3 ms·

> And, why do we stop 16 year olds from voting? Here is one Labour policy I'm very much in favour of: Meh. That's as naked politicking as if the Tories suggest

> And, why do we stop 16 year olds from voting? Here is one Labour policy I'm very much in favour of: Meh. That's as naked politicking as if the Tories suggested double votes for land owners or higher rate tax payers.

rwmj 13y ago
Tell us [the audience] why allowing disenfranchised people to vote is the same as allowing some people to vote twice.
- mseebach 13y ago
  > Tell us Oh, I apologise, I didn't realize you're royal. > allowing disenfranchised people to vote 16 year olds aren't exactly disenfranchised, and to the extend they are, they're not more disenfranchised than higher rate tax payers who pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes that everybody benefits from, but are actually in a minority of voters. For the record, my point is illustrating the arbitrariness of being "disenfranchised", not arguing for extra votes for the rich.
  - rwmj 13y ago
    16 year olds aren't exactly disenfranchised In the UK and US they are very exactly disenfranchised. they're not more disenfranchised than higher rate tax payers who pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes They are disenfranchised, and higher rate tax payers are not. Anyway, enough niggling over what words mean. There is a actual problem here which is that old people are disproportionately overrepresented, and this is why for example none of the "we're all in it together" cuts are going to affect pensioners. How do we solve that specific problem? One way is to get more 18+ young people to vote. Another way would be to allow 16+ to vote and ensure that they are taken from school to the voting booth. It has been shown[1] that you're more likely to vote in elections if you vote the first time. [1] http://www.ippr.org/press-releases/111/11175/young-voters-should-be-required-to-vote-first-time-round http://www.ippr.org/press-releases/111/11175/young-voters-sh...
    - mseebach 13y ago
      You're not niggling over what "disenfranchised" means, you're just declaring your definition to be canon. > old people are disproportionately overrepresented How? For each one "old person", there is "one vote". That is the same proportional representation that every other adult gets. > Another way would be to allow 16+ to vote and ensure that they are taken from school to the voting booth How very democratic of you. These youngsters are old enough to decide what to vote, but not old enough if they care enough to actually vote? > How do we solve that specific problem? The specific problem being that the democratic process gets a result you don't agree with, and so your suggested solution is to change the democratic system to one more likely to return a result you agree with? Your strong commitment to democratic principles is showing.
      - rwmj 13y ago
        We have to agree on the standard definitions of words, otherwise conversation cannot take place. Now, as life spans are getting longer, that means naturally that there will be more and more older people. It's simply fairer that we should try to increase the pool of younger people voting, and also increase the retirement age, in order to make sure we don't continue to have a huge pool of non-working old people block-voting for their own benefits. Of course there are limits (you can't have 8 y.o. children voting) but that doesn't mean we don't work where possible to make the system fairer and get more people to vote (ie. more, and livelier and more direct democracy).
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > It's simply fairer that we should try to increase the pool of younger people voting, and also increase the retirement age, in order to make sure we don't continue to have a huge pool of non-working old people block-voting for their own benefits. I don't see the "fairness" issue here. What I do see is that you have clear policy preferences, judge a certain class of people would likely vote contrary to that preference, and therefore want to get more voters who you assume will be more likely to share your policy preferences rather than the policy preferences you attribute to "non-working old people". IOW, rather than selling your ideas, you just want to stack the deck.
  - drivers99 13y ago
    Disenfranchised means not allowed to vote. Your reply doesn't make any sense at all, unless you're using a different definition.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    16 year olds aren't exactly disenfranchised Of course they are. They don't have the vote, but are still subject to all laws and taxes in full.

rwmj 13y ago

Tell us [the audience] why allowing disenfranchised people to vote is the same as allowing some people to vote twice.

mseebach 13y ago
> Tell us Oh, I apologise, I didn't realize you're royal. > allowing disenfranchised people to vote 16 year olds aren't exactly disenfranchised, and to the extend they are, they're not more disenfranchised than higher rate tax payers who pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes that everybody benefits from, but are actually in a minority of voters. For the record, my point is illustrating the arbitrariness of being "disenfranchised", not arguing for extra votes for the rich.
- rwmj 13y ago
  16 year olds aren't exactly disenfranchised In the UK and US they are very exactly disenfranchised. they're not more disenfranchised than higher rate tax payers who pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes They are disenfranchised, and higher rate tax payers are not. Anyway, enough niggling over what words mean. There is a actual problem here which is that old people are disproportionately overrepresented, and this is why for example none of the "we're all in it together" cuts are going to affect pensioners. How do we solve that specific problem? One way is to get more 18+ young people to vote. Another way would be to allow 16+ to vote and ensure that they are taken from school to the voting booth. It has been shown[1] that you're more likely to vote in elections if you vote the first time. [1] http://www.ippr.org/press-releases/111/11175/young-voters-should-be-required-to-vote-first-time-round http://www.ippr.org/press-releases/111/11175/young-voters-sh...
  - mseebach 13y ago
    You're not niggling over what "disenfranchised" means, you're just declaring your definition to be canon. > old people are disproportionately overrepresented How? For each one "old person", there is "one vote". That is the same proportional representation that every other adult gets. > Another way would be to allow 16+ to vote and ensure that they are taken from school to the voting booth How very democratic of you. These youngsters are old enough to decide what to vote, but not old enough if they care enough to actually vote? > How do we solve that specific problem? The specific problem being that the democratic process gets a result you don't agree with, and so your suggested solution is to change the democratic system to one more likely to return a result you agree with? Your strong commitment to democratic principles is showing.
    - rwmj 13y ago
      We have to agree on the standard definitions of words, otherwise conversation cannot take place. Now, as life spans are getting longer, that means naturally that there will be more and more older people. It's simply fairer that we should try to increase the pool of younger people voting, and also increase the retirement age, in order to make sure we don't continue to have a huge pool of non-working old people block-voting for their own benefits. Of course there are limits (you can't have 8 y.o. children voting) but that doesn't mean we don't work where possible to make the system fairer and get more people to vote (ie. more, and livelier and more direct democracy).
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > It's simply fairer that we should try to increase the pool of younger people voting, and also increase the retirement age, in order to make sure we don't continue to have a huge pool of non-working old people block-voting for their own benefits. I don't see the "fairness" issue here. What I do see is that you have clear policy preferences, judge a certain class of people would likely vote contrary to that preference, and therefore want to get more voters who you assume will be more likely to share your policy preferences rather than the policy preferences you attribute to "non-working old people". IOW, rather than selling your ideas, you just want to stack the deck.
- drivers99 13y ago
  Disenfranchised means not allowed to vote. Your reply doesn't make any sense at all, unless you're using a different definition.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  16 year olds aren't exactly disenfranchised Of course they are. They don't have the vote, but are still subject to all laws and taxes in full.