Giving 16 and 17 years old the Vote

[topten]

I believe this was said by one or two people after the referendum didn't go their way.
Are not these same teenagers going around universities and collages chasing imaginary beings "Pokeman"on their mobile phones.

[jofra]

But why not? If the movers and shapers of the world (political leaders and news media) are not to be considered examples to all ages...

[topten]

But why not? If the movers and shapers of the world (political leaders and news media) are not to be considered examples to all ages...

God help us, and his supporters say he is the best man to lead Labour to victory in the next Election. Will no one rid us of this fool.

[woodspeckie]

The generation who claimed the older generation ruined their future by voting Brexit are the generation currently chasing imaginary Pokemon

[tomsteel]

And the generation(s) - of pre WWs of 1914/18, 1939/45 and the conflicts thereafter (and our Commonwealth citizens) who gave of their lives for the current youth to voice their views. The fickle finger!!

[jofra]

Yes, I look upon them; I despair and fear for England.....
And while those generations of pre 1914/1918 were not renowned for wild, frivolous activities, they gave their lives in WW1...
While those in the 20s and 30's - who were known in many cases for the wild and exuberant lifestyle (a release after WW1!) also gave their lives in WW2....
Remember Teddy boys (1950s), mods and rockers (mid-1960s and 1970s), late 1960s and 1970s era of student protest, St Pauls riot (1980), Handsworth riots (1981), Birmingham, Chapeltown riots (1981), Leeds, Toxteth riots (1981), Liverpool, Brixton riot (1985) - not to mention the 'summer of peace and love' and hippies.....?
All my (and your?) generations? How many went to Borneo, Malaysia, Kenya, Aden, the Falklands; how many went to Iraq and Afghanistan....
And yes; Cyprus in the 60's and 70's......
Today's generation............?

[waz-24-7]

Sorry but this
"you owe us attitude" is not winning me over.
Absolutely without doubt we ALL hold a massive level of gratitude to soldiers of past conflicts.
The Modern day youth is the future. Future leaders, politicians, inventors, doctors, teachers etc. Youngsters do not want and should not need to go to war.
Youngsters seek and deserve their own success and destiny.
I believe youngsters working in the UK economy and in schools and colleges in the UK and indeed Europe should be able to participate in their destiny.

The Modern youthful world is very different to even just 10 tears ago as social media and the internet continue to change the world as we know it.
Certainly new threats and challenges are emerging and the Youth of today must seek to deal with these issues.

[tomsteel]

waz, very commendable and philosophical argument you have put forward. However, war is inevitable (DAESH, oil and resources et al). That said, the post was on whether 16/17 year olds should vote. Personally, I know many pensioners and middle-aged people who should not vote (they have about 1/2 a neurone) but age gives them that right. How crazy are our voting and judicial systems?

[waddo]

Jofra, Do not despair, the next conflict that the UK gets involved in, where the current sadly depleted armed forces can not contain due to a simple lack of man/women power, will be settled by Facebook, Tweets, Pokeman, on-line gaming and mobile phone texting. Well that is until the electricity supply is cut and the batteries run flat - then it will be settled by democratic vote!

Despite all the hype over how clever the youth of today is, they lack the one thing that should be a requirement for anyone trusted with a vote - they have little to no experience in life! So no, give the 16/17 year old's the power of the vote without actually trusting them with it. Instead let the parents of their children vote on their behalf until the children reach a voting age. The parents have life experience after all. But at the same time impose a penalty on all those old enough to vote to ensure that they do so! Make it a simple arbitrary figure of £1,000.00 per vote not placed or 1 year in jail for anyone not able to pay the fine.

At the same time, make a cut off in the voting age for those in receipt of their Old Age Pension, once you are in receipt of that or any other form of State Benefit then you lose the right to vote, as you are effectively living off the state and should no longer have a say in how it is run until you are providing support for it.

[topten]

I think its your duty if not common decency to tell people what pub / bar you go to, so people that don't want to fall asleep over their pint can avoid. But those with Insomnia wellllllllll.

[lee666]

More suggestions;

Those between the ages of 25-35 who work in the public sector no vote for them.

What about all the gay people in the forces, no vote for them.

Those between the ages of 35-45 working in hospitals, no vote for them because they may not vote for the right side.

The list could go on but the rules are, at least 18 to vote, no upper limit to vote and finally your choice to vote or not.

