Lower the voting age in America to 16

[OpportunityCost]

Liz Cheney is just the mostl well known person the R’s have canceled.

She wasn't cancelled, she was voted out of office. That's how democracy actually works.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Then how is it a Democratic Party scheme? It's only a "scheme" if you concede Republicans can't win their vote. You do realize this, correct?

I'm sorry if basic math is too hard for you to deal with. I already conceded that Republicans won't win the vote of the majority of young people. That doesn't mean we should let 16 year olds or 9 year olds vote, or that Republicans' policies are worse overall. The country is made up of a lot more than just young people, and young people almost all eventually become old people.

Letting 16 year olds vote should be addressed on its own merits. I submit that the merits are piss-poor, and haven't seen a single good argument for doing it. But let's not pretend that Dems would be pushing for this if they expected a 50/50 breakdown or worse for themselves.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I don't think we need a constitutional amendment, but if some states want to lower their voting ages to 16, I'm fine with that.

It could be good to have more input from current public school students, since the government plays such a large role in education.

The only way to do it obviously would be to pass a constitutional amendment.

Of course, lowering the minimum voting age to 16 would be idiotic. People usually cannot even take driver's education classes before they are 16 and in some states, they have to be older than that. Government classes are only taught to 12th grade students. It is very easy to see why. As it is, America is still struggling to make more high school seniors and college freshmen interested in voting.

Something I learned in government class is in Nebraska and Ohio (not sure about other states), 17-year old people can vote in the primaries if their 18th birthday is before the general election in November. However, they are blocked from voting on tax issues for a logical reason: most of them do not pay taxes.

 

[Gatsby]

The only way to do it obviously would be to pass a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution only forbids states from raising the voting age above 18. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits them from lowering it, if they want to.

 

[Hamish Howl]

She wasn't cancelled, she was voted out of office. That's how democracy actually works.

Was that before or after they censured her?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Was that before or after they censured her?

The party reps in her state? You think membership and funding doesn't have strings attached?

 

[Parrish]

Was that before or after they censured her?

It was when they lost their sh**.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The party reps in her state? You think membership and funding doesn't have strings attached?

Strings like staying silent in the face of treason?

Sorry, that cost is too high.

 

[Parrish]

The party reps in her state? You think membership and funding doesn't have strings attached?

You do know that the WY Bar has condemned her pro-stolen election stance?

 

[Fishking]

Sure let’s raise the age to 25 for joining the military, buying guns & booze, getting credit driving etc.

I wouldn't argue against it.

 

[natman]

18 is fine. And it's only that low because we draft at that age.

Not for the last half century.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Agree. To the obvious objection that 16 yo's are too silly or irresponsible to vote "correctly", there's no reason to think such youth would bother to vote at all.

 

[The Mark]

Grace Meng (D-NY) announced today that she reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives to lower the voting age in America to 16 years old.

Meng’s measure seeks to replace the 26th amendment to the United States Constitution with a new amendment that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

Meng Reintroduces Legislation to Lower the Voting Age in America to 16 Years Old

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep.

meng.house.gov

Not sure I'd trust 16 year old me to make a good choice at the polls.

But I have a suspicion that newer generations are smarter than the older ones.

 

[trouble13]

Do they then have the right to wed by default? Hold office? Carry a gun? Drink?

Pay taxes, be tried as an adult, purchase alchol, etc... etc... etc...

If any change is made; We should raise the voting age to 21yrs or older.

 

[jdog21]

Grace Meng (D-NY) announced today that she reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives to lower the voting age in America to 16 years old.

Meng’s measure seeks to replace the 26th amendment to the United States Constitution with a new amendment that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

Meng Reintroduces Legislation to Lower the Voting Age in America to 16 Years Old

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep.

meng.house.gov

Make a poll asking if people believe we should raise the voting age to 21?
I wonder what the ratio would be

 

[Ug make hammer]

Most European countries have an alcohol sale ban under 18, but many of them permit actual consumption below that. There are negative health costs to that, but famously less alcohol-related violence. I think the Europeans have it right, and America has it wrong. Banning alcohol until after an age that young people have usually been tempted by other drugs, is really dumb moralistic law which does not protect health or reduce violence. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, yes, but unlike other drugs there are social safeguards: we look down on people who "can't hold their liquor" ie drink too much at any one time.

Marriage is a better example, since every decent country on Earth has a standard age of 18, with marriage below that age only with consent of parents and/or courts. The US is not out of the ordinary. However, marriage is a contract with serious personal consequences, and it does not follow that 16 year olds need to be protected from the consequence of voting.

