Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Britain to lower voting age to 16 before next national election, government announces

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Gatorrick22, Jul 17, 2025 at 11:29 AM.

  1. ufhomerj31

    ufhomerj31 GC Legend

    817
    137
    143
    Jan 5, 2010
    I don't care really. Both parties are the same, spend to much money. I usually vote against incumbent unless in think they are doing a great job. My main concerns are local bonds etc. I always vote against even if I like them. Just trying to keep local taxes as low as possible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  2. WC53

    WC53 GC Hall of Fame

    5,649
    1,097
    2,088
    Oct 17, 2015
    Old City
    I tend to be anti incumbent myself. Complacency and power are not a good mix. I’m all for reasonable taxes, just no silliness and drunken sailor ideological spending.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    10,054
    1,060
    3,093
    Apr 16, 2007
    We know it would be “weaponized” because this country has a long history of voter disenfranchisement directed against minorities.

    For ~100 years between reconstruction and civil rights movement, literacy tests and poll taxes were designed to exclude blacks, whereas white illiterates were “grandfathered” or exempted. This is why civil rights era brought about abolition of poll taxes (24th amendment) and the voting rights act.

    My point wasn’t so much that we actually should consider re-instituting such (constitutionally illegal) tests, just that you are overstating the concern with potentially letting 16-17 year olds vote. Young people just have very low voter participation, so even doing that hypothetical voting age expansion and 16-30 age group would still leave themselves vastly under-represented vs old farts. I’m not sure an engaged 17 year old should be assumed less knowledgable than an engaged 70 year old. Too many old folks are diminished capacity (and I’d actually argue huge swaths of them brain damaged by social media). Maybe that “social media damaged” is also true of younger generations, but the bottom line is their participation always comes out lower. It’s a moot point as lowering the age again would require a constitutional amendment which is highly unlikely.
     
  4. LimeyGator

    LimeyGator Official Brexit Reporter!

    Personally, I think if the law says you're old enough to work full time, participate fully in adult life, contribute tax to the coffers, you should be given a say.

    I reject the view that 16 is too "inexperienced" to have a voice - voting is a right to express your voice, no more. It's not about "getting it right". I know plenty of utter morons of adult age who vote without even remotely being informed about political issues, so implying age is a limiting factor won't wash for me. Brexit was a prime example - people voted without making any effort to understand it's nuances. I don't care if you're 16 or 106 - you should make an effort to be informed. My eldest is 17, smart, a straight A* student in college and makes that effort to follow current affairs objectively. I'd challenge any of you to tell her she's not worthy of a vote in a debate.

    Finally, before anyone launches into a left-right thing here, two really important points of note:

    1) Labour is in DIRE trouble in the polls. The first year has been dismal, all soundbites, inaction, an unpopular PM, and they are not going to get re-elected when the time comes, regardless of giving them the vote. This was in their election manifesto over a year ago too, so it's not just a knee-jerk reaction. Keir Starmer has not gone far enough for a lot of those who voted for him and they are jumping ship. There's going to be a new left wing party, too, led by Jeremy Corbyn (former Labour leader) who will take votes away from them.

    2) There was a news article the other day saying Reform - a new(ish) right wing party - is by far the most well followed and engaged with on social media like Tiktok over here. Let that sink in. They stand to gain a great deal by this with a young audience. Reform will also take a lot of votes from Labour at the next election.

    Me? I've said it all along, I just want a competent Government. It doesn't seem like we have any adults, left, right, centre, wherever, capable of leading the country.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. LimeyGator

    LimeyGator Official Brexit Reporter!

    Seriously, bore off. I live in one of the most multicultural towns in the UK and we're tired of listening to your egregious, lazy racism.
    Give me a neighbour who has different cultural, religious beliefs and different skin colour over someone who hates because of those factors EVERY day of the week.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. LimeyGator

    LimeyGator Official Brexit Reporter!

    You've clearly not met my kids... :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  7. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Well my oldest two are 19 and 21..that is why I emphasized 16 or 17 :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  8. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    I'll let you know! :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    4,372
    3,702
    1,923
    Apr 8, 2020
    Uhh, you spelled center wrong. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  10. archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    4,372
    3,702
    1,923
    Apr 8, 2020
    I heard that acne cream lobby is VERY powerful in the UK. They are probably behind it, as they say, follow the money.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    4,372
    3,702
    1,923
    Apr 8, 2020
    Not sure if it makes them remain liberal or not, but if your voting interests and outlook is based on where you get your income from, it makes sense that most liberals are going to support where their money/ livelihood comes from. Gov't, university, research companies, etc. that don't generate money but get it from taxes, grants and donations.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Contra

    Contra GC Hall of Fame

    1,726
    461
    188
    May 15, 2023
    On a scale of 1 to 10, my level of concern sits somewhere between a 2 to 4 on this issue. I am not that concerned about it. However, it is worth noting I believe democracies are destined to fail due to corrupt and incompetent leadership, which is willfully elected by far more people than just 16 and 17 year olds. So, this would serve as a potential accelerator to the collapse of the US if it was instituted here, and I believe it could serve as a potential accelerator to the demise of the UK as well. That, however, is a demise that would not have been prevented anyways. We can only prolong how long a democracy lasts as long as possible. I think the effect of this is potentially marginal by up to half a generation or so, but lots of political outcomes are determined by small margins.

