Yeah because the 18-25 voting bracket has such a huge turnout every election. If the morons who have the legal ability to vote now, but can’t seem to pull themselves away from Xbox, or PS2 long enough to spend the 5-10 minutes to vote for someone or something that will have an affect on their lives, how are teens supposed to do any better?
Any age cutoff is going to be arbitrary at some point. It was hard to reconcile sending 18 yr olds off to die in war, but not allowing them to vote.
But clearly there is process of reaching the age of majority that is spread out between roughly 16 and 18: driving, marriage, age of consent, being tried and punished as an adult for some crimes.
Granting voting rights to 16 yr olds is not as nutty as it might seem at first glance. But probably the biggest reason for keeping it at 18 is to align it with (or as near to as possible) the completion of high school and your legal ability to make decisions about your life indepently from your parents or guardians.
Now, if we could only realize the crazy logic that allows 18 year olds to fight and die in war, but not be able to order a beer…
I’m all for it. Let them vote.
If the criteria is critical thinking skills, then I think we’d have to disallow a lot of adults for that one. 
Seriously though, democracy isn’t about only letting “qualified” people decide, it’s about government for the people by the people. That’s why we don’t have IQ tests or knowledge tests or any other requirements that would actually in some ways make more sense than an arbitrary age distinction.
They are affected by the governments decisions, the same way that everyone else is. Therefore, they should be allowed to participate to the degree that they are capable. They are definitely capable of voting.
At risk of sounding childish (hah), I do think that teenagers are underestimated. All of my friends not only have strong opinions on issues, but have paid attention and thought through them. My non-friends, the empty headed fashion kids you wouldn’t want near a polling place, would not think voting was cool enough to bother driving out there and registering - just as their elder counterparts often don’t. For once the smart people prevail.
Something nobody’s mentioned (potential hijack I guess): underage criminals tried as adults. Can a 17-year-old comprehend the seriousness of murder (for example)? Courts occaisionally conclude that one could, and give him the same penalty that an adult would get. Is it fair to do this when he had no voice in government?
Cite? 
Seriously, what evidence is there that 16 yr olds should vote? You state it as if it were an established fact.
I mentioned it. But that, in and of iteslf, is a non sequitur. We punish young children when they commit crimes all the time, and surely you’re not saying that 10 yr olds should vote, are you? The fact that older teenagers are sentenced as adults is irrelevant. Punishment level increases with age (for minors) and the fact that it can approach that of an adult does not imply that older teens should vote.
One would hope that their parents would use this as an opportunity to educate their children on civics and take their enfranchised children with them to the voting booth. I certainly would do that with my children. As well as teaching them how to study the issues and choose the candidate that is best for them. Getting people into the habit of voting smart at a young age would probably lead to higher voting rates as the initial generation ages.
What possible real world knowledge can a child, who can’t hold a full time job, isn’t raising a family, hasn’t had to deal with property tax, financing homes, cars, can’t even legally get a credit card alone, bring to the discussion table other than " I think that sucks lets change it."
Where is the safety valve here to prevent parents from unduly pressuring their kids to vote a certain way? This could ensure every parent has two votes, where as people who don’t have children have only one vote. Soon politicians would only cater to parents, diminishing the power of a childless persons vote. You may think it is ridiculous, but I guarantee some people would use their children this way.
From my perspective asking the question “why should group x be allowed to vote?” is anti-democratic. The question should be “Why should group x be denied their right to vote?”
It seems to me that the principles of a democratic society should be based on voting as a fundamental right exercised by individuals upon their government not a priviledge granted by the government to the citizens it sees fit to bestow it upon.
Going to a voting machine and making a decision is certainly less complex than passing a driving test. The mechanics of it are not in question. Indeed if they were, the result of this debate would be inconsequential.
Ultimately, I don’t think our society would change that significantly by lowering the voting age by two years.
It was Cambridge, MA that voted to lower the voting age to 17. I don’t know if it ever went all the way though.
There is a push in Florida, which looks like it’s going to fail, led by Miranda Rosenberg who is working the tax angle.
There are going to be 16 year olds voting in Baltimore.
The ballot is a secret ballot. That should provide them with a lot of protection. And parents who wish to unduly influence their children will be guilty violating their rights. It will be our right to ensure that they are informed of their rights and provide them access to assistance should their parents be of such ilk.
You’re probably right that there are people who will do such things though. But there are people doing that right now with adults. We shouldn’t give up because it’s hard, instead we should try harder. There are many young people who want to vote, who want to take part. I don’t see why we shouldn’t find some way to let them take part.
Could you elaborate on this please?
Not allowing 16 year olds to vote is anti-democratic? Great. That just reinforces my view that I’m a Big D Democrat, but a small r republican.
I think that the folks who have reached the age at which they have full exercise of rights and responsibilities – from smoking cigarettes to joining the military to entering legally binding contracts – should have a voice in their government. Those who do not yet share such obligations, in my mind, have little claim on a power to change the government that enforces those rights and responsibilities on others.
