Lowering the Voting Age

[Sectional]

Do you think we should lower the voting age to 16?

Would you say that 16 year olds are just as knowledgeable about civics and have the same ability to make good voting choices as older voters, or would you argue that people under the age of 18 aren't mature enough to vote?

Studies show that there is an extremely low voter turnout numbers for young people voting, suggesting that the young generation aren't ready to vote until later in life. That said lowering the voting age would increase voter turnout as they might start getting more involved in elections early on as opposed to simply ignoring it during their developing adult lives as they're not able to vote/make a difference yet anyway

What are your views?

[sexpot]

this debate is now live!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Speak to any 16 year old and ask yourself if you would trust them enough to give them any control of your own life.

And there's your answer.

If anything, I would raise the voting age to 21.

[RichBoiSam]

I have mixed views regarding this.

When I was 16, I was really interested in politics and I'd say that I had A LOT more knowledge than most adults. I used to love a healthy debate and most adults would resort to insults and name calling if you had a disagreement instead of trying to prove their point, which is why I'm not as actively involved. If I remember correctly I was 17 when the whole Brexit referendum happened and although I couldn't vote, I was very vocal with my opinions and it's unbelievable how many adults were immature and believed everything in the Daily Mail, using those headlines as their argument. I'm not saying I was right, looking back now after seeing the whole Brexit fiasco pan out, I would've changed my tune however at the time I educated myself on the European Union and felt I had a very good argument.

When you're 16, you're allowed to make a decision on your future; do you go to further education or do you start an apprenticeship? Surely if you're responsible enough to make a decision about your future, even if that does involve choosing BTEC Sports to doss around (totally aimed at me), you should have the ability to vote for your future too.

On the other hand, not all 16 year olds are knowledgeable on the subject of politics and don't truly understand it. I remember most of my friends saying "I'd vote XXX because my family do" like it's not a football team, you need to make your own decision. A lot of young people are also easily influenced, I don't want to start a political debate however Labour are often known for giving away free stuff and the prospect of "free wifi" for example will overlook the important policies regarding the economy etc. After all, they haven't really experienced paying tax (VAT excluded) so should we trust their judgement on that?

I don't have a yes or no answer, I believe there are many 16 year olds who are much more mature and knowledgeable than a lot of adults who are allowed to vote however there are also many 16 year olds who have no clue and could have a negative influence on the results.

[Cerys]

Speak to any 16 year old and ask yourself if you would trust them enough to give them any control of your own life.

And there's your answer.

If we're going by trust of life then I'd only allow a very small amount of people to vote


All I have to add to this other than that is some 16 year olds study politics and citizenship etc, I know I was more clued up about it when I was in school doing it there and then. But at the same time kids are very impressionable and probably easily swayed, especially by their family, into having a different opinion to one they want to voice in the future.

[Yupt]

No, I would not. Most 16 year olds have very little understanding about politics and what is it they'd actually be voting for, at least at 18 many voters would have left school, taken jobs, or be at university - places where by which you can see more clearly the impact your vote has and what it actually means.

I would however be far more opposed to the idea of increasing it to 21, if you can go to war for your country at 18 you should also be able to vote in it.

[RichBoiSam]

No, I would not. Most 16 year olds have very little understanding about politics and what is it they'd actually be voting for, at least at 18 many voters would have left school, taken jobs, or be at university - places where by which you can see more clearly the impact your vote has and what it actually means.

I would however be far more opposed to the idea of increasing it to 21, if you can go to war for your country at 18 you should also be able to vote in it.

I agree about being opposed to the idea of increasing it to 21, it wouldn't affect me now that I'd be old enough however I've been paying tax since the age of 18 so I should have the right to vote on where that tax goes as each party will be spending it differently.

In terms of very little understanding of politics, I do agree with that however I feel that it should be part of the curriculum at that age. I do fear that they'd be easily misled and without experiencing the real world of paying tax and stuff, no education would help them make the best decision.

[FlyingJesus]

I'd say no because of the wider legal implications. If someone is considered autonomous and able to select who they are governed by at 16 and 17, it then follows that they are a legal adult, removing an enormous number of protections. Ignorance of politics isn't the issue (we all know many many people who have no clue and I'm sure we're all well acquainted with plenty of voters who don't even have any desire to learn more about who/what they're voting for but do it anyway), it's a matter of classification - in the UK at least, for the MOST part you either are or aren't an adult and that's that

[lawrawrrr]

When I was 16 or so I was all for this, now I'm older I do not agree. The vast vast majority of kids that age have NO political understanding whatsoever, there's next to NO political education (which is absurd imo) up till that age. I remember being 16 or 17 and thinking haha I'd love to vote for the flying spaghetti monster party. No.

Nowadays there's a lot on social media which is really eays to persuade especially younger people one way or the other (which is both good and bad I think) so rather than making an informed choice, I think the majority of that vote would be for the lolz (like I genuinely thought) or for peer pressure.

However I do think with big referendums, the age should be lowered as the information is much more balanced and their opinion usually will matter by the time it's actually law. Such as Brexit.

[LUCPIX]

Speaking as a person that lives in a country where the minimal voting age IS 16, although it is not considered compulsory until one's eighteen! We had Mayor/Councilmen elections this year, and it has been reported that only about 0.7% of the total amount of voters were people aged 16-17, as the number used to be FIVE times bigger in the past 30 years, making us to conclude that little effort has done in order to enhance my people's political education (it's literally never spoken about on schools), or even light up some type of interest on it as every type of information of that sort only comes when it is spontaneously sought after by one person — which, of course, seems to be (as it is) something DEPLORABLE; an existential walking-backwards and any sort of idiotic mind would be able to put all the status together and come to the ending spot of having the whole situation sorted ASAP, but... turns out the ones high above kind of know that the more alienated you are about everything that is happened, the better it is for those who's in charge of our future, so why would we threaten our current structures, right? Welcome to Brazil

That being said, it is also important for us not to lose track of the relative bit of the whole discussion...

What exactly do we mean when we say that a younger elector has "done a good voting choice"?

Does it only depend on the chosen candidate? Well, this is a variable that is filled with each one's very different perspective and political necessities. Trying to be as much impartial as we can for the sake of my thought, no matter where we are, how is it possible to tell that the X candidate is objectively "better" than the Y one (even if we think that the answer is crystal clear) when we live in a world of different societal segments when the decision of a single political representative can be influenced by different privileges, cultural and cause-acknowledgement degrees?

A good political decision, by my definition, is the one that inherently manages meets one's extremely circumstantial wishes and necessities of an individual according to their overall condition here in this weird world; the acknowledgement of what these wishes and necessities are, obviously, only exists by voluntary intervention and interest — which, given the current lack of the bigger one's keenness of developing, is something that, unfortunately, you'll only spot on <2% of the young ones around here. You can imagine that it isn't enough to change a country. We can also imagine that, by inertia, luck or anything, a [net] good political decision might at times come from the remaining 98%; what's the actual point, though, when they do not know why they've done so if not because someone else has told them that it was the right thing to do?? Sorry for the dumb comparison, but it's almost analogue to the cases of people defending adults having relationships with minors "for both sides have consented" — how can a child even have the slightest credibility of saying yes to something they absolutely don't know what they are saying yes to????

so the answer is no - goodnight