PDA

View Full Version : Raising the voting age for the snowflake generation



Dark Black
8th June 2017, 08:16
Since the younger generations seem to increasingly be maturing at a much later age (if at all) than previously, should the voting age be raised to 21 (or later) to save us from the easily led and feckless?

:cool:

Discuss...

northernladuk
8th June 2017, 08:22
So from a mans perspective. You say increase the voting age up to the age we start showing some responsibility and maturity but cap it at 50. That probably gives most of us a 6 month lifetime window to vote :eyes

barrydidit
8th June 2017, 08:27
So from a mans perspective. You say increase the voting age up to the age we start showing some responsibility and maturity but cap it at 50. That probably gives most of us a 6 month lifetime window to vote :eyes

Never mind that, what's with the 'Gay Dredd' avatar? Looks like John Inman at halloween or summat.

Dark Black
8th June 2017, 08:28
So from a mans perspective. You say increase the voting age up to the age we start showing some responsibility and maturity but cap it at 50. That probably gives most of us a 6 month lifetime window to vote :eyes

I didn't mention anything about caps... an 80 year old with Alzheimers has probably still got more insight than most of the snowflakes :rolleyes:

diseasex
8th June 2017, 08:30
Vote should only be allowed for people with higher education that understand core concepts of economics etc. Probably an exam that eligible you to vote would be nice too.

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 08:47
It's a good idea, and should be countered by showing Countdown non-stop during voting hours on all channels.

OwlHoot
8th June 2017, 08:49
Since the younger generations seem to increasingly be maturing at a much later age (if at all) than previously, should the voting age be raised to 21 (or later) to save us from the easily led and feckless?

:cool:

Discuss...

A suggestion like that might seem a bit reactionary to some, or even tongue in cheek, but if young people can't legally even buy alcohol or tobacco until they are eighteen then how the effing hell can anyone justly claim they are responsible enough to vote before that age?

I'd also introduce a net lifetime tax/benefit floor on eligibility to vote. Anyone not a net contributor over their life should not be in a position to vote themselves more state largesse literally at the expense of others!

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 08:58
A suggestion like that might seem a bit reactionary to some, or even tongue in cheek, but if young people can't legally even buy alcohol or tobacco until they are eighteen then how the effing hell can anyone justly claim they are responsible enough to vote.

I'd also introduce a net lifetime tax/benefit floor on eligibility to vote. Anyone not a net contributor over their life should not be in a position to vote themselves more state largesse literally at the expense of others!

Hmmm. So an ever decreasing pool of voters can ensure that they are 'the net contributors' by virtue of their control of property and national production.

SueEllen
8th June 2017, 09:03
You can get married at 18, drink at 18, smoke at 18 and die for your country at 18.

The voting age should stay the same.

OwlHoot
8th June 2017, 09:05
Hmmm. So an ever decreasing pool of voters can ensure that they are 'the net contributors' by virtue of their control of property and national production.

The bar would be set pretty low. It wouldn't be anything like the property and income qualifications of past times.

So a part time minimum wage earner would be as eligible to vote as a cigar chomping capitalist fat cat with a country estate.

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 09:10
The bar would be set pretty low. It wouldn't be anything like the property and income qualifications of past times.

So a part time minimum wage earner would be as eligible to vote as a cigar chomping capitalist fat cat with a country estate.

The above minimum wage earners would use their control of parliament to exclude the minimum wage earners.

BrilloPad
8th June 2017, 09:48
As people seem to be living longer there are increasingly senile older people. Why not an upper age limit? Or how about a test before you can vote?

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 09:50
As people seem to be living longer there are increasingly senile older people. Why not an upper age limit? Or how about a test before you can vote?

I would like to see aggressive tax avoiders have their voting rights retrospectively removed so they can then be charged with historic electoral fraud.

OwlHoot
8th June 2017, 09:54
I would like to see aggressive tax avoiders have their voting rights retrospectively removed so they can then be charged with historic electoral fraud.

Tax avoidance, aggressive or otherwise, is NOT ILLEGAL.

Nor is it immoral, unlike one of the favourite tricks of totalitarian regimes of deliberately blurring linguistic distinctions!

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 09:56
Tax avoidance, aggressive or otherwise, is NOT ILLEGAL.

Nor is it immoral, unlike one of the favourite tricks of totalitarian regimes of deliberately blurring linguistic distinctions!

It is if it is retrospectively criminalised.

WTFH
8th June 2017, 09:57
Anyone not a net contributor over their life should not be in a position to vote

By "net contributor" do you mean that if daddy had millions which got passed on to you, they don't count as your millions, you actually have to have worked, earned money of your own accord, and not relied on handouts from the wealthy/your parents (or your divorce)?

d000hg
8th June 2017, 10:06
Since the younger generations seem to increasingly be maturing at a much later age (if at all) than previously, should the voting age be raised to 21 (or later) to save us from the easily led and feckless?

