Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's only been with my recent disappointment with my own government's choice to refuse a legislation allowing peoples of the ages 16 and 17 to vote during the coming EU referendum in Britain that this point has occurred to me that there is an entire demographic of well-informed Young Adults that would actively like to participate in Politics and the way their country is run or developed that are being functionally ignored. The generation in question has grown up in a society that is rapidly expanding culturally and technologically at a rate hereunto unheard of where almost any information can be found with a precise google search and socially acceptable norms are being altered on a day to day basis (think how quickly the gay rights movement has advanced in recent years proves how open we are to change), so to me you can understand that this Voting threshold seems like a relic of tradition more so than any other active thought process.

The current education system ends compulsory education (In the form of attending a school) at the age of 16, at which point a Young adult is free to enter the world of work to a degree, follow higher education in the form as AS and A levels or take on college BTEC courses or apprenticeships. I would argue that politically minded or motivated individuals of this demographic should have the option to register as a voter when they enter a form of post 16 education or vocation. This is due to these Young adults overlapping with the 'world of work' (which I refer to as the responsibilities of 'Adult' life) to an extent that if they feel so inclined they should be offered the option to have a say in choices that will unequivocally impact themselves or the development of their country. The optional nature of this registration will act to alleviate ill-informed voters, as speaking from a Young Adults perspective I would suggest that only people who are truly motivated or care about the way the Country is run will bother to register. Of course I foresee the argument that Teenagers don't have the same priorities as adults, we don't pay as much tax, we don't have families to support and we aren't forced into the world of work to support ourselves. And I agree, many Teenagers won't care about Politics over their girlfriends and parties and drinking but I strongly believe that those who DO care should not be alienated or excluded due to a perceived notion of youth embellished and perpetrated by the Media that could possibly convince anyone that these people are somehow in the majority. At least from my experience, they most certainly are not.

Of course I can only comment on things I have experienced or researched extensively to provided unbiased insight, as such my perspective is closed to Britain (Or to be specific to me, Wales) and may not be relevant to other countries. But what is true almost across the entire world is that the modern generation is at different rates around the world adjusting to a culturally expanding and information driven society that promotes well-informed individuals to have opinions on global politics and issues. In an older age I would agree that 16-17 year olds wouldn't have the resources or inclination to have an opinion on these issues, but the world is changing and these resources are readily available to most. This means that without a doubt if ever there was a time to lower the Voting Threshold up until this point is is now, and with major economic and societal upheavals on the not-so-distant-horizon now is a better time then when we have to deal with the after-math of decisions we had no say in.

The problem with allowing 16 year olds to vote is "the lulz".

My high school president ran...and won... on the campaign promise of "free mcdonald's bib for every student" (it was his part time job).

It's hard to take the opinions of people who have never had to support themselves at least a little bit seriously. For most people, that's after they leave high school and go out to either get a job or go to college, but for some it's younger and some it's older. There are people I know who I'd trust to vote young, and people who I'll bever trust to vote at all. But because about 18 is probably the most common age this occurs, for practical reasons I'd say that's a decent place to draw the line.

Post 16 means they have completed High School GCSE compulsory education and have either chosen to pursue further education in a College or 6th Form or have entered the world of work as an Apprentice or Employee.

Plus, I don't know what you did for fun but I can confidently say I can't think of anyone who would take the time to register as a voter, then vote for the 'Lulz'. I can think of some people who would be drawn into the silvered tongue of certain parties and make ill-informed decisions, but that is a choice many more adults would make then the Young Adults in my proposal who presumably already have an opinion if they made the effort to register.

