The voting age

[redeye]

Arendt and I have been having a discussion about that for quite some time - see here (search for "seniority").

The main question is, what should the voting age be? And, should people be immediately allowed to vote - which I think they should - or rather given voting rights gradually (first for state offices, then for Congress, then for the Presidency, etc.)?

Note: this is an attempt to start a debate, not a poll. If you don't have anythign to say deeper than, "oh, yeah, lower the voting age to 16," or, "oh, yeah, incerase it to 21," then stay out of this.

[trof]

1. Educational qualification?

Here's an interesting (and I'm sure controversial) idea.
Make a high school diploma a prerequisite.
Doesn't make you an Einstein, but at least you've been exposed to a few ideas?

[Yupster]

34. Great

We may just all start learning to speak whatever language it is that Bush speaks.

The group that votes the most heavily Democratic is the group which never graduated from high school.

So that's the group you want to exclude from voting? Our base !

[redeye]

36. So? Who cares how they vote?

I oppose educational qualifications for now, but I shit on partisan reasons. I don't care if people vote Dem or GOP; I care whether enfranchising/disenfranchising them would be a good idea from a non-partisan perspective.

[Yupster]

49. Okay, I admire your non-partisanship, but

here are the numbers...

Never graduated from High School

Gore 59 %
Bush 39 %

from CNN 2000 exit polls

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

[redeye]

51. As if I care

I don't think people should be disenfrachised according to how they vote. Sorry.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmm]

45. Bad idea.

We use to have literacy tests in parts of this country as a voting requirement but they were used for the sole purpose of disenfranchising people. I'd hate to see that happen again.

[rusk2003]

2. It should be 16

The younger the voter the more likely they will vote democrat or pro peace canadiates. most people under 25 do not vote anyhow. raise it to 21 then they may want to raise it to 25 hey it could happen especially if the republicans are the majority.:wtf:

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

50. I disagree

Most kids around here that are 16 were pro war. It just depends on who the person is, or more likely, what area they are from. Or at least that is what the media made them believe. I think it should be 18, at least for now.

I'm 16 and would love to vote though, so it's a tough decision for me. :(

[diamondsoul]

3. I hadn't given it a lot of thought,

but now that you mention it, I like the concept of 16 for State and local elections, then Federal at 17 instead of 18. Here's why.

I took Civics and Government in High School. Those courses are supposed to teach you about your Government, elections systems and all those things. Kids don't get that sense of empowerment through mock-votes, they need to be involved in the real process. Not only that but, people, it's THEIR FUTURE! I think our teens deserve the right to have some input. Let them start with the local elections so they can get a feel for what issues are important to them, how to research the candidates, etc. with some guidance from the adults around them. Hell it might even get some of the adults more aware of what's going on. Then at 17 make them eligible for voting in the Federal elections because again, it's THEIR FUTURE.

If you consider they have to sign up to be called out to war just one year later, shouldn't they get to vote for a President who they think is less likely to reinstate the draft? I think so.

[redeye]

6. If you want a difference, it should be bigger

Often there won't be an election between 16 and 17 and they won't have that exposure. But then again, high schools can and should provide that civic training required to vote rationally and be informed. If every year there's an election on Election Day - either a local election or some initiative propositions - then the whole thing can become a full-scale ceremony, whereby juniors (or sometimes sophomores and seniors) are having simulated debates in the days prior to election day, and basically every support needed for voting in an election. If election day is not a holiday, and it should be, then schools should also serve as precincts, so that high-schoolers above the age of 16 can go to school normally and vote right before period 1 or during lunch break or right after school or even at a certain period during schooltime which is allotted specifically for juvenile voting.

[uptohere]

4. I worked hard for Vote 18 many moons ago

however with the embarrassing display of non-voters in the 18 to 21 bracket in the decades since I think we ought to put it back to 21.

THe main reasons were a-Viet Nam (its OK to go get killed without a say in the choice to be there ? I think not) and b-there were a lot of kids not going to college and straight into the workforce who were not granted a say in how their taxes were used.

The reasons still hold but the kids, as kids will, ignore responsibility and opportunity. I don't fully understand it but I can't ignore the reality.

I guess leave it be on principle but for the pragmatist in me put it back up.

[kimchi]

5. I don't understand.

Just because most 18-21 year olds don't vote doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do so. Heck, most people don't vote anyway. It will take more than a class for kids to understand how important this right is. I think voting in local elections at an earlier age is a fabulous idea. They would have the opportunity to have personal contact with the candidates, and feel that they really are making a difference. Also, many adults only vote for president, and don't bother going to the polls for local stuff. Train 'em right early, I say.

