Poll: Voting Age

[DownOnTheUpside]

16. If you are old enough to be drafted, you are old enough to drink and vote.

If I'm not mistaken you're not eligible to be drafted until 18.

But I do agree with you though... I think it's ridiculous that I can fight for my country but I can't have some alcohol. The voting age shouldn't be lowered but the drinking age should be brought back down to 18.

 

[KSarty]

As for me, I say 18. People at 16 aren't necessarily mature enough to be able to vote sensibly, I personally disagree slightly with the whole marriage, giving blood and paying taxes and so on at 16 as well. A lot of people are mature at 16, as Janat said above, I believe. However, there are still plenty of immature idiots out there at that age and so it would be a bad idea to give those people that sort of choice.

Exactly. The mature, intelligent 16 year old is the exception, not the norm. 18 is the age of legal adulthood, voting should stay at that age.

 

[RedVelvet]

I like it where it is. I don't think I'd trust most of the high school students I've known to vote (and the ones I would trust can wait a couple of years).

I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16 and that voting is, like in America, voluntary ...

Wait, the UK has mandatory voting? Or wherever you're from?

I wonder, does that tend to increase (encouraging participation) or decrease (party-line voting) people's ability to give a shit? I'm honestly curious.

Belgium ^^ And nobody gives two shits. Waste of time and effort considering the government crashed after the last elections.

 

[Xorghul]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

I would second this. I think the internet should also have an Intelligence Lock, that gets rid of about 95% of Youtube right there.

Not just Youtube. Probably 95% of the whole internet population.

But an IQ limit wouldn't be democratic, so I think it's a bad idea.
I think 18-20 is the best age, because people just haven't matured enough before that.


[small]Officially that is. Unofficially...lets just say I wouldn't mind ruling the world..[/small]

 

[S.H.A.R.P.]

I think that all sixteen year olds would say they can make a sound decision on it. But I think most of them certainly can not. Ergo, sixteen years can not vote. It's a pretty good rule I think. Perhaps some other qualification would be good, intelligence comes to mind, but you have some pretty stupid smart people. And that would be some severe discrimination too.

 

[Viruzzo]

As for me, I say 18. People at 16 aren't necessarily mature enough to be able to vote sensibly, I personally disagree slightly with the whole marriage, giving blood and paying taxes and so on at 16 as well. A lot of people are mature at 16, as Janat said above, I believe. However, there are still plenty of immature idiots out there at that age and so it would be a bad idea to give those people that sort of choice.

Yeah, that's my position too. As for the intelligence limit:
1) you can't really measure intelligence
2) intelligent people can still second terrible political parties, or even dictatorships

Aside from voting, I find the difference in age limitations around the world rather silly: in Italy for example you can drink and smoke at practically any age, but can't drive cars before 18, while in the US (for what I know) at 16 you can drive but not drink alcohol?

 

[A random person]

The majority of teens don't care about politics, even if you may. I think there would have to be an increase in teenage interest to justify lowering the voting age.

Or vice versa. A major reason they don't care is that it would make no difference since they can't vote. Hell, a lot of their apathy could be attributed to their living in a padded world because they won't be trusted with freedom and liberty.

I'm going to be the crazy "kids are people too" radical here and say abolish the voting age. They live in the country, they are ruled by the laws, the reason they don't pay income taxes is because most don't make enough money to have to, not age (the tax argument would also render families below the poverty line unable to vote. Had to address that), and in my experience most teens are smart enough to decide who to vote for as well as most adults (hence me being a radical, since I view teenagers as intelligent people who won't default to the worst decisions).

Also, when a group isn't allowed to vote, there is a degree of prejudice behind the decision. When elections come, politicians won't pander to the group that isn't allowed to vote, and they can do whatever they like as far as that group is concerned. Several times they will pander to public dislike of the group not allowed to vote (again, prejudice when the decision was made. Public opinion was usually behind the sentiment, and it tends to stay for a while), thus leading to restricting laws for that group based on a sentiment (like curfews) and no real retaliation from that group. Politicians are allowed to, if not encouraged to, bash that group, or at least be rather unfair to them.

Sorry for the long post, again I am the lone youth rights advocate on this site so I am big on this issue.

 

[Captain Pancake]

I would say sixteen, but that's only in my own case. despite my mature and well grounded view of our political system, there are a thousand other youths of my age who still have their minds set on parties and under-age drinking. so for that, i will have to say 18 it remains, and i am very sad at humanity in doing so.

