NationStates Jolt Archive

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'.

Right, exactly.

One claim ("should be") is actually relevant to the question at hand, since there is no dispute that as a matter of fact sixteen-year-olds cannot legally vote, and the other claim ("is") is an irrelevance tossed out on the apparent (and fallacious) assumption that the law is never wrong.

no, it doesn't

Right. So there's a legion of politically self-educated, 16-year-old, pre-voters out there? No. There isn't. I'd wager 100k, 250k, tops. That's less than .1% of the total population and about .5% of registered voters. Not enough to merit changing the age.

It's one of those things you're just going to have to deal with.

To the first question: maybe raising it back to 21 would be a good idea... but 18 should be the minimum age. When I was 16, I was busy keeping up with school, and I would have voted according to what my parents or my friends would have found a good idea, since I didn't really think very far yet. Teenagers have trouble enough seeing what would be best for them, let alone for the country. Lowering the drinking age to 18 would be fine though; it's that way in most European countries, and as far as I know we don't have more drunken teens than in the United States (although this might have something to do with me being 19, and finding it very frustrating that I'm allowed to drink vodka here -not that I'd want to- but not even a glass of wine or beer in the USA)

Right. So there's a legion of politically self-educated, 16-year-old, pre-voters out there? No. There isn't. I'd wager 100k, 250k, tops. That's less than .1% of the total population and about .5% of registered voters. Not enough to merit changing the age.

It's one of those things you're just going to have to deal with.

whether there is or not, that is irrelevant to the issue

whether there is or not, that is irrelevant to the issue

It is not. It has all the relevancy in the world. When and if the voting age is ever lowered (which I don't think will happen), then it is irrelevant. Until then, stay tuned.

It is not. It has all the relevancy in the world. When and if the voting age is ever lowered (which I don't think will happen), then it is irrelevant. Until then, stay tuned.

is/ought

is/ought

Is not/shouldn't be, at all.

Is not/shouldn't be, at all.

let me expand (though S already said it). the mere fact that something is the case is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be so. thus the fact that 16 year olds are not currently allowed to vote has nothing to do with whether they should be enfranchised.

Nanatsu, I just have no idea how you think your arguments make sense.

To the draft person: do you know who can be drafted? Well, for one thing, nobody, because there is no draft currently. But I guess we can settle for who has to register for the draft: men ages 16 to 25.

So let's only give those people the vote, and not anybody else.

To the people who say 'it's never going to change': why are you here? The question about whether or not it's going to change is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it should change, which is what's at stake here. A lot of things seem impossible before people get interested in them. I'm sure that people told MLK not to bother (happy almost-MLK day, everyone). Your statements are akin to 'you are all wasting your time here'. If you believe that, fine: but you're wasting your own time more.

whether there is or not, that is irrelevant to the issue

Then what exactly IS relevant? You answer so glibly and then just float away in little burst-balloon fart-circles.

The issue is a line must be drawn because the alternative is too time consuming and expensive. I notice you had nothing to say to that part of my argument, and instead seem to prefer waltzing about the thread willy-nilly and telling people what they can and cannot bring up.

Seems to me that you're the one wallowing in irrelevancy.

Nanatsu, I just have no idea how you think your arguments make sense.

To the draft person: do you know who can be drafted? Well, for one thing, nobody, because there is no draft currently. But I guess we can settle for who has to register for the draft: men ages 16 to 25.

So let's only give those people the vote, and not anybody else.

To the people who say 'it's never going to change': why are you here? The question about whether or not it's going to change is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it should change, which is what's at stake here. A lot of things seem impossible before people get interested in them. I'm sure that people told MLK not to bother (happy almost-MLK day, everyone). Your statements are akin to 'you are all wasting your time here'. If you believe that, fine: but you're wasting your own time more.

More than someone taking three paragraphs to point that out? Really?

Also, comparing 16-year-old suffrage to the civil rights movement is pretty weak sauce. If you're being oppressed as a 16-year-old, get emancipated. Either way, you're not voting until you're 18. There's just not enough demand. If you'd like to stir up demand, I wish you luck. It'll take one hell of a sophomore lobby to sway the one lawmaker it'll take to draft and bring up a bill and the majority of the rest it'll take to pass it.

I don't see it happening, not "not anytime soon", but not ever, barring some kind of mass die-off of everyone over 18.

Then what exactly IS relevant?

the alleged evidence that 16 years old is inherently too young to vote, and the fact that there really isn't any.

Either way, you're not voting until you're 18. There's just not enough demand.

so fucking what?

the alleged evidence that 16 years old is inherently too young to vote, and the fact that there really isn't any.

so fucking what?

This is exactly why it won't happen. If this is the best you can do, your cause will never organize, and it won't get any support. You're basically making my point for me. Thanks!

Nanatsu, I just have no idea how you think your arguments make sense.

To the draft person: do you know who can be drafted? Well, for one thing, nobody, because there is no draft currently. But I guess we can settle for who has to register for the draft: men ages 16 to 25.

So let's only give those people the vote, and not anybody else.

To the people who say 'it's never going to change': why are you here? The question about whether or not it's going to change is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it should change, which is what's at stake here. A lot of things seem impossible before people get interested in them. I'm sure that people told MLK not to bother (happy almost-MLK day, everyone). Your statements are akin to 'you are all wasting your time here'. If you believe that, fine: but you're wasting your own time more.

My argument makes more sense than yours. You're comparing letting 16 year olds vote to the civil rights movement? You are pretentious in your comparisons.

Are 16 year olds being opressed the way black people were in the US at one point in history? No, they're not. Therefore, there's no reason why the system must be stirred and forced to change the law. Whereas for black people, the opression was reason enough to make a drastic change. So settle down, kid and wait until you're 18 to whine about voting. That's when it matters, before that, it doesn't.

Oh, and stop wasting OUR time hashing and mixing an issue that has already being explained to you, several times.

My argument makes more sense than yours. You're comparing letting 16 year olds vote to the civil rights movement? You are pretentious in your comparisons.

Are 16 year olds being opressed the way black people were in the US at one point in history? No, they're not. Therefore, there's no reason why the system must be stirred and forced to change the law. Whereas for black people, the opression was reason enough to make a drastic change. So settle down, kid and wait until you're 18 to whine about voting. That's when it matters, before that, it doesn't.

Oh, and stop wasting OUR time hashing and mixing an issue that has already being explained to you, several times.

No, I'm comparing two things that people said would never happen, and making the point that groups without rights can get rights even if everyone thinks it'll never happen.

By the way, why do you think I'm under 18?

If I'm wasting your time, feel free to not respond--I'm not forcing you.

No, I'm comparing two things that people said would never happen, and making the point that groups without rights can get rights even if everyone thinks it'll never happen.

You're comparing two situations that couldn't be any more different. If 16 year olds, once again, were as opressed as black people were in the US at one point in history, then I would understand a movement to change the system. But they're not, so there's no need to change it. Besides, 16 year olds do not have, once again, the capacity to make decisions at an adult level.

Some may be alert and be interested in what's happening around them, but that doesn't mean they can have the same rights, like voting, as adults do.

By the way, why do you think I'm under 18?

Because you act like a teenager in responding to the posts. Am I erred?:rolleyes:

If I'm wasting your time, feel free to not respond--I'm not forcing you.

It's not only my time you're wasting, if you come to think about it.

You're comparing two situations that couldn't be any more different. If 16 year olds, once again, were as opressed as black people were in the US at one point in history, then I would understand a movement to change the system. But they're not, so there's no need to change it.

Once again, that analogy wasn't an argument for changing it, it was showing how it could happen, even though people didn't think so.

Besides, 16 year olds do not have, once again, the capacity to make decisions at an adult level.

Prove it.

Some may be alert and be interested in what's happening around them, but that doesn't mean they can have the same rights, like voting, as adults do.

Why not?

Because you act like a teenager in responding to the posts. Am I erred?:rolleyes:

If you mean that I advocate for teen voting rights, then that's a pretty big assumption. Otherwise, I could say the same about you. Are you a teenager?

It's not only my time you're wasting, if you come to think about it.

Do you mean my own? I don't consider intellectual debate a waste of my time. Seriously. If you don't want to debate further, don't. I'm not going to claim that since you stopped I won. But I'm also not going to concede a point that you haven't convinced me of (because you haven't proven anything) just because you want to stop talking.

Once again, that analogy wasn't an argument for changing it, it was showing how it could happen, even though people didn't think so.

In that case, change was inevitable. In what you're proposing, as INtangelon already told you, it's not happening now or ever. There's no need to change anything. Voting at 18 is the rule and that's how it'll stay.

Prove it.

16 year olds are, on the most part, a gullible group, easily influenced by peers and family.

Why not?

Because they're not adults, they haven't reached adulthood. Besides, why should they vote? What do they offer society, still in school and under their parents' wing, that whould grant them the right to vote? Nothing.

If you mean that I advocate for teen voting rights, then that's a pretty big assumption. Otherwise, I could say the same about you. Are you a teenager?

You advocate something completely ridiculous and your insistence only denotes immaturity, much like a teen. Several posters have already pointed out to you why it's preposterous to allow teens to vote and what would happen to even try and push such an agenda. But you keep insisting. Once again, stuck on an impossible idea, like a teen.

And to answer your question, no, I'm not a teen. I'm an adult.

Do you mean my own? I don't consider intellectual debate a waste of my time. Seriously. If you don't want to debate further, don't. I'm not going to claim that since you stopped I won. But I'm also not going to concede a point that you haven't convinced me of (because you haven't proven anything) just because you want to stop talking.

I don't need to convince you, at all, of something you already know very well. You are wasting your own time and delluding yourself if you think that this is going to change.

In that case, change was inevitable. In what you're proposing, as INtangelon already told you, it's not happening now or ever. There's no need to change anything. Voting at 18 is the rule and that's how it'll stay.

The rule needs to change because 16 and 17 year olds have an important perspective to offer to society, which outweighs any hypothetical harm it might do.

16 year olds are, on the most part, a gullible group, easily influenced by peers and family.

I asked for proof, not a rewording of your claim.

Because they're not adults, they haven't reached adulthood. Besides, why should they vote? What do they offer society, still in school and under their parents' wing, that whould grant them the right to vote? Nothing.

A different perspective on society. Teens should have the vote for the same reason that democracy exists in the first place.

You advocate something completely ridiculous and your insistence only denotes immaturity, much like a teen. Several posters have already pointed out to you why it's preposterous to allow teens to vote and what would happen to even try and push such an agenda. But you keep insisting. Once again, stuck on an impossible idea, like a teen.

I can see how from your point of view this looks like insistence on something ridiculous. But to say that it is is circular: I'm wrong because you're right. Even if insistence on unrealistic things was a purely teen characteristic (which is a laughable claim) if you look at yourself from a different perspective you could be the one insisting on unreasonable things. I don't claim to be perfect or know for sure that I'm right, and if you're reasonable you wouldn't either. I believe that I'm right, however, which is why I'm debating with you. You say that other people have already explained to me why I'm wrong--I disagree. I've put a challenge on the table for real scientific proof, which I haven't gotten.

And to answer your question, no, I'm not a teen. I'm an adult.

I'll take your word for it. Being the internet, it's impossible to tell.

I don't need to convince you, at all, of something you already know very well. You are wasting your own time and delluding yourself if you think that this is going to change.

Well, I don't know it, because I don't believe it. However, you're right that you don't need to convince me. If you truly believe that it will never change then you don't need to convince me of anything because it won't matter.

And I'm not deluding myself. A change wouldn't affect me at all. I'm simply advocating for what I think is right. It's entirely possible that it will never change, but it's also entirely possible that it will. I care about what's right, not just taking the easy position.

Has anyone mentioned Austria?

This is exactly why it won't happen. If this is the best you can do, your cause will never organize, and it won't get any support. You're basically making my point for me. Thanks!

so you don't actually have any of the evidence you claimed?

The rule needs to change because 16 and 17 year olds have an important perspective to offer to society,
No, they really don't.

As someone who works with 16 and 17 year olds on a regular basis, and who absolutely loves them all to death, I can tell you, no, they don't.

There's only one who would had progressed to the level that I wouldn't object to her voting before she turned 18. And you know something? Part of the reason I think she could handle it is because she was sensible enough--even then--to realize that, in general, it's a bad idea to let adolescents vote and realized that there was no justification for making a special exemption just for her.

If you're mature and sensible enough as an adolescent to realize that adolescents shouldn't vote, then and only then perhaps you're mature and sensible enough to vote--but then you're also mature and sensible enough to realize that an exception can't and shouldn't be made just for you.

