The stuff about war, treaties, recall and appointments is all good, of course. But lowering the voting age is a dreadful idea, a very serious threat to democracy. No one seriously suggests that the opinion of a 16-year-old is equal, or even comparable, to that of his Head Teacher, or his GP, or his mother. So why, it would be asked unanswerably, should each of them have precisely one vote? And so it would begin.
As for yet another Bill of Rights or whatever, probably nothing more than a solemn declaration that being British is about being nice, hasn’t the well-meaning Human Rights Act done enough damage, and wasn’t the Citizen’s Charter daft enough for one generation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David, please answer the following questions:
ReplyDelete1. Does a 16 year old have an equal opinion as a 23 year old?
2. Does a 16 year old have an equal opinion as a 27 year old?
3. Does an 18 year old have an equal opinion as his head teacher, his GP, or his mother?
4. Does a 25 year old have an equal opinion as his head teacher, his GP, ad his mother?
Straight answers, please.
1. No.
ReplyDelete2. No.
3. No, but I'll come back to that.
4. Possibly.
If I thought that it could be done, I'd be rather in favour of putting the voting age back up to 21. But some causes are just lost. I'd put the minimum age for jurors back up to 21 tomorrow. These things are no place for the merely adolescent mind. Think of yourself at that age.
And therefore, as I set out, lowering the voting age would, certainly after a while, and probably quite quickly, be used as an excuse to erode democracy itself.
Furthermore, turnout would fall yet further, because so many 16 and 17-year-olds would just forget to vote, or would be unable to make their minds up, or would assume that if they turned up at 10:05pm then they'd still be let in.
That would be bad. The actual voting of some of their contemporaies would be even worse. We must prevent either from happening.
Ok then,
ReplyDelete1. Does a 25 year old have an equal opinion as a 30 year old?
2. Does a 27 year old have an equal opinion as a 40 year old?
3. Does a plumber have an equal opnion to a lawyer?
4. Does someone from Coventry have an equal opinion to someone from Southampton?
Do you see my point? There is no equal opinions between ages, or bertween professions, or between locations. We don't magicaly get to a certain point and become wise. All limits are arbitrary. So complaining against lowering the voting age to 16 when by your own admission people who would be well over your limit of 21 are not definitely as wise as someone older is a silly reason. There is no qualification on intelligence or maturity to vote.
So what SHOULD it be, then? And why?
ReplyDeleteOh, and this is a grown up blog. People who just want to make student debating points because they think that it makes them look clever (it doesn't) would be better advised to visit Tom Hamilton: http://letsbesensible.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteI quite like Tom's blog, actually.
ReplyDeleteA grown up blog? When you bluster and employ bait and switch when you are out argued, and almost always refuse to answer straight questions?
I think the point anonymous was trying to make was that we do not set an "intelligence" or "fitness for purpose" test on indivuals for voting. We set a limit beyond which we allow all people to have their say, even if they are not as intelligent as others. So your point about 16 year olds not being as clever as head teachers is irrelevant, because that isn't the test we use.
Personally, I'm not too fussed about which age we vote from - can't see many 16 year olds voting anyway. But let's at least hear some logical arguments against it.
Oh, I like Tom's blog, too. But you've made my point: you've advanced a sort of speaker-we-got-off-the-circuit-on-Thursday-afternoon-because-someone-pulled-out argument, even phrased the same way. Grow up!
ReplyDeleteI tend to believe that you should vote from the minimun age of when you can start work so technically that is sixteen.
ReplyDeleteSomeone who works is liable to pay direct taxation (income and NI) even if it is a small amount. Potentially a case of that old adage "taxation without representation".
David, seriously, it isn't a student debater point, it is *the* point.
ReplyDelete- You argue that 16 year olds shouldn't be able to vote, because they are not as clever as a GP, as a head teacher, or their mother.
- That would only stand as a logical argument if the franchise was set at the level it currently is on the basis of intelligence, or fitness of purpose, and that there was some kind of test for establishing that, which GPs, headteachers and mothers pased but 16 year olds couldn't.
- In actual fact, the franchise is set by age, which although does factor in capacity to some regard (clearly five year olds couldn't vote) predominantly takes on board other significant factors such as ability to participate in democracy and in response to the requirement to pay taxation, as aberdonian said.
- Any argument around the changing of the voting age must therefore logically engage with the set of assumptions which are used above, since they were the intellectual framework behind the existing policy. There are good arguments for and against any shift.
- However, given that intelligence is *not* one of these assumptions, it is irrelevant as an argument to the question. You might as well argue that 16 year olds shouldn't vote because they are spotty, and GPs etc aren't. used.