Votes at 16

>>>/liberalpol/

I'm okay with it (I'm in my 30s). Consider how long office terms are. The historical movement for voting rights in Britain demanded annual elections. Think about how many years pass until a term ends. Maybe one's age at the end of the term should be the reference point.

Yes, the younger people get into politics the better.

Voting, smoking and other adult rights should be reserved to people over age of 21.

Are you dumb? I mean this is a chan board so maybe like half of you are 16… but no. No you should not give the vote to literal children.

There needs to be democratic centralism. People should be unable to vote for a candidate outside of their own party and have restrictions on seats of house and senate for each party. People will whine this will secure the two party monopoly and it indeed will. But your country has always been a two party monopoly anyway. It may as well be a more efficient one.

My first reaction is to say yes, but my second reaction is that 16 year olds don't know shit and will end up voting for whichever candidate is the has the "dankest memes". Every 16 year old (including past me) thinks their exempt from the typical stereotype, that they're smart and educated and have the world figured out, but holy fuck are they wrong. If I had the vote at 16 I would have unironically voted for Gary Johnson.

I see sixteen year olds come up with smarter opinions than so-called adults all the time. regardless, if you're old enough to pay taxes and be employed, you should be allowed to vote.

Where I live you can vote at 16 and it really doesn't change the political scene that much. It's a great idea regardless.

Vote is useless. We live in a dictatorship, the dictatorship of capital. Democracy is a counter-revolutionary myth.

No. It's fucking awful. The only possible use of giving the vote to 16 year olds is to increase support for the ruling class. Teenagers are mongs at the best of times, you really can't expect them to have any coherent political views.

its not like they're gonna get better in 2 years

true, but why needlessly compound a problem?

though I agree that in any society voting age should probably be 21. That's about the age when you can expect the majority to have at least some sense of responsibility.

Americans are so retarded, might as well call yourself a liberal and take that stupid tankie flag off

I'd actually bump it up to 30 which is when a person has the requisite level of experience in the society to make decisions that will alter the lives of millions of people. I wouldn't be opposed to even later ages being the starting point.

Why not go a bit further and restrict voting rights so only people in positions where they have the necessary free time to think about social questions are allowed to make decisions.

Why should 16 year olds be allowed to vote when they're not allowed (in my country, Britain) to drive, drink, buy cigarettes, or leave education, and when they're legally considered as minors? 18 is the obvious limit. It's especially weird that people are advocating a reduction of the voting age when there is a general trend towards extending childhood and taking responsibility away from young people. 16 year olds have recently had at least two freedoms (smoking and leaving education) taken away from them. And I agree with that, they're not mature enough to make these decisions. Giving them more rights would only reinforce their delusion that they know what they're doing.

I don't understand this reasoning at all. The voting age is the age at which you think someone is mature enough to make a rational decision, the age someone will have at the next election is totally irrelevant.

Can americans vote at 16? I'm not from there, good guess chum.

Literally read State and Rev you fucking niggers

...

Why should stupid proles be allowed to vote if they don't even own land or factories and can't possibly understand the economic consequences of various policies?

So you don't believe in restricting voting based on age? You think we should let 5 year olds vote?

This is also true of most 18 year olds and most 21 year olds.

OK.
Should people with early-onset dementia be allowed to vote? I say no.

Yeah, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Why 16 and not 12? Everyone here presumably accepts the necessity of age restrictions so it's really just a matter of judgment about how to balance the need for maturity with the need for rights.

Maoists in the first world are always reactionary morons, just look at unruhe. But most younger britbong comrades are like that, in 2010 they were succdems and then have been radicalised by tories, Corbyn and the shittty state of the country

this is like most uneducated adults, regardless of age. problem is lack of education not them being kiddies who need life experience

It's just that I like certain aspects of Leninism, and think, hey - why not have some Mao in there too? But then I'm still torn over the entire concept of a vanguard party, and would much prefer workers' councils.

I know a couple Maoists and they're pretty alright people, in England it seems the most reactionary people are those in the CPGB-ML. That said, most MLs I know at least agree with some of Mao's theory, they just don't call themselves Maoists because in England we don't have any Maoist parties (but we do have a Hoxhaist Party).

Old people are reactionary.

explain yourself

not surprised tbh
Just every experience I've had with them has been "So have you heard about our lord and saviour Joseph Stalin?" and some of them have said some homophobic things, but I'm not sure if that's the party-line or just individual dickheads.

seems like individual dickheads really. I mean obviously the party doesn't have a homophobic line.
Considering you've expressed interest in Maoism then you probably agree with the party on more than you would think.
They have plenty of speeches, marches and rallies on youtube if you want to get a sense of the "party line" etc.

I've seen a lot of their videos and I don't really like the whole "uphold DPRNK against western imperialism"
I also don't like the whole "carrying portraits of Stalin around London" thing. I mean come the fuck on, most people don't give a shit which dead guy your ideas come from, so long as they can improve their lives, but if they think they're joining some cult of Stalin they're going to pass.

you would rather destructive war against the DPRK?
i honestly don't understand what people find so objectionable about anti-imperialism
They do occasionally stray into "the DPRK is still socialist" territory - but it's fairly irrelevant - what's important is:
- their commitment to anti-imperialism
- their programme for socialism within Britain

I'd rather join the RCG if I had to choose tbh, they have a commitment to anti-imperialism, socialism in Britain, and to my knowledge don't have a representative of the DPRK at one of their meetings. Basically, they're MLs but without the stupid LARPy and cringy bullshit that MLs are too often associated with.

All the fellow bongs I know who are lefties think they're nutters tbh. You'll never get regular proles onside if we don't denounce DPRK and PRC, socialism = state capitalism is a meme that needs to die

The idea that a marxist party's "duty" is to condemn foreign socialists is abhorrent. Literally the opposite of anti-imperialism. The only effect that has is to affirm government policy.

You think the DPRK and PRC are socialists? The point is to distance ourselves from totalitarianism masquerading as a workers paradise not to attack them because they are foreign. I'd apply support international comrades, so long as they we actually comrades in practice whcih DPRK and PEC aren't

PRC*

It doesn't matter whether they "are socialist or not". It is not the business of western marxists living in a neoliberal hellhole, who haven't experienced a day of socialism in their lives, to attack even partially socialist countries half way around the world that have nothing to do with them.

The CPGB-ML quite clearly don't hold up China or the DPRK as "examples to follow", they merely express solidarity in their struggle against imperialism and with comrades in those countries constructing socialism.

ISIS are opposing imperialism, i don't hold up their struggle. Western imperialism is wrong, obviously, but you can choose the third option of saying both the imperialists and their targets are bad people

this applies to a lot of adults at the moment
wtf i hate democracy now

I'm in favour.
Forcing the parties to spend money on their age-group may get us a better school system and stop these endless depiction-of-violence laws.

You're just as retarded as he is.

What if the 30 year old consents though to discussing politics with minors?

all conscious beings should vote. extend voting to children and other species

Yes.

I mean its not like your vote counts/matters or can even go to someone you agree with, but I would have "voted" the same as I "voted" now any time after about 14 years old.

tbqh the only thing that's changed is my ability to name drop.

vug

I remember my schools mock election when I was 16. Trough that experience there is no way that I would want 16 year olds to vote ever again.

Not even in a mock election.

how about this: we look at surveys who 16yolds would vote for and if it's better than actual election results then we are in favor of them voting, and if not then obviously they are too retarded?

anyone got any stats?

Do you honestly believe this? Do you also think it would be stronger if we let fucking cows vote? People are stupid and easily manipulated. Democracy is dead.

No, i was an idiot at 16. should be like 21.