NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to make sure people know about it, there's a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen on change.org. Go vote (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16)!

No teenagers are dumb. they will catch on to every trend and vote in what everway their social circle votes.

Why?

Really there is no reason for it. The only reason I believe it is at 18 is because of the fact one is a legal adult at 18. I am actually for raising the legal adult age to 20 with all rights enabled at that time including voting, military service,drinking and other adult rights.

Glarus had a vote on this one I believe. It was repealed in an epic way. Good on them.

i mean the only thing a 16 year old can do is drive and in most states have sex with an older man.

I'd want to lower the age to 16, but that might have somethign to sue with the fact I'll be that in a few months...

No. Hell no. Oh god no. I remember being 16. No way in hell should I have been allowed to vote!

OH HELL NO!

That makes even less sense than lowering the U.S. drinking age to 18 right now.

That makes even less sense than lowering the U.S. drinking age to 18 right now.

Actually, lowering the drinking age to 18 would be fine. It's not like the 18 year olds aren't getting alcohol anyway.

no thanks. 18 is fine.

Technically it'd be best to base voting age on mental age instead of physical age, but (1) there's no surefire way of telling mental age and (2) we'd have to put up with Dubya whining about how presidents should not be stripped of the right to vote.

seems like the obvious thing to do

18 seems fine to me.

i think this is a plot by Hollywood so actors win more elections.

I can see the teenage girls
" I am voting for Dicapro(or what ever heart throb) cause he is sooooo hot.
And I got my BF to vote for him too, by convincing him he is gay. "

That makes even less sense than lowering the U.S. drinking age to 18 right now.

too old. we should really do away with the whole illicitness of drinking entirely, thus undermining a large part of the stupidity involved.

i think this is a plot by Hollywood so actors win more elections.

How often do actors even try to win elections?

How often do actors even try to win elections?

Ah-nold, Ray-gun Ronnie, and (technically) Jesse Ventury all come to mind. And they were the one who won.

Ah-nold, Ray-gun Ronnie, and (technically) Jesse Ventury all come to mind. And they were the one who won.
So 3 ever? Man, they need all the help they can get.

Voting age should remain the same. I'm a minor, and I think it should remain the same. But at the same time I think you need to take a test to determine whether or not you have the mental capacity to vote in a sensible way.

The voting age is low enough...18 to go to war and 18 to vote seems about right.....

But there IS that Drinking age to consider, lol...

EDIT: also the voting tab just says 'vote' if I click on it do I get to choose no, Or does it automatically go to the number?

Kagetora;14392666']Voting age should remain the same. I'm a minor, and I think it should remain the same. But at the same time I think you need to take a test to determine whether or not you have the mental capacity to vote in a sensible way.

Kind of opens up a possible avenue of abuse. What is "vote in a sensible way" means "vote Party X"?

Kagetora;14392666']Voting age should remain the same. I'm a minor, and I think it should remain the same. But at the same time I think you need to take a test to determine whether or not you have the mental capacity to vote in a sensible way.

'cause that's always worked out so well before...

'cause that's always worked out so well before...

Was it ever done before?

Kind of opens up a possible avenue of abuse. What is "vote in a sensible way" means "vote Party X"?

Well, since I am part of Party X im completely okay with that, lol...

Was it ever done before?

Yeah, look up Jim Crow laws...it wasnt pleasant...

How often do actors even try to win elections?

likely a ton once the 16 yr olds got to vote.

likely a ton once the 16 yr olds got to vote.

why? even if every single 16 and 17 year old voted, and they all voted as a block, how exactly would that shift outcomes except in already close races?

how many teenagers do you think there are?

Yeah, look up Jim Crow laws...it wasnt pleasant...

Jim Crow laws were about segregation as far as I can tell, not requirements for voting.

Jim Crow laws were about segregation as far as I can tell, not requirements for voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_tests

Just to make sure people know about it, there's a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen on [spam removed]
Discussed a thousand times.

Personally I think 18 is a bit early to vote, and early to enlist as well (at least in full capacity) - but they have to match. Still, I'd rather move it to 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/literacy_tests

oic.

I think that only I, LG, and the mods should be allowed to vote and hold office.

As well, Ruffy should be kept in his cage.

I think that only Ifreann, LG, and the mods should be allowed to vote and hold office.

As well, Ruffy should be kept in his cage.

Fixed.

Discussed a thousand times.

Personally I think 18 is a bit early to vote, and early to enlist as well (at least in full capacity) - but they have to match. Still, I'd rather move it to 20.

A year ago, Id probably disagree...but now, lol, Meh...

I think thatd be the 16 yr olds biggest challenge...and most other minorities...

Personally I think 18 is a bit early to vote, and early to enlist as well (at least in full capacity) - but they have to match.

why should they match? they seem like clearly distinct sorts of things, so why shouldn't they be treated differently? for example, there is no danger in voting (at least not when done in countries with reasonable voter protections and non-insane democratic traditions), while joining the armed forces seems like exactly the sort of thing we should protect developing minds from committing to.

why should they match? they seem like clearly distinct sorts of things, so why shouldn't they be treated differently? for example, there is no danger in voting (at least not when done in countries with reasonable voter protections and non-insane democratic traditions), while joining the armed forces seems like exactly the sort of thing we should protect developing minds from committing to.

Well, A) you dont want people who are eligible to serve, to not be able to vote...

and B) I dont want people who are not of Serving Age voting...

Technically it'd be best to base voting age on mental age instead of physical age, but (1) there's no surefire way of telling mental age and [...]
More precisely, there's none at all, for there's no such thing as mental age. There only is a number of psychological traits which correlate with specific physical ages.

Those of them we like, like punctuality, we call signs of maturity, and those we don't like, like questioning your elders, we call signs of immaturity. And those we don't like but which still come with age, like laziness and indifference, we ignore as flaws of specific people, even though they're much more correlated with age than the traits we normally count as "mental age".

Actually, lowering the drinking age to 18 would be fine. It's not like the 18 year olds aren't getting alcohol anyway.

If American culture didn't view alcohol consumption as an expression of rebellion, lowering the drinking age to 18 would be fine. However, it would only make binge drinking problems worse. Would you advocate lowering the drinking age to 16? To 14?

I RP Sarzonia's ages for everything (voting, driving, drinking, age of consent) at 18. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the U.S. to follow suit. Or lower the voting age to 16.

Some 16 year olds are mature enough to vote at 16. Hell, some 14 year olds probably could. But there are plenty of people who aren't mature enough at 16 to vote. Hell, there are probably 20-somethings who don't know enough to vote responsibly.

Fixed.Nope, it was right.

No teenagers are dumb. they will catch on to every trend and vote in what everway their social circle votes.

This.

Seriously.

This.

Most teenagers cant even avoid doing stupid and sometimes self destructive fads. Why should I think they'll think for themselves and make informed desicions when it comes to voting?

Most teenagers follow whatever fad MTV or some other such nonsense throws at them. Why should I believe they wont just vote for who MTV tells them to vote for? Or for that matter, why should I believe they wont vote for whoever their favorite celebrity/rapper endorses?*

Most teenagers cant even be bothered to study or do their homework. Why should I believe they'll ever bother to do the research about who the proper candidate is?

Im only 21, I was a teenager not too long ago. I have two teenage siblings (one 18 one 15). I remember and am reminded of how teenagers are.

*- And then there are the anti-conformist teenagers, like I was, who will pobably just vote whoever the cool kids arent voting for, or whoever MTV isnt endorsing.

Well, A) you dont want people who are eligible to serve, to not be able to vote...

and B) I dont want people who are not of Serving Age voting...

definitely agreed on A on fairly standard representation grounds, but why B? especially since there will certainly be people who are too old to be eligible to join or serve the armed forces who will be allowed to vote...

why should they match? they seem like clearly distinct sorts of things, so why shouldn't they be treated differently?
It comes from the times there was drafting. Being old enough to be drafted, but not allowed to vote would be gross injustice, isolating the people in question from any involvement in decisions about their fate.


for example, there is no danger in voting
There is - electing the wrong president.

why? even if every single 16 and 17 year old voted, and they all voted as a block, how exactly would that shift outcomes except in already close races?

how many teenagers do you think there are?

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/November/20071105201635ndyblehs0.4566614.html


seems a lot have run for office.

Helen Gahagan Douglas, Shirley Temple Black, Clint Eastwood, Fred Grandy, Ben Jones, Sonny Bono, Pat Paulsen, and others.

The thing with elections is they are a balancing act. with most states/ districts being along the lines of a 48 52 split or 45 55 split at the most extreme. Actors don't run in districts where their party has a majority. they run as republicans in democrat states or districts because a few percentage points is all they need to win, and their star power can provide them with that. you lower the voting age and you give this star power another 2 or 3% points easily.

Most teenagers cant even be bothered to study or do their homework. Why should I believe they'll ever bother to do the research about who the proper candidate is?

why should i believe that this is a requirement we hold anyone else to in order to let them vote?
why should i believe that these slacker teens are even going to bother turning out to vote at all?

Some 16 year olds are mature enough to vote at 16. Hell, some 14 year olds probably could. But there are plenty of people who aren't mature enough at 16 to vote. Hell, there are probably 20-somethings who don't know enough to vote responsibly.
"Maturity" is heavily subjective. Voting rights should be tied to objective things, such as involvement in workforce or commitment to it.

I'll continue your list. Hell, there are some 10 year olds that are mature enough to vote for the party I like. And hell, there are some 40 year olds that don't know enough to vote for the party I like.

If American culture didn't view alcohol consumption as an expression of rebellion, lowering the drinking age to 18 would be fine. However, it would only make binge drinking problems worse. Would you advocate lowering the drinking age to 16? To 14?


Are 16 year olds not getting alcohol anyway, 14 year olds?

Its beside the point, If your old enough to be Drafted, you should be considered old enough to do anything and everything else legally....

This.

Seriously.

This.



Wait a minute..... are we agreeing ????

Was it ever done before?

Prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965? Absolutely.

Reading and "intelligence" tests were used to deny African Americans the right to vote prior to the Voting Rights Act.

Not only do I believe that people under 18 should be able to vote, I think they should be able to run. I want to see a ten year old in the White House. Maybe bring some common sense back to politics.

Of course, we'll have to keep the kids away from the Republicans...

why should i believe that this is a requirement we hold anyone else to in order to let them vote?

It doesnt matter if you believe it or not. In most cases, youre right. But, if your old enough to fight our wars, you should have a say in who is in charge to start them. Thats why 18 is the perfect age.


Are 18 year olds usually better then teenagers? No. Rarely in fact. However, they are old enough to get shot for the country, they should be old enough to have a say over who puts them in harm's way.


EDIT: Unless you want to lower the draft to 16.

Not only do I believe that people under 18 should be able to vote, I think they should be able to run. I want to see a ten year old in the White House. Maybe bring some common sense back to politics.

Of course, we'll have to keep the kids away from the Republicans...

Do they have to be literally 10, or can they just be mentally ten? Because, well, we've had that. It wasnt pretty. And we have a few on the right looking to continue that proud tradition.

Honestly, the best reason to be against this is simple. 16 year olds rarely have a serious stake in the outcome of an election. They cant enlist and they rarely pay taxes (and if they do, they get most of it back via tax returns anyway). Why should they have a say in who makes decisions?

Do they have to be literally 10, or can they just be mentally ten? Because, well, we've had that. It wasnt pretty. And we have a few on the right looking to continue that proud tradition.

I think you're being very insulting to ten year olds. :(

Not only do I believe that people under 18 should be able to vote, I think they should be able to run. I want to see a ten year old in the White House. Maybe bring some common sense back to politics.

Of course, we'll have to keep the kids away from the Republicans...
It's Prez all over again. :eek:

Honestly, the best reason to be against this is simple. 16 year olds rarely have a serious stake in the outcome of an election.

laws don't apply to them? they don't have ideals they would like to see enacted?

laws don't apply to them? they don't have ideals they would like to see enacted?

Im sure there are and they do...

but they cannot legally fight for them, so they shouldnt legally be able to vote for or against them...

laws don't apply to them? they don't have ideals they would like to see enacted?

1. Most of the laws that apply to them that are likely to be changed, such as tax and marriage laws, are not going to matter to them until their 18 anyway.

2. Yes, they do have ideals they would like to be enacted. But so does a three year old. That doesnt mean those ideals are something we should really care about.


I stand by all my arguement against 16 year olds voting. From their immaturity, their unlikliness to really make an informed decision, to their not having a serious stake in the outcome.

Im sure there are and they do...

but they cannot legally fight for them, so they shouldnt legally be able to vote for or against them...

neither the elderly nor the disabled are going into combat. are you taking their votes away?

neither the elderly nor the disabled are going into combat. are you taking their votes away?

They pay taxes.

They pay taxes.

so do teenagers

neither the elderly nor the disabled are going into combat. are you taking their votes away?

Well...Now that you mention it, it might not be a bad idea, lol...

But, in all seriousness, they at least, as in the Elderly, already were eligible for the draft, as opposed to sixteen year olds, who have not...

As for the Disabled, well there's alot of Disabled Sixteen year olds too...I dont think anyone's about to push a Blanket Disabled Voting Bill one way or the other....

so do teenagers

Yet they usually pay so little that they get almost all of it back via tax returns.

Yet they usually pay so little that they get almost all of it back via tax returns.

so do a very large percentage of people, as far as income tax goes. also, sales tax?

so do a very large percentage of people, as far as income tax goes.

Id be interested to see a source for this. Also, there is property tax/rent to consider.


also, sales tax?

Sales tax is something you arent required to pay, if you dont buy anything. And since most teenagers have neccessities like food bought for them...

