I don't believe votes can be skewed so significantly by that particular age group unless they have convinced enough of the adult population anyway. If it was somehow the case that every 16 & 17 year old were voting for the same person, then there's clearly something within their policies worth considering. The discussion isn't about lowering the voting age to manipulate power in my opinion, which is a very negative way to look at it. It's more about including 16 & 17 year olds more completely and giving them responsibility in their lives and power over their futures. It's a positive way to encourage engagement.
It's not negative at all. It's purely practical. The brain doesn't complete development until about the age of 25. Studies regularly show that teenagers are more impulsive and are drawn towards taking risks. At that age the importance and gravitas of casting their vote is less likely to occur to them. Age restrictions aren't put on things arbitrarily, they are there because, in general terms, people are not mentally developed enough to undertake them until they reach a certain age.
It is largely arbitrary though because the age can and has changed in the past. It's 18 simply because that where we decided to move it to as a nation. It was 21 at one point and many people would have used the same argument as yourself as a reason not to lower it to 18. Yet we've seen no adverse affects or drastic radicalism. Many progressive countries around the world have lowered the voting age to 16. If mental development is really the key issue, would you advocate taking the right to vote away from elderly people who have some issues with cognitive function? Or why not have an exam to determine if you're intelligent enough to vote?
If you want to have universal suffrage, you can't rule out elderly people or rule people out on the basis of their IQ. You can, however, set at the age that people legally become adults (as it is now), on the basis that, at this point, they should be mature enough to use their vote, or understand what it means not to use it. The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1969 because that was in line with what people, at that time, considered to be the age of adulthood. Research showing the differences between adult and teenage brains and the fact that the brain continues developing for much longer than thought didn't yield those findings until much more recently. Funnily enough, those results suggest that 21 was probably more accurate than 18 as the age of majority. Given the increasing incidences of stress and anxiety being recorded in teenagers, I would have thought that it was better to let them mature for longer before forcing the weights of the adult world upon them; giving them time to learn resilience and about themselves. This idea that making them become adults earlier is progressive seems nonsensical to me. It would be better to revise age limits for things like voting, joining the army up rather than down, given what we now know about development of the brain. Certainly, that's the trend within education, with them having to remain with some kind formal setting until 18.
A very valid argument. I don't agree but perhaps I'm not fully appreciating the gravity of the decision.
We shouldn't have to agree. People see things differently and by understanding how other people see things, that's how you get progress. If we can do it on a football forum, surely the people running the country can do the same thing. I know I can go on a bit but I'm not (usually!!) trying to make people agree, just to explain why I think something.
Don't think I matured until I was 35. Girls 5 years or more sooner. What does this say about people who have kids at 20 to 25? Some how wish I'd met my Mrs at 20 to 25... but... what percentage of marriages survive from marriages at 20 to 25? I was 41, Mrs 32, big age gap I know, was this the reason why we are still together? Marriage is all about commitment, can you give this when you are 20 to 25?
Enjoyed reading the posts about voting age. I would lower it personally. I dont think 16 and 17 year olds are too immature. I appreciate ths argument about brain development, but I am not convinced that is a valid reason personally. I coach 16 and 17 year olds and a lot are very socially aware, they are quite rounded people actually. Obviously there are some that arent, but then there are pensioners that arent too. A fair bit of research shows political disengagement at the younger age groups because some dont get to vote until they are 20, 21, 22. They have tuned out. The numbers of 16 and 17 year olds who vote in scotland and wales are high, and their political engagement seems to remain high. I would give them a say in their future personally. I think they have a right to decide which policies might impact their taxes or their education etc.
Actually I would go the other way and restrict voting somewhat. Since the suffragettes got women the vote it has been a disaster... a big mistake... by and large women are more concerned by bags, shoes and soaps on TV. Voting is obviously not for them. Newcastle supporters are another group, cos of their delusional idiocy, ie mentally defective. Voting is not for them. As for kids ie say under 21, they struggle to hold their drink and many of them can't even decide what pronoun/gender etc they want to use. So no voting for them. Obviously anyone who has voted for the Cons over the years, that has brought the country to its knees. Should not be eligible to vote, as they have demonstrated bad judgement. I reckon only those who have a stake in the country ie own a property whose mortgage has been paid off should be eligible to vote. There sorted!
So if folk should be able to vote at 16 then surely the same people believe they should be able to drive, drink alcohol, gamble and smoke?
That makes me wonder how messed up we are. Can’t have a glass of wine or beer , but can make a lifetime lasting choice to change sex
After endless ludicrous and empty slogans about 'world class' this and 'historic' that ... ... we now have the other, people just rolling their eyes at the latest effort. Billionaire businessman Sir James Dyson has issued fresh criticism of Rishi Sunak’s Government, claiming that the Prime Minister’s pledge to turn the UK into a science and technology superpower is a “mere political slogan”.
You have to pay for wine and beer ... ... sex changes are paid for by the taxpayers. It's a no brainier.
Wasn't one of Sunak's slogans that he'd 'United the Party' Can't wait for tomorrow's slogan ... ... should be a cracker. Priti Patel attacks Rishi Sunak for overseeing ‘managed decline’ of Tory party. Boris Johnson supporters to stage conference today in the wake of heavy local election losses for Tories. Maryam Zakir-Hussain 7 minutes ago