[uptohere]

7. thats not happening either

I fought for it, its not that I'm against it philosphically. If kids were even voting in the same proportion as their elders I would have no problem with it. Fact is they have painfully small numbers dragging over to the polls.

Maybe I'm a little bitter about how hard we worked for the return we got (picture the 'I told you so's I've been getting over the years).

I thought kids were smarter than that but I'm obviously wrong.

[ButterflyBlood]

19. So I should lose my vote because a lot of other people my age don't use it

no logic there. The option should always be out there. I think denying a right to someone who wants it is far worse than giving it to someone who doesn't use it. Hell going by your logic since most 18-21 don't preach against the government too much we should revoke their 1st amendment rights.

[redeye]

20. Not to mention...

...that since 2/3 of eligible Americans don't vote for non-presidential elections, we should have every single office in the country appointed, and have the president elected by people aged 30 or more :eyes:.

[arendt]

8. Wait, that is not my proposed schedule of gradualism.

> ...given voting rights gradually (first for state offices, then for Congress,
> then for the Presidency, etc.)

My schedule is:

At age 18, you get to vote for all state offices, the equivalent of the
House of Representatives (although its more complicated than
that, since both redeye and I are talking about having something
on the order of 50-100 HRs), and the equivalent of one or two
ELECTED cabinet officers, from whom a President is chosen
by parliamentary procedure.

At age 25, you get to vote for more than the initial number of
HRs and now, you get to vote for members of the equivalent
of the Senate. And, you get to vote for more of the elected
cabinet officers.

At age 30 you get the maximum voting power in the Senate
equivalent.

If you read the discussion, you will see that my goal is to improve
the perception of lower level political offices by forcing all voters
to focus on those offices early in their voting lives.

The age restrictions are coupled with service rules that force politicians
to get elected to lower offices to qualify to run for higher offices.
Such rules will weed out clowns like Ahnuld and Dubya; but
they will also bring serious politicians into positions that the
current money-driven superstar system bypasses, to the detriment
of everyday government issues.

I also cite the biological fact that people's frontal lobes do not
myelinate until between ages 16 and 20. So, literally, there is
some biological impact on the thinking process between those
ages. In some ways, they are just learning to ride the bicycle
of good judgement.

arednt

P.S. to redeye - you could have asked my permission before
you threw this onto DU at this particular moment. Now I have
to keep up with this thread on flipping labor day weekend :-(.

[redeye]

11. Again, I think I told you about my experience in college

The basic idea there is, fall in line, surrender to the bureaucracy's wishes, and don't try to do anything special like ask for course exemptions, god forbid, or try to finish college in 3 years. Frankly, your system does exactly the same; letting the president and the Senate equivalent do whatever they want to to 18-30-year-olds because they can't vote in them (expect vetoes of everything remotely close to children's rights, to eroding "family values," and to more financial aid for college students) isn't exactly going to make the Specialized Legislatures be more attractive.

Also, there's the argument about fixations. People's idea get fixated, cast in stone at some point of their life, after which they evaluate new situations according to old beliefs. You see that a lot on DU, where many older people lament the good ole' days, and even more in politics, where you get the impression that the technology level is this of 1985. Who do you think will be more inclined to support new ideas - those whose ideas are still forming or became fixed not long ago, or those who live in the 1970s and 1980s?

Unfortunately, the age of fixation is pretty low. I don't have enough data to say exactly what it is, but I think that it's shortly after you stop being a student. For most people it means 18 (although I suspect that in that case tolerance of new ideas lingers for a few more years); for some it's 22, or the mid-20s tops, because even if you continue to study for Ph.D, you rarely take graduate courses in things outside your concentration, and even then by your Comprehensives your general education ends. While, say, 35-year-olds are usually fairly up-to-date with new ideas, not letting people below 30 vote for high-level offices raises the average voter's age too much. Again, remember that MLK was 26 when he became prominent in the civil rights movement.

[arendt]

39. We need a psychologist to referee this

You claim people become "fixated" at some unspecified
time between ages 18 and 35 - a psychological claim.

I claim that frontal lobes myelinate between ages 16 and 18 -
a neurophysiological claim.

We both just keep re-stating these positions. Can someone
else with expertise speak to both these issues?

arendt

[Pepperbelly]

9. it should absolutely reflect ages of both ...

the privileges and the responsibilities of adulthood. A person should not be allowed to vote until that person is of age to assume all of the duties required of citizenship. This includes being subject to conscription, taxes, ability to contract, serve on juries, etc.

