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

seamus

28064212 wrote:

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.

I excluded Referenda, because I would prefer if those who paid taxes had a right to elect their officials, but Referenda require a little more maturity and foresight than I would attribute to the average 16 or 17 year old. On top of that, the Mammy factor kicks in even moreso, thereby giving a few extra votes to the overbearing conservative battleaxes.

That aside, I think lowering the voting age would make very little difference overall. Students, despite all of their huffing and puffing on the TV, have the lowest voter rates. I don't see secondary school students being any better.

28064212

seamus wrote:

I excluded Referenda, because I would prefer if those who paid taxes had a right to elect their officials, but Referenda require a little more maturity and foresight than I would attribute to the average 16 or 17 year old. On top of that, the Mammy factor kicks in even moreso, thereby giving a few extra votes to the overbearing conservative battleaxes.

I can't see too many 16 year olds following what their parents suggest. If anything they'd probably rebel if their parents tried to push them one way or another. Personally I'd rather have the entire 16-20 bracket voting than any other group. They certainly should have the mental capacity to make their own decision, and they are more likely to be idealistic enough to try to force a change.

seamus wrote:

That aside, I think lowering the voting age would make very little difference overall. Students, despite all of their huffing and puffing on the TV, have the lowest voter rates. I don't see secondary school students being any better.

Could this be because by the time they're allowed vote, they're apathetic again? I remember doing the CSPE course and being genuinely interested in politics and having my say, but from 4th year onwards there was a steady decline of enthusiasm.

Quantum

markororke wrote:

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

I believe it's a simple as this - 16 year olds are not capable of making an informed choice about political decisions and therefore it is not in the interest of society to have people who cannot make such an informed choice making those choices.

It's like having a driving license, it is not just a matter of 'right's but also of 'responsibilties'.

18 is a good age and it should remain so.

seamus

28064212 wrote:

I can't see too many 16 year olds following what their parents suggest. If anything they'd probably rebel if their parents tried to push them one way or another. Personally I'd rather have the entire 16-20 bracket voting than any other group. They certainly should have the mental capacity to make their own decision, and they are more likely to be idealistic enough to try to force a change.

Could this be because by the time they're allowed vote, they're apathetic again? I remember doing the CSPE course and being genuinely interested in politics and having my say, but from 4th year onwards there was a steady decline of enthusiasm.

I completely disagree with your entire post, so there's not much more can be said

Board@Work

Quantum wrote:

I believe it's a simple as this - 16 year olds are not capable of making an informed choice about political decisions and therefore it is not in the interest of society to have people who cannot make such an informed choice making those choices.

It's like having a driving license, it is not just a matter of 'right's but also of 'responsibilties'.

18 is a good age and it should remain so.

How would you feel as a 16 year old private in the army sent off to war by a political system that you are disenfranchised from because of your age. If your old enough to pay taxes and fire a gun your old enough to vote.

Quite frankly i believe that there are a good few sixteen year olds that are very well informed and well able to make an informed choice. (Granted maybe not the majority). Equally there are a huge number of people over the age of eighteen that aren't informed yet have the right.

simu

Some people are mature enough to take an interest in politics long before their 18th birthday, others never take an interest in politics in their lives. 18 is a somewhat arbitrary cut-off point but it does the job. It's not going to kill any 16 year old that they have to wait a mere two years before they can vote - if they really feel all that concerned, they can still campaign about issues.

"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."

Lovely and dramatic but you could replace 16 with 6 there and it would still work.

themole

18 seems like a good limit to me.

the age for marriage is 18, not 16 as sated previously:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/relationships/marriage/age_requirements.html?search=marriage+age

The age for enlisting in the army is 17, but parental consent is required for under 18, indicating the youths lack of a ability to make the decision on their own:
http://www.military.ie/careers/armycond.htm#ARMY%20-%20AGE%20LIMITS

SkepticOne

More homework for those under 18. These years are a time for learning. When the learning is finished then the voting may begin.

mycroft

markororke wrote:

How would you feel as a 16 year old private in the army sent off to war by a political system that you are disenfranchised from because of your age. If your old enough to pay taxes and fire a gun your old enough to vote.

One, we don't send 16yo's off to fight,

And furthermore, the collection of 16yo's we allow join the reserves doesn't imp;y or suggest all 16yo should be allowed vote.

Quite frankly i believe that there are a good few sixteen year olds that are very well informed and well able to make an informed choice. (Granted maybe not the majority). Equally there are a huge number of people over the age of eighteen that aren't informed yet have the right.

Yeah but you are using the same logic as NAMBLA the national association of man boy love, this is a group of paedophiles who believe that the age of consent should be lowered. See if you follow this logic of your position the age of consent should be lowered. You need ti suggest a lower limit, and give reasons why the lowere limit should work, with the alternative implications of the lowering of sexual laws, voting rights, and adult rights that must come with it. Just saying that voting rights must be lowered without the implication of what would occur, if a human being is aware enough to vote they are conscious enough to be aware of their actions and therefore can be tried as adults.

dermo88

I don't think a 16 year old can make the best informed judgements. They are at an early stage in their career, and they are therefore likely to be low paid. They'll consider themselves exploited, when in fact that are starting their careers, and thats why they are low paid. They don't have sufficient experience to be as well paid as their superiors. So like I was, they'll develop some fairly dangerously left wing socialist ideas about how things should be, but having said that, things are much better for young workers than they were in 1992-3 when I started working for IR£2.25 per hour.

