Does anyone else agree that the voting age should be lowered to 16.

As a 16 year old myself I would say it should be as we are just as aware - if not more- about politics than many adults. You are allowed to get married at 16, and drive at 17 but you can't have any say in the way the country is ran. Is this really fair?

Im not too sure it should be lowered to below 18.Getting married doesnt affect the country so its a teeny bit diferent.
You sound plenty aware for your age though so dont get me wrong, i doubt your THAT typical.

Only if the age of military service is lowered to 16.

(assuming the legal ages for the US)

Ken - It's for the UK, I think the age for military service over here already is 16. Along with the sexual age of consent legal age of marriage. Driving age is 17.

Maybe older people will be 'shocked' into voting and with all the 16-yr-olds voting, you'll probably get a higher turnout and votes going away from the Big 3

Yeah the militay service age is 16.

I'm not sure i agree. Most 16 year olds are still at school and therefore many(although i'm aware not all) major policies will not effect them, however i suppose i base this largely on the fact that they dont work/have bills etc. to pay for which -in part- applies to many students(myself included) and people who are unemployed for a long period of time. Mostly what fills me with doubt though is thinking back to when i was 16..or even when i was 17.. and realising that most people around me, my age were incapable of making any decision for a valid reason at all, . No wait, in fact thinking of now, when i'm 18, that still applies : /
In saying this though i have to admit that when i was 16 i was really annoyed i was not allowed to vote, not due to some burning love of any particular party, i mean look at them, but just on principle because at least i took some form of interest in making an educated decision, unlike so many other people i knew who could vote but would either make a choice based on very little knowledge or waste their vote altogether.

(N.B I just read this and realised there is really no point to this post, its just me spewing out my thoughts randomly and comming to no conclusion whatsoever.)

Wow...thats insanity...

Not as though my opinion matters, but I think that voting and military service go hand in hand..and thus should be available at the same age.

It sorta bothers me that I am old enough to be drafted, but Im still not allowed to drink.

Suppose what your saying about most 16 year olds not being able to make informed opinions might be right thinking of a few people in my year. Could also possibly be said of some older people too though. At least I'll be old enought to vote by the next gerneral election (assuming its not called early -which part of me hopes it is!)

Who votes anyway? I did it once the year I hit 18 because I could. I didn't know who I was voting for. I put an X next to the name I liked the best.

I don't have an interest in politics. People like me shouldn't be allowed to vote, we might sway the balance in favour of those with ace names but crap policies. You should have to sign up somewhere to be able to vote.

that is one of the most riduculous laws ever, no beer till you are 21 - but americans do seem to be a who shedload more sensible with alchohol than us binge drinking british ken.

Voting when you are 18 is ok - but only a 1/4 of the countrys gets to vote at 18 - some of us have to wait till were 21 for the voting period is 4 years - ami right there....

Bringing it out to 16 would allow far too many immature people vote.. Keep it how it is.

KenTheSlayer spouted:
Wow...thats insanity...

Not as though my opinion matters, but I think that voting and military service go hand in hand..

Why?

Keep the voting age at 18. Then raise the age of consent, the age at which you can drink, smoke, drive, marry and join the army to 18 too.

Personally, I have never felt that the majority of 16 year-olds have the maturity to manage the responsibility that goes with these things, and I see nothing today that makes me think things have changed.

the uk military age is a fucking joke, the uk is the only civilised country that sends child soldiers (17yr olds) to war.

16 yr olds may be well intentioned but they haven't got a clue

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
the uk military age is a fucking joke, the uk is the only civilised country that sends child soldiers (17yr olds) to war.

16 yr olds may be well intentioned but they haven't got a clue

You can join the army at 16 with your parents permission, but you won't be allowed near combat untill 18. This is due to the large number of young squaddie fatalities in Northern Ireland.

Personally, I think that you should only be granted the right to vote if you have done some kind of service beneficial to the community, doesn't have to be joining the forces, but maybe a choice of compulsary social work, like in Germany, or planting trees/working on a farm/mending roads/cleaning streets for a year.

No 16 year old in the world knows what they want for breakfast, let alone who they want to govern them. I know I didn't have a clue.

Dazzla spouted:


Why?

I guess Ive adopted kind of a Heinlein-esque view of proper society. I believe that in an ideal world, a person would have to prove their capacity to think and feel for the group, even when it comes at a cost to the self...a perfect example of this being the pain and death associated with military service for the greater good of protecting your home and family. I dont believe a person should have to fight...any act that proves a person is capable of thinking of the community first...even if you spend four years digging ditches and performing civil service tasks, all work is equally vital.

Even though we dont have compulsory service, I think that being military age makes a person somewhat more accountable for their choices. If you elect an aggressive leader, you will have to come to terms with the fact that a draft is always possible...and you may be called out for your choice. It wouldnt be right to support violence that you personally wouldnt fight in.

Just my opinion...

