Huh? We may not let felons vote for judges, but we sure let lawyers vote for judges. Considering that lawyers have a vested interest in having a certain type of judge available (e.g., defense lawyers want easy judges), certainly that’s a conflict of interest? We let people vote according to their interests all the time. People who pay no income tax get to vote currently.
The cure for the ills of democracy, they say, is more democracy. I think that’s the case here. Right now, we see that older people vote in disproportionate numbers, and so politicians sensibly skew their stands disproportionately toward issues older people care about. While I don’t expect most sixteen-year-olds would race out to the polls, surely the ones that did could only help to balance the concerns of politicians, such that politicians would more accurately represent their communities.
I’ve still yet to hear a practical (and plausible) disadvantage to this scheme. That it gives you a funny feeling isn’t a practical disadvantage; that it would encourage lowest-common-denominator political discussion is a nonstarter, considering the caliber of political discussion currently.
In case it’s not clear, I think the post-Civil War laws enacted against felons voting, almost unique to the United States, are a terrible idea. Not only should felons be allowed to vote once they get out of prison – in prison, they should be required to spend three minutes in the voting booth each, as a way to prevent wardens from preventing felons from voting.
We’re talking here about people who’ve broken the rules of society, whom we’re trying to reintegrate into society. It is foolish to deny them the basic right of every member of a democracy, if we’re serious about rehabilitation. Let them vote.
Ummm…THis refers to the United Kingdom where we don’t restrict the right to vote.
Convicted felons can vote (although they can’t vote when the’re in prison). The only other people who can’t vote are those sectioned under the Mental Health Act and the Royal Family.
And British 16 year olds are worse than dental torture.
It’s a strange age. Legally you can have children, but you can’t marry without your parents consent, you can become a soldier (again with parental consent) but can’t buy alcohol outside of a restaurant.
Personally I’d say let them vote, and at the same time include some kind of political awareness class in the national curriculum. At that age I knew diddly about politics. I just inherited opinions from my father.
It’s not legal for parents to ground their children from going to school, or from visiting their non-custodial parent. I see no reason why it’d be legal to ground them from voting.