Cambridge Professor says Lower Voting Age to Six

Zorya

David Runciman, the head of Politics at Cambridge University, says the present voting age is creating a democratic crisis.

He said: “I would lower the voting age to six, not 16. And I’m serious about that. I would want people who vote to be able to read, so I would exclude reception [age-children].

“What’s the worst that could happen? At least it would be exciting, it would make elections more fun. It is never going to happen in a million years but as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become, seriously, why not? Why not six-year-olds?

Runciman added: “Old people are currently the coalition that have a huge inbuilt advantage in representative democratic politics.

“Young people are massively outnumbered because the voting age is 18, whereas there isn’t a cutoff point at the other end. You don’t lose the vote when you get to be 75. You can carry on voting until the day you die and there is no test. You could be frankly demented and still get to vote, which is as it should be. So young people are the losers here.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic


Oh David, you sly fox. Age of consent next, eh? What six year old shouldn't be allowed to booze and make out? At least it would be exciting.

While you're at it, Professor, why not eliminate the difference between adults and children altogether, so that the idea of the family, parental guidance and discipline becomes wholly anathema to society? Children can take drugs, hormones, lop off their breasts and genitals, have access to euthanasia, and call up Daddy State on a hotline when they don't get their way in the house.

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

David Runciman, the head of Politics at Cambridge University, says the present voting age is creating a democratic crisis.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic


Oh David, you sly fox. Age of consent next, eh? What six year old shouldn't be allowed to booze and make out? At least it would be exciting.

While you're at it, Professor, why not eliminate the difference between adults and children altogether, so that the idea of the family, parental guidance and discipline becomes wholly anathema to society? Children can take drugs, hormones, lop off their breasts and genitals, have access to euthanasia, and call up Daddy State on a hotline when they don't get their way in the house.

in what way do you equate these behaviours to voting

professore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

in what way do you equate these behaviours to voting

Voting is the ultimate privilege of a full citizen. Therefore if you are old enough to vote you are old enough to do anything else a full citizen can do.

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

in what way do you equate these behaviours to voting

It's the suggestion that children are mature enough to vote. My projections may appear somewhat extreme but they are not outside the bounds of possibility. His recommendation is beyond stupid. Simple as.

Children are already considered to be mature enough in Belgium to choose euthanasia. They are increasingly be allowed to choose elective medical procedures against the wishes of parents in some countries. Lowering the age of consent regarding sex with children is not so utterly unimaginable given that the longest serving female MP in the UK Harriet Harman, was highly connected in the NCCL who were closely affiliated at one stage with P.I.E.

and so on.

Zorya

professore wrote: »

Voting is the ultimate privilege of a full citizen. Therefore if you are old enough to vote you are old enough to do anything else a full citizen can do.

Thanks. That explains it better than my attempt!

mikhail

professore wrote: »

Voting is the ultimate privilege of a full citizen. Therefore if you are old enough to vote you are old enough to do anything else a full citizen can do.

Are you explaining his stupid argument, or is it your own?

biko

The reason he wants it lowered is that old people are more conservative, whereas young people tend to be more left/progressive/rebellious.

You cannot give a child voting rights, it's not considered an adult by the authorities.
There is no "age-bias", it's a made-up word to make this issue seem serious when it's not.

This is simply a reaction to the right-wing winds sweeping Europe, nothing else.


There is no democratic crisis, but the left are desperate and will try to redefine what democracy is - to suit themselves.

conorhal

Has Taoiseach Tinky-Winky or Tanaiste Dora The Explorer weighed in on this proposal yet?

circadian

The **** did I just read?

D3V!L

Seems the Brits are making some great strides in their new independent Kingdom !!! Fair play to them and God Speed :rolleyes:

Stark

Looks the Guardian trying to get in on the clickbait economy.

circadian

It seems that the permanently outraged are outraged at the other permanently outraged.

AllGunsBlazing

Stark wrote: »

Looks the Guardian trying to get in on the clickbait economy.

They've been ahead of that curve for some time. The only reason left to heed any newspaper is if they have a decent sports section. Which the Guardian still does tbf.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

I look forward to the referendums. Should Santa should come every day of the year? Should algebra be banned? Should the summer holidays be extended to six months of the year?

