I've said yes..... but on 2nd thoughts would they actually know what they were voting for? My thinking was they will be in school and could vote 'at' school therefore increasing numbers. Maybe they could be educated on the voting options beforehand... Why you ask?
it's in the news today!! the general feeling seems to be : oldies think that it's too young and they'd waste their vote - personally, i think they should - they're allowed die in the army, get married, pay taxes - why not? it might shake things up abit, make people vote properly if they think kids might fuck things up. too much of the status quo around at the moment. Also might make politicians re-think their strategies - but kids know their minds, just cause cameron might turn up on MTV or something - they'll seel straight thru him. i think they should
I think they should mainly for the reasons MOS has stated, whether many of them would actually vote if given the right is a different story though. Does anyone think it would make much difference?
not sure - BUT it might make people who currently DONT vote, change their ways - but maybe they should just have the right anyway
I think they would be more likely too if it was done at school at least the majority are already there! Highly unlikely they gunna get outta bed and make the effort to get to a polling station. I also think with alot of young people leaving school at 16 and becoming lost in the wilderness and not even considering voting when they reach 18. If they are given their right to vote for what they want whilst at school; it may (i say may...) instill a little more sense of purpose and ambition when they do leave.
No i dont think they should be able to vote. Its bad enough democracy being more of a marketing exercise, than a sensible approach to running this country in everyones best interests....... without dropping it down another level in order to curry favour with people who care more about Ipods and Hollyoaks than they do serious issues. It takes maturity to be able to vote i think. 16 year olds just dont have enough of it at that age.
There would be no chance of them taking it seriously. All the candidates would do is try to soften things up for youngsters (14+ year olds) in hope they would gain the votes of the 16-18 group, but the wool could be pulled over their eyes with it. Promises of "more places for youths to go" and such could mask their real promises, it could fuck the country up to be honest. Plus, it would be a challenge even getting them into the place, I know two years ago I wouldn't have voted....
i chose yes at pointblank but i dont think it is viable. mainly because 16 year olds are alot more impressionable, and then smear campaigns will be for kids, and they'll be much more ridiculas than they are now
Can see your point but I know a lot of quite mature 16 year olds, and nearly as many immature as fuck 18-21 year olds.
That hardly justfies the fact that 16 year olds are too imature to vote, I'm 18 and I wouldnt consider myself to be clued up enough to vote for a campaign I believe in.....
Marty's been violating trees?!!! brings a whole new meaning to getting a woody!! (i'll call me own taxi!)
No, I think 18 is the absolute minimal the age should be. At 16 you've hardly experienced life at all really, at 18 a lot more people are becoming more independent, have experienced work and "real life" and generally become more responsible in their actions.
I find it quite daft that they cant anyway. The govenment send 16 year olds half way across the world to fight wars then dont even give them a chance to have their say in the way the country is run!?
But they are too impressionable, besides, if thats how you are going to justify it then the BNP would probably be in by now, judging from the squaddies I have spoken to. My brother was in the army for 8 years and the other week I came in to find BNP bumper sickers on the sofa, when I asked him what the fuck he was doing joining the BNP he said "the NF wanted £70 more"
