NationStates Jolt Archive


Should The Voting Age In The United States Be Lowered?

Kyronea
30-10-2008, 05:50
Currently, the national voting age stands at eighteen, set at this age only in the past thirty years or so via Constitutional amendment.

However, there has been a lot of abuzz recently about potentially lowering the age even further, to, say, seventeen, or sixteen.

Do you think this should be done, and why?

Personally, I'm against it. There are a few here and there--Pancake comes to mind--who would be able to contribute to the electoral process through informed votes, but we're already having huge problems getting teens to do anything other than just adopt their parents views when they vote for the first time as it is. The last thing we need is even more "Yes'm!" voters.
Callisdrun
30-10-2008, 05:53
It might be lulzy to hear pundits talking about getting "the teenager vote."
Wilgrove
30-10-2008, 06:12
I don't think so, I think 18 is the right age. Now the drinking age should be lowered. You can die for you country at age 18, and yet you can't drink till you're 21? That's kinda messed up.
Fleckenstein
30-10-2008, 06:18
Think about all the stupid people who vote. Now imagine opening up the vote to a group that is even less educated than that.
Tygereyes
30-10-2008, 06:22
18 seems fine with me. It's the same time that most High School students get civics class anyway. That's the way it should be. Unless you want to lower when High School students get civics.

As for drinking age....that's sort of a mixed issue with me. 21 seems a bit old. Maybe lower it to 19 or 20.
Knights of Liberty
30-10-2008, 06:24
Lowering it will just be the same as giving a parent a number of votes equal to how many kids they have.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 06:29
yes. firstly because of taxation, representation, and all that jazz. but secondly because it makes good civic sense. gets people voting when they are in relatively stable situations, rather than right when their living situations typically becomes ridiculously unstable.
Delator
30-10-2008, 06:32
In my school district, a civics class is required to graduate, and is usually taken in the freshman or sophomore year of high school.

I feel that such a requirement ought to be enacted nationwide, and any student who passes the class with a C or better ought to be eligible to vote.

As for the parents influencing their vote...who says that doesn't happen already with 18-20ish year olds? Who says that doesn't happen with 45 year olds as often as it does with 15 year olds? My parents vote on the same party lines that their parents did. It's not something that is only applicable to the youth vote.

I was two months from being able to vote in 2000...now granted, I don't live in Florida, so it didn't much matter, but how many Floridians were in the same boat as me? Might it have made a difference? We'll never know...
Slythros
30-10-2008, 06:32
As a 16 year old, I would say no. Most of my peers are either too uninformed or too stupid to vote effectively.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 06:37
Lowering it will just be the same as giving a parent a number of votes equal to how many kids they have.

and how exactly will parents enforce their votes in the voting booth? if this is a problem, then it is a problem with the parent-child relationship more generally at any age. if anything, it seems to me that it would be less of a problem in 16 and 17 year olds, who are totally known for their obedient and harmonious relations with their parents.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 06:38
As a 16 year old, I would say no. Most of my peers are either too uninformed or too stupid to vote effectively.

you'll feel the same way about them when they are 35. and they could be president then!
Intangelon
30-10-2008, 06:39
Not no, but hell no.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 06:47
teens clearly and obviously both need and deserve political representation. i can't think of a good reason to deny them it that isn't ultimately much more broadly anti-democratic.
Slythros
30-10-2008, 06:52
you'll feel the same way about them when they are 35. and they could be president then!

Good point.
Aggicificicerous
30-10-2008, 07:05
This isn't a bad idea at all. People who are too uninformed to vote at 16 tend to be too uninformed to vote at 18; if you'd vote the way your parents did at 16, when teens are about as rebellious as they're going to get, that isn't going to change in a couple years.
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 07:08
teens clearly and obviously both need and deserve political representation. i can't think of a good reason to deny them it that isn't ultimately much more broadly anti-democratic.

I'm not so sure. The best argument I can think of is that they can be employed and pay taxes...however, it is exceedingly rare that a teen would be able to make enough money in a single year to not get a full refund.

As it stands, teens do not have any other rights or responsibilites that adults have, but their younger peers lack. To lower the age to 16 is as arbitrary as having it at 21.

Why do they need and/or deserve political representation?
Sparkelle
30-10-2008, 07:08
yes lower it. then we would get more votes for the democrats.
Steph Hate
30-10-2008, 07:13
Consider this...
If the voting age was lowered to sixteen we would have candidates dressing like skaters and pretending to be 'hip' to win the votes of the younger generation. That would be very sad. Voting age is fine where it is.
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 07:15
This isn't a bad idea at all. People who are too uninformed to vote at 16 tend to be too uninformed to vote at 18; if you'd vote the way your parents did at 16, when teens are about as rebellious as they're going to get, that isn't going to change in a couple years.
actually, the differences between age 16 and age 18 are vast. Usually, it is not untill the spring of sophomore year that there is noticable maturity when compared to their younger peers (that would be age 15-16), and it is still markedly different than their slightly older peers.

16 year olds are still impulsive. The logic and reason portions of the brain are only beginning to fully develop. Consequences are still something of an arbitrary concept, and abstract concepts are only beginning to make sense.

By 18, the period known as "adolescence" is drawing to a close. The brain, while still not fully developed, is much closer to that of an adult than that of a child.
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 07:17
Consider this...
If the voting age was lowered to sixteen we would have candidates dressing like skaters and pretending to be 'hip' to win the votes of the younger generation. That would be very sad. Voting age is fine where it is.

Why would they do that? As it stands, they largely have ignored the votes of 18-25 year olds. Those that have addressed issues important to this age group, or those that have directly addressed this age group, have not resorted to making an ass of themselves.
Aggicificicerous
30-10-2008, 07:30
actually, the differences between age 16 and age 18 are vast. Usually, it is not untill the spring of sophomore year that there is noticable maturity when compared to their younger peers (that would be age 15-16), and it is still markedly different than their slightly older peers.

16 year olds are still impulsive. The logic and reason portions of the brain are only beginning to fully develop. Consequences are still something of an arbitrary concept, and abstract concepts are only beginning to make sense.

By 18, the period known as "adolescence" is drawing to a close. The brain, while still not fully developed, is much closer to that of an adult than that of a child.

What exactly are you basing this on? Personal experience? I remember that my political views, and the views of my peers, didn't change much at all from 16 to 18. Mine merely became somewhat more refined.

You're right. 16 year olds aren't as mature as 18 year olds, but that doesn't mean they can't come to their own decisions about politics. To say that they are somehow not aware of consuquences is just silly.
Miskonia
30-10-2008, 07:33
Looking back, it would have been nice to vote. But also looking back, there were a lot of idiots... Most of whom were liberals.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 07:35
I'm not so sure. The best argument I can think of is that they can be employed and pay taxes...however, it is exceedingly rare that a teen would be able to make enough money in a single year to not get a full refund.

payroll taxes, sales taxes...
besides, getting a refund on taxes has to do with tax policy, which is controlled by elected representatives.

As it stands, teens do not have any other rights or responsibilites that adults have, but their younger peers lack. To lower the age to 16 is as arbitrary as having it at 21.

federal child labor laws apply to those below 16, age of consent is 16ish, compulsory education ends at 16ish, driving starts at 15/16, enlistment age is 17, and when they get that old now we often try them as adults in criminal matters. we already have a sort of legal consensus that 16ish is effectively adulthood, save for combat, buying alcohol and cigarettes, and voting.

Why do they need and/or deserve political representation?

because there are a ton of policy decisions that dramatically effect them over which they have no say, even though we already treat them as near-adults; this is utterly intolerable on pure democratic principles. and it's not like old people have proven themselves all that capable of adequately stewarding these political issues for teens, either.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 07:46
16 year olds are still impulsive. The logic and reason portions of the brain are only beginning to fully develop. Consequences are still something of an arbitrary concept, and abstract concepts are only beginning to make sense.

but then again, i don't see much evidence that those particular things play all that important a role in adult voting patterns, either.
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 07:53
What exactly are you basing this on? Personal experience? I remember that my political views, and the views of my peers, didn't change much at all from 16 to 18. Mine merely became somewhat more refined. I said nothing about their political views. I commented on their physical and mental maturity.

