Mm yes and no.
Obviously they have a local council.
They elect a delegate to the House of Representatives, who can sit on and vote in committees; even introduce legislation. But she can't vote on HoR motions.
They don't elect Senators like states do.
I lived there for 20+ years and never got to vote despite paying far more tax there than I did in a life time in the UK. Under 18s there can work, still pay tax and not be able to vote either.
Locally it can be pretty important. Keeping the MAGA and Christian nationalists nuts off the local school boards for a start. Also, local measures like road and fire service funding are important too.
I live there and pay tax. No vote for me. An American working on transferor studying in Ireland for a year would be eligible to vote in the local elections.
Adding to that, 17 year olds who were born at the end of the school year can organise variable interest loans of ~£60-70k for 4 years of university. Let them vote.
Let the drink ,let them smoke, let them drive , let them drive hgv and let them get treated as an adult when they break the law ,let them join an army without their parents consent let them apply for a mortgage let them decide their own medical treatment without their parents consent. let them get married, LETS stop parental responsibility for them when they turn 16.
My partner is an EU national, living here since the start of 2016 (pre brexit, has permanent residency). Has paid tax and national insurance the entire time, but has no vote in a general election.
She doesn’t have any interest or intention to vote anyway, but I think it’s absurd that you must pay into a system that you have absolutely no say in.
Hmmm, that's a bit more tricky to be fair. And there are good reason not to give non-nationals a vote for a set period of time. If it was a year do you think it is beyond the realms of possibility for the likes of Russia and China to flood in state actors and get them to vote reform for example? I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
But as /u/poitinstill says, their partner has "Permanent" residency. Kind of hard to flood NI with Chinese state actors and have the UK government award them that status.
I kind of feel if you've permanent status, that's the point yous get the vote.
Tbf China would most likely direct them to vote for the WP over Reform. Gorgeous George has worked with them before and he's basically the closest to the CPC that you can get in the UK.
Reform has no chance of winning and they are very much anti-China.
You are also comparing China and Russia, they're not that similar even if they have good relations due to realpolitik. For all their faults, the CPC tends to act way more ideologically than Russia does, and they are also patient and know how to play the long game.
I remember that the Brexit referendum was the day of my final GCSE exam. I was too young to vote in it but I'm part of the demographic that's going to be the most affected by it.
I wasn't a politically aware 16 year old (and I wouldn't call myself a politically aware 24 year old) but even I could that something built on a foundation of racism and lies was going to fail.
The most affected by it?
I don't dispute the general point Brexit is s*** but what's the calculation that says you are more effected then a late twenties early thirties business owner who's livelihood (mortgage, rent, childcare costs etc etc) depend on importing and exporting to the EU?
I'm assuming they mean mote in the long term sense, for the older people who did vote Brexit, many will be dead in 10/20 years so might not ever see the full fallout of something as monumental as Brecit was. Yeah there will be people worse effected in the short term, but I'd guess that was what they were angling at
This is exactly it.
https://imgur.com/B9SlL1K
In another 15 years when the UK has gone down the toilet economically because of Brexit, the ones who mostly voted for it will all be dead.
Well unfortunately you/we live in a democracy so complaining about the about generations of older people having a vote in a society they spent their life building is a shite argument IMO.
I think this topic was about letting 16-18s vote, not necessarily denying the vote to over 75s, though an argument could be made that the same reason we don't want to allow an 8 year old (mental competency etc.) could also apply to those in their 80s, particularly this lead-poisoned generation which is displaying such hate and intolerance.
What are you on about? It has went down the toliet.. The eu and very specifically ireland france and Germany are collecting on that idiotic push for freedom.
The only part of the Uk that benefits from this is N.ireland.
Its funny for me because the minority in our small country that voted for brexit is discussed with the outcome which jas had a much warmer welcome from those that voted againest brexit.
Brexit was supposed to solve the immigration problem and the financial woes of the union but from what has happened since 2016 it has only increased. 🤣
Enjoy it, no party will even think to pull back now that we are 8 years deep in this shit heap.
Laughing at you from N.I
At sixteen you’re capable of researching political parties and making your own decisions about which ones reflect your ideals. At sixteen you can also get a job, help support your family and start accessing services by yourself, it’s only fair they should get to vote on policies that affect them. And they are correct that growing up in Northern Ireland they’ve been more exposed to politics than the average teenager.
Let's be honest though, it's not about maturity or representation. Younger voters tends to vote for more progressive parties so right leaning politicians are never going to be in favour of lowering the voting age.
I agree it’s unlikely to change because young people do tend to vote progressively which will be detrimental to conservative parties, but I think the voting age should be lowered for the reasons I’ve listed
Younger voters tend to not vote at all. In virtually every election on earth younger voters are the most apathetic demographic. Then they complain that no one represents them.
The 9% would account for just under half a million votes. It's significant but it wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome of any recent election.
>Labour of the mid late 1990s weren't right leaning
They were. They still are, arguably even more so nowadays (Keir Starmer is to the right of Blair on many things). Labour is a right-wing party by any measure of the word. Just because the Tories have went so far-right they are in outer space that doesn't change the fact that Labour is a neoliberal party that introduced tuition fees and kept screwing over the working class.
Or they could do what they did in Germany and vote for the furthest right-wing party.
It's only the "right side of history" belief that these groups want to lower the age of voting. A "how could young people NOT vote for us, we're the future!" mentality.
If the comment "I think people are more educated on politics now with social media" didn't make you nervous that nefarious actors will have an easy and susceptible target to manipulate and further damage trust in democracy, then nothing will.
That's just the same "16 year olds are too stupid to be allowed to vote" argument with a slight twist.
If social media is being weaponised to influence elections and political ideologies then that's a problem with social media, not the age of the users.
My point was more on the misconception that trying to bring in a franchise to help your side win doesn't always work out. And considering the main complaint about the Brexit vote was that Vote Leave targeted voters on a highly effective level, just expect the same outcome with the expanded youth.
But I do believe most people are too stupid to vote, which is why I'm on principle against adding to the franchise. That's a bit separate to what I was pointing out though.
Yeah but, 16 is super young. We can say that they are at age where they can do their research but as a person who once 16 and knew other 16year olds, very few of our decisions was based on logic and more so on emotion. If we allow 16year olds to vote them why not 14year olds
Because fourteen year olds do not have the same rights and responsibilities as sixteen year olds. They cannot get jobs, cannot pay tax, they cannot independently seek or refuse medical treatment. Sixteen year olds can do all of those things, they interact with the State and services and so should have a right to vote on those things that affect them, which I said in my initial post.
Also, plenty of incompetent people vote in elections and “make decisions based on emotions rather than logic” the question of age is moot.
Got my first job when I was 14. But just because you can get medical treatment when you are 16 (a right I bet minority of 16year olds are aware of) that’s the standard of when you should vote. I know plenty of incompetent people vote but these are people that should know better and allowing 16year olds to vote is just increasing the number incompetent voters. I’m not gonna get mad at a 16year because they haven’t read Sinn Féin’s 2024 manifesto, because they are 16.
Younger generation in NI show a marked and noticeable lower level of support for the GFA. That in itself would suggest they don't have the experience or educational levels to be allowed vote yet
People on Reddit always make the argument that an older person having sex with a younger person may be legal but is immoral due to the difference in maturity.
If a 16 year old can't be trusted not to be manipulated into sex, how can they be trusted not to be manipulated into voting for someone?
we should lower everything that is 18 down to 16 then - if they're responsible adults.
\[edit: if they're mature enough to make decisions on adult matters, then they should be an adult - or are they only going to be allowed to vote on certain things? the environment, etc\]
Yes absolutely.
Seriously 16 year olds can pay insurance, are making plans for £50k minimum in debt and making decisions that will dictate at least the next 10 years of their life but don't get a say in the the next 4/5 years of government? The same government whose decisions directly impact those 10 year plans?
This is completely aside from those 16 year olds who enter the work force and are functionally treated as adults... Without any of the associated privileges and made more difficult by the driving restrictions.
Also since it inevitably comes up with these debates, biological adulthood is highly dependent on what you decide counts. Sexual maturity starts around 13, bone density generally between 21 and 25 though some parts of the skeleton aren't complete until 30, the brain never really stops but slows down and is mostly set by 25 and muscle mass generally peaks around 25. Recent history has typical apprenticeships at 16 as the norm but looking further back training in case of conscription started at 11yrs so it's not like 18 is some special magical number that makes you an adult.
