Should the age to vote be reduced to 16?

Your brain is also not fully developed at the age of 18. Nor is it fully developed at the age 21. Also, brain development varies, some people never develop critical thinking skills at age 50, some do at age 12.
There is nothing in the law that states your brain must be developed past a certain point in order for you to vote. As for the issue of persuasion, Social Conformity does not discriminate.

Why not? The whole election is based upon a collective bodies opinion, a super majority of only 51% is required.

Why are you not open to the option to allow people that contribute to the country to vote?

 

I never said that the brain is fully developed at the age of 18, thus why I said it should be raised.

I also never said that your brain must be fully developed to vote. It's very apparent that a large portion of voters brains and thinking skills aren't completely developed. This is why we have "undecided voters." An undecided voter is basically someone who can't think enough to make up an informed decision on their own. They rely on others to fill their minds with shit about things that they don't know the first thing about. This is why canidates visit cities, etc..

I'm trying to say that there will always be a group of voters who will go with the crowd when it comes to voting. They blindly follow something, not because they believe what they stand for, but because they have been persuaded by others to the point where actual facts and knowledge hold no valor. Adding 16 and 17 year olds to the mix will just further this demographic of uneducated lemmings.

Why am I not open to this? It's really not that hard to understand. In a democracy, the people of the democracy vote on issues, leaders, etc.. that they believe will make their life better in some way or another. Why should we let others influence voters? Where is the democracy in that?

Not to mention, most laws that we vote on don't even affect 16 year olds, and most ideas and policies that canidates put in place don't affect them, either.

Healthcare, marajuana reform, taxes, etc.. All things that do not affect a 16 year old.

 

I never said you did, you did however say that the brain isn't fully developed at 16, I agree. I pointed out that it isn't fully developed at 18, or 21 either.

Then why raise the issue of the brain not being fully developed? You contradict yourself.

Social Conformity does not discriminate, however, it is discrimination to disallow a fundamental right in a democratic society, to disallow ones ability to vote when they contribute to said society.

Is television influence? Is talking someone to influence? Is reading the newspaper influence? Is going to school influence?
I'm sorry, but, read up Social Conformity. Everyone is influenced, it is foolish to think otherwise.

I'm sorry, but they do. Teenagers will grow up to become adults, 16 year olds no doubt in 2 years do. The term for a President is I think 4 years (In Australia, though it varies). The teenagers will reach adulthood by them, and by your logic, will suddenly be affected.

Also, I hardly think how the way in which the country operates does not change a teenagers lifestyle. Let's say that the government re-implemented forced conscription. Who's that relevant to? 60 year olds, or 16 year olds?

They do, 16 year olds are obligated to pay taxes. 16 year olds have marijuana readily available to them. 16 year olds require healthcare throughout their lives.

For you to say does not affect us is preposterously narrow-minded. It does affect us, and you haven't provided any examples to the contrary.

 

I didn't contradict myself I'm simply arguing a point that you don't seem to understand. If you take a group of 16 year olds, 18 year olds, and 30 year olds, no doubt the raise in brain development across these demographics would rise as age does. I'm simply saying why add a group of people who are knowingly less developed when we are doing just fine without them?

It's not discrimination to disallow a 16 year old to vote. Voting when you're 18 is a way of life. It's something that you look forward to, and you should respect when you are able to use it. Is it discrimination to not sell tobacco to a 16 year old, or alcohol to someone who is not of age? By your logic, we should allow 12 year olds to buy beer because some of them are cognitively able to handle the responsiblity.

Don't confuse influence with manipulation. No doubt everyone is influenced when it comes to voting. To say you're not is to admit you haven't been living in this world. However, it's much easier to convince a 16 year old that you are right and you should follow your values than it is to convince an 18 year old or a 30 year old the same.

This brings me to your only valid arguement in this whole conversation. Yes, a presidents term is 4 years (here in America, anyway). But why should a group of 16 year olds decide the fate for a nation that has to live with their choices for 2 years before most of them really affect them?

Given, some choices affect 16 year olds, but not many. When you are 16, yes, you pay taxes, but I would probably said a majority of 16 year olds have no idea where their tax money is going. All they know is that their all upset about it because about half of their paycheck is gone come payday. Also by saying marajuana reform will affect a 16 year old simply because it is readily available to them is just plain irrelevant. Of course it is, but it's still illegal. And guess what? If and when marajuana becomes legal, I can almost promise you that it will still be illegal for 16 year olds, much like alcohol and tobacco is.

 

Does it matter to you whether or not their brain is fully developed?
Also, we're not doing fine, look at the debt in America, look at the recently averted Government shutdown, look at the war.

There is empirical evidence to suggest the detrimental effect of tobacco thus it is justifiable, though, it is still infringing their rights yes.
There is no empirical evidence to suggest that allowing people that contribute to the country to vote will make the country worse.

Perhaps, though, you brought up influence and I only talked about influence.
Where did I mention manipulation, also, how are teenagers going to be manipulated? It seems that disallowing them a fundamental right manipulates and taints the stratified results an election should bring.

