Lowering the voting age is a dreadful idea, Ms Harman (and why haven't you been arrested?), and 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.
Even as a short-term strategy, this wouldn't work. Teenagers in 1970 didn't think that it was rebellious or daring to vote for a party which had been in for six years, a long time when you're 18. So teenagers in 2010 are hardly going to think that it is rebellious or daring to vote for a party which will by then have been in for 13 years, a very long time indeed when you're 16.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At last, somebody who says what everybody else is thinking.
ReplyDeleteTeenage voting is a ridiculous idea, but I suppose we're stuck with it at 18. There is absolutely no excuse for making the situation even worse.
We'd be the laughing stock of the world and we'd deserve to be. Where else do they let children vote? Is there anywhere at all?
Actually the Isle of Man is now 16 (since 2006)and I believe it will be soon on either Jersey or Guernsey.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Queen did not veto the legislation. She has made part of her realm a "a laughing stock".
If you are old enough to pay tax, get married and have children (16), then why not vote?
They'll rue the day. "Why the hell should I have only as many votes as a child?" is a perfectly legitimate question.
ReplyDeleteSo there'll be extra votes for taxpayers (and again for higher-rate taxapayers), for people with certain qualifications, for housholders (so 10 houses equals 10 votes), and so on, and on, and on.
You shouldn't be able to get married or (legally) have children at 16.