Reasons not to lower the voting age to 16

I think that a male should have to prove that he is a real man before he is able to vote. Unfortunately, I don't know of any objective criteria for defining "real man."

Aging schooler wrote:

Post graduate ,should drop back to 1 vote, because these full time students have missed out on real life experiences and would not be able to differentiate “ real needs and wants”.

Government is a technical matter. Good government results from good policy, and that is a result of good philosophy and good analysis of complex issues. "Real life experiences" aren't worth much when it comes to good ideology. I would much rather have someone with a higher IQ and more education.

track chick wrote:

I think it should be 16. It is here. If you can fight for your country at 16 you should be able to vote.

Where is here?

You must be 17 and have parental consent to sign up for the US military.

Hsjhssj wrote:

I would be for completely eliminating an artificial age requirement and mandating an intelligence requirement.

If there were someway to test intelligence, in an unbiased, non-partisan way, we would be able adopt a quantifiable voting eligibility standard.

In this scenario, a person like Trump doesn’t get more than 5% of eligible voters.

I seem to remember reading about this..and there were some issues.

Raise the voting age to 26. The thinking ability 18-25 year olds have is not fit to help make decisions for the country.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Raddison wrote:

Or how about:

No high school diploma - 1 vote

High school diploma - 2 votes

University degree - 3 votes + 1 vote for each additional degree

Post graduate degree - 4 votes + 2 votes for each additional degree

Seriously though, I do feel the minimum voting age should be the same as the age you can enlist in the military. If you are considered to be old enough to die for your country then you should be allowed to vote.

Which is 18, or 17 with parental consent. You also need a HS diploma or GED. Should we require that as well?

18 is the age of adulthood. 18 should be the age to vote.

Some studies show that full mental maturity doesn’t happen until 25. I would support raising the voting age to 25 well before I would support lowering it.

In general young people are idiots. I know I was.

Alan

I think the age of majority for things like contracts is 19 in Alabama.

Government spending and taxing power pretty much does that already. Promising to increase welfare benefits "buys" votes. Promising to raise the taxes on the top 1% and eliminate them from the bottom 45% does that.

Raddison wrote:

Another interesting conversation starter: In a free market economy should a citizen be allowed to sell his vote to the highest bidder?

In a true free market economy, yes, one would be able to do that. That is a direct logical deduction of what a free market economy is.

The question of whether one should be able to do so in our economy, which is not a true free market economy, is a totally different matter. The answer is, unequivocally, no. Democracy is at the heart of our republic, and a scenario where votes can be directly bought by the highest bidder undermines that in a catastrophic way.

Even decisions like Citizens United are terrible for our democracy. I am generally for a relatively free market, but the government reflecting the will of the people is perhaps the single most fundamental aspect of the design of our country. The problem is that the will of the people is malleable and can be influenced by things like money. A wealthy minority having inordinate influence is a bad thing, and we should seek to limit the influence those dollars can have on our election.

I believe the solution is to disallow corporate political donations altogether and limit individual donations to $500.

killermike wrote:

I believe the solution is to disallow corporate political donations altogether and limit individual donations to $500.

How would campaigns without prior media or political support be able to operate with these limitations?

I say get rid of the age requirement and put in a tax requirement instead

I’d rather a 16 year old working part time and paying taxes be allowed to vote than a 23 year old who has spent his whole life in school and has never worked a real job

Yes, 16-year-olds are just stupid kids who don't know anything about anything. This is undeniably true. However, most adults are also just stupid kids who don't know anything about anything. A fifth grader could become a more informed and civically-engaged voter than your average American adult with just a couple hours of instruction. For example, I'd confidently bet my life that more than 90 percent of adult letsrun posters don't know who their state government representatives are. I'd bet fewer than half could name their governor and both U.S. senators.

The Original P.i.m.p. Baller wrote:

Yes, 16-year-olds are just stupid kids who don't know anything about anything. This is undeniably true. However, most adults are also just stupid kids who don't know anything about anything. A fifth grader could become a more informed and civically-engaged voter than your average American adult with just a couple hours of instruction. For example, I'd confidently bet my life that more than 90 percent of adult letsrun posters don't know who their state government representatives are. I'd bet fewer than half could name their governor and both U.S. senators.

Ignorance and stupidity are different things that you're talking about interchangeably.

whatever feels right? wrote:

killermike wrote:

I believe the solution is to disallow corporate political donations altogether and limit individual donations to $500.

How would campaigns without prior media or political support be able to operate with these limitations?

They might not be able to, but I'd argue that they already can't do that very well. The few exceptions to this are very wealthy individuals like Ross Perot, and I'm not sure that those considerations are enough to outweigh the importance of getting big corporate money out of politics.

The Original P.i.m.p. Baller wrote:

Yes, 16-year-olds are just stupid kids who don't know anything about anything. This is undeniably true. However, most adults are also just stupid kids who don't know anything about anything. A fifth grader could become a more informed and civically-engaged voter than your average American adult with just a couple hours of instruction. For example, I'd confidently bet my life that more than 90 percent of adult letsrun posters don't know who their state government representatives are. I'd bet fewer than half could name their governor and both U.S. senators.

Your brain isn’t fully developed until 25, in particular the portion of your brain that allows for rational thought

Free_the_thigh wrote:

I say get rid of the age requirement and put in a tax requirement instead

I’d rather a 16 year old working part time and paying taxes be allowed to vote than a 23 year old who has spent his whole life in school and has never worked a real job

But there's so much more to what the government does than taxation. This is sort of like only allowing property owners to vote. Even if one doesn't have a job, and is instead "just" a student, the government still makes all sorts of relevant laws. In fact, the biggest issues today have little to do with personal income tax. Climate change, military hawkishness, nuclear negotiations, social policies like gay marriage, Supreme Court nominees, etc. are all very import things that have absolutely nothing to do with personal income taxes.

When did everyone get so jaded on the importance of a person pursuing education?

You should only be able to vote between 25 and 55.

After 55 most people's opinions seem to calcify -- principled resistance to change is just as bad as ignorance.

gerrymandering wrote:

I tend to be fairly liberal, but this strikes me as basically a gerrymandering scheme. She wants to move an age boundary rather than a geographic boundary, but it amounts to the same thing. She's trying to add votes not by coming up with better policy ideas, but by manipulating the voting base to include a group that is known to lean left.

There is already way too much emotional appeal and way too little critical analysis in both major parties. Lowering the voting age would just take us further down that road.

This 100%

If teachers were more conservative, and therefore kids were more conservative, it would be the republicans putting this forward and the Democrats opposing

The value of an education happens after the education is complete. People going to college are by definition ignorant.

Free_the_thigh wrote:

This 100%

If teachers were more conservative, and therefore kids were more conservative, it would be the republicans putting this forward and the Democrats opposing

I disagree. Is there any evidence high school teachers drive kids political views? I'd be the overwhelming influence is their parents and teachers have little impact. Besides 16 year old bleeding-hearts and 75 year old racists should cancel each other out -- why does only one get to vote.