Live Earth

[baboon2004]

Well, alright, 'stupid' was a bit over the top. Sorry about that. But there's such poor election turnout among 18-25 year-olds that it seems pretty pointless to try and extend voting rights to people who probably know and care even less about politics than they do, i.e. 16-year-olds. If people can't really be arsed to vote, I don't think they should - that way, decision-making as to the make-up of Parliament is left to people who have definite views one way or the other.

But isn't the fact that even people who have definite views feel disillusioned, very much part of the problem, in the context of the dissolution of left-right politics into a morass of convictionless centrism (talking about the UK here, btw)? I can be arsed to vote (am 30 now, but fell into the 18-25 bracket in '97 and 2001), but feel that the two-party hegemony is so concerned with votes over policy, and that (and I know this is wrong, but I still feel it) a vote for any other is wasteful...

 

[rockypoppy2]

Well, alright, 'stupid' was a bit over the top. Sorry about that. But there's such poor election turnout among 18-25 year-olds that it seems pretty pointless to try and extend voting rights to people who probably know and care even less about politics than they do, i.e. 16-year-olds. If people can't really be arsed to vote, I don't think they should - that way, decision-making as to the make-up of Parliament is left to people who have definite views one way or the other.

that is complete shit - just because people dont vote doesnt mean they dont have definite views, it just means that they dont think any of the election choices represents what they need/want - apathy can be a statement born of determined views as much as a bloody vote

the three main political parties in the uk are practically indistinguishable, but vote for anyone else and you're wasting your time

why should the younger generations have any faith in politics? last century wasnt exactly a great role model for human civilisation, 2 world wars, a cold one, inumerable politically motivated conflicts - i think people think politicians are going to do whatever they want to do regardless of their vote, that the right to vote isnt worth anything anymore

 

[baboon2004]

Well yes, primarily the fact that there is so little representation outside of such a limited demographic. But primarily the rhetoric and manner of politics is something so few people can connect to. Without early engagement, its just repellant. And there are not enough efforts (as far as I can see, or saw) to introduce political thought or discussion at an early age. So if things are to improve in this regard, politics must change and people must change, and then if people change then politics will by necessity. Reform is necessary to help this happen, and early engagement and empowerment seem like fairly obvious moves really

I think the rhetoric of politics has become increasingly repellent - there is now a whole idiom of speech that centres around the ability to deflect a question without saying anything of substance. Worse still, this tendency has slipped into other spheres of life (as I see from my work), which makes getting a striaght answer out of anyone fucking impossible...

Early engagement is certainly required.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But isn't the fact that even people who have definite views feel disillusioned, very much part of the problem, in the context of the dissolution of left-right politics into a morass of convictionless centrism (talking about the UK here, btw)? I can be arsed to vote (am 30 now, but fell into the 18-25 bracket in '97 and 2001), but feel that the two-party hegemony is so concerned with votes over policy, and that (and I know this is wrong, but I still feel it) a vote for any other is wasteful...

To a very large extent I'd agree with that, but I don't see how lowering the voting age to 16 would change that in any real way - beyond a few wags voting BNP/UKIP/Communist/Monster Raving Loony for a 'laugh'...

 

[baboon2004]

i think people think politicians are going to do whatever they want to do regardless of their vote, that the right to vote isnt worth anything anymore

A vital point, esp in the aftermath of Iraq. There is a definite line that has been crossed between representing the people, and simply collecting a mandate every four/five years and doing whatever the fuck you want.

In that environment, why should anyone give a shit about politics as traditionally conceived?

Slightly different, though connected question: is the fact that there was never really a revolution in the UK (unlike in France, say) responsible for the fact that politics has never moved (largely) beyond a very limited demographic? (As well as for the fact that so much land is still owned by the same family/concern that owned it hundreds of years back, ensuring vastly inflated house prices/general inequity etc)

 

[sodiumnightlife]

i mean, post 2003 when the government didn't listen to everyone about iraq, i think the feeling that the government doesn't listen has just been further entrenched. I don't feel like anything really happens through protest, or anything. And yeh, you can't tell any of the parties apart plus all of them just stand for whatever's fashionable.

