Not gonna lie, I don't think that I was mature enough at sixteen for my opinion to have mattered on a macro scale.
But do you think you cared more about the future than someone who is 70?
Is voting selfish reasons at 16 naturally better than someone doing the same at 80?
I agree, I probably didn't know enough at the time to make the most informed choice but I was definitely more idealistic, and I think that would have been a good thing.
Also, will there her more policy aimed at improving the lives of 16+ knowing they can vote.
I think the positives out way any downside.
Honestly no, I was a twat at sixteen. But I acknowledge that I'm speaking for myself.
I appreciate your honesty. I would have to say I was still a twat when I started to vote, and was for a long time after.
I agree, this guy was a twat!
I'm j/king. People change all the time, it's okay to acknowledge that.
You're speaking for yourself, me and more or less everyone I hung out with which back then was a decent sized social group. I was barely competent to vote at 18.
100% idiot at 16. No shame admitting it.
Don’t worry, now teens have TikTok which they can source their information from, so we should be safe
When my son turned 16 and my daughter was 18 I had that discussion with them, as I'm a supporter of being allowed to vote with 16.
My 16y old son was against it "Look at all my friends, they don't inform themselves and everyone would been voting for some shit party that promises something"
My answer to that is, most people do. "Being qualified" is not a condition for being able to vote. Yes, there's a line you cross when you grow up, a toddler obviously can't vote yet, an adult can.
But in the end it's arbitrary where you put that line and by moving it down to 16 you can "a bit" influence the relative large weight of older generations in elections.
When I vote, I'll have to live with the consequences for 30y in the best case before I'm worm food. For my kids the number is over 60y.
So regardless of "how qualified to vote" you are, moving down the election age changes the decision making to be of longer term and less of short term.
Most people aren't mature enough their entire lives, but we don't filter them out.
Sure, but I want mature enough at 18 either. A lot of people aren't mature enough at 40 to fully comprehend what they're voting for. We don't enfranchise people with votes based on their level of knowledge though, we do it if they're considered active members of society - and 16 year olds are considered adults in a large amount of their day-to-day life
Im 60 this year and feel the same now. I don't know shit, so not sure i should be asked to vote.
I know I wasn't mature enough, but if being well informed, politically conscious and sensible were a prerequisite for voting, we'd be living in a very different world. As far as I'm concerned, this is most likely to change things for the better.
I was the weird kid who was more politically informed than the average adult, but I'd read the newspaper daily since about 12 or so. Maturity IDK but there are many adults that are less mature than I was.
Seems convenient that it's happening now, under a conservative Labour PM, at the same time that data show that the generation currently around the age of 16 is generally more conservative than their parents.
But aside from that, this seems like a good thing.
But aside from that, this seems like a good thing.
I'm really not sure about that, even if not considering the relation of people from that age to personalized manipulative social media.
If you pay (edit: income) tax, you should have the right to vote. I'm not convinced by all of the catastrophizing about it. Turning 16 unlocks a lot of rights and privileges in the UK and I have faith that teenagers won't be the reason that quality of life worsens.
everyone who buys something in a shop also pays tax, because of VAT. should little Billy, 9 years old, be able to vote because ma' asked him to help her and buy a loaf of bread?
other options include either making it so that teens under 18 can work tax free, or banning people under 18 from working for money (probably the same as the other point practically while also enraging the teens), but I'm afraid that would incentivise more work instead of studying and socialization.
so, by this logic, we either fuck up their youth, ban them from working, or fuck up the whole country with even more voting gullible people.
Sorry, I meant income tax. So little Billy will not be able to vote. My bad, Billy.
You realize your argument here is the same argument used against women being able to vote and black people being able to vote and a numerous others right? They're too gullible. They're not intelligent enough. They'll just do what they're told. All arguments that we've heard before.
Maybe but electoral outcomes can take decades to work out the consequences they have to live with, so it makes some sense.to allow them to have a voice.
When i voted my first time at 18 i wasn't engaged in either the process or the candidates, it took another couple years, so maybe by the time they're 18-20 they will take it seriously and be more engaged rather then by the time i was 22-24.
As a 60 yr old, lefty, I don't think an 80 yr old should have the vote. They had their chance for many, many decades.
I think it's going to completely change how schools are managed.
If some politicians decide to cater to 17 year olds about improving school funding or safety or regulation... we might see changes not based on fear (or they might just stop degrading due to lack of attention).
It can either go terribly wrong or terribly right.
This either makes the far-right radicalize teens at an earlier age, or finally schools no longer will be for 50+ year old bitter people who want the younger generation suffer.
If the young crowd in the US is any indicator, the influence of right-wing propaganda could be very worrying.
As someone who voted for Nick Clegg in their first ever general election vote, I think it's important that we shatter our youth's idealism early and often.
That is beyond stupid. Hell our brains aren't fully developed at 18 , at 16?
Some people make it to their 70's without a fully developed brain.
Some people become president of the world's most heavily armed nation without one
What are your thoughts on people with degenerative brain diseases being able to vote?
Should you have to take a test once you hit 70 to confirm you are still aware enough to vote in an informed way? (Should you be able to work in politics after 70?)
I admit I'm taking it to the extreme to make a point but if you can work and pay tax at 16, I think being able to vote makes sense.
I will say this. As well. I have a 17 year old extremely intelligent son. He works. He ain't ready to vote. He'll be the first to say it as well.
