What's peoples views on the suggestion to cut the voting age from 18 to 16. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

I think it's a silly idea. Perhaps one to explore the possibiltiy of there being a wealth of impressionable, gullible youth to indoctrinate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3633737.stm

Maybe they've worked out that the only people who will vote for them again are those too young to remember the all lies and broken promises. Next they'll remove voting rights from those older than 16 because their judgement may be clouded by their experience...

I agree with it if they teach more politics at school, so people are more aware of the political system. Its unfair that some 16 year olds pay tax and have no say until they turn 18.

It can be a boring subject, but you can't believe everything you read in The Sun.

The more people that can vote, the less meaningful each vote is.


Susie, who doesn't vote anyway

Originally posted by Lickszz
What's peoples views on the suggestion to cut the voting age from 18 to 16. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

I think it's a silly idea. Perhaps one to explore the possibiltiy of there being a wealth of impressionable, gullible youth to indoctrinate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3633737.stm

indoctrination starts a lot younger than voting age, especially when tutoring babes in the mechanics of ethnic rivalry.

the turnout amongst 18 - 25 year olds is very low. Below 18 you'd probably get in the region of 10% actually using their vote.

Why make the conscious choice not to vote. It's like declaring that you really don't give a stuff who's going to run things on your behalf.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Why make the conscious choice not to vote. It's like declaring that you really don't give a stuff who's going to run things on your behalf.


If you can give me a few examples of elections that have been won by a majority of one, I'll vote.


Susie, who has never found even one

That has to be the stupidest argument i've ever heard.
All elections are won by ones, all the ones added together. If everyone who voted took that line of reasoning no one would vote at all.

Not voting is absolutely nothing to brag about. If you don't vote then you have no right to complain when you don't like what's being done to the country in your name.

Mojo - insert pretentious sign-off here

My initial thought was that anybody who is contributing to society in the form of taxes should have a say in how their money is best spent ie be able to vote. If that is at 16 then so be it.

Then on second thoughts if that was the criteria for having a vote a good proportion of over 18's wouldn't have the vote.

Overall, yes 16 year olds should have the vote. Many are incredibly well informed and definitely able to make an intelligent choice.

Should we then let 16 year olds stand for election?

I would have to disagree with this (unless things have changed ALOT) some years ago while still at school I took part an election mock up as the SDP Liberal Alliance campaign organiser (that shows how long ago it was!) and the single largest reason for people voting in a particular way was 'because my dad votes that way' or 'we have always been an X family' where X is any given party. It seems that 16 or so year olds are no more imune to intelectual inertia than anyone else sadly enough :( It seems to me that the majority of people who do bother to vote do so in an almost reflexive way with no thought input?

Originally posted by Cyclone
That has to be the stupidest argument i've ever heard.
All elections are won by ones, all the ones added together. If everyone who voted took that line of reasoning no one would vote at all.


That's right. If less people vote, then my vote becomes worth more. Inserting "what if"s that aren't applicable to the situation at hand don't help your argument.

Situation 1:

I don't vote.

Political party A gets 1,035,343 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes

Situation 2:

I do vote.

Political party A gets 1,035,344 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes

In real terms, what has changed? I've wasted my time voting.


Susie, who still hasn't found an election won by a margin of one

Originally posted by SusieP
That's right. If less people vote, then my vote becomes worth more. Inserting "what if"s that aren't applicable to the situation at hand don't help your argument.

Situation 1:
I don't vote.
Political party A gets 1,035,343 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes

Situation 2:
I do vote.
Political party A gets 1,035,344 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes
In real terms, what has changed? I've wasted my time voting.
Susie, who still hasn't found an election won by a margin of one

OK lets look at real real terms:

40+% of the population dont vote however they rationalise it, whether it be 'one vote doesnt count' or 'whoever I vote for the govenrment gets in' and the result is the majority of votes are from inertia driven voters who always vote the same way without thinking (and lets be hones here there parts of sheffield where you could reanimate the corps of Hitler stick a red rosette on it and it would get in as Labour MP!) with maybe 5 to 10% of the voters actually thinking about who they vote for - the result is nothing changes and the non voters see this as vindication of their apathy. Personally I think everyone who is able to should vote - if you don't like any of the representative say so on your ballot paper - OK it will only be a spoiled ballot but you will have expressed your feelings and at least earned the right to complain about the government!

Originally posted by SusieP
That's right. If less people vote, then my vote becomes worth more. Inserting "what if"s that aren't applicable to the situation at hand don't help your argument.

Situation 1:

I don't vote.

Political party A gets 1,035,343 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes

Situation 2:

I do vote.

Political party A gets 1,035,344 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes

In real terms, what has changed? I've wasted my time voting.


Susie, who still hasn't found an election won by a margin of one

On the other hand, if you were voting for the minority party (or not voting in your case) and 300 thousand other apathetic people like you got of their ass and went and voted then the result would have changed.

