What’s your most controversial opinion? **Read OP** **Mod Note in Post #3372**

i'm not saying to cut old people out from voting, they've lived long enough so its their right to be able to vote. Voting ability should not be taken away from someone on the basis of their age reaching a cut off point.

the solution has already been put forward as best possible answer being allow people to vote but remove the parties names and have their policies there for people to choose from/vote for, instead of party names. That way by reading the policiy they can understand a bit more what it is they are voting for and eliminates a good chunk of bias voting

Yeah, I don't think we should restrict voting based on age. I think we should only restrict voting (if we should restrict it at all) based on reasons that are consistent across the board.

If you think a dementia sufferer should have vote, then why do you think a 10 year old shouldn't have a vote? Serious question.

If we restrict voting on the grounds of lack of understanding of the systems, then do it across the board.

I've said what I think we should do. Either restrict voting based on consistent metrics, or don't restrict it at all. I also mentioned some other reasons to remove the vote such as not understanding the system and think thst should either apply across the board or not at all

If its so obvious why no young people should have a vote, why is it so difficult to explain why, using a reason that can be applied across the board?

Does that answer your question?

by saying "They've lived long enough" and earned that right, i'm reffering to that as a defense of old people not being excluded from voting, nothing to do with being 18 to vote. By mentioning "cut-off point" i thought this would have made it more obvious i was talking about the end side of things. A Cut off point is quite different than a starting point. i'm not saying people should be 18 to vote, i was simply saying people shouldnt be cut off due to reaching a certain age, and that after being alive for so long it becomes their right that should not be taken away from them (the elderly)

I..

No confusion. I've said a load of times I don't agree with age restrictions on voting.

I've also said the IF we impose restrictions on voting, then we should have a rationale for doing it and apply it evenly across the board. E.g. if its about not understanding the system, then remove the vote from anyone who doesn't understand the system.

Personally I don't support taking the vote from anyone, regardless of age or knowledge of the system. Does that clear it up?

So if we're not restricting by age, does that mean a seven year old gets the vote? And a three tear old? I suspect the number of 'spoiled' votes would increase drastically. Even telling the to vote with number preferences (1, 2, 3...) could see the total candidates, alphabetically, getting the number one votes, if you know what I mean.

Regarding dementia, there are different stages/versions but if a person had 'full' dementia all of the time, they probably wouldn't be able to vote at a polling station. Even if somebody brings them there, and tries to make them vote their way, it'd be hard work.

Then you have people like the singer Tony Christie, who has been diagnosed with dementia and is being medicated for it, but is okay enough to bring awareness of the condition, so I'm sure he would like to think his vote is valuable.

I have already sort of answered this. I don't necessarily think a dementia sufferer should have the vote, because I don't think they would be able to vote if they were that badly affected by it. If they are not at that stage, let them vote if they can do so relatively independently. As for the ten year old, most of them would probably think it was too boring or not do it correctly.

Basically what I'm saying is that the current system mightn't be perfect but we should stick with it until a better method is suggested and accepted.

how to win the election: bribe all the kids with a free kinder egg and packet of crisps to secure their vote!

i would still like to know what you think about my idea in regards to how the voting should be settled. my idea: When it comes to elections i think it would be far more simple and important to make each political party have a spinning top, and the winner is decided from whoever wins the spinning top battle, either that or a race with remote control cars that have a flag sticking out of the back of them, the flag being which political party they belong to.

In terms of storytelling, there's a handful of games that really do extraordinary storytelling. Eg The Last of Us, Telltale Walking Dead series and a few others. Even the likes of Papers Please incorporate morality and paradoxical decision making. However I still view gaming to be in its infancy storytelling wise so it doesn't fully compete. I do view it as valid entertainment wise though. But great cinematic experiences are still wildly more varied in terms of storytelling.

If you want to reduce spoiled votes, coerced votes and votes that are borne of stupid notions, there are far less people with dementia than there are under 18s who haven't a clue.

I'd rather a small cohort of elderly people with dementia voting than a very large cohort of children who rely on YouTube for political 'information'.

@o1s1n

That large cohort of children who rely on YouTube for political 'information' will grow up to be a large cohort of adults who rely on YouTube for political 'information' in no more than one single electoral cycle. And even worse, it won't be YouTube, it will be TikTok. So rather than delaying the inevitable votes from what you consider uninformed people it's better to apply the principles of universal vote (with the good and the bad) and focus on education rather than restriction. You may be surprised that they will appreciate the fact that they are trusted with responsibility, and actually be more enthusiastic and take voting more seriously than a lot of adults do.

No i'm not saying we should take away the vote from people who might vote for things you don't like, people are free to vote for whatever they want. i'm not gonna be biased and selfish and only want people to vote for what i want. i would rather anyone vote for what THEY want. its their choice.

As for adults, their tastes are more expensive but they can be much more effectively bribed. Probebly bribe them with *** or **** or else ****** and **** or free food, maybe vouchers for tesco or some sort of discount somewhere. Bribe them with drink or ciggerettes lol. i really dont know what to realisticly bribe them with but the people running for office could come up with some sort of marketting collab with lets say the likes of aldi or dunnes, and bribe them with vouchers to them places, or maybe a discount off of their electric bill for next 2 months. or free netflix for a month.

or bribe them with policies and promises, which is something people already do alot of in politics.

very true! but not even insurance itself which we can already see as being a scam or a rip-off, there's another thing to it. the cost.

i know a small handful of people who deliberately decided to get their cars insured in england because its meant to be a bunch cheaper. Even uk's MOT system is better than our NCT over here, and less bs to deal with.

Pet insurance is the one of the worst offenders. They all but cut you off, cover-wise, once a dog turns 8 but, of course, they don’t tell you.

16 year olds cannot have sex or drive (except a tractor)