Yet if 16 and 17-year-olds are to be given the vote, the uncertainties about their effects suggest the proposal be justified on principled terms rather than its potential effects on turnout.
thanks you in advance
"I think the key point everyone has missed here is the context, I believe the article is discussing the potential effects on voter turnout by lowering the voting age in the UK which is currently at 18, to 16 or 17." ---John C
In several lengthy comments, I specifically addressed the fact that the "article is discussing the potential effects" of "voter turnout by lowering the voting age".
I suggest that you do not enter into a discussion, accusing others of missing a "key point" without having read what others have posted.
. Commentary should be based upon fact, rather than fantasy.
Hello Allen: Let's look at: Yet if 16 and 17-year-olds are to be given the vote, the uncertainties about their effects suggest the proposal be justified on principled terms rather than its potential effects on turnout.
One of the techniques for analysis, is to study it backwards, beginning with the last phrase.
"rather than its potential effects on turnout." = the potential effects on "turnout" are that there will be many more voters in an election. So, what the sentence indicates is that "rather than" the chance that some politician will get more votes, there should be a better reason (principle, idea, etc.) why
younger voters should be allowed.
"the proposal be justified on principled terms" = there should be a better reason for passing into law, the right for 16 year olds to vote, besides the fact that some popular young candidate will get most of the youth vote. Is there a clear, objective reason why the 16 year olds should be granted the right to vote?
Hi John C.
I respect the point you wish to make. Thanks also for the reference to "Animal Farm" because that serves to illustrate your point.
The basis for my remarks is the idea that I did not need to know the specifics of the article and its association with my Scots ancestors to explain the general meaning of the sentence.
Your remarks are well made. Thanks.
Very appreciative of all of your comment
Sorry Bruce if you think you I was "accusing" you of anything. The article specifically was refering to British politics and a key event that is due to occur is the Independence referendum. In fact the article specifically comments on Scotland, hence the reference to independence on my comments. I merely placed this in context with what the article referenced. You do not read things such as novels, even essays without the having some appreciation of the period and events that were occuring at which they were written.
For example you do not read Animal Farm completely ignorant of the allegory to communism. In your detailed and articulate disscussion I failed (correct me if I am wrong) to notice you talk about British politics anywhere, which is what this article is discussing. I agree entirely with what you have said in your previous comments.