Should the voting age be lowered!

seamus

28064212 wrote:

But referendums tend to be a lot more black and white, without relying on the personnel involved. OK the issues surrounding them might be complex, but the situation and consequences are a lot clearer. Also the effects tend to have longer ramifications, thereby having a greater effect on the up-and-coming generation.
Unless of course you're voting against a Nice Treaty where you can always wait for the next one to come around.

I excluded Referenda, because I would prefer if those who paid taxes had a right to elect their officials, but Referenda require a little more maturity and foresight than I would attribute to the average 16 or 17 year old. On top of that, the Mammy factor kicks in even moreso, thereby giving a few extra votes to the overbearing conservative battleaxes.

That aside, I think lowering the voting age would make very little difference overall. Students, despite all of their huffing and puffing on the TV, have the lowest voter rates. I don't see secondary school students being any better.

28064212

seamus wrote:

I excluded Referenda, because I would prefer if those who paid taxes had a right to elect their officials, but Referenda require a little more maturity and foresight than I would attribute to the average 16 or 17 year old. On top of that, the Mammy factor kicks in even moreso, thereby giving a few extra votes to the overbearing conservative battleaxes.

I can't see too many 16 year olds following what their parents suggest. If anything they'd probably rebel if their parents tried to push them one way or another. Personally I'd rather have the entire 16-20 bracket voting than any other group. They certainly should have the mental capacity to make their own decision, and they are more likely to be idealistic enough to try to force a change.

seamus wrote:

That aside, I think lowering the voting age would make very little difference overall. Students, despite all of their huffing and puffing on the TV, have the lowest voter rates. I don't see secondary school students being any better.

Could this be because by the time they're allowed vote, they're apathetic again? I remember doing the CSPE course and being genuinely interested in politics and having my say, but from 4th year onwards there was a steady decline of enthusiasm.

Quantum

markororke wrote:

At sixteen you can fight for your country and pay tax on your wages..

Of course then you should be allowed vote and decide who spends your tax money

IMO simple as that

I believe it's a simple as this - 16 year olds are not capable of making an informed choice about political decisions and therefore it is not in the interest of society to have people who cannot make such an informed choice making those choices.

It's like having a driving license, it is not just a matter of 'right's but also of 'responsibilties'.

18 is a good age and it should remain so.

seamus

28064212 wrote:

I can't see too many 16 year olds following what their parents suggest. If anything they'd probably rebel if their parents tried to push them one way or another. Personally I'd rather have the entire 16-20 bracket voting than any other group. They certainly should have the mental capacity to make their own decision, and they are more likely to be idealistic enough to try to force a change.

Could this be because by the time they're allowed vote, they're apathetic again? I remember doing the CSPE course and being genuinely interested in politics and having my say, but from 4th year onwards there was a steady decline of enthusiasm.

I completely disagree with your entire post, so there's not much more can be said

Board@Work

Quantum wrote:

I believe it's a simple as this - 16 year olds are not capable of making an informed choice about political decisions and therefore it is not in the interest of society to have people who cannot make such an informed choice making those choices.

It's like having a driving license, it is not just a matter of 'right's but also of 'responsibilties'.

18 is a good age and it should remain so.

How would you feel as a 16 year old private in the army sent off to war by a political system that you are disenfranchised from because of your age. If your old enough to pay taxes and fire a gun your old enough to vote.

Quite frankly i believe that there are a good few sixteen year olds that are very well informed and well able to make an informed choice. (Granted maybe not the majority). Equally there are a huge number of people over the age of eighteen that aren't informed yet have the right.

simu

Some people are mature enough to take an interest in politics long before their 18th birthday, others never take an interest in politics in their lives. 18 is a somewhat arbitrary cut-off point but it does the job. It's not going to kill any 16 year old that they have to wait a mere two years before they can vote - if they really feel all that concerned, they can still campaign about issues.

"If 16-year-olds are old enough to drink the water polluted by the industries that you regulate, if 16-year-olds are old enough to breathe the air ruined by garbage burners that government built, if 16-year-olds are old enough to walk on the streets made unsafe by terrible drugs and crime policies, if 16-year-olds are old enough to live in poverty in the richest country in the world, if 16-year-olds are old enough to get sick in a country with the worst public health-care programs in the world, and if 16-year-olds are old enough to attend school districts that you underfund, then 16-year-olds are old enough to play a part in making them better."

