I don't actually have strong opinions on the age limit for voting, but there's other good stuff in here too. Good for voters who have neither a passport nor driving licence! The poor, the young,...
I don't actually have strong opinions on the age limit for voting, but there's other good stuff in here too.
Among the other plans set out by the government are expanding the list of accepted ID to vote in Great Britain to UK-issued bank cards.
Good for voters who have neither a passport nor driving licence! The poor, the young, and the very old.
The government said it would also work towards creating an automated voter registration scheme over the coming years, with safeguards so that people are aware of their registration status and can opt-out if they wish.
Currently people in the UK need to register in order to vote, which can be done online or using a paper form.
This, to me, is the real no-brainer here.
Under the plans, political parties would have to assess companies they receive donations from.
Companies would have to make sufficient income in the UK or Ireland to donate.
The government said its proposals would close loopholes that mean a new company, registered only recently without even a single day of trade, owned by anyone, could still donate to a political party.
Yeah, the voter ID laws were only brought in two years ago (immediately before the last election) by the Tories under the guise of preventing fraud that was statistically nonexistent. Estimates...
Yeah, the voter ID laws were only brought in two years ago (immediately before the last election) by the Tories under the guise of preventing fraud that was statistically nonexistent. Estimates are somewhere around 14,000 voters actually turned away and up to 400,000 disincentivised from bothering to vote at all. Anything to functionally roll that back is a good thing, even if the law technically stays on the books for whatever reason.
Auto registration is indeed a no-brainer, and I’m cautiously optimistic about the financial influence changes too.
I very much stand by what I said a while back about Keir’s Labour: they suck - they’re basically Cameron-era Tories - but they are at least still a party that fundamentally believes in democracy and the rule of law, which can no longer be said for the current right.
This legislation seems to be a strong example of that: they’re a party I disagree with on policy, but they’re a party that still upholds the idea that we have a right to disagree, and that bar - low as it is - isn’t something to take for granted.
[Edit] Spelling; i before e, except where the English language arbitrarily decides otherwise.
I suspect that voting fraud, whilst unrecorded by stats, is more common that you might think but not how people typically imagine it. I know several people who were coerced by a parent to apply...
I suspect that voting fraud, whilst unrecorded by stats, is more common that you might think but not how people typically imagine it. I know several people who were coerced by a parent to apply for proxy votes and then the parent voted Tory with their vote. "If you want to live under my roof".
For any voting method that where the eligible person doesn't vote in person there would be no evidence of fraud. As such we should treat proxy voting and postal votes with suspicion. But of course the Tories only made voting in-person harder as a form of self-admitted gerymandering and had no interest in preventing actual voting fraud.
In the UK we have something called the Salisbury Doctrine which says that the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election...
A pledge to lower the voting age to 16 was included in Labour's election manifesto but it did not feature in last summer's King's Speech, which sets out the government's priorities for the months ahead.
In the UK we have something called the Salisbury Doctrine which says that the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto.
So although the House of Lords may generally want to block reducing the voting age doing so would violate our unwritten constitution. In other words because it's a manifesto commitment from Labout who have a large majority in the House of Commons the voting age will be reduced to 16.
Morally and ethically I think this is the right thing to do. Votes like brexit were carried on the back of people who would never live to see the destruction they caused, so any move to give the...
Morally and ethically I think this is the right thing to do. Votes like brexit were carried on the back of people who would never live to see the destruction they caused, so any move to give the people with the largest stake in the future a say in that future is a good one in my book.
Any age cutoff will be arbitrary, but 16 is the lowest age that we start giving at least some other adult rights and responsibilities to people in existing law, so it makes the most sense given that a line has to be chosen somewhere.
Practically speaking, I really hope the people making this decision understand the digital media landscape well enough to anticipate and counter the wave of propaganda they’ve just incentivised Russia bot farms and American far right groups to unleash on kids entering secondary school. The polls among current 16 year olds might lean left, but I wouldn’t be relying on that holding until the next election now that there’s a target painted on the people who’ll be 16 by then.
I’m concerned, given the pretty dismal showing when it comes to modern media literacy from everyone except the worst people in politics, but I was concerned about the 18 year olds, the 80 year olds, and most people in between on that front already, so I guess I probably shouldn’t be any more worried than I already was.
[Edit] Worth adding that if the government are really looking to ethically and practically improve democratic representation, and somewhat safeguard against a US-style takeover, now would be the time to ditch first past the post in favour of a proportional system.
