Should we franchise the right to vote to sixteen year old?

@SW-User Why is it assumed that every policy decision must have a partisan motive? Might Starmer not have suggested this simply because it is a good idea to enfranchise those who will be paying for/living with political outcomes in future years? Or because a lot of young people are genuinely interested in public affairs?

@SW-User I can’t see the correlation between care and compassion and the development of your brain.

And how does the study of Quantum Mechanics or Superconductivity make you more left wing at University. I just fail to see your argument.

@SunshineGirl I said it is a liberal idea, and Keir Starmer is a liberal. It is true that it is a way to secure votes from more young people. However, the right appeals to working class voters, and this includes the young. Many of them would not vote Labor.

We all live with political outcomes. Those who are older than 16 live with these outcomes more because they are already in employment and have been paying into what you call the "system." A 16 year old is not paying tax as they do not receive the same wages or are not working at all. Most 18 year olds are also not paying tax. They will not get the full hourly rate until they are 21. If they are in college, they will only be working part time. At 21-22, they will presumably start working full time, and then they will start paying taxes. No one has stolen their future, and there will be another election.

@SW-User What does this have to do with care and compassion?

@SW-User "And how does the study of Quantum Mechanics or Superconductivity make you more left wing at University."

Students and university graduates don't live in the real world, and that means they enter the "liberal" realm.

@SW-User Oh I lived in a world that was real enough. I discovered the body of a friend who had committed suicide. That was real enough.

@SW-User Many pensioners do not pay into "the system" as their accumulated capital is of greater value than their pension income. Many will not live to see the outcome of the decisions they mandate through the ballot box. But nobody talks of disenfranchising the over 70s. It is a good idea to take a broad view and make the electorate as wide as is practical.

@SunshineGirl They have already paid into the system for many years, and this is what justifies their vote. Speculating on how long they have to live seems strange and misguided. Some will live until they are 90. Some 18 year olds who voted might die in a car crash next week. Life is life and it is all vulnerable. All people aged 18 and over have the opportunity and the right to vote.

@SW-User I think both groups should be able to vote, but the younger cohort has a lot more at stake. The danger of linking enfranchisement to tax payments is that large groups may be unintentionally excluded. Citizenship is not something to be bought and sold.

@SunshineGirl You say: "I think both groups should be able to vote, but the younger cohort has a lot more at stake. The danger of linking enfranchisement to tax payments is that large groups may be unintentionally excluded. Citizenship is not something to be bought and sold."

Why do you think this? An election happens every five years in Britain. A young person is no more affected by each leadership than a 70 year old. If a 16 year old who is very unlikely to be working full time, and who is not receiving the national minimum wage yet, wants to change the government they can when they are 21. If they happen to be 13 at the time of an election, they can vote at 18.

@SW-User If a government legislates for military conscription (as our Conservative Party proposed), this will clearly affect the interests of younger people, as would any laws relating to higher education, rental property, the environment, etc. If a government makes a mid to longer term budgetary commitment, such as linking pensions to inflation, it is the younger generation who will foot most of the bill across their lifetime, even though they may not be paying tax at the current time. In a similar way, it would not be correct to exclude older or unemployed people from the franchise on the basis of their current day tax contribution.

@SunshineGirl The proposal was only to involve military service or a volunteer placement for one weekend a month for 12 months. If a teenager refused to do military service or volunteer, they would not have been met with sanctions or sent to prison. Military placements would have also been paid.

You say that voting outcomes affect the interests of young people, but if they are only 16 years old, isn't this preempting? Should 14 year olds get to preempt as well? A 16 year old will not be in higher education yet, will not be renting a property yet, and all people of all ages, including infants who cannot vote, are affected by the environment.

One would assume that unemployed people were able to pay tax at some point. If they were not, it still does not matter, as they are old enough to pay tax and earn a minimum wage for over 21 years olds if they do commence work.

@SW-User Well, it is simply my opinion. I think widening democracy to those who are most likely to use and benefit from it can only be a virtue. Had those who are now most affected by Brexit (in terms of loss of personal liberty and and economic opportunities) been consulted in 2016, the outcome may have been less divisive and acrimonious.