Thing is it really ain't hard to register to vote, eg mine was all sorted out by my parents, who got sent a form to fill in for all the over 18's in the house. Also most people don't know where they stand politically at 16/17, again to use myself as an example, at that age I used to think that if we wanted to sort the country out, everyone should vote BNP, let them 'fix' the country over a term, and then get a proper party back in. I'm glad really that I couldn't vote at that age, because I know I would have screwed it up like that. And speaking to others there's a similar pattern, whereby while younger people I've known were far further to the right than they would ever be now, after a year or two actually in real life. Whilst I'm certain there are people that will take it seriously, and actually think it all through, there's too many, in my opinion at least, that wouldn't, and will vote for a group because it seems cool or whatever, and even scarier to me at least is the possibility of the random vote because Mummy and Daddy said they had to vote

Since Scotland already has registration at 14-15 and voting at 16 for their local and parliament elections--but not UK or EU--it might be handy to research how that's going. Currently in England, NI, and Wales you can register at 16-17, but not vote until 18, so seeing how many people have bothered doing that would be another indicator, although I don't think it's common knowledge that you can register before 18, so it might be skewed due to people of that age simply not knowing they can register.

Given that registration can now be done online, I think more people than you might expect would take the opportunity, too. If it's something they can do in 5 minutes on their phone, then they're more likely to bother.

People who are over the age of 18 voted George Bush into office. Twice.

That alone more or less contradicts every argument made in this thread thus far about 16 year olds lacking the maturity to make a sensible vote.

While I do agree that there is a risk of voting under the influence of parents, however the counter argument is that people don't leave home until the average age of 23. People would follow their parents advice because it's been sold to them as the best idea as such if the parents were talking to a 21 year old he'd be just as influenced as a 17 year old.

The Scottish Referendum was in the Scottish Governments eyes a success in how many 16-17 year olds participated, an impressive 75%. However it should be noted that the Government made special cases to help encourage and inform these people not to mention Scottish Independence is a particularly hot topic. Just like the Brexit plan, which I firmly believe can reconstruct the success of the Scottish Independence referendum.

(http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/12/many-16-17-year-olds-voted/)

I understand the references to how it was when you were my age, but forgive me assuming and If i'm outta line I apologies, but Young Adults of today have far better access to resources even compared to the same people 5-6 years ago. They have all the resources to make an informed well-reasoned decision at their finger tips.

I'm not sure what fun people derive from voting for 'lulz', it's not a concept I understand. But what I do know is that even if these people do vote for a distinctly right-wing party that a more 'mature' adult would not, they made that decision for a reason. Maybe they agree with there promises or their ideals, but not one will pick a party because they like the color of the symbol. Everyone who votes will have a reason and I can see no reason why someone who bothers to take an interest in the Countries future doesn't have the right to make that decision for better or worse just as anyone over the age of 18 has.

You have to set an arbitrary age. We settled on 18 as our age of majorty. There is little need to change it. Yes some 16 yar olds have a good grasp of politics, but then so do some 12 year olds.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
People who are over the age of 18 voted George Bush into office. Twice.

That alone more or less contradicts every argument made in this thread thus far about 16 year olds lacking the maturity to make a sensible vote.

The same could be said about Obama, couldn't it?

I think the voting age is too low in the US.

18 is too low? Really?

There are lots of 16 year old idiots who’d vote based on some political ideology that makes pretty much no sense at all. But that’s also true for 26 year olds. I’m not convinced it gets any better for 36 year olds.

I think one of the strengths of democracy is that most of the stupidity, most of the noise, gets lost as you aggregate votes into overall opinions. If 10% of 16 year olds would vote Labour because their parents convinced them Thatcher was very horrible, and 10% of 16 year olds would vote Conservative because their parents convinced them Blair was horrible, they net each other out. What’s left, more or less, is a broad picture that shows the concerns of the general voting public.

The only question to answer, then, is whether including the concerns of 16 year olds will improve that overall democratic picture. In many ways they don't anything like the concerns of older people, raising kids and affording weekly bills, and those things are actually getting further and further away from 16, home ownership and everything else is statistically happening later and later. But they certainly have unique concerns, between secondary and tertiary education their immediate futures will be more impacted by government than most of the rest of us, and so maybe that should be reflected in elections.