Id be interested to see a source for this. Also, there is property tax/rent to consider.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Amount of taxes paid by bracket. Note that the <50% paid an average of 3.01% of their income in taxes, while the top 1% paid 22.79% of their income in taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Amount of taxes paid by bracket. Note that the <50% paid an average of 3.01% of their income in taxes, while the top 1% paid 22.79% of their income in taxes.

But that is actually very fair, since the top 1% has >50% of the Wealth...In fact I think the percentage should be raised...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Amount of taxes paid by bracket. Note that the <50% paid an average of 3.01% of their income in taxes, while the top 1% paid 22.79% of their income in taxes.

Time to express my economic ignorance. Is 3% low enough to get most of it back via tax return?

Id be interested to see a source for this.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html

Also, there is property tax/rent to consider.

Sales tax is something you arent required to pay, if you dont buy anything. And since most teenagers have neccessities like food bought for them...

let's save time. how much tax does one need to pay, and of what sort, to be worthy of voting rights?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html



let's save time. how much tax does one need to pay, and of what sort, to be worthy of voting rights?

Why would taxes be considered a basis for Voting rights anyway?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html



let's save time. how much tax does one need to pay, and of what sort, to be worthy of voting rights?

Any tax where the government doesnt give the vat majority of it back.

But its not just that. Its this, combined with not being old enough to enlist, combined with the maturity issues, combined with not fully developed brains.

Yes, 18 year olds have the maturity issue too but they are old enough to fight and pay taxes, so they should get a say.

16 year olds rarely have a serious stake in the outcome of an election. They cant enlist and they rarely pay taxes (and if they do, they get most of it back via tax returns anyway). Why should they have a say in who makes decisions?


Single parents often don't pay taxes (or they get it back in tax returns), just as your claim for sixteen year olds. They also are not practically able to enlist in the armed forces if they have a younger child, as they are legally bound to support their child. Do you want to forbid single parents from voting?
In fact, at sixteen, people have more of a stake in the results of the election than a single parent. They'll be eighteen before the next election, so the results of the election WILL affect them in the ways you describe. (To be clear, I do not support such restrictions. I am merely using them as an analogy.)

As to the claim that teens will simply vote however their social circle dictates, that will likely be true in some situations. Adults certainly do so at times. Not all will, though. (I'd also doubt your "nonconformist" claim if you just do whatever the opposite of the majority says. A true nonconformist does not allow their preferences to be dictated by the majority.)

I'd like to take the opportunity to quote the United States Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Look at that carefully. "All persons born or naturalised within the United States ... are citizens", and "[n]o state shall deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One liberty in the United States is the right of citizens to vote. Citizenship is not granted at age eighteen, but at birth. The right to vote is given to ALL citizens, and may only be revoked "with due process of law". A blanket ban against people based upon age is illegal, just as a blanket ban against race or sex is illegal.

With this in mind, it is a fair question to ask why I would support only lowering the voting age to sixteen. I would respond by saying that, while I would prefer the voting age eliminated, lowering the age to sixteen would be a significant step. According to the 2000 United States Census, there are 8,021,033 citizens between the ages of sixteen and eighteen who are denied the right to vote. Lowering the voting age just two years would remove illegal restrictions on the right to vote of over EIGHT MILLION people. Campaigning to lower the voting age to sixteen is much more likely to work than eliminating it completely. I am certainly willing to accept some progress to none.

For these reasons, the voting age should be lowered to sixteen (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16) at the soonest possible opportunity.

Time to express my economic ignorance. Is 3% low enough to get most of it back via tax return?

3% is the average amount paid on their income, for the bottom 50%. For example - made $30,000 and paid about $900 in taxes.

However, a teenager is likely to pay more taxes than the average grownup, for several reasons. Taxes are designed to benefit the older working class family.

Family - Husband, Wife, Two kids

If the husband and wife's combined income is 18,700 (poverty level), they will receive a refund of ~$4,700 - never having paid a dime in.

Single, no kids at the same income (18,700) will pay ~$1,100 in taxes.

Ive met plenty of 16 year olds with more of a clue as to how a country should be governed than people far older than them, most who didn't have a clue just wouldn't vote.

there was a time when people were considered adult at 12.

and to say that 16 year olds have any less stake in society than an older person is frankly bullshit, they will be older someday for one thing, for another they are being educated by that very society and so should learn that there views count earlier. The voting age should be lowered!

It may also teach greater responsibility.

To the OP's question: why not? Some young people are stupid or ill-informed, but so are a lot of adults. At least young people tend to lean left. Right now my first priority in American politics is to make sure that until they reform their policies and party leadership and become a viable opposition in a modern democracy instead of maintaining a vision which is leading towards bankruptcy, dictatorship, and civil war, the Republican Party never wins the Presidency or either House of Congress again.

Ive met plenty of 16 year olds with more of a clue as to how a country should be governed than people far older than them, most who didn't have a clue just wouldn't vote.

there was a time when people were considered adult at 12.

and to say that 16 year olds have any less stake in society than an older person is frankly bullshit, they will be older someday for one thing, for another they are being educated by that very society and so should learn that there views count earlier. The voting age should be lowered!

It may also teach greater responsibility.

They have a stake if they can never get a first job. They have a stake if they're sick and their family goes broke paying their (or their dad's) medical bills. They have a stake if they're going to a school. They have a stake if they might be killed in a terrorist attack. They each have a stake in countless other ways.

Everyone has a stake. The only question is when one is mentally capable enough to vote, and the bar should be set low so that no one is denied their rights and their voice. Their is no reason why an average sixteen year old can't vote. If a sixteen year old is old enough to work, live alone, drive, or be tried as an adult, surely they are fucking well old enough to vote.

Single parents often don't pay taxes (or they get it back in tax returns), just as your claim for sixteen year olds. They also are not practically able to enlist in the armed forces if they have a younger child, as they are legally bound to support their child. Do you want to forbid single parents from voting?

We are not going to get into who I want to stop from voting, because the list is rather long. But single parents still usually pay taxes. They also can serve in the military, they just can get exempt if they choose to. They can leave the kid with grandma or something.

A 16 year old does not even have the option to serve.

In fact, at sixteen, people have more of a stake in the results of the election than a single parent.

orly?

As to the claim that teens will simply vote however their social circle dictates, that will likely be true in most situations.

Fixed.

Adults certainly do so at times.

Far less frequently, and they are also fully developed mentally.


I'd like to take the opportunity to quote the United States Constitution

Look at that carefully. "All persons born or naturalised within the United States ... are citizens", and "[n]o state shall deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One liberty in the United States is the right of citizens to vote. Citizenship is not granted at age eighteen, but at birth. The right to vote is given to ALL citizens, and may only be revoked "with due process of law". A blanket ban against people based upon age is illegal, just as a blanket ban against race or sex is illegal.

This arguement fails, because it ignores the fact that we do place limits on constitutional rights. And they do not mean liberty in the sense of how you mean it.

But assuming this arguement isnt made of fail: So its illegal to have a drinking age? Buy cigarettes? Ect.? To have an age to drive?

I would respond by saying that, while I would prefer the voting age eliminated,

This is where I stop taking you seriously.

Lowering the voting age just two years would remove illegal restrictions on the right to vote of over EIGHT MILLION people.

Not illegal.

Single parents often don't pay taxes (or they get it back in tax returns), just as your claim for sixteen year olds. They also are not practically able to enlist in the armed forces if they have a younger child, as they are legally bound to support their child. Do you want to forbid single parents from voting?
In fact, at sixteen, people have more of a stake in the results of the election than a single parent. They'll be eighteen before the next election, so the results of the election WILL affect them in the ways you describe. (To be clear, I do not support such restrictions. I am merely using them as an analogy.)

first a tax credit for children rarely gets a parent out of paying taxes.
second single parents can serve in the armed forces they simply have to have a guardian lined up while that parent is in basic, or in the event of deployment.

14th amendment Snip.

First the 14th amendment is referring to 5th amendment protections and forcing states to abide by those.
Second Article 1 clause 1 of the Constitution allows states to determine elegiabilty of voters provided they obey the 15th(race religion), 19th(women), 24th(no poll tax) and 26th(18 years of age) amendment.

most who didn't have a clue just wouldn't vote.

This. Those teenagers who bother enough to vote would bother enough to get enough of a clue for voting.

It's actually a little disturbing how keen some people are to throw away other people's right to participate in politics... sure, there has to be a line, but we should definitely be erring on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

first a tax credit for children rarely gets a parent out of paying taxes.

Frequently it does.

For one child:

First it grants them two exemptions instead of 1, knocking $3,500 off their taxable income. It also takes them from single to head of household status - knocking another $2,550 off their taxable income.

It also places them in a more liberal bracket for earned income credit (depending on income, it's always an equal or higher credit thanks to a kid), and it grants them $1,000 child tax credit, which is taken directly against their tax. If this wipes out their tax, it can also be taken as additional child tax credit (subject to limitations), which can be refundable even if they haven't paid anything in.

This $3,500 exemption is multiplied by the number of children they have. The $1,000 child tax credit is as well.

most who didn't have a clue just wouldn't vote.



wrong. many polling places are held in schools and most damaging of all it would be a chance to avoid class. Dare I say those with the most intelligence and idea of whats going on would likely stay in glass to get a slightly higher grade rather then vote.

This. Those teenagers who bother enough to vote would bother enough to get enough of a clue for voting.

It's actually a little disturbing how keen some people are to throw away other people's right to participate in politics... sure, there has to be a line, but we should definitely be erring on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

How many 16 year old girls would have voted for Obama because he was "omg hott"?

How many 16 year old guys would have voted for Palin because she was "hawt".

They have a stake if they can never get a first job. They have a stake if they're sick and their family goes broke paying their (or their dad's) medical bills. They have a stake if they're going to a school. They have a stake if they might be killed in a terrorist attack. They each have a stake in countless other ways.

Everyone has a stake. The only question is when one is mentally capable enough to vote, and the bar should be set low so that no one is denied their rights and their voice. Their is no reason why an average sixteen year old can't vote. If a sixteen year old is old enough to work, live alone, drive, or be tried as an adult, surely they are fucking well old enough to vote.
So why not 10-years of age? I know some smart 10-year-olds.

No one has yet to show cause as to why we need to lower it. 16-year-olds cannot serve in the military (which, due to the draft was the reason why it was lowered from 21 to 18 back in the day) and most are not working to support themselves. Yes, 18 is a somewhat arbitrary age, but it does cast the net wide enough to make sure that most people of that age are capable of adult reasoning AND have enough experience to use it wisely (Whether they do or not is another question). Can you show the same for 16-year-olds?

Why not make everyone pass the citizenship test before they are allowed to vote? If people can do it when they're 16, let them. If people can't when they're 35, don't let them.

Oh, and by the way: if people under 18 can't think like adults and don't have adult rights they shouldn't be able to be considered adults if they commit a crime. If they don't know right from wrong in voting how do they know right and wrong in crime? You can apply all of the same arguments.

Oh, and by the way: if people under 18 can't think like adults and don't have adult rights they shouldn't be able to be considered adults if they commit a crime.

I agree. Whats your point?

So why not 10-years of age? I know some smart 10-year-olds.

Is that a strawman, a slippery slope fallacy, both, or something else altogether?:confused:

No one has yet to show cause as to why we need to lower it. 16-year-olds cannot serve in the military (which, due to the draft was the reason why it was lowered from 21 to 18 back in the day)

What does that matter? Their are other measures of maturity and worth than the ability to serve in the military.

You know, contrary to what some people think, and most are not working to support themselves. Yes, 18 is a somewhat arbitrary age, but it does cast the net wide enough to make sure that most people of that age are capable of adult reasoning AND have enough experience to use it wisely (Whether they do or not is another question). Can you show the same for 16-year-olds?

I repeat, lot's of 16 year olds live alone, work at jobs, and are trusted to learn how to drive multi-ton hunks of metal fueled with explosives (admittedly they won't have a full license yet). Could you address these points please?

As an aside, I will voluntarily withdraw an argument I previously made. Though lowering the voting age would doubtlessly screw up the GOP, that's not a good reason. Rights should not be extended or withdrawn based upon political expediency.

Far less frequently, and [adults] are also fully developed mentally.

That part amused me.

I agree. Whats your point?

The fact that America is perfectly fine with considering kids in their early teens as adults if they commit a crime, but not if they're extremely intelligent and want to vote for the future of their nation.

How many 16 year old girls would have voted for Obama because he was "omg hott"?

How many 16 year old guys would have voted for Palin because she was "hawt".

I don't know, but I'd suggest that your assessments here may be more founded in prejudice and stereotypes than reality.

The simple fact of the matter is that physical attractiveness matters in politics, for teenagers and adults alike, but the number of people too lazy to use any other standard at all yet not lazy enough to just not bother voting is not likely to be very high.

I was sixteen once, too... and while my judgment then and now was that very few of my peers should have been driving or drinking alcohol, giving them voting rights would not have been anything to worry about.

Oh, I'll add: the people who are going to be making decisions based on the attractiveness of a person won't change in two or three years--they'll just learn to lie about how they're deciding things better.

Why not make everyone pass the citizenship test before they are allowed to vote?

No. Along with the general problems with using voting tests, a lot of the stuff on a citizenship test is not anything people actually need to know.

Is that a strawman, a slippery slope fallacy, both, or something else altogether?:confused:

No, the arguement flows. "OMG WE ARE DENYING RIGHTS BASED ON AGE!!!" So, why not ten year olds then?



I repeat, lot's of 16 year olds live alone

Source?

No. Along with the general problems with using voting tests, a lot of the stuff on a citizenship test is not anything people actually need to know.

