Even today people want to limit Suffrage

[Demogorgon]

On Yahoo UK, there is an article calling for a reduction in the voting age to 16 as you can see here:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/42040/

The article itself is inoffensive, but if you read the comments at the bottom, you will find great hostility to the idea, some also saying it was a mistake to have reduced the voting age to 18!

It is quite stunning really. The same arguments are being deployed as were deployed against votes at eighteen as were deployed against Female Suffrage, as were deployed against abolition of Property Qualifications as were deployed against reducing said Property Qualifications-and if you want to throw in certain countries-as were deployed against non-racial suffrage.

Personally I would actually see 16 as being the very highest any age of voting should be. For local affairs at least it should be lower still, but a reduction to 16 would be a good start and in Britain at least is probably only a matter of time, and here in Scotland if the power to set the voting age is devolved it will be lowered immediately.

But as I say, what really strikes me is the comments. Commenters on the Yahoo website are perhaps not the best known examples of sensible thinking, but all the same it is striking how easily people forget the history of the fight for the vote (or simply never knew it in the first place). The default position for many people seems to be to want to deny suffrage to any given group and get them to justify why they should have it, not to have a presumption in favour of granting it, and that isn't on quite frankly.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Ahem, did it really surprise you to find that people still want to put an age limit on the right to vote?

Really?

[swirling_vortex]

Yahoo comments are like YouTube comments. They set your standard for humanity a little lower. :p

I don't know, when I was 16, I really didn't care for politics yet. If the US was to do something similar, the Republicans might throw a fit since youngsters tend to vote more liberal, but I don't think it'll really make too much of a difference.

[jake williams]

Yahoo comments are like YouTube comments. They set your standard for humanity a little lower. :p
This is true.

That said, there is a lot of hostility - yes, even on the left (though as a person who probably leans a little Marxist I can say the anarchists have a far better track record on this) - to anything involving rights for people under 18. It's one of my main personal political focuses and I notice.

[Ele'ill]

I think if the age to vote is wiped out or lowered there will be a media blitz to try and mind fuck that entire demographic. (an even bigger blitz than the slow and peaceful soft-core hip motion that we see now.)

Although on second thought - what I just typed doesn't make any sense as most adults that vote have been kids at some point in their life...

But maybe they've rejected what they felt as a kid and have moved on...


:closedeyes:

[jake williams]

One of the big ironies of voting age presently is that so many people end up "reverting back" to how their parents voted in their own thirties or forties; thus sort of nullifying (not entirely of course, but to a substantial degree) that it would be pointless to give younger people the vote because they'll just be influenced by their parents. Because we all know that 14 year olds love doing and thinking whatever their parents do. (Not to mention of course, that a similar argument could be given for not giving women the vote).

[Revy]

The Socialist Party USA supports lowering it to 15.
The voting age was 21 in the US until the 70's.
I think it's good to allow teens to vote.

There are a number of states where the voting age is below 18 (including Cuba). In these countries, it's either 17 or 16.

On the other hand, there are countries where it is still above 18. Uzbekistan even has a voting age of 25!

[Green Dragon]

As knowledge is not considered a criteria for voting, why not extend the sufferage to dogs and cats?

[ComradeOm]

As knowledge is not considered a criteria for voting, why not extend the sufferage to dogs and cats?Because they lack a capacity to reason and/or are not considered citizens of the state? Just a suggestion

Really though, are you seriously comparing a teenager to a pet?

[Vanguard1917]

It is quite stunning really. The same arguments are being deployed as were deployed against votes at eighteen as were deployed against Female Suffrage, as were deployed against abolition of Property Qualifications as were deployed against reducing said Property Qualifications-and if you want to throw in certain countries-as were deployed against non-racial suffrage.

Yet there seems to be a very clear difference. Those disfranchised groups organised, fought for and demaded the right to vote. As such, they asserted themselves as political subjects (and called for the right to vote as part of an often much broader political struggle). Is there any evidence of such a movement among 16 and 17 year-olds today? There is all this talk about 'empowering youngsters' and 'making them engage', but the obvious point in response to that is that working men, women and black groups (often with very young people in their ranks) did not wait to be empowered and engaged by others; they did that themselves. Political agency does not come from above. Sixteen and 17 year-olds can't become political subjects through top-down initiatives.