Though, while you mention it, that refinement is somewhat important to the political process.

You're right. 16 year olds aren't as mature as 18 year olds, but that doesn't mean they can't come to their own decisions about politics. To say that they are somehow not aware of consuquences is just silly.

They're aware of consequences. They just don't always recognize them. This is based off adolescent developmental psychology. Why do 16 year olds get into significantly more car accidents than 18 year olds? Because they take additional risks because they don't recognize, understand, and/or realize what the potential consequences of their actions are, and don't always take heed of them. All humans are prone to instant gratification, but adolescents are much more so.

Going by Kohlberg's theory, 16 year olds will usually find themselves in stage 3, the desire to be loved. Basically, this is the middle school mentality behind moral decisions. Peer pressure is an example of this.
Stage 4 is where you will find the more mature 16 year olds, 17 year olds, and some 18 year olds...the desire to maintain the social order...kids will begin to consider society as a whole. This is the black and white world of morality. "Even if you have justification to break a law, you shouldn't because then there will be chaos".
Yes, some 16 year olds will find themselves capable of this level of thought. the vast majority, however, won't. Even many 17 year olds won't. By 18, most kids will have moved on to stage 5 (society as an abstract). This is where people begin to think about laws, their implications, and the question "what makes a good society?".
To the stage 3 child, society isn't even in the picture...it is the self-centered world. To the stage 4 child, a totalitarian world looks appealing in the theoretical. To the stage 5, people begin to consider things like this: "It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property. Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly." (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38).

It should be noted...Kohlberg has six stages. Stage 1 and 2 will last untill adolescence. Stage three will ride out the majority of young adolescence (12 or 13 to 15, 16, or 17). At that point, kids will rapidly progress from 3 to 5 in the period of about two or three years. The final stage may never be reached by some. This highlights just how much changes in the years being discussed on the most basic level: what is "right" and "wrong".

Understanding the rights and responsibilities of voting is identifying, recognizing, understanding, and taking heed of potential outcomes and consequences.
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 08:03
payroll taxes, sales taxes...
besides, getting a refund on taxes has to do with tax policy, which is controlled by elected representatives.True. But sales taxes, by and large, will be a tax on the parent. Not always, admittedly, but much of the time.



federal child labor laws apply to those below 16, age of consent is 16ish, compulsory education ends at 16ish, driving starts at 15/16, enlistment age is 17, and when they get that old now we often try them as adults in criminal matters. we already have a sort of legal consensus that 16ish is effectively adulthood, save for combat, buying alcohol and cigarettes, and voting.

...is it bad that I said no rights, right after discussing one of their rights?
I do retract that...they do have more rights and responsibilities than their younger counterparts (though, driving in many states, and an increasing number, is anywhere from 17 to 18, with some kids who mess up having to wait until 21). Age of enlistment is 17, but age of service is 18, no? And 17 is only with parental consent?
And no, 16 isn't effectively adulthood, as a minor cannot legally enter into a contract without parental consent. That is a major right and responsibility...probably one of the most significant.

because there are a ton of policy decisions that dramatically effect them over which they have no say, even though we already treat them as near-adults; this is utterly intolerable on pure democratic principles. and it's not like old people have proven themselves all that capable of adequately stewarding these political issues for teens, either.
Yes, they are impacted. But then, so are 14 year olds. And 12 year olds. Yes, we treat 16 year olds as near-adults...but the answer lies in your own choice of phrase. "Near adult" is not "adult" any more than "near win" is still not a "win".

but then again, i don't see much evidence that those particular things play all that important a role in adult voting patterns, either.
True. But the significant difference is the ability to do so vs. the lack of ability. On the psychological level, 16 year olds will struggle with abstract concepts. Abstract concepts cover much of what voting looks at.

Being willfully impulsive and...well...stupid, is significantly different than being impulsive and stupid because your brain has yet to develop.
Vault 10
30-10-2008, 08:41
enlistment age is 17, and when they get that old now we often try them as adults in criminal matters. we already have a sort of legal consensus that 16ish is effectively adulthood, save for combat, buying alcohol and cigarettes, and voting.
And firearms ownership, and a few other things.

Voting requires having some life experience. Not just the decisions starting to affect you, but having done so for a bit of time. In that regard, even if you start working full-time at 17 (nearly everyone today goes to high school), you need to do it for a year.

16 year olds are also under too much pressure. Parents, school. It's not until later that they at least get a chance to think on their own.
Yootopia
30-10-2008, 09:43
Keep it at 18. I was much more ideological when I was younger, and you don't want an influx of whiney communist votes, really, do you?

*edits*

Or the other current fad for white middle class people with no direction in their lives, Libertarianism.
Self-sacrifice
30-10-2008, 09:46
i say increase the voting age. the brain is not fully developed untill about 23 years of age. That should be the limit. Thus I shouldnt have voted yet at all
Farflorin
30-10-2008, 13:53
Think about all the stupid people who vote. Now imagine opening up the vote to a group that is even less educated than that.

There are plenty of extremely stupid adults out there who vote. There are dropouts who can vote. What difference does two years really make? Besides, with voter apathy as high as it is, why not let 16 years olds vote? I mean, they can legally work, thus pay taxes but they don't have any representation. How is that democratic?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
30-10-2008, 13:58
Oh, for the love of God, do not. Some US adults don't even know what's good for them, let alone an airhead of a teenager. If anything, raise it. Let those 25 and up be the ones voting.
Ifreann
30-10-2008, 14:00
18 seems a reasonable enough age. Much younger than that, well it's that demographic that makes things like wearing your pants around your knees and Tokio Hotel popular. 'Nuff said.
Trans Fatty Acids
30-10-2008, 14:43
Besides, with voter apathy as high as it is, why not let 16 years olds vote? I mean, they can legally work, thus pay taxes but they don't have any representation. How is that democratic?

What about kids under 16 who work? When I was growing up you could get some jobs when you were 14. There are a couple of professions where you can legally work if you are under 14, such as acting. In order to allow everybody who's legally working & paying taxes to vote you'd have to abolish the minimum age entirely.

I don't see why all privileges of adulthood should be granted at the same time.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 14:52
so how likely is it that 16 year olds that are 'unready to vote' will actually bother registering and showing up at the polls?

on the other hand, those that are ready will also have been much more likely to have taken part in public discussions of policies and candidates and implications than any other demographic that i can think of. thanks, high school civics and government classes!
Rambhutan
30-10-2008, 14:55
I look forward to the election of President Hannah Montana
Andaluciae
30-10-2008, 14:59
teens clearly and obviously both need and deserve political representation. i can't think of a good reason to deny them it that isn't ultimately much more broadly anti-democratic.

Democracy is not a virtue...it's merely a means to gain virtuous ends.

And, having recently been a teenager, I don't see how that ueber-retarded demographic could gain to the end.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 15:15
Yes, we treat 16 year olds as near-adults...but the answer lies in your own choice of phrase. "Near adult" is not "adult" any more than "near win" is still not a "win".

it is right and good that we protect near adults from the more dangerous aspects of life that they aren't in a position to adequately understand or deal with. so smoking anything addictive, buying their own alcohol, going to war, buying guns, working in particularly hazardous non-agricultural jobs, etc. voting, however, is just about the least dangerous part of adulthood i can think of in this country.

True. But the significant difference is the ability to do so vs. the lack of ability. On the psychological level, 16 year olds will struggle with abstract concepts. Abstract concepts cover much of what voting looks at.

