• Replies 35 replies
  • Subscribers 94 subscribers
  • Views 1189 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Lowering the voting age

Peter

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c628ep4j5kno

So the labour party apparently believes that 16 and 17-year-olds are old enough to vote. But not old enough to:

  • Leave school
  • Hold down a full-time job
  • Buy a plastic knife
  • Play the lottery
  • Buy alcohol
  • Smoke
  • Sue someone in court without permission
  • Get married (in England and Wales)
  • Watch porn
  • Make porn
  • Go to war
  • Stand for parliament

Now in my mind voting is one of the most adult things you can do. You are taking responsibility for the running of the country (indirectly). So my question, and it is a serious question for debate, if 16 and 17-year-olds can be expected to vote what other adult things could they reasonably expect to do.

For the record I personally am in favour of reducing the voting age but I do think it produces important inconsistencies that should probably be addressed. At the very least you should be able to stand in the elections you are voting for. If a 16-year-old can vote for an MP they should be allowed to be an MP.

Parents
  • After reflecting deeply on this issue, I’ve come to believe that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote. To ensure readiness, they could complete a civic education module in school and pass an exam demonstrating their grasp of key concepts—without being required to adopt any particular ideology. If a student can engage with history in a classroom setting, they are capable of participating in democracy.
    I also believe their unique neurochemistry—whether they are going through or have not yet experienced puberty—offers perspectives that many adults may overlook. This developmental stage can be seen as a form of neurodivergence in itself. Just because young people may score higher on emotional or impulsive metrics doesn’t mean they should be excluded from voting. If we used those criteria to disqualify voters, we’d risk disenfranchising neurodivergent individuals like ourselves.
Reply
  • After reflecting deeply on this issue, I’ve come to believe that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote. To ensure readiness, they could complete a civic education module in school and pass an exam demonstrating their grasp of key concepts—without being required to adopt any particular ideology. If a student can engage with history in a classroom setting, they are capable of participating in democracy.
    I also believe their unique neurochemistry—whether they are going through or have not yet experienced puberty—offers perspectives that many adults may overlook. This developmental stage can be seen as a form of neurodivergence in itself. Just because young people may score higher on emotional or impulsive metrics doesn’t mean they should be excluded from voting. If we used those criteria to disqualify voters, we’d risk disenfranchising neurodivergent individuals like ourselves.
Children
  • in reply to Packet
    Packet said:
    without being required to adopt any particular ideology

    This will be incredibly hard to ensure as the environment they are being educated in is run by and staffed by primarily left leaning adults, so bias is inevitable.

    Packet said:
    I also believe their unique neurochemistry—whether they are going through or have not yet experienced puberty—offers perspectives that many adults may overlook.

    Their life is not tempered by experience yet and this is the key reason (in my opinion) why they need to wait until 18 to be able to vote.

    Admittedly these days not many leave school before 18 but there are more adult experiences to be had once past 16 that give a better insight into the real world and how those running it can impact it.

    Until this the children (in a legal sense) rely on what they are taught and to a degree what they can research, but with so many echo chambers of political opinion it is really hard to find the truth amongst so may opinions.

    Packet said:
    If we used those criteria to disqualify voters, we’d risk disenfranchising neurodivergent individuals like ourselves.

    I don't think the comparison is fair here - we are talking in this thread primarily about the majority (95% of the population) who are not autistic as they will have the impact with their votes.

    These are interesting points you raise and I'm not saying they are bad, just offering my views on how I see them with 6 decades of lived experience to draw on.

    Maybe part of the readiness you mention should come with a form of earning the right to vote. Some form of national service from ages 16 to 18 (not armed forces) would be great to earn life experience, real world work experience and some useful skills that the country needs.

    Perhaps a longer summer break where the student can be used for agricultural labour, clearing derelict areas, keeping the beaches clean etc - but with mandatory classes in how to interview, how to do a tax return, how to manage difficult customers, how to change a tyre / perform basic preventative maintenance on a car, how to deal with a first aid emergency etc.

    In some ways the cheap labour will cover the cost of the training and the improvements in produce will keep prices lower for the consumer.

    Just a thought.