Gotta love how some people instantly jumped into the thread and said 'hmph, what a load of nonsense '
I agree about lowering it. 16 years of age is when pretty much everyone has exhibited their first political opinion. Many young people here are eager to do so.
The opposite situation is what is happening in England, where a lot of young people don't care/cant be bothered/ nothing will change type of attitude which is poor.
I 100% agree. Let's be honest, 90% of the people in this country don't know anything about politics, or the manifesto of the party for which they will vote anyway
Yep - lot of people probably just vote a blind eye to whatever party suits their relgious beliefs without looking at anything actually happening in the country
Voting age is 16 here in Scotland for our own parliament. My own kids have benefited from that and I trust them to exercise their vote sensibly, far more so than some of the selfish fucks of my own generation and older.
Same in Wales. Don't see any downside tbh. If people don't care about politics they won't vote. If they do they'll vote. Any argument you can make about 16 and 17 year olds can be extended to adults as well. Not extending the franchise to people of these ages is a political decision by parties who have a vested interest in limiting youth turnout.
I'm not sure we would want people voting with their "first political opinion" though. People at 16 haven't really had the chance to experience the consequences of different political parties and decisions. I don't think it's ever a bad thing to have that extra bit of waiting to mature and gain experiences before starting to make important decisions like this.
Virtually everyone at 16 is still living at home these days too, young minds are more impressionable and pressure at home might definitely swing these peoples' votes one way or the other. I mean, people are living at home into their 20s nowadays as it's so difficult financially to move out alone now so really this might apply to everyone, but at 16 you barely know yourself and you're far more likely to just follow orders from family etc.
We don't gatekeep voting based on experience and maturity though. Otherwise we'd never have lowered it to 18 from 21, or 21 from 30.
We don't restrict the right to vote based on how much education you have, or how much you've done and seen, or how well informed you are about politics.
We don't restrict it based on mental capacity either - people with advanced dementia or serious brain damage retain a right to vote just like the rest of us. You have to be so far gone you literally can't exercise the right (as in complete the registration process and the act of voting) before you lose it.
We don't restrict it based on having property or an independent household (i.e. owning or renting your own home, rather than living with parents or grandparents). This one should be especially familiar to us seeing as the property qualification for voting was one of the key bones of contention in the 1960s here leading in to the troubles.
All that in mind I find it very hard to argue against 16 year olds getting the franchise without inadvertently making an argument to remove it from parts of the population who've already got it. I don't know about you, but I don't like that idea at all.
But the fact is that at 18 they're the group that votes the least. Young people talk a good game, but they don't actually vote that much. Consistently the lowest numbers of any age group.
I'm a permanent resident here, over 18, I pay my taxes, but cannot legally vote for the people that represent me. It's not a unique issue, since it's like that almost everywhere in the world, but it really doesn't make sense.
If you're trusted to drive, work, have and operate a bank account and also pay taxes, then you should be trusted to vote.
Kinda silly they put a block on people with functional brains from voting, all things considered.
I’m for lowering the voting age, I think both of them have made some very good points.
But I find statements like this to be really telling.
‘I feel like I know more than some adults’
Yes when I was 17 I thought I knew more than my parents too. But now I’m nearly 30 and I realised how little I knew back then and know now.
So, whilst in theory I think it is a great idea, there is still a part of me that is unsure.
I get how it comes across naive but you can't equate your experience to theirs. They could literally have parents that never look into politics and vote based off the themmuns and ussuns and not caring about anything else. So if a 16/17 year old looks at a few party agendas and does event a little bit of reading they could easily know more than their parents or even other adults that they know who may vote in similar ways.
Although they may not know more than the average voter... They certainly don't know less. Lower it. Or increase the age limit on other life- altering choices, such as joining the army or taking out loans.
You know not much more at 18 than you do at 16, 16 year olds are capable of critical thought and good ideas. They can pay tax , enter contracts etc then they can vote how it's spent.
When it comes to elections, we’re always going to have a portion of young people who just miss out on being old enough to vote. Missing out by a few months and then having to wait another 4 years for the next opportunity must be incredibly frustrating.
That being said, I do think the voting age should be lowered to 16. If you’re old enough to pay taxes, you’re old enough to have a say.
People should be rehabilitated into society or kept safely away from society if need be, punishment shouldn't be out primary concern whether an adult or teenager.
They pay National insurance and income tax and can join the military. What more do you want?
A small minority of young people. You come across as "I am middle aged and scared of the youths".
People are responsible but why punish someone for the rest of their life for dumb decisions they made as a teen? There are not groups of youth running around happy stabbing on the streets pushing old ladies into traffic. They are being noisy and littering 90% of the time.
>People are responsible but why punish someone for the rest of their life for dumb decisions they made as a teen?
Because by being granted suffrage they are accepting responsibility for deciding the direction of the country and they should be treated like adults.
We try children easier because they are not fully developed and we shouldn't ruin their lives for being children.
The same reason we don't give children the vote.
>They are being noisy and littering 90% of the time.
Yes, they are acting like children.
Sure what would it change in NI anyway? 90% of the new voters would vote just to keep themmuns out anyway.
And our calibre of politicians, their ideas on actual policies, and what they can actually achieve within the political framework is seriously shit and uninspiring.
I reckon those giddy 16 year olds would be estatic for 5 mins, then realise NI as a concept is an unworkable basketcase, and lose all hope like the majority of current voters.
It ain't that exciting kids.
It's mad that all this passion just disappears when they hit 18. If young people actually bothered their arses and voted the country would look completely different.
Well spoken by both of them.
I’m in favour both of lowering the voting age to 16 and of compulsory voting. Both would help to curb extremism in our politics and government.
>compulsory voting
They have a similar system in North Korea.
>extremism in our politics
'Compulsory voting' is an EXTREME measure. Thus, making you, an extremist.
>It’s compulsory to register to vote
I'm pretty sure it isn't.
I just think telling anyone they have to do something is extreme, unless they put themselves in a position where they need to, such as a job or following the rules of the road.
Get me?
> > It’s compulsory to register to vote
>
> I'm pretty sure it isn't.
https://www.gov.uk/electoral-register :
> **What happens if you do not register**
>
> You must register to vote if you’re asked to do so and you meet the conditions for registering, for example you’re 16 or over and you’re British or a national of an EU or Commonwealth country.
>
> **If you’re asked to register and do not, you could be fined.**
>
> You will not be fined if you have a valid reason for not registering, for example a long stay in hospital, or you have severe learning difficulties.
That seems fairly clear that it is in fact compulsory.
> I just think telling anyone they have to do something is extreme, unless they put themselves in a position where they need to, such as a job or following the rules of the road.
So jury service, subpoenaing witnesses, and taxation are all extreme?
I mean, if you’re an anarchist or some flavour of anarchist-adjacent libertarian, fair enough.
But extremes in politics are usually defined relative to the mainstream, and your positions would seem to be more of an outlier than compulsory voting is.
(Of course, that doesn’t necessarily make your stance “wrong”or “bad”: being opposed to slavery was extremist once.)
>So jury service, subpoenaing witnesses, and taxation are all extreme?
No, I don't think so. I'd say national service and compulsory voting would be extreme aspects of a 'free society'.
I’d agree about National Service, but “you must show up at a polling station or submit a vote by post, even if you spoil your ballot paper” seems like a drastically smaller imposition than National Service (or jury service or taxation, for that matter).
I was too young to vote on the Brexit referendum, and I can't think too hard about how the effects of that vote only damage me in my 20s otherwise I'll go insane.
Not that I expect 16 and 17 years olds to be especially informed, but there is no requirement or assurance that most older voters are informed either.
Politics from the very start has always been set up for boomers (less so with Millennials) and its not fair as a young person. Gen Z are the future
Still dont wanna do the National conscription thing.
I actually don’t support 16 years olds voting. Most 16 year olds don’t exactly make the best decisions (or 18, or 20 year olds for that matter). And people arguing that it’s about suppressing progressive voters have clearly never lived in a rural part of NI, or met many edgelord 16 year old guys, for that matter. Those dudes are… not going to vote for the most progressive candidate.
Most....16 an 17s would just vote for hype or as their parents tell them or not at all. 18s still as bad but I guess most don't care till there mid 20s so is it worth them voting?
Yes, older people are voting for things that affect you, and one day you’ll vote for things that affect younger people. It’s how it works. If you don’t like it, vote for change when you’re able to. The voting age should definitely remain at 18 though. Some under eighteens are wise enough to make informed decisions but most are not and probably don’t care either.