Also, one of the main motivations for expanding suffrage today seems to be the attempt to solve the problems of the political system. As turnouts at election times reach all-time lows and people are less and less likely to engage with the politics of the establishment, lowering the minimum voting age is being seen by some as some kind of possible remedy. More voters being out there is hoped to increase engagement and thus the legitimacy of the 'democratic system'. In reality, of course, the problems of political systems throughout the Western world have far deeper causes than is thought, and simply throwing more voters into the mix will not fix them.

[Demogorgon]

Yet there seems to be a very clear difference. Those disfranchised groups organised, fought for and demaded the right to vote. As such, they asserted themselves as political subjects (and called for the right to vote as part of an often much broader political struggle). Is there any evidence of such a movement among 16 and 17 year-olds today? There is all this talk about 'empowering youngsters' and 'making them engage', but the obvious point in response to that is that working men, women and black groups (often with very young people in their ranks) did not wait to be empowered and engaged by others; they did that themselves. Political agency does not come from above. Sixteen and 17 year-olds can't become political subjects through top-down initiatives.

Also, one of the main motivations for expanding suffrage today seems to be the attempt to solve the problems of the political system. As turnouts at election times reach all-time lows and people are less and less likely to engage with the politics of the establishment, lowering the minimum voting age is being seen by some as some kind of possible remedy. More voters being out there is hoped to increase engagement and thus the legitimacy of the 'democratic system'. In reality, of course, the problems of political systems throughout the Western world have far deeper causes than is thought, and simply throwing more voters into the mix will not fix them.I am not disputing that the problem with modern politics is rather more than sixteen and seventeen year olds not having the vote, but I am not quite sure what you are saying. There is a movement amongst the young for a reduction in the voting age, perhaps more so than there was for reducing it to eighteen thirty or forty years back.

At any rate though, regardless of the source of an expansion in suffrage, is it to be opposed? I know there are some here who want to say that voting is irrelevant and that the expansion or otherwise of suffrage is meaningless, but would they then say they don't think past expansions mattered? Giving women the right to vote was an important part of establishing women as people worthy of equal treatment to men. The same can be said of giving the vote to younger people.

[Vanguard1917]

At any rate though, regardless of the source of an expansion in suffrage, is it to be opposed?


It's not so much a matter of opposing it as of pointing out that political agency cannot be granted from above, but is formed actively by the people themselves, as it was by the groups which you used for comparison (blacks, women, and working men).

The idea that the right to vote should be extended by others to under-18s as a way of 'engaging them' and 'empowering' them gets things the wrong way around. That's what we need to emphasise. Political engagement and empowerment were not merely granted to previously disfranchised groups; it was demanded, fought for and won by them.


I know there are some here who want to say that voting is irrelevant and that the expansion or otherwise of suffrage is meaningless, but would they then say they don't think past expansions mattered? Giving women the right to vote was an important part of establishing women as people worthy of equal treatment to men

I certainly am not one of those who regards the expansion of suffrage as 'meaningless'. But where we seem to differ is that, while you believe that women were 'given' the vote, i see it as women having won the right to vote through struggle. Women weren't invited into politics by well-meaning people who wanted to 'engage' and 'empower' them. They demanded and fought for their political rights -- and forced their way in.


There is a movement amongst the young for a reduction in the voting age.

Is there? Where? If there is any active 'movement' to lower the voting age, it seems to be a movement led by people who are neither 16 nor 17, but older, asking for the extension of the vote on behalf of 16 and 17 year-olds as a way of making them 'engage' with politics, civil society, etc. Again, that's the fundamental difference between their 'movement' and the movements of the other disfrachised groups to which you referred.

[Demogorgon]

It's not so much a matter of opposing it as of pointing out that political agency cannot be granted from above, but is formed actively by the people themselves, as it was by the groups to which you used for comparison (blacks, women, and working men).

The idea that the right to vote should be extended by others to under-18s as a way of 'engaging them' and 'empowering' them gets things the wrong way around. That's what we need to emphasise. Political engagement and empowerment were not merely granted to previously disfranchised groups; it was demanded, fought for and won by them.

To an extent, the vote was "given" to other groups as well. Female Suffrage at the national level in the UK had to be fought for hard but at the local level it came about much more readily. Similarly in parts of the Middle East, it came more from Western than internal pressure. Does that take away the fact that it was beneficial?

If you object to my examples though, the one that can't be disputed is the reduction of the voting age to 18. In Japan for instance, where the voting age is still 20, the Government has announced pretty much out of the blue it will reduce it to 18, without there being that substantial a movement towards it. Again is it to be sneered at? The reason the Government is reducing it is westernisation, not a youth movement but it still isn't a bad thing. Similarly the reduction in Britain was more down to the Labour Party realising that more young voters would give it an electoral advantage. In America of course there was a clear youth movement involvement but in Europe and other places that is harder to see. You can be cynical about these things, but it doesn't change the fact that expansion of suffrage is a good thing, and moreover, as was the original intent of this thread, that opposition to it is virtually always reactionary.


I certainly am not one of those who regards the expansion of suffrage as 'meaningless'. But where we seem to differ is that, while you believe that women were 'given' the vote, i see it as women having won the right to vote through struggle. Women weren't invited into politics by well-meaning people who wanted to 'engage' and 'empower' them. They demanded and fought for their political rights -- and forced their way in.

You are playing semantics here. Obviously in most Western countries and a fair few non Western ones too, female suffrage was won after quite a struggle (to put it mildly), the word "given" was simply used in its place. Moreover it perhaps fits this particular argument in this case, because in areas where female suffrage came with relatively little fuss (parts of Australia for example) it still improved the lot of women by a great deal.

But again, are you suggesting that the fact that youth may receive political rights more easily than women did makes the case less worthwhile? Times change and political rhetoric changes with it, hence words like "empower" and "engage" come into play whereas they didn't a hundred years ago. Don't dismiss something just because something else came before.



Is there? Where? If there is any active 'movement' to lower the voting age, it seems to be a movement led by people who are neither 16 nor 17, but older, asking for the extension of the vote on behalf of 16 and 17 year-olds as a way of making them 'engage' with politics, civil society, etc. Again, that's the fundamental difference between their 'movement' and the movements of the other disfrachised groups to which you referred.
The fight for female suffrage included men. The fight for abolition of property qualifications included those whop already met those qualifications and so on. Did this lessen the struggle somehow? Moreover sixteen and seventeen year olds make up a fairly small proportion of society and don't stay sixteen or seventeen for very long anyway so a mass movement of them with a long term goal seems pretty unrealistic, especially as you seem to suggest that it isn't their fight anymore once they turn eighteen.

Voting age reduction isn't something that has merely come out of the Government. The idea has been rattling around for years in progressive circles ranging from social liberals to Communists. It is just that now it has become loud enough that Governments are noticing and are starting to take action. This wouldn't have been possible if the movement had actually been confined to youth because youth aren't youth long enough for that!

And again, even if this were something that came down from above, that still wouldn't invalidate it. We reject top down change because we believe it rarely if ever comes. That doesn't mean that on the rare occasions it does turn up we should somehow reject it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Don't you still have to be at least 21 to be an MP?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Don't you still have to be at least 21 to be an MP?
In Ireland you have to be at least 35 to run for president. :laugh:

[Demogorgon]

Don't you still have to be at least 21 to be an MP?I think it might have been reduced a few years ago. I am not entirely sure though.

Edit: Certainly there are now teenagers in local Government (quite a lot in Scotland actually since the change in the voting system) but I can't remember if it was extended to Parliament as well.

[Robert]

Minimum age is 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Administration_Act_2006

[ArdentCapitalist]

You are not allowed to vote while you are under 18 because you are not considered a full adult yet who is capable of reason. If you want something to complain about, it's the inconsistency inherent in having the "criminally adult" age at 17 and the "legal adult" age at 18 as some states do.


The restriction is only as arbitrary as the age of adulthood itself is.

