# Youth Rights - Suffrage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2009, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053 "2009-09-22T05:55:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/41 "2009-09-23T12:38:24Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > YOU are getting lied to and taken advantage of too, that’s pretty much the definition of “politician”. Why does this change for the worse when it comes to kids? You think kids don’t watch political ads now? You think their views aren’t already manipulated by the media and their peers, same as every adult? > > It’s a shitty political system we have, and the only thing that makes it less shitty is that I have some tiny token choice in it every few years. The earlier kids learn not to trust politicians, the better. > > And a child being deceived into voting for the “wrong” candidate (which one is that anyway?) is not quite the same level of “bad” as a child being coerced into sucking off uncle Jimmy or taking out $100,000 in debt. > > And finally… why wouldn’t the adults in their lives be able to protect them? Yes, yes I am. But I’m old enough and experienced enough to know it. And to call Bullshit on it when I see it. Children are neither. How would adults protect them? Tamper with their kid’s vote? Or tamper with the kid’s choice? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/42 "2009-09-23T12:44:32Z")
> [@SoulFrost](#): > > Yes, yes I am. But I’m old enough and experienced enough to know it. And to call Bullshit on it when I see it. Children are neither. > > How would adults protect them? Tamper with their kid’s vote? Or tamper with the kid’s choice? Talk to 'em? ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/43 "2009-09-23T12:49:13Z")
So tamper with the kid’s choice. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/44 "2009-09-23T12:59:36Z")
> [@SoulFrost](#): > > So tamper with the kid’s choice. 😕 You never discuss an upcoming election with anybody? It’s just totally off limits because you don’t want anybody to ‘tamper’ with your choice? ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/45 "2009-09-23T13:19:35Z")
I make it a point never to discuss politics with any underage voting children who may look to me as an authority figure. Again, I am an adult. I have the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision. Even if my mama disagrees with my choice. Even if my best friend tells me I’m wrong. Even if I see on a TV ad that my candidate will make my daddy lose his job. Even if my pastor tells the whole church that God, Hisownself, has revealed that my candidate is the Antichrist. Children do not have the knowledge, do not have the experience, and do not have the filtering mechanisms to make that informed decision. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/46 "2009-09-23T13:25:57Z")
Because teenagers and children, being less mature and mentally developed and educated on average, are more pliable in the face of even a simple conversation. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/47 "2009-09-23T15:01:00Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Because teenagers and children, being less mature and mentally developed and educated on average, are more pliable in the face of even a simple conversation. So if you can be talked into agreeing with somebody, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote? I just wonder why, when YOU form or change your opinions, it’s because you’ve objectively considered all the relevant facts, but when a child forms an opinion, it is based on immaturity and outside manipulation? Is there any way to tell the difference? What about all the other decisions we allow children to make? When a 16 year old girls decides to have an abortion, is it because she is pliable and less mentally developed? Or is it her own damn decision, no matter who helps her make it? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/48 "2009-09-23T15:07:15Z")
**DrCube** , what are your views on emancipation? Do you think children ought to have a right to leave their parents at any time without some kind of judicial or administrative review? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/49 "2009-09-23T15:15:42Z")
… ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/50 "2009-09-23T15:16:43Z")
Of course there are 16 year olds mature enough to vote and 30 40 or 70 year olds who aren’t. But the law can’t judge everyone individually. It would take forever, put your rights in the hands of a subjective whimsical judge, and cost a fortune. The law needs a bright line that applies to everyone equally, arbitrary though it may be. The line used to be 21, now it’s 18. It could be some other age, 16 or 19, but it would still be an arbitrary bright line. We’re not going to let toddlers vote obviously, so the line is going to be somewhere. I think 18 is fine, but if you want to argue that it should be 16 or 14, you should lobby for that. But it will still be an arbitrary line. ---
**Author:** ![Jettboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@Jettboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jettboy)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/51 "2009-09-23T15:49:41Z")
_“Free candy and a skateboard for anyone who votes for me! Watch my music video and you’ll see that I’m the best possible candidate for office! I’ll make it my mission to abolish curfews, drinking ages, school attendence and broccoli! Tell your friends that if they’re really, truly cool they’ll vote for me!”_ That’s why kids shouldn’t be allowed to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/52 "2009-09-23T15:55:10Z")
