Agreed. Though I would make an exception for 17 yr olds serving the millitary (including reserves & National Guard). Some states already allow 17 yr olds to vote in primary elections if they’ll be 18 by the date of the general election.
Well, no argument there.
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.
The argument is that anyone can say anybody else is immature. It is a meaningless term, especially when it comes to denying people their rights. So again: WHY shouldn’t 17 year olds, 10 year olds, or 5 year olds have the right to vote?
Anything more than a vague “I don’t agree with their choices, therefore I get to make the decisions for them” would be acceptable.
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.
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.
You’re saying that retards and the comatose can do better?
Because we have to recognize that people without the motivation will not vote. My idea is to let everyone who is cares and is motivated to pitch in and help choose their representatives. Most babies don’t fall into that category, but if they do, why not give them a choice?
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 ]
Not really, no. In some states, all minors 16 or 17 are automatically in the adult jurisdiction, and it’s becoming increasingly common for minors to be waived into the adult system, in some cases before they’re even teenagers.
But I think that trend is a mistake, and I still don’t think minors should be allowed to vote.
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”?
You’ve gotten answers to your question it’s just that you don’t like the answers.
I’ve heard ‘maturity’. Go ahead and define it, then tell me why I should trust the majority of current voters to have it and the majority of prospective voters to lack it.
I’ve heard “OMG babies!”. I’d rather not even dignify that with an answer. Babies aren’t very good at practicing free speech or assembly, but we shouldn’t deny them those rights, either. The fact is, granting someone rights doesn’t magically make every last one of them abuse those rights. All it does is give them a choice.
I’ve heard “Hey, the age is 18 for everything else, why not the vote?”. It is an ignorant, oppressive rule when it comes to tobacco and it is an ignorant, oppressive rule when it comes to the vote.
I’ve heard “education” which sounds an awful lot like “literacy tests”.
So, yeah, I just don’t like them. Anything else?
Can’t we at least agree on “No taxation without representation”?
Ask that to the residents of the District of Columbia.
The point is, there DOES have to be a line, and the nature of lines is that they are arbitrary. The only alternative to a line is a test, which by ITS nature is discriminatory, and unconstitutional BTW.
Where you draw the line is worthy of discussion. Whether there should be a line is not. As you are not willing to acknowledge this reality, buh bye. Have a nice rest of your thread.
It’s the point at which someone is responsible enough to take care of him or her self. I know, you’re going to come back and tell me that someone doesn’t magically become mature at the age of 18. You know what? You’re right. I’m also sure that there are fifteen year old individuals who are mature.
Given the maturity level of most teens I don’t believe it to be an ignorant position to have. Cries of oppression strike me as a tad melodramatic.
No. Or would you prefer it if we simply passed laws forbidding minors from working? Because the right to vote isn’t likely to happen any time in the near future.
When these voting rights for minors threads pop up I always wonder what the end game is for advocates. At what age do you think people should have the right to vote? Is a 12 year old capable of consent? How about a 6 year old? If you say yes to the former and no to the latter how would you justify your seemingly arbitrary age restriction?
Odesio
I’m with you here. I don’t see the point of NOT allowing children to vote. And all of the critiques have been along the lines of “how’s a 3-month old gonna pull a lever” and “it’s always been that way”.
Just to possibly add some science to the debate, make the age of suffrage 13, based on Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, the formal operational stage.
Sometime around puberty, the theory goes, children begin to learn to think abstractly and rationally. Able to plan and understand ‘shades of gray’ that exist in the world. Sure, some may not be totally ready to vote at 13, but why should we deny those that are ready the chance? There are people who aren’t ready for the responsibility of voting at 18, or 28 or even 58. But they still have the right to participate.
I still posit the question- What would the negative consequences be of allowing 13 year-olds to vote? Personally, I see it as a social justice argument, along the lines of “Better to let 100 guilty men walk free than to put 1 innocent man in prison”.
Again, changing nothing else- you would still have to be 18 to give sexual consent, sign contracts, or be drafted; still have to be 16 to drive; still have to be 21 to drink. What would the consequence be of having all children in 7th grade (I think that’s when most kids turn 13ish) take a short civics module to show them the nuts and bolts of the government and then allowing them to vote? Who would be harmed by this?
I’m experiencing some cognitive dissonance here. If someone is mature enough to vote then why aren’t they mature enough to sign contracts, consent to sex, etc? The same people that have a bed time and must eat their broccoli before dessert are mature enough to vote? It doesn’t make sense.
Except that we don’t require any specific level of education in order to vote. You can vote if you’ve dropped out of high school, or if you somehow never learned to read, or if you just didn’t bother with the classes you took. Nobody suggested the education was necessary in order to qualify to vote.
I personally think all these arbitrary lines should either be enforced and be at the same age, or every right should be given on a case by case basis.
You could say that when you become eighteen, you become an adult that can marry, sign contracts, buy liquor, be prosecuted as an adult, pay taxes and vote; and before your eigteen none of these can happen.
Or you can look at it at a case by case basis because you don’t like arbitrary lines, but then any minor should be able to apply for voting rights, the right to sign contracts etc. I don’t think it is fair to say some things are case by case and for others we abhor to the arbitrary line we find so inportant (especially when it is the one area where being treated as an adult is negative for the minor).
I guess I’m saying there should be consistency.
Of course it does. My question, maybe I haven’t made it clear, is “What is the bad stuff that will happen when we allow the youth to vote?”.
There are bad things that can happen when 11 year olds are allowed to consent to sex, and take out mortgages, namely, being taken advantage of by nefarious adults.
If an 11 year old votes for President…? What’s the down side of giving those who are governed a voice in their own government?
Namely, being taken advantage of by nefarious adults.
Once they become a voting bloc, they’re free game for politicians. They’d be pandered to, lied to, taken advantage of, and the adults in their lives would have no way to protect them.
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?