Let 16yr olds vote, they'll be paying for NAMA for the whole of their lives

Ultor

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
144
Why not let 16 yr olds vote, they'll be paying for the voting errors of all over 18 for the rest of their lives. Why not?
 


Tigris Celtica

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
503
Why not let 16 yr olds vote, they'll be paying for the voting errors of all over 18 for the rest of their lives. Why not?
Because if they have any sense they'll emigrate - They're not responsible for the mess this country is now in, why should they have to pay for it ?

The entire basis of the property bubble, which was the major factor in destroying the Irish economy, was the so-called Irish Government of Fianna Fail gombeens allowing uncontrolled immigration to this country. Now our young people are being forced to emigrate. The criminals responsible for this should be paraded through the streets in chains.:mad:
 

Ultor

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
144
I just picked 16 because that age has been at the centre of some medical policy decisions in the recent past. But sure, 15, why not?

The Commission recommends that it should be provided in legislation that a person who is 16 years of age is presumed to have capacity to consent and refuse health care and medical treatment. In the context of refusal of life-sustaining treatment, it provisionally recommends that a 16-year-old may make a High Court application to have his purported refusal appraised. It also provisionally recommends that children aged over 12 years of age but less than 14 years of age may not be regarded as capable of refusing medical treatment.

Irish Medical Times | Opinion | Children and medical treatment
 

Bosun Higgs

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
114
Good idea, Most 16yr olds I know are far more intelligent and better informed than most of the over 60's I know.

Surely the right to vote should be in accordance with intellectual capability, rather than some chronological abstract. Lets face it, if the right to vote was confined to IQ of 100+, then FF would not exist. Or FG for that matter.
 

Tigris Celtica

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
503
Democracy has failed Ireland because you're counting heads instead of what's in them - Too many morons voted for Fianna Fail who have done far more damage to this country than the Black and Tans ever did ! .:mad:
 

Ultor

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
144
Democracy has failed Ireland because you're counting heads instead of what's in them - Too many morons voted for Fianna Fail who have done far more damage to this country than the Black and Tans ever did ! .:mad:
SO why shouldn't the people (u16's) who will pay for this (and many of whom already pay income tax) get a vote?
 

GJG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
3,111
Website
blog.hereshow.ie
Why not let 16 yr olds vote, they'll be paying for the voting errors of all over 18 for the rest of their lives. Why not?
I agree, but I'd go further.

For adults, the only qualification is whether they have the capacity to cast the vote. I don't see why it should be any different for people under 18.

Children are treated with contempt in this country, and I can't see that changing until they have political power. I've never heard a rational argument against this that was not also articulated to deny women, blacks, catholics or others the vote.

I'm willing to reconsider if someone can come up with one, along with an effective alternative to guarantee children's rights.
 

uriah

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
3,607
Good idea, Most 16yr olds I know are far more intelligent and better informed than most of the over 60's I know.

Surely the right to vote should be in accordance with intellectual capability, rather than some chronological abstract. Lets face it, if the right to vote was confined to IQ of 100+, then FF would not exist. Or FG for that matter.
So you would suggest that we replace 'some chronological abstract' (what's that?) with an 'I.Q' score?

Can we take it you would take only one type of intellegence into consideration when deciding who should vote?

Do you think that people with a high IQ will automatically have good judgement? Do you think that someone with an 'I.Q' of 99 will automatically have a poorer judgement than someone who scores 100?

The knowledge which a sixteen year old has and which a sixty year old lacks may not be vital when making a decision about who should govern the country. I'd prefer a voter who has some maturity and life experience making that decision.

I know some wonderful, intelligent sixteen year olds.
But I wouldn't let one of them make a decision about something which would have long-term implications for others.
 
Last edited:

GJG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
3,111
Website
blog.hereshow.ie
(1)The knowledge which a sixteen year old has and which a sixty year old lacks may not be vital when making a decision about who should govern the country. (2)I'd prefer a voter who has some maturity and life experience making that decision.