A different perspective on society. Teens should have the vote for the same reason that democracy exists in the first place.
I'm going to repeat something I said earlier that, unfortunately, no one seemed to see:

Why is democracy considered good in and of itself?

The form government takes is only a means to an end. What really matters is what government does, and so if better results can be produced by taking pure democracy (or representative democracy, or republicanism, or whatever term is in vogue among the pseudo-intellectual today) and modifying it--or perhaps even replacing it entirely--why not do it?

Why is democracy considered good in and of itself?

because it is a necessary condition of freedom and justice in decision making. if i have no say over decisions that affect me, then my will is subordinated to that of others and i am not a free and equal member of the group. this is inherently unjust.

because it is a necessary condition of freedom and justice in decision making. if i have no say over decisions that affect me, then my will is subordinated to that of others and i am not a free and equal member of the group. this is inherently unjust.

Simply having a say isn't the same as making the decision.

You are still subordinated to the will of others.

That's why, as an alternative to democracy where "the people" make decisions affecting you, I propose a system where ONLY YOU make decisions affecting you.

Individual sovereignty is the only real kind.

Simply having a say isn't the same as making the decision.

You are still subordinated to the will of others.

That's why, as an alternative to democracy where "the people" make decisions affecting you, I propose a system where ONLY YOU make decisions affecting you.

Individual sovereignty is the only real kind.

if humans live and work in groups, pure individual sovereignty is impossible.

Only if that interaction is compulsory rather than voluntarily chosen by each individual.

Only if that interaction is compulsory rather than voluntarily chosen by each individual.

yes yes, as long as we 'voluntarily' agree to be ruled by a dictator, everything is a-ok.

We wouldn't be ruled by anyone.

We'd rule ourselves, and all the government would do is punish people who tried to assert rule over us.

There'd be no legislative decisions to make...the only real, substantial decisions government would make would be who to hire, who to fire, whether there's enough evidence to charge someone, whether or not to upholster the seats in an office--decisions that would only affect those who tried to rule over another, and not the vast bulk of us.

And we'd have a great way of keeping it in check that's much more reliable than voting (which can always be ignored if those in power decide they want to): a heavily armed citizenry.

We'd rule ourselves, and all the government would do is punish people who tried to assert rule over us.

The weird thing is, this position in abstract is compatible with everything from socialism to minarchist libertarianism.

The voting age in Austria is 16.

They have yet to implode from socialism or too much time spent at the mall, despite the warnings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Someone needs to explain this joke to me. Because a few posters, who I know dont like Ayn Rand, have been using that exact same phrase in the most random of places.

despite the warnings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

I'm fairly sure this is a different Linus.

Someone needs to explain this joke to me. Because a few posters, who I know dont like Ayn Rand, have been using that exact same phrase in the most random of places.

It's a reference to a dogmatic Objectivist poster we used to have around here, who was fond of referring to her in those terms.

It's a reference to a dogmatic Objectivist poster we used to have around here, who was fond of referring to her in those terms.

Ah. I just saw people starting to do it a few days ago though.

Bluth Corporation: as someone who also has regular interaction with teens, as well as regular interaction with the 18-22 (approx. college age) age bracket and relatively frequent interaction with the 23+ age group, I have to disagree with you. I agree that the 16-17 group has a very different perspective from the 18-22 which has a very different perspective from the 23+ age bracket. To any group the others may appear wrong. I won't deny that there are a lot of 16-17 year olds I know who would scare me if they could vote, but there are also a lot of 18-22 year olds and a lot of 23+ who scare me for the same reason.

I don't feel that the element of the 16-17 year old age group that would harm the voting process would have enough force to counterbalance the good that other 16-17 year olds would bring to the table. Of course, that's a personal belief, and I don't have any way of actually measuring that. However, I believe that in the absence of convincing proof that allowing a certain group to vote would harm society, it should be allowed.

As to why--have you ever read Rosseau? Of course, he puts it much more eloquently than I can, but basically this: the general will (which is what voting attempts to measure) is the sum of the individual wills, and yet more. It's the diversity of the individual wills that allows the general will to end up on the right path.

It's my experience that 16 and 17 year olds--the ones who would vote--are able to make intelligent and rational distinction between the options. Granted, there are apathetic teens and there are brainwashed teens--but that is true of any age group. And the brainwashing is of the 'I was raised a Democrat' variety, not of the 'Paris Hilton says to vote Democrat' variety. The latter is an urban myth.

On the subject of brainwashing: huge numbers of adults vote single party for their entire lives, even on issues where party doesn't matter (like a local drain commissioner). That doesn't sound like rational voting to me.

Anyways, the "bad" element of 16-17 year old teen voters wouldn't add any new problem with the electoral system, and the rest would provide a valuable perspective.

I like the airy pretentiousness of it. The Rand meme, I mean.

As for the OP, can't we look at Austria and see how it's affected them?

so you don't actually have any of the evidence you claimed?

What claim was that? You're the one bellowing about how sophomores should get to vote. I've not seen a single thing that supports your viewpoint. It you who must show why the status quo should change. You haven't.

The only claim I've made is that the line was once drawn at 21, and was moved, by Constitutional Amendment, to 18. I feel confident, given the complete lack of organization, motivation and desire by those in the 16-17 age range to start up the amendment process, that 18 is where the line will stay.

Are lines perfect? Not at all. Are they better than any other way of determining eligibility? By a long, long way.

Go on and refute that, if you can, without just posting "nuh-UH!"

because it is a necessary condition of freedom and justice in decision making. if i have no say over decisions that affect me, then my will is subordinated to that of others and i am not a free and equal member of the group. this is inherently unjust.

You AREN'T a free and equal member of the group if you are below the age of majority. That's why they call them "minors". You DO have a say, just not suffrage. I've never seen a reasonably-presented and well-thought-out proposal at the student level go unconsidered by any administration. Most of those I've seen have been given trial/probationary runs, and about half of those were allowed to continue. These ideas ranged from simple stuff, like being allowed to coordinate dances themselves when I taught HS, to allowing a student member on hiring committees at the university I taught at in North Dakota.

All that was done without suffrage granted to those who weren't 18. Of course there are exceptions to the standard notion of what an adolescent is or isn't capable of, but not nearly enough to lower the voting age to 16. Besides, why stop there? Why not 14? 12? 10? The line must be drawn somewhere, and 18 gets the most return for the least exclusion. Again, if this were a legitimate desire on the part of sophomores, surely we'd have seen some kind of organized lobby by now. After all, Amendment 26 was passed in 1971 -- 38 years and no groundswell for 16-year-old voters...no organized demand of any remote significance.

The voting age in Austria is 16.

They have yet to implode from socialism or too much time spent at the mall, despite the warnings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Yeah, that's Austria. Surely you've noticed a difference between the relative levels of maturity of Austria and the US?

You AREN'T a free and equal member of the group if you are below the age of majority. That's why they call them "minors". You DO have a say, just not suffrage. I've never seen a reasonably-presented and well-thought-out proposal at the student level go unconsidered by any administration. Most of those I've seen have been given trial/probationary runs, and about half of those were allowed to continue. These ideas ranged from simple stuff, like being allowed to coordinate dances themselves when I taught HS, to allowing a student member on hiring committees at the university I taught at in North Dakota.

All that was done without suffrage granted to those who weren't 18. Of course there are exceptions to the standard notion of what an adolescent is or isn't capable of, but not nearly enough to lower the voting age to 16. Besides, why stop there? Why not 14? 12? 10? The line must be drawn somewhere, and 18 gets the most return for the least exclusion. Again, if this were a legitimate desire on the part of sophomores, surely we'd have seen some kind of organized lobby by now. After all, Amendment 26 was passed in 1971 -- 38 years and no groundswell for 16-year-old voters...no organized demand of any remote significance.



Yeah, that's Austria. Surely you've noticed a difference between the relative levels of maturity of Austria and the US?

18 is not the age of majority, it's an arbitrary number which we have grown used to.

18 is not the age of majority, it's an arbitrary number which we have grown used to.

Uh...sorry, it is the age of majority by law in the country from which I'm typing this.

You've grown used to it if you live here because it's the law, and it's enforced.

I've got no problem with lowering the age, but it wasn't lowered to 18 in 1971 at random. There was enough support for the idea to make it possible, and it happened. Funny that.

You AREN'T a free and equal member of the group if you are below the age of majority.

Is/ought.

I've never seen a reasonably-presented and well-thought-out proposal at the student level go unconsidered by any administration.

And a dictatorship might consider "reasonably-presented and well-thought-out proposal[s]" from the people over which it rules, too. So? Power is still held in the hands of those in charge: the fact that they can choose, on their own discretion, to listen to those over whom they rule is beside the point.

The line must be drawn somewhere, and 18 gets the most return for the least exclusion.

At least you're using the right standard... but I'm not sure what reason you have to make this judgment. What, exactly, do you fear from letting sixteen-year-olds vote?

After all, Amendment 26 was passed in 1971 -- 38 years and no groundswell for 16-year-old voters...no organized demand of any remote significance.

1971, right, or almost two centuries after the Constitution was ratified.

All kinds of social and political factors go into when particular issues come up that have nothing whatsoever to do with the justice behind them.

People should be under 10 to vote. Or... 18. Maybe both.

There was a very GOOD reason the voting age was lowered in 1971 to eighteen-it was the Draft. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote". The state demanded the lives of those at or over eighteen, so those persons had a vested interest.

Sixteen Year Olds in the U.S. don't have those obligations.

...

hey S, is it just me or is this thread seeming particularly substandard?

There was a very GOOD reason the voting age was lowered in 1971 to eighteen-it was the Draft. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote". The state demanded the lives of those at or over eighteen, so those persons had a vested interest.

Sixteen Year Olds in the U.S. don't have those obligations.

the injustice of being eligible to be drafted without being eligible to vote does not imply that it is just to deny those that cannot be drafted the right to vote. this is obvious, unless you think it was wrong to allow women to vote.

What claim was that?

my, how the memory declines
The preponderance of the evidence points to 16 being too young.

I've not seen a single thing that supports your viewpoint.

perhaps it would help to read the thread, at least.

but a couple quick ones
1) democratic principles. any restriction in the franchise must have a damn good reason, and none has been offered. in fact, every proposed reason we've seen here has been downright stupid, either not actually applying at all or actually arguing for the disenfranchisement of even wider swaths of the population for silly reasons.

2) benefit to civic engagement. 16 is a point of much greater institutional reach than 18 or later, so it is easier to get people educated and registered and involved. it is early voting habits that set later ones, and so getting people started early and while still reachable directly through high school civics and social studies classes will lead to a more active and informed electorate.

3) we already recognize 16 as a key step in adulthood, and voting is just about the least dangerous thing we could allow 16 year olds to start doing. much safer than the stuff we actually let them start doing at that age.

The weird thing is, this position in abstract is compatible with everything from socialism to minarchist libertarianism.

Not for a proper understanding of what constitutes "ruling over someone else," it doesn't.

1) democratic principles. any restriction in the franchise must have a damn good reason, and none has been offered. in fact, every proposed reason we've seen here has been downright stupid, either not actually applying at all or actually arguing for the disenfranchisement of even wider swaths of the population for silly reasons.
"More liberty" is silly?

2) benefit to civic engagement. 16 is a point of much greater institutional reach than 18 or later, so it is easier to get people educated
I have a real problem with government institutions involving themselves in "education." It's too easy to turn it into outright brainwashing.

3) we already recognize 16 as a key step in adulthood, and voting is just about the least dangerous thing we could allow 16 year olds to start doing. much safer than the stuff we actually let them start doing at that age.

Yeah, because ramming a few people in a car is way less serious than impoverishing an entire country or nuking an entire hemisphere.

Yeah, that's Austria. Surely you've noticed a difference between the relative levels of maturity of Austria and the US?

what sort of 18th century racism is this?

what sort of 18th century racism is this?

The sexy sort.

Why have an age limit at all? Why not just let everyone, regardless of age, vote?

Why have an age limit at all? Why not just let everyone, regardless of age, vote?

well, presumably we'd want to make it so that, for example, people don't get to have three votes on account of their newborn twins who they swear really love obama.

well, presumably we'd want to make it so that, for example, people don't get to have three votes on account of their newborn twins who they swear really love obama.

So, where would YOU draw the line?

So, where would YOU draw the line?

18 seems a pretty good one.

"More liberty" is silly?

What?

So, where would YOU draw the line?

16 is clearly in, though i might be open to going as low as 12ish

Not for a proper understanding of what constitutes "ruling over someone else," it doesn't.

What gives you the right to impose your "proper understanding" on everyone else? That seems pretty definitively ruling over others however much you want to play with definitions--unless perhaps it's a conception so minimal as to not actually deal with the issues that arise in actual society (property being the big one).

