Should the voting age be reduced to 16 years old?

wretcheddomain

We've all seen today's headlines specifying how the government plan to hold a referendum on reducing the voting age to 16. So, what do folks here think, should it be reduced and if not, why not?

Personally, I think it should go ahead on multiple grounds.

First, the argument from maturity makes no sense. Most adults today (~30%) would re-install all the blessings of Fianna Fáil if a general election were to be held tomorrow. This doesn't appear very mature in my eyes. Moreover, given the disgraceful turnout of the amount of adults voting, why should they have a veto over 16 and 17 year old's who may want to actually vote? In addition, this argument fails as it doesn't make sense to say that on the stroke of 12 of their 18th birthday they suddenly become 'mature'. It's just a silly argument.

It may also instil a sense of interest among the younger populace in politics. If it were known to young people that they could have the vote at 16, it means politics is much more within their reach and it may mean more education and interest in the area. Of course, not all young people would be interested, and those against the motion point to young thugs, but that would be like pointing to adult thugs and saying adults don't have the right to vote. Again, the argument from criminality and thuggery makes no sense either.

So what are your views? As long as you agree with me then you've made the right choice.

ScumLord

The trouble I have with 16 year olds in general is they're easily lead. Look at the music they listen to, it's product pop and they can buy into the characters the record studios produce hook line and sinker.

I'd be afraid a politician could hire a Simon Cowell to do his PR and teenagers would buy into the hype.

But with the 20-30 somethings leaving the country in their droves, the new more liberal vote could be weakening against the old guard.

wretcheddomain

No

ScumLord wrote: »

The trouble I have with 16 year olds in general is they're easily lead. Look at the music they listen to, it's product pop and they can buy into the characters the record studios produce hook line and sinker.

I'd be afraid a politician could hire a Simon Cowell to do his PR and teenagers would buy into the hype.

But with the 20-30 somethings leaving the country in their droves, the new more liberal vote could be weakening against the old guard.

I understand that view and see where you're coming from. My problem is that arguments such as 'being easily led' also applies to impressionable adults. Indeed, many younger people are smarter than many adults in many different ways and are open to education as opposed to tradition which many voters stick to in the current electorate. We only have to look to the recoil back to Fianna Fáil by tradition voters to see the problem with trusting adult voters.

Gannicus

No I don't think so. But I do think that if you're on social welfare (excluding pensioners and disabled) and you don't vote when there is one on then you should be docked money off your dole the following week (just for one week).

I think it would be a great incentive to get people to vote if you are receiving job seekers/dole/income subsidy (working part time and claiming the other half on the scrathcer.)

Argentina and Australia enforce mandatory voting.

In peru & Greece, goods and services provided by public offices may be denied to those failing to vote. (So vote or no medical card or dole for you my friend basically)

In Brazil, a person who fails to vote in an election is barred from obtaining a passport until after they have voted in the two most recent elections.

In Turkey you can either vote or you pay to be pardoned from voting in that election.

Prodigious

When I was 16, I wanted to vote. Now that I can vote, and looking at today's 16 year olds, I think no, they should not be allowed to vote.

wretcheddomain

No

Prodigious wrote: »

When I was 16, I wanted to vote. Now that I can vote, and looking at today's 16 year olds, I think no, they should not be allowed to vote.

Is that not just being supremacist?

Amirani

Big Steve wrote: »

No I don't think so. But I do think that if you're on social welfare (excluding pensioners and disabled) and you don't vote when there is one on then you should be docked money off your dole the following week (just for one week).

I think it would be a great incentive to get people to vote if you are receiving job seekers/dole/income subsidy (working part time and claiming the other half on the scrathcer.)

Argentina and Australia enforce mandatory voting.

In peru & Greece, goods and services provided by public offices may be denied to those failing to vote. (So vote or no medical card or dole for you my friend basically)

In Brazil, a person who fails to vote in an election is barred from obtaining a passport until after they have voted in the two most recent elections.

In Turkey you can either vote or you pay to be pardoned from voting in that election.

Mandatory voting is a load of horse****. People should have every right to choose not to vote.

My name is URL

No

ScumLord wrote: »

The trouble I have with 16 year olds in general is they're easily lead.

Same could be said about all age groups when it comes to politics tbh. Look at how many people vote for particular parties / people just because their families have traditionally done so.

In my view, anyone who pays taxes should have a say in how the country is governed.

ScumLord

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I understand that view and see where you're coming from. My problem is that arguments such as 'being easily led' also applies to impressionable adults.

It is but most adults have been duped at least once if not many times in their lives. We have experience with political media tricks and even if we're not smart enough to see it coming once you learn something the hard way it sticks with you.

Indeed, many younger people are smarter than many adults in many different ways and are open to education as opposed to tradition which many voters stick to in the current electorate.

