Should 16 & 17 Year Olds Be Allowed To Vote?

[Jack Grey]

Sir Keir Starmer wants to give voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds if Labour wins the next general election

 

Winston Churchill once commented: 'If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.'

 

Starmer calculates that if schoolchildren gravitate to the political left, bringing them on to the electoral roll would maximise his party's chances at the ballot box.

 

True, but by that logic, why shouldn't 14-year-olds get the vote? Or those aged 12?

 

Surely if people are deemed too immature at 16 to decide whether or not they should drink alcohol, smoke, drive or get a tattoo, they shouldn't be entrusted with voting – a decision that will affect the future of millions of their fellow citizens?

 

Equally, minors have no property, no dependants, no tax liabilities, none of the responsibilities that impel electors to vote with their heads rather than their hearts.

[Mister Gee]

37 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

Sir Keir Starmer wants to give voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds if Labour wins the next general election

 

Winston Churchill once commented: 'If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.'

 

Starmer calculates that if schoolchildren gravitate to the political left, bringing them on to the electoral roll would maximise his party's chances at the ballot box.

 

True, but by that logic, why shouldn't 14-year-olds get the vote? Or those aged 12?

 

Surely if people are deemed too immature at 16 to decide whether or not they should drink alcohol, smoke, drive or get a tattoo, they shouldn't be entrusted with voting – a decision that will affect the future of millions of their fellow citizens?

 

Equally, minors have no property, no dependants, no tax liabilities, none of the responsibilities that impel electors to vote with their heads rather than their hearts.

What about voters who are incapable of thinking for themselves and just copy and paste from a Daily Mail article and pass it off as their thoughts?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12083355/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Labours-sinister-plot-rig-elections.html

 

[Axe]

No the age of voting should not be reduced.  Also EU citizens should not be allowed to vote in general elections.  Keir Starmer has ambitions of  gerrymandering.

[Resident]

53 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

Sir Keir Starmer wants to give voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds if Labour wins the next general election

 

Winston Churchill once commented: 'If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.'

 

Starmer calculates that if schoolchildren gravitate to the political left, bringing them on to the electoral roll would maximise his party's chances at the ballot box.

 

True, but by that logic, why shouldn't 14-year-olds get the vote? Or those aged 12?

 

Surely if people are deemed too immature at 16 to decide whether or not they should drink alcohol, smoke, drive or get a tattoo, they shouldn't be entrusted with voting – a decision that will affect the future of millions of their fellow citizens?

 

Equally, minors have no property, no dependants, no tax liabilities, none of the responsibilities that impel electors to vote with their heads rather than their hearts.

Sadly, IMO, I don't think anyone under the age of 25 has the emotional or intellectual maturity to vote, they're all trying ot get famous via TikTok, simultaneously giving a foreign government access to all their person data  so certainly giving minors the option would be catastrophically bad.

Starmer knows there are enough currently eligible voters to keep him out of the big office hence this idiotic idea

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Resident

[Annie Bynnol]

   Simple argument really, all age limit restrictions are arbitrary and are never a test for competency. Is voting  age different? Of course not. A Democracy has to be as inclusive as possible so that as many people can contribute. Some of the list below

• It is wrong that 23 year olds can be denied a say who is their representative in the UK Parliament?
• Is it right that young adults have denied the right to work and live in Europe because of now dead people?
• Is it right that people  who think that  "...they're(16 and 17 year olds)all trying ot get famous via TikTok", are allowed to vote?
• Is it wrong that working, tax paying 16 and 17 year old people are denied their choice representation in Parliament for up to seven years?
• Is it wrong that young families are denied the right to decide how their taxes are spent?
• How can you be a 'fellow citizen' if your 'fellow citizens' deny you the right to vote?
• Why is it right for people who left Britain forever in 2008 never to return allowed to vote while people born and living here will not?
• What are the tests for 'emotional or intellectual maturity' (even mature cheese goes off)that allow an individual to vote? What should the upper age limit be?
• Are 17 year olds getting straight A* this summer to be barred from voting?
• Are 16 and 17 year olds who care full or part time for parents and sibling -emotionally immature?

The voting age  is arbitrary, the question should be:

Why are 16 and 17 year olds denied the right to vote?

 

 

[L00b]

If 16 year olds are old enough to serve, they are old enough to elect those who would send them to fight.

 

https://jobs.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-apply/age/#

 

1 hour ago, Resident said:

Sadly, IMO, I don't think anyone under the age of 25 has the emotional or intellectual maturity to vote, they're all trying ot get famous via TikTok, simultaneously giving a foreign government access to all their person data  so certainly giving minors the option would be catastrophically bad.

Starmer knows there are enough currently eligible voters to keep him out of the big office hence this idiotic idea

 

There is a flipside argument about the emotional or intellectual maturity of OAPs reading red tops and watching GBeebies (and before that, e.g. RT).

 

Of course, we can rebadge that ‘gullibility’, for the sake of sensitivies 😏

Edited May 15, 2023 by L00b

[Jack Grey]

3 minutes ago, L00b said:

There is a flipside argument about the emotional or intellectual maturity of OAPs reading red tops.

 

Of course, we can rebadge that ‘gullibility’, for the sake of sensitivies 😏

So youre saying that people shouldnt be able to vote because of what newspapers they read?

 

Theres a word for that you know 

[L00b]

Just now, Jack Grey said:

So youre saying that people shouldnt be able to vote because of what newspapers they read?

 

Theres a word for that you know 

Just as much as Resident is saying that 16-17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because some of them use TikTok.

 

What’s that word, then? Strawman, perchance? 🤪

[Resident]

12 minutes ago, L00b said:

If 16 year olds are old enough to serve, they are old enough to elect those who would send them to fight.

 

https://jobs.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-apply/age/#

 

There is a flipside argument about the emotional or intellectual maturity of OAPs reading red tops and watching GBeebies (and before that, e.g. RT).

 

Of course, we can rebadge that ‘gullibility’, for the sake of sensitivies 😏

That argument would hold weight IF 16/17 year olds were deployed. They aren't, not until they're 18, the current voting age.

 

Well haven't we seen a display of YOUR maturity, are you really that immature that you have to resort to name calling a news outlet?

The reason TikTok is relevant is that it's controlled by a foreign power, one that is known for covert interference through propaganda. 16-18 year old are susceptible to such influence due to their emotional and intellectual immaturity. This is a KNOWN scientific fact.

[L00b]

16 minutes ago, Resident said:

That argument would hold weight IF 16/17 year olds were deployed. They aren't, not until they're 18, the current voting age.

16/17 year reach 18 a year or two after a GE and can be deployed then, before a next GE.
 

Weight of arguments unaffected, thanks.

16 minutes ago, Resident said:

The reason TikTok is relevant is that it's controlled by a foreign power, one that is known for covert interference through propaganda. 16-18 year old are susceptible to such influence due to their emotional and intellectual immaturity. This is a KNOWN scientific fact.

Several red tops are controlled by tax haven-registered corporations owned by foreign-residing majority shareholders.

This is a long-established fact.

 

Rothermere, Murdoch, <…>

16 minutes ago, Resident said:

Well haven't we seen a display of YOUR maturity, are you really that immature that you have to resort to name calling a news outlet?

“GBeebies” offends you? Good. Much more where that one came from.

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2023/ofcom-finds-gb-news-in-breach-of-broadcasting-rules-for-a-second-time

 

(do I need to point out who owns, funds and controls GBNews? Yes? Oh look: Dubai-based Legatum)

Edited May 15, 2023 by L00b