Should the Voting Age be Lowered?

[Great Kleomentia]

Age doesn't guarantee life experience. You can have a 12 year old that's more mature and thinks better than a 18 year old.

Yes, you can have one or two of them, but if you take 10 million 12 year olds, and 10 million 18 year olds, I rather think the 18 year olds will on average have the better informed opinions.

But hey, if you want to suggest we give out voting licenses on a case by case basis with only the more mature and capable qualifying for them, then I'm all in favour of that! But, since that's harder to do, it would be easier to just exclude all the kids and old people.

Point taken.

[Delator]

OP, I do not want twelve year olds voting. They'd probably just vote for whoever their parents supported.

Your opinions are greatly influenced by your upbringing; this is true at any age.

The only reason my 61 year old mother votes Republican is because her father did.

I think we should administer a test on every ballot. Have a multiple choice quiz asking who the congressman and senator are for that district, as well as the leaders of both houses, the president, and the three branches of government. If they don't get at least 4 of the questions right, their vote goes in the trash.

I'm all for this idea.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court already nixed this idea.

If you don't like it, just repeal the 5th and 14th Amendments.

In the United States it should be returned to 21 - most of the 18-19-20 year olds I deal with openly admit they don't vote

So because your anecdotal examples don't vote, nobody their age should??

How silly.

---

There are plenty of 12 year old geniuses who ought to be able to vote, and plenty of 45 year old knuckleheads who never fail to cast a ballot.

I'd get rid of the voting age requirement altogether. If a four year old wants to vote, I say let them.

I can't say I'd expect the turnout in that demographic to be very high, and there would be some logistical issues to consider, but I hardly think it would capsize the Ship of State.

[Oceasia]

I think voting age between 16 and 21 is fine. I think it should be raised to 21 in some countries, though.

[Doperland]

If a four year old wants to vote, I say let them.

If a four year old knew how to vote, and could do it by themselves, they should definitely be able to.

[Ravenstskia]

If a four year old wants to vote, I say let them.

If a four year old knew how to vote, and could do it by themselves, they should definitely be able to.

This.

[Risottia]

Another concern is rights and responsibilities. A minor can be charged as an adult,

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_court
In most modern legal systems, children and adolescents who commit a crime are treated differently from legal adults who have committed the same crime.

[Britannic Realms]

No, it should stay at 18.

[Prezelly]

If a four year old wants to vote, I say let them.

If a four year old knew how to vote, and could do it by themselves, they should definitely be able to.

I wouldn't want my country to be influenced by the votes of people who cant even read the ballots

[Meridiani Planum]

my nation (Sweden) conducted a national "experiment" a few years ago, making a "fake" election to see what political party that had the youth's favor.
among 7 parties, one gained over 70% of the votes. and yes it was the most national- socialistic of them.

The "Swedish Democrats"? That is deeply disturbing.

[Saruhan]

Why not? I mean it use to be 21, but then we decided to change it. We can decide to change it again just as easily

[Torisakia]

I'm all for this idea.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court already nixed this idea.

If you don't like it, just repeal the 5th and 14th Amendments.

How does one go about doing so?

[Atlanticatia]

Bump it up anywhere from 25 to 30, cognitive development isn't complete until around then, and the demographic below hasn't really established themselves yet in terms of career, family, homes, etc. and have a greater tendency to be tax receivers rather than taxpayers compared to other age groups.

Voting age absolutely should not be lowered, but the drinking age should.

So should they be exempt from paying tax if they work, too?

I don't think we should disenfranchise millions of people because you think they're not "taxpayers".

[Saruhan]

Bump it up anywhere from 25 to 30, cognitive development isn't complete until around then, and the demographic below hasn't really established themselves yet in terms of career, family, homes, etc. and have a greater tendency to be tax receivers rather than taxpayers compared to other age groups.

Voting age absolutely should not be lowered, but the drinking age should.

So, the people who would need the State the most in order to prevent predatory corporations/business practices/housing magnates would be stipped of any political power. Wonderful

[Torisakia]

Bump it up anywhere from 25 to 30, cognitive development isn't complete until around then, and the demographic below hasn't really established themselves yet in terms of career, family, homes, etc. and have a greater tendency to be tax receivers rather than taxpayers compared to other age groups.

Voting age absolutely should not be lowered, but the drinking age should.

So should they be exempt from paying tax if they work, too?

I don't think we should disenfranchise millions of people because you think they're not "taxpayers".

If they don't contribute to society, why should we allow them to vote?

[Atlanticatia]

So should they be exempt from paying tax if they work, too?

I don't think we should disenfranchise millions of people because you think they're not "taxpayers".

If they don't contribute to society, why should we allow them to vote?