I don't think the education system is up to much so I think people need some time in the real world to get some idea of how things run and what needs changing.

Conmaicne Mara

Absolutely not.

Gannicus

NiallSparky wrote: »

Mandatory voting is a load of horse****. People should have every right to choose not to vote.

The make it like Turkey you vote or you pay a fee to opt out. if they do neither then the money is taken from their social welfare.

I work a 45-55 hour week (not the longest week in the world but still time consuming) and I always get down to vote, so people, especially who don't have a full time job p!ss!ng and moaning about the government cutting their dole or water charges etc, but then say they "forgot to vote" or they "didn't have time" or some other bull crap is ridiculous.

mathie

NiallSparky wrote: »

Mandatory voting is a load of horse****. People should have every right to choose not to vote.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

Amirani

Big Steve wrote: »

The make it like Turkey you vote or you pay a fee to opt out. if they do neither then the money is taken from their social welfare.

I work a 45-55 hour week (not the longest week in the world but still time consuming) and I always get down to vote, so people, especially who don't have a full time job p!ss!ng and moaning about the government cutting their dole or water charges etc, but then say they "forgot to vote" or they "didn't have time" or some other bull crap is ridiculous.

Having to pay a fee if you choose not to vote is bonkers. Just because you decide to exercise your right to vote doesn't mean others have to. Some people might be on the fence/not care/be too busy. It makes **** all difference to me or you whether other people decide not to vote.

OpenYourEyes

I don't trust most adults with a vote, nevermind 16 year olds! While there will always be a small percentage of people that young who are actually interested or at least have some idea whats going on in politics, I don't think its worthwhile dropping the voting age. Also, a lot of elections/referendums etc tend to be on weekdays which can be quite awkward for uiversity students (posibly on purpose...), so i think we should be making it easier for that age bracket to vote before we start including another one.

The thing David Norris brought up to the same committe about people being allowed to have a say in election candidates, rather than just oireachtas members and county councils does make sense though - it definitely works against people with no party ties or political allies, but the current system was deemed democratic by the committee....shocking.....

Amirani

mathie wrote: »

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

The nation of Ireland I guess is ****ed so for its position on World War II.

Dáil elections don't constitute a 'great moral crisis'.

mathie

NiallSparky wrote: »

The nation of Ireland I guess is ****ed so for its position on World War II.

Dáil elections don't constitute a 'great moral crisis'.

Not all quotes are to be taken literally.

biko

I was a pretty stupid 16yo but of course thought I had everything sussed.

Looking at today's 16yo they're just the same so no I don't think it's a good idea. 18 is fine, 21 better.

Peregrine

No

Yes with measures to make sure that politicians don't try to mislead younger people who don't normally vote or know anything about politics.


There are 16 and 17 year olds who wants to vote and then there are ones that when you look at them, you just get a sense of the bleak future they will bring to our world.

Do you really think the latter will go and vote simply because they're eligible? Out of the around 110,000 16/17 year olds in the country, how many do you think will actually bother to vote just because they're eligible?

The ones that care enough to keep up politics and have their own opinions will vote, the ones that don't won't.

I feel like I'm talking to ****ing brick wall and I don't see why that has to be the case. Because there are idiots in my age group? Half the ****in country are idiots and don't deny it, they get a vote. Why do I even have to pay 23% VAT on every single thing I buy when I don't even get a bloody vote?

Amirani

mathie wrote: »

Not all quotes are to be taken literally.

It's a pretty irrelevant quote when applied to voting in parliamentary elections.

T-Maxx

I'm with Biko on this one.

The voting age should be increased to 21.

mathie

NiallSparky wrote: »

It's a pretty irrelevant quote when applied to voting in parliamentary elections.

How is it irrelevant?

shane9689

mathie wrote: »

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

so ireland during the 1940's then? or Switzerland? haha everyone there is fcucked

Amirani

mathie wrote: »

How is it irrelevant?

Because there's generally no moral crisis at play whatsoever when voting in a general election. It may be valid to an extent when talking about certain referenda, but not in general elections.

I also think you're misinterpreting Dante's use of neutrality in this instance. Abstaining from voting isn't always a neutral position to take.

ScumLord

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Do you really think the latter will go and vote simply because they're eligible? Out of the around 110,000 16/17 year olds in the country, how many do you think will actually bother to vote just because they're eligible?

My fear would be If someone from the likes of boyzone or whatever the current equivalent is decided to run you'd have the majority of teenage girls voting for them regardless of their politics. That politician could just be the figurehead for the record industry influencing Irish law.