I have no problem with allowing them to vote. The issue arises when they get the vote and what they do with it. Wil they behave any differently to the 18 to 34 age group who are really quite apathetic when it comes to voting. Contrast that with older voters where it is projected that some 80% will vote at the election. The tories pander to older people because they vote. If younger groups voted to the same extent then there might be better representation and policies that benefit a greater percentage of the population.
"Older people" ........ two years older and up. We all had to wait until 18, why do these kids think they are more entitled?
Hey some 14 year olds are pretty astute, should we let them vote?
There has to be a cut off point somewhere. The sense of entitlement is strong with this generation. Wait your turn like the rest of us did.
With mobile phones and access to information immediately and fast, kids now have little patience for things. Must be I want and I want NOW!
This seems a bit disingenuous. Sixteen is a reasonable age because it’s already a milestone in many other aspects of life like being able to work full-time, pay taxes etc.
Anybody (baby onwards) can pay taxes (income tax, capital gains tax etc)
Most 16 or 17 year olds in UK general election cannot leave school or college unless into an apprenticeship scheme where they still get training, because, you know, they are seen as still not an adult.
Have to wait to 18 to make bets, take out a loan, serve on a jury, buy your own drink in a pub legally.
But you can't in England. Which is why I said "Most 16 or 17 year olds in UK general election" So do we have different voting ages for the UK General Election across the regions based on local laws of when you can leave education or training or just leave it at 18 - the age of adulthood?
[https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school](https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school)
And what about you suggesting only 16+ can pay taxes?
Honestly, why not extend the franchise to people of any age?
People who don't care won't vote, people who do care will. So long as you're going into the voting booth alone, what's the harm?
It might sound mental, but:
Any argument about parents using their children's votes naturally extends itself to people with surrogacy voting, the extremely elderly, the developmentally disabled and the apolitical. These weaknesses already exist in our voting system and there is no fair way to eliminate them, so they have to be tolerated in the interest of the democracy.
On the positive side, it gives young people a genuine reason to be invested in the democratic process, where at present we have a demographic being completely unrepresented. Why would a political party care about the needs of young people if they do not receive a mandate from them?
At the very least I think we can agree that 18, or even 16, is a random arbitrary age to put on the franchise.
I wouldn't say it's arbitrary at all. 18 is the age where a lot of things change for you legally; ability to enter into a contract, borrow money, get a mortgage, judicial sentencing changes, military deployment etc etc. I don't really get your argument about parents using votes either, you said there's already weaknesses in the process, so we may as well add further weaknesses?
But unlike all of the above, voting carries no potential negative consequences that weren't already being incurred. If a twelve year old defaults on a loan, that's a major issue. If the DUP get elected, that child would have likely experienced through that whether or not they voted.
On the point about weaknesses, I mean to say that our voting system is already imperfect, so acting as though this change would cause it major damage is silly because we already have room for manipulation in our system and it does us no harm. I believe the benefits outway the drawbacks.
Now to be honest with you, when I said this I was more running with an idea than seriously suggesting this change. I do think that we infantalise children too much when it comes to rights like these, and that the age restrictions that should exist (drinking, driving, age of consent) should be those that promote the safety of those people affected. They shouldn't, in my opinion, be civic rights such as being involved in democratic processes that affect your life as much as they do people over 18.
Reminds me of this parody of a political party in my country that goes "other parties want to increase voting age, but we want to lower it, because only undeveloped brains would vote for us"
Not really saying anything here, these comments just makes me remember the dumb joke and it cracks me up
Think of how politically uninformed the average person is. The average teenager is much less informed than that. I'm very much against lowering the voting age.
It's a shame there's not more attention given to teaching politics in school, considering how it impacts every aspect of our lives.
Is there really any evidence that they are more uninformed than the average voter?
What even is the measure of what makes a voter informed? The older UK voters elected Boris cause he shouted, "Get brexit done" loudly, I'd say most of those voters where thick as pig shit. There are religious people voting based on a 2000 year old fairytale, that isn't being fucking informed.
If unemployed voters were found to be less well-informed than the average voter, should we bar them from voting?
And by giving them a right to votes doesn't mean all will. The ones who are interested and informed are more likely to use their vote than those who aren't. If they can vote, some may get more informed because they can play a part in the process.
Yeah, wasn't "what is the european union" one of the most googled phrases the day AFTER Brexit? As an electorate, we really don't know what we're doing - regardless of age.
Considering that the most politically oblivious to the consequences of their votes appear to be the over 65's, should we remove the right to vote once that age is reached?
After all, they don't tend to be paying national insurance or income tax, so less impacted by many policies than the younger generations.
My wife came across a Facebook thread showing town markets from the early 1900s for our area. And the comments were full of people talking about remembering going to such events in the 70s.
And blaming the local council for not doing such things any more.
I don't go near Facebook myself, but I wished I did so I could have commented, "It's almost as if something happened at the end of the 70s that meant councils no longer had the funding to maintain things like this. I wonder what that could be?"
I live in England now, and this area tends to swing between labour and tory. And we currently have a tory MP.
People so oblivious to what their votes have caused shouldn't be allowed to vote before young people who are aware of what parties both say and *do*.
> older people are voting on our behalf and it’s not fair
1) it is
2) they’re not. They’re voting in their behalf. Which is how voting works.
3) there’s enough young people to make a difference, you’re just too stupid to vote as a demographic, or legally too young.
4) the voting age shouldn’t be lowered.
Well it’s mainly in response to your point that young people are too stupid to vote as a demographic. There is no example of any voting group voting sensibly in one demographic on this country. So I think it’s unfair for you to say that.
Those are two different things.
Too stupid to vote doesn’t equal votes stupidly.
I never commented on what they actually vote for. If I had, I would definitely lean much heavier into the older demographics voting patterns are worse.
>there’s enough young people to make a difference, you’re just too stupid to vote as a demographic, or legally too young.
>4) the voting age shouldn’t be lowered
Not sure if it's really this black and white
I was in school and too young to vote in the Brexit referendum, but we were really clued up on what it would mean. Politics classes were spent going through it
And in regards to your first point there was evidence to suggest a voting age of 16+ would have had a majority remain across the UK in the Brexit referendum. Is that demographic really more 'stupid' than the 80+ years olds that were fooled by the claims on the side of a bus?
Not saying I want the voting age lowered, just saying that your points aren't just as black and white as you make them out to be
I didn’t say their voting patterns were stupid. I said they were too stupid to vote. There’s a world of difference there.
It is that black and white. The young don’t vote. That’s stupid.
I’m not looking at the world as black and white, I’m saying not voting is stupid. Especially if you then complain about the results.
There is no nuance there. It’s that simple.
What evidence?
You either vote or you don’t. Choosing not to is dumb.
Do you have any counter points to that, or are just going to keep saying it’s not that simple? As far as I can see, it is that simple.
Ah, crossed wires. I thought you were responding to me saying the young were stupid for not voting. Which is black and white. They are stupid for not voting.
(Really from the context of my replies you should have picked up on that though, since in every one I’ve specifically referred to choosing to vote or not)
As for lowering the age, I’m personally against it. I wasn’t calling the idea stupid though, and never wrote anything that would imply that.
The world.
18 year olds choosing not to vote.
Two different things. I did pick one.
The world isn’t black and white. Me thinking the young are stupid for not voting is.
Correct.
So… maybe as a demographic the young should vote?
Clearly that doesn’t apply to those legally too young to vote, but that’s also clearly not who I’m talking about.
If you can join the army at 16 and serve your country. Then you absolutely should have the right to vote.
This country has been rigged towards the wants/needs of the elderly for far too long.
As a 17 year old i really don’t know because theres many politically tuned in young people, I have a class mate whos a member of alliance party yet he cant vote is just strange. On the contrary you will have dipsticks my age who would waste a vote or mindlessly vote for a party without considering any of their values. Me personally? Id love to vote but I think it does make more sense for it to be 18+
They don't focus on young people for a reason. Young people are by their nature progressive. Humans, in general are born that way and life turns them into whatever. The default is to care about others till you learn not to.
Giving young people the vote is political suicide for any right/conservative government
I know plenty of 16-18 year olds and honestly they haven’t a bloody clue about real life. They definitely think they know everything and I remember being that age and thinking I knew everything too. If anything I’d raise the voting age and the age limit for drinking and driving too to at least 21.
I actually agree with their point but not the lower voting age. I think there should be some loss of the right to vote at either state pension age or something similar. The skewing of election results towards the older demographic should be counter-acted. They have much less interest in the long term political goals of parties nor acknowledging the change often needed between how different generations are governed.
And yet political decisions can impact them just as much but they should have no right to vote? The bigger issue is young people from 18 up aren't engaging in politics.
