The Shining Source

An important question indeed, when I was 16 i didn't really care.

But if you can have sex and pay tax at 16 surely you should get the vote?

I put this to the YoB panel of experts, opinions please.

No. And I'm 16.

I have quite an interest in politics, its why I'm almost a complete loner, any attempts to bring it up in a conversation at school would be immediatly ended within 4 seconds ( usualy with "Shut up Mike no one cares" ). If 16 year olds "dont care" then its unlikely they are going to vote, or if they do, it'll be randomly generated or whatever their parents vote for, not their own opinion. That is why I say no to voting for 16 and 17 year olds.

Mind you, I live in the south west, 16-17 year olds might have a different majority opinion on politics in the more urban areas.

Hmm... I don't know.

I know that the majority of youngsters in Holland from around that age don't really care who they vote on (I only started developing interest in politics a year or two ago) and when I was in high school, I don't remember EVER hearing a debate on politics.

But if there's been testing done and it shows that sufficient people in that age category are interested in voting, I think it should be made possible. If only 10% of the voters are gonna show up, might as well leave it at 18.

From what I remember of my old school, nobody could even be bothered voting in student elections, so what are the chances of people that age wanting to vote for something that actually matters? And Tomahawk's right, nobody in England votes anyway, it's just that politicians think youngsters are much more malleable/gullible than older folk (witness Labour's fabulous "couldn't give a XXXX for closing time?" stunt at the last election], so they want easy votes.

It all depends on whether each region gets their own assembly, really. Who knows what Labour are doing to the country? I certainly don't. I doubt they do either

Isnt Labour ( or just Tony Blair doing what he wants like usual ) the only party actualy intrested in the vote for 16 year olds ? In a way it'll be a kick in the leg for youth parliment, as its the only real reason they exist at the moment, if votes for 16's come in, what the hell they gunna try to pass next ? votes for 11+ ?

Hell, there might come a day when you take your child from play school over to the ballot box, where they get to insert the wooden shape through the star shaped hole, and give them a lollipop for voting ( a ?5 million insentive programme funded by the taxpayer. Thats alot of lollipops ).

Most people don't vote when their 18.  So, no.  It's just more reasons for the government to brag about the countries rights, even though it's shit no one cares about.

i think younger people voting is an excellent idea, personally.  I've found that quite often adults are to wrapped up in adulthood to see painfully obvious things right in front of their faces, and younger people assisting in decision-making could help to make the right decisions.

I would say no - at least in Germany you arn't considered "fully responsible" of what you do at the age of 16 (like when you comit a crime you get a softer treatment for that) and IMHO people should at least be that to be allowed to vote.

Nevertheless there are several thoughts involved here:
a)people care less about politics (the stats are decreasing everywhere and that ain't only the young ones faults)
b)is it a necassary to be interested to care about politics to be allowed to vote? Obviously not - as the above holds.
c)Modern politics is more and more about personality than topics - as far as I can see that holds in America, Germany, Russia, probably also England (can't talk about the other coutnries tho ;-) ) and anyone can judge a personality
d)especially young people are easy to convince, so many politicians will hope for that

Personally I think everyone who is able should be allowed to vote. Dumb people are of all ages, and its not like voting is detrimental to your health...

Not sure if anyone of you read the book "Starship Troopers" - it differs a bit from the movie and it has a nice idea:

Those who want to vote have to serve in the army for a certain time. That may sound weird but the idea is that only those who give everything (->their life) for their country are responsible enough to vote.

I think it is an interesting idea to restrict the voters to those really interested and responsible - of course it is nearly impossible (which criterion do you want to use - military/social service, intelligence/knowledge,...) but the idea itself ain't that bad - reminds me of anarchy - nice idea but impossible to use.

You don't necessarily need to serve in the Army to show you contribute. Paying taxes is contributing. And you pay taxes every time you: Drive on a motorway, shop, light your room, buy a video game, connect on the internet, ...

That's the difference - paying taxes doesn't really hurt but risking your life (and consider a situation like WW2) really hurts.
And as I said the idea is to limit the number of those voting (and being elected) to a smaller number of more capable people.
I mean look back on your life and think about the old Kennedy saying: "Don't ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country".
That's more or less the idea behind that.

But what's the use and risk of joining the army in times of peace?

A situation like WW2 most likely won't happen again, warfare has turned more into urban warfare rather than the huge numbers of troops against each other, with all the intelligent weapons there are nowadays. It's not really about how many troops you have, it's about how well trained and equipped they are.

And I'm questioning another part of your statement... who says you're more capable of voting if you've been in the army?

(Disclaimer for the smartey pants people: Yes, I know bEn says so, but I don't see the logic behind it)

Exactly that's the problem with Heinlein's idea. Nowadays it's no sign of "giving all you have for the community" if you join the army - it's more like you don't know what else to do.... which is why the idea ain't usuable - this patriotism is simply not measurable. Next to that it doesn't say anything about intelligence and stuff ....  ;-)

I just thought it's an interesting idea especially if you turn it around:
If you don't care about the country, why should you be allowed to have an influence on political decisions?

One last thing: Heinlein in  fact didn't write that they HAD to join the army but do a "Federal Service" to be allowed to vote. Nevertheless the army connection is the only mentioned possibility but considering our system in Germany (we have a conscription based system) you may also do some other kind of social service.

A funny sidenote - Heinlein once said: