Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Top Ten Reasons to Lower the Voting Age

By KPalicz in Politics
Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:45:00 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags) 		Freedom

Many of you have by now heard of the high profile bill in California to lower the voting age to 14 for state and local elections. In spite of the onerous partial vote system called for in the bill, I believe it should be supported. This bill has often been slighted, mocked and maligned by columnists and pundits, so in the interests of fairness I present to you the top ten reasons to lower the voting age.

"no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a choice in the election of those who make the laws under which...we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." 1

Youth suffer under a double standard of having adult responsibilities but not rights

In 1971 the United States ratified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution granting the right to vote to 18-20-year-olds. The 26th Amendment was the fastest to be ratified in U.S. history. At the height of the Vietnam War most Americans realized the sick double standard inherent in sending 18-year-old soldiers to fight and die for their country when they weren't allowed to vote. Double standards didn't go away in 1971. Right now youth are subject to adult penalties and even the death sentence despite lacking the right to vote.

Frank Zimring found that "Between 1992 and 1995, forty American states relaxed the requirements for transferring an accused under the maximum age of jurisdiction into criminal court,"2 and "In Colorado, for example, defendants under the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction may nonetheless be charged by direct filing in criminal court if they are over 14 years of age and are charged with one of a legislative list of violent crimes."3

What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn't a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can't vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the just, fair way to set things straight.

Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote

Just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. Teens pay an estimated $9.7 Billion dollars in sales taxes alone.4 Not to mention many millions of taxes on income, according to the IRS, "You may be a teen, you may not even have a permanent job, but you have to pay taxes on the money you earn."5 Youth pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken. This is what the American Revolution was fought over; this is taxation without representation.

In addition to being affected by taxes, young people are affected by every other law that Americans live under. As fellow citizens in this society, every action or inaction taken by lawmakers affects youth directly, yet they have no say in the matter. In her 1991 testimony before a Minnesota House subcommittee, 14-year-old Rebecca Tilsen had this to say:

"If 16-year-olds are old enough to drink the water polluted by the industries that you regulate, if 16-year-olds are old enough to breathe the air ruined by garbage burners that government built, if 16-year-olds are old enough to walk on the streets made unsafe by terrible drugs and crime policies, if 16-year-olds are old enough to live in poverty in the richest country in the world, if 16-year-olds are old enough to get sick in a country with the worst public health-care programs in the world, and if 16-year-olds are old enough to attend school districts that you underfund, then 16-year-olds are old enough to play a part in making them better."

The just power of government comes from the consent of the governed, as it stands now youth are governed (overly so, some may say) but do not consent. This is un-American. Like all tax-paying, law-abiding Americans, youth must be given the right to vote.

Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

Politicians represent various constituencies; currently young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them? Lowering the voting age will give politicians a real reason to respect the desires of young people.

Youth feel alienated from politics and politicians, lowering the voting age will include them in the process. The words spoken before the Senate Judicary Committee supporting lowering the voting age in 1971 are as true then as they are now, "The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them from systematic political processes and to drive them to into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's deals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of the nation." 6

Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again

A common argument against lowering the voting age is that it isn't a burden to wait a few years. Denying youth the right to vote isn't the same as denying women or racial minorities, according to opponents, since in a few years young people will grow up and be able to vote. Why go through the trouble to lower the age to 16 when after two years they'll be able to vote anyways? Were it that simple, then perhaps, but it isn't.

Would it be acceptable to limit the right to vote to those with a certain income, reasoning that it is a flexible standard, those will less income must only work harder or wait till they too make enough to vote? No it wouldn't. Voters vote based on their individual circumstances, when those circumstances change often so do their voting habits. The concerns of a 14 year old are different than that of a 24 year old, just as the concerns of a poor man differ from that of a rich man. The beliefs and priorities of 16 year olds as a class are unique to them; we cannot expect former 16 year olds to have as accurate a perspective as those who are currently that age. If we care at all about the needs and desires of youth, they must be allowed to vote for themselves.

16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary

Currently the right to vote is granted at perhaps the worst possible moment in one's life. At 18 many youth leave the home and community they have lived for most their life, either to go away to college or to move away from home in search of work. At the moment they are supposed to vote they either have a new community that they are unfamiliar with or they must attempt to vote absentee back home, a process that turns off many new voters.

Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.

Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life.

Not only will turnout increase for the remainder of young voter's lives, the turnout of their parents will increase as well: "A 1996 survey by Bruce Merrill, an Arizona State University journalism professor, found a strong increase in turnout. Merrill compared turnout of registered voters in five cities with Kids Voting with turnout in five cities without the program. Merrill found that between five and ten percent of respondents reported Kids Voting was a factor in their decision to vote. This indicated that 600,000 adults nationwide were encouraged to vote by the program."7

Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.

If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

The argument that youth "should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens."8 But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. "We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting." 9

Even beyond senile, neurotic, and psychotic adults, regular adults often do not meet the unrealistic standard opponents to youth voting propose. Turn on the Tonight Show one night and see the collection of adult buffoons who can't tell Jay Leno who the vice-president is, or who have forgotten how many states are in this country. Yet these adults are happily given the right to vote. The fact is, intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted, if that were the case all voters would need to pass a test before voting. Though "...under voting rights jurisprudence, literacy tests are highly suspect (and indeed are banned under federal law), and lack of education or information about election issues is not a basis for withholding the franchise."10 Youth shouldn't be held to a stricter standard than adults; lower the voting age.

Youth will vote well

It is silly to fear that huge masses of youth will rush to the voting booth and unwittingly vote for Mickey Mouse and Britney Spears. By and large, those individuals with no interest in politics and no knowledge on the subject will stay home from the polls and not vote. This mechanism works for adult voters as well. Youth will behave no differently.

Besides foolishly throwing a vote away, some worry about youth voting for dangerous radicals. These fears are unfounded as well, "We should remember, too, that many people today vote at first, and often for many years after, exactly as their parents voted. We are all deeply influenced, in politics as everything else, by the words and example of people we love and trust."11 One's political leanings are influenced by their community and their family, and it is likely young voters will vote in much the same way as their parents, not because they are coerced to do so, but because of shared values.