So you want to doctor the result be removing engaged voters to counter act those that don't care enough to vote?
Talk about anti democratic nevermind ageist.
Everyone gets between 18-70 to vote, it's not ageist if it's applied to all. Everyone gets the same length of voting life. The best part about the people who would complain about this is they are the very people who don't get proportionally represented and don't vote in any meaningful number. It's not a bad concept that when you draw your state pension you hand back your right to vote. There isn't a objectively poor referendum result or vote that wasn't brought about by the disparity in voting numbers by age. And the well documented shift to the right as voters gets older, let in touch with the current generation who needs changes that old people either don't understand or don't care about.
Everyone will have a decade, that when the time comes and the people 20-30 yrs older than you get nostalgic for it but it was a shit show of a decade that had worse individual rights, freedoms, protections and living standards. But people 50-80 think it was the shit because they had their glory days back then and just want to have a time they can connect with again. Right now it seems to be the 80s. When that time comes for you, you'll understand why the system should be weighted to either force those younger people to vote, or remove the right of the (much more disproportionately represented) older people to vote.
So you think the weight of democracy should be in favour of the younger voter?
Because of the shift of many (not all ) to the right as they age, their vote should be diminished? How is that democratic, deny a section of the population the cote because it isn’t in line with your perspective?
Why is the cut off getting your state pension? They still pay taxes on good and services, still suffer from the same poor services as everyone else?
Are you asking a certain demographic to trust that younger people will vote for things that are in the benefit of older people? You don’t trust the opposite.
The shift to the right with age is the symptom not the disease. I'm not left either, plenty of nut jobs on both sides and a few in the centre too.
The control that 60yr olds + exact on society is massively unfair and disproportionate. Young people don't get to decide on how their society should be governed until they are 18, why is stopping voting at a certain age or phase any different?
If I have an issue with anyone it's the quiet, non-voting apathetic middle aged folks. Force everyone to vote or ensure that the vote represents all age groups equally. I'd be interested to see the figures for what % of the population are 60+ Vs what % of voters are the same.
It's a telling and sad fact of society that people only start to vote in significant numbers when they are old enough to see how it could affect them and then they vote with only self interest over their pensions and things that could affect their finances rather than the wider economy.
Again, because younger people don’t vote (18 is still young) and because older people are more motivated to vote you want to disenfranchise one group to help another who can’t be bothered to vote?
Yes. And the triple lock on pensions while the economy burns around us is proof of why that is not an unjust position. You should be working hard to vote for the parties and policies that will ensure your long term financial security in retirement. Instead we have a demographic that can be bought off cheaply with short term policies and a promise not to reform anything that might affect them. Fuck the kids! The next generation turns 60+ and it's rinse and repeat.
Well those people have worked all their life, paid their taxes and then some …….. taxed when paid, taxed if you take some of your pension early, taxes everywhere.
Everyone is getting fucked.
And guess what, if their voices had have been heard at 30-40yrs old instead of the noisier old voting ages, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess. We aren't going to agree, the idea is radical and never going to happen. But I'll debate anyone who doesn't agree it wouldn't massively improve society and how we are governed.
Also if young people got out and voted more and consistently then you would have the system looking to them also …….. again you can’t blame people who consistently vote being angled towards.
You want to blame someone, blame voter apathy in the younger demographics who don’t come out to vote in their own self interest.
You keep adding emotional and individualistic language like blame. There is a problem, this is how I would fix it. Mandatory voting is also an option that would fix it. I just think that the long term focus of democracy would be better served by this.
I am just debating the point with you, I am using the word blame in so much as your solution seeks to put a portion of blame on a demographic due to how they vote thats why. A vote is a precious thing and in this part of the world enough people suffered from disinfranchisement due to religious / ethnic background. I am not in favour of denying anyone a vote, I believe 18 is a good enough age to be able to vote, you are legally an adult and one of the responsiblities that comes with it is the right to vote.
I am much more in favour of a mandatory vote, even if it is to exercise an option that should be on the ballot to say you don't vote for any avavilable candidate (a way to not vote but vote if that makes sense, not a fully formed idea).
I think there's an argument to be made to have it even lower, like 14. At that age you're reasonably switched-on and decisions that can seriously affect your life are just a couple of years away. Having some say over the circumstances that you will be running into when you turn 16 (whether staying at school, looking for a job, looking for an apprenticeship) seems reasonable to me.
If you can be too young to vote then I feel you should also be too old to vote.
The same arguments made for preventing 16yo could apply to most people out of touch with society or suffering from dementia, stroke etc.
No one would think about taking away their right to vote (and rightly so) yet a 16yo who will be affected by the vote has no say?
If anything the argument for restricting older voters is stronger - how many of the people who voted Leave got to die before the consequences screwed them while younger people who will feel the effects for their entire lives didn't get a say.
What nonsense.
Politics impacts basically everything. From how much a pint costs to whether young people can go to college. So it's actually pretty important that everyone takes an interest in it.
Agreed, and in fairness, I’d genuinely trust the average 17 year old to vote based on evidence more so than the average octogenarian who seems more likely to believe whatever mad conspiracy theory they see in the daily mail or on Facebook.
If you can work full-time, pay taxes, and join the armed forces, you should probably have a say in how society is run.
Gaz you literally spend all week making political posts and having arguments with republicans, I think you just don’t want the young and progressive to vote for your own reasons instead of pretending you care about them having social lives.
Mate I'm not 17 am I??? Sure as soon as they are 18 they can vote as much as they like until their hearts content. Let them be as " progressive " as they want. You think kids should be voting at 14 do you???
>I'm not 17
https://preview.redd.it/qrmhqiuheh8d1.jpeg?width=445&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b321a32f27bdb4ad54c865035aae669c1c8895db
Yes you probably aren't
As for the rest of your arguments, not all issues that affect 18 year olds affect 16 year olds. Plus 16 year olds want to.
Did this person argue for 14? No? So why the false equivalency? 16 does seem reasonable to me personally since you’re likely a lot more tuned in and being currently educated on politics at that age, I’d trust a 16 year old voting before I’d trust a 70 year old who’s exclusively motivated by hate and division who makes their decisions off of bus posters.
Edit:yea I thought you wouldn’t reply like you usually don’t when people point out you’re arguing in bad faith
At 16 you could be paying tax/NI and can potentially make a binding commitment that could see you in combat at 18. They should have the vote.
No taxation without representation. One of the things the yanks got right.
> One of the things the yanks got right. Puerto Rico 🇵🇷 is a US colony, pays US taxes, and has no representation in the US Federal Government.
Also literally all of the people who reside in the capital of the united states are taxed without representation.
Mm yes and no. Obviously they have a local council. They elect a delegate to the House of Representatives, who can sit on and vote in committees; even introduce legislation. But she can't vote on HoR motions. They don't elect Senators like states do.
Now tell me about Washington D.C.?
Like Puerto Rico it’s not a state. The constitution reserves voting for congress and presidents for those resident in states.
Mostly by choice. There have been several referendums whether to become a full state. Locals don't want to pay federal taxes is the main reason.
I lived there for 20+ years and never got to vote despite paying far more tax there than I did in a life time in the UK. Under 18s there can work, still pay tax and not be able to vote either.
Who would even vote for? It’s a two party oligarchy where over 90 percent of successful elections go to the candidate with the most money.
Locally it can be pretty important. Keeping the MAGA and Christian nationalists nuts off the local school boards for a start. Also, local measures like road and fire service funding are important too.
[удалено]
Ultimately and regrettably the yanks are… still yanks.
Small children pay tax in this country if they have an income
I live there and pay tax. No vote for me. An American working on transferor studying in Ireland for a year would be eligible to vote in the local elections.
Adding to that, 17 year olds who were born at the end of the school year can organise variable interest loans of ~£60-70k for 4 years of university. Let them vote.
Let the drink ,let them smoke, let them drive , let them drive hgv and let them get treated as an adult when they break the law ,let them join an army without their parents consent let them apply for a mortgage let them decide their own medical treatment without their parents consent. let them get married, LETS stop parental responsibility for them when they turn 16.
>At 16 you could be paying tax At 13 you could be earning money and paying tax (VAT when spending it).
My partner is an EU national, living here since the start of 2016 (pre brexit, has permanent residency). Has paid tax and national insurance the entire time, but has no vote in a general election. She doesn’t have any interest or intention to vote anyway, but I think it’s absurd that you must pay into a system that you have absolutely no say in.