Ironically that's what makes him grounded enough to have a vote imo, with people out there being so susceptible to propaganda and proud of it too it's worth having more stoic views on it
Those are good questions
I do think that our voting public needs more education and we needed to have age appropriate, and yes , at times medical consitions may have to be looked at.
I feel that the last part I can speak to a bit( I am not a doctor or anything) as I grew up with a mother who was left with extreme tbi after an accident but could still function in society.
But she didn't vote. She didn't have any grasp of what was happening politically. She was never told not to, but I think somehow she knew.
Honestly there are ways to disseminate the voting information enough that those who can grasp the vote should.
I have no easy answers though. It's not an easy question
the age limit is not about closing people out entirely, but limit it while they are more gullible. sure there's lots of fools beyond 18, but the concept is that hopefully most people as they ahe, become less so, and much of that process happens around age 18 and somewhat beyond.
now add that kids today are not only exposed to shit spreading on facebook but now tiktok too, and they don't know when they are being deceived. source: I didn't know with facebook when I was in that age.
look, there were not too many elections yet on which I could have voted. but I think even 18 might be too early. I remember that I just missed an election by a few months, and today I'm ashamed of what would have been my choice. I almost voted for a party that looked ashamed of its corrupt past, just because they acknowledged it and promised it wouldn't happen again.
this is not a step forward.
Controversial opinion: I don't see a justification for ANY voting age.
For adults we (rightfully) don't make voting dependent on mental or physical capacity, being dependent on other people, and there also is no upper age limit.
So i wouldn't be opposed to allowing anyone elegible for voting to do so when he/she expresses the wish to do so.
There needs to be some limit. Babies and toddlers don't know shit, plus parents have an extreme amount of coercion over their children until they're teenagers. Also allowing children to vote will result in more political propaganda targeted at children. They deserve to enjoy childhood without worrying about the clusterfuck. I think "teenager" is probably as low as you want to go for the foreseeable future.
Babies and toddlers don't know shit, plus parents have an extreme amount of coercion over their children until they're teenagers.
Like I said we don't make this a prequisite for adults. There are plenty of disabled or old people fully dependent on others.
Also allowing children to vote will result in more political propaganda targeted at children.
That is an interesting point definitely worth debating. Propaganda would definitely be an issue, but this is the case not just in children, but adults alike. On the other hand with children becoming a voting block it might shift the focus slightly on topics benefiting them.
They deserve to enjoy childhood without worrying about the clusterfuck.
True, although I think children pick up a lot regardless. And importantly obliviousness of issues doesn't change how it affects them. Climate change and unfair pension systems for example will affect them regardless, this way they'd at least have a voice.
I think "teenager" is probably as low as you want to go for the foreseeable future.
I can for sure see how opinions can differ on the topic and I'd totally be ok with compromises and accepting some degree of hypocrisy. But nonetheless it's imo worth looking at the issue from the extreme.
As far as compromises go I think another way to go about it would be to have staggered voting with lower limits in more local votes. I could see how it might be more acceptable there for some.
Edit: also regarding babies and toddlers i'd think that they would need to express a desire to vote in some form, which would probably make it so you don't have literal 1 year olds voting (unless they are like an extreme genius, at which point they might aswell and it would only be a single vote of millions). Maybe one compromise would be to require some more active component below a certain age threshold, like having to vote in person for the first time or at least having to register somewhere (which if not done prior would happen automatically at a certain age).
Could age not be an imperfect but good enough proxy for maturity and capability?
the “cold cognition” capacity required for voting is generally formed by age 16 and stable thereafter. A 2019 study with more than 5,000 adolescents from 11 countries found that changes in the prefrontal cortex result in two independent neural pathways for decision making: one is related to digesting information and reasoning, the other operates when choices are made impulsively.ix Tasks such as voting and working are critically related to the first neural pathway, while impulsive behaviour such as criminal activity often relates to the second pathway. A 2021 review of the literature argues that: “taken together, adolescents, on average, are capable of rational, deliberative decision-making supported by their mature cognitive capacities”.x A significant proportion of scientists in the neurodevelopmental field have argued that lowering the voting age is in line with current evidence about adolescent brain development. Many experts assert that a 16-year-old has sufficient cognitive and critical thinking capacities to make political decisions independently.xi Giving adolescents a voice and allowing their participation in matters that affect them through voting would also help fulfill a developmental need for agency and autonomy, which are core developmental tasks in adolescence.
Many young people are well informed about ballot box issues such as COVID-19, climate change, mental health, education and inequality, among other policy issues that affect their lives now and in the future. Young people also display competence in civic education initiatives and public policy related advocacy. Some studies have shown that mid-adolescents have similar levels of political knowledge as young adults. In Brazil, where 16-year-olds are eligible to vote but compulsory voting is limited to those over 18, levels of political knowledge and media consumption are indistinguishable for those above and below 18. Similarly, when the voting age was reduced from 18 to 16 in Austria in 2007, 16- and 17-year-olds were found to be as well informed as 18- to 21-year-olds.
As a young person that vividly remembers what I and people around me were like at that age, I really don't think that we should have been allowed to vote. Optimal age for maturity would probably be around 20.
I’ll believe it when I see it
It's always the far right that's trying to lower the age. I think that says enough.
The right are trying to disenfranchise voters. Lowering the voting age is s classic leftist move
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/