 

[fenrizz]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

ill support that, much better then the age thing.

if i have to choose an age though, i ould go with 17, purely because of all the immature 16 year olds i know from school

So just because you're dumb, you should not be allowed to vote how your tax money is spent?
Or vote for someone that meet's you needs?
Sorry, but that goes against everything that democracy stands for.
One man, one vote!

 

[DogofRaw]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

While only allowing competent people to vote is a good way to eliminate the current system of choosing candidates by their ablity to smile infront of a camera and the interchangable party they belong to, how do you decide who is competent and who is not and whats to stop those in power from altering the test to only allow people who share their ideology to partake in their version of 'democracy' . Ever read 1984?

 

[slevin8989]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

While only allowing competent people to vote is a good way to eliminate the current system of choosing candidates by their ablity to smile infront of a camera and the interchangable party they belong to, how do you decide who is competent and who is not and whats to stop those in power from altering the test to only allow people who share their ideology to partake in their version of 'democracy' . Ever read 1984?

Actually i've never read it but heard about it. Is it good?.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

If you let younger people vote, you will get more highschool morons who turn the elections into popularity contests. I mean, I'm happy Obama won, but if they let younger kids vote, he would have won without even a little bit of competition, just because he was popular with young people. And that's not how it should work.

 

[fenrizz]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

While only allowing competent people to vote is a good way to eliminate the current system of choosing candidates by their ablity to smile infront of a camera and the interchangable party they belong to, how do you decide who is competent and who is not and whats to stop those in power from altering the test to only allow people who share their ideology to partake in their version of 'democracy' . Ever read 1984?

Actually i've never read it but heard about it. Is it good?.

it is. And it is also a little scary.
You should read it.

 

[BardSeed]

Text.

More text.

I don't doubt your sincerity, and I'm aware that there are many young individuals, such as yourself, who could probably make an informed decision. Based on my own experiences with teenagers, (I'm only 18, by the way, so I'm not talking about the "good old days") a lot of them would make pretty selfish choices. They'd probably think more about themselves than society as a whole. I'm not entirely opposed to this idea, however, I just think we should encourage the youth to take an interest in politics before we allow them to vote. If you're old enough to join the army, you should have a say in what's going on.

As far as the abolition of a voting age altogether, what would you put in its place? Somebody in this thread recommended an intelligence limit. Would you encourage something like this, or do you really believe that all citizens should be able to vote? If this is the case, I have to respectfully disagree. Surely you can't think somebody ten years old or younger is capable of making informed decisions? Even if only those as young as 13/14 can vote, I still think it's a bad idea.

You said that you didn't like the fact that politicians may exclude those who can't vote, the youth, or perhaps impose a negative stereotype upon them. While I certainly don't deny that this happens, do you really think things would improve if the politicians were aiming for a younger target? It's pretty clear that young people, as a group, are more susceptible to propaganda than any other age group. As I've said already, I don't mind the voting age being lowered, as long as education on the matter is in place first, but we're a long way from having 13 year olds that, as a group, are intelligent enough to make important decisions which will have an impact on the society we live in.

Keep it radical. C=

 

[murphy7801]

in the uk your an adult at 18 you can do almost anything and i think the law should stay that way i dont not trust the folly of youth, but sadly with less and less people voting desperate times call for desperate measures

 

[A random person]

What idiot put 'any age'? There's been one vote for that so far, so that person apparently thinks giving ten year olds the chance to vote is a good idea? Oh God, the BNP and all the dumber parties are going to take over sooner than we thought...

As for me, I say 18. People at 16 aren't necessarily mature enough to be able to vote sensibly, I personally disagree slightly with the whole marriage, giving blood and paying taxes and so on at 16 as well. A lot of people are mature at 16, as Janat said above, I believe. However, there are still plenty of immature idiots out there at that age and so it would be a bad idea to give those people that sort of choice.

I'm just that idiot. Ok, I was the second to vote that way, but I still voted that way.

See my previous post. Also, worst case, the kids will just vote the way their parents vote. Then again, that could give chavs...eh, they probably won't vote anyway.

 

[murphy7801]

i dont think its matter of maturity its a matter of life experience that havent quite seen enough of the world or felt enough to truly understand the decisions

 

[Madshaw]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

i think it shoud be anyone with 5 gcse grades at A* to C or better

 

[MortisLegio]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

Then only like 3% of the populous could vote and well elections would be alot shorter
so yeah lets go with that

 

[murphy7801]

I think that instead of an age limit maybe an intelligence limit would be better.

i think it shoud be anyone with 5 gcse grades at A* to C or better

that really wouldnt be very fair to some with dyslexia who might have iq of say 200 but has problems spelling