Because every adult has the right to vote, on the basis of universal suffrage, whether they are rich or poor - "contributing to society", as you'd like to call it.
That age range of 18-25 or 18-30 are the ones who need society's support the most, in order to ensure they will become 'contributing' members of society - i.e. financial help for students, protections for student loan holders, etc. Everyone deserves a voice in the government, regardless of whether or not you think they 'contribute' to society. This isn't a meritocracy. Should we just ban everyone from voting unless they pay net tax?

[Imperium Nova]

There was a suggestion from a Left-Wing politician in Sweden to abolsih voting age completely and allow people to have the right to vote from day one they are born. However as babies could not vote, the parents would have their voting right up until the age of 18. So, more kids, more votes sort of.

[Torisakia]

If they don't contribute to society, why should we allow them to vote?

Because every adult has the right to vote, on the basis of universal suffrage, whether they are rich or poor - "contributing to society", as you'd like to call it.
That age range of 18-25 or 18-30 are the ones who need society's support the most, in order to ensure they will become 'contributing' members of society - i.e. financial help for students, protections for student loan holders, etc. Everyone deserves a voice in the government, regardless of whether or not you think they 'contribute' to society. This isn't a meritocracy. Should we just ban everyone from voting unless they pay net tax?

Well, knowing all of this now gives me another reason to leave the U.S.

A meritocracy sounds good, though.

[Seleucas]

Bump it up anywhere from 25 to 30, cognitive development isn't complete until around then, and the demographic below hasn't really established themselves yet in terms of career, family, homes, etc. and have a greater tendency to be tax receivers rather than taxpayers compared to other age groups.

Voting age absolutely should not be lowered, but the drinking age should.

So should they be exempt from paying tax if they work, too?

I don't think we should disenfranchise millions of people because you think they're not "taxpayers".

Don't get me started on taxes.

But generally speaking, no, they are not as often taxpayers. And if you are ten and go buy some candy, you'd have to pay taxes still, but that wouldn't be sufficient grounds for them to be enfranchised. (Since they are likely tax recipients and have little experience, I would not think that 10 year olds should vote either for the same reasons I mentioned that 18-25 y/o should not be enfranchised.)

Bump it up anywhere from 25 to 30, cognitive development isn't complete until around then, and the demographic below hasn't really established themselves yet in terms of career, family, homes, etc. and have a greater tendency to be tax receivers rather than taxpayers compared to other age groups.

Voting age absolutely should not be lowered, but the drinking age should.

So, the people who would need the State the most in order to prevent predatory corporations/business practices/housing magnates would be stipped of any political power. Wonderful

I feel that 18-25 year olds really would not be qualified to make a decision on how to resolve the aforementioned issues, especially considering they deserve a substantial portion of the blame for these problems along with the admittedly questionable business practices of the above.

Bump it up anywhere from 25 to 30, cognitive development isn't complete until around then, and the demographic below hasn't really established themselves yet in terms of career, family, homes, etc. and have a greater tendency to be tax receivers rather than taxpayers compared to other age groups.

Voting age absolutely should not be lowered, but the drinking age should.

I'll agree with that, so long as all of the responsibilities of people between the ages of 18 and 25 are removed. If we're going to remove the rights from them, then there's no reason to let them serve in the military (or force them to, at that) or force them to serve on juries. While we're at it, we might as well require the parents have a duty to care for their children until their 25.

Rights and responsibilities are inextricably linked. Trying to separate the two is illogical.

Sorry, I don't really see how that follows from them not being able to vote, anymore than proposing that driver's licenses should be revoked for all 16 and 17 year olds since we do not allow them to vote either. There is nothing wrong with giving different responsibilities at different ages depending on how they might be handled (as is done already with smoking, drinking, and driving.)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

16-18 is the acceptable range, in my opinion.

[Atlanticatia]

So should they be exempt from paying tax if they work, too?

I don't think we should disenfranchise millions of people because you think they're not "taxpayers".

Don't get me started on taxes.

But generally speaking, no, they are not as often taxpayers. And if you are ten and go buy some candy, you'd have to pay taxes still, but that wouldn't be sufficient grounds for them to be enfranchised. (Since they are likely tax recipients and have little experience, I would not think that 10 year olds should vote either for the same reasons I mentioned that 18-25 y/o should not be enfranchised.)

A 10 year old shouldn't be enfranchised because they are not legal adults - they are far from being able to form any concrete opinions at all and cannot generally make decisions without their parents' intervention. If you're of the age of majority you should be able to vote. By your logic, people aged under 25 shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions for themselves and should be required to live with their parents, have their parents make their medical decisions, have their parents sign contracts for them or co-sign loans, etc.
Should we force all women aged under 25 to give up their children for adoption? Yes, your brain isn't 100% developed when you're 18 - but it's generally developed enough to make decisions. Are you trying to tell me that some of the people who vote that are aged 40 are any more competent than those aged 20?

It's funny because the far-right libertarian is complaining about people not paying enough tax, and that they should be denied their rights because they don't pay a lot of tax..

