Voting rights urged for 16 and 17 year olds in UK

[DJ Barry Hammond]

This idea has been around for quite a while so it will come in eventually. Maybe also including the ability to vote in the election via facebook would see this idea become a roaring sucess for electroate turn out!

(And just remember, you heard of Facebook voting here first, laughed at it, but it will be a reality soon!)

[Daggers]

Quite simply - let maddog just do a poll and be done with it.

[ozleicester]

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.

As shown above, the age of the voter is irrelevant. If someone is concerned enough to have an opinion and a belief then they should have the opportunity to present it.

I understood the process and had opinions when i was 16, and yet, i was then.. and am now, surrounded by mindless people who neither know, nor care, and these people have the right to vote, just because they are over 18??

lets not even mention that people in their senior years are also allowed to vote, even though some arent capable of forming their own sentences let alone opinions, they just listen to the loudest "shock jock" or read the biggest headline in the red tops.

If you cant be trusted to know when you are under 18, an arbitrary number with no logical significance, (at least 21 is related to the development of the brain), then you probably cant be trusted to vote when your over... 90?...80?...70?...60?...50?.. 48?

[Guest]

If you cant be trusted to know when you are under 18, an arbitrary number with no logical significance

But 18 does have significance; it has legal significance, it's the point when legally you are considered to be an adult.

[marbelladave]

I find it strange that anyone supports the concept of widening the franchise.

Our electorate is (en masse) functionally incompetent, as was clearly shown by the opinion poll at the weekend.

Over 30% of those asked say they will still vote for a government that has;

Sent our undermanned and under resourced army to fight in 2 major wars that are none of our business, a decision that, in the case of Iraq, was illegal by any rational standards.

Presided over (and indeed encouraged) the rape of our 'real' economy by avaricious bankers intent on making huge paper profits.

Encouraged the replacement of the last vestiges of social responsibility by a binge drinking chav 'culture' that refuses any responsibility for it's actions.

Criminalised large numbers of 'normal' people for failure to 'comply' with massive amounts of worthless regulation governing all aspects of peoples lives, regulations that often defy common sense and appear deliberately formulated to confuse.

Granted 'de facto' exemptions to the political and government classes so that they can flout these laws and regulations with impunity, whilst continuing to grow rich at the public's expense.

I could go on (and on, and on, and on.....) but I'm sure you get my drift.

Rather than increase the number of people eligible to vote, we need to restrict the number to those who have at least some idea of what is actually going on.

[Asha]

So no, because most 16 and 17 year olds are idiots.

I'd be for it, because I take quite an interest in politics, and I find it annoying that the election date has been confirmed for just two weeks before I turn 18. Means waiting another 4 years before having my say on who runs the country

[marbelladave]

I'd be for it, because I take quite an interest in politics, and I find it annoying that the election date has been confirmed for just two weeks before I turn 18. Means waiting another 4 years before having my say on who runs the country

Sadly even if you are interested and informed about politics and the responsibilities of government your informed vote will be swamped by the votes of the stupid and the incompetent who quite simply have not got a clue.

[Daggers]

Rather than increase the number of people eligible to vote, we need to restrict the number to those who have at least some idea of what is actually going on.

The insane are meant to have had the vote removed from them - but as of 9am this morning that still didn't include anyone who buys a red top paper, believes in astrology or has a faith. No one should have representation if they bought a Ford Ka, voted for a Big Brother contestant or owns a cat. Everyone who 'follows' a top six side but never attends games, everyone who doesn't like Marmite, everyone who doesn't get South Park.

In fact, if I run a dictatorship I promise to be a benevolent soul.

Vote me!

[AoWW]

The insane are meant to have had the vote removed from them - but as of 9am this morning that still didn't include anyone who buys a red top paper, believes in astrology or has a faith. No one should have representation if they bought a Ford Ka, voted for a Big Brother contestant or owns a cat. Everyone who 'follows' a top six side but never attends games, everyone who doesn't like Marmite, everyone who doesn't get South Park.

In fact, if I run a dictatorship I promise to be a benevolent soul.

Vote me!

Oh.

[marbelladave]

The insane are meant to have had the vote removed from them - but as of 9am this morning that still didn't include anyone who buys a red top paper, believes in astrology or has a faith. No one should have representation if they bought a Ford Ka, voted for a Big Brother contestant or owns a cat. Everyone who 'follows' a top six side but never attends games, everyone who doesn't like Marmite, everyone who doesn't get South Park.

In fact, if I run a dictatorship I promise to be a benevolent soul.

Vote me!

:crylaugh: :giggle:

Several of your suggestions make perfect sense to me, but what on earth makes you think that either you or I should be able to determine who has the right to vote and who does not?

Personally I like the idea that anyone can earn the right to vote by making some kind of contribution to the country / society.

Since some kind of personal choice has to be made and some effort is required to earn the right to vote then this right is actually worth something so having gone to all this trouble the voter might actually take a little more trouble to try and understand the issues.

[Alexikokopops]

The insane are meant to have had the vote removed from them - but as of 9am this morning that still didn't include anyone who buys a red top paper, believes in astrology or has a faith. No one should have representation if they bought a Ford Ka, voted for a Big Brother contestant or owns a cat. Everyone who 'follows' a top six side but never attends games, everyone who doesn't like Marmite, everyone who doesn't get South Park.

In fact, if I run a dictatorship I promise to be a benevolent soul.

Vote me!

Worryingly your voting stipulations would still allow me the vote. I suggest you re-think immediately.

[Daggers]

what on earth makes you think that either you or I should be able to determine who has the right to vote and who does not?

Because I'm always right?

And I said nothing about you having a vote - I am best placed to make decisions for the rest of you, especially the cat-owning Marmite haters.

[Daggers]

Worryingly your voting stipulations would still allow me the vote. I suggest you re-think immediately.

They are being developed on a minute-by-minute basis - and you are out due to location, no one in London is able to comprehend the issues appertaining to the rest of the country.

Students, the unemployed, those who earn more or less than me, people not called Dave - all out.

[marbelladave]

Because I'm always right?

And I said nothing about you having a vote - I am best placed to make decisions for the rest of you, especially the cat-owning Marmite haters.

I'm not very fond of marmite and have two cats, so that is me effectively fooked.

Anyway, as the old saying goes, 'It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in'.

[Thracian]

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?

They are old enough to take a bullet because we are stupid enough to allow it and to allow them to sacrifice their lives without point or purpose. Let Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Bush go lead armies of their own accolytes into wasteful, misguided and indefensible wars and leave the youngsters behind to learn some wisdom and some skills so their lives not be wasted on the altar of the idiocy and deceipt preached by such morons.

[Trav Le Bleu]

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

Vote quietly then? Oh, and it's you're, not your.

Perhaps some kind of basic literacy test before being allowed to vote?

They are old enough to take a bullet because we are stupid enough to allow it and to allow them to sacrifice their lives without point or purpose. Let Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Bush go lead armies of their own accolytes into wasteful, misguided and indefensible wars and leave the youngsters behind to learn some wisdom and some skills so their lives not be wasted on the altar of the idiocy and deceipt preached by such morons.

And so the thread turns...

[Guest]

How many more frigging times? WE DON'T SEND ANYONE OUT INTO ACTIVE SERVICE IF THEY ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18!!!!!!!!

[Trav Le Bleu]

I think it's disgraceful that 16 year olds are sent into battle.

[Thracian]

How many more frigging times? WE DON'T SEND ANYONE OUT INTO ACTIVE SERVICE IF THEY ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18!!!!!!!!

Oh that's all right then! Gives us time and chance to prepare them.

[Daggers]

Even worse, I've been told that we send 16yr olds into battle armed with nothing more than a handful of flares. Without the correct training they could have someone's eye out.

[Fosse Boy]

While we're on the subject of age-related laws - I've always wondered why you have to be 16 to legally have sex but 18 to watch porn? Seems a bit odd.

[FoxyPV]

Terrible idea - most 25 year olds don't think coherently when it comes to politics.

[Guest]

While we're on the subject of age-related laws - I've always wondered why you have to be 16 to legally have sex but 18 to watch porn? Seems a bit odd.

It's because you can get married at 16 (with parental consent), and a marriage can be annulled if it's not consummated.

It's a hangover from the days when parents used to marry the daughters off into richer families. IIRC the ages for both was even younger than it is now.

[Phube]

The Tories wouldn't have a chance at the next election if this was to happen!

Eh?

You mean Labour/BNP, surely?

[Guest Bilo]

I have mixed feelings about this.

You can go out and get a full-time job at 16 and leave home, therefore potentially paying income tax, National Insurance and Council Tax. Under those circumstances, it's only right that this section of society should be given the vote.

The fact is however that this demographic is shrinking with more 16 year olds staying in education for either A Levels or vocational training. Indeed it won't be long before staying in education in some form until the age of 18 becomes compulsory. Thus, the number of 16 year olds paying tax in full-time jobs will soon be tiny. Before too long, the idea of an 16/17 year old being a fully fledged taxpayer will be obsolete.

That said, more and more young people are becoming politically active. There are some 16-18 year olds who have all the political awareness of a turd, but that can be said about tens of thousands of thick feckers who subscribe to the Rupert Murdoch world view. Some of the views I hear in the pubs and clubs of Skegness from people old enough to know better are breathtaking. Against these people, there are many more 16-18 year olds who care passionately about politics. Be they in the youth parliament, on political marches or general political activism, the number of young people involved or interested in politics has grown massively.

Will their addition make a huge difference? Possibly, possibly not. Will they be too immature or ignorant to be awarded the vote? My view is that they're no more likely to vote for joke/racist/lunatic fringe parties than any number of knuckleheaded idiots who have never had their right to vote questioned.

Overall I'm in favour, but that could be because I have a lot of faith in the youth of Britain in spite of tabloid hysteria. I can understand why people might be against it though, as the thought of the less positive examples of youth being awarded with the vote is about as appealing as toothache. As I say, mixed feelings.