A post by Oldage on today's daily news just brought something to mind and I thought it would be a good discussion point.

There's been a long standing debate about whether certain age groups should be allowed to vote. This is clearly a sensitive topic but has become more and more prevalent in recent votes where certain age groups were more likely to vote for one outcome and another group another.

For example, Brexit was majoritively voted for by the "older" generations and majoritively voted against by the "younger generation".

Politics, and democracy especially, is a game of short-termism and a constant requirement to deliver immediate (or near term) results to their constituents and therefore bigger, more important things (climate, pollution, proper investment - ignoring HS2 here as that's just rubbish - etc.) get ignored as they're hard decisions that are unlikely to win votes. Chasing the "grey vote" is something that regularly comes up and the wants of the younger voters is ignored.

In America recently there was a drive to disenfranchise younger voters because they were more likely to vote Democratic rather than adjusting policies to take into account their needs. Political institutions are scared of younger voters as their views tend to be more radical and questioning the norm.

So the question is should there be an age cap on those allowed to vote? Should there be certain referenda only available to be voted on by those who would be deemed to have their lives affected by it most? Can we trust younger people to make life defining decisions that will impact us all?

That is a big question what is a sensible age for them to vote my first thoughts on it the persons that will mainly argue for 16 year olds to have the vote will then argue about the Bethnal green girls to be allowed back into the country because of their age when they left and being children. As one of them was just three months off her 16th birthday and Shamira who is trying to return was six months , would they grow up enough I that time span to cast a vote. There is a contradiction with their arguments. My second point is that at that age do you not think they are like sheep and easily manipulated to vote as per whatever seems to be the popular thing to say and do with no real thoughts of the consequences. I k ow I think it of both my children when they were rhat age and now the grandchildren.
So overall I don't think 16 year olds should have the vote but I do think shamira should be allowed back I to the country to argue her case. Not because of age but justice has got to be seen to be done

It's a odd one, and an issue which, at some point in the near future, the Government will have to address. Under British Law, anyone under the age of 18 is considered a minor - and as such cannot buy alcohol in a pub, or watch films with an 18 rating. But then, with parental consent, a minor is allowed to marry ... or join up to the armed services (only European country to allow under 18s to do this - you can actually apply to join at 15 years and 7 months IIR).

OK, an under 18 wouldn't see active service on the front line, but if somebody is deemed mature enough to make a decision to potentially put their lives on the line in their future to defend the UK, then they're bally well old enough to put a tick against somebody to represent them in an election, or to make a life-changing decision in a referendum.

So, yes, I have absolutely no problem with a 16yo voting. I have more of a problem with those in their twilight years making decisions which affect the younger generations because "they know best".

With ref to Signals point, as youngsters have access to a more balanced and higher standard of education than they did say fifty or sixty years ago, I be more worried, by the older sheep that get 'educated' by The Sun, The Mail and The Express still get the vote.

Those 16 year olds that are interested enough in their futures should definitely be allowed to have a say in it.

So the conscensus seems to be that 16 is an acceptable age (and I always wondered why at that age you can marry and legally have sex but can't vote on something that determines your future).

The other edge of the sword is limiting the elder vote, do we suggest that onec you reach a certain age your vote no longer matters? Or find a way to weight people's votes (i.e. younger vote is worth 3 and older vote is worth one)?

There was a voter supression tactic in the states in the fifties that forced certain (mainly minority) voters to have to answer a constitutional question before they were allowed to vote. Is there a way we could certify that someone has fully made a measured decision based on the evidence before them to vote, rather than reading the Sun and doing the bidding of Mr Murdoch?

So right Wills, I know we're veering off topic, but its almost criminal how for so many years now Murdoch has been able to have such an influence on our elections and lives in this country. And what now adds to this worry is he has just been given the green light to launch his Fox news equivalent in this country.

At least the additional benefit of 16 year olds having the vote is that the younger generation in general tend to get most of their information fresh from a balanced education as well as (debatably) from the internet rather than from our right wing dominated media, and especially the whims of one man.

Always said if a 16 year old can pay tax and serve their country then they should get a vote on how they want the tax spent

So right Wills, I know we're veering off topic, but its almost criminal how for so many years now Murdoch has been able to have such an influence on our elections and lives in this country. And what now adds to this worry is he has just been given the green light to launch his Fox news equivalent in this country.

At least the additional benefit of 16 year olds having the vote is that the younger generation in general tend to get most of their information fresh from a balanced education as well as (debatably) from the internet rather than from our right wing dominated media, and especially the whims of one man.

Things don't really change. Whereas it can be argued that the media more associated with the more elderly voter i.e. news broadcast, newspapers etc can influence the way an older person votes, the same can be said for all these 'influencers' that are now splashed all over the social media sites and the influence they have over the younger generation. The worrying thing is that many of these influencers don't appear to have any common sense at all and yet they could dictate how a young person votes. From my experiences of working with younger people its fair to say that there is an awful lot of them that struggle with seeing the 'bigger picture' or the real narrative behind an electoral campaign. For instance, when Labour published its 'manifesto' in the lead up to the last election it made a big deal of cancelling student fees and pumping loads into the NHS etc. Their manifesto was largely about spend and very little about how they were going to pay for all the spend. When Corbyn was asked about how they were going to pay for this and those asking touched on, would he be looking to stop the Trident programme, he was very evasive saying that they would conduct a review of the Trident Programme and then decide. Youngsters I spoke with were happy with that but it wasn't until I suggested they look into the history of the man and his beliefs that it suddenly dawned on them that it was more than likely he was going to stop Trident and use that money to fund all his spend thereby threatening the security of the whole of the Country, possibly our relationship with the USA and potentially the Western world. So, I'm not convinced that 16 yr olds should be given the vote. One thing that people seem to be overlooking is that although they have been on the planet for 16 years, for the majority of that time a childs cognitive ability is still developing. To give someone the power to make massive changes when they haven't really had enough time to gain enough knowledge or understanding on life and the consequences of their actions is quite a dangerous and frightening thing.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say there's still a lot of generalising that you're doing.

Corbyn's entire campaign was a popularist thing, he couldn't argue any decision and was just saying as many things to please as many voters as possible.

Part of the problem is politics isn't really taught about in school (atleast wasn't when I was still there c15 years ago).

There is a bigger issue with education not raising thinkers just regurgitators to pass exams, and that tends to be the reason these popularist policies get hold in the youth who can't critically think about what they're being told.

Ultimately the problem lays with the political classes, they do little to endear themselves with the youth and focus heavily on the older vote, hoping the youth don't partake.

Who can effectively change the system? The politicians. Who are likely to fall foul of these changes? The politicians.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say there's still a lot of generalising that you're doing.

Corbyn's entire campaign was a popularist thing, he couldn't argue any decision and was just saying as many things to please as many voters as possible.

Part of the problem is politics isn't really taught about in school (atleast wasn't when I was still there c15 years ago).

There is a bigger issue with education not raising thinkers just regurgitators to pass exams, and that tends to be the reason these popularist policies get hold in the youth who can't critically think about what they're being told.

Ultimately the problem lays with the political classes, they do little to endear themselves with the youth and focus heavily on the older vote, hoping the youth don't partake.

Who can effectively change the system? The politicians. Who are likely to fall foul of these changes? The politicians.

I agree 100% with you on this and its another reason why I don't think the voting age should be dropped to 16. I even know of University educated youngsters that still cant think critically and they're older than 16.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say there's still a lot of generalising that you're doing.

Corbyn's entire campaign was a popularist thing, he couldn't argue any decision and was just saying as many things to please as many voters as possible.

Part of the problem is politics isn't really taught about in school (atleast wasn't when I was still there c15 years ago).

There is a bigger issue with education not raising thinkers just regurgitators to pass exams, and that tends to be the reason these popularist policies get hold in the youth who can't critically think about what they're being told.

Ultimately the problem lays with the political classes, they do little to endear themselves with the youth and focus heavily on the older vote, hoping the youth don't partake.

Who can effectively change the system? The politicians. Who are likely to fall foul of these changes? The politicians.

I agree 100% with you on this and its another reason why I don't think the voting age should be dropped to 16. I even know of University educated youngsters that still cant think critically and they're older than 16.

Sadly I think I agree with you both. I was twelve at the time of the Suez crisis, but I can recall being au fait with all the issues, and aware of the consequences of our mistaken actions, followed by Eden’s resignation. I’m pretty sure I’m not imagining this awareness, which I know is a trait as we look back.

I was staggered at a survey reported last year. I can’t remember the number, but I was amazed at the number of people under thirty who couldn’t name the Prime Minister, and the huge number who didn’t know who the leader of the opposition was.

My daughter teaches A level students, and she regularly tells me how she has to dumb down some of her teaching where it impinges on current affairs, to avoid the danger of talking over their heads.

Surely this lies at the impact of populism. If you don’t understand a subject then it’s human nature to clutch at simple solutions, no matter how bizarre, and to believe those who promote them.

...the youth who can't critically think about what they're being told.

If this was the main requirement for being allowed to vote, then I'd argue there a fair percentage of those over the age of 18 should be exempt from voting.

I'd much rather a youth be able to make a vote on their future at the age of 16 (and for them to make a mistake) rather than have some grumpy 50-something or older make the decision for them, based on their experiences / prejudices / jaundiced eye.

Simple solution - if 18 is seen as the starting point of being sensible enough to vote, then everything else (driving, marriage, sex, serving in the armed forces) should be raised accordingly. Otherwise if the bar is being pushed down on the other aspects of "adulthood" then so should voting.

...the youth who can't critically think about what they're being told.

If this was the main requirement for being allowed to vote, then I'd argue there a fair percentage of those over the age of 18 should be exempt from voting.

I'd much rather a youth be able to make a vote on their future at the age of 16 (and for them to make a mistake) rather than have some grumpy 50-something or older make the decision for them, based on their experiences / prejudices / jaundiced eye.

Simple solution - if 18 is seen as the starting point of being sensible enough to vote, then everything else (driving, marriage, sex, serving in the armed forces) should be raised accordingly. Otherwise if the bar is being pushed down on the other aspects of "adulthood" then so should voting.

The thing is, that 16 yr old that votes and makes a mistake is going to affect the future of those 50 year olds as well. Its a very difficult thing to balance and every age group will be able to present a valid case to support whatever their argument is. To be allowed to vote though is a very powerful thing, much more so than learning to drive, getting married etc. The price that a Country and its people could pay if the wrong people are placed in charge could be quite high and for that reason my personal preference would be to raise the voting age to 25.