ChatterBank2 mins ago
Voting Age Lowered To Sixteen, Does Anyone Think It's A Good Idea?
This is what the Liberal Democrats are proposing, only because they think they will hoover up all their votes. It's actually very unfair because the vast majority will not be working so will not be paying any tax or national insurance so why should they get a vote, ie have a say on public spending? They are bound to vote for a party who promises free services for this that and the other as they are not contributing.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If we're going down the "young people aren't yet mature enough to make a responsible decision" route, should we not restrict voting to those with, say, appropriate qualifications? Or perhaps at least we should make sure that all voters have read the manifesto and demonstrated an ability to understand and critically evaluate it.
Or maybe that's all just stupid, and we're mixing up the *responsibility* to vote with an informed choice with the *right* to have a say in the democratic process. And once that's settled, it becomes entirely arbitrary whether it's 18 or 16 or any other age.
Again, I can't say it bothers me one way or the other. But trying to argue that it can't be 16 because of some generalisation that such people aren't mature enough or informed enough, while overlooking that so are rather a large number of adults -- or, worse, trying to argue that you shouldn't allow a bunch of lefties to vote -- is just mistaken reasoning.
Let it be 18, or 16, because either answer is entirely arbitrary, and equally justifiable.
Or maybe that's all just stupid, and we're mixing up the *responsibility* to vote with an informed choice with the *right* to have a say in the democratic process. And once that's settled, it becomes entirely arbitrary whether it's 18 or 16 or any other age.
Again, I can't say it bothers me one way or the other. But trying to argue that it can't be 16 because of some generalisation that such people aren't mature enough or informed enough, while overlooking that so are rather a large number of adults -- or, worse, trying to argue that you shouldn't allow a bunch of lefties to vote -- is just mistaken reasoning.
Let it be 18, or 16, because either answer is entirely arbitrary, and equally justifiable.
My point is, Kromo, that in my view 16 year olds are too young to get married, or join the army, or vote - you reach the majority in the UK at 18, and therefore that is when, in my view, the privileges of adulthood are bestowed.
Do you not find it absurd that a 16 year old can get married and join the army, but cannot buy a pint in a pub or legally contract? Because I do.
By the way, the army and married argument is the very definition of 'hackneyed' because they are always raised in this debate and overused. Being hackneyed may not make them untrue, but just because they are not untrue doesn't mean they are not hackneyed.
Do you not find it absurd that a 16 year old can get married and join the army, but cannot buy a pint in a pub or legally contract? Because I do.
By the way, the army and married argument is the very definition of 'hackneyed' because they are always raised in this debate and overused. Being hackneyed may not make them untrue, but just because they are not untrue doesn't mean they are not hackneyed.
-- answer removed --
One draws a line somewhere. It is possible some *individuals* never reach a stage where they are good at weighing things up and making a decision; but it's unreasonable/impractical to try to prevent the odd few that is true for, from voting. But this isn't about individuals, it's about an age related group, and when it makes sense to say they are old enough for the responsibility. So this concern regarding older folk not being capable is a big "red herring". The argument remains the same. Voting is for adults.
So perhaps we can discuss something less clear cut instead. Such as is the Earth flat, or did God create the heavens and Earth in less than an Earth week ?
So perhaps we can discuss something less clear cut instead. Such as is the Earth flat, or did God create the heavens and Earth in less than an Earth week ?
-- answer removed --
The few elderly who survive yet lose their mentality, are hardly in sufficient numbers to sway an election. I'm unsure of the exact rules but aren't those with mental issues barred from voting anyway ? Plus many of that small group won't be bothered voting, those that do, many will vote for a party they always have and so are no different to other loyal party supporters. Those that can be manipulated/swayed to vote for some disastrous choice will be vanishingly small.
On the other hand a whole generation of inexperienced young voters being added at once, open to any convincing argument no matter how impractical or simply wrong, that's a different ball game.
Older voter scrutinisation is simply not worth the effort to avoid any small amount of wayward voting; it can not be compared to a discussion on at which age voting rights should be given, and is just a distraction.
On the other hand a whole generation of inexperienced young voters being added at once, open to any convincing argument no matter how impractical or simply wrong, that's a different ball game.
Older voter scrutinisation is simply not worth the effort to avoid any small amount of wayward voting; it can not be compared to a discussion on at which age voting rights should be given, and is just a distraction.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.