Should the voting age be changed to 16?

CelticDragon7

Simple Yes or No Question, Should the voting age in Ireland be changed from 18 to 16?

What do we all think?

The main argument is that the voting age should be appropriate to ensure that the person is old enough to make an informed and independent choice. My question however is that how can this really truly be defined? I mean if we look at the various ages at which young people are allowed to legally do things in Ireland, we find that there really isnt any consensus on at what age someone really becomes an adult or thinks for themselves.

Indeed if we note that:

The legal age of consent is 17.

The legal age to marry is 18. Although younger with approval from the court.

The legal age to purchase alcohol is 18, although those under can drink with the consent of their parents or guardian.

The legal age at which a person is able to drive is 17.

The legal age to purchase tobacco is 18, but yet the legal age to smoke it is 16.

The legal age at which someone may join the army is 17 (although under 18 year olds, require their parents permission).

The age of Criminal Responsibiilty is 12, (This is when a child becomes criminally responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions and so from the age of 12 onwards, individuals are then considered an adult in the eyes of the law. Therefore, all punishment given by the courts or other law enforcement agencies will rest solely upon them.

The age at which Parental responsibility ends is when the child reaches the age of 18 or enters marriage.

A young person must stay in school until the last Friday in June of the school year in which they turned 16.

There are also different levels of National Minimum Wage, depending on a persons age.

Experienced adult worker - €8.65
Aged under 18 - €6.06
First year from date of first employment aged over 18 - €6.92
Second year from date of first employment aged over 18 - €7.79


To be elected to Dail Eireann, or be a member of the Seanad Eireann A person must be aged 21 or over, and to be president of Ireland you have to be 35 or over.

And I a sure I have forgotten other examples!!


So after reading all that you may be asking what have all these legal ages got to do with the age of voting? Well it is my opinion, they have everything to do with it, because if we take into account all of the above facts about legal ages in the Ireland, it seems that when it comes to our laws, we really are all over the place in our legal viewpoint for when we consider someone old enough or responsible enough for their actions.

I am 24 and so I have no real benefit in the government lowering the voting age to 16 but it is something that I would support and something that I would vote Yes on (furthermore If it was up to me I would make 16 or at least one age the legal age for everything but that is a topic for another day). But my main aim for asking this question is to find out what each of you think? Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

All debate and points of view are welcomed =]

View

Given the poor quality of our political debate and decision making, it should be raised not lowered. The only question is how high should we raise it!

Lapin

I think 18 is about right although I wouldn't have anything against 16 year olds voting in local, European and Presidential elections and certain referendums.

At least those who have the opportunity to do so will be able to engage with the system and be somewhat better prepared for the more serious decisions to be made at general elections when they do turn 18.

As for the selling of alcohol, keep it at 18 for beer, wine and other drinks with an ABV of less than 15% until the age of 21. I don't think anyone under the age of 21 should be permitted to drink spirits and other hard liquors.

randd1

No.

It may have been feasible twenty years ago when some teenagers had some semblance of what politics meant for them and the country.

But these days I'd doubt 95% of teenagers would be able to name the President of this country, and I reckon a higher percentage would have no idea who their local TD's are.

They're far more interested in who Taylor Swift is dating, with the only voting they're likely to do being on the X-Factor voting lines.

Until something like an up-to-date CSPE program becomes standard in every school in the educational system (especially for education in terms of law, civil rights and political debate) so our kids come up with some idea about why the country is the way it is and what laws make the country run, then I think the voting age so stay the same.

In fact, I think there should be some sort of test done (something like a theory test for driving) before the age of 18 to see if they understand why they are voting, and why its so important.

Or raise the age to 20.

keelanj69

Yeah, take a look at what happens when they are allowed to vote in Student Union elections. It's mickey mouse stuff compared to real life and yet it's just a case of voting for your friend or whoever gives you a lollipop. Pure shambles if I'm honest. Not only are the student unions not held accountable from one end of the year to the next but they organise marches with people dressed in pokemon outfits or some such.

How one could take these protests seriously is beyond me so no I don't think letting younger people vote is a good idea. Not only is there a general lack of interest but also a lack of capability on behalf of the people involved. Drop the father ted signs and engage and maybe then we can talk.

