Voting age

[turbobloke]

Thoughts for these, as well as 'none of the above'...

[Nickgnome]

You’ve missed out the upper limit when an adult should lose the vote.

How about an IQ/EQ test as well to ensure the voter has some concept of what the vote means.

[turbobloke]

Nickgnome said:

You’ve missed out the upper limit when an adult should lose the vote.

How about an IQ/EQ test as well to ensure the voter has some concept of what the vote means.

The poll is about age, sure, but it refers to when somebody is seen to be of a suitable age to start voting, not stop - which is another matter.

ISWYM about IQ/EQ but these are not age-specific. The main concern I would have is that there's no accurate measure of either that's easily established or even universally accepted.

[Nickgnome]

turbobloke said:

Nickgnome said:

You’ve missed out the upper limit when an adult should lose the vote.

How about an IQ/EQ test as well to ensure the voter has some concept of what the vote means.

The poll is about age, sure, but it refers to when somebody is seen to be of a suitable age to start voting, not stop - which is another matter.

ISWYM about IQ/EQ but these are not age-specific. The main concern I would have is that there's no accurate measure of either that's easily established or even universally accepted.

Then you’ve made an assumption that 16 should be the lowest age to vote. That is prejudicial.

Please read nothing into my comment other than a reflection that I consider your survey to have a biased premise.

[Donbot]

Nickgnome said:

How about an IQ/EQ test as well to ensure the voter has some concept of what the vote means.

Yep. And if they don't vote the right way they're sent to a re-education camp.

[FourWheelDrift]

Let's go back to the good old days - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOEMRXI3sRs

[ellroy]

I saw something recently suggesting that to have a vote you should have to have some stake or input into society, be a net contributor of tax, be a nurse etc etc not sure how you define that, but do think it’s not necessarily a bad concept.

[A Winner Is You]

Nickgnome said:

You’ve missed out the upper limit when an adult should lose the vote.

How about an IQ/EQ test as well to ensure the voter has some concept of what the vote means.

I presume you'd want said test to be at a level where you would be able to pass it? If you did happen to fail, would you accept the fact you were deemed not intelligent enough to vote?

[powerstroke]

Nickgnome said:

You’ve missed out the upper limit when an adult should lose the vote.

How about an IQ/EQ test as well to ensure the voter has some concept of what the vote means.

You just can't help yourself can you ......

[Zarco]

I voted 16 but if they are anything like me they won't bother until late 20s.

[dreamcracker]

What is the Question?

You may as well of done a vote for Fish and Chips.

Cod
Haddock
Plaice
None of the above.

[dreamcracker]

turbobloke said:

The poll is about age, sure, but it refers to when somebody is seen to be of a suitable age to start voting, not stop - which is another matter..

Just spotted this after my last post. Thanks.

[Agammemnon]

ellroy said:

I saw something recently suggesting that to have a vote you should have to have some stake or input into society, be a net contributor of tax, be a nurse etc etc not sure how you define that, but do think it’s not necessarily a bad concept.

Would you like to know more?

[biggbn]

16 for me. Old enough to get married in Scotland, old enough to decide to have sex, old enough to take the decision to die for your country by joining the army, yet you can't vote to decide how said country is run? Seems a strange set of rules?!

[ATG]

biggbn said:

16 for me. Old enough to get married in Scotland, old enough to decide to have sex, old enough to take the decision to die for your country by joining the army, yet you can't vote to decide how said country is run? Seems a strange set of rules?!

Nor to buy a drink to drown one's sorrows if either Corbyn or Johnson are PM in the next Parliament. What a choice.

[konark]

biggbn said:

16 for me. Old enough to get married in Scotland, old enough to decide to have sex, old enough to take the decision to die for your country by joining the army, yet you can't vote to decide how said country is run? Seems a strange set of rules?!

16? You can't even buy a packet of fags at that age.

[Custard400]

Agammemnon said:

Would you like to know more?

Join the mobile infantry and save the galaxy....

[biggbn]

konark said:

biggbn said:

16 for me. Old enough to get married in Scotland, old enough to decide to have sex, old enough to take the decision to die for your country by joining the army, yet you can't vote to decide how said country is run? Seems a strange set of rules?!

16? You can't even buy a packet of fags at that age.

But you can do the slightly more serious things I mentioned. You are assumed to be cogent enough to take the decision to die for a country you cant vote in? Either up the army age to 18 or bring voting age down to 16. I would suggest the cerebral requirements be similar, no?

An argument AGAINST what I say is there is a strict vetting process in place before any age can join the army, whereas once you reach a certain age you can vote regardless of intellect etc...., it's just my experience of 16 year olds does not show a huge difference in capability to some at 18/21 etc. It is a difficult decision to make but what are the reasons for mandating 18 as the point of sufficient sentience?

[Cupramax]

I think back to what I was like at 16... responsible voting? Errr no, leave it at 18.

[Kolbenkopp]

If there is a cut-off at the bottom due to young ones not being mature enough, shouldn't there be a cut-off at the top, due to old ones getting senile? Say average life expectancy + 5 years = age 86 for the UK.