(Apologies to our international users-this may not interest you)
I was interviewed by Lembit Opik MP today for a place in ‘Team Opik’. He is Youth spokesperson for the Lib Dems in case you didn’t know.
He quizzed me on their policy to reduce the voting age to 16, to engage young people into politics. “When did you become an adult?” I agreed that it would be a significant gesture to young people, to encourage them to take an interest, valuing their voice. Yet, I generally felt that such a gesture would only further plunge the UK’s electoral procedure into disrepute. Most young people I have met have a ‘piecemeal’ interest in politics at best, and such a policy would merely encourage the generational vote that would not ONLY act against the Lib Dem’s interests, but also further set in stone the undemocratic trend of ‘passive’ voting.
The Lib Dems (and the Green party for that matter) want the voting age reduced because their party appeals to young people. It is the ‘alternative’ choice. When I was in Sixth form I remember many people saying they would have voted for Lib dem, for no real reason tht they seemed to be more cutting edge.Now that I am older, and a heck of a lot wiser, I can see that there was no way I could have made an informed choice at 16.
I don’t share your assumption that voter apathy needs to be addressed. It is my right not to vote, whether this be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in the present parties or apathy is the assumption. The big 2 are now so similar I don’t really think it would matter incredibly who was in there, apart from a few spending sprees from the Chancellor. It could also be a show of satisfaction, the country’s going fine, I don’t need to vote cause I know the Cons or Labour are gonna get in and everythings gonna carry on being fine. The only real divisions are those of Europe, which many voters have not woken up to being the single most repulsive idea of recent politics and that’s why they should boot TB out, all he wants is a place in the history books as being the man who took the UK into Europe (or disaster as only time will tell).
Don’t reduce the voting age. Instead create some kind of “Maturity Quotient” or “Political Knowledge Quotient” test. You can vote once you pass. Not a moment before, not a moment after.
This is interesting. I’ve argued elsewhere that as long as you think it’s okay for a minor to have an abortion without a parent’s consent (in America), then they certainly should have the right to vote. This would put the voting age at about thirteen.
The maturity test is an interesting point (Heinlein argued somewhere that it should be a simple quadrilateral equation.). This would be difficult to get across in America as we did, at one point, have literacy tests to keep out the black vote.
Brad, the LibDem argument is as yours, that if you’re old enough to work, bonk, smoke and pay tax, then you should be old enough to vote.
HVD, what sort of questions would appear in your ‘maturity/political knowledge quotient’???, assuming that they have to be pollitically neutral. Any question testing your social awareness or conscience, would be unacceptable to those on the right. Also, arguments would arise concerning access to political knowledge.
Liberal democracies only function properly where there is a high element of trust between state and citizen. People who do not pass the ‘maturity’ test would naturally rebel, and threaten that trust between state and citizen. It is no coincidence that of the world’s liberal democracies, the greatest political stability can be found in those countries with a large public/state sector. (very loose correlation, i admit)
The comparsion of a girl having an abortion at age 13 thus allowing her to have the competance to vote is absurd. This just shows she made the mistake of getting pregnant(circumstances vary I know)
The age should not be lowered. 16yr olds for the most part are in highschool/living at home and for the most part care less about the government. A highschool education is not satisfactory in picking a government leader.
A test would not be practical in a democratic nation. People wouldnt see the purpose of a test, when a nation is founded for the people by the people. This test would be an insult to the people. Cmon. Maybe If it was as easy as a citizenship test in Amercia…well yeh. lol. Anyway, the age should not be changed to the worse
Who says anything about it being for the worse? I know people who would be mentally able to vote at 13. I know people who shouldn’t be allowed near a ballot box who are in their twenties. you speak of Democracy, well all democracies impose limitations on suffrage. I’m just moving the goalposts. Not back or forth, but sideways. 16yr olds for the most part don’t give two short shits about politics. Guess what. Some do. And some adults don’t. Those that don’t, won’t vote. So why not allow those minors that do, and are capable of understanding what they are doing vote.
i fully agree with the principle of what you are saying, hiren. i was in a far better position to vote at the last two general elections than anybody else in my extended family.
i need you to take this idea that vital step further, and actually give real examples of questions that would appear in such a test that you propose. i will have first-hand access to the libdem spokesman for young people for many months. it is one of his ‘aims’, and i became quite unstuck when he asked me about it.
his policy doesn’t seem right to me, for the reasons i mentioned above. other than reforming the electoral system, altering the boundaries of the electorate seems to be an obvious tool available in reversing the current trend of disinterest and apathy.