I realise that's a bit dismissive of 16 year olds but I was 16 once and I was a different more naive person back then. Kids of that age are capable of great things but they just live in a idealistic fantasy world and lack the experience to make thoughtful decisions.

mathie

NiallSparky wrote: »

Because there's generally no moral crisis at play whatsoever when voting in a general election. It may be valid to an extent when talking about certain referenda, but not in general elections.

Well you could argue that all decisions are moral decisions.

NiallSparky wrote: »

I also think you're misinterpreting Dante's use of neutrality in this instance. Abstaining from voting isn't always a neutral position to take.

In "Yes/No" votes then it's about as neutral as you can get.

shane9689

ScumLord wrote: »

My fear would be If someone from the likes of boyzone or whatever the current equivalent is decided to run you'd have the majority of teenage girls voting for them regardless of their politics. That politician could just be the figurehead for the record industry influencing Irish law.

I realise that's a bit dismissive of 16 year olds but I was 16 once and I was a different more naive person back then. Kids of that age are capable of great things but they just live in a idealistic fantasy world and lack the experience to make thoughtful decisions.

exactly what he said....we'd end up like California having the terminator in charge

i thought when i was 16 i should vote too, but in reality, you see the world for what it is when you get older.... i think it should be 21 if anything...and im 19 btw

Amirani

mathie wrote: »

In "Yes/No" votes then it's about as neutral as you can get.

Not necessarily. There's certain Yes/No votes where people may abstain/spoil their vote because they're not really in agreement with either option.

mckenzie84

Not a hope this referendum will pass

mathie

NiallSparky wrote: »

Not necessarily. There's certain Yes/No votes where people may abstain/spoil their vote because they're not really in agreement with either option.

Certainly some yes but the majority would be people who just don't give a rashers

jester77

There should be some sort of pre-requisite questionnaire before someone is allowed to vote, regardless of age. Too many muppets have no understanding of what it is they are voting for.

Peregrine

No

ScumLord wrote: »

My fear would be If someone from the likes of boyzone or whatever the current equivalent is decided to run you'd have the majority of teenage girls voting for them regardless of their politics. That politician could just be the figurehead for the record industry influencing Irish law.

Same goes with adults Not all adults obviously, most are mature but some will still vote for people without thinking.

If by some miracle, someone from a boy band was a candidate in the general election. Out of the 54,000 females aged 16 and 17 in this country(haven't even broken it down to constituencies), how many will vote for them? If anyone did, how many of the 3.2 million other voters will vote for them? Like I said, measures have to be put in place to make sure candidates don't target the underaged specifically with unrealistic promises but I wouldn't worry about the effect a boy band member will have on the ballot. It's a smaller problem than the effect of some ill-informed views held by a huge percentage of the electorate.

The number of 16 and 17 years who will vote is a trivial enough figure but it empowers the youth with a voice.

ScumLord wrote: »

I realise that's a bit dismissive of 16 year olds but I was 16 once and I was a different more naive person back then. Kids of that age are capable of great things but they just live in a idealistic fantasy world and lack the experience to make thoughtful decisions.

I know many do but I like to think that I myself and a lot of others don't live in an idealistic fantasy world..

Ash.J.Williams

No

ScumLord wrote: »

It is but most adults have been duped at least once if not many times in their lives. We have experience with political media tricks and even if we're not smart enough to see it coming once you learn something the hard way it sticks with you.

I don't think the education system is up to much so I think people need some time in the real world to get some idea of how things run and what needs changing.

yes but how many people hit the real world and then lose interest in how the country works, at least in school it can be discussed intelligently, which i presume would be the case....

ScumLord

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

If by some miracle, someone from a boy band was a candidate in the general election...

The number of 16 and 17 years who will vote is a trivial enough figure but it empowers the youth with a voice.

I was more using the boyband as an example of teenage fanaticism. If the right cool person runs the teenagers that wouldn't normally vote could be called into action.

I know many do but I like to think that I myself and a lot of others don't live in an idealistic fantasy world..

How would you know you live in a fantasy world until it's tested in the real world?

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

yes but how many people hit the real world and then lose interest in how the country works, at least in school it can be discussed intelligently, which i presume would be the case....

Would the classroom be the best place to discuss politics? Look how many of the current politicians are teachers. Discussing politics in school could be seen as aspiring politicians influencing ignorant voters. I mean ignorant not as an insult there, just that they don't have the information and are easily influenced.

Peregrine

No

ScumLord wrote: »

How would you know you live in a fantasy world until it's tested in the real world?

What makes my world not real and yours real?

You can't seriously be suggesting that every single person between the ages of 16 and 18 lives in a fantasy world?

RandomName2

It would be weird for 16 year olds to be considered adults in relation to choosing the government, but children in relation to everything else.

Ash.J.Williams

No

ScumLord wrote: »

I was more using the boyband as an example of teenage fanaticism. If the right cool person runs the teenagers that wouldn't normally vote could be called into action.



How would you know you live in a fantasy world until it's tested in the real world?

Would the classroom be the best place to discuss politics? Look how many of the current politicians are teachers. Discussing politics in school could be seen as aspiring politicians influencing ignorant voters. I mean ignorant not as an insult there, just that they don't have the information and are easily influenced.

Underating school kids there, they'll do as they feel, probably the opposite to what they're told!

ScumLord

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

What makes my world not real and yours real?

You can't seriously be suggesting that every single person between the ages of 16 and 18 lives in a fantasy world?

No, I asked how do you know you're not living in a fantasy world. I never said one way or another what your mind set was.

Jacks Smirking Revenge

I am 16 and yeah, as much as I would like to be able to vote, there's too many sheep in my age group for it to be a good idea to lower the age.

Peregrine

No

Jacks Smirking Revenge wrote: »

I am 16 and yeah, as much as I would like to be able to vote, there's too many sheep in my age group for it to be a good idea to lower the age.

But what makes you think they'll actually vote?

Just because there's idiots isn't a valid reason to not let others in the same category to vote. Going by that logic nobody would be allowed to vote

Teyla Emmagan

Should it f&ck, we'd end up with that One Direction fella as Taoiseach.

T-Maxx

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Churchill

Imagine having it with a 16yo...

gobnaitolunacy

T-Maxx wrote: »

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Churchill

Imagine having it with a 16yo...

'I hate you, it's SOOOOOO unfair'

*Then stomps off*

catallus

The voting age should be raised to 40.

super_furry

Nope. First political party to promise lower the age for buying alcohol would win a landslide election.

SmilingLurker

How about instead of age limits, limit the franchise based on other criteria?

E.g. taxpayers, retirees, active jobseekers, those unable to work. Get rid of non residents.

Getting rid of NEETs after a reasonable period? I think this would be difficult.

If you wanted to be controversial you could have literacy/numeracy/ educational level tests. I disagree with this BTW.

Limit people running for office so certain crimes and civil judgements are excluded e.g. non tax compliance barred for 10 years.

Overall the average 16 y.o. does not have enough life experience.

Then again upper age limit or competency criteria might be good too...

Gut feel, no. Keep it as is.

Amirani

SmilingLurker wrote: »

How about instead of age limits, limit the franchise based on other criteria?

E.g. taxpayers, retirees, active jobseekers, those unable to work. Get rid of non residents.

Getting rid of NEETs after a reasonable period? I think this would be difficult.

If you wanted to be controversial you could have literacy/numeracy/ educational level tests. I disagree with this BTW.

Limit people running for office so certain crimes and civil judgements are excluded e.g. non tax compliance barred for 10 years.

Overall the average 16 y.o. does not have enough life experience.

Then again upper age limit or competency criteria might be good too...

Gut feel, no. Keep it as is.

For the majority of cases, the age 18 filter will suffice; extra criteria will make it for difficult a system to manage. Perhaps there's a case to be made for allowing 16 year olds who are in full-time employment to apply for the ability to vote on a case-by-case basis.

However, I feel the system as exists is probably the best balance of fair and manageable.

Peregrine

No

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Should it f&ck, we'd end up with that One Direction fella as Taoiseach.

super_furry wrote: »

Nope. First political party to promise lower the age for buying alcohol would win a landslide election.

Well given that votes are cast in constituencies and there are only 110,000 16 and 17 year olds in the country altogether(2.4% of the overall population), decreasing the voting age to 16 won't see any massive changes in elections.

Take the Louth constituency for example:

143,272 people in the constituency as per Census 2011. Going by the national average of 2.4%, that's just 3439 16 and 17 year olds. Like I said, the number of 16 and 17 year olds in each constituency would be a trivial figure and won't affect any elections even if they all vote for some stupid thing which they won't.

RustyNut

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Should it f&ck, we'd end up with that One Direction fella as Taoiseach.

Couldn't be any worse than Inda.

NegativeCreep

No

I think I'll vote yes in the referendum just because I really don't think it'll make a huge difference anyway. If there's 16 year olds that want to vote then let them at it. There are issues regarding third level education and the likes that will directly affect them in the near future that they need to have their say about.

Rigor Mortis

I would be happy having a restricted extension of the mandate. 17 not 16 being the reduction in age. I think there is merit in bringing the age down but 16 is just a tad to young.

kowloon

The idea of punishing people for not voting is insane. People forced to vote aren't going to put any thought into their choice, completely undermining the people who have made well reasoned decisions. If a significant proportion of the electorate are just deciding on the flip of a coin it would make me even more apathetic.

As for a voting age of 16: as long as society deems 16 to be too young to partake in other adult activities such as drinking, why should they be considered responsible enough to vote?