Fianna Fail are no doubt preparing for the next budget giveaway -- free Hatchimals, Fingerlings, and trampolines for every family.

Sunny Disposition

The idea of voting at 16 is a stupid one, as most people who regularly deal with teenagers know. They just don't have the life experience to assess the different arguments properly, obviously six year olds is just ridiculous.

markodaly

Lower the voting age to 6, can we also lower the labour laws so that we can legally employ a 6-year-old?

"Get up the chimney and sweep it"

I guess not. Its stuff like this that makes much of the public hate 'expert' opinion. Its just unfortunate that so-called expert opinion are so full of $hite.

Arghus

He has a point.

TheValeyard

That is the most stupid suggestion I have heard all week. I hereby rename him Professor of Pudding Heads & Asshats

Gimme A Pound

Arghus wrote: »

He has a point.

What point does he have, Arg?

Surely we'd be better off encouraging people aged 18+ to actually go out and vote, rather than having kids electing governments on promises of less VAT on chocolate milk.

RandomName2

I've thought about this for a while.

In one sense (libertarian viewpoint) I've been of the opinion that if someone is literally able to go out and vote then they should be able to. We don't have any IQ, social status, or moral checks on whether someone should be able to vote. An old person suffering from dementia has as much right as anyone else to vote. It's the democratic thing. So a 'relatively' arbitrary age restriction seems slightly undemocratic.

On a practical level we all know that young children, if allowed vote, would simply be pawns of their parents, essentially giving the parents multiple votes. This pretty much defeats the purpose.

But the whole point about democracy, as we have it, is that we elect representatives, who are supposed to be representative of the people within their constituency. Having a body of citizens who are constituents, but not having a voice, is not 100% desirable.

On the other hand there is some argument that being able to vote should be an earned privilege. Reaching a certain educational status could be this means of earning a say in the way your country is governed. By law, minors have to stay in education until a certain age, so they earn this privilege by default.

I'm actually not particularly swayed by the '16 year olds have no idea what they're doing rofl' argument. You could say this about lots of demographics . Octogenarian shouldn't be allowed vote, they have no idea what they're doing.. people in their 20s haven't lived yet, they shouldn't be allowed vote.. and so on.

The only other argument that is convincing is that you shouldn't have a say on who creates laws if you are not fully subject to the law. That does make a lot of sense.

I think the OP did a less than stellar job in introducing this subject.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Cake of Tremendous Power wrote: »

Surely we'd be better off encouraging people aged 18+ to actually go out and vote, rather than having kids electing governments on promises of less VAT on chocolate milk.

Around 25% of people aged 18 to 25 are not even registered to vote.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

David Runciman, the head of Politics at Cambridge University, says the present voting age is creating a democratic crisis.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic


Oh David, you sly fox. Age of consent next, eh? What six year old shouldn't be allowed to booze and make out? At least it would be exciting.

While you're at it, Professor, why not eliminate the difference between adults and children altogether, so that the idea of the family, parental guidance and discipline becomes wholly anathema to society? Children can take drugs, hormones, lop off their breasts and genitals, have access to euthanasia, and call up Daddy State on a hotline when they don't get their way in the house.

Didn't actually read the story, did you?

Zorya

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Didn't actually read the story, did you?

I did. Perhaps not in as stellar a fashion as your pal might like, but sufficiently to recognise it as a proposal the professor dragged out of his academic arse.

Badly Drunk Boy

RandomName2 wrote: »

On a practical level we all know that young children, if allowed vote, would simply be pawns of their parents, essentially giving the parents multiple votes. This pretty much defeats the purpose.

Indeed! Have more kids, up your voting power (potentially)! I remember when I was a kid in primary school, we'd know (roughly) how our parents voted. "Ha, ha! Your Da is a Blueshirt!".

My parents were never members of any party but I knew my father always favoured Fianna Fáil while my mother veered towards Labour.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The only other argument that is convincing is that you shouldn't have a say on who creates laws if you are not fully subject to the law. That does make a lot of sense.

Does that mean only murders can have a say on laws relating to killing people? :pac:

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

RandomName2 wrote: »

The only other argument that is convincing is that you shouldn't have a say on who creates laws if you are not fully subject to the law. That does make a lot of sense.

It gets complicated. An American residing in Dublin can't vote in Irish elections, despite being subject to Irish law, but can vote in US elections by absentee ballot, despite not living there.

