If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No, because with the exception of driving the rest still stands.
Regardless, it's a personal opinion. I think the voting age should remain at 18.
you can get married at 16
have children at 16
get a full time job at 16
PAY TAXES at 16 but you cant decide what happens with your money as your not old enough. so let me get this straight your old enough for the theiving bastards that lead our country to take money off you but your not old enough to decide what shoudl be dont with it. hypocritical wankers
you can drive at 17 but your not old enough to decide on highway laws car tax ect. HYPOCRITS!!!!!
tbh i feel the same way about lots of stuff like you pay adult tickets on train and buses at 15 so your an adult but you cant drink till your 18. hypocrits. your always told to act more adult but your not given any adult responablility till your 18. who makes all these fucking laws about your not allowed to do stuff till your 18? oh yes its people over 18 isnt it!!!
CUNTS!
"and rant is over"
Ok firstly: hypocrite.
Secondly, where do you draw the line? Some people have children a good few years before 16, should they be allowed to vote when they have given birth? What about if you have a job and are paying taxes before 16? Should you have a say then? There are also laws that affect people younger than 16 - ones about schooling for example. Using your line of argument, because people are affected by something they should have a say - does this mean everyone who attends a school following the national curriculum should have the vote so they can have their say?
im terribly sorry that mistake must of really hurt so many people i dont really care that much about spelling when im on something like this tbh. and actually i have pretty controversial veiws on things and yes i do think that children should have a much much greater influence on there schooling. i actually i do think if you are affected by something you should have a say about it (in most cases that is with the exception of maybe prisoners wanting less time inside and stuff like that lol). im sure most people will disagree but i really disagree with people having power over others. its why i find it very hard to respect authority when people use it to show there power or be a wanker about it if you know what i mean. having a child before 16 is illegal but im not sure what i feel about that. i beleive if something affects or hurts only you and no one else then no one has the right to punish you for it. sorry going off on a tangent. thats how i feel people aren't given enough power over things that affect them especially children and youths.
:yes: couldnt agree more
Why not? Plenty of adults don't give a damn about politics either, so should they be denied the right to vote?
But that is the whole point, just changing the voting age will do next to nothing for our democracy as a whole.
We need to make fundamental changes to force those in power to actually try and win our support - just changing the age of voting wont help with this.
Safe seats don't help in my opinion. The same party has held my home constituency since 1923, and that year was a one off fluke for the Liberal Party. I would consider myself someone who has a good knowledge of politics, but part of me wonders why I bother to vote. It's always going to be the same party getting elected with a majority of well over 10,000. That’s despite just over half of those who voted supporting other parties
It's not the only example of a safe seat either. So i can understand when people say 'My vote won't change anything'
Perhaps if a proportional or mixed system was introduced it would change something. Politicians would have to try and appeal to everyone rather than parties relying on getting MP's into parliament in safe seats.
I think it would make a big difference but it's unlikely that any of the three main parties would ever want to introduce it - but stranger things have happened.
Of course it does have problems - you'll get more extreme groups with seats, both left, right and anything else, and it can create a system where government is somewhat compromised by agreements with other smaller parties.
However right now it doesn't really feel like any party has a great political vision that it would be terrible to compromise on - rather a continual series of random decisions based on the latest news reports or academic findings.
So I guess it's a question of wanting more democracy but at the risk of losing consistency.
I completely agree, and sympathise. During the last election Labour was so sure of my area that not one poster, leaflet, or anything else was put up or posted. They knew they had it so they couldnt be bothered to even try and make a show of it.
I'm not sure PR would be a great idea for the lower house, it can lead to lots of deal making and fractious governments. For the Lords though it would be perfect, one off 10 year elections (that way the whip wouldnt have any power) would give proper oversight of the government.
They pay the same rate though.