I don’t know. We have to pick an age, and 18 was picked. It’s as good an age as any. Why not 16, why not 14, why not 21? Maybe the best answer is that if something is working well enough, and the case for improvement isn’t that clear, then you just leave well enough alone.

 cincydooley wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
People who are over the age of 18 voted George Bush into office. Twice.

That alone more or less contradicts every argument made in this thread thus far about 16 year olds lacking the maturity to make a sensible vote.

The same could be said about Obama, couldn't it?

I think the voting age is too low in the US.

18 is the age of majority in the US. It is the age at which you are considered a legal adult, can be drafted to join the military, can be sentenced to prison, are required to begin filing your taxes, and when you can possess property in the legal sense. That is why it is the voting age, it is the age we consider people to be adults.

If you want to raise the voting age, you have to likewise raise the minimum age of all the other things I listed.

I am 16 and know more about politics than like 80-90% of all adults I have ever met. Government decisions impact me more than the average person, as I am dependent on school and university for my education, which gets constantly messed up because of eternally shifting and incompetent government policies. I want to have a say in it too.
Come to think of it, why are voting rights based on age? That is slowed! Why shouldn't we have voting rights be based on political knowledge and interest instead?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am 16 and know more about politics than like 80-90% of all adults I have ever met. Government decisions impact me more than the average person, as I am dependent on school and university for my education, which gets constantly messed up because of eternally shifting and incompetent government policies. I want to have a say in it too.
Come to think of it, why are voting rights based on age? That is slowed! Why shouldn't we have voting rights be based on political knowledge and interest instead?

Come back to me when you find an easy way of working out the political knowledge of your average citizen..... I know you are being sarcastic so don't worry.


As for me, I don't think that sixteen year olds should get the vote. Because most of them probably can't be trusted to hold the same opinion for an incredibly long period of time. At least I know I couldn't. My sixth form had several 'fake votes' in the run up to the 2010 election. And the BNP won every time. It got so bad that we had someone come in to explain how racism was bad and voting for the BNP was a bad idea.

I don't think there's a strong argument for or against reducing the voting age to 16. It used to be 21 and was reduced to 18 in 1969. I wonder if there were arguments about that change?

Older than 21 seems too old, younger than 16 certainly seems too young. There has to be a cut-off at some age. 18 looks like a reasonable compromise. Everyone has completed formal schooling by that age, and is expected to have achieved adult responsibility in nearly everything. (I think you still have to be 21 to drive a minibus on a standard class licence.)

The sad truth is that our individual votes are practically meaningless in most elections. The danger of our polity is declining voter involvement, which comes from a feeling of hopelessness and dissatisfaction with conventional politics. Adding more younger votes doesn’t seem like it would change this. Records show that voter participation gets higher the older the age group of the electorate.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Churchill in the House of Commons, Nov. 11, 1947.)

The major issue I have with any suggestion of lowering the voting age is that the UK education system does not support it, and would require significant reform to the curriculum to let people make informed choices.

I am all for lowering the voting age IF high school (11-16) education is reformed to actually make students aware of the politcal system, the players within that system, how it works and why it works, and in my own experience that is almost completely lacking. It was only when I reached A-level and started studying political history that the nature of British politics became apparent and clear to me; prior to that, even if I could have voted, I wouldn't have known how to.

If by the time students passed GCSEs they understood the system and the parties within that and what they stand for, fine, let them vote. But the amount that do at that age is a tiny, tiny minority, due to the aforementioned shortcomings of the education system, and letting the rest vote on an entirely uninformed basis seems both dangerous and pointless. I think political apathy is also a massive, massive problem in society today, and that too could be fixed by getting people involved in politics at a younger age, but the education curriculum needs to change to enable that.

