Bill to allow 16 year olds to vote to be debated in parliament

2507C0

I agree with Grannygravy. One age for everything. I believe that age should be 18. It is nonsense to give 16 year old children the vote who have no life experience at all and no responsibilities beyond their homework.

You really believe that? My god, there are some young people who would give anything just to have homework to worry about

I agree with Grannygravy. One age for everything. I believe that age should be 18. It is nonsense to give 16 year old children the vote who have no life experience at all and no responsibilities beyond their homework.

There is a difference between the way most children (those under 18!) are viewed in criminal proceedings which is why they don't get such long sentences and are tried in a totally different court (usually), serve their sentences in different places until they are 25. Politicians may not wish to open that can of worms but that doesn't mean that the science shouldn't count.
Of course there are exceptions in children who are ready to make voting decisions as there are people who really shouldn't but in general, the tools aren't in place for too many 16 year olds, IMHO.

I second that 👍🏻Dizzyribs

Oh well yes, safeguarding children is incredibly complex and in my view very few politicians demonstrate the ability to legislate with that in mind.

dalrymple23

16?? Madness. They are schoolchildren, for heaven's sake. As others have said, the voting age should go back up to 21. Of c ourse they are going to vote for whichever party seems to make their own life better and not for the good of the nation, because they don't have the experience.

You honestly think that all voters vote for the good of the nation?

Galaxy

Er no it isn't dead in the water just because you think it is. I think it is a reasonable argument just as there are other reasonable arguments in favour.

I meant dead in the water in as much no politician will advance this argument as a reason not to give votes to 16-17 year old. Far too many cans of worms would be opened

16?? Madness. They are schoolchildren, for heaven's sake. As others have said, the voting age should go back up to 21. Of c ourse they are going to vote for whichever party seems to make their own life better and not for the good of the nation, because they don't have the experience.

Er no it isn't dead in the water just because you think it is. I think it is a reasonable argument just as there are other reasonable arguments in favour.

Basically the brain development argument is dead in the water isn’t it? The arguments for and against 16-17 year olds and the vote have to be conceptualised differently.

Galaxy

I am not inconsistent, I have always said Shamima Begum was groomed.

I wasn’t talking about you specifically but about how the views on Shamima were expressed forcefully and still are by very many -and I bet a Venn diagram with negative views on her and on 16-17 year olds having the vote is pretty predictable .

No I agree, but quite a few of the posts on here have been along those lines, ' they will be better than the bigots or those who voted us out of the EU', personally I think that is deeply patronising towards young people.

Galaxy

Whether something is good for society is a very subjective thing. I do wonder if say in a couple of years time there was a strong surge in reform voting amongst the young would people still think it was positive for society.

But you can’t make decisions about the franchise on that basis.

I am not inconsistent, I have always said Shamima Begum was groomed.

Whether something is good for society is a very subjective thing. I do wonder if say in a couple of years time there was a strong surge in reform voting amongst the young would people still think it was positive for society.

Shamima

Galaxy

So does that mean brain development should not be considered in terms of criminal proceedings, in terms of safeguarding ( grooming) etc. I do think we need to be very careful when talking about young people in this way.

But we’re completely inconsistent aren’t we? We tried the killers of Jane’s Bulgef in an adult court, we said Shanna Begum at 15 was fully responsible for her actions and suddenly when we feel threatened by 16-17 year olds we suddenly decide brain development issues really matter.

Research shows positive benefits in enfranchising 16 year olds to vote not negative benefits in Scotland.

Putting the argument forward that 16 year olds' "brains are still developing especially around hormones and school pressures" misses the fact that the 16 year old brain has the capacity and strength in decision making abilities compared to declining brain as people age. With that argument the opposite consideration would have merit for those aging ie "when brains stops developing, starts to decline and has a lot of pressures to deal (menopause anyone) with around hormones and pressures etc " they should be no longer able to vote. Putting the argument forward they have less knowledge of finance, still living at home, are not running a household etc. Independent living and managing finances is the criteria? So only adults who have knowledge of finance are running a household should vote? That would exclude many older people living in care homes et. How much knowledge of finance should people have to be able to vote and how should it be measured- should here be a test?

I suggest the criteria might be - does a 16 year old have capacity to make a voting decision and is it good for society and politics or adverse for society and politics. The research shows they do have interest, motivation and capacity can and it has positive benefits in Scotland.

There would be uproar if 70 year olds were threatened with having their vote taken away.

So does that mean brain development should not be considered in terms of criminal proceedings, in terms of safeguarding ( grooming) etc. I do think we need to be very careful when talking about young people in this way.

Galaxy

Well this is about a change to law with regards to young people, so it was in specific reference to that.

If it’s argued that their are brain development arguments for denying 16-17 year old the vote, then in all fairness it should be applied across the board starting with the over 70s

Tuliptree

Galaxy

I don't have particularly strong feelings either way in this subject but I do think that the information about brain development is important, and isn't simply just about people's 'prejudices' or personal opinions.

You mean for both young and old?

Why not? Technically my mother could vote but she has no idea about what it going on in the world politically. I think it is a nonsense.

Well this is about a change to law with regards to young people, so it was in specific reference to that.

There is the matter of development to consider as well as life experiences. At 16 most children are living at home with little knowledge of the world of work and less knowledge of finance and running a household let alone running a country. They are strongly influenced by their peer group, their immediate community and their parents. Their brains are still developing and there’s a lot to deal with especially around hormones and school pressures. Several studies show that political thinking is one of the last things to develop, often not beginning until we’re into our 20s, although some will develop it much earlier. A lot depends on what the child has been exposed to. I don’t think it’s a good idea to give 16 year olds to vote.

Galaxy

I don't have particularly strong feelings either way in this subject but I do think that the information about brain development is important, and isn't simply just about people's 'prejudices' or personal opinions.

You mean for both young and old?

I don't have particularly strong feelings either way in this subject but I do think that the information about brain development is important, and isn't simply just about people's 'prejudices' or personal opinions.