Alex Salmond is currently campaigning for 16 year old's to be able to vote. The Scottish national party leader who’s making political headlines in his struggle to make Scotland independent, may have some perverse reasons for backing young voters, (they’re polled to be more likely to vote for Scottish independence) but it raises an important debate on the rights of young people.
At 16 you can get married, have sex, join the army, have kids, move out - and most importantly pay tax. As it stands at the moment the unborn have already had their tax spent by irresponsible politicians - at least those of 16 should be able to vote on who gets to spend their tax contributions.
When I was 16 I moved out. I worked about 25 hours a week, went to college for 20 and rented a room. I paid tax and didn’t receive any benefits - including EMA. Although I’m aware I was in a very small minority of 16 year old's - I still meet 20 something year olds - even a few in their 30's and 40's who are less independent than my 16 year old self. What exactly gives adults the right to decide whether 16 year old's are 'capable' of voting when some of them don’t seem particularly able to themselves.
The current counter argument is that 16 year old's don’t pay enough tax as an age group, and that they don't understand all the complications of voting, having little life experience. History is repeating itself - these are the same reasons women weren’t allowed to vote for far too long, yet people still believe these arguments. Surely those that genuinely believe these to be good reasons to deny someone a democratic vote should also be campaigning against those on long-term benefits, dependent home husbands/wives and those that didn't finish school or are below a certain I.Q, to also be denied the right to vote?
I recall a discussion with my GCSE drama teacher - aged 15 - where as a class we discussed how actors can use their personal experiences in performance, and what to do when they didn't have any 'life experience' for acting roles. As the debate went on, it transpired that a large majority of the class had been to funerals - often more than one, for close friends or family. To which my respectful drama teacher sat back and said: 'wow, you guys are so young, I'm twice your age and I've never been to a funeral.' Showing that often 'life experience' is completely uncorrelated to age. I expect there are plenty of 16 years old's where it really is insulting to suggest they cannot comprehend the voting system - and plenty where even as adults they might not ever be, as deemed by the counter debate: ‘able to vote’.
The argument of young people not being somehow competent to vote, when young people are wells of ideas and energy, and students are renowned throughout history for leading political change is nothing short of offensive. To deny some of the young the ability to vote is like suffocating an essential life force of democracy.
A good case study of the 16 year old vote is Brazil. In 1988 after student movements against dictatorship and a new constitution, 16 year old’s were allowed to vote. The vote was a cherished right hard won. However, reported today by NPR, young voters are more relaxed on voting due to 'economic and political stability':
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130242022
As some 'adult's don’t take the right to vote, are indecisive or completely inactive in politics, if 16 year old's were allowed to vote, they could make this choice too, but not giving them the choice is straining already tight generation conflict.
Another relevant example is Austria. Austria gave 16 year old's the right to vote in 2008. The decision was made for 'demographic reasons': (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26886089/ns/world_news-europe/t/austria-will-allow--year-olds-vote/ ) as a victim of an ageing population, similar to the UK, younger people where given the right to vote to balance democratic decisions between generations.
I cannot think of a more significant point of the debate - currently young people very much feel they’ve been sentenced to certain constraints by older people, who are allowed to vote - because they have been. As mentioned in previous blogs, 15-17 year old's are the ones currently suffering the brunt of cuts - as voted for by those it has little effect on. Young people are losing the rights to free education, to be able to work for a living, to own homes and bring up families when they graduate. Quintessentially, they’re being prevented from growing up... an ironic circle upholding the argument of younger citizens being ill-equipt in life experience to vote…
Lowering the age to vote would help target the lack of inter-generation understanding. Instead of young people being excluded and denied a voice (the exact reason for rebelling), they will be listened to. Being given a democratic vote - a voice, means politicians cannot ignore young people anymore, or make policies unchallenged by those it most directly affects. Politicians, who hear but do not act, can be held to account. Politicians can't be accused of not listening to young people unless young people are given a loud voice – a vote.
At 16 you can get married, have sex, join the army, have kids, move out - and most importantly pay tax. As it stands at the moment the unborn have already had their tax spent by irresponsible politicians - at least those of 16 should be able to vote on who gets to spend their tax contributions.
When I was 16 I moved out. I worked about 25 hours a week, went to college for 20 and rented a room. I paid tax and didn’t receive any benefits - including EMA. Although I’m aware I was in a very small minority of 16 year old's - I still meet 20 something year olds - even a few in their 30's and 40's who are less independent than my 16 year old self. What exactly gives adults the right to decide whether 16 year old's are 'capable' of voting when some of them don’t seem particularly able to themselves.
The current counter argument is that 16 year old's don’t pay enough tax as an age group, and that they don't understand all the complications of voting, having little life experience. History is repeating itself - these are the same reasons women weren’t allowed to vote for far too long, yet people still believe these arguments. Surely those that genuinely believe these to be good reasons to deny someone a democratic vote should also be campaigning against those on long-term benefits, dependent home husbands/wives and those that didn't finish school or are below a certain I.Q, to also be denied the right to vote?
I recall a discussion with my GCSE drama teacher - aged 15 - where as a class we discussed how actors can use their personal experiences in performance, and what to do when they didn't have any 'life experience' for acting roles. As the debate went on, it transpired that a large majority of the class had been to funerals - often more than one, for close friends or family. To which my respectful drama teacher sat back and said: 'wow, you guys are so young, I'm twice your age and I've never been to a funeral.' Showing that often 'life experience' is completely uncorrelated to age. I expect there are plenty of 16 years old's where it really is insulting to suggest they cannot comprehend the voting system - and plenty where even as adults they might not ever be, as deemed by the counter debate: ‘able to vote’.
The argument of young people not being somehow competent to vote, when young people are wells of ideas and energy, and students are renowned throughout history for leading political change is nothing short of offensive. To deny some of the young the ability to vote is like suffocating an essential life force of democracy.
A good case study of the 16 year old vote is Brazil. In 1988 after student movements against dictatorship and a new constitution, 16 year old’s were allowed to vote. The vote was a cherished right hard won. However, reported today by NPR, young voters are more relaxed on voting due to 'economic and political stability':
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130242022
As some 'adult's don’t take the right to vote, are indecisive or completely inactive in politics, if 16 year old's were allowed to vote, they could make this choice too, but not giving them the choice is straining already tight generation conflict.
Another relevant example is Austria. Austria gave 16 year old's the right to vote in 2008. The decision was made for 'demographic reasons': (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26886089/ns/world_news-europe/t/austria-will-allow--year-olds-vote/ ) as a victim of an ageing population, similar to the UK, younger people where given the right to vote to balance democratic decisions between generations.
I cannot think of a more significant point of the debate - currently young people very much feel they’ve been sentenced to certain constraints by older people, who are allowed to vote - because they have been. As mentioned in previous blogs, 15-17 year old's are the ones currently suffering the brunt of cuts - as voted for by those it has little effect on. Young people are losing the rights to free education, to be able to work for a living, to own homes and bring up families when they graduate. Quintessentially, they’re being prevented from growing up... an ironic circle upholding the argument of younger citizens being ill-equipt in life experience to vote…
Lowering the age to vote would help target the lack of inter-generation understanding. Instead of young people being excluded and denied a voice (the exact reason for rebelling), they will be listened to. Being given a democratic vote - a voice, means politicians cannot ignore young people anymore, or make policies unchallenged by those it most directly affects. Politicians, who hear but do not act, can be held to account. Politicians can't be accused of not listening to young people unless young people are given a loud voice – a vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment