There's plenty more who are thick as mince who get to vote so it's not much of an argument tbf.
Election 2024
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
There's plenty more who are thick as mince who get to vote so it's not much of an argument tbf.
106-year-old who thinks it’s 1937 can vote. Kid doing a Politics AS Level can’t. It’s not high on my list of reasons for voting but I’m all for it.
The vast majority at that age are still in school. They don't have responsibilities. Most aren't paying taxes. They're kids. I know some might stop school at that age and start working but the majority of 16 year olds are just kids. There is no reason for them to vote, they're someone else's dependents. I mean, why stop at 16 if you let children vote- why not let 6 year olds vote. There is a huge brain development gap between a 16y/o and an 18y/o. UAE probably have it right at 25. By that age you've had real-world and real-life experiences and you're voting based upon experiences rather than who dresses better on a tiktok video.
But they can join the army and get killed for their country.
Yeh just kids.
Like Westy I'm not hung up over it but I don't see a problem.
There’s a huge drop in brain function between 90 and 100 but I wouldn’t argue for removing the vote of a 100-year-old. The 100-year-old isn’t paying tax either (income tax anyway, we all pay tax).
Well, I don't think 16 year olds should be in the army either. Especially since they're required to stay on until they're 22. 16 year olds arn't mentally mature enough to make decisions like that.
Not my seat but it’s next door and I’ve not seen them at all in the Brighton one they have and very little in terms of support outside houses for the little that’s worth. Wouldn’t be surprised if they lose it but take the Bristol one Denyer is in for.
Yeh but while they are they should also be allowed to vote.
16 yr olds also pay taxes btw. We all do in one way or another. Even a 10 year old buying a bar of chocolate is paying tax. It's no argument.
It's such a safe seat and the Greens have so little money they might think it's worth putting resources into Bristol and Waveney instead.
Carla Denyer appears to be a safe bet, but I think it'll be closer than they think
OK, I'd take a compromise. If they're in the army they can vote. If they're not, they have to wait until they're 18. (also important to note, they can't be on armed operations when under 18- so it's not like we had 16 year olds dying in Afghanistan in large numbers)
Most 16 year olds are not productive members of society (the whole point of the tax comment) and yes, even tourists pay taxes, but not in an important way. 16 year olds are (mostly) dependent upon their parents still and they have zero experience or knowledge to base voting upon. I have a 15(about to turn 16) year old and a 17 year old and I know all their friends. They're not at an age where they could/or should be expected to vote responsibly.
There is no benefit to the country or to 16 year olds to give them the vote. It's not like there is no-one looking out for their interests, they're still dependent on their parents (most of them) and their parents will still be voting on their families' interests. They're not an overlooked minority denied a vote- they're just kids. (and that's not me being dismissive, that's the UK legal definition of a child, anyone under 18)
I just don't think the argument they have zero experiemce or knowledge to vote is a good one. There are plenty in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's etc who that would apply to but I wouldn't deny them the vote either.
I think it's a bit elitist to say any vote is somehow worth less than another. The only argument I kind of get is that the number of 18-20 yr olds voting is really low so why introduce to 16 yr olds? I think there's a good argument to say let's focus on getting their vote up first.
This is my argument usually, that 18-20 voting rates are atrocious, 16 year olds won't be much better.
Another problem I have is during the election cycle in 2010 I was still at school and my union loving, Labour voting, teachers when "teaching" about the election could simply not hide their bias and affected a lot of students.
I'd wait until they're out of school personally.
I mean, there are probably the occasional 5 year olds who would vote more responsible than a 50 year old and exceptions to every rule you could possibly think of. What it all boils down to is that I don't think it's right that children are voting even if there are one or two who would do it responsibly and one or two adults who won't. Legal age of adulthood in UK is 18.
they're a bloody disgrace...
I mean I wouldn't want to show any bias myself but I've got a "Fck the Tories" banner next to the "This school is outstanding" outside my school.
as a teacher i'm surprised you don't know how to spell the expletive "****" ,