Well in my opinion most adults don’t know what they are talking about either. Most people I’ve observed have just stayed loyal to party. They are influenced by family members and just vote for whatever their partner is voting for. Just what I’ve seen anyway. I don’t think youth would value voting rights all that much. I wonder if any would take the time to actually go vote. Honestly being 16 I don’t think I’d vote. I think all candidates have their pros and cons. I guess that sounds kind of stupid. Although I’d probably pay more attention to the thing just because it would give me another reason to argue. Not that I’d honestly support either but it’s fun hearing about what people believe.
the last general election was held when i was seventeen years old (i think), and i remember being really upset at the time, as i felt responsible enough to vote. however, i don’t think that the voting age should be lowered. as this is the politics forum, i’m assuming that most people take an interest in politics, but i don’t think that a lot of 16 year olds would. of course there are some who have clear political views at 16, but i doubt that they are in the majority. i don’t think that just because you’re allowed to have sex that you should be able to vote, i don’t really understand the relevance of that.
i reckon that there should be a political competance test, i think that would be great, but then that’s me being snobish. it would be nice if people knew more about politics then what the read in the mail or the sun, but what can you do? you can’t force people to learn about the governments they are voting for.
louise : “of course there are some who have clear political views at 16, but i doubt that they are in the majority”
Does that mean that when voter turnout falls below 50%, we should stop everyone voting? Let those who want to vote, and are capable of voting, vote. You are right. Most people at 16 won’t vote, so there is no harm done if they are allowed to. The vaaaaaaaaaaaaast majority won’t vote at 12,. but those who want to, and who know what they are talking about, should be able to.
I propose this as an alternative to what i said above. If you want to vote before 18, you ust pass a political knowledge test. The questions will be on basic politcal knowledge (who is PM, leader of opposition, local mayor, what does “first past the post” mean, what is PR, etc.) After 18, have a universal franchise.
i mean that when you are 16 you are far too easily influenced by your peers and your parents then you are at 18. again, that is a massive generalisation, but i think that by the time you are 18 you have enought knowledge/experience of the real world to make up your own mind.
anyway, as with the talk of lowering the driving age, i had to wait until i was 18, so everybody else can bloody well do so too.
Man if I take a defensive driving course I’d be able to get my full license at 17. My birthday is in 6 months. That would be a great if I was driving by 17. But how in all hell am I supposed to enjoy my being a child if I have to work a minimum wage job half the week just so I can afford my car? What really annoys me more than age restrictions is that I get paid 5 dollars for working stupid jobs that are really boring when if taught could be doing a much more intresting job for a lot more money. I’d blow my childhood away if I could have a fun job doing something interesting but no. I’m stuck sitting at a cash register using less of my brain than I am now sitting here reading about. It’s not that I think I’m better than anyone else. It’s just that I don’t think anyone gives teenagers a chance to learn or excel in anything. You’re probably thinking school or will be. School is a joke. It’s the same as the “real world” but worse because you have common people with power. You don’t give people power when they can take it out on me… gawd
That’s more of a totally off topic rant but I figured… hey I’m 16 I can’t figure out how to start another topic.
I don’t think it should be lowered. Let’s face it, at age 16, most people either don’t know enough about the way their country’s government works or they just don’t care. And if you sixteen-year-olds want to rant at me about how I’m stereotyping teenagers, don’t because I’m only fourteen and none of the people I know (including my sixteen-year-old brother) know or care enough to vote.
You are failing to get the point of my argument, Hairy. I Yes, very few teenagers want to vote and are equiped to vote. But some do and know enough to vote. So why should they be denied the opportunity?
HVD you make a good point and i think your political knowledge test idea is possible, however, i still think it wouldnt work. people at 16, even after passing the test, could probably be influenced (for the wrong reasons, that is) easier than older voters. as for myself, i have no intention of voting when im 18 cause i dont agree with just about all the policies of every candidate, but thats another rant.
That’s what I said at the beginning, if the reason to lower the voting age is to reduce voter apathy, it’s just a bad argument, voter apathy exists for other reasons and throwing more voters at the system won’t work. As I said before, in England the only parties I know that are pressing for a lowering of the voting age are the Greens and LibDem because they appeal to the young. But that in itself says something. This appeal dissapears as people grow older or we’d have seen the voting demographic change significantly in the last 8 years.
This is from the Libdem web site mentioned by Pangloss. What did the people in their ealry twenties know that they didn’t know at 16. It’s that as a voter, we’re a drop in the sea, voting changes little, political activism is far more important. If we reduce it to the arbitary age of 16, why not 15 or 14 or let’s just have everyone vote. It’s moe that at 16 most of us are not working, while at 18 there are far more of us in a financially independant position (even Uni students are vaguely independant) than we were at 16. The choice of party thus relects far more on how we want our taxes and such to be governed
Matt, your understanding of any LibDem demographic correlation is based on no real evidence. The reason the Liberal Democrats attract young voters is not because they are viewed as some radical option giving the rebel his cause, it is because they are free from the constraints of left and right when debating political economy, and are hence more likely to base their left-right stance on pragmatic rather than ideological grounds. Also, the ‘ain’t broke so don’t fix it’ attitude can be charged with self-denial, not a likeable characteristic when the welfare of individuals is at stake.
This question I’m asking, is whether there is any real logic in making the age of everything (consent, work, nat. exam, adult fares, die for your country etc…) homogensied, at 16 years.
Matt, do you think that parliamentary democracy will be strengthened or weakened by such a policy?
Not that I’d honestly support either but it’s fun hearing about what people believe.