Or maybe it's the time when you're voting for the party expected to win, and turnout is so low for them because people like you assume that 1 million other people will vote, that the result actually goes the other way.

Most 16 year olds won't care about politics, apart from politics of the playground, anyway so why even bother allowing them to vote?

Simple, they'll vote Labour cos everybody else does cos it appears "cool" to follow the sheep and copy everybody else.

Originally posted by SusieP
Susie, who still hasn't found an election won by a margin of one

Not one but 2 votes in Winchester:

Which constituency has had the smallest majority since 1945?

Winchester 1997 - The declared result had Mark Oaten (Lib Dem) winning by 2 votes over the Conservative candidate, Gerry Malone. The result was successfully challenged by an election petition and a by-election resulted in Mark Oaten being returned with a majority of over 21,000.

Carmarthen Feb 1974 - Gwynoro Jones (Lab) defeated Gwynfor Evans (PC) also by 3 votes.

Peterborough 1966 - Sir Harmar Nicholls (Con) defeated Michael Ward (Lab) by 3 votes.

Source: British electoral Facts 1832-1999. Ed. Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. Ashgate. 2000

Politicians will do anything to get votes.

I didn't know my arse from my elbow at 16, although I thought I did, and certainly me and my mates had no interest in politics.

It will teach the politicians a lesson if all the young ones vote for the BNP, just for a laugh.

The thought of that is alarming.

Originally posted by SusieP
That's right. If less people vote, then my vote becomes worth more. Inserting "what if"s that aren't applicable to the situation at hand don't help your argument.

Situation 1:

I don't vote.

Political party A gets 1,035,343 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes

Situation 2:

I do vote.

Political party A gets 1,035,344 votes
Political party A gets 754,244 votes

In real terms, what has changed? I've wasted my time voting.


Susie, who still hasn't found an election won by a margin of one

Interesting, two parties with the same name, how does that work??

You have the same attitutude as a lot of people unfortunately. Perhaps you would prefer to go and live somewhere where you are told what to do and don't have any say in anything?
This is a democratic country and if you can't be arsed to use your valuable vote (reasons have been given to you by other posts as to why one vote is important) then I feel sad for you and don't you dare complain!

I always vote, even if its a tactical vote, which can be just as important as voting for the party you actually support. As for 16 year olds, well I don't agree with it. Ok, there might be the odd one who can make up their own minds and understands how it all works, but I don't think the majority are capable. If I had voted when I was 16, I probably would have voted for whoever my parents did as most kids are brainwashed by their parents. I didn't even really feel like I knew what I was doing at 18! It's only been in the last few years since I've left uni, set up home got a job etc that I have now formed my own opinions based on life experience. Of course there are a lot of 16 yr olds who do pay tax so should have the right to vote based on that in theory, but I would have thought that the majority of 16 year olds who have left school and are working are going to biased since they won't be earning a great deal yet, so their choices would probably be based on parents influence and/or the party who offers the least tax to their situation. I doubt at 16 they would be bothered about anything else, as long as their pay packet is ok, that might be all that matters to them?

It's a tricky one!

Ermm its struck me I actually ignored the original question in my post - how very politician like of me! Anyway - should the age of voting be lowered to 16? Unless there is a pressing reason I would say not. OK 18 is an arbitary cut off point and you could say there are some very politically savvy 16 year olds out there (just as there are some politically very stupid 18+ year olds) - but where do you stop? I'm sure you could find some politically aware 12 year olds but the age of voting probably shouldn't be dropped that far!

I dont have any figures but I would guess that in the overwhelming majority of cases 16 and 17 year olds arent tax payers so the 'some pay tax so should have a say in what happens to that tax' argument isn't really a valid argument as far as I can see.

I think eighteen is the minimum acceptable age for a person to vote. Prior to that age (and even at that age often) a person has no experience to enable them to make rational assessments on political manifesto commitments or working experience of politics in general.

Personally I would prefer an age limit of twenty one for the all important ‘General elections’ with possibly the age eighteen for ‘Local (Or Bye) elections.

On the other hand, if you were voting for the minority party (or not voting in your case) and 300 thousand other apathetic people like you got of their ass and went and voted then the result would have changed.

Or maybe it's the time when you're voting for the party expected to win, and turnout is so low for them because people like you assume that 1 million other people will vote, that the result actually goes the other way.


But that's relying on the actions of 300,000 or 1,000,000 other people. If I didn't vote, and those other people still acted the same way, then nothing would change.


Max - excellent detective work!


You have the same attitutude as a lot of people unfortunately. Perhaps you would prefer to go and live somewhere where you are told what to do and don't have any say in anything?
This is a democratic country and if you can't be arsed to use your valuable vote (reasons have been given to you by other posts as to why one vote is important) then I feel sad for you and don't you dare complain!


