UK to lower voting age to 16

[Iwannaplato]

By the time I was wise enough to vote, I had realized I disliked all the candidates.
Maybe that's the test: do you think there is a really good candidate?
If you answer yes, you fail.

[Immanuel Can]

By the time I was wise enough to vote, I had realized I disliked all the candidates.
Maybe that's the test: do you think there is a really good candidate?
If you answer yes, you fail.

That's pretty funny. But it might also be right.

The candidates available in the last several elections, in fact, seem to have swum out of the shallow end of the gene pool.

[Maia]

That's an argument for saying that you can only vote if you join the military. Many ancient societies had a system like this.

Need not go ancient. It is easy to see the "Mayflower Compact". Less well known the "Confidence Compact" (these people settled in what is now Sudbury MA). A rather different brand or Puritans (both the Unitatrians and United Church of Christ originated here).

In THEIR compact (decided on the ship on the way over, just as the Mayflower Compact was) anybody could live in their town even if not of their church, but only those willing to fight for it could vote << so Quakers could live there but not vote >> There is a "stele" on the town common with the text of the compact on it which is where I read it..

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

A case could be made for having a period of national service when young, after which the person gets the right to vote. By national service, though, I'm certainly not suggesting that women should go to war. Women's service could instead involve working in the NHS or social services, in one capacity or another. Similarly, men's service, as well as the military, could include emergency services.

[FlashDangerpants]

The opposite is what Labour are doing, giving them the vote because they're more likely to vote for Labour.

Such is your interpretation, in line with your long history of bias. The truth, which a historian of your calibre must be well aware of, is that campaigns to extend suffrage invariably take many years to come to fruition, and assigning credit to any single administration for any of them is quite irrational. This campaign ran since at least 2008 in this form, and prior such movements have been arguing for voting rights for teens since the late 20th C and those are the ones for which I am aware.

How about 14? That's only another two years.

What groundwork have you done to establish the levels of political engagement for that particular cohort? These things aren't done at random, there's a lot of work that goes into such matters, work that you are entirely neglectful of.

It's not as if any great injustice is being perpetuated by denying them the vote. It's not in the same league as the great campaigns of the past, to extend the franchise to women, or to working class men.

Two years can, admittedly, seem like an eternity when you're 16. But it isn't. Patience is a virtue, and all they have to do is wait a bit.

In that case you may as well accept the basic principle that the point of democracy is to include as many people as possible in the deliberative process, and grant representation to whoever feels left out. Thus 16 year olds who wish to vote should be counted. That in your opinion it counts as "no great injustice" is a stupid reason to perpetuate an injustice.

[Immanuel Can]

... the point of democracy is to include as many people as possible in the deliberative process...

"As many people as possible"? This has never been the point of the democratic process.

[phyllo]

The point has been to only include 'worthy' people.

[Maia]

Such is your interpretation, in line with your long history of bias. The truth, which a historian of your calibre must be well aware of, is that campaigns to extend suffrage invariably take many years to come to fruition, and assigning credit to any single administration for any of them is quite irrational. This campaign ran since at least 2008 in this form, and prior such movements have been arguing for voting rights for teens since the late 20th C and those are the ones for which I am aware.


What groundwork have you done to establish the levels of political engagement for that particular cohort? These things aren't done at random, there's a lot of work that goes into such matters, work that you are entirely neglectful of.

It's not as if any great injustice is being perpetuated by denying them the vote. It's not in the same league as the great campaigns of the past, to extend the franchise to women, or to working class men.

Two years can, admittedly, seem like an eternity when you're 16. But it isn't. Patience is a virtue, and all they have to do is wait a bit.

In that case you may as well accept the basic principle that the point of democracy is to include as many people as possible in the deliberative process, and grant representation to whoever feels left out. Thus 16 year olds who wish to vote should be counted. That in your opinion it counts as "no great injustice" is a stupid reason to perpetuate an injustice.

It's no injustice at all, in fact, and I don't accept that as the basic point of democracy. Mainly because it's impossible.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not as if any great injustice is being perpetuated by denying them the vote. It's not in the same league as the great campaigns of the past, to extend the franchise to women, or to working class men.

Two years can, admittedly, seem like an eternity when you're 16. But it isn't. Patience is a virtue, and all they have to do is wait a bit.

In that case you may as well accept the basic principle that the point of democracy is to include as many people as possible in the deliberative process, and grant representation to whoever feels left out. Thus 16 year olds who wish to vote should be counted. That in your opinion it counts as "no great injustice" is a stupid reason to perpetuate an injustice.

It's no injustice at all, in fact, and I don't accept that as the basic point of democracy. Mainly because it's impossible.

How can "as many as possible" be impossible?

[Maia]

In that case you may as well accept the basic principle that the point of democracy is to include as many people as possible in the deliberative process, and grant representation to whoever feels left out. Thus 16 year olds who wish to vote should be counted. That in your opinion it counts as "no great injustice" is a stupid reason to perpetuate an injustice.