With the voting age at 16 there is the opportunity for new voters have a greater opportunity to be educated voters as most are in high school. When the voting age is lowered schools will most likely schedule a civics class to coincide with 16 that will introduce the issues and prepare new voters. It stands to reason that these young voters will be better prepared to vote than their elders.

There are no wrong votes

Noting that youth will most likely vote well we must wonder, is it at all possible for a voter to vote wrong? Did voters choose poorly when the elected Clinton in 1992? Republicans would say so. Did voters choose poorly when they elected Bush in 2000? Democrats would say so. If youth were able to vote for either of them, or against them would they be voting wrong? I don't think so. All voters have their own reasons for voting, we may disagree with their reasons, but we must respect their right to make a decision. This is what we must do with youth.

Lowering the voting age will provide an intrinsic benefit to the lives of youth

Granting youth the right to vote will have a direct effect on their character, intelligence and sense of responsibility. Is it any wonder why many youth feel apathetic towards politics? After 18 years of their life being told their opinion doesn't matter, they are just foolish children who should be seen and not heard, is anyone surprised that many people over 18 feel turned off by politics and don't vote? We can see this contrast between volunteering and politics. Teenagers have amazingly high levels of volunteering and community service, however many feel turned off by politics. Even small gestures like mock voting has a large effect on teen's interest in politics, of students participating in Kids Voting USA, "More than 71% of students reported frequently or occasionally questioning parents about elections at home. These same students also viewed voting with great importance. About 94% felt it was very important or somewhat important to vote."12 Including youth in a real, substantive way in politics will lead to even more interest as they take their public-spirited nature into the political realm.

Many opponents to lowering the voting age assume apathetic youth today will be no different when given the right to vote, this is wrong. Responsibility comes with rights, not the other way around. "It is not a pre-condition of self-government that those that govern be wise, educated, mature, responsible and so on, but instead these are the results which self-government is designed to produce."13 Educator and youth rights theorist, John Holt points out that if youth "think their choices and decisions make a differences to them, in their own lives, they will have every reason to try to choose and decide more wisely. But if what they think makes no difference, why bother to think?"14 He stresses this point again, "It is not just power, but impotence, that corrupts people. It gives them the mind and soul of slaves. It makes them indifferent, lazy, cynical, irresponsible, and, above all, stupid."15

Lowering the voting age may not be the magic bullet to improve the lives of youth, but by giving them a real stake in their futures and their present lives it will push them to become involved, active citizens of this great nation. The National Youth Rights Association strongly urges lawmakers and individuals in this country to seriously consider lowering the voting age.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o high profile bill
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10
o 11
o 12
o 13
o 14
o 15
o National Youth Rights Association
o Also by KPalicz

Display: Sort:
Top Ten Reasons to Lower the Voting Age | 280 comments (254 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden)
umm NO ... FUCK NO (2.57 / 21) (#5)
by conthefol on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 10:49:11 PM EST

Do I have a reason? Yes:

I was a libertarian until I was 19 years old.

[=- We Can Do Better. -=]

Nope, bad idea (2.35 / 14) (#7)
by Dphitz on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 10:54:48 PM EST

"Turn on the Tonight Show one night and see the collection of adult buffoons who can't tell Jay Leno who the vice-president is, or who have forgotten how many states are in this country"

Now combine that with the fact that most teens are mainly concerned with who likes them or who they can bone Friday night and you have an even worse voter pool.  What's the purpose of this?  Stats show that in the past decade youth voter turnout has declined despite MTV's Rock the Vote and the Motor Voter movement.  I know that when I was 16 I was too distracted with a million other things to be even remotely informed about politics.  Teens are far too easily swayed by the most recent cause-du-jour.  Sure there are plenty of exceptions but not enough to justify lowering the voting age.

Oh, and -1.  Buy an ad.


God, please save me . . . from your followers

Would then it be imaginable... (2.42 / 7) (#15)
by ilyag on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 11:15:44 PM EST

That the pre-21-year-prohibition will be over in the distant future?

To think of it, that would make this bill, and especially any national analog, would be impossible to pass...

Top Ten Reasons to Raise the Voting Age. (2.08 / 37) (#17)
by elenchos on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 11:34:22 PM EST

Youth suffer under a double standard of having adult responsibilities but not rights

There are two ways to address this double standard: the madness of giving kids the vote, or recognizing that children should be treated as children, and should not be given adult responsibility in the first place. Lacking the ability to reason, children should not be tried as adults any more than the certifiably insane should be tried for their crimes. Both should be treated, not punished.

    ...What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote?...
Indeed. Children by definition are not responsible, and should not be given any responsibility. Voting is a heavy responsibility.

Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote

What business do children have with money? Being incapable of reasoning, they are not fit to work, nor make wise choices with "their" money. Further, they add slack to the job market, taking jobs that ought to go to adults. If children were banned from working, they could concentrate on their real job: going to school and getting the maturity they lack. Age is the irreplaceable and necessary ingredient needed to become mature. Children need time to grow up, and putting them to work steals their time, and incidentally steals jobs from adults. Their own parents would have better job prospects, and higher wages, if no one under 18 were allowed to work. And if their parents had more money, they could spend it on things their kids really need: school uniforms, private tutors, and even a decent private school. Or at least moving to a better school district.

Foolish parents could make the mistake of giving their children money to spend, but that is unavoidable, unfortunately. In any case, the sales taxes collected from purchases made with a child's allowance are ultimately paid by the parents who are bankrolling them. And parents do vote. No problem.
    In addition to being affected by taxes, young people are affected by every other law that Americans live under...
The welfare of children is the responsibility of their parents. They represent the child's need when they vote. Don't forget grandparents, either. They care about kids too. An only child is potentially represented by six votes: mom, dad, two grandmas and two grandpas. And most people think about their nieces and nephews as well: all the more representation, if you think about it.

Of course, having siblings dilutes this, obviously. But a child's brothers and sisters drink the same dirty water, so those six or more votes are all combined toward the interest of the children.

Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

Again, politicians will respond to the interests of a child's parents, grandparents, and relatives. This is more than enough representation, and, once again, these voters are rational, unlike a child.

Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again

One of the unique things about childhood is the inability to handle adult responsibility. Giving a child a power it is unable properly use is an abuse of that unique state. And childhood is too short to add adult time demands, like working or political activity. All of a child's valuable time should be spend in study, athletics, and (I'm not an ogre, you know) play.

16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary

Twenty-five year olds are even more stationary. The voting age should be raised to 25 (along with the minimum age for military service and everything else).

Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

Increasing turnout only benefits society if those additional voters vote well. (See my objection to the howler "There are no wrong votes", below)

If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

It isn't about "smart" and "stupid". We don't let smart dogs vote either, because no matter how smart a dog is, it doesn't understand, in a mature way, the gravity of political issues. Intelligence is only one ingredient to a healthy civil society. Maturity and experience are far, far more important.

Youth will vote well.

Children buy Britni Spears records. They think eyebrow piercings are cool. They will sit on the couch playing video games and growing fat without a responsible adult to ensure they eat right and exercise. Youth lack the rationality to vote well. They would vote as poorly as they do everything else.

There are no wrong votes

First, this flatly contradicts "Youth will vote well", you know that? If there are no wrong votes, than how can one vote well or poorly?

Second, a vote for Hitler was wrong. Trust me, you'll believe that when you're older.

See, voting is important. Politics is important. It isn't a meaningless contest like the World Cup. The outcome matters a lot. Ask one of the women whose medical records were subpoenaed by John Ashcroft for his "partial birth abortion" case. Ask an Iraqi whose home is in rubble today. Ask anyone who watched Hitler destroy Germany and half the world, and 50 million lives, after rising to power in a perfectly legal election. This stuff is not a game and the wrong choices in the voting booth can and will ruin the world.

Lowering the voting age will provide an intrinsic benefit to the lives of youth

Children should be kept busy on activities that improve them, and they must also be given a safe space in which to make mistakes, fail, and not suffer permanently for it. This is why we have no wish to see a girl become pregnant or a boy become a father, yet we design parenthood classes that involve caring for a doll in a realistic way. It's why a we have high schoolers create imaginary budgets on an imaginary salary. It's not the real thing, it's education. By the same token, schools include pretend political institutions like student council, where children may practice voting, political negotiation, and holding office, while the worst consequence of their failure in these play version of politics is bad decorations at the prom.

Giving them real votes doesn't benefit them any more than the play votes they already have, but it does endanger them and the rest of society.

In conclusion, voting is not kid stuff.

(And no, I don't think children should be allowed to operate any kind of motor vehicle either.)

Adequacy.org

-1, voting age should be lowered to 6. (2.72 / 18) (#20)
by Stickerboy on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 12:09:56 AM EST

After all, if you're old-enough to be forced into a substandard public education system, you should have the right to be a part in changing that system.

After all, 6 year-olds who buy candy have to pay their sales taxes, too.

After all, 6 year-olds are impacted by industrial waste, air and water pollution, and other ill effects of modern society much more than 18 year-olds or even 14 year-olds.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (2.67 / 31) (#21)
by godix on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 12:22:00 AM EST

Thanks, I haven't had a good laugh for awhile now.

Youth suffer under a double standard of having adult responsibilities but not rights

Actually they don't. A person under 18 doesn't have to fill out the selective 'we own your ass if we want' service card. A person under 18 is not expected to sign binding legal contracts, in many cases a person under 18 CAN'T even if they wanted. A person under 18 is treated differently by the legal system (yes, exceptions exist, but I'm talking about the 99% of underage cases that aren't murder or other violent crimes). A person under 18 doesn't have the adult responsabilities to balance adult rights.
Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote

You're missing one blatently obvious point, youths have legal representation. It's called parents.
Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

They have parents that represent their interests. Politicans represent the parents interests. Haven't you ever heard the frequently repeated mantra of 'Think of the children...'?
Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again

How odd, I'm thirty and I still have the experiences I had when I was 16. It's not like you get mindwiped when you turn 18, you do still keep your memory ya know.
16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary

In other words, 16 years olds are still under their parents authority and representation so 16 year olds have no real world experience that hasn't been filtered through adults yet. Are you seriously claiming this is a good reason to let 16 year olds vote?
Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

Quick quiz, what age group currently has the lowest voter turnout of all? Besides the point of democracy is NOT to get every adult to vote, it's to give every adult the ability to vote if they want. If they dont want to then so be it as long as they can if they ever decide to.
If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

Because age, responsability, and IQ aren't the same thing.
Youth will vote well

This statement is entirely subjective. Define 'well'. It's also totally unproven. Here in adultland we have these things called facts, go look up that term in the school library and get back to us when you have some.
There are no wrong votes

Spoken like someone to young to remember the 2000 'All voted for Buchanan should have been for Gore' arguements...
Lowering the voting age will provide an intrinsic benefit to the lives of youth

Again, totally subjective and unproven.


Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris
+1 section, but let the KIDS make their case (none / 1) (#24)
by tbc on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 01:35:25 AM EST

I'll vote for the story, not the idea. Not while old fart activists like Alex Koroknay-Palicz are trying to make this bonehead idea happen. If children want to vote, let them speak for themselves and persuade their parents that they have earned it.

National Youth Rights Assoc = teh ghey (1.92 / 13) (#25)
by Dphitz on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 01:51:55 AM EST

After visiting their site I can honestly say that this is the dumbest organization I've ever seen.  I can imagine it was created by a group of surly teens who hate their parents giving them a curfew.

This is their position on free speech:
"The National Youth Rights Association believes that governments must have the burden of proof in showing that any law that restricts the access of young people to any type of text, video or audio literally protects them from a tangible harm."

So let me understand this.  Are they saying that a 13 year old should have access to the latest newsstand copy of "Bang My Wet Sloppy Gash" simply because there is no hard evidence that such a thing is harmful?  Since their organization deals with "teen" issues I can assume they believe this. These guys are a riot.  Well if teens should have such rights I guess then that parents can give them the legal boot at age 13.


