I think a partial vote would be a win-win situation, but yes, perhaps a bit too bureaucratic. I think that we do need a bit more input from teenagers in terms of who we as a society elect into Government. I am not particularly worried that people will try to exploit 16 year olds if they are given the vote, because most people will still be older than 16 when they vote for the first time.

If something is worth doing, its worth doing right.

So what does that all mean? Well, a half vote is too much like a compromise. And it adds a bureaucratic element. I really, really, hate bureaucracy.

I also suspect that kids who leave home at age 15, are probably doing so for all the wrong reasons (even if they are necessary reasons). A child from a dysfunctional family running out the door and left to survive for themselves is probably sacrificing education, working in a low paying job or living on the whim of the state. Their voting choices will be directed inwards, not outwards.

The richer the society, I think it is more likely the voting choices of the people are going to be about things bigger than themselves. Raising a family is the practice run for this attitude. It no doubt surprises many on the left that my voting choice is not about maximising my tax return, but about what I think the result will be for the country. Some of these people are stuck on socialism and unlimited welfare as the only solution.

My 10 year old son has learned the difference: When he was 5 I gave him pocket money for doing what he wanted with. No strings attached. At 10, he is expected to earn it. Either way he gets a roof, clothes, meals and my love.

Another thing it seems to me is that people are keen to get things “now”. Hire Purchase and Credit Cards at high interest rates have done much to fuel a materialistic and consumeristic view of society, and push the “why wait” mentality.

Patience is a virtue, and things that people pay for are appreciated more than when they get them for free. (This explains my basic attitude to property ownership and that people do not have a right to food etc. As a society, we have an obligation to help those less fortunate, which is a different approach to the government forcing redistribution to support someone else’s “right” - but I digress)

Strangely enough, paying for something via credit card is not the same as saving the money and going in and then deliberately spending it on that specific item.

So, patience waiting for the vote and learning about how to exercise it isn’t a bad thing. Young people can still get involved in politics - handing out brochures, collecting petitions, doing their marches etc. Learning. Speaking.

Are the voices of young people being ignored?

All parties tend to have a Youth Minister, or at least policies targeting the youth group. They know that they will be voters, and the marketing of policy starts early. You don’t need to actually wield a vote for parties not to see the value in listening to future voters.

If 16 year olds get the vote, I bet the various parties, and especially Labour and Greens, would target 13 and 14 year olds and prime them for the time they can choose which marketing campaign “feels” the most right.

It is obvious that some teenagers are quite mature, well educated and can articulate a valid opinion. Of course they deserve the vote, from an intellectual sense.

However, on the whole, most teenagers have a long way to go in their maturation process. This group does well in all of the “stupid thing to do” category, from dangerous driving, binge drinking, experimentation with drugs, rebelling against parents (who, for the most part just want to keep their children safe during a difficult period) and generally thinking about experiencing life. The larger portion of this group do not think and act like adults.

Many adults also do not think and act like adults, but there comes a time when we have to say - you are on your own. Make your decisions and accept the consequences.

For me, that line of adulthood needs to be worth earning, and needs to have responsibilities attached to privileges.

Handing out the privileges before being given the chance to demonstrate the responsibility is too much of this “now” mentality that diminishes the value of the privilege.

So personally, and given this is a bit of an off the cuff response, I’d tend towards making 20 the age of majority. That’s the “feels right” number for me. Perhaps because it is the first year not officially a teenager?

But the current law is 18. That’s a number I can, in good grace, accede to. A bit early, but then again, my strong opinion is held weakly.

Making the age 16 is an age I can see many unscrupulous people and groups exploiting. So, still not convinced 16 is the right age.

Regards, Zen

Maybe people that are able to leave home and leave school (15 years and older, of course) should get a half-vote. What do you think? I mean, they’re old enough to have some adult responsibilities so they should have more adult privileges (a partial vote)?

I think ‘ZenTiger’ assumed I was a teenager because I am a supporter of teenage rights.

No, I fully understand there are many people who are older than teenagers who “support teenage rights”

I simply misread your comment, and thought that you had referred to yourself as a teenager.

I also suggest that people don’t have to lower the voting age to 16 (or 10) to “support teenage rights”. That makes it sound like an either/or proposition. If I don’t support giving 16 year olds the vote, then it doesn’t make me a fascist, youth hating pedophobe (which is where the conversation seems to be going on other blogs discussing this).

I’m still not sure that the default position of “no vote” until 18 is the same as oppressive rights towards 16 year olds.

If anything, ensuring 16 year olds are not legally treated as full adults allows them better protection from contracts and taking full responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

It seems you think 16 just “feels right” for a bunch of automatic rights. I’ve seen people argue very eloquently to lower the age of sexual consent to 12 because it just “feels right”. Certainly, biologically, some 12 year olds are up for it, so why restrict this?

It also “feels right” to some people that 18 or 21 should be the correct age to bestow full rights and responsibilities on our young adults.

I’m undecided, but will argue against it on the blogs because I haven’t seen a lot of good arguments for it, and in the arguing, I learn.

Regards, Zen

For many years now, the Green Party have wanted the youth wage to be scrapped because it is age discriminatory and very demeaning to youth; they want the unemployment benefit to be enough to live on, which it is in some cases but not all; they want those who pollute the environment to have to pay for it and those who nurture the environment to derive all types of benefits (not just financial) from it.

The Party that implements policies but does not actually care about people but only really cares about votes, is of course the Labour Party.

Actually, that’s how I should have summed up my article! Thanks for that.

I think ‘ZenTiger’ assumed I was a teenager because I am a supporter of teenage rights. There are actually some adults, ‘ZenTiger’, who are interested in legislation being implemented which makes society a better place for all people to live in.

“I understand that you assumed I was a victim, considering there are bad people out there” Scrubone, there’s no reason to put words into my mouth, so to speak. Naughty you!