I'd suggest constant stress is too much for youngsters' brains, rather than the content.

 

They are more informed than the 60 year olds who get their opinion from the BBTory, Daily Mail, etc. Or are we all supposed to believe anti-semitisim in the Labour party just happened to DISAPPEAR after the local elections? Not a single story on it even on the BBC afterwards. Ho hmm. Muslim Council wanted an investigation into Tory anti-semitism too, but BBC ignored that. With teenagers eschewing the biased media and print, they are likely better informed than those who partake of it!!

 

Voting age should be taken way down, especially since the Tories like authoritarian slavish decisions following simple binary split polls that will affect us for years to come.

Yeah, unlike the EXTREMELY BIASED UK right wing media has absolutely NOOO influence on people and convinces millions who probably shouldn't vote Tory to um vote for the Landed Gentry

 

Voting should be from 15 at the latest

As opposed to the full grown adults who just parrot verbatim lies from the Mail and Sun?

As opposed to the full grown adults who just parrot verbatim lies from the Mail and Sun?

 

That's about the most predictable response I've ever seen here. ;)

As opposed to the full grown adults who just parrot verbatim lies from the Mail and Sun?

 

You realise there's no guarantee they'll see things the 'right' way, no matter how carefully/impartially things are explained to them?

I'm not suggesting it, I am saying it outright - I don't think 16-17yo's should be allowed to vote - IMO they can be too easily swayed by parental/peer/media pressure at that age.

 

So what you want is for everyone to be denied a vote until they can prove they arent swayed by things such as "facts" (parents who hold an opinion are presumably old enough to have reached that conclusion, so all they are doing - assuming 16-year-olds want to be just like their parents (which isn't my experience of 16-year-olds throughout my life, I must say) - is parroting the thoughts of someone who has already thought about the issues, provided eveidence or just made up their mind based on nothing much. In other words, what EVERYONE WHO VOTES DOES!

 

You were provided with reasonable facts on the referendum but still chose to ignore them, so one might argue older people who live in rose-tinted fantasies of a past that never existed should also be prevented from voting.

 

Personally I'd prefer an IQ test to stop morons voting on things they have no understanding of, but hey that would be just as undemocratic and just as wrong.

So what you want is for everyone to be denied a vote until they can prove they arent swayed by things such as "facts" (parents who hold an opinion are presumably old enough to have reached that conclusion, so all they are doing - assuming 16-year-olds want to be just like their parents (which isn't my experience of 16-year-olds throughout my life, I must say) - is parroting the thoughts of someone who has already thought about the issues, provided eveidence or just made up their mind based on nothing much. In other words, what EVERYONE WHO VOTES DOES!

 

Has anyone ever told you you have a rather aggressive posting style? :teresa:

 

Since it is clearly not possible to quantify something as subjective as 'maturity to vote', that's why we set an arbitrary age, independent of IQ, social status, gender, race, etc. After all, since everyone has to abide by the choices made, therefore everyone must be allowed input into them, regardless of what one may think of their motivations.

 

You were provided with reasonable facts on the referendum but still chose to ignore them, so one might argue older people who live in rose-tinted fantasies of a past that never existed should also be prevented from voting.

We were presented with two sides of an argument, I merely picked the one I supported - as is my prerogative. No-one can know for *certain* whether it was the right or wrong decision until many years down the line, but that's not a reason to not put the question in the first place. In any case, it's simply not a question that could have been dodged forever.

 

Personally I'd prefer an IQ test to stop morons voting on things they have no understanding of, but hey that would be just as undemocratic and just as wrong.

 

I'm glad to hear that, as you've often given the impression that you think Leavers votes should be discounted simply because you disagree with their choice. :thinking:

 

 

Has anyone ever told you you have a rather aggressive posting style? :teresa:

 

Since it is clearly not possible to quantify something as subjective as 'maturity to vote', that's why we set an arbitrary age, independent of IQ, social status, gender, race, etc. After all, since everyone has to abide by the choices made, therefore everyone must be allowed input into them, regardless of what one may think of their motivations.

 

We were presented with two sides of an argument, I merely picked the one I supported - as is my prerogative. No-one can know for *certain* whether it was the right or wrong decision until many years down the line, but that's not a reason to not put the question in the first place. In any case, it's simply not a question that could have been dodged forever.