Franz Von Peppercorn

A 6 year old child will vote like their parents.

riffmongous

I guess he has phrased his argument badly for this age of outrage merchants, but there is a point in there, a 6 year old cannot vote but a 90 year old with the mind of a 6 year old can?

Zorya

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

A 6 year old child will vote like their parents.

They might not. At least not by 9 or 10. Children from very young ages now are becoming much more digitally conditioned than we imagine, they have access to mobile devices from infancy almost. I think this is part of the reason behind certain depressions and disorders increasing so fast in the young. Peer and media influence is pervasive in children's lives much earlier than we might imagine. They are the perfect demographic to be considered malleable by political forces.

Grayson

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

The idea of voting at 16 is a stupid one, as most people who regularly deal with teenagers know. They just don't have the life experience to assess the different arguments properly, obviously six year olds is just ridiculous.

but the moment they turn 18 it magically changes?
The skills you're describing are missing from many people at a huge range of ages. If you're willing to keep it from 16 year olds because you believe many miss those skills, why shouldn't you remove it from others because they miss those skills? Have a text or a series of criteria that people need to meet before voting. That way age is not a barrier if you can prove you're able to vote. Likewise age doesn't guarantee that someone who's lacking these skills gets to vote anyway?

I'm sure you see the benefits of that and why it's completely wrong. We can't exclude someone. The point of voting is that everyone gets the right. It's not based on an individuals life experience.

I'm in favour of lowering it to 16. 16 years are capable of making a rational decision. They can read a manifesto as well as an 18 year old and come to the their own conclusions.

circadian

16 is a perfectly acceptable age to vote. I was politically active at 16 but had no vote, it was frustrating.

As for 6 years olds, if this were the case we'd probably see Prime Minister Lord Buckethead in power in the UK and Brexit would probably never have happened.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

I did. Perhaps not in as stellar a fashion as your pal might like, but sufficiently to recognise it as a proposal the professor dragged out of his academic arse.

Dunno who my "pal" is as I don't know any other posters here, let alone be on "pal" terms with them.

Anyway. Jury still out on your familiarity of said article.

Firstly, it sounds like you agree that the paragraph you wrote had nothing to do with the story and was nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy rather than anything mentioned.

Sceondly, you don't actually address any of the arguments the professor DOES make.

Grayson

circadian wrote: »

16 is a perfectly acceptable age to vote. I was politically active at 16 but had no vote, it was frustrating.

As for 6 years olds, if this were the case we'd probably see Prime Minister Lord Buckethead in power in the UK and Brexit would probably never have happened.

He'd get my vote.

12. Katie Hopkins to be banished to the Phantom Zone.

https://www.buckethead4maidenhead.com/

And this is on his manifesto

11. New voting age limit of 16 to be introduced. New voting age limit of 80 to be introduced too.

Zorya

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Dunno who my "pal" is as I don't know any other posters here, let alone be on "pal" terms with them.

Anyway. Sounds like you agree that the paragraph you wrote had nothing to do with the story and was nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy.

Things are connected. Reducing the age of voting - especially to the absolutely ludicrous suggestion of 6, or even 10, or 14 - has other implications. If a child is old enough to vote then why would they not be old enough to make other decisions such as to drink
or have sex with whoever they say they want to have sex with
or move out of home
or not go to school
or get on a plane and head off alone
or stay up far too late after Mammy has told them it is time for bed
or stay out on the street after they have been told they should come home
or not take their medications
or get involved in cheap child labour
or run off and join the circus.

My implication in the OP was the erosion of the concept of childhood is a very dangerous one, yes, a slippery slope, if you must. There are good reasons why children are not admitted into the adult world, and it is a subversive idea at its core to undermine this.

RandomName2

Deandre Glamorous Speedway wrote: »

It gets complicated. An American residing in Dublin can't vote in Irish elections, despite being subject to Irish law, but can vote in US elections by absentee ballot, despite not living there.

An American can vote in our local elections though!