I know lets stop being a democratic country and try to force people to do what the minority want them to do.

Any more loopy suggestions ??

[turtle]

What about all them kids waiting in the sperm bank.....surely they should have a vote.

[elizabeth]

Waddo
If my State Pension, or benefit as you choose to call it, was all I had to live on I would have a pretty miserable life. However during my working years I paid in to a private pension fund, we lived within our means and saved for our retirement, which is why we have a nice home and a good life.
If I had to rely on my "Benefit" I think I would be looking for a vacant doorway, unless the tax I still pay got me a bed for the night.
Of course another option for us older people could be a one way trip to Switzerland and then we would be out of everyone's way and wouldn't need to be given a vote at all.

[elizabeth]

Waddo
If my State Pension, or benefit as you choose to call it, was all I had to live on I would have a pretty miserable life. However during my working years I paid in to a private pension fund, we lived within our means and saved for our retirement, which is why we have a nice home and a good life.
If I had to rely on my "Benefit" I think I would be looking for a vacant doorway, unless the tax I still pay got me a bed for the night.
Of course another option for us older people could be a one way trip to Switzerland and then we would be out of everyone's way and wouldn't need to be given a vote at all.

[waz-24-7]

waz, very commendable and philosophical argument you have put forward. However, war is inevitable (DAESH, oil and resources et al). That said, the post was on whether 16/17 year olds should vote. Personally, I know many pensioners and middle-aged people who should not vote (they have about 1/2 a neurone) but age gives them that right. How crazy are our voting and judicial systems?

I believe this topic came about as a result of many youngsters in the 16-18 bracket being rather cross about the BREXIT result.
Many teenagers ,for example, on exchange European college courses now feel rather threatened and alienated from their European peer group.
I can understand this and the social media outcry after the referendum was plain to see. It was the more mature and elderly that harp back to the good old days that the youngsters blamed for denying them the right to a European future.
The slogan banded on social media was blunt and forthright .

I quote " If you are old and white then please die" Think that summed up the sentiment. Now of course some will preach about the wasted youth of today as drug taking yobs that should all be shot , put in jail or conscripted into the forces.
My view is that society and its primary leaders have failed to grasp the rapidly changing world and the young have been failed by their leaders and elders.
I do hope that amongst them there are some real shinning stars who will lead the future world society towards a better place.
YES they should have a vote.

[tomsteel]

waz, in your opinion. However, and once again, the majority disagree. Exchange students may be miffed the UK majority voted and caused possible angst against a minorities' personal circumstances. My wife missed out on her state pension because of an arbitrary age barrier imposed by a majority government, my children could not use water park rides because of an arbitrary height restriction imposed by the management, people cannot smoke tobacco products in public buildings etc - that is life! Just a thought though, why restrict voting rights to 16 or 17? Why not 13? Do immigrants, hospital inpatients and prison inmates and those not paying any form of tax get a vote? Interesting!

[waddo]

What can I say? The debate was getting boring and needed a push - made you think, got you to respond!!! Emotive response from Elizabeth, accepted, please be assured that I did the same thing but sadly my private pension pot vanished in the mist like many others did - hey ho, that is life and glad you do not have to sleep in a doorway or like us afford a room with the tax we also still pay. Switzerland is never an option anyway, that is simply running away from life - go out and "Peacefully" rob a bank that should guarantee you a bed and three squares for a few years, you will still be able to vote and buy lottery tickets, not have to pay for a TV license and if you spend enough time there you can even have a degree without the student loan attached - what a wonderful country!!

Back to voting age of 16/17 - I speak from experience having been that age myself once - at that age you have not formulated a cohesive grasp on your own life and intentions, how could we expect you then to have a grasp of country or even world wide events sufficient enough to vote on? That is my comment on this thread, my previous posting was smoke and mirrors to get you all thinking!

Oh yes, Topten, when you post a reply please indicate whom it is addressed to?

[Mowgli597]

Interestingly youngsters in the UK may marry at 16.
But not vote?
Old enough to be responsible for raising the next generation - but not old enough (or capable enough in the opinion of a lot of contributors to this topic) to give them a say in their own or their children's future.

