Voter ID

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There’s nothing wrong with that as long as only adults can vote and the person voting has been naturalised.

Under 18s are children, not adults, and by the way should not be allowed to put their lives in danger in the Armed Forces until they are 18.

What miraculous change happens between one second before midnight on the day before their 18th birthday and one second after midnight on the day of their birthday that changes that person from a child to an adult?

(Speaking as one someone who joined up when I was 17)

The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 in 1969 - did "maturity" suddenly change overnight then?

The sooner the 17 to 21 group are encouraged into voting the better. We need to get a mindset in the younger generations that voting is in their own best interests. Too many of the 17 to 25 age range aren’t engaged with politics and they are constantly at the whim of older voters who don’t necessarily care about the younger generations.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Maggy

The sooner the 17 to 21 group are encouraged into voting the better. We need to get a mindset in the younger generations that voting is in their own best interests. Too many of the 17 to 25 age range aren’t engaged with politics and they are constantly at the whim of older voters who don’t necessarily care about the younger generations.

Absolutely. Hence the crap outlook for young people in this country. Birth rate plummeting too. A nation of pensioners will be a problem, as is becoming more apparent each year.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Maggy

The sooner the 17 to 21 group are encouraged into voting the better. We need to get a mindset in the younger generations that voting is in their own best interests. Too many of the 17 to 25 age range aren’t engaged with politics and they are constantly at the whim of older voters who don’t necessarily care about the younger generations.

Agreed.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They aren't allowed to...

But you can sign up when you are a child, which commits you to go to the battlefield if required when you turn 18.

---------- Post added at 10:37 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

What miraculous change happens between one second before midnight on the day before their 18th birthday and one second after midnight on the day of their birthday that changes that person from a child to an adult?

(Speaking as one someone who joined up when I was 17)

The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 in 1969 - did "maturity" suddenly change overnight then?

Of course not, but you are missing the point. The argument is that if you can sign up to fight when you’re 16, it is difficult to argue that you shouldn’t have the vote until 18.

Personally, I don’t think that adult thinking arrives for many until they are in their 20s, so 21 was a probably a better age to determine adulthood than 18, when most are still immature.

[Mr K]

17 seems a reasonable compromise to me, old enough to take responsibility for a car, then old enough to vote. They are voting for a Govt 5 years ahead, taking them up to the age of 22. Probably the most important years of their life. They are the future and they should have a say.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Of course not, but you are missing the point. The argument is that if you can sign up to fight when you’re 16, it is difficult to argue that you shouldn’t have the vote until 18.

I agree with your thinking on this.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

17 seems a reasonable compromise to me, old enough to take responsibility for a car, then old enough to vote. They are voting for a Govt 5 years ahead, taking them up to the age of 22. Probably the most important years of their life. They are the future and they should have a say.

I can see some merit in the compromise you’ve suggested. But truth to tell, I prefer 21 (which can’t happen). Reason is they know nothing beyond the end of their nose as to what “have a say” sensibly covers.

Kids shouldn’t have the vote.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I can see some merit in the compromise you’ve suggested. But truth to tell, I prefer 21 (which can’t happen). Reason is they know nothing beyond the end of their nose as to what “have a say” sensibly covers.

Kids shouldn’t have the vote.

They're not kids, they're young people, those that don't know anything beyond the end of the nose probably wouldn't bother to vote anyway, another way of looking at it is if they pay tax then they should have a say

[denphone]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They're not kids, they're young people, those that don't know anything beyond the end of the nose probably wouldn't bother to vote anyway, another way of looking at it is if they pay tax then they should have a say

Indeed if they are working and pay tax they should be allowed to vote.

Originally Posted by Hugh

What miraculous change happens between one second before midnight on the day before their 18th birthday and one second after midnight on the day of their birthday that changes that person from a child to an adult?

Thats an nonsense argument since it can equally be applied to any age limit, for any activity.

Originally Posted by Paul

Thats an nonsense argument since it can equally be applied to any age limit, for any activity.

That was my point…

Originally Posted by Hugh

That was my point…

Your point was to post nonsense Ok ...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What miraculous change happens between one second before midnight on the day before their 18th birthday and one second after midnight on the day of their birthday that changes that person from a child to an adult?

(Speaking as one someone who joined up when I was 17)

The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 in 1969 - did "maturity" suddenly change overnight then?

Give the the zygote the vote. Perhaps they’ll vote not to get killed in the womb!

Did human life suddenly change? One second to midnight it’s just a cluster of cells, one second after midnight it’s a baby.

Very tricky line of reasoning……………

Unlike you to make an extremely unlikely proposition to make a point…

(btw, it takes a couple of weeks, rather than a couple of seconds, for the zygote to implant and develop into an embryo within the blastocyst, but besides that, and their lack of photo ID, cool story, bro…).

OB seemed to be trying to say that people aged 17 years and 364 days (365 in a Leap Year) were children, but suddenly, a couple of seconds after midnight, they were then adults and capable of the responsibility to vote, trying to seemingly make that point to show that sixteen year olds weren’t responsible enough to get the vote - I was trying to (but obviously not very well) highlight the fallacious nature of that assumption by showing that voting age has evolved over time (as in, it’s not that simple…).