Is/ought.

Not sure how you get is/ought out of the actual law as it stands, but hey. If misusing fallacy names makes you happy, knock yourself out.

And a dictatorship might consider "reasonably-presented and well-thought-out proposal[s]" from the people over which it rules, too. So? Power is still held in the hands of those in charge: the fact that they can choose, on their own discretion, to listen to those over whom they rule is beside the point.

I refer you again to the law of the land. The age of majority is 18. I've seen nothing but sophistry to suggest it be lowered.

At least you're using the right standard... but I'm not sure what reason you have to make this judgment. What, exactly, do you fear from letting sixteen-year-olds vote?

Fear? You mean besides the campaign ads directed at young voters getting even worse? Besides a broader swath of voter apathy than we have already? You seem to think that even half of 16-year-olds in the US would be faunching at the bit to vote. Here's a hint: they're not. You've not shown a demand for this beyond your own, and it's getting old.

1971, right, or almost two centuries after the Constitution was ratified.

All kinds of social and political factors go into when particular issues come up that have nothing whatsoever to do with the justice behind them.

And in 38 years, no effort or even remote significance has reared up to change that. Nice try with the "two centuries" goalpost shift. You know as well as I do that changes like that come much quicker once the first one is made. Seems to me that 16-year-olds would have the vote by now if they truly wanted it. They don't. Not in anything approaching a mass significant enough to begin the process. Show me those numbers, and I'll be glad to support an enfranchisement movement.

my, how the memory declines




perhaps it would help to read the thread, at least.

You know what would also help? Losing the attitude.

The preponderance of the evidence I'm talking about is the fact that there's no groundswell or organized attempt to get 16-year-olds motivated to start the amendment process, and there hasn't been since the last time the law was changed.

You speak so faux-passionately about democratic principles, yet you seem to forget that those principles require that those seeking redress of a grievance must actually have a grievance. Where is the demand of any group of significant size for this? You don't give a shit about democracy, you just want to engage in a prick-waving match over who YOU think should vote. Talk about is/ought. I'm glad you're a fan of this idea. I would be too, if those to whom it applied would get off their asses and start a movement. They haven't. And they won't, at least not anytime soon. Perhaps if we're forced to draft again, and they lower THAT age, we'll see some action on that front. Until then? Too many distractions, not enough focus.

but a couple quick ones
1) democratic principles. any restriction in the franchise must have a damn good reason, and none has been offered. in fact, every proposed reason we've seen here has been downright stupid, either not actually applying at all or actually arguing for the disenfranchisement of even wider swaths of the population for silly reasons.

So matching the age of enlistment to the age of franchise isn't good enough?

2) benefit to civic engagement. 16 is a point of much greater institutional reach than 18 or later, so it is easier to get people educated and registered and involved. it is early voting habits that set later ones, and so getting people started early and while still reachable directly through high school civics and social studies classes will lead to a more active and informed electorate.

Civics? What decade do you think this is? Your rationale here is more hopeful than factual, unless you can show how this will happen.

3) we already recognize 16 as a key step in adulthood, and voting is just about the least dangerous thing we could allow 16 year olds to start doing. much safer than the stuff we actually let them start doing at that age.

Right. Kid crashes car. One dead, maybe half a dozen? More if it's a really unlucky day? The sophomore-junior bloc is courted by telegenic spokespeople, or is somehow pressured into voting a certain way by parents, or votes the candidate with the best position on X-Box vs. PS3? Nah, you're right, that's not dangerous. The "I'd like to have a beer with the guy" vote is what gave us the most dangerous decade on record since the 40s or the 60s.

Again, I've not seen a single demonstration, an ad campaign, a legislator whose pet project this is, nothing to suggest this is remotely important, let alone possible.

what sort of 18th century racism is this?

Comparing the relative maturity of Austrians to Americans isn't racism, but hey, you go crazy.

What gives you the right to impose your "proper understanding" on everyone else? That seems pretty definitively ruling over others however much you want to play with definitions--unless perhaps it's a conception so minimal as to not actually deal with the issues that arise in actual society (property being the big one).

So let's think this through. Are you suggesting that 16 become the new age of majority or just that they get to vote when they get to drive? I'd be one hell of a lot more likely to support votes ONLY in that case. I still see no demand, but the proportion of sophomores who would be ready for everything beyond voting, such as property ownership, entering into contracts, and everything else that comes with entering the majority, well, that's gonna be very small.

16 is clearly in, though i might be open to going as low as 12ish

So legions of screaming Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers fans are going to be a voting bloc? Really?

And "12ish"? What does that mean? Are you so against drawing lines that you won't even do it at 13?

How about we have no age minimum period but that everyone has to pass the same test that foreigners have to take to gain citizenship in order to vote.

How about we have no age minimum period but that everyone has to pass the same test that foreigners have to take to gain citizenship in order to vote.

200 million tests? The cost to generate, distribute, collect, grade and reply with (or without) enfranchisement would be astronomical. Though anymore I don't know what qualifies as that kind of amount, given the recent bailout/stimulus figures.

Other than that, I like the idea. Then again, I like the idea of parenting licenses too, so I might not be the one to ask.

200 million tests? The cost to generate, distribute, collect, grade and reply with (or without) enfranchisement would be astronomical. Though anymore I don't know what qualifies as that kind of amount, given the recent bailout/stimulus figures.


Money well spent, plus lets face it 2/3 of the people wouldnt even pass or even try ;)

Not sure how you get is/ought out of the actual law as it stands

No, the law isn't fallacious; your reference to it is. Free Soviets' point (obviously) was that the law currently does not treat sixteen-year-olds as free and equal members of society, and that this (with respect to voting, at least) is an injustice.

Agreeing with him that the law does not treat them as free equals with everyone else does not address his point in the slightest, unless you fallaciously equate "is" to "ought" and suggest that sixteen-year-olds should be denied equal rights because they are denied equal rights.

I've seen nothing but sophistry to suggest it be lowered.

I don't know anything about your sight, but basic respect for democracy is in and of itself a compelling reason to allow as many people as possible to vote. If you want to abridge democratic rights, you need a really good reason--you do, not us, because our "really good reason" is the basic premise of any democratic society, that freedom and equality require universal suffrage.

Fear? You mean besides the campaign ads directed at young voters getting even worse?

Stupid voting ads are targeted at every demographic. So?

Besides a broader swath of voter apathy than we have already?

What do you care? Would you really ban people from voting to prevent them from choosing not to vote? That seems really pointless to me....

You seem to think that even half of 16-year-olds in the US would be faunching at the bit to vote. Here's a hint: they're not.

Who cares? Actually, the only thing this proves is the absurdity of the claims of sixteen-year-olds wrecking our national politics with their emotionalism and irrationality. Even letting one more person vote is worth it.

And in 38 years, no effort or even remote significance has reared up to change that.

And there are some structural reasons for that, like the fact that most sixteen-year-olds still live with their parents and spend much of their time in high school, not situations best suited for political organizing... and the fact (as threads like this one show) that our culture is still very far from the sort of principled advocacy of democracy that sees the non-participation of minors as a real injustice.

But, again, "is" does not imply "ought." The fact that no such movement has yet arisen does not prove that one should not arise. To paraphrase Dan Savage, you fail until you succeed.

Show me those numbers, and I'll be glad to support an enfranchisement movement.

Wait, so your only standard is the proportion of sixteen-year-olds who want to vote? How does that make any sense... at all?

If it were only, say, a hundred, then those hundred would vote and the others wouldn't. What would be the problem?

Are you suggesting that 16 become the new age of majority or just that they get to vote when they get to drive?

Actually, I support raising the driving age. So I'd have sixteen-year-olds voting a few years before they "get" to drive.

But, no, not new "age of majority." Just voting rights, which are both most fundamental and "safest."

You know, this topic could be viewed as an attempt to gather support... one of many, of course..

So your response to the gathering of support is to try to shut it down by saying that no one is gathering support?

Interesting.

What gives you the right to impose your "proper understanding" on everyone else?

I'm not "imposing" anything.

It's not "my" proper understanding--it's the objectively correct proper understanding, as proven from the first principles of the Universe.

It's objective reality that's imposing it.

I'm not "imposing" anything.

So you won't use force? You'll just kindly ask others to respect what you deem to be your rights? Alright, I'm fine with that.

It's not "my" proper understanding--it's the objectively correct proper understanding, as proven from the first principles of the Universe.

Doubtful, but so what?

If you really believe in freedom, you will not impose even what is right.

the injustice of being eligible to be drafted without being eligible to vote does not imply that it is just to deny those that cannot be drafted the right to vote. this is obvious, unless you think it was wrong to allow women to vote.

No, you're missing the point, possibly deliberately. At eighteen, you're considered an adult, at sixteen, you are considered (legally) a Minor Child, you have an entirely different, special, and usually more lenient set of codes in the Justice System, you are not obligated to file Income Tax, you aren't legally responsible for your actions. (even in the case of Emancipated Minors, you have a Legal guardian, which Adults do not.)

At sixteen, you are a child. Giving a Child the Vote is every bit as dangerous (possibly more dangerous) as giving them a loaded firearm. The power of the Vote is the power to coerce, it is the power to (vicariously) kill with a decision. Children generally are NOT ready to handle serious responsibility-this is why we have a Juvenile Justice System.

There are responsible sixteen year olds, and there are irresponsible adults, but the proportions between are very different, and the consequences they experience are also very different. If anything, the voting age should be raised to 21, as fewer late-teens are out on their own paying bills and taxes and working full time now (in proportion) than was the case in 1971.

No, the law isn't fallacious; your reference to it is. Free Soviets' point (obviously) was that the law currently does not treat sixteen-year-olds as free and equal members of society, and that this (with respect to voting, at least) is an injustice.

No it isn't.

Where would you draw the line? 12? 10? Most sophomores haven't even been through a US history class or what passes for current issues classes (usually junior-senior level courses in HS). I don't think a wholesale lowering of the voting age can be justified for the microscopic minority who may be ahead of the curve enough to vote responsibly.

Then again, with the overall level of ignorance and apathy in this nation, I'm not sure it really matters that much. If the last election cycle is indicative of evolution with regard to political candidates, in 12 years we're going to be voting for plants.

Still, I don't think using the current enfranchisees' general uninformed apathy as justification makes a very good case for lowering the age.

Agreeing with him that the law does not treat them as free equals with everyone else does not address his point in the slightest, unless you fallaciously equate "is" to "ought" and suggest that sixteen-year-olds should be denied equal rights because they are denied equal rights.

So why stop at voting? Why not demand contract rights? Make them register for the Selective Service? Or are you prepared to admit that there should be limits somewhere?

I don't know anything about your sight, but basic respect for democracy is in and of itself a compelling reason to allow as many people as possible to vote.

You keep trying to link pre-mature voting to "basic respect for democracy", and it's just not working. Cherry-picking the vote seems a bit disingenuous. What about basic respect for anything else society doesn't let them do? Would it "basic respect for sex" demand that 16-year-olds get access to sexual partners older than 19 (or the various other age-range laws, depending on the state)? No. That's because the perception of society and various authorities on human development is that they're not ready, or there's too much potential for imbalance or abuse.

If you want to abridge democratic rights, you need a really good reason--you do, not us, because our "really good reason" is the basic premise of any democratic society, that freedom and equality require universal suffrage.

The problem with your argument is that you keep saying that rights are being abridged. When rights are truly abridged, there are movements within society to first raise consciousness about the abridgement, and then make an attempt to reverse it. This is simply not happening in this case.

Stupid voting ads are targeted at every demographic. So?

So you'd be fine with more, aimed at a juvenile audience. As you wish.

What do you care? Would you really ban people from voting to prevent them from choosing not to vote? That seems really pointless to me....

There you go again. I can't ban what is already not allowed. You must justify the lowering, and you haven't. You've paid a lot of lip-service to democracy, but a true democracy isn't what we have here.

Who cares? Actually, the only thing this proves is the absurdity of the claims of sixteen-year-olds wrecking our national politics with their emotionalism and irrationality. Even letting one more person vote is worth it.

I disagree.

And there are some structural reasons for that, like the fact that most sixteen-year-olds still live with their parents and spend much of their time in high school, not situations best suited for political organizing...

Wait...did you just help my side? Thanks! Sixteen-year-olds aren't done with all of these things you mention. The overwhelming majority do not have to deal with most of the issues elections hang on. None of them pay property taxes, so why the hell should I let any one of them vote to raise mine until they do? Same thing with income tax, unless they're not being claimed as dependents, which is exceedingly rare. They're not old enough to serve, but they get to vote for a candidate that might favor a war that might draft me? No thank you. They can't enter into contracts or be tried as adults (except in very exceptional circumstances), but they can vote for judges, or mayors (or other officials) who appoint judges or DAs?

