|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 9, 2024 20:44:41 GMT
I have only said that there is a reasonable case for 16yo's to be able to vote given they are eligible to pay income tax, that is my opinion and I stand by it. Others have a different opinion, 18, 21, 25 and that is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. Yes Red, that's what we're debating. I know Labour would like it because the young tend to vote labour. If that's true, it's arguable that it might balance the 3.4 million or so non doms for more than 15 years who have been recently enfranchised and overwhelmingly vote Tory. I should say I agreed with that change.
I think the issue is a little wider than tax or criminal justice and struggled to make up my mind on whether or not it was a good idea. I had a look at three papers.
They all appeared to be pretty positive about the idea and part of the conclusion of the last and most recent is:
In none of the countries, for which data are now available, researchers could find negative effects of the lowering of the voting age on young people’s engagement or civic attitudes. In many instances the opposite was the case. Enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds were often more interested in politics, more likely to vote and demonstrated other pro-civic attitudes (such as institutional trust). In many instances, young people enfranchised earlier were more engaged than those classically enfranchised at 18 and longer-term research from Austria and Latin American countries suggests that the effect may at least partially be retained throughout further years of life, resulting in turnout increases. Furthermore, where we have data on public views on the topic, we see support for votes at 16 increase significantly. This may be due to the experience of seeing young people engaged or the influence young people may have on their parents, especially when having had civic education that involved discussions about politics. It seems that the process leading to the introduction of lower enfranchisement ages may play a role as well, seeing popular support increase when more bottom-up approaches are used and young people become visible in campaigns. However, many of the countries that saw earlier enfranchisement in recent years had the process initiated more top-down initially—but in some cases civil society organisations then joined the process of advocating for change.
I'm still not sure if it's too young, but I'm also struggling to see a serious downside.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,640
|
Post by Steve on Jun 9, 2024 20:46:53 GMT
Bit off topic, but we've run the course here I think. How do you all feel about being allowed to vote on manifesto promises? Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain what this would mean please. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Jun 10, 2024 4:37:05 GMT
Red, don't get skewered by Steve's pedantry. Its not malicious its just how he thinks. Steve the subject matter is whether 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. Do you have any views on this? Only if they accept full criminal responsibility It is not the 16 year olds who do not accept full criminal responsibility it is the law that will not allow them to. Maybe a change in the law is required. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 10, 2024 7:07:06 GMT
Only if they accept full criminal responsibility It is not the 16 year olds who do not accept full criminal responsibility it is the law that will not allow them to. Maybe a change in the law is required. Would you support that? Do you think 16 year olds of today are more grown up that a decade ago. I worry so many seem to suffer with their mental health. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2024 8:20:14 GMT
Yes Red, that's what we're debating. I know Labour would like it because the young tend to vote labour. If that's true, it's arguable that it might balance the 3.4 million or so non doms for more than 15 years who have been recently enfranchised and overwhelmingly vote Tory. I should say I agreed with that change.
I think the issue is a little wider than tax or criminal justice and struggled to make up my mind on whether or not it was a good idea. I had a look at three papers.
They all appeared to be pretty positive about the idea and part of the conclusion of the last and most recent is:
In none of the countries, for which data are now available, researchers could find negative effects of the lowering of the voting age on young people’s engagement or civic attitudes. In many instances the opposite was the case. Enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds were often more interested in politics, more likely to vote and demonstrated other pro-civic attitudes (such as institutional trust). In many instances, young people enfranchised earlier were more engaged than those classically enfranchised at 18 and longer-term research from Austria and Latin American countries suggests that the effect may at least partially be retained throughout further years of life, resulting in turnout increases. Furthermore, where we have data on public views on the topic, we see support for votes at 16 increase significantly. This may be due to the experience of seeing young people engaged or the influence young people may have on their parents, especially when having had civic education that involved discussions about politics. It seems that the process leading to the introduction of lower enfranchisement ages may play a role as well, seeing popular support increase when more bottom-up approaches are used and young people become visible in campaigns. However, many of the countries that saw earlier enfranchisement in recent years had the process initiated more top-down initially—but in some cases civil society organisations then joined the process of advocating for change.
I'm still not sure if it's too young, but I'm also struggling to see a serious downside.
It's just babble. 'Involvement', 'more engagement'' completely skirts around the issue. The 'downside' would be young people having directed 'discussion about politics' in schools and then getting to vote before the rest of the community had time to correct the psychological damage. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Jun 10, 2024 8:52:55 GMT
It is not the 16 year olds who do not accept full criminal responsibility it is the law that will not allow them to. Maybe a change in the law is required. Would you support that? Do you think 16 year olds of today are more grown up that a decade ago. I worry so many seem to suffer with their mental health. Hasn't mental health 'issues' risen across the population? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 10, 2024 9:14:08 GMT
If that's true, it's arguable that it might balance the 3.4 million or so non doms for more than 15 years who have been recently enfranchised and overwhelmingly vote Tory. I should say I agreed with that change.
I think the issue is a little wider than tax or criminal justice and struggled to make up my mind on whether or not it was a good idea. I had a look at three papers.
They all appeared to be pretty positive about the idea and part of the conclusion of the last and most recent is:
In none of the countries, for which data are now available, researchers could find negative effects of the lowering of the voting age on young people’s engagement or civic attitudes. In many instances the opposite was the case. Enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds were often more interested in politics, more likely to vote and demonstrated other pro-civic attitudes (such as institutional trust). In many instances, young people enfranchised earlier were more engaged than those classically enfranchised at 18 and longer-term research from Austria and Latin American countries suggests that the effect may at least partially be retained throughout further years of life, resulting in turnout increases. Furthermore, where we have data on public views on the topic, we see support for votes at 16 increase significantly. This may be due to the experience of seeing young people engaged or the influence young people may have on their parents, especially when having had civic education that involved discussions about politics. It seems that the process leading to the introduction of lower enfranchisement ages may play a role as well, seeing popular support increase when more bottom-up approaches are used and young people become visible in campaigns. However, many of the countries that saw earlier enfranchisement in recent years had the process initiated more top-down initially—but in some cases civil society organisations then joined the process of advocating for change.
I'm still not sure if it's too young, but I'm also struggling to see a serious downside.
It's just babble. 'Involvement', 'more engagement'' completely skirts around the issue. The 'downside' would be young people having directed 'discussion about politics' in schools and then getting to vote before the rest of the community had time to correct the psychological damage. I assume you mean political 'education' in schools would tend to steer young people towards ideas that do not accord with those of the rest of the 'community'. I'd guess you mean 'too far to the Left'.
If the initial predictions are correct, a sizeable proportion of the youth vote in the recent European elections will have voted with the Boomers in support of Right or 'far' Right candidates. Unless, then, schools in Europe provide a very different kind of political 'education' from that here in the UK, your theory does not appear to be supported by recent experience. Having said that, I think that younger people are more likely to be seduced by promises from the far Left or Right and propagated through social media. Whether that is better or worse than the bulk of voters over, say, forty voting the way they and their families have alwats done is, I suppose, a moot point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2024 9:27:58 GMT
It's just babble. 'Involvement', 'more engagement'' completely skirts around the issue. The 'downside' would be young people having directed 'discussion about politics' in schools and then getting to vote before the rest of the community had time to correct the psychological damage. I assume you mean political 'education' in schools would tend to steer young people towards ideas that do not accord with those of the rest of the 'community'. I'd guess you mean 'too far to the Left'.
If the initial predictions are correct, a sizeable proportion of the youth vote in the recent European elections will have voted with the Boomers in support of Right or 'far' Right candidates. Unless, then, schools in Europe provide a very different kind of political 'education' from that here in the UK, your theory does not appear to be supported by recent experience. Having said that, I think that younger people are more likely to be seduced by promises from the far Left or Right and propagated through social media. Whether that is better or worse than the bulk of voters over, say, forty voting the way they and their families have alwats done is, I suppose, a moot point.