No way should there be any qualification other than age for voting, except the currently available getouts of luncay and being imprisoned. Would just be an excuse for Bliar to disqualify Mail readers or Guardian readers or whatever.

No reason at all to link the right to die for your country with voting. In fact I'm against it. Why let the cannon fodder have a say in why they're being asked to fight? Mightr put them off.

Raise the voting age to 25, when people have attained a level of responsibility, same with driving. Then all you energetic young folks can live in dormitories and be bussed to menial jobs so we grown ups can earn big salaries and make the decisions for you.

KenTheSlayer spouted:


I believe that in an ideal world, a person would have to prove their capacity to think and feel for the group, even when it comes at a cost to the self......any act that proves a person is capable of thinking of the community first...even if you spend four years digging ditches and performing civil service tasks, all work is equally vital.


Exactamundo. There are no rights without accepting the responsabilities, something that is all too often shirked in todays easy come-easy go culture.

I take it you have read Starship Troopers, Ken?

I love that book so much.

The movie gutted it.

As for the shirking responsibilities deal, much like in the book, I wouldnt let them vote until they had completed their service...they would have too much of a personal interest. That way they would have an understanding of the pain their vote could possibly cause...but could still vote without a personal stake in war.

wannabepornstar spouted:


You can join the army at 16 with your parents permission, but you won't be allowed near combat untill 18. This is due to the large number of young squaddie fatalities in Northern Ireland.



under 18s served (and some were killed) in the gulf, in the falklands, in northern ireland

http://www.ppu.org.uk/peacematters/pm2001/pm2001_x12_2.html

http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/November2001/UK

When it's coming up to election time and the politicians are after votes what do they do? They come up with populous friendly policies and lo and behold supposedly mature rational people fall for it all, they don't see through it at all. My point being, how easy would it be to fool what is basically a school child. Leave it as it is I say, this is just another of fuck face Blairs' vote catchers.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:


under 18s served (and some were killed) in the gulf, in the falklands, in northern ireland

http://www.ppu.org.uk/peacematters/pm2001/pm2001_x12_2.html

http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/November2001/UK

Fair point well made, but rear echelon soldiers can get killed as well: car accidents and training accidents happen all the time*. My point was that I understand the current policy to not allow under 18s into front-line combat units that will shortly be deployed into a war role, not the same thing as a peacekeeping role. I freely admit that I have nothing to back this up except the word of a serving Infantry Major whom I spoke to recently.

But like the 1st article says: "Truth is the first casualty of war" and obviously there are a lot of different groups spouting off from their own wildly differing viewpoints.

*Plus the UK armed forces work a lot with the trigger happy Yanks and we all know what happens when they get involved.

i wasn't talking about accidents. they DO allow under 18s in a front line role, no other country does. even the US changed it's policy (first time they have ever done that in relation to a human rights agreement)

here's another link, from hansards, look about 3 or 4 paragraphs down

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970722/text/70722w14.htm

Dr Reid says that no under 18s have been killed on active duty since 1993, i.e. the (1st) gulf war
basically, when soldiers have finished training, they can go on active duty. Most of them will be over 18 by then, but some won't and there are no special provisions for them

The age for voting should not be lowered, instead voting should be made compulsory, for those who do not agree with voting which is why they do not in the first place will have a 'opt out' box to tick or be slapped with a fine etc

If they lowered the age, our government would be voted in based on who the young girls/boys fancied just like in shitty "reality" shows like Big Brother and Pop Idol.

Mind you, I know I'd tune in to watch Gareth Gates take the stand in a particularly fierce Commons debate.

dEaDfRoG spouted:
If they lowered the age, our government would be voted in based on who the young girls/boys fancied just like in shitty "reality" shows like Big Brother and Pop Idol.

Mind you, I know I'd tune in to watch Gareth Gates take the stand in a particularly fierce Commons debate.

thats a bit cruel the poor fucker can barely speak

You think Gareth Gates is undeserving of cruelty?

Perhaps we should start a txt vting htlne so da kidz can take part.

Or perhaps we should just be honest and scrap democracy, replacing it with an exam and a gladitorial tournament consisting of very old, very dull men competing as to how much Chivas Regal they can pour into their bloated fucking bellies before passing out and pissing themselves.

"thats a bit cruel the poor fucker can barely speak"

So? He's (allegedley) good looking and has more money than any of us - bollocks to him.

I recon the voting age should be raised to 50.



Young ones are totally fucking clueless about politics (me included) and I recon by the age of 50 you've gained enough knowledge to decide who to vote for !


But then again.......................no matter who you vote for.................the government always get in !

Fuck no. 95% of 16 year olds these days have NO grasp of the world around them, especially politics.

30 would be a better age to be honest.

