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
Reasons why the voting age needs to be lowered
Sholay09
Posts: 131 The Mix Convert
Hello my name is Shola I am 23 years old and I need to know the list of reasons why the voting age should be lowered from age 18 right now.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If you do still need: 1) 16 year olds are considered adults in many ways (e.g., can work, can marry, have to pay adult fares on trains etc...) so why not voting too? 2) we are voting on things that impact us too e.g., like schooling so wouldn't it make sense to have a little input from those who have the best understanding of such things (i.e., current students) 3) lots of 16-17 year olds are deeply interested in politics and may have more knowledge and concern than adults - turning 18 does not suddenly provide you with substantial knowledge of politics.
This is really interesting topic and I am not even sure where I stand on the issue, very important tho
(_) | ()---|---() | | __ | __ |\ /^\ /| '..-' '-..' `-._ _.-` `Good luck getting them to actually vote though.
@GreenTea Do you believe having a strong political opinion should be enough to grant giving someone a vote?
A 7 year old could strongly believe that free cookies should be provided in all schools, but surely this motivation to vote would only get in the way of democracy and voting working effectively enough to achieve things; because we (people older than 7) understand that this is unfeasible.
Why should teenagers then, who have no understanding of how society operates, have yet to develop their values, and are motivated more by hormonal changes than common sense not be treated any differently to the 7 year old?
I am 18. Legally I am an adult and not only that, I am also female. I voted for the first time this year. Heck, I studied politics for a year at college. And I am uninformed? Every adult, regardless of their income, gender, etc should have the right to choose who represents them in government.
And even though you’re not an adult at 16, you can legally do many things which require maturity, such as getting married, joining the army, consenting to medical treatment, etc. And I believe someone with those rights should also have the right to choose political representation.
My point, quite clearly I believe, is that the situation I've described with the 7 year olds is analogous to teens wanting to vote.
You seem to agree with my suggestion that giving 7 year olds the vote is absurd; so what is the flaw in how I've applied the reasoning for this to 16 year olds also?
How is it an unfair example? You've failed to address the points I've made which explain how 16 year olds are also incapable of voting. @GreenTea
There's a big difference between the education and knowledge of a 7 year old compared to a 16 year old.
It should be lowered
Yes I think you're incapable of making a worthwhile vote.
If being 'informed' is enough, should a 7 year old that rote-learned political information be able to vote? Or, as I suggest, shouldn't a necessary amount of life experience also be required? Adult experience should absolutely be necessary. A teenager, as I've described, doesn't have this.
"Every adult regardless of [this and that] should be able to choose who represents them". Why exactly?? And why do you consider age (as opposed to paying taxes for example) the qualifying factor for who should be able to vote? And why should the age of an 'adult' be considered 16?
I think further conditions should be placed on women or people who don't earn if they want to be able to vote.
Being given responsibilities that you may or may not be prepared for doesn't justify giving further responsibilities (in this case the responsibility of voting) without further consideration. 16 year olds cannot get married or join the army without parental consent and they can't consent to medical treatment if they haven't been advised to do so by a doctor.
@Knight1 - saying women shouldn't be able to vote until they're married is beyond sexist; why does this not apply to men? Why do you say that men who pay taxes can vote? Why not women? Why not older people who have contributed their whole life to their country, such as veterans?
I don't actually think the voting age should be lowered, because from my experience, 16-18 year olds in particular seem very susceptible to groupthink and social pressures, and I think that extends into the realms of political voting. Many young people are still very caught up in short-sighted utopian visions that aren't really applicable to this world, and that extends into beyond how they vote. I know people who got disowned from their friendship groups for not voting "in keeping" with their groups, which is totally irrational and non-adult, a sign voting probably isn't a good option. So I think keeping the vote at 18, in line with when we declare someone an "adult", is the wisest option.
But this is a very interesting topic indeed! How does everyone being an "adult" differs between countries? For example, in Spain, although you're an adult at 18, you can still buy alcohol at 16, which is interesting!
It'll be fascinating to see what other people think!
We deserve to have a voice, have a say in the politics within the country we live in.
Woman have every right to have a voice, as does young people, elderly people etc etc
There's a big difference between the education and knowledge of a 26 year old compared to a 16 year old.
Being able to vote is a privilege, not a right; and you wanting to vote at 16 doesn't constitute a reason or it to be given to you. Otherwise, why should a 7 year old that wants to vote not be given the same opportunity?
I'm a mid 20s unmarried female and I will fucking vote because I have that choice.
If you think everyone has a right to decide who runs their government and you believe you wanting the vote is enough of a reason for it to be given to you, why shouldn't the 7 year old also be given a vote?
--
"Further conditions on woman? That's an extremely sexist approach there."...
The only time a woman is 'incapable' of voting is when she's on her monthly cycle or at the point of menopause. Otherwise, the only other factor that should prevent her from voting is if she isn't married - and this is because a woman in her 20s who isn't married isn't fulfilling her duty to society.
This isn't sexist because I would say the same thing for a man who was going through some hormonal treatment.
So many things are cognitively dissonant about this stance. Firstly, the stance of not letting women vote simply because they are women is IMMORAL. But running with this hideous idea, you do understand that many women "earn?" and have careers? Why turn the emphasis to women rather than people who don't earn? To me, that looks like a reflection of your sexist stance there.
Firstly, although I didn't make this suggestion, how is not letting women vote simply because they are women immoral? We don't let children vote only because they are children - we don't let the intellectually disabled vote only because they're disabled.
Conditions on voting exist, and everyone here is in agreement that they should continue to. People simply like to pretend as if voting is a right for everyone (when it isn't), because this means they don't have to confront the very reasonable arguments that suggest voting should be further restricted.
My comment on people earning concerned men who don't pay tax. They should be prevented from voting for the same reason women who aren't married should be - which is that their situation isn't one that's of benefit to society.
People should contribute to society and be of benefit to it, in order to have a say in how it operates. Otherwise, why shouldn't I be able to vote in the Indonesian elections or the US elections? Again, most people agree with the premise here (that social contribution should be necessary), but won't admit to it.
Do you consider this sexist still?
Sweetheart, I hate to break the news, but us women really aren't that different on our periods, nor do our political stances dramatically change in a week😂 We are very aware of hormonal changes that occur, but as we are very intelligent beings, we acknowledge this and any cognitive deviations that may occur as a result. It is NOT have an impact on our ability to vote rationally. The same goes for menopause. It can massively affect how you feel about yourself, but not really your political stance 😂
Please, @Knight1 , take some time to educate yourselves about the experiences of women, we really do not change that much from month to month. We do not shapeshifter or cognitively rewire ourselves, as implied by your post.
Secondly,you say "Otherwise, the only other factor that should prevent her from voting is if she isn't married - and this is because a woman in her 20s who isn't fulfilling her duty to society."
Something about this position tells me you are extremely dogmatic religious person. These opinion posts are just that, opinions, so please state them as so.
"fulfilling her duty?" many would disagree.
Don't get how being married would affect who I vote for. I vote who I want to vote. Nobody is going to decide for me
Unfortunately I think your first paragraph regarding the capacity of a woman to think rationality during her period or menopause is just something we'll have to disagree on. If it's of any interest to you, we can have a separate discussion on this issue.
I'm sure everyone participating on here is of the understanding that these are 'only' opinions. Likewise, your position that "everyone has the right to vote" is also an opinion.
I don't consider myself an "extremely dogmatic religious person" at all, however you're free to hold this presumption.
Yes I'm sure many do disagree that a woman's position should be in marriage. Presumably, you disagree with this also - why is that so?
As a VERY simple answer to this, women neither have the mental capacity of children or those with intellectual disabilities. Women and men have the SAME intellectual abilities. It's that simple. If men are "suitable" enough to vote, then women are too.
you also say "Conditions on voting exist, and everyone here is in agreement that they should continue to. People simply like to pretend as if voting is a right for everyone (when it isn't), because this means they don't have to confront the very reasonable arguments that suggest voting should be further restricted."