[waddo]

Mowgli597, Yes, interesting point. I joined the military aged 15.5 years, as did a lot of others of my age group. At age 17 I was deemed old enough to die for my country but still could not vote! So in effect the country was more than happy to have me defend it but to keep me from having any say at all in it's or my future. However, I was led at that time by far more elderly and experienced people who had passed through the same system and who all agreed that the voting age should never be lowered!

Could it be that now the generations behind us old folk have sufficient experience to trust the knowledge and integrity of the Nations youth and are in fact correct that the voting age should be lowered to that of 16?

[elizabeth]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ounds.html

Are these the young people who Waz wants to have the vote, are these our future leaders, Doctors, Heads of Industry, if so we're stuffed.
If this is an example of todays youth then 35 is soon enough for them to be trusted with a vote, and even then only with some consideration. If they can't have a harmless water fight and some fun in the park without resorting to violence then you have to wonder what sort of country do they want to live in.

[Geoff1131]

This debate is in my view just fantasy. It was all started by the ' remain ' voters who did not get their choice in the referendum.

If 16-17 year olds are given the vote, do the 14-15 year olds then not become the disenfranchised?

If 16-17 year olds are allowed the vote does it not lead on to the age for being allowed to drive, being given to the 16 year olds and then down to the 14 year olds?

There are rules and age limits put in place so that society can run relatively smoothly. The voting age was dropped from 21 down to 18 some years ago and most 18 year olds did not bother to vote.

The rules for the referendum vote were perfectly clear before the vote was taken. If all these people and society in general were concerned that 16-17 year olds should have been allowed to vote then this should have been addressed before the vote. Same situation with the Scottish vote. If Scotland did not want to abide by the declared vote, then the SNP should have told the UK government that they did not want to take part in the vote. The vote was taken according to the rules in force at the time, it's too late to change things now.

Geoff.

[Mowgli597]

Era that changed Britain forever: How race riots, TV, shopping addiction, and gay rights transformed Britain in the late 50s

Protests of 1968

Poll Tax Riots 1990

Etc. Etc. Etc.

And we let these people vote???

Oh yes. They're the heads of industry, current leaders, doctors - in fact they're us!

[kerry 6138]

Interestingly youngsters in the UK may marry at 16.
But not vote?
Old enough to be responsible for raising the next generation - but not old enough (or capable enough in the opinion of a lot of contributors to this topic) to give them a say in their own or their children's future.

Mowgli597- only with parental consent.
Waddo- you were eligible to join the Army but not serve in a conflict zone.

[Mowgli597]

If all these people and society in general were concerned that 16-17 year olds should have been allowed to vote then this should have been addressed before the vote. Same situation with the Scottish vote.

Some did try to address it.
Votes at 16

And in Scotland they did - but were defeated when it came to the EU referendum. I wonder why?

[Mowgli597]

Interestingly youngsters in the UK may marry at 16.
But not vote?
Old enough to be responsible for raising the next generation - but not old enough (or capable enough in the opinion of a lot of contributors to this topic) to give them a say in their own or their children's future.

Mowgli597- only with parental consent.

Only in England. In Scotland and Wales (and Ireland) parental consent is not needed.

[kerry 6138]

https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships
only Scotland

[Geoff1131]

Mowgli597, Ok I have read these reports, but again the plan to let 16-17 year olds vote was voted against by the UK government. So the rules were that only over 18's could vote. The result of the vote was known to the SNP before the referendum took place so they knew the rules, but went ahead and participated in the vote regardless. I would hold more respect for the SNP if after the defeat in the commons for the right to vote of the younger generation, they had declared that they would not be bound by the result of the referendum. Instead of which Ms Sturgeon was one of the most vociferous campaigners against leaving the EU. Scotland took part in the vote, did not get the result the SNP wanted and are now claiming for another in / out referendum. The majority of people in Scotland know that they could not survive being in the EU without the support of the rest of the UK.

[Mowgli597]

https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships
only Scotland

I stand corrected. Thank you

[topten]

Interestingly youngsters in the UK may marry at 16.
But not vote?
Old enough to be responsible for raising the next generation - but not old enough (or capable enough in the opinion of a lot of contributors to this topic) to give them a say in their own or their children's future.

Yes they know how to breed but how to nurture and raise their little Bluebell's and Buttercup's no ! most of them breed for a living, and let the state pay for them. It is now time to pay child allowance for 1 child only this will stop the breed for pay culture.

