Voting at age 16, trouble ahead?

_rebelkid

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

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

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

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


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

Conchir

Itzy wrote: »

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

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

L.Jenkins

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

Chemical Burn

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

Chips Lovell

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

WoollyRedHat

Vito Corleone wrote: »

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

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

L.Jenkins

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

Chips Lovell

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

Eve_Dublin

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

/end of mini hangover-induced rant

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

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


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

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

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

CrazyRabbit

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

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

Chemical Burn

Chemical Burn wrote: »

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

Itzy wrote: »

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

PPLLLLLEEEEEAAASSEEE read my reply :P

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

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

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


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

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

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

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

Seedy Arling

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

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

It'll be a vote for more fingering!

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

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


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

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

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

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

Richard Hillman

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

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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



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

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

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

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

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

L.Jenkins

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

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but thats just ridiculous.

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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



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

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

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

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

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

Sorry but thats just ridiculous.

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



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

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

Sorry but thats just ridiculous.

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

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

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

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

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

Artful_Badger

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

Eve_Dublin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

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

I'm not going to state my point again.


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

dermot_sheehan

Children should not be allowed to vote.

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

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

Artful_Badger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Eve_Dublin

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