Well, I'll amend my suggestion. I didn't mean to refer to the current citizenship test. Obviously it needs to be changed. But the standard to get political rights should be the same no matter where you are born. Anyways, I digress.

I agree that there are problems with voting tests, as demonstrated in the post-civil war racist South. I would rather have no test, of course, but I'd rather have a test than have 35 year olds who have no idea what the President even does vote and have brilliant 16 year olds sitting at home twiddling their thumbs.

No one has yet to show cause as to why we need to lower it.

I would argue it is your responsibility to explain how the harm of allowing people to vote exceeds the harm from forbidding them from voting.

I would argue it is your responsibility to explain how the harm of allowing people to vote exceeds the harm from forbidding them from voting.

No, see, when somethings the law, its your job to argue why it should be changed.

Besides, there is no harm in forbiding them to vote.

No, see, when somethings the law, its your job to argue why it should be changed.

When you're trying to prevent someone from having a political voice, it's your responsibility to demonstrate the necessity. Look up the standards for evaluating the Constitutionality of things that infringe on rights. It's called strict scrutiny. Now, bear in mind that I'm not saying that this applies in a legal sense--I don't want to open that argument right now. However, from a merely debating perspective, strict scrutiny applies when something violates a fundamental right (like voting) and requires:

1. Compelling governmental interest
2. Narrowly tailored law
3. Least restrictive means

If you can explain to me how a blanket restriction of voting rights fits all of those categories, you'll have me interested.

By the way--if you somehow passed an amendment re-instituting slavery it would be your responsibility to argue for it, not mine to argue against.

Besides, there is no harm in forbiding them to vote.

yes there is. beyond taxation and regulation without representation in the abstract, restricting the franchise without a really fucking good reason is itself a harm.

Besides, there is no harm in forbiding them to vote.

This got added after I posted--

Are you serious? Because up until this point I thought you were a reasonably rational debater. Please tell me this is a joke.

I would rather have no test, of course, but I'd rather have a test than have 35 year olds who have no idea what the President even does vote

Who needs to know what the president does? Seriously, why does it matter? A vague idea of "He or she helps decide national policy" is good enough.

I am for voting at 16! Many people twice that age do not vote maybe it will get them out. I am for drinking and everything at 19. Chances are at 18 /19 you are doing it anyway so what is the big deal?

No, see, when somethings the law, its your job to argue why it should be changed.

Nonsense. By the very nature of a democracy, the presumption must be not restricting the suffrage: the premise of a democratic society is that people have the right to participate in politics, and if you want to deny a right to someone you always need a really good reason.

Who needs to know what the president does? Seriously, why does it matter? A vague idea of "He or she helps decide national policy" is good enough.

Because people should know what they're voting for.

Oh, and by the way: if people under 18 can't think like adults and don't have adult rights they shouldn't be able to be considered adults if they commit a crime. If they don't know right from wrong in voting how do they know right and wrong in crime? You can apply all of the same arguments.
Hate to tell you this, but excepting extreme violent cases (I.e. murder in the 1st with circumstances), they are NOT charged as an adult. If you shoplift, you get dumped in the juvenile system and your record gets wiped at age 18. This is NOT the case if you try five fingered discounting at 18 years plus one day.

Is that a strawman, a slippery slope fallacy, both, or something else altogether?:confused:
Showing that if you say 16is cool because 18 is just an arbitrary age then why is 16 different? Actually, why is 16 different than, say, 15? Or 14? Why 16? Just because you can drive? I got my permit at 15 and 1/2 and I didn't get my license until 17 when I actually needed it. I also started working at age 14. So why 16 and not 10?

What does that matter? Their are other measures of maturity and worth than the ability to serve in the military.
*sighs* Re-read what I wrote. The age was lowered to 18 because at that time, that was the draft age and it was considered a social injustice that someone who might be called upon to die for his country couldn't vote. That was then, what compelling social injustice is needed to be corrected now that calls for the age to be lowered?

I repeat, lot's of 16 year olds live alone, work at jobs, and are trusted to learn how to drive multi-ton hunks of metal fueled with explosives (admittedly they won't have a full license yet). Could you address these points please?
Lots? How many is lots? The bulk live at home and are still dependent upon their parents. But living alone does not make one an adult. And as for job, I worked one when I was 14, does that mean I should have been allowed to vote at that age? And what does working a job actually do? Why should the full rights of citizens be granted then? Most jobs that 16-year-olds have will NOT be to support themselves, but for spending cash. The bulk are not paying rent, they are not being primary breadwinners, so what? Working at Taco Bell means that you should be able to vote now? And as for driving, wanna tell me what that has to do with anything? Especially considering that many states are now working to restrict teen driving because they HAVE proven themselves over and over again to not be responsible enough drivers?

I would argue it is your responsibility to explain how the harm of allowing people to vote exceeds the harm from forbidding them from voting.
No, it is YOUR job to explain why the Constitution should be amended. That document doesn't get changed because someone had a really kewl idea, because, like, I think that 16-year-olds should get to vote, you know?

When you're trying to prevent someone from having a political voice, it's your responsibility to demonstrate the necessity. Look up the standards for evaluating the Constitutionality of things that infringe on rights. It's called strict scrutiny. Now, bear in mind that I'm not saying that this applies in a legal sense--I don't want to open that argument right now. However, from a merely debating perspective, strict scrutiny applies when something violates a fundamental right (like voting) and requires:

1. Compelling governmental interest
2. Narrowly tailored law
3. Least restrictive means

If you can explain to me how a blanket restriction of voting rights fits all of those categories, you'll have me interested.
Compelling government interest: Balancing the idea of given citizens the vote who have the ability and experience to use it wisely, most teens still have not reached that status. Most teens are dependent upon their parents, meaning they have less to no stake in issues such as taxation, military affairs, domestic or foreign affairs, and, indeed, are usually not legally bound or responsible to society the way an adult is.

See, that's the kicker, and tell ya what. If we do allow 16 years to be the age of majority, that would mean lowering every other protection. At 16, you will not have mandatory schooling. Which is great, I'm sure, but then again I think that a good, strong argument for the abolition of free schooling for those who would want to continue it could be made. We don't pay for 18-year-olds to go to college for free now do we? At age 16, your parents will no longer be legally required to support you. You will have no recourse with the courts for abandonment, there will be no ward of the courts, and no shelter to fall back on. You, instead, will be left to fend on your own in the adult support system. You will face the adult criminal justice system if you commit a crime and your record will not be wiped. You will be past the protections offered to you as a youth being stupid and will be treated as an adult offender. With the mandatory sentencing guidelines that go with that. You will be held accountable for any financial problems you get into. It will be your record that will reflect any bankruptcy, bad credit, or other issues and that will follow you for a number of years.

In short, the compelling government interest here is that children are awarded numerous protections in exchange for not having the right to vote. But, it's a two way street. You want to be an adult, you will have to BE an adult, without the education currently expected by the rest of the country and the experience needed to survive.

By the way--if you somehow passed an amendment re-instituting slavery it would be your responsibility to argue for it, not mine to argue against.
Except it is YOU who is arguing for an amendment to the US Constitution so YOU need to argue for it, and I have yet to see any compelling arguments.

Because people should know what they're voting for.

Too vague to be meaningful.

"I support Barack Obama because I like what he says about the economy"--does that cease to be a legitimate basis to vote for him if I can't explain to you how the veto process works?

So now you have to organize party, get donors and put it through. It would serve us right. When the Jonas Brother's get elected Senator maybe the rest of us will wake up.

No, see, when somethings the law, its your job to argue why it should be changed.

Besides, there is no harm in forbiding them to vote.

As I'm sure you know, the burden of proof could easily be its own debate. In the interest of keeping this on topic, however, I'll argue for changing the law.

The harm in forbidding people from voting at sixteen is clearly evident. I'll address several issues here.

First, a clear double standard is noted. Even before the age of sixteen, a person can be tried as an adult for crimes. However, they do not have the similar ability to have their right to vote recognised. Even for crimes tried in juvenile courts, the right to vote is important so that people can vote for politicians who set the laws which they are tried under.

Second, young people do pay taxes. Teens pay an estimated $9.7 billion in sales taxes. The IRS says You may be a teen, you may not even have a permanent job, but you have to pay taxes on the money you earn.". Clearly, teens are taxed. They also are not given the right to vote.

Thirdly, politicians are comfortable passing anti-youth legislation, because the target of such legislation is not able to vote them out of office. Some young people, in an attempt to be heard, resort to violence.

Forth, it is important to note that there is a unique perspective from young people that should not be ignored. Although some will argue that they are wrong, remember that there is no such thing as a wrong vote, and that no one is the sole arbiter of right and wrong.

Fifth, at sixteen, people have typically been a part of their community for a long time. Although this is less important in national elections, it is highly important for local races. Those at eighteen are often moving to a new state, and must either vote in an unfamiliar community or via absentee ballot. Given the difficulty of this, many simply do not vote.

Sixth, lowering the voting age would increase voter turnout. Part of this comes from the fact that, having started at a younger age, people are more accustomed to voting. Furthermore, the parents of younger voters would also be encouraged to vote. One need only look at mock voting offered at polling places to see this. Imagine if real votes were permitted.

I'd also like to include a quote

If 16-year-olds are old enough to drink the water polluted by the industries that you regulate, if 16-year-olds are old enough to breathe the air ruined by garbage burners that government built, if 16-year-olds are old enough to walk on the streets made unsafe by terrible drugs and crime policies, if 16-year-olds are old enough to live in poverty in the richest country in the world, if 16-year-olds are old enough to get sick in a country with the worst public health-care programs in the world, and if 16-year-olds are old enough to attend school districts that you underfund, then 16-year-olds are old enough to play a part in making them better.

*Snip*
And all can be applied to a 10-year-old. So why not them?

Or a 5-year-old for that matter. So why not them?

Edit: Hell, all can be applied to immigrants who are not naturalized yet either. So why not them as well?

Hate to tell you this, but excepting extreme violent cases (I.e. murder in the 1st with circumstances), they are NOT charged as an adult. If you shoplift, you get dumped in the juvenile system and your record gets wiped at age 18. This is NOT the case if you try five fingered discounting at 18 years plus one day.

Also hate to tell you this, but you're wildly exaggerating the requirements for juveniles to be charged as adults. I even went to the trouble of finding you a source: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/table2.html

Some highlights (this is discretionary waiver, there are other tables for other types of waivers): Kansas allows juveniles to be charged as adults at the discretion of the judge at age 10 for any crime. Wyoming, Mississippi, and Illinois at 13. And those also don't have a specification on the severity of the crime.

I'm not saying that we should let 10 year olds vote, but obviously something needs to be fixed to return people's due process. Even if it was only for 1st degree murder (which it's not) part of someone's due process should be the right to help determine the law in the first place.

Showing that if you say 16is cool because 18 is just an arbitrary age then why is 16 different? Actually, why is 16 different than, say, 15? Or 14? Why 16? Just because you can drive? I got my permit at 15 and 1/2 and I didn't get my license until 17 when I actually needed it. I also started working at age 14. So why 16 and not 10?

What's special about 18? Historically, draft. But now? How about we raise the voting age to 30? People have learned more and are smarter at 30. They're more developed. How about 50? 60? Slippery slope works both ways.

*sighs* Re-read what I wrote. The age was lowered to 18 because at that time, that was the draft age and it was considered a social injustice that someone who might be called upon to die for his country couldn't vote. That was then, what compelling social injustice is needed to be corrected now that calls for the age to be lowered?

The fact that very intelligent, involved people are denied the right to have an influence in how their society operates. That's the epitome of social injustice in a democracy.

Lots? How many is lots? The bulk live at home and are still dependent upon their parents. But living alone does not make one an adult. And as for job, I worked one when I was 14, does that mean I should have been allowed to vote at that age? And what does working a job actually do? Why should the full rights of citizens be granted then? Most jobs that 16-year-olds have will NOT be to support themselves, but for spending cash. The bulk are not paying rent, they are not being primary breadwinners, so what? Working at Taco Bell means that you should be able to vote now? And as for driving, wanna tell me what that has to do with anything? Especially considering that many states are now working to restrict teen driving because they HAVE proven themselves over and over again to not be responsible enough drivers?

Yep, because being the primary breadwinner for yourself gives you the magical insight to decide how the rest of the country should be run. How could I have forgotten.

Young people have an invaluable insight into society because they are just that--young. They have a different viewpoint. Read Rosseau--the reason democracy works is because the sum of a lot of varying opinions adds up to a great, working society. Young people bring a different thing to the table than college kids, who bring a different thing to the table than the middle-aged, who bring a different thing to the table than senior citizens. No one group is any better at running the nation than the others--but the sum total gets closer and closer to the best possible result.

No, it is YOUR job to explain why the Constitution should be amended. That document doesn't get changed because someone had a really kewl idea, because, like, I think that 16-year-olds should get to vote, you know?

Not quite sure what 'kewl' is, but I'll assume it's a misspelling of 'cool'. By the way, who said anything about amending the Constitution. That's not necessary to give the vote to people under 18.

Compelling government interest: Balancing the idea of given citizens the vote who have the ability and experience to use it wisely, most teens still have not reached that status. Most teens are dependent upon their parents, meaning they have less to no stake in issues such as taxation, military affairs, domestic or foreign affairs, and, indeed, are usually not legally bound or responsible to society the way an adult is.

Really? Cause let's do some math. Let's say someone is 17 and 11 months on election day. That means they have about 4 years in which they are of an age legally responsible to society in which they have not been able to vote in a major election. (We can make it 2 if you want to count the Senate/House elections, the point remains the same). It seems to me that that is plenty of time for a draft to be approved and a war started by an administration (executive and legislative) that that person had no power to vote in.

