Should the voting age be cut from 18?
This is not strictly related to history, but I recently took part on a debate on this issue, and is a subject of interest for me. I personally support the motion I supported in spite of being 16!
Tell me what you think in the comments
Good afternoon ladies, gentlemen and Mr Chair. I am Tom Hennessy, and I speak to oppose the reduction of the voting age from 18 to 16. My argument to maintain 18 as the voting age will centre around these points: 16 year olds lack life experience, are likely to be swayed by political propaganda, voting rights at 16 will create a tiered citizenship system, it simply isn't necessary because of parental representation and 18 is a natural age at which to draw the line. 18 is a symbolic cutoff point, and as Our entire legal system is built around the concept of 18 being the age of adulthood, it is the most natural age at which to grant voting rights. At this age, an individual can do whatever they want within the law, and are completely independent, while a 16 year old is classed as a dependent. 16 year olds are also obligated to be in education of some sort, while 18 year olds have the opportunity to leave education and enter the world of work, meaning they are far more independent than the two year gap suggests. 18 year olds also acquire a a sense of responsibility which is derived from gradually accumulating rights, such as driving a moped, a car and donating blood from 16 onward. The sense of responsibility that stems from these privileges means they will likely use these new rights ACCOUNTABILITY. Consequently, their full acceptance of their actions in society is why they are trusted with the fate of our country.
Although 16 year olds do gain a number of new rights, there is a false illusion of the extent of these privileges, for example, they have the option of marriage, but this is subject to parental consent, a 16 year old can join the armed forces, but cannot go into battle until 18. If enacted, this proposition will create two tiers of citizenship as 16 year olds will have a say in forming the government of the country, but will not enjoy many of its liberties. As a result, extending the electorate may appear a democratic triumph, in reality, the opposite will be true. For example, the vast majority of 16 Year olds do not pay income tax, yet they will have a say in deciding the taxation policies that they are not directly affected by. This is unjust for the rest of the population, who will be directly affected by the decision of this age bracket, who will not vote with the same consideration on this agenda, as those who pay tax. In addition, parliamentary representation may provoke a movement aimed at giving 16 year olds more rights, which will be easily justified by the partial citizenship that they are given in this new electorate structure. Therefore, the question should not solely be whether or not the voting age should be lowered, but whether or not this house would send 16 year olds into battle.
It is patronising, but the simple fact is that 16 year olds do not have as much life experience or general knowledge as an 18 year old. Their knowledge of politics and the mechanism of the state is lesser than someone two years elder. As a result, in general, 16 year olds have little interest in politics, and do not feel well educated enough to make an informed choice. This notion is supported by research undertaken by the Electoral Commission. Sam Younger, the Organisation's chairman concluded; The evidence from the review suggests that while many young people under 18 would feel ready to vote, there are just as many who feel that 16 is too young. The majority of the cross-section of young people responding to the research made it clear that they don't feel ready for the responsibility of voting at 16'. By the age of 18, an individual is much more likely to feel prepared to exercise this hugely important right.
There is also a danger that parents will overly influence their offspring's decision and effectively have two votes. This is a logical assumption, as most 16 year olds have not found their own ideological positioning, so their voting choices will be heavily swayed by the beliefs of their parents and teachers. The proposition may argue that they should be able to vote for issues that directly affect them, but the flip side of parental influence is that parents have the best interests of their children at heart. For example, a bill for raising the age for housing benefit to be claimed was rapidly overturned as parents realised the implications this would have on their children, despite the prospect of higher taxation. 16 year olds are legally and socially represented by their parents in the current system, so there should be little question about whether parents are also capable of politically representing those who are dependent on them. Additionally, parents represent all ages below 18, so why is the line drawn at 16? The question to draw up the voting age should therefore be, at what age is a parent incapable of representing their children in the ballot box? is it at 15, is it at 13 or is it at 12?
In summary, It is beneficial to retain 18, the age at which an individual becomes an adult, as the voting age, because of greater life experience resulting in a more informed voting choice, for the purpose of democracy, as votes at 16 will create a multi tiered social system, for the risk of undue influence on voting choices due to the sway that that parents and teachers hold, and also an increased risk of being persuaded by party propaganda. Furthermore, the role that parents play simply renders voting at 16 unnecessary, and there is no convincing justification to change the voting age from 18.