God, please save me . . . from your followers

i think it will encourage people to keep voting (2.57 / 7) (#26)
by m a r c on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 02:36:38 AM EST

i think that allowing the young to vote will not cause too much of an issue. Statistically they are not a large proportion of society to be able to vote in anything without the approval of a significant portion of society.

What allowing younger people to vote will do is prehaps generate greater interest in the political system. About 16 is the age where you don't think that anybody cares what you think and you want a voice. This way you can give them one
I got a dog and named him "Stay". Now, I go "Come here, Stay!". After a while, the dog went insane and wouldn't move at all.

I'd vote for it... (2.35 / 14) (#31)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 05:47:22 AM EST

Letting 14 year-olds vote will do little good, but it will also do little harm.

Most of them won't even bother to do it.

Most of the ones that do will be on the typical "it's all corrupt man let's throw out the whole system" teen angst trip and vote for the fifth and sixth party communist/anarchist candidates (who will promise to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, giving them more money from their weekend job at Target to spend on Rage Against the Machine CDs, Che Guevara t-shirts, and pot) and thus negating any value their vote would have had anyway.

A few will make thoughtful, informed decisions. Let them, even though numerically their contributions will be negligible.

I don't see the point in people wanting to raise the percentage of voter turn-out at election time. Those who don't vote are typically idiots I don't want voting in the first place.

Uau, only in America! (2.85 / 14) (#33)
by Argon on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 06:19:28 AM EST

A kid may drive a car, buy/own guns, decide the future of the country... But it can't drink a booze on a Friday night.

It is me, or this is just wierd?

Me. (none / 3) (#40)
by yeux on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 09:00:57 AM EST

I don't understand how having politicians represent the Society of Youth will really help much. Won't it just mean they'll represent other, more fragile groups less? There's only so much represent to go around.

-1, your article is dumb. (1.00 / 22) (#41)
by polish surprise on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 09:01:44 AM EST


--
Controversy is my middle name.

A good reason (2.44 / 9) (#43)
by pauldamer on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 09:19:15 AM EST

Not to let them vote is that most people in the 14-18 age group are still under the extreme influence of their parents giving large families undue political force.

Makes no difference (2.45 / 11) (#44)
by onemorekiss on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 09:25:57 AM EST

As a PhD candidate in political science, I can tell you that the grand majority of people do not understand politics. Instead, they focus on personalities, gimmicks, and stereotypes. When it comes to casting their votes, they do not THINK, but only REACT.

Can you imagine letting your average American run a nuclear reactor, rather than the guy with the PhD in Nuclear Energy Engineering? That would be ridiculous as the average American knows nothing of running a nuclear reactor. Similarly, what does the average American really know about politics? Zilch.

Your arguments are complete BS. (1.60 / 5) (#53)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:18:07 AM EST

All these arguments were made for lowering the voting age to 18, but none of them come to pass.

Will we line up for Grand Theft Auto 5 if it's the exact same thing, only with prettier texture-mapped bruises on the whores? -- David Wong
10 rebuttals (2.78 / 19) (#54)
by Fon2d2 on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:20:45 AM EST

Youth suffer under a double standard of having adult responsibilities but not rights

Youth suffer under this double standard in more ways than just voting. It's about willingness to help out your family and your community. Seriously, this point just sounds like angsty whining: "but why do I have to do the dishes?". You're expected to help out and play your part in your family and community and as you gain more experience doing so, more power will be vested in you and you will keep being moved into higher positions of responsibility. Then, when you are older, you will understand better why things have been established the way they are, and you will be less likely to make short-sighted decisions. You will, of course, still be free to make whatever decision you like. Also, youth are not completely independent, and are generally heavily supported by their parents until at least the age of 18. Thus, it is their parents that represent their interests.

Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote

So do 10 year olds. So do 6 year olds. This is the same reason as the above, except more poorly worded. The obvious rebuttal to this point is that there needs to be a minimum age at some point, since if we go on the basis of this point alone, toddlers would be voting.

Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again

This is an argument for representation in the system, but youth are already represented by their parents. Since youth are not independent at 16 and are not expected or required to be, the people that support them are considered to be their representation. Otherwise parents should be allowed to give their kids the boot at 14. They are not, and that's a good thing, so stop whining.

Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

This is the same argument as above. Youth are represented through their parents. Again you have doubled your reasons. So far you only have two arguments, not four.

16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary

This is not a reason at all. On the contrary one could say 16 is a bad age since 16 year olds haven't entered into the world yet. If you want to argue on the basis of stability, we should increase the voting age to 25. This is generally when people have completely settled down, finished their degrees, and gotten married. Or should the average person be getting married at 15, since 15 year olds are more stationary?

Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

Possibly. So did the Kids Voting campaign. Anything that increases discussion and participation will improve voter turnout. The Kids Voting campaign worked because it got parents interacting with their kids. But I don't see any evidence that reducing the voting age itself would have the same effect. Maybe Kids Voting worked precisely because the kids couldn't vote, which forced them to interact with others. That seems to be what the campaign was about. Teaching kids the process and getting them interacting with their parents. Similar programs or discussions could be sponsored through school activities, and they'd still increase discussion and voter turnout. Three reasons so far.

If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

This point contains some very biased language besides missing the point. The point is how much experience a person has with the world and how many other rights and expectations have been invested with that person. This is not a reason because the right to vote is not based on intelligence and this should already be understood. It is pretentious for you to think you should be allowed certain priviliges because you would use them "better" than somebody else. This is exactly the type of reason why society requires people to reach certain levels of maturity before giving them certain levels of responsibility. A greater level of world experience would temper the attitude evident in this point.

Youth will vote well

Again missing the same point. And you throw your argument away in the explanation anyway. You argue that youth are stongly influenced by their parents because of shared values and because that's who they love and trust. They're parents support them as well. And these things are all true as well for 8 year olds, and like 8 year olds, their parents represent them in the voting process. And besides, if you really do think young, inexperienced voters will vote just as well, take the example of my state. Jesse Ventura got in based on large support from the college community. But once in office, he almost certainly didn't represent the interests of that community as well as a simple democratic candidate would have.