The Corinthian

Sure. Give people the vote at 16 and lower the age where parental responsibility ends to 16 too. If people have a responsibility to support themselves, that's when they have a stake in the government that affects this.

TBH, I'd probably raise the minimum voting age or require that people pass an IQ and/or citizen's test before they can.

stone_cutter

sinn fein and the ULA would benefit greatly if they were to lower voting age

StillWaters

stone_cutter wrote: »

sinn fein and the ULA would benefit greatly if they were to lower voting age

That's not true, studies in other countries with lower voting age dies not show a major shift in voting patterns.

I would also disagree with the point that young people are not politicised. They are certainly activists. Having said that, all wisdom points to a voting age of 17

hyperborean

View wrote: »

Given the poor quality of our political debate and decision making, it should be raised not lowered. The only question is how high should we raise it!

I have to agree, and would be inclined to go + 25 if age was the limiting factor on voting.

hyperborean

StillWaters wrote: »

That's not true, studies in other countries with lower voting age dies not show a major shift in voting patterns.

I would also disagree with the point that young people are not politicised. They are certainly activists. Having said that, all wisdom points to a voting age of 17

I would be interested to see these studies, can you point me in the right direction or post a link?

Bullseye1

Yes.

Yitzhak Rabin

Absolutely not.

It should be raised to 25 in my opinion. Of course this would probably wipe out the ULAs demographic of naive students.

StillWaters

hyperborean wrote: »

I would be interested to see these studies, can you point me in the right direction or post a link?

ill dig them out at work. Afair it is only in Austria that voting patterns changed. David Farrell has done a bit of work in this area.

Id be in favour of a simple competancy test for all voters and make it compulsory to vote. It is older voters I feel, who had little or no civics education at school who dont know how to vote. Although I have a political affiliation, I dont particularly care how people vote, as long as they do, and know how to.

Weathering

Does it really matter in this country of idiots? FG or FF is always going to be elected. Finn Sh1t sums them up

Endless Nameless

I would've liked to be able to vote at 16 (although I would've voted differently to now).

I'd vote to lower all of those legal ages (except for criminal responsibility).

DrumSteve

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

Absolutely not.

It should be raised to 25 in my opinion. Of course this would probably wipe out the ULAs demographic of naive students.

Why should it be raised? Its not like the voters currently occupying that demographic have covered themselves on glory in the last few years is it?

Let them vote at 16, we teach civics (or whatever its called now) in schools, why not let them practice their ultimate civic responsibility.

belcampprisoner

no.

Madam

Why not? Were most of us not all idealists when we were 18? I can't see a couple of years making any difference - I know I would have voted the same way when I was sixteen as I did at eighteen.

RangeR

The Constitutional Convention voted marginally, to lower the voting age to 16. Personally, I voted to reduce the voting age to 16 with safeguards. Not just a blanket "Yes".

The Corinthian

Madam wrote: »

Why not? Were most of us not all idealists when we were 18? I can't see a couple of years making any difference - I know I would have voted the same way when I was sixteen as I did at eighteen.

People tend to become less idealistic and more practical as we grow older - even though at 18 you feel you'd not changed, you probably did a little bit and at an aggregate level the population will become slightly less so between 16 and 18.

Yet even were this not the case, and there was no difference between what we believe at 16 and 18, you are affecting the demographics significantly; you've just introduce tens if not hundreds of thousands of new voters, with a more idealistic or naieve perspective to the democratic process - potentially enough to swing elections.

Is this bad? I'd have to say yes for several reasons.

Firstly, 16 year-olds lack the same stake as the older majority. They have no responsibility to care for themselves - that's their parent's responsibility - so core issues such as taxation and employment are irrelevant to them.

Related to this is that they are still exempt from civic duty. If war broke out, they cannot be drafted. They are still treated as minors in terms of legal consequence. They're not even required to do jury duty. Voting becomes a right, without any of the civic responsibilities that come with it.