So yeah, when you can say that the majority of 16 year olds can know how to vote, what they're voting for and why they're voting for it, absolutely let them vote. But until then, leave the voting age where it is, as by then, most if not all people will have at least some understanding of the situation.

I would be fine with letting 16 year olds vote I think. I teach teenagers and the majority of them have their heads screwed on reasonably well by the age of 16.

The downside from my perspective would be that teenagers tend to be very black and white about issues, rarely seeing any grey. This is perfectly normal and is part of brain development.

I reckon that'd be balanced out by the fact that older people tend to be cynics who have made too many compromises, and also tend to be more bigoted than younger generations with regard to minority rights of various sorts. So I'd be fine with letting the 16 year olds vote.

Younger than that and I think you get into the realm of underdeveloped brains, so I think that's a good reason not to allow them to vote. Though thinking that through to it's logical conclusion, brains get less flexible as they get older and older people often struggle to understand our rapidly changing world. Should they be denied the vote? What about the mentally ill or those suffering from dementia?

It brings up tricky questions about the nature of self determination.

Paradigm: I believe it's not a shortcoming of the system but rather a design feature - most parents want to impart their own political leanings on to their children, and would object to that power being handed over to teachers.

 Da Boss wrote:


Paradigm: I believe it's not a shortcoming of the system but rather a design feature - most parents want to impart their own political leanings on to their children, and would object to that power being handed over to teachers.

There would definitely be a risk of politicisation (Although the various history and politics teachers I've had prior to being at uni have done very well and remaining objective in teaching), but I still think that if you're going to allow someone to vote at 16, then they need to have set out for them in compulsory education 'this is how the voting system works, this is why you vote, this is what this party stands for, this is what that party stands for'. Otherwise, they're just as open to misinformation from their parents as from schools.

I do think that getting younger people involved in politics should be a focus of the government as a whole (and no, Ed Milliband talking to Russel Brand is not the way to go about it! ), I would love to see the voting age lowered, but only if the influx of new voters are properly aware of the system and its meaning, and aren't just going to put a cross in the first box they see or whichever one their mum told them to, Teaching political awareness at a younger age combats political apathy, prepares people for the politics they're going to encounter in later life and how it will affect them, and is something that needs to be done; everyone should leave high school with a working knowledge of the basics of politics.

sebster wrote:There are lots of 16 year old idiots who’d vote based on some political ideology that makes pretty much no sense at all. But that’s also true for 26 year olds. I’m not convinced it gets any better for 36 year olds.

I think one of the strengths of democracy is that most of the stupidity, most of the noise, gets lost as you aggregate votes into overall opinions. If 10% of 16 year olds would vote Labour because their parents convinced them Thatcher was very horrible, and 10% of 16 year olds would vote Conservative because their parents convinced them Blair was horrible, they net each other out. What’s left, more or less, is a broad picture that shows the concerns of the general voting public.

The only question to answer, then, is whether including the concerns of 16 year olds will improve that overall democratic picture. In many ways they don't anything like the concerns of older people, raising kids and affording weekly bills, and those things are actually getting further and further away from 16, home ownership and everything else is statistically happening later and later. But they certainly have unique concerns, between secondary and tertiary education their immediate futures will be more impacted by government than most of the rest of us, and so maybe that should be reflected in elections.

I don’t know. We have to pick an age, and 18 was picked. It’s as good an age as any. Why not 16, why not 14, why not 21? Maybe the best answer is that if something is working well enough, and the case for improvement isn’t that clear, then you just leave well enough alone.

At first, the above was more or less my thoughts on the matter. Then I read this:-

Paradigm wrote:The major issue I have with any suggestion of lowering the voting age is that the UK education system does not support it, and would require significant reform to the curriculum to let people make informed choices.

I am all for lowering the voting age IF high school (11-16) education is reformed to actually make students aware of the politcal system, the players within that system, how it works and why it works, and in my own experience that is almost completely lacking. It was only when I reached A-level and started studying political history that the nature of British politics became apparent and clear to me; prior to that, even if I could have voted, I wouldn't have known how to.

If by the time students passed GCSEs they understood the system and the parties within that and what they stand for, fine, let them vote. But the amount that do at that age is a tiny, tiny minority, due to the aforementioned shortcomings of the education system, and letting the rest vote on an entirely uninformed basis seems both dangerous and pointless. I think political apathy is also a massive, massive problem in society today, and that too could be fixed by getting people involved in politics at a younger age, but the education curriculum needs to change to enable that.

So yeah, when you can say that the majority of 16 year olds can know how to vote, what they're voting for and why they're voting for it, absolutely let them vote. But until then, leave the voting age where it is, as by then, most if not all people will have at least some understanding of the situation.

And you know what? I agree with Paradigm. If young people can be educated appropriately to take part in the political system, I have no problem with the 16 pluses having the option to join in. What's more, they should throw in basic instruction about taxes and various other things you /need to know as an adult, that our education system frankly seems to let fall by the wayside.

But under the current state of educational affairs, I would be opposed.

If you don't mind me asking, how to 'adults' gain their political education? It won't be through school and it usually won't be through higher education, am I to assume it's solely through experience? Because through my research I've found the majority of information about the political scene can be found online and if that is where adults gain their knowledge it seems frail to suggest Young Adults who practically breathe the internet aren't considered mature enough to educate themselves just as well as an adult could when given the same resources.

I agree educational reforms are called for, I was never taught anything regarding the Law or Politics and Sex education and First Aid training was scant at best. But time is of the essence here, the looming shadow the possible Brexit plan foretells of massive upheavals in our Country. I'd argue that the colossal importance of the decision calls for a more well-rounded view of the populations opinion then what we currently have. Take the Scottish Referendum for example, of people aged 18-24 only 56% voted but of the ages 16 and 17 75% voted, It makes sense that by including this obviously politically interested demographic we'd get a more well-rounded vote. I believe it was 92% of people who were over 55 voted, and when we take into account the aging population the vote gets even more skewed! By lowering the voting threshold we'd get a far fairer representation of the opinions of the country as a whole.

I'd say adults gain their political awareness through a combination of experience, media exposure (under-1s don't tend to read newspapers or watch the news on TV), bombardment when an election is coming up and yeah, looking it up. That doesn't mean that should have to be the case, though. If people can leave high school with a grounding in politics (and as Ketara mentioned, personal economics/taxes ect) then that leaves them a lot better prepared than having to go out and find that information for themselves (which I imagine many don't bother to do, contributing to a 'yeah, whatever' attitude that is killing political involvement in this country).

There is no downside to giving kids a basic political education, and once you've done that, no downside to letting them participate in politics. But the latter without the former is, I think, non-productive at best and dangerous at worst.

With the amount of political interference in curriculum in the UK, I would be skeptical of the efficacy of any politics course.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, how to 'adults' gain their political education?

There are several means. Firstly, you have direct knowledge granted within the confines of the basic Politics A/AS level. Then you have inferential knowledge gained from doing similar subjects, such as history or economics. Whilst not directly related to the current political scene, doing a module on say, slave trading in the 17th century, might teach you a thing or two about why a racist party might be a bad idea. Likewise, covering the English Revolution demonstrates why 'Divine Right' and feudalism isn't taken seriously anymore. It teaches you things you can transfer to your understanding of politics

Then you have knowledge gained by association from other people and the media. All the things you hear, see and discuss get churned around in your brain, according to your personal priorities and beliefs. Naturally, the older you are, the more of this you experience, and the more information you have to work with.

I agree educational reforms are called for, I was never taught anything regarding the Law or Politics and Sex education and First Aid training was scant at best. But time is of the essence here, the looming shadow the possible Brexit plan foretells of massive upheavals in our Country.

Foretells? I think you might be overstating the importance of this one a bit. Whilst it IS important, issues of equivalent importance wander along every decade or so. Heck, Parliament even discusses a few of them!