It's no injustice at all, in fact, and I don't accept that as the basic point of democracy. Mainly because it's impossible.

How can "as many as possible" be impossible?

Damn, you've caught be out with a verbal argument. The sign of a true philosopher.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's no injustice at all, in fact, and I don't accept that as the basic point of democracy. Mainly because it's impossible.

How can "as many as possible" be impossible?

Damn, you've caught be out with a verbal argument. The sign of a true philosopher.

You haven't presented anything amounting to a philosophical argument at all so there's not much to work with.

It is point and purpose of democracy to provide representation. It is more democratic to provide that representation for more people and less democratic to withhold it from them. Under normal circumstances we tend to think less democratic is worse than more democratic. The reasons provided in this thread for withholding the vote from a 17 year old have amounted to little. If the 16 and 17 year olds are asking for the vote, no plausible case has yet been made for denying their request.

[Immanuel Can]

The point has been to only include 'worthy' people.

Well, capable people. People who can be expected to understand the objectives of the democratic process.

Children, enemies of the state, non-citizens, the incapacitated, illegal invaders, the senile and insane, the dead...they've all been excluded from any genuinely democratic elections.

But they have popped up in some less-than-democratic ones.

[Maia]

How can "as many as possible" be impossible?

Damn, you've caught be out with a verbal argument. The sign of a true philosopher.

You haven't presented anything amounting to a philosophical argument at all so there's not much to work with.

It is point and purpose of democracy to provide representation. It is more democratic to provide that representation for more people and less democratic to withhold it from them. Under normal circumstances we tend to think less democratic is worse than more democratic. The reasons provided in this thread for withholding the vote from a 17 year old have amounted to little. If the 16 and 17 year olds are asking for the vote, no plausible case has yet been made for denying their request.

I would suggest that the actual point of democracy is to run a state. If it gets too unwieldy to do so, or becomes riven by factionalism, it has failed.

Ok lets bring in some classic philosophy then, namely Plato. He believed that democracy was a degenerate form of government, and inevitably leads to dictatorship.

Something like that, anyway. I was only about 16 or 17 when I did Philosophy A level. Far too young to care very much.

[phyllo]

One individual can run a state.

Why have democracy at all?

[FlashDangerpants]

Damn, you've caught be out with a verbal argument. The sign of a true philosopher.

You haven't presented anything amounting to a philosophical argument at all so there's not much to work with.

It is point and purpose of democracy to provide representation. It is more democratic to provide that representation for more people and less democratic to withhold it from them. Under normal circumstances we tend to think less democratic is worse than more democratic. The reasons provided in this thread for withholding the vote from a 17 year old have amounted to little. If the 16 and 17 year olds are asking for the vote, no plausible case has yet been made for denying their request.

I would suggest that the actual point of democracy is to run a state. If it gets too unwieldy to do so, or becomes riven by factionalism, it has failed.

The role of government is run the state. That of democracy is to decide who does it. And is that all you have? The best you can manage for this point is that?

Ok lets bring in some classic philosophy then, namely Plato. He believed that democracy was a degenerate form of government, and inevitably leads to dictatorship.

Something like that, anyway. I was only about 16 or 17 when I did Philosophy A level. Far too young to care very much.

I did philosophy A Level too. I went on to study philosophy at university though, so some 17 year olds are quite capable. You on the other hand didn't know why Plato wrote about the tripartite mind when you were 17, and still you don't, and so you won't understand why I dismiss all that appetitive bullshit as irrelevant. So in what way has age improved your capabilities?

[Maia]

You haven't presented anything amounting to a philosophical argument at all so there's not much to work with.

It is point and purpose of democracy to provide representation. It is more democratic to provide that representation for more people and less democratic to withhold it from them. Under normal circumstances we tend to think less democratic is worse than more democratic. The reasons provided in this thread for withholding the vote from a 17 year old have amounted to little. If the 16 and 17 year olds are asking for the vote, no plausible case has yet been made for denying their request.

I would suggest that the actual point of democracy is to run a state. If it gets too unwieldy to do so, or becomes riven by factionalism, it has failed.

The role of government is run the state. That of democracy is to decide who does it. And is that all you have? The best you can manage for this point is that?

Ok lets bring in some classic philosophy then, namely Plato. He believed that democracy was a degenerate form of government, and inevitably leads to dictatorship.

Something like that, anyway. I was only about 16 or 17 when I did Philosophy A level. Far too young to care very much.

I did philosophy A Level too. I went on to study philosophy at university though, so some 17 year olds are quite capable. You on the other hand didn't know why Plato wrote about the tripartite mind when you were 17, and still you don't, and so you won't understand why I dismiss all that appetitive bullshit as irrelevant. So in what way has age improved your capabilities?

I could very easily have gone to uni, but chose not to. I certainly wouldn't have done philosophy, though.

Democracy works on the principle of losers' consent. When that breaks down, as it did after the Brexit referendum, democracy loses all credibility. It is no surprise we are living through its apparent death throes.