Secondly, 16 year-olds have generally not completed their education (a few have left school at that age, but nowadays this is a tiny percentage). They lack the last year or two of education which can make a perceptible difference in how well equipped they are with processing problems, such as the critical analysis of political policies.

Thirdly, they are less rational and more prone twoards impulsive and 'passionate' short-term choices. Translated to politics, this means more votes for extremist parties, especially those that produce policy documents that such young voters simply cannot assess critically.

As Georges Clemenceau once said; "If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head." This is not to say that allowing 16 year-olds to vote would result in Richard Boyd-Barrett as Taoiseach, because it can apply to any passionate political movement - the most ardent, and least critical, supporters of National Socialism in Germany were the Hitler Youth, after all.

So overall, I really do think it's a dumb idea to decrease the age. It's bad enough that universal suffrage allows a vote to people who have no understanding of politics and that are too lazy to inform themselves, without making things even worse.

Grudaire

While I can't say I'm particularly in favour of dropping the age to 16 I really have to laugh if you think that people over 18 (or 38 for that matter) choose their candidates based on a logical assessments of their policies, ability and integrity.



Jaysus - comparing the young population to the Hitler Youth - more like they'll just vote the same way their parents do hurray for FF/FG!

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

While I can't say I'm particularly in favour of dropping the age to 16 I really have to laugh if you think that people over 18 (or 38 for that matter) choose their candidates based on a logical assessments of their policies, ability and integrity.

I never suggested they do, only that they are less likely to vote for extremist or revolutionary candidates - an 18 year old may well vote for an extremist, but a 16 year old is even more likely to do so and that can well swing the balance of power in favour of more extremists being elected.

Jaysus - comparing the young population to the Hitler Youth - more like they'll just vote the same way their parents do hurray for FF/FG!

Actually, no; a 16 year old is less likely to vote the same way their parents than someone a few years older.

If you don't believe me look at the general politics of Boards, which is demographically younger than the electorate. SF or People Against Profit would have significantly more TD's if Boards were how we voted for the Dail.

Grudaire

That wasn't aimed at you..

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, no; a 16 year old is less likely to vote the same way their parents than someone a few years older.

If you don't believe me look at the general politics of Boards, which is demographically younger than the electorate. SF or People Against Profit would have significantly more TD's if Boards were how we voted for the Dail.

Taking boards as evidence of anything is questionable, the same trend could be said of p.ie and pw. Perhaps there are no older people online, or perhaps you're just hearing the people who shout loudest.

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

Taking boards as evidence of anything is questionable, the same trend could be said of p.ie and pw. Perhaps there are no older people online, or perhaps you're just hearing the people who shout loudest.

Never claimed that Boards should be taken as some sort of scientific proof. Nonetheless, you'll see the same trends in polls that are published in threads (so shouting loudest becomes less important) and the average age here is significantly lower than that of the electorate, as the average age here has been published in the past.

So while it is hardly scientific proof, it is relevant evidence that points to younger demographics tending twoards more radical politics.

Where this becomes important is as to the size of that demographic:



As you can see, the 15 to 19 segment is the second largest in the population, so that even if reduced to 30 - 40% of that, so as to represent only 16 to 18 year-olds, it's still quite a significant population, with which to tip the balance of elections twoards more extremist parties.

Grudaire

The Corinthian wrote: »

As you can see, the 15 to 19 segment is the second largest in the population, so that even if reduced to 30 - 40% of that, so as to represent only 16 to 18 year-olds, it's still quite a significant population, with which to tip the balance of elections twoards more extremist parties.

That's just evidence that there is a decent chunk of people in the age category...?

I can say that there's far more people not in the age range.. one age group can only outvote another if there's more of them!

It doesn't show:

• That they would vote extreme in practice
• That they would vote in practice

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

I can say that there's far more people not in the age range.. one age group can only outvote another if there's more of them!

Irrelevant. A 1% shift in voting patters can often change the political landscape. You don't need for it to be a majority of all age groups to make a difference.

• That they would vote extreme in practice

I've already presented evidence above to this point. Questionable evidence, but it's still a lot more evidence than has been presented to the contrary.

• That they would vote in practice

Or that they would not.

