Donate SIGN UP

Universal Suffrage - The Right To Vote

Avatar Image
barry1010 | 11:17 Thu 08th Feb 2024 | Politics
59 Answers

I am asking specifically about general elections.  The majority of British citizens aged 18 and over have the right to vote.

Should this change?  Should more people be excluded, such as those who have chosen to live overseas, ex-prisoners who have committed certain crimes (those convicted of election fraud already cannot vote)?  Maybe you believe only homeowners should vote.  Should the age be raised back to 21?

Should more people be allowed to vote?  Those aged 16+?  Perhaps no adult should be barred from voting.

Should voting be compulsory, with the right to vote for 'none'?

I'm interested in your opinions.  Everyone is aware of the women fighting for the right to vote, which was granted in 1928 but it was only in 1918 that all men over 21 had the vote.




1 to 20 of 59rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by barry1010. 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.

imo the right to vote is intrinsically linked to the right not to vote, so making it compulsory is a big no IMO

I have had people before scolding me that women died for my right to vote, so i should exercise it.  However, i see it as they died for my right to make a decision.  Doing nothing is always a valid option

Until I see a valid argument for change, it seems to have the right balance now, going by your suggestions. There may be a certain level of argument regarding those who have emigrated for so long they could be assumed not to be returning, but even then that's open to debate.

Most of your suggestions are clearly an obvious, "No".

Those overseas should be excluded you should not be able to influence somewhere you don't live.

I also think that only net contributors should vote.

Voting age should be raised to 21.

Voting should not be compulsory.

As an aside, I find it a bit ironic that our much-vaunted democracy is allegedly based on the Ancient Greek version (demos - the people). That version excluded much of the community including women and slaves. 

I'm not sure whether there should be any exclusions except mentally sectioned perhaps.  As far as age limits go, if anything I would lower it to 16. The increase in Alzheimers and dementia casts a bit of a question over voting amongst the aged, but setting a limit isn't the answer. 

Another idea for consideration: weighted voting. After all, at 81 I'm less likely to be concerned about long-term plans than say a 21 year old, yet we have equal voting powers. I just thought I'd throw that into the discussion.

TTT, I would appreciate your telling me how 'net contributors' would be identified.

10:32 It could be based on NI number, data we already have. Just create a running total, when tax etc is paid it is added to that number, when benefits are given out the amount is subtracted. If the total is greater than zero the person can vote.

Note pension and child benefit are not subtracted. Yes I know pension is described as a "benefit" but it is not it is contributed to. Pension credit is a benefit and that will be subtracted. basically people who spend their lives scrounging will not be able to vote. Over time their will be fewer and fewer of them.


Why should work shy scum get a vote when they contribute nothing?

Only those who agree MY politics should be allowed to vote 🤣

How will you determine that dave?

Question Author

Interesting opinions so far, thank you.  

How will you determine that dave?

We'll use the Putin method - anybody who doesn't vote the right way falls out of a window.

TORATORATORA, would you bar those unable to work because of serious health conditions or caring responsibilities?

What about those working but who are below the thresholds to pay income tax and NI?

If they've not claimed benefits, would they get a vote?


At 81 you should have more life experience and therefore hopfully wiser and less inclined to support rash suggestions than, say, a 21 year old.

Question Author

At 81 a person's views may be entrenched, inflexible and out of synch with the needs of society as a whole.  

At 21 a person's views may be naive, idealistic, unrealistic and out of touch with the needs of society as a whole.

A wide age range of voters is essential.

the problem of "net contributors" is that it doesnt just apply to benefits.  Would one's NHS costs be totted up too?  for example i had 5 babies, 3 of whom had to go to NICU.  I cant imagine that unless i suddenly get a whopping payrise and work till i'm 150 i will EVER be a net contributor.  I currently have to have a nurse appointment every week and have done so for 2 years which already totals more monthly than i pay in tax.  Would one's childs schooling also be taken into account?

in my view...

voting should be compulsory and a "none of the above" option added

a proportional system should be used for the allocation of seats.

i think the current age is about right and don't think changing it to 21 would make much difference... i do not favour votes at 16 because i just think it is more exciting to get the rights of adulthood gradually than to get them all at once! plus i think the number of disenfranchised 16/17 year olds at any given election is just not a very important issue if i am really honest....

I would like to see postal voting restricted to the housebound - and the voting age raised to 21.

Question Author

That would exclude members of the armed forces, those working abroad temporarily such as holiday reps, those on holiday and many others who have legitimate reasons to be away from home on election day.

1 to 20 of 59rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Universal Suffrage - The Right To Vote

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.