Should the age to vote be reduced to 16?

A lot of adults don't really care who their leader will be, so this isn't really the concern.

Not many people are quite sure on their political views either, they merely want whats best for them, and are gullible.

As for your first point:

Voting is not contingent on knowledge, you could be the most knowledgeable person, and still have the same voting power as the dumbest. What is of concern however, is that people that contribute to the country are being denied voting rights. Who you may ask? 16 year olds and above.

 

No, because the majority of my peers (around age 16) are COMPLETELY ignorant to politics, and are just flat out dumb.

 

Yes, because the majority of my peers (around age 16) are COMPLETELY aware of politics, and are infact geniuses.

Not a solid argument.

You may not have stratified results. However, even still, have you seen the amount of adults that are just as inept as some teenagers? It's staggering.

Also, there's no rule that you must not be 'completely' ignorant to politics in order to vote.

 

Not every 16-year old may understand, although 18-years is adults they know more and understand those things.

To be eligible for voting, your age should be 18.

 

Voting is not contingent on your ability to comprehend and understand the issues surrounding you pertaining to politics.

Many teenagers are far smarter than adults. Adults are merely more experienced, and some only in life in existence.

 

I agree on this, but as a 16-years old you shouldn't have the rights for a vote. The teenagers have nothing to say, let the adults handle it.

 

Let the adults handle the country that teenagers help contribute to, pay taxes to, work in, reside in, and are the future of?

Given that you accept that adults are sometimes less intelligent than teenagers, how can you conclude that dumb people should decide the fate of smart people (general terms)?

 

It's not only the teenagers who contribue, pay taxes to, work in, reside in and are the future of. As a 16-years old your not old enough for stuff like politics, democracy and history et cetera et cetera...

At one point they will also be adults, handling stuff like these. As I said; Teenagers have nothing to say.

 

Not old enough? For what?
Are you really saying we are not competent enough in understanding the inner workings of politics, how history has played a role in shaping us, how democracy is intertwined and runs? I'm sorry, you hugely underestimate the capacity of a teenage mind.

Just because you hit 18, knowledge pertaining to those issues does not manifest itself into your brain. You either have it, care about it, or don't, there's no middle ground here, and being an adult as I prefaced is not contingent on such knowledge.

Teenagers have nothing to say? I'm saying something aren't I?
Heard of freedom of speech? It's required reading for adults to understand democracy.

 

It's relevant in this context. If you're to give a 16-year-old a choice, make sure that choice is going to be handled in a responsible manner. It's simple: Most 16-year-olds wouldn't give a rat's ass about voting, so they certainly wouldn't invest in time into studying to become an educated voter. I'd rather 3, politically-educated 18-year-olds vote, then twenty, politically-uneducated 16-year-olds voting.

I think you misinterpreted my meaning of studying up on politics. I meant to say, "They can't be bothered (like a lot of 18-year-olds for that matter), to study-up on the candidates." I don't expect every person who's of age to vote to study politics, as a broad generalization.

 

They should make it an intellectual thing, not an age thing. Do you want some dumb rednecks always voting for George Bush's, some blacks always voting for Obama's, or crazy white supremacist voting for Clinton's? If they didn't give dumbasses the right to vote, and took a more intelligent approach, the country wouldn't be a pile of shit.

Theory: IQ tests should decide who can vote or not.

 

IQ test don't prove much for understanding politics.

I do agree it would be fine for 16 year old if they pass a test based on government understandings. For fact though, most teens around 16 don't have a broad understanding, even worse half of them will only know what they are told on TV and hear on the radio and other teens. Greatly limiting their knowledge.

I would also say they should implement a test on everyone who wishes to vote, obviously there are some uneducated voters who vote for against something without even completely understanding the bill, law, or leader chosen. This has caused great problems with the government and public.

Age is nothing but a number, it doesn't equate to maturity and knowledge. Experience is good to an extent, but obviously the same mistakes have been made quite a few times, so what does that say about "adult" voters?

 

Being 18 doesn't necessitate political competency. This is why it's irrelevant.

