Should the age to vote be reduced to 16?

im not saying they strictly obey their parents... i said they get influenced by their parents

 

Why the differentiation between adults and teenagers?

Last I heard, teenagers where people, though, we sometimes are regarded as bastards of things.

This isn't tackling to issue of 16 year olds.

If it doesn't make any difference, then why deny someone the right to vote when they contribute to the country?

People are living with their parents at 30. This isn't even extreme, it's rather common. Anyone at the age of 16 can/should be able to make an informed decision with regards to their ability to reason. Everyone also gets pressured, even adults, it's called conformity. To think teens are only afflicted with such a social phenomenon is unjustified.

What's wrong with this?

Adults get influenced by their work colleagues, municipality, peers, television. If it's influence your wanting to censor then you should live in a square box with no information about the outside world, then vote.

 

True, but I would have to say young people cave to social pressures, in general, more that adults. If you set the voting age lower that the "your an adult" age, ones parents may try to force them to vote a particular way because "you have to listen, you are still a child". That said, it isn't fair that a large portion of the country can not vote just because of their age but nothing is perfect.

 

Well, not many adults would do this, however, I take the point that some will. Even still, voting is confidential, and teenagers can simply lie. We've all lied, and to think teenagers would suddenly tell the truth on an issue with such gravity with a consequence of punishment is incomprehensible.

That being said, I tend to disagree that young people cave to social pressures. Everyone caves to conformity, I think you've already, or do accept this. I disagree that teenagers bend to such conformity more so than adults. True, peer pressure exists, however, it exists to the same degree as adults. Social pressures also include law. Teenagers tend to defy the law, and turn a blind-eye towards it, adults on the other hand tend to follow it more so.

The system itself is far from perfect, however we must work within the bounds of it. A simple right of choosing who gets to run our country is one we must guard. If we erode this right we will disintegrate much more swiftly into totalitarianism. First, no kids allowed. Second, no mentally disabled allowed. Third, you must pass a test to vote. Fourth, certain professions are excluded. preposterous it seems doesn't it? Yet it happens right now and society turns a blind eye to it over trivial excuses.

 

Of course you don't. But it helps alot. Also, if you're middle aged or older, you have alittle more exposure than a 16 year old.

I know plenty of parents who influence their kids in their political ideology. They don't have too much knowledge about what they are talking about; never reading about it, only hearing it from their parents, intrusting them that the info is right.

I just don't believe they have enough time to form an opinion(for the majority).

 

Stay 18 or be raised. People nowadays don't really give a shit about politics aside from who looks like someone they'd like to have or someone that can relate to them. Take Obama for instance, all the blacks voted for him and every teenager I know would have voted for him just because he's black, not because of his ideas or what he would be able to bring to the country.

By lowering the voting age, you will turn this already huge popularity contest into a bigger popularity contest. The people with many years of experience under their belt will be ignored for the younger candidate that can grab all the votes of younger Americans because he would look better to them than someone their parents age.

 

No it should not. A 16 yr old is just a kid and in my opinion does not have the maturity to vote in elections.
They also are still in high school, so they arent even really out there in the workforce or anything, other than part time jobs.
The fact is, and I know you 16 yr olds will hate it, is that your still just kids.

 

First you say a class should be taken which is knowledge based. Then you now talk about experience.
In the end you neglect the fact that a teenager and an adult both pay taxes to the same country, yet one contribute to the fate of it.

Social Conformity. It's not limited to teens, and nor is it more prevalent in teens.

It takes no time to form an opinion. Human beings act on impulse, many of the voters today act on impulse, why do you think in 1 poll x leader could be up, but when some bad news arrives, y leader takes the lead? Impulse my friend.

If this already happens with adults, then why deny teenagers who contribute equally to the country to voice their opinions? Sounds a lot like baseless censorship to me.

This already happens, what is your point? Teenagers are not as dumb as you make them out to be. We merely follow the adults of societies lead by imitating them.
Also, you still neglect their right help decide the future of the country they pay taxes to.

Maturity is not a required feature to vote.

I'll just leave this quote: "A fairly bright boy is far more intelligent and far better company than the average adult. "

The majority of your post was opinionated belittlement.

 

In that case, so does an 8 year old when he wants some candy, should he vote?

