Voting age to be lowered to 16 in UK by next general election
Voting age to be lowered to 16 in UK by next general election
www.theguardian.com
Voting age to be lowered to 16 across UK by next general election
You're viewing a single thread.
95 comments
-
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.
-
it's not necessarily a bad thing for parents to have more voting power than non-parents through this means. Parents would generally be voting with their children's best interests in mind.
-
Yes it is, it's essentially giving people with children extra votes to use.
-
well, you just said the thing I said in reverse. I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing; and you said: yes it is.
-
-
-
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).
-
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.
you can't ignore the fact that even more propaganda would directly target them, taking advantage of very effective data mining based profiling. they should be able to experience more of life before advertisers starts to dictate their agenda, otherwise they'll easily think that advertisers are speaking the truth.
Climate change and unfair pension systems for example will affect them regardless, this way they'd at least have a voice.
they have a voice. It's not like people can only vote if they are in their last decade. turning 18, just 2 years, anyone can vote, and I would say even 30 and 40 years olds are largely affected by these issues.
-
you can’t ignore the fact that even more propaganda would directly target them, taking advantage of very effective data mining based profiling. they should be able to experience more of life before advertisers starts to dictate their agenda, otherwise they’ll easily think that advertisers are speaking the truth.
Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn't just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.
I'd break it up into two parts. Official election material and just general advertisements/media. The first one typically is already quite regulated and arguably for the benefit of all should already follow standards that are not harmful to children. The second one seems like the problematic one. However I'd argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what's going on in the world. Anecdotally i can say that even at elementary school age children seem to be (to varying degrees) at least rudimentally aware of many things. To give a recent example like when Israel bombed Iran.
We have things like cigarettes and alcohol where we impose age limits, but those are directly harmful things. Hard to argue that voting in a democracy is harmful. Sometimes there might be anti democratic parties (like the afd here in germany for example), but in those cases you'd think about banning those, not taking away the ability to vote. Maybe you or someone else could give me an example of something positive being banned based on age because the state/society can't provide protection from something secondary.
I would also add that advertisement to a young voting base wouldn't exclusively need to be a bad thing. Take free school lunches for example. If as a politician you run a campaign on that for example you are banking on gaining favor from a voter base that only indirectly is affected by it. The people directly benefiting from it can't vote for you.
they have a voice. It’s not like people can only vote if they are in their last decade. turning 18, just 2 years, anyone can vote, and I would say even 30 and 40 years olds are largely affected by these issues.
They have a voice, but no vote, which is what matters for the politicians in charge. Also "just 2 years" falls flat since my argument is not about the lowering to 16, but abolishing it in general. So for the sake of argument for example an 8 year old, which would make it a full decade. In practice even longer, since elections aren't every year and you aren't guaranteed to have one in the year you turn 18.
And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don't see how that would be an argument against it. If anything i'd see it as an argument that children should also have a say. We also don't have an upper limit after which you aren't allowed to vote anymore. And for obvious reasons it would e.g. be impossible to have a rule that says x years before you die you aren't allowed to vote anymore, since you won't suffer all the consequences.
-
Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn't just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.
when will we ban personalized advertising?
or any kinds of advertising that is more than just showing that your product/service is there.
but unfortunately, with deceptive videos all over the internet, that wouldn't help at all.
However I'd argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what's going on in the world.
that's right, but I think because of a lack of substantial amount of experiences (before being exposed to media), they have much less of a chance at figuring out what's real and what isn't.
heck I only started using facebook near the end of elementary school. and then when I got to be voting age, I had almost no clue about the running political parties, how truthful they are and what is their past. I just slightly missed being able to vote the time before that, and I know that I would have voted for a liar with a corrupt past, because of facebook ads of their party I assume. "oh look, they are apologizing and they regret it! they look so honest!"nowadays? they just post a tiktok video that they'll give money to all below 20 if they are elected, and they get a bunch of votes. and the election office will do nothing. or they promise to lower the graduation requirements. or to make it unlawul to ban smartphone usage at school lessons. or anything that sounds good to them but everybody else knows is a bad idea.
they could have even cooperated with another party to make sure this one doesn't get elected, but takes votes away from another one.
all because they promised something on tiktok, or really any platform that auto plays videos when scrolling by.deceptive social (and traditional) media is exactly why we can't allow this. and if you allow them to vote, you just made it so that now we can't even keep them away legally from that social media, because if you do that they won't vote for you anymore, and the next party will just undo your laws.
And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don't see how that would be an argument against it.
I think those adults had decades of life experiences that could have helped them recognize that they are being deceived and used. childrens won't have any of that. They'll have no chance of recognizing that, unless someone they trust tells them and they want to believe it.
it would also be interesting to read a study that compares the effects of video effects, animations and vibrant nice colors in videos on different age groups.
-
-
-
-
-
Could age not be an imperfect but good enough proxy for maturity and capability?
-
Yes, but we are not filtering for maturity and capability in adults. So if this is the argument then imo it is flawed, since we'd filter for something just to stop filtering for it after a certain age.
If one wants to filter for these things then it should be applied across the board. However we are not doing so for good reasons (I can provide some if needed).
-
It seems like you and I are both trying to make sense of democracy, how to make it inclusive, and how to have the best decision-making processes so that we, as a society, can have the best decisions possible. In other words, we're trying to have the best possible democracy.
Now, we both agree that the age filter is imperfect. It's a heuristic, a rule of thumb. You rightly point this out, and you interpret this fact as if there should be absolutely no filters at all. For you, any filter would be imperfect or problematic.
However, the way I see it, the age filter is a simple, cheap, and good enough heuristic. Age is ridiculously easy to keep track of, with current record-keeping technologies and institutions. In most of the world's bureaucracies, people's age appear right next to their face in state-issued documents. It's everywhere.
Additionally, age is associated with physical and cognitive capabilities. Human children require care and nurture. Socializing children into the abstract world of economics and ecology takes time. I see the fact that children are required to go to school as a success, as a way of assuring that that culture sustains its cultural and scientific literacy over time. Ideally, when children can vote, they understand their world differently. They can see ecological, historical, and social processes around them in different ways. Here, setting a voting age is a heuristic for avoiding children who have not yet developed these abstract worldviews (because, after all, they're… children).
I believe you will respond that "if the point is filtering for cultural and scientific literacy, then test for that, but not for age. There are children who are brilliant decision-makers and lackluster adults". And I'd agree with you. Age is an imperfect measure. I'm not denying there are people who are exceptional. But what I am saying is that, for most people, age is a good enough heuristic.
Of course, as a society we could say that we shouldn't go for the cheapest heuristic. We could say that we should include people in a better way. But you and I agree that the alternatives are tough. I'd say they're costly, controversial, and probably imperfect.
-
-
-
That is just a very stupid idea. The best thing for all of us everywhere is for the most rational and well-informed people to vote. The fact that everyone gets a vote is unfortunate for all of us because that includes voters who vote against the public interest, but it is necessary for a free democracy. Children and even teenagers have simply not had enough time on this earth to make an informed decision. Even if you want to make the argument that some are informed enough, they are far, FAR fewer than in the adult populace. You do not want to broaden that window.
-
95 comments