16 year olds can get a job, so there's no valid analogy there. In fact, paying taxes on income should entitle them to a say in government. Maybe they don't trust government to pay back their Social Security contributions, fifty years from now, and I can say that I blame them.

So much for 'argument by analogy.' My principled decision is that EVERYONE should vote, unless there is a demonstrable reason why they can't be trusted to do so. Young children very likely don't understand the issues, and their vote would amount to a bonus vote for whichever parent influences them most. Serious criminals, serving life or life-without-parole, can be assumed to have antisocial wants from government (eg to be let loose) but I don't think it's sound to make that assumption of lesser criminals. Criminals more than anyone else are governed, and deserve a say in prison conditions ... which is not harmful if their votes are diluted by the vastly more numerous citizens. Certainly when they're released, ex-cons should get their voting rights back.

In short, it's not incumbent on me to prove why anyone should be allowed to vote. Voting is a right, to me, and the onus is on anyone denying to vote, to prove why that is socially beneficial.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You do know that the WY Bar has condemned her pro-stolen election stance?

At least source something like that, because my understanding was she was anti-stolen election stance.

Clarify?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Strings like staying silent in the face of treason?

Sorry, that cost is too high.

Did you know that when you mix hyperbole and bullshit you get more of both? Wait, I know you do, your posts are an example of that.

 

[jpevans]

She wasn't cancelled, she was voted out of office. That's how democracy actually works.

She was voted out because the R's canceled her. Not for her vote, she voted 98% party line. But because she showed some integrity, telling the truth about the election & the Insurrection. There are few if any R's that could match her conservatives voting record.
D's may take canceling a person for misdeeds to extremes, but they had to do something against party beliefs. Liz Cheney is the last of the true conservative Republicans & MAGA did the canceling.

 

[grip]

The last thing we need is pimply face kids deciding who runs the country. Voting age, young adults are immature enough.

 

[jpevans]

Not sure I'd trust 16 year old me to make a good choice at the polls.

But I have a suspicion that newer generations are smarter than the older ones.

There are levels of smarts. It's like trivial pursuit. I kick ass on the 1960's edition. The phone in hand ones know more trivia from the Tic Tok era.

 

[jpevans]

At least source something like that, because my understanding was she was anti-stolen election stance.

Clarify?

Sounds like he's promoting the Joe stole the election meme.

 

[jpevans]

Did you know that when you mix hyperbole and bullshit you get more of both? Wait, I know you do, your posts are an example of that.

You get a Drumpf Rally.

 

[Slyfox696]

Because 16 yr olds Can mature. If a 40 yr old hasn’t yet, he/she prob’ly won’t.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for letting one vote and not another.

Its the same retarded bullshit, I read it just fine.

In other words, you don't have valid arguments and your "voting is a contract" nonsense went nowhere and you know it. Got it.

I'm sorry if basic math is too hard for you to deal with. I already conceded that Republicans won't win the vote of the majority of young people.

Which A) says a lot about Republicans and B) shows your interest in keeping them from voting is entirely partisan based. Which means your position is 100% hypocritical.

That doesn't mean we should let 16 year olds or 9 year olds vote, or that Republicans' policies are worse overall.

No, Republican policies being worse overall are definitely not just related to the fact young people are less likely to support them. There are many reasons on their own why Republican policies are worse overall.

The country is made up of a lot more than just young people

But they already get to vote. So....

Letting 16 year olds vote should be addressed on its own merits.

But you're not doing that. You're dismissing their ability to vote because you think it will cost you political power. Which is why your position is hypocritical.

I submit that the merits are piss-poor

But are unwilling to support your submission.

, and haven't seen a single good argument for doing it.

You don't think increasing democracy is a good argument? No wonder you vote Republican!

But let's not pretend that Dems would be pushing for this if they expected a 50/50 breakdown or worse for themselves.

I couldn't care less which party supports it...it should be done whether Republicans or Democrats support it.

 

[jpevans]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for letting one vote and not another.

For every Greta Thunberg, there is a thousand Tic Toc addicted, unawares, who haven't had to work outside the home & many who don't even make their own bed. Another 2 years seasoning will more prepare them to vote. One election cycle. Most will have graduated HS & either joined the workforce or went on to higher education.
If for some reason the teenybopper vote was passed, we'll live with it, I just think those two years seasoning are needed for most kids.