:cool:

Discuss...Someone's getting old.

WTFH
8th June 2017, 10:07
The voting age should be the same as the army recruitment age. If you can sign up to fight for your country, you should have the right to vote for who might send you into battle.

...the bit that I would struggle to see defined is the upper age for voting. Is it retirement, or when/if you lose your driving license, or maybe when you are not declared mentally fit to vote.
(My mother in law has dementia, she is rarely lucid but still has a right to vote. She doesn't know who we are or where she is. Her family have power of attorney over her affairs. You might be able to get the balance of drugs right that she would see the ballot paper, she might be able to make a mark on it, but she wouldn't know what she was doing or why she was doing it. She might ask why Churchill's name wasn't on the ballot as most of her memories relate to the war)

d000hg
8th June 2017, 10:11
As people seem to be living longer there are increasingly senile older people. Why not an upper age limit? Or how about a test before you can vote?I think the test is "can you find where to vote"


Vote should only be allowed for people with higher education that understand core concepts of economics etc. Probably an exam that eligible you to vote would be nice too.So you fail.


I'd also introduce a net lifetime tax/benefit floor on eligibility to vote. Anyone not a net contributor over their life should not be in a position to vote themselves more state largesse literally at the expense of others!Tory voters pay the bulk of the tax, so they should get the bulk of the votes and we should have a 1-party Toryitarian state.

VectraMan
8th June 2017, 10:13
The voting age should be the same as the army recruitment age. If you can sign up to fight for your country, you should have the right to vote for who might send you into battle.

But isn't that 18? Or at least 18 before you might do any actual fighting.

Perhaps it should be as soon as you first pay tax. But I guess in theory a baby could earn money and pay tax.

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 10:21
But isn't that 18? Or at least 18 before you might do any actual fighting.

Perhaps it should be as soon as you first pay tax. But I guess in theory a baby could earn money and pay tax.

IIRC it is policy not to send children to the front-line if possible, but it does occasionally happen for 'operational reasons'. That may have changed - would be interested if anyone knows.

WTFH
8th June 2017, 10:42
But isn't that 18? Or at least 18 before you might do any actual fighting.

Perhaps it should be as soon as you first pay tax. But I guess in theory a baby could earn money and pay tax.

18 on your own, or 16 with parental consent. It certainly shouldn't be raised any higher.

northernladuk
8th June 2017, 10:45
I didn't mention anything about caps... an 80 year old with Alzheimers has probably still got more insight than most of the snowflakes :rolleyes:

Dats true. There was a post above mine about a cap at 50 but it's been deleted.

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 10:48
Dats true. There was a post above mine about a cap at 50 but it's been deleted.

You just imagined you posted it, you senile old fool.

VectraMan
8th June 2017, 10:55
Dats true. There was a post above mine about a cap at 50 but it's been deleted.


You just imagined you posted it, you senile old fool.

Would you like the rest of us to leave you two alone?

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 10:56
Would you like the rest of us to leave you two alone?

With an axe.

Snarf
8th June 2017, 11:07
A suggestion like that might seem a bit reactionary to some, or even tongue in cheek, but if young people can't legally even buy alcohol or tobacco until they are eighteen then how the effing hell can anyone justly claim they are responsible enough to vote before that age?

I'd also introduce a net lifetime tax/benefit floor on eligibility to vote. Anyone not a net contributor over their life should not be in a position to vote themselves more state largesse literally at the expense of others!


Thats a slippery slope.

"So a part time minimum wage earner would be as eligible to vote as a cigar chomping capitalist fat cat with a country estate"

What about someone unable to work through say... disability?

I know in reality you would have caveats in your policy to allow for this... but if you introduce any bars to voting fewer people will vote.

contractorinatractor
8th June 2017, 11:09
Vote should only be allowed for people with higher education that understand core concepts of economics etc. Probably an exam that eligible you to vote would be nice too.

Sounds as if you require some higher-level history education. Votes are for everyone, given those are what comprise the country. To limit otherwise is disingenuous.

contractorinatractor
8th June 2017, 11:10
Since the younger generations seem to increasingly be maturing at a much later age (if at all) than previously, should the voting age be raised to 21 (or later) to save us from the easily led and feckless?

:cool:

Discuss...


Older people dislike admitting it, but the younger generations are exposed to more adult matters within society at an ever younger age. They know more (on average) than your age group did at the same age (on average).

Sorry to burst your bubble. <queue moaning about lack of education standards these days and such else...>

Dark Black
8th June 2017, 11:14
Older people dislike admitting it, but the younger generations are exposed to more adult matters within society at an ever younger age. They know more (on average) than your age group did at the same age (on average).