I just don't see how a "partial enfranchisement" would work unless it's a full enfranchisement PLUS age of majority at 16. I would oppose that.

and the fact (as threads like this one show) that our culture is still very far from the sort of principled advocacy of democracy that sees the non-participation of minors as a real injustice.

Principled because you say so -- post hoc, ergo propter hoc, I think (logic/debate classes were two decades ago).

But, again, "is" does not imply "ought." The fact that no such movement has yet arisen does not prove that one should not arise. To paraphrase Dan Savage, you fail until you succeed.

"Should"? How do you get to use is/ought if I can't? There is no movement, there hasn't been one. Until there is one, all you have is conjecture.

Wait, so your only standard is the proportion of sixteen-year-olds who want to vote? How does that make any sense... at all?

No, my standard is "show me the movement". Gather a meaningful number of 16-year-olds who think about wanting the vote for more than a few fashionable weeks. Or do you think civil rights or the reversal of any other injustice just happened because it "should" have?

If it were only, say, a hundred, then those hundred would vote and the others wouldn't. What would be the problem?

Identifying the hundred (how, exactly? testing? even more expense...), creating the bureaucracy that would single them out and keep track of them. An unjustifiable expense in time and public funds.

Actually, I support raising the driving age. So I'd have sixteen-year-olds voting a few years before they "get" to drive.

Here's a thought -- let's get them fully educated first.

What, exactly, IS the big deal, by the way? Children are subject to parental control and oversight anyway -- what issues are suffering from the absence of the 16-year-old vote? What issues are these mythical teens so passionate about that they can't gather their wits enough to convince parents or voting-age siblings to consider their point of view?

But, no, not new "age of majority." Just voting rights, which are both most fundamental and "safest."

Again, if they're not contributing to the system via every tax (or draft or other rights, privileges or potential penalties) a majority adult is subject to, how do you propose to make voting a graduated process (like many states have done with driver licensing)?

You know, this topic could be viewed as an attempt to gather support... one of many, of course..

So your response to the gathering of support is to try to shut it down by saying that no one is gathering support?

Interesting.

Right. Nice try. Unless you're seriously contending that one person posting on an online forum equals a movement.

And how is debating the merits of the proposition in any way shutting it down? You mean your response to a discussion is to claim that opposition to an idea automatically equals the desire to shut it down?

Also interesting. :rolleyes:

Giving a Child the Vote is every bit as dangerous (possibly more dangerous) as giving them a loaded firearm.

That's ludicrous. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds would not vote in proportions that different from those older than them, and their numbers are not so high that those differences that would occur would make a difference in anything but a close election.

Where would you draw the line? 12? 10?

If you believe in democracy, it's an injustice to deny anyone at all the right to vote. The real question is whether it's a necessary injustice--but the point is, it is the side advocating the injustice that must show the necessity. The reasons they should be allowed to vote are already clear. The question is whether the reasons they shouldn't be are compelling enough to override those.

Instead, the basic attitude of people against in the change in this thread seems to eliminate half of the consideration: minors (of all ages) are excluded from voting rights not because it's an unfortunate but necessary measure resulting from a careful balance between competing values, but on principle, because their democratic rights are irrelevant and do not matter.

Most sophomores haven't even been through a US history class

Maybe not at the high school level, but so what? How much do most adults remember of their high school history classes?

or what passes for current issues classes (usually junior-senior level courses in HS).

Then make it a freshman-year course, or give students more exposure to it in middle school, or make any number of other possible changes to solve this problem. I'm inclined to think that lowering the voting age would be a pretty strong incentive to get this done....

So why stop at voting? Why not demand contract rights? Make them register for the Selective Service? Or are you prepared to admit that there should be limits somewhere?

Of course. Why wouldn't I? I'm not denying that there should be a line, I'm denying that there should be a line with respect to this particular right in the current particular place.

The problem with your argument is that you keep saying that rights are being abridged. When rights are truly abridged, there are movements within society to first raise consciousness about the abridgement, and then make an attempt to reverse it.

Nonsense. The abridgment of rights is abstract; it occurs regardless of whether or not anyone notices it. Social movements are founded in history, not in philosophy: any number of factors go into them that have nothing to do with who has what right to what. I've already given a few in this case that have nothing to do with the democratic rights of minors.

So you'd be fine with more, aimed at a juvenile audience.

Yes.

There you go again. I can't ban what is already not allowed.

Actually, you can't even ban what is allowed, because you aren't dictator. But you can use what political rights you have to support or oppose certain bans, proposed or existing. There's no reason to automatically default the status quo. "Is" is not "ought": what is needs just as much justification as what is not.

I disagree.

So if Congress passed a law that, say, randomly selected a voter every election who was prohibited to vote, you wouldn't care about changing it?

The overwhelming majority do not have to deal with most of the issues elections hang on. None of them pay property taxes, so why the hell should I let any one of them vote to raise mine until they do? Same thing with income tax, unless they're not being claimed as dependents, which is exceedingly rare.

But their parents do, and somehow I doubt that they lack concern for their family's economic well-being simply because they don't actually make the direct payment.

They're not old enough to serve, but they get to vote for a candidate that might favor a war that might draft me? No thank you.

Um, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'd bet that if sixteen-year-olds got the right to vote tomorrow, any war they might vote for in the future would have a much greater chance of drafting them than drafting you.

Indeed, since wars tend to last a while, if the draft is ever restored and the voting age is not reduced, it's quite likely that people who were never involved in making the decision to go to war will be among those drafted to fight in it--while mature, responsible adults, who condescend at the idea of minors voting, are content to throw away other people's lives for bullshit reasons.

They can't enter into contracts or be tried as adults (except in very exceptional circumstances), but they can vote for judges, or mayors (or other officials) who appoint judges or DAs?

It doesn't matter if they can be tried as adults--they still are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. Indeed, this is the crucial point: democratic rights in political philosophy are tied to the right of the government to enforce the law. If the law does not stem from the people who are bound to obey it, then we just have "might makes right": the people with the guns tell the others what to do. When you deny minors democratic rights, you force into ambiguity both your right to enforce the law against them and their obligation to obey the law in the first place. Maybe this is a necessary problem for young children, but by the mid-teens I'm inclined to think it's an unnecessary problem that we should do away with.

Also, you're missing the opposing side of this argument: yes, adults deal with the law in ways that minors don't, but minors deal with the law in ways that adults don't, either. And who makes those laws? Adults, of course.

Principled because you say so -- post hoc, ergo propter hoc, I think (logic/debate classes were two decades ago).

No, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a correlation/causation fallacy: y occurs after x, so x caused y. If you object to my use of "principled", then your problem is really that (here, at least) I just asserted it without argument... mainly because, for the point I was making, it doesn't matter whether you agree with the word. A society's understanding of what is right may not be what actually is right. When the two diverge, it can be very difficult to get a movement for social change off the ground. (Of course, things are different when there is no social moral consensus--for instance, with respect to homosexuality and abortion right now. But when even liberal-minded people like most of those in this thread laugh at the idea of letting minors vote, of course there will be no large social movement out to change that.)

There is no movement, there hasn't been one. Until there is one, all you have is conjecture.

Yeah, so? A lot of political arguments here are "conjecture"--we debate lots of issues that aren't actually on the table at the moment. What of it?

Or do you think civil rights or the reversal of any other injustice just happened because it "should" have?

No. But I think it should have happened that way. ;)

I'm not optimistic about the prospects of the voting age being lowered. But this thread isn't about whether or not the voting age will be lowered. It's about whether or not the voting age should be lowered.

Identifying the hundred (how, exactly? testing? even more expense...), creating the bureaucracy that would single them out and keep track of them.

Why bother identifying them? Sixteen-year-olds are mostly politically apathetic and lazy, right? So just grant them all suffrage, and the hundred who care will vote, and the others won't.

Here's a thought -- let's get them fully educated first.

Fine with me. Let's improve civics and history education for people under sixteen.

My comment wasn't in reference to those bits and pieces of your argument that actually debate the points. Those I'm glad for. It was in reference to the 'this is useless' ones, which just hurt the quality of debate.

And no, one posting isn't a movement. But it could be part of one. Maybe not, but maybe. Movements don't just spring up over night.

By the way, I wouldn't consider thousands of juveniles waived to adult court every year 'except in very exceptional circumstances'. Regardless of the percentage, that's thousands of citizens expected to act like adults without adult rights. That only counts people transferred by judicial waiver, by the way. I wasn't able to find statistics on the others.

In Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina ANYONE 16 or 17 is automatically charged as an adult. In Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin Anyone 17 or above is automatically treated as an adult.

I would hardly say that all of the 17 year olds in 13 states and the 16 year olds in 3 states is 'very exceptional circumstances'.

Minors have to pay income tax if they make enough money.

And while we're on the subject of "why the hell should I let any one of them vote to raise mine until they do?" ... Let's think about this for a moment. In the United States of America we have a progressive tax rate. That means that when someone votes for someone who is going to "raise taxes for the wealthy" or "lower taxes for the middle class" or whatever, odds are that at least some of those changes won't apply to them. So let's not let them vote!

Here's another great idea: let's have a separate women's legislature to make decisions about things such as abortion: I mean, it doesn't really affect men, does it?

Let's only let people who own cars vote for the people who pass gas taxes.

Let's only let people who went to public school have any say in public school funding.

The examples go on and on. The point is that no one is ever going to be directly influenced by every decision made by elected officials. That's unreasonable to expect.

Another point about taxation: aren't you the big advocate of teens influence their parents how to vote? Why not the other way around. I'm sure most teens would respond to their parents explaining the "if you raise taxes too much I'll have less money, which can only be bad for you" line of logic.

Just few wrap up comments:

No, you're missing the point, possibly deliberately. At eighteen, you're considered an adult, at sixteen, you are considered (legally) a Minor Child,

Which necessarily needs to have to do with voting because....?

you have an entirely different, special, and usually more lenient set of codes in the Justice System,

Not everywhere. Not at all in the three states above, and almost everywhere you can be charged as an adult at the prosecutor or judge's discretion.

you are not obligated to file Income Tax,

Yes you are, if you make above a certain amount. I filed income tax as a teenager.

you aren't legally responsible for your actions.

See above re: youth being charged as adults.

Fine with me. Let's improve civics and history education for people under sixteen.I lol'd. :D

16 is clearly in, though i might be open to going as low as 12ish

So what's wrong with 11? 10? You're just as willing to draw an arbitrary line in the sand as we are; you just disagree about the placement of the line in the sand. Let's not pretend you're some grand champion of civil rights; you're just as willing to deny some people the right to vote based on their age.

If you really believe in freedom, you will not impose even what is right.

What part of "objective reality is imposing it" did you miss?

So what's wrong with 11? 10? You're just as willing to draw an arbitrary line in the sand as we are; you just disagree about the placement of the line in the sand. Let's not pretend you're some grand champion of civil rights; you're just as willing to deny some people the right to vote based on their age.

The point, as has been stated many times, is that the denial of the right to vote is the limiting of rights, which should only be done when allowing people to vote would be more harmful than beneficial. That is a debate perfectly worth having.

There's no magical reason that voting has to go along with the draft (which is still the most ridiculous argument ever) or being charged as an adult (which would put the voting age at definitely 16, if not lower) or any other thing. The issue is harm/benefit. It is harmful to charge people as adults before they can vote, but it's not harmful to let people vote before they can be charged as an adult.

If you have any scientific evidence that can actually correlate age to a level of decision making and explains at what ages specific decision making skills develop (not guesses and hypothesis or 'it's changing', but actually how much and what it affects) that would be a relevant point.

Harm/benefit is the important question. The benefits are clear: teenagers bring a new perspective, which helps society end up on the right course, teenage suffrage would be in line with true democratic principles, and many others. The "harms" are not so clear. All I've seen is a hypothetical, fear-mongering argument that teens would vote badly, unsupported by scientific data. Other than that, it's all been irrelevant stuff, like "they can't serve in the military" (neither can old people) or "they don't pay property taxes" (neither do the homeless) or others. If you can connect those to show how they would lead to bad voting in ways that aren't applicable to other age groups, I'm interested.

And, just to reiterate: I mean actual claims supported by evidence pursued in a logical manner. Not just you stating it.

What if there we did something like we did with driving with voting? I don't mean a test, I'm talking about how, here in Florida at least, you can get a learner's permit at 15 that lets you drive with some restrictions (supervision of someone older than 21, not after certain hours), and then after you've had that for a year you can get the full license (although there still might be some time restrictions on 16 year olds, I don't know, I got mine at 17).