Being willfully impulsive and...well...stupid, is significantly different than being impulsive and stupid because your brain has yet to develop.

but we do not employ psychological testing to find out if people are 'ready' to vote, nor should we. and most people never really get the hang of thinking abstractly - there is a reason why level 2 (stages 3 and 4) of kohlberg's moral development is called conventional.
Ferrous Oxide
30-10-2008, 15:18
If the voting age was lowered, the best candidate would never win, it'd be the most hip, Internet-savvy one.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 15:19
Democracy is not a virtue...it's merely a means to gain virtuous ends.

democratic decision making is inherently more just than the alternatives if we agree that people are of equal moral worth and autonomy is a good thing. if we do not accept that, then there is no reason to support democracy over dictatorship. unless you are positing that people can be dumb, but mobs are fucking brilliant...
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 15:20
If the voting age was lowered, the best candidate would never win, it'd be the most hip, Internet-savvy one.

exactly how many 16 and 17 year olds do you think there are?
Roone bodimon
30-10-2008, 15:41
i propose kids under 18 (minimum age 12-13) take a test on politics gov. economy etc. to see if tehre capable of making a wise choice and if they pass they have the right to vote
Vampire Knight Zero
30-10-2008, 15:42
I'm happy with the voting age as it is.
PartyPeoples
30-10-2008, 15:49
I think 18 is a good enough age to be given responsibility to vote (: and besides, it could be argued that children and teenagers influence the political system anyway.
Rebelish
30-10-2008, 16:18
My opinion is, if your allowed to drop out of school at 16 then you should be able to vote at 16. There are a ton of teenagers out there who drop out of school at that age, meaning there are a bunch of adults out there who have the education of a 16 year old, and are currently voting. A drop out is most likely going to start working full-time, which means politics are going to mean a lot more to them. But, even if your 16 and are still in school and not working at all, you should still be able to vote. Most of you aren't giving 16 year olds enough credit. Most of them won't waste their time voting and better for the voting community. But the ones who do, will be the ones who are interested in and, for the most part, informed about political matters and their vote should count for that. 16 year olds may be stupid but they're not blind to what's going on in their country. I was 16/17 when the Gore/Bush campaigns were running and I would have loved to have voted as would have a handful of my peers. Of course, the majority of the kids at my school wouldn't have cared, but then they wouldn't have voted, so it wouldn't have mattered. You get me? Not every 18+ person who can vote does or cares to.

In addition, I think if your allowed to fight and possibly die for your country, you should also be allowed to drink and buy cigarettes, too. If you where to kill someone at 18, and if i'm not mistaken possibly at 16 (correct me if i'm wrong), you would be charged as an adult, so I really don't understand the drinking and smoking laws. Also, if alcohol and cigarettes are legal, weed should be, too. That one makes no sense to me either.
Dimesa
30-10-2008, 16:28
No.
Aggicificicerous
30-10-2008, 17:04
They're aware of consequences. They just don't always recognize them. This is based off adolescent developmental psychology. Why do 16 year olds get into significantly more car accidents than 18 year olds? Because they take additional risks because they don't recognize, understand, and/or realize what the potential consequences of their actions are, and don't always take heed of them. All humans are prone to instant gratification, but adolescents are much more so.

Going by Kohlberg's theory, 16 year olds will usually find themselves in stage 3, the desire to be loved. Basically, this is the middle school mentality behind moral decisions. Peer pressure is an example of this.
Stage 4 is where you will find the more mature 16 year olds, 17 year olds, and some 18 year olds...the desire to maintain the social order...kids will begin to consider society as a whole. This is the black and white world of morality. "Even if you have justification to break a law, you shouldn't because then there will be chaos".
Yes, some 16 year olds will find themselves capable of this level of thought. the vast majority, however, won't. Even many 17 year olds won't. By 18, most kids will have moved on to stage 5 (society as an abstract). This is where people begin to think about laws, their implications, and the question "what makes a good society?".
To the stage 3 child, society isn't even in the picture...it is the self-centered world. To the stage 4 child, a totalitarian world looks appealing in the theoretical. To the stage 5, people begin to consider things like this: "It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property. Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly." (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38).

It should be noted...Kohlberg has six stages. Stage 1 and 2 will last untill adolescence. Stage three will ride out the majority of young adolescence (12 or 13 to 15, 16, or 17). At that point, kids will rapidly progress from 3 to 5 in the period of about two or three years. The final stage may never be reached by some. This highlights just how much changes in the years being discussed on the most basic level: what is "right" and "wrong".

Understanding the rights and responsibilities of voting is identifying, recognizing, understanding, and taking heed of potential outcomes and consequences.

Firstly, 16 year olds get into more crashes than 18 year olds because they're worse drivers. When you're 18, you've had 2 more years of driving experience, and when you're 16, you're a brand new driver.

Kolhberg...Kolhberg is full of it. People mature at different rates, and the notion that someone at this so-called "stage 3" only wants to be loved and doesn't recognise society as a whole is ridiculous. Voting is a private matter, and thus there is no peer pressure. You can tell your friends you voted for anyone they want to hear. Is there any evidence that this guy is right?
Saige Dragon
30-10-2008, 17:46
I think your voting age should be limited to the age of 18. Shit couldn't get any worse than it already has, am I right? Hell, for kicks and giggles when your 30 you could even go take a ride on the carrousel.
The imperian empire
30-10-2008, 18:11
Currently, the national voting age stands at eighteen, set at this age only in the past thirty years or so via Constitutional amendment.

However, there has been a lot of abuzz recently about potentially lowering the age even further, to, say, seventeen, or sixteen.

Do you think this should be done, and why?

Personally, I'm against it. There are a few here and there--Pancake comes to mind--who would be able to contribute to the electoral process through informed votes, but we're already having huge problems getting teens to do anything other than just adopt their parents views when they vote for the first time as it is. The last thing we need is even more "Yes'm!" voters.

Sixteen year olds voting. I find that thought scary myself for any country, It's not like I'm incredibly ancient either. Wasn't it the case in Austria recently, that they lowered the ages to 16, and suddenly alot of the far right parties started to get votes?
Kirchensittenbach
30-10-2008, 18:37
Simply: NO

given that teens in the USA are both immature as young democrats are, and still fresh out of the propaganda machine called USA public education, they are in no state to make informed decisions that would include actually looking up a bit about a candidates political history

Also, unlike, was it Austria? which has a score of angry teens throwing their lot towards right-wing powers that would make improvements in the nation, USA has lazy teens that would throw their lot towards democratic powers that would either loosen up on the laws and/or if they make any changes, they would come slower than the process of evolution makes changes

for the record, I do know that there are alot of actual informed and educated teens in the USA, but, they are the minority
Peepelonia
30-10-2008, 18:44
Kolhberg...Kolhberg is full of it. People mature at different rates, and the notion that someone at this so-called "stage 3" only wants to be loved and doesn't recognise society as a whole is ridiculous. Voting is a private matter, and thus there is no peer pressure. You can tell your friends you voted for anyone they want to hear. Is there any evidence that this guy is right?


You are wrong you know. Yes of course people mature at differant rates. I'm 40 years old and I'm hadly mature. My brain though has stopped going through the changes that brains go through at puberty.

It IS a known issue with teenagers, that they do not readily reconise the differancs in facial features from angry, to sad, to mad. They do not readily reconsie when they may be getting into danger. What you say is ridiculous is fact!

Ohh and never, and I mean never underestimate the power of peer presure, adult, teenager, or whatever.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
30-10-2008, 18:47
Simply: NO

given that teens in the USA are both immature as young democrats are, and still fresh out of the propaganda machine called USA public education, they are in no state to make informed decisions that would include actually looking up a bit about a candidates political history

Also, unlike, was it Austria? which has a score of angry teens throwing their lot towards right-wing powers that would make improvements in the nation, USA has lazy teens that would throw their lot towards democratic powers that would either loosen up on the laws and/or if they make any changes, they would come slower than the process of evolution makes changes

for the record, I do know that there are alot of actual informed and educated teens in the USA, but, they are the minority

I agree with you, but I won't use any political denomination. Teens in the US, the great majority of them, live in complete alienation, they don't know what's going on. If it's not trendy on TRL or if it hasn't appeared on American Idol, they don't give a damn.

