Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should the voting age be changed to 16?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,695 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    This would be the same report that demonstrates that support for SF drops with age; from 21% amongst the 18 - 34 age group, 16% amongst the 35 - 54 age group and 12% amongst the 55+ age group - which oddly enough supports this 'notion' you're dismissing.

    How so? I am merely highlighting that the belief that young people predominately support SF / ULA / Socialists is completely inaccurate and unfounded.


  • #33
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    How so? I am merely highlighting that the belief that young people predominately support SF / ULA / Socialists is completely inaccurate and unfounded.
    Did anyone actually suggest that here?


  • #34
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Did anyone actually suggest that here?

    You did complain earlier when I questioned your assumptions:
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I've already presented evidence above to this point. Questionable evidence, but it's still a lot more evidence than has been presented to the contrary.

    Now that evidence has been presented to dispute your ideas you're dismissing it out of hand!


    Truth is non of us know the effect until something like this happens - especially as there has been little research done on the topic.


  • #35
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cliste wrote: »
    You did complain earlier when I questioned your assumptions:
    Repeatedly.
    Now that evidence has been presented to dispute your ideas you're dismissing it out of hand!
    The only evidence presented was by Sierra Oscar and it actually supports my thesis.
    Truth is non of us know the effect until something like this happens - especially as there has been little research done on the topic.
    Truth is non of us know the exact effect until something like this happens - but we can predict that it's far more likely to be a negative one.


  • #36
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Truth is non of us know the exact effect until something like this happens - but we can predict that it's far more likely to be a negative one.

    You're being ridiculous!

    And you're extrapolating the trend - questionable at best!


    Either way the only people to lose out appear to be FG at younger ages!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cliste wrote: »
    And you're extrapolating the trend - questionable at best!
    What I am saying is this:
    • Younger voters tend to vote for more radical candidates/parties. The report quoted earlier can be cited as evidence of this.
    • Lowering the voting age by two years will result in an overall increase in voting for more radical candidates/parties - how much I do not speculate on; nonetheless, the age-demographic breakdown of the nation does not point to it being negligible.
    • Such an increase may well prove pivotal in future governments. Historical examples may be drawn from the many examples of marginal elections or even the infamous Gregory Deal of the 1980's.
    None of this is really extrapolating anything. It may never make a difference towards future governments; however it does increase the probability. Hardly a concrete prediction or extrapolation.

    Thus when faced with two options - lower the voting age and no action - where one results in a greater probability for negative consequences and the other results in no change, it's a bit of a no-brainer which one to go for.

    Unless one can give arguments in favour of doing so to counter this and, from what I can see, we're not exactly drowning in those here.


  • #38
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    View wrote: »
    Given the poor quality of our political debate and decision making, it should be raised not lowered. The only question is how high should we raise it!


    You are aware that the acts that led Ireland to where it currently stands were overseen by men and women of advanced years and that not one person below 18 had any part what so ever in putting them into power to begin with?

    As to the question to which this thread serves, I don't personally believe that allowing younger people to vote would make a difference. However, in general, a young person's opinion is just as valid as the opinion or his or her elder's view. With age comes experience and wisdom, certainly, but with youth, one has the boon of a view that has not yet been tainted by complacency. A truly wise man would listen to what someone has to say, age shouldn't matter.


  • #39
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    ...in general, a young person's opinion is just as valid as the opinion or his or her elder's view. With age comes experience and wisdom, certainly, but with youth, one has the boon of a view that has not yet been tainted by complacency. A truly wise man would listen to what someone has to say, age shouldn't matter.
    So we should let five-year-olds vote?


  • #40
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    I know at least in my own case that i would have voted SF at the age of 16 because i considered myself an irish republican back then and a lot of my friends were the same. It was more out of an immature "up the ra" attitude i had back then as opposed to support of their policies.

    By the time i was 18 i had matured a bit more and had educated myself more to a point that my views on irish republicanism had changed completely and had gotten to a point where i no longer related to it anymore. The thought that i would have once voted for Sinn Fein makes me laugh now since i despise them now.

    To sum it up if i had a vote at 16 i would have voted based on the wrong reasons because i wasnt mature enough to understand the real considerations i shoud make when voting. I know that isnt the case for all 16 year olds but i think it would apply to a lot of them.


  • #41
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    i wasnt mature enough to understand the real considerations i shoud make when voting.