Potentially also introduce Aussie-style mandatory voting at the same time (you can still abstain, but you have to do so actively), although that’s admittedly a less clear cut win.
I would bet everything I own on the fact that they do not. In Czechia an NGO does mock elections among high school and vocational school students (so from the age of 15), which gives us some image...
Practically speaking, I really hope the people making this decision understand the digital media landscape well enough to anticipate and counter the wave of propaganda they’ve just incentivised Russia bot farms and American far right groups to unleash on kids entering secondary school.
I would bet everything I own on the fact that they do not.
In Czechia an NGO does mock elections among high school and vocational school students (so from the age of 15), which gives us some image of how it could go, though our political culture is relatively different (big differences off the top of my head: many different parties in a proportional system and a lot of dislike towards anything too far left among educated people due to past experience with socialism).
The results for Czech parliament up until 2021 are basically that students vote mostly based on how their parents vote and how good their school is, which is naturally related (vocational school vs high school vs grammar school). Worse school and socioeconomic average of their area means more socially conservative and populist. But mostly they voted socially somewhat liberal center-right, which is the Czech educated default, with one exception being the Pirate party, which is center-left and it's a party with a relatively lower age average and very high trustworthiness in terms of lack of lying and financial scandals, but with a moderately high competency problem outside of a very small core. So in the question of "do you prefer politicians who lie or politicians who are incompetent/stupid" students disproportionately choose the latter (though they may not perceive it that way), which is not really surprising either.
EU Parliament mock elections in 2024 however showed a huge rise in hyperpopulist anti-woke parties, which took second place in total (below traditional center-right parties and above the Pirate party) and first place outside of grammar schools. Their marketing was pretty much completely driven by instagram and tiktok and it was just really fucking dumb, their main guy is an obviously completely fake dude who in reality despises his electorate, but despite that the campaign was extremely effective. So yes, this seems like a big problem.
I don’t really see why a 16 year old shouldn’t be allowed to drink or buy lottery tickets. I don’t even really have very strong opinions on the others.
However, Conservative shadow minister Paul Holmes said the government's position was "hopelessly confused".
"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asked in the Commons.
I don’t really see why a 16 year old shouldn’t be allowed to drink or buy lottery tickets. I don’t even really have very strong opinions on the others.
Even if they shouldn't (the arguments against are paternalistic, but they have legitimacy — both alcohol and gambling use disorders are inversely correlated with age at first use), I don't see the...
Even if they shouldn't (the arguments against are paternalistic, but they have legitimacy — both alcohol and gambling use disorders are inversely correlated with age at first use), I don't see the correlation? A brain isn't one thing that develops uniformly. Teenagers have provably underdeveloped reward centers that can be permanently hijacked by early access to gambling and drugs — that doesn't really say anything about their ability to reason about and express their needs. Plenty of 16 year olds are better at identifying and expressing their needs and their peer's needs than plenty of 46 year olds.
Isn’t this the same danger with voting, though? Many teens are addicted to social media feeds and as the US has seen in the last election: manosphere podcasters. Their critical thinking is being...
Teenagers have probably underdeveloped reward centers that can be permanently hijacked
Isn’t this the same danger with voting, though? Many teens are addicted to social media feeds and as the US has seen in the last election: manosphere podcasters. Their critical thinking is being short circuited with maliciously constructed arguments that give a superficial understanding of complex problems. Feeling like you’ve “got it all figured out” could be an addictive dopamine hit, or maybe the rage-baiting topics could just be just as effective at triggering the amygdala as it is with older folks.
I find it curious that people don’t trust 16 year olds to make decisions like trying alcohol or drugs because of their inability to foresee and control long term consequences to their personal health, but yet don’t show the same concern with those same 16 year olds making decisions that affect the long term health of society.
I think that I didn't communicate this well. The valid justification for barring teenagers from using drugs and gambling isn't that they can't reasom about the consequences (neither can many...
I think that I didn't communicate this well. The valid justification for barring teenagers from using drugs and gambling isn't that they can't reasom about the consequences (neither can many adults) — it's that those practices are known to be particularly damaging to developing brains.
The answer is that a 16 year old’s brain is still in hard core development mode, and both those things interfere with proper development (especially the alcohol). Cannabis is almost as bad as...
The answer is that a 16 year old’s brain is still in hard core development mode, and both those things interfere with proper development (especially the alcohol). Cannabis is almost as bad as alcohol at this age, it interferes with neronal pruning. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe theis mechanism is beneficial in adults as it promotes neuro-plasticity. 16 year old brains have too much plasticity.
Personally, I’d ban lottery tickets altogether. The’re a regressive tax when state sponsored and just generally push us toward a Bif Tannen society. I can’t remeber who said it, but it’s so true:”The lottery is when 10 million stupid people make one person look smart.”
I've seen the argument that allowing people to learn to drive at a different age from when they are allowed to drink helps reduce drink driving deaths but I've not seen stats to back it up....
I've seen the argument that allowing people to learn to drive at a different age from when they are allowed to drink helps reduce drink driving deaths but I've not seen stats to back it up. Changing that to 16 however would keep that the case but the other way around.
To add to the list though you do also get the ability to work full time, make more independent medical decisions, and leave home (with caveats) which is a fair amount of responsibility similar to voting. It makes some sense to have the voting age unified across the four nations as well.
Technically what you’ve said is wrong (though very slightly). 16 year olds are allowed to drink, I’d say the majority do (just based on experience not stats). What they aren’t allowed to do is buy...
Technically what you’ve said is wrong (though very slightly). 16 year olds are allowed to drink, I’d say the majority do (just based on experience not stats). What they aren’t allowed to do is buy alcohol (there are other restrictions etc. but not too relevant).
If it stinks of shit, it probably is shit. Not only are teenagers generally flaming jackasses who only serve their own self-interests [source: I used to be one], but their values and ideals are...
If it stinks of shit, it probably is shit. Not only are teenagers generally flaming jackasses who only serve their own self-interests [source: I used to be one], but their values and ideals are more so dictated by a mix of popular discourse and their personal wants than any kind of substantial life experience. Whatever TikTok decides to deliver to their feed on any given day has more of an effect on these kids' minds - and voting habits - than any kind of education, social norms, or common sense. To say these kids are easily swayed is an understatement.
I can't say I look forward to seeing how this holds up in the long term.
It’s a shame to see this kind of throwaway reaction here on tildes - it’s totally reasonable to disagree with the change, but there’s no value in just throwing insults at a whole age group. I...
It’s a shame to see this kind of throwaway reaction here on tildes - it’s totally reasonable to disagree with the change, but there’s no value in just throwing insults at a whole age group.
I actually share your concerns about people being easily swayed, I talked about it above, but I don’t see that being a teenager-specific issue. Voting intent for the clearest propaganda, backing the most destructive causes - previously brexit, and now Reform - is consistently highest among older people.
I can’t see a justified basis to believe 16-17 year olds are less capable of voting than the general population, largely because my faith in the general population is already near zero. And if they’re no less capable on average, surely it’s more than reasonable to extend the vote to those who will experience the consequences for the longest?
I didn't say any of that to be insulting, it was a set of genuine observations. I'm personally in the upper bracket of Gen Z; I was sixteen less than ten years ago. The difference with teenagers...
I didn't say any of that to be insulting, it was a set of genuine observations. I'm personally in the upper bracket of Gen Z; I was sixteen less than ten years ago.
The difference with teenagers is firstly and primarily the social factor - teenagers in a school setting are extremely motivated by social acceptance. Adults are far more willing to socially compromise themselves to stand up for their beliefs, teenagers are not. They'll say or do whatever they need to in order to avoid being ostracized. If their friends indicate a voting preference, guess who they're far more likely to vote for now? The second factor is neuroplasticity, which I would actually argue is a good thing in the grand scheme of things, also means they are ideologically pliable in ways that most adults are not. That can be interpreted as either a good or bad thing though.
I'd challenge you to stand in front of any group and call them a bunch of flaming jackasses without it being taken as an insult by the majority 😉 But even as an honest observation, it seems like a...
I'd challenge you to stand in front of any group and call them a bunch of flaming jackasses without it being taken as an insult by the majority 😉 But even as an honest observation, it seems like a gross generalisation to me.
I'm more than a decade older than you, so I'm not going to claim deep knowledge of how things are now or a crystal clear memory of how they were then, but from what I see the concepts of social activism, political thought, finding one's tribe, challenging and testing boundaries, and generally engaging with the world around are incredibly strong in younger people. The concept of teenage rebellion has been culturally ingrained for long enough that I don't think even a social media driven desire for approval is going to be enough to stamp that out. I absolutely don't see a strong tendency in most adults to rock the boat in any way, or even to challenge their own preconceptions a lot of the time.
Honestly, your observations seem like almost the exact opposite of how I'd frame it if I were going to generalise. But that's kind of my broader point: we shouldn't generalise. I'm not advocating for taking the vote away from elderly people even though they're statistically more likely to fuck things up for the rest of us, and a lot more likely to be suffering cognitive decline, because I don't feel that I or anyone else has the right to disenfranchise a whole group in that way.
And I if I didn't hold the same opinion for younger people, not only would I be a hypocrite, I would be an absolute traitor to my quiet, bookish, thoughtful teenage self from several decades past.
Is that really any different from any other age range these days, though? You have the stereotypes of Boomers on Facebook eating up misinformation. Plenty of people of all ages watch TikTok...
Is that really any different from any other age range these days, though? You have the stereotypes of Boomers on Facebook eating up misinformation. Plenty of people of all ages watch TikTok "brainrot." Twitter isn't just young people, either. Some of they may have started on the platform as young people when Twitter first came out, but now they're in or approaching their 40s (ie Millennials). And of course, you have tons from across the spectrum who are just completely tuned out from politics, for various reasons, for better or worse.
Additionally, even if they can, will they actually vote? Idk how it shakes out in the UK, but the youth vote, like 18-24yo, in the US almost always (outright always?) has far lower voter turnout rates compared to older age brackets. Young people tend to have different priorities, as you mention. They may have less "skin in the game." Which may translate into not voting at all.
All that to say, overall, I feel like it'll end up a wash. Could a massive youth vote turn an election? Absolutely. Again here in the US, in NYC, seemed like Democratic mayoral primate candidate Zohran Mamdani was able to capture the youth zeitgeist and ride it to victory. But can that be replicated? Will it always be there? Too early to say. Hopefully! But past elections say unlikely.
Is this any different than adults? Teenagers have a range of political desires that are delegated to adults who are no longer aligned with those needs. Things like, but certainly not limited to...
Is this any different than adults? Teenagers have a range of political desires that are delegated to adults who are no longer aligned with those needs. Things like, but certainly not limited to
education funding
access to mental health resources in schools
tampons/pads in school bathrooms
free school lunches
reforming standardized testing
climate change — the younger you are, the more you will be affected
I mostly agree with this. I don't really get the other answers saying "well group xxxx does it too" - obviously it's about probabilities and where each of us draws the line. Everyone has a...
I mostly agree with this.
I don't really get the other answers saying "well group xxxx does it too" - obviously it's about probabilities and where each of us draws the line. Everyone has a different age cutoff where they say "no, this is too young to be able to make such a decision", but everyone has some cutoff.
The main issue in politics is not "what do we want?" but "can we realistically get it without negatively influencing other things and how to do it?".
Teenagers are not exactly know for deeply thinking through the complex consequences of things - and I don't think this is a controversial statement, I see this notion stated so often on the mainstream internet that it started to annoy me, even infantilizing people in their early 20s, adding folk wisdom like "the brain doesn't mature until you're 25" etc. But I do think it's true for teenagers on average, and it especially applies for a task that's quite difficult even for educated adults.
I think the status quo of 18 years old is fine and should be kept unless there's very good reason to think that doing this will improve the situation in some significant way that clearly outweight the risks.
Regarding the risks, an NGO does mock elections in this demographics (high school students) in my country and last year it was quite nearly dominated by a new hyperpopulist anti-woke party that ran its campaign almost exclusively on instagram and tiktok, partially based on the cult of personality of one asshole.
See now this is an interesting take, it moves the question into very realpolitik vs philosophical rights territory. I've decried the lack of an effective, Machiavellian left for years now, so I...
See now this is an interesting take, it moves the question into very realpolitik vs philosophical rights territory.
I've decried the lack of an effective, Machiavellian left for years now, so I probably should be on the "practical results at all costs" side of this question - and like you said in your reply to my post above, it's probably a safe bet that the people making this decision really do not have the media expertise to accurately judge the impact of the decision they just made.
But I can't bring myself to take a pure pragmatist view on this one. Younger people are people, just like the rest of us. Every fibre of my being says that they deserve more rights, more ability to influence the world around them, not less.
You state that everyone has some cutoff, but why? Why not allow all age groups to vote, from birth to death? If they’re too young, they’ll be incapable (due to being unable to comprehend grabbing...
