So called "Islamic State"

16 year olds can't join the army or get married without parental permission. They can't legally watch porn. They can't go to 18 movies. Within a few years they still won't be out of compulsory education. None of those things strike me as being particularly adult like.

I grew up fairly politically educated, I watched the news and researched politics and things. Looking back now at 21, when I was 16 I was nowhere near responsible enough to vote. 16 and 17 year olds think they're adults, just as all teenagers think they know best. The reality just isn't true.

However, I think it's a duty to politically educate youngsters, making politics a mandatory subject in school. I've heard it said that perhaps we should introduce compulsory voting for first time voters, to foster that responsibility early on.

 

I'm completely against compulsory voting.

If someone only votes because they're compelled to do so, the chances of them actually putting any effort into researching or understanding what they're voting for is almost certainly close to nil.

Better they don't vote at all.

 

I agree completely. That's the worry of the 16 and 17 year olds voting. Populism would be rife.

 

Adolescents

The scientific view. Look at the evidence. They were engaged, got informed and participated against all the warnings beforehand. Live with it. Kids grow up earlier now (partly due to their better diet!). Don't come over all 'I'm an adult and I know better' kinda stuff. The world moves on.

 

Seriously, what evidence, apart from just a few shown on TV, etc?

 

How is having the option to vote the same as being legally encouraged to have sex? How do you even legally encourage someone to have sex? Tax breaks?

 

Compulsory voting? Mmm. Seems to work in Oz. But they have an abstention box. And you can still 'spoil' your ballot paper. All you're required to do is turn up on the day or get a minimalist fine. 20 Oz dollars I think whatever that equates to in real money ...

 

Zzt

Care to offer me any real evidence on which particular age-group might be more involved then?

 

I take it you've not seen an episode of that BBC3 youth question time programme.

 

Gotta drive ...

 

Last consensus had 15-19 as being 6.3% of the population. Assuming an even spread from 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, that's about 2.52% of the population. So assuming everyone who is eligible in that section votes, we're looking at a minimal impact on the electoral process. When you consider as well that in the first past the post system, this won't ever translate as an equivalent rise for 'populist' parties.
The benefits would be civic participation and politicisation of young people and more engagement from political parties on policies which would inherently be future facing.
The negatives, people who you think are uninformed have the vote to choose between three parties who are identical! (Although if the way people on Scottish thread were so confident in their information to attribute the actions of the electoral commission to salmond, that's not an age specific issue).

 

I disagree that strictly follows my logic. But certainly, if you're not allowed to vote then I don't think you should be obliged to pay taxes

 

By lowering the age of consent?

 

No I can't. that is why I would rather keep the status quo.

It was you that said "look at the evidence". I was just asking where it is, so I can look!

 

i'm legally allowed to buy a horse. i would never say i'm legally encouraged to buy one though.

obviously though, if lowering the age of voting is analogous to making small children have sex, then i'm against it

 

I'm not sure "oh they wont make an impact anyway" is a solid argument, however true it may be.

I think it could be a good idea provided they are adequately politically educated, and things like policies were more accessible. A simple website with bullet points of each parties policies would be a start. But political education, starting with the Ancient Greek city states, and the athenian model of democracy, through to Rousseau, Burke, Lock, Hobbes etc. The basics of political theory of liberalism, and conservatism, nationalism, feminism, ecologism, anarchism, socialism, communism, fascism etc etc. Education about the processes of acts of parliament, the separation of the executive, legislature and judiciary. The different forms of monarchy, representative democracy, direct democracy, totalitarianism, dictators, the political spectrum, authoritarianism and libertarianism. Political parties, pressure groups, lobbying. Encouraging kids to read papers, and to discuss current affairs is great.

There's an quite a bit to learn, but why not start young. You could teach it twice over if you started in the first year of secondary school. It certainly can't hurt teaching it.

 

i'm not sure "oh but they won't vote for acceptable parties" is a solid argument anyway.

but of course if they learn the same things you did, then they'll be gems. politically informed and well rounded citizens

 

It's more of a uninformed argument than a wont vote for acceptable parties argument I think.

I didn't learn those things until A level and university. I'd say i'm far from being perfectly politically informed but it's an interest. I'm not sure how informed others my age are. I don't claim to know what I'm talking about, it's purely opinion.