There are no wrong votes

No there aren't, but again missing the same point. And again a non-argument, since if there are no wrong votes, that implies it doesn't matter who you vote for, which implies it doesn't matter if you vote at all. If you're arguing to let younger people vote, then you shouldn't use an argument that downplays the importance of voting. This point doesn't even directly relate to the original argument. Whether there are wrong votes or not is irrelevant to whether youth should be allowed to vote.

Lowering the voting age will provide an intrinsic benefit to the lives of youth

Possibly, for you. I'm willing to bet it won't make much of a difference to the average teenager. Your argument here is not strongly supported and again you're relying on sensationalistic language. You also make sweeping generalistic statements. This is not the way to support an argument that is important to you. This could be a valid point, if it were properly supported. As it is, it's only a potential point. I also have to wonder about your statement about volunteerism. As I've understood it, the US has always had cripplingly low rates of volunteerism, especially among youth. I've heard this complaint several times. My meager experiences with volunteerism have generally confirmed this. Even when required to be there, I would see dismally low turnout from my peers. If not required to be there, then forget it. If your experience is different and you're still in high school, it might be informative to check the correlation between volunteerism and college entrance requirements.

So what have we come up with here? Like three and a half weak supporting arguments? That's a far cry from the ten you promised. Please, reconsider your arguments and try again.

Sure! (2.78 / 14) (#58)
by danharan on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:40:20 AM EST

There has been a historical trend to lowering the age of vote. Every single time the arguments are the same: they're too young, don't know enough, blah, blah, blah.

Parents will influence their kids just as husbands influence their wives. That didn't stop us from letting women vote.

Voting patterns in the 18-25 range weren't very different from the 25+ when they were first given the right to vote. Same with women. Over time, we will see changes which is a sign that they are getting politically educated and voting independently.

If our youth is not currently educated enough to vote, it is a most disingenuous argument to use against them. It is our failure. Just as we give youth the right to vote (with often lethal consequences) after driver training, so too must we take responsibility to give them a decent civics education.

Are we afraid of what youth might say to us? That they might make better schools a priority, or boot out politicians that don't want sex ed classes given? Will they steer clear of politicians that would reinstate the draft, and vote for those that would lower university tuitions?

I've no idea what they will eventually ask for, or when they will assert their political power. We may disagree with them, but I see no reason why they should not be allowed to participate in the process if they so choose.

Ridiculous Idea (2.11 / 9) (#61)
by melia on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 11:59:35 AM EST

With love, from Your Candidate for lower milk costs and free chocolate at break times. ("recess??")

I think the rebuttals below are good enough, no need to repeat them is there?
Disclaimer: All of the above is probably wrong

Excellent. (2.20 / 5) (#64)
by bakuretsu on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 12:09:15 PM EST

I think this article presents a lot of great ideas concerning the topic, and I think Fon2d2 presented an equally compelling list of opposing viewpoints.

This is exactly what kuro5hin.org is supposed to be like. In complete sentences, no less!

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004

Stupid Idea (2.41 / 12) (#66)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 12:15:51 PM EST

Most adults can't vote properly... I could only imagine what teenie-boppers would do.

If anything, we should be restricting the voting pool, not expanding it.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

I have a better idea... (2.75 / 8) (#82)
by skyknight on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 03:14:41 PM EST

We should raise the minimum to 25 years of age, as well as set a maximum of 21 years of age. Any other system allows a very large number of ill-informed and naive people to affect the outcome of the lives of others.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
Limit voting to Christians (1.17 / 23) (#83)
by sellison on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 03:16:22 PM EST

if you want to mess with the voting laws.

Christians by default are honest and believe in the core values of America.

Atheists, socialists, communists, etc. believe in nothing, no absolute truths by definition, so of course they cannot really believe that "all men are created Equal". Which is why their votes go for big government, restrictions on business, high taxes, and other things that undermine the ideals set forth in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Other non-Christian religions don't believe in the same moral codes America was founded on, by Christians, for Christians. They should be protected of course by our laws, but really, they are not properly (morally) equipped to contribute anything of value to American Christian Democracy in our One Nation under God.


You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.

(and now this would be good advice to the chiefs of the various tribes in Iraq if only our Congress were not so infected with perverts and atheists these days!)

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Who has 7 minutes to work out? (2.40 / 5) (#85)
by jmzero on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 03:25:29 PM EST

I want 5 minute abs.  And voting for 12 year olds.  

...

Looking back on my own life, I see more difference between 18 and 16 than I do between 16 and 12.  And another big jump in understanding between 18 and 21.  You don't see this at 16 or 18 - you feel like an adult.  Now, go wander around a high school sometime and talk to the kids.  You may reconsider how mature 16 or 18 is - the maturity curve isn't levelling off for a few more years.

I like 21 for voting, actually - and I think a case could be made for 25 or 30.  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

parental "influence" (2.80 / 5) (#88)
by coderlemming on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 03:36:55 PM EST

Unfortunately, a lot of parents like to push the fact that their children are their property until they day they turn 18.  Might parents use this lowered voting age to force their children to vote the same way they do?  Might parents push this to an extreme and demand the right to cast their child's vote themselves?  Unfortunately, it would be hard to deny this.  Thoughts?


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
I largely agree (2.85 / 7) (#92)
by proles on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 04:24:56 PM EST

But here's the danger of lowering the voter age: how far should it be lowered?  It becomes obvious that having a specific year where you can vote is pretty damn arbitrary.  If 14 year olds, then why not 12 year olds?  If 12 year olds, why not 10 year olds?  Maybe have no age limit whatsoever, and just say anybody who is proficient enough with english to vote is allowed to vote.
If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
Number one reason against... (2.00 / 4) (#112)
by Brandybuck on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:07:21 PM EST

The number one reason to NOT allow kids to vote: they're not mature.

Granted, most adults aren't mature either, but there are still more mature adults than mature 16 year olds.

Kids live with their parents or guardians and don't pay rent or mortgages. Few have had any job experience and most have never paid taxes. They're not eligible to be drafted. The vast majority do not even have a high school degree or equivalent.

