Background summary and links: <link>

Question: Should we lower the voting age to 16?

My inclination: No, because at this age you still don't know that much about how to evaluate policies and politicians, and you're still living under your parents' roof, so in reality you'd become a third vote for your parents, just like all those kids whose names show up on campaign contributions actually made by their parents.

But maybe if I were 17 I'd see it differently?

Quote:still don't know that much about how to evaluate policies and politicians

The seniors that I join for breakfast don't evaluate policies and politicians, the just recite dogma -- and claim to vote accordingly.

Quote:under your parents' roof, so in reality you'd become a third vote for your parents

the few teens I know are more likely to voice against their parents rather than for them. I would say, first work the bugs out of online voting, get it as reliable as the ATM, then expand voting rights to more teens, ex-felons etc.

I don't think it would really matter if we lowered the voting age to 16. Considering how many 18 years who can vote don't do it, I'm not sure that extending the vote in that direction would change the political landscape.

I would say yes, kids will do far less damage with a vote than with a car or alcohol, both of which are far more available to those under 18.

As for voting patterns, well the Marijuana and Green Parties would get a few more votes, but I don't think it would change much in a FPTP system. Austria has a PR system, so it might help those smaller parties students are likely to vote for.

I think that any 16-year-old who cares enough to bother voting will also care enough to make an informed vote.

Some kids at that age are very into politics, as I was, and at 16 I knew more about political issues than many adults.

If the voting age was lowered, elections could become part of the curriculum in school, which I think could engage more young people in the process.

And most people are just follow their parents' politics anyway, no matter their age.

The idea that lowering the voting age would help with teen age drinking might backfire. They may vote to lower the drinking age. As it stands right now its ironic that they can vote and die for their country but theyt can't drink to forget about it.

I actually so the same apathy in potentially younger voters that exists in those who have just reached voting age and even adults. Those who will make a thoughtful effort to participate as informed voters will vote the same and those who vote by their emotions without thought will still vote the same way. It doesn't even matter what country

The dynamic started somewhere, secondary school perhaps?

As long as the age of the average voter is significantly higher than the age of the average citizen—the result of automatic disenfranchisement of all citizens under 18—policy will always favor the elderly over the young.

That's why Americans over 65 are the only ones guaranteed health care and a minimum income.

I agree. I have a 15 year old and an 18 year old. Both are completely clueless about politics. The only way I would recommend any lowering of the voting age is if we had mandatory service for all 18-22 year olds through either community service, Americorps, the military or some other service to our country.

I have a 40 year old secretary and a 60 year old janitor who are completely clueless about politics, and the only way I'd let them vote is if there was mandatory community service for all 40 to 60 year olds....if they don't we'll only count them as 3/5ths of a person...like the constitution does with other less than human people. *sarcasm*

Give me a break. There is no scientific or rational public policy reason why anyone over the age of 12 shouldn't be allowed to participate in our political process. Ask a 16 year old and a 40 year old what a quadratic equation is or what a blastocyst is or who the 14th President was, and I can guarantee that the 16 yr old would know more than the 40 year old, 9 times out of 10.

The real question is whether we want our 16 year old children to participate in the political process, and if the answer is no, why not and what message are we sending our kids if we say that they their voices are not respected in our society?

"Give me a break. There is no scientific or rational public policy reason why anyone over the age of 12 shouldn't be allowed to participate in our political process."

You must not have teenagers, only one that is delusional or ignorant could make this claim. I actually take this a step further. I do not support universal suffrage at all. When I consider the idiotic politicians we continually elect, it is obvious our electoral system is allowing too many very, very ignorant people make truly momentous decisions. There is no way in hell a 12 year old or even an 18 year old is old enough to make decisions about policy and governance. The only reason it went to 18 from 21 was because of the war and draft. Since we do not have the draft, raise it back up to 21. Hell, make it 30.

Those kids are interested in pop culture politics - not actual issues. While the wisdom of lowering the voting age is open in my mind, I won't delude myself by believing their vote will be anything but a mirror of what they see on TV, from peer pressure, or outright spite of "the Man", "the Establishment", "the Parents", or "the Middle Class Sheep".

Please, you skipped half the question when you posed it. The part about "If YES, why should we allow them to vote, and are adolescents people we want to have put into control."

You think the current voters are inadequate - great, so you propose to INCREASE the number of inadequate voters? Did you believe that would help in some way? Or do you feel that teenagers are naturally responsible, informed, and experienced individuals who have their thumb on the pulse of America and therefore their votes will all be informed?

I think where 16 year-old voters could have the most fascinating implications is local school board elections. I went to high school in the years immediately before Columbine. After that incident, my younger siblings were subjected to a security regime in high school that I found appalling. I worry about the implications for civic life that running a police state in the public schools could entail - are we accustoming the next generation to expect substantially diminished liberties by the way we treat them in school?

Extending the vote to the under-18 set could create a novel constituency, concerned about quality of life issues in public school systems that parents aren't well-qualified to support. Even at colleges, most parents are more concerned with the safety of their children than the liberty - even when their politics are otherwise libertarian. As a basic representational argument, that people should have a say in the drafting of rules to which they'd be compelled to submit, I think child voting could be defended. In that context, even extending the voting age to 12 would strike me as a defensible proposition (though still a hard sell).

I agree with anyone who says that 16 year olds shouldn't vote for all the reasons they have stated. I would like to respond to anyone who states either of these two arguments: Many 16 year olds are more interested or concerned in politics, therefore they should be allowed to vote; or, THEY (the opinionaters) knew about politics at 16 and they still believe the same thing, showing that they should have been allowed to vote at 16.

For the first argument I have this answer- who cares?!??! Yeah they are interested in politics, and yes, they may know more than adults, but they are still CHILDREN. For example, let's say that all you need is an interest -- why don't we open voting to non-citizen residents, or even non-citizen non-residents. Doesn't some factory worker for an Austrian company in Shananiganistan have the same concerns about his future as some 16 year old in Austria? The fact is, age shouldn't be the single determinating factor in allowing someone to vote, things like paying taxes, raising children (the future citizens of a nation), maintaining full time employment, should be equally, nay, MORE important than age. We (the western world) have chosen to guestimate that 18 is the appropriate age at which most of these factors, or at least enough of them, are valid for the majority of people. Yeah, I know 16 year olds may have kids and pay taxes, and have a full time job, but those kids are stupid, and their stupidity will corrupt the vote.

For the second group who still say that they should have been able to vote at 16 because they agree with the choices they would have made, my answer to you is this: you are also stupid. You're telling me your opinions haven't changed since you were 16 years old?!?! How ever old you are, let's raise the voting age another five years on top of that. People like you are why, in America, we can't get a single, good, everybody loves him/her moderate elected. The rest of the nation lives with your indellible 16 year old stupidity after the primaries, and we are forced to pick the candidate whose followers are less stupid.

People's opinions change overtime, and when you're young they change more often. I'd wager most people who get out into the real world become a little more moderate in their views.

In closing I'd like to thank you for your time, and if you're 16 and interested in politics, I'd like to commend your interest. It's a great start on becoming a responsible citizen, but here's some advice: don't call people you don't like fascists, communists, liberals, or conservatives, because if you do, everyone will hate you.

DJ