Lovely and dramatic but you could replace 16 with 6 there and it would still work.

themole

18 seems like a good limit to me.

the age for marriage is 18, not 16 as sated previously:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/relationships/marriage/age_requirements.html?search=marriage+age

The age for enlisting in the army is 17, but parental consent is required for under 18, indicating the youths lack of a ability to make the decision on their own:
http://www.military.ie/careers/armycond.htm#ARMY%20-%20AGE%20LIMITS

SkepticOne

More homework for those under 18. These years are a time for learning. When the learning is finished then the voting may begin.

mycroft

markororke wrote:

How would you feel as a 16 year old private in the army sent off to war by a political system that you are disenfranchised from because of your age. If your old enough to pay taxes and fire a gun your old enough to vote.

One, we don't send 16yo's off to fight,

And furthermore, the collection of 16yo's we allow join the reserves doesn't imp;y or suggest all 16yo should be allowed vote.

Quite frankly i believe that there are a good few sixteen year olds that are very well informed and well able to make an informed choice. (Granted maybe not the majority). Equally there are a huge number of people over the age of eighteen that aren't informed yet have the right.

Yeah but you are using the same logic as NAMBLA the national association of man boy love, this is a group of paedophiles who believe that the age of consent should be lowered. See if you follow this logic of your position the age of consent should be lowered. You need ti suggest a lower limit, and give reasons why the lowere limit should work, with the alternative implications of the lowering of sexual laws, voting rights, and adult rights that must come with it. Just saying that voting rights must be lowered without the implication of what would occur, if a human being is aware enough to vote they are conscious enough to be aware of their actions and therefore can be tried as adults.

dermo88

I don't think a 16 year old can make the best informed judgements. They are at an early stage in their career, and they are therefore likely to be low paid. They'll consider themselves exploited, when in fact that are starting their careers, and thats why they are low paid. They don't have sufficient experience to be as well paid as their superiors. So like I was, they'll develop some fairly dangerously left wing socialist ideas about how things should be, but having said that, things are much better for young workers than they were in 1992-3 when I started working for IR£2.25 per hour.

When it came to the presidential election, the two candidates were campaigning, and I happened to serve them. Austin Currie did'nt tip me, Robinson did. Now call me evil, but it gave me a lot of pleasure to turn on my tail and say "You won't be getting my vote". At least I played my small part in making sure Currie came third and Robinson won.

Pretty much the same when the general election came as well!!!!

But not the most mature decision made. The PD candidate was a tight first, queried everything, sent me back up, changed an order, I kept smiling and no tip. And I have'nt voted PD since, and make sure they are bottom of the list for the rest of my life.

Victor

0utshined wrote:

People need to experience life before they can make considered decisions

This is why other people are elected.

Andrew 83

I'd support lowering it to 16. Don't forget that a 16 not really interested and only voting for a laugh is unlikely to go to the trouble to go down to the Garda station and register let alone turn out on the day. Some sixteen year olds are better informed politically than the majority of the population who are any and every age over 18. Yes they're not the majority of 16 year olds but they're some and I know that for a fact as I have taught and coached many 16 year olds. These are the 16 and 17 year olds who will register and they should get their say the same as everyone else.

Time Magazine

As someone who is not only politically aware but active, and having just turned 18, I get a bit angered at the condescending argument that "they're too dumb". If you apply that logic you should only have a Senate electoral register (or higher?) and therefore you no longer have democracy. Democracy, with all its faults, should offer the chance to vote to everyone who wants it and is independently able to express it.

Having pondered on this for a while I propose a staged system. Anyone between the age of 16 (this is a limit for bureacratic and "within reason" reasons) and 18 can apply for a vote. Their right to a vote will then be assessed. Anyone over 18 can get a vote automatically.

The assessment would be a simple interview, conducted by an independent commission within a department (of the Taoiseach?) which would be a simple CSPE-like exam on whether you're doing this for yourself or because you have the right to.

Obviously there are stupid 16 year olds who would only abuse the right to vote if given it. However the assessment would ask questions like "Who's the Minister for Justice?" or "What are your views on democracy?" and once the questions are answered adequately (note: not within a frame of reasonable political answers, but within a framework of reasonable interest and knowledge) those people should get the right to vote.

For it to be democratic and not a toy of the State, it would have to be hard to fail. Somebody answering "I think that paramilitarism is a justifiable view in light of the presence of an occupying army and therefore I'm a member of the Irish Fascism Party" would of course be passed. It would just be another simple barrier to getting the vote, along with registering and turning up on the day. Even those that are doing it for the laugh would have to brush up on their knowledge, and hence better serve the State anyway.

Of course one must address the fact that it could be turned political. But the same could be said of any arm of the State - and there are worse political tools than an ability to increase the failure rate of 16-18 year olds getting votes.

It wouldn't put me off, but I think those that like their ringtones would have better things to do.