Yes it is. Where do you think people get their political ideologies from? Most likely from things that have the ability to influence them the most. I.e, their parents. 2 Years is alot of time for exposure.

Voting on impulse is an idiotic way of voting. Permitting this is not helpful.

 

We're not talking about 8 year olds.

I beg your pardon, social conformity is not limited to, nor more prevalent in teens.
See the Asch or Milgram studies.

You permit adults to do such, yet not teenagers. Stop arguing the continued implementation of a double standard.

 

you think you can win with logic and smooth words? the fact is that a 16 year old is a kid.
He/She hasnt finished school (yes i understand that few adults havent either but the majority has)
You cant contribute (in general) as much to society as most adults in that you cant get most jobs that adults can. (assuming that sed adult is the typical middle class person)
A 16 year old, you probably just started getting hair on your balls.

Unless you can go die for your country you shouldnt be voting for it.. and im fairly certain there arent any 16 yr olds over in the sand box (and dont say 16 yr olds served in vietnam cause most lied about their age if they did and those were different times)

16 year olds ^as stated above are easily influenced by their parents, not to say adults arent influenced by other outside forces, but a 16 yr old parents would most certainly play a huge roll.

16 year olds simply should never get to vote.. you cant even buy a pack of cigarettes yet. Wait 2 years..

 

No I've seen some 16 year olds that I know and I wouldn't want them voting, I think that 18 is an old enough age for people to have seen the world from the sidelines enough and be ready to make decisions that will help the country that they are voting in.

 

Well, for a kid, I'm doing alright in regards to logic, words are only useful for articulation. Also, this is a logical argument, unless you have evidence to give. As such, your attempts to say logic shouldn't play a factor in a logical debate is juvenile.

You don't need to finish school to vote, please stop bringing up irrelevant points.

We contribute a great deal to society, we are the future of society. We pay taxes, we get jobs that would otherwise be void (casual jobs eg. Shelf stacker), we also are the innovative mind for the future. Also, jobs have nothing to do with whether or not one can vote.

I also started growing hair on my balls at 13, now, you may have different experiences, however, there is an inordinate amount of evidence to counteract this stupid baseless Ad Hominem attack.

You don't die for your country, so you shouldn't vote. Frivolous claim.

I hardly see how this is a huge concern. Influence and authoritative pull will never be eradicated, they are equally found in both adults and children alike, so I hardly think this is an argument.

So? Who cares if we can't buy a packet of cigarettes, this is about voting, not smoking.

 

The simple fact is that...
16 year olds are MINORS!
You are still under your parents/legal guardians control technically.

 

Minors can drive weapons of mass destruction, and are still under the care of parents and legal guardians.

Your point is?

 

If you have evidence please show me this?
Driving weapons of mass destruction? This sounds fun.
ANd by the way if your saying 17 year olds in the military.. you fail to realize that the parent basically signs you over to the government.
The government pretty much owns us when we join.

Why do I say this?
You can get an article 15 for getting bad sunburn because its "destruction of government property" so.... no I dont know of any minors driving weapons of mass destruction.


edit: and even if it were true that "minors drive wmds" i fail to see where this is even useful because no 16 year olds are actively serving in that kind of way. We are talking about 16 year olds not 17 year olds -which can serve but they have to either finish school, have a ged or they go to a military school to finish their h.s. in most cases

so again: a 16 year old is a minor in the care of their parents.

 

Wow... What is the legal driving age for someone to obtain a learners permit? You do realize a car is easily able to kill people?

You brought up the military, no need to criticize yourself.

I don't wish to indict you, however, you are somewhat inept. Weapons of mass destruction, it was a hyperbole from automobiles.

Upon further reading, it appears that you simply misunderstood.

By weapons of mass destruction, I meant automobiles.

Again, your point is irrelevant, so what if their minors, this is just a legal term. So what if their under the care of their parents? Again this is just a branch from a legal term.

 

I don't think it would really matter. Most voters wouldn't vote smarter than a 16 year old.

 

Weapon of mass destruction - a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)

Hmm... where does a car fall under that?
A weapon - yes
Injure people - yes
nuclear - no
chemical - no
biological - no

so 2 out of 5? last I checked a car does not cause massive destruction.
So I apologize that I misunderstood what you said, its just when you say Weapon of mass destruction, a car doesnt even come close in my mind.

Id really like to see an article about a car destorying an entire city or even a square mile.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole