4 ms·

I suspect a mass of support for this is a reaction to Brexit, I don't think that's unfair: the generational gap in that vote was huge, with older voters who no

I suspect a mass of support for this is a reaction to Brexit, I don't think that's unfair: the generational gap in that vote was huge, with older voters who no longer work (and, to be blunt, have fewer years left to feel the consequences) voted for Brexit while younger generations with entire careers ahead of them voted against. I can see the argument that 16 year olds are too young to make an informed choice but I've also met a great many people of all ages who are too ill informed to make a choice too. Fundamental weakness of democracy, I suppose.

rwmj 1y ago
There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit pensions and the triple lock -- voting for wacky options and suffering no consequences. This is going to get worse and worse. Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
  > Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount. I love comments like these. There could never be consequences to an obviously -in-current-self-interest move like this. “Yes let them vote, an impressionable and easily influenced demographic that my hyper partisan side controls could never be manipulated against me!!”
  - afavour 1y ago
    You're not really engaging with OP's point. "an impressionable and easily influenced demographic" describes every demographic. 16 year olds are not particularly unique in that regard. 16 year olds could absolutely flip to the far right in the future, who knows! But they have more of a stake in the future. Allowing them to vote redresses a small amount of balance against voters who do not have a stake in the future.
- musicale 1y ago
  > There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit 16yo may not have a lot of skin in the game, but giving them more of a voice seems like a good idea. I like the idea of gradually increasing voting rights over time.

rwmj 1y ago

There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit pensions and the triple lock -- voting for wacky options and suffering no consequences. This is going to get worse and worse. Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount.

SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
> Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount. I love comments like these. There could never be consequences to an obviously -in-current-self-interest move like this. “Yes let them vote, an impressionable and easily influenced demographic that my hyper partisan side controls could never be manipulated against me!!”
- afavour 1y ago
  You're not really engaging with OP's point. "an impressionable and easily influenced demographic" describes every demographic. 16 year olds are not particularly unique in that regard. 16 year olds could absolutely flip to the far right in the future, who knows! But they have more of a stake in the future. Allowing them to vote redresses a small amount of balance against voters who do not have a stake in the future.
musicale 1y ago
> There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit 16yo may not have a lot of skin in the game, but giving them more of a voice seems like a good idea. I like the idea of gradually increasing voting rights over time.