Sorry to burst your bubble. <queue moaning about lack of education standards these days and such else...>

Not bursting my bubble at all... younger people may well be "exposed" to a lot more these days.. i can see that.. all that "quality" information on social media must certainly broaden their horizons.

And then there's Justin Bieber... a fine example of modern youth.

WTFH
8th June 2017, 11:23
Not bursting my bubble at all... younger people may well be "exposed" to a lot more these days.. i can see that.. all that "quality" information on social media must certainly broaden their horizons.

And then there's Justin Bieber... a fine example of modern youth.

On the flip side, since you're mentioning an American, a fine example of the older generation: Donald Trump.

Dark Black
8th June 2017, 11:30
On the flip side, since you're mentioning an American, a fine example of the older generation: Donald Trump.

Fair point, well made :laugh

northernladuk
8th June 2017, 11:33
Never mind that, what's with the 'Gay Dredd' avatar? Looks like John Inman at halloween or summat.

It does? Hmmm...

SimonMac
8th June 2017, 11:39
I didn't mention anything about caps... an 80 year old with Alzheimers has probably still got more insight than most of the snowflakes :rolleyes:

It was the grey vote that screwed us over Brexit

OwlHoot
8th June 2017, 11:47
It was the grey vote that screwed saved us over Brexit

FTFY

barrydidit
8th June 2017, 14:18
It does? Hmmm...

Much better.

original PM
8th June 2017, 14:26
On the flip side, since you're mentioning an American, a fine example of the older generation: Donald Trump.

Erm the Biebster is Canadian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber

Can tell you are not a Belieber.

:tongue

WTFH
8th June 2017, 14:37
Erm the Biebster is Canadian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber

Can tell you are not a Belieber.

:tongue

Hence my use of the word "American". He is from North America. North America includes Canada, Mexico and the USA.
He's not from the United States.

Mordac
8th June 2017, 15:09
Hence my use of the word "American". He is from North America. North America includes Canada, Mexico and the USA.
He's not from the United States.

Try that on a Canadian and see what sort of a response you get. :ladybags:

WTFH
8th June 2017, 15:12
Try that on a Canadian and see what sort of a response you get. :ladybags:

...similar to telling some Irish people that they live in the British Isles.

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 15:30
...similar to telling some Irish people that they live in the British Isles.

It is not a term commonly used in Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

shaunbhoy
8th June 2017, 15:44
IIRC it is policy not to send children to the front-line if possible, but it does occasionally happen for 'operational reasons'. That may have changed - would be interested if anyone knows.

As I recall, the minimum age at which one is deemed "suitable" for frontline service is 17 years and 6 months, but it would be unusual to be sent before your 18th birthday.
At least that is how it worked when we were bashing the Russkies in the Cold War anyway.

contractorinatractor
8th June 2017, 16:10
Not bursting my bubble at all... younger people may well be "exposed" to a lot more these days.. i can see that.. all that "quality" information on social media must certainly broaden their horizons.

And then there's Justin Bieber... a fine example of modern youth.

Just as many youngsters now are aren't of high enough intelligence to detect fake news as there were back when you were a lad who trusted what the read in their chosen biased propaganda papers.

Looks like you lack the ability of rational reasoning. Older people aren't always wise owls, as your tone is suggesting. Most OAPs I know are stuck in the past and don't have the ability to evaluate the modern societal environment adequately, as they choose to take part in only a very small part of it, mostly due to ever decreasing confidence issues.

Big Blue Plymouth
8th June 2017, 16:27
Just as many youngsters now are aren't of high enough intelligence to detect fake news as there were back when you were a lad who trusted what the read in their chosen biased propaganda papers.

Looks like you lack the ability of rational reasoning. Older people aren't always wise owls, as your tone is suggesting. Most OAPs I know are stuck in the past and don't have the ability to evaluate the modern societal environment adequately, as they choose to take part in only a very small part of it, mostly due to ever decreasing confidence issues.

No, but often more realistic while younger people are more idealistic.

Dark Black
8th June 2017, 17:08
Just as many youngsters now are aren't of high enough intelligence to detect fake news as there were back when you were a lad who trusted what the read in their chosen biased propaganda papers.

Looks like you lack the ability of rational reasoning. Older people aren't always wise owls, as your tone is suggesting. Most OAPs I know are stuck in the past and don't have the ability to evaluate the modern societal environment adequately, as they choose to take part in only a very small part of it, mostly due to ever decreasing confidence issues.

Rational reasoning? Oh dear.. something you don't seem to have, given the tone of your posts.. do you have anger issues lad?

English grammar is not one of your strong points either it seems.

northernladyuk
8th June 2017, 18:29
Rational reasoning? Oh dear.. something you don't seem to have, given the tone of your posts.. do you have anger issues lad?

English grammar is not one of your strong points either it seems.

Could you look into punctuation and capital letters, and post that again please?