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
Teen Species
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Has anyone been watchign the 'Teen Species' programmes on BBC? I've only seen the one that was on last night, about 16-18 year olds. One 16 year old was campaigning with the Green Party to try to get the voting age lowered to 16. Her argument was that at 16 you can have a baby, move out, get married, be legally employed (and handle money), but you have to wait till you are 18 to vote. She said that 16 year olds have a lot of valid points and good views or something, and their votes would be valuble.
What do you think? Are 16 year olds mature enough to vote?
Are 16 year olds ready to have a baby, move out, get married?
I'm not ready to get married, move out or have a baby, but I feel that I am mature enough to vote.
What do you all think?
What do you think? Are 16 year olds mature enough to vote?
Are 16 year olds ready to have a baby, move out, get married?
I'm not ready to get married, move out or have a baby, but I feel that I am mature enough to vote.
What do you all think?
0
Comments
So, although some 16 year olds are responsible and sensible enough to vote, I think that as the majoirty are not, it would be a bad idea to allow them all to help decide such an important decision.
I just think that man should be me!
I agree that the height of puberty some views and tastes are not exactly refined yet (as a 29-year old I can't get over what shit music, fashion style and shitty TV programmes I liked when I was 16) but I generally find that younger people seem to have very clear ideas on politics, and are not afraid of changes and challenges. For instance, a very high proportion of those who want to scrap 3rd World Debt and see 1st World countries donate 0.7% of their gross annual budgets (which, according to experts would practically eradicate poverty) are teenagers. They also tend to be more understanding on issues such as asylum seekers or the environment. A far cry from the white-haired middle-class position and priorities.
I find that my approach to political issues is very simple and unbiased, and I can see ways to solve things. Well, I think I can see ways to solve things, but I don't know the complete detail of the case. I think sometimes details cloud issues, and that politicians should take a step back and just look at the bare fact and practicalities of the matter.
Going back to the program quickly, I thought the story about the teenage couple having a baby together was a real inspiration!
But... I totally agree with Mindless. At this age, when observing, you will see that a lot of people tell you their opinions, but would if given then chance vote on parties who don't fit those ideas and opinions. Why? Following their parents (not saying that you can't agree with your parents, but many will do it blindly, without thinking through themselves).
Or the other way around, there is the whole rebelling factor involved.
18, is a suitable age I guess.
In Denmark most people will have finished high-school, or an hand-craft skill around this age (always exceptions). And I guess that while you are left to handle "the next step", then you are old enough to vote, as you get reality forced down your throat (also most cases).
At 16, people want to change the world, to make it a better place for you and for me and the entire human race.
However at 16 very few teenages have to pay the taxes and other forms of money needed to finance a 0.7% annual aid package and the eradication of 3rd world debt.
As soon as they have to pay for anything their views will change.
Anyway, back to the subject. I fail to see why 16 year olds cannot vote...if you are working full time then you have to pay tax, and I am of the opinion that if you pay tax then you are entitled, as a right, to determine how that tax is spelt. Either give 16yos the vote, or stop charging them tax. And I know what governments would rather do...
Its spelt T-A-X, and I think that nobody, no matter how old, should have the right to determine differently!
Seriously though, what percentage of 16 year olds work full time and pay tax?
Does it matter? If that was the only criteria, then most OAPs would no longer be entitled to vote.
Its a tough one. There is no reason, other than political immaturity to refuse them the vote, but then how many adults are really politically mature?
stop quoting michael jackson at me will ya
Old enough to work, old enough to vote. OAPs and unemployed are old enough to work, whether they can get employment is a different matter.
Political maturity is a misnomer, its not hard to tick a box on a form (although, granted, Americans have difficulty filling in voting slips properly;))
But basing your view on whether a politician has a "nice smile" isn't really a basis for forming the next Govt, is it?
That's what I mean. Its a trait of a younger generation to put image above any substance.
But like I said - there are many adults who suffer from that too
With a younger voting public parties like the Lib-Dems would ahve mroe of a chance, polls that BBC Newsround and such like do at election times tend to support that.
The best way to get higher turnouts would be to change to a proportional representation policy though,a s the way it is at the moment it dont matter who you vote for in places like Barnsley.
Proportional representation is perhaps the biggest threat to effective parliamentary democracy since Hitler (who, incidentally, came to power through a proportional representation deomocratic system).
It invariably leads to large numbers of individually weak parties which are forced to form coalitions. The nature of a coalition is such that, because you can't get everyone to agree, you have to dilute and appease to please evereyone, eventually resulting in nothing at all happening. Do you really want to be like India, with a ruling coalition composed of 21 separate political parties, each with their own agendae?
Show me a 16 year-old that watches newsround, and I will show you a lobotomy scar.
You claim people vote Labour because they have done so all their life; how can you reconcile this with 18 years of Tory administration? Apart from considering massive electoral fraud on the part of the Conservatives, you can't.
And, tbh, Id rather live in a country with a coalition that represents my views rather than one that just sweeps them under the carpet. PR isnt this huge bad disease that is gonna kill politics, it wouldnt change the configuration of the current parliament other than redistribute seats...Labour would still ahve a comfortable majority. It would just mean people like the LibDems could be a more coherent threat than the joke that is the Tory Party.
And it works for all the political parties...people vote not on agenda but on who they always have voted for. Using that argument is therefore flawed, and, IMHO, a younger voting public might change things around a bit.
Keep it at 18 years of age to be safe (ish)
Damn 16 year olds *shifty eyes*
I still think that working 16yos should not pay tax unless they have the vote. Its only fair.
I agree, it can be difficult to decide, especially when PR appears so much more democratic than FPTP. But if you're using the argument that it's more democratic, then why not take it to its logical conclusion and adopt Athenian democracy, without a parliament or executive head of state, and with every person in the country voting on every single issue? That would be far more representative, so why not?
Because it's completely impractical; nothing at all would get done as we were all bogged down in constant elections, and people would get bored of voting and stop.
In any democratic system it's necessary to strike a balance between representation and practicality/expediency. I prefer the balance of FPTP to that of PR. It also has the thankful side-effect of stopping the BNP from getting in
Up here in Scotland we already have PR in the Scottish assembly and let me tell you it doesn't work. You have the choice of having a weak government with a tiny majority or a coalition government involving more than one party, inevitably leading to disagreements.
Under FPTP the party with the most votes wins, simple. Under PR, a party that hasn't got the most votes can still get into power. This sounds a bit wrong to me.
Look at our Scottish Labour/Lib-Dem coalition government. The Lib-Dems did not get the most votes, so why should they be in power?
FPTP is simple and it works. PR may be more "democratic" but it is complicated and doesn't give a clear majority government.
But wasn't there a government in the 70s or something where the opposition had more votes than the people who got in, because of FPTP? And even if there wasn't technically it could happen, so either way we could still end up being governed by the wrong people!!!
and u should vote for the green party lol
Yay! Let's give you the vote and then watch you waste it