    Unfortunately this isn't the case for the majority of the voting population! (Regardless of how old they are)


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cliste wrote: »
    Unfortunately this isn't the case for the majority of the voting population! (Regardless of how old they are)
    Unless we want to live in Plato's republic, we have to allow the hoi polloi to vote somewhere along the line though. In the case of young people - below 18 - there is a case, and it has been made, that on average they are more likely to be less mature than those older voters, even if those older voters aren't exactly the brightest pennies in the purse.

    So that doesn't mean that the electorate is that much better, only that below a certain age, maturity exponentially drops. Otherwise, most of the arguments in favour of letting 16 year olds vote are equally valid for any minor.

    Seriously, at 16 years of age, we don't consider someone mature enough to consent to sex in Ireland, but they're mature enough to choose who should govern us?

    The other argument, I believe, has to do with civic duty and stake in society. People tend to forget that the right to vote isn't a free gift; it comes with civic duties attached: The duty to pay tax and be a productive member of society. The duty to take up arms, in time of war, to defend the nation. The duty to carry out functions periodically for the state (e.g. jury duty).

    At 16 years of age, people are not obligated to do any of these things. They don't even have to go out, get a job and pay tax (their parents are still obligated to support them until 18). It's daft to give political power to those who are have no stake or obligations to the state or their fellow citizens.


  • #43
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    A mháistir Corinthian, can you stop pretending that I have at any stage said that the voting age should be dropped - to clarify see the very first thing I said on this thread:
    Cliste wrote: »
    While I can't say I'm particularly in favour of dropping the age to 16

    All I'm saying is that an awful lot of the statements on this thread are not based in fact.


    You keep arguing that younger voters tend to be more radical
    - firstly I think you're exaggerating this
    - secondly there is an implicit implication that more radical votes are by definition a bad thing.

    Other people seem to be saying that young people would not consider how they use their vote in a 'mature' or reasoned fashion
    - My point would be that the voting age has nothing to do with how much people consider their votes, and if that is what you think is missing from young votes then why doesn't it bother you that it is missing from many older votes?

    But to re-emphasise I am not particularly in favour of reducing the voting age - change for changes sake is not the right track to take. But I like to see reasonable reasons that do not resort to scare mongering arguments like 'the shinners would get in - oh woe is me' :)


  • #44
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cliste wrote: »
    A mháistir Corinthian, can you stop pretending that I have at any stage said that the voting age should be dropped
    I didn't even suggest that in my last post. The only thing I referred to was your statement that many voters of any age have a dubious capacity to make informed voting choices - nothing about you supporting younger voters. It's all in your head, I'm afraid.
    You keep arguing that younger voters tend to be more radical
    - firstly I think you're exaggerating this
    - secondly there is an implicit implication that more radical votes are by definition a bad thing.
    Firstly, we saw a report here that specifically demonstrated an inverse relationship between SF (as an example of a radical party) support and age. Additionally, I did not exaggerate anything and even earlier went onto point out that "how much [this would affect overall voting patterns] I do not speculate on".

    Secondly, there is an implicit implication that more radical votes are by definition a bad thing, and would stand by that assertion. If you disagree, let me know where people in any stable society (and quite a few unstable ones) have benefited from electing radical governments, throughout history, and I'll be more than willing to reconsider this point.
    Other people seem to be saying that young people would not consider how they use their vote in a 'mature' or reasoned fashion
    - My point would be that the voting age has nothing to do with how much people consider their votes, and if that is what you think is missing from young votes then why doesn't it bother you that it is missing from many older votes?
    And I responded to this at the start of my last post. I can explain it without the reference to Plato, if it makes it easier for you to understand.

    Now, I would prefer if you actually read back on some of my earlier posts, in particular the one in response to you that you subsequently ignored, as you're not exactly keeping up with what I'm saying and even seeing attacks against you that don't actually exist.


  • #45
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    The reason I didn't respond to your previous post is because I'm not sure if it is incompatible with what I am saying.
    The Shinners grow by 5% (although the extent of how extreme they are is debatable - I would expect them to act like Fianna Fáil in government - which equally worries me)
    Now you should probably allow for the fact that younger voters will not associate the Shinners with the troubles so perhaps there are other factors at work.
    Equally Fianna Fáil increase by 6% - and they would not be considered extreme (except perhaps extremely stupid)
    Finally independents increase by 2% - but that can mean anything without more detail.

    So in summary I would say that the statistics tell us very little, especially as it doesn't include anyone from the agegroup we are even discussing.


