Votes For 16 Year Olds

[LoneWolf]

Like what for example? What has to be one of the main dangers young people face is sex, and they are not protected from that at 16.

 

Well, where shall I start ?

16 year olds are entitled to be maintained by the responsible adult. Whereas adults can be taken to account and to court for failing to maintain themselves.

16 year olds can still be taken into care if it is judged their situation might not be in their best interest whereas adults have to take responsibility for their own situation.

16 year olds are treated differently in criminal law to adults because they are not judged fully responsible for their behaviour (with good reason)

16 year olds are subject to a different sentencing regime than adults because it is judged they need protection from convicted adult prisoners.

16 year olds in employment are protected by legislation which protects them from exploitation in the context of hours they are allowed to work and tasks they are allowed to undertake. Employers are also required, by codes of practice associated with employment legislation, to make special allowances for young workers (those below 18) in their disciplinary procedures.

In addition there is a whole raft of family law protecting those under 17 years old which would fill several books. Adults do not have the protection of such laws.

I wouldnt like to see youngsters lose any of these protections. Its important, to me anyhow, that our young folk are brought up in a decent society which offers sensible levels of protection and freedoms to them .. at the appropriate age.

I just think that granting full citizenship rights to those who, by definition, are exempt from the full responsibilities of citizenship is totally wrong.

[Declan]

To sum up what several people on this thread have said...

 

"Society / the law bestows different rights & responibities on people according to their age and at 16 a person hasn't had all these rights granted to them. "

 

But that is irrelevant, it doesn't really say anything about whether 16 year olds should have the vote or not. The question is at what age should the right to vote be granted, because this is just the same as the age of consent, or the right to marry without consent and can be granted at any age society thinks best.

[LoneWolf]

To sum up what several people on this thread have said...

 

"Society / the law bestows different rights & responibities on people according to their age and at 16 a person hasn't had all these rights granted to them. "

 

But that is irrelevant, it doesn't really say anything about whether 16 year olds should have the vote or not. The question is at what age should the right to vote be granted, because this is just the same as the age of consent, or the right to marry without consent and can be granted at any age society thinks best.

 

It has a lot to say about whether 16 year olds should have the vote or not.

The right to vote amounts to the right to full participation as a citizen. it is the main benefit of citizenship.

It carries with it an obligation to accept all the reponsibilities of being a citizen. No one can have one without accepting the other.

Youngsters, by definition, are exempt from accepting all the responsibilities of citizenship. it is a matter of logic that they, therefore, should not have all the main benefits, including the right to vote.

[Declan]

You sound like Tony Blair!

 

That's just philosophising on mute points.

 

The real issue is whether a 16 year old is able to examine the options available and make a rational decision about who he thinks is the best person for the job. I think 16 year olds are able to do this, therefore the right to vote should be extended to them.

[LoneWolf]

You sound like Tony Blair!

 

God dont hang that one on me !

 

 

That's just philosophising on mute points.

 

The real issue is whether a 16 year old is able to examine the options available and make a rational decision about who he thinks is the best person for the job. I think 16 year olds are able to do this, therefore the right to vote should be extended to them.

 

Most of the arguments posted here in terms of what 16 year old can legally do and cannot do have actually been factually incorrect. So they amounted to a poor argument in favour of 16 year old's voting.

Ive been pointing this out and also pointing out the law makes allowances for 16 year olds because of their immaturity and poor judgement. IMHO this is important. Our youngsters should be given the right balance of protection and freedom at the appropriate age. I think its about right at the moment.

I cant really see the rationale behind these protections is wrong or should be ignored when it comes to voting.

I also think citizenship rights and obligations are important. We may as well live in China or N Korea otherwise. So not a mute point.

Having said that, different folks have different ideas about a lot of things and this is one of them.

[Nitro]

Just out of interest how many of you Drank or tried to bought alcohol at 16, How many tried to get into night clubs and bars for 18's and over, There should be a set age for everything eithier 16 or 18, I've never understood why 16 years olds can't legally gamble, Yet can buy a lottery ticket!

