Should the age to vote be reduced to 16?

You still haven't determined a minimum threshold for maturity. Some 50 year olds have never had jobs, some 50 year olds have never finished school, some 50 year olds have never been to university. The point of an election campaign is to persuade the audience into adopting the view of the politician/party, this is because the human mind is so easily tainted. If we were to take an educated stance on this, their persuasion would be irrelevant as educated necessitates a prior education, you would need to show why an education entitles one with the right to vote.

That's tautological and circular.

You believe the voting age should remain at 18 because it should remain at 18. You briefly touch maturity then evade a ways of determining a minimum threshold, instead you cower behind an age, the question of the debate. Independent, you are still independent at 16; at 18, you only have more legal rights and responsibilities. However, because legal rights and responsibilities is currently being brought into disrepute, the debate at hand, this isn't able to reinforce your case as it would be tautological and circular.

 

No not at all. Assuming this thread is based upon U.S. most schools don't teach civis etc. til their senior year, which is when you turn 18. In my opinion the voting age should be changed to 21. At 18 most people do not have a good grasp of politics or government, and a lot just don't care.

 

Most teenagers of any age are un-concerned with politics and therefore cast willy-nilly votes. If anything the voting age should be raised to 21.

 

Cars are weapons of mass destruction? Now I know why Bush was in the Middle East for so long.... *whistles*

But really you can't compare driving giving the right to vote.

To drive at age 16 you must pass a test and prove you know how to drive.

Do you plan on making every 16 year old take a test before they vote? That is the only way the comparison of driving and voting can be made.

 

It's not based solely on the US, being that I'm Australian to begin with. However, why do you need to have studied civis in order to vote? Why 21? What suddenly happens at 21?

Why 21?

 

At 21 you are older, more mature, and are more involved in politics considering most 21 year old's have been living on their own for 3 years. And studying civics is the study of government. You can't expect every 16 year old to learn everything about the government and politics by themselves. The younger you are, the more likely you are to follow what someone else says instead of forming your own opinion. And how about instead of asking "why" to everyone's points, why not state some opinions of your own?

 

I have stated some of my opinions, though, I've changed tack to questioning others reasoning.

So, you would base voting rights on how mature someone is. This is fine, but, there must be a threshold. Is your threshold days alive?

Well, many adults haven't studied civics I'm sure. (I'm talking about 40-50-60) I suppose you don't have a real problem with whether one studies civics or not then, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
Humans are plagued with wanting to fit in, adults, teens, and children are all humans in this case.

Also, self-learning is a great way to learn.

 

I just read a post where you stated nothing. That was a post of nothing. Thank you for wasting my time.

 

It was a rebuttal. All those separate statements where individual responses to your points and opinions. Would you like me to simplify it?

 

Were *

And I would like you to add something to it. You didn't refute anything I said.

^nothing

If you're going to give a statistic of adults not studying civics I'd like proof. In the United States it is a graduation requirement to take a semester of Civics.

Link to Wiki topic about people being like sheep. Cool you just affirmed how I said the younger people are the more likely they are to follow someone they look up to, like their parents. You still haven't answered my post about cars being weapons of mass destruction.

 

/sigh

You wanted to base voting rights on maturity. This is absolutely fine, however, there clearly then must be some distinction between someone too immature to vote, and someone who is mature enough to vote. Given this, I must therefore assume your only maturity gauge is days alive on Earth. Why is this your threshold?

Your civics point.
Firstly, you assume all adults graduate.
Secondly, what if you fail?
Third, what if you immigrate?

You need to read up on Social Conformity. It doesn't discriminate.

Didn't see your past post:

It's a hyperbole. You can drive a car, crash it into someone and kill them.

Sure you can, driving requires maturity otherwise you'd never be let behind the wheel.

In Australia, it's a theoretical test before your allowed to drive under adult supervision. However, the fact is, I can take my car onto the highway with adult supervision, and veer into an oncoming tanker.

