Washington, D.C., may allow 16-year-olds to vote for president in 2020 - Polidicks

Because the media works that way and the way the system is is precisely why we need to push for more informed voters. There are other ways you can get teenagers involved in politics without haphazardly giving them voting rights. In my senior year of high school, we took a required and very involved American Government class that introduced us to the ins and outs of how our government works and let us debate some topical political issues, complete with a mock session of congress. I thought it was incredibly helpful and motivating. That's not to mention activism groups and other organizations that they can be a part of as well. Things like that can acclimate them to the politics and get a feel for things before they go out and vote, rather than using something as weighty or significant as voting itself. Would it have a substantial impact on elections as a whole? Probably not, but voting is something I think we should take pretty seriously and not use it as a motivator in itself. Voting should be the effect, not the cause of political involvement.

I didn't present one. I'm asking what yours is.

Imagine the smug parent facebook posts if this goes through "JUST VOTED FOR MY CANDIDATE WHY, AND MY SON/DAUGHTER VOTED FOR CANDIDATE WHY TOO! ISN'T THAT GREAT!" picture of parent looking waaay too happy for this compared to the kid, whose holding a sign/voting buttons

With how low the bar has become with voters, I'm not opposed to teenagers - ones that will be impacted by the decisions made years before they're felt - having a say in the process. We should be encouraging students to become active in the political process as soon as possible.

It's been kind of obvious that maturity hasn't been requisite for politics lately...

I normally wouldn't be entirely against this, but if the Donald Trump election showed us anything, it's that we can't even trust adults at times to make educational and informed choices, let alone kids. If a senile, impotent, C-list Reality TV Star from the late 90's - early 2000's was able to fool grown ass adults into voting for him and form a cult of personality where neckbeards kiss the ground that their "God Emperor" walks on, I don't want to even think how much worse things would get if teens were voting too. So, yeah, no thank you!

Bad idea.

What's 'too bad'? Do I need to have my own argument to dispute the merits of yours? Do you think your argument is not an argument but a fact that can't be debated in any respect? You think parents will vote whatever their children would like to vote on over their own vote? Will they vote multiple times for their children to ensure their voices are heard? Since, you know, you apparently seem to think that the parent and the child are interchangeable?

I'm iffy about how I feel about this, but that age range *is* being increasingly affected and involved in the political climate.

I'm also okay with this because teenagers have been showing more maturity than actual adults.

I feel like everybody talking about teenagers being "more mature" than adults are pushing some seriously unrealistic rhetoric. I'm not one of those people thats like "haha teenagers? they eat tide pods they can't vote!!", but I think you guys are really overestimating how smart/informed the average teenager is compared to the average adult. That's not to say the average American adult is a bastion of intelligence and well-formed opinions, but they at least know how to do their own laundry and have perhaps worked a job, paid taxes, and dealt with real-world issues rather than just postulating about them in the abstract. There's a reason hyper-idealistic ideologies like communism (lol) are popular with teenagers and then start to fall off as the real world hits them.

I know many teenagers who do their own laundry, have worked a job, and have set aside money to pay for taxes. Are you saying those who have sued for and won emancipation from their parents should be ineligible for their vote because those in their same age range have demonstrated occasional recklessness or disregard for political processes - just as many adults also do? I'm seeing plenty of adults being hit with 'the real world' and then retreating into bunkers of denial and lies - does that mean we can no longer trust adults because 'there's a reason adults when hit with the real world deny the real world instead'? Also: postulation is like poop. Everyone does it.

Should a 4 year old be able to vote? They have wants and needs. Who's to say that they should be left without a voice?

Should a 4 year old be forced to appear before courts to determine their legal status as a citizen of the United States? Because they are forced to appear right now. I'm not talking about securing the rights of all people to vote, regardless of their mental security or self-sufficiency. I am talking about the rights of those who are a single year away from being allowed to join the army and possibly lose their life defending their country. If their brains are developed enough to understand what their country is, what it stands for, and be allowed the right to die to defend those things -- why should those same people not be allowed to voice their opinion in said country's elections? Why should those who successfully sue to be emancipated from their parents/legal guardians be denied a vote despite having proven to the court that they are of sound mind, are capable of providing for themselves, and understand how to carry a positive bank balance?

So why don't we apply this same reasoning to things like firearms and alcohol? Why have age limits on those? And yes, I realize that one is a privilege and one is a right. If you're going to argue the "fight and die for their country" line, why is anything set above 16 or 18?

