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.