[Constitutional Convention][2][26 Jan 2013] Reducing the voting age to 17

RangeR

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

If you like this sort of stuff, maybe you would like to vote for my forum request so we can discuss a wider range of Convention issues?

The Convention are meeting on January 26th and 27th 2013 to discuss the second issue put to us.

Reducing the voting age to 17

The legal age to vote was originally 21 years of age. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972, reduced the minimum voting age at Dáil and Presidential elections and referendums to 18 years on 5 January, 1973.

The Irish Constitution [PDF] currently states

Article 16.1.2 - Page 46 wrote:

i All citizens, and
ii such other persons in the State as may be
determined by law,

without distinction of sex who have reached the age of eighteen years who are not disqualified by
law and comply with the provisions of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann, shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann.

Request : This thread is not to discuss the Convention itself, please only discuss the pro's and con's of the thread topic.


I welcome your comments. Discuss.

hatrickpatrick

I would. If I'd had the vote in 2007 I would have contributed to making sure FF didn't get back into office and potentially dampening the disastrous situation we find ourselves in.

Say what you want about young voters - I've said my share of things against them in fairness - but they wouldn't vote for someone purely for historical or cultural reasons, based on my own experience when them - most of my own age group vote purely based on policy, not personality, history or anything else.

Of course, I will be roundly bashed for this post :rolleyes:

Tragedy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Say what you want about young voters - I've said my share of things against them in fairness - but they wouldn't vote for someone purely for historical or cultural reasons, based on my own experience when them - most of my own age group vote purely based on policy, not personality, history or anything else.

Of course, I will be roundly bashed for this post :rolleyes:

I'm a student in college in Dublin at the moment and have found exactly the opposite to be true, students are no different to the general voting population

Two words:
Dylan Haskins

(:()

Sponge Bob

I would consider it for local elections only. Currently a TD must be 18, do we want 17 year old TDs , if the answer to the latter is yes then by all means extend the franchise to 17 year olds but I believe it is pointless.

Cookie_Monster

what's the point of it, change for change sake?

what are the benefits to society for changing it?

Iwasfrozen

No I don't think it should be lowered. Only adults should be allowed to vote and as Cookie_Monster says what's the point in change for changes sake. If I had have been allowed to vote at 17 I would have. And that's a scary thought.

seamus

I would approve of it, if only from the point of view of attempting to standardise some archaic age restrictions, where it might be 17 for one thing, 18 for another, 21 for something else, 35 for the Áras, etc.

If we decided that a person becomes an adult at 17 and therefore can enjoy the same rights as all other adults, then why not let them vote, get married, run for the Áras, etc?

But outside of that simplistic satisfying of mild OCD, I can't see any specific benefit to dropping the voting age by a year.

ResearchWill

seamus wrote: »

I would approve of it, if only from the point of view of attempting to standardise some archaic age restrictions, where it might be 17 for one thing, 18 for another, 21 for something else, 35 for the Áras, etc.

If we decided that a person becomes an adult at 17 and therefore can enjoy the same rights as all other adults, then why not let them vote, get married, run for the Áras, etc?

But outside of that simplistic satisfying of mild OCD, I can't see any specific benefit to dropping the voting age by a year.

I would think your idea is excellent, it should be the same age for voting, joining the army, leaving school, driving, sex, drinking and smoking. I have no age that I would prefer but between 16 and 19.

But it matters not what age you give the vote, the wrong ones always win the election.

Peregrinus

Hard to get excited about this, one way or the other. I can't see that there's much difference between a voting age of 17 or a voting age of 18.

It's interesting that we are contemplating a (further) reduction of the voting age at a time when the period of adolescent dependence is in fact getting longer and longer. More and more, people spend the years between 17 and 21 (and beyond) in full-time education or training, often living at home, and generally being largely dependent on their parents. The age at which we become independent, self-supporting adults, fully responsible for our own lives, is getting later and later. In that context, I can't see any compelling case for reducing the voting age further.

I suppose it depends on how you hold the balance between seeing people as consumers of services provided by the state, and as citizens with a responsibility to congtribute, to play a part in public affairs. As a republican, I tend to favour the latter view. And I'm not sure that an awful lot of 17-year-olds have the maturity, judgment or simply life experience to make a huge contribution here. But the same is probably true of 18-year-olds.

Blisterman

Personally I'd be all for lowering the age to 16 or 17. It might encourage young people to become more involved with politics, and educate themselves more about the issues.

From my experience, people of that age are no more or less educated about current affairs than people of other ages.


Many people of that age have jobs, and pay income tax, I think it's fair that they have a say in how the country is run.

RangeR

The Constitutional Convention are meeting to discuss this issue in 2 weeks. I'm going to try find a free hour or two to go through this thread; to combine the votes and opinions. When done [hopefully in the next few days], I'll post the summary here.

If you want to get your opinion across and counted, please do so before Friday 25th January 2013.

