Yes.

Most of the sixteen year olds I know make a whole lot more sense than a lot of middle-aged politicians.

No

What are the reasons that you hold the opinions you do?


Do you think it should be lower than 16? And if so, where would you mark the cut-off?

They're old enough to get married when they're 16 so why not vote? Strange how they can't legally drink at their own wedding receptions 'tho.....

No. I don't know why, but I really don't think so. I do think that 16 year olds are mature enough to drink, have sex, get married and leave home, but for some reason I don't think they're old enough to vote. Does that make me hypocritical? I think it's because they've reached a certain maturity, but are often quite ignorant - by 18 I think you know a lot more about the world and how it works etc. than at 16 and are far more prepared to vote. I'm still ridiculously ignorant and naive, but I'm much more prepared to vote than when I was 16 when I hardly knew the difference between Labour and Conservative (I'm 18 in August).

---

by Teresa
They're old enough to get married when they're 16 so why not vote? Strange how they can't legally drink at their own wedding receptions 'tho.....

---

If it's a private function, I think they can.

And isn't that get married with parents permission at 16?

In any case, I'm not sure assuming the responisibility for your private life can necessarily be equated with assuming part responsibility for your country.

As always, one size fits all age restrictions are never going to work for everyone.

Lets face it you don't change from one day to the next because it's your birthday, it's an arbitrary distinction.

I don't know many sixteen year olds and struggle to remember what being one was like but I doubt that for the most part they have a particularly well informed opinion about politics. In that respect, they resemble the average Sun reader and we let them vote.

Maybe getting sixteen year olds interested in politics earlier would help to avoid apathy as they get older but then again, maybe most teenagers would be as apathetic as the rest of the population.

Ultimately, either they're interested enough to express an opinion or they can't be bothered and make no difference to the process so sure, reduce the age to 16.

---

by Incandenza
Maybe getting sixteen year olds interested in politics earlier would help to avoid apathy as they get older but then again, maybe most teenagers would be as apathetic as the rest of the population.

Ultimately, either they're interested enough to express an opinion or they can't be bothered and make no difference to the process so sure, reduce the age to 16.

---

I think the Sunday Times (though it might have been a different newspaper) quoted research that showed 16-18 year olds were more interested in politics than 18-21 year olds, though of course with more detail on the circumstances of the research it should be viewed as suspect.

Maybe the 18-21 years are too busy getting legally drunk

Should 16 year olds vote .... No
But then again should some "Adults" vote .... No

And the marriage thing, don't 16 year olds have to have their parents consent to do so up until their 18?

I think "kids" shouldn't be allowed to vote in real elections......
But getting people interested in politics at a younger age is very important. As been said people don't get a "brain" just because they turn a certain age. School could certainly help in this a bit to have course material in certain classes cover some subjects of the elections and the political system and the different parties. From a certain age (15 - 16?) kids could vote in a sort of shadow elections a day before the real one so they aren't influanced by the outcome or the poles. Always showed some interesting results as the results normally differ a lot from the real elections as they seem to have another voting pattern when we had them over here. They where also compared to all the other schools in the surrounding area to see if there was a pattern etc. And afterwards the results of the shadow elections and the real one could also be part of course material in certain classes.

Even at uni we have online shadow elections and this are all people that are allowed to vote anyways Still gives some pretty different results.

(Edited by Chambler 15/07/2003 09:21)

---

by Chambler
School could certainly help in this a bit to have course material in certain classes cover some subjects of the elections and the political system and the different parties.

---

I must admit we never covered anything of this nature at school and I think it would be a good idea. My parents were never into politics which meant that I didn't have an opinion on it either way. I still couldn't really tell you now which party would be the way to go.

If kids don't learn about the potential advantages/disadvantages of each policy at school, then they'll probably not bother voting anyway.

In my opinion, I think 18 is a better age as you would hope that most 18 year olds are in work or university by this age and a little maturer. With all their "school years" out of the way it seems a better pitstop to me.

Demona what is your opinion on the subject then?

---

by Sange
And the marriage thing, don't 16 year olds have to have their parents consent to do so up until their 18?

---

In England, yes.

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned one of the most common arguments - that if someone's old enough to fight for their country, they should be old enough to vote.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings either way. For myself, I was certainly more educated about politics when I was 18, but it made little difference to how I voted.

---

by Samphirette
Demona what is your opinion on the subject then?

---

Bah, do I have to have one?

I don't have strong feelings on it. My instinct says that 18 is generally the more appropriate age, but of course age laws are a very crude way of doing it, and I ignored just about all the age laws I could when they still apllied to me (well, I still can't run for parliament, but for that one I think people might check ).

However, I'm not quite sure what other criteria can be used to say who can vote. I've heard people voice desires to administer tests on politics before allowing people to vote, but quite apart from that being expensive and impractical, you'd have to be very careful over the impartiality of the person setting the test.

I think the difference between 16 and 18 year olds on this subject is more likely to be knowledge than capacity for thought, so if there was more education on politics earlier, I wouldn't mind.

Yes, because of the simple pricipal of no taxation without representation. 16 is the age when most people start paying tax on their earnings, and they should have a say in how that tax is spent.

