Positively NO is the answer. The sixteen-year olds are not socially active for the most part and they are not aware of political issues to take any interest. The idea behind this proposal is not to help changes in society, but to get them into the practice of making their voice heard by using their vote, and the expectation is that they would, when the time comes, take part in the construction of a future society.
2007-07-07 20:58:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by polymath 1 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
If wisdom was a requirement to vote, then there should be a test before being allowed to vote. Pass the test, get the ballot. This would knock out 80% of the 16 year olds that would try and vote, and probably 60% of the rest of constituents as well. Trust me, things would be better this way.
PS: If you all think the 16 year olds are so stupid, why are they that way? Could it be a crappy education system and indifferent parents?
I'm 29, just playing devils advocate.
2007-07-08 03:10:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by ThomasS 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, They did not improve when 18 year olds got the vote. The real reason is that clown Brown knows that they will vote Labour without thinking the issues through. In any case they will be subject to greater peer pressure than 18 year olds which will undermine the secret vote on which we all depend to express our wishes without penalty
2007-07-08 21:54:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Scouse 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
If one looks at the fact that 18-25 year old eligible voters vote less than any age group, I doubt lowering the age would provide sufficient numbers to influence the results of any national race.
2007-07-07 20:44:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by oldcorps1947 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I doubt it too, at the General Election they'll vote for the winner of Big Brother or I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here or something like that. They can't even make simple decisions at that age without a hormone induced brain melt down let alone make decent decisions at the polling booth.
2007-07-07 20:46:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I, for one, dont think a sixteen year old is capable of understanding the complexities of politics. This isnt a Jr High popularity contest. Secondly, once you make the decision youre stuck with it for the next four years.
2007-07-07 20:45:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by kajun 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
It wouldn't make much difference.
You could randomly ask people in their 20's, 30's and 40's some questions regarding domestic issues, foreign affairs issued and world history and you'd likely get many of the same answers that 16 year olds would give.
2007-07-08 02:34:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by 7_7_7 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would doubt it very much if what we are told is true that most pupils leaving school nowadays have trouble reading and writing.If this is true and looking in the area I live most of them have trouble speaking.If you put a ballot paper in front of them how would they know who they are voting for and then they would have problems spelling the X they need on the ballot paper
2007-07-07 21:04:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by AFDEE 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
no, because in their schooldays they are being brainwashed
into believing that their country has a genuin gov, and made to believe the only way forward is through bent politicians, so they will just carry on being manipulated untill there realy is nothing left. young people have not got experiance or memory of years of lies, to them the lies will be as new, like the remake of an old song, youngsters think its a new song.
2007-07-08 03:40:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by trucker 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Funny isn't it.
They can't buy a box of matches, tube of glue, a knife, from October tobacco, a pint of beer and the Government is raising the school leaving age to 18. But they can decide the fate of the Nation. BRILLIANT!! Another fantastic new labour initiative.
2007-07-08 03:04:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by one shot 7
·
1⤊
0⤋