Lower the voting age in America to 16

[Lovebug]

Then you just disqualified your original comment about adults getting mad at masks or some shit.

16 year olds don't know what's going on. They're not ready

You can't interact while wearing a mask?

 

[reinaert]

Here is NH's constitution. I chose it because I live here, but also because it shows another hurdle faced by proponents of this change:

Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile. No person shall have the right to vote under the constitution of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the supreme court may, on notice to the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of such offenses. The general court shall provide by law for voting by qualified voters who at the time of the biennial or state elections, or of the primary elections therefor, or of city elections, or of town elections by official ballot, are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person, in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. Voting registration and polling places shall be easily accessible to all persons including disabled and elderly persons who are otherwise qualified to vote in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. The right to vote shall not be denied to any person because of the non payment of any tax. Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.
June 2, 1784
Amended 1903 to provide that in order to vote or be eligible for office a person must be able to read the English language and to write.
Amended 1912 to prohibit those convicted of treason, bribery or willfull violation of the election laws from voting or holding elective office.
Amended 1942 to provide for absentee voting in general elections.
Amended 1956 to provide for absentee voting in primary elections.
Amended 1968 to provide right to vote not denied because of nonpayment of taxes. Also amended in 1968 to delete an obsolete phrase.
Amended 1976 to reduce voting age to 18.
Amended 1984 to provide accessibility to all registration and polling places.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I'm skeptical, but I'll allow you to explain. In what way do you feel a vote is a legally binding contract. And I ask it that way because it is the context in which you've brought it up.

Please tell me how you think a vote is a legally binding contract, rather than simply a way we've chosen to allow citizens to have a voice in government.

Circular argument. "These people can't do this thing because the people who won't let them do this thing have decided they can't do this thing".

There's zero reason they can't be expected to have the option to vote.

I actually agree and disagree with this. I think it does have to do with ageism, but ageism is merely the mechanism for the real reason, which is money and power. The more young people start to have a voice, the more and sooner they may be able to wield political power. And that's a threat to those who already have money and power.

No, it does not. Do you want to know how I know this? Because humans don't reach full cognitive development until around 25 and we allow those with learning disabilities to vote as well.

Again, circular argument is circular.

The affidavit asserting you are who you say you are.

That's the funny thing about laws, they are usually enacted because people have decided something. Laws may be circular thinking but that doesn't always mean they are wrong.

You may be right about money and power but for better or worse, our society considers someone an adult at age 18 and able to make their own decisions.

Repeating your argument over and over despite refutations isn't convincing either.

 

[reinaert]

Here is Massachusetts:

Section 1. Every citizen eighteen years of age or older, not being a person under guardianship or incarcerated in a correctional facility due to a felony conviction, and not being temporarily or permanently disqualified by law because of corrupt practices in respect to elections, who is a resident in the city or town where he claims the right to vote at the time he registers, and who has complied with the requirements of this chapter, may have his name entered on the list of voters in such city or town, and may vote therein in any such election, or except insofar as restricted in any town in which a representative town meeting form of government has been established, in any meeting held for the transaction of town affairs. Notwithstanding any special law to the contrary, every such citizen who resides within the boundaries of any district, as defined in section one A of chapter forty-one, may vote for district officers and in any district meeting thereof, and no other person may so vote. A person otherwise qualified to vote for national or state officers shall not, by reason of a change of residence within the commonwealth, be disqualified from voting for such national or state officers in the city or town from which he has removed his residence until the expiration of 6 months from such removal.

(Emphasis mine).

 

[Lovebug]

There's no "knowledge" or "experience" requirement listed anywhere in any state to vote. You are making this up.

Furthermore, if there was a "knowledge and experience" requirement, that would remove MANY voters over the age of 18 as well.

You are coming up with completely uncompelling arguments.

Oh, well, a year and a half later will make all the difference then. *eye roll*

Then you probably wouldn't have voted. And that's fine. But those who do care should be allowed to vote. And the whole "they aren't knowledgeable enough" argument is nothing more than bigoted nonsense.