See, that's the kicker, and tell ya what. If we do allow 16 years to be the age of majority, that would mean lowering every other protection.

No, it wouldn't. There's nothing that says that you can't be given rights before responsibilities. I'm just saying that you can't be given responsibilities before rights.

At 16, you will not have mandatory schooling. Which is great, I'm sure, but then again I think that a good, strong argument for the abolition of free schooling for those who would want to continue it could be made. We don't pay for 18-year-olds to go to college for free now do we?

Just so you know, at 16 there isn't mandatory education, at least not everywhere. In many school districts you can drop out at 16. Public-paid college education is another thing that I don't want to get into right now.

At age 16, your parents will no longer be legally required to support you.

This doesn't necessarily follow, as stated above.

You will have no recourse with the courts for abandonment, there will be no ward of the courts, and no shelter to fall back on.

Again, not necessarily.

You, instead, will be left to fend on your own in the adult support system.

Who is this 'you', by the way? And again, not necessarily. You can make it the voting age without making it the age for all of these things.

You will face the adult criminal justice system if you commit a crime and your record will not be wiped. You will be past the protections offered to you as a youth being stupid and will be treated as an adult offender.

As stated above, this can happen as early as 10 years of age for any crime. Also, by the way, many states have 'youthful offender' programs that go up until 24, 25 years of age. That tends to weaken your argument that they would disappear if the voting age were lowered, doesn't it?

With the mandatory sentencing guidelines that go with that.

See above.

You will be held accountable for any financial problems you get into. It will be your record that will reflect any bankruptcy, bad credit, or other issues and that will follow you for a number of years.

Not necessarily. You don't have to give the right to credit at the same time as the right to vote.

In short, the compelling government interest here is that children are awarded numerous protections in exchange for not having the right to vote.

I agree that it's a compelling government interest that youth have those rights. But you never made the connection between that and a compelling governmental interest that youth not vote. There is nothing in the right to vote that removes those other protections.

But, it's a two way street. You want to be an adult, you will have to BE an adult, without the education currently expected by the rest of the country and the experience needed to survive.

I'm not advocating the right for 16 year olds to be adults. I'm advocating the right for youth to vote. It's your circular reasoning that connects the right to vote with being an adult, thus only adults should vote because only adults can be adults.

Except it is YOU who is arguing for an amendment to the US Constitution so YOU need to argue for it, and I have yet to see any compelling arguments.

Allowing youth the vote would better the nation by bringing more voices to the table and by making sure that everyone has a democratic say in the laws that affect them.

If you don't want to give youth the vote, I would also accept the following solution: make youth a completely separate category. Once you turn 18, you're a different person. Criminal record completely wiped, released from detainment/probation. All other relevant things that I can't think of off the top of my head.

I don't like sharp lines like that, but if you want to make everything into this harsh, sold line about being an 'adult' then that's the way you should have it.

I've no problem applying it to ten year olds or five year olds. But change.org is hosting a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen, not ten or five. A small change is better than nothing.

As to the question of immigrants who are not naturalised, the right to vote is specified in the constitution to only apply to citizens.

Edit: Hell, all can be applied to immigrants who are not naturalized yet either. So why not them as well?

That's actually an excellent question: why not them?

As for minors, you're making into a matter of principle what is actually closer to a marginal utility/marginal cost analysis: our voting age line should make our society as substantively democratic as possible without undermining rational politics too far. The point is that denial of suffrage is a genuine harm, a real cost: sure, at the pre-teen level, it may be worth it, but at the very least it becomes much more ambiguous when you're talking about people in their mid-teens.

Oh, and by the way, I consider by voting test opinions half-baked ideas that I'm throwing out just to get opinions on. I in no way believe them as much as I believe the rest of what I'm saying.

As to the question of immigrants who are not naturalised, the right to vote is specified in the constitution to only apply to citizens.

No, it isn't.

Well, more precisely, the constitutional right to vote--really, a right to not have one's vote abridged on account of race, sex, age above eighteen, or previous condition of servitude--is guaranteed only to citizens. But no explicit general right to vote is in the Constitution, nor any explicit limitation of suffrage to citizens.

Individual states can--and should--extend the franchise to non-citizen residents.

Oh, alright then. I'd be perfectly willing to give voting rights to non-citizen residents, I just wasn't aware it was permitted under the constitution. If you know of a campaign for it, let me know. Until then, please VOTE TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16).

Just to make sure people know about it, there's a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen on change.org. Go vote (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16)!

A campaign to lower the voting age IN WHAT COUNTRY, please?

Anyway, lowering the voting age isn't the answer. The minimal knowledge requirements for voting should be raised, instead. Those who don't even know the name of some incumbent ministers, or mix up Iraq with Iran, or cannot tell what is the difference between a kilometer and a nautical mile, or cannot tell what "monetary inflation" is, should be excused from voting.

In the United States. Though it's not required that you be a US citizen to vote on the site.

Also hate to tell you this, but you're wildly exaggerating the requirements for juveniles to be charged as adults. I even went to the trouble of finding you a source: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/table2.html

Some highlights (this is discretionary waiver, there are other tables for other types of waivers): Kansas allows juveniles to be charged as adults at the discretion of the judge at age 10 for any crime. Wyoming, Mississippi, and Illinois at 13. And those also don't have a specification on the severity of the crime.
Perhaps, but, honestly now, how often do you think a teen who is brought in for lifting a CD for the first time is going to be tried as an adult and spend time in the county jail for that? The point still stands.

I'm not saying that we should let 10 year olds vote, but obviously something needs to be fixed to return people's due process. Even if it was only for 1st degree murder (which it's not) part of someone's due process should be the right to help determine the law in the first place.
Ah, but you haven't said that. To help determine the law they would need to be elected. You haven't stated about lowering the age for office.

What's special about 18? Historically, draft. But now? How about we raise the voting age to 30? People have learned more and are smarter at 30. They're more developed. How about 50? 60? Slippery slope works both ways.
It's a nice line in the sand. You still haven't said what is special about 16 though.

The fact that very intelligent, involved people are denied the right to have an influence in how their society operates. That's the epitome of social injustice in a democracy.
Because they are minors and under the protection of said society, afforded SPECIAL protection under said society I mean. Very intelligent, involved criminals lose their right to vote as well.

Yep, because being the primary breadwinner for yourself gives you the magical insight to decide how the rest of the country should be run. How could I have forgotten.
The argument given is that teens hold jobs and pay taxes. I just noted that teen jobs usually do not go to supporting themselves or others, meaning they have much less of a stake in tax monies and how they are spent. My salary at 17 was a lot less than I make now, but I have far, far more demands on it now than I did back at 17 when the only thing I paid for was insurance and gas for my truck. I'm far more affected by local taxes (And national taxes for that matter) and therefore have a larger stake in how they are assessed or spent than a teen does.

Young people have an invaluable insight into society because they are just that--young. They have a different viewpoint. Read Rosseau--the reason democracy works is because the sum of a lot of varying opinions adds up to a great, working society. Young people bring a different thing to the table than college kids, who bring a different thing to the table than the middle-aged, who bring a different thing to the table than senior citizens. No one group is any better at running the nation than the others--but the sum total gets closer and closer to the best possible result.
It sounds more as if you want someone to listen to teens. Ok, their parents get to listen whether they want to or not. They vote (Hopefully), so the teen's voice is heard. Still not seeing a compelling reason to lower the age.

Not quite sure what 'kewl' is, but I'll assume it's a misspelling of 'cool'. By the way, who said anything about amending the Constitution. That's not necessary to give the vote to people under 18.
Actually, it would. The Constitution sets it at age 18 currently.

Really? Cause let's do some math. Let's say someone is 17 and 11 months on election day. That means they have about 4 years in which they are of an age legally responsible to society in which they have not been able to vote in a major election. (We can make it 2 if you want to count the Senate/House elections, the point remains the same). It seems to me that that is plenty of time for a draft to be approved and a war started by an administration (executive and legislative) that that person had no power to vote in.
And someone can be 15 years and 11 months and have the same happen. Your point? Yes, it is a line in the sand, but there's many such lines over the years. One day you're a college student, the next day you're a degree holder. Did anything change over night? Not likely since the paperwork is usually completed well before graduation, but until that day... you're still a college student. The same with retirement, getting a license, getting married, ANYTHING.

No, it wouldn't. There's nothing that says that you can't be given rights before responsibilities. I'm just saying that you can't be given responsibilities before rights.

Just so you know, at 16 there isn't mandatory education, at least not everywhere. In many school districts you can drop out at 16. Public-paid college education is another thing that I don't want to get into right now.

This doesn't necessarily follow, as stated above.

Again, not necessarily.

Who is this 'you', by the way? And again, not necessarily. You can make it the voting age without making it the age for all of these things.

As stated above, this can happen as early as 10 years of age for any crime. Also, by the way, many states have 'youthful offender' programs that go up until 24, 25 years of age. That tends to weaken your argument that they would disappear if the voting age were lowered, doesn't it?

See above.

Actually, yes it would. The right to vote is considered the age of majority where you exercise your full adult rights. If you want to move that, I would demand that teens be considered adults to do so. That's the whole point after all. And adult gets to vote, a child does not. A child does not have the full 'voice' in a society that an adult has because the child does not have the responsibilities that an adult has. A child has more protections that an adult does not have because of that lack of 'voice' and the need for more protection.

You say that you can have rights without responsibility? I say that rights cannot be held without them. It's a two way street.

Not necessarily. You don't have to give the right to credit at the same time as the right to vote.
See above. If your argument is that since some 16-year-olds work and pay taxes they should have the right to vote, that means that they must accept the responsibilities of being fully accountable for their own financial issues, including any provisions protecting them from claims and debt.

I agree that it's a compelling government interest that youth have those rights. But you never made the connection between that and a compelling governmental interest that youth not vote. There is nothing in the right to vote that removes those other protections.
The connection is simple, they have those protections, so they lose their voice. They do not take the same level of responsibility that everyone else above the age of majority does for society.

I'm not advocating the right for 16 year olds to be adults. I'm advocating the right for youth to vote. It's your circular reasoning that connects the right to vote with being an adult, thus only adults should vote because only adults can be adults.
Why though? Why should 16-year-olds be allowed to vote? Why not lower? If what you are saying is that they should be allowed to vote because they need to be heard, well my 1-year-old son demands to be heard all the time (Particularly at night), why should he not be allowed to vote?

Allowing youth the vote would better the nation by bringing more voices to the table and by making sure that everyone has a democratic say in the laws that affect them.
Again, why not my 1-year-old son? The laws being made will effect him as well.

If you don't want to give youth the vote, I would also accept the following solution: make youth a completely separate category. Once you turn 18, you're a different person. Criminal record completely wiped, released from detainment/probation. All other relevant things that I can't think of off the top of my head.
People already are.

I don't like sharp lines like that, but if you want to make everything into this harsh, sold line about being an 'adult' then that's the way you should have it.
Harsh lines are annoying, yes. The wisdom of the universe did not land in my head at age 18, nor 21, nor 30. The problem is that, unless you can come up with a good test that would provide an objective measure of someone's maturity and an acceptable standard of 'adultness', we are always left with a line in the sand because it makes a handy bracket.

I've no problem applying it to ten year olds or five year olds. But change.org is hosting a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen, not ten or five. A small change is better than nothing.[QUOTE]
How about my 1-year-old son? At what point does democracy stop functioning?

As to the question of immigrants who are not naturalised, the right to vote is specified in the constitution to only apply to citizens.

That's actually an excellent question: why not them?

As for minors, you're making into a matter of principle what is actually closer to a marginal utility/marginal cost analysis: our voting age line should make our society as substantively democratic as possible without undermining rational politics too far. The point is that denial of suffrage is a genuine harm, a real cost: sure, at the pre-teen level, it may be worth it, but at the very least it becomes much more ambiguous when you're talking about people in their mid-teens.
What utility is there to allowing 16-year-olds to vote? That is the question I have not seen answered.

What utility is there to allowing 16-year-olds to vote? That is the question I have not seen answered.

It was answered directly in Linus and the X's post that you snipped.

Ah, but you haven't said that. To help determine the law they would need to be elected. You haven't stated about lowering the age for office.

You understand the concept of representative democracy, I'm sure. The people vote for representatives to vote on the law. The people determine the law by electing representatives they agree with.


It's a nice line in the sand. You still haven't said what is special about 16 though.

Sixteen is a good age to lower the voting age to because it's not so far from the current age that it has no chance of passing. As I've said before, it's a temporary measure, not permanent.


Because they are minors and under the protection of said society, afforded SPECIAL protection under said society I mean. Very intelligent, involved criminals lose their right to vote as well.

No other minority is "protected" by placing restrictions on them.


It sounds more as if you want someone to listen to teens. Ok, their parents get to listen whether they want to or not. They vote (Hopefully), so the teen's voice is heard. Still not seeing a compelling reason to lower the age.

No. The parent votes in their own interest, which may be in opposition to those of the teen.


Actually, it would. The Constitution sets it at age 18 currently.

The voting age is constitutionally forbidden from being higher than eighteen. It is permitted to be lower than eighteen.


You say that you can have rights without responsibility? I say that rights cannot be held without them. It's a two way street.

I'll not argue the idea, but rights must be given before or at the same time as responsibilities.


Why though? Why should 16-year-olds be allowed to vote? Why not lower? If what you are saying is that they should be allowed to vote because they need to be heard, well my 1-year-old son demands to be heard all the time (Particularly at night), why should he not be allowed to vote?