I'm glad to hear that, as you've often given the impression that you think Leavers votes should be discounted simply because you disagree with their choice. :thinking:

 

Thanks. I like Upper Case to make a point so it's not lost on whoever I'm saying it to.

 

My that was a long sentence about maturity. Glad you think it is difficult to quantify. That means it is open to argument. Which we are doing. I can certainly vouch then many many older people have no maturity, interest in or knowledge of, politics or how things work, and the consequences of their votes - yet still they vote. Kind of negates your arguments that 17-year-olds are too immature. I'd say they are just as smart or dumb as their equivalent elders.

 

Hmmm why do you assume that my comment on IQ's is related in any way to the referendum result? We are talking about age of voting, and I specifically did not mention it. I even put a new paragraph and a large space between my previous comment on your capacity to not have good judgement when it comes to deciding who is telling the truth and who is lying using the referendum as an example. Please feel free to reply in the EU thread though, and keep this one free for comments about our feeble-minded mid-teens, many of whom are carers for disabled parents, taking advanced exams, learning to drive, working part-time, analysing Shakespeare, and getting ready for university amongst other worthless pursuits that their poor immature brains can cope with as opposed to the complex concepts involved in realising that Tories don't give a shit about them or poor people, among many others....*

 

(* or that they do care about them as they walk out of expensive Academies with swathes of A's & B's)

My that was a long sentence about maturity. Glad you think it is difficult to quantify. That means it is open to argument. Which we are doing. I can certainly vouch then many many older people have no maturity, interest in or knowledge of, politics or how things work, and the consequences of their votes - yet still they vote. Kind of negates your arguments that 17-year-olds are too immature. I'd say they are just as smart or dumb as their equivalent elders.

 

Two sentences, actually. :)

 

But there is another factor - under 18's are not adults legally - they can't be tried as adults, or bear full responsibility for contracts they sign, to name two. IF they want the right to vote at 16, then the above (and other) legal protections must end.

 

Hmmm why do you assume that my comment on IQ's is related in any way to the referendum result?

It seemed a reasonable inference.

 

We are talking about age of voting, and I specifically did not mention it. I even put a new paragraph and a large space between my previous comment on your capacity to not have good judgement when it comes to deciding who is telling the truth and who is lying using the referendum as an example. Please feel free to reply in the EU thread though, and keep this one free for comments about our feeble-minded mid-teens, many of whom are carers for disabled parents, taking advanced exams, learning to drive, working part-time, analysing Shakespeare, and getting ready for university amongst other worthless pursuits that their poor immature brains can cope with

 

Like drinking themselves into oblivion, snorting drugs, or driving like they're playing a video game? :teresa:

 

 

Two sentences, actually. :)

 

But there is another factor - under 18's are not adults legally - they can't be tried as adults, or bear full responsibility for contracts they sign, to name two. IF they want the right to vote at 16, then the above (and other) legal protections must end.

 

It seemed a reasonable inference.

Like drinking themselves into oblivion, snorting drugs, or driving like they're playing a video game? :teresa:

 

Just like older people then. I see no difference between coke-snorting 17 year olds (other than where do they get the money from?) and coke-snorting 60-year-olds (assuming they somehow have managed to live that long). Surely your argument should therefore logically be that ADDICTS should be denied the vote rather than smart 17-year-olds who know more than a large percentage of adults?

 

I was under the impression that committing crimes at 16 or 17 still got you locked up. You can have sex and raise children. many other things too, like driving. Perhaps you could convince me otherwise?

 

The main argument with regard to contracts is to prove financial responsibility, not whether they know anything about politics. You try getting a mortgage when you've defaulted on credit card loans for example, no matter how old you are. If you havent a job at 17 why would anyone give you contracts for anything? If you have a full-time job at 16 or 17 then you should be treated exactly equal as those who are older in every way.

Just like older people then. I see no difference between coke-snorting 17 year olds (other than where do they get the money from?) and coke-snorting 60-year-olds (assuming they somehow have managed to live that long). Surely your argument should therefore logically be that ADDICTS should be denied the vote rather than smart 17-year-olds who know more than a large percentage of adults?