I would argue that many adults are less informed than 16 year old who are interested in the process.

Adulthood has been established to occur at 18 years old for a long time now. One is capable of (but not limited to) entering legal contracts with other entities and recognized as individuals able to legally do so. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The only way a 16 year can vote or enter legal contracts without a secondary figure (such as a patent) is if they are emancipated.

Voting is not a legal contract.
I don't think this is a question that is easily answered. If we require the qualifications being that one is of sound and discerning mind that would leave many adults out.

 

[reinaert]

I would argue that many adults are less informed than 16 year old who are interested in the process.

Voting is not a legal contract.
I don't think this is a question that is easily answered. If we require the qualifications being that one is of sound and discerning mind that would leave many adults out.

In any state/municipality where affirmation of residency is required under penalty of law, it is a contract with the town, city, county or state. The person to whom you swear your residency isn't any schmoe. They have to be vested with something like notary power, either by election or appointment.

 

[choiceone]

Actually one side of the issue its pro-life and the other side pro-death.

Pro-choice people are not pro-death. Ordinarily, they know that women are persons and do not believe that pre-viable fetuses are persons or even have their own life, because if the women die, so do they. In the US, at least, human life has never had any rights - only persons have them.

 

[choiceone]

If 70 year olds can pull themselves away from Fox News, then young people can get away from video games.

I just read an opinion piece by an old progressive guy who knew lots of other progressives who were looking forward to voting to the left on Election Day. And I still recall a time, perhaps 10-15 years ago, reading about two old women in Florida - one turned to the other annoyed by the misogynists and said, "I'm sick of this. Let's riot."

But, even if they didn't, so what? At least they'd have the opportunity.

How can you see the stupid comments posted on an everyday basis on this forum and then claim "sufficiently educated" is a valid criteria?

I do somewhat agree with this. Though I usually tutored adults, a few clients were in middle & high school, and they were way better than some of the posted comments suggest.

Oh, here's a thought...maybe if they could vote, they could make changes to the law that would allow them to drive, join the military, drink, get married, smoke, etc.

In other words, if you give them a voice, who knows what they'll be legally allowed to do.

---

 

[Gordy327]

I would argue that many adults are less informed than 16 year old who are interested in the process.

I don't think you're entirely wrong about that.

Voting is not a legal contract.

I didn't say it is. But being a legal adult is required.

I don't think this is a question that is easily answered. If we require the qualifications being that one is of sound and discerning mind that would leave many adults out.

The requirements are one should be a legal adult citizen, likely with proof of residency. While many adults are of questionable mentality, that does not automatically disqualify them from voting. But hey, no system is perfect, right?

 

[Gordy327]

Actually one side of the issue its pro-life and the other side pro-death.

That is an erroneously disingenuous statement.

 

[jpevans]

One is also not a frog, but I fail to see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

What does being "an adult" actually mean in any real sense? It's completely arbitrary.

All I know is I wasn’t qualified to vote at 16. Maybe you think you were

 

[jpevans]

The people of California voted to enshrine traditional marriage into law in 2008 and the Democratic Party immediately supported a legal challenge to the law and the Democratic attorney general refused to defend it in court with the objective of getting it overturned. It was to deny people their voice on the issue.

Oh restricting Civil rights of non traditional couples. Civil right should not be denied by majority vote.

 

[Ren]

So are trumptards, and they get to vote.

Oh, you mean Donald Trump supporters. Hell, they all should get three or four votes each. The ones who really need their voting privileges revoked are the Bidenettes. Those idiots helped Depends Diapers' most famous spokesman into the WH. I hope he doesn't make too much of a mess.

 

[Ren]

You can't interact while wearing a mask?

Too inhibiting. I say burn all masks or just leave them to hospitals and construction sites.

 

[What if...?]