He certainly should be permitted to vote, but that issue is not currently open. For an analogy, consider if someone opposed the black civil rights movement saying that other races should also be given rights. That would be true, but it is no reason to prevent those who have a chance of getting their rights from taking that chance.


What utility is there to allowing 16-year-olds to vote? That is the question I have not seen answered.

You see no utility for in bringing sixteen-year-olds' opinions to the vote? You see no utility for the people between sixteen and eigheen inherent in the right to vote?

Remember, VOTE TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16).

i'd say lower it to 12. if it had been, i could and would, have voted for jfk!

Just to make sure people know about it, there's a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen on change.org.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. Well,(thinks back to Ouija board thread)...second dumbest thing. If anything, they should increase the voting age, not lower it. Most of the sixteen year olds I come across can barely tie their shoes, much less make considered political decisions.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. Well,(thinks back to Ouija board thread)...second dumbest thing. If anything, they should increase the voting age, not lower it. Most of the sixteen year olds I come across can barely tie their shoes, much less make considered political decisions.

that argument would make sense if it weren't equally true of almost as many 40 year olds. if they ain't caught on by the time they're 12, odds aren't THAT good, they will when they're 40.

the wise are a minority at any age, and i know of no effective way of filtering for it.

that argument would make sense if it weren't equally true of almost as many 40 year olds. if they ain't caught on by the time they're 12, odds aren't THAT good, they will when they're 40. the wise are a minority at any age, and i know of no effective way of filtering for it.

Regardless, your average sixteen year old lacks both the intelligence and the life experience to make good decisions in the political realm. Leave politics to the adults and let children be children.

Regardless, your average sixteen year old lacks both the intelligence and the life experience to make good decisions in the political realm. Leave politics to the adults and let children be children.
A sixteen year old, in most states, is old enough to legally:

Get married (with parental consent).
Have sex with random strangers without parental consent.
Get a job.
Operate a lethal multi-ton conglomerate of metal, plastic, and glass.
Drop out of school.

I call complete bullcrap. I remember what it was like to be sixteen. Sixteen year olds are not really children anymore; they have a very substantial stake in the future, and at that point, their skills of judgment vary more by individual than by age.

Besides... as I've said before:
This has been something I've been thinking about carefully for about a decade. In the United States of America, we have a fairly inconsistent - one might say unjust - treatment of the age of adulthood.

That is to say, there are a variety of minimum ages... and not all of those minimum ages are 18, the legal age of full citizenship. This has bothered me; however, over time, I have come to understand that there are very practical reasons for the laws being as they are.

However, I still find issue with the sequence of adulthood presented by the state and federal government.

Here, we have the typical sequence. Actual ages vary state by state, mainly when it comes to sex and marriage.

13: Minimum age for essentially unrestricted use of the internet (excepting pornography. See COPPA and CIPA for details.)
14: Minimum age for employment.
16: End of compulsory education period. Minimum age for full time employment. In most states: Age of sexual consent, marriageable age (with parental consent), minimum age for "full" driver's license. May also become emancipated from parents in states with emancipation laws.
18: Minimum age for military service, voting, gun ownership, elopement, pornography, and tobacco.
21: Minimum age for alcohol. Typical minimum age for handgun purchase. Minimum age to gamble in casinos [most locations].
24: Considered "independent" from parents for financial aid purposes by default.
25: Allowed to run for House of Representatives. (De facto note: Car rentals stop being prohibitively expensive, an example of commercial age bias with some grounding in statistics.)
30: Allowed to run for US Senate.
35: Allowed to run for president.

Now, the idea is that by assigning minimum ages, we protect our children from things that are dangerous for them, or that they are not yet responsible enough to handle, or even just not yet competent to handle. I don't like the idea that you aren't really considered a fully responsible adult until age 35, or even treated as an adult of your own until you reach MY age.

But it's a pretty haphazard list, and if we're not going to rip it up and say "Hey, well, you're 18 now, so you can do whatever you want," then we should take a long hard look at how it's ordered. Where are the hazards? Where are the responsibility? What's the reason?

What grants the right to vote? Depends who you ask.

Some people might say paying taxes is what marks a contributing citizen. Sixteen year olds are old enough to work to support themselves (some do) and make up a small impoverished subsection of the tax base. So, sixteen year olds should be able to vote.

Some people say that voters have a responsibility to be informed, and need to be old enough to know what's going on in the country. Well, past the age of sixteen, you can't be sure they're going to any additional school - so if you're going to argue that the bar of eighteen for voting is one of information and education, sixteen year olds should be able to vote.

I say that you have not merely a right, but a responsibility to vote, and it is both crucially important that we instill that responsibility while we can, and crucially important that we allow those with a stake in our future to have a say in that future. To let them speak and be heard as soon as they can be trusted to make serious decisions.

It's also a very convenient time. High school is the strategic choke-point for institutional contact with young adults. A voting age of 16 would bring voter registration into the high schools full force, and matches the age of many high school students getting driver's licenses and/or photo IDs.

And I say they are ready for it. A sixteen year old is old enough to start making their own decisions. The law tells me that they're old enough to decide to stop going to school, old enough to decide to have sex, old enough to handle keeping a two-ton deadly weapon in check... old enough to decide to bind themselves to someone else in a legal contract with numerous complex and long-term consequences.

Old enough to move out of home and live on their own dime, in some cases; I've seen that happen. Old enough to stand trial as an adult, often enough, when they get in trouble. I've worked with, and worked alongside, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen year olds, and the differences in them stop being about age, around that point. The differences start being more about experiences. They're old enough to make responsible decisions, and old enough to be trusted with a vote.

At 16, your brain isn't ready with developing. At 18 either. It would be better to wait till they are about 24 years old.

On the other hand, voting isn’t that difficult and isn’t doing that much damage.
It would be fun to see some hiphop star in the White House. Would he turn it into a blingbling house?

I'm pretty sure teenagers couldn't do more damage with voting than the "old and wise" generation did with a certain recent president.

Regardless of how many stupid Internet petitions are circulated, it's not going to happen. The whole topic is almost as stupid as the whole 'are monkeys people' debate that happened here a couple of days ago.

Regardless of how many stupid Internet petitions are circulated, it's not going to happen. The whole topic is almost as stupid as the whole 'are monkeys people' debate that happened here a couple of days ago.
I disagree. This is a very real topic that keeps coming up, hence why I have an essay on hand that I've already posted before on NS, and before that on FB.

The more people talk about it, the more traction the idea gains. In order to get something like this launched, what's needed first is a public dialog on the issue. And now is a particularly good time - we've had occasional news items this whole season about how 16 year olds were becoming active in politics.

I disagree. This is a very real topic that keeps coming up, hence why I have an essay on hand that I've already posted before on NS, and before that on FB.

The more people talk about it, the more traction the idea gains. In order to get something like this launched, what's needed first is a public dialog on the issue. And now is a particularly good time - we've had occasional news items this whole season about how 16 year olds were becoming active in politics.

At 16 I was trying to get some sex. I wasn't interested in politics.

They should lock away all those politic interested 16 year old boys and girls. They are not normal and potential dangerous.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a 16 year-old has the capacity yet to choose wisely when it comes to voting. At that age, many teenagers are still influenced by what their peers and family has to say.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a 16 year-old has the capacity yet to choose wisely when it comes to voting. At that age, many teenagers are still influenced by what their peers and family has to say.


Yes, but adults elected ... Bush !

I'm pretty sure teenagers couldn't do more damage with voting than the "old and wise" generation did with a certain recent president.
I agree that Obama will do a lot of damage, but the other alternative just didn't look good even to me.

Nay. 18 is fine. I have yet to hear even a remotely compelling reason as to why it should be lowered. Nor evidence of tangible or meaningful harm in not doing so.


---


No, it isn't.

Well, more precisely, the constitutional right to vote--really, a right to not have one's vote abridged on account of race, sex, age above eighteen, or previous condition of servitude--is guaranteed only to citizens. But no explicit general right to vote is in the Constitution, nor any explicit limitation of suffrage to citizens.

Individual states can--and should--extend the franchise to non-citizen residents.

Long time, legal non-citizen residents only.... right? And even then it would still only be maybe, i'd have to think about it a good long while before I could ever call for something like that.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a 16 year-old has the capacity yet to choose wisely when it comes to voting. At that age, many teenagers are still influenced by what their peers and family has to say. See below. If we're going by some sort of magical age at which you gain "wisdom", democracy would never happen.

Yes, but adults elected ... Bush !Exactly. We can't possibly do any worse. Not even if we elected T.I.

Yes, but adults elected ... Bush !

I do not deny that many adults make horrible decisions. But if adults mess up really bad, can you imagine a teen deciding the future of a country?

See below. If we're going by some sort of magical age at which you gain "wisdom", democracy would never happen.

This is not about wisdom at all, GF. This is about being responsible enough to make an intelligent decision. Many teens aren't responsible enough to make a decision that isn't influenced by peers or parents.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a 16 year-old has the capacity yet to choose wisely when it comes to voting. At that age, many teenagers are still influenced by what their peers and family has to say.
Adults of any age are influenced by what their peers and family have to say. I influence my parents and are influenced by them all the time; I'm 24, and they're 49 and 53. I convinced my father to take a second look at Obama before the primaries started, and he convinced me to take a second look at Edwards before the primaries started. I wound up rooting for Edwards until he dropped out, and then both of us were rooting for Obama.

My brother and I influence each other all the time. He's 26. I talk politics with my 21 year old housemate all the time. As a sixteen year old, in fact, I was if anything more stubborn than the average sixty year old, and if anything less likely to listen to what other people had to say.

My mother actually had something quite interesting to say about voting regarding wisdom. She said that the first votes she made were probably not the wisest or most informed votes she made, but that like everything, you develop judgment over time by exercising it. You don't really start learning to vote wisely until you start voting.

My mother actually had something quite interesting to say about voting regarding wisdom. She said that the first votes she made were probably not the wisest or most informed votes she made, but that like everything, you develop judgment over time by exercising it. You don't really start learning to vote wisely until you start voting.

Then leave the voting age at 18, as it has always been. I don't see what the problem is and why would the government want to lower the voting age if other things like purchasing a car or a house, or the drinking age are still things a 16 year old won't be able to do, some things adults can do.

At 16 I was trying to get some sex. I wasn't interested in politics.

They should lock away all those politic interested 16 year old boys and girls. They are not normal and potential dangerous.
If they're simply not interested in politics, they won't vote. So really, saying normal 16 year olds aren't interested in politics doesn't really provide an argument against letting them vote.

Then leave the voting age at 18, as it has always been.
It has not always been 18. And if you move it to 16, all those voters start learning how to vote wisely a year or two earlier.

So says my mother, anyway, and I find that she offered a fairly compelling argument in support of that.

As a sixteen year old, in fact, I was if anything more stubborn than the average sixty year old, and if anything less likely to listen to what other people had to say.
You did listen to what others said at 16, you just did the opposite.



She said that the first votes she made were probably not the wisest or most informed votes she made, but that like everything, you develop judgment over time by exercising it. You don't really start learning to vote wisely until you start voting.
Well, she might be wrong, we all can. I personally only started voting when I had a confident position and was sure not just about what I wanted, but about what my priorities were.

I never was strongly on the side of any specific party - the lefties aim to take away economic and personal freedoms, while the righties aim to take away privacy, free speech and perv marriage. I'd like there to be a party offering the freedoms from both parties, but there are only the wacky Libertarians, who won't win.

Ultimately though I decided that universal freedoms that apply to everyone are more important than specific rights applying to minorities only. But it took time to suppress the compassion and learn to look at the big picture, until then, I leaned towards the left side. I'm glad I haven't wasted my votes supporting the wrong people.

It has not always been 18. And if you move it to 16, all those voters start learning how to vote wisely a year or two earlier.

So says my mother, anyway, and I find that she offered a fairly compelling argument in support of that.

I still think lowering the voting age is both a waste and an unintelligent thing to do. But that's just me, I don't have the ultimate truth nor do I control what the government will do about it.

You did listen to what others said at 16, you just did the opposite.
No. I simply listened less to what others said when I was 16.
Well, she might be wrong, we all can.
Exactly. Sixteen year olds or sixty year olds. And in my opinion, both have a right to make mistakes at their age.

I still think lowering the voting age is both a waste and an unintelligent thing to do. But that's just me, I don't have the ultimate truth nor do I control what the government will do about it.
Is it really a waste...

... when DMVs are involved in the voter registration in many states, and so many sixteen year olds get their license at that age?

... when mandatory education ends at sixteen and free education at eighteen, making sixteen well within the points of institutional contact with youth and thus a strategically more effective age for making sure more eligible voters register to vote?

... when there are sixteen year olds who really want to vote, and watch adults make stupid decisions at the polls that they have to live with until they're twenty?

I think it's not a waste, and I think it's a good idea, just like broadening the franchise to non-landowners was a good idea, like broadening the franchise to 18 year olds was a good idea.

If sixteen year olds are not responsible enough to vote, they certainly aren't responsible enough to do half the things we let them do, and I don't hear massive protests over allowing sixteen year olds to operate the most lethal machine in the country, drop out of high school, get a full time job, get married, have sex, et cetera.

If sixteen year olds are not responsible enough to vote, they certainly aren't responsible enough to do half the things we let them do, and I don't hear massive protests over allowing sixteen year olds to operate the most lethal machine in the country,
The penis?


drop out of high school,
It's not a right, it's a failure.

get a full time job,
Of course they should. You should get a job as early as possible.

get married, have sex, et cetera.
I see a lot of opposition to one without the other.

But as sex only concerns the two engaged objects, it's kinda a privacy thing.

No. I simply listened less to what others said when I was 16.
Then you've been unlike every other 16 year old I've seen.

