Why would anyone think 16 year-olds should be allowed to vote?

[MsAmerica]

Be honest - think back to when you were 16. Did you have an understanding of a broad range of issues? Did you pay serious attention to national news? Okay, even many adults may lapse on the score, but still, it seems crazy to me.

In the U.S., voting age had been 21 and the only reason it was lowered to 18 was that teens were being drafted to fight in Vietnam, and it was felt as unfair for them to have no say.

No, it’s ridiculous. A 16 year old is a child.

Surely this is a teachable moment?

It's your opportunity to say, "No, don't just vote the way I vote, read the manifestos of the different parties and see if there's one you agree with more than the others. We can talk about it if you like. But your vote belongs to you and so you should make your own mind up."

My mum was about 50 before she finally stopped voting the way her dad told her to.

Raising participation (education) age ie raising it from 16 to 18

Even if in employment, they still have to receive at least part-time education or training.

Why do you assume 16 year olds wouldn’t educate themselves about issues they care about? Some will, some won’t, some won’t vote … much like the rest of the electorate.

But the training doesn't have to be an official "government" one.
Many companies have in-house training schemes that a full time 16/17 employee can do.
I know several 16/17 year olds that have done this route.

Given the average intelligence and political understanding of adults, they can't do any worse.
Read comments in any paper comments sections and the illiterate, racist, xenophobic comments show the level we are dealing with.

@twistyizzy sorry if I am sounding picky but I hate the fact so many 16/17 year olds are struggling at 6th Form/College and absolutely hate being there - but they think they HAVE to be there. They don't. They can follow the alternative path of employment.
Not a NEET....so the government is happy.

The law states
"Under previous legislation it was compulsory for young people to remain in education until the age of 16. However, as a result of legislation introduced in September 2013, the law now requires that young people continue in education, employment or training until the age of 18"

So whether that is enforced or not, that's the law cos under 18s are legally children. That's why if you give them the vote you need to lower legal age of being an adult, to 16 Inc being able to purchase property etc. You can't have it both ways.

It’s also the age where you are or have most likely been studying political movements in history. If you’re able to sit exams and write essays on the Russian revolution and rise of fascism, I should think you’re equipped with the skills to vote.

Obviously people mature at different rates, but there will still be people immature beyond 18. Again, I’m just not seeing the gap between 16 and 18, although I agree there needs to be a cut-off somewhere.

I hope it will enthuse young people in general to vote. Atm political parties concentrate on policies that appeal to older people because they generally turn out to vote. I would urge anyone with a teenager to encourage them to make sure their voices are heard, politicians only care about getting into power

"Training"
That's the important word.
All jobs require training to learn what to do at that job.
It's a loophole - but the government put it there.

Yes of course but the legality still stands and in all honesty it isn't a large % of 16 Yr olds. The job market is awful, kids struggle to get weekend jobs let alone FT ones. That's why most go to college + FT FE/A levels

Nope - I work with NEET young people and also young people in FT employment - all 16-18

no one forces young people into EET - the only real impact is the loss of CB and TC to parents

it’s in no way illegal to not be in education or training!

It can.be more subtle than that though. Depending on the way you are taught. I was definitely very influenced by my politics teacher at school even though she was ancient (as I thought then!).

That is true.
But for those who really can't bare to be in school/college it annoys me that they are essentially lied to about it being compulsory to be there.

I'm assuming most will.vote Green because "environment" without knowing quote how left wing they are.

Or Corbyn. For reasons beyond me as I am middle aged and not (too) mad.

Conservatism and socialism is not communism and facisim.

It actually is. DfE guidelines are:You can leave school on the last Friday in June if you’ll be 16 by the end of the summer holidays.You must then do one of the following until you’re 18:Stay in FT education Do an Apprenticeship20 hours + employment alongside part time education or training So legally, the only way they can be in FT employment is if they have part time education or training alongside. How you enforce that is debatable but that's the law under RPA.

It's worrying that you don't know this:

Under previous legislation it was compulsory for young people to remain in education until the age of 16. However, as a result of legislation introduced in September 2013, the law now requires that young people continue in education, employment or training until the age of 18.

I don't disagree with you on that

@twistyizzy as I said.....the important word is "training".
An in-company training on the job scheme would cover that.
Which all jobs will do in one form or another for new employees who haven't done that job before.

If people are unhappy about this move (I'm not) then maybe they should have paid attention in all the voting they have done up until now. This wasn't handed down on tablets of stone yesterday.

I wonder how much of this faux concern is really a fear of the fact that the younger generations are going to have to feature a tad more in political discourse than previously ?

@twistyizzy it's not "illegal" in the sense that there's no punishment.
No one gets fined or sent to prison over this.
(that was in response to what you replied to @ghostyslovesheets )

An induction isn't a training programme. Like I said, that's the letter of the law and it isn't enforced however that doesn't mean it isn't the law.

I didn't say "induction" - I said "training scheme".
They are different.