Comments? Constructive criticism?

bonkey

Angry Banana wrote:

I get a bit angered at the condescending argument that "they're too dumb".

And yet you go on to propose a system which will leave all over 18s with the automatic right to vote they have, but require those under 18 to pass an exam.....to show they're not too dumb.

Fail the exam (be too dumb) and you don't get a vote. Pass the exam (be less dumb then the cutoff point) and you do.

Sounds to me like you're agreeing (at least in part) with the very mindset that angers you.

For the record - I'm opposed to any form of knowledge-based qualification criteria, and even more opposed to some form of "sliding scale" of entry (like your suggestion, where you can get in earlier if you show you're smart enough).

jc

Andrew 83

I would completely disagree with having a test to allow people to vote. Beyond any other problems if it's based on an interview that's going to be a completely subjective view by the interviewer. And what's to stop someone on the sly opting against giving it to someone's who's views they disagree with?

No it should be for everyone with registering the only restriction.

Boggle

As far as I can tell 16 year olds are no more likely to swallow some of the crap than our (oh so well informed) current electorate so why should they be denied the vote?

It would be a dangerous thing to do though cos at that age they might still have the energy and the enthusiasm to actively select a candidate based on what they 've done rather than based on what party they represent...

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

As far as I can tell 16 year olds are no more likely to swallow some of the crap than our (oh so well informed) current electorate so why should they be denied the vote?

For the same reason that 18 is considered the minimum age for a number of other things that some/many 16-yr-olds feel themselves more than capable of doing as well as those who can legally do it - and especially when they only consider those a year or two older (i.e. the just-legal 18-yr-olds) as the basis for comparison.

Ppl may argue that 18 is too high a barrier...and that it should be 16. Or 15. Or....

Sooner or later we have to draw a line somewhere, and those just below that line will generally be virtually indistinguishable from those above the line. Given that the 18-limit more or less coincides with the completion of secondary school, I don't see it as an unreasonable point to draw the line.

For those who want the line drawn at 16...explain to me how someone who is 15 is significantly different to someone who is 16, and how this difference is more significant than the difference from 16-to-18 which is which you're proposing as the line-change. Then explain how 14-15 is once again less significant.

And remember...its not a meritocracy we're talking about.

jc

Hugo Reyes

Personally I believe that anyone of an age should be allowed to vote if they so wish!
(and dont be crazy no 4 yr olds are going to want to and no parents would be so **** as to impose their judgements on their kids)

0utshined

Victor wrote:

This is why other people are elected.

Victor you've missed my point. I meant that with some life experience you are better able to judge who will serve you better rather than voting on someone because they look better or some other arbitrary factor.

seamus

Hugo Reyes wrote:

(and dont be crazy no 4 yr olds are going to want to and no parents would be so **** as to impose their judgements on their kids)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? *Lots* of people would tell their young children what to tick and bring them up to the booth ffs.

28064212

seamus wrote:

You'd think so, wouldn't you? *Lots* of people would tell their young children what to tick and bring them up to the booth ffs.

Of course they would, which is why the only real test you could have is get someone to explain why they are voting and why for a particular person, and be able to argue their case. Although this would still be subjective to a point, it's as close to an ideal as you're likely to get. Any standardised testing like what Angry Banana suggested is relatively simple to get round. Look at the Leaving Cert ffs. A meritocracy would be great, but impractical.

Boggle

For those who want the line drawn at 16...explain to me how someone who is 15 is significantly different to someone who is 16, and how this difference is more significant than the difference from 16-to-18 which is which you're proposing as the line-change. Then explain how 14-15 is once again less significant.

I would blame alot of our problems as a country on the apathy of the electorate and the main reason I would choose 16 is because you could still discuss it in the classroom. The idea being that people would get an interest in politics and learn the differing parties...

Quantum

Boggle wrote:

I would blame alot of our problems as a country on the apathy of the electorate and the main reason I would choose 16 is because you could still discuss it in the classroom. The idea being that people would get an interest in politics and learn the differing parties...

What prevents the dicussion in classrooms at all levels ?

. . and surely this argument could be used to lower the age to 12 .. or 9 !

Boggle

What prevents the dicussion in classrooms at all levels ?

. . and surely this argument could be used to lower the age to 12 .. or 9 !

Not really... What I'm trying to get is a balance between youth (enthusiasm and idealism) mixed with being old enough to have a formed opinion on matters of interest(whether its right or not is a matter of judgement). Actually having a vote at that age would promote discussion and interest in the classroom as there would be the novelty of being able to use your vote based on what you decide.

Basically its only an idea of how to generate proper interest in politics and how the country is run. Never said it was perfect but as it stands our country is in awful political shape so something needs to be done...

