Should 16 olds have the right to vote?

Post Reply New Topic

I think that it might be okay sometime in the future if teaching about politics heavily increased in schools since kids would actually have some level of understanding about what they're doing instead of just doing what their friends or parents are doing. Actually, they should increase teaching about politics and different options even if the age remained the same or was raised.

Also, if we're talking about raising the age, wouldn't 25 be the most logical since that's usually the time when a person's brains stop developing? In my opinion that would also be a good legal age for drinking alcohol, smoking and using the legal drugs since they would no longer have the chance to harm the development of the brains in the same way.

Only those who have a comprehensive understanding of what they're voting for have any business voting.

What method do you propose to measure someones "comprehensive understanding"?

Many people think they have a"comprehensive understanding" and they don't

Any voter can vote for any candidate or any proposition, for any reason or no reason


Voters can choose to be loyal to political party. Vote for a candidate that is the same race or sex as them. Voters can vote for candidates that have their best interest in mind.



There is no correct or wrong candidate to vote for.

Is a liberal at age 60 brighter than a liberal at age 16? Democrats love to crow about being the party of science. Well, scientific research shows the human brain is not fully developed until age 25. Have the democrats run out of adults dumb enough to vote for them?

I also point out that if they insist 16-year olds shall vote, then 16-year olds must be granted full citizen status, including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms . . . purchasing and carrying handguns, the obligation to be drafted into military service if so chosen, the status of being tried as an adult for virtually all felonies and other crimes if so-charged, and the obligation of jury duty. Democrats just want more power, not a lower age threshold for citizen status.

I don’t know. I look back at myself at 16 and think what was I thinking? But then I look back at 21 and wonder the same. I think we can be pretty idiotic at any age. They say the prefrontal cortex of the brain doesn’t reach fully maturity until you’re 25-30. I think it’s crazy that at 17- 18 one can fight in war but not drink.

I honestly think 18 is too young to fight in a War, that is way to young to put such a risk on the rest of your life. We aren't short on population, I wouldn't oppose to raising it to 25 year old before sending one off to possibly die.

They actually pick 18 somewhat deliberately for that reason, ie. that a person thinks they're invincible and doesn't know how bad things can get.

That's all well and good, but our perspective on natural rights has progressed significantly since the 17th century (not least, of course, that most of the authors of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves).

On prisoners, if we look to Article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, which forbids inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, it has been ruled that a blanket ban on prisoner votes is a violation of this article. Now of course this ruling is not an unquestionable moral judgement, but it does mean that under European Law, at least some prisoners have the right to vote.

On non-citizens, Article 16 explicitly allows restrictions on the political activity of "aliens". This also overrules Article 14, which prevents discrimination on the grounds of national origin (although note that EU countries aren't supposed to class EU citizens as aliens).

Article 14 does not explicitly prevent discrimination on the grounds of age, although it could support legal rulings to that effect as it prevents discrimination on "other status". Likewise for disability.

But aside from the law, morally, democratic philosophy claims that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Not "the consent of some of the governed". If people don't care - and frankly the vast majority of people under a certain point don't care - then that's fine, but it's no reason to deprive people who do care of their vote.

Democracy isn't something you have to earn. It's a system that says power flows from the people. A democracy that doesn't represent the people - regardless of age, disability, citizenship, or any criminal past - is not fulfilling the promise of democracy.

I honestly think the age restrictions on things are totally screwed up in this country. We're adults at 18-smoking, voting, legally, etc-yet can drive a car at 16. You can enlist in the army, get a bank account, go skydiving, get married, etc at 18, yet you cant drink alcohol till 21, and cant even rent a car till you're 25.
So.....I can fight in a war, legally bind myself to someone, get permanent ink printed on my skin, vote on who leads my country and operate a motor vehicle that is responsible for over a million deaths per year, but I cant drink a beer. Sounds legit.

I personally dont think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote because they are not adults. Most 16 year olds are just going to vote for whoever their parents are voting for without actually thinking about the pros and cons of each person, and what they truly believe in and wish for their country.

Most people haven't grown up all that much before their late 20's, especially if they're in college rather than working to support rent/mortgage or a child.