[Vanguard1917]

The fight for female suffrage included men. The fight for abolition of property qualifications included those whop already met those qualifications and so on.


I said that the 'movement' is led by and largely made up of people older than 16 and 17, not that it 'includes' such people. That shows that it's not really 16 and 17 year-olds who are actively demanding suffrage; other people are doing it for them, supposedly on their behalf. My point is that that's not how real political agency is formed.

[Bud Struggle]

You are not allowed to vote while you are under 18 because you are not considered a full adult yet who is capable of reason. If you want something to complain about, it's the inconsistency inherent in having the "criminally adult" age at 17 and the "legal adult" age at 18 as some states do.


The restriction is only as arbitrary as the age of adulthood itself is.

Which is a good point. If the age for voting is lowered so should the age someone is able to make a legal contract and be tried in criminal court as an adult and I don't know if teenage pranks should result in 14 year olders doing 5-10 in the state penn.

[Demogorgon]

I said that the 'movement' is led by and largely made up of people older than 16 and 17, not that it 'includes' such people. That shows that it's not really 16 and 17 year-olds who are actively demanding suffrage; other people are doing it for them, supposedly on their behalf. My point is that that's not how real political agency is formed.
And like I say, it is utterly impractical for a movement centred around sixteen and seventeen year olds to form because such movements need to be last and sixteen and seventeen year olds are simply not that age long enough for such a movement to be practical if people no longer "count" at eighteen.

[Demogorgon]

Which is a good point. If the age for voting is lowered so should the age someone is able to make a legal contract and be tried in criminal court as an adult and I don't know if teenage pranks should result in 14 year olders doing 5-10 in the state penn.
Why? Older teenagers should be voting because Government affects them, not because they ought to be treated as adults in all ways. I am not saying that people not yet old enough to be treated as full adults should have rights and responsibilities they are not yet ready for thrust upon them. But rather that people are affected by Government long before they reach adulthood and have maturity enough to vote if not to make binding contracts. Again, I am not advocating children voting but rather putting the voting age somewhere between fourteen and sixteen. Perhaps gaining local voting rights at fourteen and having them added to at fifteen with full voting rights at sixteen.

Incidentally BTW, in Scotland, a large number of adult rights and responsibilities come at sixteen, not eighteen and sixteen year olds often face adult courts (though of course our justice system isn't as cruel as yours so excessive sentences to teenagers are far less common), so it is particularly outrageous they still don't have the vote.

[Bud Struggle]

Why? Older teenagers should be voting because Government affects them, not because they ought to be treated as adults in all ways. I am not saying that people not yet old enough to be treated as full adults should have rights and responsibilities they are not yet ready for thrust upon them. But rather that people are affected by Government long before they reach adulthood and have maturity enough to vote if not to make binding contracts. Again, I am not advocating children voting but rather putting the voting age somewhere between fourteen and sixteen. Perhaps gaining local voting rights at fourteen and having them added to at fifteen with full voting rights at sixteen.


Well when one votes one makes the most important decision one can make as a citizen. The decision of how to rule. It should be more important than the right to sign legal documents because your decision to vote one way or other affects all of society, not just yourself.

If one has to have the full rights of a citizen to decide the fate of your nation one must be able to accept the consequences of that maturity. I would even suggest that conscription into the armed forces in time of war be included in the rights of a voting citizen at any age.

[Demogorgon]

Well when one votes one makes the most important decision one can make as a citizen. The decision of how to rule. It should be more important than the right to sign legal documents because your decision to vote one way or other affects all of society, not just yourself.

If one has to have the full rights of a citizen to decide the fate of your nation one must be able to accept the consequences of that maturity. I would even suggest that conscription into the armed forces in time of war be included in the rights of a voting citizen at any age.
Don't fetishise voting. In the scheme of things your individual vote doesn't actually mean very much anyway, so you are not making a grand decision. And as a result of this, any contract you sign is inevitably going to have much more impact on you. For instance the actions of the bank or your employer (two areas where you will sign plenty of contracts) are very likely to affect you more than the actions of the Government (not that liberal capitalism seems to see much need for democracy in those areas) so you are going to need more maturity to sign those contracts.

At any rate though, the right to vote must not be seen as some kind of privilege to be earned. It should be granted to everybody affected by the Government that can use it. Young children shouldn't have it, because that would just be giving their parents extra votes but by teenage years when they are gaining more independence from their parents and start to see the effect the law has upon them, they should be able to take part in the process. The fact they are not yet fully adults and are not yet ready to take on certain other adult rights and responsibilities simply isn't relevant here. The argument should solely be based on whether they are competent to vote and I have yet to see any evidence they are not.

As for conscription, that is ridiculous, particularly linking it to voting. It essentially states that any voter should have loyalty to their Government, which somewhat defeats the purpose of being able to vote a Government out of office.

[Bud Struggle]

Don't fetishise voting. In the scheme of things your individual vote doesn't actually mean very much anyway, so you are not making a grand decision.

You would think if that were the case that governments around the world would be much more relaxed in giving the vote to their citizens. But no so much. There's a billion.3 people in China that don't have the vote--and lots of other places in the world. My parents came to America from pre WWII Poland--and they saw the vote as something to be respected and cherished. I feel something of the same.

If you want the vote--if you thing that you are responsible enough to decide on the general welfare of all citizens--you should be mature enough in other areas of your life, too.

[Qayin]

I'm 16 and I would love to vote

Most kids my age are idiots though

[Demogorgon]

You would think if that were the case that governments around the world would be much more relaxed in giving the vote to their citizens. But no so much. There's a billion.3 people in China that don't have the vote--and lots of other places in the world. My parents came to America from pre WWII Poland--and they saw the vote as something to be respected and cherished. I feel something of the same.

If you want the vote--if you thing that you are responsible enough to decide on the general welfare of all citizens--you should be mature enough in other areas of your life, too.
Before I begin, I really have to say it is a bit rich to venerate the vote above all else and then want to restrict it. Anyway:

Everyone over the age of 18 in China does have the vote and at the local level it can even help make a substantial difference, it is just that the voter is shut out of virtually all decision making at the higher level. In all societies to one extent or another the power of the vote will be limited for the benefit of the elite. The American vote is less limited that the Chinese vote obviously as is the British vote less limited than the American vote as is the Swiss vote less limited than the British vote and so on, but all are limited, all keep the citizen at a distance from actual decision making and shut them out entirely from decisions made by powerful non-Governmental groups.

All of the above is vintage Demogorgon of course, I've said it so many times that I can churn it out on auto-pilot, the real point of argument is no matter how limited, the vote does grant some degree of influence (and the more influence the better, that's why America is more free than China for example) and hence all people affected by Government ought to take part in it provided they are capable of doing so. Teenagers have that level of capability regardless of their level of capability elsewhere.

Voting must not be a privilege to be earned. It has to be a cast iron right that is not to be taken away and should be granted as soon as it can be independently exercised (I accept children shouldn't vote because they are more shielded from Government as well as the fact that any vote for them would just be another for their parents, but by the time someone is fifteen or sixteen it is a different story).

Incidentally America is great at deciding that people aren't mature enough to do things even once they hit voting age; the ridiculous alcohol laws for instance. So it wouldn't exactly be unprecedented to have the voting age lower than the age for doing other things.

[Bud Struggle]

Before I begin, I really have to say it is a bit rich to venerate the vote above all else and then want to restrict it. I don't want to restrict it--but like driving I like it to be done with people competent to do it without harming others. IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY.


Anyway:

Everyone over the age of 18 in China does have the vote and at the local level it can even help make a substantial difference, it is just that the voter is shut out of virtually all decision making at the higher level. I know, they have all the say in the world over storm sewer routs but nothing of consequence. That's not THE VOTE.



In all societies to one extent or another the power of the vote will be limited for the benefit of the elite. The American vote is less limited that the Chinese vote obviously as is the British vote less limited than the American vote as is the Swiss vote less limited than the British vote and so on, but all are limited, all keep the citizen at a distance from actual decision making and shut them out entirely from decisions made by powerful non-Governmental groups.