Oh, you mean Donald Trump supporters. Hell, they all should get three or four votes each. The ones who really need their voting privileges revoked are the Bidenettes. Those idiots helped Depends Diapers' most famous spokesman into the WH. I hope he doesn't make too much of a mess.

Your definition of “mess” is obviously completely different from the one I read in the dictionary when I was seven.

 

[Ren]

Your definition of “mess” is obviously completely different from the one I read in the dictionary when I was seven.

Your understanding of anything is suspect. I suggest you just stick to opinions.

 

[Lovebug]

In any state/municipality where affirmation of residency is required under penalty of law, it is a contract with the town, city, county or state. The person to whom you swear your residency isn't any schmoe. They have to be vested with something like notary power, either by election or appointment.

I don't understand.

 

[Slyfox696]

All I know is I wasn’t qualified to vote at 16. Maybe you think you were

I was. More so than a significant number of people I see posting on these forums.

I would argue that many adults are less informed than 16 year old who are interested in the process.

You wouldn't have to argue very hard. I'm sure there's plenty of research out there in support of this, but as people get older, they tend to challenge their own ideas and beliefs less and less. So a 65 year old man who has been a Republican for 30 years is far less likely to care about issues than he is about voting for his team.

Voting is not a legal contract.

This.

The affidavit asserting you are who you say you are.

16 year olds are often asked to confirm they are who they say they are. Try taking the SAT or ACT without presenting ID...doesn't work. They apply and receive jobs. Drivers licenses. 16 year olds are regularly asked to confirm their identity, so if this is your argument, it does not hold up in the face of reality.

That's the funny thing about laws, they are usually enacted because people have decided something. Laws may be circular thinking but that doesn't always mean they are wrong.

But it does mean it is a terrible argument for you to make. "We shouldn't change the law because it is the law" is a worthless argument and not one you should waste either of our time with...and I say that as someone with absolutely very little to do right now.

You may be right about money and power

I am. And I don't mean that to sound arrogant, I'm just saying that's exactly what it is. And once you realize that is the underlying current, it makes you realize just how thin the arguments against empowering younger people are.

but for better or worse, our society considers someone an adult at age 18 and able to make their own decisions.

But this isn't true either. Our society does graduated adulthood in so many ways. They can get jobs before they are 18. They can drive on their own. They can buy their own goods. They can engage in sexual activity or get married. Without intending to open a can of political worms, numerous state governments are literally demanding girls who are 16 become mothers should they become pregnant.

There's no hard and fast rule in America that says you can't do anything adult like until 18. Hell, even when you're 18, you still can't legally purchase alcohol, so 18 isn't even a threshhold for full adulthood.

If a 16 year old is mature enough and old enough to make decisions for an infant (as several states have now codified into law), they should be considered mature and old enough to vote.

Repeating your argument over and over despite refutations isn't convincing either.

But they are not being refuted. Replies which engage in circular reasoning are not refutations, they are deflections and dodges.

 

[What if...?]

Your understanding of anything is suspect. I suggest you just stick to opinions.

Sure. You do you. It used to make me sad they’ve made you this way.

Now I just laugh. They’re having a hard time keeping y’all’s minds hemmed in these days.

 

[Ren]

Sure. You do you. It used to make me sad they’ve made you this way.

Now I just laugh. They’re having a hard time keeping y’all’s minds hemmed in these days.

That's funny coming from someone who's opposed to free speech.

Cancel culture is one of the left's shittiest accomplishments.

 

[What if...?]

That's funny coming from someone who's opposed to free speech.

Cancel culture is one of the left's shittiest accomplishments.

There is nothing in the constitution that says I can’t tell you to shut up.

I cannot infringe on your free speech rights. Only a state actor can do that.

And I can tell someone to get the **** off my message board for saying stupid Shit for exactly the same em reason I can throw you out of my house for saying stupid Shit. It’s my property. What I say goes.