Grudaire

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irrelevant. A 1% shift in voting patters can often change the political landscape. You don't need for it to be a majority of all age groups to make a difference.

Granted, but I think
a - you have failed to show that it would cause a 1% shift
b - perhaps the new political landscape would be more representitive

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've already presented evidence above to this point. Questionable evidence, but it's still a lot more evidence than has been presented to the contrary.

Well why are FF and FG active on College campuses around Ireland? Because a lot of young people hold the same opinions as older people.

StaticNoise

Please don't shoot me down for this idea, but would anyone be kind enough to show their political affiliation alongside their voting age beliefs. It would just be out of interest. You don't have to, but it may be interesting.

For example, are FG posters more towards older ages, Sinn Fein younger, or even those who have shifted in their political beliefs?

Sierra Oscar

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you don't believe me look at the general politics of Boards, which is demographically younger than the electorate. SF or People Against Profit would have significantly more TD's if Boards were how we voted for the Dail.

I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming that political beliefs on Boards.ie reflect the beliefs of 16 - 20 age group nationally. That is far from the case.

Also, we always have this argument put forward that if the voting age was lowered then it would somehow have a massive impact on SF / ULA / Socialists. I'm not sure if that would occur in reality.

If you actually look at the demographics for the RedC Poll in February, you will see that Fianna Fáil is the most popular party in terms of support levels amongst the 18 - 34 age group.

This notion that young people only vote for SF or the likes is not really founded in much truth at all. I would therefore question if changing the voting age would in fact change the makeup of Dáil Éireann as dramatically as some people here think it would.

I would actually argue that it could further reinforce the position of FF & FG, considering that both parties have been recruiting members from 16+ for years now and dominate the political scene within universities and the likes.

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

a - you have failed to show that it would cause a 1% shift

I never said it would; I've repeatedly said that it could - that introducing such an immature demographic would not bring beneficial consequences and if anything would introduce detrimental ones.

b - perhaps the new political landscape would be more representitive

Representative by what measure? Why not give everyone the vote then? To five year olds and non-citizens if you want to be truly representative?

When talking of representative, one needs to define philosophically what this means and this is a different discussion. In this regard, our system enfranchises those with a permanent stake in that system - and until someone is old enough that they are responsible for their own welfare, at 18, they are not.

Well why are FF and FG active on College campuses around Ireland? Because a lot of young people hold the same opinions as older people.

Firstly, since when was the average age of college students 16? That is what we're talking about.

Secondly, you can already see the difference at college between the political landscape there and in society as a whole. Or how many presidents of Ireland get elected who are members of the SWP? How many SU presidents?

People become more conservative as they grow older and will tend towards less radical politics. You see this in the membership of political parties and groups and you often see this shift as people look at their wage slip and see how much tax they've paid.

Is this a bad thing? It's not ideal, but at the same time it's a lot better than encouraging radical groups to get into power.

The Corinthian

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If you actually look at the demographics for the RedC Poll in February, you will see that Fianna Fáil is the most popular party in terms of support levels amongst the 18 - 34 age group.

This would be the same report that demonstrates that support for SF drops with age; from 21% amongst the 18 - 34 age group, 16% amongst the 35 - 54 age group and 12% amongst the 55+ age group - which oddly enough supports this 'notion' you're dismissing.

I would therefore question if changing the voting age would in fact change the makeup of Dáil Éireann as dramatically as some people here think it would.

Well, apart from the evidence you presented disagreeing with you, it actually takes very little to dramatically change the balance of power in the right circumstances - or have we all forgotten Tony Gregory already?

Sierra Oscar

The Corinthian wrote: »

This would be the same report that demonstrates that support for SF drops with age; from 21% amongst the 18 - 34 age group, 16% amongst the 35 - 54 age group and 12% amongst the 55+ age group - which oddly enough supports this 'notion' you're dismissing.

How so? I am merely highlighting that the belief that young people predominately support SF / ULA / Socialists is completely inaccurate and unfounded.

The Corinthian

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

How so? I am merely highlighting that the belief that young people predominately support SF / ULA / Socialists is completely inaccurate and unfounded.

Did anyone actually suggest that here?

Grudaire

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did anyone actually suggest that here?