Thank you to everyone who voted so far, for taking to time out to do so.

amen

The age of 18 is currently fine. Its a defining moment when you are meant to become a responsible adult capable of caring for yourself.

If you reduce the voting age to 17 then you need to also consider reducing the minimum legal age for marriage (without parents agreement) to 17, the legal age to drink to 17, the ability to enter and sign legally binding contracts to 17 (loans, property deals etc.) and controversially the age of consent from 18 to 17.

After all if you are responsible enough to vote them you are certainly responsible enough for all of the above.

Has anyone thought about the impact on schools, social welfare etc if you reduce the voting age to 17 and then have to make corresponding changes to all of the other ages?

What happens to the definition of a child if you can vote at 17 ?

How would redefining a child as someone 0-17 comply with international treaties?

RangeR

The Convention are meeting on January 26th and 27th 2013 to discuss the second issue put to us.

Reducing the voting age to 17



I've gone through this thread and the count is as follows.

For : 2
Against : 6

There are two or three posts where it was uncertain which way the voting was for. I didn't include them in the count.

My personal view is that the voting age shouldn't be reduced.

Here are some bullet points from this thread, which I shall be bringing with me at the weekend.

Of course, if anyone would like to put any other points across, feel free to do so. I'll be keeping a sporadic eye on this thread over the weekend.

Non private sessions will be streamed live on the constitution.ie website.

Cork boy 55

AGAINST

It should be raised to 21 IMO



green is 18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age

COYW

As others have said, what are the pros of reducing the voting age? Is it case of changing something for the sake of changing something? I see no reason to change the age at all.

johnnyskeleton

http://www.voteat16.ie/files/uploads/on_Voter_Participation_National_Survey_FINAL.pdf

The number of 17 year olds who want to vote but can't ie those who feel that the current system is adverse to their interests, is probably fairly insignificant.

On the other hand, if young people start to vote earlier they might have more interest in politics.

I know you don't want to discuss the actual convention, but what are they asking you to do? Do they want a simple yes/no to is it a good idea? Is it a yes/no should we have the vote? Are you to compile reasons for the government to consider? I mean what actually will the output of the convention be?

If they are going to keep going in this vein, they may as well just put all questions to the people in a referendum.

RATM

I'd be in favour of reducing it purely on a taxation basis. If a 17 year old can pay tax, which they do, then they should have the franchise- tax policy effects them directly and they should therefore have a democratic voice in the in a matter that effects them.

Cavehill Red

I'd once have been in favour of dropping the voting age to 16. Nowadays, the more teenagers I'm exposed to, I'm becoming more inclined to want to see the voting age raised to about 30. (And capped at about 70 as well, given how a lot of oul ones just vote 'he fixed de road' style.)

RangeR

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I know you don't want to discuss the actual convention, but what are they asking you to do? Do they want a simple yes/no to is it a good idea? Is it a yes/no should we have the vote? Are you to compile reasons for the government to consider? I mean what actually will the output of the convention be?

If they are going to keep going in this vein, they may as well just put all questions to the people in a referendum.

What I'm doing here is slightly different to what the convention will be doing.

I don't have much time these days. So, on boards, I'm just giving a condensed simple breakdown of the entire thread to a simple Yes:No ratio.

In the convention, sometimes it will be a simple yes:no. Sometimes it maybe neither. It just depends on how the discussion goes. But there will be a full report explaining the answer. All the Government are expecting is a report. What's in that report is up to the Convention to decide and dictate.

It's all a little up in the air at the moment as we haven't had one real meeting yet. We will find our feet and get better as the meetings progress.

Take this one as an example. The question is in relation to reducing the voting age to 17. Depending on how the discussion goes, we may report back to the Government Yes, No or something else.

If it's a No, the report might actually say that the public thinks that the age should be reduced to 16 or even increased back to 21 or something else.

There are no simple yes or no's. However, the first two aren't as..... "controversial" as the other items on the year long agenda. They are good test cases to get us up to speed on how things actually should be done.

I hope that explains things a little. In simple terms, I'm simplifying the results in Boards. I just don't personally have the time to do anything else.

oscarBravo

RATM wrote: »

I'd be in favour of reducing it purely on a taxation basis. If a 17 year old can pay tax, which they do, then they should have the franchise- tax policy effects them directly and they should therefore have a democratic voice in the in a matter that effects them.

My Danish girlfriend pays tax here. Should she get to vote?

RangeR

oscarBravo wrote: »

My Danish girlfriend pays tax here. Should she get to vote?

But she's a girl

Oh wait, that's the meeting in February

Peregrinus

More to the point, a six-year old can pay tax - VAT on whatever they spend pocket money on. "No taxation without representation" has always been a pretty stupid slogan, as far as I can see.

RATM

oscarBravo wrote: »

My Danish girlfriend pays tax here. Should she get to vote?

Again from a taxation perspective I think that if your Danish girlffriend has become an ordinary Irish tax resident (3 years of paying tax) then yes, why not ?

