British soldiers to die in Iraq, at least six were too young to have ever voted in a general election. "They are able to take a bullet for their country before they are old enough to cast a ballot for who governs it." There have been numerous calls for the voting age to be lowered in the UK. Following a review in 2004 the Electoral Commission concluded the voting age should remain at 18, but said it should be reviewed again in five to seven years. Outlining wider plans for electoral reform in February, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was in favour of lowering the voting age "but it would be better combined with better citizenship education and people assuming citizenship at that age". Demos commissioned Ipsos/Mori to interview 594 people aged 16 and 17 by telephone between January 2009 and February 2010.
Sir Fynwy Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 What do you think? My initial reaction to this is instead of justifying the vote for 16 and 17 years olds by citing deaths in Iraq we shouldn't be sending them there to fight in the first place. Maybe the should have the vote but this strikes me as twisted logic. Stupid idea, try getting a decent proportion of the current electorate to vote and to understand the issues before adding a load more non-voters.
Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 I don't see it dramatically increasing participation to be honest... But the overall argument is qutie compelling for me - if someone can serve in the army, then surely they should be able to vote? If the govt send you to a far off warzone shouldn't you be able to exercise a vote? - I think so. Would it be seriously considered though?
Phube Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Simply fixed: If you pay tax you vote... if no you don't!
Sir Fynwy Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Simply fixed: If you pay tax you vote... if no you don't! I can't believe you are advocating the return of the poll tax. The youngest soldier killed in afganistan was 18, under 18's don't go to war, if you want to ensure that any soldier killed in a war has had the chance to vote you would need to allow 13 year olds to vote. The think tank should head off and have another think.
Guest Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 16/17 year olds are children in the eyes of the law. If they want to benefit from the protection of being a child, then they shouldn't be expected to vote. I know it's harsh (I was intelligent and informed enough to understand who, what and why I would have voted at that age, and from reading this forum, there are plenty of under-18s who are also capable), but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and there is no better place than the age of majority. Finally, I didn't think anyone under 18 was sent out to a war zone.
lcfcadam Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Being 18 and still in sixth form at college, I can assure you that this is a terrible idea. I'd guess that 95% of 16 year olds know NOTHING about the political world (even some of the 18 year olds don't know the difference between the right and left wing...) Add to that the fact that very few 16 or 17 year olds are going to be remotely interested in queueing up at their local school or community centre when they could be playing on 'COD' or some other teenage 'thing' and it really would be a complete waste of time. Teenagers want to feel alienated from the adult world, that seems to be the whole point. Lowering the voting age won't make any difference to such a well-established mindset.
Phube Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 I can't believe you are advocating the return of the poll tax. I see nothing wrong with Poll Tax! What has the worth of your house 10 years ago got to do with what you pay the council every year...? Much better to charge per adult! Much fairer!
Joe. Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Pointless idea. I would have had little to no idea about politics (as is stil the case now) at that age. Most 18-year-olds still know next to nothing about it, so there just seems no logic to it really.
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 I was of course for it when I was under 18, but I was also quite easily taken in by the tabloids back then. So no, because most 16 and 17 year olds are idiots.
Peter File Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 There is really no good argument against lowering the age. They lack Intelligence and are apathetic? Can you honestly say this doesn't apply to a large proportion of the 'adult' population? I meet people every day who will vote for whoever Rupert Murdoch tells them too, and a lot of people who won't even vote at all. I think it is unfair to use intelligence as an argument when it isn't being applied fairly across the population. Another argument might be that 95% of the policies don't affect them. I'm not sure about that as a general election elects the parliament for the next five years. Its unfair not to give 16 and 17 year olds a say on the government that would set the rules on their first house, first car, first child, first job etc etc. 18 is a bit arbitrary when you consider all the other laws in place. As already said a 16 year old could be legally married, working for the army, own their own house and have a child. It is just one of several electoral reforms that should be put into place.
coale39 Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Being 18 and still in sixth form at college, I can assure you that this is a terrible idea. I'd guess that 95% of 16 year olds know NOTHING about the political world (even some of the 18 year olds don't know the difference between the right and left wing...) Add to that the fact that very few 16 or 17 year olds are going to be remotely interested in queueing up at their local school or community centre when they could be playing on 'COD' or some other teenage 'thing' and it really would be a complete waste of time. Teenagers want to feel alienated from the adult world, that seems to be the whole point. Lowering the voting age won't make any difference to such a well-established mindset. My thoughts as well.
Bryn Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Great idea if you want a bunch of white, jumped up little shits voting BNP. Or maybe that's just Hull...
dandannieldanok Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Great idea if you want a bunch of white, jumped up little shits voting BNP. Or maybe that's just Hull... I was thinking the same thing.
AMYB101_LCFC Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 I can see what they're saying but what's the point? Like some others have said, nobody my age is really going to care about voting. I mean I know f*** all about politics so if I was given the chance to vote now I probably wouldn't bother or I'd just pick anybody. I think it would be a complete waste of time.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 I was thinking the same thing. That the populace of Hull are all racists?
Head Honcho Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Simply fixed: If you pay tax you vote... if no you don't! The Tories wouldn't have a chance at the next election if this was to happen!
The Doctor Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Like some others have said, nobody my age is really going to care about voting. I mean I know f*** all about politics so if I was given the chance to vote now I probably wouldn't bother or I'd just pick anybody. regardless of this age group, in the majority, not knowing much about politics and not caring about voting we should still have the chance to vote if we want to.
Daggers Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 This idea is genius. I imagine that most teens would get flustered and hot under the collar about being given such a right - and so I wanted to find out who these people would be, in the action of voting. So I Google picture-searched 'hot', 'teen' and 'action' and found the result highly illuminating.
Jaspa Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Well i dont think its right that you can go off and risk your life fighting for your country but your not aloud to vote for who's in charge of it
davieG Posted 5 April 2010 Author Posted 5 April 2010 Well i dont think its right that you can go off and risk your life fighting for your country but your not aloud to vote for who's in charge of it That's not the case though is it? Which can't go in the line of fire until you're 18 which is when you can vote but as Sir F pointed out that could be another 5 years down the line if you've just missed an election. If they do allow voting for 16 year olds then they should be considered adults in all other aspect of the law and society.
Guest Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 18 is a bit arbitrary when you consider all the other laws in place. As already said a 16 year old could be legally married, working for the army, own their own house and have a child. It is just one of several electoral reforms that should be put into place. Er, wrong. Marriage - you can only marry if you are under 18 with the permission of your parents. Working for the army - ok, you can sign up and train, but you aren't risking life and limb on the frontline if you're under 18. Own a house - you can't own property in your own name if you are under 18. Have a child - so can an 11 year old; should we give them the vote, just in case? Well i dont think its right that you can go off and risk your life fighting for your country but your not aloud to vote for who's in charge of it See above. As I said before, if you want the vote at 16, you're going to have to be treated like an adult in other areas, so full tax, adult courts, adult prisons, no duty for local authorities to accommodate you if you're homeless, no free education after 16, etc.
Daggers Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Marriage - you can only marry if you are under 18 with the permission of your parents. Except in Nottingham, Coventry and Derby if it is to your sister.
Bert Posted 5 April 2010 Posted 5 April 2010 Except in Nottingham, Coventry and Derby if it is to your sister.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.