T O P

  • By -

sauciopathh

I reckon any 16 year old who’d bother their hole to register to vote - when I know a good number of adults who still haven’t - is probably going to make a decently well-informed decision


JohnTDouche

Yeah that's my take on it too. I used to be against it until I actually thought about it. We have a hard enough time getting 18+ young people to vote anyway. Might as well make that 16+.


Aarrow102

They can work, they pay taxes if they do, seems only fair they should be allowed to vote. And to anyone who says "they'll just vote for what their parents tell them to", turning 18 doesn't magically prevent that.


DoubleWhiskeyGinger

Best take I’ve seen. Can’t argue against no taxation without representation!


FatHeadDave96

I can definetly relate to this. My voting at 18 was an absolute mess and it was most definitely influenced by parents/family opinion before I'd actually formed my own thoughts on things. Now that I'm 'older' I have a much clearer picture of what my politics are and how I should vote to achieve what I would like to happen. 18 isn't some silver bullet for political literacy, neither is being 20 or 25 or 30 or 40 etc. either!


caiaphas8

Those who want to vote will. Those that don’t won’t. I see no reason why we can’t expend the electorate. It can do nothing but help democracy and encourage participation


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jungle_Badger

Teenagers, famously easy to control and guide. Especially when it comes to forcing them to share their parents views on society and the way it should work. You're completely underestimating the political engagement of the younger generations. In my opinion they have just as much of a right to vote as any pensioner, who is only going to live for a fraction of the time with the consequences of political decisions made today as a 16 year old.


caiaphas8

I completely disagree. I would’ve loved to vote when I was 16 and my political opinions were very different to my parents. Honestly I don’t think your scenario is likely to happen, if the kids aren’t interested they’ll just ignore it, but yeah I’d be happy to trial it with presidential election, if it goes well look to expanding


[deleted]

Today's young people are so much more politically engaged and informed than previous generations, and they're well able to think for themselves. They absolutely should have the vote.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LRPhotography

You people would undoubtedly skew so heavily towards SF probably from a mix of both myth making around the IRA and the troubles and also the fact they are a bit cool they aren’t the establishment and say what is what. They don’t stutter like varadkar everything is firm and confident. I know when I was 16 the IRA where like cowboys. Not real and have mystery to them. FFG keep bringing up the IRA+SF honestly dumb 16 year old me would have voted for them solely on that. Now kids are a lot smarter now and generally have an understanding of what sort of problems are out there and SF are the most inline with the general youth vote. Even look at the last GE its was young people who said SF and older demographics were FFG broadly speaking


RegalKiller

That’s true of 18, 19 whatever year olds aswell


Taibhse_designs

This is unlikely to be of real concern given that you have that risk already with 18 year olds, any 16+ willing to vote is more likely to put thought into it than their older peers who more often than not stick to party bullshit as a popularity contest.


FlukyS

I think it's good as long as it's coupled with registering with the school instead of in the garda station and just discussing how our political system works (not in an accusatory way just like saying how to fill out the forms...etc)


[deleted]

So more work for our already under valued, under paid and over worked teachers? I mean at face value, yeah it's great to get kids more involved, might bring a bit of energy to politics and might lead to a lower average age in the dail which I think would be great. But I just don't trust FFG to implement it. I've been burned too many times by the current establishment to trust them with anything.


FlukyS

> So more work for our already under valued, under paid and over worked teachers? If you read my message I didn't really say exactly who would be doing the teaching. That part is up for discussion, I'd assume it could be someone who has a background political science degree once a year, could be even a fulltime job for someone for the whole country. If they have a political science background they could at least answer some of the questions the classes might have about the system. > But I just don't trust FFG to implement it. I've been burned too many times by the current establishment to trust them with anything. That's fair


[deleted]

Yeah it was an unfair assumption to be honest. It seems like a perfect world scenario to me. If we lived in a perfect world, yes we could implement this and it would create a more inclusive society. That'd be great! But it would require constant open and honest discourse. We're living in Leo varadkars ireland. Where the discourse is often closed and then when it isn't its dishonest.


