At 16 you can get married, have a job, pay taxes, have your own house etc and all without a say in the policies that govern all of that. At 17 you can drive, before you can vote on the policies that impact that right.

 

They are pretty adult responsibilities....

At 16 you can get married, have a job, pay taxes, have your own house etc and all without a say in the policies that govern all of that. At 17 you can drive, before you can vote on the policies that impact that right.

 

They are pretty adult responsibilities....

 

I don't think driving at 17 is the best example to support your case - why do you think insurance for young drivers is so high... :rolleyes:

I don't think driving at 17 is the best example to support your case - why do you think insurance for young drivers is so high... :rolleyes:

 

...and policies for old drivers are also sky high either through physical or mental deterioration. let's just deny the vote to all of 'em then. using your logic. Certainly solve the Brexit problem if we linked it to the driving insurance.....

At 16 you can get married, have a job, pay taxes, have your own house etc and all without a say in the policies that govern all of that. At 17 you can drive, before you can vote on the policies that impact that right.

 

They are pretty adult responsibilities....

 

game set and match, as illustrated by the response...

I don't think driving at 17 is the best example to support your case - why do you think insurance for young drivers is so high... :rolleyes:

 

All your arguments would have stripped older voters of their votes too. Every. Single. One. Of. Your. Arguments.

 

That would have let Remain win. Letting younger voters have their RIGHT would have closed the gap. Your argument stems not from the fact that you would deny younger and older voters their enfranchisement out of hand, but from the fact that you want a world where Brexit actually wins.

...and policies for old drivers are also sky high either through physical or mental deterioration. let's just deny the vote to all of 'em then. using your logic. Certainly solve the Brexit problem if we linked it to the driving insurance.....

 

You're comparing apples & oranges

All your arguments would have stripped older voters of their votes too. Every. Single. One. Of. Your. Arguments.

 

That would have let Remain win. Letting younger voters have their RIGHT would have closed the gap. Your argument stems not from the fact that you would deny younger and older voters their enfranchisement out of hand, but from the fact that you want a world where Brexit actually wins.

 

You do talk some right tosh!

You're comparing apples & oranges

 

No.

 

Your arguments involve invalidating the franchise for older people too. So ... which is it?

 

Society as a whole is not as Tory as you would like...

No.

 

Your arguments involve invalidating the franchise for older people too. So ... which is it?

 

Society as a whole is not as Tory as you would like...

 

If you mean these : At 16 you can get married, have a job, pay taxes, have your own house etc and all without a say in the policies that govern all of that. At 17 you can drive, before you can vote on the policies that impact that right.

 

Those were posted by Silas Frokner, not me.

No, your arguments towards why people should not hve the vote also implied older voters should not have it...

No, your arguments towards why people should not hve the vote also implied older voters should not have it...

 

I'm afraid that implication was only in your head, since you already know I have no problem with older people voting.

I don't think driving at 17 is the best example to support your case - why do you think insurance for young drivers is so high... :rolleyes:

Because they are inexperienced and as a result of that are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident.

 

Young women have more accidents than young men, but at lower speeds causing less damage. Young men are more likely to be involved in a high speed accident. They simply lack the years under their belt to know better. Arguably there are better ways to resolve this through better driver training programmes that start earlier at school in controlled environments.

 

As was very kindly pointed out by popchartfreak, the next highest insurance bracket is for the elderly. They are statistically more likely to have an accident because they cannot react as quickly as a young person and their faculties have deteriorated to the point where they should not be allowed to drive.

 

 

Your response to me that this was a bad example to bring up because young people have more accidents, then to respond to John that his old people example is Apples & Oranges is bullshit. It's a valid equivalency. You are implying that 17 year olds cannot vote because they are more likely to have an accident. Statistically so are old people. Therefore your argument supports the removal of the vote from that age group also.

 

I do support that, but that's because I'm fed up of coffin dodgers f***ing up my future when they'll be dead before the backwards thing they just voted for is put into action.

Because they are inexperienced and as a result of that are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident.

 

Young women have more accidents than young men, but at lower speeds causing less damage. Young men are more likely to be involved in a high speed accident. They simply lack the years under their belt to know better. Arguably there are better ways to resolve this through better driver training programmes that start earlier at school in controlled environments.

 

As was very kindly pointed out by popchartfreak, the next highest insurance bracket is for the elderly. They are statistically more likely to have an accident because they cannot react as quickly as a young person and their faculties have deteriorated to the point where they should not be allowed to drive.

 

But OTOH they do have to renew their licence every 3 years after age 70.

 

But in any case, their accidents tend not to be caused by irresponsibility - driving too fast for example.

 

Your response to me that this was a bad example to bring up because young people have more accidents, then to respond to John that his old people example is Apples & Oranges is bullshit. It's a valid equivalency. You are implying that 17 year olds cannot vote because they are more likely to have an accident. Statistically so are old people. Therefore your argument supports the removal of the vote from that age group also.

Perhaps I should have emphasised the irresponsibility aspect - voting doesn't do harm like a car accident does.

 

I do support that, but that's because I'm fed up of coffin dodgers f***ing up my future when they'll be dead before the backwards thing they just voted for is put into action.

 

surely you're not suggesting they shouldn't have voted, just because they voted the 'wrong' way? :o

I'm afraid that implication was only in your head, since you already know I have no problem with older people voting.

 

Wrong.