Or actually believe in this excuse.


Exactly. Sixteen year olds or sixty year olds. And in my opinion, both have a right to make mistakes at their age.
Except when these mistakes have consequences for everyone.

The penis?
Automobiles.
It's not a right, it's a failure.
A decision they're considered old enough to make. If they're old enough to be permitted to decide they've had enough of an education, they're old enough to have a say in their future. Which means they also should be allowed to vote.
Of course they should. You should get a job as early as possible.
And hence start paying taxes, and yet having no say in where those tax dollars go? Taxation without representation is a slogan that played a key role in the founding of the United States. You shouldn't take it lightly.
But as sex only concerns the two engaged objects, it's kinda a privacy thing.
"Privacy" is a concern you apply - legally speaking - to adults.
Then you've been unlike every other 16 year old I've seen.
Bull. Have you actually worked with sixteen year olds? Them consistently doing the opposite of what adults tell them to is a myth. Some listen more than others, just like any other age group. Some are rebellious, but IMO, mostly an issue of trying to establishing themselves as adults to adults who treat them as children.

Me, I was stubborn, and as far as I was concerned, knew better than everybody else. I still think I know better than everybody else does, but I'm more willing to listen to them in the event that perhaps I've overlooked something. I wasn't rebelling against my parents or my teachers; I simply didn't think it was worthwhile to pay particular heed to what they were saying.
Except when these mistakes have consequences for everyone.
So would you like to restrict sixty year olds from voting? The mistakes of sixty year olds at the polls yesterday are paid for by today's sixteen year olds tomorrow.

Considering it'd increase left-wing votes, I'm all for it.

I still think lowering the voting age is both a waste and an unintelligent thing to do. But that's just me, I don't have the ultimate truth nor do I control what the government will do about it.

Recuerda-te que si la edad de votar és bajada, candidatos de izquierda recibirán más votos...

I do not deny that many adults make horrible decisions. But if adults mess up really bad, can you imagine a teen deciding the future of a country?

Oh yes, they will demand for free beer, weed and hooters for all. They will demand free education and the right to slap their parents.

But I don't think they'll buy an illegal invasion in some country.

Don't understand me wrong, of course they can't make a serious vote, but their parents can't do either.

Recuerda-te que si la edad de votar és bajada, candidatos de izquierda recibirán más votos...

Aún así, Heiko-kun, si se bajara la edad de votar, entonces el gobierno debería re-educar a los jóvenes. Crees tú que algún gobierno vaya a hacer eso? Sería utilizar muchos fondos públicos, fondos que, por la crisis económica mundial, estoy más que segura, no serán destinados para semejante empresa.

Si el gobierno de X o Y país fuese a hacer ésto, la campaña educativa tendría que ser masiva y consumiría mucho tiempo. No es que no se pueda o deba hacer, es que los esfuerzos serían básicamente echados a perder.

I think we should alter the entire voting system.

Voting above 5 years is strictly forbidden !!!

Who needs voting at all? I've always thought a rally should be enough.

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20041026confusedvoters.gif

Lowering the voting age will mean that even more misinformed people can vote.

Raising the age will mean more correctly-informed people can't vote.

So there has to be a better alternative to simply moving the voting age.

"Maturity" is heavily subjective. Voting rights should be tied to objective things, such as involvement in workforce or commitment to it.

I'll continue your list. Hell, there are some 10 year olds that are mature enough to vote for the party I like. And hell, there are some 40 year olds that don't know enough to vote for the party I like.

Tied to objective things you say? Like being taxed without representation?

I don't buy the "following fads" thing, people of any age are susceptible as anyone else to that. Political ideals are something EVERYONE holds dear, I remember Year 10 (14 year olds) when a classmate said she wouldn't talk about politics because it makes her angry. Again, poltics are held close to heart.

Not mature enough? Maturity is made-up for a tool for control.

Anyway. Most people don't like the idea of teenagers voting is because they are more liberal. Damn hippy kids.

Just to make sure people know about it, there's a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen on change.org. Go vote (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16)!
*sighs*

Nah. Seeing as sixteen-year-olds won't have had much experience at actually living or anything useful like that, they oughtn't to be voting.

Lowering the voting age will mean that even more misinformed people can vote.

Raising the age will mean more correctly-informed people can't vote.

So there has to be a better alternative to simply moving the voting age.
I'm not so sure. And incidentally, I don't think the 16 year old bracket has the most misinformation. Misinformation primarily comes out through cable news and gossip campaigns, neither of which have teens as their primary audience.

I'm not so sure. And incidentally, I don't think the 16 year old bracket has the most misinformation. Misinformation primarily comes out through cable news and gossip campaigns, neither of which have teens as their primary audience.

in fact, we can easily arrange it so that they have the greatest direct access to good information in the form of government and civics classes in high school (usually required anyways) that are timed specifically to coincide with elections. and presumably at least some of those lessons would stick. it's got a better shot than just hoping that when people actually start voting in significant numbers (late 20s-early 30s) they make informed choices and can figure out how to sort out good and bad arguments, etc.

The whole voting system is just sick.

- Overall, the one with the most money will win the election.

- You can't assess people from a far distance, so you never know if some politician is doing well or not. You, as a far away watcher, have to form an opinion by interpreting the colored 'news' of the media.

- Most people are not interested in politics. They just want to live their life and that's it. So they have to decide (vote) about something they know sh*t.

- "Don't believe the hype!" - But still most of us do. We are just sheep and do what other sheep are doing.

If you outlaw teen voting, only outlaw teens will cast illegal votes.

If you outlaw teen voting, only outlaw teens will cast illegal votes.
98% of teens have tried voting underage. If you are one of the 2% who has not, put this in your signature.

*sighs*

Nah. Seeing as sixteen-year-olds won't have had much experience at actually living or anything useful like that, they oughtn't to be voting.

My same thought, but some people think that the sooner one votes, the sooner one gets experience and wisdom.

My same thought, but some people think that the sooner one votes, the sooner one gets experience and wisdom.

I'm thinking of a public hair check. When you have public hair, you can vote. :)

I'm thinking of a public hair check. When you have public hair, you can vote. :)

You're a nut, HK. But thanks for making me laugh with your veiled nasty words.:D

Some time ago there was an experiment with chimps and stockbrokers.

Both groups had to point the profitable stocks.

They followed this on a month by month base for two years.

The chimps won.

So.......

This is similar:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930908&slug=1720062

I believe in random and proportional representation; however, in the absence of a fair system of random nomination, the current system will have to do for now. I believe this representation should extend to young people. I do not believe that young people should have too much control over the administration of the system as a whole. Consequently, I think that two voting ages is appropriate. For local government, 16 is a fine age, and I would encourage lowering both the voting and council membership ages . For national government, and the ability to influence and modify the embedded ideological and constitutional institutions of a nation as a whole, I would advocate raising the age to 21.

I believe in random and proportional representation; however, in the absence of a fair system of random nomination, the current system will have to do for now. I believe this representation should extend to young people. I do not believe that young people should have too much control over the administration of the system as a whole. Consequently, I think that two voting ages is appropriate. For local government, 16 is a fine age, and I would encourage lowering both the voting and council membership ages . For national government, and the ability to influence and modify the embedded ideological and constitutional institutions of a nation as a whole, I would advocate raising the age to 21.

My instinct was to agree with your proposal, but then I realized that, in order to exploit the younger peoples greater susceptibility to certain types of marketing and political campaigning, the federal government would be incouraged by this system to get more involved with local elections.

18 is fine

Many teens aren't responsible enough to make a decision that isn't influenced by peers or parents.:rolleyes: Oh, please. You expect me to believe that adults are not influenced by their peers?

Just to make sure people know about it, there's a campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen on change.org. Go vote (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16)!

Why should 16 year olds be able to vote? They don't produce anything for the country except idiotic drama and a reason for high school teachers to exist. Eighteen-year-olds can vote because they can be drafted, that's the ONLY reason why... Before that, you had to be 21 to vote... Take the bone when it's thrown to you, kid.

Why should 16 year olds be able to vote? They don't produce anything for the country except idiotic drama and a reason for high school teachers to exist.

They are able to be employed, and they are able to spend money. This makes them productive workers and generous consumers. Even when they do not use their own money, they get their parents to buy shit for them which also propels the economy forward. Also, most children grow up to be adults, so saying that ultimately they contribute nothing is to ignore the fact that children are adults-in-training, without which there would be no adults and therefore no country.

So you're wrong on that claim.

But I don't think they should be allowed to vote.

They are able to be employed, and they are able to spend money. This makes them productive workers and generous consumers. Even when they do not use their own money, they get their parents to buy shit for them which also propels the economy forward. Also, most children grow up to be adults, so saying that ultimately they contribute nothing is to ignore the fact that children are adults-in-training, without which there would be no adults and therefore no country.

So you're wrong on that claim.

But I don't think they should be allowed to vote.

I'll throw you a bone and say you have a point, but I wouldn't say I'm necessarily wrong. They aren't full, productive members of society. The small wage after school "jobs" that they have hardly allows for them to be "Generous consumers." I may be missing something and I might have gotten shafted while working at that kosher bakery when I was 16, but Illinois has a pretty high minimum wage (I forget exactly what it was) and what I made there would make me a high school "millionare" here in Alabama... Regardless, I rarely ever had enough money to buy stuff for myself, but that might be due in part to the outrageous prices you find in the Chicago area.

Well, at least we agree on the main point that 16 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. :)

I do not deny that many adults make horrible decisions. But if adults mess up really bad, can you imagine a teen deciding the future of a country?
Since when does granting suffrage to a given group amount to giving them control of the future of the country?
This is not about wisdom at all, GF. This is about being responsible enough to make an intelligent decision. Many teens aren't responsible enough to make a decision that isn't influenced by peers or parents.
And adults are?
Oh yes, they will demand for free beer, weed and hooters for all. They will demand free education and the right to slap their parents.
:rolleyes:

But I don't think they'll buy an illegal invasion in some country.

Don't understand me wrong, of course they can't make a serious vote, but their parents can't do either.
Are you so sure of that? Can you prove it?


Oh wait, I forgot, you hate that. Never mind then, I'll just conclude you're wrong and move on.
The whole voting system is just sick.

- Overall, the one with the most money will win the election.

- You can't assess people from a far distance, so you never know if some politician is doing well or not. You, as a far away watcher, have to form an opinion by interpreting the colored 'news' of the media.

- Most people are not interested in politics. They just want to live their life and that's it. So they have to decide (vote) about something they know sh*t.

- "Don't believe the hype!" - But still most of us do. We are just sheep and do what other sheep are doing.

Oh god, my brain.

Why not? Sixteen year olds are plenty stupid enough to participate in the political system.

The interesting thing is that I've yet to see one argument that wasn't used against black or female suffrage. Glad to see how country has progressed.

The interesting thing is that I've yet to see one argument that wasn't used against black or female suffrage. Glad to see how country has progressed.

Wait...blacks can vote now? Next thing you know we'll have a black President. Don't worry, Obama isn't really black, he's just a really committed method actor preparing for a tour doing blackface comedy when he finishes in politics.

The interesting thing is that I've yet to see one argument that wasn't used against black or female suffrage

Really? That's interesting. Let's play this out.

Black Man: I think black men should have the right to vote. We are created equal same as any other man!
Pro-Slavery White Racist: I don't think so. You see, I used to be a black man myself, and I know now that when I was black, I was not, relatively speaking, biologically or psychologically mature enough to cast my vote responsibly.
Black Man: ...you used to be black?
Pro-Slavery White Racist: Yes. All white people are born as black people, and then gradually turn white during the processes of puberty and adolescence.
Black Man: This makes sense to me.


Yeah, I think you need to read the thread more. ;)

Really? That's interesting. Let's play this out.

Black Man: I think black men should have the right to vote. We are created equal same as any other man!
Pro-Slavery White Racist: I don't think so. You see, I used to be a black man myself, and I know now that when I was black, I was not, relatively speaking, biologically or psychologically mature enough to cast my vote responsibly.
Black Man: ...you used to be black?
Pro-Slavery White Racist: Yes. All white people are born as black people, and then gradually turn white during the processes of puberty and adolescence.
Black Man: This makes sense to me.


Yeah, I think you need to read the thread more. ;)

Epic ownage. Nicely done *applause*

This.

Seriously.

This.

Most teenagers cant even avoid doing stupid and sometimes self destructive fads. Why should I think they'll think for themselves and make informed desicions when it comes to voting?

Most teenagers follow whatever fad MTV or some other such nonsense throws at them. Why should I believe they wont just vote for who MTV tells them to vote for? Or for that matter, why should I believe they wont vote for whoever their favorite celebrity/rapper endorses?*

Most teenagers cant even be bothered to study or do their homework. Why should I believe they'll ever bother to do the research about who the proper candidate is?

Im only 21, I was a teenager not too long ago. I have two teenage siblings (one 18 one 15). I remember and am reminded of how teenagers are.

*- And then there are the anti-conformist teenagers, like I was, who will pobably just vote whoever the cool kids arent voting for, or whoever MTV isnt endorsing.

And then there are the intelligent ones who don't give a rat's shit about that and don't like to be put in large groups like that...;)

The idea of maturity and intelligence was a major argument, however. White racists believed that blacks were inferior in intelligence to whites and didn't have the mental capacity to vote.

Men thought that women had no real role in society and thus didn't deserve the vote.

I'm sorry to hear that when you were sixteen you were an underdeveloped, immature person or that you surrounded yourself with underdeveloped immature people, but that does not mean that every single teen is that way. It also does not mean that there are no adults who are like that. Of course, the present "you" is obviously perfect--right? Right now, you deserve the right to vote. But a couple of years ago, you didn't. It's a convenient way to discriminate against a group of people in a way that will never affect you again. It's obviously in your best interest, too--less voters means your vote counts more.

