Voting age may be reduced to 16 apparently. Good idea?

[Nanny0gg]

As it says in the title. Labour still seems keen on this idea. Personally I think it's bonkers - I look at my DGC and they are just not old enough yet.

AIBU?

I agree it's an arbitrary line in the sand. I don't agree that that line should be moved to include 16 year olds.

But others do.

And now you accept it's arbitrary, why does your view have more weight than theirs ?

By all means, try to sneak a spurious criteria into the justification. But then we return to my original question of why it's not applied universally ? Because if it isn't, then it's not a justification. It's an excuse.

It wasn't so long ago - not quite living memory, but certainly TV-adaptation memory - that the age of majority was 21. (Or for women 30 with property owned).

I agree it's an arbitrary line in the sand. I don't agree that that line should be moved to include 16 year olds

Sunak has just said that *ALL 18yo's are unfit for purpose and need to be forced into the military or do unpaid work.

(* there will be no exceptions to these schemes)

So surely the line in the sand should be moved to 21 or perhaps 25?

Sunak has just said that ALL 18yo's are unfit for purpose and need to be forced into the military or do unpaid work

I must have missed this - can you please link to where he said this?

I'd be okay with this. I think 16 is an appropriate age to allow voting. In statistical reality, as only a small number of 16 year olds would in fact be eligible to vote in an election year. A person who turns 16 on 15 July 2024, and who would miss the election on 4 July 2024 as too young, might not see another GE until June/July 2029, by which time they would be almost 21. Thus a voting age of 16 versus 18 would have made no practical difference.

Also, the fact that some 16 year olds are engaged and knowledgable to make informed choices and others are not is hardly unique to their demographic. There are plenty of low information voters across all age groups voting for all parties.

Brains are not properly adult until about 25 - so no, daft idea.

So voting at 18 is equally daft then. I don’t buy this stuff about brain development anyway.

Also, define 'properly adult'!

"The prefrontal cortex is the decision-making part of the brain. It’s responsible for your child’s ability to plan and think about the consequences of actions, solve problems and control impulses. Changes in this part of the brain continue into early adulthood.

Because the prefrontal cortex is still developing, pre-teens and teenagers might rely on a part of the brain called the amygdala to make decisions and solve problems more than adults do. The amygdala is associated with emotions, impulses, aggression and instinctive behaviour."

The voting age being 21 actually made more sense, 18 is already a compromise.

anyolddinosaur · Today 10:57
Brains are not properly adult until about 25 - so no, daft idea.”

Weak argument. I know some very stupid people around my age (60) who shouldn’t be allowed within 100 m of a ballot box. Similarly, my mother has dementia, literally holes in her brain but she’s allowed to vote.

Personally I feel instinct and emotion are extremely useful tools in decision making.

Me too. I hear the stuff some people my age come out with and am astonished they’re allowed to vote. The average 16 year old would look incredibly sensible by comparison.

Genuinely no I don’t.

Like I said before children/young people are people. Intelligent people. People who are equally affected by laws and systems as everyone else. Why shouldn’t they have a say in what affects them? The notion that they are not informed enough or intelligent enough is the very same argument used against women before they got the vote in 1918 (only just over 100 years ago can you believe?!)

The notion that young people aren’t capable enough of making informed choices and decisions about issues in society is very ‘adultist’ if you know what I mean by that? Our society holds this view of children and young people without much question or discussion. It’s just ‘we know what is best for them and we’ll make all the decisions’ which I think is arrogant of us.

SolsticeLove
Our society holds this view of children and young people without much question or discussion. It’s just ‘we know what is best for them and we’ll make all the decisions’ which I think is arrogant of us.

Yep. Gone really well so far, hasn’t it?

Because regardless of whether the arbitrary definition of an adult is 18, 21 or 25, we need to fix it somewhere and we've decided it's 18. Clearly there has to be a lower limit and if not 16 then why not 14? Why not 10?

16 is still basically considered a child. We don't allow 16 year olds to buy alcohol, to smoke, to drive or to get married. We don't allow them to leave education unless they are going directly an apprenticeship or training scheme or a practical skills college course. We don't let them take out mortgages or huge bank loans. We don't let them gamble. Why in God's name would we let them vote? Where is the logic?

We allow them to have sex because it would be impractical and impossible not to, and we don't want to criminalise teenagers for doing what nature intended them to do as soon as they've gone through puberty, but we huff and puff and hand wring about whether they are mentally and emotionally ready and what age differences are appropriate, and whether or not they are vulnerable to grooming, whereas the second they turn 18 it's nobody else's business.

This.

Mr Sunak said it would be "transformational" for teenagers by providing them with "skills and opportunities... some structure, some rules"

The Tory leader added: "I think it will be really brilliant for young people to have this rite of passage that they go through with everything that it teaches them and just keeps them out of trouble

"I've talked to so many parents worried about what their kids are doing in the evenings, at the weekends

what a state our youth are in after 14 years of these cretins.

Didn't a conservative minister suggest that parents might be fined if their 18 year old 'children' do not turn up for national or community service?

Maybe it is not so fixed as you think it is.

Not sure why it’s a bad idea to let an uninformed 16 year old vote but it’s ok for an uninformed adult to vote?

And is it such a bad idea? There is an opportunity to go through manifestos at school or college so they get used to actually reading and understanding the damn things, and to build up the importance of voting within the school environment. As it affects them directly now rather than in the future they might just take a bit more interest in it rather than throwing them out in the world 18 months later with no support through their first voting experience.

my 13 year old is all for it!

Not sure why it’s a bad idea to let an uninformed 16 year old vote but it’s ok for an uninformed adult to vote?

Not really sure what "informed" has to do with it anyway. Some peoples votes are based on starsigns.

It's a terrible idea.

It's a good idea. We have an aging population which has the risks of causing tensions between generations. This gives a voice for young people who may have different priorities (non of this is bad- just different)

Voting is really important. Too many people don't bother. Maybe embedding it at 16 will help?

Did Sinak say that.
Is it in the papers on tv?

On Sky:

Mr Sunak said it would be "transformational" for teenagers by providing them with "skills and opportunities... some structure, some rules"

The Tory leader added: "I think it will be really brilliant for young people to have this rite of passage that they go through with everything that it teaches them and just keeps them out of trouble
"I've talked to so many parents worried about what their kids are doing in the evenings, at the weekends

Very clear what he thinks of our kids - wasters who are little crims once out of our sight.

Thankyou
So sunak didn’t say
’they are unfit for purpose and need to be forced into the military’