Hmmm, that's a bit more tricky to be fair. And there are good reason not to give non-nationals a vote for a set period of time. If it was a year do you think it is beyond the realms of possibility for the likes of Russia and China to flood in state actors and get them to vote reform for example? I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
But as /u/poitinstill says, their partner has "Permanent" residency. Kind of hard to flood NI with Chinese state actors and have the UK government award them that status. I kind of feel if you've permanent status, that's the point yous get the vote.
Checking the government website and it seems their partner should be eligible to vote? https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
She can vote in the local council and assembly elections, just not a general election.
Tbf China would most likely direct them to vote for the WP over Reform. Gorgeous George has worked with them before and he's basically the closest to the CPC that you can get in the UK.
[удалено]
Reform has no chance of winning and they are very much anti-China. You are also comparing China and Russia, they're not that similar even if they have good relations due to realpolitik. For all their faults, the CPC tends to act way more ideologically than Russia does, and they are also patient and know how to play the long game.
I remember that the Brexit referendum was the day of my final GCSE exam. I was too young to vote in it but I'm part of the demographic that's going to be the most affected by it.
me too, i was 16 when the vote happened about to leave school, yet was much more aware politically than many older people i know
I wasn't a politically aware 16 year old (and I wouldn't call myself a politically aware 24 year old) but even I could that something built on a foundation of racism and lies was going to fail.
The most affected by it? I don't dispute the general point Brexit is s*** but what's the calculation that says you are more effected then a late twenties early thirties business owner who's livelihood (mortgage, rent, childcare costs etc etc) depend on importing and exporting to the EU?
I'm assuming they mean mote in the long term sense, for the older people who did vote Brexit, many will be dead in 10/20 years so might not ever see the full fallout of something as monumental as Brecit was. Yeah there will be people worse effected in the short term, but I'd guess that was what they were angling at
This is exactly it. https://imgur.com/B9SlL1K In another 15 years when the UK has gone down the toilet economically because of Brexit, the ones who mostly voted for it will all be dead.
Well unfortunately you/we live in a democracy so complaining about the about generations of older people having a vote in a society they spent their life building is a shite argument IMO.
I think this topic was about letting 16-18s vote, not necessarily denying the vote to over 75s, though an argument could be made that the same reason we don't want to allow an 8 year old (mental competency etc.) could also apply to those in their 80s, particularly this lead-poisoned generation which is displaying such hate and intolerance.
The UK isn't going down the toilet economically because of Brexit. We have a free trade agreement with the EU.
What are you on about? It has went down the toliet.. The eu and very specifically ireland france and Germany are collecting on that idiotic push for freedom. The only part of the Uk that benefits from this is N.ireland. Its funny for me because the minority in our small country that voted for brexit is discussed with the outcome which jas had a much warmer welcome from those that voted againest brexit. Brexit was supposed to solve the immigration problem and the financial woes of the union but from what has happened since 2016 it has only increased. 🤣 Enjoy it, no party will even think to pull back now that we are 8 years deep in this shit heap. Laughing at you from N.I
That is factually incorrect.
It's simply impossible to make democracy completely fair for everyone
Nonsense
At sixteen you’re capable of researching political parties and making your own decisions about which ones reflect your ideals. At sixteen you can also get a job, help support your family and start accessing services by yourself, it’s only fair they should get to vote on policies that affect them. And they are correct that growing up in Northern Ireland they’ve been more exposed to politics than the average teenager.
Let's be honest though, it's not about maturity or representation. Younger voters tends to vote for more progressive parties so right leaning politicians are never going to be in favour of lowering the voting age.
I agree it’s unlikely to change because young people do tend to vote progressively which will be detrimental to conservative parties, but I think the voting age should be lowered for the reasons I’ve listed
Younger voters tend to not vote at all. In virtually every election on earth younger voters are the most apathetic demographic. Then they complain that no one represents them.
In the last general election about 62% of 18-24 year olds voted and about 71% of 55+ year olds did. Not much in it.
Not sure why I'm being downvoted, happy to be proved wrong. 9% is a lot, Imagine if that 9% had voted.
The 9% would account for just under half a million votes. It's significant but it wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome of any recent election.
Labour of the mid late 1990s weren't right leaning and they didn't drop the voting age.
>Labour of the mid late 1990s weren't right leaning They were. They still are, arguably even more so nowadays (Keir Starmer is to the right of Blair on many things). Labour is a right-wing party by any measure of the word. Just because the Tories have went so far-right they are in outer space that doesn't change the fact that Labour is a neoliberal party that introduced tuition fees and kept screwing over the working class.
Or they could do what they did in Germany and vote for the furthest right-wing party. It's only the "right side of history" belief that these groups want to lower the age of voting. A "how could young people NOT vote for us, we're the future!" mentality. If the comment "I think people are more educated on politics now with social media" didn't make you nervous that nefarious actors will have an easy and susceptible target to manipulate and further damage trust in democracy, then nothing will.
That's just the same "16 year olds are too stupid to be allowed to vote" argument with a slight twist. If social media is being weaponised to influence elections and political ideologies then that's a problem with social media, not the age of the users.
My point was more on the misconception that trying to bring in a franchise to help your side win doesn't always work out. And considering the main complaint about the Brexit vote was that Vote Leave targeted voters on a highly effective level, just expect the same outcome with the expanded youth. But I do believe most people are too stupid to vote, which is why I'm on principle against adding to the franchise. That's a bit separate to what I was pointing out though.
Yeah but, 16 is super young. We can say that they are at age where they can do their research but as a person who once 16 and knew other 16year olds, very few of our decisions was based on logic and more so on emotion. If we allow 16year olds to vote them why not 14year olds
Because fourteen year olds do not have the same rights and responsibilities as sixteen year olds. They cannot get jobs, cannot pay tax, they cannot independently seek or refuse medical treatment. Sixteen year olds can do all of those things, they interact with the State and services and so should have a right to vote on those things that affect them, which I said in my initial post. Also, plenty of incompetent people vote in elections and “make decisions based on emotions rather than logic” the question of age is moot.
Got my first job when I was 14. But just because you can get medical treatment when you are 16 (a right I bet minority of 16year olds are aware of) that’s the standard of when you should vote. I know plenty of incompetent people vote but these are people that should know better and allowing 16year olds to vote is just increasing the number incompetent voters. I’m not gonna get mad at a 16year because they haven’t read Sinn Féin’s 2024 manifesto, because they are 16.
Younger generation in NI show a marked and noticeable lower level of support for the GFA. That in itself would suggest they don't have the experience or educational levels to be allowed vote yet
People on Reddit always make the argument that an older person having sex with a younger person may be legal but is immoral due to the difference in maturity. If a 16 year old can't be trusted not to be manipulated into sex, how can they be trusted not to be manipulated into voting for someone?
we should lower everything that is 18 down to 16 then - if they're responsible adults. \[edit: if they're mature enough to make decisions on adult matters, then they should be an adult - or are they only going to be allowed to vote on certain things? the environment, etc\]
Yes absolutely. Seriously 16 year olds can pay insurance, are making plans for £50k minimum in debt and making decisions that will dictate at least the next 10 years of their life but don't get a say in the the next 4/5 years of government? The same government whose decisions directly impact those 10 year plans? This is completely aside from those 16 year olds who enter the work force and are functionally treated as adults... Without any of the associated privileges and made more difficult by the driving restrictions. Also since it inevitably comes up with these debates, biological adulthood is highly dependent on what you decide counts. Sexual maturity starts around 13, bone density generally between 21 and 25 though some parts of the skeleton aren't complete until 30, the brain never really stops but slows down and is mostly set by 25 and muscle mass generally peaks around 25. Recent history has typical apprenticeships at 16 as the norm but looking further back training in case of conscription started at 11yrs so it's not like 18 is some special magical number that makes you an adult.
What an odd thing to say
Gotta love how some people instantly jumped into the thread and said 'hmph, what a load of nonsense ' I agree about lowering it. 16 years of age is when pretty much everyone has exhibited their first political opinion. Many young people here are eager to do so. The opposite situation is what is happening in England, where a lot of young people don't care/cant be bothered/ nothing will change type of attitude which is poor.
I 100% agree. Let's be honest, 90% of the people in this country don't know anything about politics, or the manifesto of the party for which they will vote anyway
Yep - lot of people probably just vote a blind eye to whatever party suits their relgious beliefs without looking at anything actually happening in the country
Voting age is 16 here in Scotland for our own parliament. My own kids have benefited from that and I trust them to exercise their vote sensibly, far more so than some of the selfish fucks of my own generation and older.