There are exceptions, I'm quite sure, but that's not the norm.
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 18:57
it is right and good that we protect near adults from the more dangerous aspects of life that they aren't in a position to adequately understand or deal with. so smoking anything addictive, buying their own alcohol, going to war, buying guns, working in particularly hazardous non-agricultural jobs, etc. voting, however, is just about the least dangerous part of adulthood i can think of in this country.
So children are unable to adequately understand and deal with issues that impact only themselves, but yet are adequately mature enough to understand and deal with issues that impact the whole of society?


but we do not employ psychological testing to find out if people are 'ready' to vote, nor should we. and most people never really get the hang of thinking abstractly - there is a reason why level 2 (stages 3 and 4) of kohlberg's moral development is called conventional.
Again, it comes down to potential for ability. Many 16 year olds cannot truly understand abstract concepts (even "death" is still too abstract for many to understand, let alone the abstraction of "society", "good", "bad", etc). Yes, some adults are not into level 3. But the majority of 16 year olds mentally cannot pass into that level.

I should mention this, which I just found in some old notes. Kohlberg also allowed for ministeps...most relevant is 4+, which he noted as appearing mostly in students entering college...age 18.

Firstly, 16 year olds get into more crashes than 18 year olds because they're worse drivers. When you're 18, you've had 2 more years of driving experience, and when you're 16, you're a brand new driver.Wrong. Hartford Courant, a few years back, ran the numbers basing off accidents within the first year of driving. As a population, 16 year olds got into more accidents.

Kolhberg...Kolhberg is full of it. People mature at different rates, and the notion that someone at this so-called "stage 3" only wants to be loved and doesn't recognise society as a whole is ridiculous. Voting is a private matter, and thus there is no peer pressure. You can tell your friends you voted for anyone they want to hear. Is there any evidence that this guy is right?

Kohlberg doesn't claim that everyone will mature at the same age. He merely outlines how they will mature.
It isn't so inane that stage 3 is a period of self-centered morals. Additionally, the love comment was mine, as a simplification so I wouldn't have to expand the entire theory. Kohlberg lists it as this:
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/good girl attitude)
Enter any middle school, 9th grade, or 10th grade (first semester) classroom, and you'll see plenty of this.

They recognize that there are others, but ask them to define an abstract "society". Abstract thinking does not appear in full force until late 16, 17, or early 18 by and large.

Peer influence can still be seen, even behind closed doors. Yes, voting is a private matter. So is having sex...anyone can claim that they've done it and bullshit their way through a conversation. And yet, you have 17 girls signing a "lose our virginity and get pregnant" pact in Gloucester, MA. Peer pressure does not end when you leave the peers.

Evidence that he is correct? His theory expands upon Piaget's. It lines up well with Common's and Fischer's Post-Piagetian theories. It has withstood the criticism of Gilligan's "Ethics of Caring", and has been defended by Sommers.

Oh, and the fact that it was based off his research. Only stage 6 stands on relatively tenuous evidence, and I didn't discuss that stage here.
Knights of Liberty
30-10-2008, 18:58
and how exactly will parents enforce their votes in the voting booth? if this is a problem, then it is a problem with the parent-child relationship more generally at any age. if anything, it seems to me that it would be less of a problem in 16 and 17 year olds, who are totally known for their obedient and harmonious relations with their parents.

My point wasnt that parents will make them vote a certian way, its that most kids under 18 dont know jack shit and just will parrot what their parents say around the house.
Poliwanacraca
30-10-2008, 19:01
I lean towards lowering it, because the idea of someone paying income taxes and not getting to vote just bothers me like crazy. (I admit, I'm also biased because I hated that I couldn't vote as a teenager. I followed all the political news, was a member of my school's Student Political Awareness Club, had thoughtful and rational positions on a lot of issues, even volunteered for a couple of campaigns, and then I had to stand by and watch as morons picked candidates because "that other guy's too intellectual" or "he seems like the sort of fellow you could have a beer with." That hurt.)

The thing is, I don't really buy the "teenagers are too stupid/immature/easily influenced to be allowed to vote" argument, because we all know perfectly well that the same is true of a great many 40-year-olds, and we don't apply that standard there. Sure, the proportion of immature teenagers pretty certainly exceeds the proportion of immature 40-year-olds - but the proportion of senile 90-year-olds quite certainly exceeds the proportion of senile 40-year-olds, too, and again, no one proposes an upper limit on the voting age, because we recognize that it is not in keeping with the principles of democracy to discriminate against an entire class of people based on conditions that apply to some of them. Thus, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to make the voting age match the minimum working age (and potentially federally standardize the minimum working age).
Knights of Liberty
30-10-2008, 19:06
I lean towards lowering it, because the idea of someone paying income taxes and not getting to vote just bothers me like crazy.

Thing is, most of the time the kids who pay taxes end up getting it all back in tax returns because they dont make enough to pay taxes.
Poliwanacraca
30-10-2008, 19:13
Thing is, most of the time the kids who pay taxes end up getting it all back in tax returns because they dont make enough to pay taxes.

Oh, I know, and that does help, but the idea of it still really troubles me. (Besides, such teenagers will still presumably be paying payroll and sales taxes out of their income, yes?)
Knights of Liberty
30-10-2008, 19:14
Oh, I know, and that does help, but the idea of it still really troubles me. (Besides, such teenagers will still presumably be paying payroll and sales taxes out of their income, yes?)

I believe so.

I however am still not convinced that most teenagers are capable of having an opinion on politics outside of what their parents say around the house.
Poliwanacraca
30-10-2008, 19:19
I believe so.

I however am still not convinced that most teenagers are capable of having an opinion on politics outside of what their parents say around the house.

Are you honestly convinced that most adults are capable of having a political opinion outside of what somebody told them somewhere? Keep in mind while answering this question, please, that somewhere between 10 and 25% of Americans apparently still believe Obama is a practicing Muslim.
Galloism
30-10-2008, 19:30
Oh, for the love of God, do not. Some US adults don't even know what's good for them, let alone an airhead of a teenager. If anything, raise it. Let those 25 and up be the ones voting.

Hey! I object!
German Nightmare
30-10-2008, 20:11
Why not lower the voting age to 12? Or 10? Or 6?

Yeah, 6 would be great!

Then the results in U.S. Presidential elections would finally start to make some sense.

"I promise you chocolate!"
"Weee!"

"No more homework!"
"Weee!"

"No spinach!"
"Weee!"

In all seriousness, I doubt that lowering the voting age would really matter all that much. Getting more people who are of age to actually get off their lazy ass and vote is more of a problem within the U.S. - not increasing the number of people who won't go voting.

If you really want to let younger people participate, why not lower the voting age for local elections to 16 for a start?



Mars Attacks!
70 years
greed and death
30-10-2008, 20:12
Think about all the stupid people who vote. Now imagine opening up the vote to a group that is even less educated than that.

What ever do you mean. teenagers know everything just ask them.
German Nightmare
30-10-2008, 20:31
What ever do you mean. teenagers know everything just ask them.
I call BS on that.


Mars Attacks!
70 years
Nanatsu no Tsuki
30-10-2008, 20:37
Hey! I object!

But aren't you an old man? Weren't you in your late 60s? There's nothing to worry about there.:D
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 20:57
So children are unable to adequately understand and deal with issues that impact only themselves, but yet are adequately mature enough to understand and deal with issues that impact the whole of society?

you'll note that i don't recommend making any 16 year olds our new supreme overlord. the franchise means being able to legitimately participate in the democratic process, and to have your concerns taken at least somewhat seriously. but yes, i do think that teens can reasonably be said to lack an adequate understanding of certain issues that effect them on a more personal level, but have more than enough understanding to deal with issues that impact the whole of society, if only because any catastrophic societal consequences will not be attributable to teens voting - you need to have much more of society than just them involved - while the personal catastrophes are all too real.

workplace hazards are vastly more dangerous than some percentage of teens voting stupidly.

