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.

You can’t marry in England under the age of 18. It’s 16 elsewhere in the UK.

I voted to Remain.
However I can perfectly accept that some people will have voted to leave based on factors other than economics (or being racist).

Adults are allowed to vote how they think best for whatever reasons they want, even if others consider them ill informed or illogical.

I'm just not convinced lowering the voting age to children still living at home dependent on their parents is the right thing to do.
However I do accept it was in the manifesto and so the government has a right to do this.

Well aware of the levels on capacity...

I was answering pp who claimed hey are children who cannot make decisions....

....which is rubbish, 16/17yo's have to make choices on exams, uni's, loans & career choices, in many cases with little or no support.

It depends on the kid. There's got to be an arbitrary cut off age somewhere and it's not 16.

Why can't it be 16?

For all the reasons listed on this thread. 18 is the age where someone can own property for example. Not before.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Having sex is more risky than voting, you can do that at 16.

The age can be 16 if the law is changed to make it 16, which it probably will be.

I've news for you, it will be 16.

Owning property (by property I mean anything) gives you a stake in society. It means you are legally deemed responsible enough to make your own decisions with your own assets. Age 18 also means that you no longer need legal guardians for example as you are deemed in law to be able to make your own decisions. You may disagree of course. But that's the law.

The saying used to be "no taxation without representation ". You can flip that round.While I am not arguing that people that don't (or no longer) pay tax shouldn't be allowed to vote, it does link some sort of transaction with society and the state. As you know, being so into Julius Caesar.

Well it was in the Labour manifesto, so has been voted on.

Really?

Considering that a majority of supposedly grown up people managed to vote for Brexit and Boris Johnson, I don't see any issue with a 16 year old being given the vote....

They probably will be able to make wiser decisions.

With "understanding" like that is this thread, the over 18s are hardly covering themselves in glory.

To be fair both sets of my grandparents and in-laws are pretty out of touch and have questionable views but vote. Maybe allowing 16 to 17 year olds might add a bit of balance.

There are also plenty of 17-year-olds who have a better grasp and understanding of political issues/economics etc than a lot of adults

@fratellia If they haven’t studied economics, that’s doubtful. Most adults are woefully under informed, that’s true. However 17 year olds have no skin in the game. They pay for nothing and most of them aren’t happy that they will have to!

Most 18 year olds can't afford to own property. Neither can most 25 year olds for that matter. It's pretty offensive to suggest that people who don't own property have no stake in society.

However Interested they are in politics or whatever they want to do in the future, 16 is far too young to vote. You need life experience to know what you are actually voting for - and most of them do not have that. Also, it’s likely the ones who do have any political knowledge, will have had a private education and lived a very upper to middle class life so no, I don’t want them voting on my behalf.

You say that, but within living memory* that was exactly the position for women over 30. (Women under 30 weren't worth a vote).

*1918, but if you were born before 1929 then you were born under those restrictions.

Cryptic comment. What do you mean? An 18 year old in England (eg) cannot own property in their own right. A trust is used.

Even thats not true, they can own property of varying types but not land or buildings.
That should change, a 16yo can own a Rolex but not a garage....

It was an example of what you can do legally at 18 that you couldn't before. You can't own a property in your own name under 18.

Actually I'm coming round to the idea of only getting the vote if you pay tax (looking at some of the answers on this thread). Far too many people want to have a say in how to spend taxpayers money without contributing much or any tax themselves. 16 year olds being a good example.

No representation without taxation.

There is some massive assumptions in with that lot.....

What exactly is "life experience?" We all have different ones...

Why can a 16/17 decide their career and educational choices, take out a loan but some how lack the ability to vote?

What real property doesn't consist of land or buildings?

Far too many people want to have a say in how to spend taxpayers money without contributing much or any tax themselves.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

@abracadabra1980 Political knowledge in 16 year olds denotes a private education? Since when? Most young activists are Socialists. They are absolutely not privately educated. Often dc of union members and parents are staunch Labour. The Times thinks it’s Angela’s gamble to stop Reform.