Emotionally they're a mess. Younger than 13 and they blindly go along with whatever their parents tell them to believe. Between 13 and 18 they blindly believe the exact opposite of whatever their parents tell them. The opinions of teenagers flip flop from week to week.

Before you kids start bitching that I'm an adult and don't know what I'm talking about, realize that every single adult in the world was once a child. We know very well what being a child is like. When I was sixteen I was angry that the world didn't treat me like an adult. It wasn't until I looked back on my childhood that I realized how stupid that was.

The voting age is arbitrary, to be sure, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Frankly, I think eighteen is three years too early, but at least it's legally adulthood.

All these arguments... (1.75 / 4) (#115)
by ShadowNode on Thu Apr 08, 2004 at 10:30:20 PM EST

Hold up just as well if applied to my pet fish. Besides, I didn't get to vote when I was in high school, so why should anyone else?

Sure, why not? (2.45 / 11) (#117)
by sticky on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:01:12 AM EST

It's not like they can fuck things up even more than they already are.


Don't eat the shrimp.---God
Well... (none / 2) (#119)
by Armada on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:56:11 AM EST

A sixteen year old's vote is far more influenced by his parents than an eighteen year old's vote.

It's not like youth (other than the kid's of religious parents or those influenced by their teachers) are going to actually participate in the electoral process.

If anything, lowering the voting age ensures that those who do vote under the age of eighteen will be voting not based on their decision, but the decision of their parents or high school faculty.

Do we really want that?

Why is there a legal age for driving? (3.00 / 5) (#122)
by Scott Robinson on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 03:11:29 AM EST

If the person can competantly and safely operate the vehicle, then what's the problem?

Of course, that isn't even a requirement now...

i agree (2.25 / 4) (#124)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:51:18 AM EST

additionally, i believe kids spend too much time in school as it is

seriously

less preparing for life, more life

what does mother nature have to say?

we become adults- that, sexually active and grow secondary sexual characteristics and become fertile, in the majority, sometime around age 9-12

i think that adulthood should start at age 15- jobs, taxes, no more school

education is a lifelong thing, and most of what i learned that was valuable was outside of school, not in it

lower the voting age, working age (driving age is already 15 i think), age of consent, drinking age, everything... to 15

but then that also means the kids have to leave their parents house... and get a fucking job!

LOL


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Top Ten Refutations (2.33 / 9) (#132)
by thelizman on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:32:00 AM EST

  1. Youth do not have the responsibilities of an adult.

    With some exception, persons under the age of majority cannot be punished in the same manner as an adult for committing crimes. They cannot be held legally to a contract either, and the former and the latter conspire to create a popululation which is entirely dependant upon parental sponsorship. This would make them the target of extortive influences should they be in a position to vote.
  2. Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote

    Everyone whe engages incommerce in the United States pays taxes. Taxation does not entitle someone to enfranchisement, nor does being subject tot he jurisdiction of US law. By such a standard, half the global population should be eligable to vote.
  3. Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

    The opposite is true: the youth vote will be manipulated by pandering politicians visa-vie the spoils system. One only has to look at democratic courtship of the 18-24 crowd.
  4. Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again

    Youth have a captive perspective: no other age group is more influenced by peer pressure and authoratative influence. Most young people lack the education and life experience to respond to platform issues with objectivity and scrutiny. Instead, youth would be the largest bandwagon block of voters.
  5. 16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary

    This notion is based on the false assumption that 18 year olds automatically move out. Statistically, most males stay with their parents until 20 and most females stay with their parents until 22, excepting college students. Should that be an excuse to raise the voting age?
  6. Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

    It sounds reasonable - more people able to vote equals more voters. The problem is that legitmacy in the process depends and plurality of participation. The apathy of the 18-34 youth vote is appalling, and there is no reason to believe that dropping the voting age by 2 years will increase the percent of participating voters as a fraction of eligable voters. If anything, the target group is the group least likely to vote due to time and transportation restrictions. Anyone who thinks this notion is a good idea ought to consider doing more to mobilize the existing electorate than trying to create a new one. Incidentally, some statistics:
    • When the 26th amendment as passed, 11 million 18-24 year olds were eligable to vote. Only 49.6% of them actually did. (Source: Youth Vote Coalition)
    • 54.6% of 18-24 year olds are not registered to vote. Only 29% of registered 18-24 year olds didn't vote. Among 18 year olds, 64.3 are not registered, and of those registered 32% didn't vote. (Source: US Census Burea)
  7. If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

    "Stupid adults" are quite often exploited (particularly by democratic candidates) by politicians. If you are implying equity, then it'd be reasonable to assume your "smart youths" would be subject to the same forms of exploitation.
  8. Youth will vote well

    Apparently, you haven't seen American Idol or TRL. Young people are notorious for making uninformed decisions - it's practically a rite of youth to screw up, and when questioned answer "I don't know" or "I felt like it".
  9. There are no wrong votes

    Your last reason was that "youth will vote well". The implication is that there is a way to not vote well. These two reasons are contradictory, and while I tend to agree with the latter, you cannot have it both ways.
  10. Lowering the voting age will provide an intrinsic benefit to the lives of youth

    It is not the providence of democratic participation to make people feel good.
You'll have to come up with something more compelling. In a country where the right to vote is impeded by the right to not vote, it hardly makes sense to increase the size of the electorate when the existing electorate has not been fully exploited. Especially when the group you're trying to enfranchise is the least concerned with participation.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
This Will Attract the Fanatics (none / 2) (#135)
by NeantHumain on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:06:08 PM EST

Lowering the voting age will only serve to attract the precocious minors to the polls: the adolescents who rigidly believe in some ideology or party dogma as if it were The Truth Itself. As others have already mentioned, minors do not have much of an investment in society yet because they're still very dependent on their parents (but then again, so am I, and I'm 19 years old).

Adults will be attracted to the polls for more than intellectual and academic interest.


I hate my sig.


