  |
 Should 16/17 year-olds be allowed to vote in UK? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Oct 27 2019, 08:06 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 22,001 User: 53 
  
|
The Lib-Dems think so. I say an emphatic NO. They are still legally classed as children. Yes they can marry, with parental permission, but can't drink legally, get a bank loan or enter in to a contract. 16 year-olds can't drive either.
This post has been edited by Freddie Kruger: Oct 27 2019, 08:09 PM |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 08:09 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 4 November 2013
Posts: 30,506 User: 20,053
   
|
I agree, no.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 09:12 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,130 User: 22,895 
       
|
If you can get married you should be allowed to vote.
The legally classed as children thing is stupid anyway. That's just an excuse for older people to feel superior and look down their nose, 'at least I'm not a CHILD' kind of thing. I've never had any patience for that kind of shite. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 09:21 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 Mansonette
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 35,260 User: 54
          
|
I honestly don't know. You have to have a cut off point somewhere and I feel like 18 is a fair enough age. I wouldn't be against it if it changed to 16 or 17 but I'm not passionately for it either.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 09:25 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
The owls are not what they seem
Pronouns: He/him
Joined: 11 July 2009 Posts: 37,101 User: 9,232
   
|
Yeah, I'm a bit on the fence here, I do see the arguments for either side but I would probably lean towards 'no' though as there is quite a difference between 16 and 18 despite how it may seem, and the level of political education/information to this age group just isn't what it should be (I know, I work with them).
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 09:31 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Mansonette
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 35,260 User: 54
|
I think that’s the problem Chez. I’m not sure I understood enough about politics even at 18, never mind about 16. That’s not to say 16 year olds can’t but I’d probably say most won’t.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 09:52 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 26 February 2007
Posts: 14,273 User: 3,002
|
QUOTE(dandy* @ Oct 27 2019, 09:31 PM)  I think that’s the problem Chez. I’m not sure I understood enough about politics even at 18, never mind about 16. That’s not to say 16 year olds can’t but I’d probably say most won’t. I doubt most people who vote understand enough about politics. And i'm doubly sure that a load of people who voted leave didn't have a clue either. I'm for it; to be honest I think 16 is perfectly reasonable. If the age of consent is 16 and therefore make life changing decisions like that (and the consequences it can bring), then why the heck shouldn't you have a say in other things that affect your life |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 10:27 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Mansonette
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 35,260 User: 54
|
That is a fair counter argument. You are right that there are a lot of adults who don't have a clue what they are voting for either.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 10:56 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Jord
Joined: 12 March 2017
Posts: 10,758 User: 27,116
|
I think yes.
But they should be given information before hand from someone impartial who won’t sway their vote one way or other. When I was younger I’d just vote what my mam and dad did it’s only now I understand a bit more I can form Better opinions. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 10:57 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,130 User: 22,895
|
If people with dementia and Alzheimers can vote then people sitting their GCSEs should be allowed to.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 10:58 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 26 February 2007
Posts: 14,273 User: 3,002
|
QUOTE(Jordan Lee @ Oct 27 2019, 10:56 PM) I think yes. But they should be given information before hand from someone impartial who won’t sway their vote one way or other. When I was younger I’d just vote what my mam and dad did it’s only now I understand a bit more I can form Better opinions. Maybe the unbiased newspapers could send them some information  I hear the Sun and all the other media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch corporation give very balanced views to everyone in society |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2019, 11:05 PM
Post
#12
|
|
 Alone and wounded
Pronouns: She/her
Joined: 18 January 2011 Posts: 60,098 User: 12,810 
         
