Should the voting age be lowered!

MoeHawk

just watching The West wing and that guy has convinced me!

dregin

No. Adolescents are far too easily persuaded by domineering politicians who are good at making themselves look like the right choice and who subsuquently sugar coat their uselessness with a good personality.

Pataman

Why. A lot of people of voting age just dont bother. Apathy should be lowered instead.

grimloch

yeah im in agreeance with dregin, i know a few under 18s that are capable of producing a well thought out vote but for theyre a minority, not like most people around 18 actually vote if i recall

MoeHawk

dregin wrote:

No. Adolescents are far too easily persuaded by domineering politicians who are good at making themselves look like the right choice and who subsuquently sugar coat their uselessness with a good personality.

Stop talking about MAry O rourke like that.



"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.

MoeHawk

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.

abccormac

You can leave school, get married, get a job, and pay taxes at 16. Let them vote aswell.

dregin

I voted at the first chance, but my choices were made for all the wrong reasons. i.e. "Oh look at the little independant, I'm sure he's a saint and doing it for the cause". I'd read the local paper's biography of each of the candidates and the only one who mentioned anything I was interested in (broadband) arrived down to my house no knowing I was on the register asking for my parents. When I told him they werent around I asked if he'd like to speak to me since I was going to be voting. Immediately he perked up with "sure you'll vote for me won't ya?" and then pretty much walked off....... Based on that one incident I decided he'd be last in the pecking order on my polling card.

I think that example is a fairly good one of the irrational decisions made by teenagers.

abccormac

Thats a perfectly rational decision. If he couldn't be bothered to explain his policies, why should you vote for him?

jezza

I CAn voTe i can vote!! wooo me!! oh wait it isnt lowered yet

Hester

dregin wrote:

I voted at the first chance, but my choices were made for all the wrong reasons. i.e. "Oh look at the little independant, I'm sure he's a saint and doing it for the cause". I'd read the local paper's biography of each of the candidates and the only one who mentioned anything I was interested in (broadband) arrived down to my house no knowing I was on the register asking for my parents. When I told him they werent around I asked if he'd like to speak to me since I was going to be voting. Immediately he perked up with "sure you'll vote for me won't ya?" and then pretty much walked off....... Based on that one incident I decided he'd be last in the pecking order on my polling card.

I think that example is a fairly good one of the irrational decisions made by teenagers.

I think that's a more informed decision than a lot of older people would make. So many people still blindly follow one party, as it's what they've always done. CSPE is a Junior Cert. subject and if taught well, should instill an interest in politics and a desire to contribute in some way. I think I was more apathetic towards politics at 18 than I was at 16.

MoeHawk

MoeHawk wrote:

Stop talking about MAry O rourke like that.



"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.

Too right

blobert

jezza wrote:

I CAn voTe i can vote!! wooo me!! oh wait it isnt lowered yet

It's very exciting.

aidan_walsh

blobert wrote:

It's very exciting.

Well, thats another perfectly good voting booth ruined.

dregin

hmmm perhaps you're right about the guy not wanting to explain his plans. i can remember getting wildly excited about people like Max Salmon and Michael Moore thinking they were the greatest thing on earth while watching questions and answers. It just un-nerved me a bit that I was being so drawn in after only one hour long show having never heard of these people before.

*shrug*

Hester

You do have a point... I remember suddenly wanting to vote for all the Labour candidates after hearing Pat Rabbitte slagging off Bertie Ahern.

Flukey

The voting age is fine as it is.

sceptre

dregin wrote:

No. Adolescents are far too easily persuaded by domineering politicians who are good at making themselves look like the right choice and who subsuquently sugar coat their uselessness with a good personality.

Adults are far too easily persuaded by domineering politicians who are good at making themselves look like the right choice and who subsuquently sugar coat their uselessness with a good personality.

Still, short of an aptitude test that most adults would also fail (I wouldn't be a fan of this and not for that reason), the line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 is nice and neat.

0utshined

No, if anything it should be raised. People need to experience life before they can make considered decisions about who is best to run the country/ town etc. and effect policies that will affect their day to day life. The majority of 16/17/18 year olds don't have this experience.

Mossy Monk

oh god no

any demographic that purchases ring tones from the tv should not be allowed*

* i am aware that some over the age of 18 also purchase these things but it is mainly teenagers in their mid teens

toiletduck

i believe that since 16 is the legal age at which you can start working, that should be the minimum voting age. and since a lot of people at this age have part time jobs and therefore pay tax, they should have a say in who decides how to spend it (the government). No taxation without representation!

Gileadi

im 100 definitly against this,16 year olds are far too likely to fall prone to peer pressure and cheap gags, surely you all remember secondary school. imagine giving from some third years the power to vote

they are definitly unlikely to research the topics,i dont think they have the long term vision to see what would be good or bad for a nation in the long run and for every kid you have like that guy on the west wing last night who was intented to be intelluctual and a poster boy for the cause to lower the legal age you will have 3 kids who will vote for ming the merciless(sp?) types to leagalise cannabis (debate for another day btw) and lower the drinking age so they dont have to camp out in fields anymore

jezza

Gileadi wrote:

. imagine giving from some third years the power to vote

eh hello! 5th year here!

Gileadi wrote:

to leagalise cannabis

no im against pot now

Gileadi wrote:

lower the drinking age so they dont have to camp out in fields anymore

whats wrong with that idea?

Nevyn

No taxation without representation!

pretty much we need people to vote and be aware of the power of thier vote and get them young and get them thinking. And if all the 16 year olds do ban together with thier less conseverative views then it may get more poel up of thier arses to vote.

The voting record here is bad, only between 35 % and 55 % of those that are registered to vote do so , and that ist those registered not entitled.

28064212

I'd feel that anybody that pays taxes has an automatic right to vote. At the very least, irrespective of what you might feel about whether or not 16 year olds would vote for a person/party without rationalisation, they should have a vote in any referendum.

Ideally of course, anybody who wants to vote for anyone should have to fill out a 200 word essay rationalising their decision, but it's not really feasible. I don't feel 16 year olds are any less likely to rationalise their decision then 'adults'.

28064212

And shouldn't this be in the Politics forum?

seamus

Moved from AH

blondie83

I think it should be lowered to 16. You can say that ppl are too easily peer presured ect , but by the age of 16 most people have matured enough to have a fair idea of whats going on. If they can work, pay taxes and be charged in court as an adult then there's no reason why they shouldnt be allowed vote

seamus

Gut reaction is that 16-year-olds should possibly be allowed to vote in local and general elections, but not in Referenda.

I'll think about it further.

28064212

seamus wrote:

but not in Referenda

But referendums tend to be a lot more black and white, without relying on the personnel involved. OK the issues surrounding them might be complex, but the situation and consequences are a lot clearer. Also the effects tend to have longer ramifications, thereby having a greater effect on the up-and-coming generation.
Unless of course you're voting against a Nice Treaty where you can always wait for the next one to come around.

Board@Work

At sixteen you can fight for your country and pay tax on your wages..


Of course then you should be allowed vote and decide who spends your tax money

IMO simple as that