DISQUS

Ade · 5 months ago

For me the votes at 16 camapign isn't about viewing young people as potential adults rather it is about fairness - the law with regards to 16 year olds is messy - they can join the army but not vote? How does that make sense? Also I think young people have a right to have their vote counted along with adults - our voting should be open to larger numbers (and age ranges) because we should value their voice alongside adults' voices

mas · 5 months ago

it doesn't make sense, but then neither does it if 16 year olds can't have other adult responsibilities too, so do you also lower the age at which people can buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, be sued, gamble, adopt children, get married without consent etc. etc. ?

Agree about the messiness but to me the solution isn't to make childhood shorter, I'd much rather we develop a society that values childhood and values the opinions of children and young people as they are - not simply grant 16+ year olds a right to vote and say well there you go now you've got a 'voice' - what then about 15 year olds does the argument have to be revisited in a few years time to lower it again and diminish childhood further?

I'm not against 16 year olds voting, frankly I don't care but then neither I think do many 16 year olds which is really my point - what difference will it actually make and what difference could instead be made if the time, effort and money was instead being directed at ensuring all young people are valued and listened to and not excluded in the ways like those cub scouts were in Parliament?

A relevant question to this debate is do you consider the votes for 16 campaign to be a truly ground up campaign?

Ade · 5 months ago

I wouldn't say that it is a ground up campaign (from young people) but I don't think that makes the case for it invalid. I also don't think voting reduces young people's childhood. Young people are asked to contribute to wide range of discussions and decisions about their life and the fact that voting is not on the table seems to be ridiculous. I don't see voting as something that only adults get - I think we should be creating a society that encourages all of us to participate - (I am equally passionate about votes for prisoners) for me it is a matter of justice not responsibility. I don't care whether young people use their vote but I think it is important that they have the ability to vote - does that make sense?

mas · 5 months ago

ah well if you're making a case for voting at much younger ages too ie. we're all citizens I'm interested in that albeit obviously all sorts of implications but I can agree that the right to vote doesn't have to be limited only to those classed as adults.

I'm not meaning that if its not a ground up campaign its invalid - I was relating it to something I saw recently (which unfortunately have lost) that discussed that non voting, or getting people to vote is much more important to politicians than it is to the general public ie. this is maybe a part of a bigger drive to get people into politics rather than seeking ways to engage people in ways that they wish to participate - that said the question of who's really pulling the strings is still very relevant.

Another thought maybe related - should the emphasis be on getting people engaged in politics, or getting politicians engaged with those they represent? (& from work I've done recently there is an issue with that at least at a local level)

Ade · 5 months ago

Totally agree that the discussion about engagement should be about getting politicians to engage with the people they represent not the other way round - I think falling numbers of voters are going to push people locally and nationally to take that on more. There is also the possibility of getting some dynamic politician that believes that and then changes everything in politics like Obama's election did in the States.

mas · 5 months ago

not for some years judging by the current dreary options to choose from, but you can live in hope :-)