But you expect 16 year olds to, double standard much? If you don't, then whats the harm?

The countries a pile of shit because the majority of humans let it erode to such a state. Also, everyone should be given the right to vote, it's a freedom that at least we should all be entitled to, given that we're of age to contribute directly to the country.

Where would the cut off point be? IQ tests aren't a good gauge anyways. Your IQ can fluctuate quite a few points dependent on your mental faculties at the given time, for example, you may of had 4 hrs of sleep before the test.

We should then have this test given to all, not discriminate based on incredulity.

Like my suggestion above, however, I don't agree with a test given to vote. This is because one should not have to pass some ridiculous test in order to vote who runs their country. In the end, all an election is, is the greatest popularity contest. Say you'll do what the people want, and you win, so long as you have the backing of several giant corporations.

Very true, age is merely a ratio of 365:1 days on earth.

 

No, because of two things.
- They haven't taken Government(class) yet in high school. (for the most part of 16 year olds)
- Most of the votes will be people voting from what their parents vote. Too much parental influence. More time to give them their own opinion.

 

I don't expect anyone, NO MATTER THEIR AGE, to study-up the political candidates if they can't be bothered. That being said, 16-year-olds are much more preoccupied with other stuff than who wins a vote. Some 18-year-olds are preoccupied, too, however, more of them would be willing to study-up for the candidates to vote.

My argument in point-form:

1) The majority of 16-year-olds wouldn't be concerned with politics, because they have "better" stuff to do.
2) While some 18-year-olds don't care, more of them care about politics, and this will make them study-up on the candidates for up-coming votes.
3) Therefore, more 18-year-olds would be more educated while voting.

Let's be honest: It's better to have an educated voter, than no voter at all.

 

i think 18 years old is fine, at 16 is when kids still listen to their parents and they get influenced by their parents a lot so they would vote for whoever thier parents voted for

 

Issue one:

Government class? You don't need to take a class to know about government. It's all around you, in Australia, I knew how the legal system works when I was in grade 6! Legal Studies is not taught till grade 12. Also, when was this Government class implemented? I'm sure a multitude of the elderly, and perhaps middle age adults haven't taken Government class.

Issue two:

Writing down who you vote for is not influenced by coercion. How do your parents know what you wrote down? It's confidential after all. The only thing is, parents have an authoritative pull on what their child thinks. So what? The 16 year old is free to make up their own decision.
Let's also not forget, these are the same teens who defy their parents. Who drink when they're told not to. Who abandon all form of parental guidelines. Why would you think they would suddenly succumb to obedience and heed only to their parents wishes?

 

Who cares whether the voter is educated or not. It's their country too, they should help decide the fate of it.

Also, adults are far more preoccupied than teens. Why does every adult wish they were a kid again? True, a teenagers life is an absolute mess, their is so much to fulfill. I hardly think voting is adding any burden. You don't need to actively learn in order to learn. There is indirect learning, observational learning. No teenager is blind completely about the outside world, to think so is an assault on our ability.

In which country do kids strictly obey their parents?

We're talking about the same kids right? The ones who constantly defy their parents unreasonable will in order to satisfy their own brains needs.

 

The age requirement for voting is just a cut off point to differentiate adults and teenagers. Most people don't really care about politics, and IMO it's bullshit anyway, full of conspiracies.

Nevertheless, most people are interested in politics whenever the election is near, including myself. Normally after the election period, most people lost interest in politics.

We all wished to vote for someone capable of running the country efficiently. However, many political leaders do not care about the country, they just want power and money, hence many people are in dilemma of who to vote for. Even if you're interested in politics, you may not have a good choice of who to vote for.

Hence in a nutshell, the age limit to vote shouldn't be reduced to 16 BECAUSE it doesn't make any difference IMO.

(I'm 19 btw and to be able to vote in Singapore you need to be 21 years old.)

 

If anything, it should be raised to a point at which most people are not living with their parents anymore so that they can make their own informed decisions instead of being pressured into something.