Should you be able to vote at 16

oscarBravo

Originally posted by klaz
Oscar, Do you understand where i'm coming from though?

Oh I understand alright - it's just that I don't agree.

i.e. Until Teenagers face the consequences of Voting, I don't believe that they should have the right to vote. As things stand their parents take the brunt of most consequences.

Everybody faces the consequences of the choices made in elections - including tourists, to take an edge case. I see your point, but I don't see it as a useful determinant.

To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with delineation like this at the best of times. The law seems to suggest that on the day before your 18th birthday you're not sufficiently enlightened, informed, mature or whatever to vote, and that that situation changes the following day. This obviously isn't the case. The true situation is that newborn infants don't have the capacity to make informed choices in these matters, whereas forty-year-olds (theoretically) do. In the absence of a scientific criterion to establish competence to vote, a fairly arbitrary age in between is chosen. As I've said, as arbitrary divisions go, your eighteenth birthday seems a better one to me than your sixteenth.

Oh I understand alright - it's just that I don't agree.

Okies. Fair enough.

bonkey

Lads...for the people who think that dropping the voting requirement by 2 years would have a significant impact...consider the following :

According to the 2002 census :

Age 15-24 : 641,522
Age 25+ : 2,448,253

Now...allowing me a small bit of assumption here, I'm going to say that these groups are evenly distributed across the age groups.

So, that would give me 64,152 people of each age between 15 and 22. That means that 449,064 of them are already of legal voting age, and 128,304 are 16 or 17.

So...with the wonders of windows calculator, that says to me we have :

16 / 17 : 128,304
16+ : 3,025,621
18+ : 2,897,134

Now, because there's no data available on the subject that I can find, I'm going to assume that the same percentage of each group will register to vote and/or will actually vote....so we can leave the figures as is. If anyone can show me why it should be otherwise, I'll revise these figures.

So, looking at that....we can see that dropping the voting age would increase the total number of eligible voters by a bit over 4%.

Now seriously lads. Who is trying to kid whom here when claiming that this would have a major impact on our politics? Lets assume - one last time - that 4% of the vote translated into 4% of the seats in the Dáil. So thats 4-ish% of 166, which is...say 7 or 8 seats.

So...if every single 16- and 17-year-old who voted all cast their vote [/i]in the same direction[/i], they could effectively "back" a new party the size of the PDs. That is the most they could do.

And because we can reasonably assume that a goodly proportion of the 16- and 17-year olds who vote would actually vote for one fo the existant, traditional, problematic parties....or tha they would back a multitude of differing "new" groups, we can be reasonably sure that the net result would be less than that.

Come on....do the math. Dropping the vote to 16 would seem to have a far, far less effect on the end result than people are claiming....

Maybe the Greens would pick up a seat...maybe two. Maybe a handful of indies would get in instead of the party favourites....but thats as far as it would go.

Its just not a significant group.

jc

strawberry

No - I'm three years clear of there and I still feel like an idiot quite frequently. Granted that when it comes to discussing local politics I've come to the conclusion that most voters are a shower of idiots, but a shower of idiots with a little more experience nonetheless. There has to be a cut-off point somewhere and eighteen is working just fine, why change it?

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey
Come on....do the math. Dropping the vote to 16 would seem to have a far, far less effect on the end result than people are claiming....

Maybe the Greens would pick up a seat...maybe two. Maybe a handful of indies would get in instead of the party favourites....but thats as far as it would go.

Its just not a significant group.

jc

That sounds like the difference between one stable government and one unstable government....

Mike.

Originally posted by strawberry
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere and eighteen is working just fine, why change it?

As far as I can remember there is a group lobbying the E.U parliament at the moment for a change to 16.
I will look for a link to this in the morning.

Big Ears

Im 14 and obviously do cspe in school , but there is a major problem with the subject .

On the day of E.U. enlargement we did not discuss the enlargement at all . ( thats right in one of the biggest things to happen politically for decades we didnt discuss it . ) Instead we compared whats the difference between communication and transport from the 1700's to present day .

The class is basecly a dos and nobody learnes anything from it . Personnely I dont think its a good idea because I could see a lot of people I know voting for Sinn Fein without knowing anything about them or what their local politician for a constituency is about .

Then again maybe only the people who have an interest in politics would vote .

Big Ears

Originally posted by klaz
T
Base line. If you're under the roof of yur parents, if you're not contributing to the country as a worker/taxes, you should have no involvement in voting. Period.