I know some wonderful, intelligent sixteen year olds.
(3)But I wouldn't let one of them make a decision about something which would have long-term implications for others.
  1. Or maybe it is. I imagine that young people have more of a focus on the future.
  2. Every voter would prefer that only voters who agree with them would vote, but in a democracy all voices should be heard
  3. Cos greying bankers, developers and politicians do such a better job?
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
No. Adolescents are prone to impulse and lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend the finer details of policy. Their impulsiveness also lures thenm towards the irrational platforms of the Left/Hard Left, with their Big Government, tax-and-spend, PC-ideology that has already brought the nation to ruin through the Leftist sleeper-cells in FF that were responsible for the Benchmarking ATM and the €24 billion deficit of which it was largely comprised. Recollecting my own political-consciousness as a 16 yr old - which was Big Government, tax and spend Socialist - with an Alice in Wonderland belief in the capacity of the State to better society through interference in the economic lives of the citizenry through monopolistic State ownership of the economy (in reality its ownership by the public-sector union fatcats like in the ESB on an average salary of €75,000 per annum and who received a 3% increase last year!!!!)- I can only urge them to be patient and to educate themselves on economics for their Leaving Cert like I did. No to Big Government - no to the vote at 16.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,308
So you would suggest that we replace 'some chronological abstract' (what's that?) with an 'I.Q' score?

Can we take it you would take only one type of intellegence into consideration when deciding who should vote?

Do you think that people with a high IQ will automatically have good judgement? Do you think that someone with an 'I.Q' of 99 will automatically have a poorer judgement than someone who scores 100?

The knowledge which a sixteen year old has and which a sixty year old lacks may not be vital when making a decision about who should govern the country. I'd prefer a voter who has some maturity and life experience making that decision.

I know some wonderful, intelligent sixteen year olds.
But I wouldn't let one of them make a decision about something which would have long-term implications for others.
+1

We should really be looking at moving the age of majority back to 21, or higher.
 

Glucose

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
850
Why do you want to reduce the voting age to 16? Why 16 as against 15?
Quebec is Canadian, always has been and always will be. There is no such thing as a Quebec nation, only a Canadian nation.
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
No. Adolescents are prone to impulse and lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend the finer details of policy.
Really? What sort of rubbish would such a person come out with?
Their impulsiveness also lures thenm towards the irrational platforms of the Left/Hard Right, with their Small Government, slash-and-burn, quasi-racist and capitalist ideology propagated by their PD sleeper-cells in FF that were responsible for unsustainable tax cuts well below the norms in other EU States riding the current crisis much better than us, and the 'soft-touch' regulation of the banking sector, creating our deficit today.
fixed that for you ....

Recollecting my own political-consciousness as a 16 yr old - which was Big Government, tax and spend Socialist - with an Alice in Wonderland belief in the capacity of the State to better society through interference in the economic lives of the citizenry through monopolistic State ownership of the economy (in reality its ownership by the public-sector union fatcats like in the ESB on an average salary of €75,000 per annum and who received a 3% increase last year!!!!)- I can only urge them to be patient and to educate themselves on economics for their Leaving Cert like I did. No to Big Government - no to the vote at 16.
So having taking economics for your leaving cert (bless!) you've lurched from one extreme to the other? The fact that you were mad at 16 and are a different kind of mad doesn't exactly make your point, I'm afraid....
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
I know some wonderful, intelligent sixteen year olds.
But I wouldn't let one of them make a decision about something which would have long-term implications for others.
Good job they get that brain upgrade on their 18th birthday then, isn't it! (Shame FT's head rejected his....)
 

The Underdog

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
935
I can't think of any reason. Can you?
So why not driving licences for 13 and 14 year olds, purchase of alcohol, marriage, mortgages, car loans, etc. etc. etc., if they are entitled to one right why are they not entitled to them all ?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top