to think that lowering the voting age to 16 is a stupid idea?

[CrystalTipsandAlista1r]

in fact, I'd rather it was raised to 25.

I do think (as in Scotland?) there should be a distinction between general elections and referendums (referenda?). Because GEs come around relatively quickly so everyone gets their chance, but Brexit might be forever. 16 and 17 yos should have been able to vote in that referendum, and the proportional representation one a few years back as they will be really affected by them.

Anyone who is already a little apathetic about the system wouldn't go out of their way to go a voluntary exam

Someone who is that apathetic (my exam would be cost-free) doesn't deserve to have a vote!

I think it should stay at 18 for th reasons lots of people have listed. At 16 you are deemed not mature enough to buy cigarettes, drive, buy alchohol, get married etc so the same should follow with voting. Wait until you are legally an adult, it doesn’t mean you are fit to cot then, but it does seem like a sensible place to draw the line.

*vote not cot

The voting age should be tied to the legal age of majority, so currently 18. I think we should only change the voting age if this is tied to a change in the age people are legally recognised as an adult.

It seems wrong that children should be allowed to vote, when they are currently not able to enter into a legally binding contract; are required to be either in education or training; are not allowed to buy alcohol/cigarettes, watch certain films, get a tattoo, get married without parents permission etc.

If we don't consider them mature enough to be given those sorts of decisions, why should they be given the right to vote?

I agree as soon as someone is eligible to pay income tax they should be able to get on the electoral roll.

You are liable for income tax the moment you are born. Do you think that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grinch and Emma Watson should have got the vote after the first Harry Potter film?

Someone who is that apathetic (my exam would be cost-free) doesn't deserve to have a vote!

More works needs to be done to engage those voters and make then feel they are being heard. Starting political education (neutral and just idologies and policy overviews) in schools would get young people on board and interested and we can start changing things in future generations.

I just find it strange that a society that is increasingly infantilising 16-18 year olds in almost every other area of their lives wants to give them the right to vote.

For almost every other group the right to vote was a hard won freedom. Not something the govt wanted to dish out...

Young people can vote at 16 in Scotland and, from talking to my son's friends, they seem to be taking it very seriously and making sure they understand the issues. There will be some who base it on having watched Braveheart as a PP suggested, but there are older people who base their decisions on football teams or sectarianism which is probably less valid.

As for "testing" people before allowing them to vote; as I've said you just have to hope that there are an equal number on all sides of the debate voting for the "wrong" reasons to cancel each other out.

I think you misunderstand me. It's not a personality quiz where you find out where you are on the political spectrum. It's a factual test of whether you understand how our parliamentary democracy works. The driving theory test doesn't ask if you want a Lamborghini or an electric-hybrid; it asks if you have learned and understood the Highway Code.

Then imagine the type of person who would take time out of their life to prepare for and then sit a voting exam. People who are very, very keen to have their political voice heard would participate and end up with more representation and they are more likely to be those with extreme views either way.

Gosh, yes. If we had a driving theory test then nobody would take it apart from petrolheads.

I think it would be good to get young people interested in politics to reduce voter apathy. Lowering the voting age could raise discussion in schools. Some older adults are lacking in awareness and we can't stop them voting.
The 16 year olds voting would be adults paying taxes during the term of the next government (I know younger teenagers would too but that would be too young) so why shouldn't they have a say?

It is an opt-in arrangement requiring time, effort and money.

Implying that you think the voters are not worthy of these things. You'd rather trust to luck as to whether they are informed or not?

Well, it would be an antidote to boomers and the retired voting for never ending freebies for themselves whilst pricing the younger generations out of the cheap housing and security of tenure they enjoyed. That is why the Tories are against it as these are their core voters.

Another with a dd who wants to be a politician. I think it's a very good idea.

I agree with a pp that if the school curriculum included mandatory politics and political discussion in all lessons then I don't think it's a bad idea.

As it currently stands, no I don't think they should have the vote.

Scottish youth is generally more clued up on politics as they have 2 compulsory years of Modern Studies (in secondary school) which is basically about UK and world wide political systems, economic systems and generally how the world 'works'. The 16 yr olds I know are very politically knowledgeable and aware. They can also legally leave school and marry - why shouldn't they vote?

I think YABU. Many 16 and 17 year olds do have a sufficient interest in politics (it’s a popular a level option, after all), and do have fully formed opinions. There are many 18 year olds, 25 year olds, and 40 year olds with less interest in politics than my 13 year old DD. She would be in a better position to vote than them. Age doesn’t define political engagement - I think 16, when people begin to pay tax and work for the government (and can have a child and marry!), is a reasonable age. Many won’t be interested, so they won’t vote, just as plenty of people over 18 don’t vote because they’re not interested. But a lot of 16 year olds are interested!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=1QXqq_TX620

A speech that articulates my feelings perfectly.

You have to be 18 to buy/possess fireworks - in fact the age was increased from 16 to 18 in 1997 and is written in The Fireworks Regulations 2004

which if I am correct was under a Labour Government?

I also can't think of the types of questions you would ask. Too complicated and it's not representative of the general population - too simplistic and anyone could pass it; it would just be another additional barrier that's not really required to vote.

There are many 18 year olds, 25 year olds, and 40 year olds with less interest in politics than my 13 year old DD. She would be in a better position to vote than them.

And if your 13 y.o. said she had an 'interest' in sex, would you encourage that too? Would you say that she was mature enough?