But thanks for calling me a gem sweetie. :love2::love2::love2:

 

Getting driven - lucky me. The point around age of majority isn't whether as an 'adult' you're more informed and therefore better qualified to vote. It's whether younger people now mature more quickly than many on this forum did and are informed in their own way and from their young perspective. All age groups have their own agenda. Pensioners don't have the same agenda as the working population. Would anyone on here deny the over 60/65s a vote? Personally, I'm all for one age of majority for everything. But what should it be?

 

no problem! similar to the minimum wage thread, people have a gut reaction (it's bad!) without looking at the numbers (2% of people affected) and the results in other countries (http://www.jungestimmen.eu/files/downloads/factsheet_vote@16_EN.pdf - purely positive in Austria, Brazil, Germany and Norway). The experience in other countries show that young people consistently make decisions based on available information, demand full engagement of mainstream political parties and become more civivally involved as a result People complain that they won't know what they're doing or will vote for 'populist parties' and even if we were to ignore the evidence from other societies and were to assume the worst in our young people, again, it's 2% of the people. At most!
And from an ideological standpoint, as a society should we not be looking to enfranchise as many citizens as possible?

 

A few points but I can't be bothered to go back and quote particular areas.

Re. America. Certainly not it's biggest fan, but they have a tough job. They have the military power to take over the world and are often looked to for protection. If they do nothing, it is America's fault. If they do something, it is America's fault. I refuse to believe that any decision post Iraq has not been ridiculously scrutinised, and I will not be distrustful of the current government just because of the horrific mistakes of a past President, who quite possibly had the IQ of a tadpole.

In regards to the US always picking on the 'left', well most dictators are technically left wing, as they believe in more rather than less state intervention and power. I don't really hold much regard for the 'left' and 'right' wing labels, as I would argue that extreme right and left wings have more in common than left and right of centre in many ways, hence the current UKIP voter demographic. I actually think that David Cameron is one of the most 'central' Conservative Prime Ministers we have had, certainly far more so than someone like Barack Obama who is perceived on the left.

Labour wants us to lower the voting age because they believe it will give them more votes. Generally, and I am making a massive generalisation but looking at voting statistics, those who have earned their money (i.e. those thriving in their careers or those who have already retired and want to protect what they have) vote for the Conservatives.

I am totally against compulsory voting because I think it is a dangerous precedent for the state to tell us what to do. If they can tell us when we have to vote, couldn't they intimidate us in other ways?

"Kids grow up earlier now (partly due to their better diet!)" is a fantastic quote. Actually laughed at that one. Yes, they literally grow taller, but emotionally are probably protected more than ever in their lifetime. Childhoods are so sheltered now, going straight from school to getting paid (well a loan) to get p!ssed for three years. If you see someone straight out of University in a real job, it is laughable. I should know, it was me a couple of years ago. I agree that it was only after University that I felt I understood the world enough to vote, as before then I genuinely believed that the Conservatives didn't want to help the poor and that Gordon Brown was a great Chancellor.

The Anders Breivik bit was very interesting. Funnily enough, I have been reading a book about Norway and Sweden (I know, I'm a bundle of laughs); I found it hilarious that Scotland continuously referenced those two countries as the countries they would most like to be like. Well, they have been fantastic at creating a Socialist Libertarian society which has been incredibly successful (both from a capitalist standpoint, as well as from an equality standpoint). But a large amount of it's success has occurred because the countries have historically been incredibly homogenous.

Now they are starting to receive immigrants from the Muslim world, and they really do not like it. Actually, they hate it. 10% of Swedes voted in the equivalent of the BNP in their recent election. Anders Breivik isn't the only Norwegian who hates Multiculturalism, and that in fact the world has to force these conservatives into being more liberal like themselves. Which actually, makes them far less liberal than previously thought. They have been happy to pay very high rates of tax because they knew that the vast majority pay in and use services equally, but clearly now all is changing. The UK, with its mass immigration should be celebrated for actually being one of the most liberal and successfully integrated countries in the world in this regard.

I know that last bit had nothing really to do with your point. I actually do not know what your point was, I just thought I'd bring up something that interested me

 

You are old enough to pay taxes from the minute you are born , it depends on earnings not age. If someone gives you enough money as a nest egg, it is liable to tax.

So, why reduce it to only 16 then?

