View Topic

I just read an interesting article about efforts to lower the voting age in parts of the US from 18 to 16. Supporters say that teens are particularly tuned into politics in the age of Trump, that other countries have successfully lowered the age to 16, and getting people involved at a younger age would instill a sense of civics in them that would continue as they got older.  Critics say that teens typically don't have a depth of knowledge when it comes to politics, and would be a voting block that would be swayed by single issues such as college loans or legalizing marijuana.

What say you, Wintreath community?

Critics say that teens typically don't have a depth of knowledge when it comes to politics, and would be a voting block that would be swayed by single issues such as college loans or legalizing marijuana.

And, what, adults do?
I think the biggest clue we got to the fact that the majority of the voting public has no clue what the fuck is going on is the aftermath of Brexit, where people went online to ask 'so...what's the EU again?' after the fuckin referendum.

Should we then extend the franchise out to people who might be just as clueless?
Well, it certainly can't hurt, considering what we've already elected.

In my readings, I've found this NY Times op-ed to be one of the stronger arguments for lowering the voting age to 16. Of particular interest to me is the empirical evidence showing higher turnout among 16-17 year olds (and low turnout among 18-24 year olds) and that earlier voting leads to stronger civic engagement in the long term.

As Doc said (adding that part in since he posted before I did), the main counterargument to the main criticisms you listed is that adult voters also tend to be highly uninformed in politics, and can also form blocs that are easily swayed by single issues.

Another similar criticisms that I've seen is that teenagers will often vote along the lines of their parents. Which I suppose might be true for some people, but on the other hand, teenagers will often do the exact opposite (which could be a good or bad thing, depending on if they're actually thinking critically about their beliefs).

The other main criticism I've seen is that voting should be tied to adulthood, since legal adults participate far more in the system (get jobs, pay taxes, serve in the military, etc.) and therefore in principle should be the ones with the say in it. On the other hand, the counterargument I've seen to this is that adolescents still face the effects of government policy without having being able to contribute their opinions.

As someone who only recently turned 18, and voted literally the following week, I'm obviously going to be biased in favor, but there definitely are both advantages and disadvantages to this proposal.

I think if you are old enough to hold a job, drink alcohol, drive a car, pickup a gun and kill for your country, you are old enough to vote. If my country wants me to give up two years of my life with the possibility of death or, worse, having to kill someone the least I am owed is the right to vote.

In Australia the voting age is 16 not because of they are thrusted into politics, but due to the fact you start earning enough money to have to pay taxes (taxes without representation aint good idea) and you can join the armed forces in Australia at 16(you wont be sent offshore till 18 tho) so if you in America pay taxes and allow people o join the Military at 16 then let the people vote at 16

My thinking is that you should be allowed to vote at 16.

Perhaps 18 made sense at some time, but it seems that as time goes on we expect more of teenagers...we expect them go to school, to have a job on the side, to take on extra responsibilities at home, and in many states we're letting them get a driver's license earlier and earlier. It's almost like we're pushing off many responsibilities of adulthood on them without giving them any of the benefits, including the basic right of having their own voice. I think it's funny...in ancient and medieval times, kings and emperors were allowed to assume their thrones as young as 13, and now we're debating whether people can be trusted with their own vote at 16.

In quite a few places, even if you're under 18, you're required to file for taxes if you have a job (if you want your taxes back because of automatic deductions).

While I personally believe that we should lower the voting age to 16, arguments against it would be the influences on the lives of teenagers. Teens are still young and impressionable, they can be easily affected by the opinions and beliefs of those around them (teachers and who not), not to mention their brains are still developing. Logic and reasoning are still developing along with many other centres of the brain. Between the ages of 15-19 teenagers develop and change dramatically, which can impair their voting or decision-making skills. I've noticed dramatic changes in myself over the last year, growth in maturity, understanding, empathy, etc.

What should we do about voting age you ask? Shrugs. I just wanted to stir the pot a little.

But the thing is, everyone develops and matures according to their experiences. Even as an older person, I've changed in many ways from the person I was a few years ago based on the things I've experienced. In your case, is it aging a year that has led to those dramatic changes, or is it the fact that your life has changed a lot since graduating high school and you've gone through new experiences?

The human brain doesn't finish developing until the mid twenties...does that mean we should raise the voting age to 25? Even beyond then, adults also vary in development and maturity, and it's not like adults do much research or use much critical thinking when it comes to politics...in many ways, they're very impressionable as well, especially to sources that reinforce their existing beliefs.

But ultimately it's a matter of rights...accepting that people by nature will never be perfectly objective or critical or thoughtful at all times, as a democratic society we nonetheless believe that all people have the right to have a voice that counts...over time, in America and elsewhere, that belief has empowered the expansion of voting rights from white male landowners to everyone that can vote today, and I think in the end it will also empower voting rights to this group as well.

I think the right to vote should be simple. Are you required to partake in all the responsibilites of adulthood? Are you expected to? Fine. Then I should have the right to vote. Set the age to vote at the same age you can serve in the military, get married, smoke or drink and pay taxes.

Critics say that teens typically don't have a depth of knowledge when it comes to politics, and would be a voting block that would be swayed by single issues such as college loans or legalizing marijuana.

And, what, adults do?