 

Your arguments literally COULD be used to deny older people the vote. The irony is you don't see it...

Wrong.

 

Your arguments literally COULD be used to deny older people the vote. The irony is you don't see it...

 

I can see how my words could be twisted to suggest that - that's the most I'll concede.

But OTOH they do have to renew their licence every 3 years after age 70.

 

But in any case, their accidents tend not to be caused by irresponsibility - driving too fast for example.

 

Perhaps I should have emphasised the irresponsibility aspect - voting doesn't do harm like a car accident does.

surely you're not suggesting they shouldn't have voted, just because they voted the 'wrong' way? :o

 

1. Renewed licences do not involve being tested again. Just a declaration.

2. You are twisting the basic principle which has already been established. That having accidents is no basis for arguing for or against voting. A 17-year-old can be better informed than a 77-year-old, but they can't vote. If you are mature and aware enough to start your own business, have kids, go to work, then you are mature enough to read papers and work out what is going on in politics. Pretty sure I was well-informed at 16 (I did a GCSE O level in British Constitution, for a start, which meant I was better informed than half the population at that time).

 

Not every 16-year-old will be, of course, but then not every 65-year-old is either.

 

There really is no valid argument otherwise that I can think of...

1. Renewed licences do not involve being tested again. Just a declaration.

2. You are twisting the basic principle which has already been established. That having accidents is no basis for arguing for or against voting. A 17-year-old can be better informed than a 77-year-old, but they can't vote. If you are mature and aware enough to start your own business, have kids, go to work, then you are mature enough to read papers and work out what is going on in politics. Pretty sure I was well-informed at 16 (I did a GCSE O level in British Constitution, for a start, which meant I was better informed than half the population at that time).

 

Not every 16-year-old will be, of course, but then not every 65-year-old is either.

 

There really is no valid argument otherwise that I can think of...

 

1. AIUI, if they have a significant accident, they*are* retested - and if they don't have an accident, then what's the problem?

 

2. It's not about the *fact* of having accidents, but the reasons for it. IMO yhe age of majority is set at 18 as a compromise between maturity & inexperience. I believed I was mature enough at 18 to vote, but with hindsight I can see that in some ways I wasn't. The point being that only an outside observer can really judge whether someone is as mature as they claim to be.

1. AIUI, if they have a significant accident, they*are* retested - and if they don't have an accident, then what's the problem?

 

2. It's not about the *fact* of having accidents, but the reasons for it. IMO yhe age of majority is set at 18 as a compromise between maturity & inexperience. I believed I was mature enough at 18 to vote, but with hindsight I can see that in some ways I wasn't. The point being that only an outside observer can really judge whether someone is as mature as they claim to be.

 

1. Because everyone assumes they are better drivers than they are, especially older drivers in denial at their decline. I've seen it many many times. They have accidents because they THINK they are good drivers, just like young overly-confident people. If everyone who wasn't a good driver voluntarily gave up driving then there would be virtually no accidents. that isn't the case times millions every year. That's the problem.

 

2. Voting is nothing to do with maturity - some people never mature, regardless of age, and take no interest in politics and current events, but they still have the vote. I was mature enough to vote at 16, certainly more mature to vote than I was for other life-stuff i had no inkling of. Now you might argue, to take the more logical point of view, that most would see the world differently not generally having to go out and work and deal with the shitty aspects of life that parents deal with - and that might be a valid argument, but for the fact that older people also view the world from how well they are treated by society and that affects their judgement. In terms of ability to process and gather information? No difference between 16 and 18 and 21. Emotionally? Yes. But as I said that varies between individuals, and outside observers wouldnt have the slightest idea on whether or not someone is "mature" enough to be allowed to vote. So unless you are suggesting no-one be allowed to vote without some sort of "sane" certificate, then you are on the road to a) nowhere (immaturity doesn't exclude you from voting any more than advancing senility does). or b) the end of democracy (control of population by the government)

2. Voting is nothing to do with maturity - some people never mature, regardless of age, and take no interest in politics and current events, but they still have the vote. I was mature enough to vote at 16, certainly more mature to vote than I was for other life-stuff i had no inkling of. Now you might argue, to take the more logical point of view, that most would see the world differently not generally having to go out and work and deal with the shitty aspects of life that parents deal with - and that might be a valid argument, but for the fact that older people also view the world from how well they are treated by society and that affects their judgement. In terms of ability to process and gather information? No difference between 16 and 18 and 21. Emotionally? Yes. But as I said that varies between individuals, and outside observers wouldnt have the slightest idea on whether or not someone is "mature" enough to be allowed to vote.

 

One aspect I don't think has been covered, at least not sufficiently, is the influence of others - parents, peers, teachers, etc. They can all have an significant influence on young minds, which is why a certain level of emotional maturity is needed to distinguish between benign & malignant influences.

 

So unless you are suggesting no-one be allowed to vote without some sort of "sane" certificate, then you are on the road to a) nowhere (immaturity doesn't exclude you from voting any more than advancing senility does). or b) the end of democracy (control of population by the government)

 

Quite the contrary - on Usenet I have always strongly resisted the idea of franchise by examination.

 

Here is a Yougov article on voting age - it's some years old, but IMO still relevant : https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/02/15/and-ag...ing-voting-age/

The Sun, DailyMail etc has an EVEN BIGGER INFLUENCE, ESPECIALLY ON THE ELDERLY!!

 

My god the right wing have decimated the world.

 

Time for them to go.