What I mean is, what if at 16 or 17 you could vote in local or state elections, and then keep the voting age for federal elections at 18? Then those who are interested enough in voting at that age, like I was, can start building experience at voting while being able to feel like they have a voice in local issues that they care about. I especially would have liked to have been able to vote on issues related to education earlier. That is one thing that directly affects 16 and 17 year olds, particularly when education is underfunded and the quality of their own education can decrease based on what local voters decide.

We have a way to let younger drivers get experience with driving in a less dangerous way, what if we did something similar with voting?

The point, as has been stated many times, is that the denial of the right to vote is the limiting of rights, which should only be done when allowing people to vote would be more harmful than beneficial. That is a debate perfectly worth having.

There's no magical reason that voting has to go along with the draft (which is still the most ridiculous argument ever) or being charged as an adult (which would put the voting age at definitely 16, if not lower) or any other thing. The issue is harm/benefit. It is harmful to charge people as adults before they can vote, but it's not harmful to let people vote before they can be charged as an adult.

If you have any scientific evidence that can actually correlate age to a level of decision making and explains at what ages specific decision making skills develop (not guesses and hypothesis or 'it's changing', but actually how much and what it affects) that would be a relevant point.

Harm/benefit is the important question. The benefits are clear: teenagers bring a new perspective, which helps society end up on the right course, teenage suffrage would be in line with true democratic principles, and many others. The "harms" are not so clear. All I've seen is a hypothetical, fear-mongering argument that teens would vote badly, unsupported by scientific data. Other than that, it's all been irrelevant stuff, like "they can't serve in the military" (neither can old people) or "they don't pay property taxes" (neither do the homeless) or others. If you can connect those to show how they would lead to bad voting in ways that aren't applicable to other age groups, I'm interested.

And, just to reiterate: I mean actual claims supported by evidence pursued in a logical manner. Not just you stating it.

No, the point, as has been stated many times, is that you are not this noble champion of civil rights. You, and other people on your side of the argument, are just as willing to arbitrarily deny people rights based on their age. You just disagree about the age to draw the line at. Your position is logically inconsistent. If we cannot make a blanket judgement that everyone under 18 is incapable of handling the right to vote maturely, then we cannot make such a blanket judgement about everyone under 16. Tell me, why do you think 16 year olds should get the right to vote, and not 15 year olds, keeping in mind the delimitations you yourself established in this post?

There is no answer to this, arguing that there is one 'correct' or 'just' age limit to voting is just sophistry. I think it can only boil down to pragmatism. 18 seems like a very reasonable age, seeing as the majority of 18 year olds would have left school, and are either students or are properly experiencing and contributing to society, through a job or whatever.

I never said that I don't think 15 year olds should be able to vote. I said that I think 16 year olds should be able to vote. There's a difference.

If I had to pick an age? I'd go with the age that people generally are after the completion of the freshman year of high school (I think that would be 15?). At this point teens have had a year to be educated at the high school level about government, it's purposes, and the world. At that point the benefit of their being able to vote outweighs the harm. Of course, there are substandard educational systems, but this would also give those systems an incentive to do better. Also, that is an age at which youth commonly start making discretionary spending choices, and thus being subject to government taxation.

I think that there are people younger than that also ready to vote, and if the age group below that became more politically aware (due to being closer to the voting age) I would support lowering it even further.

This is all with the understanding that juvenile justice laws would be changed so that no one who couldn't vote could be charged as an adult, and that any crimes pre-voting age would be automatically erased from the record, with no discretion on that point. If the juvenile justice laws remained the same then I'd have to support lowering the voting age to 10 (which is, I believe, the lowest age that citizens may be charged as adults).

Of course, I might support going lower (especially since the historical trend seems to be that youth are more mature than they were 50 years ago) but that age is where I stand right now.

The graduated voting system is an interesting idea. I'd support that as a good first step, but eventually I would support full teen suffrage.

Now, for Sdaeriji: same challenge. Explain to me why it should be 17 and not 18, in terms of harm/benefit of votes.

"seeing as the majority of 18 year olds would have left school, and are either students or are properly experiencing and contributing to society, through a job or whatever."

Explain that comment please?

How does the experience of society that 16 year olds lack make it so that their votes would hurt society?

16 year old brains simply have not physically matured yet so they are not operating at their ultimate capacity. Its still growing wrinkles and the neurons are still finding their connections.

Choosing a leader is also more then just knowing book civic stuff, its learning how to judge a persons character and learning a somewhat intangible ability judge someones ability to lead. A 16 year old doesnt know sufficiently about those skills because it takes time to develop and be exposed to these skills. Time that simply cant be rushed.

So why stop at voting? Why not demand contract rights? Make them register for the Selective Service? Or are you prepared to admit that there should be limits somewhere?

I'd be glad to give sixteen-year-olds contract rights. As for the draft, I'd rather abolish it entirely.


No, my standard is "show me the movement". Gather a meaningful number of 16-year-olds who think about wanting the vote for more than a few fashionable weeks

National Youth Rights Association (http://www.youthrights.org)
Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions (http://www.asfar.org)
Child Advocate.org (http://www.childadvocate.org)
Votes at 16 (http://www.votesat16.org.uk/)
There's also groups focusing on other rights, though this thread isn't for them


The problem with your argument is that you keep saying that rights are being abridged. When rights are truly abridged, there are movements within society to first raise consciousness about the abridgement, and then make an attempt to reverse it. This is simply not happening in this case.

I. Just. Told. You. About. The. Youth. Rights. Movement.


No, the point, as has been stated many times, is that you are not this noble champion of civil rights. You, and other people on your side of the argument, are just as willing to arbitrarily deny people rights based on their age.

Many people who want the voting age lowered prefer a small change to no change, and recognise that lowering the voting age to sixteen is possible now, whereas eliminating it is not yet possible.

So what's wrong with 11? 10?

nothing, i just am not sure that the evidence of developmental psychology shows that kids below there are really able to think abstractly or form independent ideas about stuff so far outside their social world, and therefore the inherent benefits of expanding suffrage start running up against the problem of just giving parents' additional votes. i'm willing to be argued lower, of course.

16 year old brains simply have not physically matured yet so they are not operating at their ultimate capacity. Its still growing wrinkles and the neurons are still finding their connections.

Can you show me science to back this up? Not the physical changes, but science that says exactly what behavioral effects those physical changes have?

Choosing a leader is also more then just knowing book civic stuff, its learning how to judge a persons character and learning a somewhat intangible ability judge someones ability to lead.

Won't argue with that.

A 16 year old doesnt know sufficiently about those skills because it takes time to develop and be exposed to these skills. Time that simply cant be rushed.

Can you support this claim at all?

Can you support this claim at all?

The whole concept of waiting for a certain age to do something revolves around the ability to have reasonable judgement for the most part. Judgement is gained by experience. Experience is gained by time.

16 year old brains...are not operating at their ultimate capacity.

the brains' ultimate capacity is none at the end, though presumably you meant peak. but this is not something we require for voting rights, nor is it something we ought.

the brains' ultimate capacity is none at the end, though presumably you meant peak. but this is not something we require for voting rights, nor is it something we ought.
Otherwise half of the population over 75 would be disenfranchised at a stroke.

the brains' ultimate capacity is none at the end, though presumably you meant peak. but this is not something we require for voting rights, nor is it something we ought.

Agreed but the logic of waiting till a certain minimum age to insure competence, judgement and understanding is somewhat related to the biological ability of your brain to deal with it.

That's ludicrous. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds would not vote in proportions that different from those older than them, and their numbers are not so high that those differences that would occur would make a difference in anything but a close election.

Oh. Good thing we've not had any close elections recently....

If you believe in democracy, it's an injustice to deny anyone at all the right to vote. The real question is whether it's a necessary injustice--but the point is, it is the side advocating the injustice that must show the necessity. The reasons they should be allowed to vote are already clear. The question is whether the reasons they shouldn't be are compelling enough to override those.

You keep repeating this as if it makes an argument. It doesn't. One needn't "believe" in democracy for any reason. It's not a religion. You claim those advocating this imaginary "injustice" must show the necessity. I claim that since it's your desire to change the status quo, you must give good reason to do so. You haven't.

Instead, the basic attitude of people against in the change in this thread seems to eliminate half of the consideration: minors (of all ages) are excluded from voting rights not because it's an unfortunate but necessary measure resulting from a careful balance between competing values, but on principle, because their democratic rights are irrelevant and do not matter.

They are legally the ward of another person or persons (parents or loco parentis). By definition their rights are different than full adults rights. tell you what, how about we grant the vote to any minor who successfully gets emancipated? That solves the problem, doesn't it? The kid who really, really wants the vote will have to expend a bit of effort to get it without being subject to the rest of the laws that govern non-minors.

Maybe not at the high school level, but so what? How much do most adults remember of their high school history classes?

Wait -- did you just make an assumption about a group of people similar to the assumption you're complaining about people making with regard 16-year-olds? It doesn't work both ways. You've effectivelty advocated for some kind of test for the franchise. That's fine, if that's what you want, but you should really come out and say it. I wouldn't necessarily be against it, even, so long as it were applied equally.

Then make it a freshman-year course, or give students more exposure to it in middle school, or make any number of other possible changes to solve this problem. I'm inclined to think that lowering the voting age would be a pretty strong incentive to get this done....

You're not familiar with curriculum design, are you? I'm surprised any civics classes are left, given the push for four years of math, science, English, foreign languages, and a near disregard for social sciences and history. There are acres of prerequisites that have to be out of the way before anyone's schedule opens up to allow history or civics or CWP (contemporary world problems, as it was called back in the 80s at my high school). I suppose it could be re-tooled, but I'm not sure how.

I'm not denying that there should be a line, I'm denying that there should be a line with respect to this particular right in the current particular place.

No line anywhere? So what's your solution to keep parents from muscling their even younger kids into voting the way the parents want them to vote?

Nonsense. The abridgment of rights is abstract; it occurs regardless of whether or not anyone notices it. Social movements are founded in history, not in philosophy: any number of factors go into them that have nothing to do with who has what right to what. I've already given a few in this case that have nothing to do with the democratic rights of minors.

Well, you got the "nonsense" part right. The abridgment of rights is abstract? Tell that to someone who faced down a fire hose. Social movements not founded in philosophy? So Dr. King admired Gandhi because he was a snappy dresser? No. It was the philosophy (in this example, non-violence).

Actually, you can't even ban what is allowed, because you aren't dictator.

:rolleyes: If you're going to be a jerk about this, I can stop replying. You said "you", and I replied with "I" -- was that convention of speech really so hard to understand? I don't think so, so I was left with the assumption that you were being deliberately fractious.

But you can use what political rights you have to support or oppose certain bans, proposed or existing. There's no reason to automatically default the status quo. "Is" is not "ought": what is needs just as much justification as what is not.

Absolutely. Got any? I mean, more than this "believe in democracy" blather.

So if Congress passed a law that, say, randomly selected a voter every election who was prohibited to vote, you wouldn't care about changing it?

So now your saying that drawing the line at 16 is somehow random? You're grasping.

But their parents do, and somehow I doubt that they lack concern for their family's economic well-being simply because they don't actually make the direct payment.

Fair enough, but again, the child is a ward of the parent, and that relationship needs to change before a child can be on an equal footing with a parent. We don't let children vote on what gets taught in schools, or what laws the police enforce. Feedback from those who are under the legal guardianship of others is appropriate and vital, but it isn't guardianship if the inmates are running the asylum (and before you go off on that, it was a metaphor).

Um, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'd bet that if sixteen-year-olds got the right to vote tomorrow, any war they might vote for in the future would have a much greater chance of drafting them than drafting you.

Uh...are you unfamiliar with the "lottery" concept? Someone at the upper edge of the age range has the same likelihood of being drafted as those at the lower edge. Unless they've changed that. "Much greater chance?" Only if the age limit was 40 and I'm 39. Wars don't take that long to start.

Indeed, since wars tend to last a while, if the draft is ever restored and the voting age is not reduced, it's quite likely that people who were never involved in making the decision to go to war will be among those drafted to fight in it--while mature, responsible adults, who condescend at the idea of minors voting, are content to throw away other people's lives for bullshit reasons.

Apparently the kid who wanted the vote so bad at 16 doesn't know about how to conscientiously object? That's telling. Apart from that, I agree that old politicians and soldiers can be pretty callous with young lives.

