|
|
Post by birdseye on Feb 3, 2022 10:21:25 GMT
Well not quite but pretty near. Here in Wales the law has been changed to allow any child over 16 to vote and also any foreign citizen who happens to be here.I wonder why they stopped at 16? After all I would have thought that children over say 12 would be more likely to vote Labour which is of course the reason for making the change.
And how does this gel with the age for driving or drinking? How about the age at which the law assumes you can understand a contract - 18. So at 16 you can understand world politics but not a contract? Really? And at 16 you still need your parents consent as a minor to do many things such as join up.
Does this make any sense to you? Personally I would have thought that voting age should be higher than many of the other minimum ages since its a decision that requires some experience of life and some maturity.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Feb 9, 2022 8:19:57 GMT
Bit surprised that no one has any views on what I see as gerrymandering.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 10, 2022 22:27:21 GMT
I agree entirely. I didn't think voting age should have been lowered from 21.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 11, 2022 11:26:12 GMT
I agree entirely. I didn't think voting age should have been lowered from 21. Actually, I think that 21 is too low. Studies of brain development show that show that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25, so I would have raised the voting age to that point. One example out of many: www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051By letting 18-year olds vote, we are allowing people whose thinking is primarily driven by emotion to make value judgements. I think that there is a similar case for giving them more protection in other areas, such as legal liability in contracts, and the ability to get credit for example. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Feb 16, 2022 20:01:43 GMT
Bit surprised that no one has any views on what I see as gerrymandering. I first voted in 1970 age 20, just after Wilson reduced the age from 21 to 18. He did it because he thought the majority would vote Labour. Both Scotland and Wales following the trend but to age 16 is for exactly the same reason. Youngsters vote left so it is said, so yes I agree, it is a form of gerrymandering. I actually agree with leftieliberal that the age should be raised to 25, I did once read a very well thought out reasoned argument supporting that view, which convinced me. I can't remember where though, it was some time ago. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Feb 17, 2022 7:50:08 GMT
The brain starts to 'shrink' from when you are in your thirties to forties. Seems it would make more sense to put an upper age limit to vote, perhaps 65?
😀
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2022 8:32:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 17, 2022 19:40:24 GMT
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,614
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 19, 2022 20:46:34 GMT
I agree entirely. I didn't think voting age should have been lowered from 21. By letting 18-year olds vote, we are allowing people whose thinking is primarily driven by emotion to make value judgements. I think that there is a similar case for giving them more protection in other areas, such as legal liability in contracts, and the ability to get credit for example. Decision making is driven primarily by brain structure and chemistry not age and the evidence is that humans of all ages overwhelmingly act emotionally rather than rationally. You do not become more rational with age. A search on the internet will turn up plenty of papers on this. Incidentally, it means the classical model of economics which assumes rational actors is hopelessly flawed. "According to Arthur Lefford, author of "The Influence of Emotional Subject Matter on Logical Reading," people generally think their decisions are made based on facts ... (but) ... ninety percent of human decisions are made based on emotions. Humans use logic to justify their actions to themselves and others." |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,614
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 19, 2022 20:53:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Feb 20, 2022 16:24:21 GMT
The brain starts to 'shrink' from when you are in your thirties to forties. Seems it would make more sense to put an upper age limit to vote, perhaps 65? 😀 Despite being 76 myself, I agree. Too many of my similarly aged friends descend into a simple minded semi fascists approach to politics, the marhket served by the Daily Mail. Others are just as rigid LoC.
My M-I-L with dementia had a vote at 92
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 20, 2022 17:12:44 GMT
If lowering the voting age to 18 didn't work, what makes you think that another two years will make any difference? The suggestion of lowering the voting age to six was simply to challenge preconceived ideas, not a serious proposal, as should have been obvious from the article. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,614
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 20, 2022 20:18:29 GMT
If lowering the voting age to 18 didn't work, what makes you think that another two years will make any difference? The suggestion of lowering the voting age to six was simply to challenge preconceived ideas, not a serious proposal, as should have been obvious from the article. Re the article - I know. I read it. To give you a serious answer to your question. We have an aging population, but no upper limit on voting age. Furthermore, because they acquired the habit while younger when political participation was higher the older age groups have a higher turnout. the result is we are in danger of becoming a gerontocracy. This is a very bad thing. The older voters consistently vote for parties opposed to the changes and reforms that are essential in our creaking and highly defective state. When they did vote for change it was the disastrous nostalgic spasm of Brexit. Brexit was an example of people with not long to live totally shafting the futures of their grandchildren. The political parties respond to this powerful voting block by feather bedding them. During the "austerity" period, the benefits paid to working age people were brutally cut, driving many into poverty, but the 50% of benefits that go to the elderly were ring-fenced and protected for political reasons to the point where even Ian Duncan Smith complained about it. I don't propose we remove the vote from the old, rather we need an extension of democracy to counter-balance the influence of those who who won't have to live in the future they vote for when they oppose change. The biggest win all round is to increase political participation by younger age groups. The political parties could help by actually pitching some policies to them, rather than constantly pandering to the grey vote. But the very process of introducing votes at 16 will generate interest and so raise the profile. It is certainly worth a try. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 21, 2022 12:38:28 GMT
If lowering the voting age to 18 didn't work, what makes you think that another two years will make any difference? The suggestion of lowering the voting age to six was simply to challenge preconceived ideas, not a serious proposal, as should have been obvious from the article. It is certainly worth a try. But if you give people the vote at 16, should you not also allow them to drive cars (in America they already can) at 16, enter into credit agreements (currently 18), and get married without needing parental consent? |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,614
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 21, 2022 16:43:34 GMT
