What Should the Voting Age Be?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Of course it's arbitrary, and it will continue to be arbitrary, but it should be arbitrary to the benefit of our political system(s).

I agree completely. For me, the age of 18 is vastly more preferable to a younger age due to the results of studies and papers such as this one

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel except, that you must admit the line must be drawn somewhere, at some point, and that will be no different than this one, which according to Ozzy and you is completely arbitrary.

It would be different in that additional taxpayers, citizens, and productive members of our society would be given a voice in the opperation of their government.

If we accept that voting is a positive thing to have, then expanding it would simply expand the reach of a good thing. If it is expanded by 1 person, 10 million or 100 million people, it is still a net positive and should be supported.

Simple laziness is not an adaquate defense of the status quo.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


The situation between women and kids is not, nor will it ever be, remotely similar. Ditto with any canards about race and age.

Age changes by itself. UNless killed, a 16 year old will become an 18 year old in a relatively short amoutn of time. Women turning into men, or people changing race, well, lets say that is a wee bit harder, NO?

Then why not move the vote back to 21? Why not 35?

Why is 18 such hallowed ground?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Military service has until now been a minor issue in this thread, but I really don't like the thought of 16 year old soldiers.

I brought that up becasue the voting age was lowered in the US from 21 to 18 due to in a large part, the sending of US 18 year olds to Vietnam, the old "if you can die for your country, you should be able to have some voting power over who sends you to war"

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I don't see ability to think for one's-self to be a big problem. Plenty of 'adults' as currently defined have a hard time thinking for themselves, and I've seen many under 18 who are fully capable of independent thinking.

I think that we all can agree on that there are several above 18 that shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that there are several below 18 that equally should be allowed.

The question is actually how you decide who is allowed to vote and who isn't.

Are you suggesting some kind of court that is to decide wether a person is capable to vote or not ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Then why not move the vote back to 21? Why not 35?

Why is 18 such hallowed ground?

Society has decided that that is the earliest age at which the average individual is mentally, emotionally and physically capable of handling all the responsibilities and rights of full citizenship. As such, they should have both the responsibilities (military service, jury duty) and rights (suffrage) of citizenship.

The polity as a whole, heck, the majority here, do not feel that the average 16 year old is either mentally, emotionally, or physically capable of partaking in all the duties or rights of citizenship.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel I agree completely. For me, the age of 18 is vastly more preferable to a younger age due to the results of studies and papers such as this one

Brain development nonsense like what you posted is the worst crime being perpetrated in this whole ongoing discussion about the rights of youth. Look at that article, you will see a lot of talk about dissections, brain imaging, donated brain tissue and the like.

Dissecting the brains of dead people does not tell you how they think. Nor does doing MRIs of live people.

Making such grand extrapolations from purely biological is as absurd as dissecting an arm to learn how Roger Clemons pitches.

On the contrary, studies looking at actual cognitive ability and decision making among youth have shown that adult levels of understanding and reasoning are universal at 13 or 14.

You won't see any information on moral reasoning and judgement in a slice of dead tissue. Sorry.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If we accept that voting is a positive thing to have, then expanding it would simply expand the reach of a good thing. If it is expanded by 1 person, 10 million or 100 million people, it is still a net positive and should be supported.

I just posted an article on the immaturity of the juvenile brain. Since there has to be an age line drawn somewhere, I'd rather it be left closer to the mature brain, k?

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Simple laziness is not an adaquate defense of the status quo.

Laziness is posting rhetoric without providing any evidence to back it up.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


I agree completely. For me, the age of 18 is vastly more preferable to a younger age due to the results of studies and papers such as this one

That's interesting, and if anything leads to 21 being the proper age for the vote, assuming that eligibility for the death penalty is linked to voting age.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Brain development nonsense like what you posted is the worst crime being perpetrated in this whole ongoing discussion about the rights of youth. Look at that article, you will see a lot of talk about dissections, brain imaging, donated brain tissue and the like.

Dissecting the brains of dead people does not tell you how they think. Nor does doing MRIs of live people.

Making such grand extrapolations from purely biological is as absurd as dissecting an arm to learn how Roger Clemons pitches.

On the contrary, studies looking at actual cognitive ability and decision making among youth have shown that adult levels of understanding and reasoning are universal at 13 or 14.

You won't see any information on moral reasoning and judgement in a slice of dead tissue. Sorry.

Hmm. Listenting to phds in Psychology or listening to an admittedly biased internet poster.

If you have studies on cognitive ability, then please post links, I've asked several times now.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Society has decided that that is the earliest age at which the average individual is mentally, emotionally and physically capable of handling all the responsibilities and rights of full citizenship. As such, they should have both the responsibilities (military service, jury duty) and rights (suffrage) of citizenship.

The polity as a whole, heck, the majority here, do not feel that the average 16 year old is either mentally, emotionally, or physically capable of partaking in all the duties or rights of citizenship.

You'd make a great conservative. That's the way it is now, and people agree with it. End of debate.

We're talking about whether it could be better and trying to ascertain what would be better.

I'm not sold on 16 or 14 as a voting age. I'd need to see more about it, but I think it should be looked at if it could lead to higher voter participation.

[Jon Miller]

I could see some using that study to say that children aren't really people until 22.. can't think like people, etc

this is obviously false (look at all that was done in history by people between the ages of 14 and 22, even younger at times)

just because the brain is changing, doesn't mean that it isn't functional

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You don't seem to like the thought of 16 year old anything, other than children with no autonomy or responsibility.

Not that that's bad as an opinion, but it's out of step with things here, and in most places I would think.

Well, one thing is that 16 year old soldiers is just cannon fodder. No sane military commander wants such - what they want is mature and independent soldiers that can act on their own - that hardly fits a 16 year old girl or boy.

[asleepathewheel]

Q for Ozzy:

I believe that voting isn't a right, but instead a responsibilty. As such, I'm curious as to where you stand on the following, and what if any changes to the ages required you desire:

1. Juveniles serving in the armed services
2. Juveniles being held accountable for contracts entered into.
3. Juveniles being tried as adults for crimes.
4. Juveniles being executed for capital crimes, or serving sentences in adult penitentiaries.
5. Juveniles receiving child support
6. Juveniles being allowed to work 40 hour weeks.

[OzzyKP]

To get you started here is a study that shows that 16 year olds demonstrate exactly the same rationality as adults to determine competency to stand trial. It also shows that the majority of 11-15 year olds are competent.

http://www.youthrights.org/juvcomp.pdf

This study reaches the conclusion that youth are able to comprehend and make sound decisions on end of life choices:

http://www.jhpn.com/pt/re/jhospicepa...7000-00014.htm;jsessionid=EcxDzG173S5fDul7yuMIzZ9W3ttzCBLdJZqpz3 xk3sdqAwQgOGMb!169259080!-949856144!9001!-1

Looking for earlier studies by Piaget and others will take some time, and if I honestly believed you would consider them with an open mind I'd go search for them for you. But otherwise you've got the two above.