Jokes0 min ago
Voting At 16? A New Source Of Labour Voter....?
42 Answers
http://
It's well known that youngsters are left wing whilst Daddy is paying the bills, they later change their tune when they have to survive in the real world. I think the voting should be raised if anything.
It's well known that youngsters are left wing whilst Daddy is paying the bills, they later change their tune when they have to survive in the real world. I think the voting should be raised if anything.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Sorry - wrong link. And the year in question is 2009:
http://
http://
\\\\\Being 16 does not necessarily mean you are intellectually incapable of understanding the various political arguments.\\\
No, not necessarily, but in my experience, the 16 year old dribbles out the same Political dogma as does father...............or mother. There are of course exceptions.
I am not sure that many adults understand the basic principles of Political debate......i am sure that i don't and really i cannot see any rationale indication to lower the voting age.
If it was lowered, who would it favour?....No idea.
No, not necessarily, but in my experience, the 16 year old dribbles out the same Political dogma as does father...............or mother. There are of course exceptions.
I am not sure that many adults understand the basic principles of Political debate......i am sure that i don't and really i cannot see any rationale indication to lower the voting age.
If it was lowered, who would it favour?....No idea.
"I think to vote you should be able to demonstrated some sort of rudimentary knowledge of what you are voting for."
The problem with that is that there is always likely to be at least one issue on which everyone fails. My own knowledge of how economies work is so hopelessly basic that in a recent test to see where I was in the political spectrum (as a "D plot of economy + society), I came smack-bang on the middle for my economic stance. No surprises there, I had no idea what I agreed with ad what I don't. On the other hand, most people in this country would fail tests on, say, scientific issues, or at least the specifics, because most people have no real training beyond what they had to have at high school. Too, I can't really say I understand medical issues that well, but I have perhaps more experience of education from both sides than a number of people do. And so on.
Such a test, then, would almost certainly fail everybody if it tried to cover everything that politics is about. And politics is about everything, really. Further, there is likely to be a level at which such tests are opinion-based anyway. Should people do X or Y? Well, often the answer is that it depends, so how can you fail to pass that question no matter what you answer?
I'm against such a test, then, for two reasons:
-- Everyone would fail;
-- or only people with a certain set of political views, roughly speaking those aligned with the people who set the test, would pass;
In either case it would be useless. As much as I understand the frustration of having a vote cancelled by people you might regard as wrong, or those people who might have the classic opinion (as heard during the 2011 Riots) "It's the government's fault. The Conservatives, or whoever it is," ... designing a test to exclude them is almost certainly impracticable.
You would be better off, instead, trying to get more young people engaged in politics in the first place. What better way to change their opinions, or at least make those opinions more robust, than by encouraging them to get involved?
The problem with that is that there is always likely to be at least one issue on which everyone fails. My own knowledge of how economies work is so hopelessly basic that in a recent test to see where I was in the political spectrum (as a "D plot of economy + society), I came smack-bang on the middle for my economic stance. No surprises there, I had no idea what I agreed with ad what I don't. On the other hand, most people in this country would fail tests on, say, scientific issues, or at least the specifics, because most people have no real training beyond what they had to have at high school. Too, I can't really say I understand medical issues that well, but I have perhaps more experience of education from both sides than a number of people do. And so on.
Such a test, then, would almost certainly fail everybody if it tried to cover everything that politics is about. And politics is about everything, really. Further, there is likely to be a level at which such tests are opinion-based anyway. Should people do X or Y? Well, often the answer is that it depends, so how can you fail to pass that question no matter what you answer?
I'm against such a test, then, for two reasons:
-- Everyone would fail;
-- or only people with a certain set of political views, roughly speaking those aligned with the people who set the test, would pass;
In either case it would be useless. As much as I understand the frustration of having a vote cancelled by people you might regard as wrong, or those people who might have the classic opinion (as heard during the 2011 Riots) "It's the government's fault. The Conservatives, or whoever it is," ... designing a test to exclude them is almost certainly impracticable.
You would be better off, instead, trying to get more young people engaged in politics in the first place. What better way to change their opinions, or at least make those opinions more robust, than by encouraging them to get involved?
"I don't know jim but I get really irked when some snotty eighteen year old can undo my vote with no political knowledge. "
I feel exactly the same way about anyone who is an idiot - which the British population has its fair share of even in the over-25s.
Likewise, I can think of many young teenagers I know who are both uninterested and ignorant about politics, and also ones who are remarkably well-informed - often moreso than older people I have met.
I despise the current culture in the UK where age is equated with wisdom. Some of the most ignorant, stupid, vile people I have ever met have been over-60. I have no faith whatsoever that older people are any more intelligent as a group than anyone else is.
I feel exactly the same way about anyone who is an idiot - which the British population has its fair share of even in the over-25s.
Likewise, I can think of many young teenagers I know who are both uninterested and ignorant about politics, and also ones who are remarkably well-informed - often moreso than older people I have met.
I despise the current culture in the UK where age is equated with wisdom. Some of the most ignorant, stupid, vile people I have ever met have been over-60. I have no faith whatsoever that older people are any more intelligent as a group than anyone else is.