Now I partly agree with this, voting does need to be restricted for the sake of a structured society. But women are as valuable as men, do you not agree? The woman who birthed you, raised you, and voted for bills that would favour your upbringing, is now being slapped in the face by their own child. I don't think you completely realise what you're saying, quite frankly.
you say: "My comment on people earning concerned men who don't pay tax. They should be prevented from voting for the same reason women who aren't married should be - which is that their situation isn't one that's of benefit to society. People should contribute to society and be of benefit to it, in order to have a say in how it operates. Otherwise, why shouldn't I be able to vote in the Indonesian elections or the US elections? Again, most people agree with the premise here (that social contribution should be necessary), but won't admit to it."
So men's 'benefit to society' is paying tax, and women's is marriage. That is your opinion? Honestly? This stance would only ever make sense of both conditions applied to both genders; so men paying tax and married, and women paying tax and married. (which even then, I don't agree with). I know some amazing women who chose not to marry or have kids, you know what they do instead? They fix your broken bones, they help you through bereavement, and they build society just as much as men. MARRIAGE DOES NOT EQUAL BENEFIT TO SOCIETY. To even attempt to measure how much of a benefit someone is to society by if they're married or not is not only limited and binary, but ignores the human condition.
Do I still consider your position sexist? Yes. I do. In a way, perhaps to both sexes! You vastly oversimplify and define what is deemed a "contribution to society"by gender roles....A contribution is a contribution. Not genitals.
Actually @Knight1 16 year olds can marry without parental consent in Scotland. And absolutely nobody regardless of age can consent to treatment without being advised to by a doctor.
By the time someone is 16 they’ve had around 11 years of education. They likely have access to social media and news outlets, so they will be far more informed than a 7 year old could ever be. That comparison just isn’t worth your energy.
So, at the age of 18, I have studied politics, I look at the news every day. I am not in education anymore, I’m on benefits, and I have no plans to marry in the near future. I have experienced many of the things that are campaigned for in government, I use the NHS, I have been through the benefits system. And you think that just because I am female and unmarried, none of that counts?
Sexism has no place here. And that’s what you are, in a single word. Sexist.
Clearly we disagree on what your obligations toward society are, then, but this is only natural. I hope you can consider this in the capacity that I meant it - which is that of a political discussion. If you were offended I hope you don't consider it a comment directed toward you personally as it most certainly wasn't.
Perhaps being married wouldn't change who you vote for although I imagine it would in the case of many women. Firstly your husband would be able to provide you the moral guidance necessary for you to remain an upright individual, and to make reasonable decision. Women aren't capable of going life alone - they should be under the headship of a male guardian.
1. How old are you?
2. What gender do you identify with?
3. Are you married?
@Knight1 Something about this stance really shows how little you know about women, because the biggest hormonal changes occur during ovulation, not a period. Id very much invite you to look into the science of this, before supporting destroying a women's vote.
What would you consider yourself if not held to dogmatic religious views? I'm a christian myself, but I will always fight for women's right to vote. I understand the importance of marriage, and hope to get married and have kids of my own one day, and adopt. But i do NOT centre a woman's contribution to society around whether they are married or not.
It doesn't even make sense. I'm 22 now, and of course I'm not married yet, but in my day to day life I've helped so many people- and we all do in ways we don't understand. Ive helped a young girl who was bullied so much she fell out of school, get back into school, and helped young people with learning disabilities achieve their GCSE goals.. All those little things contribute to a person's contribution to society, not whether or not they are married.
Id also like to highlight that your mid-20s barrier seems very counterintuitive and lacks patience. If my mother had had me that young and married the man before, he'd have been a terrible dad. But she had me later, and my dad (who she did marry late) is an incredible dad.
This whole debate of marriage and contribution and voting is far more complicated than your stance will ever consider. And I don't know if you believe in Jesus or not, but he most certainly would not agree with you.
@Knight1 I cannot believe you said that last paragraph. AGAIN, you need to state things like this as OPINIONS, not FACTS. "Women aren't capable of going life alone" needs to be prefaced by "I think".. My lord.
Man, I really don't think you realise how offensive you are being here. Women need men for moral guidance? For making reasonable decisions? Headship of a male guardian?
Ay, I hope you are a troll, because if this situation of sexism was reversed here, only then would you would understanding the agony of someone undermining your capacity as a human being.