Voting at age 16, trouble ahead?

L.Jenkins

Suprising, when I was in secondary school, politics wasn't even a thought on anyones minds and that was 10-15 years ago. Things must have changed an awful lot.

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not trying to hang you for your comment I'm just trying to argue that experience and maturity is not a recipe for an informed decision. Education is. And an educated 16 imo is more informed than an experienced 50 year old without an interest in politics.

I agree. I'd love if all the electorate could make an educated and informed decision when they vote but there's no way of checking that without making it undemocratic.

People generally have more interest in politics when it directly affects them and this is more likely to happen (although not guaranteed) as you get older and enter the real world. The government are not going to set an exam for the electorate as it's undemocratic and will put off voters, so the only thing they can do is establish an age when people, generally speaking, start to take more of an interest in politics because it directly affects them on a daily basis.

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm 29, why do you ask ?

Just wondering.

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I agree. I'd love if all the electorate could make an educated and informed decision when they vote but there's no way of checking that without making it undemocratic.

People generally have more interest in politics when it directly affects them and this is more likely to happen (although not guaranteed) as you get older and enter the real world. The government are not going to set an exam for the electorate as it's undemocratic and will put off voters, so the only thing they can do is establish an age when people, generally speaking, start to take more of an interest in politics because it directly affects them on a daily basis.

They can introduce politics in secondary school and reduce the amount of wasted hours on religion and Irish. That to me would leave me confident that those 16 year old's were informed enough to have an informed opinion. I didnt take an interest until recently yet my vote before that was no less valid than anyone elses. I know people who regularly vote and still dont have an interest. As you said you cant guarantee how mature or how informed a vote is so the voting age should run in line with all other age related restrictions such as driving etc. If 16 is the legal age to start working and driving and whatever else then they should have the right to vote and the right for people not to dismiss their opinions or making the decisions in relation to things that affect them too.

Chain_reaction

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

And this is why it's an awful idea.




16 year olds are not adults and only adults should vote. Something so important as deciding who runs the country should be made by adults only. Yes, you meet some mature 16 year olds and immature and uninformed 18/30/40 year olds but the chances of you having more of a clue increase as you get older. I think even 18 is too young tbh.

Why would they bother with this? It's hardly a pressing issue.

I was going to counter act that until I re-call being in 5th year in school and a group of girls announcing they would vote for the local fianna fail joke as he got their relations council houses. In saying that I know a good few 50 somethings where I'm from that voted fine gael solely because they resurfaced a back road.

At 16 I probably would have spoiled my vote given my interest in Anarchism at the time.

Eve_Dublin

Earthhorse wrote: »

So 16 year olds will now be able to consent to be f*cked by the government but not by me?

Where's the sense in this?

This is a good point. The government are picking and choosing when to treat 16 year olds as adults. Don't be fooled into thinking that this move is for the benefit of 16 year olds. This is a cynical move by them to benefit their own self-interests.

Grayson

Dean0088 wrote: »

Looking back I remember how immature I was - often believing stupid statements and promises made by both sides but in particular the hard left.

Thay can't be anyworse that the people who voted in FF for all those years.

Honestly, i think they should get it. They'll probably take it far more seriously that older fogeys who vote on party lines every single election.

Eve_Dublin

They can introduce politics in secondary school and reduce the amount of wasted hours on religion and Irish.

That'd be great but right now, that isn't the case.

That to me would leave me confident that those 16 year old's were informed enough to have an informed opinion.

But until that happens, surely we should lay off lowering the age?

I didnt take an interest until recently yet my vote before that was no less valid than anyone elses. I know people who regularly vote and still dont have an interest. As you said you cant guarantee how mature or how informed a vote is so the voting age should run in line with all other age related restrictions such as driving etc.

It's no less valid but it would be better for everyone if people could make an informed decision.

If 16 is the legal age to start working and driving and whatever else then they should have the right to vote and the right for people not to dismiss their opinions or making the decisions in relation to things that affect them too.