You state that everyone has some cutoff, but why? Why not allow all age groups to vote, from birth to death? If they’re too young, they’ll be incapable (due to being unable to comprehend grabbing a pen and, is it colouring a lozenge?) and if they’re a bit older, they’ll probably just vote for what their parents tell them to. I can see why someone, maybe most people, would object to that. but everyone?
I believe the number of people who would accept that is miniscule, at least where I live, so I'm not really seriously considering it, but sure, you're right - even silly ideas usually get some...
I believe the number of people who would accept that is miniscule, at least where I live, so I'm not really seriously considering it, but sure, you're right - even silly ideas usually get some supporters. My point was more that a) the consequences of such decision are at least just as important as any personal principles that we apply to the issue b) most of the arguments people make are not binary - for example "boomers are easily swayed by social media too" does not in any way mean they are swayed in similar ways or to a similar degree. Though if they were, I don't think it would be a good argument for introducing another sizable group of people that's easy to manipulate either.
I don't usually bring this up and I don't feel very strongly about it but I think it's consistent with my previously expressed opinion about how political power needs to be made to skew younger...
I don't usually bring this up and I don't feel very strongly about it but I think it's consistent with my previously expressed opinion about how political power needs to be made to skew younger that I like the idea of letting teenagers vote.
You are not wrong about a lot of teenagers being uneducated and/or immature per se. However, they are not going to magically become educated and mature at age 18. The vast majority of the people being brought up by tiktok are still going to be pretty much the same people at 18 (edit: I mean compared to how they were at 16), making the same kinds of mistakes. Tiktok is its own problem which needs to be addressed specifically. Education is its own problem, affecting people of all ages.
Conversely, I think involving people from a younger age means they have more time and opportunity to become involved in and exposed to the political process and to gain that experience and maturity. Arguments that infantilize everyone below a certain age threshold always feel like a slippery slope to me, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Is this a good time to mention I was quite sad about the tildes thread some time ago in which everyone was saying people under 25 or so are kids?
I personally don't think that having a bias towards a particular age is the important factor; more important is to have a bias to ability. However have a person have the responsibility of a...
I personally don't think that having a bias towards a particular age is the important factor; more important is to have a bias to ability. However have a person have the responsibility of a society for an infinite timeline is not good. In other words, forced retirement. We do that in transportation. For example, in aviation a Pilot is required to retired after a certain age. Why not for politicians. That's my 2 cents.
I don't actually have strong opinions on the age limit for voting, but there's other good stuff in here too.
Good for voters who have neither a passport nor driving licence! The poor, the young, and the very old.
This, to me, is the real no-brainer here.
This is also hugely important in the current age.
Yeah, the voter ID laws were only brought in two years ago (immediately before the last election) by the Tories under the guise of preventing fraud that was statistically nonexistent. Estimates are somewhere around 14,000 voters actually turned away and up to 400,000 disincentivised from bothering to vote at all. Anything to functionally roll that back is a good thing, even if the law technically stays on the books for whatever reason.
Auto registration is indeed a no-brainer, and I’m cautiously optimistic about the financial influence changes too.
I very much stand by what I said a while back about Keir’s Labour: they suck - they’re basically Cameron-era Tories - but they are at least still a party that fundamentally believes in democracy and the rule of law, which can no longer be said for the current right.
This legislation seems to be a strong example of that: they’re a party I disagree with on policy, but they’re a party that still upholds the idea that we have a right to disagree, and that bar - low as it is - isn’t something to take for granted.
[Edit] Spelling; i before e, except where the English language arbitrarily decides otherwise.
I suspect that voting fraud, whilst unrecorded by stats, is more common that you might think but not how people typically imagine it. I know several people who were coerced by a parent to apply for proxy votes and then the parent voted Tory with their vote. "If you want to live under my roof".
For any voting method that where the eligible person doesn't vote in person there would be no evidence of fraud. As such we should treat proxy voting and postal votes with suspicion. But of course the Tories only made voting in-person harder as a form of self-admitted gerymandering and had no interest in preventing actual voting fraud.
In the UK we have something called the Salisbury Doctrine which says that the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto.
So although the House of Lords may generally want to block reducing the voting age doing so would violate our unwritten constitution. In other words because it's a manifesto commitment from Labout who have a large majority in the House of Commons the voting age will be reduced to 16.
Morally and ethically I think this is the right thing to do. Votes like brexit were carried on the back of people who would never live to see the destruction they caused, so any move to give the people with the largest stake in the future a say in that future is a good one in my book.
Any age cutoff will be arbitrary, but 16 is the lowest age that we start giving at least some other adult rights and responsibilities to people in existing law, so it makes the most sense given that a line has to be chosen somewhere.
Practically speaking, I really hope the people making this decision understand the digital media landscape well enough to anticipate and counter the wave of propaganda they’ve just incentivised Russia bot farms and American far right groups to unleash on kids entering secondary school. The polls among current 16 year olds might lean left, but I wouldn’t be relying on that holding until the next election now that there’s a target painted on the people who’ll be 16 by then.
I’m concerned, given the pretty dismal showing when it comes to modern media literacy from everyone except the worst people in politics, but I was concerned about the 18 year olds, the 80 year olds, and most people in between on that front already, so I guess I probably shouldn’t be any more worried than I already was.
[Edit] Worth adding that if the government are really looking to ethically and practically improve democratic representation, and somewhat safeguard against a US-style takeover, now would be the time to ditch first past the post in favour of a proportional system.
Potentially also introduce Aussie-style mandatory voting at the same time (you can still abstain, but you have to do so actively), although that’s admittedly a less clear cut win.
I would bet everything I own on the fact that they do not.
In Czechia an NGO does mock elections among high school and vocational school students (so from the age of 15), which gives us some image of how it could go, though our political culture is relatively different (big differences off the top of my head: many different parties in a proportional system and a lot of dislike towards anything too far left among educated people due to past experience with socialism).
The results for Czech parliament up until 2021 are basically that students vote mostly based on how their parents vote and how good their school is, which is naturally related (vocational school vs high school vs grammar school). Worse school and socioeconomic average of their area means more socially conservative and populist. But mostly they voted socially somewhat liberal center-right, which is the Czech educated default, with one exception being the Pirate party, which is center-left and it's a party with a relatively lower age average and very high trustworthiness in terms of lack of lying and financial scandals, but with a moderately high competency problem outside of a very small core. So in the question of "do you prefer politicians who lie or politicians who are incompetent/stupid" students disproportionately choose the latter (though they may not perceive it that way), which is not really surprising either.
EU Parliament mock elections in 2024 however showed a huge rise in hyperpopulist anti-woke parties, which took second place in total (below traditional center-right parties and above the Pirate party) and first place outside of grammar schools. Their marketing was pretty much completely driven by instagram and tiktok and it was just really fucking dumb, their main guy is an obviously completely fake dude who in reality despises his electorate, but despite that the campaign was extremely effective. So yes, this seems like a big problem.
I don’t really see why a 16 year old shouldn’t be allowed to drink or buy lottery tickets. I don’t even really have very strong opinions on the others.
Even if they shouldn't (the arguments against are paternalistic, but they have legitimacy — both alcohol and gambling use disorders are inversely correlated with age at first use), I don't see the correlation? A brain isn't one thing that develops uniformly. Teenagers have provably underdeveloped reward centers that can be permanently hijacked by early access to gambling and drugs — that doesn't really say anything about their ability to reason about and express their needs. Plenty of 16 year olds are better at identifying and expressing their needs and their peer's needs than plenty of 46 year olds.
Isn’t this the same danger with voting, though? Many teens are addicted to social media feeds and as the US has seen in the last election: manosphere podcasters. Their critical thinking is being short circuited with maliciously constructed arguments that give a superficial understanding of complex problems. Feeling like you’ve “got it all figured out” could be an addictive dopamine hit, or maybe the rage-baiting topics could just be just as effective at triggering the amygdala as it is with older folks.
I find it curious that people don’t trust 16 year olds to make decisions like trying alcohol or drugs because of their inability to foresee and control long term consequences to their personal health, but yet don’t show the same concern with those same 16 year olds making decisions that affect the long term health of society.
I think that I didn't communicate this well. The valid justification for barring teenagers from using drugs and gambling isn't that they can't reasom about the consequences (neither can many adults) — it's that those practices are known to be particularly damaging to developing brains.
The answer is that a 16 year old’s brain is still in hard core development mode, and both those things interfere with proper development (especially the alcohol). Cannabis is almost as bad as alcohol at this age, it interferes with neronal pruning. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe theis mechanism is beneficial in adults as it promotes neuro-plasticity. 16 year old brains have too much plasticity.