[Caninope]

I'll agree with that, so long as all of the responsibilities of people between the ages of 18 and 25 are removed. If we're going to remove the rights from them, then there's no reason to let them serve in the military (or force them to, at that) or force them to serve on juries. While we're at it, we might as well require the parents have a duty to care for their children until their 25.

Rights and responsibilities are inextricably linked. Trying to separate the two is illogical.

Sorry, I don't really see how that follows from them not being able to vote, anymore than proposing that driver's licenses should be revoked for all 16 and 17 year olds since we do not allow them to vote either. There is nothing wrong with giving different responsibilities at different ages depending on how they might be handled (as is done already with smoking, drinking, and driving.)

The problem being, of course, that driver's licenses are not a responsibility nor a a right. No one is entitled to one and no one is required to have one. They are entirely optional. I would argue much the same for recreational drugs.

However, how can you morally support such a policy which could force young men (and women, considering the different conscription policies) to go to war without giving them a say in such? They have a very real stake in society, yet you do not allow them to exercise it. They are different from those even a year young than them because they are expected to conform to certain major obligations, and as such, they should be accorded appropriate rights.

[Alto Mantovano]

I also believe 18 is good, because most people are going to be more independent and rational about the voting. Anything lower and the majority will not care or just vote whatever their parent say.

[Seleucas]

Sorry, I don't really see how that follows from them not being able to vote, anymore than proposing that driver's licenses should be revoked for all 16 and 17 year olds since we do not allow them to vote either. There is nothing wrong with giving different responsibilities at different ages depending on how they might be handled (as is done already with smoking, drinking, and driving.)

The problem being, of course, that driver's licenses are not a responsibility nor a a right. No one is entitled to one and no one is required to have one. They are entirely optional. I would argue much the same for recreational drugs.

However, how can you morally support such a policy which could force young men (and women, considering the different conscription policies) to go to war without giving them a say in such? They have a very real stake in society, yet you do not allow them to exercise it. They are different from those even a year young than them because they are expected to conform to certain major obligations, and as such, they should be accorded appropriate rights.

My point was that we have it established as a precedent that we allow for different responsibilities and different rights at different ages. Much as we do not offer the right to drive to <15 y/o, but only after they achieve sixteen years of age, we could just as well indicate that one must have such and such a level of maturity before they can vote. It is arbitrary, but so is any other age threshold.

I would never support conscription, but supposing there was such a case, I don't think that it would necessarily follow that conscription should entail voting rights. One recruits or conscripts soldiers on the basis of their being physically, not cognitively developed (which makes sense if you want to make them do things like run towards a machine gun nest.) Just because they are involved in a war does not mean they would have the experience needed to make a good decision on whether and how to prosecute a war, since they do not have as much experience as the older generation.

Don't get me started on taxes.

But generally speaking, no, they are not as often taxpayers. And if you are ten and go buy some candy, you'd have to pay taxes still, but that wouldn't be sufficient grounds for them to be enfranchised. (Since they are likely tax recipients and have little experience, I would not think that 10 year olds should vote either for the same reasons I mentioned that 18-25 y/o should not be enfranchised.)

A 10 year old shouldn't be enfranchised because they are not legal adults - they are far from being able to form any concrete opinions at all and cannot generally make decisions without their parents' intervention. If you're of the age of majority you should be able to vote. By your logic, people aged under 25 shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions for themselves and should be required to live with their parents, have their parents make their medical decisions, have their parents sign contracts for them or co-sign loans, etc.
Should we force all women aged under 25 to give up their children for adoption? Yes, your brain isn't 100% developed when you're 18 - but it's generally developed enough to make decisions. Are you trying to tell me that some of the people who vote that are aged 40 are any more competent than those aged 20?

It's funny because the far-right libertarian is complaining about people not paying enough tax, and that they should be denied their rights because they don't pay a lot of tax..

But we already extend certain rights before legal majority; for instance, 14 year olds can work part time, 16 years old can drive, and you can have sex under 18 in a number of states (not to mention the age of consent laws in other countries.) Raising the voting age really wouldn't be a contradiction of any other rights we grant at 18 or 21, or what have you, and I think it would be better to raise it since there would be more personal, fiscal and cognitive development before deciding on national policies that would cost them out of their own pocket.

I am not complaining about people paying enough tax; I just do not see a reason for tax recipients having the same level of political power as those who are bearing their fiscal burden.

[Lalaki]

I have a compromise. Why don't we grant people 13 and up the vote, but their ballots will only be counted as 1/4th of a regular ballot?

[Of Moravecs]

Bump it up anywhere from 25 to 30, cognitive development isn't complete until around then, and the demographic below hasn't really established themselves yet in terms of career, family, homes, etc. and have a greater tendency to be tax receivers rather than taxpayers compared to other age groups.

Voting age absolutely should not be lowered, but the drinking age should.

Voting age, drinking age, and age when one can be tried as an adult (no exceptions!) should be identical.