All of the above is vintage Demogorgon of course, I've said it so many times that I can churn it out on auto-pilot, the real point of argument is no matter how limited, the vote does grant some degree of influence (and the more influence the better, that's why America is more free than China for example) and hence all people affected by Government ought to take part in it provided they are capable of doing so.

And a fine auto-pilot it is. I must say, your posts never fail to enlighten and instruct me. I have been in awe of you since I posted a video of people in a room singing the Internationale and you knew the cute blonde in the front row.


Teenagers have that level of capability regardless of their level of capability elsewhere. Do you think? Ever been ever to Stormfront? Styish place for teens. Do you think the gains by the BNP in Britain are from 30 somethings? Further--if a person can't take care of him/herself, how could they be expected to understand how it is to take care of society?


Voting must not be a privilege to be earned. I agree--but here in the US and in Britain and in other places people did fight and die to earn that privledge. That should be respected.



It has to be a cast iron right that is not to be taken away and should be granted as soon as it can be independently exercised (I accept children shouldn't vote because they are more shielded from Government as well as the fact that any vote for them would just be another for their parents, but by the time someone is fifteen or sixteen it is a different story). I think essentially what defines "children" is pretty important here. If you live at home and can't support yourself--to me, you are a child. Making your way in this world is something I consider important. Others think differently of course, but how could you say governmental decisions "affect" you when you don't bear the brunt of those decisions?


Incidentally America is great at deciding that people aren't mature enough to do things even once they hit voting age; the ridiculous alcohol laws for instance. So it wouldn't exactly be unprecedented to have the voting age lower than the age for doing other things. Well the issue there is if you lower the drinking age--kids die in horriffic numbers in traffic accidents and OD's. With freedom come responsibility. It's problematic to say the least.

[Demogorgon]

I don't want to restrict it--but like driving I like it to be done with people competent to do it without harming others. IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY.Well we restrict driving after all. But it is interesting that you say it should be done without harming others. What makes you think sixteen year olds are more likely to do harm with their votes than others? I reckon the group doing most harm with their vote in the United States for instance is the Evangelical Right. I don't advocate taking the vote from them though.


I know, they have all the say in the world over storm sewer routs but nothing of consequence. That's not THE VOTE.

Well it depends what you mean by "the vote". I agree it is virtually meaningless in terms of popular control of Government, but it is really just an extreme form of what you see everywhere, voting power being limited by the elite. The principal difference with America is that in America the vote is just about powerful enough to put certain firm checks on the Government which can then filter through to allowing a little bit of a check on other centres of power. It is still a long way from proper citizen running of Government though.



And a fine auto-pilot it is. I must say, your posts never fail to enlighten and instruct me. I have been in awe of you since I posted a video of people in a room singing the Internationale and you knew the cute blonde in the front row.Well I suppose it would be churlish to deny that that was one of my finer moments.


Do you think? Ever been ever to Stormfront? Styish place for teens. Do you think the gains by the BNP in Britain are from 30 somethings? Further--if a person can't take care of him/herself, how could they be expected to understand how it is to take care of society? Well the BNP's largest voting base is over-fifties.


I agree--but here in the US and in Britain and in other places people did fight and die to earn that privledge. That should be respected.

I don't think opposing further expansion of the right to vote is the best way of showing respect myself.

I think essentially what defines "children" is pretty important here. If you live at home and can't support yourself--to me, you are a child. Making your way in this world is something I consider important. Others think differently of course, but how could you say governmental decisions "affect" you when you don't bear the brunt of those decisions?The Government assumes far more power to restrict what kids and particularly teenagers do than it does Adults. Fortunately this country does not have curfew laws but the police do have a lot of power to do things to under eighteens that they can't do to (sober) adults. Also of course the Government is involved heavily in things like education.

I should add as well, as you cannot possibly be expected to know this, that in Scotland sixteen is the age when your parents are no longer obliged to support you, when you become eligible for income tax, when you can join the army, when you can leave school, when you can enter into full time adult employment, when you start making National Insurance contributions (roughly equivalent to social security), get married or enter a civil partnership (our name for gay marriage), vote in health board elections once the bill finally makes its way through parliament and so on.

Driving comes at Seventeen so other than the right to vote eighteen merely brings tobacco (itself available at sixteen until last year), alcohol and the ability to enter binding contracts to borrow money. You can see why it irritates a lot of people here that sixteens aren't allowed to vote. Indeed as I pointed out in my first post, Scotland is very behind voting at 16 as a rule. The Government is almost fanatical about it. It is the UK Government, rather than the Scottish one that sets the voting age at present though and they are a bit less minded to change.


Well the issue there is if you lower the drinking age--kids die in horriffic numbers in traffic accidents and OD's. With freedom come responsibility. It's problematic to say the least.
I don't want to drag the thread onto this topic, but given that the US has both a higher drinking age than virtually everywhere outside the Islamic world and more problems with drink driving and the like than most, the ludicrously high drinking age isn't quite working as intended.

[Ele'ill]

If they suddenly lifted the drinking age in the US so anybody could purchase and consume alcohol - how many deaths do you think there would be that night?

[Bud Struggle]

Well we restrict driving after all. But it is interesting that you say it should be done without harming others. What makes you think sixteen year olds are more likely to do harm with their votes than others? I reckon the group doing most harm with their vote in the United States for instance is the Evangelical Right. I don't advocate taking the vote from them though. OUCH! You are lettin your personal political beliefs get in the way. I could care less about political sway. I care about an informed intelligent decision--no matter which way the vote may fall. AS A CAPITALIST I have no problem if people voted Socialist--if that if the concencious of the people. I just don't want people leaned over toone side of another by some pop star.


Well it depends what you mean by "the vote". I agree it is virtually meaningless in terms of popular control of Government, but it is really just an extreme form of what you see everywhere, voting power being limited by the elite. The principal difference with America is that in America the vote is just about powerful enough to put certain firm checks on the Government which can then filter through to allowing a little bit of a check on other centres of power. It is still a long way from proper citizen running of Government though. I agree America isn't perfect--but just the fact that Obama got in--is a clear indicator that people have some power.

He wasn't the choice of my country club.


Well I suppose it would be churlish to deny that that was one of my finer moments. :thumbup1:


Well the BNP's largest voting base is over-fifties. So is everyone elses.


I don't think opposing further expansion of the right to vote is the best way of showing respect myself.The Government assumes far more power to restrict what kids and particularly teenagers do than it does Adults. Fortunately this country does not have curfew laws but the police do have a lot of power to do things to under eighteens that they can't do to (sober) adults. You have to be careful here--a group of middle aged business men with a few drinks in them aren't going to get involved in breaking and entering--some teenagers might. The police aren't stupid--they play the odds. Though I must say I was a teenager and I never got hassled by the police.


Also of course the Government is involved heavily in things like education. All hatefully local. We prayed to Jesus at our last PTA meeting! I felt quite the renegade. :lol:


I should add as well, as you cannot possibly be expected to know this, that in Scotland sixteen is the age when your parents are no longer obliged to support you, when you become eligible for income tax, when you can join the army, when you can leave school, when you can enter into full time adult employment, when you start making National Insurance contributions (roughly equivalent to social security), get married or enter a civil partnership (our name for gay marriage), vote in health board elections once the bill finally makes its way through parliament and so on. FINE. IF you do any of that--you are more than welcome to vote. Stay at home in Mum's Garage--I'd think you should be treated differently. If you are you suggesting "vote by merit" I'm all for it.


I don't want to drag the thread onto this topic, but given that the US has both a higher drinking age than virtually everywhere outside the Islamic world and more problems with drink driving and the like than most, the ludicrously high drinking age isn't quite working as intended.

Well agreed there: America teenager are fucked up--but so are American adults. :rolleyes:

(The wine is taking over..forgive me for the paucity of my argument here.;))

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You would think if that were the case that governments around the world would be much more relaxed in giving the vote to their citizens. But no so much. There's a billion.3 people in China that don't have the vote--and lots of other places in the world. My parents came to America from pre WWII Poland--and they saw the vote as something to be respected and cherished. I feel something of the same.