> [@Jettboy](#): > > _“Free candy and a skateboard for anyone who votes for me! Watch my music video and you’ll see that I’m the best possible candidate for office! I’ll make it my mission to abolish curfews, drinking ages, school attendence and broccoli! Tell your friends that if they’re really, truly cool they’ll vote for me!”_ > > That’s why kids shouldn’t be allowed to vote. That’s only marginally more stupid than political ads aimed at adults. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/53 "2009-09-23T16:11:19Z")
> [@Jettboy](#): > > _“Free candy and a skateboard for anyone who votes for me! Watch my music video and you’ll see that I’m the best possible candidate for office! I’ll make it my mission to abolish curfews, drinking ages, school attendence and broccoli! Tell your friends that if they’re really, truly cool they’ll vote for me!”_ > > That’s why kids shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Yeah, adults never succumb to pie-in-the-sky promises from lying politicians. Entitlement programs just don’t happen when mature adults are the only ones allowed in the voting booth. And what’s wrong with abolishing curfews and drinking ages? Or are you talking about literally bribing voters with free shit in order to make them vote for you? Is that legal? I don’t think it should be. > [@Ravenman](#): > > DrCube, what are your views on emancipation? Do you think children ought to have a right to leave their parents at any time without some kind of judicial or administrative review? Past a certain point, yes. But parents have a responsibility to care for their kids, and allowing an 8 year old to live in the streets when you can prevent it isn’t very caring, no matter what the kid chooses. Especially when they can’t enter into any rental agreements, get a job, drive a car, etc. So my solution would be to set the aforementioned legal age to enter into contracts as the age at which kids could leave home without permission. Those younger would be dealt with on a case by case basis, as now. But a 16 year old who can drive and work absolutely should be allowed to live where he pleases. Believe me, lots of kids are living with their parents until they’re 30 nowadays. Nobody gives up free room and board, and probably laundry, dishwashing and housekeeping services, without a good reason. And whether that reason is good enough is not your decision to make. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/54 "2009-09-23T20:21:39Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So if you can be talked into agreeing with somebody, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote? > > I just wonder why, when YOU form or change your opinions, it’s because you’ve objectively considered all the relevant facts, but when a child forms an opinion, it is based on immaturity and outside manipulation? Is there any way to tell the difference? What about all the other decisions we allow children to make? When a 16 year old girls decides to have an abortion, is it because she is pliable and less mentally developed? Or is it her own damn decision, no matter who helps her make it? Yes, when I make a decision, to a large extent is is due to outside manipulation\*. But this is true for anyone. However, as people age from child to adult, their decisions become more and more their own. Let’s look at this step by step: [ul] [li]The voters should be as rational and objective as possible[/li][li]At a certain age, the vast majority of people are as objective and rational as they can possibly be.[/li][li]Before a certain age, the vast majority of people are highly irrational compared to the rest of their life.[/li][/ul] The first item is, IMHO, an essential element of democracy. And the second and third items are simply a consequence of brain development. It logically follows that people who are younger than a certain age should not vote, simply to keep the pool of voters more rational and objective. Now, we have two choices: a) Implement a highly costly and subjective system to attempt to find the few exceptions to the line or b) Bar a few undeserving people from voting **for a few years**. And this, this is the part that you do not seem to comprehend. It’s not like anyone is getting permanently disenfranchised. For the people who are on the wrong side of the line, the problem is self-correcting, since time will allow them the vote. \*And I’m 16, so moreso than you, I’d guess. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/55 "2009-09-23T20:35:13Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > [LIST] > [li]The voters should be as rational and objective as possible[/li] This is where we disagree. Or rather, I agree that voters should be as rational and objective as possible. But I disagree that denying people their rights is the solution. We should all speak out about the dangers of irrationality and we should educate our fellow voters whenever we can. In general, I think education and information is what the government should be peddling instead of bans and restrictions. That’s a blanket statement that applies to almost everything. Drugs, sex, cigarettes, trans fats, etc. And if you think a subset of the population is not rational, you don’t ban them from the polls, you educate them. Jesus, most people would be disenfranchised if “rationality” were the yardstick used to dole out the right to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/56 "2009-09-23T20:42:57Z")
Okay, so tell me. How does one educate a toddler, **besides using time** , to be knowledgeable enough to vote? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/57 "2009-09-23T23:28:19Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Okay, so tell me. How does one educate a toddler, **besides using time** , to be knowledgeable enough to vote? Got a particular level of ‘knowledgeable’ in mind there? For me, my yardstick is “Do you care which candidate is elected, enough to get off your ass and register to vote, go to the polls, etc?”. If so, in my world, you’ve got a vote. Seriously, the majority of voters aren’t “knowledgeable” enough to vote, according to me. Should they be disenfranchised now? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/58 "2009-09-24T00:01:22Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > But I disagree that denying people their rights is the solution. There is no right for children to vote, so they are not being denied their rights. Should children serve on juries, too? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/59 "2009-09-24T00:09:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There is no right for children to vote, so they are not being denied their rights. > > Should children serve on juries, too? Government doesn’t grant rights, they just take them away. If you are being governed, you’ve got a right to vote for your representatives. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/60 "2009-09-24T05:21:48Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > What makes you think that kids have any interest in voting in the first place? Even now, young adults (18-35) comprise the lowest turnout rate of all voting groups. It’s really simple. The ones who aren’t intersted in voting won’t turn out to vote. The problem solves itself. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Sure, age limits are inherently arbitrary. One could present the argument that 16yo’s should be allowed the right to vote, but if that’s the case, what about 14? 12? Eight? Four? You have to draw the line somewhere. No you don’t have to draw a line somewhere. If someone wants to vote, they’re old enough to vote. That line works just fine. Indeed, if kids are so disinterested in the electoral process as you assume, there’s nothing to fear from granting them the vote, since they won’t use it, and thus won’t “corrupt our democracy with their imaturity and ignorance”. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > If children are genuinely interested in obtaining suffrage, they are more than welcome to form their own lobbyist group to campaign for voting rights comparable to adults. The fact that they have NOT done so should tell you something – as opposed to groups of adults who appear to have a hidden agenda in mind. :dubious: So what you’re saying is that only enslaved blacks had a right to speak out against black slavery. That only women who have been denied the vote have any right to say that women should be allowed to vote. That everyone who actually had political power in those times ought to have refused to wield it on behalf of an opressed group who has none of their own. I don’t think so. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Yes, you really do, No, you really don’t. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > because the alternatives to not having an arbitrary age line for legal responsibility are either that you don’t have any at all, in which case, I run around getting 8 year olds, who have a reputation for being notoriously bad negotiators who aren’t good at long term planning, to sign over large percentages of their future earnings to me for candy, You know, dispite such contracts being completely illegal to enforce against adults anyway… > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > or you decide that society will decide when somebody’s a legal adult on a case to case basis, which seems like it would be a lot of time and effort for everybody. How did we ever learn to manage that with who we allow to drive a car? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > No, I’m saying that as long as we have an arbitrary age limit for other things, (and you didn’t challenge that in your OP), at least it’s consistent. I challenge every arbitrary age limit. I just figured that I’d debate one issue at a time. If you feel we absolutely must deal with every issue of injustice everywhere before we can make incremental improvements, that’s your business, but there’s zero justification for that position, morally or otherwise. > [@Marley23](#): > > The alternatives are having no age limits, or the option **Captain Amazing** didn’t mention, which are eligiblity tests. Those are unconstitutional, and rightly so, because historically they were used to keep black people from voting. > > I support lowering the voting age by a few years and I admit any kind of age based limit is going to be unfair to some people. Unfortunately it beats the alternatives. I say having no age limits beats the alternatives. Why do you think that denying people the right to vote based on their birthday is justified? > [@Odesio](#): > > This just isn’t true. The reasons we send representatives to Washington, or the state capitol for that matter, is because the vast majority of citizens cannot afford to take the time to go to Washington and cast their vote on an issue. If you’re in the business of shipping/receiving cargo in New England during the early 19th century you certainly can’t leave your business to go vote in Washington. So it makes sense to have a representative. > > One of the things Alexis de Tocqueville notes in \*Democracy in America > > - (1835) is that even common