When it came to the presidential election, the two candidates were campaigning, and I happened to serve them. Austin Currie did'nt tip me, Robinson did. Now call me evil, but it gave me a lot of pleasure to turn on my tail and say "You won't be getting my vote". At least I played my small part in making sure Currie came third and Robinson won.

Pretty much the same when the general election came as well!!!!

But not the most mature decision made. The PD candidate was a tight first, queried everything, sent me back up, changed an order, I kept smiling and no tip. And I have'nt voted PD since, and make sure they are bottom of the list for the rest of my life.

Victor

0utshined wrote:

People need to experience life before they can make considered decisions

This is why other people are elected.

Andrew 83

I'd support lowering it to 16. Don't forget that a 16 not really interested and only voting for a laugh is unlikely to go to the trouble to go down to the Garda station and register let alone turn out on the day. Some sixteen year olds are better informed politically than the majority of the population who are any and every age over 18. Yes they're not the majority of 16 year olds but they're some and I know that for a fact as I have taught and coached many 16 year olds. These are the 16 and 17 year olds who will register and they should get their say the same as everyone else.

Time Magazine

As someone who is not only politically aware but active, and having just turned 18, I get a bit angered at the condescending argument that "they're too dumb". If you apply that logic you should only have a Senate electoral register (or higher?) and therefore you no longer have democracy. Democracy, with all its faults, should offer the chance to vote to everyone who wants it and is independently able to express it.

Having pondered on this for a while I propose a staged system. Anyone between the age of 16 (this is a limit for bureacratic and "within reason" reasons) and 18 can apply for a vote. Their right to a vote will then be assessed. Anyone over 18 can get a vote automatically.

The assessment would be a simple interview, conducted by an independent commission within a department (of the Taoiseach?) which would be a simple CSPE-like exam on whether you're doing this for yourself or because you have the right to.

Obviously there are stupid 16 year olds who would only abuse the right to vote if given it. However the assessment would ask questions like "Who's the Minister for Justice?" or "What are your views on democracy?" and once the questions are answered adequately (note: not within a frame of reasonable political answers, but within a framework of reasonable interest and knowledge) those people should get the right to vote.

For it to be democratic and not a toy of the State, it would have to be hard to fail. Somebody answering "I think that paramilitarism is a justifiable view in light of the presence of an occupying army and therefore I'm a member of the Irish Fascism Party" would of course be passed. It would just be another simple barrier to getting the vote, along with registering and turning up on the day. Even those that are doing it for the laugh would have to brush up on their knowledge, and hence better serve the State anyway.

Of course one must address the fact that it could be turned political. But the same could be said of any arm of the State - and there are worse political tools than an ability to increase the failure rate of 16-18 year olds getting votes.

It wouldn't put me off, but I think those that like their ringtones would have better things to do.

Comments? Constructive criticism?

bonkey

Angry Banana wrote:

I get a bit angered at the condescending argument that "they're too dumb".

And yet you go on to propose a system which will leave all over 18s with the automatic right to vote they have, but require those under 18 to pass an exam.....to show they're not too dumb.

Fail the exam (be too dumb) and you don't get a vote. Pass the exam (be less dumb then the cutoff point) and you do.

Sounds to me like you're agreeing (at least in part) with the very mindset that angers you.

For the record - I'm opposed to any form of knowledge-based qualification criteria, and even more opposed to some form of "sliding scale" of entry (like your suggestion, where you can get in earlier if you show you're smart enough).

jc

Andrew 83

I would completely disagree with having a test to allow people to vote. Beyond any other problems if it's based on an interview that's going to be a completely subjective view by the interviewer. And what's to stop someone on the sly opting against giving it to someone's who's views they disagree with?

No it should be for everyone with registering the only restriction.

Boggle

As far as I can tell 16 year olds are no more likely to swallow some of the crap than our (oh so well informed) current electorate so why should they be denied the vote?

It would be a dangerous thing to do though cos at that age they might still have the energy and the enthusiasm to actively select a candidate based on what they 've done rather than based on what party they represent...

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

As far as I can tell 16 year olds are no more likely to swallow some of the crap than our (oh so well informed) current electorate so why should they be denied the vote?

For the same reason that 18 is considered the minimum age for a number of other things that some/many 16-yr-olds feel themselves more than capable of doing as well as those who can legally do it - and especially when they only consider those a year or two older (i.e. the just-legal 18-yr-olds) as the basis for comparison.

Ppl may argue that 18 is too high a barrier...and that it should be 16. Or 15. Or....

Sooner or later we have to draw a line somewhere, and those just below that line will generally be virtually indistinguishable from those above the line. Given that the 18-limit more or less coincides with the completion of secondary school, I don't see it as an unreasonable point to draw the line.

For those who want the line drawn at 16...explain to me how someone who is 15 is significantly different to someone who is 16, and how this difference is more significant than the difference from 16-to-18 which is which you're proposing as the line-change. Then explain how 14-15 is once again less significant.

And remember...its not a meritocracy we're talking about.

jc

Hugo Reyes

Personally I believe that anyone of an age should be allowed to vote if they so wish!
(and dont be crazy no 4 yr olds are going to want to and no parents would be so **** as to impose their judgements on their kids)

0utshined

Victor wrote:

This is why other people are elected.

Victor you've missed my point. I meant that with some life experience you are better able to judge who will serve you better rather than voting on someone because they look better or some other arbitrary factor.

seamus

Hugo Reyes wrote:

(and dont be crazy no 4 yr olds are going to want to and no parents would be so **** as to impose their judgements on their kids)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? *Lots* of people would tell their young children what to tick and bring them up to the booth ffs.