I understand, but you need to wait a few years... (2.12 / 8) (#138)
by solstice on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 12:15:03 PM EST

This article was surely written by someone under the age of 18 who feels helplessly trapped by their age.  I know exactly how that feels, as I could not understand why, as a mature 15 year old I was not allowed to drive, as a 17 year old I couldn't buy cigarettes (not that I would have anyway) or vote, as a 20 year old with a good job I couldn't buy alcohol, and now as a 24 year old I am still not allowed to rent a car when on a business trip.

But you have to understand there are reasons for these age limits on things, even if you can't understand it now.  Time flies, so you should enjoy your teenage years at school, with friends, partying etc. instead of worrying about all the adult things that you'll have to deal with for many years to come.  Everyone in high school thinks they have it real hard, but I sometimes wish I could go back to high school for a few months and have no bills, mortgage, 40 hour job, kids to worry about.  

Voting age (none / 2) (#148)
by mstefan on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 01:40:22 PM EST

The same general arguments were made in favor of lowering the voting age to 18, and the same promise of increased participation in the process of government. However, after that first election, general apathy kicked in just as it has for the older population.

And, I would guess, most 14 year olds couldn't give a damn about who's running for local office; less so than their parents or other adults.

The problem in the United States with respect to voter apathy isn't age, it's ideology. As Americans, we've basically settled on what's comfortable for us as a people. There's no great debates, there's no issues of tremendous import that drives voters to the polls; the Democrats and Republicans are merely opposite sides of the same coin, where differences are measured in inches, not miles. The people know that regardless of who they vote for, things for the most part will remain the same because, for the most part, the people running for office are the same.
Why does age discrimination only apply ... (none / 0) (#151)
by Mr.Surly on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 04:06:43 PM EST

... to people who are "too old"?  Why can't I (as a 33-year old) run for President?

Hmmm.... (none / 2) (#155)
by tiamat on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 05:12:07 PM EST

I'm not sure I support this voting thing at all. I mean, shouldn't you people figure out how to properly count the ballots, rather than worrying about who's getting one?

100 reasons to raise the voting age (2.06 / 15) (#160)
by mcgrew on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 06:54:31 PM EST

My daughter and all her friends.

You have, of course, seen the studies that show very severe differences between an adult brain and a teenaged brain? A ten year old's brain is more adult-like than a fifteen year old's.

Now to the points in your story:

Youth suffer under a double standard of having adult responsibilities but not rights

On the contrary, they have absolutely no responsibilities, and most rights. The law states that you must support your kids until they're 18- voting and drafting age.

Adult responsibilities include the necessity of an income. There is food, rent, utilities, clothing. And usually kids topay for as well, and let me tell you, son, they're expensive.

Refraining from murdering someone or robbing a bank is most certainly not an "adult" responsibility. In fact, one of an adult's responsibilities is teaching young morons that robbing liquor stores and murder are wrong.

There's another reason to raise the voting age- note that almost all murders are commited by people under 30?

Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote

So you're saying that you should restrict voting to those above a certain income?

And as I said before, teens do not have to pay taxes, as they do not have to work.

"if 16-year-olds are old enough to attend school districts that you underfund..."

One more reason- this kid. She's basically saying we should lower the voting age to five, since that's when kindergarten starts.

Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

I don't need the politicians representing my kids. I represent my kids. If a politician does right by me, he also does right by my kids.

Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again

Yes, "unique" all right- uniquely ignorant, unseasoned, immature, with very little life experience, and above all gullible. It's bad enough how gullible some adults are.

"...we cannot expect former 16 year olds to have as accurate a perspective as those who are currently that age."

And why not? Consider that you know full well what it's like to be seven, but a seven year old has no clue what it's like to be your age.

16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary

You're really grasping at straws there, kid. When they're 18 they'll still need to send that absentee ballot. On the other hand, if you lowered it to 16 the 16 year old would have to register twice in two years.

Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

No it won't. In fact, the best reason to raise the voting age is that 18 year olds largely stay away from the polls in droves. It's the retired geezers that vote en masse, or Bush would not be in the white house.

If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

Because the problem isn't that youth are stupid, but that they are immature and inexperienced.

Youth will vote well

And you know this because...? And what is "well?" Mickey Mouse is a very good write in vote. It gives the message that none of the candidates are acceptable to you.

There are no wrong votes

I can name several. Jimmy Carter, G and GW Bush, Lyndon Johnson...

"Did voters choose poorly when the elected Clinton in 1992? Republicans would say so. Did voters choose poorly when they elected Bush in 2000? Democrats would say so."

You will only find Republicans (and the most rabid at that) saying that Clinton was a bad president. You will only find Democrats, and rabid ones at that, who maintain that Jimmy Carter was in any way competant at the job. The man did not know how to delegate.

There have been many, many times I have voted for a candidate and regretted it later. Yes, I HAVE cast WRONG votes.

What I will agree on is that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. If you're old enough to get your ass shot off in Iraq you should be old enough for a beer!

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward

Huh? (none / 1) (#184)
by skim123 on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 07:52:26 PM EST

they must attempt to vote absentee back home, a process that turns off many new voters

I still find it unfathomable that there exist people who don't vote via absentee ballots. Who wants to have to physically go to a polling place to cast a vote? With an absentee ballot, I can vote on my time and don't have to take 10-30 minutes out of my day to drive down to the polling place. To be honest, I've never not voted with absentee... I usually forget or don't have time to make it down to the polling place on that prescribed day...

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum
Cockroach suffrage NOW! -nt (none / 2) (#196)
by Baldrson on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:16:57 AM EST


-------- Empty the Cities --------

Rubish. (none / 1) (#199)
by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:15:41 AM EST

Then what else?

Getting married at 14 as well?

Executed at 14 as well? (they can be judged as adults in some barbaric places already).

If anything the age should be standarized to 21 to gain all the rights and obligations of adults.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?

Oh come on, just say it (2.00 / 4) (#203)
by MattGWU on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:22:14 PM EST

If teenagers were allowed to vote, the Republicans would be gone so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

Reason #11 (1.60 / 5) (#205)
by jabber on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:03:31 PM EST

Giving "Youth" the franchise will encourage the currently eligible, but abstinent, voters to get off their ass and counter the voice of the impulsive, inexperienced and short-sighted teenagers.