What about people that have a physical disability and are unable to work / find it hard to get work and still live with their parents ?

should they not have the right to vote ?

bonkey

Originally posted by Big Ears
On the day of E.U. enlargement we did not discuss the enlargement at all . ( thats right in one of the biggest things to happen politically for decades we didnt discuss it . )

Have I got my dates wrong? Didn't the enlargement happen on a weekend? Are you saying that you're in school on the weekends?

jc

Big Ears

Sorry i meant the days just before and after enlargement .

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Gurgle
From vague memories of being 16, I think my vote would have been won more on issues than personalities/parties.

Pity you didn’t understand the issues when you were 16. Or did you work full time and pay rent and income tax? Perhaps you would have been swayed by the promise of tax relief of pensions? Was medical care a big issue for you - I bet all those VHI payments you were making were galling?

At 16 few are in the Real World. The vast majority are still living at home and being supported by their parents, so frankly don’t have much of a clue what the bottom line is. Add to this, many are still undergoing puberty (a condition akin to extended temporary insanity) and even if not are still remarkably naive chumps.

To be honest, there’s quite a few, well into their twenties and thirties and sixties, who probably are still not mature enough to vote. I’d raise the age rather than lower it. And make a minimum number of tax returns a prerequisite too.

I dare you to go to a lecture room full of 1st year engineers and announce that everyone there under 18 is a child and that their opinions should be ignored.

Deliver it with a smutty joke and they’ll lap it up like the sheep they are.

villain_97

I think it would be crazy to lower the voting age to 16.it would be disaterous for the country.The average 16 year old just ins't mature enough to vote.They'd vote for all sorts of narrow issues that will end up affecting the whole bloody system.When you are 16 you are very idealistic and not very tactful.

mike65

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I’d raise the age rather than lower it. And make a minimum number of tax returns a prerequisite too.

So the unemployed do'nt get a vote? I agree with everything else you said though.

Mike.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mike65
So the unemployed do'nt get a vote?

You can be unemployed and still have contributed to society at some stage in the recent past. You can also be long term unemployed due to significant disability, and thus you shouldn’t be penalized for that.

But at the same time, if you want rights, you should deal with the responsibilities.

But would I give someone who’s an able-bodied forty-five year-old, with twelve kids by six different women and has never paid a penny of tax in his life, the vote?

No.

Hell, you don’t want to know what I’d give them.

BuffyBot

But would I give someone who’s an able-bodied forty-five year-old, with twelve kids by six different women and has never paid a penny of tax in his life, the vote?

I don't know if you would, but you should. Whether we like them or not, a true democracy is on where every adult has a say.

Big Ears

How about having a politics test before u are egible to vote . If you know nothing about national and local politics you shouldnt be voting anyway .

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Whether we like them or not, a true democracy is on where every adult has a say.

What true democracy? Point to one, please.

Modern democracies are limited. The electorate is not able to vote on individual laws or policies, but for representatives that may pursue similar policies to those of their constituents. Even then, political parties and party whips limit regional and constituency rights by imposing common decisions. Say nothing of those exceptions to the rule where democratic rights are suspended, such as in the case of war or other emergency.

Even in your own words you would limit the right to vote to adults - thus in principle saying that it is for the greater good that some not have right to vote in a democracy.

BuffyBot

Modern democracies are limited. The electorate is not able to vote on individual laws or policies, but for representatives that may pursue similar policies to those of their constituents. Even then, political parties and party whips limit regional and constituency rights by imposing common decisions. Say nothing of those exceptions to the rule where democratic rights are suspended, such as in the case of war or other emergency.

I'll grant you that modern democracies are limited. That doesn't mean they aren't democratic in nature. However, taking the vote away from people because of their lifestyle or for whatever reason is certainly non-democratic, as you are taking away their chance to participate, even if it is in a limited way.

I don't like right wing parties like the BNP, but I wouldn't take away the right to vote from those who believe in their point of view, because that would be undemocratic. Removing the right to vote from those who are old enough to understand what they are voting for is undemocratic.

Even in your own words you would limit the right to vote to adults - thus in principle saying that it is for the greater good that some not have right to vote in a democracy.

Yes, there has to be a distinction between those who are old enough to vote and those who aren't. It's quite obvious that giving a 3 year old a vote would be a tad on the pointless side.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even in your own words you would limit the right to vote to adults - thus in principle saying that it is for the greater good that some not have right to vote in a democracy.

Setting a limit on age is a practical necessity. Newborn babies simply do not have the capacity to even cast a vote meaningfully, so there must be an artificial age limit set somewhere. Setting it at the point of adulthood, which is also a signiifcant point in how the law addresses the individual would seem a reasonable approach. Yes, the age is relatively arbitrary, but its still relatively consistent.

