A politics professor who proposed giving the vote to children as young as six has defended the idea in the face of widespread criticism, insisting that it would give a “jolt of energy” to our ailing democracy.
Okay, fine. Let them join the army, get married, have sex, go out to work, drive… You get the picture. We have the age of majority for a reason. You might want to argue that we haven’t got that age right, hence it is different in different countries, along with the age of consent. But only an utter cretin would suggest that children as young as six are mature enough to wield the vote.
“There is a significant section of the population who don’t have the vote, who just about potentially could. I don’t think it is a particularly dangerous idea …
Yup. Cretin.
“The more I’ve thought about it the more I’m comfortable with defending it, even though it was clearly an idea that is somewhere on the fringes of what people think makes political sense.”
The more I think about it the more it chills my blood. So we get children voting for more sweeties… Mind you, given the infantilisation of our society, perhaps he’s onto something there.
He added: “We are doing lots of really reckless things in politics. And I’m not just talking about Brexit and Trump … Changing the voting system by enfranchising people is not reckless.”
In this instance, yes. it. is.
He argued that fundamental reform was needed to an electoral system that “keeps producing results that actually people are increasingly unhappy with”.
Well, yes. We do keep getting idiots in power and the alternative idiots are even worse than the ones currently in situ, but offering the vote to children won’t change that. It will merely be a case of who can bribe them the most effectively.
And he pointed out that fears about extending the vote in the past had proved to be unfounded.
Apples and oranges. Enfranchising women is not the same thing as enfranchising people too young and immature to make an informed decision. Women are adults who can make that informed decision. Stating that women’s brains couldn’t cope with politics was nonsense. But pointing out that children who are, by definition, not grown up, are not mature enough to make what is an adult decision is not nonsense.
“What does change is that you get a new lease of life in democracy,” Runciman said. “It actually gives it a jolt of energy and makes it slightly unpredictable again.”
Oh, it’s predictable all right. And that jolt will turn out to be very nasty indeed – Corbyn and McDonnell in power forever…
After the Guardian first reported his idea last week Runciman was inundated with largely critical emails and attacks on social media. He said: “I’m struck by the outrage that it has caused. Some people are really, really angry that someone like me should say something like this, and they think I must be joking. I’m not joking.”
I’m reminded of another academic about ten years ago – Julian Le Grande – who came up with some cretinous ideas and didn’t understand why he was rightly eviscerated. This dick is much the same. Academia needs an Ecksian purge. Sooner rather than later.
If politicians had to go into schools trawling for votes, I suspect they would behave slightly more scrupulously.
Fucking idiot. They would promise more sweeties as children will be that much more easily bribed.
The problem with politics at present is that I have effectively been disenfranchised due to there being no effective party that represents my views.
#metoo
It’s astounding how many Professors are mentally ill. It was just a couple of weeks ago another was saying the immaculate conception was “unconsented impregnation” ie rape. When it was pointed out that in the Bible, Mary was consulted and agreed, he stated that didn’t count due to the “power difference” between God and a mortal woman.
These people are entrusted to teach our children.
Just to be pedantic, the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary. It is a piece of Catholic dogma that states that the stain of original sin, that had been passed down the generations since Eve ate a piece of magic fruit, could be waived just this once. Without this waiver, Jesus would have been stained too and therefore wouldn’t have been able to die for our sins. For this reason it has to be true. These details aside, your main point stands.
Repeating that to church authorities by three illiterate and uneducated children in Fatima, Spain was enough to have them believed.”I am the Immaculate Conception”. Words have power.
What is scary is that this pillock holds a teaching post in a University.