[waddo]

kerry6138, I did not join the Army and I was here in Nicosia in 1965 - not yet 18 - as my brother in law was in Aden having been "Claimed" by his brother who was serving their at the time, he was in the Army as a gunner and was in a conflict zone when he was just over 17!

History teaches us many things such as there were over 250,000 under 18 soldiers at the front in WW1 - of course they were not in a conflict zone till they were 19 (the age requirement of the time). What the military say's it doe's and what it actually doe's are two entirely different things so please do not be lead by what they say.

I must admit that when I arrived in Cyprus in the February of 65 and my commanding officer discovered I was not yet 18 he informed me that as I was under age I would not be allowed to stay, he placed me on permanent guard duty until I could be replaced. I never was replaced, instead shuffled sideways but that is another story! My guard duty involved patrolling a perimeter fence - armed to the teeth with a pick axe handle because I was under age - lol. The rest of the guys had the good old Number 4 so they were fine, I had the ability to run faster than them so I was ok to - but of course Nicosia in 65 was not a conflict zone was it?

I think the phrase you were seeking was "The legal right to carry arms is not granted to members of HM Forces until they attain the age of 18 years" - it has nothing to do with what zone you happen to be in!

[JBA]

I was always intrigued by the voting system described by Nevil Shute in one of his novels. It proposed that people have multiple votes - I don't remember the exact details but something along the lines of:-

Age 18 - 1 vote
Age 40 - a 2nd vote
In the armed services - a 3rd vote (permanent after 10 years)
In employment - a 4th vote (permanent after 20 years)
University Degree - a 5th vote
Paying top rate tax - a 6th vote (permanent after 10 years)
As an honour, like OBE et. al., the 7th vote

The idea was that with age comes wisdom, with education and success comes wisdom, serving your country deserves reward ..... and the fickle and foolhardy do not have so much say in things.

Under such a system I wouldn't mind if the first vote came at 16 as there is much to be said for involving the young early.

[waddo]

JBA, Have never come across that before - must stop reading comic's lol - but what a fine idea it seems to be, just wonder if it would work under equality and diversity???

[JBA]

It depends, I suppose, on whether or not you believe we are all equal - I do not. Inequality is recognised all the time in life..e.g. in promotions at work and in the services, in salaries for different jobs etc. So why not in running the country.

I have worked hard all my life and in many countries, I consider myself of reasonable intelligence and worldly awareness. However, my vote is of exactly the same value as some drug-fuelled 18 year old who didn't finish school, has never worked and never will but who, fortunately, will probably never vote.

I also remember from the novel that the system produced a much higher standard of politician.

[Keithcaley]

...I also remember from the novel that the system produced a much higher standard of politician.

...But don't forget that it was only a novel

Also, I've met plenty of 'drug fuelled' 30 & 40 year olds - not to mention 'alcohol fuelled' 60 & 70 year olds!

[jofra]

A "novel" idea, and perhaps a fairly sensible one - depending on when it was written; however, if as I suspect (without any foundation) that it was in the 60s or earlier, consider these points -
Age 18 - 1 vote - no comment
Age 40 - a 2nd vote - no comment
In the armed services - a 3rd vote (permanent after 10 years) - was national service still operating?
In employment - a 4th vote (permanent after 20 years) - was "a job for life" still the usual case, with closures and mass redundancies (involuntary unemployment) not common?
University Degree - a 5th vote - were the "hard" disciplines (maths, sciences, languages et al) the bulk, while what were/are perceived "softer" (sociology, social sciences, media studies et al) only just starting to appear?
Paying top rate tax - a 6th vote (permanent after 10 years) - what was the top rate? And perhaps on the assumption that this was "earned" by actual proven capablity?
As an honour, like OBE et. al., the 7th vote - were honours more earned and deserved then, as opposed to (perceivably) bought by party donations today - or for sporting excellence?

"Also, I've met plenty of 'drug fuelled' 30 & 40 year olds - not to mention 'alcohol fuelled' 60 & 70 year olds!"
- I'll drink to that, my medication allows it!

[JBA]

Jofra

It was a novel.

I said 'intrigued'.

It was a rough approximation of the novel to get the idea across.

I am not promoting it as a serious idea - just something to expand the topic and maybe get people to think of alternatives.

Why not propose your ideas for the 7 votes?

[kibsolar1999]

above
18, 1 vote
25, 2 votes
35, 3
65, 2
75 +, 1