You did complain earlier when I questioned your assumptions:

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've already presented evidence above to this point. Questionable evidence, but it's still a lot more evidence than has been presented to the contrary.

Now that evidence has been presented to dispute your ideas you're dismissing it out of hand!


Truth is non of us know the effect until something like this happens - especially as there has been little research done on the topic.

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

You did complain earlier when I questioned your assumptions:

Repeatedly.

Now that evidence has been presented to dispute your ideas you're dismissing it out of hand!

The only evidence presented was by Sierra Oscar and it actually supports my thesis.

Truth is non of us know the effect until something like this happens - especially as there has been little research done on the topic.

Truth is non of us know the exact effect until something like this happens - but we can predict that it's far more likely to be a negative one.

Grudaire

The Corinthian wrote: »

Truth is non of us know the exact effect until something like this happens - but we can predict that it's far more likely to be a negative one.

You're being ridiculous!

And you're extrapolating the trend - questionable at best!


Either way the only people to lose out appear to be FG at younger ages!

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

And you're extrapolating the trend - questionable at best!

What I am saying is this:

• Younger voters tend to vote for more radical candidates/parties. The report quoted earlier can be cited as evidence of this.
• Lowering the voting age by two years will result in an overall increase in voting for more radical candidates/parties - how much I do not speculate on; nonetheless, the age-demographic breakdown of the nation does not point to it being negligible.
• Such an increase may well prove pivotal in future governments. Historical examples may be drawn from the many examples of marginal elections or even the infamous Gregory Deal of the 1980's.

None of this is really extrapolating anything. It may never make a difference towards future governments; however it does increase the probability. Hardly a concrete prediction or extrapolation.

Thus when faced with two options - lower the voting age and no action - where one results in a greater probability for negative consequences and the other results in no change, it's a bit of a no-brainer which one to go for.

Unless one can give arguments in favour of doing so to counter this and, from what I can see, we're not exactly drowning in those here.

RichardAnd

View wrote: »

Given the poor quality of our political debate and decision making, it should be raised not lowered. The only question is how high should we raise it!

You are aware that the acts that led Ireland to where it currently stands were overseen by men and women of advanced years and that not one person below 18 had any part what so ever in putting them into power to begin with?

As to the question to which this thread serves, I don't personally believe that allowing younger people to vote would make a difference. However, in general, a young person's opinion is just as valid as the opinion or his or her elder's view. With age comes experience and wisdom, certainly, but with youth, one has the boon of a view that has not yet been tainted by complacency. A truly wise man would listen to what someone has to say, age shouldn't matter.

oscarBravo

RichardAnd wrote: »

...in general, a young person's opinion is just as valid as the opinion or his or her elder's view. With age comes experience and wisdom, certainly, but with youth, one has the boon of a view that has not yet been tainted by complacency. A truly wise man would listen to what someone has to say, age shouldn't matter.

So we should let five-year-olds vote?

pablomakaveli

I know at least in my own case that i would have voted SF at the age of 16 because i considered myself an irish republican back then and a lot of my friends were the same. It was more out of an immature "up the ra" attitude i had back then as opposed to support of their policies.

By the time i was 18 i had matured a bit more and had educated myself more to a point that my views on irish republicanism had changed completely and had gotten to a point where i no longer related to it anymore. The thought that i would have once voted for Sinn Fein makes me laugh now since i despise them now.

To sum it up if i had a vote at 16 i would have voted based on the wrong reasons because i wasnt mature enough to understand the real considerations i shoud make when voting. I know that isnt the case for all 16 year olds but i think it would apply to a lot of them.

Grudaire

pablomakaveli wrote: »

i wasnt mature enough to understand the real considerations i shoud make when voting.

Unfortunately this isn't the case for the majority of the voting population! (Regardless of how old they are)

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

Unfortunately this isn't the case for the majority of the voting population! (Regardless of how old they are)

Unless we want to live in Plato's republic, we have to allow the hoi polloi to vote somewhere along the line though. In the case of young people - below 18 - there is a case, and it has been made, that on average they are more likely to be less mature than those older voters, even if those older voters aren't exactly the brightest pennies in the purse.