 

[nomadologist]

in NY state, they have "Civics" class, and there's the "Participation in Government" requirement for seniors in high school. in fourth grade, you have your own state history, in fifth grade, U.S. history, and so on.

 

[vimothy]

Slightly different, though connected question: is the fact that there was never really a revolution in the UK (unlike in France, say) responsible for the fact that politics has never moved (largely) beyond a very limited demographic? (As well as for the fact that so much land is still owned by the same family/concern that owned it hundreds of years back, ensuring vastly inflated house prices/general inequity etc)

France also has a political elite.

 

[IdleRich]

"in NY state, they have "Civics" class, and there's the "Participation in Government" requirement for seniors in high school. in fourth grade, you have your own state history, in fifth grade, U.S. history, and so on."

So if you can fend off the teachers you do get some politics. It's not all bad I guess.

 

[baboon2004]

To a very large extent I'd agree with that, but I don't see how lowering the voting age to 16 would change that in any real way - beyond a few wags voting BNP/UKIP/Communist/Monster Raving Loony for a 'laugh'...

Agree to an extent. As argued above though, would this not depend on how 'socialised' these 16 year-olds were - ie do they have a basic knowledge of the political system etc. And this should be a matter for urgent reveiw anyway, if they don't have that knowledge.

But, to play devil's advocate, why should a 16 year old be able to have equal say on issues as a (example) 35 year old, when only the latter has concerns (job, house etc) that will be affected by the outcome of an election?
NB - I know this is not true of all 16 year olds, but am kind of pre-empting the success of the plan to extend education to 18 for all, as laid out by Gordon Brown this (?) week.

 

[nomadologist]

The biggest problem is probably that most kids fail their classes, especially requirements, and don't care.

 

[nomadologist]

You can't even get adults to vote in the U.S.--even if you gave the vote to 16-yearolds they wouldn't use it.

 

[baboon2004]

France also has a political elite.

Fair point...so does revolution from two centuries ago then make any difference at all, or are we consigned to being ruled over by elites in the end whatever happens?

 

[nomadologist]

typical primate behavior

 

[Mr. Tea]

typical primate behavior

*flings poo at you*

 

[nomadologist]

 

[rockypoppy2]

Fair point...so does revolution from two centuries ago then make any difference at all, or are we consigned to being ruled over by elites in the end whatever happens?

no, it gives people the confidence to think that their own mobilisation makes a difference - hence the much more militantly political mindset in france - when something happens that you dont like you protest, you strike and you make the politicians bend to the will of the people. in the uk people are quite docile about all of this

 

[Gavin]

But, to play devil's advocate, why should a 16 year old be able to have equal say on issues as a (example) 35 year old, when only the latter has concerns (job, house etc) that will be affected by the outcome of an election?

Better still, you could do what the U.S. Constitution did and restrict voting only to those who own property and have an income above a certain level. And of course leave out the women and the blacks, since politics is just too complicated and dangerous for them -- and they couldn't own property anyway!

I see your point, but I think the problem is "equal say": a vote really isn't much of a say on anything, and if you want other changes you have to agitate for them through other means. Militant French politics is certainly a legacy of the heavy communist influence in government after WW2 -- the commies had credibility because they were the backbone of the resistance to the Nazis.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah, but the French go on strike or riot whenever there's a vowel in the month. Like their truckers a few years back: they had some kind of grievance (which, in itself, may have been perfectly legitimate, I don't know) so what do they do? Block all the motorways to fuck things up for everyone else.
Just recently there were riots - not just demonstrations, but actual riots - because Sarkozy had been elected president and some people didn't like it. It's completely anti-democratic.

 

[mistersloane]

there was never really a revolution in the UK

yet