The decision by Labour's national policy forum, a group of delegates from constituency parties, trade unions and MPs, to include in Labour's manifesto a pledge to reduce the voting age to 16.

Are 16 year old’s capable of voting for a Political party? Can they be trusted to put an “X” in a box? :)

Edited August 3, 200816 yr by brian91

They can't be trusted to vote for an act with a modicum of talent (coughs Leon Jackson) to win X-Factor, let alone a General Election.

 

If Labour want to push this through, then they need to replace that Gordon Brown with that "blates well fit" David Milliband to stand a chance of picking up voters. :lol:

No chance, BAD move. Although obviously there will be some responsible people in the 16-18 group, the majority will either

1.) Be all too easily influenced by the tabloid media, and Rupert Murdoch becomes even more powerful than he is already.

2.) Won't vote at all.

No it really shouldn't. I know a lot of people say we ALL should vote, but the fact is a lot of young people don't care. When they get to 18, maybe they change, but i'd say easily over 70% of 16 year olds don't care about politics. Fact is also, young people are also too easy to manipulate. I myself have no interest in voting and i'm 18 soon, purely for the fact all of the main parties are dreadful.

On the one hand, we need as many people to vote as possible. I personally don't think you've got a right to complain about one single thing if you don't bother to vote and change what you don't like. And opening it up to 16+ would give a larger opportunity of people the chance to vote - and maybe they would.

 

But, as people have said, young people can be manipulated so maybe it's not the best idea.

They should be given two options

 

1) You can vote at 16, but take a mandatory voter's education course.

2) Wait until you're older

 

 

Ha ha ha! I've met LOADS of 16 year olds who I would trust to vote sensibly and with all options weighed up. Unfortunately I can't say the same for a lot of 'older' people who are arguably even more swayed by the media and flavour of the month policies.

 

Yes, extend the francise I say - those who want to vote will and the apathetic majority won't. At least give them the chance.

No chance, BAD move. Although obviously there will be some responsible people in the 16-18 group, the majority will either

1.) Be all too easily influenced by the tabloid media, and Rupert Murdoch becomes even more powerful than he is already.

2.) Won't vote at all.

 

Er, and exactly how does this not apply to the majority of numpties out there aged 18+....? :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, dont accept either yours or Richard's arguments as being good reasons to NOT allow 16-year olds to vote as both arguments can be easily applied to so-called "informed adults"....

 

A 16 year old is considered legally responsible to get married and raise a kid... Well, if they're legally "mature" enough for that sort of responsibility, then they should be allowed a say in their kid's future through the ballot box.....

 

But, as people have said, young people can be manipulated so maybe it's not the best idea.

 

Oh, come on Andrew, older voters can be just as easily manipulated, that aint any kind of argument.... How else do you explain Thatcher, Major, B-Liar, etc.... And if we were to transpose this to America.... JESUS, how else do you explain George fukkin' Bush getting a second term......?

 

In fact, how else do you explain the fact that the bloody Tabloid Media seems to be the major influence on the voting habits of the majority of this country, not to mention the fact that it's through this incredibly dubious source that the majority gain their information .... <_<

16 year olds who work pay tax so I don't see why they should not have a say in how and where that tax is spent by having a vote

They should be given two options

 

1) You can vote at 16, but take a mandatory voter's education course.

No offence but thats the kind of thing the press would REALLY slam. It'd be bad for whatever goverment decides to do that.

 

I'm 14 and i consider myself responsible. Once i start paying proper taxes by working and legally aloud to get married etc at 16 then i think it'd be fair that i have the maturity to vote. Plus if voters are easily manipulated, the parties will start making ridiculous promises, and when they fail to keep them the media will slam them and the supposedly easily manipulated young people will be swayed by the media. Though thats a bit distorted.

Edited August 5, 200816 yr by Harve

16 year olds who work pay tax so I don't see why they should not have a say in how and where that tax is spent by having a vote

 

A rare thing folks - Me and Craig in 100% agreement..... :lol: :lol:

 

Oh, come on Andrew, older voters can be just as easily manipulated, that aint any kind of argument....