Thank you for your time
This is not strictly related to history, but I recently took part on a debate on this issue, and is a subject of interest for me. I personally support the motion I supported in spite of being 16!
Tell me what you think in the comments
Good afternoon ladies, gentlemen and Mr Chair. I am Tom Hennessy, and I speak to oppose the reduction of the voting age from 18 to 16. My argument to maintain 18 as the voting age will centre around these points: 16 year olds lack life experience, are likely to be swayed by political propaganda, voting rights at 16 will create a tiered citizenship system, it simply isn't necessary because of parental representation and 18 is a natural age at which to draw the line. 18 is a symbolic cutoff point, and as Our entire legal system is built around the concept of 18 being the age of adulthood, it is the most natural age at which to grant voting rights. At this age, an individual can do whatever they want within the law, and are completely independent, while a 16 year old is classed as a dependent. 16 year olds are also obligated to be in education of some sort, while 18 year olds have the opportunity to leave education and enter the world of work, meaning they are far more independent than the two year gap suggests. 18 year olds also acquire a a sense of responsibility which is derived from gradually accumulating rights, such as driving a moped, a car and donating blood from 16 onward. The sense of responsibility that stems from these privileges means they will likely use these new rights ACCOUNTABILITY. Consequently, their full acceptance of their actions in society is why they are trusted with the fate of our country.
Although 16 year olds do gain a number of new rights, there is a false illusion of the extent of these privileges, for example, they have the option of marriage, but this is subject to parental consent, a 16 year old can join the armed forces, but cannot go into battle until 18. If enacted, this proposition will create two tiers of citizenship as 16 year olds will have a say in forming the government of the country, but will not enjoy many of its liberties. As a result, extending the electorate may appear a democratic triumph, in reality, the opposite will be true. For example, the vast majority of 16 Year olds do not pay income tax, yet they will have a say in deciding the taxation policies that they are not directly affected by. This is unjust for the rest of the population, who will be directly affected by the decision of this age bracket, who will not vote with the same consideration on this agenda, as those who pay tax. In addition, parliamentary representation may provoke a movement aimed at giving 16 year olds more rights, which will be easily justified by the partial citizenship that they are given in this new electorate structure. Therefore, the question should not solely be whether or not the voting age should be lowered, but whether or not this house would send 16 year olds into battle.
It is patronising, but the simple fact is that 16 year olds do not have as much life experience or general knowledge as an 18 year old. Their knowledge of politics and the mechanism of the state is lesser than someone two years elder. As a result, in general, 16 year olds have little interest in politics, and do not feel well educated enough to make an informed choice. This notion is supported by research undertaken by the Electoral Commission. Sam Younger, the Organisation's chairman concluded; The evidence from the review suggests that while many young people under 18 would feel ready to vote, there are just as many who feel that 16 is too young. The majority of the cross-section of young people responding to the research made it clear that they don't feel ready for the responsibility of voting at 16'. By the age of 18, an individual is much more likely to feel prepared to exercise this hugely important right.
There is also a danger that parents will overly influence their offspring's decision and effectively have two votes. This is a logical assumption, as most 16 year olds have not found their own ideological positioning, so their voting choices will be heavily swayed by the beliefs of their parents and teachers. The proposition may argue that they should be able to vote for issues that directly affect them, but the flip side of parental influence is that parents have the best interests of their children at heart. For example, a bill for raising the age for housing benefit to be claimed was rapidly overturned as parents realised the implications this would have on their children, despite the prospect of higher taxation. 16 year olds are legally and socially represented by their parents in the current system, so there should be little question about whether parents are also capable of politically representing those who are dependent on them. Additionally, parents represent all ages below 18, so why is the line drawn at 16? The question to draw up the voting age should therefore be, at what age is a parent incapable of representing their children in the ballot box? is it at 15, is it at 13 or is it at 12?
In summary, It is beneficial to retain 18, the age at which an individual becomes an adult, as the voting age, because of greater life experience resulting in a more informed voting choice, for the purpose of democracy, as votes at 16 will create a multi tiered social system, for the risk of undue influence on voting choices due to the sway that that parents and teachers hold, and also an increased risk of being persuaded by party propaganda. Furthermore, the role that parents play simply renders voting at 16 unnecessary, and there is no convincing justification to change the voting age from 18.
Thank you for your time
Comments
Post a Comment