What Should the Voting Age Be?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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.

16 and 17 year olds are a very limited number of people, so extending voting rights to them would hardly lead to significant voter participation in and of itself.

Most of us have not seen any persuasive evidence that the average 16 year old (and almost everyone here has been 16 already, so we all know ourselves at that age) is capable of having the mental or emotional capabilities to vote. Ozzy can continue to argue all he wants. It just seems he needs to get better evidence.

And at least for me, his statements that voting is some inate right, or that the position of teens is comparable to that of oppressed minorities or mayorities (women outnumber men) falls flat, very flat.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BlackCat


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.

not always...

people constrain others based upon age

I agree that now days, people aren't mature until their 20s often

but that is because of society, and even in our soceity, in the poorer parts of it, people must be responsible earlier...

than people mature earlier.. no matter how their bodies are changing

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


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"

Well, that actually makes sense, but what is the connection to the subject ? Am I missing something about the age at wich you can join the military in us ?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


16 and 17 year olds are a very limited number of people, so extending voting rights to them would hardly lead to significant voter participation in and of itself.

Most of us have not seen any persuasive evidence that the average 16 year old (and almost everyone here has been 16 already, so we all know ourselves at that age) is capable of having the mental or emotional capabilities to vote. Ozzy can continue to argue all he wants. It just seems he needs to get better evidence.

And at least for me, his statements that voting is some inate right, or that the position of teens is comparable to that of oppressed minorities or mayorities (women outnumber men) falls flat, very flat.

I think the average 16 yearold is just as qualified to vote as the average 20 yearold

JM

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by 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

What the author is saying is that people under 20 lack the impulse control and ability to forsee the results of actions of adults. This shoudln't come as a shock to anyone, I would think.

[OzzyKP]

That second link is a bit fishy, so instead here is an article about the study:

http://www.youthrights.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5748

[GePap]

Being capable of knowing that ones actions are judges to be right or wrong, and understanding that there are possible consequences for their actions(what being competent for trial means) is a different standard than say being able to sit on a jury judging the legal complexities involved.

[Jon Miller]

I see a lack of impulse control just as often in 'adults' as in 'teenagers'

I would like to point out that the scientific study of the brain is very volatile, and can change completely in the span of a decade...

JM

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Well, that actually makes sense, but what is the connection to the subject ? Am I missing something about the age at wich you can join the military in us ?

you have to be 18 to join the us military, or 17 with parental consent.

My point is, I want voters to be responsible for their decisions.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


What the author is saying is that people under 20 lack the impulse control and ability to forsee the results of actions of adults. This shoudln't come as a shock to anyone, I would think.

But again, you can't determine that purely by dissecting tissue. It is an absurd notion.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


not always...

people constrain others based upon age

I agree that now days, people aren't mature until their 20s often

but that is because of society, and even in our soceity, in the poorer parts of it, people must be responsible earlier...

than people mature earlier.. no matter how their bodies are changing

JM

Just out of curiosity - what other measure would you suggest other than age ?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by 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

Thanks!

Originally posted by OzzyKP
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.

Don't take it personally, Ozzy, I'm trying to make you work at your position, its good for you, no reason to get snippy.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Just out of curiosity - what other measure would you suggest other than age ?

Responsibility. Relevant questions could be:

Do you have a child?

Do you work more than 20 hours a week?

Do you supply >50% of your needs (food, shelter, clothing).

Do you live with parents/guardians?

Are you married?

JM

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
But again, you can't determine that purely by dissecting tissue. It is an absurd notion.

No, but it is a useful tool. And again, I'm not an expert in that field, merely a layman.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Responsibility. Relevant questions could be:

Do you have a child?

Do you work more than 20 hours a week?

Do you supply >50% of your needs (food, shelter, clothing).

Do you live with parents/guardians?

Are you married?

JM

Well, that would send the average way above 25

Especially if study doesn't count as work.