Don't get me wrong, I'm open to the idea, but I'm not in favour of suddenly pushing red banners through the windows of Westminster before the EU referendum for the right of 16-18 year old votes.

 Da Boss wrote:
With the amount of political interference in curriculum in the UK, I would be skeptical of the efficacy of any politics course.

The politics A levels seem to do alright for themselves. Teachers are usually pretty professional, and they include a certain amount of political history to put everything in perspective.

This entire thread is why I condemn democracy as a concept. It goes against the idea of equality by discriminating against children and those under an age threshold, while allowing morons and imbeciles to lead the rest into disaster after political disaster by being easily swayed by silvertongues and misinformation, with the rest of us unable to do anything because "its the will of the people."

I forget which, but I believe either Socrates or Aristotle had the idea of letting the people most suited to ruling rule, and then imbeciles can't feth the rest of us up. A literal case of "Can you do a better job? No? They shut the feth up."

I speak as a student of journalism, politics and law (including public law) at university, a fairly well-informed one who spent 4 years are member of local government youth councils as well as sub-national government bodies, and spent nearly 12 years studying history at various levels of a fairly respectable grammer school. I also speak as a young man who refused to vote in the last general election, just months after turning 18, in abstention and protest of the woeful quality of candidates.

 Deadshot wrote:

I speak as a student of journalism, politics and law (including public law) at university, a fairly well-informed one who spent 4 years are member of local government youth councils as well as sub-national government bodies, and spent nearly 12 years studying history at various levels of a fairly respectable grammer school. I also speak as a young man who refused to vote in the last general election, just months after turning 18, in abstention and protest of the woeful quality of candidates.

Did the protest work?

I don't see a problem with lower voting age. I accepted with my first voting that I might regret the decision later on, many of my school friends started voting later. If anything the sooner you start understanding the political system and feeling involved the better it should be on the long run.

There's a reasonable argument that lower age means easier influence from parents, politicians, however I consider it also reciprocal with the senior generations (say beyond 67 years). If the elderly can vote, although I consider some mindsets rather archaic not simply dated, I don't know why the young adults couldn't provide a fresh perspective.

 Ketara wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

I speak as a student of journalism, politics and law (including public law) at university, a fairly well-informed one who spent 4 years are member of local government youth councils as well as sub-national government bodies, and spent nearly 12 years studying history at various levels of a fairly respectable grammer school. I also speak as a young man who refused to vote in the last general election, just months after turning 18, in abstention and protest of the woeful quality of candidates.

Did the protest work?

Of course not, that's the whole problem of democracy. Either you're in the winning majority of maybe 50%+1 or you're voice is lost. Everyone told me just to spoil my vote, to make a protest, but what good does that do? I'll either write a full essay on the ballot card or draw a penis like everyone else, either way it'll go straight in the bin with no questions asked. The best way to oppose such a thing is to boycott it. When turnout drops to the 50%, someone will take notice, and when it drops below that again the government's legitimacy will be flawed, as less than half the country actually voted for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knight wrote:
I don't see a problem with lower voting age. I accepted with my first voting that I might regret the decision later on, many of my school friends started voting later. If anything the sooner you start understanding the political system and feeling involved the better it should be on the long run.

There's a reasonable argument that lower age means easier influence from parents, politicians, however I consider it also reciprocal with the senior generations (say beyond 67 years). If the elderly can vote, although I consider some mindsets rather archaic not simply dated, I don't know why the young adults couldn't provide a fresh perspective.

Politicians don't want fresh ideas, they want to remain in power, that's why they don't want radical change from innovative young people. The US system even has the rule that you must be at least 35 years old to be president, and its part of the Constitution I'm sure, so that's almost literally written in blood and set in stone. Once you hit 35 you've probably spent most of your life campaigning and working your way up the party, had to french kiss some asses along the way, and thinking in the mind of a 35 year old politician instead of the good intentioned 20 year old who just wanted to fix the country when you started out. The youngest president in history I believe was JFK at 41. My mum is 44, I can tell you she does not think in the same manner as an 18 year old, never mind a 16 or 17 year old.