I never mentioned anything about taking a test. 16 year olds are given the right to drive a car, the car in itself has the enormous potential to be a weapon if misused.

 

16 year olds after taking a test can drive on their own.

You want to give 16 year olds the right to vote without doing anything to prove they are worthy of voting. Once again your logic is flawed. Really can't be bothered arguing with you, common sense just isn't allowed with you.

 

Driving is not an unalienable democratic right, voting is.

Instead of insulting, how about using actual logic, as opposed to prejudice.

 

No it shouldnt

Infracted.

 

A 50 year old with or without a job, has obviosuly more life experience and an idea of what government he / she would like to run the country.

Ok 16 and 18 are just ages, but at 16 your still in school, you can't even drive, you can't even have a credit card. At 18 most people should have some basic life, work and schooling experience to make an appropriate vote in who you want to run your country.

You have said that with 16 year old's voting it would bring a more broad range of votes, but what would a 16 year old be voting for? Young children could only benefit their parents by voting, which would be another vote for the party of their parents choice, in a vast majority of cases.

 

What could any goverment system possibly gain from letting people under the age of 16 vote?

Other than the obviousness that they can be easily influenced; voting turnouts are extremely low compared to the population, how would this possibly help?

 

I believe it should stay at 18 because usually teens sixteen dont
know what the fuck there voting for in the first place lol.
What i mean is, teens dont understand it much as they will when they are
18 its just the majority.

 

It depends what you attribute life experience as, if you attribute it to days alive, then, sure. Otherwise, not necessarily.

A credit card company is a private institution and can set the rules as they wish; Government is not. Credit Card companies adhere to the rules laid down by the Government and act appropriately. The reason why 16 year olds aren't allowed a CC is because of legal concerns. They aren't bound to a contract as tightly as adults, and thus, CC companies have decided against that risk.

University is still school if you classify school as a place of learning. I don't see why completing school is a prerequisite. What of people who dropped out of school? What about an adult who dropped out at year 10. What If I'm in year 11 and 16? Clearly I'm more educated than him if we take years educated as the scale.

We can drive btw, we also are obligated to file taxable income.

Old children wouldn't? Let's be serious, if your going to use the argument that young children are more likely influenced by your parents, you must then reject the fact that at age 18 all this influence is magically annihilated. Clearly, it isn't. We have no problem with others influencing our vote, heck, what's the point of an election campaign? To influence the audience into adopting and endorsing the politicians/parties views.

The 16 year olds would be voting for the candidates, presumably they would vote for the candidates that would better their interests. They have no reason to vote for the 'hottest' one, all voting is done entirely anonymously, there are no extraneous variables that one has when they fill in the ballot by themselves.

Well, it would a better indicator on what the contributing members of the nation want as their leader. This is after all a democratic election, a super majority of 50% is only needed, denying a certain portion of the country can taint the results enormously.

Also, influence isn't really a concern, aside from asking people to read on what Social Conformity is again, do you really think that at 18 all your previous childhood influences get annihilated? No, they do not.

Some 16 year olds understand more than 20 year olds. Infact, there are numerous teenagers far more intellectually superior than there adult counterparts. You would deny them the right to vote?

 

I think 16 year olds should be able to vote. They have cars etc already I don't see the reason why not to do it. The "stupid" 16 year olds who doesn't know anything about politics would probably not vote anyways. I believe that the majority of the 16 year olds are incredibly intelligent these days, I think they should be able to share their opinions.

 

Ok, so a 50 year old no matter what they've done in their life has no life experience ok....

I also wonder why 16 year old's aren't legally allowed to use a credit card, that's probably because the majority couldn't be trusted with one,

If anyone drops out of school in year 10, they are legally obligated to get a job or to follow some other form of education, otherwise they would therefore have to go back to school.

How in any way is a 16 year old actively contributing to society, they are preparing to contribute when they go into the workforce, or a higher education. In what interests would a 16 year old have in government? There is no need for kids too start voting.