Again, it comes down to potential for ability. Many 16 year olds cannot truly understand abstract concepts (even "death" is still too abstract for many to understand, let alone the abstraction of "society", "good", "bad", etc). Yes, some adults are not into level 3. But the majority of 16 year olds mentally cannot pass into that level.

more to the point, everyone who has looked has found that most people never get to stage 5. the vast bulk of people are as 'morally developed' at 50 as they were at 16ish. on whether this is out of laziness or incapacity, i declare neutrality. reaching post-conventional thinking is not and cannot be a moral requirement for voting without getting rid of democracy itself.
Waipahu
30-10-2008, 21:28
i think that it should be lowered to 17 yrs, of age no lower
Aggicificicerous
30-10-2008, 21:37
Wrong. Hartford Courant, a few years back, ran the numbers basing off accidents within the first year of driving. As a population, 16 year olds got into more accidents.

Do you have the full statistics on that?

Kohlberg doesn't claim that everyone will mature at the same age. He merely outlines how they will mature.
It isn't so inane that stage 3 is a period of self-centered morals. Additionally, the love comment was mine, as a simplification so I wouldn't have to expand the entire theory. Kohlberg lists it as this:

Enter any middle school, 9th grade, or 10th grade (first semester) classroom, and you'll see plenty of this.

They recognize that there are others, but ask them to define an abstract "society". Abstract thinking does not appear in full force until late 16, 17, or early 18 by and large.

What exactly do you mean by "abstract society"? Most 16 year olds are aware that there are a whole lot of other people with demands and needs too.

Peer influence can still be seen, even behind closed doors. Yes, voting is a private matter. So is having sex...anyone can claim that they've done it and bullshit their way through a conversation. And yet, you have 17 girls signing a "lose our virginity and get pregnant" pact in Gloucester, MA. Peer pressure does not end when you leave the peers.

You're proving my point here. You can lie about voting (goodness knows teenagers lie all the time) to your friends just like you can lie about having sex. The big difference is that outside of you admitting the truth, there's no way to find out who you voted for.

Evidence that he is correct? His theory expands upon Piaget's. It lines up well with Common's and Fischer's Post-Piagetian theories. It has withstood the criticism of Gilligan's "Ethics of Caring", and has been defended by Sommers.

Oh, and the fact that it was based off his research. Only stage 6 stands on relatively tenuous evidence, and I didn't discuss that stage here.

I haven't heard of any of those people. Admittedly, that could be because this isn't a field I'm well versed in, but you'll have to do better than throw out a bunch of names to remedy my ignorance about a name. And like the Courant study, showing the details of his work would help.

However, judging all this on that sort of study seems faulty. Even if you've proved that a great many 16 year olds are at this "Stage 3," what of it? So, they're selfish. Most people are, to a certain extent, selfish. Should all selfish people be barred from voting, or just ones who are selfish past a certain point?
Vault 10
30-10-2008, 22:13
What exactly do you mean by "abstract society"? Most 16 year olds are aware that there are a whole lot of other people with demands and needs too.
But do they care? I can say I surely didn't. Not like I do today, at least. When I was 16, I was convinced that... well, let's just say that I felt like I was "better" than others (being smarter, not lazy, keeping fit, having a decent job), and my demands and needs were the right ones, ones that really mattered. And don't even think of opposing my ideals.


You're proving my point here. You can lie about voting (goodness knows teenagers lie all the time) to your friends just like you can lie about having sex. The big difference is that outside of you admitting the truth, there's no way to find out who you voted for.
Peer pressure is not that simple. It's not about saying that you had sex. It convinces you that you're a loser if you don't have sex - it's like air, a big deal if you don't get any.
Tech-gnosis
30-10-2008, 22:40
Lowering it will just be the same as giving a parent a number of votes equal to how many kids they have.

That's not necessarily a bad thing with seniors being an increasing part of the voting demographic.
Gravlen
30-10-2008, 23:09
I think 18 is the right age. Mind you, the year of your 18th birthday - meaning you could vote while you're still 17. But not a lower limit, no...
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 23:11
you'll note that i don't recommend making any 16 year olds our new supreme overlord. the franchise means being able to legitimately participate in the democratic process, and to have your concerns taken at least somewhat seriously. but yes, i do think that teens can reasonably be said to lack an adequate understanding of certain issues that effect them on a more personal level, but have more than enough understanding to deal with issues that impact the whole of society, if only because any catastrophic societal consequences will not be attributable to teens voting - you need to have much more of society than just them involved - while the personal catastrophes are all too real.

workplace hazards are vastly more dangerous than some percentage of teens voting stupidly.

Nor do I claim that you say they should be supreme overlords. But they would have an impact. This would be adding a large population to those who vote in national elections.

If you are unable to make an uninformed decision in one part of your life, why would you be able to make an informed decision in another? I know that much of your stance in voting is about enfranchising as many people as possible...and I tend to agree. However, I disagree that 16 year olds are prepared to vote in major elections.

I like the idea of opening voting in some elections, as mentioned by someone earlier...local elections. They are, as we agree, near-adults. Providing some rights may be a good idea...town selectman, mayor, state rep. I, however, don't believe that 16 year olds have enough understanding, both in terms of maturity and experience, to understand economic, foreign, and domestic policy.


more to the point, everyone who has looked has found that most people never get to stage 5. the vast bulk of people are as 'morally developed' at 50 as they were at 16ish. on whether this is out of laziness or incapacity, i declare neutrality. reaching post-conventional thinking is not and cannot be a moral requirement for voting without getting rid of democracy itself.
There are two faults here. My claim is that many 16 year olds are still at stage 3...not that they haven't reached stage 5. Now, I don't encourage testing to determine where one falls on the spectrum. However, when determing a voting age, one should consider development. Not necessarily Kohlberg's (though, I admit that I like his), but some level of development. The fact is, 16 falls in the adolescent range, a period of high development. Earlier, you said that giving the right at 18, when life tends to become somewhat unsteady, is irrational. At 18, life does change...you legally become an adult, most people get jobs or go on to college...there is certainly massive changes. But at 16, the changes are more significant. While my life changed alot when I turned 18 with moving out on my own and starting college, it did not compare to the psychological changes occuring at age 16.

It should also be noted that part of Kohlberg's theory states
2. In stage development, subjects cannot comprehend moral reasoning at a stage more than one stage beyond their own.
3. In stage development individuals are cognitively attracted to reasoning one level above their own present predominant level.

While you are right (and Kohlberg agrees with you) that most will not progress beyond stage 4 (with only 25% reaching stage 6), they are able to understand arguments based in stage 5, and are attracted to this reasoning. A child at stage 3 will be unable to do this.


Do you have the full statistics on that?
I'll see what I can find...the study was about 10 years ago, so I'm not sure if it's on their online database.


What exactly do you mean by "abstract society"? Most 16 year olds are aware that there are a whole lot of other people with demands and needs too.Yes, they can tell you about a lot of people who are tied together, in the same way that they can tell you "death" is the cesation of life. They, however, generally do not understand the concept. The idea of "good boy/good girl" is law and order...follow the law because that is what the law says...no grey shades. These grey shades are where you find abstract society...how we impact one another...the ramifcations behind getting rid of income tax, or banning abortion.



You're proving my point here. You can lie about voting (goodness knows teenagers lie all the time) to your friends just like you can lie about having sex. The big difference is that outside of you admitting the truth, there's no way to find out who you voted for.
you CAN lie. My point is that teenagers usually DON'T lie in these cases. They don't say "yeah, I went out and got trashed last night". They actually go out and get trashed. They can say "Yeah, I lost my virginity", but instead, they get into pacts and go out and get laid by a homeless guy. That is the nature of peer pressure, combined with the inherent immaturity in 16 year olds and their inability to fully recognize and accept consequences.



