Voting at age 16, trouble ahead?

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not a SF supporter. I just dont understand how someone can rule themselves out of voting for a party because of something that is not part of their agenda as it stands now in the context of claiming others are not mature enough to vote.

As I see it, age is no guarantee of an informed and mature vote. Education is whats needed.

I made an off the cuff comment relating to 16 year olds voting for SF. It wasn't serious. My parents and all my siblings are SF voters and they're all over the age of 35.

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Political knowledge is all well and good but if you haven't lived some way independently or "in the real world", then it's impossible to see politics in action and how it affects the lives of us all.

And without political knowledge then there is no way to understand how it actually does affect people. Most people see the gubberment raising taxes and shout and moan about it. They blame FF for the banking crisis, lets vote for someone else.

You dont need life experience, and in fact a lot of the time it can have detrimental effects and lead you to an uninformed decisions. Thats also the case for older nationalists. Their experience (which is bad education) dictates their views.

ManMade

Here's my question why bother? Like seriously. Speaking as a 17 year old with an interest in politics. Very very few people my age care about politics. If a ballot card came into me I wouldn't vote. I don't plan on voting. A lot of 17 year olds plan on going to college and leaving.

One flaw I see is that nearly all people aged 16-17 are in school. Teachers are the most biased people you will come across and as said before teens are impressionable. I've had a history teacher (2010) warn of social unrest if unemployment hit 10%!! and the army would be on the streets. I have an Irish teacher joke about how it's my generation will be paying for the mess we are in. And of my business teacher preaching about if the public service takes one more hit they will be on the streets. I've even had a religion teacher shout at me for being pro-choice.
And the thing is we can't even vote yet. I'd hate to think if we could. Old bast***s would never give us a moment of peace.

Thanks but no thanks. I'll just take my state subsidised education and leave when I'm finished. Old bast***s pay for there own damn pensions not with my future income tax.

..unless of course there's any party for free third level and against minimum pricing alcohol?

Rant/

Of course if it did become legal. Wouldn't it just get young people into the habit of not voting?

Prodigious

I think there should be some sort of aptitude test which one has to pass to be allowed to vote.

Twoandahalfmen

I'm 17 and been wanting to vote since I'm 15. What vote results turn out to be effect us and we don't get a say

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

And without political knowledge then there is no way to understand how it actually does affect people. Most people see the gubberment raising taxes and shout and moan about it. They blame FF for the banking crisis, lets vote for someone else.

You dont need life experience, and in fact a lot of the time it can have detrimental effects and lead you to an uninformed decisions. Thats also the case for older nationalists. Their experience (which is bad education) dictates their views.

How old are you if you don't mind me asking?

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I made an off the cuff comment relating to 16 year olds voting for SF. It wasn't serious. My parents and all my siblings are SF voters and they're all over the age of 35.

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.

My name is URL

Quazzie wrote: »

I don't recall any of the higher up members of labour being investigated by Scotland Yard over multiple murders. Do you?

So is your opinion based on the party or simply on certain members of it?

The old hats will be gone some day, so will your opinions on the party change then?

There are so many people in Irish politics and wider society with ties to terrorism or whatever else people call it..

Our presidents father was a wanted 'terrorist' for many years, and a high ranking member and intelligence officer for the IRA.

Plenty of people in other parties have links to people who are accused of similar things.

During the years of the troubles everyone bemoaned the fact that the baddies wouldn't engage in politics, and ever since they started to; people bemoan the fact that they are involved in politics. It's pathetic, and rather ironic considering all the talk and pontificating about how others should let go of the past and move on that those same people do..

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

How old are you if you don't mind me asking?

I'm 29, why do you ask ?

Conchir

Itzy wrote: »

Seriously, how does 16/17 year olds with the right to vote, assume that Sein Fein will be installed in the next Government? Do people think teenagers are naive enough to vote for them?

Well, considering the amount of Sinn Féin and Republican slogans and chants I hear on a daily basis in school from fellow students, yes, I'd say many are naive enough.

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.