Personally, I’d ban lottery tickets altogether. The’re a regressive tax when state sponsored and just generally push us toward a Bif Tannen society. I can’t remeber who said it, but it’s so true:”The lottery is when 10 million stupid people make one person look smart.”
I've seen the argument that allowing people to learn to drive at a different age from when they are allowed to drink helps reduce drink driving deaths but I've not seen stats to back it up. Changing that to 16 however would keep that the case but the other way around.
To add to the list though you do also get the ability to work full time, make more independent medical decisions, and leave home (with caveats) which is a fair amount of responsibility similar to voting. It makes some sense to have the voting age unified across the four nations as well.
Technically what you’ve said is wrong (though very slightly). 16 year olds are allowed to drink, I’d say the majority do (just based on experience not stats). What they aren’t allowed to do is buy alcohol (there are other restrictions etc. but not too relevant).
If it stinks of shit, it probably is shit. Not only are teenagers generally flaming jackasses who only serve their own self-interests [source: I used to be one], but their values and ideals are more so dictated by a mix of popular discourse and their personal wants than any kind of substantial life experience. Whatever TikTok decides to deliver to their feed on any given day has more of an effect on these kids' minds - and voting habits - than any kind of education, social norms, or common sense. To say these kids are easily swayed is an understatement.
I can't say I look forward to seeing how this holds up in the long term.
It’s a shame to see this kind of throwaway reaction here on tildes - it’s totally reasonable to disagree with the change, but there’s no value in just throwing insults at a whole age group.
I actually share your concerns about people being easily swayed, I talked about it above, but I don’t see that being a teenager-specific issue. Voting intent for the clearest propaganda, backing the most destructive causes - previously brexit, and now Reform - is consistently highest among older people.
I can’t see a justified basis to believe 16-17 year olds are less capable of voting than the general population, largely because my faith in the general population is already near zero. And if they’re no less capable on average, surely it’s more than reasonable to extend the vote to those who will experience the consequences for the longest?
I didn't say any of that to be insulting, it was a set of genuine observations. I'm personally in the upper bracket of Gen Z; I was sixteen less than ten years ago.
The difference with teenagers is firstly and primarily the social factor - teenagers in a school setting are extremely motivated by social acceptance. Adults are far more willing to socially compromise themselves to stand up for their beliefs, teenagers are not. They'll say or do whatever they need to in order to avoid being ostracized. If their friends indicate a voting preference, guess who they're far more likely to vote for now? The second factor is neuroplasticity, which I would actually argue is a good thing in the grand scheme of things, also means they are ideologically pliable in ways that most adults are not. That can be interpreted as either a good or bad thing though.
I'd challenge you to stand in front of any group and call them a bunch of flaming jackasses without it being taken as an insult by the majority 😉 But even as an honest observation, it seems like a gross generalisation to me.
I'm more than a decade older than you, so I'm not going to claim deep knowledge of how things are now or a crystal clear memory of how they were then, but from what I see the concepts of social activism, political thought, finding one's tribe, challenging and testing boundaries, and generally engaging with the world around are incredibly strong in younger people. The concept of teenage rebellion has been culturally ingrained for long enough that I don't think even a social media driven desire for approval is going to be enough to stamp that out. I absolutely don't see a strong tendency in most adults to rock the boat in any way, or even to challenge their own preconceptions a lot of the time.
Honestly, your observations seem like almost the exact opposite of how I'd frame it if I were going to generalise. But that's kind of my broader point: we shouldn't generalise. I'm not advocating for taking the vote away from elderly people even though they're statistically more likely to fuck things up for the rest of us, and a lot more likely to be suffering cognitive decline, because I don't feel that I or anyone else has the right to disenfranchise a whole group in that way.
And I if I didn't hold the same opinion for younger people, not only would I be a hypocrite, I would be an absolute traitor to my quiet, bookish, thoughtful teenage self from several decades past.
Is that really any different from any other age range these days, though? You have the stereotypes of Boomers on Facebook eating up misinformation. Plenty of people of all ages watch TikTok "brainrot." Twitter isn't just young people, either. Some of they may have started on the platform as young people when Twitter first came out, but now they're in or approaching their 40s (ie Millennials). And of course, you have tons from across the spectrum who are just completely tuned out from politics, for various reasons, for better or worse.