In an event the establishment, the media, no doubt along with education institutions, all consider a 'disaster that should be corrected'. Having young people 'politically educated' and then going straight out to vote is s systems / incentives problem. It provides a lever for corruption. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 10, 2024 9:38:51 GMT
I assume you mean political 'education' in schools would tend to steer young people towards ideas that do not accord with those of the rest of the 'community'. I'd guess you mean 'too far to the Left'.
If the initial predictions are correct, a sizeable proportion of the youth vote in the recent European elections will have voted with the Boomers in support of Right or 'far' Right candidates. Unless, then, schools in Europe provide a very different kind of political 'education' from that here in the UK, your theory does not appear to be supported by recent experience. Having said that, I think that younger people are more likely to be seduced by promises from the far Left or Right and propagated through social media. Whether that is better or worse than the bulk of voters over, say, forty voting the way they and their families have alwats done is, I suppose, a moot point.
In an event the establishment, the media, no doubt along with education institutions, all consider a 'disaster that should be corrected'. Having young people 'politically educated' and then going straight out to vote is s systems / incentives problem. It provides a lever for corruption. Or perhaps a balance to social media 'corruption'. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2024 9:51:09 GMT
In an event the establishment, the media, no doubt along with education institutions, all consider a 'disaster that should be corrected'. Having young people 'politically educated' and then going straight out to vote is s systems / incentives problem. It provides a lever for corruption. Or perhaps a balance to social media 'corruption'. Or perhaps, rather than you deciding what influence needs to be corrected for. and to what degree,, we could just have people voting a little later, so they have time to work it out for themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 10, 2024 10:09:07 GMT
Or perhaps a balance to social media 'corruption'. Or perhaps, rather than you deciding what influence needs to be corrected for. and to what degree,, we could just have people voting a little later, so they have time to work it out for themselves? To get there we're back to the babble about engagement and involvement. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2024 11:53:41 GMT
Or perhaps, rather than you deciding what influence needs to be corrected for. and to what degree,, we could just have people voting a little later, so they have time to work it out for themselves? To get there we're back to the babble about engagement and involvement. Indoctrination and 'engagement' are going to be pretty hard to disentangle unless the person has some time to mull things over. Is it possible you have some vested interest in allowing people with zero real-world experience to vote? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 10, 2024 12:21:47 GMT
To get there we're back to the babble about engagement and involvement. Indoctrination and 'engagement' are going to be pretty hard to disentangle unless the person has some time to mull things over. Is it possible you have some vested interest in allowing people with zero real-world experience to vote? I think people are more likely to make considered decisions if those decisions flow into in the affirmative act of voting.
I have no vested interest in the subject beyond trying to better understand the objection. Nothing I've read sways me towards thinking it's a bad idea, but I am open to argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 10, 2024 16:08:11 GMT
Would you support that? Do you think 16 year olds of today are more grown up that a decade ago. I worry so many seem to suffer with their mental health. Hasn't mental health 'issues' risen across the population? Yes but primarily among the young. Its a shame but it seems to be traceable back to 2008 and the crash, rather than social media. The young feel A home a good job and a good future are increasingly denied to them, while at the same time seeing it is they who will be gifted a failing planet. This may well be a good reason to give them the vote to let them feel empowered. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 10, 2024 16:10:25 GMT
It's just babble. 'Involvement', 'more engagement'' completely skirts around the issue. The 'downside' would be young people having directed 'discussion about politics' in schools and then getting to vote before the rest of the community had time to correct the psychological damage. I assume you mean political 'education' in schools would tend to steer young people towards ideas that do not accord with those of the rest of the 'community'. I'd guess you mean 'too far to the Left'.
If the initial predictions are correct, a sizeable proportion of the youth vote in the recent European elections will have voted with the Boomers in support of Right or 'far' Right candidates. Unless, then, schools in Europe provide a very different kind of political 'education' from that here in the UK, your theory does not appear to be supported by recent experience. Having said that, I think that younger people are more likely to be seduced by promises from the far Left or Right and propagated through social media. Whether that is better or worse than the bulk of voters over, say, forty voting the way they and their families have always done is, I suppose, a moot point.
That is my fear. That they are too easily influenced in either direction. |
|