[sarahc]

Like what for example? What has to be one of the main dangers young people face is sex, and they are not protected from that at 16.

 

I think one of the most important things that under 18s are protected from is debt.

[catchy]

I cannot believe the way LoneWolf is citing the right to vote as being the main responsibility of citizenship. there are many more important issues than that, one does not have to vote to be a resonsible citizen, whether 16 or 60.

 

In my opinion 16 year ols make up part of our society and always will, so they should be granted to right to vote just the same as any other faction of society. whether immature or of poor judgement at that age it does not matter, because there will always be people of that age feeling and thinking the same way, and their voices have a right to be heard.

At 16 I had left home, was living with my partner, working full time, paying income tax. I was also smoking and drinking as were all my peers. an adult in all sense of the word basically, I cannot see any reason why I should have been denied the vote, although I doubt I would have bothered.

 

16 yr olds voting is not going to change the world, but it may make those in that limbo of 16-18 feel they trusted and have responsibilites which can only be a good thing.

[LoneWolf]

I cannot believe the way LoneWolf is citing the right to vote as being the main responsibility of citizenship. there are many more important issues than that, one does not have to vote to be a resonsible citizen, whether 16 or 60.

 

Actually Catchy, I havent cited anything of the sort.

I have said the right to vote is the main benefit of citizenship. I have said that because it is a fact in democratic societies.

I have also said the right to vote confers full citizenship rights and along with that goes an obligation to accept all the obligations and responsibilities of being a citizen. This is not compatible with being someone who is exempt from some or all of the obligations of citizenship. 16 year olds fall into that category.

Im sorry Catchy but in a democratic society there is no more important issues than the right to vote and all the basic human freedoms which go along with it such as right to assembly and freedom of speech.

 

You are correct that one does not have to vote to be a responsible citizen. Many citizens choose not to vote.

But that has nothing at all to do with the basic concept of citizenship which underpins democratic societies.

 

As I said earlier this is one of those issues which people will have different opinions on. I dont have any problem at all with that but I do have a problem with people stating factually incorrect assertions to support their arguments. This thread began with a series of factually incorrect assertions being presented as an argument in favour of 16 year olds being given the vote.

You would do better wondering why these assertions were presented as fact rather than challenging the fundamental facts of citizenship

[catchy]

This thread began with a series of factually incorrect assertions being presented as an argument in favour of 16 year olds being given the vote.

You would do better wondering why these assertions were presented as fact rather than challenging the fundamental facts of citizenship

I am sorry to continually question you, but I do not agree with anything you are saying so feel I have to.

The factually incorrect assertions for example, can you give me a brief run down? As I cannot find them within this thread, though you have mentioned another thread where all this is covered but I have not seen it. All the assertions made here, although you have quantified them, seem to still apply. 16 yr olds can still have their own home, marry, have children, drive and pay taxes. These things I have just listed are all the assertions I see and though there may be some restrictions surroundig these activites 16 yr olds can still do them, so I cannot see how your protests apply at all.

I also do not see why you have to make it sound so black and white. To allow certain privaledges like voting we do not automatically have to withdraw any protections we currently allow to 16 yr olds.

Also your list of privaledges 16 yr olds enjoy is unreal, I have known 16-17 yr olds imprisoned for fairly minor offenses and given comparitively long sentances, certainly no lower than any 18 yr olds facing the same charges. also held in the same prison and mixing with adults. Employment law and disiplinary issues within employment is you must agree a minor issue and one I know nothing about although I have been employed since I was a 16 yr old.

I really cannot see your argument. It appears based on nothing other than your own feelings about 16 yr olds.

[LoneWolf]

I really cannot see your argument. It appears based on nothing other than your own feelings about 16 yr olds.