Legal age to drive is 17. Legal age to have sex is 17. Legal age to drink is 18.

Grayson

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

That'd be great but right now, that isn't the case.

It might be if the people in school get to vote

Eve_Dublin

Grayson wrote: »

It might be if the people in school get to vote

Do you really believe 16 year olds would vote for a class in politics? Do you remember how you were and what your classmates were like?

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

That'd be great but right now, that isn't the case.

That would be if we were to educate with a mind to direct people towards making informed decisions.

but as you yourself said you cannot have that. So to me that leaves a 16 year olds vote the same as a 30 year olds. As a person own personal business depending on how they see things.

But until that happens, surely we should lay off lowering the age?

But if they are of age to work and pat tax then how can you deny them a vote in affairs ?

It's no less valid but it would be better for everyone if people could make an informed decision.

As we have already discuss informed decisions are not something people develop over time. It requires effort and self education.

Legal age to drive is 17. Legal age to have sex is 17. Legal age to drink is 18.

Make it all 17 then.

Grayson

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Do you really believe 16 year olds would vote for a class in politics? Do you remember how you were and what your classmates were like?

We weren't bad. I had political discussions with most of my classmates. We even asked to go to demonstrations. I think we knew more that your average apathetic adult now. But it was a smaller secondary school so I'm not saying we were like all students.

And I'll acknowledge that we were probably pretentious twats.

ManMade

How can you teach politics in an unbiased fashion. Croke park, unions, minimum wage, wealth tax, promissory notes , the quinns, abortion, can all be looked at in 1000s of ways. Looking at the way my school tries to shove pro-life propaganda down me and my classmates throats and somehow don't thrust them to be unbiased.

Eve_Dublin

That would be if we were to educate with a mind to direct people towards making informed decisions.

but as you yourself said you cannot have that. So to me that leaves a 16 year olds vote the same as a 30 year olds. As a person own personal business depending on how they see things.

Again I'll repeat (for the last time) what I think. People are more likely take an interest in politics when it directly affects them. You said you only recently took an interest and I'm guessing that has something to do with the crisis and how it affects you as a 29 year old adult. 16 year olds are a few years off living in "the real world", so more than likely (although there are exceptions) will be less inclined to take an interest. Why not keep it at 18 when young people are about to enter the real world and who is voted in really does affect them?

If you believe age is not a deciding factor, then why don't we just lower it to 14? It's only 2 years....

But if they are of age to work and pat tax then how can you deny them a vote in affairs ?

Most 16 year olds are not working full-time jobs (and in this crisis, even part-time jobs like in my day). They're either in 4th or 5th year of school.

As we have already discuss informed decisions are not something people develop over time. It requires effort and self education.

Which I believe is more likely to happen as you get older and decisions affect you directly.



We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I think.

Make it all 17 then

What happened to 16?


Edit: What are the actual benefits to lowering the age in your opinion?

Eve_Dublin

Grayson wrote: »

We weren't bad. I had political discussions with most of my classmates. We even asked to go to demonstrations. I think we knew more that your average apathetic adult now. But it was a smaller secondary school so I'm not saying we were like all students.

And I'll acknowledge that we were probably pretentious twats.

You were exceptional.

My name is URL

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Legal age to drive is 17. Legal age to have sex is 17. Legal age to drink is 18.

Just to be pedantic, there is no legal age for drinking. The UK is the only country with a minimum drinking age. Laws elsewhere concern the sale of alcohol to minors and public consumption.

Parents can decide whether or not they allow kids under 18 to drink in private spaces. Maybe parents could decide whether or not to allow their 17 year olds to vote too =p

Eve_Dublin

My name is URL wrote: »

Just to be pedantic, there is no legal age for drinking. The UK is the only country with a minimum drinking age. Laws elsewhere concern the sale of alcohol to minors and public consumption.

