Lowering the voting age

I'm surprised that so many people are against this to be honest. In my mind it's long overdue. I don't see much equivalence between a lot of the things on your list and being able to vote. A lot of the things are on that list to protect 16 yr olds from bad decisions and exploitation.

I also don't think it follows that if you can vote for an MP you should therefore be able to stand as one. These are both completely different. In fact I would argue that the lower age limit for standing for election could be a bit higher.

Those politicians opposed are playing up the list of things you can't do at 16 as being nonsensical if you are lowering the voting age. I think this is disingenuous and just a way of opposing a change that they don't think will benefit them, without actually addressing the change itself. Different things are allowed at different ages because those things are different. There is no sensible reason why we should have one single cut off age for everything.

I disagree. Imagine saying women can vote but not be MPs? (this used to be the case) You might say "OK but women have special interests and points of view that maybe are best represented in parliment by women" I think the same argument holds equally true for 16 year olds. Are 18 year olds not at danger of exploitation and making bad decisions? How many students do you think drop out of university every year because of bad deccisions?

If I was 16 and went into my local supermarket and was told I couldn't buy a plastic knife I'd write to my MP and if I had the vote that MP would be silly not to listen. And the fact that an MP might tend to dismiss the opinion of a 16 year old voter is exactly why 16 year olds would also need to be able to stand in elections to fully have their voices heard.

That's not an equivalent situation. You wouldn't say to a woman that she could only be an MP when she stopped being a woman. 16 year olds will become 18 year olds and at that point they will be able to stand.

To your other point, people of all ages are capable of making bad decisions. Wherever you put the age limit you could say "but aren't xx year olds capable of making bad decisions?"

I would say that 16 year olds, in general, are capable of deciding who they want to vote for and casting that vote. Those that aren't, probably won't. I don't think they are capable of being a member of parliament with all that entails. Those that are won't have long to wait.

That's not an equivalent situation. You wouldn't say to a woman that she could only be an MP when she stopped being a woman. 16 year olds will become 18 year olds and at that point they will be able to stand.

To your other point, people of all ages are capable of making bad decisions. Wherever you put the age limit you could say "but aren't xx year olds capable of making bad decisions?"

I would say that 16 year olds, in general, are capable of deciding who they want to vote for and casting that vote. Those that aren't, probably won't. I don't think they are capable of being a member of parliament with all that entails. Those that are won't have long to wait.

So why not 21 where it used to be? I mean people who are 18 will mostly live long enough to be 21? But in that time most of them will go through uni or an apprenticeship etc. The interests of a 18 year old are quite different than say a 21 year old. The same is true between 16 and 18. The best way to make sure a demographics interest is well represented in parliament is let that demographic actually be in parliament. Because if there is even one 16 y/o in parliament banging on about the issues they care about its suddenly much harder to keep that topic off the agenda. It's the same with popular and controversial views. Once you get one 'extreme' MP in parliament it is much harder to keep discussion of 'extreme' views of the agenda ... extreme view like 16 y/o should be allowed to buy plastic knives in this case.