 

[Slyfox696]

I wasn't appealing to the decisions themselves, but rather the reasons behind those decisions. The reasons we don't let 16 year olds decide to join the military or get married or consent to having sex with an adult is because they're not ready mentally. Those same reasons apply for voting.

But who decided they weren't mentally ready? That's my point. You can't deprive a group of their voice and then say "oh well, they don't have a voice". That's circular.

What differentiates a 16-year-old from a 15-year-old in terms of maturity? Why should we stop at 16 and not go straight to 15? Or 14? What criteria are you basing voting readiness on that 16-year-olds meet but a 15-year-old doesn't?

These are great questions, absolutely. I don't have an answer for how far down the ladder we should go, though I'm currently inclined to stop at 16 (I've been teaching school for a decade and a half and there are certain benchmarks where kids clearly mature...5th into 6th, 7th into 8th and 9th into 10th are the biggest markers generally, in my experience). The differences between a 16 year old and an 18 year old are not so significant, though they are just as present as the difference between 18 and 20.

Which is why we should not lower the voting age. At 18 you are already not fully developed, 16 even more so.

Why do you have to be "fully developed" to participate in society? That doesn't make sense. It's not "fully developed" which should be the standard but "competently developed". And 16 year olds are competent.

I cited a scientific study that proves my point. Please address the study.

A) Your study is from nearly 60 years ago. I odn't have to tell you how much society has changed in the last 60 years, particularly with the vast improvements in technology.
B) I see no evidence in the preview that it compares teens to those in their 70s.
C) Your link is only a preview, I do not have the full study.
D) You've presented one study...what relevance does it have in this field? Is it considered a seminal study in the field? Is it often referenced by others, particularly in modern times? Genuine questions.

These examples do not trump a scientific experiment as evidence

A single scientific experiment, particularly in behavior, from 60 years ago doesn't move me. You need to support your study's credibility before I consider your argument worthy of investigation.

, and teenagers also are influenced propaganda, religion, and sports

Sure they are. My point is not that they aren't, but that ALL ages are susceptible, particularly in the social media era. But it is also well-established in common knowledge teenagers tend to be more rebellious and more willing to open their mind to alternatives to what they've been taught...which is not something that is commonly said about the oldest in our society. We also regularly see the youth in America bucking the preferences and traditions of the generations that come before them. That's why Facebook moved MySpace to the dustbin of history and TikTok is now the most popular social media service.

, even more so than adults because they are more susceptible to social influence.

Again, thousands of people tried to overthrow the government based on the obvious lies of a serial liar and his unserious attorneys. I'm just not going to cede this argument to you absent legitimate evidence beyond one experiment from 60 years ago.

A 16-year-old might vote one way at 16, then three years later have to live with the results of a poorly made decision of an underdeveloped mind...

Uhh, how do you explain the fact America hasn't voted a member of the same party President for three terms in a row in over 30 years? How do you explain the fact the sitting President's party traditionally suffers big losses in midterm Congressional elections?

Voting one way and then living with the results, perhaps changing their vote late, is the norm on the macro scale in America. There's no good reason 16 year olds shouldn't be allowed to do the same.

 

[Ren]

There is nothing in the constitution that says I can’t tell you to shut up.

And there's nothing in the constitution that says I can't tell you like it is.

I cannot infringe on your free speech rights. Only a state actor can do that.

You can voice your support of anti-free speech, which i'm sure is what you do.

And I can tell someone to get the **** off my message board for saying stupid Shit for exactly the same em reason I can throw you out of my house for saying stupid Shit. It’s my property. What I say goes.

I can do the same. What's your point?

 

[What if...?]

And there's nothing in the constitution that says I can't tell you like it is.

You can voice your support of anti-free speech, which i'm sure is what you do.

I can do the same. What's your point?

I did speak out when deSantorum punished Disney for things they said.

Did you?

 

[Ren]

I did speak out when deSantorum punished Disney for things they said.

Did you?

DeSantis was right. Disney has no business ****ing with kids.