lowering the voting age

It's same with everything else, there has to be a cut off and it generally has to be a bit too high to make sure the majority are capable of handling it not just the minority.

Age of consent could and probably should be lower for SOME people who are forced to wait (in theory) despite being 'ready' and fully capable of understanding the implications and making the decision much earlier but it's set at 16 to make sure the vast majority are capable not just the few.

I would wager there are 13 year olds who are sensible enough to drive a car, would understand the rules and reasons for them and would learn to drive and be more than capable in the road. BUT it's set at 17 to make sure the majority are.

15 year olds out there who can handle their drink etc.

Same goes for voting. I have no doubt that quite a few people - and that number is growing - at 16 understand politics and would make a genuine and sensible decision on who to vote for. I also know that the majority wouldn't. Until the point comes that the majority by some way have demonstrated they are capable at 16 then you can't reduce the voting age.

 

totally wrong... you have to get your parent/guardians consent to join up below the age of 18..... get your facts correct

 

Too right. I am too.

But the parties that advocate this youth vote are only doing it because it helps them.

"Age" is an arbitrary determinant for everything as you're growing up.

If you were able to break the age rules, you thought you were cool.

That's how juveniles think.

That's also why they hang around and sometimes get into trouble. Or get lucky. You certainly do the daftest things, and eventually grow out of such behaviour (mostly).

To vote without any sense or experience of some sort of responsibility is wrong, to me.

 

Didn't know that to be fair, apologies. I'd still give the vote to 16 year olds, I think at that age you're old enough to have a say.

 

One of the compulsory elements of the National Curriculum is "Citizenship" to foundation level*. This includes modules on UK politics, voting, MPs and how Parliament works. So most current 16-19 year olds on leaving school will know more about this than the majority of adults.

*Academies don't have to follow the national curriculum.

At 16, you can have sex (but not film it), have kids, join the armed forces, learn to pilot a glider and make decisions about your future
At 17, you can drive a car and a plane.
At 18, you can have your first legal pint and vote.
At 21, you qualify for full minimum wage.

All very arbitrary.

 

The problem with this though is that, as we all know, there are plenty of 18+ that haven't got a clue what's going on in politics. I'm a big fan of lowering the voting age as it's really important to get people engaged in politics early so they can shape their own futures, I'd also make it mandatory in the school curriculum that politics is taught and how the parties, houses and political system works. Another thing to remember is that if you're 17 now, and aren't eligible to vote on 12th December, you won't get to got until your 22, and in that time you may have lost any interest in politics.

 

I was quite politically aware as a 16 year old and certainly my 2 lads were at 16.

William Hague (who went to my school, Wath Grammar) made a speech at the Tory conference at 16.

As Wellsie says above, there are plenty of people over 18 who are clueless.

 

You can buy a lottery ticket at 16 but the legal age to gamble is 18!

 

It is part of the Foundation Citizenship which is a compulsory part of Key Stage 4 under the national curriculum.

 

They could teach gcse and even A level politics from age 14 to increase political awareness in readiness for voting at 16.
A couple of hours a week and you get a gimme A level thrown in too.

 

I would say older people would have more right than younger people to vote. Many have paid tax for decades and to take away their chance to vote just because they have reached a certain age wouldn't be fair.

 

Always will be an exception to the rule however the majority still wouldn’t be.
Wouldn’t have thought William Hague would be a good example as he was always going to be a career Politician and the fact press and people cite that fact shows it’s a rarity.

The point about over 18’s also highlights my point as well.

 

There are people in every age group who are clueless, age has little to do with it down to about 16. I honestly don’t know where the line should be drawn but to disenfranchise an intelligent, politically aware 16 year old whilst allowing a bigoted, racist moronic 60-something to decide their future seems wrong to me.

 

you have to have written permission from your parents or guardians, you can only join of your own will at 18.

 

49.9999% of the population are (by definition) below average intelligence. 1% are psychopaths, 4% are sociopaths. 850,000 people in the UK have dementia, and another is diagnosed every 3 minutes (225,000 this year and expected to double to 1.6m in 20 years), but they still get a vote - as do alcoholics, drug addicts, and those with mental impairment as a result of brain injury.

On the one hand, people fought for full franchise for voting. On the other hand, it is increasingly likely that there needs to be some kind of limit on who can continue to vote on capacity, ability or behaviour.

 

They dont go to war though, yes you can join the forces at 16 but CANNOT be deployed on operations until 18.

 

People sectioned under MHA can still vote- if you are detained for forensic offences relating to mental illness you may lose your right.

 

It’s a very similar situation here in Darton where I’m tying myself in knots as to who I can believe in enough to vote for whereas it’s actually futile as labour will piss it based on very little substance.