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l5ab58

Church on Tuesday

That's the problem with a lot of academics, not going to be hypocritical here because it's a field I myself wish to work in for the long term, but a lot of academics left the reality of life a long time ago and have ideas and perceptions that frankly border on the ludicrous.

riffmongous

And there is no chance he was being facetious of course

RandomName2

Zorya wrote: »

Things are connected. Reducing the age of voting - especially to the absolutely ludicrous suggestion of 6, or even 10, or 14 - has other implications. If a child is old enough to vote then why would they not be old enough to make other decisions such as to drink
or have sex with whoever they say they want to have sex with
or move out of home
or not go to school
or get on a plane and head off alone
or stay up far too late after Mammy has told them it is time for bed
or stay out on the street after they have been told they should come home
or not take their medications
or get involved in cheap child labour
or run off and join the circus.

My implication in the OP was the erosion of the concept of childhood is a very dangerous one, yes, a slippery slope, if you must. There are good reasons why children are not admitted into the adult world, and it is a subversive idea at its core to undermine this.

The age of criminal responsibility is 12. The age to drive is 16. Same with the age you can leave school. The age to have sex is 17 (or 16 if Northern Ireland, or 15 if France).

None of these things necessitate the person be an adult. Indeed, an all-or-nothing approach to adulthood is not a particularly great idea. We don't give teenagers any political say whatsoever until their 18th birthday and then we are surprised at political apathy on their part?

Your slippery slope logical fallacy is not a great contribution to the debate on what is actually quite a complicated subject (so complicated that most people, myself included, are probably likely to just shrug our shoulders and say 'ah sure it's grant the way it is ')

Zorya

riffmongous wrote: »

And there is no chance he was being facetious of course

If he was being facetious, then as a senior academic in Cambridge he should learn about media management and conveying intention and meaning adequately in public. Especially since he is a Progfessor of politics and will likely be mentoring the bright young things who will form the administrative corps, perhaps even the representatives!, of future UK governments. Of course there is likely to be an element of farce in such words, because they are just that - farcical. He is not very good at his job, regardless of his intention.

I would lower the voting age to six, not 16. And I’m serious about that.

Church on Tuesday

riffmongous wrote: »

And there is no chance he was being facetious of course

Most certainly was.

Still, it's an odd thing to come out with and I'm sure his time and that of the university and particular faculty could have been put to better use than spouting this nonsense.

But that's some professors for you :rolleyes:

riffmongous

Zorya wrote: »

If he was being facetious, then as a senior academic in Cambridge he should learn about media management and conveying intention and meaning adequately in public. Especially since he is a Progfessor of politics and will likely be mentoring the bright young things who will form the administrative corps, perhaps even the representatives!, of future UK governments. Of course there is likely to be an element of farce in such words, because they are just that - farcical. He is not very good at his job, regardless of his intention.

He also says it wouldn't happen in a million years..

Zorya

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your slippery slope logical fallacy is not a great contribution to the debate on what is actually quite a complicated subject (so complicated that most people, myself included, are probably likely to just shrug our shoulders and say 'ah sure it's grant the way it is ')

Goodness, I didn't know I was in the presence of such modest distinction. Apologies for the shoddy state of my contributions, but what can one expect when one lets the riff raff in!

By the way all the ages you quoted are not close to 6. Not even a little teeny weeny tiny bit close.

RandomName2

Zorya wrote: »

Goodness, I didn't know I was in the presence of such modest distinction. Apologies for the shoddy state of my contributions, but what can one expect when one lets the riff raff in!

Right :pac:

Zorya wrote: »

By the way all the ages you quoted are not close to 6. Not even a little teeny weeny tiny bit close.

This is not a rebuttal. I am merely replying to it to show that I've read it and to tell you that, if you disagree with anything I've said, you will have to do more than merely describe what I've said if you want anyone to take your contribution seriously.

Zorya

RandomName2 wrote: »

Right :pac:



This is not a rebuttal. I am merely replying to it to show that I've read it and to tell you that, if you disagree with anything I've said, you will have to do more than merely describe what I've said if you want anyone to take your contribution seriously.

But RandomName2 you are having a different conversation than the one I started. I have made no remarks thus far on voting being lowered to the age of 16 - it is not something I am thinking about specifically. I am quite sure that is a complicated debate, with pros and cons. One might even counter the argument that given that the frontal cortex does not properly develop until mid twenties that the voting age should be raised!
My post was about the Professor of Politcis at CAMBRIDGE University making idiotic statements about 6 year olds obtaining suffrage and furthermore claiming that he was serious about it because he feels somehow that democracy is under threat due to age bias. What a silly billy he is. And what implications such an idea have for the state of childhood versus adulthood.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's dangerous suggestion tbh.