    I also readily admit the issue of people being led astray by political fads and utopian ideologies is not solved by excluding 16 and 17 year old voters. People well into their 20s and 30s suffer from many of these same issues on a similar scale, and it even extends far beyond that into other age brackets. Political fads and utopian ideologies would be a threat regardless if 16 and 17 year olds can vote. So, these problems do not go away by excluding a two year age bracket from voting, and they are also not even exclusively a youth issue. I think the plurality of Republican voters who powered DJT and MAGA to the RNC nomination and then similarly nominated him again in 2020…that likely was a political fad on the right, and that is a fad powered by far more than just youth. I don’t see MAGA as a utopian ideology, though. I am sure many people would disagree with my analysis there, but that is to be expected.

    Democracy, though, has its flaws, and people who whistle past the graveyard and give not a care about how we might or might not exacerbate those flaws are not thinking long term. These rights that people believe in may not exist for future generations if/when democracy collapses. The perpetuation of the rights you have in democracy might very well depend on democracy’s ability to preserve its own form of government.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    10,054
    1,060
    3,093
    Apr 16, 2007
    You lead with “not concerned”, but quickly pivot to the collapse of civilization. :confused:
     
  14. LimeyGator

    LimeyGator Official Brexit Reporter!

    Spelled or spelt?

    Sorry, just my humour.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  15. Contra

    Contra GC Hall of Fame

    1,726
    461
    188
    May 15, 2023
    I view this topic like death. We know death is coming, but that does not mean we should spend every waking moment of our lives worrying about death. The fact that death is coming, though, should have a tremendous impact on how we live our lives. And we certainly don’t want to live in ways that hasten death’s arrival, although some people do.

    Constitutional democracy is not civilization. Civilization would continue in some form beyond the collapse of constitutional democracy. It would probably entail a return to some kind of powerful monarch/dictatorship. Monarchs and dictators aren’t known for being champions of individual and civil rights, though, and when you have a monarch or a dictator no one has the right to vote.

    Rome’s form of government, which is most similar to our own, reached an expiration date, and it collapsed. If we really value something, such as our own lives or our form of government, then we think about what can be done to preserve them for as long as they can be preserved.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2025 at 11:18 AM
  16. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    9,586
    1,935
    1,498
    Apr 3, 2007
    Right here
    I appreciate your thinking into the keys to sustaining democracy, contra. I absolutely agree this must be tops on our minds. I would counter with a different answer on the main threat however. I don’t think democracies die because of bad leaders. The framers knew bad leaders were inevitable. Madison wrote that “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”, and Franklin noted that “The first man put at the helm would be a good one. Nobody knows what sort may come afterwards.”

    The founders instead recognized that success of the system will depend upon the strength of the guardrails that insulate it from corrupt individuals. Central among these guardrails are the separation of powers and checks and balances. Hamilton noted Rome and these other ancient democracies did not have these advances:

    The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various Principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellencies of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.​

    If you must bring bulls into a china shop, you could hope for a series of docile bulls, or you could put the china behind very strong walls. If our experiment ends, it will be not because we brought in the wrong bull, but because we opened the cabinets for it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Contra

    Contra GC Hall of Fame

    1,726
    461
    188
    May 15, 2023
    Thank you for your thoughts on this. I agree with what you are saying, but I think you could extend your analogy further and ask the question…“if we know bulls are in the China shop do we want to task 16 and 17 year olds with the responsibility of keeping the cabinets closed?” That is fundamentally the question here IMO because these could be the people voting on amendments that open the cabinets. There are others who are not 16 and 17 who might also be dumb enough to open the cabinets, but that does not change the heightened risk factor involved with 16 and 17 year olds.

    It should be noted that Hamilton lived in an era where land ownership often was a requirement to be eligible to vote. This no doubt reflected the belief that voting was not a universal birthright, but it was something that was only to be granted to certain people and withheld from other people.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2025 at 11:46 AM
    • Like Like x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  18. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    9,586
    1,935
    1,498
    Apr 3, 2007
    Right here
    Yes great point. I didn’t mean to advocate for 16 year old participation as much to speak to your larger point, but I think you are correct that the people need to believe in the value of the cabinets and that there must be some minimum degree of development before citizens can adequately consider these issues. I personally think the only reasonable option is the age of adulthood, which for us is 18. I thought Vivek’s push for 21 as the minimum voting age was wrong because it divorced these two ages, leaving people we considered “adults” without a right to vote.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    10,054
    1,060
    3,093
    Apr 16, 2007
    The reason it was moved from 21 to 18 in the first place was the Vietnam war. If you are old enough to be sent to die for your country you are old enough to vote. Can’t disagree with that logic.

    Plenty of gun rights hardliners use that same military conscription logic as a predicate to sell assault rifles to any 18 year old. It’s quite something a right winger would embrace pushing the voting age UP. Wonder what’s his take on gun sales?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2025 at 12:14 PM
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    5,158
    1,049
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    If that's an original metaphor, kudos to you for coming up with it!

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1