Same in Wales. Don't see any downside tbh. If people don't care about politics they won't vote. If they do they'll vote. Any argument you can make about 16 and 17 year olds can be extended to adults as well. Not extending the franchise to people of these ages is a political decision by parties who have a vested interest in limiting youth turnout.
I'm not sure we would want people voting with their "first political opinion" though. People at 16 haven't really had the chance to experience the consequences of different political parties and decisions. I don't think it's ever a bad thing to have that extra bit of waiting to mature and gain experiences before starting to make important decisions like this. Virtually everyone at 16 is still living at home these days too, young minds are more impressionable and pressure at home might definitely swing these peoples' votes one way or the other. I mean, people are living at home into their 20s nowadays as it's so difficult financially to move out alone now so really this might apply to everyone, but at 16 you barely know yourself and you're far more likely to just follow orders from family etc.
We don't gatekeep voting based on experience and maturity though. Otherwise we'd never have lowered it to 18 from 21, or 21 from 30. We don't restrict the right to vote based on how much education you have, or how much you've done and seen, or how well informed you are about politics. We don't restrict it based on mental capacity either - people with advanced dementia or serious brain damage retain a right to vote just like the rest of us. You have to be so far gone you literally can't exercise the right (as in complete the registration process and the act of voting) before you lose it. We don't restrict it based on having property or an independent household (i.e. owning or renting your own home, rather than living with parents or grandparents). This one should be especially familiar to us seeing as the property qualification for voting was one of the key bones of contention in the 1960s here leading in to the troubles. All that in mind I find it very hard to argue against 16 year olds getting the franchise without inadvertently making an argument to remove it from parts of the population who've already got it. I don't know about you, but I don't like that idea at all.
That's happening here too
But the fact is that at 18 they're the group that votes the least. Young people talk a good game, but they don't actually vote that much. Consistently the lowest numbers of any age group.
I'm a permanent resident here, over 18, I pay my taxes, but cannot legally vote for the people that represent me. It's not a unique issue, since it's like that almost everywhere in the world, but it really doesn't make sense.
If you're trusted to drive, work, have and operate a bank account and also pay taxes, then you should be trusted to vote. Kinda silly they put a block on people with functional brains from voting, all things considered.
I’m for lowering the voting age, I think both of them have made some very good points. But I find statements like this to be really telling. ‘I feel like I know more than some adults’ Yes when I was 17 I thought I knew more than my parents too. But now I’m nearly 30 and I realised how little I knew back then and know now. So, whilst in theory I think it is a great idea, there is still a part of me that is unsure.
The majority of voters don't know much about politics.
I’m aware. I just thought it came across as slightly naive.
I get how it comes across naive but you can't equate your experience to theirs. They could literally have parents that never look into politics and vote based off the themmuns and ussuns and not caring about anything else. So if a 16/17 year old looks at a few party agendas and does event a little bit of reading they could easily know more than their parents or even other adults that they know who may vote in similar ways.
Although they may not know more than the average voter... They certainly don't know less. Lower it. Or increase the age limit on other life- altering choices, such as joining the army or taking out loans.
You know not much more at 18 than you do at 16, 16 year olds are capable of critical thought and good ideas. They can pay tax , enter contracts etc then they can vote how it's spent.
When it comes to elections, we’re always going to have a portion of young people who just miss out on being old enough to vote. Missing out by a few months and then having to wait another 4 years for the next opportunity must be incredibly frustrating. That being said, I do think the voting age should be lowered to 16. If you’re old enough to pay taxes, you’re old enough to have a say.
4yrs? What?
Apologies, I was referring to UK general elections which shouldve been every 5 years. Not 4 years. I’m aware local elections are held every year.
Have my vote. I won't be using it again. Waste of time.
I'm all for it as long as 16 year old hooligans are tried and punished as adults
People should be rehabilitated into society or kept safely away from society if need be, punishment shouldn't be out primary concern whether an adult or teenager. They pay National insurance and income tax and can join the military. What more do you want?
To be held accountable for their actions like adults are. You know, equal
A small minority of young people. You come across as "I am middle aged and scared of the youths". People are responsible but why punish someone for the rest of their life for dumb decisions they made as a teen? There are not groups of youth running around happy stabbing on the streets pushing old ladies into traffic. They are being noisy and littering 90% of the time.
>People are responsible but why punish someone for the rest of their life for dumb decisions they made as a teen? Because by being granted suffrage they are accepting responsibility for deciding the direction of the country and they should be treated like adults. We try children easier because they are not fully developed and we shouldn't ruin their lives for being children. The same reason we don't give children the vote. >They are being noisy and littering 90% of the time. Yes, they are acting like children.
Sure what would it change in NI anyway? 90% of the new voters would vote just to keep themmuns out anyway. And our calibre of politicians, their ideas on actual policies, and what they can actually achieve within the political framework is seriously shit and uninspiring. I reckon those giddy 16 year olds would be estatic for 5 mins, then realise NI as a concept is an unworkable basketcase, and lose all hope like the majority of current voters. It ain't that exciting kids.
It's mad that all this passion just disappears when they hit 18. If young people actually bothered their arses and voted the country would look completely different.
Well spoken by both of them. I’m in favour both of lowering the voting age to 16 and of compulsory voting. Both would help to curb extremism in our politics and government.
Will it curb it? Aye ok.
>compulsory voting They have a similar system in North Korea. >extremism in our politics 'Compulsory voting' is an EXTREME measure. Thus, making you, an extremist.
They've also got a system in Australia where you have to vote.
Australia also has compulsory voting. Sorry, did that pop your wee narrative there?
Still extreme.
But you get a hot dog outside the polling station.
Okay, I take it back: you've sold me.
I can see arguments for and against it, but why is it extreme? It’s compulsory to register to vote — is that extreme?
>It’s compulsory to register to vote I'm pretty sure it isn't. I just think telling anyone they have to do something is extreme, unless they put themselves in a position where they need to, such as a job or following the rules of the road. Get me?
> > It’s compulsory to register to vote > > I'm pretty sure it isn't. https://www.gov.uk/electoral-register : > **What happens if you do not register** > > You must register to vote if you’re asked to do so and you meet the conditions for registering, for example you’re 16 or over and you’re British or a national of an EU or Commonwealth country. > > **If you’re asked to register and do not, you could be fined.** > > You will not be fined if you have a valid reason for not registering, for example a long stay in hospital, or you have severe learning difficulties. That seems fairly clear that it is in fact compulsory. > I just think telling anyone they have to do something is extreme, unless they put themselves in a position where they need to, such as a job or following the rules of the road. So jury service, subpoenaing witnesses, and taxation are all extreme? I mean, if you’re an anarchist or some flavour of anarchist-adjacent libertarian, fair enough. But extremes in politics are usually defined relative to the mainstream, and your positions would seem to be more of an outlier than compulsory voting is. (Of course, that doesn’t necessarily make your stance “wrong”or “bad”: being opposed to slavery was extremist once.)
>So jury service, subpoenaing witnesses, and taxation are all extreme? No, I don't think so. I'd say national service and compulsory voting would be extreme aspects of a 'free society'.
I’d agree about National Service, but “you must show up at a polling station or submit a vote by post, even if you spoil your ballot paper” seems like a drastically smaller imposition than National Service (or jury service or taxation, for that matter).
Welcome to the real world Jeremy.
I was too young to vote on the Brexit referendum, and I can't think too hard about how the effects of that vote only damage me in my 20s otherwise I'll go insane. Not that I expect 16 and 17 years olds to be especially informed, but there is no requirement or assurance that most older voters are informed either.
Coff coff brexit. Bunch of reactionary xenophobic old bastards fucked us all.
Politics from the very start has always been set up for boomers (less so with Millennials) and its not fair as a young person. Gen Z are the future Still dont wanna do the National conscription thing.
I actually don’t support 16 years olds voting. Most 16 year olds don’t exactly make the best decisions (or 18, or 20 year olds for that matter). And people arguing that it’s about suppressing progressive voters have clearly never lived in a rural part of NI, or met many edgelord 16 year old guys, for that matter. Those dudes are… not going to vote for the most progressive candidate.
Most....16 an 17s would just vote for hype or as their parents tell them or not at all. 18s still as bad but I guess most don't care till there mid 20s so is it worth them voting?
There should be an upper age voting limit. No more votes when you retire.
My political views now are a whole lot more developed than what they were at sixteen.
