I don't buy that at all.

 

So your argument against extending the voting franchise is mainly because you feel that the only reason it is being done is to lean on the scales in favour of more progressive parties? So if someone could persuade you that this is a false premise you'd maybe consider the case for it? Many in the Conservative party thought that introducing voter ID would help build an advantage for them but we have seen from recent local elections that it just hasn't made any difference at all, and if anything it may have even had the opposite effect and backfired on them. That was never a serious argument against introducing it for me, but I'm still against the policy for voter ID as I feel it disenfranchises potential voters.

 

Anyone who thinks that extending the franchise to those 16 and older will mean a permanent Labour government or progressive alliance is sorely mistaken, just because at the moment there is much greater support for progressive, left of center parties by younger ppl that doesn't mean it will always hold. In 1983 42% of 18-24 year olds voted for the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, and only 33% voted Labour. The extreme polarisation between generations at the moment has far deeper roots into things like the wider inequalties in society, housing crisis etc.

 

The problem when the voting age was reduced to 18 from 21 in 1969 was that the political education to inform the new electorate was not introduced to go with it. If this policy was seriously brought in then I think it would have to be with a number of other measures including informing and educating children about the responsiblity of having the vote, this would drive greater engagement with the political system and society in general and I feel like it would show immense trust and respect to the young ppl of this country.

 

The 'you get more right wing as you age' meme has been broken for some time, I feel like I'm going the opposite way. I was much more Lib Dem in my younger years but have become more economically left wing as I've got older.

I guess any minimum age is arbitrary to some extent. If you think it should be 16 why not 13? If it should stay at 18 why should it be that and not 21? And of course there are plenty of 16 year olds who think more maturely than adults and there’s no age at which someone suddenly becomes “ready”.

 

That said I kind of feel that children shouldn’t vote and that adulthood doesn’t start until 18 minimum. My first political thought aged 8 was that the tories should win because blue was my favourite colour (although I couldn’t understand why they weren’t called the blue party when the green party were correctly named). Of course by 16 I’d moved on from there but had I really developed enough independent thinking? I doubt it.

I don't buy that at all.

 

So your argument against extending the voting franchise is mainly because you feel that the only reason it is being done is to lean on the scales in favour of more progressive parties? So if someone could persuade you that this is a false premise you'd maybe consider the case for it? Many in the Conservative party thought that introducing voter ID would help build an advantage for them but we have seen from recent local elections that it just hasn't made any difference at all, and if anything it may have even had the opposite effect and backfired on them. That was never a serious argument against introducing it for me, but I'm still against the policy for voter ID as I feel it disenfranchises potential voters.

 

Anyone who thinks that extending the franchise to those 16 and older will mean a permanent Labour government or progressive alliance is sorely mistaken, just because at the moment there is much greater support for progressive, left of center parties by younger ppl that doesn't mean it will always hold. In 1983 42% of 18-24 year olds voted for the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, and only 33% voted Labour. The extreme polarisation between generations at the moment has far deeper roots into things like the wider inequalties in society, housing crisis etc.

 

The problem when the voting age was reduced to 18 from 21 in 1969 was that the political education to inform the new electorate was not introduced to go with it. If this policy was seriously brought in then I think it would have to be with a number of other measures including informing and educating children about the responsiblity of having the vote, this would drive greater engagement with the political system and society in general and I feel like it would show immense trust and respect to the young ppl of this country.

 

The 'you get more right wing as you age' meme has been broken for some time, I feel like I'm going the opposite way. I was much more Lib Dem in my younger years but have become more economically left wing as I've got older.

 

No, I gave examples in my first post of why even the existing age of 18 could be considered too young to vote. As that's the age you become an adult though the voting age of 18 is fair enough.

 

What I'm saying is the biggest argument I've seen for allowing 16/17 year old's to vote is they are more likely to agree with their point of view than the older voters who have ruined their future and will be dead soon. There are examples of this in this thread. That to me is not a reason to change it, had those same people had a different point of view to what 16/17 year old's are said to have they would probably be speaking against their right to vote.

 

I agree that extending it won't necessarily mean the outcome will drastically change, I said something to that effect in my first post when I said young people get older and change their point of view.

 

I never said you get more right wing as you age. I said that a significant number of people change their political views on certain things over time. You saying you've gone from Lib Dem to more economically left wing is an example of this.