Timeline for Would there be a partisan advantage to allowing people aged 16 and 17 to vote?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14 at 9:17 | comment | added | Stuart F | Including this silly quote that makes up nearly 50% of the question makes it look like the question is pushing a POV not asking a general question. Rewrite to be less partisan. | |
| Jun 12 at 3:07 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 12 at 12:28 | |||||
| Jun 7 at 20:32 | answer | added | user28660 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 6 at 19:29 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | @againstverylongusernames The difference is that Labour in UK is polling way ahead of the Conservatives, so it seems less like a cheap convenient stunt to put up their numbers ahead of a losing election. | |
| Jun 6 at 3:57 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | And yes, that can still be sold as legit, see e.g. theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/25/… | |
| Jun 6 at 3:46 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | Are you implying with your vague poll ref that 90% of the country is opposed or 90% of Conservatives? This seems like a low-hanging fruit Q to me that you already know the answer to if you looked at some polls already. And yeah, such disputes arise almost everywhere in the world, on exactly the same lines. Almost no party anywhere agrees to extend the voting franchise unless they benefit in some way. | |
| Jun 5 at 23:04 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | in a fair and non-partisan fashion, and you have an answer, and yet you downvote me? I would downvote you in retaliation if I could That Q is by no means non-partisan, and I say this as someone who votes Liberals a lot more than I vote Conservatives. You didn't even bother to link to an actual Conservative pundit making the "socialists" claim, you paraphrased it. And, if you were aware of why the Liberals are pushing this dumb idea, you certainly kept it to yourself in the Q itself, preferring to put up a nice comfy strawman argument (which I am sure some Conservatives resort to). | |
| Jun 5 at 22:22 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "has there been research done" Exactly what I also asked myself when reading the question. "I would downvote you in retaliation if I could." This is bad style. Better would be to learn and try better next time. Present more own research, ask the questions that appear when the easy questions are answered. Something like: Why isn't the voting age 16 years instead of 18? Or why do older people vote so conservative and younger so progressive? Once we know that they do, tons of questions come up. | |
| Jun 5 at 22:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 6 at 1:34 | |||||
| Jun 5 at 22:05 | answer | added | ohwilleke♦ | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jun 5 at 21:59 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | Any party that polls strongly above its rivals in that age group would gain advantage from this rule change. There are lots of age-slice polls, so it's not like the info is a big secret. Liberals trend better with younger folk. So while the argument made by the Conservatives is fishy, so is the Liberals' fervor in granting teens the right to vote. Asking just one side of this BS - the Conservatives' and not mentioning the even bigger side of the BS - the Liberals' reasons for pushing this change at this time? -1 | |
| Jun 5 at 21:45 | history | asked | Purple P | CC BY-SA 4.0 |