Board@Work

No one as far as I can see has yet to answer the question that if you pay taxes at 16 why you shouldn't be allowed vote.


Also another point: If voting is about the future then why don't we stop people over 70 from voting? Surely a sixteen year old has more to gain than a 99 year old!

bonkey

Board@Work wrote:

No one as far as I can see has yet to answer the question that if you pay taxes at 16 why you shouldn't be allowed vote.

Because we as a nation don't currently subscribe to the somewhat-misleading notion of "no taxation without representation".

I should point out that nations which do claim to subscribe to such a system still have no shortage of non-nationals paying taxation who don't get to vote - hence the "somewhat misleading" comment above.

Surely a sixteen year old has more to gain than a 99 year old!

Yes they do. In the long run. And in the long run, they'll get to vote on the current future more often than the person who is 99 will, so they're already ahead in that respect.

jc

Victor

bonkey wrote:

I should point out that nations which do claim to subscribe to such a system still have no shortage of non-nationals paying taxation who don't get to vote - hence the "somewhat misleading" comment above.

Come to our country where there is "no taxation without representation" and anyone can become president.*

* Terms and conditions apply. Only rich, white, landed men can vote. Immigrants can not become president.

Time Magazine

bonkey wrote:

And yet you go on to propose a system which will leave all over 18s with the automatic right to vote they have, but require those under 18 to pass an exam.....to show they're not too dumb.

Fail the exam (be too dumb) and you don't get a vote. Pass the exam (be less dumb then the cutoff point) and you do.

Sounds to me like you're agreeing (at least in part) with the very mindset that angers you.

For the record - I'm opposed to any form of knowledge-based qualification criteria, and even more opposed to some form of "sliding scale" of entry (like your suggestion, where you can get in earlier if you show you're smart enough).

jc

Of course there are 16 year olds who I do not consider "able" to vote, similar to the four year old argument. However the argument that all or even most are too dumb is condescending crap. There isn't a flaw in my logic in that sense - it's the individual people as opposed to an age bracket argument.

Regarding the flaw in logic regarding cut-off points and meritocratic voting I agree it's blurred at best, but I'd accept it had it offered me the option of a vote pre-18. *Sips his Bud* hehe.

I know it would not be perfect - subjectivity and so forth - but assuming that there are indeed 16 year olds who are able voters, is it not better to at least offer the choice?

mycroft

Angry Banana wrote:

Of course there are 16 year olds who I do not consider "able" to vote, similar to the four year old argument. However the argument that all or even most are too dumb is condescending crap. There isn't a flaw in my logic in that sense - it's the individual people as opposed to an age bracket argument.

Regarding the flaw in logic regarding cut-off points and meritocratic voting I agree it's blurred at best, but I'd accept it had it offered me the option of a vote pre-18. *Sips his Bud* hehe.

I know it would not be perfect - subjectivity and so forth - but assuming that there are indeed 16 year olds who are able voters, is it not better to at least offer the choice?

The argument echos similar ones by the national association for man boy love, a group of US paedophiles who want the age of consent lowered. They argue that the age is too high and should be lowered we become sexual beings at a younger age.

They claim to not engage in predatory sexual relationships, but enjoy a consentual relationship that happens to be illegal, and campaign to have the age of consent lowered.

Now I don't dispute it's not impossible, that a 15yo or 14yo could have a healthy adult relationship, and they make a rational intellectual argument for their case, however the seriousness of the potential abuse of lowering the age of consent means that their argument should not followed through.

Creating this grey area thats murky, that for some teenagers to be more mature at certain age is undoubtable true, but the law has to be an arbitary line in the sand. Open this and suddenly it's lowering the driving age for some, lowering the age of consent for others.

The other and most basic argument is this. We just spent 44 million on an e-voting system that doesn't work, damned if I support funding for a program thats going to cost I don't know how sodding much so a handful of 16yos can vote.

Also your voting meritocracy, are we to assume that magically come the age of 18 everyone mysteriously gets the knowledge they lacked when they failed the test? Is it like the situation in the 80s when the backlog was too great everyone who was applying for their 2nd provisioinal automatically got the full licence.

Board@Work

It seems to me that the logic used by people to keep the voting age at 18 can be used to raise the voting at to 21. So why not that then. I believe it there was a defeated referendum on raising the voting age to 21 in the sixties.

If we have to pick an age where a person is deemed responsible enough to vote then surely it has to be sixteen as they are deemed responsible enough to leave school if they want, work full time if they want, join the army if they want, and get married if they want. Granted they can marry if given special dispensation from the courts. Which isn't difficult believe me as I have a cousin who got married at sixteen against her parents wishes.