It's possible to factor in all sorts of arguments about the age at which the majority are mature enough to make an informed decision, but inevitably, it's all very nebulous, and whatever arbitary one-fits-all age you reach, it won't be perfect. So this is one area I like to let common sense and logic lead as much as possible!

---

by Demona
[b]However, I'm not quite sure what other criteria can be used to say who can vote. I've heard people voice desires to administer tests on politics before allowing people to vote, but quite apart from that being expensive and impractical, you'd have to be very careful over the impartiality of the person setting the test.

---

I'm completely against any sort of voter intelligence test, because of the wide scope for abuse. It was this method that was used in Southern America during the Jim Crow era to prevent any Negro person from voting. That's not likely to happen in contempoary Britain, but I can see it being used to vet whether the mentally handicapped are "suitable" to vote, and no doubt for all sorts of other dubious reasons.

A cut-off age may be crude and arbitary, but at least it's fair.

---

by Byron
Yes, because of the simple pricipal of no taxation without representation. 16 is the age when most people start paying tax on their earnings, and they should have a say in how that tax is spent.

---

But in practice a very large proportion of 16-year-olds go on to some form of further education, and thus don't have any taxable earnings. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but a quick Google suggests they are in fact the majority. There is nothing to stop people younger than 16 paying income tax either.

I don't really see how this is a 'principle' which could ever be applied, and if it was, I doubt it would be long before some bright spark decided it was a good idea to disenfranchise the unemployed...

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
But in practice a very large proportion of 16-year-olds go on to some form of further education, and thus don't have any taxable earnings. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but a quick Google suggests they are in fact the majority. There is nothing to stop people younger than 16 paying income tax either.[/b]

---

16 is the youngest age you can be employed in fulltime work (labour laws restrict under 16s to 7am-7pm, I believe). Before 16, you legally have to be in school -- after 16 (well, 16 and a few months in pracise) you can leave home and start working for a living. Presently, that means all the responsbility of adults but minus the benefits (scandulously, as well as lacking the franchise, 16-18 year olds in the UK don't qualify for benefits). Many over-16s go onto more study, but a significant proportion don't.

---

I don't really see how this is a 'principle' which could ever be applied, and if it was, I doubt it would be long before some bright spark decided it was a good idea to disenfranchise the unemployed...

---

That bright spark was around a good half-millania ago, because property-rights were to varying degrees the determinant for the francise until 1918 in Britain. The principal of no taxation without representation was much bandied during the American War of Independence (where it wasn't really applicable, but I digress). The concept of universal franchise is so ingraned in our culture it won't be repealed. Enfranchising those who pay full rates of tax isn't about excluding those who don't -- who of course don't get the benefit of a wage -- but including those who do.

It's not the sole criteria, but it's a pretty damn major one.

---

by Demona
I've heard people voice desires to administer tests on politics before allowing people to vote, but quite apart from that being expensive and impractical, you'd have to be very careful over the impartiality of the person setting the test.

---

It's an appealing idea at one level, however fatalistically, broadly speaking people get the government they deserve. Those who can't be bothered to show up at a polling booth have no right to complain about the result. Those who are really interested and/or committed to their politics can ensure their voice is noted on election day. If the majority are swung by gimmicky election campaigns, soundbites, parental influence, short term self interest or whatever and vote accordingly then on their heads be it.

---

I think the difference between 16 and 18 year olds on this subject is more likely to be knowledge than capacity for thought, so if there was more education on politics earlier, I wouldn't mind.

---

Because we all dashed out to those politics evening classes when we hit 17? Politics for the most part is driven by Economics and when I was at school, it wasn't a required subject at GCSE, it was an option.

---

by Byron
Yes, because of the simple principal of no taxation without representation.

---

Flashback to The Patriot... ahh, make it stop, please make it stop.

Anyone paying taxes should absolutely have the right to vote, as long as the logic isn't inverted as Dan highlighted before. It also shouldn't extend to situations where tax is paid on income only nominally received by a minor.

---

by In a State of Dan
There is nothing to stop people younger than 16 paying income tax either.

---

Actually there is quite a bit.

In general, a child under the age of 14 cannot legally be employed period. No-one doing a paper round is going to pay taxes.

Between 14 and 16, children cannot:

do anything other than light work
work during school hours on a school day
work after 7pm or before 7am
work more than 2 hours on a school day
work more than 4 hours a day without a one hour break
work in an industrial situation (bummer if you live in the North East )

Local authorities can impose further restrictions if they see fit.

On top of that the EU Working Time Directive limits the working time of children (defined by them as 15 not 16) to 12 hours a week during term time.

Within these restrictions, it would still be feasible for a 15 year old to work 10 hours a week plus weekends (say another 16 hours) if a job could be found that fit around school hours and included Sundays although I suspect that any minor working those hours would quickly fall foul of the 'light' work restriction and other WTD clauses such as 24 hour break periods etc.

The minimum wage for 18 year olds (interestingly 16 year olds aren't covered by the legislation) is £3.60 per hour and working 26 hours a week at that rate would earn you £4,867 a year. The personal allowance before paying any income tax is £4,615 per year and the lower NI threshold is approx the same.

Executive Summary

Assuming you lack the skills to earn more than minimum wage (and given the fact that legally you fall outside the scope of the legislation anyway), you would have to be making a pretty spectacular effort to legally earn enough money to pay taxes before you were 16.