 

Indeed, things ought to be based on evidence, and sufficient reason to do it.

The pros are as you said,, civic involvement, greater participation, and parties more concerned with policies which are good for young people. However, those could all be achieved through better political education and participation in pressure groups and charities, and discussion. If it happened it wouldn't be a tragedy however I don't believe there's such a pressing need for it yet, because other options of youth political participation haven't been explored yet.

Theres always the question about why not lower it below 16. Where exactly is the cut off, and where ought it be? It brings up many other questions such if 16 year olds are responsible enough to vote, they should be responsible enough to join the army or get married, both without parental consent. All interesting questions which the response is usually, there has to be a cut off somewhere.

Let us encourage political education, and see how that affects young peoples interest in politics, before giving them the vote. Sometimes this is reduced to the idea of "let young people prove they deserve the vote."

 

fair point. lets set the age of consent to 12 and the age of voting to 3 months! the fan/zz top ticket starts now!

or possibly increase the age of consent to 30 (and married) and the voting to 50 (and a home owner). We haven't figured out the kinks yet

 

The point is you make a comment that if someone can pay taxes then they are old enough to vote! So thanks for demonstrating how daft that comment is.

 

Back on topic to some extent, why is it so often commented about how some civilian deaths are women and children. Why not just say 30 people died today. Why is a womans life inherently more noteworthy than a man? Why is a childs life intrinsically worth more than an adult?

 

i stand by my quote. if someone is old enough to pay taxes, they should vote. if you can find a baby who pays taxes, then they should have the vote too.

EDIT: just saw the nest egg tax bit. My opinion would be to not tax children. but if they're going to be taxed, then yes, let's give them a vote. i'd be surprised if many babies exercised this option though.

 

Makes better news. People naturally assume that women and children are more innocent and have less means of defending themselves.

A child's life is worth more as the shorter your life, the choices you have been able to make and so the less control you have had on escaping your fate. Also, clearly experiences mean something to us as humans: to die without knowing love or having a family is to not really understand (what we see as) the most important thing about being human.

 

Christ on a bike if you don't chill out you'll do yourself an injury. I'm not going to apologise for every joke, remark or comment I make so learn to live with it or just don't read it. If I'm ever out of line the mods will pick me up.

Right onto some facts. I don't hate the Scots. I do think the English get a raw deal from the union. I think Salmond is a to55er. I wouldn't screw his sidekick of a bint if she was the last female on earth. I dislike the SNP. In case that appears anti Scottish it's not, I also dislike the BNP. I like Scotland. Edinburgh is one of my favourite cities. I dislike Haggis. I like shortbread. I once bought a jumper from the Edinburgh woollen mill. I have nothing against 17 yo A level students. I particularly like the ones with long legs and big t*ts although its been decades since one was realistically in my age range. I don't want a 17 yo A level student to be prime minister. I don't want a prime minister who looks like a 17 yo A level student. Unless they have long legs and big t*ts.

I hope that has cleared up any confusion.

 

Mike - You are all over the place.

 

Indeed.

Theoretically though children leave fewer people devastated at their loss. They have fewer friends, fewer lovers etc. People often say when someone commits suicide it was selfish people of the number of people left behind suffering with the loss, so we clearly do place some value of the amount of suffering their loss will cause. Often children won't know what love is or things like that so you can't miss something you don't have. Society doesn't make the same case for abortion though about a child's lack of experiences. If the fetus' lack of future experiences is more valuable than an adults, then why do we say that the woman's rights trump the fetus'. Not saying I agree with this but it's interesting to think about.

Saying 30 people were killed, of which 20 were women and children will grab more headlines than just 30 people died.

 

Godfather....I couldnt agree more. But theres oil at stake here. Plenty of it and thats why the West is getting involved.

 

L.t c.68. Well I'll leave others to judge who's chilled and who's ranting ... Thought you were gonna ignore me anyway. It appears not. Maybe we should pick the next P.M. on cup size then ... Alex Salmond is the most competent politician in the UK - discuss. As for his side-kick -you'd not have a chance there either anyway despite her modest cup-size. Every time I give you the benefit of the doubt you go off on one again and confirm you're a **** ...

 

Take a chill pill bro, my mans doing a 2 for 1 offer at the mo, so twice the high, for the price of one, innit.

 

It's a human problem that calls for human solutions.