A group of 16 year olds do not decide the fate of a nation. They merely contribute to the process of 'deciding'.

All choices affect 16 year olds. Also, you think we're stupid? We know where our taxes go. If a law is passed and marijuana is decriminalized, but remains illegal for 16 year olds, it still affects them. In 2 years, they're allowed to legally use it. It would be presumably even more readily available. Had they not voted for the government that changed legislation, perhaps the law would not have been passed.

You haven't tackled with the issue that:

Why shouldn't 16 year olds be given the unalienable right to help decide how their country progresses forward, given that they're allowed to do virtually everything that adults do, and they contribute to their country?

 

i think it should be optional from say 16/18 to 21, then compulsory after that.

that way, if you care as a teenager, you can vote

i didn't care until recently, and i'm 21, so all the votes i made were just who evers named worked... (sorry democracy, i have failed you)

BTW I'm in Australia, where it is compulsory to vote, but i think the rules should apply in any worth while western country lol

 

Sixteen- far too immature. Honestly not sure why you're allowed to marry @ 16 with parental consent?

I'd higher it to 21, they generally have more of an interest in politics than say a 16 year old. I remember when I was 16, all I could think about was fast cars, girls, and xbox... Perhaps I was 'different'

 

Sounds good!

Voting is not contingent on maturity. Also, says who we're immature with relation to filling out a form?

So what if your more interested in politics? I'm sure a 13 year old is more interested in MA games than a 60 year old. Voting is also not contingent on interest.

 

the amount of 16year olds who understand government are outweighed by ones who dont. You see, they trust a politician because they are young but as you get older you begin to not trust whats obvious. So letting 16 year old vote will eventually corrupt the government because their trust can be controlled.

 

The right to vote is not contingent on whether one understands or doesn't understand government, it is contingent on simply a number, your age.

Also, your abuse of trust is complete bogus. Look up Social Conformity, it's just as prevalent in adults, as it is teens. Also, you insinuate the Government isn't already corrupt.

 

I believe that a 16 year old kid, (myself being 16) Should learn about the politics in our country, but should not be aloud to date. Because most 16 year old teenagers don't have the knowledge about our politics that is required to make an intelligent vote.

 

hell no were already immature enough...

 

I don't think there should be an age to vote, rather, I think they must be able to prove that they have a great knowledge in politics and government and are capable of making a decision based on what they think would be best.

 

I'm going to assume by date, you mean vote.

Voting is not contingent on intelligence or knowledge of politics. If there is a clause stating that you must reach a certain threshold of intelligence or knowledge of politics, then I'd like to see it.

Voting is not contingent on maturity.

Why aren't adults held to this standard? I'm sure many kids are far more knowledgeable than many adults in regards to this matter.

 

I oppose to this idea

I believe they should increase it to 21, as other members say. It does not completely rely on the age, not every sixteen year old think in a similar way. They are not alike at all. Some are probably concerned about the higher standards of the community in their age. Then most of the rest probably has no concern about these things and probably just enjoying their pre-adolescence. It is most probably inaccurate but I believe political concerns starts at age 21, so it might just be right to be adjusted accordingly. Their apprehension of the society in the age of 16 is probably not that great yet. They might be experiencing some profound hardships in life to be bothered. I probably did not make that much sense but that's just my opinion and I hope you get my point, thank you.

 

I agree that not all 16 year olds thing the same way, do you agree that not all adults think the same way?

Doesn't matter, some adults don't really care about politics either, yet, why can they vote?

Political conern can start at any age. However, this is beside the point. In a democracy, one has the right to vote, age is the only current issue. But why? We teenages contribute to the country, yet we don't get a say? Why is this?

I get your point, thanks for your opinion.

I'd like to point out that at present, the only caveat on voting is that you be 18. In some places, you must also be mentally stable, in other words, you may not have a mental disorder. There is no caveat on knowledge, intelligence, experience, among others.

 

Hell no, 16 is probably your prime stupidest age before you man up. (mature)

 

Nope. The mind of a young teen is still in development. Also, teens are also preoccupied with other senseless things such as the latest Hollywood gossip to be concerned with politics.

 

I was actually more stupid when I was 14. Also, so what, there is no threshold of maturity one must reach in order to vote, so long as they don't have a mental disorder.

The mind of a 18 year old is also in development, in fact, the mind of a 21 year olds is still in development. Your point?

I'm not concerned with Hollywood gossip, but so what? You are not required to have a proficient knowledge on politics in order to vote. There is no test you must pass in order to vote, simply an age requirement, and in some countries the lack of a mental disorder.

 

Ok excuse me, the mind of most 16 year olds is in early development. (The early stages that enter adulthood.) If we do not have proficient knowledge of who we're electing, that defeats the whole purpose of voting at all. You're voting for someone who shares the same views on issues as you. If you do not know the candidate you are voting for, what is the point?

The Hollywood gossip statement was just a metaphor.