I'll be on Fox News Tomorrow

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
At the end of the day, it's an arbirtrary line anyway since there's no magical "coming of age" event that happens at any age. Eighteen make sense though, because that's when most people graduate high school and are considered adults in many other facets.

Don't take this personally, Kuci. I have absolutely no doubt that you could make a more informed choice than most voters. But for every 16 year old like you, I would have no problem finding 10 or 20 that should not vote.

This is better for democracy as well. You'd end up with far more voting 18 year olds because they'd be used to it from earlier. It would also probably vastly decrease the number of people who are just ignorant about the issues - because they'd start being exposed in a meaningful way during a time when they're in a concentrated learning environment - also at the same time as they start to really be taught American history and government.

[Sava]

If 16-17 year olds are going to complain about paying taxes and not having a vote, then perhaps we should make it illegal for them to work (then they don't have to worry about paying taxes).

Society has deemed that 18 is the arbitrary age where kids become mature enough to enter into contracts, vote, etc... It may be arbitrary, but since there is no fair way to judge maturity, we need that arbitrary limit. I disagree with letting kids vote because they aren't mature at that age (16 or 17). Some are... but not enough to warrant changing the voting age.

And manipulation by parents is highly likely. I know some people over the age of 21 who are manipulated into voting for who their parents say to vote for. Many people around my age group 18-24 aren't mature enough to be allowed to vote. If we change the limits at all, we should raise the age of military service and voting to 21. We should have one all-purpose limit for voting, drinking, military service, and entering into contracts. I'm fine with 18 being that age. I figure after high school, you are capable enough to do what you want. But not before.

[Jon Miller]

also, if you live at home and our dependent on your parents

you aren't responsible enough to vote

JM

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


This is better for democracy as well. You'd end up with far more voting 18 year olds because they'd be used to it from earlier. It would also probably vastly decrease the number of people who are just ignorant about the issues - because they'd start being exposed in a meaningful way during a time when they're in a concentrated learning environment - also at the same time as they start to really be taught American history and government.

But that argument holds just as well, if not better, for 18 year olds who just finished studying American history and government over a longer period of time. In any case, your argument also works for 14 year olds. Why don't you lower the voting age to 14? How about even lower than that?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
also, if you live at home and our dependent on your parents

you aren't responsible enough to vote

JM

I disagree with that. Both my sister and I still rely on our parents. You really don't start to become independent until mid 20's. It's a different world out there. Most decent jobs/careers require at minimum a college degree. There's nothing wrong with being supported by your parents well into your 20's if you are going to college.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Many teens work even during the school year, and everyone pays SS and medicare tax.

I'm well aware that a large number of teenagers work part-time during high school session, as well as during the summer, thank you very much.


My question was, isn't it unusual for 16 year olds to already hold FULL-time jobs -- as well as being unusual that even those exceptions who do have full-time jobs, to work at wages in which they can live as independent adults?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
also, if you live at home and our dependent on your parents

you aren't responsible enough to vote

JM

I disagree with lowering the voting age to 16, but this argument makes NO sense, at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Sava makes the 2nd best serious point in this thread. I feel like I'm in bizarro world!

[MrFun]

All of Apolyton is bizarro.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava
If 16-17 year olds are going to complain about paying taxes and not having a vote, then perhaps we should make it illegal for them to work (then they don't have to worry about paying taxes).

Society has deemed that 18 is the arbitrary age where kids become mature enough to enter into contracts, vote, etc... It may be arbitrary, but since there is no fair way to judge maturity, we need that arbitrary limit. I disagree with letting kids vote because they aren't mature at that age (16 or 17). Some are... but not enough to warrant changing the voting age.

And manipulation by parents is highly likely. I know some people over the age of 21 who are manipulated into voting for who their parents say to vote for. Many people around my age group 18-24 aren't mature enough to be allowed to vote. If we change the limits at all, we should raise the age of military service and voting to 21. We should have one all-purpose limit for voting, drinking, military service, and entering into contracts. I'm fine with 18 being that age. I figure after high school, you are capable enough to do what you want. But not before.

We must have entered the Twilight Zone or something. Not just Sava makes perfect sense but I agree 100% with every word he just said.

[MrFun]

That's what happens when we argue against hare-brained ideas like letting kids vote.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
There is no requirement voters be smart, educated, literate or even sane.

Put those requirements in place and I'll support lowering the voting age.

[OzzyKP]

Fine by me. You do realize however, that half or more of the adult population would be disenfranchised.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
But that argument holds just as well, if not better, for 18 year olds who just finished studying American history and government over a longer period of time. In any case, your argument also works for 14 year olds. Why don't you lower the voting age to 14? How about even lower than that?

No, the argument doesn't, for several reasons:

1) college students don't necessarily take any government courses at all

2) not all 18 year olds go to college (all but a very few 16 year olds are in high school)

3) 16 year olds are actively studying it in a coordinated environment - their learning about the stuff during the election. Not only would it increase interest in the election, because it's relevant to what they're doing in class, but it would increase interest in the class, because it's relevant to the election in which they can actually participate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm well aware that a large number of teenagers work part-time during high school session, as well as during the summer, thank you very much.


My question was, isn't it unusual for 16 year olds to already hold FULL-time jobs -- as well as being unusual that even those exceptions who do have full-time jobs, to work at wages in which they can live as independent adults?

Should welfare recipients be denied the vote?