    Radical votes is a bit of an open and unexplained term - and in this Irish context I would say that it could mean anyone who would do things differently at all!
    A party is who is not afraid to introduce a third income tax band could be considered radical.
    One who would burn unsecured bondholders could be considered radical
    Another that might reduce the public sector pay bill through redundancies might also be considered radical.
    But there are very good and reasonable arguments to do any or all of the above.


    As for the Plato reference, completely over my head, so if you do want me to understand your point I think you'll have to! (Although I would suggest if you are making arguments that rely on greek political philosophical tales on the internet you may run into problems)

    But again NOT ARGUING THAT THE AGE SHOULD BE REDUCED so try focus on the points I am making rather than adding in


  • #46
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cliste wrote: »
    The reason I didn't respond to your previous post is because I'm not sure if it is incompatible with what I am saying.
    The Shinners grow by 5% (although the extent of how extreme they are is debatable - I would expect them to act like Fianna Fáil in government - which equally worries me)
    Have you read their policy documents?
    Equally Fianna Fáil increase by 6% - and they would not be considered extreme (except perhaps extremely stupid)
    No relationship, inverse or otherwise, between Fianna Fáil support and age. Well... maybe parabolic.
    So in summary I would say that the statistics tell us very little, especially as it doesn't include anyone from the agegroup we are even discussing.
    So one has a clear inverse relationship based on age and because 16 and 17 year olds are not included (although everyone over 17 is) you conclude that they're clearly going to buck that trend... of course, the evidence you've presented has clearly demonstrated this.
    Radical votes is a bit of an open and unexplained term - and in this Irish context I would say that it could mean anyone who would do things differently at all!
    Even in the Irish context it's not difficult to see what would be considered radical (hint: read their policy documents).
    A party is who is not afraid to introduce a third income tax band could be considered radical.
    No. Don't be ridiculous.
    One who would burn unsecured bondholders could be considered radical
    Not solely on that policy alone (hint: read their policy documents).
    Another that might reduce the public sector pay bill through redundancies might also be considered radical.
    Or just a bit clueless. Does anyone actually argue for that?
    But there are very good and reasonable arguments to do any or all of the above.
    No, I'm afraid not.
    As for the Plato reference, completely over my head, so if you do want me to understand your point I think you'll have to! (Although I would suggest if you are making arguments that rely on greek political philosophical tales on the internet you may run into problems)
    Only if one overestimates the education of the audience.

    Indeed, education, as with age, IQ and other factors all effect the competence of an individual to make a 'mature' choice in an election. Nonetheless, unless you want to live in some benign oligarchy, where the enlightened few rule, you have to draw a line in the sand on who can vote and who cannot. Age is one of the easier one's one can draw.
    But again NOT ARGUING THAT THE AGE SHOULD BE REDUCED so try focus on the points I am making rather than adding in
    And again, I'm not saying you are. Get over it.


  • #47
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No relationship, inverse or otherwise, between Fianna Fáil support and age. Well... maybe parabolic.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So one has a clear inverse relationship based on age and because 16 and 17 year olds are not included (although everyone over 17 is) you conclude that they're clearly going to buck that trend... of course, the evidence you've presented has clearly demonstrated this.

    You are reading what you want to see in the numbers.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Only if one overestimates the education of the audience.

    And this is where I am assuming you are being condescending!

    One may have a honours degree, but one may not have a degree in politics.. in fact I'm not sure where one would be educated about plato's republic. Probably means I'm an idiot though!


  • #48
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cliste wrote: »
    You are reading what you want to see in the numbers.
    Then dispute that any such relationship exists and explain why. Show me evidence to the contrary, as I have suggested on a number of occasions, so as to prove me wrong.

    But to glibly dismiss my thesis, without use of argument nor evidence, is not terribly convincing.
    One may have a honours degree, but one may not have a degree in politics.. in fact I'm not sure where one would be educated about plato's republic.
    From a book, perchance?


  • #49
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    This is tiresome, although mildly entertaining how much you seem to look down upon me! :cool:


    You've made an assertion and have provided nothing to back it up, if you read over the thread you'll see that I've just disputed any times where you have claimed that stuff is a certain way or something implies something else.

    Anyway this is pointless, cliste amach (mar a deirfeá)


  • #50
    Jake Sparse Doe
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Jake Sparse Doe


    The Corinthian wrote: »

    Only if one overestimates the education of the audience.

