Should the age to vote be reduced to 16?

In my opinion no if their not contributing to our government now and haven't in the past then why should they get to decide how my moneys being spent?

 

Whilst there are mature people like myself at 16, there's too many immature people at this age. I think that there will be a lot of votes based on what they think is funny, or something unecessary. I think that 18 is a good age to start voting and should remain at this for that very reason.

 

Yet in modern society we do, clearly then there must be some other reason that covers all. O, that's right, you need to be alive for at least 6574 days, that's all.

I never knew maturity was grounds for the democratic right to vote. 16 year olds are mature enough to drive cars capable of killing, yet, we're not mature enough to tick a box.

 

So there would be thousands of juveniles to place careless votes for what reason?

There's no problems with the age its at in my opinion.

 

should not be.

 

I think that at the age of 16 you should be allowed to vote.

Most of the 18 years old teen won't even go vote because they either don't care about it or don't know anything about politics.

Allowing the 16 years old teen to vote would let the teens that like politics to participate in it.
At 16 years old, here in Canada, you're allowed to drive, make your OWN bank account without even your parents knowing it, drop school, have confidential appointment with every kind of doctors and even more and you come and tell me they don't have the right to vote?

Come on, think a bit...

 

While not the deciding factor, I'm going to argue that maturity does play some role in the voting age. I'm not going to argue that all 18-year-olds are more mature than all 16-year-olds, or anything close, but on average they will be. Look at it this way: In two years will most 16-year-olds be more or less mature? In general, they will be more mature, so overall the voting pool will be slightly more mature by excluding those most likely to be the least mature (once again, averages - this does not speak for any individual person).

It might also be worth noting that nearly all 18-year-olds will be taking or have taken some form of government class in high school (I believe it is a federal requirement to graduate, but I could be mistaken), while 16-year-olds may or may not have taken such a class (this is specific to the U.S.).

I realize that these are by no means conclusive arguments, but I think that they bear considering.

 

To obtain a far greater sample size and reflection of the nation and the collective bodies majorative opinion in forming a conclusion on who/which person/party runs the country.

Humans by nature always seek to improve something. Just because a problem doesn't evidently appear, does not mean the current situation cannot be improved.

If you take into consideration the established fact that girls mature faster then boys, then how do you account for this?

Why should taking a subject give you rights to votes? What of adults that dropped school?

It depends what you use as your threshold.

 

That's a bit of a stereotype. 18 year olds, 19 year olds, 20 year olds, 21 year olds, even up to 25 year olds party as well, you know?

Also, carelessly inaccurate is entirely wrong, it would be much more accurate in the reflection of the collective body of contributing society members, as opposed to omitting and discriminating a portion of said members.

 

I'm starting to think it doesn't really matter what age you are, as long as you or your spouse pays taxes. you could honestly be 12, but If you lived w/o your parents and earned your own income, and PAID TAXES for it, you should be eligible to vote. That works two ways. if you are a total loser, and still live with your parents at age 30, then you don't get a vote unless you pay your taxes independently of your parents.

That way, you can only decide what happens with your money if you give money in the first place, and It's a decent maturity screen that's easier to apply than a test or anything like one

 

I am stereotyping yes, but I think its correct to do so, as I believe the majority of 16 year olds are not mature enough. And Yes, I still think a fair few 18 year olds probably wouldn't be mature enough. I think kids should be kids, why would they even need to vote a government at 16, it would just be a second vote for their parents, as most children would follow the beliefs of their parents.

 

Paying taxes is a major thing, but also, having responsibility is another. Being able to drive a car is a major thing, it's essentially a weapon if used incorrectly.

Sounds fine.

We're talking about the same teenagers who defy their parents wishes that are party goers, correct? What makes you think they're going to listen this time around?

Firstly, stereotyping isn't really correct, it's just something our minds do to prevent overload. Secondly, what do you consider 'mature enough'? The word 'enough' implies that you can be mature 'enough' so, where is the cut-off? Is it being alive for 6574 days, or is it something else?

 

hell. no.

at 16 i wouldve said yes and wouldve thought i should be able to but looking back to most any kid at 16 they don't make the smartest decisions.

 

I'm sure we can find fault in adult decisions as well.

There is no correct decision on who to vote for btw, it's entirely subjective and dependent on the circumstance of the voter. Voting for party A isn't a dumb decision, nor is Voting for party B a smart decision.

 

No, because i think a 16 year old would just vote the same as one of his/her friends, or parents.

 

Yes those teenagers, If they can't / don't listen to their parents I don't believe there going to listen to a government, as I said before most of them couldn't care less who's in government. I just think the majority of 16 year olds aren't mature enough to make an educated vote, a certain percentage would follow the steps of their parents. I don't think there is a defining age to state maturity, but that being said there has to be an age where an individual becomes an "Independent" that age is chosen to be 18.

 

I'm 16 years old myself and I can vouche for the fact that pretty much everyone in my age group would vote for whatever their parents vote for or I could see the girls voting for the hottest guy or someone like Michele Bachmann because she is a woman.

On a side note I think our current political system is just a mess. If I had the right to vote I would vote for Ron Paul not because I want him as my president but as I look at the other canidates I want to vote against all of them. It is too bad you can't downvote canidates before the main election.

 

This would be considered social conformity. It doesn't discriminate.

The age 18 gives one the legal rights/responsibilities of an adult. It says nothing about age, knowledge, these just strongly correlate with a higher age. I'm not asking for a defining age for maturity, I'm asking how you differentiate from a mature enough person to vote, to a person lacking such maturity.

Failed logic. I can vouch for the fact that using pencils makes people mentally unstable. Doesn't make it correct, does it.

Your right, the current political system is at a crisis point. However, extending the right to vote to 16 year olds wouldn't exacerbate this anymore.

Your main argument is maturity, how would we test for the minimum threshold?

 

It says nothing about age, knowledge, these just strongly correlate with a higher age.

That is it, Age and experience, brings maturity. I beleive the majority of 18 year olds if only its a small amount, would have experience in jobs, university and at least finished school, by this time most 18 year olds would be able to make an educated decision on who they think would do the best job running the country.

I don't believe there would be such a test, thats why there is a set age of 18. Although still some 18 year olds couldn't care less, but 18 you become "independent" So I think that's why its the chosen age.