[redeye]

13. And why should that age be 18 and not 16?

I dunno about your teen years, but I was able to decide things for myself, sign contracts, or whatever at 13. AFAIK, everyone pays taxes, even minors. As for juries, I think that there needs to be some education requirement if they are to be retained (I tend against trial by jury - if you want me to elaborate, do it by PM or in another thread), but other than that I'm perfectly comfortable with 16-year-olds being allowed to serve on juries. Finally, ideally conscription should never exist, and when it does it should offer generous college and high-school exemptions.

The main problem with reducing the age of majority to 16 rather than just the age of voting is school. If it can be compressed to 10 years without reduction in the level of studies (which's pretty easy given that American schools already suck), then it should, and majority should be completely cut to 16. Other than that, I'm ambivalent about majority, but I still think that 16-year-olds are perfectly capable of paticipating in government.

[Pepperbelly]

14. no exemptions ...

if you are a citizen, you must carry the burden of a citizen. Otherwise, you reap all the privilege with none of the duty. Then the privilege means less and less.

I disagree. With every right comes a responsibility.

[TahitiNut]

23. Agreed.

:thumbsup: Carrying a gun, etc. (see below).

[TahitiNut]

10. While I'm somewhat ambivalent about voting age,

... I'm not at all ambivalent about enfranchisement. Every person must have their voting rights inviolable, and the exercise of such rights by citizens of the US protected. I do not believe, for example, that convicted felons should have their voting rights impeded except where there's a strict and specific relationship between their crime and the exercise of such voting rights -- which I do not see. The only restrictions I believe should be imposed on a felon's exercise of their rights are those strictly related to the crime of which they're convicted. (Clearly, where that crime involves violence towards others, their physical liberties should be suspended. Yes, I'm steadfastly against the "death penalty.")

I'm somewhat inclined to support a uniform age of majority where a person's exercise of all their rights is no longer "held in trust". Clearly, taking any oath (entering into a contract) is only valid when that age of majority is achieved -- thus, military service wherein such an oath is taken should only be for those having achieved that age of majority or, alternatively, being an "emancipated minor" (where such emancipation effectively places them in the same legal state as having achieved their age of majority).

The question then becomes one of jurisdiction over designating an age of majority. This has historically been at the state level. I regard this as an "unequal protection" issue and believe it should be a federal jurisdictional issue.

Thus, I see little problem with an age of majority set at 21. Any minor (under 21) who either volunteers or is conscripted into the military must be emancipated. If such emancipation is denied, then their military service (and all other majoritarian exercises of their rights) would be prohibited until they achieve the age of 21.

At the same time, I support a Universal Service Obligation where all citizens would be required to complete a minimum of two years in qualified national service prior to the age of 30. The military would only be one such "service". Any minor below the age of 21 would then be deferred unless they were emancipated.

[redeye]

12. But why shoudl majority be at 21...

...when 16-year-olds are perfectly capable of signing contracts, deciding things for themselves (in my experience the greatest obstacle to teenagers' responsibility and majority is their accountability slavery to their parents)?

Moreover, conscription to anything, military or not, is the subject of another discussion. I won't flame you here for saying you support that, although I'd be glad to do that if you or someone else starts a thread of his own about that topic.

[TahitiNut]

17. I did not say the age of majority "should be" 21.

(DU would be a far more productive discussion forum if folks didn't habitually or carelessly misrepresent what others have said.)

What I've said is that I believe there should be a uniform (and comprehensive) age of majority at which time all liabilities, responsibilities, and liberties in the exercise of rights accrue to the person. (No more hiding behind mother's apron.)

Indeed, this very position is what's inferred by the "if they can die why can't they drink?" polemic. Just extend it. Drinking. Contracts (including credit, leases, and oaths). Marriage. Smoking. Voting. Driving. Gun ownership. Concealed carry permits. Any position of trust and individual accountability, including many forms of employment. Criminal and civil liability. You name it -- everything. Remember, one such liberty would be the liberty to quit school. Truancy (like delinquency) is antithetical to majoritarian liberties.

Just pick an age at which you think the majority of the electorate would place all such liberties (and responsibilities) in the hands of the individual and you've got it.

I have a slight preference for 18, but I'd accept 21 as well. My personal preference is based on the parent's markedly diminished ability to influence the person's behavior and society's implicit acknowledgement of such individual repsonsibility as evidenced by imposition of "adult penalties" in criminial proceedings.


On edit: It should probably be noted that the "age of 21" is an anachronism stemming from the ancient idea that people achieve maturity in 7-year phases -- where 7 is the age of reasoning, 14 is the age of individual responsibility (reproductive ability <puberty> and Bar Mitzvah), and 21 is the age of trust (tribal leadership). It's noteworthy that 35 (age of eligibility to become President) is also a multiple of 7.

[rogerashton]

15. 55. Since I'm 60.

Kidding, of course. Eighteen or 21 or sixteen, what matters (and is much more difficult) is -- how do we get voters who inform themselves and vote intelligently? I don't think tinkering with the voting age will help with that.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

16. I'm 16 and here's what I think.

Now now, listen to me. I don't want the voting age to be decreased to 16. I sit in a classroom with my supposed "peers" who have the IQ of a rock and wonder what the future holds for our country. My fellow students mostly care less about politics, some don't even know who the president is, more still don't know who the vice president is. It's scary to think about, because most kids I know say "I'm Republican" because their parents are, not because that's what they are. For example, I had a talk with one of my friends about politics. He always thought he was a Republican, but it turns out after lengthy discussion about his views, he's really pretty liberal! Most teenagers do not have a clue about politics or the world. A choice few examples from my Global Studies class last year...

Teacher: "Who was the first black president of South Africa?"
Kid A: "Colin Powell?"
or...
Teacher: "Who is vice president of the United States?"
Kid B: "That Jewish guy?"

See, as much as I'd love for myself and other DU teenagers to have a vote, I'm going to have to say no on decreasing the voting age. It seems like a rather scary thought to me.

[redeye]

18. Uh...

...the question is, will those people vote? They don't have to, you know. And besides, there're uninformed idiots at every age group - 10-year-olds don't have a monopoly on stupid stuff like asking a Finn with a T-shit with Finnish writings, "Do Finns have their own language?"

[goobergunch]

21. I have a compromise idea

The voting age would remain generally at 18. However, if you could pass a basic political awareness test (name the president, VP, your senators, your representative, governor, etc.), you could "test in" to voting ability even if you weren't 18.

[Pepperbelly]

22. why not leave it as it is?

It took a Constitutional Amendment to lower it to 18 from 21. The overarching moral argument at the time was that if one is old enough to don the nation's uniform and defend it, then one is old enough to participate in the political process that sends them to war.

There is no overarching moral or policy justification in anything I have read on this thread.

[TahitiNut]

24. Excuse me?

"There is no overarching moral or policy justification in anything I have read on this thread."? :eyes:

[arendt]

38. I gave a policy justification - reinvigorating minor government offices

Everybody wants the right to vote for president.

Nobody wants to do the dirty detail work of government.

We are losing our "institutional memory" of how to
actual self-govern.

arendt

[TahitiNut]

42. Cart before horse?

Why should the exercise of individual human rights be subordinated to what's good for government? It seems to me the inverse is a basic principle of democracy.

I'm very leery of any proposal to limit the exercise of our democratic polity merely because it's deemed by some to be better for "everyone" (or even "most"). That way lies dragons. The argument for democracy as opposed to some hierocracy/elitocracy is the stance that the fruits of governance, whether they be sweet or sour, should be shared equivalently as should the say in such governance. It's in the nature of any autocracy that the sour fruits fall to the least powerful and the sweet fruits are kept by the autocrats. That's a fundamental violation of the principle of justice by which democracy is argued.

[arendt]

48. I want the government to work for us, only better

> Why should the exercise of individual human rights be subordinated to
> what's good for government? It seems to me the inverse is a basic principle
> of democracy.

Wow! You win the award for twisting what I said.

The government is there to work for us. I said it would work better
for us if we changed its design; and you say I am subordinating
us.

How long is this romantic authoritarian mythology of the lone individual
battling the system going to maintain its hold? The only lone individual
who wins is some muscle-bound thug like Ahnuld. And when he wins
and overthrows the bad government, guess what?

He forms his own bad government because he's just another simple-
minded, real-men-don't-compromise authoritarian.

You seem to have anarchy confused with democracy. The enemy
is the regimented armies of corporatchiks. The corporatchiks don't
whine about the rules of their organization. You want to beat a
disciplined army with a bunch of disorganized amatuers. Dream
on. Democracy has to have some structure. The current structure
is BROKEN.

Arguing that age, which is something that everyone has ( a most
democratic thing), is an "elitocracy", is absurd.

arendt

[redeye]

56. Counterargument:

Voting rights are rights that exist only because of the government, so denying them is not like denying, say, freedom of speech, which is a social right, or freedom of sex, which is a personal right.