Parents can decide whether or not they allow kids under 18 to drink in private spaces. Maybe parents could decide whether or not to allow their 17 year olds to vote too =p

I stand corrected.

coolhull

Grayson wrote: »

We weren't bad. I had political discussions with most of my classmates. We even asked to go to demonstrations. I think we knew more that your average apathetic adult now. But it was a smaller secondary school so I'm not saying we were like all students.

And I'll acknowledge that we were probably pretentious twats.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough teenagers like you. For most young people under 18, if their candidate doesn't have an 1890 number to dial, a kind of "vote for your favourite" contest,then, they aren't interested. Sadly, this applies to a lot of 'real' adults too

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Again I'll repeat (for the last time) what I think. People are more likely take an interest in politics when it directly affects them. You said you only recently took an interest and I'm guessing that has something to do with the crisis and how it affects you as a 29 year old adult. 16 year olds are a few years off living in "the real world", so more than likely (although there are exceptions) will be less inclined to take an interest. Why not keep it at 18 when young people are about to enter the real world?

You think politics and the decisions people vote on doesnt affect kids ? Course it does. I took an interest because I realised how little I knew, I set about educating myself. Everyone in the country was affected by the crises yet I know from first-hand experience that not everyone is now makes informed political decisions. Its probably worth with a lot more reactionary and populist politics than before.

And why not keep it at 18 ? Why not lower it to 16 ? You also stated that 18 was too young, so why are you happy to leave it at 18 ?

If you believe age is not a deciding factor, then why don't we just lower it to 14? It's only 2 years....

Because 14 year olds are children who's parents are solely responsible for them. Their parents decide for them they dont decide for themselves. But same question to you, you say 16 is too young, so is 18, is 20 too young ? If not why not ?

Most 16 year olds are not working full-time jobs (and in this crisis, even part-time jobs like in my day). They're either in 4th or 5th year of school.

Most 16 year olds I know do work in the summers, some have part time jobs. The point is not what they are doing its what they can legally do.

Which I believe is more likely to happen as you get older and decisions affect you directly.

Nobody in the country has not been affected by recent events and yet people still vote in the same old way. People react they dont educate themselves. Experience doesnt equal informed decisions.

What happened to 16?

Your opinion was based on youth itself which is what we were arguing. You stated 16 was too young, 18 was you young. My opinion is that youth isnt a factor, and if 17 is the legal age of which people become members of this society in their own right then 17 should be the age. Doesnt matter to me, but seems to matter to you.

Da Shins Kelly

I don't know why people are going on about Sinn Fein's terrorist past as if they're the only party with those kinds of links. Sure, Fianna Fáil come from a history of men and women who actively tried to bring down the Free State and plunged the country into civil war, and that's not even getting into their more recent past. Fine Gael has an uncomfortable history with their flirtations with fascism. Labour is full of stickies. If you're going to judge a party on its past rather than what it proposes for the future, you might as well write them all off.

As for the voting age being lowered, half of them aren't even going to bother voting, and the ones that do are more than likely going to be the ones that are actually interested in politics. I don't see any problem with it. I see moronic adults voting for the same parties again and again simply because their parents did, and people still voting along Civil War lines, or the people who vote for someone simply because they filled in a pot-hole at the bottom of their road. Perhaps having younger people voting will mean a change from the mindless voting we see time and again. People don't give young people enough credit.

_rebelkid

I don't see why a 16/17 year old who has had no influence from various family allegiances and has actually researched politics should be denied a vote because of a "lack of experience", when a 30 year old who has voted a certain party and followed that parties line for years is encouraged to vote.

Surely a lack of party interaction, coupled with an increase in political awareness is what an electorate needs, not a continuation of tradition?

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Because 14 year olds are children who's parents are solely responsible for them. Their parents decide for them they dont decide for themselves. But same question to you, you say 16 is too young, so is 18, is 20 too young ? If not why not ?

Parents are legally responsible of their children up to the age of 18.


18 is fine. Not ideal but I'd be happy to keep it there.

Conchir

Itzy wrote: »

Suprising, when I was in secondary school, politics wasn't even a thought on anyones minds and that was 10-15 years ago. Things must have changed an awful lot.