I haven't heard of any of those people. Admittedly, that could be because this isn't a field I'm well versed in, but you'll have to do better than throw out a bunch of names to remedy my ignorance about a name. And like the Courant study, showing the details of his work would help.
Kohlberg's research is readily available. Much of my stuff is in textbooks, and I'm not going to reproduce all that text here, but here's some decent links that cover his methodology and research.
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml
http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm
However, judging all this on that sort of study seems faulty. Even if you've proved that a great many 16 year olds are at this "Stage 3," what of it? So, they're selfish. Most people are, to a certain extent, selfish. Should all selfish people be barred from voting, or just ones who are selfish past a certain point?

It expands beyond their level of moral reasoning to the development of logical thought, abilities to understand abstract concepts, and understanding of consequences. All people are inherently selfish to some extent. That isn't what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that, due to the changes occuring in puberty and adolescence, 16 year olds as a group are not mature enough to make an informed decision.

The Kohlberg discussion is somewhat tangental, though directly related. I brought him up to demonstrate one way in which this development has been tracked in a relevant way. The understanding of justice and law and order is directly related to voting.
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 23:13
But do they care? I can say I surely didn't. Not like I do today, at least. When I was 16, I was convinced that... well, let's just say that I felt like I was "better" than others (being smarter, not lazy, keeping fit, having a decent job), and my demands and needs were the right ones, ones that really mattered. And don't even think of opposing my ideals.



Peer pressure is not that simple. It's not about saying that you had sex. It convinces you that you're a loser if you don't have sex - it's like air, a big deal if you don't get any.

Both very well said.

The difference between understanding society and understanding the abstraction of society is the difference betwene understanding that there are other people in the world and understanding how and why they impact you.

Peer pressure...well, you said it all really.
Free Soviets
30-10-2008, 23:21
I like the idea of opening voting in some elections, as mentioned by someone earlier...local elections. They are, as we agree, near-adults. Providing some rights may be a good idea...town selectman, mayor, state rep. I, however, don't believe that 16 year olds have enough understanding, both in terms of maturity and experience, to understand economic, foreign, and domestic policy.

oddly, i think that it is on the local level where any bad effects of teen voting would be most troublesome. they are way less electorally diluted there. it probably still wouldn't amount to much except, perhaps, in 'vote for 6' type elections.
Galloism
30-10-2008, 23:24
But aren't you an old man? Weren't you in your late 60s? There's nothing to worry about there.:D

I'm old in mind only thank you!
Sarkhaan
30-10-2008, 23:25
oddly, i think that it is on the local level where any bad effects of teen voting would be most troublesome. they are way less electorally diluted there. it probably still wouldn't amount to much except, perhaps, in 'vote for 6' type elections.
I actually tend to agree with you. But these are the elections that have real impact.

Now, there is huge risk for abuse, particularly within schools (MA currently has a measure to get rid of income taxes, which jeapordizes school funding...I can see easy bias from teachers here)...but it also requires less abstraction, and who knows? It could develop a generation that actually votes in more than just presidential elections.
Andaluciae
31-10-2008, 01:07
democratic decision making is inherently more just than the alternatives if we agree that people are of equal moral worth and autonomy is a good thing. if we do not accept that, then there is no reason to support democracy over dictatorship. unless you are positing that people can be dumb, but mobs are fucking brilliant...

Restricted, mature democratic decision making systems tend to result in more just outcomes, but that is not always the case. They're more robust and stable than systems that rely on a single ruler, or a small clique of rulers, true.

But, I'm not so concerned with the system of how the decisions are made being just, but that the decisions that are made are just. After all, how just would it be if all of society (except for me, of course) voted that they wanted to eat me for dinner tomorrow night? Not very just, wouldn't you say?
Dyakovo
31-10-2008, 01:34
federal child labor laws apply to those below 16, age of consent is 16ish, compulsory education ends at 16ish, driving starts at 15/16, enlistment age is 17, and when they get that old now we often try them as adults in criminal matters. we already have a sort of legal consensus that 16ish is effectively adulthood, save for combat, buying alcohol and cigarettes, and voting.

And except for them legally being adults...

Also, you have to be 18 to enlist (ok you can enlist at 17, but you need a parent's consent)
Aggicificicerous
31-10-2008, 01:46
Yes, they can tell you about a lot of people who are tied together, in the same way that they can tell you "death" is the cesation of life. They, however, generally do not understand the concept. The idea of "good boy/good girl" is law and order...follow the law because that is what the law says...no grey shades. These grey shades are where you find abstract society...how we impact one another...the ramifcations behind getting rid of income tax, or banning abortion.

"Generally." Your arguments seem to be based on that a good deal. I don't know where you get your general information, because I know I only have my own personal experiences to go with.

This is also in response to Vault 10...I was a pretty arrogant 16 year old, as arrogant as any, and yet that didn't stop me from forming my own opinions on issues. My peers were also forming their opinions, and ironically, I noticed that most of them seemed to be devoted to making the world a better place. Not just for themselves, but for others.

And here's a little passage from the first site on Kolhberg you gave me.

"Kohlberg's new, longitudinal study has also changed the earlier picture of moral development in other ways. Stage 4 had become the dominant stage by age 16. In the new scoring system, however, it is more difficult to achieve the higher stages--the reasoning must be more clearly demonstrated--and Kohlberg finds that stage 4 does not become dominant until the boys are in their 20s and 30s. Stage 5, too, only appears in the mid-20s and never becomes very prevalent."

So at first, Kolhberg had found people usually hit stage 4 by 16. This would support the notion that 16 year olds should be allowed the vote. The second one, says that stage 4 isn't until the 20's and 30's. Would that mean that the voting age should be raised to meet these standards?

you CAN lie. My point is that teenagers usually DON'T lie in these cases. They don't say "yeah, I went out and got trashed last night". They actually go out and get trashed. They can say "Yeah, I lost my virginity", but instead, they get into pacts and go out and get laid by a homeless guy. That is the nature of peer pressure, combined with the inherent immaturity in 16 year olds and their inability to fully recognize and accept consequences.

And once again, you're using sex and alcohol to measure politics. Politics are not sex and alcohol (unfortunately?), and to say that most 16 year olds are immature, form pacts, and get laid by homeless guys is not only nasty, but unsubstantiated. Sounds almost spiteful too.

It expands beyond their level of moral reasoning to the development of logical thought, abilities to understand abstract concepts, and understanding of consequences. All people are inherently selfish to some extent. That isn't what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that, due to the changes occuring in puberty and adolescence, 16 year olds as a group are not mature enough to make an informed decision.

The Kohlberg discussion is somewhat tangental, though directly related. I brought him up to demonstrate one way in which this development has been tracked in a relevant way. The understanding of justice and law and order is directly related to voting.

If you want your voters to understand justice and law and order, you should push for some sort of testing to get implemented. This would certainly be better (in theory at least) than lowering the voting age. Because what I'm saying is that there are a heck of a lot of 16 year olds who do understand these things, and care. But one of the best reasons is that although there are quite a few who don't understand or care at all, and most of these people won't care enough to vote.

And again to Vault 10, sex isn't voting, and saying that if you vote against your friends you'll you don't belong, well no. Peer pressure and belonging is superficial; if you belong, you belong. Do you really think that a 16 year old is going to lose sleep over lying to his "buddies" over what his political choices are?
Dyakovo
31-10-2008, 02:03
One problem I'd like to point out with the idea of testing to see if someone is ready to vote is: "Who makes the tests/ who grades the tests?"
Sarkhaan
31-10-2008, 02:10
"Generally." Your arguments seem to be based on that a good deal. I don't know where you get your general information, because I know I only have my own personal experiences to go with. "generally" is what should be used when making judgements about the population at large. My "general" information comes from being a high school teacher in conjunction with a strong background in adolescent developmental psychology.

This is also in response to Vault 10...I was a pretty arrogant 16 year old, as arrogant as any, and yet that didn't stop me from forming my own opinions on issues. My peers were also forming their opinions, and ironically, I noticed that most of them seemed to be devoted to making the world a better place. Not just for themselves, but for others. Forming an opinion is very different than forming an informed opinion. Moreover, you and your friends are not indicative of the population of 16 year olds at large, let alone your personal view of yourself as a 16 year old.