Countercounterargument: While denying people the right to vote does not subordinate them to the government since the right to vote is already a government grant, this denying does two other bad things - namely, subordinating the disenfranchised to the enfranchised, and allowing the government to screw the disenfranchised. The former is pretty obvious; almost everyone would agree that letting 8-year-olds vote is a bad idea because they shouldn't enjoy rights you need to be mature enoguh to exercise, but in my experience 16-year-olds fall into the category of "mature enough." The latter is more tricky; when a certain set of citizens can't vote, the government will have an incentive to screw this set's members, since helping them almost always takes some government money, which the members of other sets don't want to help pay for. How many 22-year-olds will vote to increase FICA and social security payments at the same time? How many 70-year-olds will vote to increase college scholarships by 50%? Very few on both counts.

Now, you should remember something about the idea of lower-level and higher-level legislatures - higher-level legislatures can override their subordinate legislatures' laws. The subordinate legislatures are there not to reduce Congress' power per se, but to free it to deal with the most important matters, just like the Appeals Courts to the Supreme Court. In other words, what arendt suggests is akin to letting black people have standing to sue and defend themselves only in Trial Courts, but not in high-level courts (read: if a white appeals to a Court of Appeals after he's lost a case to a black, the white automatically wins the appeal). Removing the 18-30 group from the elections to the presidency and the Congress that oversees the specialized legislatures means that it's easier to have a draft (because now the only people who will vote against it are parents), to increase FICA needlessly, to slow cultural change down, and to do nothing about increasing college tuition and low amount of money given in scholarships.

[arendt]

71. Bad Assumption - Again, that's not my proposal

> higher-level legislatures can override their subordinate legislatures' laws.
> The subordinate legislatures are there not to reduce Congress' power per
> se, but to free it to deal with the most important matters, just like the Appeals
> Courts to the Supreme Court. In other words, what arendt suggests is akin
> to letting black people have standing to sue and defend themselves only in
> Trial Courts, but not in high-level courts

It is your system in which higher legislatures veto lower ones.

As I said very early on, my hierarchy is not merely a feedback
hierarchy, but a feedforward hierarchy.

I have not considered exactly how laws get passed, except that in
general ALL LEVELS of legislatures must come to some kind of
agreement, like today's House/Senat conference committees.

You have built an elaborate logical castle on a false foundation.

My proposal in no way reduces younger voters to "Tribune of
the Plebs" status.

arendt

[TahitiNut]

73. No way, no how.

You first say, "Voting rights are rights that exist only because of the government." I could not disagree more. Instead, I assert, that governments themselves exist in the first place only because of the consent (i.e. "vote") of the governed. This is a founding principle.

Rights are inalienable. The right to vote is no different. There is only, in my view, the question of where and how one exercises that vote. Revolution itself could be viewed as an extreme form of voting. This seems to me to be the extreme to which the Reich wishes to push enfranchisement.

In the more contemporary sense, a person may not be allowed (by the will of the people themselves) to exercise their right to vote in one nation merely because their right is enfranchised in another nation. Now, we could argue whether or not it's ethical and appropriate to limt the exercise of one's rights to a single nation -- some nations don't do that. We do.

When a government tampers with enfranchisement, it's like a beast weakening a leash. If we are to ever sustain the principle of a government "of, by, and for the People" then we must diligently prohibit that government (under the disproportionate influence of some 'elitist' sect) from infringing upon our ability to exercise our rights in an egalitarian manner. Literacy tests, property tests, loyalty tests, means testing, gender testing, and religious testing have all been infringements. Today, we have "political prisoners" who're disproportionately poor and/or black whose enfranchisement has been infringed upon. This is, IMHO, unacceptable.

[redeye]

77. There are no inalienable rights

Black prisoners can't vote - they don't have the right to vote. People in Nazi Germany in the 1930s could speak against the government but would be sent to a concentration camp - they had no right to free speech.

Rather, instead of conjure the myth of inalienable rights, we should be talking about the rights that people should have, for the rights that people do have are what the law and the constitution grant them.

Now, I am arguing that giving young people no right to vote, or only a partial right to vote (and on every level of government there can be decisions that screw young people - e.g. not allocation enough budget resources to colleges), is something that the government shouldn't do. The reasons are given in the post your post replied to, which incidentally you haven't refuted at all, but rather added to (e.g. your post's last paragraph).

[redeye]

25. Isn't there?

16-year-olds are as capable of making rational decisions for themselves and for others thru elections as adults. Why should they be barred from voting?

Anyway, I kinda like goobergunch's idea, although the main problem with such a test is that it's damn easy to cheat on it - ideally it should ask not onyl about the process but also about issues to some extent.