Oh, I wouldn't call what they'd be talking about politics, but I still reckon they'd vote for them.

L.Jenkins

So it wouldn't be an educated vote? A herd type vote then.

Chemical Burn

Voting age should be 18, but 16 if you are working full time and paying tax, because these people are paying tax and should therefore have a say in how the country is running. People who refuse jobs who are on the dole should have their right to vote revoked, as should rapists, murderers and paedophiles.

Chips Lovell

What about arsonists? I don't think they should get the vote either.

WoollyRedHat

Vito Corleone wrote: »

No, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Most 16 year olds are idiots.

I'd say they're on par wuth the general electorate at least, having voted in They who must not be named multiple times in the last decade and a half.

L.Jenkins

Interesting proposal, remove the right to vote from those who've commited a crime. What about those on welfare who are actively looking for a job? They shouldn't be punished, because they can't find work.

Chips Lovell

BTW, removing the vote from murderers could lead to the interesting situation where we had murderers sitting in the Dail but prevented from voting in a general election.

Eve_Dublin

Mad to think I can't vote in the general elections of the country I'm from and the general elections of the country I've lived in for 3 and a half years where I pay taxes into and here I am debating on whether a 16 year old child should have the right to vote. I should have the bleedin' right to vote somewhere at least. :mad:

/end of mini hangover-induced rant

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Parents are legally responsible of their children up to the age of 18.


18 is fine. Not ideal but I'd be happy to keep it there.

Not solely. They have independence at that stage with being legally allowed to work, drive, engage in sexual intercourse, smoke, etc before they are 18.

What is your ideal age to vote then ? Where I cant agree with you is the fact you think an arbitrary age chosen by someone else can dictate whether or not a member of society can vote. An 18 year old is a full member of society and its simply wrong to deny them a vote.

CrazyRabbit

Age-based restrictions are idiotic. Two different 16 year olds can have hugely differing levels of maturity and knowledge of politics, sex, alcohol, tobacco etc.

You have to do a test to prove you are competent enough to drive a car. Should we not have some test to show competence in the area of political knowledge? I for one find it terrifying that the most politically ignorant people in the country gain an automatic right to vote at a set age.

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Not solely. They have independence at that stage with being legally allowed to work, drive, engage in sexual intercourse, smoke, etc before they are 18.

What is your ideal age to vote then ? Where I cant agree with you is the fact you think an arbitrary age chosen by someone else can dictate whether or not a member of society can vote. An 18 year old is a full member of society and its simply wrong to deny them a vote.

...hence the reason I've argued that I'd be happy to keep it that age.


What my ideal age to vote is not what I'm arguing here. I think the age should be kept at 18.

Chemical Burn

Chemical Burn wrote: »

People who refuse jobs who are on the dole should have their right to vote revoked

Itzy wrote: »

Interesting proposal, remove the right to vote from those who've commited a crime. What about those on welfare who are actively looking for a job? They shouldn't be punished, because they can't find work.

PPLLLLLEEEEEAAASSEEE read my reply :P

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Not solely. They have independence at that stage with being legally allowed to work, drive, engage in sexual intercourse, smoke, etc before they are 18.

What is your ideal age to vote then ? Where I cant agree with you is the fact you think an arbitrary age chosen by someone else can dictate whether or not a member of society can vote. An 18 year old is a full member of society and its simply wrong to deny them a vote.

The only thing they can do at 16 (the age you are arguing that they should be able to vote. You implied they're kids at 14 but not at 16.) is work full-time. Parents have sole responsibility of their children until they're 18. The fact that they can have sex at 17 doesn't take away from that.

Seedy Arling

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

At 16 I was fingering chung wans down the local disco like there was no tomorrow. I doubt many 16 year olds have an interest in voting.

It'll be a vote for more fingering!

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

...hence the reason I've argued that I'd be happy to keep it that age.


What my ideal age to vote is not what I'm arguing here. I think the age should be kept at 18.

You have been arguing that youth should exclude people from voting. And you didnt say it should be 18 you basically said its better than 16 but not what you would have.

18 is fine. Not ideal but I'd be happy to keep it there.

So I dont know why your confused about what you yourself said. You said its not ideal that every adult member of this society gets to vote. And from your previous arguments it seems you think experience makes your vote of more worth. Which is clearly (and in your own case where you discount a party policies based on an irrelevant topic) not true.

Richard Hillman

My first vote went to one of those loony socialist left wing candidates and that was at 19 I think. There was no way I should have been allowed vote at 19 let alone 16. I probably would have voted Sinn Fein or something :eek:

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You have been arguing that youth should exclude people from voting. And you didnt say it should be 18 you basically said its better than 16 but not what you would have.



So I dont know why your confused about what you yourself said. You said its not ideal that every adult member of this society gets to vote. And from your previous arguments it seems you think experience makes your vote of more worth. Which is clearly (and in your own case where you discount a party policies based on an irrelevant topic) not true.

I didn't say "youth" should exclude people from voting. Youth is subjective. I'm 32 and I'm still considered young here. In Ireland I'm not.

I said it shouldn't be lowered which means I'd like to keep it at 18. What my "ideal" would be is not realistic.

I'd love to see everyone do some form of a test but it's undemocratic and not feasible and I acknowledge that. I prefer to talk in realistic terms. 18 is when you're legally an adult and I'd be happy enough to keep it at that age.

I'm not arguing my "ideal" is what should be put in place, I'm arguing that the age should not be lowered i.e. kept at 18.

L.Jenkins

I usually go for the Independants. Atleast if alot of rather dull Independant TDs got in, they wouldn't be able to agree on the color of shíte and make a load of poor decisions.

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I didn't say "youth" should exclude people from voting. Youth is subjective. I'm 32 and I'm still considered young here. In Ireland I'm not.

I said it shouldn't be lowered which means I'd like to keep it at 18. What my "ideal" would be is not realistic.

I'd love to see everyone do some form of a test but it's undemocratic and not feasible and I acknowledge that. I prefer to talk in realistic terms. 18 is when you're legally an adult and I'd be happy enough to keep it at that age.

I'm not arguing my "ideal" is what should be put in place, I'm arguing that the age should not be lowered i.e. kept at 18.

I'm getting very confused here. You are making points based on what I have to assume is your own opinion, if not you wouldnt have anything to say. Yet in your own words your opinion is undemocratic and unrealistic. So you dont want to back it up and are happy to just state any changes in any way that go against it shouldnt happen ?

Sorry but thats just ridiculous.

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You have been arguing that youth should exclude people from voting. And you didnt say it should be 18 you basically said its better than 16 but not what you would have.



So I dont know why your confused about what you yourself said. You said its not ideal that every adult member of this society gets to vote. And from your previous arguments it seems you think experience makes your vote of more worth. Which is clearly (and in your own case where you discount a party policies based on an irrelevant topic) not true.

You think a 14 year old should not be able to vote but a 16 year old should. The only thing a 16 year old can do that a 14 year old can't is work full time. The vast majority of 16 year olds in Ireland don't work full time because they're in school full time. You argued that they work during the Summer holidays (less now than in the crisis). That's not full time. I had my first part time job when I was 15 years old and I paid taxes on that job.

I don't see much difference between a 14 year old child and a 16 year old child (they're both children in the eyes of the law). Parents have total responsibility over them until they're 18.

Why do you think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and not a 14 year old? Why should a 16 year old be allowed to vote?

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm getting very confused here. You are making points based on what I have to assume is your own opinion, if not you wouldnt have anything to say. Yet in your own words your opinion is undemocratic and unrealistic. So you dont want to back it up and are happy to just state any changes in any way that go against it shouldnt happen ?

Sorry but thats just ridiculous.

I'm saying the law shouldn't be changed. What's so hard to understand??? You're easily confused.