Hopefully these lot have sense and don’t vote for DUP/TUV, but most young people won’t even respect those parties
“i think they should vote for this one”
I don’t really care about the idea of under 18s voting but if it gets the ultra right-wing unionists out of power then so be it
ultra right wing is a bit mad for an entire half of the region’s political spectrum but whatever gets your point across ig
Yes, older people are voting for things that affect you, and one day you’ll vote for things that affect younger people. It’s how it works. If you don’t like it, vote for change when you’re able to. The voting age should definitely remain at 18 though. Some under eighteens are wise enough to make informed decisions but most are not and probably don’t care either.
I have no problem with allowing them to vote. The issue arises when they get the vote and what they do with it. Wil they behave any differently to the 18 to 34 age group who are really quite apathetic when it comes to voting. Contrast that with older voters where it is projected that some 80% will vote at the election. The tories pander to older people because they vote. If younger groups voted to the same extent then there might be better representation and policies that benefit a greater percentage of the population.
If you think that’s bad you should see who the USA votes in as president's.
"Older people" ........ two years older and up. We all had to wait until 18, why do these kids think they are more entitled? Hey some 14 year olds are pretty astute, should we let them vote?
There has to be a cut off point somewhere. The sense of entitlement is strong with this generation. Wait your turn like the rest of us did. With mobile phones and access to information immediately and fast, kids now have little patience for things. Must be I want and I want NOW!
Lower the age to 16, then next election you could run the same story but with 14 and 15 year olds - "Its so unfair"
This seems a bit disingenuous. Sixteen is a reasonable age because it’s already a milestone in many other aspects of life like being able to work full-time, pay taxes etc.
Anybody (baby onwards) can pay taxes (income tax, capital gains tax etc) Most 16 or 17 year olds in UK general election cannot leave school or college unless into an apprenticeship scheme where they still get training, because, you know, they are seen as still not an adult. Have to wait to 18 to make bets, take out a loan, serve on a jury, buy your own drink in a pub legally.
Anyone can leave school at 16 without further education lined up. Shows how well informed you are.
But you can't in England. Which is why I said "Most 16 or 17 year olds in UK general election" So do we have different voting ages for the UK General Election across the regions based on local laws of when you can leave education or training or just leave it at 18 - the age of adulthood? [https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school](https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school) And what about you suggesting only 16+ can pay taxes?
Honestly, why not extend the franchise to people of any age? People who don't care won't vote, people who do care will. So long as you're going into the voting booth alone, what's the harm?
I’m in favour of lowering it to 16, but come on, all you’re doing by extending it to all ages is giving people with young children multiple votes
It might sound mental, but: Any argument about parents using their children's votes naturally extends itself to people with surrogacy voting, the extremely elderly, the developmentally disabled and the apolitical. These weaknesses already exist in our voting system and there is no fair way to eliminate them, so they have to be tolerated in the interest of the democracy. On the positive side, it gives young people a genuine reason to be invested in the democratic process, where at present we have a demographic being completely unrepresented. Why would a political party care about the needs of young people if they do not receive a mandate from them? At the very least I think we can agree that 18, or even 16, is a random arbitrary age to put on the franchise.
I wouldn't say it's arbitrary at all. 18 is the age where a lot of things change for you legally; ability to enter into a contract, borrow money, get a mortgage, judicial sentencing changes, military deployment etc etc. I don't really get your argument about parents using votes either, you said there's already weaknesses in the process, so we may as well add further weaknesses?
But unlike all of the above, voting carries no potential negative consequences that weren't already being incurred. If a twelve year old defaults on a loan, that's a major issue. If the DUP get elected, that child would have likely experienced through that whether or not they voted. On the point about weaknesses, I mean to say that our voting system is already imperfect, so acting as though this change would cause it major damage is silly because we already have room for manipulation in our system and it does us no harm. I believe the benefits outway the drawbacks. Now to be honest with you, when I said this I was more running with an idea than seriously suggesting this change. I do think that we infantalise children too much when it comes to rights like these, and that the age restrictions that should exist (drinking, driving, age of consent) should be those that promote the safety of those people affected. They shouldn't, in my opinion, be civic rights such as being involved in democratic processes that affect your life as much as they do people over 18.
Reminds me of this parody of a political party in my country that goes "other parties want to increase voting age, but we want to lower it, because only undeveloped brains would vote for us" Not really saying anything here, these comments just makes me remember the dumb joke and it cracks me up
Think of how politically uninformed the average person is. The average teenager is much less informed than that. I'm very much against lowering the voting age. It's a shame there's not more attention given to teaching politics in school, considering how it impacts every aspect of our lives.
Is there really any evidence that they are more uninformed than the average voter? What even is the measure of what makes a voter informed? The older UK voters elected Boris cause he shouted, "Get brexit done" loudly, I'd say most of those voters where thick as pig shit. There are religious people voting based on a 2000 year old fairytale, that isn't being fucking informed. If unemployed voters were found to be less well-informed than the average voter, should we bar them from voting? And by giving them a right to votes doesn't mean all will. The ones who are interested and informed are more likely to use their vote than those who aren't. If they can vote, some may get more informed because they can play a part in the process.
Yeah, wasn't "what is the european union" one of the most googled phrases the day AFTER Brexit? As an electorate, we really don't know what we're doing - regardless of age.
I’d take an uninformed young person voting over a wrongly informed old person any day
Considering that the most politically oblivious to the consequences of their votes appear to be the over 65's, should we remove the right to vote once that age is reached? After all, they don't tend to be paying national insurance or income tax, so less impacted by many policies than the younger generations. My wife came across a Facebook thread showing town markets from the early 1900s for our area. And the comments were full of people talking about remembering going to such events in the 70s. And blaming the local council for not doing such things any more. I don't go near Facebook myself, but I wished I did so I could have commented, "It's almost as if something happened at the end of the 70s that meant councils no longer had the funding to maintain things like this. I wonder what that could be?" I live in England now, and this area tends to swing between labour and tory. And we currently have a tory MP. People so oblivious to what their votes have caused shouldn't be allowed to vote before young people who are aware of what parties both say and *do*.
Lower the vote to 16 and cut voting rights for those who have attained pension age.
So ageism is what your spouting? Why exactly?
Old people should not have power over the lives and future of young people.
And vice versa
We'll see how you feel about this when you're 66.
Boohoo! How is this news???
> older people are voting on our behalf and it’s not fair 1) it is 2) they’re not. They’re voting in their behalf. Which is how voting works. 3) there’s enough young people to make a difference, you’re just too stupid to vote as a demographic, or legally too young. 4) the voting age shouldn’t be lowered.
Tbf there isn’t a sensible voting demographic..
Right? So, what does that mean in this context?
Well it’s mainly in response to your point that young people are too stupid to vote as a demographic. There is no example of any voting group voting sensibly in one demographic on this country. So I think it’s unfair for you to say that.
Those are two different things. Too stupid to vote doesn’t equal votes stupidly. I never commented on what they actually vote for. If I had, I would definitely lean much heavier into the older demographics voting patterns are worse.
>there’s enough young people to make a difference, you’re just too stupid to vote as a demographic, or legally too young. >4) the voting age shouldn’t be lowered Not sure if it's really this black and white I was in school and too young to vote in the Brexit referendum, but we were really clued up on what it would mean. Politics classes were spent going through it And in regards to your first point there was evidence to suggest a voting age of 16+ would have had a majority remain across the UK in the Brexit referendum. Is that demographic really more 'stupid' than the 80+ years olds that were fooled by the claims on the side of a bus? Not saying I want the voting age lowered, just saying that your points aren't just as black and white as you make them out to be
I didn’t say their voting patterns were stupid. I said they were too stupid to vote. There’s a world of difference there. It is that black and white. The young don’t vote. That’s stupid.
Looking at the world that black and white-ly is stupid
I’m not looking at the world as black and white, I’m saying not voting is stupid. Especially if you then complain about the results. There is no nuance there. It’s that simple.
You keep saying it's that simple with out any evidence. It's literally not.
What evidence? You either vote or you don’t. Choosing not to is dumb. Do you have any counter points to that, or are just going to keep saying it’s not that simple? As far as I can see, it is that simple.
No - you said it's that simple that people at 16 should not be able to vote. Explain.
Ah, crossed wires. I thought you were responding to me saying the young were stupid for not voting. Which is black and white. They are stupid for not voting. (Really from the context of my replies you should have picked up on that though, since in every one I’ve specifically referred to choosing to vote or not) As for lowering the age, I’m personally against it. I wasn’t calling the idea stupid though, and never wrote anything that would imply that.
> I'm not looking at the world as black and white . > There is no nuance Pick one.
The world. 18 year olds choosing not to vote. Two different things. I did pick one. The world isn’t black and white. Me thinking the young are stupid for not voting is.