BTW, Maine is or was considering lowering the voting age to 17 on its own, so in theory this could be done on the state level, although a constitutional amendment is preferable.

[ButterflyBlood]

26. the 26th or 27th or whatever number amendment

doesn't say that the voting age must be 18 in all states, it just says that 18 is the maximum the states can set the age. I think a few states had it at 18 or below 21 before the amendment was passed, the same way some states gave women the right to vote before the 19th amendment or whatever it was.

[redeye]

28. 26th...

...and it didn't really give voting rights, only said that if there were age qualifications, the minimum age had to be 18 or less. The USA *still* doesn't have universal voting rights...

[goobergunch]

37. Incidentally...

in Maryland, you can vote in the primary if you will be eligible to vote in the general. Since there was some election (I forget which one) in which the primary occured about two years before the general (I don't remember why it was messed up...some court order or something), some 16 year olds were eligible to vote in that primary.

What I wonder is: if Pennsylvania lowered their voting age to 16 or 17 by 2004, would I be eligible to vote in all elections on 2 Nov 2004(presidential, Senate, House, etc.) or just state and local elections?

[redeye]

41. All

Remember that there're no federal elections in the USA, only state elections. States can decide who gets to vote and who doesn't and which voting system is used even in federal elections.

[ButterflyBlood]

43. actually I think there are federal election regulations

since last year there was a Reid amendment to a bill that would've restored the voting rights of convicted felons that have served their full sentence. I'm sure this would apply only to federal offices therefore though. The amendment was voted down pretty badly, although interestingly Zell Miller and Rick Santorum voted for it.

[redeye]

44. But subject to them...

...states can do what they want. The Florida state legislature, for example, seriously considered voting for its own slate of electors, which according to the US constitution would override the popular vote, if Gore turned out to have won the state's popular vote.

[Pepperbelly]

27. Why extend the franchise?

Why not extend it to toddlers?

16 year olds have ZERO responsibility as citizens. What reason is there to extend the franchise to them?

[redeye]

29. Because 16-year-olds can govern themselves, and toddlers can't

Ideally, every person who can make an informed voting decision should be allowed to vote. Age qualifications are rather arbitrary ways to determine voting rights, but anyway setting the threshold at 16 is closer to the principle of informed voting than setting it at 18.

[Pepperbelly]

31. why is that the standard?

Hell, hardly anyone who votes makes an informed decision. I do not think that "informed voting" should be the standard. The standard should be meeting the full obligation of citizenship and all that entails.

[arendt]

40. How about operationalizing "informed decision"

Any attempt to say older people are more informed is
met with the "illegal voting test" argument.

I'd like to know then exactly what test you have applied
to prove that 16 year olds are capable of making an
"informed decision". If you have applied such a test,
then you have applied, by your own logic, an "illegal
voting test" that has eliminated those people below
age 16.

Come on - look at the internal contradictions of your
argument. We can't argue complain about your unsubstantiated
choice precisely because it is unsubstantiated; but I
give you a valid physiological reason, and you call
it bias or discrimination.

arendt

[TahitiNut]

30. Rhetorical question:

Since people below the age of 18 (or 16) can reproduce, what uniform 'responsibility' for parentage should be borne by them?

Let's think about laws like 'statutory rape' and such. I agree that all liberties (exercise of rights) and responsbilities should be a "package deal" since reductionism makes no sense. Thus, there should not be a difference between the "age of consent" and the voting age. But there is; almost everywhere.

[Pepperbelly]

32. interesting point ...

I think that the best standard to use is "full participation." One should add more to the total mix than a vote.

[MiltonLeBerle]

33. Anyone under 18 NOT listed as a dependent on someone else's-

tax return should be allowed to vote.

[TahitiNut]

35. Well. more than "tail wagging dog" logic ...

... that seems to me to be "hair wagging tail wagging dog" logic. :eyes:


On edit: AFAIC, there should be no age or relationship test on a tax return. Dependency should be sheerly economic and not premised on any other criterion. It's no damned business of the IRS who I'm related to. When several individuals report together on a tax return, all income should be considered joint for taxation purposes. Likewise, there should be absolutely no distinction between 'married' and 'single'.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

47. I like goobergunch's idea too

Not too bad :)

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

46. I think you missed my point

nt

[redeye]

53. Did I?

Basically, I think that enough 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. The question this all boils down to is, will they vote or will their parents vote for them? Or, rather, will they vote as indepedent adults or do what their parents tell them to do? My main reservation with reducing the voting age is the influence parents and teachers will have over student-voters, actually.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

66. It's hard to base anything on maturity,

Because I know 16 year olds who are more mature than some 40 year olds. It's hard to create a "maturity cut off" because everyone is different. For the most part, and from firsthand observation, I feel most 16 year olds are being heavily influenced politically by their parents. It's better to give them time to grow up a little more and think about what they really believe. Not what their parents believe.