It doesn't matter if they can be tried as adults--they still are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. Indeed, this is the crucial point: democratic rights in political philosophy are tied to the right of the government to enforce the law. If the law does not stem from the people who are bound to obey it, then we just have "might makes right": the people with the guns tell the others what to do. When you deny minors democratic rights, you force into ambiguity both your right to enforce the law against them and their obligation to obey the law in the first place. Maybe this is a necessary problem for young children, but by the mid-teens I'm inclined to think it's an unnecessary problem that we should do away with.

I'm inclined to disagree. End of argument, I guess. You can't convince me that a preponderance of 16-year-olds are even concerned, let alone ready, and I can't convince you that they're not.

Also, you're missing the opposing side of this argument: yes, adults deal with the law in ways that minors don't, but minors deal with the law in ways that adults don't, either. And who makes those laws? Adults, of course.

Such is one of the privileges of adulthood. What's your point?

No, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a correlation/causation fallacy: y occurs after x, so x caused y. If you object to my use of "principled", then your problem is really that (here, at least) I just asserted it without argument...

Thanks. I thought I had that wrong, but wasn't sure.

mainly because, for the point I was making, it doesn't matter whether you agree with the word. A society's understanding of what is right may not be what actually is right. When the two diverge, it can be very difficult to get a movement for social change off the ground. (Of course, things are different when there is no social moral consensus--for instance, with respect to homosexuality and abortion right now. But when even liberal-minded people like most of those in this thread laugh at the idea of letting minors vote, of course there will be no large social movement out to change that.)

Hang on -- there's something off about that. There's no large social movement because people laugh at the idea? Isn't that usually fuel for a movement? Wasn't it Gahndi who said "first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win?" So many 16-year-olds desperately want the right to vote, but because some think it's laughable, they won't organize?

Yeah, so? A lot of political arguments here are "conjecture"--we debate lots of issues that aren't actually on the table at the moment. What of it?

Fair enough.

No. But I think it should have happened that way. ;)

I'm not optimistic about the prospects of the voting age being lowered. But this thread isn't about whether or not the voting age will be lowered. It's about whether or not the voting age should be lowered.

Exactly. I think I'm just going to agree to disagree here. I appreciate your staunch defense, and it may be my years as a full-time and substitute teacher in high schools and middle schools talking, but as much as I won't convince you, you're sure as hell not going to convince me.

Why bother identifying them? Sixteen-year-olds are mostly politically apathetic and lazy, right? So just grant them all suffrage, and the hundred who care will vote, and the others won't.

Right. They won't until someone feeds an Internet meme that gets turned into a joke voting bloc that takes just enough votes in some race (it doesn't have to be national) to either muddy the results or require a run-off in some cases where 50%+1 is needed and the joke bloc keeps that from happening.

See? As you can assume the best, I can assume the worst. Are we both wrong?

Fine with me. Let's improve civics and history education for people under sixteen.

What's your plan?

My comment wasn't in reference to those bits and pieces of your argument that actually debate the points. Those I'm glad for. It was in reference to the 'this is useless' ones, which just hurt the quality of debate.

So, statements like your last sentence? I'm expressing an opinion. I'm sorry if you think it hurts the quality of the debate. I disagree. If you think that, you might look into ignoring them.

And no, one posting isn't a movement. But it could be part of one. Maybe not, but maybe. Movements don't just spring up over night.

Apparently not after 30+ years, either. This is a non-issue.

By the way, I wouldn't consider thousands of juveniles waived to adult court every year 'except in very exceptional circumstances'. Regardless of the percentage, that's thousands of citizens expected to act like adults without adult rights. That only counts people transferred by judicial waiver, by the way. I wasn't able to find statistics on the others.

Thousands in a prison system populated at over 2 million? Rare.

In Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina ANYONE 16 or 17 is automatically charged as an adult. In Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin Anyone 17 or above is automatically treated as an adult.

I would hardly say that all of the 17 year olds in 13 states and the 16 year olds in 3 states is 'very exceptional circumstances'.

Hang on -- for ANY crime? Or are you talking murder and trying to soft-pedal that fact?

Minors have to pay income tax if they make enough money.

At a substantially reduced rate if they're claimed as a dependent.

And while we're on the subject of "why the hell should I let any one of them vote to raise mine until they do?" ... Let's think about this for a moment. In the United States of America we have a progressive tax rate. That means that when someone votes for someone who is going to "raise taxes for the wealthy" or "lower taxes for the middle class" or whatever, odds are that at least some of those changes won't apply to them. So let's not let them vote!

Oh, brother. You did this much better a bit further on.

Here's another great idea: let's have a separate women's legislature to make decisions about things such as abortion: I mean, it doesn't really affect men, does it?

Strawman, as well as incorrect. True, not all men are interested in the disposition of a pregnancy, but not all are apathetic, either.

Let's only let people who own cars vote for the people who pass gas taxes.

Right, 'cause only cars use the road.

Let's only let people who went to public school have any say in public school funding.

Fine by me.

The examples go on and on.

In your mind, perhaps.

The point is that no one is ever going to be directly influenced by every decision made by elected officials. That's unreasonable to expect.

Ah, finally. That made sense.

Another point about taxation: aren't you the big advocate of teens influence their parents how to vote? Why not the other way around. I'm sure most teens would respond to their parents explaining the "if you raise taxes too much I'll have less money, which can only be bad for you" line of logic.

So a teen could be influenced to vote against their base ideology if a parent persuades them to? Thank you for making my case for me.

Yes you are, if you make above a certain amount. I filed income tax as a teenager.

Were you a dependent? If you were, you paid less than someone who isn't.

I'd be glad to give sixteen-year-olds contract rights. As for the draft, I'd rather abolish it entirely.

Really? Contract rights? To kids who may not have even had enough math or ANY civics to understand how they might be getting shafted? You're braver than I am.

National Youth Rights Association (http://www.youthrights.org)
Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions (http://www.asfar.org)
Child Advocate.org (http://www.childadvocate.org)
Votes at 16 (http://www.votesat16.org.uk/)
There's also groups focusing on other rights, though this thread isn't for them

Membership numbers? Insignificant. Cute sites, though.

I. Just. Told. You. About. The. Youth. Rights. Movement.

Unclench. You're responding to one post here where I made the point twice. I can't have read your reply in the middle of my own reply, and you don't have to type like an asshole to get your point across.

Many people who want the voting age lowered prefer a small change to no change, and recognise that lowering the voting age to sixteen is possible now, whereas eliminating it is not yet possible.

Eliminating what? How can you eliminate what doesn't exist? What are you on about?

When children have to pay their own bills, earn their own living, buy their own house, and (here's the really big one) no longer are permitted to fall back on mommy and daddy to bail them out or take the fall for their mistakes, then and only then will I or any other rational adult consider them my political equals.

When children have to pay their own bills, earn their own living, buy their own house, and (here's the really big one) no longer are permitted to fall back on mommy and daddy to bail them out or take the fall for their mistakes, then and only then will I or any other rational adult consider them my political equals.

I consider people who can hold up an ideological political argument my political equal. But then, what do I know, I'm only a seventeen year old. My brain isn't fully developed yet. I've also had no life experience. I do, however, go to court as an adult now, and I pay GST. But that doesn't matter, because apparently no taxation without representation isn't a viable reason for being able to vote. Even though that's what the American Revolution was about.

I consider people who can hold up an ideological political argument my political equal. But then, what do I know, I'm only a seventeen year old. My brain isn't fully developed yet. I've also had no life experience. I do, however, go to court as an adult now, and I pay GST.

I'm reasonably sure that this is a discussion about the voting age of Americans. We are legally considered adults in our 18th year.

I'm reasonably sure that this is a discussion about the voting age of Americans. We are legally considered adults in our 18th year.

It seems to have evolved into a discussion about the voting age in general, regardless of nation. And the latter is currently true, I fail to see the point of that statement, as it's well known, and is what's been argued about.

I'm reasonably sure that this is a discussion about the voting age of Americans. We are legally considered adults in our 18th year.

unless you commit a violent crime, and then the age can drop all the way down to 12 (especially if you are black).

When children have to pay their own bills, earn their own living, buy their own house, and (here's the really big one) no longer are permitted to fall back on mommy and daddy to bail them out or take the fall for their mistakes, then and only then will I or any other rational adult consider them my political equals.

i don't think you fit your standard

I consider people who can hold up an ideological political argument my political equal.

A given ideology is only good or bad depending on how it affects the lives of real, actual people. People who aren't yet in control of their own lives and are largely shielded from the consequences of their actions are, by that very fact itself, in no position to judge that

A given ideology is only good or bad depending on how it affects the lives of real, actual people. People who aren't yet in control of their own lives and are largely shielded from the consequences of their actions are, by that very fact itself, in no position to judge that

You could argue that no one is really in control of their lives, flotsam and jetsam in a sea really.

I am an actual real person, and I am not shielded. If my father for instance lost his job, which was a very real possibility a while back, I would really be affected. I would like to see my father having a safety net, so the morgage on the house can be paid and I can eat. This personally effects me.

It seems to have evolved into a discussion about the voting age in general, regardless of nation. And the latter is currently true, I fail to see the point of that statement, as it's well known, and is what's been argued about.

The point is if one is legally considered an adult at 18, it applies not only to breaking laws but also laws such as voting age requirements.

The point is if one is legally considered an adult at 18, it applies not only to breaking laws but also laws such as voting age requirements.

but that's just is/ought again. the point here is to discuss what should be the case.

You could argue that no one is really in control of their lives, flotsam and jetsam in a sea really.
Sure, you could make that argument.

Of course, such an argument would be totally bogus.

I am an actual real person, and I am not shielded. If my father for instance lost his job, which was a very real possibility a while back, I would really be affected.
Are you paying the bills right now or not?

The point is if one is legally considered an adult at 18, it applies not only to breaking laws but also laws such as voting age requirements.

But if I break the law right now, I am charged as an adult, despite being under the age of universal sufferage. If the rule can be bent for law breaking, why not voting, since I pay tax (12.5% of everything I've ever bought, anyone?), and laws have a real effect on me, and I really resent when laws that effect me like the adultist youth wages in which I get 3$ less in minimum wages terms, just because I happen to be younger, are foisted on me.

but that's just is/ought again. the point here is to discuss what should be the case.

The voting age should, and will, stay the same. 18 is a good age for most people to vote, since it can safely be said that on an aggregate level they possess the judgment and decision-making skills to do so.

Which, I might add, is what I've already said. The reason you're legally considered an adult at 18 if you commit a crime is because of these same reasons.

but that's just is/ought again. the point here is to discuss what should be the case.

I'd give up with trying to explain that...a lot of people just seem incapable of understanding that distinction.

Sure, you could make that argument.

Of course, such an argument would be totally bogus.


Are you paying the bills right now or not?

No. But what does paying bills have to do with my right to vote?

Oh, and, that argument would not be bogus. We are always at the mercy of others.

No. But what does paying bills have to do with my right to vote?
I explained that already.

Oh, and, that argument would not be bogus. We are always at the mercy of others.
That's just a pathetic excuse for laziness and refusal to take responsibility for oneself; it's not actually the case.

But if I break the law right now, I am charged as an adult, despite being under the age of universal sufferage. If the rule can be bent for law breaking, why not voting, since I pay tax (12.5% of everything I've ever bought, anyone?), and laws have a real effect on me, and I really resent when laws that effect me like the adultist youth wages in which I get 3$ less in minimum wages terms, just because I happen to be younger, are foisted on me.

You're actually claiming that paying sales tax as a minor entitles you to teh vote? Wow. No WAY do I want you voting until you've figured out how much sense that doesn't make.

Now as for equal pay for equal work, THERE you have a point. I have always thought that was unfair.

And you're not charged like an adult if you break every law. Specific legislation has been passed for violent crimes, such as murder. I've never truly supported that particular notion anyway. Sentence them to Juveinle justice until they're not a minor anymore, then the sentence transfers.

You're actually claiming that paying sales tax as a minor entitles you to teh vote? Wow. No WAY do I want you voting until you've figured out how much sense that doesn't make.

so "hooray for taxation without representation!"
?

I explained that already.


That's just a pathetic excuse for laziness and refusal to take responsibility for oneself; it's not actually the case.

Could you kindly point me to where you have said this? I can't find it.

And, on the second thing, I feel it's sidetracking, and I agree with you upto a point, but that doesn't undermine its validity.

The voting age should, and will, stay the same. 18 is a good age for most people to vote, since it can safely be said that on an aggregate level they possess the judgment and decision-making skills to do so.

Which, I might add, is what I've already said. The reason you're legally considered an adult at 18 if you commit a crime is because of these same reasons.

except that there has been no evidence posted to that effect, and, in fact, you won't find any.

so "hooray for taxation without representation!"
?

I concur with your sentiments.