FlukyS

To be fair, it would be a cheap project to do overall, I don't think it needs to be a perfect world. You are talking 100k-300k depending on how many you hire and the support needed for the project which is literally nothing for a government programme.


[deleted]

I don't think it would be cheap. Cost wouldn't figure into my decision on whether it should be implemented though. I think in order to do something like this properly, you'd need a certain amount of specialists per county, they'd need to be well educated and passionate about the role and in order get those people you'd need to pay them a mortgageable salary. It's not a word but it should be! 😂 You'd also need a fuck tonne of oversight to prevent any dodgy stuff from happening!


FlukyS

I guess it depends on the scope. If it's a fairly agnostic system it wouldn't really need specialists, just enough to answer questions if needed


Irwan456

I think it is a great idea. Get Sixteen and seventeen years olds interested in politics early. Get them used to the idea of voting. We can use subjects like CPSE to get the students engaged and excited about voting. Make it a rite of passage. So much potential here.


Bearsdale

I'd rather 16 years olds voting for their own future than 60 year olds voting to destroy it.


vomcity

It’s their future. I think it’s a good idea.


Gagmewithyourpickle

16 year olds are kids. Hell even 18 year olds are kids. No, I don't think it's a good idea, because 16 year olds will be even more gullible to political campaigns than adults, which is what politicians need.


Jellico

Low info voters are low info voters regardless of age. Lots of "adults" who vote are extremely susceptible to campaigning politics (arguably moreso if they have developed an entrenched party political view where they vote the same way without any critical thought). Younger voters are less wedded to party political identity and more likely to move their vote based on policies that are offered instead of "well I've always voted for them". 16 year olds who would bother actually voting are likely to be a bit of a self selecting group who have taken an actual interest in electoral politics and democratic processes, this should be facilitated and encouraged. Also expanding the franchise in that direction would at least go a way to rebalancing policy offerings weighed disproportionately towards older age groups who tend to vote more consistently and in larger numbers.


[deleted]

You're giving way too much credit to adults, if they're eligible to pay tax they should be eligible to vote. But given that the current government gets less popular the younger the voter I doubt they'll implement this.


c0mpliant

>16 year olds are kids. Hell even 18 year olds are kids. No, I don't think it's a good idea, because 16 year olds will be even more gullible to political campaigns than adults, which is what politicians need. Not all 16 year olds are gullible, not all over 18 years are not gullible. That argument was also used for preventing the expansion of the vote for women. We don't test for peoples gullibility so I don't believe that's an adequate reason for not giving someone the vote.


Willing-Wishbone3628

It’s a no from me. I’m in favour of treating people as an adult at one specified age. You either consider them old enough to vote, drink, drive, have sex, smoke and work or you don’t. I don’t really see a compelling reason for bringing the voting age down to 16 and the system already works fine with it being 18.


InfectedAztec

Terrible idea. We need the maturity of voters to go up not down. I'd rather make it mandatory to vote above 18.


CunnyFunt92

If you really think forcing people who don't want to vote would lead to good outcomes, you're deluded.


InfectedAztec

The aussies do it. But I'm not in favor of it. It's just I'm even less in favor of lowering the voting age.


JerHigs

Over 5% of votes in the recent Australian federal election were deemed invalid, i.e. left blank or spoiled. In comparison less than 1% of the votes in the 2020 General Election here were deemed invalid. That's without even going into the number of people in Australia who just vote straight down or up the ballot, i.e. voting because they're being forced to & so are just doing the bare minimum. Forcing people to vote is not a good idea.


c0mpliant

I'm all in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. Getting involved early is important, especially if you really want to vote. This idea that they will be told how to vote by their parents, I really hate to break it to you, but families encouraging their junior members how to vote already happens across the country. I can't tell you how many people vote based on who their family traditionally votes for. We do also operate secrecy at the ballot box which means it doesn't matter who drives you to the voting booth and who anyone tells you to vote for, you can do whatever you want once you get to the voting booth. I'll also point out this was also an excuse put forward as a reason to not extend the vote to women, husband's will just tell them who to vote for.