But to further make requirements, such as some form of "societal suitability" (works, pays taxes, whatever) is little different to a meritocracy. For example, what about the person who has a qualification but cannot find a job. What about the mother who never worked in a tax-paying job.

Ultimately, there are so many "side issues" that would have to be catered for, that it would come down to a judgement of saying "you do not deserve to have a say in how society progresses" to people we adjudge to be wasters.

But if we were to do that, one would also have to ask why these people are even capable of being wasters except that we have a society which supports their lifestyle choice. Surely saying that they don't deserve the vote for abusing what we have already chosen to give them is little removed from suggesting that they also do not deserve any support from the state?

Setting artificial barriers for vote-eligibility, such as some notion of your worth to society would strike me as being a terribly dangerous approach. We, the "hoi polloi" of the modern world, often complain that politics has already been usurped by Big Business [tm] and that we are suffering as it no longer serves our interests. Surely arguing that some people do not deserve the vote, because they do not live their lives in accordance with our desires - but still in a manner that our society supports - is little different to what the Big Business is doing to us?

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
I'll grant you that modern democracies are limited. That doesn't mean they aren't democratic in nature. However, taking the vote away from people because of their lifestyle or for whatever reason is certainly non-democratic, as you are taking away their chance to participate, even if it is in a limited way.

Thus you favour withholding democratic rights in some cases, but not others. Why? You have failed to explain this; the closest you’ve come to it is by saying that individuals should be discriminated against because of age but not because of lifestyle, but not said what you base your criteria upon.

I don't like right wing parties like the BNP, but I wouldn't take away the right to vote from those who believe in their point of view, because that would be undemocratic.

Irrelevant and off topic.

Removing the right to vote from those who are old enough to understand what they are voting for is undemocratic.

Then understanding would be your criteria? Should this mean that individuals with degrees (and thus a better understanding of the political process) should have weighted votes? Perhaps, as Big Ears suggested, people should be tested on this understanding before qualifying for this right? And what would you do with the vote of the senile or mentally handicapped?

Yes, there has to be a distinction between those who are old enough to vote and those who aren't. It's quite obvious that giving a 3 year old a vote would be a tad on the pointless side.

I’m not questioning that there is a distinction between those who are old enough to vote and those who are not. I’m questioning that it is the only such distinction.

Originally posted by bonkey
But to further make requirements, such as some form of "societal suitability" (works, pays taxes, whatever) is little different to a meritocracy. For example, what about the person who has a qualification but cannot find a job. What about the mother who never worked in a tax-paying job.

Fair examples, however this does not mean that we should not examine and explore meritocratic solutions to democracies shortcomings. Bravado aside, that’s all I’m really suggesting.

BuffyBot

Thus you favour withholding democratic rights in some cases, but not others. Why?

No I don't. I feel everyone in a society has a right to vote, apart from those who are too young.

Then understanding would be your criteria? Should this mean that individuals with degrees (and thus a better understanding of the political process) should have weighted votes?

I certainly don't remember implying any such thing. No weighted votes, just equal votes for all adults.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
No I don't. I feel everyone in a society has a right to vote, apart from those who are too young.

And you don’t see the irony in this statement? Everyone should have the vote except with those that do not fit the necessary (for practical or other reasons) criteria. So in the same sentence you apply criteria and simultaneously deny, having already opened the Pandora’s box of qualified emancipation, that it should be applied anywhere else.

You appear to be saying; “do as I say, don’t do as I do.”

BuffyBot

And you don’t see the irony in this statement?

*sigh* I'll indulge you in a some word play then.

Does the expression "everyone over the legal age should be entitled to vote" make it any better for you? I'm quite sure you knew exactly what I meant, but are being argumentative for the sake of it.

shotamoose

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Fair examples, however this does not mean that we should not examine and explore meritocratic solutions to democracies shortcomings.

The problem being that there is no fixed and objective measure of merit. So suffrage would become another political football. Those in power would be motivated to deny it to those likely to use it against them. Seriously, you can't see the problem with this?

hippu

i know this sounds stupid but i think the constitution should state that all citizens can vote- including toddlers, they dont want to and dont understand and their parents cant help them to vote still, id like to think that if anyone has an opinion on something they should be able to express it, plus it would repreasent accuratly the opinions and mindset of the population, and our child populace is going down, meaning more senior votes counting, who are against change, not good for a country

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
*sigh* I'll indulge you in a some word play then.

Don’t bother if it’s such a chore for you.

Does the expression "everyone over the legal age should be entitled to vote" make it any better for you? I'm quite sure you knew exactly what I meant, but are being argumentative for the sake of it.

You’re still missing the point. You have placed a criteria (age) for voting rights then said that placing criteria on voting rights is wrong.