 

I was under the impression that committing crimes at 16 or 17 still got you locked up. You can have sex and raise children. many other things too, like driving. Perhaps you could convince me otherwise?

 

The main argument with regard to contracts is to prove financial responsibility, not whether they know anything about politics. You try getting a mortgage when you've defaulted on credit card loans for example, no matter how old you are. If you havent a job at 17 why would anyone give you contracts for anything? If you have a full-time job at 16 or 17 then you should be treated exactly equal as those who are older in every way.

 

1. I'm not saying their aren't *some* irresponsible older people, only that they form a far smaller proportion of their age group than teenagers. Responsibility is something you learn mainly through experience and younger people need time to develop that.

 

2. Yes, but not in adult prisons, and they generally get lighter sentences too. Kids can produce children as young as 11 or 12, so by your logic, we should let *them* vote, too. :rolleyes:

 

3. Why are you so keen on letting 16-17's vote anyway - why not 14-15's, or even 5-6's?

I'm sure in Scotland the age of majority is 16. If it works there why not in the rest of the UK

I'm sure in Scotland the age of majority is 16. If it works there why not in the rest of the UK

 

Are 16-17's in Scotland considered full adults in the eyes of the law, or are there some areas in which they are treated differently than over-18's?

I saw that smarmy Tory Toff Tom Harwood earlier this year with his pathetic 'votes at 12' t-shirt trying to discredit and devalue the whole debate around votes at 16, for which I have become increasingly in favour of over the past few years. The arguments that are most persuasive (to me at least) are how engaged and politically active it made the 16 and 17 year-olds when it was brought in for the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014. Surely that's got to be a good thing, no?

I saw that smarmy Tory Toff Tom Harwood earlier this year with his pathetic 'votes at 12' t-shirt trying to discredit and devalue the whole debate around votes at 16, for which I have become increasingly in favour of over the past few years. The arguments that are most persuasive (to me at least) are how engaged and politically active it made the 16 and 17 year-olds when it was brought in for the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014. Surely that's got to be a good thing, no?

 

I despise those smarmy toffs. I think people should get the vote at 14, but babysteps with the Tory Toffs I suppose. 16 would be a start.

I saw that smarmy Tory Toff Tom Harwood earlier this year with his pathetic 'votes at 12' t-shirt trying to discredit and devalue the whole debate around votes at 16, for which I have become increasingly in favour of over the past few years. The arguments that are most persuasive (to me at least) are how engaged and politically active it made the 16 and 17 year-olds when it was brought in for the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014. Surely that's got to be a good thing, no?

 

But there's an anomaly here : from what I read, 75% of newly enfranchised 16-17yo's voted, but only 54% of 18-24's. I doubt 16-17's would be *more* politically aware than 18-24's, so that begs an explanation. :thinking:

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/12...ear-olds-voted/

I despise those smarmy toffs. I think people should get the vote at 14, but babysteps with the Tory Toffs I suppose. 16 would be a start.

 

I can just about see the arguments for 16-17's voting, even though it is clearly proposed mainly for political reasons - but how can you justify 14-15 yo's? :huh:

Edited June 20, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Because they were given the vote for the first time, a novel concept in history, they would then be more likely to use it.

 

Which begs the question: why haven't they been given it? One reason: the Tory right wing coup continues. The same reason why they are trialling the Republican denial of vote strategies to discourage the poor and time poor from voting.

Because they were given the vote for the first time, a novel concept in history, they would then be more likely to use it.

 

But what's to stop them slipping into apathy, once the novelty wears off?

 

Which begs the question: why haven't they been given it? One reason: the Tory right wing coup continues.

 

There is no 'right-wing coup' - the Tories were *democratically* elected.

Edited June 20, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Through the media propaganda machine, gerrymandering and an antiquated system and through a billion pounds bribe to Northern Ireland. Brexit, a flimsy majority and article 50 brought up by MAD MAY HERSELF AND NOT PARLIAMENT, is part of this coup.

 

Nothing. But doesn't matter. The rest of the population has also been left apathetic by neoliberal plutocrats ruining democracy. Those who are interested will use their votes. It doesn't matter if it enfranchises 1, 1000 or a million. What matters is they have the right.