    Take it easy on the personal stuff please TC


  • #51
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    I think it should be based on level of education and not age. Only people that passed the leaving cert should be allowed to vote.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cliste wrote: »
    You've made an assertion and have provided nothing to back it up, if you read over the thread you'll see that I've just disputed any times where you have claimed that stuff is a certain way or something implies something else.
    Did you miss the statistics from the report that was posted earlier on? I'm actually basing what I'm saying on that, albeit limited, evidence. You're basing your objections on nothing other than a desire to be contrary.

    Honestly, between your false belief that I was accusing you of supporting a lowering of the age and repeatedly misrepresenting my arguments, I don't think you've been following the discussion very well.


  • #53
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    GarIT wrote: »
    I think it should be based on level of education and not age. Only people that passed the leaving cert should be allowed to vote.

    I don't really see how the Leaving Cert particularly prepares you to participate in the voting process.

    I can't see how lowering the voting age would benefit the political landscape.


  • #54
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I don't really see how the Leaving Cert particularly prepares you to participate in the voting process.

    I can't see how lowering the voting age would benefit the political landscape.

    The leaving cert is a very simple exam. It's the only benchmark we have in terms of intelligence of children in this country. Its not a perfect solution but it's better than basing it on age.


  • #55
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So we should let five-year-olds vote?

    Actually as an ultra-libertarian it's a question I've considered. :D

    To a certain extent if you allow all minors to vote the process would be self-selecting. The vast majority of people under the age of c.14 would have no real interest in politics and would not be inclined to vote even if the options were available to them.

    Though I initially thought that this apathy would obviate the negative aspect of an uninformed vote, in reality you would be likely to generate free votes for parents. Someone of the age of 16, at least, would feel independent of their parents' position.

    However as The Corinthian said, it makes little sense to say that people are mature enough to decide the state's politics, but not mature enough to decide personal matters. Perhaps the two should be argued together, then?
    GarIT wrote: »
    The leaving cert is a very simple exam. It's the only benchmark we have in terms of intelligence of children in this country. Its not a perfect solution but it's better than basing it on age.

    Well, it's no coincidence that 18 is also the age that people tend to complete the LC.

    However, in terms of politics, it is actually the Junior Certificate that covers such matters in the form of the (mandatory?) CSPE.

    The JC is also in many ways more mandatory, as people are not allowed leave school until 16, and as such would by default tend to complete the JC. The same cannot be said of the LC. As the LC is only really to give people points for third level entry, it would seem unfair to say that one's capacity to vote be predicated on having achieved this certification. However, as you say, age by itself is no particular marker of maturity; certainly not of knowledge.

    ...


  • #56
    Conmaicne Mara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,543 ✭✭✭Conmaicne Mara


    View wrote: »
    Given the poor quality of our political debate and decision making, it should be raised not lowered. The only question is how high should we raise it!

    21 for voting and drinking IMO.


  • #57
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Conmaicne Mara wrote: »
    21 for voting and drinking IMO.

    24, surely? :pac:


  • #58
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    However, in terms of politics, it is actually the Junior Certificate that covers such matters in the form of the (mandatory?) CSPE.

    The JC is also in many ways more mandatory, as people are not allowed leave school until 16, and as such would by default tend to complete the JC. The same cannot be said of the LC. As the LC is only really to give people points for third level entry, it would seem unfair to say that one's capacity to vote be predicated on having achieved this certification. However, as you say, age by itself is no particular marker of maturity; certainly not of knowledge.

    ...

    I did CSPE in 2009. Anything you hear about it is complete lies. There are no politics in CSPE. I got an A and the only political question was "Name these politicians" and it showed pictures and was worth 10% of the entire exam. The rest of the exam is all about morals, with every second question being "How would you campaign for....." and 20% of the exam went for designing a poster to promote environmental awareness.

    It also is full of agenda, you cant do good in it without accepting that all charity is good, they wont allow you to actually have any input. Any primary school child could pass CSPE without any classes on it.

    You should look over the exam if you are interested they can be found on examinations.ie and are clearly not a sufficient measure of eligibility to vote.

    In 2012 12.5% went for matching names with pictures of the inside of 4 buildings, the Dail, the un, the EU HQ, US congress. I mean seriously, 3% for matching an American flag to US congress.

    7% for knowing what the toiseach and president are. And 3% for matching gov departments with a description of their role.

    10% for knowing what an age card is.

    4% for saying if the police should have guns and 2 reasons why.

    This is so stupid. Its so biased too, they only accept answers they want and others are wrong. The garda having guns is wrong, not matter how good you argued for it.


Advertisement