"I think to vote you should be able to demonstrated some sort of rudimentary knowledge of what you are voting for." Personally I think that would eliminate quite a proportion of the current voting population, me included. On the whole I think voters tend to pick based on one or two specific topics that are relevant to them and are unaware of the wider view. No I don't think the age should be lowered, the majority of 16 year olds (not all) don't have political views apart from what they pick up from parents or peers. Not exactly impartial and objective.
Not sure why we should deprive 16 and 17 year old people of the right to vote. The reason given by the OP that they might vote Labour is ludicrous and offensive. Perhaps he would like to find out everybody's voting intentions before they enter the Polling booth and then seek to ban anybody that doesn't has Tory sympathies !
Lazygun has it right here...hypocritical in the extreme. And drivel come to that !
Lazygun has it right here...hypocritical in the extreme. And drivel come to that !
// I think that you should pass a test to qualify to vote. //
There already is one. It's called the 'can you be &rsed to walk up to the polling station and vote' test.
If you can't, then you're too stupid to vote. It works pretty well in weeding out the undesirables.
I'm with kromovaracun on this, in that if the country says you're old enough to pay tax, and die in combat defending it, then you're old enough to vote.
There already is one. It's called the 'can you be &rsed to walk up to the polling station and vote' test.
If you can't, then you're too stupid to vote. It works pretty well in weeding out the undesirables.
I'm with kromovaracun on this, in that if the country says you're old enough to pay tax, and die in combat defending it, then you're old enough to vote.
@3T Just cos you say it, don't make it so :) Please demonstrate my "nice leap of illogic"?
As I made perfectly clear in my own post, I believe 16 to be too young to vote, but not for the purely partisan political reasons you and some others here appear to have.And, despite your dismissive tone, there is some validity to at least having a discussion about the merits of it.
As I made perfectly clear in my own post, I believe 16 to be too young to vote, but not for the purely partisan political reasons you and some others here appear to have.And, despite your dismissive tone, there is some validity to at least having a discussion about the merits of it.
cont In Rusia and China there is massive early indoctrination of the youth.
I saw 10 year olds of the Young Communist League ' on guard ' around memorials. Germany had its Hitler Jugend . The more dogmatic a party is the more they favour control over the young.
The arguement that if you are able to join the army you are old enough to vote is nonsense. I'm ex army and I know it's not PC to say it but it doesn't require much intelligence to join the army and none at all to get yourself killed.
Only with some experience of life can you begin to exercise political judgement . Up to the age of 25/30 most people largely follow their parents. However you have got to start somewhere and IMO 21 was about right. Since the age of 18 was introduced voting patterns haven't changed and I doubt 16 will either. The downside is it will not be an intelligent vote based on experience but only an extension of the parents views.
I saw 10 year olds of the Young Communist League ' on guard ' around memorials. Germany had its Hitler Jugend . The more dogmatic a party is the more they favour control over the young.
The arguement that if you are able to join the army you are old enough to vote is nonsense. I'm ex army and I know it's not PC to say it but it doesn't require much intelligence to join the army and none at all to get yourself killed.
Only with some experience of life can you begin to exercise political judgement . Up to the age of 25/30 most people largely follow their parents. However you have got to start somewhere and IMO 21 was about right. Since the age of 18 was introduced voting patterns haven't changed and I doubt 16 will either. The downside is it will not be an intelligent vote based on experience but only an extension of the parents views.
There has been a lot of work done on "political socialisation" - the process for where people get their political and ideological views from, and more than a few studies.
Kids and teenagers whilst living at home will very often follow their parents views. When they leave home, their views may change depending on what they are exposed to, be it straight into work, straight into unemployment, straight into further education and then work, so views are malleable in their early 20s.
Once into their late 20s, political and ideological views tend to crystallise. So maybe we should be restricting the right to vote to the over-30's? Fact is though, that even taking this into account,the strongest influence on most peoples voting habits throughout their lifetime is the views of their parents.
And that's the problem with arbitrary age limits on voting. Right now, 18 is the age of legal adult majority, so that's why I personally think voting should stay at where it is.
Got to love 3Ts attitude that their vote is way too important to be "undermined" by an 18 year old though! There is democracy for you :) And this notion of having a test for voting eligibility is not going to fly either. I can just imagine what that might be composed of if someone like 3T was setting the test though; It would probably just comprise one question "Do you love Maggie Thatcher? " If the answer is Yes, you get to vote, if No, we tattoo "subversive" across your forehead. :)
Kids and teenagers whilst living at home will very often follow their parents views. When they leave home, their views may change depending on what they are exposed to, be it straight into work, straight into unemployment, straight into further education and then work, so views are malleable in their early 20s.
Once into their late 20s, political and ideological views tend to crystallise. So maybe we should be restricting the right to vote to the over-30's? Fact is though, that even taking this into account,the strongest influence on most peoples voting habits throughout their lifetime is the views of their parents.
And that's the problem with arbitrary age limits on voting. Right now, 18 is the age of legal adult majority, so that's why I personally think voting should stay at where it is.
Got to love 3Ts attitude that their vote is way too important to be "undermined" by an 18 year old though! There is democracy for you :) And this notion of having a test for voting eligibility is not going to fly either. I can just imagine what that might be composed of if someone like 3T was setting the test though; It would probably just comprise one question "Do you love Maggie Thatcher? " If the answer is Yes, you get to vote, if No, we tattoo "subversive" across your forehead. :)
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.