Seriously. If you, as an apathetic 35-50 year old, knew that the punk kid next door, who peels out of the driveway every morning, throws wild parties while his parents are away, and fucks anything with a pulse while rolling or drunk of his ass, gets a voice in local, as well as federal policy, you'd sure as shit make a point of keeping the little asshole in his place, not only with complaints to the local sheriff, but also with your vote. What's more, you'd probably put more thought into that vote.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Nonvoters have political power, too (none / 1) (#206)
by chrisq on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:43:33 PM EST

I will be an undergraduate at Stanford next year - and still unable to vote in the U.S. presidential election. But even nonvoters have a large degree of voting power; they have the ability to influence how other people vote. Simply by encouraging many of my older friends to go to the polls, I am, in a sense, casting my vote (and maybe more than once). Don't despair just because the voting age is 18. Rather than arguing to lower the voting age, people in America should be demanding that minors are no longer subjected to even more egregious offenses like the death penalty.

Reason 11 (none / 2) (#219)
by haydentech on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 10:32:50 AM EST

I'm with MattGWU. The real, unstated reason 11 the author would like to see is: "it will bring an influx of new Democratic voters and will finally unseat those Republican imperialists!" Let's just say what we mean, M'kay?

They don't even care. (none / 3) (#220)
by dutchess220 on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 10:41:18 AM EST

Kids that young aren't going to do anything but vote for whoever their parents tell them to vote for. They probably don't even care who the president is, or who it could be.

We can't let children vote (none / 3) (#231)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 09:44:05 PM EST

because they'll all just vote for celbritites who don't even really have platforms, like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Oh nevermind.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
Test for vote (none / 2) (#237)
by Cackmobile on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 11:11:57 AM EST

I think you should have to earn the right to vote. Maybe u have to learn the electoral system of your countries. Find out who the current people are, learn about some other leaders and events. Pass the test u can vote. I know that this means that the test can be rigged etc.

Being tried as an adult (none / 1) (#255)
by rramir16 on Fri Apr 16, 2004 at 04:44:33 PM EST

This seems the crux of the argument, from reading the posts. Here's my 2 cents: Being tried as an adult does not imply that the culprit has reached adult maturity. What it does imply is that the crime was serious enough to not be waved away under the principle of "children don't know any better". Basically, the person committed something so vile, that they have demonstrated that they need the full punishment and rehabilitation offerred under the law. A 15 year old who shoots someone is not a mature adult, who is capable of making decisions concerning society. However, his crime indicates a depravity that cannot be fixed by three years in juvenile hall. Thus, he should be punished as an adult. He, in all likelihood, did not have the maturity to understand the significance of his actions, but he must still be conditioned out of such behavior.

What about the primaries? (none / 0) (#265)
by Ashz0r on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 06:21:16 PM EST

Those Iowa caucauses go pretty late sometimes. The adults would have to vote later bedtimes too.

We'd have to let them text message vote since that's how they do it for American Idol, a much more important event for a "youth" than a local referendum to issue a bond to pay for new overpass construction.

Kids are stupid. Adults, on average, are a tiny bit less stupid. By properly applying beyesian decision theory, I have determined the maximally efficient voting age is infinite.

Regardless of the voting age, voter turnout will be crap, uninformed citizens will vote their own preferences or best interests, and everyone will complain.

raise it (none / 1) (#267)
by adimovk5 on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 01:41:53 AM EST

The voting age should be raised not lowered.

I suggest raising the age to half the life expectancy. Currently the average American is expected to live an average of 75 years. Half of that amount is 37. So, we should raise the lower limit to 37. In addition the upper limit should be set at 75. This would still entitle over half the population the right to vote.

There would be an upper cutoff because a large proportion of the elderly population is supported by government welfare programs. It is not right for the people who are the recipients of taxpayer money to be in a postion to demand more of it.

In keeping with this thought, the social security age should be gradually raised until a person must be 75 to receive payments.
At 75, a person will have had 37 years of voting opportunity. It would be time to turn the reins of government over to others and retire from politics.

Raising the age limit would allow Americans to live a little and gain life experience before voting. By the time you could vote, you would have gained an education. That education might be a formal college education or an informal life 101 or a combination of both.

By the time you could vote you would have lived long enough to have had a job and had the opportunity to raise a family or at least watch others raise theirs. You would have seen governments come and go. You would have seen the law of unintended consequences at work.

Hopefully you would have gained wisdom and maturity but at the very least you would have gained experience.

There would not be "taxation without representation". The representation part would just come after the taxation part. Voting rights would come after years of contribution to society in taxes and in other ways.

Potential for Fraud (none / 0) (#276)
by marcmengel on Thu Apr 22, 2004 at 04:25:26 PM EST

Several people have been quoted as saying "When I die, I want to be buried in Chicago. That way I can sill vote".

We don't have a good system of identification in place for people that young in our country. Therefore it would be a new frontier in voter fraud.

Now sixteen is where we start with drivers licences, and other established forms of identification; so I suspect a case could be made for a voting age of 16 or so. But much younger than that, and we would have people signing up dozens of kids they don't have...

I sincerely hope (none / 0) (#278)
by Sesquipundalian on Thu May 13, 2004 at 06:57:51 PM EST

that crazy religious zealots who try to support some huge brood children on $8,000/yr+welfare incomes get to multiply the effectiveness of their stupid mis-cast votes by a factor of 12. You know what? I hope they bring back polygamy and the factor gets to be like 50 or 100!

I hope that the next government elected by these freaks is a Mormon theocracy. I hope they institute capital punishment and spend all of the money they can borrow on trips to Mars.

I also hope that they only do it in California. I hope the special interest groups, who are so in love with grassroots activism and culture change, I hope they never come to my country. Maybe the agents American secret service all will do a little demographic research and find that a bunch of hyper-breeding religious fundamentalist families in California, each with more than 10 kids, have all lined up on some relevant political issue.

I hope they vote in Mel Gibson as President. Maybe he could bring back Kirk Cameron to run with him as vice pres. If you spot any of this, please remember that we're all in this together, so do your part ~heh.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
Top Ten Reasons to Lower the Voting Age | 280 comments (254 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!