I completely understand why you would want to discriminate--it's the exact same reason for racism, sexism, and other bigotries--it makes the group that has the power feel just that--powerful. It's completely understandable and I don't blame you for it. I just hope that if you think about it logically you might have the ability to see past prejudices. No shame in not being able to do so, though--so many people in the world haven't been able to. There's no moral requirement to be a visionary.

The idea of maturity and intelligence was a major argument, however. White racists believed that blacks were inferior in intelligence to whites and didn't have the mental capacity to vote.

A racist argument is flawed since it has no foundation in actual reality. The argument that minors are less mature than adults is not flawed as it has a foundation in the experiences of pretty much everyone. I remember when I was young. I remember what other kids were like when I was young. Adults aren't wise geniuses, but they are more mature than they were at a young age.

The only real argument is where the line should be drawn, but the fact that a line has to be drawn doesn't make for a relevant similarity to the nonsense arguments of bigots and racists.


I'm sorry to hear that when you were sixteen you were an underdeveloped, immature person or that you surrounded yourself with underdeveloped immature people, but that does not mean that every single teen is that way.

It does however serve as one (1) example of an argument that "racists... didn't use," which is what your claim was, and what I was addressing. If you want to actually get involved with that particular argument you would do to, like, read the thread and address it instead of pretending it doesn't exist, or that it's just as vile and flawed as racist bigotry. Just a FYI.

Of course, the present "you" is obviously perfect--right?

Of course, people here are arguing that adults are perfect - right? That's why you will have absolutely no problems providing a link to even ONE argument being made that adults are perfect - right?

I think not.


Right now, you deserve the right to vote. But a couple of years ago, you didn't. It's a convenient way to discriminate against a group of people in a way that will never affect you again. It's obviously in your best interest, too--less voters means your vote counts more.

Not at all. More young people voted in favor of Obama. I voted for Obama. If the voting restriction was lowered or taken away, Obama* would have won even more handily, which is in my interest.

So enough with the "it's a conspiracy and you're biased" bit.

*or Barney the dinosaur. But that'd be an improvement over McCain, too.

I completely understand why you would want to discriminate--it's the exact same reason for racism, sexism, and other bigotries--it makes the group that has the power feel just that--powerful.

Nonsense. You can make this 'argument' that any limitation at all against anyone is 'discrimination' and thus 'racism' or equivalent. Speed limit? DISCRIMINATION against sports car manufacturers! YOU ARE JUST LIKE RACISTS!

It's completely understandable and I don't blame you for it. I just hope that if you think about it logically you might have the ability to see past prejudices. No shame in not being able to do so, though--so many people in the world haven't been able to. There's no moral requirement to be a visionary.

One day you'll remember you made this argument.

Perhaps at that point you'll be able to see how patently absurd it was.

The idea of maturity and intelligence was a major argument, however. White racists believed that blacks were inferior in intelligence to whites and didn't have the mental capacity to vote.

Men thought that women had no real role in society and thus didn't deserve the vote.

I'm sorry to hear that when you were sixteen you were an underdeveloped, immature person or that you surrounded yourself with underdeveloped immature people, but that does not mean that every single teen is that way. It also does not mean that there are no adults who are like that. Of course, the present "you" is obviously perfect--right? Right now, you deserve the right to vote. But a couple of years ago, you didn't. It's a convenient way to discriminate against a group of people in a way that will never affect you again. It's obviously in your best interest, too--less voters means your vote counts more.

I completely understand why you would want to discriminate--it's the exact same reason for racism, sexism, and other bigotries--it makes the group that has the power feel just that--powerful. It's completely understandable and I don't blame you for it. I just hope that if you think about it logically you might have the ability to see past prejudices. No shame in not being able to do so, though--so many people in the world haven't been able to. There's no moral requirement to be a visionary.
*sighs* Go read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development

Oh, I know how absurd it was. Sometimes I like having fun. Besides, there are kernels of truth in there. :)

In all seriousness, I refer to my previous arguments in this thread. Youth have an important perspective to give society from the polling place. People who are going to be dumb about voting won't have that fixed in two years, and are lucky to have it fixed in 20 years.

MTV is not a major influence in real teen culture, and neither is any other so called 'peer pressurer'. Teenagers have access to huge amounts of information useful in voting and more expertise at accessing it than many adults.

Teens who are not interested in politics will not vote. Just like the adult population. Normal turnout among the 'wise' generation is around 50% or so generally, isn't it? (While admitting that 2008 had a large turnout). A large percentage of the 50% that /does/ vote is still relatively apathetic.

All in all, view of teenage 'rebellion' is completely exaggerated by frustrated parents and teachers, and by adults who do not have any contact with good, motivated students. I know that in my high school I routinely got told to pay more attention to my Latin translations and much less to arguing politics with my friends. Even teens who do not discuss politics openly have informed opinions. I heard more uninformed, stereotyped, 'peer-influenced' voting remarks from my friend's parents then I did from my friends.

I remember my high school had a completely student organized debate before the '04 elections that contained more content than the actual election debates.

It's easy to see the visible, 'bad' element of teen culture because they are the ones who have interactions with the adult rules and adult system. They are the ones who show up in the media. A 'good student' article might show up in the C section of the local paper, but 'gang violence' makes A1 every time.

I don't doubt that people get more experienced with time and their opinions change. The thing about opinions is that we always think our current one is right and therefore view our past ones as wrong. That's not necessarily true, however. I'm sure many 50 year olds will look back on themselves when they were my age and wonder why they were ever allowed to vote.

'Maturity' and 'good voting' are standards that basically say that since youth have different opinions than adults they are 'wrong'. That's probably true some of the time, and false a lot of the time. And regardless, democracy functions because everyone brings their ideas and perspectives to the table and society finds the best one, not because the government finds the perfect subset of the population that always has the right opinions and gives them complete control.

To close: to say that denial of youth voting rights is the same as denial of black voting rights is obviously an overstatement (and in my case, a joke). It's undeniable, however, that there are similarities. In both cases it's the issue of the disenfranchisement of a large group of people based on the group, not on the individuals. And it's a group that has (had) a very different perspective on society than the currently voting population did. The way for a healthy democracy to function is through diversity in ideas and perspectives that eventually finds the right one. I think it's undeniable to say that America is not in the perfect place right now, and I think it's reasonable to say that youth might have helped change that.

Everyone has their own image of what it's like to be a teenager. However, I think it's important to recognize that the teenage population is diverse and everchanging. Teenagers today are much more informed than teenagers a hundred years ago, and society should recognize that fact.

Some time ago there was an experiment with chimps and stockbrokers.

Both groups had to point the profitable stocks.

They followed this on a month by month base for two years.

The chimps won.

So.......

This is similar:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930908&slug=1720062
So fucking nothing, the monkey threw some darts. You have a point?
Really? That's interesting. Let's play this out.

Black Man: I think black men should have the right to vote. We are created equal same as any other man!
Pro-Slavery White Racist: I don't think so. You see, I used to be a black man myself, and I know now that when I was black, I was not, relatively speaking, biologically or psychologically mature enough to cast my vote responsibly.
Black Man: ...you used to be black?
Pro-Slavery White Racist: Yes. All white people are born as black people, and then gradually turn white during the processes of puberty and adolescence.
Black Man: This makes sense to me.


Yeah, I think you need to read the thread more. ;)

You just won the thread.

To the OP, I suggest an eligibility requirement in order to vote, such as an IQ test (minimum score requirement to vote= 105).

EDIT: Yes, I do support lowering the voting age to 16, but only with a voter eligibility requirement (for voters of all age).

*sighs* Go read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development

Oh, I don't deny that there are theories aplenty out there. Just an interesting thing to note from one of those articles: "Whether or not intellectual powers increase or decrease with age remains controversial. Longitudinal studies have suggested that intellect declines, while cross-sectional studies suggest that intellect is stable."

The point remains that even though we know a lot about the physical development of the brain, all connections between that and behavior are no more than theory.

To the OP, I suggest an eligibility requirement in order to vote, such as an IQ test (minimum score requirement to vote= 105).

EDIT: Yes, I do support lowering the voting age to 16, but only with a voter eligibility requirement (for voters of all age).

What about the fact that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence and tests provide too many ways to discriminate against groups?

Oh, I don't deny that there are theories aplenty out there. Just an interesting thing to note from one of those articles: "Whether or not intellectual powers increase or decrease with age remains controversial. Longitudinal studies have suggested that intellect declines, while cross-sectional studies suggest that intellect is stable."
What is undeniable however, much to the annoyance of teens, is that mental development/changes do occur and continue to occur. Obviously a teen is not the same as an adult and is not the same as a child. That is the point, and something that shoots your attempt to compare this to saying it was the same against Blacks or women down, hard. All studies that show difference in intelligence between races and sex have been shot down, those that show differences between ages now, especially between children and adults, well, they still stand even if we are still not sure of the actual steps or the physical causes of such.

The point remains that even though we know a lot about the physical development of the brain, all connections between that and behavior are no more than theory.
Do you REALLY want to play a "No more than theory" card here? I advice you to change it because you WILL be spanked, hard. Very, very hard.

What about the fact that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence and tests provide too many ways to discriminate against groups?

That is a problem, which is why I didn't advocate IQ tests specifically. And yes, I am aware that any such voter eligibility test can be used to discriminate. Actually, now that I think about it (surprise surprise), it would probably be better to get to the source/s of the problem instead of doing something half-assed like this, which is obviously liable to be abused.

All studies that show difference in intelligence between races and sex have been shot down, those that show differences between ages now, especially between children and adults, well, they still stand

Well of course. Society still doesn't have a problem with ageism.

Well of course. Society still doesn't have a problem with ageism.

http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/not_this_shit_again.jpg

He was referring to basic medical, neurological, psychological and physical scientific studies that show clear and important differences between all stages of development. Not "society." And these differences are not "ageism" in any negative sense.

To ignore them is unrealistic, to dismiss them as bigotry is just plain wrong.

http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/not_this_shit_again.jpg

He was referring to basic medical, neurological, psychological and physical scientific studies that show clear and important differences between all stages of development. Not "society." And these differences are not "ageism" in any negative sense.

To ignore them is unrealistic, to dismiss them as bigotry is just plain wrong.
Hush, pup.

Can you show me real science saying that a person does not develop between the ages of 20 and 50?

And can you show me science that tells me how much the changes between 16 and 18 affect the specific skills necessary to vote? Not that there is 'a change'. 'A change' can be tiny, or it can be huge.

The thing is, is that science can't be more specific than that, at least not at this point.

Also, can you show me science that compares the decision making skills of 18 year olds versus 16 year olds? At a given time, what percentage of 18 year olds are better able to make the specific decisions necessary to vote properly than 16 year olds?

Here's the thing: the important bits are still theories (in the layman's meaning of the word, not the scientific meaning). Science can say that 'this part of the brain that tends to activate when higher level thinking is done undergoes changes between the ages of 16 and 18'. What science can't tell you (other than through guesses and induction) is 'between the ages of 16 and 18 a person becomes more able to make the necessary decisions to vote well'.

For one thing, that's because no one person can say exactly what the right way to think is in order to vote properly.

For another, that's because the brain is still infinitely more complex than humans can understand.

By the way--there are differences between men and women's brains. Society has just decided (rightly, I believe) that those differences don't make a difference in voting. That's a much more societal view than a scientific. Scientists are men/women of their social environment too--it's the rare scientists who will perform experiments on controversial matters, and then their research is often called 'false' for societal reasons, not scientific ones. Society has a huge impact on scientific results, especially in such a vague and complicated area as neuroscience.

Lastly--Nervun: corporeal punishment is wrong.

The question isn't when is a person ready to vote. There's no age. So its stupid to argue about this like there's a magic number out there. Like when a person turns 17 years 3 months and 14 days old they can vote. Any problems our country has with voter turnout or representation will not be solved by lowering the minimum voting age. Just keep it where it is and save yourself the hassle.

MTV is not a major influence in real teen culture, and neither is any other so called 'peer pressurer'.
Do you work in an old folks home or something? Don't come in contact with many teens, is my point.

Actually, I come in contact with teens on an almost daily basis. Myths of 'idols' telling teens how to think are far exaggerated. Idols affect teens about as much, or less, than they affect adults.

Can you show me real science saying that a person does not develop between the ages of 20 and 50?


Why would I need to do this?


And can you show me science that tells me how much the changes between 16 and 18 affect the specific skills necessary to vote? Not that there is 'a change'. 'A change' can be tiny, or it can be huge.
...
The thing is, is that science can't be more specific than that, at least not at this point.

Also, can you show me science that compares the decision making skills of 18 year olds versus 16 year olds?

All of which is beside the point. I am rebutting the idea that having any age which defines adulthood vs a minor status is "ageism." It's dismissive and stupid. We can argue about where specifically the line between minor and adult is drawn. We can argue about how to do it. I'm not getting into that. But to paint the idea of having a line as "ageist" or whatever is, frankly, dumb. Science doesn't get "specific," but it isn't "society oppressing me cuz of bigotry!" to have (for example) an age when you can vote, when you can be licsensed to drive, own a firearm, consent to sexual activities, serve in the military, become President of the US, or sit on Santa's lap before it's kind of creepy and disturbing.

All of those points I brought up are completely relevant. There is no scientific evidence to support having the line at 18. If you have examples that fit the criteria, I'd be interested to examine them. But without those, the science is so vague that it doesn't even mean anything.