|
I always thought 'no' in the past as age 16 to 17 seemed like too much of an immature bracket, with poor political teaching at school and not reaching official adulthood yet. But I think the whole Brexit fiasco has changed my mind in recent times. Many people who feel as clued up as the rest of us (I mean realistically how clued up can one be about Brexit) narrowly missed out on the vote because they were 17 at the time... this is going to impact the lives of these people now in their 20s more in the long-term than the 80-year-olds who did vote in 2016, who won't be on the planet anywhere near as long. Not being agiest or anything, 80-year-olds have just as much of a right, but I think the younger generation should too. Obviously there needs to be a cut-off point, so I think 16+ would be good, as you do get other privileges at 16 too so it feels consistent enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 12:09 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,130 User: 22,895
|
Lmao is this the return of ageist Jupiter oops :')
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 12:22 AM
Post
#14
|
|
 I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,407 User: 12,929       
|
Yes! Expanded electorate, more chance for younger people to be interested in politics earlier, nothing makes people more apathetic than being told they can't take part. I think it would be a great step at raising younger people's trust in the government.
it keeps coming up, I'm sure it will happen at some point. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 06:09 AM
Post
#15
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Tones and Iz @ Oct 28 2019, 12:22 AM) Yes! Expanded electorate, more chance for younger people to be interested in politics earlier, nothing makes people more apathetic than being told they can't take part. I think it would be a great step at raising younger people's trust in the government. it keeps coming up, I'm sure it will happen at some point. But there's lower turnout even amongst the youngest groups that're eligible to vote now (18-21), so why would lowering the age help engage them? At that age their main concerns are A-Levels/Uni/having a good time/getting laid.  Seriously though, with hindsight, were posters here responsible enough to take on adult responsibilities at 16 - including signing contracts, being tried as adults, marriage, etc? I can honestly say I wasn't, and not just with hindsight. I was always glad the parental safety net was there, whether or not I had to use it. As for the trust in gov't issue, the sooner they learn they *can't*, the better. I suspect the lowering of voting age will eventually happen, but I am far from convinced that a majority of under-18's are responsible enough to handle it. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 08:55 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,407 User: 12,929
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Oct 28 2019, 06:09 AM) But there's lower turnout even amongst the youngest groups that're eligible to vote now (18-21), so why would lowering the age help engage them? At that age their main concerns are A-Levels/Uni/having a good time/getting laid. Seriously though, with hindsight, were posters here responsible enough to take on adult responsibilities at 16 - including signing contracts, being tried as adults, marriage, etc? I can honestly say I wasn't, and not just with hindsight. I was always glad the parental safety net was there, whether or not I had to use it. As for the trust in gov't issue, the sooner they learn they *can't*, the better. I suspect the lowering of voting age will eventually happen, but I am far from convinced that a majority of under-18's are responsible enough to handle it. A lot of the time, going from 16 to 18 includes wanting to be treated like an adult/not patronised. It's a transitive age with varying responsibilities opening up to you along that line. Voting sits in that niche of being a societal issue that will be participated in by (some) teenagers if allowed, but ignored if not, unlike some others like driving or alcohol. They will go through this transitive stage ignoring politics more than they would have. Yes, perhaps we'd have low turnout from the age group, but those that do vote would be glad of the opportunity. Those that aren't responsible, well, we tolerate irresponsible voters no matter what age they are. I think I didn't quite mean trust in government, but well, a greater trust in how society works. It is arbitrary right now, no less arbitrary when moved down, but it will exclude far fewer who are politically aware. And arbitrary rules invoke dissatisfaction and could be the starting point towards seeing things that lead to political apathy. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 09:34 AM
Post
#17
|
|
 Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,059 User: 3,474
 
|
Im in favour of this and Scotland has already done so for all votes that it has the delegated responsibility of organising and deciding the franchise of.
Would far rather a 16 year old that a 96 year old got the vote in the EU referendum. One has to live with the consequences for 80 years, the other has far f***ing less |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 12:00 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 25 July 2016
Posts: 4,364 User: 23,471
  
|
QUOTE(dandy* @ Oct 27 2019, 09:31 PM) I think that’s the problem Chez. I’m not sure I understood enough about politics even at 18, never mind about 16. That’s not to say 16 year olds can’t but I’d probably say most won’t. There is no age in which people understand politics — most people don't. Generation Z seems far more politically engaged than any before them, and there are genuine concerns for the future they're going to live in. QUOTE(Tones and Iz @ Oct 28 2019, 12:22 AM) Yes! Expanded electorate, more chance for younger people to be interested in politics earlier, nothing makes people more apathetic than being told they can't take part. I think it would be a great step at raising younger people's trust in the government. 100% I'm surprised people are so on the fence on this! There is more chance of a 16-year-old becoming more engaged with current politics than someone in their nineties who is likely to vote as they always have without doing any research. This post has been edited by blacksquare: Oct 28 2019, 12:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 12:01 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,022 User: 18,639
   
|
QUOTE(dobbo @ Oct 27 2019, 08:09 PM) I agree, no. Wtf?? They should. The end x |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2019, 04:06 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(blacksquare @ Oct 28 2019, 12:00 PM) I'm surprised people are so on the fence on this! There is more chance of a 16-year-old becoming more engaged with current politics than someone in their nineties who is likely to vote as they always have without doing any research. If they are truly engaged on politics, then as they grow older they will as their judgement as to whether gov'ts deliver on their promises, and if they don't, change their vote. that is what a lot of voters do! |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 18th April 2024 - 02:26 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