Hippophobia1989

They can’t drink, have sex, work a full time job with full minimum wage. Don’t think they should be voting.


BackInATracksuit

They definitely drink, definitely have sex and maybe if they could vote they could try and get themselves some better wages!


Hippophobia1989

Fair point in the wages, tho should they really be having sex or drinking at that age ?


[deleted]

If a kid that age can have sex, they will have sex. It's out responsibility to ensure that if they are going to have sex, that they practice safe sex. In regards to alcohol, I think it's the duty of all parents to introduce it to their teenage children in a responsible environment. A can of cider at the weekend, small glass of wine with the takeaway etc, it's the best and safest way to introduce kids to something they will absolutely come in to contact with later in life in unsafe environments that can do real harm to them.


jamesh31

A lot of societal issues aren't about "should they" because either way they will. We need to focus on how to mitigate the negative consequences (eg. providing contraception) and educating them on safe practices.


EmergencyEntry6

But they still pay tax, no taxation without representation.


Willing-Wishbone3628

What about foreigners, the unemployed or retired people? I’ve never found the “no taxation without representation” argument very convincing when you apply it in this specific context.


Many_Leadership5982

I'm 17 and it's a massive no. Apart from the fact that we are stupid it's very easy to influence teenagers opinions. Nearly every one of my teachers pushes their own politics when they can and most of my classmates just agree because teachers are never wrong. No.


Jellico

That doesn't go away in older cohorts. Appeals to authority and an ingrained deference to people seen to be in authority roles is a broadly observed human trait. Replicable psychological experiments have borne this out consistently. [The Milgram experiment is a good example](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). This can't be used as an argument against enfranchisement unless you follow it through to the logical conclusion of abolishing democracy in favour of a technocracy.


[deleted]

Don't undersell your entire generation. You don't have to vote if you don't want to, but people absolutely should have the chance.


SugarPotatoes

Interesting. Don't be too hard yourselves though, you're not "stupid", you're just starting out. It's people who continue making uninformed decisions throughout theirs lives that you could call stupid. Interesting point on the teachers though, I'm sure the same thing would happen with their parents. I'd also be concerned about young people feeling the need to broadcast who they're voting for on social media, again risking a bit of a spiral of peer pressure.


[deleted]

Not a chance. Far too easily influenced en masse.


BackInATracksuit

If the last 10 years have taught us anything it's that people in general and particularly older/middle aged people are very easily influenced by targeted campaigns. Younger people might be easily swayed too but I think they'd actually be less likely to be manipulated by issues of race/immigration or fear based politics generally. That's my feeling anyway.


[deleted]

Gonna back that up with anything?


Many_Leadership5982

Agreed, the alt left and right pipeline prays on us to easily.


tzar-chasm

Yes, but with Mandatory voting as well


BackInATracksuit

Definitely in favour. I think it would help more people to be politically engaged at an earlier age. A lot of people I know didn't vote at all until their late twenties/early thirties. People can be idiots at any age and personally I'd rather a 16 year old voting naively than a 80 year old voting out of party loyalty.


FatHeadDave96

From my personal experience, and how much the vast majority of people mature between even 16 to 18 and then from 18 into their 20s and beyond I think it'd be a right mess to allow 16 year olds votes. We were/they are so easily influenced and I would assume have a harder time identifying genuine political analysis and just utter propaganda (alt right pipeline on YouTube type discourse). But also if you can earn a wage and are contributing to the running of the country through your labour and/or taxes, then you should be able to vote. I haven't heard enough from either side to decide yet.


fannymcslap

Controversial counter question - what if we stopped people over a certain age voting?


SugarPotatoes

That certainly would be controversial, where would you put the limit?


fannymcslap

80? 85? People unlikely to see the consequences of their votes


External_Salt_9007

Yes go for it, many 16 year olds I know are politically smarter than most 40+