In which case I refer again to my previous arguments, and see no reason not to grant the vote to 16 and 17 year olds.

Since when does granting suffrage to a given group amount to giving them control of the future of the country?

What is voting for, pray tell? Having and deciding the future of a country.

And adults are?

A bit more experienced than a 16 year old.

Why would taxes be considered a basis for Voting rights anyway?

The most destructive power a government has is the power to tax.

That said, I am not, in principle, opposed to eliminating voting entirely.

There is way too much obsession with the form of government. This is insane. The form of government is only a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What government does is vastly more important than the mechanism by which it decides what to do. If the mechanisms in place do not reliably lead to making the best decisions, perhaps it's time to reconsider those mechanisms--either modifying them or replacing them outright.

No teenagers are dumb. they will catch on to every trend and vote in what everway their social circle votes.

And this is differs from those in the 18-102 range in what way?

What is voting for, pray tell? Having and deciding the future of a country.

having a say and controlling are distinct

The most destructive power a government has is the power to tax.

nukes say otherwise

So nuclear weapons just appear out of thin air, with no expenditure of effort and energy and raw materials required?

So nuclear weapons just appear out of thin air, with no expenditure of effort and energy and raw materials required?

wait, your argument is honestly going to be that because taxes can result in the creation of destructive things, taxes are the destructive things? really?

wait, your argument is honestly going to be that because taxes can result in the creation of destructive things, taxes are the destructive things? really?

That's one of the reasons they're destructive, yes.

Another reason is that they're destructive in and of themselves.

That's one of the reasons they're destructive, yes.

Another reason is that they're destructive in and of themselves.

Yes of course because for a nautraly social creature such as humanity it is dangerouse for us to help each other out via the methoed of a shared pot!:D

That's one of the reasons they're destructive, yes.

unless we are willing to concede that sex is the most destructive thing ever (it could result in a pregnancy and that pregnancy could result in hitler!!!), this is fundamentally silly. you'd need to show necessity rather than possibility.

Another reason is that they're destructive in and of themselves.

even accepting this, which nobody actually will, they are clearly and obviously not 'the most destructive power'

No teenagers are dumb. they will catch on to every trend and vote in what everway their social circle votes.

Like everybody else? 1/3 of the population always votes for Republicans, another 1/3 for Democrats, and the last 1/3 votes whichever way the wind blows.

even accepting this, which nobody actually will'

All rational, moral individuals accept this.

All rational, moral individuals accept this.

I am rational and moral and disagree with your assumptions. So, you're wrong here too.

All of those points I brought up are completely relevant. There is no scientific evidence to support having the line at 18. If you have examples that fit the criteria, I'd be interested to examine them. But without those, the science is so vague that it doesn't even mean anything.

In which case I refer again to my previous arguments, and see no reason not to grant the vote to 16 and 17 year olds.

It is absurd to think that someone who has never experienced real responsibility, who could always go running to mommy and daddy to bail them out, who has never had to worry about paying the bills on time, who has never had to make a decision that wasn't subject to someone else's review, who has never had to get up at 3:30 AM every day to spend fourteen hours doing something he hates to make a better future for himself years on down the road, should be on an equal political footing with those who have.

Yes of course because for a nautraly social creature such as humanity it is dangerouse for us to help each other out via the methoed of a shared pot!:D

It is when someone is forced to be a part of it whether he wants to or not.

I am rational and moral
Except your next statement
and disagree with your assumptions
disproves your first.

Except your next statement

disproves your first.

Your assumptions are not proof. Your generalizations are not proof. Your attempt to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as irrational and/or immoral is not proof.

You haven't a leg to stand on here.

It is absurd to think that someone who has never experienced real responsibility, who could always go running to mommy and daddy to bail them out, who has never had to worry about paying the bills on time, who has never had to make a decision that wasn't subject to someone else's review, who has never had to get up at 3:30 AM every day to spend fourteen hours doing something he hates to make a better future for himself years on down the road, should be on an equal political footing with those who have.

And those are all experiences that someone magically gains upon their 18th birthday?

Admit it, it's a line in the sand just like any other. The question is just where to draw the line.

And those are all experiences that someone magically gains upon their 18th birthday?
Of course not.

Admit it, it's a line in the sand just like any other. The question is just where to draw the line.
Exactly. And my point is that moving it backwards is absolutely insane.

Of course not.


Exactly. And my point is that moving it backwards is absolutely insane.

I have a friend who, at age 17, was paying his mother's mortgage for her as she bounced in and out of rehab and jail. What of his voting rights? When he was 17 and working 30 hours a week while still attending high school, I was 19 and living at my parents house for free when I wasn't at college. Clearly, my anecdote proves that the voting age should be retracted to 17 years.

Yes, because we all know that a single anecdote proves a general trend...

Your assumptions are not proof.
They're not assumptions; they're objective facts provable from the first principles of the Universe.
Your generalizations are not proof.
They are when they're true, as is the case here.

Your attempt to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as irrational and/or immoral is not proof.
It is when the standards being used are the objectively correct standards for determining rationality and morality.

Yes, because we all know that a single anecdote proves a general trend...

You use shit debating, expect the same in return. Or are you going to continue to spout off nonsense about objective truths regarding taxation like you're something other than a troll on an internet forum?

They're not assumptions; they're objective facts provable from the first principles of the Universe.

'everyone who disagrees with me is immoral and irrational' IS an assumption.

Recognize that or don't, but it's your problem.

They are when they're true, as is the case here.

Assertion is not proof.


It is when the standards being used are the objectively correct standards for determining rationality and morality.

In other words, you're right because your assumptions are right, which are right because anyone who disagrees is wrong, because you're right.

He was referring to basic medical, neurological, psychological and physical scientific studies that show clear and important differences between all stages of development. Not "society." And these differences are not "ageism" in any negative sense.

To ignore them is unrealistic, to dismiss them as bigotry is just plain wrong.

We dismiss the studies claiming blacks and women were incapable of voting (yes, such studies did exist) as bigoted nonsense now. Show that anti-teen studies are not just as bigoted.

One common study to cite is the rat brain study. The problem with it is that the dosage of alcohol was so high and administered in such a short time that a lack of severe reaction would be almost impossible.

EDIT: The voting period ends at 5:00PM eastern today. Anyone who has not yet voted, do so now (http://www.change.org/ideas/view/lower_the_voting_age_to_16)!

We dismiss the studies claiming blacks and women were incapable of voting (yes, such studies did exist) as bigoted nonsense now. Show that anti-teen studies are not just as bigoted.

Burden of proof be on you: you made the claim that they're bigoted, you get the fun task of proving that studies showing the facts of basic human development are bigoted and that the differences between adulthood and childhood are no more significant than differences between races and gender.

All of them. Good luck with that.

It's not my main argument, so I may decide to just leave that part. But what would you consider to be proof?

It's not my main argument, so I may decide to just leave that part. But what would you consider to be proof?

In this case, it would probably be unreasonable to expect that you could prove it, unless there has been some amazing scientific, philosophical and legal revolution I just missed.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you also support the idea that there should be an age limit, right?

It's just a question of where that line is drawn. But disagreeing with lowering that line doesn't make me some kind of racist-equivalent.

In this case, it would probably be unreasonable to expect that you could prove it, unless there has been some amazing scientific, philosophical and legal revolution I just missed.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you also support the idea that there should be an age limit, right?

It's just a question of where that line is drawn. But disagreeing with lowering that line doesn't make me some kind of racist-equivalent.
AGEIST!
but more importantly, it is, honestly, just ta line in the sand no better and no worse than any other. More importantly moving the age line back to sixteen might have a positive effect as only those motivated enough to actually get to the poles would vote . . .might actually mean only the "more enlightened" teens would vote . . .on the other hand maybe only those with free time would vote and thus the "trend followers etc." would be the only ones voting .. .I honestly don't know

It is when someone is forced to be a part of it whether he wants to or not.

Ohh yes, it is harmfull to selfish people to be forced into acting for the community, ohh yes.

I think we should go back to the 'decisions are made by the tribal elders' approach and therefore recommend raising the voting age to 45.

Ohh yes, it is harmfull to selfish people to be forced into acting for the community, ohh yes.

Since selfishness is the highest of virtues, then yes, forcing individuals to act in a non-selfish manner is pure evil.

having a say and controlling are distinct

In a democracy, the voting system is designed so that people (not that it matters too much sometimes) have a say and can control, through their leaders, the destiny of a country. So having a say and controlling, in a democratic government, ultimately means the same.l

Since selfishness is the highest of virtues, then yes, forcing individuals to act in a non-selfish manner is pure evil.

Annnd what is the logic behind that then? A Randriod and a Satanist are ya?

In a democracy, the voting system is designed so that people (not that it matters too much sometimes) have a say and can control, through their leaders, the destiny of a country. So having a say and controlling, in a democratic government, ultimately means the same.l

except for one small problem. if i control something, then it does what i want. but in any form of democracy, having a say does not imply getting your way. it merely means that your positions can be taken into account during decision making.

Trostia, you're the one who wants to stop 16 and 17 year olds from voting. Granted, the status quo is in your favor, so you can just say 'prove they should be allowed to'. However, from a moral standpoint, you need to provide reasons why they should.

My challenge to show some studies that show how much brains change between 16 and 18 stands. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I haven't been able to find any.

Here's a little tidbit, by the way:

'UCLA's Elizabeth Sowell, another prominent brain-development researcher, takes a dim view of the movement to apply neuroscience to the law. Delayed frontal-lobe maturation may eventually be shown to affect teenagers' capacity to make long-term plans and control their impulses, she says, but no current research connects specific brain traits of typical teenagers to any mental or behavioral problems.

"The scientific data aren't ready to be used by the judicial system," she remarks. "The hardest thing [for neuroscientists to do] is to bring brain research into real-life contexts."'

http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/teen_brains_trial.html

So basically...there are physical differences, which someday might be shown to affect behavior.

No please... It was a fun joke but Paris Hilton shouldn't be president.

except for one small problem. if i control something, then it does what i want. but in any form of democracy, having a say does not imply getting your way. it merely means that your positions can be taken into account during decision making.

Why do you imply 'getting your way' all the time? It's not about that at all. It's about, in a democracy, having a say and controlling through the elected leaders, as I already posted, the destiny of a country. That, in itself, has nothing to do with "getting your own way". It's a partnership of sorts.

Saying 'controlling the future of the country' implies sole control, which wouldn't happen.

My challenge to show some studies that show how much brains change between 16 and 18 stands. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I haven't been able to find any.

Not much, but 18 year olds can be drafted. Thats the difference.

No please... It was a fun joke but Paris Hilton shouldn't be president.

even if we go along with the dubious assumption that all 16 and 17 year olds would vote and would do so as a block for a 'joke candidate', how exactly do you imagine this would work out mathematically against the population as a whole?

Not much, but 18 year olds can be drafted. Thats the difference.

what does that have to do with anything?

what does that have to do with anything?

Really? Can you not read?

18 year olds only have the riht 16 year olds dont because 18 year olds can get drafted, so they should have a say in who might draft them. Thats why they got the right to vote in the first place. Before that, the age was 21.

Really? Can you not read?

18 year olds only have the riht 16 year olds dont because 18 year olds can get drafted, so they should have a say in who might draft them. Thats why they got the right to vote in the first place. Before that, the age was 21.

so your claim is that voting rights are inherently tied to the draft? really? so old people can't vote? and if we abolished the draft entirely, there would be no voting rights to be had?

To the thread title:

No.

Lines are drawn because they must be drawn. The process for determining who was "mature enough" to cast a ballot would be ridiculously expensive and time-consuming. Age limits are the most effective way to sort out who should and shouldn't do X. Those who matured early are perfectly able to research issues and form their opinions in order to determine who to vote for if they could vote. If they're serious about wanting the responsibility, then they'll practice it. That's what I did. I even changed a relative's mind in 1984 -- I couldn't vote, but I knew from news sources and from looking at deficit/debt statistics that I didn't like where Reagan was headed, and showed what I learned to a cousin who voted Mondale (definitely my first "lesser of two evils" lesson, as I wasn't enamored of Wally, either).

Point is, it's 18, it's going to stay that way, and no amount of whining will change it. The preponderance of the evidence points to 16 being too young. Does that mean there aren't any 16-year-olds (or younger) who ARE ready? No. But it means that the number who would be ready is too low to contemplate changing the age.

If you're genuinely politically active at 16, congratulations! You should be proud of your effort to self-educate because it will serve you well for longer than the average person (who probably, in this era, isn't really ready at 18, either). You're also probably used to being "too young" for many things you've been ready to deal with for some time. That means you get to work on your patience and coping skills. Enjoy!

The preponderance of the evidence points to 16 being too young.

no, it doesn't

no, it doesn't

Yes, it does. That's why someone is allowed to vote when he or she turns 18, not 16.

Yes, it does. That's why someone is allowed to vote when he or she turns 18, not 16.

Heh yes. That is like the differance between saying 'this is the way the world is' and saying 'this is the way the world should be'.

One is obviously correct the other, well a pipe dream.:D

Heh yes. That is like the differance between saying 'this is the way the world is' and saying 'this is the way the world should be'.

One is obviously correct the other, well a pipe dream.:D

Exactly, Mr. Peep.:tongue:

Exactly, Mr. Peep.:tongue:

Please, just Peeps, or P, unless you are the tax woman?:D

Please, just Peeps, or P, unless you are the tax woman?:D

Ok, Peeps will do. But I am the tax lady.:D

Ok, Peeps will do. But I am the tax lady.:D

Gaaahhh! I got no money I umm spent it down the pub!

Gaaahhh! I got no money I umm spent it down the pub!

How dare you!!


:fluffle: