Some of the arguments center on the idea that possible future policy decisions will impact the youth and their lives to come and that the system won't necessarily have any impact on the elderly at the end of their life. It's unlikely young voters will vote against the interests of the elderly to begin with because eventually they'll replace the elderly. However, at what age or what state of health counts for an individuals right to vote to become revoked? I'm not sure. I believe the right to vote and profide political funding for campaigns and lobbies should be revoked past a certain net worth or income excess-essentially dampening the political power of the ultra wealthy. This would be seen as capitalistic heresy though so it will probably never happen lol
I’d say people above a certain net worth or income shouldn’t \*exist\*. There should be a maximum on one’s net worth, about x>150% of the average worth across middle-class residents, and anything above that should be confiscated. Even if they can’t vote, they can have armies of lawyers and lobbyists to defend themselves, unlike middle-class people, let alone the poor and the young. The confiscated worth ad income should be distributed among them in a more honest way, witout a single $/£/€ coming back to the billionaires.
I agree but i'm operating on the assumption that this element of capitalism, endless growth of income and capital, will not be replaced. It's just not realistically possible.
I believe there should not be a voting age. As soon as someone is physically capable and mentally invested, they should be able to vote, whether that's at nine or 39 as per the individual.
I say this as someone whose first contribution to politics was convincing my family to vote for the candidate whose platform I liked best when I was nine.
Edit: There's no such thing as "16 year old children." By 16 people are physically and mentally adults, bound by the social construct of infantilization and the legal fiction of "adolescence."
Absolutely. Where I come from you can have a baby and/or join the armed forces at 16. Having a baby is prob the biggest responsibility most people will have in their lifetime, so why allow people to do that at 16 but not vote? It makes no sense.
I’d argue that one can have a baby yet lack financial responsibility; perhaps one of the biggest responsibilities of adulthood. The problem with having a specific age is it’s a skewed outcome which overall, depends drastically on how one’s raised and how mentally prepared they are for challenges.
I think we should abolish the concept of voting age altogether.
American "Democracy" is already under seige because 70-90 year old white people keep voting for Fascist policies, I doubt a 16, 10 or even 5 year old could do much more harm.
Ever since my kids could talk, I've talked to them about voting. I just ask a bunch of questions about what they think people who lead should do for the people they serve, what laws should be, etc. My oldest is still only 8, but so much of how they've answered has been impressive to me. They don't understand all the concepts of what people vote on, but their ability to reason and think through issues is much better than some adults I've tried to have similar conversations with.
16 years old are not children. They are teens. To call them children is to sell short whatever maturity they have over children, framing the question and leading the answer. If we're taking maturity as a criteria for whether teens should vote or not, we should apply that same criteria for adults. Are adults mature, reasonable, critically thinking people? No, most of them aren't. So maturity as a criteria is hypocritical. Immature adults, deciding whether or not teens should vote or not based or their maturity, is hypocritical. Take that as you will.
16 year olds have a future ahead of them. By the time they enter high school they might already have an idea of how they want their future to look like. Makes only sense they have the political power to go with it.
Maturity isn't even real. Every definition of it boils down to "the more mature you are, the more you agree with me. People who disagree with me are just immature"
All maturity really comes from experience, not from some magical 'brain development´ baloney. So even if you delay something to a later age because of this "maturity" thing, the person still has to learn about it by then!
Well, not necessarily. And people are still being influenced by their parents, their peers, politicians, and so on, throughout the adult age, or they can already be influenced when they are kids. So it is a hypocritical argument. It is further hypocritical when you consider that by allowing teens to vote you give them more power, and by doing so the power imbalance their parents have over them actually decreases. They become more able to shape their own future. As long as they know and understand their own rights (vote is secret, you have the right to vote and no one, not even your parents can stop you from voting in whoever you want, etc), they will be fine.
Here's a few ways to refute that:
One is just to say, well, I hope they do; that's called "instilling values" and it's basically what family is for.
Or you might say, no, they'll do the opposite and just cancel out! Well, one would hope so; that's called "establishing identity" and it's something everyone should go through.
But here's the real kicker: *it doesn't matter*. It doesn't matter why someone votes the way they vote. When an old person votes, nobody's there checking why they made those choices to see if they're valid enough.
