5 ms·

Absolutely shameful reform, the only reason it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket. This will backfire spectacularly once the you

Absolutely shameful reform, the only reason it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket. This will backfire spectacularly once the younger generation flips to some kind of tik-tok popular right wing strongman.

robin_reala 1y ago
Explain why you think it’s shameful?
- poszlem 1y ago
  Because this only happens because of the misguided belief that young people will always vote Labour. It's nothing more than age-based gerrymandering to manipulate voting outcomes.
6LLvveMx2koXfwn 1y ago
Isn't it because if you're old enough to die for your country you're old enough to vote for the people putting you in jeopardy?
- poszlem 1y ago
  But 16 is not enough to die for your country. 16 year olds can join the military (only with parental consent btw.) but cannot be deployed to combat zones until they are 18.
- harvey9 1y ago
  The British military doesn't put under 18s in combat roles.
bell-cot 1y ago
If reform could only be done when it was disadvantageous to the party in power, then how much reform would ever be done?
nicoburns 1y ago
> it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket Probably true. But IMO it's a good thing regardless. The impact of this is fundamentally pro-democracy above anything else.
skissane 1y ago
A radical proposal: there is no minimum voting age, but to enrol to vote you must pass a civics exam-so a 12 year old who passes the exam can vote, but a 50 year old who fails it (or refuses to sit it) can’t. I really doubt this proposal would ever actually be implemented, but still it is an interesting idea to ponder-in the abstract it seems fairer than a semi-arbitrary cutoff based on chronological age
- sparkie 1y ago
  That just gives power to whoever administers the civics exams - which would obviously be a government controlled body. Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing? A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > which would obviously be a government controlled body It could be an NGO obeying the people, not govenment.
    - skissane 1y ago
      It could be something like the Australian Electoral Commission-which is widely respected as an independent apolitical government agency
- jackvalentine 1y ago
  Classic tactic to disenfranchise people. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
  - skissane 1y ago
    I think the intention behind things makes a big difference. The tests you are talking about were deliberately introduced as a scheme to deny a racial minority the right to vote; my idea has a very different intention behind it. Of course, I totally see how it might lead to unintentional indirect discrimination (“disparate impact”)-but there is a difference between that, and what was essentially direct discrimination covered with a thin veneer of “plausible deniability”.
MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
[flagged]
- bigfudge 1y ago
  We should be clear that what is today termed extreme left in the uk and us is I) historically pretty centrist and ii) pretty normal in most of Europe. It’s the right that are shifting, not the left.
  - MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
    According to a Prognos poll, 46% of the 16-17 year old women in Germany would vote for Die Linke, which is the successor party of the communist SED of DDR fame. And before you ask, yes this contains source references, very easy to check: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GvfUGidXAAAXbIr?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GvfUGidXAAAXbIr?format=jpg&name=...
  - gmac 1y ago
    Fully agree. The extreme left barely exists in the UK, Labour are perhaps a little right of centre, and the extreme right is all too well—funded and high-profile.
    - gmac 1y ago
      (Thought I was adding this to my previous post, but in fact I was replying). I think part of the mechanism here is the normalisation of Trump. An authoritarian/trending fascist US President is continuously reported as mostly business-as-usual, and this inevitably shifts the discourse rightwards.
- gmac 1y ago
  The obvious reasons being what? To the extent this is true, I would phrase it the other way: women are becoming less conservative, while young men are drifting towards the extreme right.
  - 1y ago
giingyui 1y ago
[dead]

robin_reala 1y ago

Explain why you think it’s shameful?

poszlem 1y ago
Because this only happens because of the misguided belief that young people will always vote Labour. It's nothing more than age-based gerrymandering to manipulate voting outcomes.

6LLvveMx2koXfwn 1y ago

Isn't it because if you're old enough to die for your country you're old enough to vote for the people putting you in jeopardy?

poszlem 1y ago
But 16 is not enough to die for your country. 16 year olds can join the military (only with parental consent btw.) but cannot be deployed to combat zones until they are 18.
harvey9 1y ago
The British military doesn't put under 18s in combat roles.

bell-cot 1y ago

If reform could only be done when it was disadvantageous to the party in power, then how much reform would ever be done?

nicoburns 1y ago

> it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket Probably true. But IMO it's a good thing regardless. The impact of this is fundamentally pro-democracy above anything else.

skissane 1y ago

A radical proposal: there is no minimum voting age, but to enrol to vote you must pass a civics exam-so a 12 year old who passes the exam can vote, but a 50 year old who fails it (or refuses to sit it) can’t. I really doubt this proposal would ever actually be implemented, but still it is an interesting idea to ponder-in the abstract it seems fairer than a semi-arbitrary cutoff based on chronological age

sparkie 1y ago
That just gives power to whoever administers the civics exams - which would obviously be a government controlled body. Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing? A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > which would obviously be a government controlled body It could be an NGO obeying the people, not govenment.
  - skissane 1y ago
    It could be something like the Australian Electoral Commission-which is widely respected as an independent apolitical government agency
jackvalentine 1y ago
Classic tactic to disenfranchise people. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
- skissane 1y ago
  I think the intention behind things makes a big difference. The tests you are talking about were deliberately introduced as a scheme to deny a racial minority the right to vote; my idea has a very different intention behind it. Of course, I totally see how it might lead to unintentional indirect discrimination (“disparate impact”)-but there is a difference between that, and what was essentially direct discrimination covered with a thin veneer of “plausible deniability”.

MrBuddyCasino 1y ago

[flagged]

bigfudge 1y ago
We should be clear that what is today termed extreme left in the uk and us is I) historically pretty centrist and ii) pretty normal in most of Europe. It’s the right that are shifting, not the left.
- MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
  According to a Prognos poll, 46% of the 16-17 year old women in Germany would vote for Die Linke, which is the successor party of the communist SED of DDR fame. And before you ask, yes this contains source references, very easy to check: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GvfUGidXAAAXbIr?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GvfUGidXAAAXbIr?format=jpg&name=...
- gmac 1y ago
  Fully agree. The extreme left barely exists in the UK, Labour are perhaps a little right of centre, and the extreme right is all too well—funded and high-profile.
  - gmac 1y ago
    (Thought I was adding this to my previous post, but in fact I was replying). I think part of the mechanism here is the normalisation of Trump. An authoritarian/trending fascist US President is continuously reported as mostly business-as-usual, and this inevitably shifts the discourse rightwards.
gmac 1y ago
The obvious reasons being what? To the extent this is true, I would phrase it the other way: women are becoming less conservative, while young men are drifting towards the extreme right.
- 1y ago

giingyui 1y ago

[dead]