No, not at all. I'd much prefer to be in a place where my voice is heard, and I feel like my thoughts and concerns are listened to. The Government is not doing this. And I feel I can complain, after all: I can't change anything


Susie, who is sick of mojo

You can make your voice heard, problem is though is that those in power completely ignore the voice of the public and do what THEY think the public will thank them for... Which the public invariably DOESN'T thank them for.


Stupid flippin' numpties.

relying on the actions of 300 thousand people who vote the same way as you is how it works in a democracy. 1 voice on it's own is not heard, not is a million voices who don't bother to get to the polling station. The largest group that are motivated enough to make the effort are the ones who win.
I hope your political views differ from mine, that way you are depriving the other side of a vote.

If all the people who ever said "Why should I try, i'm only one person, I can't affect the outcome" had taken a stance, the world would be a better place.

Originally posted by SusieP

Susie, who is sick of mojo

That's the beauty of living in a democracy. You can be sick of whatever you like.

Mojo - currently living in a country where voting is compulsory (and all the better for it)

As someone wise once said:

Democracy is rubbish because there's too many plebs in the world.

Originally posted by Cyclone
If all the people who ever said "Why should I try, i'm only one person, I can't affect the outcome" had taken a stance, the world would be a better place.


Please tell me how I could have affected anything.


Susie

Originally posted by Rich
Most 16 year olds won't care about politics, apart from politics of the playground, anyway so why even bother allowing them to vote?

Simple, they'll vote Labour cos everybody else does cos it appears "cool" to follow the sheep and copy everybody else.

I resent that. After hours of campaigning and protests, spending time on coaches down to London, organising a weekly Youth Against the War meeting etc. during the Iraq war last year, you think you can make sweeping generalisations and tell me that the youth of today is apathetic and only 'follow the sheep'?

You could tell me that the kids on these protests were just jumping on the bandwagon, but I know otherwise. Sure, a few were doing that, and causing a bit of trouble, but the majority of kids on the protests were doing it because they can't get their opinion across in any other way, as we don't have the right to vote.

I agree that their are many uninformed young people who would not vote, or vote for someone because their friends are etc. But surely that is true of any age group.

16 is the age when people start getting adult rights. It is the age from which you can smoke, have sex, get married, gamble...but you don't have the choice in how these things are governed? That seems a tad unfair.

By the time the next election comes around, I'll be of legal age, and believe me, I'm going to utilise it.

Originally posted by SusieP
Please tell me how I could have affected anything.

Basically you are building a spurious argument here - Based on the premise that the current 50-ish percent of the population are going to carry on voting and thatyou are the only apathetic non-voter who is going to decide to vote then your one vote is going to do very little - but that isn't exactly a realistic premise is it? It is also not the one most of the rest of the people on here are arguing - were talking about the remaining 40-something percent of the apathetic voters going out and voting - then things change...

I think its a great idea! Well kindof. I for one have always wanted to vote but the question is, who should I vote for. They all seem to let us down :(

All I wonder is, because young people seem more impressionable (not all though) they might be tempted to vote for some crappy party instead.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I resent that. After hours of campaigning and protests, spending time on coaches down to London, organising a weekly Youth Against the War meeting etc. during the Iraq war last year, you think you can make sweeping generalisations and tell me that the youth of today is apathetic and only 'follow the sheep'?. It is the age from which you can smoke, have sex, get married, gamble...but you don't have the choice in how these things are governed? That seems a tad unfair. You demonstrated the point that you resent perfectly through your post though noesyrosie.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Basically you are building a spurious argument here - Based on the premise that the current 50-ish percent of the population are going to carry on voting and thatyou are the only apathetic non-voter who is going to decide to vote then your one vote is going to do very little - but that isn't exactly a realistic premise is it? It is also not the one most of the rest of the people on here are arguing - were talking about the remaining 40-something percent of the apathetic voters going out and voting - then things change...


Sorry neil, but this is based on the premise that "everything else in the world remains the same, except that I do/not vote".

Susie

Originally posted by Mo

Should we then let 16 year olds stand for election?

I've read the idea has been discussed. Where do you draw the line, how about 16 year olds on a Jury? Who would want their fate to be sealed by a 16 year old?

Originally posted by Lickszz
I've read the idea has been discussed. Where do you draw the line, how about 16 year olds on a Jury? Who would want their fate to be sealed by a 16 year old?

Can you imagine a hypothetical jury made up of Sheffield Forum members?

The PC brigade would probably be all for "understanding the circumstances" of the murderers and push to let them off with just a slap on the wrist and a holiday in Spain.

The rabid right wingers, on the other hand, would be keen to lock 'em up and throw away the key, even if the miscreant was charged with just littering or allowing their dogs to foul the public highway.