This is correct, but no major modern society actually functions as an absolute democracy and in my view shouldn't either. Almost all of them follow some form of representational democracy/republicanism if they're democratic or authoritarian dictatorship if they are not. Absolute democracy simply does not exist, much like absolute capitalism, or absolute communism does not exist in the modern world.



Actually democracy stems from "consent of majority of the governed." Otherwise if it was "consent of all of the governed" any individual would have veto rights. Your UK held a referendum on whether or not to leave the EU. 51.89% voted to leave, 48.11% voted to remain. The decision to leave was certainly NOT consented to by that 48.11%.

Now as to the issue of voting rights with regard to the social contract. Restrictions on voting rights are not prohibited by the social contract as long as those restrictions are consented to by the governed. Taking the example of prisoner voting rights. A society can be set up by laws passed by the democratically elected government decide that persons who have broken the law to the point of being incarcerated do not have a say.

Philosophically we can debate what are and are not reasonable voting restrictions. It is my belief that as long as one's voting rights are not prohibited by circumstances of their birth (race, sex, disability, wealth) then the restrictions are fair. I do not consider age a restriction of birth. I do not consider legal history a circumstance of birth. I do not consider citizenship in a country a circumstance of birth, provided all persons born in a country achieve that citizenship automatically.

Democracy can and there are examples of this throughout history lead to "tyranny of the majority." In which a larger group of people oppresses a minority group of people. This is why a well designed government has safegards to protect against this.

The US constitution has many safegards in place to stem the effects of tyranny of the majority. For one a constitutional amendment (which is what would be required to change the voting age) requires 2/3rds approval by both houses of congress AND ratification by 3/4s of the State governments. It is far-fetched to say a constitutional amendment restricting voting age is not passed with the consent of the governed.



Different societies have different answers to this question. No society provides for an unrestricted right to vote to all humans. As a somewhat conservative American I like the US constitution. What it has to say on voting:



I include this because it speaks strictly to restriction of rights by "punishment of crime."



States that persons will be able to vote regardless on their race, or whether they were a slave previously. Makes no mention of age, or criminal punishment.



States that persons will be able to vote regardless of their sex. Makes no mention of age or criminal punishment.



And here is the relevant legislation saying that persons can not be prevented from voting on age provided they are older than 18. Makes no mention of restrictions based on criminal punishment.

By the passage of such amendments there is a prerogative that restrictions on voting are sometimes justified provided they do not run afoul of these amendments.

European law and American law are in contradiction with regards to the voting rights of prisoners. I will state here that this is not a "legal" argument so much as a philosophical/moral argument. I have stated above that I believe that the social contract allows for restrictions on voting rights, and that the principle of democracy provides this is allowed as long as a "majority of the people" consent to it. I believe certain restrictions on voting rights to be immoral, while others are justified. As stated in my previous post all governments impose restrictions on person's rights. It is up to us to decide which restrictions are valid and which are not.

Last edited by Antrax on 31 Mar 2019, 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No.

The voting age should be raised, if anything.

Not unless they are emancipated minors and pay taxes

Classism

quote="shortfatbalduglyman"]

What method do you propose to measure someones "comprehensive understanding"?

Many people think they have a"comprehensive understanding" and they don't

Any voter can vote for any candidate or any proposition, for any reason or no reason


Voters can choose to be loyal to political party. Vote for a candidate that is the same race or sex as them. Voters can vote for candidates that have their best interest in mind.



There is no correct or wrong candidate to vote for.[/quote]
I already outlined this on the last page.


I think a test like that being implemented would motivate those who can't pass it but want to vote to actually put in the effort to fill in the gaps of their relevant political knowledge. If every voter was informed and had a solid understanding of what the parties stand for and the changes that the parties are proposing, that wouldn't be a bad thing

That's a pretty good idea! You could set it up on a computer where you enter no personal information, sex, race, name or age to prevent any programed in discrimination to prevent corruption. Then, with a supervisor watching you, if you pass the test you recieve your right to vote on the bill or election. It would be a little tricky to design such a thing though and bias could be written into the program. IDK, I think it would be difficult to prevent such system from being abused to discriminate on particular political views, that's the part I would be worried about. In a world without corruption it would be a great idea, sadly corruption is here to stay.

I don't think this is a useful question.

Why do people put so much faith in representative democracy?

Amen,

Although I still vote, I at the same time realize the ballot box is extremely limited in what it can achieve.