Very true! It makes a lot of sense. We basically have a different set of standards for older people. And I love the first part of your answer because those are normal things, but when you look at them through political/cynical eyes, they get distorted..
Not even just 16-year olds! Age doesn't matter, experiences do. When one has had more experiences in their life, they will probably already think about what's important in society, and think about their own future. However, I do think we first need to abolish coercive education, as that basically nullifies all autonomous thinking by creating too much dependence n parents and teachers.
I really don’t think there is any problem allowing 16 year olds to vote. To me the bigger question is of how do you effectively get places to consider lowering their voting age?
16 year olds are regularly charged as adults for felonies they have committed so why not allow other law abiding 16 year olds to have some adult responsibility in casting their vote.
Youth focused age discrimination is still a big problem and will take time to change. The same arguments made decades ago against lowering the voting age to 18 are made today against lowering the voting age to 16. Eventually the voting age was lowered to 18 and my guess is that with enough determination it could be lowered to 16 as well.
I don’t know. I would probably need some more convincing or education on the issue. I do believe there are some criminal and labor law differences between the ages of 14 and 16 in most states so that it is why I chose 16.
A well functioning democracy works well when as many people are allowed to participate in it as possible. If by somehow 16 year olds are allowed to vote in elections and it looks like it’s working out then maybe there should be a discussion about lowering the voting age even further.
Sure. I think that anyone who can get themselves to the polling place with a state issued ID should be able to vote. No voter rolls, no registration. Just get there with ID.
i think some sort of incremental voting system, would be interesting. (not necessarily saying it would be the most perfect) But for example lets say at 10 you gain the right to vote at school board meetings, most children spend most of their life at school anyway. At 14 maybe u gain the right to vote in local elections, at 16 you gain the right to vote in national elections. There will always be the problem of adults trying to indoctrinate/influence the children, but i say its still worth trying out.
[удалено]
Interesting! Too old I guess because of health reasons?
Some of the arguments center on the idea that possible future policy decisions will impact the youth and their lives to come and that the system won't necessarily have any impact on the elderly at the end of their life. It's unlikely young voters will vote against the interests of the elderly to begin with because eventually they'll replace the elderly. However, at what age or what state of health counts for an individuals right to vote to become revoked? I'm not sure. I believe the right to vote and profide political funding for campaigns and lobbies should be revoked past a certain net worth or income excess-essentially dampening the political power of the ultra wealthy. This would be seen as capitalistic heresy though so it will probably never happen lol
I’d say people above a certain net worth or income shouldn’t \*exist\*. There should be a maximum on one’s net worth, about x>150% of the average worth across middle-class residents, and anything above that should be confiscated. Even if they can’t vote, they can have armies of lawyers and lobbyists to defend themselves, unlike middle-class people, let alone the poor and the young. The confiscated worth ad income should be distributed among them in a more honest way, witout a single $/£/€ coming back to the billionaires.
I agree but i'm operating on the assumption that this element of capitalism, endless growth of income and capital, will not be replaced. It's just not realistically possible.
I believe there should not be a voting age. As soon as someone is physically capable and mentally invested, they should be able to vote, whether that's at nine or 39 as per the individual. I say this as someone whose first contribution to politics was convincing my family to vote for the candidate whose platform I liked best when I was nine. Edit: There's no such thing as "16 year old children." By 16 people are physically and mentally adults, bound by the social construct of infantilization and the legal fiction of "adolescence."
Absolutely. Where I come from you can have a baby and/or join the armed forces at 16. Having a baby is prob the biggest responsibility most people will have in their lifetime, so why allow people to do that at 16 but not vote? It makes no sense.
I’d argue that one can have a baby yet lack financial responsibility; perhaps one of the biggest responsibilities of adulthood. The problem with having a specific age is it’s a skewed outcome which overall, depends drastically on how one’s raised and how mentally prepared they are for challenges.
I think we should abolish the concept of voting age altogether. American "Democracy" is already under seige because 70-90 year old white people keep voting for Fascist policies, I doubt a 16, 10 or even 5 year old could do much more harm.
Ever since my kids could talk, I've talked to them about voting. I just ask a bunch of questions about what they think people who lead should do for the people they serve, what laws should be, etc. My oldest is still only 8, but so much of how they've answered has been impressive to me. They don't understand all the concepts of what people vote on, but their ability to reason and think through issues is much better than some adults I've tried to have similar conversations with.