The scene in the jury room would inevitably develop into chaos with everyone shouting at once.

Finally Max would declare the deliberation was getting too far "off topic" and the whole trial would suddenly mysteriously disappear without trace.

It could happen!

Originally posted by mojoworking
Can you imagine a hypothetical jury made up of Sheffield Forum members?




Quite easily - if they're Tory they're guilty. Hang 'em. :D

Originally posted by mojoworking
Can you imagine a hypothetical jury made up of Sheffield Forum members?

The PC brigade would probably be all for "understanding the circumstances" of the murderers and push to let them off with just a slap on the wrist and a holiday in Spain.

The rabid right wingers, on the other hand, would be keen to lock 'em up and throw away the key, even if the miscreant was charged with just littering or allowing their dogs to foul the public highway.

The scene in the jury room would inevitably develop into chaos with everyone shouting at once.

Finally Max would declare the deliberation was getting too far "off topic" and the whole trial would suddenly mysteriously disappear without trace.

It could happen!

It would certainly be entertaining while it lasted. ;)

This thread originates from 2004, but this idea has raised its head once again.

Putting the rights and wrongs of it to one side why has it surfaced again now?
Is there some political imperative driving the idea?
Is there some demographic motivator?


I Googled labour party popularity rating 2004 (http://www.google.com/search?q=labour+party+popularity+rating+2004&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SNYD). The results were interesting. Blair had a dismal rating of only 28% and 57% of people saying that they are dissatisfied with the Government.

Are politicians attracted to malleable young minds?

There is talk of having competitions for voters with white goods being given away in some kind of National Election Lottery.

It's not very long ago that the voting age was 21 and I have to wonder if the very importance of voting is lost by attempting to make it more attractive.

Hmm.

Can you imagine a hypothetical jury made up of Sheffield Forum members?

The PC brigade would probably be all for "understanding the circumstances" of the murderers and push to let them off with just a slap on the wrist and a holiday in Spain.

The rabid right wingers, on the other hand, would be keen to lock 'em up and throw away the key, even if the miscreant was charged with just littering or allowing their dogs to foul the public highway.

The scene in the jury room would inevitably develop into chaos with everyone shouting at once.

Finally Max would declare the deliberation was getting too far "off topic" and the whole trial would suddenly mysteriously disappear without trace.

It could happen!

Fortunately a jury only has to decide on one thing, guilty or innocent, not what the punishment will be, the judge sets the punishment if the jury finds the accused to be guilty.

Edit - Ah, I see I'm replying to a post 4 years old. Well, never mind.

For what it's worth:-

Voting rights should be restricted to

1) those working and paying tax

2) pensioners past the official retiring age

3) those who can read and write reasonably well (there are fewer of those spewed out of schools/colleges year on year) :rolleyes:

4) those who have never watched "Big Brother" and similar programmes for their entertainment value:)

Given the above 4 qualifications, there's one final requirement prior to giving anyone the right to vote. :)

They must prove they have read the Daily Mail every day for at least the last 40 years.

If you can give me a few examples of elections that have been won by a majority of one, I'll vote.


Susie, who has never found even one


are you in a constituency where there was a huge majority (bearing in mind one was wiped out quite recently)

In Australia, voting is compulsory.
I have come to see this as a good thing, after hearing so much of UK and USA elections where barely half the electorate can be bothered. "Oh, yeah, I'm the chosen member for this constituency, 26% of its electors voted for me!" At least, over here, everybody has to vote; maybe some are too stupid to do it right, and we might be better off if they didn't vote, but they have that right and that duty.
Ankh-Morpork is more efficient, with its system of "One Man, One Vote". TP fans know, you others Google.
But Australia is more democratic, and does not depend on apathy.

As for age, I had strong opinions at 14; at 16, I had changed a bit; at 18, I had reached what I now regard as sensible views, though not quite those I hold at 72!
I couldn't vote till I was 21.
So I'd say NO, do not lower the voting age to 16.

In addition, I like another Australian fature - the single transferable vote. You mark the candidates by number, e 3412; your vote 1 is the first distribution.
In UK, if you vote for a minor party, your vote is lost!
So a Conservative could set up a party which would appeal to likely Labour voters, some of whom would vote for it, and so rob Labour of their votes.
Here, if I voted for a Nuclear Disarmament Party, and we got 500 votes at the bottom of the poll, those 500 papers would be re-distributed, after their 1s were deleted, according to their 2s; if necessary, according to their 3s, until a candidate has more than 50% of votes cast.
Some parties want a "first past the post" like UK, because they hope to win by being a solid block of 40% against opponents of 45%, 19% and 5%, some of whose votes will come to the big block and take them to 46%

Quite easily - if they're Tory they're guilty. Hang 'em. :D

If they read the Daily Mail they're guilty as sin! Hang 'em, and flog 'em! :evil: :D