16 & 17 year olds to be given the vote

[Whereishenow]

Just seen this announcement on BBC now. Amazing news!!! Now we just need to try and get youngsters out USING those votes.

I was a working person and a member of young Labour at 16, I'm not an idiot I absolutely was idealistic. You've also failed to mention the point that if they are adults that also comes with responsibilities, which I think is fine but we're not seeing that, just voting in isolation. I'm not going to repeat myself again but why not all of the other responsibilities that come with adulthood if we're saying 16 is an adult? So you can vote, but you can't drive, get married, sign a lease or even a phone contract, can't get credit, can't consent to sexual images of themselves or even send a nude selfie picture legally, they're not treated as or sentenced as adults within the criminal justice system because it's accepted that at 16 they are not fully developed adults. So which is it? They are and they can vote so let them do all of the other things, because they're responsible and developed enough or they're not and if that's the case why are they voting?

You seem also to be confused by the term gerrymandering.

The criteria was government backed ID - ie photo ID which required legal evidence of identity.
Most student IDs, student travel passes etc do not require evidence of identity and so cannot be used as govenment backed ID. Incidentally youngest voters were more likely to have a passport or photo driving licence than the oldest voters. It was also possible to get free photo ID from your local authority.

Of course if ID cards had been introduced when proposed 20 years ago there would have been no whining about student discount cards not being acceptable as ID as it would be issued automatically.

In this case then those mothers should simply not register their kids to vote.

Those of us who are raising children with a wider interest in the world can do so.

Everyone is a winner.

Now obviously.

I don't see any link between the two questions "should 16-17 year olds be allowed to vote?" and "under what circumstances should old people be stopped from voting?" or any questions re jury service for that matter either.

They are two completely separate questions and need to be considered separately on their own merits. As earlier, I just see any attempt to link the two different cases as an attempt at distraction from the primary question and whataboutery.

I don't think anyone would make the argument that someone is "mentally deficient" because they haven't acquired life experience or knowledge.

I don't think anyone would make the argument either that there is a step change in life experience or knowledge on attaining 18 years that qualifies them for voting, anymore than there is on attaining 16 years.

I would make the argument that as a cohort 18-20 year olds are likely to have greater knowledge and life experience than 16-18 year olds though.

I don't see much scientific discussion as to whether 16-18 year olds have acquired enough life experience over say 14-16 year olds. Just a lot of subjective opinion.

Indeed, only when it suits them as a party clinging to power, rather than suiting the people they were elected to serve.

You've missed the figures on this, hardly any 16 year olds pay tax because they don't earn enough, because they're meant to be in full time education

I often think of the saying "the more I learn, the less I know."

Unfortunately, 16 year olds are probably at the peak imbalance of "knowing" everything without having had much learning. That confidence is actually a biological malfunction to give them the confidence to break from a family within the next few years.

And please don't anyone bring up gcses again... as if those shelves of study guides in Waterstones hold the mysteries of the universe or gcses prove anything useful about life experience.

That sounds very much like the dying days of the last government. You can hardly be accused of “clinging to power” after a year.

The best argument I heard in favour is research that shows young people are more likely to vote if living at home (presumably their parents take them) and therefore starting them voting at 16 sets them up for a lifetime of voting. It’s about getting into the habit early. Which is a good counterpoint to the ‘but they can’t gamble and drink’ argument as we’re not really trying to get them into a lifetime of these habits.

well... maybe the ones who think their 16 year old knows it all are the problem here ...

I paid tax at 16 when I worked over school holidays and weekends / overtime 🙂

That would probably be an effect of that policy - probably pensioners also.

But it's a rational policy - only contributors get to choose. Or you could make it that everyone gets to vote, but contributors get a double vote.

My point being, that it's rational. Changing the voting age to 16 because some children are theoretically capable of doing some other things at that age is not rational.

Children as young as 5 earn money and pay taxes. Children as young as 10 create new life. Why is 16 a less arbitrary age than 5?

I didn't say none. I've worked from the age of 15 far fewer young people work now than then, partly because of the expectation to be in education until 18 and apprentices earn peanuts

@TheCurious0range nice edit to add “hardly” - so you now admit they can. Which unfortunately makes the rest of your point moot. As I said, if a 16 years old can pay tax then why can’t they decide where it goes? If you’re 16 years old is privileged enough to not have to work then good for them, but many aren’t.

Raising kids to think beyond Fortnite is a bad thing now, is it?

Regardless, the point is valid. Just because some members of a demographic don't give a shit about exercising their right to vote doesn't mean that others should be denied it.

Well read my posts above.

I'm inclined to think not. The difficulty is drafting an objective cut-off.

I’m only 26 so I’m part of Gen Z and also needed to be in full time education so I don’t agree with your follow up either.

I didn't add hardly check the previous edits, I corrected typos is also a point I made earlier. It's not a strong argument. Does that mean the unemployed and sahps don't get to vote because they don't pay taxes?

But that is the same thing as the minimum age to vote, so surely it can’t be that hard? Use medical data to find the average point where cognitive decline begins.

No it absolutely isn't a bad thing.

But allowing ( still more) people who cant think beyond Fortnite to vote is a bad thing, yes.

Terrible idea, but inevitable with the current sixth-form debating society in power. I wince at how idealistic and naive I was at 16! I suppose I have followed the well-trodden path of moving towards the centre/right as I age and acquire taxable income and assets. At 16 I was marching with CND, reading Helena Kennedy QC and fetishising the Southall black sisters. (Nothing wrong with any of those things, but as an earnest, white swot from the Home Counties, I'm quite surprised that nobody lamped me!) CRINGE.

But if the amount of annual income was less than the annual tax threshold at that time, would you not have been able to claim it back as a school pupil or student?

You are part of a minority. It's not a valid argument to base voting on taxes, do the unemployed not get a vote? Stay at home parents, those too unwell to work? Don't pay taxes don't get a say.
All 16 year olds shouldn't get the vote because a tiny majority pay a small amount of tax

Yes you get rebates