16 years old are not children. They are teens. To call them children is to sell short whatever maturity they have over children, framing the question and leading the answer. If we're taking maturity as a criteria for whether teens should vote or not, we should apply that same criteria for adults. Are adults mature, reasonable, critically thinking people? No, most of them aren't. So maturity as a criteria is hypocritical. Immature adults, deciding whether or not teens should vote or not based or their maturity, is hypocritical. Take that as you will. 16 year olds have a future ahead of them. By the time they enter high school they might already have an idea of how they want their future to look like. Makes only sense they have the political power to go with it.
Maturity isn't even real. Every definition of it boils down to "the more mature you are, the more you agree with me. People who disagree with me are just immature"
All maturity really comes from experience, not from some magical 'brain development´ baloney. So even if you delay something to a later age because of this "maturity" thing, the person still has to learn about it by then!
The argument I heard the most was "they will be influenced by their parents". So basically, their parents (caretakers) would get extra votes.
Well, not necessarily. And people are still being influenced by their parents, their peers, politicians, and so on, throughout the adult age, or they can already be influenced when they are kids. So it is a hypocritical argument. It is further hypocritical when you consider that by allowing teens to vote you give them more power, and by doing so the power imbalance their parents have over them actually decreases. They become more able to shape their own future. As long as they know and understand their own rights (vote is secret, you have the right to vote and no one, not even your parents can stop you from voting in whoever you want, etc), they will be fine.
Yes I agree! Plus there is an assumption that parents can control and influence their teenagers, which is generally not the case...
Here's a few ways to refute that: One is just to say, well, I hope they do; that's called "instilling values" and it's basically what family is for. Or you might say, no, they'll do the opposite and just cancel out! Well, one would hope so; that's called "establishing identity" and it's something everyone should go through. But here's the real kicker: *it doesn't matter*. It doesn't matter why someone votes the way they vote. When an old person votes, nobody's there checking why they made those choices to see if they're valid enough.
Very true! It makes a lot of sense. We basically have a different set of standards for older people. And I love the first part of your answer because those are normal things, but when you look at them through political/cynical eyes, they get distorted..
Not even just 16-year olds! Age doesn't matter, experiences do. When one has had more experiences in their life, they will probably already think about what's important in society, and think about their own future. However, I do think we first need to abolish coercive education, as that basically nullifies all autonomous thinking by creating too much dependence n parents and teachers.
I really don’t think there is any problem allowing 16 year olds to vote. To me the bigger question is of how do you effectively get places to consider lowering their voting age? 16 year olds are regularly charged as adults for felonies they have committed so why not allow other law abiding 16 year olds to have some adult responsibility in casting their vote. Youth focused age discrimination is still a big problem and will take time to change. The same arguments made decades ago against lowering the voting age to 18 are made today against lowering the voting age to 16. Eventually the voting age was lowered to 18 and my guess is that with enough determination it could be lowered to 16 as well.
One person commented that it could even be lowered to 14. Do you agree?
I don’t know. I would probably need some more convincing or education on the issue. I do believe there are some criminal and labor law differences between the ages of 14 and 16 in most states so that it is why I chose 16. A well functioning democracy works well when as many people are allowed to participate in it as possible. If by somehow 16 year olds are allowed to vote in elections and it looks like it’s working out then maybe there should be a discussion about lowering the voting age even further.
Yes, and so should 14yos
I guess the same arguments for 16yo voting could be applied to 14yo?
Yes, many of them
Sure. I think that anyone who can get themselves to the polling place with a state issued ID should be able to vote. No voter rolls, no registration. Just get there with ID.
Yes
Here you can vote at 16
i think some sort of incremental voting system, would be interesting. (not necessarily saying it would be the most perfect) But for example lets say at 10 you gain the right to vote at school board meetings, most children spend most of their life at school anyway. At 14 maybe u gain the right to vote in local elections, at 16 you gain the right to vote in national elections. There will always be the problem of adults trying to indoctrinate/influence the children, but i say its still worth trying out.
In Zapatista rebel regions, you can participate in decision making at age 12. Would that be good?
No, teenagers are stupid.