This.  Exactly this.  We are talking about adults who will vote for our very president because of 1 thing they say.  Oh, they don't like immigrants? They're my perfect candidate?  THEY SUPPORT GUNS? WELL HOT DANG!

Now, I'm not saying that those people are necessarily anything, or that their candidate is bad...it's just that's a horrible reason to vote for someone.  You should be voting for them because you agree with all or at least most of their policies...not just the 1 that they scream out the most because they know it's going to draw you in.

If we're going to say "Don't let 16 year olds vote because they'll just vote for the one that sounds coolest."  Then I'd just say "Don't let most people vote because they'll just vote for the one that sounds the coolest."

It's essentially a "do as I say, not as I do" hypocritical argument as to why we shouldn't let teens vote.

And if anything, college loans ARE a big issue.  If we want to allow 16 year olds on board to help vote on ways to abolish those atrocities, then I'm all for it.  There's absolutely no reason for such bloated things to exist when you're going to be spending your entire life in a career that wasn't even part of your degree, paying off those excessive loans until the day you die.  You shouldn't have to suffer just for choosing to go to college and get a degree, so if we want to allow vocal teens to help vote against such things, then I'm definitely all for it.

Also, you know, if they're worried that "teens typically don't have a depth of knowledge when it comes to politics,"  then...you know, make politics more of a subject in school.  You know, because it'd be nice if we had more informed voters in the first place.  If you don't want people who are swayed by shiny things (you know, like most people), then teach them the better option.  Teach them the better indepth form of politics and help them become more informed voters...because age has nothing to do with their lack of knowledge, it's the lack of interest in wanting to teach them and only fueling that ignorance in political affairs.

Teens are still young and impressionable, they can be easily affected by the opinions and beliefs of those around them (teachers and who not), not to mention their brains are still developing.

As are most adults.  We just thrust that idea onto the younger generations because it makes us look like we're more wise and experienced in the world.

Yes, our brains are technically finished developing after a certain age, but that doesn't make us any less impressionable or un-swayed by the opinions of others than those teens we're trying to discredit with that logic.

You forget that a majority of people out there base their opinions off of what their news source, favorite celebrity/brand, religious institution/figure, neighbors/friends, or political party believes.  If the news for example paints someone as a terrorist, then that's how people see them, even if those people had never met them before.

Just look at how it's affected politics in the recent election.  One side painted Hilary Clinton as a mustache twirling villain, so people saw her as such, even though a majority of those people don't actually know her.  But because of how she was portrayed on the various outlets, people automatically hopped into that bandwagon.

Now, I'm not saying that she's not a bad person or that everything that was said about her is necessarily untrue, but I am saying that because people we don't even know SAID she was a bad guy, enough people believed it to where it affected the elections.

Likewise with Trump, because we were told by people we don't even know that he had outside help in the elections, it's something that's become instantly believed.  It may be true, and it may not be true, but because sources that we believe even though most of us don't personally know us SAID it was true, a majority of people believe it.

Point being, if the right source comes along and urges us to believe something, our common sense and rational thinking go out the window and we believe them.  Why?  Because even if we don't know that person telling us it, we still believe them for no apparent reason other than reasons such as them just "looking" trustworthy or because they say things that resonate with you, even if you don't know if they believe it or not.

Age doesn't matter when it comes to being impressionable or easily swayed.  If the right person or source comes along, we're all impressionable to a degree.

Since the discussion has shifted to the intellectual capacity of adolescents and young adults, I'd like to quote this portion from the NY Times essay I linked above:

Skeptics will no doubt raise questions about the competence of 16-year-olds to make informed choices in the voting booth. Aren’t young people notoriously impulsive and hotheaded, their brains not fully developed enough to make good judgments?

Yes and no. When considering the intellectual capacity of teenagers, it is important to distinguish between what psychologists call “cold” and “hot” cognition.

Cold cognitive abilities are those we use when we are in a calm situation, when we are by ourselves and have time to deliberate and when the most important skill is the ability to reason logically with facts. Voting is a good example of this sort of situation.

Studies of cold cognition have shown that the skills necessary to make informed decisions are firmly in place by 16. By that age, adolescents can gather and process information, weigh pros and cons, reason logically with facts and take time before making a decision. Teenagers may sometimes make bad choices, but statistically speaking, they do not make them any more often than adults do.

Hot cognitive abilities are those we rely on to make good decisions when we are emotionally aroused, in groups or in a hurry. If you are making a decision when angry or exhausted, the most critical skill is self-regulation, which enables you to control your emotions, withstand pressure from others, resist temptation and check your impulses. Unlike cold cognitive abilities, self-regulation does not mature until about age 22, research has shown. (This is a good reason to raise the minimum age for purchasing firearms from 18 to 21 or older, as some have proposed.)

This psychological evidence is backed up by neuroscientific findings. Neuroimaging studies show that brain systems necessary for cold cognition are mature by mid-adolescence, whereas those that govern self-regulation are not fully developed until a person’s early 20s.

A bit late, but I happened to run into some clips from The West Wing, where lowering the voting age is discussed. President Bartlett thinks it's worthy of consideration, at least.

I, being quite young myself, pout across this argument:
Against lowering the voting age: 16 year olds don't know enough about politics.
Me: Waht do adults know? If we lower the voting age, the 16 year olds will have the same resources (pamphlets, TV ads ect.).
I know people in year 7 who would be better voters than some adults (mu previous self included).