Poll : EU

Stevo_666

Not sure how the voting is 'imbalanced'. Still one person one vote and a lot of wrinklies get to the stage where they can't vote - physically, mentally or both.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

In an ideal world, probably yes.
But you can't stop the little f*ckers, well ... er... f*cking.

And that is where the inconsistency lies. Old enough to breed and raise, but not to decide on the future.
The rules should change one way or the other to align.

Would you send 16 year olds to prison?

If they had a vote. Your move.

I wouldn't, regardless of voting rights.
The point I was making is that adolescence is a gradual process. During that period, youngsters gradually get more freedoms and more responsibilities. I think that process is broadly right.

Some adults should never have the vote and plenty of 16 to 17yo's have a far better grasp of politics/reality than many older people, those that dont have this maturity would nt vote anyway, much like a very large minority of adults dont vote.
Vast majority of 16yo dont have kids, so i dont follow that argument but they do have to make life choices like gcse and A level exams, decisions that have far reaching consequences, they dont get a free 2nd chance.

To me, 16yo and above should have the vote in this referendum (if not a GE) logic being that this is a once in a life time decision and its effects might take a while to be truly appreciated, by which time many older voters will be dead and they/we wont get another chance.
They didnt get the vote as they are more likely to vote IN and the antis in the Gov couldnt let DC have that.

the age of criminal responsibility is 10yo and though its not called a Prison, a young offenders institute isnt exactly a great place, with a high suicide rate - Younger than 15 and they get sent to a secure children's unit.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I'd rather see the age raised to 21 rather than it lowered to 16 if were changed. Will give people time to mature and work out some the issues that are involved in being an adult.

Because young people already have so much representation.

One of the arguments for lowering the age is to counteract the imbalanced voting power of the blue rinsed brigade.

Take a look at any policy that affects generations differently and the old will come out on top every single time.

As Stevo said, one person one vote, so where is the imbalance?
Because someone reaches a good age, is their view or vote not to be held as being as valid as anyone elses?
To deliberately look at ways that a vote may be rigged so that you marginalise a sector of voters you think may hold different views to yourself is not that democratic is it?

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

In an ideal world, probably yes.
But you can't stop the little f*ckers, well ... er... f*cking.

And that is where the inconsistency lies. Old enough to breed and raise, but not to decide on the future.
The rules should change one way or the other to align.

Would you send 16 year olds to prison?

If they had a vote. Your move.

I wouldn't, regardless of voting rights.
The point I was making is that adolescence is a gradual process. During that period, youngsters gradually get more freedoms and more responsibilities. I think that process is broadly right.

Some adults should never have the vote and plenty of 16 to 17yo's have a far better grasp of politics/reality than many older people, those that dont have this maturity would nt vote anyway, much like a very large minority of adults dont vote.
Vast majority of 16yo dont have kids, so i dont follow that argument but they do have to make life choices like gcse and A level exams, decisions that have far reaching consequences, they dont get a free 2nd chance.

To me, 16yo and above should have the vote in this referendum (if not a GE) logic being that this is a once in a life time decision and its effects might take a while to be truly appreciated, by which time many older voters will be dead and they/we wont get another chance.
They didnt get the vote as they are more likely to vote IN and the antis in the Gov couldnt let DC have that.

the age of criminal responsibility is 10yo and though its not called a Prison, a young offenders institute isnt exactly a great place, with a high suicide rate - Younger than 15 and they get sent to a secure children's unit.

As I have said, I agree that some 16 year olds may have a better grasp than some adults. Some 12 year olds can have a better grasp than some adults, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are 16 year olds more likely to vote in? Is this your motivation for getting them a vote?
I raised the issue of youngsters in prison as an illustration to their gradual move to full rights and responsibilities in adulthood. Nothing more.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

As I have said, I agree that some 16 year olds may have a better grasp than some adults. Some 12 year olds can have a better grasp than some adults, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are 16 year olds more likely to vote in? Is this your motivation for getting them a vote?
I raised the issue of youngsters in prison as an illustration to their gradual move to full rights and responsibilities in adulthood. Nothing more.

Not at all.
as i said, this is a vote that will effect the younger generation far more than someone in their 60s or 70s, whichever way they would vote.

ime a majority of youngsters are bright, reasonably well educated and responsible - of course not all but society hasnt accepted this change in 16 and 17yo's, just because they dont work in the numbers that they used too doesnt make them less responsible or aware of the world around them, indeed with modern 24hr news, they are more aware then in the past.
Strangely, IOM is 16 and also in some German state elections, could be worse though, Italy is 25 for senate elections, done them a lot of good!

you raised the prison issue, i dont see that as becoming responsible? they get deprived of their freedom from a much younger age than you appeared to suggest.

if not a lowering of the age, what about compulsory voting?