If you want the vote--if you thing that you are responsible enough to decide on the general welfare of all citizens--you should be mature enough in other areas of your life, too.
I do think Demogorgon has a point. It's all about consent of the governed, and voluntarily assumed rights/obligations. It's hard to justify lowering the age at which a person can enter a contract on the same grounds on which the lowering of the voting age is justified because they're two different things. When you enter into a contract, you are choosing to enter into a relationship with another which will impose rights and obligations upon you. The government, through its laws, imposes rights and obligations on all citizens so whether or not you are able to vote you are affected by its actions. It's not as if not voting makes you immune to the actions of the government, whereas not being able to enter into a contract does make you immune from the effects of any contract you may otherwise have entered.

Being tried for a crime is another story. I don't necessarily think the age at which one can be tried for a crime should be linked to the voting age, but you certainly shouldn't be able to vote before you can be tried for a crime IMO. Usually I would say it should be the other way round.

[RGacky3]

I under stand that pricnipally it makes a differerence, however, really I don't vote, probably never will, and really voting is pointless, essnecially, unless your in a swing state or something big is on the line. Even then, I can have a greater impact on my life by collecting coupons. :P

Voting is'nt sacred, not even close. Its rubber stamping and a way to pacify people.


I agree--but here in the US and in Britain and in other places people did fight and die to earn that privledge. That should be respected.

Really? When was that?

[Demogorgon]

OUCH! You are lettin your personal political beliefs get in the way. I could care less about political sway. I care about an informed intelligent decision--no matter which way the vote may fall. AS A CAPITALIST I have no problem if people voted Socialist--if that if the concencious of the people. I just don't want people leaned over toone side of another by some pop star. I'm not, I am indicating what I believe is the group causing the greatest damage through voting, really I fail to see why voting on the basis of a pop star is bad, but on the basis of a televangelist is acceptable.

At any rate though, people are influenced to vote by celebrities anyway, there is no real reason to think sixteen and seventeen year olds will be any more likely to than others. And even if it were the case, it doesn't follow that that is necessarily harmful. It may be a waste of a vote, but it harms others far less than voting for a more dangerous candidate or party.


I agree America isn't perfect--but just the fact that Obama got in--is a clear indicator that people have some power.

He wasn't the choice of my country club.Maybe not, but he is still fairly tame and more significantly, if he does rock the boat, he will soon find he is heavily constrained. It isn't so common in the United States, but over here radicals occasionally do get into power but soon find that there are plenty of ways for the establishment to go around them. To take an example Tony Benn is a well known British politician of the left who was a Cabinet Minister in the sixties and seventies. Before he became a minister he believed that the system could be used to change things, it was only when he held very high office that he learned otherwise. To quote him:

"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."


So is everyone elses.
That's not true, you will find if you analyse voting patterns in the UK, different parties draw on quite different demographics. The BNP very heavily draws on older people, rather undermining your view that teenagers are more likely to back such parties.


You have to be careful here--a group of middle aged business men with a few drinks in them aren't going to get involved in breaking and entering--some teenagers might. The police aren't stupid--they play the odds. Though I must say I was a teenager and I never got hassled by the police. That wasn't my point. I wasn't talking about police behaviour, but the powers conferred upon them by statute. Police have plenty of power to deal with trouble makers of all sorts but have extra powers that they can exclusively use against under-18s, most of which have no justification and were only granted to satisfy tabloid youth bashing.

If the youth are going to be the subject of so much extra legislation then they should sure as hell have a say in it. I don't think it is very difficult to see the irony that we only gain a say in youth legislation once it ceases to apply to us. I don't find it particularly fair that I can vote on what happens to under 18s but they can't.


FINE. IF you do any of that--you are more than welcome to vote. Stay at home in Mum's Garage--I'd think you should be treated differently. If you are you suggesting "vote by merit" I'm all for it.

That wasn't my point. My point was that sixteen year olds are considered adults in the vast majority of areas under Scots Law but still are denied the right to vote. Something I find ridiculous.

[fiddlesticks]

If people are considered adults at 16, than 16 should be the voting age. Voting is an adult privilege, it is not fair to call them adults and deny them suffrage for 2 more years.