SIGN UP

Voting Age Lowered To Sixteen, Does Anyone Think It's A Good Idea?

Avatar Image
dave50 | 12:29 Fri 19th May 2017 | News
82 Answers
This is what the Liberal Democrats are proposing, only because they think they will hoover up all their votes. It's actually very unfair because the vast majority will not be working so will not be paying any tax or national insurance so why should they get a vote, ie have a say on public spending? They are bound to vote for a party who promises free services for this that and the other as they are not contributing.

Answers

41 to 60 of 82rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a stupid lib dum idea, as gormless as their idea to legalise and tax marijuana - why would anyone pay tax on something which you could legally grow in your greenhouse?
If you are 16 then yes. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt at 18. But ideally the title of adult is better applied at 21, even though the brain doesn't finally mature until the late 20s.
Just seen it. This 468+&+(( tablet put a 2 instead of a 1 YET AGAIN ! I caught it before. I am getting _&++£-+ sick of technology: and the lack of legitimate editing in posts.

Let me make it clear *I* wrote 16. *I* did NOT write 26. Urine extracting technology is more stress than anyone deserves !
Are you alright?
If we're going down the "young people aren't yet mature enough to make a responsible decision" route, should we not restrict voting to those with, say, appropriate qualifications? Or perhaps at least we should make sure that all voters have read the manifesto and demonstrated an ability to understand and critically evaluate it.

Or maybe that's all just stupid, and we're mixing up the *responsibility* to vote with an informed choice with the *right* to have a say in the democratic process. And once that's settled, it becomes entirely arbitrary whether it's 18 or 16 or any other age.

Again, I can't say it bothers me one way or the other. But trying to argue that it can't be 16 because of some generalisation that such people aren't mature enough or informed enough, while overlooking that so are rather a large number of adults -- or, worse, trying to argue that you shouldn't allow a bunch of lefties to vote -- is just mistaken reasoning.

Let it be 18, or 16, because either answer is entirely arbitrary, and equally justifiable.
My 16 year old grandson recently had a vote in the local elections here in Scotland. However, he will not have a vote in the general election??
My point is, Kromo, that in my view 16 year olds are too young to get married, or join the army, or vote - you reach the majority in the UK at 18, and therefore that is when, in my view, the privileges of adulthood are bestowed.

Do you not find it absurd that a 16 year old can get married and join the army, but cannot buy a pint in a pub or legally contract? Because I do.

By the way, the army and married argument is the very definition of 'hackneyed' because they are always raised in this debate and overused. Being hackneyed may not make them untrue, but just because they are not untrue doesn't mean they are not hackneyed.
if the younger crowd had their way, britain would be bankrupt and over run with migrants from all corners of the world..oh wait we already are. chaos would ensue and it would be mob rules, power to the people up tooting.
"Let it be 18, or 16, because either answer is entirely arbitrary, and equally justifiable."

By that reasoning, Jim, so is 5.
I find the idea that legally you are not considered able to do certain things until you are eighteen compelling. If you can't be (legally) expected to understand and enter into a contract why should you be expected to make good use of a vote.
One draws a line somewhere. It is possible some *individuals* never reach a stage where they are good at weighing things up and making a decision; but it's unreasonable/impractical to try to prevent the odd few that is true for, from voting. But this isn't about individuals, it's about an age related group, and when it makes sense to say they are old enough for the responsibility. So this concern regarding older folk not being capable is a big "red herring". The argument remains the same. Voting is for adults.

So perhaps we can discuss something less clear cut instead. Such as is the Earth flat, or did God create the heavens and Earth in less than an Earth week ?
OG. The Flat Earth Society claims to have members all round the globe. (Their words not mine).
I couldn't agree with divebuddy more of I tried. But then I would say that.
Concern regarding older folk voting is not a red herring at all, but then again an old person would say that. If you open a debate about the suitability of young people to vote why not address the suitability of old people at the same time?
A very bad idea in my opinion. No one is mature enough at that age. It should have remained at 21.
DIVEBUDDY, in Scotland, sixteen-year olds can enter into contracts
//in Scotland, sixteen-year olds can enter into contracts//
But we all know what a mess Scotland is in !
Such a mess yet folk are voting SNP still? I bet many of those against sixteen-year olds voting have forgotten they voted for the first time in 1970 when they were eighteen. Were THEY opposed to the voting age being lowered from twenty-one?
The few elderly who survive yet lose their mentality, are hardly in sufficient numbers to sway an election. I'm unsure of the exact rules but aren't those with mental issues barred from voting anyway ? Plus many of that small group won't be bothered voting, those that do, many will vote for a party they always have and so are no different to other loyal party supporters. Those that can be manipulated/swayed to vote for some disastrous choice will be vanishingly small.

On the other hand a whole generation of inexperienced young voters being added at once, open to any convincing argument no matter how impractical or simply wrong, that's a different ball game.

Older voter scrutinisation is simply not worth the effort to avoid any small amount of wayward voting; it can not be compared to a discussion on at which age voting rights should be given, and is just a distraction.
//....open to any convincing argument no matter how impractical or simply wrong, that's a different ball game. //

I wouldn't expect you to see it yourself, OG, but conmen go for elderly people in the main because they are easily conned.

41 to 60 of 82rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Voting Age Lowered To Sixteen, Does Anyone Think It's A Good Idea?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.