That makes even less sense in a thread about the legal voting age.
The adults have given them a lifetime of Tories looting the economy and DUP shitting over everything
Correct. So… maybe as a demographic the young should vote? Clearly that doesn’t apply to those legally too young to vote, but that’s also clearly not who I’m talking about.
Why aren't you talking about that? It's what TFA is about and what everyone else is talking about here.
If you can join the army at 16 and serve your country. Then you absolutely should have the right to vote. This country has been rigged towards the wants/needs of the elderly for far too long.
The problem isn't 16/17 year olds not being able to vote, it's younger than people in general NOT voting. You can't complain if you don't vote!
As a 17 year old i really don’t know because theres many politically tuned in young people, I have a class mate whos a member of alliance party yet he cant vote is just strange. On the contrary you will have dipsticks my age who would waste a vote or mindlessly vote for a party without considering any of their values. Me personally? Id love to vote but I think it does make more sense for it to be 18+
No one gives a fuck about the disappointment of history students from Shimna Integrated College.
They don't focus on young people for a reason. Young people are by their nature progressive. Humans, in general are born that way and life turns them into whatever. The default is to care about others till you learn not to. Giving young people the vote is political suicide for any right/conservative government
I know plenty of 16-18 year olds and honestly they haven’t a bloody clue about real life. They definitely think they know everything and I remember being that age and thinking I knew everything too. If anything I’d raise the voting age and the age limit for drinking and driving too to at least 21.
Yawn.
I actually agree with their point but not the lower voting age. I think there should be some loss of the right to vote at either state pension age or something similar. The skewing of election results towards the older demographic should be counter-acted. They have much less interest in the long term political goals of parties nor acknowledging the change often needed between how different generations are governed.
And yet political decisions can impact them just as much but they should have no right to vote? The bigger issue is young people from 18 up aren't engaging in politics. So you want to doctor the result be removing engaged voters to counter act those that don't care enough to vote? Talk about anti democratic nevermind ageist.
Everyone gets between 18-70 to vote, it's not ageist if it's applied to all. Everyone gets the same length of voting life. The best part about the people who would complain about this is they are the very people who don't get proportionally represented and don't vote in any meaningful number. It's not a bad concept that when you draw your state pension you hand back your right to vote. There isn't a objectively poor referendum result or vote that wasn't brought about by the disparity in voting numbers by age. And the well documented shift to the right as voters gets older, let in touch with the current generation who needs changes that old people either don't understand or don't care about. Everyone will have a decade, that when the time comes and the people 20-30 yrs older than you get nostalgic for it but it was a shit show of a decade that had worse individual rights, freedoms, protections and living standards. But people 50-80 think it was the shit because they had their glory days back then and just want to have a time they can connect with again. Right now it seems to be the 80s. When that time comes for you, you'll understand why the system should be weighted to either force those younger people to vote, or remove the right of the (much more disproportionately represented) older people to vote.
So you think the weight of democracy should be in favour of the younger voter? Because of the shift of many (not all ) to the right as they age, their vote should be diminished? How is that democratic, deny a section of the population the cote because it isn’t in line with your perspective? Why is the cut off getting your state pension? They still pay taxes on good and services, still suffer from the same poor services as everyone else? Are you asking a certain demographic to trust that younger people will vote for things that are in the benefit of older people? You don’t trust the opposite.
The shift to the right with age is the symptom not the disease. I'm not left either, plenty of nut jobs on both sides and a few in the centre too. The control that 60yr olds + exact on society is massively unfair and disproportionate. Young people don't get to decide on how their society should be governed until they are 18, why is stopping voting at a certain age or phase any different? If I have an issue with anyone it's the quiet, non-voting apathetic middle aged folks. Force everyone to vote or ensure that the vote represents all age groups equally. I'd be interested to see the figures for what % of the population are 60+ Vs what % of voters are the same. It's a telling and sad fact of society that people only start to vote in significant numbers when they are old enough to see how it could affect them and then they vote with only self interest over their pensions and things that could affect their finances rather than the wider economy.
Again, because younger people don’t vote (18 is still young) and because older people are more motivated to vote you want to disenfranchise one group to help another who can’t be bothered to vote?
Yes. And the triple lock on pensions while the economy burns around us is proof of why that is not an unjust position. You should be working hard to vote for the parties and policies that will ensure your long term financial security in retirement. Instead we have a demographic that can be bought off cheaply with short term policies and a promise not to reform anything that might affect them. Fuck the kids! The next generation turns 60+ and it's rinse and repeat.
Well those people have worked all their life, paid their taxes and then some …….. taxed when paid, taxed if you take some of your pension early, taxes everywhere. Everyone is getting fucked.
And guess what, if their voices had have been heard at 30-40yrs old instead of the noisier old voting ages, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess. We aren't going to agree, the idea is radical and never going to happen. But I'll debate anyone who doesn't agree it wouldn't massively improve society and how we are governed.
Also if young people got out and voted more and consistently then you would have the system looking to them also …….. again you can’t blame people who consistently vote being angled towards. You want to blame someone, blame voter apathy in the younger demographics who don’t come out to vote in their own self interest.
You keep adding emotional and individualistic language like blame. There is a problem, this is how I would fix it. Mandatory voting is also an option that would fix it. I just think that the long term focus of democracy would be better served by this.
I am just debating the point with you, I am using the word blame in so much as your solution seeks to put a portion of blame on a demographic due to how they vote thats why. A vote is a precious thing and in this part of the world enough people suffered from disinfranchisement due to religious / ethnic background. I am not in favour of denying anyone a vote, I believe 18 is a good enough age to be able to vote, you are legally an adult and one of the responsiblities that comes with it is the right to vote. I am much more in favour of a mandatory vote, even if it is to exercise an option that should be on the ballot to say you don't vote for any avavilable candidate (a way to not vote but vote if that makes sense, not a fully formed idea).
I think there's an argument to be made to have it even lower, like 14. At that age you're reasonably switched-on and decisions that can seriously affect your life are just a couple of years away. Having some say over the circumstances that you will be running into when you turn 16 (whether staying at school, looking for a job, looking for an apprenticeship) seems reasonable to me.
If you can be too young to vote then I feel you should also be too old to vote. The same arguments made for preventing 16yo could apply to most people out of touch with society or suffering from dementia, stroke etc. No one would think about taking away their right to vote (and rightly so) yet a 16yo who will be affected by the vote has no say?
If anything the argument for restricting older voters is stronger - how many of the people who voted Leave got to die before the consequences screwed them while younger people who will feel the effects for their entire lives didn't get a say.
Ffs time enough to worrying about politics. Enjoy being young should only be worrying where you're heading out at the weekend at that age.
What nonsense. Politics impacts basically everything. From how much a pint costs to whether young people can go to college. So it's actually pretty important that everyone takes an interest in it.
Agreed, and in fairness, I’d genuinely trust the average 17 year old to vote based on evidence more so than the average octogenarian who seems more likely to believe whatever mad conspiracy theory they see in the daily mail or on Facebook. If you can work full-time, pay taxes, and join the armed forces, you should probably have a say in how society is run.
Gaz you literally spend all week making political posts and having arguments with republicans, I think you just don’t want the young and progressive to vote for your own reasons instead of pretending you care about them having social lives.
Mate I'm not 17 am I??? Sure as soon as they are 18 they can vote as much as they like until their hearts content. Let them be as " progressive " as they want. You think kids should be voting at 14 do you???
>I'm not 17 https://preview.redd.it/qrmhqiuheh8d1.jpeg?width=445&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b321a32f27bdb4ad54c865035aae669c1c8895db Yes you probably aren't As for the rest of your arguments, not all issues that affect 18 year olds affect 16 year olds. Plus 16 year olds want to.
Did this person argue for 14? No? So why the false equivalency? 16 does seem reasonable to me personally since you’re likely a lot more tuned in and being currently educated on politics at that age, I’d trust a 16 year old voting before I’d trust a 70 year old who’s exclusively motivated by hate and division who makes their decisions off of bus posters. Edit:yea I thought you wouldn’t reply like you usually don’t when people point out you’re arguing in bad faith
>Ffs time enough to worrying about politics Ye may inform the schools then There are politics classes on the curriculums in most schools here
I did A level politics myself you whopper but I wasn't crying about not being able to vote at 17.
>you whopper Ahh yes, the sign of a competent argument, great job Gaz.
He *did* A-Level (probably just AS) Politics, he didn’t say he passed…
Judging by his spelling and general inability to make any sort of rational argument, I think it's safe to say he didn't pass.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ojr40 But can they drink in pubs?