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

As I have said, I agree that some 16 year olds may have a better grasp than some adults. Some 12 year olds can have a better grasp than some adults, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are 16 year olds more likely to vote in? Is this your motivation for getting them a vote?
I raised the issue of youngsters in prison as an illustration to their gradual move to full rights and responsibilities in adulthood. Nothing more.

Not at all.
as i said, this is a vote that will effect the younger generation far more than someone in their 60s or 70s, whichever way they would vote.

ime a majority of youngsters are bright, reasonably well educated and responsible - of course not all but society hasnt accepted this change in 16 and 17yo's, just because they dont work in the numbers that they used too doesnt make them less responsible or aware of the world around them, indeed with modern 24hr news, they are more aware then in the past.
Strangely, IOM is 16 and also in some German state elections, could be worse though, Italy is 25 for senate elections, done them a lot of good!

you raised the prison issue, i dont see that as becoming responsible? they get deprived of their freedom from a much younger age than you appeared to suggest.

if not a lowering of the age, what about compulsory voting?

I have no idea how 16 and 17 year olds feel, nor any other group for that matter. If you feel that the effect of this ballot or any other ballot would affect people more, depending on age, perhaps you could introduce a sliding scale? The vote of a centurion would count as one, a nonagenarian 2, octogenarian 3 etc teenager 10. (Not a serious proposal by the way)

As regards the prison remark I made. I am fully conversant with the judicial system and the way that people of all ages are treated. Blakey suggested that harmonisation of the ages when youngsters should be deemed adult. I gave an example of when I would be uncomfortable in doing so. You may feel otherwise.

I knew Australia had compulsory voting but until I checked, I hadn't realised that 3 of our EU partners had it. I can see some merit in it but it seems strangely undemocratic, replacing a right to vote with an obligation to vote. I may not agree with someone's view to not give a f*ck, but that is his right. I can't see the point in dragging such a person to a polling booth so that he can spoil his ballot paper.

sungod

compulsory voting is fine as long as there's a "none of these" option

Stevo_666

Aussie friends and acquaintances see compulsory voting as either irrelevant if they want to vote or a bit of a pain if they don't.

I don't see what it adds by forcing people to vote if they don't want to. You will just get a mixture of spoilt ballot papers and random votes unless there is an option as Sungod mentions above. In which case, why bother?

No harm in trying to persuade people to have their say, but some of the above smacks of trying to rig things based on how particular sections of the age demographic are likely to vote

ballysmate

People that actually vote have to make some sort of effort to vote, albeit not much. A "Non of the above" is a waste of people's time. The same result is achieved by them being sat at home. How many reluctant voters would put their cross in the first box? Great if your candidate is Mr Aardvark.
Never mind, I'm sure the number of people voting will increase dramatically if the X Factor generation get to vote by text.

florerider

Enough grey hairs to be voting in a second once in a lifetime referendum on this topic. Presumably if the vote is to remain then there will be a clamour for a third once in a lifetime opportunity.

Do people really want to vote leave and give such a resounding case e to the right wingers in Westminster to say they have a mandate for sovereignty (read control) over you and I? Be very careful what you vote for.

bobmcstuff

Ballysmate wrote:

People that actually vote have to make some sort of effort to vote, albeit not much. A "Non of the above" is a waste of people's time. The same result is achieved by them being sat at home. How many reluctant voters would put their cross in the first box? Great if your candidate is Mr Aardvark.
Never mind, I'm sure the number of people voting will increase dramatically if the X Factor generation get to vote by text.

Not really, a "none of the above" means "I don't like any of the named candidates" whereas staying at home means "I might like one of the candidates but I am lazy".

And it's a known issue that candidates appearing at the top of the list are more likely to get voted for under any system (particularly the more candidates there are).

I think voting by text (or more realistically some sort of app with appropriate safeguards) is a great idea.

I still think 16 and 17 year old son should be allowed to vote in this election (and all others). Get them engaged in politics from a younger age.

prhymeate

ukiboy wrote:

Out. The 'In' camp would have us believe the UK cannot survive outside the EU.
Of course, the UK was such a backwater before entry into the EEC.....
Worlds biggest empire, worlds workshop, birthplace of industry, held our ground in two major world wars, THE cultural reference point for many many years - music, film, literature... And Marmite, Real Ale and Benny Hill.
Oh yeah, the UK would sink if it weren't for the EU! :-))))))))) NOT!

edit: woops, wouldn't have replied if I'd realised that was on the first page.

secretsam

Am voting in. For economic reasons, for social reasons, and simply to annoy the little-Englanders-stuck-in-the-50s

All this tosh about increased trade with the Commonwealth - utter rubbish. Take Canada for example: main trade partner: USA. Do they give a rat's ar53 about trade with us? Not really. For Australia, read Japan for USA...etc.

Oh, and under Brexit they'd probably chuck out @UgoSantalucia. And he's a good guy.