Could you kindly point me to where you have said this? I can't find it.
When I said:
People who aren't yet in control of their own lives and are largely shielded from the consequences of their actions are, by that very fact itself, in no position to judge [the effects of political decisions on the lives of real people]

Raise the voting age to 21!

Hang on -- for ANY crime? Or are you talking murder and trying to soft-pedal that fact?

Any crime. Unless I was misreading my source, juvenile justice systems cease having jurisdiction at 16 in those three states and a 17 in the other 10. That's automatic, not even dependent on judicial or prosecutorial waiver. Earlier in the debate I gave a table that shows how waiver works, by state, age, and crime. In Kansas, for example, youth can be waived over at age 10 for any crime. Granted, it's obviously not that bad in all states. Here's the table:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/table2.html

Are you paying the bills right now or not?

Familes exist where one person is the breadwinner (could be man or woman). That non-breadwinner person isn't paying the bills, should they have the vote?

When I said:

Please define what constitutes being in control of my life, and what bills have to do with it. When I turn up to the polling station in a couple of years, do I have to justify my votes with the power and telephone bills?

Oh, and while we're at it, let's deny any college kid who's on his/her parent's credit card and isn't paying his/her own way through college the right to vote?

The 'not supporting themself' argument is getting tiresome.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's deny any college kid who's on his/her parent's credit card and isn't paying his/her own way through college the right to vote?

The 'not supporting themself' argument is getting tiresome.

Mm, I still haven't seen a good argument to refute the concept that in a democracy, we should let as many people as possible vote.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's deny any college kid who's on his/her parent's credit card and isn't paying his/her own way through college the right to vote?

The 'not supporting themself' argument is getting tiresome.


Theyre not supporting themselves and cant enlist.

Therefore...

Apparently not after 30+ years, either. This is a non-issue.

The youth population is very different than it was 30 years ago, or 100 years ago. Society is different. I don't know whether 16 year olds having the vote was the right thing 30 years ago. I believe it is now.

Thousands in a prison system populated at over 2 million? Rare.

Proportionally, but that's not important. (By the way, that number only included waivers, not cases where juvenile court didn't have jurisdiction. Basically, it's a minimum, not an accurate). Those couple thousand people a year are very real people.

At a substantially reduced rate if they're claimed as a dependent.

Poor people pay a very reduced tax rate as compared to rich people. Anyways, the intricacies of the IRS tax system aren't something we really want to get into right now, are they?

So a teen could be influenced to vote against their base ideology if a parent persuades them to? Thank you for making my case for me.

No, teens and their parents can engage in enlightened political discussion, the cornerstone of democracy.

Theyre not supporting themselves and cant enlist.

Therefore...

Unlike those senior citizens on social security.

Keep on trying.

Theyre not supporting themselves and cant enlist.

Therefore...

since neither of those conditions have any connection at all to voting rights, nor should they...

Unlike those senior citizens on social security.

Keep on trying.

The senior citizens maintain their right because they put into the system for most of their lives.

The senior citizens maintain their right because they put into the system for most of their lives.

no they don't

so "hooray for taxation without representation!"
?

Paying sales tax doesn't really qualify when it's built into the cost of the product.

Tourists from Germany pay it when they buy shit here in the US, but this doesn't mean they have a right to vote in the US.


or "they don't pay property taxes" (neither do the homeless)

Minors don't have a legal right to be taxed for property. Hence the whole concept of legal guardianship and custody.

Homeless people have the right to own property and be taxed for it, they just don't happen to be able and/or willing to.

In all this you are seemingly on purpose ignoring the real delineation between adulthood and childhood. Your 'arguments' that we should lower the age to 16 don't seem to have a limit. Why not lower the age to 0? Why don't YOU cite me the studies that show a minor is a minor, the neurological science that shows babies are not qualified to vote, that toddlers wouldn't bring a "new perspective?"

In short you are demanding a high standard of absolute, scientific proof on something you cannot give an equal standard or proof for yourself. Prove to me that 16 is the better age and not 15. Or 15 and not 10. Can you do it?

The benefits are clear: teenagers bring a new perspective, which helps society end up on the right course

I don't see that a new perspective helps society. It has as much chance of helping society as harming it; net gain of 0. There's nothing inherently good about "new," as evidenced by two hundred years of musical history.

Theyre not supporting themselves and cant enlist.

Therefore...

In the UK seventeen year olds can join the military, though they are not allowed in combat situations, have to pay VAT, and I presume are charged as adults when they're seventeen, feel free to correct me on that.

This sounds like pretty much like a fully fledged citizen to me.

no they don't

Oh, well then, I am refuted.:rolleyes:

In the UK seventeen year olds can join the military, though they are not allowed in combat situations, have to pay VAT, and I presume are charged as adults when they're seventeen, feel free to correct me on that.

This sounds like pretty much like a fully fledged citizen to me.

And thus they should be allowed to vote.

I'm on my way out, so I don't have time to respond to all of that. But I will say that new perspectives do help in a democracy. See Rosseau and my previous references to him.

The senior citizens maintain their right because they put into the system for most of their lives.

How about people who just turned 18, have an exemption from military service, and are still supported by their parents?

We could go back and forth on that, but the fact remains that enlistment and self-support are irrelevant to voting rights.

Oh, well then, I am refuted.:rolleyes:

your claim was trivially retarded. in fact, you seem to have very little of value to say on this topic at all, being extremely caught up in some rather ridiculous misconceptions.

Paying sales tax doesn't really qualify when it's built into the cost of the product.

Tourists from Germany pay it when they buy shit here in the US, but this doesn't mean they have a right to vote in the US.

representation can only apply, in principle, to those that live within a given set of political boundaries. in so far as there is injustice with making tourists pay taxes it is an injustice with the type of taxes themselves, rather than with their representation.

representation can only apply, in principle, to those that live within a given set of political boundaries. in so far as there is injustice with making tourists pay taxes it is an injustice with the type of taxes themselves, rather than with their representation.

Because the paying of sales tax has nothing to do with political representation. So it is not a good argument with regards to the right to vote at all.

Please define what constitutes being in control of my life, and what bills have to do with it.

Basically, having the final say. Which necessarily includes paying your own way in the world, all the time--because if you're relying on someone else for your livelihood, that person has final say.

It also includes, of course, being the one to shoulder the responsibility for the consequences of your actions, and not being able to rely on someone else to take the fall for you or bail you out.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's deny any college kid who's on his/her parent's credit card and isn't paying his/her own way through college the right to vote?

That'd be an excellent idea.

Because the paying of sales tax has nothing to do with political representation. So it is not a good argument with regards to the right to vote at all.

except that it does, because it applies directly to those that live in a given political area, and only incidentally to those that do not.

to see the intersection of sales taxes and representation, imagine somewhere imposing a sales tax on other places. doing so would clearly be an exercise of political might rather than political right - it would be tribute rather than justly imposed taxation, of necessity.

Mm, I still haven't seen a good argument to refute the concept that in a democracy, we should let as many people as possible vote.

The problem is in your premise that an unmodified, unadulterated democracy is a good thing.

If deviations from a pure system help to ensure a better outcome, I'm all for it. What government does is much more important than the form it takes--the latter is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Basically, having the final say. Which necessarily includes paying your own way in the world, all the time--because if you're relying on someone else for your livelihood, that person has final say.

It also includes, of course, being the one to shoulder the responsibility for the consequences of your actions, and not being able to rely on someone else to take the fall for you or bail you out.

May I ask whether or not you are self-employed?

The problem is in your premise that an unmodified, unadulterated democracy is a good thing.

If deviations from a pure system help to ensure a better outcome, I'm all for it. What government does is much more important than the form it takes--the latter is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What about 16 and 17 year olds not voting ensure a better outcome? Is this a better outcome for you, as 16 and 17 year olds tend to be more liberal?

In short you are demanding a high standard of absolute, scientific proof on something you cannot give an equal standard or proof for yourself. Prove to me that 16 is the better age and not 15. Or 15 and not 10. Can you do it?

How many times do I have to say this? If there were a viable campaign for eliminating the voting age, I would join. There isn't yet such a campaign, but there IS a viable campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen. Small steps to larger steps. Why are you assuming that this is a final step and not transitional?

No, teens and their parents can engage in enlightened political discussion, the cornerstone of democracy.
You've somehow wandered into America. I think you were looking for the Jeffersonian Wonderland. That's right down that way, a few miles, then turn left.

so "hooray for taxation without representation!"
?

Nice try, but that legendary phrase was used to condemn import duties and the like imposed on the Colonies by England. It doesn't apply here.

Any crime. Unless I was misreading my source, juvenile justice systems cease having jurisdiction at 16 in those three states and a 17 in the other 10. That's automatic, not even dependent on judicial or prosecutorial waiver. Earlier in the debate I gave a table that shows how waiver works, by state, age, and crime. In Kansas, for example, youth can be waived over at age 10 for any crime. Granted, it's obviously not that bad in all states. Here's the table:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/table2.html

Good source, as far as I can tell, and I'm inclined to concede the point, except for the explanatory language that backs the table here:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/transfer.html#table2

I don't think I have the necessary background to make much sense of the legal dialect of English in which it was written. From what I can understand, it seems that the juvenile court is always the first court involved, and they determine whether or not each case they see falls under the requirements for mandatory transfer. So I don't think it's automatic, but it's hard for me to discern, with my musician's brain, what the legalese is saying.

The youth population is very different than it was 30 years ago, or 100 years ago. Society is different. I don't know whether 16 year olds having the vote was the right thing 30 years ago. I believe it is now.

Why? Because of technology? I don't buy that. Unprecedented access to untold amounts of information does not a critical thinker make.

Proportionally, but that's not important. (By the way, that number only included waivers, not cases where juvenile court didn't have jurisdiction. Basically, it's a minimum, not an accurate). Those couple thousand people a year are very real people.

I don't doubt that. It doesn't make their cases common.

Poor people pay a very reduced tax rate as compared to rich people. Anyways, the intricacies of the IRS tax system aren't something we really want to get into right now, are they?

Not no, but hell no. However, there's a reason one is called a dependent.

No, teens and their parents can engage in enlightened political discussion, the cornerstone of democracy.

They can, but do they? I don't know how much of the parent-child dynamic you've seen in action, but teach for a few years. You may very likely change your mind. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd put the ratio of thoughtful political discourse between parents and their 16-17-year-old children at about 1%. Maybe 2%.

In the end, the child is a ward of the parent until the age of majority or emancipation. As I said before, I'd be fine with granting the vote to emancipated minors. But while the parent is legally responsible for the child, that means that the parent is effectively the child's non-school educator about the things that apply to the parents, which do not yet apply to the children. Few are excellent at this, some are better than average, and the rest, well, not so much. I haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me that the political leanings of a dependent child are truly independent, either of their parents' or their peers'.

May I ask whether or not you are self-employed?
I see what you're getting at, but not being self-employed is irrelevant; I depend on myself for my livelihood because I am exchanging my time and effort for my boss for money. In other words, it all ultimately comes from me.

What about 16 and 17 year olds not voting ensure a better outcome?

The fact that, by virtue of not having been in control of their lives, they lack the ability to judge the effects of government actions on peoples' lives.

Good source, as far as I can tell, and I'm inclined to concede the point, except for the explanatory language that backs the table here:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/transfer.html#table2

I don't think I have the necessary background to make much sense of the legal dialect of English in which it was written. From what I can understand, it seems that the juvenile court is always the first court involved, and they determine whether or not each case they see falls under the requirements for mandatory transfer. So I don't think it's automatic, but it's hard for me to discern, with my musician's brain, what the legalese is saying.

Sorry. I think I explained that, but in case I forgot: that table is ages for discretionary waivers. Those are ages when judges can send. There are other tables for mandatory waivers. The 3/13 state thing at 16/17 came from a different source.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9747&page=206

Which says:

State laws set a maximum age for adolescents for which the juvenile court has original jurisdiction. This age varies by state and sometimes by offense. In Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina, the highest age of juvenile court jurisdiction in criminal delinquency cases is 15; that is, anyone age 16 and older is handled in the criminal (adult) court. In Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, juvenile court jurisdiction applies through age 16.

Another interesting tidbit that I didn't notice the first time:

17-year-olds accounted for 24 percent of the arrests of all those under 18 in 1998.

So in 13 states, about a fourth of juvenile offenders are automatically charged as adults, regardless of circumstance. That figure ignores those who are younger and transferred, and also the 16 year olds in Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina.

Is that common enough for you?

Why? Because of technology? I don't buy that. Unprecedented access to untold amounts of information does not a critical thinker make.

I don't know why, I can't trace all the societal causes. And I won't necessarily say they're smarter or more critically able, I'll just say they're different. Which perhaps accounts for why there wasn't a movement 30 years ago. Don't try to claim that teenage culture is the same as it was 30 years ago.