So that doesn't mean that the electorate is that much better, only that below a certain age, maturity exponentially drops. Otherwise, most of the arguments in favour of letting 16 year olds vote are equally valid for any minor.

Seriously, at 16 years of age, we don't consider someone mature enough to consent to sex in Ireland, but they're mature enough to choose who should govern us?

The other argument, I believe, has to do with civic duty and stake in society. People tend to forget that the right to vote isn't a free gift; it comes with civic duties attached: The duty to pay tax and be a productive member of society. The duty to take up arms, in time of war, to defend the nation. The duty to carry out functions periodically for the state (e.g. jury duty).

At 16 years of age, people are not obligated to do any of these things. They don't even have to go out, get a job and pay tax (their parents are still obligated to support them until 18). It's daft to give political power to those who are have no stake or obligations to the state or their fellow citizens.

Grudaire

A mháistir Corinthian, can you stop pretending that I have at any stage said that the voting age should be dropped - to clarify see the very first thing I said on this thread:

Cliste wrote: »

While I can't say I'm particularly in favour of dropping the age to 16

All I'm saying is that an awful lot of the statements on this thread are not based in fact.


You keep arguing that younger voters tend to be more radical
- firstly I think you're exaggerating this
- secondly there is an implicit implication that more radical votes are by definition a bad thing.

Other people seem to be saying that young people would not consider how they use their vote in a 'mature' or reasoned fashion
- My point would be that the voting age has nothing to do with how much people consider their votes, and if that is what you think is missing from young votes then why doesn't it bother you that it is missing from many older votes?

But to re-emphasise I am not particularly in favour of reducing the voting age - change for changes sake is not the right track to take. But I like to see reasonable reasons that do not resort to scare mongering arguments like 'the shinners would get in - oh woe is me'

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

A mháistir Corinthian, can you stop pretending that I have at any stage said that the voting age should be dropped

I didn't even suggest that in my last post. The only thing I referred to was your statement that many voters of any age have a dubious capacity to make informed voting choices - nothing about you supporting younger voters. It's all in your head, I'm afraid.

You keep arguing that younger voters tend to be more radical
- firstly I think you're exaggerating this
- secondly there is an implicit implication that more radical votes are by definition a bad thing.

Firstly, we saw a report here that specifically demonstrated an inverse relationship between SF (as an example of a radical party) support and age. Additionally, I did not exaggerate anything and even earlier went onto point out that "how much [this would affect overall voting patterns] I do not speculate on".

Secondly, there is an implicit implication that more radical votes are by definition a bad thing, and would stand by that assertion. If you disagree, let me know where people in any stable society (and quite a few unstable ones) have benefited from electing radical governments, throughout history, and I'll be more than willing to reconsider this point.

Other people seem to be saying that young people would not consider how they use their vote in a 'mature' or reasoned fashion
- My point would be that the voting age has nothing to do with how much people consider their votes, and if that is what you think is missing from young votes then why doesn't it bother you that it is missing from many older votes?

And I responded to this at the start of my last post. I can explain it without the reference to Plato, if it makes it easier for you to understand.

Now, I would prefer if you actually read back on some of my earlier posts, in particular the one in response to you that you subsequently ignored, as you're not exactly keeping up with what I'm saying and even seeing attacks against you that don't actually exist.

Grudaire

The reason I didn't respond to your previous post is because I'm not sure if it is incompatible with what I am saying.
The Shinners grow by 5% (although the extent of how extreme they are is debatable - I would expect them to act like Fianna Fáil in government - which equally worries me)
Now you should probably allow for the fact that younger voters will not associate the Shinners with the troubles so perhaps there are other factors at work.
Equally Fianna Fáil increase by 6% - and they would not be considered extreme (except perhaps extremely stupid)
Finally independents increase by 2% - but that can mean anything without more detail.

So in summary I would say that the statistics tell us very little, especially as it doesn't include anyone from the agegroup we are even discussing.


Radical votes is a bit of an open and unexplained term - and in this Irish context I would say that it could mean anyone who would do things differently at all!
A party is who is not afraid to introduce a third income tax band could be considered radical.
One who would burn unsecured bondholders could be considered radical
Another that might reduce the public sector pay bill through redundancies might also be considered radical.
But there are very good and reasonable arguments to do any or all of the above.


As for the Plato reference, completely over my head, so if you do want me to understand your point I think you'll have to! (Although I would suggest if you are making arguments that rely on greek political philosophical tales on the internet you may run into problems)

But again NOT ARGUING THAT THE AGE SHOULD BE REDUCED so try focus on the points I am making rather than adding in

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

The reason I didn't respond to your previous post is because I'm not sure if it is incompatible with what I am saying.
The Shinners grow by 5% (although the extent of how extreme they are is debatable - I would expect them to act like Fianna Fáil in government - which equally worries me)

Have you read their policy documents?

Equally Fianna Fáil increase by 6% - and they would not be considered extreme (except perhaps extremely stupid)

No relationship, inverse or otherwise, between Fianna Fáil support and age. Well... maybe parabolic.

So in summary I would say that the statistics tell us very little, especially as it doesn't include anyone from the agegroup we are even discussing.

So one has a clear inverse relationship based on age and because 16 and 17 year olds are not included (although everyone over 17 is) you conclude that they're clearly going to buck that trend... of course, the evidence you've presented has clearly demonstrated this.

Radical votes is a bit of an open and unexplained term - and in this Irish context I would say that it could mean anyone who would do things differently at all!

Even in the Irish context it's not difficult to see what would be considered radical (hint: read their policy documents).

A party is who is not afraid to introduce a third income tax band could be considered radical.

No. Don't be ridiculous.

One who would burn unsecured bondholders could be considered radical

Not solely on that policy alone (hint: read their policy documents).

Another that might reduce the public sector pay bill through redundancies might also be considered radical.

Or just a bit clueless. Does anyone actually argue for that?

But there are very good and reasonable arguments to do any or all of the above.

No, I'm afraid not.

As for the Plato reference, completely over my head, so if you do want me to understand your point I think you'll have to! (Although I would suggest if you are making arguments that rely on greek political philosophical tales on the internet you may run into problems)

Only if one overestimates the education of the audience.

Indeed, education, as with age, IQ and other factors all effect the competence of an individual to make a 'mature' choice in an election. Nonetheless, unless you want to live in some benign oligarchy, where the enlightened few rule, you have to draw a line in the sand on who can vote and who cannot. Age is one of the easier one's one can draw.

But again NOT ARGUING THAT THE AGE SHOULD BE REDUCED so try focus on the points I am making rather than adding in

And again, I'm not saying you are. Get over it.

Grudaire

The Corinthian wrote: »

No relationship, inverse or otherwise, between Fianna Fáil support and age. Well... maybe parabolic.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So one has a clear inverse relationship based on age and because 16 and 17 year olds are not included (although everyone over 17 is) you conclude that they're clearly going to buck that trend... of course, the evidence you've presented has clearly demonstrated this.

You are reading what you want to see in the numbers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only if one overestimates the education of the audience.

And this is where I am assuming you are being condescending!

One may have a honours degree, but one may not have a degree in politics.. in fact I'm not sure where one would be educated about plato's republic. Probably means I'm an idiot though!

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

You are reading what you want to see in the numbers.

Then dispute that any such relationship exists and explain why. Show me evidence to the contrary, as I have suggested on a number of occasions, so as to prove me wrong.

But to glibly dismiss my thesis, without use of argument nor evidence, is not terribly convincing.

One may have a honours degree, but one may not have a degree in politics.. in fact I'm not sure where one would be educated about plato's republic.

From a book, perchance?

Grudaire

This is tiresome, although mildly entertaining how much you seem to look down upon me! :cool:


You've made an assertion and have provided nothing to back it up, if you read over the thread you'll see that I've just disputed any times where you have claimed that stuff is a certain way or something implies something else.

Anyway this is pointless, cliste amach (mar a deirfeá)

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only if one overestimates the education of the audience.

Take it easy on the personal stuff please TC

GarIT

I think it should be based on level of education and not age. Only people that passed the leaving cert should be allowed to vote.