(I'm 19 btw)

The following people should not be allowed to vote:

MacDonalds employees
Dobbers (see Dave Spikey DVD)
boy racers
girl racers
The Beckhams
Fat people in sport-casual wear
Jade off Big Brother
Pop Idol/Big Brother contestants
Pop Idol judges
Jamie fucking Oliver

There are others i.e. Serial killers, paedophiles.... but they are a bit too obvious

sumoeggnoodle spouted:
The following people should not be allowed to vote:

MacDonalds employees
Dobbers (see Dave Spikey DVD)
boy racers
girl racers
The Beckhams
Fat people in sport-casual wear
Jade off Big Brother
Pop Idol/Big Brother contestants
Pop Idol judges
Jamie fucking Oliver

There are others i.e. Serial killers, paedophiles.... but they are a bit too obvious

members of the gov
people that say 'innit'
people that call anyone 'bruv' who is'nt in fact their brother
people who wear too much pink
people who buy all their clothes in topshop

My cohort was the one which ranted, raved, sat-in, protested, demonstrated, et al here in the US to get the voting age lowered to 18. (as in old enough to die for your country, Vietnam). It turned out to be a fruitless effort. Very few of my generation takes the time to vote. My 25 year old son doesn't vote.

We westerners fail to realize the value of enfranchisement, which our forebears gave us.

What age? Who knows?

Perhaps a test for participatory citizenship would be in order after age 18. You get to vote if you show up!

..Oh yes, you get disqualified if you watch Jamie Oliver or buy any of his frigging pots and pans

18 for everything. sex laws are different and damn awkward ( no this aint a plea for legalized paedeophilia )and perhaps a look to the continenent may or may not be a good idea. but otherwise....18 in all things

I joined the Royal Air Force aged 16 in 1980. I can confirm that you are not allowed to fight in a combat zone until you are 18. With reference to the voting age question, i think 18 is the correct age. Whilst I agree that some 16 year olds would think long and hard before voting I don't think the majority would. Most of the 16 year olds I know have a hard job stringing 5 words together. I know that I thought I was grown up and adult at 16 but in hindsight i know I was still pretty immature. The other argument I would use is that you don't pay tax until you are 18 in the UK. If you are a non taxpayer ( pensioners exluded ) what gives you the right to vote in a party that is going to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers money?

While we are on the subject, I think the age of consent should be raised to 18. It would be academic only as these days it's not uncommon for 14 year old girls to be screwing their 16 year old boyfriends.

Under 18s do pay tax and NI in the UK, AFAIK, tax laws do no discriminate age. The same tax thresholds apply to all.

And on your second subject, were you an eighteen year old virgin?

P.S. Do you have wet dreams about old Mags Thatcher?

You have got to be shitting me with regard to Maggie. Fair point about the virginity issue though. I still think that the age of consent and the voting age should be 18. Come to think of it, you are right about the tax issue. I was paying tax at 16. And I'm still paying fucking tax now.
Do you look like Maggie Inky?

Keep it at 18. Make it compulsory. Lock up anyone who goes on a demonstration against Government policies who DIDN'T vote (after all, if you don't vote, you should have no say).

Hardy spouted:
Keep it at 18. Make it compulsory. Lock up anyone who goes on a demonstration against Government policies who DIDN'T vote (after all, if you don't vote, you should have no say).

How would that work? If you have 20,000 people demonstrating, how do you establish whether they voted or not? Ask? Make sure they have their voting slips with them?

Just because people do not exercise their right to vote, does not mean they don't have a valid opinion. What if, as in this country, there is no difference between the political parties? I would feel like I was selling my soul to the devil if I voted for either Labour or the Conservatives? I could choose Lib Dems but they are not likely to get in.

The right not to vote is part of living in a democracy, in the same way that demonstrating against the government is part of living in a democracy. Perhaps, as your comments suggest, you don't like living in a democracy. Perhaps you would like to move to somewhere with a different political system. Zimbabwe? Iran? China?

Whilst I agree that some 16 year olds would think long and hard before voting I don't think the majority would. Most of the 16 year olds I know have a hard job stringing 5 words together.

Or:

Whilst I agree that some people would think long and hard before voting I don't think the majority would. Most of the people I know have a hard job stringing 5 words together.

If you are a non taxpayer ( pensioners exluded ) what gives you the right to vote in a party that is going to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers money?

Do you think, then, that the unemployed, state pensioners and people earning below the tax threshold should be denied the right to vote? By that logic, do you think that your vote should be 'weighted' according to the amount of tax you paid in the previous tax year? After all, why should someone who paid 500 quid in tax have an equal say as someone who contributed £16,000?

Bits of Maggie and I may have a certain element of resemblence. My shit is rather similar to her policies.

WRT voting, I agree with sumoegg, abstention from voting is a legitimate method of protest. However, those whinging cunts who don't vote due to apathy/lazyness can fuck off.

Back to the thread though, how many 16 years care/understand politics? Those who do are usually right wing and should get a life and go out shagging and getting drunk. Worked for me and Archer!