Thus you accept the use of such criteria to limit democratic rights, but only when you agree with the criteria. Otherwise you’re a member of the BNP.

Now, if you still don’t understand I’ll try to Google up some pictures for you.

Originally posted by shotamoose
The problem being that there is no fixed and objective measure of merit.

There’s also no real fixed and objective measure of maturity even bonkey conceded that 18 was a relatively arbitrary point.

So suffrage would become another political football. Those in power would be motivated to deny it to those likely to use it against them. Seriously, you can't see the problem with this?

Of course, but it’s hardly the only political football out there. Neither is it the only means by which democracy may be circumvented. So it should not be dismissed out of hand without proper examination and debate.

BuffyBot

You’re still missing the point. You have placed a criteria (age) for voting rights then said that placing criteria on voting rights is wrong.

I think an age limit is more a necessity than anything. As I've pointed out, there is no point giving a three year old the right to vote, is there?

Thus you accept the use of such criteria to limit democratic rights, but only when you agree with the criteria. Otherwise you’re a member of the BNP.

You've lost me now. If you read my post again, you'll see that I was using the BNP as an example of how I believe every adult has a right to vote. I used this example in opposition to your statement where you revealed that you would give the vote to those who have a "a minimum number of tax returns". Nowhere did I cann anyone a member of the BNP :rolleyes:

There’s also no real fixed and objective measure of maturity even bonkey conceded that 18 was a relatively arbitrary point.

I've never said their was. "Adult" is a fluid term and varies from country to country which is perfectly fine. I think most countries (and people) would agree that someone who is still in primary school is not an adult.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
I think an age limit is more a necessity than anything. As I've pointed out, there is no point giving a three year old the right to vote, is there?

Look. Whether or not you think it is common sense to create an age limit or not is immaterial. Even your argument that there’s “no point giving a three year old the right to vote” could be equally applied to the mentally handicapped, for example.

The bottom line is that you have stated that placing criteria upon the right to vote is wrong, then went and applied criteria nonetheless.

You've lost me now. If you read my post again, you'll see that I was using the BNP as an example of how I believe every adult has a right to vote. I used this example in opposition to your statement where you revealed that you would give the vote to those who have a "a minimum number of tax returns". Nowhere did I cann anyone a member of the BNP :rolleyes:

How was it an example of how you believe every adult has a right to vote? TBH, it read more like an irrelevant “only Nazis don’t believe every adult has a right to vote”.

If I’m wrong, please explain how it was an example of how you believe every adult has a right to vote.

I've never said their was. "Adult" is a fluid term and varies from country to country which is perfectly fine. I think most countries (and people) would agree that someone who is still in primary school is not an adult.

Read what I wrote. I was referencing bonkey, not you. I even mentioned his name.

Gurgle

Wasn't the original question about 16-17 year olds ?
Not children, tax payers, the educated, the middle classes, land owners etc.

Why shouldn't they have the right at 16 ?
By 17, we're expected to take the leaving cert, choose a career, we are at the legal age of consent (therefore parenthood) but we don't get to choose our mis-leaders (hey I've found a way to describe our democratically elected representatives).

Originally posted by hippu i know this sounds stupid but i think the constitution should state that all citizens can vote- including toddlers

sure does.
You need a cut-off.
16 seems like a fairer one than 18.
Toddlers often act as random answer generators. They are very amusing but not quite sure what voting is all about.

BuffyBot

Look. Whether or not you think it is common sense to create an age limit or not is immaterial. Even your argument that there’s “no point giving a three year old the right to vote” could be equally applied to the mentally handicapped, for example.

Perhaps it could, but I'm not saying it should be. As I've stated before, I believe anyone above the agreed age should be entitled to vote. Simple as that.

bottom line is that you have stated that placing criteria upon the right to vote is wrong, then went and applied criteria nonetheless.

Was is not it you who said you would like to see criteria applied (i.e the "a minimum number of tax returns" comment)?

How was it an example of how you believe every adult has a right to vote? TBH, it read more like an irrelevant “only Nazis don’t believe every adult has a right to vote”.

Yuo made the comment that you would like to see voting restricted/weighted to certain groups. I can only assume you would like a situation to exist where people outside these groups, don't get to vote.

However, I feel everyone (again, to clarify everyone over the agreed age) has a right to vote, irregardless of status in society, education, political beliefs etc. That is why I chose their example. I don't like them, others don't like them and would probably like to see the vote taken away from them, but I still feel they have a right to vote.

Read what I wrote. I was referencing bonkey, not you. I even mentioned his name.

So I can't comment, huh?