As John Mace alluded to, I don’t see any injustice in not letting 16 year olds, 15 year olds, or 12 year olds not vote. They are not obligated to serve the public good in the same ways that adults are (jury duty and registration for the draft, for example), and they are in fact afforded significant benefits because of their age (limited ability to enter contracts and the possibility of reduced punishment for criminal acts).
Besides, denying the vote to young people is not like denying voting rights to women or minorities. Sixteen year olds can just cool their jets for two years, and then they’ll have the rest of their lives to vote to their little hearts’ content… especially if they live in California, what with all those ballot propositions.
Claiming that young people are subject to discrimination makes a mockery of the true injustices that women and minorities have faced in bygone years. If one cannot plainly see the difference between those cases, that person ought to grow up (literally and figuratively).
Nope, no retraction, but a clarification is due. I used school board elections for a reason: They are local and therefore more likely to attract young voters; the kids could enact a very visible change in their own community.
As far as the power of one school board member goes: Michael Moore ran for his school board right after he graduated high school, got enough friends together to support him, and got elected. His agenda was to have a teacher that he didn’t like fired. He pretty much annoyed the crap out of the rest of the board until they caved on the condition that he quit after firing the teacher. cite
Local elections, at least here in Michigan, often have less than 500 people turn out. A popular friend of high schoolers could easily get the votes to gain the majority there. This is why I chose this example. Senatorial elections are so spread out that one small group would have a hard time changing the result; thus, your idea that this is extendable to other groups (25 year olds, Catholics, etc.) doesn’t hold water in my opinion.
Does that make sense? I’m not trying to be snarky, I just want to make sure my point is clear.
Kids can take part in the political process. They can pass out Bush-Cheney bumper stickers or hand out fliers for their local Greenpeace chapter all they want.
I just don’t see why children, who are afforded very significant legal protections, have the standing to make decisions that effect those who have outgrown those very same protections.
Its only been 32 years since 18 year olds were given the responsibility and priviliege to vote. Now with a large voter apathy you think the cure is to lower the threshold to allow children to vote. Why don’t we first work on getting those voters who are old enough to consistently go to the polls and vote, before we seriously consider letting juveniles and toddlers to vote.
“children” also face more prohibitive laws than adults. They are affected by the decisions of government just like anyone else.
What standing do you have to deny anyone the right to vote?
Ever consider that many “children” don’t want all those legal protections?
IMO, sixteen year olds have more motivation to vote than eighteen year olds, because 18 year olds aren’t prohibited from driving with their friends in the car, signing contracts (e.g. phone service or a car loan), or going outside at night. The age restrictions that apply to 18-25 year olds are either easily evaded, like the drinking age, or irrelevant to most people, like the age for being elected President; but things like restricted driver licensing and curfew laws directly affect thousands of minors, and there’s no effective balance to those laws because minors can’t vote on them.
They’re obligated to follow the law and pay taxes; therefore they should have some input on who makes those laws and sets the tax rates.
And since you brought up the draft, would you say it’s all right for women’s votes to count for less than men’s votes, since women don’t have to register for Selective Service?
The limited ability to enter contracts is hardly a benefit, because it means services that require a contract are unavailable to minors.
Reduced punishment seems to be revoked at the whims of prosecutors. A teenage boy in my city brought a gun to school and was shot in a police standoff (but didn’t harm anyone), and now he may be tried as an adult and face 30 years in prison–as if bringing a gun to school somehow demonstrates that he’s an adult. Funny how minors are only considered to be responsible when they’re in trouble, huh?
Well gee, doesn’t that describe close to half of adult voters too? :rolleyes:
I think it could possibly be argued that your average sixteen year old is not less informed than the average adult. I don’t know about you, Noname, but back when I was in high school we had to do “current events” as part of the social studies curriculium. Maybe we didn’t entirely understand all the issues (but again, neither do many adults) but we knew what they were.
The problem of being easily lead, be it by Ma and Pa or your ultra-liberal college professor, doesn’t magically go away at age 18, but we let 18 year olds vote, and gulible adults vote… I say let the sixteen year olds vote. They let them drive, and that’s far more (potentially) dangerous to you or I than a few kids who truely care casting their votes.
Let’s get some perspective on this: If a Democratic Senator wants to enfranchise 14 year olds, there’s only one reason for it - because he thinks that these kids will mostly vote for Democrats.
If a Republican Senator proposed the same thing, I would assume it’s because he has evidence that 14 year olds will vote Republican.
The fact is, it’s an idiotic notion for several reason. First, no one who is too young to work and pay taxes should be voting on how those taxes should be distributed. Second, there’s a good reason why we don’t consider 14 year olds to be legal adults - because we recognize that they’ve still got a lot of learnin’ to do. They need to grow emotionally and intellectually before they are ready to take full responsibility for their actions.
The day 14 year olds can quit school and work full time, get married, have children, be tried in adult court for every crime, and be fully liable in civil court for their actions is the day that we should be discussing whether or not they should have the vote.