I myself was a mature 16 year old, as were most of my friends. I was interested in politics, economics...that doesn't mean everyone was, or even capable of it.

And here's a little passage from the first site on Kolhberg you gave me.

"Kohlberg's new, longitudinal study has also changed the earlier picture of moral development in other ways. Stage 4 had become the dominant stage by age 16. In the new scoring system, however, it is more difficult to achieve the higher stages--the reasoning must be more clearly demonstrated--and Kohlberg finds that stage 4 does not become dominant until the boys are in their 20s and 30s. Stage 5, too, only appears in the mid-20s and never becomes very prevalent."

So at first, Kolhberg had found people usually hit stage 4 by 16. This would support the notion that 16 year olds should be allowed the vote. The second one, says that stage 4 isn't until the 20's and 30's. Would that mean that the voting age should be raised to meet these standards?
As we give full adult rights to those who are 18 (aside from drinking rights), along with full responsibilities, no. 18 is the age of majority in this country.

Additionally, I don't say we should base voting rights solely off Kohlberg. I brought him up as one measure...the one that I happen to prefer. But there are many, many others.


And once again, you're using sex and alcohol to measure politics. Politics are not sex and alcohol (unfortunately?), and to say that most 16 year olds are immature, form pacts, and get laid by homeless guys is not only nasty, but unsubstantiated. Sounds almost spiteful too.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

Peer pressure is precisely what Vault 10 said. Not claiming you do something, but actually doing it.



If you want your voters to understand justice and law and order, you should push for some sort of testing to get implemented. This would certainly be better (in theory at least) than lowering the voting age. Because what I'm saying is that there are a heck of a lot of 16 year olds who do understand these things, and care. But one of the best reasons is that although there are quite a few who don't understand or care at all, and most of these people won't care enough to vote.You may be correct about that. I'd be interested to see some research on this.

And again to Vault 10, sex isn't voting, and saying that if you vote against your friends you'll you don't belong, well no. Peer pressure and belonging is superficial; if you belong, you belong. Do you really think that a 16 year old is going to lose sleep over lying to his "buddies" over what his political choices are?Kids lost sleep over pogs, trading cards, rubber bracelets, shoes...why would voting somehow be out of the realm of peer pressure?
Peer pressure belonging is superficial. That is the point. Go into a high school or middle school and tell me that it isn't a superficial world, heavily driven by peer pressure.
Sarkhaan
31-10-2008, 02:11
One problem I'd like to point out with the idea of testing to see if someone is ready to vote is: "Who makes the tests/ who grades the tests?"

that's one major problem, as well as the fact that it would disenfranchise many people with mental disorders, cultural differences, language differences, etc.
Knights of Liberty
31-10-2008, 02:12
Are you honestly convinced that most adults are capable of having a political opinion outside of what somebody told them somewhere? Keep in mind while answering this question, please, that somewhere between 10 and 25% of Americans apparently still believe Obama is a practicing Muslim.

No, I dont. But I dont support democracy anyway:p. Why make it worse by letting in more uninformed voters?
Dyakovo
31-10-2008, 02:13
that's one major problem, as well as the fact that it would disenfranchise many people with mental disorders, cultural differences, language differences, etc.

Indeed
Knights of Liberty
31-10-2008, 02:13
One problem I'd like to point out with the idea of testing to see if someone is ready to vote is: "Who makes the tests/ who grades the tests?"

Me.
Dyakovo
31-10-2008, 02:15
Me.

Thank you for proving my point KoL...

:p
Sarkhaan
31-10-2008, 02:16
Me.

*flees country*
Knights of Liberty
31-10-2008, 02:24
Thank you for proving my point KoL...

:p


Please. My questions would be simple.

1. Is the earth older then 10,000 years old?
2. Is creationism just as valid in terms of evidence as evolution?
3. Is Obama a muslim.



Really, those are not hard questions.
Newmanistan
31-10-2008, 02:25
People under the age of 18 are certainly too young to vote. Some of them have the ability to make an informed decision, but the majority of them? As has been mentioned, they're just going to cast mommy or daddy's vote to get a bonus on their allowance.

Some 18-21 year olds don't have much more knowledge of it either, but these people are at least more independent of their parents to cast a vote that is of their opinion. It's either that, or they probably aren't voting at all.

As for the drinking age being lowered? It doesn't really matter. When I was under 21 I never had a problem getting a drink. It's just made easier once you hit 21.
Knights of Liberty
31-10-2008, 02:28
Some 18-21 year olds don't have much more knowledge of it either, but these people are at least more independent of their parents to cast a vote that is of their opinion. It's either that, or they probably aren't voting at all.


I actually think that, this election at least, the 18-25 voting block is the most informed.
BunnySaurus Bugsii
31-10-2008, 03:32
People under the age of 18 are certainly too young to vote. Some of them have the ability to make an informed decision, but the majority of them? As has been mentioned, they're just going to cast mommy or daddy's vote to get a bonus on their allowance.

I don't really have a problem with that. The decisions taken by government now affect those kids' future life ... so effectively giving parents extra votes is an OK way to represent the interests of young people.

Plus, the vote is secret. They can take the bonus, tell their parents they voted McCain when really they voted Libertarian. A little lesson in how to deal with people who don't mind their own business -- just lie to them!
BunnySaurus Bugsii
31-10-2008, 03:50
To the question: yes the voting age should be lowered. No, it wouldn't make much difference.

The vast majority of kids are going to vote the same way their entire life, so all that the option of voting younger would do is get those votes one election earlier.

As to a knowledge or IQ test to vote -- I don't think so. Optional voting (one of the few things I want to see introduced from US to Australian politics) already takes care of the truly cynical and apathetic voters. An uniformed voter may be voting on only one issue, which is legitimate and should be catered for by minor parties in a proportional-representation democracy -- yet these people would fail the eligibility test. An IQ test is worse: even a very slow person can learn all the political issues if they're interested and take the time.
Lacadaemon
31-10-2008, 03:58
Why not? It's not like voting achieves anything anyway. Alright, it makes some people feel better about shit, but nothing substantive ever comes from it. So since it can't do any harm, there is no reason not to let everybody vote.

That includes illegals and convicts.
Aggicificicerous
31-10-2008, 04:38
"generally" is what should be used when making judgements about the population at large. My "general" information comes from being a high school teacher in conjunction with a strong background in adolescent developmental psychology.

Forming an opinion is very different than forming an informed opinion. Moreover, you and your friends are not indicative of the population of 16 year olds at large, let alone your personal view of yourself as a 16 year old.

I myself was a mature 16 year old, as were most of my friends. I was interested in politics, economics...that doesn't mean everyone was, or even capable of it.

Oh, right.

Look, I don't know why you keep saying this a peer pressure thing and equate it to sex and drugs at every possible opportunity. Voting is a secret process. There's no peer pressure, because you can vote and then say whatever the heck the want about what you did.
Soheran
31-10-2008, 04:47
Do you think this should be done, and why?

Certainly. It seems to me that enough people in their mid-teens are independent- and critically-minded enough to merit inclusion in politics. True, you'll get idiots and ignorant people in the mix too, but that's how democracy (and all human government, really) works.

we're already having huge problems getting teens to do anything other than just adopt their parents views when they vote for the first time as it is.

Really? Do you have any evidence for that?

Statistically speaking, the best predictor of anyone's political affiliation is the political affiliation of their parents. But there are significant political "generation gaps" nonetheless.
Soheran
31-10-2008, 04:51
Why not? It's not like voting achieves anything anyway. Alright, it makes some people feel better about shit, but nothing substantive ever comes from it. So since it can't do any harm, there is no reason not to let everybody vote.

Can I have twenty million or so votes, then?
Kyronea
31-10-2008, 05:48
Certainly. It seems to me that enough people in their mid-teens are independent- and critically-minded enough to merit inclusion in politics. True, you'll get idiots and ignorant people in the mix too, but that's how democracy (and all human government, really) works.


