Is it considered good? I don't think many people at 16 really care about politics. But I am absolutely sure that there are many imbeciles at 16 who would vote even for a goat "just for giggles".
turnout of 16- to 17-year-olds in the Vienna elections was estimated to be 64.2% and thus significantly and substantially higher than the turnout of 18–20-year-olds, which was 56.3%. In Krems turnout of 16- and 17-year-olds was 56.3% and substantially higher than turnout of older first-time voters (46.3%)
In Germany you can also vote in most elections at 16. And you can also vote for the European Parliament with 16. I think that is good, since the people who are currently young will be most affected by many of the decisions taken now. It also recognizes that the young people are also important and encourages political participation from a young age. And nobody is forced to vote, so people who are disinterested in politics will just note vote.
It might be just my subjective perspective, but to me it feels like 16 year olds are much easier to radicalise, or be fed half truths. They are in the age when you feel like you want to change the world, but you might also still believe in fairy tales and/or simplified scenarios. I hope I'm either wrong or this change won't go through, but I'm getting "propaganda audience" vibes.
I think there is some truth to that. There is definitely a difference in the way young and old people vote(d). When looking at the last election for the European Parliament you can see that young people voted way less for the established parties and way more for small parties source (German). But that is not necessary connected to propaganda. Old people just have their "default party" they vote for since 50 years and young people mostly want change. At I think this principle will never change.
Dunno. Those older people don't seem to be doing such a great job either. See the current us and, yes, Brexit, if it's more relevant.
I know nothing of UK Law, but this smells of justification for a future draft at 16y law.
This was part of the reasoning for lowering the age. They can already join the military, pay taxes, provide care for family members etc. They should have a voice in politics.
I don't believe they can be sent to actually fight until 18 though.
Well shit, now I can't claim I know nothing of UK Law .
You can already join the British army at 16.
Not only is it good, I don’t think it’s enough.
Your vote should be weighed with an inverse relationship to age. That is: the older you are the less your vote should count. Older people who are closer to death have an incentive to vote for short-term gain over long-term improvements. This is how we got into the climate crisis, the world is being ruled by reheated corpses who don’t give a crap about the future.
People under 25 already rarely vote. It's not going to change as much as people might want I bet
What? You think young people are gonna vote for you for putting genocide protestors in prison? You are in for a disappointment.
lol even little kids see right through it and know he's sticking up for a genocidal apartheid state
I'm guessing they just don't vote since kids don't vote as is, even younger ones probably will vote even less
UK really wanting a BrEnter vote
(BrExit, BrEnter)
BritIN not BritOUT
Goddamnit, that’s even better
Re-joining the EU has 56% support btw https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52410-nine-years-after-the-eu-referendum-where-does-public-opinion-stand-on-brexit
So you’re saying there’s a chance!!
Yeah maybe under the next government
breenter 2029
mmmm… brenner
Idk how I feel about that, I feel like at 16 I didn't understand anything about it well enough to make an informed decision but I sure as hell thought I did
I'm 53 and a lot of my peers are fucking stupid but allowed to vote. On a radio station here in the UK the main argument against was that they would be influenced by tiktok...
....as though people my age aren't influenced by fucking Facebook.
I mean they also have the perspective of having more of a need to be concerned with the distant future than those who are currently represented.
I had just turned 17 when the gay marriage plebiscite happened in Australia. I still remember the anger I felt at not being able to vote on my own right to marry.
I was more naive then than I am now, but I also was at twenty.
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.
You know John Adams once said that poor people, who didn't own property, and women shouldn't be allowed to vote because clearly they didn't know enough about politics and would just be advised and do whatever those with property said.
Well that applies to most voters
Well, I deal professionally with people involved in politics, as well as voters. I can assure you the average adult voter is just about as poorly informed as the average 16 year old, if not more so. At least a 16 year old will have had a recent lesson on politics and civics in general.
Frankly, there should be an actual test before you should be allowed to vote. Some people are so completely misinformed about the process that they do far more harm than good.
Yeah, I think keeping it at the legal adulthood makes sense.
There are plenty of grown adults who know even less. I'm all for younger voting ages.
When I was 16 I’d have voted Conservative, so clearly I wasn’t informed either. Just cause you and I weren’t switched on to political and societal issues doesn’t mean many teens aren’t.
If this reform doesn’t include proportional representation, then it isn’t a ‘major reform’
Folks, it's not about how smart/easy to manipulate they are. Your average adult voter is a pretty dumb shit too. We very specifically do not test for intelligence, education, critical thinking, knowledge, or anything else when people get the right to vote. Because none of that is the point. The point is that people have a say in how their government is formed and who runs it, regardless of their status. French peasants were pretty dumb too; were they wrong to seize the government from hereditary aristocrats? Ultimately, when classes of people don't have a say in how their government runs, they end up oppressed, and/or they find a different (usually violent) way to affect things. Give the damn teenagers a vote. It's not like they're worse than your average right-winger.
Look out; you’ve see what happened in the U.S. when we let MAGAts without fully formed brains vote.
Uh, what?
I would have thought that there were more serious issues to address.
Yes. Let's not do anything else at all until climate change is solved. Then we can start on habitat loss and do nothing else until that's solved, and then we can exclusively start to sort out microplastics before moving on to concentrating totally on water pollution. Oh hang on, climate change has started again. Better drop the work on pollution and go back to that. Hang on, kids, we'll be with you around the year 5832.
Not what I said however if you spread yourself thin then nothing will happen.
There are lots of things to fix in the world though climate change is pretty existential for everything. From what I can see, most people can’t cope with the broad expanse of all the issues. To expend political and social capital on issues that less pressing seems pretty much a waste.
Have you considered that we may need to reform.aspects of representative democracy in order to effectively address climate change?
This is great, and overall something I'd support and want to see in my country (NZ).
My one criticism is that I've found that my friends at a young age just voted the same way as their family did. For a few reasons, such as to avoid upsetting dad, echo chambers or other things.
Not sure how to solve this one.
I feel like whatever rules there are for political campaigning to minors/in schools might need a bit of a revamp. Though as far as advertising goes I'm pretty sure the UK has sensible laws, especially for political advertising.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.