[arendt]

72. That's what I said in $5 words

You are saying that you cannot operationalize "informed decision
making".

arendt

[JohnKleeb]

55. Most people our age are quite the uninformed mostly Maggie

and I dont mean to sound like a snob but is the truth. I see ignorance too much.

[JohnKleeb]

52. hmmmmm gee I dont know

and I can tell you this as a 16 year old I am not sure.
Heres what my beloved Slovenia does if youre 16 and employed you can vote if youre 18 it doesnt matter.

[CoffeePlease1947]

54. I think 26 is the right age

The forfathers had it correct on this point. I have not seen many people under the age of 26 that knew enough about life and politics to vote.

18 is way to young. 21 would be ok but they are always drunk. 26 is the age that most people really form complex thoughts and develop a deep enough understanding of politics to vote correctly.

Mike

[redeye]

57. First, leave the founding fathers out of the issue -

they also supported slavery but I don't see anyone advocating that.

Second, at 26 most people are already stuck 4-5 years in the past. At 18-21 they are much more receptive to change, to new facts, to new ideas, and consequently vote according to reality now rather than according to reality 5 years ago.

Third, I have no idea where you got 26 from; I could vote "correctly" at half that age, although I do realize I'm the exception, not the rule.

[VermontDem2004]

58. I disagree

I am well informed, I spend most of my time on DU, I study the positions of all the candidates, I keep up with world events and I am 16.

18 is way to young.

Why does being young have anything to do with it? I say I am more informed then most adults about what is going on, believe me, I have to keep telling my dad what is going on.

21 would be ok but they are always drunk

It seems to me that you are sterotyping all 21 year olds as "drunks", there are 40 year old drunks and my dad(now 7 years sober) has been a severe alcoholic all the way into his late 30's, should we have removed his right to vote? Why 26? I know alot of misinformed 26 year olds, I say keep it 18. But I do favor lowering it at 17 because that is the age to where you can fight and die for your country, you should be able to vote then.

[JohnKleeb]

59. I agree with you

Man theres so many 16 year olds here now :)
I like the idea of 17 because you can fight and die for your nation also I like my beloved Slovenia's idea as well
16 if employed
18 no matter what

[redeye]

60. Question...

...why should employment have anything to do with voting? And what is the rationale that Slovenia uses for giving people who're 16-18 the right to vote only if employed? Currently, I can think of at least one argument why this is actually a bad idea: it will encourage 16-18-year-old people to work, even though they should be studying in high school (or college if they jumped classes).

BTW: Kucinich looks terrible with short hair.

[sandnsea]

61. At the ONE legal age

Whatever that is. If you aren't allowed to vote, you're not an adult and shouldn't be allowed to be executed. If you're too young to be responsible with a six pack, you're certainly too young to be responsible with a vote. I would actually like to see the legal age raised to 19 or so, even if that means losing a year of voting privileges. I think young people have got some pretty heavy responsibilities and too many of them just aren't ready for it all. It's just unreasonable to treat a 16 year old like a little kid and then all of a sudden, boom, you're 18 and everything is 'permanent'. I think alot of kids get hurt in this process.

Does that have anything to do with what you asked? :shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

62. I actually would prefer 19 to 18

That way no young people in the 12th grade get left behind. :) I meant the younger people of the grade and thats what I am.

[redeye]

63. But what's the big problem...

...with getting your voting rights while at high school?

[VermontDem2004]

64. .....

If you aren't allowed to vote, you're not an adult and shouldn't be allowed to be executed.

I agree, except I am against the death penalty (one of my problems with Dean)

If you're too young to be responsible with a six pack, you're certainly too young to be responsible with a vote.

I don't think being young/old has anything to do with "being responsible with a 6 pack." Younger people tend to be irresponsible with alcohol but look at a local Flagstaff town for 1 day, the ages of the people who were arrested for drunk driving (which I consider an irresponsible act) were 37,44,28,25, and 23. http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=72136

This was just a day I randomly selected and they were all over the legal age of 21. I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because an 18 year old can be just as responsible as a 21 year old and a 21 year old can just be as irresponsible as an 18 year old.


I think young people have got some pretty heavy responsibilities and too many of them just aren't ready for it all.
I think alot of them are.

It's just unreasonable to treat a 16 year old like a little kid and then all of a sudden, boom, you're 18 and everything is 'permanent'.
I don't recall any 16 year olds that I know of that are treated like a "little kid", but the point is not to "baby" them then they won't be ready for the major changes, yeah sure the leap for 16 to 18 is a huge leap but most people can handle it, they will have problems but they will get over them. I seen so many of them do it.

[TahitiNut]

74. Whether we like it or not ...

... life is a natural learning process and that process is inescapably one of making mistakes and learning from the consequences ("feedback") of those mistakes.

It is a primary purpose of social (including political) systems to limit both the scope and severity of such consequences (i.e. social and political "safety nets") and to ensure that "feedback" is maximally effective; it is not to preclude such mistakes on the part of others.

Preclusion is an authoritarian tenet and always presumes some inequity -- "all the animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

It should be inarguable that autocratic sociopolitical systems fail miserably in limiting both the scope and the severity of the consequences of mistakes -- protecting, as they do, only the most powerful: the very ones whose mistakes invite those consequences. (Can anyone really deny that those insulated by generational wealth are the same least likely to learn? That's Dubya!) In forming a system wherein the "feedback" is sidetracked, learning itself is preempted. Without that natural learning process, no progress is possible and "mistakes" can only increase in terms of both scope and severity.

Welcome to the Dark Ages.

No matter what age is chosen for "adulthood" it will be seen by some to be too low (too many mistakes) and by some to be too high (too little opportunity to learn). The most persuasive (to me) argument for lowering the age of majority is that it somewhat reduces the time during which individuals are indoctrinated to authoritarianism.

"I'd rather do it myself, mother!" is (in my view) a very healthy attitude, especially in politics.

If we suffer from one key malady in our nation, it's authoritarianism. We have constructed excessively authoritarian (factory method) school systems, excessively authoritarian (parentalism) family ("values") systems, excessively authoritarian (dogmatic) religious systems, excessively authoritarian (corporatism) economic systems, and excessively authoritarian (reich wing) political systems. Again, authoritarianism is antithetical to learning, precluding both the direct feedback of consequences to the autocrats and the broadest opportunity to make choices and learn by them.


It is the above perspective, I believe, that's most inherent in being a liberal.

[HEyHEY]

65. Tricky

At 16 I was mad that I paid tax on purchase..but could not vote..But when I think of how FUCKING stupid many of the 16-year-olds I knew where. I think it should be the same age you can enter the army. If you can fight for the Nation...vote for the nation.

[TahitiNut]

76. There are some who argue ...

... that one shouldn't be permitted to vote until after they've served in the military. :shrug: (Not me, of course.)

[Orangepeel]

67. There should be one age of adulthood

at which citizens can vote, sign contracts, be prosecuted as an adult, join the army and buy beer. Maybe that age should be 16, maybe 18, maybe 21, I don't know. (There's gotta be some relevant research on the issue, but I'm not familiar with it).

[bluestateguy]

68. I have an idea

The normal age should be 18, but if you are 16 or 17, and you work and pay taxes, you should be able to take a test to demonstrate your political sophistication. If you pass, you get to vote.

[TahitiNut]

75. That's called "emancipation".

As I noted above. :shrug:

[redeye]

78. Bad idea

It encourages young people to work. Now, apart from the fact that there is nothing near a shortage of labor that requires teenagers to work, those people should be studying, not working. Conditioning a right to vote on work, even for 2 years, encourages leaving education or marginalizing it vis-à-vis work.

[buddhamama]

69. interesting discussion

heh. i really don't have much to add except to say, if young people can be drafted into the military or are considered 'mature' enough to be in such a position, then they sure as hell qualify to vote imho.

i would keep it a 'right' without requirements beyond age and citizenship.

the history of the country should make us very weary of imposing restrictions. that's the way it use to be. many struggled to obtain those rights. who would be setting the bar and determining the standard,btw?

[waggawagga]

79. What's Wrong With 18?

This seems right to me. I don't think there should be any other qualification for voting. The only tinkering I'd do would be to raise taxes a bit and give everyone who votes a check which covers the price of a nice dinner. I'd also have elections on Sunday.

[Cheswick2.0]

80. Leave it alone

and no change in voting requirement either. You would have fit in real well with the jim crow laws in the south before LIBERALS got rid of them. If someone is a citizen they should vote, 18 is the age that people can go to war, sign contracts etc. They are also able to vote thanks to the sacrifices and battles waged by the 60's generation.