laborers were relatively well aware of political issues, and, in his opinion, they held too much sway in public discourse to the detriment of the country. Certainly during the period of history that led up to the American Revolution you can also find examples of common laborers with strong enough political opinions and awareness to form their own groups to affect change. Sons of Liberty I’m looking at you. > > So, no, the only reason we have a representative democracy is not because citizens cannot be well educated to vote on issues. Read your quote again. They’re not educated about all the issues and minutae of the laws that impact them. They’re informed about broad issues, which they then designate their representatives to find a way to hammer out the legislation that accomplishes the broad strokes of what they want done. > [@Odesio](#): > > There’s nothing immoral about it. For the most part minors are not responsible enough to enter into things like contracts, to decide whether or not they wish to go to school, and have limited control of things like their diet, bed time, and even the clothing they wear. In short, minors are dependent on their parents are are not emancipated individuals. In light of that there isn’t a reason to give minors the right to vote. So you’re using the fact that they are disempowered in one way to disempower them in another way. That seems circular. > [@Odesio](#): > > How about people who aren’t citizens? Do they get a vote too? They pay taxes and are subject to our laws. Do you object to granting them the vote? > [@Odesio](#): > > Quite clearly that isn’t the way it’s supposed to work. I could articulate an opinion when I was 5 (I love Star Wars!) but it didn’t make me qualified to vote. > > Odesio Having an opinion and wanting it to have the force of law does qualify someone to vote. > [@Giles](#): > > I think that there needs to be a limit. If there were no limit, then a 5-year-old who could read and write could also vote, and I’ve never known of a 5-year-old who had any kind of political opinions. Having a political opinion **is** the limit. If you don’t have a political opinion, you have no motivation to vote, so you won’t show up at the polls. I should have thought this would be obvious. > [@Giles](#): > > My youngest son, however, at the age of 12 asked an awkward question of the then Prime Minister of Australia when on a school trip to Canberra. (Though I must admit that his political opinions were strongly influenced by the political opinions of his family and our friends – our social circle included members of parliament and local councilors). > > I’d support lowering the voting age to 16, because by then most people have learned about the political system, and have started forming their own opinions – which often will not be the same as their parents. So do you support disenfranchising adults who would vote the same way their parents would? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > There’s certainly a kind of double standard there, but even though minors can be prosecuted as adults, in most cases, minors aren’t. The vast majority of minors who commit crimes are processed through the juvenile judicial system. 1. The Juvinile justice system is a disadvantage to minors, since they are denied access to a jurry of their peers and all the other tools of due process afforded to adults. 2. They still have no part in making the laws that juviniles are subject to, so there’s no meaningful difference in representation. 3. The juviniles in question don’t get to decide if they’ll be prosecuted as adults or not, that’s something that the adults get to decide, so the numbers of such prosecutions mean nothing. > [@Backcountry\_Medic](#): > > I think we should have a basic civics class taught to all kids around ages 10-12, with voting rights granted afterwards. Like was said before, most younger adults don’t even bother to vote in the first place, so I don’t think that elections will be swayed by groups of easily influenced 14 year olds. I think there needs to be some basic concepts of rational, abstract thought that we would need before children could vote, but I would argue that by 12 or so most children would be capable of making these decisions. > > ‘18’ just works now because it happens to be the age of consent for many other things, but just because you could sign a legal contract at 18 doesn’t mean an 18 year-old could sign a contract with a bar allowing them to drink. > > Yes, some children would probably be unduly influenced by their parents, but I’m sure that happens to children over 18 as well. Hell, my wife and I are in our mid twenties, but we still get voting ‘cheatsheets’ from her parents telling us the way we should be voting. > > Most likely, the few children who actually cared would vote, and the rest would just ignore it. What harm would come of it? What harm would come of extending it to people under your preffered arbitrary-age-line-based-on-nothing of 10-12? Especially since we can’t even mandate they pass this civics class, due to constitutional issues. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I don’t think that, as a rule, teenagers, especially 12-14 year olds, are mature enough to be trusted with sufferage. Perhaps you didn’t notice, but this isn’t IMHO. Make an argument, or don’t bother posting. > [@Malthus](#): > > Why not have in place a system in which the default age is the age of majority, but where children under that age can apply for the franchise by passing a means test? (US constitutional considerations aside). That should resolve the “4 year olds voting for tax-funded candy” problem. We allow adults to vote for tax-funded candy programs if that’s how they want to use their vote. And we don’t require any particular maturity out of those adults to be “beyond” that sort of thing. Indeed, it’s unconstitutional to mandate such maturity requirements in adults. So why hold children to a higher standard than you do adults? > [@Shodan](#): > > “To me”, not “in my hand”. > > As far as the OP, no - we need a bright line, since eligibility tests are too much bother for so small a return. We could use “emancipated minor” for the rare exceptions. (And **Marley23** makes an interesting point about the Constitution). > > Regards, > Shodan While I agree that eligibility tests aren’t the answer, since we can’t require them of adults, there’s no justification for a line of any sort. Bright or otherwise. There is no need for people to be “exceptions”. Again, the entire concept of representative democracy assumes that the people are generally dumb, imature, flighty, and uneducated. That’s why we send representatives in instead of voting on the issues directly. > [@Grumman](#): > > Because as appealing as the idea is, your constitution apparently doesn’t allow you to prohibit someone from voting just because they’re an idiot. Thus that can’t be used as a justification for denying minors the vote. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Criminal prosecutions, however, are inherently case-by-case. That anyone is tried “as an adult” means minors **are** subject to adult law. They can just be arbitrarily denied access to adult due process protections if they are put through the “juvinile justice system”. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, no argument there. Which seems like it ought to disqualify you from making decisions about who ought to be allowed to vote. > [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > The excellent thing about having 18 as the minimum voting age is that this is the age at which most (but not all) people have completed high school. That’s the last education that _everyone_ is entitled to, and we make it darned hard for people to stop their education _before_ they graduate high school because we believe that a high education is important. A high school education includes the bare minimum of mathematics, science, art, history, and reading/writing skills that we believe are required to be a functioning member of our society. After high school, in theory, most people will more or less know enough to be able to educate themselves further, through college or otherwise. Beforehand, not so much. > > Quite simply: Most people under the age of 18 just don’t have enough education to be good voters, and most people over 18 do. Now, there are exceptions, and we can’t correct for those because that would require testing people for voting eligibility - which we rightly abhor. So, we pick a line when _most_ people will have some idea of what is going on, and call it good enough. If you consider the abhorence to testing for voting eligibility correct, why do you insist on this back-door, massively inaccurate substitute intended (by your standards) to accomplish the same thing as testing? > [@DrCube](#): > > FTR, I don’t agree with age limits for almost anything. The exceptions being sexual consent and signing legal contracts. But even there I’d push the age limit much lower. Kids are humans too. I think you’re shooting yourself in the foot by accepting those limits, and I’ll fight you on those when we discuss those issues, but I’m glad to work with you on the rest of it, and it’s good to see not everyone is experiencing a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of true universal suffrage. > [@Malthus](#): > > At some point as the age decreases the 'right" becomes meaningless because the person involved does not understand the choices or their import. A _baby_ could pull the levers of a voting machine, but the result would be more or less random. And random votes cancel one another out, so no meaningful harm has been done. Though obviously you need people who are voting in order to express a political opinion, not people who couldn’t figure out where the bathroom was, and thought that the voting lever was the toilet flush. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The question of the maturity of posters insulting other posters in Great Debates occiurs to me, but I will simply note that you will not do this again. > [/Moderating] You are aware that this is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate that declaring someone immature doesn’t actually mean the declaration is justified, nor that that declaration ought to be acted on by denying the person basic rights, right? > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > There does need to be a line. Minimally, a 3rd trimester fetus. Because they can be aborted during the first two trimesters. > > Hey, people play music into the womb in the hopes of “enriching” their fetus – why not excerpts from the health care debate? > > OTOH, maybe it makes more sense to wait until there are functioning lungs and vocal cords so a baby can make its wishes known. Does “Waaaaahhhhh” mean “I support the freem market system” or “There needs to be a stronger safety net in place for the underprivileged”? Seems to me we should wait until they can actually articulate a political opinion. Once they can make their views understood, they meet the requirements (since voting is impossible if they can’t make those views understood). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053.md?page=4)