You're puposely mixing my words. I said an exam for the electorate was undemocratic, not an 18 year old voting.

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm getting very confused here. You are making points based on what I have to assume is your own opinion, if not you wouldnt have anything to say. Yet in your own words your opinion is undemocratic and unrealistic. So you dont want to back it up and are happy to just state any changes in any way that go against it shouldnt happen ?

Sorry but thats just ridiculous.

18 year olds are legally adults so I'd concede that they have all the rights that go with that, although I don't believe it's ideal (but it's not an ideal world and I'm not a politician). I've stated this a number of times.

If you're confused, then I really can't help you anymore.

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I'm saying the law shouldn't be changed. What's so hard to understand??? You're easily confused.

You said your own view of what should be done is unrealistic and undemocratic so you're happy to settle for no change at all. Maybe my brain isnt working today but I dont understand how you can have an opinion that you think is unrealistic while using it (I assume you're working off your own views) to argue the age shouldnt be lowered.

Artful_Badger

I dunno, 18 is grand, 16 is grand. I really dont care. I just dont think age is a valid reason to dismiss someones vote. Once they are old enough to contribute to society they should be old enough to have a say.

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You said your own view of what should be done is unrealistic and undemocratic so you're happy to settle for no change at all. Maybe my brain isnt working today but I dont understand how you can have an opinion that you think is unrealistic while using it (I assume you're working off your own views) to argue the age shouldnt be lowered.

I have some views that are workable and realistic and some not. I have more than one view on many issues but as 18 has been the legal age for a long time and has caused no problems, I see no reason why it should be changed. Sometimes a middle ground has to be decided upon. 18 wouldn't have been the age I would've decided on originally but I do understand and acknowledge that 18 year olds are legally adults and should be afforded all the rights that go with that. 18 is a realistic compromise if an age has to be chosen.

I'm not going to state my point again.


And you haven't answered my post on why a 16 (not 17) year old should vote and not a 14 year old and also why, at one point, you stated 17 should be the legal age to do all the "adult" things (drink, drive etc.) but you're still stating 16 should be the age to vote. Surely it's you pulling arbitrary ages out of thin air now?

dermot_sheehan

Children should not be allowed to vote.

Whether the age of majority and adult criminal responsibility should change to 17 or 16 is a question that should be linked to the right to vote.

In my view, 18 strikes the right balance. There will be a few mature 16 year olds, and a few in the work place, the most however will be in secondary school, living at home with their parents and quite many will be immature.

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I have some views that are workable and realistic and some not. I have more than one view on many issues but as 18 has been the legal age for a long time and has caused no problems, I see no reason why it should be changed. Sometimes a middle ground has to be decided upon. 18 wouldn't have been the age I would've decided on originally but I do understand and acknowledge that 18 year olds are legally adults and should be afforded all the rights that go with that. 18 is a realistic compromise.

But it isnt a compromise, you are not deciding it. Its a fact and a reality that all adults 18+ have a right to vote. You either agree with it or disagree depending on your views. You cant disagree AND agree at the same time.

And you haven't answered my post on why a 16 (not 17) year old should vote and not a 14 year old and also why, at one point, you stated 17 should be the legal age to do all the "adult" things (drink, drive etc.) but you're still stating 16 should be the age to vote. Surely it's you pulling arbitrary ages out of thin air now?

You havent answered a lot of mine. This entire discussion though was about your view on lack of experience/maturity discounting people from voting. Not my views to the contrary. I have stated a couple times that I think people who are of legal age to work and contribute should have a say. So thats where I differentiate between a 14 and 16 year old. But I have never stated any age restriction to be ideal. It doesnt actually matter to me, this conversation was never about me and my views. You only turned it into that to avoid validating your own.

But if you are unwilling to explain and justify your own opinion on the matter then there is nowhere we can actually go with this.

Eve_Dublin

If it's not broken, why fix it? And how about bringing in the postal vote for emigrants who've been forced out of the country by the feck ups of our government? Surely that's a more pressing issue?