It is certainly worth a try. But if you give people the vote at 16, should you not also allow them to drive cars (in America they already can) at 16, enter into credit agreements (currently 18), and get married without needing parental consent? But following that logic, driving licences now expire at 70. Older drivers have to apply to renew it based on their safety and competence to drive. Should the same apply to over 70s and the vote? It is exactly the same argument. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 21, 2022 18:53:34 GMT
But if you give people the vote at 16, should you not also allow them to drive cars (in America they already can) at 16, enter into credit agreements (currently 18), and get married without needing parental consent? But following that logic, driving licences now expire at 70. Older drivers have to apply to renew it based on their safety and competence to drive. Should the same apply to over 70s and the vote? It is exactly the same argument. But the conditions for losing one's licence are primarily medical. As long as you can read a number plate at 20 metres and haven't got one of a limited list of medical conditions, you can carry on driving. You just have to fill in a form certifying your fitness to drive (which I did for the second time last year). There isn't any specific test of your cognitive ability, so driving isn't a good analogy. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,614
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 21, 2022 22:42:00 GMT
But following that logic, driving licences now expire at 70. Older drivers have to apply to renew it based on their safety and competence to drive. Should the same apply to over 70s and the vote? It is exactly the same argument. But the conditions for losing one's licence are primarily medical. As long as you can read a number plate at 20 metres and haven't got one of a limited list of medical conditions, you can carry on driving. You just have to fill in a form certifying your fitness to drive (which I did for the second time last year). There isn't any specific test of your cognitive ability, so driving isn't a good analogy. Exactly my point. Fitness to drive has nothing to do with voting, so that is as true for 16 year olds as 76 year olds. Pleased you agree this. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 27, 2022 18:34:38 GMT
For me, voting at 16 is absolutely fine (and I would have given my right arm to have been able to vote at 16).
At 16, I had knowledge of chemical electrolysis, trigonometry, computer programming, weather forecasting as well as being able to speak reasonable Spanish.
The suggestion that I couldn't grasp what political parties stood for and make a decision based on that is frankly, for the birds.
As well as this, at 16, I could work and pay taxes, so why shouldn't I have a (limited, admittedly) say on how those taxes are spent?
Some have brought up age restrictions on other things. I feel that this is a bogus argument.
For instance, you cannot legally buy alcohol at 18 (although you can legally drink alcohol at 16 if with an adult).
Everyone knows that teens get pissed at the weekend at 15. They did when I was that age just as they do now.
It's a normal part of growing up and most grow out of it in adulthood - and more to the point, it's largely tolerated, everyone knows it happens like clockwork.
The legal age is set at 18, not to stop under 18's drinking, but, to stop 12 year olds drinking, which is what would happen if, say, the age of purchase was lowered to 15.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Mar 28, 2022 10:20:48 GMT
If lowering the voting age to 18 didn't work, what makes you think that another two years will make any difference? The suggestion of lowering the voting age to six was simply to challenge preconceived ideas, not a serious proposal, as should have been obvious from the article. Re the article - I know. I read it. To give you a serious answer to your question. We have an aging population, but no upper limit on voting age. Furthermore, because they acquired the habit while younger when political participation was higher the older age groups have a higher turnout. the result is we are in danger of becoming a gerontocracy. This is a very bad thing. The older voters consistently vote for parties opposed to the changes and reforms that are essential in our creaking and highly defective state. When they did vote for change it was the disastrous nostalgic spasm of Brexit. Brexit was an example of people with not long to live totally shafting the futures of their grandchildren. The political parties respond to this powerful voting block by feather bedding them. During the "austerity" period, the benefits paid to working age people were brutally cut, driving many into poverty, but the 50% of benefits that go to the elderly were ring-fenced and protected for political reasons to the point where even Ian Duncan Smith complained about it. I don't propose we remove the vote from the old, rather we need an extension of democracy to counter-balance the influence of those who who won't have to live in the future they vote for when they oppose change. The biggest win all round is to increase political participation by younger age groups. The political parties could help by actually pitching some policies to them, rather than constantly pandering to the grey vote. But the very process of introducing votes at 16 will generate interest and so raise the profile. It is certainly worth a try. The Brexit argument is nonsense. The reason that the Brexit vote succeeded was middle class Labour arrogance in saying to their voters that their concerns about immigration should be ignored. Sure the older generation voted in favour as might be expected. But it was the working class swing that got the vote through.
We already give voting rights to those who we deem competent and as a result restrict by age. I accept the argument about some of my aged colleagues but then there are many in the working population who have limited intelligence and just as many prejudices. There is no simple answer and the argument to have any restriction on voting by competence is a dangerous one. Children are different. Until the age of 18 they are under parental care. They arent judges capable of many things and the argument in the case of voting is that they have no real life experience. Its better that they have a chance to see how politics work before getting involved or you risk entirely emotional judgements.
Maybe we should reverse the America revolutionary view and say "no participation without taxation".
Interestingly no one has commented on the Welsh idea that any foreigner who happens to be in the country at the time of an election can also vote
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,614
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 28, 2022 21:11:20 GMT
The Brexit argument is nonsense. The reason that the Brexit vote succeeded was middle class Labour arrogance in saying to their voters that their concerns about immigration should be ignored. Sure the older generation voted in favour as might be expected. But it was the working class swing that got the vote through.
Graph speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Mar 28, 2022 22:53:39 GMT
The older voters consistently vote for parties opposed to the changes and reforms that are essential in our creaking and highly defective state. When they did vote for change it was the disastrous nostalgic spasm of Brexit. Brexit was an example of people with not long to live totally shafting the futures of their grandchildren. Or, the older generation voted for Brexit precisely because they thought that in the long run it would be better for their grandchildren. I certainly did. It's far more likely that grandparents considered the future of their grandchildren than the other way round. |
|