I would agree with that line of thought. Anyone who is sent to war is acting as an adult as they are emancipated by their parents. In point of fact, one of the points of regard for whether or not a child is seen as emancipated from their parents/guardians is, in fact, 'active participation in the nation's military' in many countries. @Mech Bgum Clearly he was an exception by a large margin. You can argue that employed tax-paying teenagers should have a right to vote and I would agree with that. He wasn't in foster care, though he could've wound up there - though he'd have been pulled to another city if that were to happen as there was no orphanage or foster care available in the city he grew up in and the next city which did would've been some 95 miles from where he was - so he'd be "starting over" if he were forced to. Regardless, about 10% of children who wind up in foster care in the US wind up being emancipated. That's 10% of 400k~ annual cases or 40k a year. That's not really the 'exception by a large margin' you're proposing here. Its not just US, virtually all western countries found that 18 is an appropriate age for an official stamp of "adulthood" and passed various laws that grant full sexual maturity, right for alcohol and cigarette consumption and a right to vote. I happen to agree with that age, that's all. And so if all those western countries change the age of majority to beneath 18 then you would be fine with it? Are you agreeing because that is presently the majority consensus -- or because you think that 'naturally, people under the age of 18 are not mature enough for sex, alcohol/cigarette consumption, and to vote'? Your logic doesn't apply here. In that case we would be giving government free votes to spend and the voting would become USSR-level farcical. Shelters are state-made. Families are not state-made, they're natural. My logic directly applies. The parents in your suggestion that they simply 'vote for their children' are exactly the USSR-level farce you are complaining of. Also, many families are 'not natural'. Many people adopt children much as the state adopts them in hopes that others will take them off their hands; nonetheless the State must operate as those childrens' parents while they are under their care as it must be assumed that those children under its care may never become adopted -- and must therefore nonetheless become self-sufficient and capable adults by the time they reach the age of majority and the state is therefore no longer obligated to care for them.

Letting teens vote is giving their parents an extra vote per child. Not in all cases but I'd say in most cases, kids don't give a shit and just parrot what their parents say. Not every teen is David Hogg.

In fairness, most adults don't give a shit and either abstain from voting or just parrot what they hear on the news. Not every adult is Rachel Maddow, nor has the energy or investment to truly engage and learn about the politics of the moment.

Except uncaring adults aren't dragged to the voting place to vote for Candidate X because Mom said so or get grounded.

18 year olds are dragged to the voting place by their parents to vote for Candidate X or are threatened to get kicked out of the house. I know kids who were stuck in that situation when I went to college. I'm not sure it's a great situation either way but it's not an easily avoided one in either case. "This family is an [X Party] family - you're either an [X Party] or you're no longer a part of the family" has been a saber I've heard rattled in Texas many a time when people complain about their families.

This kind of argument basically boils down to "16 year olds are not mature enough to faithfully act on their own values," to which I say that criticism already applies to a majority of eligible voters, whether they're 18 or 80. Most people parrot what their family, friends, communities, political parties, and newscasters say. Human beings are tribal like that and it's unfair to single out certain demographics in that way. And let's be real for a second, younger generations are historically more likely to be left-leaning and in favor of change to the system. This almost always puts them at odds politically with the older, more traditional generations currently in power in the status quo. It's the same reason ranked-choice voting isn't popular with the current elected officials, it goes against their own interests.

America is not a democracy, it's a republic. If 7 year olds where hypothetically given the chance to vote, they wouldn't be deciding national policy.

lets compromise, give them 3/5ths of a vote

When I was 16 I was super authoritarian and pro-war. I thought the best solution to the middle east was bombing them back to the stone age because they can't destroy the twin towers with rocks and sticks. I thought the quickest way to rid ourselves of gang violence was to declare martial law and deploy the national guard to ganglands where all gang members would be rounded up and executed. My angsty 16 year old opinions were extremely ill-informed and emotionally driven (from watching too much American media post-9/11, and too many documentaries about vicious gangs), I really do not think 16 year olds are trustworthy enough to participate in the political process.

John Bolton is 69 years old and would agree with you on that. Age is not a barrier to bad decision making.

It's not, but teenagers are more prone to bad decisions because they haven't fully matured yet.

Age does not, itself, mature people. People decide to become mature and informed - or decide to remain childish and uninformed.

lmao what the fuck kind of argument is this Everyone is old enough to get shot, how does this apply to anyone specifically People already vote against their own interests, what makes you think 16 year olds will be better at not screwing this up, with the added bonus of not having even gotten into the work force yet

Only the candidate with the most expensive skins will get the country.

Logan Paul for president!!!