What Should the Voting Age Be?

[rah]

I'm with Plato.
My daughter turned 18 last year. She kinda goes along with the crowd, but no more than those much older.
But I've seen her attitude about politics mature the last year and feel she's ready to vote today in the primaries. (I'll be upset if she doesn't)

She wasn't ready at 16 and 17 was questionable. IMHO

So 18 seems about right. Any age 17-19 could be argued but I'm satisfied with 18.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by rah
I'm with Plato.
My daughter turned 18 last year. She kinda goes along with the crowd, but no more than those much older.
But I've seen her attitude about politics mature the last year and feel she's ready to vote today in the primaries. (I'll be upset if she doesn't)

She wasn't ready at 16 and 17 was questionable. IMHO

So 18 seems about right. Any age 17-19 could be argued but I'm satisfied with 18.

The development of political interest is a progressive maturation, whose pace changes from person to person. Your daughter became adequately politically prepared at age 18. I was adequately politically prepared at age 14 (I'm dramatically late in other areas of life however). I know people who are just becoming adequately politically prepared in their early twenties.

Ozzy's point is that the political savviness of teenagers would develop sooner, if the teens actually had stakes in politics through the act of voting. A "give them responsibility, and they'll learn to be responsible" kind of argument, which strikes me as true.
Many adults are opposing youth voting rights on the grounds that the young have no political ability. And in Ozzy's view, this lack of political ability comes precisely from the lack of voting rights, from the lack of effective involvement in the life of the polis. As such, the anti-youth-voting-rights strike him as circular logic.

As a dangerous circular logic actually. For a long time, women have been denied political rights because they were damn too dumb to get politically involved (and at that time, indeed, politically involved women were mostly seen as aberrations). From some time, negroes were denied their political rights because they were way too dumb to manage themselves as well.

The sameness in the arguments lead to think that the teens are under a tutelage that has little to no objective reason, and that has everything to do with the current collective representations, be they good-willed or not.
A conclusion of this reasoning is that the unequal rights between the young and the adults is as arbitrary, and as unfair (though with fortunately infinitely less oppression), as the former unequal rights between blacks and whites, between men and women. As a civil rights activist, it's Ozzy's job to change that, just like emancipation and women's liberation was brought for by civil-rights activists.

[rah]

I'll agree that it changes from person to person, which is why I thought anywhere in the 17-19 range could be argued successfully.

On giving it to them younger which in your opinion automatically make them more aware and responsible is what I don't agree with.

Using women and blacks as examples isn't the same so I won't even go into that.

I saw my daughter going through those typical political simulations a few years ago. They learned the process but were not concerned about the issues. When I discussed it with her, she thought she was treating it like most of the others. That helped her prepare for where she is now, but she certainly wasn't prepared then. So I would suggest continuing with the simulations when they're younger so they're ready by the time they can vote.

Some are ready earlier but you have to set a common line when you think most of the will be.

Just my opinion of course

[Japher]

It is sad that it has to be limited by age, seeing as I know some 30 year olds who shouldn't be allowed to vote, IMO

but I don't see any other "fair" way

[rah]

Yes, WHAT other way would be fair.
They tried tests in the past.

[Donegeal]

Political test would be impossible to undertake without bias. What about my suggestion of a GED type test? Resoning is that if a teen in HS is capable of passing a General Education test, then they are capable of voting with reason.

[rah]

ANY type of test given would have people screaming bias even if it wasn't. Besides, we can't discriminate against illiterate people.

[Donegeal]

Hey... it would only be for teens who are not 18 that a) want to vote, and b) can pass a GED test (my bet is if an illiterate wanted to vote before they were 18, they'd learn to read and write!).

Don't change the test at all. Leave it just like it is.

Sorta like driving. People forget the 18 is the legal age of driving unless you pass a Drivers Education course. Only then can you drive at 16.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Hey... it would only be for teens who are not 18 that a) want to vote, and b) can pass a GED test (my bet is if an illiterate wanted to vote before they were 18, they'd learn to read and write!).

Don't change the test at all. Leave it just like it is.

Sorta like driving. People forget the 18 is the legal age of driving unless you pass a Drivers Education course. Only then can you drive at 16.

Since when?

(Obviously since I was 16 (1983), but I was wondering when that law changed... or is it a state by state thing?)

[Donegeal]

Most likely its state by state (as you get a state issued DL), but I thought it was country wide.

Here in Wisconsin, you can get a DL without passing a Drivers Education course when you are 18 (there is a written exam at the DMV irregardless of wether or not you pass a DE course). You may only get a DL before then by passing a DE course...

Oh yeah... you never took a Drivers Ed course in HS?

If you are going to Apolycon '06, be careful when driving!!!

[Wycoff]

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.

That's because "competancy to stand trial" is an incredibly low standard. You just have to understand that you're in some sort of court room, that you're being accused of something, and that you can go to jail. It's very difficult for people to be ruled incompetant to stand trial.

EDIT: I see that Gepap has beaten me to this point.

[OzzyKP]

And you think voting is such an incredibly high standard?

Have you seen the people out there voting?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The development of political interest is a progressive maturation, whose pace changes from person to person. Your daughter became adequately politically prepared at age 18. I was adequately politically prepared at age 14 (I'm dramatically late in other areas of life however). I know people who are just becoming adequately politically prepared in their early twenties.

Ozzy's point is that the political savviness of teenagers would develop sooner, if the teens actually had stakes in politics through the act of voting. A "give them responsibility, and they'll learn to be responsible" kind of argument, which strikes me as true.
Many adults are opposing youth voting rights on the grounds that the young have no political ability. And in Ozzy's view, this lack of political ability comes precisely from the lack of voting rights, from the lack of effective involvement in the life of the polis. As such, the anti-youth-voting-rights strike him as circular logic.

As a dangerous circular logic actually. For a long time, women have been denied political rights because they were damn too dumb to get politically involved (and at that time, indeed, politically involved women were mostly seen as aberrations). From some time, negroes were denied their political rights because they were way too dumb to manage themselves as well.

The sameness in the arguments lead to think that the teens are under a tutelage that has little to no objective reason, and that has everything to do with the current collective representations, be they good-willed or not.
A conclusion of this reasoning is that the unequal rights between the young and the adults is as arbitrary, and as unfair (though with fortunately infinitely less oppression), as the former unequal rights between blacks and whites, between men and women. As a civil rights activist, it's Ozzy's job to change that, just like emancipation and women's liberation was brought for by civil-rights activists.

Amazingly well put.

Right on Spiff

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I'm gonna make this very, very simple:

No voting age.

BUT

You can't vote if anyone is claiming you as a dependent on a tax return.

[Jon Miller]

that might work

but you would also need to change the law so that it is always ecnomically beneficial to be claimed on a tax return

JM