Government policy effects every aspect of her life, she pays taxes to that government to fund the running of the state, I think she should be allowed to vote and have a say in which parties formulate the policy that will effect her salary, how much VAT she pays on everyday goods, access to health care, education, social services, etc.

dlofnep

The moment someone is eligible to pay tax, is when they should have a say in how it may or may not be invested/spent/wasted. I have no qualms against allowing a 16 year to vote. Many young people I've met over the years through youth politics have been vastly more informed than their counterparts. I think teenagers who are not interested in politics will be less likely to vote than an adult.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

My Danish girlfriend pays tax here. Should she get to vote?

If she lives here, yes. I don't see why she shouldn't.

RATM

Peregrinus wrote: »

More to the point, a six-year old can pay tax - VAT on whatever they spend pocket money on. "No taxation without representation" has always been a pretty stupid slogan, as far as I can see.

Ah yeah but that is bringing it to the nth degree- the Founding Fathers weren't hollerin' for votes for their children, they was hollerin' about votes for themselves.

You'd probably have to put an age limit of 16 or 17 on it. But the point still stands that if they can pay tax in the form of income tax, PRSI, and the USC then why do they not have a say in deciding the policy makers who tax them ?

There are other aspects of the argument of course but in considering weather or not to allow under 18's to vote I think you can go around in circles all day with all kinds of pro and con arguments. But I like to look at this through the lens of someone like John Rawls and ask 'what is just?','what is fair?'. What is unjust and unfair is a 17 year old paying income tax, PRSI and USC but not getting a say in choosing those who make policy that directly affects them. If you simmer the whole thing down to a pure economics then it makes sense to give an u18 the right to vote.

And for 17 years olds who don't have a job, or the opportunity to get a job, then I'd permit them to earn a right to vote, through something like doing 100 hours community or voluntary service. A 17 year old who gives up 100 hours of their time up to society has proved themselves to society so why not let them vote too ?


I also feel that if we were to allow 16 or 17 year olds to vote it would be a good idea for them to take a few classes in basic politics & economics. A pipe dream, I know

Peregrinus

RATM wrote: »

Ah yeah but that is bringing it to the nth degree- the Founding Fathers weren't hollerin' for votes for their children, they was hollerin' about votes for themselves.

You'd probably have to put an age limit of 16 or 17 on it.

Or 18. Which doesn’t really help the OP answer his question.

RATM wrote: »

But the point still stands that if they can pay tax then why do they not have a say in deciding the policy makers who tax them.

I’m a bit bothered about this focus on tax. It seems to reduce citizenship to a sort of customer status - you pay money, and you expect goods and services in return, and you want [value. And customer service. And competition. It’s very . . . Thatcherite.

Yes, taxation is obviously one of the ways in which I am affected by the state. But there are more profound effects - the state has (or at least claims) a monopoly on the use of force to enforce it’s will, and it matters hugely to me whether I live in a state where citizens are arrested and “disappeared” in the middle of the night, or one where they aren’t. That’s probably actually a bit more important than the question of the VAT rate.

A republican analysis of this question would point out that voting is not primarily a right, and still less is it a privilege that you “buy” with your taxes. It’s a duty. Citizenship carries with it an obligation of civic engagement, a responsibility to contribute to public affairs and to play at least a small part in making your society a better one. And the question is, is this a duty which it is proper to impose on someone of 17 or 16? Does such a person have the experience, common sense, maturity, etc to make a useful contribution to the common good through voting? And, if they do, is it fair to require them to? It is reasonable or realistic to expect that they will?

I’m not saying that I think the answer to any of those question is “no”. I’m saying that I think they are much more relevant questions than “does he pay taxes?” If that was our criterion for the franchise, then everyone, of every age, except the very poorest would have the vote.

Cookie_Monster

A further point is that if you change the voting age down would you also not be setting a precedent for the like of drinking age etc to be lowered also. After all if you are adult enough to vote then you surely are old enough to drink too?

dlofnep

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

A further point is that if you change the voting age down would you also not be setting a precedent for the like of drinking age etc to be lowered also. After all if you are adult enough to vote then you surely are old enough to drink too?

No, because the body is not physically mature enough at 16 to handle alcohol as much as an 18 year old is.

phantom_lord

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what's the point of it, change for change sake?

what are the benefits to society for changing it?

If I've time later I'll try and dig up some research, but lowering the voting age tends to increase political engagement and turnout.

Imagine the scenario of 16/17yos in school being given the opportunity of voting, it's likely that it's a subject that will be much more heavily discussed both in a structured and an informal way. Once engaged it's more likely they have a follow up interest.

When someone turns 18 voting is just about the least interesting they're now legally allowed do. A younger person is more likely to be interested in asserting their maturity.

unfortunately

amen wrote: »

If you reduce the voting age to 17 then you need to also consider reducing the minimum legal age for marriage (without parents agreement) to 17, the legal age to drink to 17, the ability to enter and sign legally binding contracts to 17 (loans, property deals etc.) and controversially the age of consent from 18 to 17.

The age of consent is already 17.