I don't doubt that. It doesn't make their cases common.

See above.

Not no, but hell no. However, there's a reason one is called a dependent.

Which has to do with formulas about how to tax, not with voting rights. I'm not a tax expert, but I suspect that it has something to do with the assumption that the parent is paying for the child's food/living space.

They can, but do they? I don't know how much of the parent-child dynamic you've seen in action, but teach for a few years. You may very likely change your mind. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd put the ratio of thoughtful political discourse between parents and their 16-17-year-old children at about 1%. Maybe 2%.

And the rate of thoughtful political discourse between adults? My point wasn't that everyone is going to discuss politics, it was that my original statement was that teens can be convinced by thoughtful discourse, just like everyone else. Not that teens are easily manipulated, as someone tried to twist my words to say.

In the end, the child is a ward of the parent until the age of majority or emancipation. As I said before, I'd be fine with granting the vote to emancipated minors. But while the parent is legally responsible for the child, that means that the parent is effectively the child's non-school educator about the things that apply to the parents, which do not yet apply to the children.

The things at stake in an election affect everyone. I'm all for giving the vote to emancipated minors, though, as a good first step. Perhaps it would show that the teen vote wouldn't hurt the country more than the adult one does.

Few are excellent at this, some are better than average, and the rest, well, not so much. I haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me that the political leanings of a dependent child are truly independent, either of their parents' or their peers'.

And I haven't seen much evidence to show that the political leanings of adults are independent of their peers or their party. How many people vote Democratic or Republican just because it's 'in the party', even for positions where party doesn't matter?

The fact that, by virtue of not having been in control of their lives, **logical leap alert** they lack the ability to judge the effects of government actions on peoples' lives.

Your hypothesis does not support your conclusion.

How many times do I have to say this? If there were a viable campaign for eliminating the voting age, I would join. There isn't yet such a campaign, but there IS a viable campaign to lower the voting age to sixteen. Small steps to larger steps.

So you see absolutely no problems with allowing children below the age of 10 to vote. Interesting.

For you then, this is NOT an argument about oh, the gray lines between 16 and 18, it's that you don't really see a difference between 16, 18 or less than one year old. Apparently a perceptual problem on your part.

What other age limits would you want to eliminate? Age of consent laws? Hey why not? Every argument I've seen so far would just as easily apply to age of consent laws, because they all argue that there's no significant or relevant differences between children and adults.

except that it does, because it applies directly to those that live in a given political area, and only incidentally to those that do not.

Oh I see, so it was actually, "No taxation without representation! ...unless you're a dirty foreigner, fuck you." This was the resounding moral basis of the sentiment, very compelling.

Your hypothesis does not support your conclusion.

Yes, it does.

Having not actually experienced it, though, it's not surprising that you don't understand.

"You'll understand when you're older" is not just a cop-out--it's actually true. The brains of children are simply incapable of comprehending some of these concepts until they mature and reach adulthood and have actually taken charge of their own lives.

No, no, see... "I'm right because I'm right" is also a logically fallacious statement. Regardless of whether or not it's actually true, you have to support it.

No, no, see... "I'm right because I'm right" is also a logically fallacious statement.

True, but also irrelevant since that's not the argument I'm making.

"The brains of children are simply incapable of comprehending some of these concepts until they mature and reach adulthood and have actually taken charge of their own lives."

Do you have any way to support the fact that that 'maturing' happens after 16, or that taking charge of their own lives affects their ability to vote responsibly?

I am FOR allowing people to vote and drink at whatever age they are permitted to enlist or be drafted into the military. If they can shoot guns and kill, they can drink and vote.

What other age limits would you want to eliminate? Age of consent laws? Hey why not? Every argument I've seen so far would just as easily apply to age of consent laws, because they all argue that there's no significant or relevant differences between children and adults.

I'd like to see all age limits eliminated. Yes, that would include age of consent (you brought it up, not me).

Yes, it does.

Having not actually experienced it, though, it's not surprising that you don't understand.

"You'll understand when you're older" is not just a cop-out--it's actually true. The brains of children are simply incapable of comprehending some of these concepts until they mature and reach adulthood and have actually taken charge of their own lives.

What does "You'll understand when you're older" have to do with those argument. What can't we comprehend, that completely disqualifies our opinions?

I'd like to see all age limits eliminated. Yes, that would include age of consent (you brought it up, not me).

Right, that's what I thought. So we should eliminate the voting age for the same reason we should legalize child rape! What could be more reasonable?

I rest my case.

Where did I say we should legalise child rape?

Where did I say we should legalise child rape?

I think it was an abstract way of him saying "I'd watch out for the ridiculous moral hysteria over pedophilia, because people are idiots."

Or, that's what I say.

Where did I say we should legalise child rape?

Children cannot consent to having sex with adults, so it's child rape or sexual assault by definition.

Honestly, you made this out to be arguing about the specific case of where to draw age limit lines - 16, vs 18. That has reasonable potential for argument.

But you're not actually being that reasonable. You're saying there should be no age limits at all, at any age. You're saying we should allow (for example) babies to "consent" to sex with that dashing older gentleman. I don't even have words to describe that. "Arguing for child rape" is the most mild way I can describe it.

Children cannot consent to having sex with adults, so it's child rape or sexual assault by definition.

Really? So someone under sixteen can't say "sure, I'll have sex" to someone over sixteen? There's something preventing them from it?

Really? So someone under sixteen can't say "sure, I'll have sex" to someone over sixteen? There's something preventing them from it?

Legally, yes, that's absolutely correct. Someone under 16 cannot legally consent to having sex, so if someone over 16 has sex with them, they are, by legal definition, having sex with an unconsenting partner. Rape.

There is, of course, a difference between actual consent and legal consent. Where legal consent differs from actual consent, the law is wrong.

I find it hard to take seriously someone arguing that they're mature enough to determine when they can drink, when they can drive, when they can have sex, and when they can elect a president when elsewhere, they're asking for someone to link to a book for them rather than Googling it themselves because it's too time consuming.

Those decisions should be time consuming too.

I find it hard to take seriously someone asking for someone to link to a book for them rather than Googling it themselves because it's too time consuming, when they're arguing that they're mature enough to determine when they can drink, when they can drive, when they can have sex, and when they can elect a president.

Those decisions should be time consuming too.

Have you met the average American (and I say this as an American)? The vast majority don't consume hardly any time for making those decisions.

EDIT: You should have been there in the 70's.

Given that I am an American, yes, I've met many Americans. Given that I am a teacher, I have met many immature Americans. Given that I was born in the 60s, yes, I was here in the 70s.

Given that I am an American, yes, I've met many Americans. Given that I am a teacher, I have met many immature Americans. Given that I was born in the 60s, yes, I was here in the 70s.

I wouldn't have pegged you as born in the 60s. I would have pegged you born in the late 70s. I stand corrected.

I wouldn't have pegged you as born in the 60s. I would have pegged you born in the late 70s. I stand corrected.
Heh, you're only judging me a decade too late. ;) I don't generally act my age.

Heh, you're only judging me a decade too late. ;) I don't generally act my age.

Nor do I. But, then again, I don't post enough here for people to get a true estimation of my age. I mostly read.

I find it hard to take seriously someone arguing that they're mature enough to determine when they can drink, when they can drive, when they can have sex, and when they can elect a president when elsewhere, they're asking for someone to link to a book for them rather than Googling it themselves because it's too time consuming.

Are you comparing finding a book online to deciding how to vote? If one person finds the book somewhere, the same thing works for me, so there's no need to duplicate the effort. My opinions are probably not fully agreed with by anyone, so researching it myself is not duplication of effort.

I find it hard to take seriously someone arguing that they're mature enough to determine when they can drink, when they can drive, when they can have sex, and when they can elect a president when elsewhere, they're asking for someone to link to a book for them rather than Googling it themselves because it's too time consuming.

Those decisions should be time consuming too.

What is this in reference to?

Also, I agree that there should be an age of consent for sex, but really people? You're still messing up the is/ought thing. Saying what the legal definition is is irrelevant to a discussion about what it should be.

No teenagers are dumb. they will catch on to every trend and vote in what everway their social circle votes.
What a load of idiotic prejudice.

I suppose you might as well claim that people shouldn't be allowed to vote past 65 because senior citizens are supposedly too "stubborn" and "set in their ways"? Or that they might have gone senile? What makes your claim any better?

When I was 16 I actually watched a lot more news than I do now. I'm not sure if watching as much as I did was necessarily a good thing, but I was also learning in economics and history about many of the issues relevant to society. If anything, that learning would probably be more fresh in my mind than it would for someone who would've learned it decades ago, and possibly forgotten, or even if they didn't, such knowledge probably wouldn't be as up-to-date about current issues. Effects of age could be argued for either side.

Personally, I think voting should be determined based on something like "once you graduate high school" rather than on something as arbitrary as age.

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

thats how the whole world is not just teenagers

Personally, I think voting should be determined based on something like "once you graduate high school" rather than on something as arbitrary as age.

I'm not sure I like the idea of it being based upon formal education, but if it is, we should use SCOTUS's standard of completed sixth grade.

I'm not sure I like the idea of it being based upon formal education, but if it is, we should use SCOTUS's standard of completed sixth grade.

considering that a HS diploma in the 1950's produced an education roughly parallel to a Two-Year College degree today in any similar field? By that yardstick, I'd wager we could forget about ALL teens under the age of eighteen, along with most adults under the age of fifty-basically, anyone that hasn't had a full load of Latin, higher math (including Geometry), basic-yet-non-political sciences, and a complete Civics course equivalent to what is demanded of those seeking U.S. Citizenship as Immigrants.

All of which would suit me fine-it would definitely eliminate "Hollywood Presidents" and Media Darlings from the race for the white-house, along with most of the dogmatic religious right and reflex- leftist twerps out there.

Well, I don't know how good a high school diploma was in the '50s, but the standard was 6th grade, not high school.

Well, I don't know how good a high school diploma was in the '50s, but the standard was 6th grade, not high school.

Look at what a sixth-grade education provided in the era the precedent was set-and compare it to a comparable level of education today (not grade-level, I'm comparing quality level).

considering that a HS diploma in the 1950's produced an education roughly parallel to a Two-Year College degree today in any similar field?

Cite? In fact id argue that primary education is far ahead of what i experienced in the 70s. I remember being in kindergarden and still learning the alphabet and simple reading like cat and dog. Kids do that at like 3 years old now. They didnt teach foreign languages till 7th grade. Now kids learn foreign languages far earlier in school. Of course YMMV where you live but id need to see some sort of cite to buy into that.

Cite? In fact id argue that primary education is far ahead of what i experienced in the 70s. I remember being in kindergarden and still learning the alphabet and simple reading like cat and dog. Kids do that at like 3 years old now. They didnt teach foreign languages till 7th grade. Now kids learn foreign languages far earlier in school. Of course YMMV where you live but id need to see some sort of cite to buy into that.
Well, my grandfather had to quit school to go to work after 8th grade to support his family, and in his Autograph book his favorite play was Shakespeare's Macbeth. As a kid, (granted, limited experience) i never realized he'd gone to school fewer years than I had because he was knowledgeable on a variety of subjects.

Anecdotal, I know, but not bad for a longshoreman who left school at the ripe old age of twelve or thirteen.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jdRrIkBcJ8YC&pg=PR41&lpg=PR41&dq=what+subjects+did+students+learn+in+school+in+the+1950s%3F&source=web&ots=fegGIMEx92&sig=Tq-pzp2ueHl9dH-9okD-V21WZPY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

How much of that was learned in school, though?

Oh, right: step outside, turn thrice, spit, and ask us to let you back in.

How much of that was learned in school, though?

Oh, right: step outside, turn thrice, spit, and ask us to let you back in.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but, eight grade would be around thirteen or fourteen right? That's when I did A Midsummers Night Dream at school.

By the sounds of your grandfather, Kat, he sounds self-educated. And if you knew him as a grandfather he must've at least been in his forties at least? You learn a lot in that time.

Oh, it was a theatre joke. Mentioning the Scottish Play by name is forbidden.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/NYRA_Berkeley_voting_age_protest.jpg

The liberals are really pushing for it. High schools are 80% left slanted.

The liberals are really pushing for it. High schools are 80% left slanted.

Source, please?

Source, please?

Oh, its true, but only 47% of the time. The other 77% are right-leaning, and that's not even taking into account the 33% that don't claim either side.

Oh, its true, but only 47% of the time. The other 77% are right-leaning, and that's not even taking into account the 33% that don't claim either side.

LOL, exactly.