 

OK Catchy. You have repeated all the factually incorrect claims made earlier in the thread. Im not going to point out the facts again as you obviously choose not to believe them B) Your unreasonable beliefs, however, do not alter a factual situation.

My argument is based on a particular perception of citizenship which is accepted by a number of Civil Liberty organisations I have been involved with over many years as well as by a large body of Liberal thinkers with much better brains than I possess. I dont expect you, or anyone else to accept my argument but it is reasonable to expect a rebuttal to be backed up by logic rather than by continued assertions which are factually incorrect.

As for my feelings about 16 year olds I happen to believe that, in common with all youngsters, they are entitled to a range of freedoms and protections appropriate to their age. I also believe the balance, while not perfect, is about right in our particular society

[catchy]

in answer you chose to cite your own perception and other thinkers comments, that says a lot I think.

My assertion are no less true than the first time you quantified them; their own home easily got by simply renting a flat house or bedsit, marry, they can with permission so they can, have children of course they can, drive they can and do, pay taxes of course.

[LoneWolf]

in answer you chose to cite your own perception and other thinkers comments, that says a lot I think.

My assertion are no less true than the first time you quantified them; their own home easily got by simply renting a flat house or bedsit, marry, they can with permission so they can, have children of course they can, drive they can and do, pay taxes of course.

 

You will find that most arguments consist of a logical position and need to be supported by reference to other thinkers There are very few people in the world capable of original thinking. Most of us end up subscribing to one or more belief systems.

You will also find other people may have quite different ideas to your own. For example, Lenin famously published a whole series of writings on citizenship and made them available to a waiting world via the Little Lenin Library. I have two of his volumes on my bookshelf although I dont accept any of his ideas.

I mention this because, repugnant as his ideas may seem, he has many disciples and backs his argument up with logic and interpretation of facts. He doesnt attempt to present unfactual assertions as fact. He interprets facts.

This leads me into your use of the word "truth". Please dont ever confuse "truth" with fact. they are two entirely different things.

The facts are 16 year olds cannot enter into a contract of their own volition. They cannot marry of their own volition. They are entitled to be protected and entitled to be supported. Notwithstanding your earlier assertions about criminal law, 16 year olds are treated entirely differently to adults by the criminal statutes.

Contrary to your assertion, the protections offered to young workers are extrememy important and have been gained over many decades by the struggles of dedicated, unpaid Trade Union members.

These are facts. its legitimate to interpret these facts as you wish. But it isnt legitimate to present assertions as factual when they arent.

 

I dont have any problem at all with your argumant that 16 year olds should have the vote. But you need to back it up with some logic rather than relying on presentation of false facts.

[Gladys]

The facts are 16 year olds cannot enter into a contract of their own volition.

 

Sorry Lone Wolf, but they can. They can be employed, so are entering into a contract of employment, they can purchase goods, etc. so are entering into contracts all the time. It depends on what the contract is for and some may need parental underwriting. Please see Deliverance's thread.

 

Other than that, I have come down against reducing the age of enfranchisement because it is inconsistent with other important age qualifications and because I do not think it will really make a jot of difference to political awareness and turn-outs at the polls.

[LoneWolf]

Sorry Lone Wolf, but they can. They can be employed, so are entering into a contract of employment, they can purchase goods, etc. so are entering into contracts all the time. It depends on what the contract is for and some may need parental underwriting. Please see Deliverance's thread.

Ok no problem with that although the case law on purchase of goods doesnt support your case too clearly.

Nevertheless, 16 year olds are severely restricted as to what contracts they can enter into.

These restrictions include employment contracts as there is statute law constraining employers from taking on 16 year olds for specific tasks and between certain hours.

the constraints and restrictions are age specific and, IMHO, we have the balance about right.

 

Other than that, I have come down against reducing the age of enfranchisement because it is inconsistent with other important age qualifications and because I do not think it will really make a jot of difference to political awareness and turn-outs at the polls.

 

I agree with your reference to important age qualifications which I have cast as citizenship rights and obligations.