Additionally, even if they can, will they actually vote? Idk how it shakes out in the UK, but the youth vote, like 18-24yo, in the US almost always (outright always?) has far lower voter turnout rates compared to older age brackets. Young people tend to have different priorities, as you mention. They may have less "skin in the game." Which may translate into not voting at all.
All that to say, overall, I feel like it'll end up a wash. Could a massive youth vote turn an election? Absolutely. Again here in the US, in NYC, seemed like Democratic mayoral primate candidate Zohran Mamdani was able to capture the youth zeitgeist and ride it to victory. But can that be replicated? Will it always be there? Too early to say. Hopefully! But past elections say unlikely.
Is this any different than adults? Teenagers have a range of political desires that are delegated to adults who are no longer aligned with those needs. Things like, but certainly not limited to
I mostly agree with this.
I don't really get the other answers saying "well group xxxx does it too" - obviously it's about probabilities and where each of us draws the line. Everyone has a different age cutoff where they say "no, this is too young to be able to make such a decision", but everyone has some cutoff.
The main issue in politics is not "what do we want?" but "can we realistically get it without negatively influencing other things and how to do it?".
Teenagers are not exactly know for deeply thinking through the complex consequences of things - and I don't think this is a controversial statement, I see this notion stated so often on the mainstream internet that it started to annoy me, even infantilizing people in their early 20s, adding folk wisdom like "the brain doesn't mature until you're 25" etc. But I do think it's true for teenagers on average, and it especially applies for a task that's quite difficult even for educated adults.
I think the status quo of 18 years old is fine and should be kept unless there's very good reason to think that doing this will improve the situation in some significant way that clearly outweight the risks.
Regarding the risks, an NGO does mock elections in this demographics (high school students) in my country and last year it was quite nearly dominated by a new hyperpopulist anti-woke party that ran its campaign almost exclusively on instagram and tiktok, partially based on the cult of personality of one asshole.
See now this is an interesting take, it moves the question into very realpolitik vs philosophical rights territory.
I've decried the lack of an effective, Machiavellian left for years now, so I probably should be on the "practical results at all costs" side of this question - and like you said in your reply to my post above, it's probably a safe bet that the people making this decision really do not have the media expertise to accurately judge the impact of the decision they just made.
But I can't bring myself to take a pure pragmatist view on this one. Younger people are people, just like the rest of us. Every fibre of my being says that they deserve more rights, more ability to influence the world around them, not less.
You state that everyone has some cutoff, but why? Why not allow all age groups to vote, from birth to death? If they’re too young, they’ll be incapable (due to being unable to comprehend grabbing a pen and, is it colouring a lozenge?) and if they’re a bit older, they’ll probably just vote for what their parents tell them to. I can see why someone, maybe most people, would object to that. but everyone?
I believe the number of people who would accept that is miniscule, at least where I live, so I'm not really seriously considering it, but sure, you're right - even silly ideas usually get some supporters. My point was more that a) the consequences of such decision are at least just as important as any personal principles that we apply to the issue b) most of the arguments people make are not binary - for example "boomers are easily swayed by social media too" does not in any way mean they are swayed in similar ways or to a similar degree. Though if they were, I don't think it would be a good argument for introducing another sizable group of people that's easy to manipulate either.
I don't usually bring this up and I don't feel very strongly about it but I think it's consistent with my previously expressed opinion about how political power needs to be made to skew younger that I like the idea of letting teenagers vote.
You are not wrong about a lot of teenagers being uneducated and/or immature per se. However, they are not going to magically become educated and mature at age 18. The vast majority of the people being brought up by tiktok are still going to be pretty much the same people at 18 (edit: I mean compared to how they were at 16), making the same kinds of mistakes. Tiktok is its own problem which needs to be addressed specifically. Education is its own problem, affecting people of all ages.
Conversely, I think involving people from a younger age means they have more time and opportunity to become involved in and exposed to the political process and to gain that experience and maturity. Arguments that infantilize everyone below a certain age threshold always feel like a slippery slope to me, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Is this a good time to mention I was quite sad about the tildes thread some time ago in which everyone was saying people under 25 or so are kids?
I personally don't think that having a bias towards a particular age is the important factor; more important is to have a bias to ability. However have a person have the responsibility of a society for an infinite timeline is not good. In other words, forced retirement. We do that in transportation. For example, in aviation a Pilot is required to retired after a certain age. Why not for politicians. That's my 2 cents.