nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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:

[Deleted User]

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 .

[Deleted User]

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.

Arghus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

The 6 year old voting age suggestion was just one tiny throwaway remark he made in the context of several much larger points. He's not saying he thinks it's feasible, he even acknowledges it wouldn't happen "in a million years", but that something as admittedly crazy as that would, in some ways, address the crazy inbalance in terms of political influence towards the older and the very old.

He's not saying that 6 years today or tomorrow are victims of any particular form of oppression, but they will one day grow up to be of voting age and political decisions are being made now that will probably have a detrimental effect on their quality of life and right now people have no effective political voice until they are eighteen, wheras you have a poltical voice right up until your death. That does create an imbalance in power in terms of the allocation of political power and available resources, especially into the future.

Do I think 6 year olds should be allowed to vote. No. That's clearly to young an age to make an informed decision. I sincerely doubt he truly believes that either, it is a nonsensical idea, but there is still a conundrum at the heart of demographics of modern day politics, especially in Western Europe, that no-one seems able to adaquetely address and it will cause trouble down the line, serious trouble. Some thinking outside the box will be required.

super_furry

Great idea. President Barney 2028.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Arghus wrote: »

The 6 year old voting age suggestion was just one tiny throwaway remark he made in the context of several much larger points. He's not saying he thinks it's feasible, he even acknowledges it wouldn't happen "in a million years", but that something as admittedly crazy as that would, in some ways, address the crazy inbalance in terms of political influence towards the older and the very old.

He's not saying that 6 years today or tomorrow are victims of any particular form of oppression, but they will one day grow up to be of voting age and political decisions are being made now that will probably have a detrimental effect on their quality of life and right now people have no effective political voice until they are eighteen, wheras you have a poltical voice right up until your death. That does create an imbalance in power in terms of the allocation of political power and available resources, especially into the future.

Do I think 6 year olds should be allowed to vote. No. That's clearly to young an age to make an informed decision. I sincerely doubt he truly believes that either, it is a nonsensical idea, but there is still a conundrum at the heart of demographics of modern day politics, especially in Western Europe, that no-one seems able to adaquetely address and it will cause trouble down the line, serious trouble. Some thinking outside the box will be required.

What’s the conundrum? There are more people of a certain generation then there were? When the demographic bulge was in the middle was that a problem? What about when the median age was 25, which was true in fact when the baby boomers were in their youth. Were the old not dictatorial then on the demographic bulge under the age of 18?

The old can vote and the very young can’t. Neither can the yet to be born. Generations should think of the future but the argument here is spurious. 6 year olds aren’t capable of voting.

Arghus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

What’s the conundrum? There are more people of a certain generation then there were? When the demographic bulge was in the middle was that a problem? What about when the median age was 25, which was true in fact when the baby boomers were in their youth. Were the old not dictatorial then on the demographic bulge under the age of 18?

The old can vote and the very young can’t. Neither can the yet to be born. Generations should think of the future but the argument here is spurious. 6 year olds aren’t capable of voting.

The conundrum isn't that there's more people of an age in a lot of Western societies, but more the age of those people.

People are leading longer lives in increasing numbers, but as people age they tend to require more resources - heathcare, pensioncare, subsidised public transport etc, etc - and a lot, if not practically all of them, work less and pay less taxes etc, etc.

In the past the young of working tax paying age tended to provide the means for the state to deliver these things, through taxation and so on, and because there was proportionally more of them compared to older generations then that was, at least on paper, a bit easier to manage.

Having a demographic bulge in the middle is in someways fantastic, because that's a huge proportion of heathy productive people that a state can tap as a resource and help fund services for the older and the elderly.

But we face a situation where 15-20 years down the line there will be in many developed states an increasing proportion of older people who will require more resources, but will not be in a position to produce them themselves and the state will have to turn to the ever shrinking base of people of working tax paying age to pick up the slack - and that slack will have to get bigger and bigger and bigger.

I'm not saying that older generations aren't entitled to retirement and pensions, but that the fundamental bedrock on which these type of things are provided for is far from secure. It's basic economics. It's kind of uncharted territory for most states and we're probably only getting started with these issues. And it isn't just some far off in the future stuff. Look at Italy for example: it's demographics are kinda fcked and won't be improving anytime soon; If current trends continue things will only get worse. And that's an economic problem, which leads to political problems.... problems, problems, problems.

The point Runciman was really trying to make was that the political systems in most of the countries in which he's referring to are built to perpuate these problems rather than to eradicate them. There are questions to be asked between the fairness of decisions and the allocation of resources that are available now and are needed now, versus what will be needed by those in the future. And those are serious, literally existential questions. And they are very rarely addressed in public discussion, partly because the political system is biased towards the old rather than the young. So sometimes you have to let fly with a crazy idea to show how crazy a situation we truly are in.