Do you think people of that age are mature enough? Why not?
[I’m just going to go ahead and assume this gets moved to GD rather than closed. Welcome aboard the SDMB, btw.]
I don’t think we’re honestly able to factor maturity into it. There are many retired citizens who aren’t ‘mature’ enough to vote, if you interpret that to mean that they are, for whatever reason, uneducated about the candidates and issues.
Our chosen solution is just to draw the line at 18. By then, we make the assumption that those who want to participate in the system will make the effort to become educated about the candidates and issues. It’s assumed that if they don’t care enough to make an informed decision, they’ll waive the right to vote. We can see that that’s not always the case.
I don’t think it would necessarily be a problem to open voting up to 16-17 year olds, if our assumption is still that if they don’t care enough to make an informed decision, they just won’t vote. I can’t really see a compelling reason to, though, either.
Honestly? My view is split. On one hand, I’d like to see some kind of exclusionary test against those who can vote, but know nothing about what they’re voting for. On the other, I feel like voting really should be opened up to all citizens, to vote for whatever reasons they are compelled to.
It seems like our notion of maturity, from a legal standpoint, is all over the road.
You can work full-time at 16 and pay the taxes on your salary. At 16 you’re old enough to drive, but there’s talk of changing that to 18. You can join the army and die for this country at 17 (?) or 18, but you can’t drink alcohol in many states. If I understand correctly, there are at least some states in which it’s possible for teens to have abortions without parental consent.
Wikipedia: Abortion - Wikipedia
*In the United States, some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter requests an abortion. *
I think they should have the right. Back when we had the draft, I definitely think they should have had the right.
When I look back on myself and those at school with me at 16 and 18, no way in hell should we have had the vote. Totally immature. The same goes for the pupils of the schools I visited when I looked after them. I’d put the voting age back to 21. And in this day and age of extended lifespans and readily available contraception, I’d raise the marriage age to that too.
The argument about being old enough to die but not old enough to vote is specious: they get paid.
As long as registration for selective service is set at 18, I believe 18-21 year olds should be allowed to vote. Whether or not there is currently a draft doesn’t mean that one will never be implemented. Whether they get paid is irrelevant. If they can be involuntarily drafted into military service, they should have the say as to whom they want representing their best interests in government.
Prior to age 18, parents are responsible for acting in the minor’s best interest. Therefor, I see no reason to lower the voting age.
That’s like saying that raping a prostitute is okay, because she got paid.
Since there is no General Question here, let’s move this one to Great Debates.
samclem Moderator, General Questions
Don’t forget the age of consent issue, lobotomyboy63. That one’s even more inconsistent from state to state. I’d support lowering the voting age to about 16. Kids who aren’t interested aren’t going to vote, so I don’t think maturity would be more of an issue than it is for 18-year-olds.
Although the voting age is meant to be a cut-off point beyond which people are supposedly ‘mature’ enough to make an informed decision for whom to vote, this cut-off is by definition arbitrary. That said, there’s a couple of arguments in favour of lowering the threshold that are worth considering. Most people get to vote for the first time when their 18-19. By this time, their life is usually in upheaval: they finished high school, they’re not living with their parents anymore, they’re starting college, living in another city. If they’re in the US, they might not even know how and where to register to vote. If you let younger people who are in calmer waters get acquainted with voting, chances are they will continue to do so because voting is in many cases a matter of habit and inertia: once you’re a voter you tend to stay one, there’s no way back.
If you’re interested, see if you can get a hold of Eric Plutzer, ‘Becoming a Habitual Voter’, American Political Science Review, 2002, 96:1, 41-56.
No: rape is against the person’s will. The vote is a privilege, not a right, and is regularly denied - the young, non-citizens, the insane, criminals, members of the House of Lords…
I would be wary of supporting a change. I think moving it to 18 was correct, both because of the draft, and because, by a great many measures, a minor becomes an adult at that age. It’s pretty much the youngest age anyone in our society is considered an adult, and so I think it’s a good place to put the cutoff. Despite the fact that people can drive and work at 16, I don’t think anyone considers 16 year olds “adults”.
Another problem with pushing it back is that 16 years old seems more arbitrary somehow. Why would we push it back? And if voting is ok at 16, why not 14, or 12? I read the paper every day when I was 10, and was probably more informed as a voter than a lot of 18 year olds were (or 30 years olds, for that matter), so is 10 a good age? I think if you push it to 16, there could be agitation for an even younger age, and that bothers me. I’m not ok with allowing children to vote, because I believe in most instances children will vote the same as their parents, and it will be essentially giving people with children and larger families a larger say so in our government. Not only that, but I think young people lack the discernment of older people when it comes to a lot of issues. There is a lot of wisdom to be gained with age, and while I don’t think 18 year olds have it either, there are other compelling reasons for them to vote that outweigh that.
However, reading Svejk’s reply makes me think I could be convinced. If it could be shown that pushing back the age would result in more lifelong regular voters, that would be a big plus in that column, to me. However, I don’t know if that’s a fact, or conjecture.
As it stands, I think it’s an unnecessary change, and I haven’t been sold on it’s merits, but I think this is an interesting topic. What are the voting ages in other countries? Is 16 a more common age anywhere else in the world?
And drafting is against a person’s will. Why should someone who could be compelled to die for his or her country not be afforded the right to vote against someone who would institute a draft?
Yes, but those people don’t serve in the armed forces either. (generally)
The issue here is consent. Forcing someone to go to war (the draft) but still paying them is similar to forcing a prostitute to have sex with you, but paying here at the end. It’s an inflammatory comparison, but it holds up. Getting consent from the drafted 18 year old comes in the form of a vote, where they person is allowed, to a degree, to choose who will be in Washington. If a politician can send you to die, I think it makes sense that you have the ability to try and vote that person out of office.
ETA: also, I thought voting was a right. A right that can be denied, if you are a criminal (much like liberty, I suppose), and one that is held until you reach adulthood (like all out other rights, to a degree), but a right nonetheless. Am I wrong?
I don’t know of any system where people start voting at age 16 (but there’s lots of things I don’t know) so it’s not a proven fact. But there certainly is every reason to believe that there would be such an effect. Question is: how large is this effect?
Yes, but one of the burdens of service is that you give up most of your civil liberties, including freedom of speech when the subject is the President. One of the few rights you retain is the right to vote for whomever you please to fill that office. I served under Clinton and Bush II, and left the service because no paycheck was adequate incentive to risk my life in service to GWB’s plan for “support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution” (i.e. invade the shit out of Iraq).
I did not serve for the paycheck (although it was convenient to be able to pay for my own meals while I served). I did it because I wanted to uphold the ideals under which America was founded; I wanted to be more than a citizen. If I had not been allowed to vote, I would never have served in the first place, because by not voting I would have been less than a citizen.
No, 16-17 year olds should not be allowed to vote. There are studies of cognitive skills that indicate the brain is still developing at this age. From personal experience I would agree with this. If anything the age should be raised to 21 or higher.
why does the brain need to be fully developed in order to make a political decision? I don’t see why this factor should play into this debate.
Indeed, for a great many people it seems totally irrelevant. 
In most states, 16 is old enough to drive and have sex - but it’s not mature enough to vote? That doesn’t make sense to me. On an individual level, both have far more serious consequences than voting does.
Because these decisions affect others and should be made with the reasoning skills of an adult and not a child.
Reasoning skills and cognitive capacity/brain development are not the same thing. IMHO, many, many people never attain the reasoning skills to make considered political decision, regardless of age. Also, as was pointed out above, 16 + 17 yo people make lots of decisions that affect themselves and others much more than when voting. The fact that the brain is in development at a certain age is not a reason to bar people that age from the vote, because it does not impair their ability to do so by any reasonable standard.