 

You're right - but I'm thinking more of manipulation AIMED at young voters, such as the proposed Lib Dem promises to get rid of tuition fees - a promise made the summer before I went to Uni! If I was voting, it would probably have swayed me into voting LD, when actually I don't believe in all of their ideas. But, that is just one example, and you're completely right to say that everyone is manipulated, and so really it is a bit of a non-point.

 

Generally though, I think this IS a good idea. As Richie and Harve have said - I know a lot of under 18's who I would trust to vote more than a lot of irresponsible 40 year olds.

Are 16 year old’s capable of voting for a Political party? Can they be trusted to put an “X” in a box? :)

Yes.

 

 

No chance, BAD move. Although obviously there will be some responsible people in the 16-18 group, the majority will either

1.) Be all too easily influenced by the tabloid media, and Rupert Murdoch becomes even more powerful than he is already.

2.) Won't vote at all.

Both are true. :cry: However for the majority of existing voters both are true. So what is the difference?

Personally I'd be happy if the age limit was reduced even further. Most 16 to 18 year olds are sensible responsible people - well as sensible as those over 18 anyway.

Edited August 5, 200816 yr by Justin Credible

Why shouldn't it? Anybody shallow enough to vote based on looks etc. probably wouldn't care that much about politics - and the very few that did wouldn't exactly have much of an effect. I'm not sure about the widespread trend, but in my experience most people around my age tend to be quite sceptical of what the newspapers, especially the tabloids, have to say; and yet again, those that probably do believe everything that The Sun/Daily Mail/etc. tells them probably don't care that much about politics - as is the case with many of their elders. Just because most wouldn't use the privelege of the vote is no argument for not letting the few that would! And being a frequent reader of this forum, I think Crazy Chris's frequent posts show that grown adults are just as easily manipulated by the media as teenagers possibly are - if anything, the few that would vote would probably be the ones that made an informed decision about it!

Why shouldn't it? Anybody shallow enough to vote based on looks etc. probably wouldn't care that much about politics - and the very few that did wouldn't exactly have much of an effect. I'm not sure about the widespread trend, but in my experience most people around my age tend to be quite sceptical of what the newspapers, especially the tabloids, have to say; and yet again, those that probably do believe everything that The Sun/Daily Mail/etc. tells them probably don't care that much about politics - as is the case with many of their elders. Just because most wouldn't use the privelege of the vote is no argument for not letting the few that would! And being a frequent reader of this forum, I think Crazy Chris's frequent posts show that grown adults are just as easily manipulated by the media as teenagers possibly are - if anything, the few that would vote would probably be the ones that made an informed decision about it!

Good post.

Just to correct one thing - Generally the Sun/Daily Mail readers vote in big numbers so unfortunately you can't dismiss them.

I'd also add is that younger people tend to be more impressional. That's not necessarily a bad thing but if your input is through a limited source of media(or all media from the same perspective) then those could easily get misled. Saying that there are plenty of oldies(including those on this forum) that have been greatly mislead and now are fixed in there misleading view of the world. So on balance adding 16 to 18 year old would make the election results slightly better.

By that reference I was referring to teenagers that read the aforementioned papers, although in retrospect they possibly could care quite a bit about politics if they made an active decision to buy The Mail/Express :lol: Either way, voter apathy should never be an excuse. And before anybody brings up the whole 'life experience' argument, I don't think anybody could say 2 years doing a different set of exams really gives much experience!

By that reference I was referring to teenagers that read the aforementioned papers, although in retrospect they possibly could care quite a bit about politics if they made an active decision to buy The Mail/Express :lol: Either way, voter apathy should never be an excuse. And before anybody brings up the whole 'life experience' argument, I don't think anybody could say 2 years doing a different set of exams really gives much experience!

Voter apathy can be a good thing.

When the policical options are limited then voter apathy goes up. What I am getting at is that it's more a sign of poor candidates rather then poor voters when fewer people vote.

The point I was getting at was that voter apathy amongst teenagers is a common reason (and logical fallacy) that teens shouldn't get the vote :P

The point I was getting at was that voter apathy amongst teenagers is a common reason (and logical fallacy) that teens shouldn't get the vote :P

Yes, agree. As is the 'life experience' argument.