 Deadshot wrote:

Of course not, that's the whole problem of democracy.

That nobody pays any attention when you don't bother to participate in the political system?

I dunno. Compulsory voting isn't particularly charming.

Either you're in the winning majority of maybe 50%+1 or you're voice is lost.

People who vote in the winning party aren't exactly heard either past election time.

Everyone told me just to spoil my vote, to make a protest, but what good does that do?

None whatsoever. The Government doesn't bother to distinguish between people who don't vote and those who abstain.

I'll either write a full essay on the ballot card or draw a penis like everyone else, either way it'll go straight in the bin with no questions asked. The best way to oppose such a thing is to boycott it.

I disagree intensely with that. All a boycott does is get you lumped in with people who couldn't be bothered to vote. At least spoiling your vote might generate a newspaper article somewhere. Boycotting is quite literally the most pointless and ineffectual thing you can do.

When turnout drops to the 50%, someone will take notice, and when it drops below that again the government's legitimacy will be flawed, as less than half the country actually voted for them.

And then what? There'll be a revolution? I don't think so. All the politicians will have personal crises of confidence about their own legitimacy? Nah. All that'll happen is that the government will keep on ticking over with whoever votes for them.

Seriously, either storm the metaphorical winter palace, or accept that you're stuck in the same limited democratic system as the rest of us, and move on. It's not the best system, but it's not the worst. I've lived in Zimbabwe, so I've seen the worst with my own two eyes. And trust me, after seeing it, politics in this country is a sunny walk in the park filled with laugher, rainbows and sunshine. So many in this country are just blinded midgets standing on the shoulders of giants past, without realising that ground level isn't at their eyeline, it's several kilometres below. They just take the level they're standing at for granted.

 Deadshot wrote:
This entire thread is why I condemn democracy as a concept. It goes against the idea of equality by discriminating against children and those under an age threshold, while allowing morons and imbeciles to lead the rest into disaster after political disaster by being easily swayed by silvertongues and misinformation, with the rest of us unable to do anything because "its the will of the people."

I forget which, but I believe either Socrates or Aristotle had the idea of letting the people most suited to ruling rule, and then imbeciles can't feth the rest of us up. A literal case of "Can you do a better job? No? They shut the feth up."

I speak as a student of journalism, politics and law (including public law) at university, a fairly well-informed one who spent 4 years are member of local government youth councils as well as sub-national government bodies, and spent nearly 12 years studying history at various levels of a fairly respectable grammer school. I also speak as a young man who refused to vote in the last general election, just months after turning 18, in abstention and protest of the woeful quality of candidates.

They might want to give a bit more attention to spelling rather than grammar at "grammer school" Also, it was Plato, not Socrates or Aristotle who came up with the idea you describe. That is something that should be common knowledge, right? Right? Philosophy is one of those critical areas of education that is neglected way too often

On Topic:
While democracy (and especially the fake democracy in most countries) is a horribly unfair, flawed and inefficient form of government, I struggle to think of something better.
For example, Plato's 'philosopher-kings' (or any kind of system that relies on a small clique of rulers with absolute power) have the problem that they could easily abuse their powers and that there would be no safeguards against it. In an ideal world, such a thing would never happen, but we all know that the world is not an idea and that power corrupts.

I still think democracy is the best safeguard against rulers abusing their power, and the more direct and inclusive this democracy is, the better this safeguard will be. An ideal democracy should not discriminate against its citizens on basis of anything, whether that be religion, language, social class, wealth, age or anything else, altough I do like the idea of people having to pass some kind of test before they are allowed to vote.
Alternatively, if you want to make democracy be