I believe that the number of "idiots and ignorant people" would vastly overwhelm the independent/critically-minded people at those ages.

Really? Do you have any evidence for that?

Statistically speaking, the best predictor of anyone's political affiliation is the political affiliation of their parents. But there are significant political "generation gaps" nonetheless.

No, I don't. I only have my own experiences, both at that age, and from seeing other people at the same age and how they respond to politics.
Sarkhaan
31-10-2008, 06:13
Oh, right.

Look, I don't know why you keep saying this a peer pressure thing and equate it to sex and drugs at every possible opportunity. Voting is a secret process. There's no peer pressure, because you can vote and then say whatever the heck the want about what you did.

Because it is an identical process when dealing with peer pressure. What happens behind closed doors is private...be it sex, drugs, or voting.
Peer pressure is not about what the hidden life. Kids don't have sex infront of their peers to be cool, they have sex, then share the stories. As Vault 10 said, peer pressure is like air. You don't just pretend to have it...it becomes essential. You have sex because the impression is that everyone is having sex. You smoke because the impression is that everyone is smoking. I can draw similarities beyond sex and drugs. At the school I worked at, shoes were the big draw. To be cool, you had to have nice shoes. As such, even the kids from the poorest families managed to get nice shoes. Sex and drugs are the biggest draws of peer pressure, but hardly the only. It is only logical to draw the conclusion that kids who fall for peer pressure in one situation will fall for it in others...be it sex, drugs, shoes, music players, or voting.
Lacadaemon
31-10-2008, 07:27
Can I have twenty million or so votes, then?

Sure. As long as everyone else gets twenty million votes.
Free Soviets
31-10-2008, 08:24
I believe that the number of "idiots and ignorant people" would vastly overwhelm the independent/critically-minded people at those ages.

and this differentiates those ages from others, how?
Soheran
31-10-2008, 08:34
Sure. As long as everyone else gets twenty million votes.

If voting "can't do any harm", why would it matter whether or not they did?
Esternarx
31-10-2008, 08:47
Around the time in this country when suffrage for women was being debated, Benjamin Tucker remarked,

"There is no freedom that I would grant to any man that I would refuse to woman, and there is no freedom that I would refuse to either man or woman except the freedom to invade ... whoever has the ballot has the freedom to invade, and whoever wants the ballot wants the freedom to invade. Give woman equality with man, by all means; but do it by taking power from man, not giving it to woman."

I think it applies quite aptly to this debate as well. The question should not be whether people under a certain age should be allowed to vote, but rather, whether anyone should have power over anyone else. And if history is to be our judge, in light of the crimes committed in the name of democracy and the greater good, the answer is clearly a resounding NO!
Lacadaemon
31-10-2008, 08:50
If voting "can't do any harm", why would it matter whether or not they did?

Because that would be a concentration of power. And not in the hands of the people who actually run the country, so they'd have to kill you.

But as long as it is one person one vote, and there are defined geographical constituencies, voting really makes very little practical difference. You are simply choosing between two prepackaged options, both of which have been vetted long before you have any say in the matter. So it doesn't matter if the franchise is made completely universal.

But even if you were given 20,000,000 votes, what do you think you could actually do? All you would get is one congressman, two senators, and maybe the swing vote between two presidents. Granted you'd probably find yourself on the board of directors for all sorts of companies, but I doubt very much substantial could be achieved.

This is not to say that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, but it is all 'let the slaves have their religion' type stuff. Anything that is remotely important is decided long before even the politicians get to hear about it.
Free Soviets
31-10-2008, 08:51
Around the time in this country when suffrage for women was being debated, Benjamin Tucker remarked,

"There is no freedom that I would grant to any man that I would refuse to woman, and there is no freedom that I would refuse to either man or woman except the freedom to invade ... whoever has the ballot has the freedom to invade, and whoever wants the ballot wants the freedom to invade. Give woman equality with man, by all means; but do it by taking power from man, not giving it to woman."

I think it applies quite aptly to this debate as well. The question should not be whether people under a certain age should be allowed to vote, but rather, whether anyone should have power over anyone else. And if history is to be our judge, in light of the crimes committed in the name of democracy and the greater good, the answer is clearly a resounding NO!

and here we see the starting point from which anarcho-capitalism quickly descends to mob rule - in the gangster rather than torches and pitchforks sense
Esternarx
31-10-2008, 08:59
and here we see the starting point from which anarcho-capitalism quickly descends to mob rule - in the gangster rather than torches and pitchforks sense

I find it interesting that you failed to address what I said, or perhaps even attempt to understand it, and chose instead to attack an ideology I have not advocated with just the right number of highly connotative buzz words to make yourself sound intelligent.
Free Soviets
31-10-2008, 09:09
I find it interesting that you failed to address what I said, or perhaps even attempt to understand it, and chose instead to attack an ideology I have not advocated with just the right number of highly connotative buzz words to make yourself sound intelligent.

the fantasy that you could make it so that nobody will make big decisions that affect everybody is absurd. its not like the incentives of warlordism will magically disappear. given that fact, we must come to some way of collective decision making that is most in line with justice. any reasonable response is going to be democratic in some sense.
Esternarx
31-10-2008, 09:31
the fantasy that you could make it so that nobody will make big decisions that affect everybody is absurd. its not like the incentives of warlordism will magically disappear. given that fact, we must come to some way of collective decision making that is most in line with justice. any reasonable response is going to be democratic in some sense.

As you seem to consider yourself a competent judge of both absurdity and reason, answer me this: What is the magical number of people required to make right, or "just," an action that would be a blatant and obvious crime if committed by one individual on another? If two out of three men "vote" to kill the third and take his stuff, are they justified in doing so? What if they outnumber him twenty to one? Two-hundred to one? Two million to one? Dear judge, what is the magical number that transforms murder and theft into a greater good?

You are right about one thing, though, and that is that the temptations for seizing power will always exist. There will always be those who see the subjugation of their fellow man as a means to their own ends. But if it is made the goal of society to abolish power, control, and privilege, what makes you think after abolishing the state it would rest while warlords committed the same atrocities they just escaped from?
Aggicificicerous
31-10-2008, 15:58
Because it is an identical process when dealing with peer pressure. What happens behind closed doors is private...be it sex, drugs, or voting.
Peer pressure is not about what the hidden life. Kids don't have sex infront of their peers to be cool, they have sex, then share the stories. As Vault 10 said, peer pressure is like air. You don't just pretend to have it...it becomes essential. You have sex because the impression is that everyone is having sex. You smoke because the impression is that everyone is smoking. I can draw similarities beyond sex and drugs. At the school I worked at, shoes were the big draw. To be cool, you had to have nice shoes. As such, even the kids from the poorest families managed to get nice shoes. Sex and drugs are the biggest draws of peer pressure, but hardly the only. It is only logical to draw the conclusion that kids who fall for peer pressure in one situation will fall for it in others...be it sex, drugs, shoes, music players, or voting.

No it isn't. If you have sex, your partner can tell other people about it regardless of what you say. If you get drunk or stoned, you usually do it at a party, where there are lots of other people around. In other words, they include or require other people. Voting is not by any stretch a "hip" (or whatever it's called) thing to do; if there will be any peer pressure, it will be not to vote at all. But there is no logic in assuming that two unrelated things will yield identical outcomes. How do you exert peer pressure over voting anyway?

The days of Al Capone are over. You can vote and lie however the heck you want, and people will have no way to find the truth. Not only that, but you place too much emphasis on peer pressure. The way you put it, it's the be all to end all, the final deciding force in any high school. Perhaps you have seen more of high school society than I have. So when a matter like politics comes up, what happens?
Edwards Street
31-10-2008, 17:51
18 is fine by me, since someone is legally considered an adult at 18. As for the argument that people under 18 voting would make democracies worse, I don't buy that, are apathetic adults who are ignorant about government voting in large numbers?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
31-10-2008, 21:51
I'm old in mind only thank you!

Right, right.