They would be manipulated by idealogues to vote in certain patterns.


It would not be healthy for democracy .

Sunny Disposition

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

The idea of voting at 16 is a stupid one, as most people who regularly deal with teenagers know. They just don't have the life experience to assess the different arguments properly, obviously six year olds is just ridiculous.

most people over the age of 16 are also too stupid and immature to vote

what shall we do with them?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

Things are connected. Reducing the age of voting - especially to the absolutely ludicrous suggestion of 6, or even 10, or 14 - has other implications. If a child is old enough to vote then why would they not be old enough to make other decisions such as to drink
or have sex with whoever they say they want to have sex with
or move out of home
or not go to school
or get on a plane and head off alone
or stay up far too late after Mammy has told them it is time for bed
or stay out on the street after they have been told they should come home
or not take their medications
or get involved in cheap child labour
or run off and join the circus.

My implication in the OP was the erosion of the concept of childhood is a very dangerous one, yes, a slippery slope, if you must. There are good reasons why children are not admitted into the adult world, and it is a subversive idea at its core to undermine this.

This is actually as perfect an example of a "slippery slope fallacy" one could hope to see. Emphasis on the word "fallacy."

You're making my point for me.

RandomName2

Zorya wrote: »

My post was about the Professor of Politcis at CAMBRIDGE University making idiotic statements about 6 year olds obtaining suffrage and furthermore claiming that he was serious about it because he feels somehow that democracy is under threat due to age bias. What a silly billy he is. And what implications such an idea have for the state of childhood versus adulthood.

Well I was specifically addressing the post of yours that I was quoting, though I mentioned some of the.. I suppose.. moralistic reasons for taking this absolutist view on voting in my above post, and also why it doesn't have much practical basis.

Zorya wrote: »

Things are connected. Reducing the age of voting - especially to the absolutely ludicrous suggestion of 6, or even 10, or 14 - has other implications. If a child is old enough to vote then why would they not be old enough to make other decisions such as to ..

Actually now that I think about it, why not have people from the age of 12 be able to vote in local elections? It would involve them in politics, they can feel as if they have some 'say', but it isn't too serious a vote.

We allow non-nationals to vote in locals, why not our citizens who are too young to vote in general elections, or referenda, have a vote in these too?

Why 12? That's the age that kids start CSPE in school, it's the age that our legal system says that people know right from wrong, it's the point that people start the Junior Cycle in secondary school, and guarantees at least one opportunity to vote in something before becoming an adult.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Christ. That some people are taking this seriously, is telling.

Arghus

Christ, the amount of people missing the point here is staggering. Or is it even truly staggering anymore?

The was exaggerating his point to get to a deeper question about how democratic repersentation is skewed towards the older in society and how younger tax earning generations are paying more and more towards services and entitlements predominantly used by an ever increasing amount of older people - but what's going to happen when they get older and there's even less younger people than there is now to pay for them? It's a demographic ticking time bomb for most Western societies and it isn't really talked about all that much, so he flew a kite to draw attention in a roundabout way to the issue - it wouldn't have got much traction in the media otherwise.

He's a highly respected academic, he's far from a crack-pot. I recommend his podcast Talking Politics which consists of some of the best and most reliably clear-headed discussions on current affairs.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Arghus wrote: »

Christ, the amount of people missing the point here is staggering. Or is it even truly staggering anymore?

The was exaggerating his point to get to a deeper question about how democratic repersentation is skewed towards the older in society and how younger tax earning generations are paying more and more towards services and entitlements predominantly used by an ever increasing amount of older people - but what's going to happen when they get older and there's even less younger people than there is now to pay for them? It's a demographic ticking time bomb for most Western societies and it isn't really talked about all that much, so he flew a kite to draw attention in a roundabout way to the issue - it wouldn't have got much traction in the media otherwise.

He's a highly respected academic, he's far from a crack-pot. I recommend his podcast Talking Politics which consists of some of the best and most reliably clear-headed discussions on current affairs.

Let’s be clear, the old in the present generation are indeed very fortunate. And if they are screwing the younger taxpaying generations it would be younger adults and the middle aged.

6 year olds not so much.