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

(a) Many have gotten into the work force. (b) If people in general already vote against their own interests why does it matter that 16 year olds do as well? Is that not an argument that states that they are more or less already on the same 'playing field' as those we regard as 'adults'?

"Describe your student debt in three CS:GO skins"

Quite... when I was 16 I used to parrot a lot of the racist/anti-immigration/anti-homeless shit that went around our community because I lived in a farming area that was mixed between very poor and quite well off people. Lots of Daily Mail readers. I've definitely had an awakening that happened as I became old enough to really hear the words I was repeating and question them. This was also the age where I was allowed to vote. Still fucked up and voted Tory in 2010 though.

Teenagers are the most impressionable, most susceptible to misinformation/disinformation tactics, and most whimsical people in the fucking country. They barely even know what they want to eat for lunch five minutes before they sit down to eat it, think the ideal way to spend a day is a mixture of munching on doritos, playing video games, and fucking like rabbits. They have no clue about anything outside of their own little worlds and wouldn't understand it even if you presented it to them, the parts of their brains responsible for forethought, risk prediction, and related functions haven't yet matured/come online, they basically live in the moment and their sum total of cares amounts to them. And whatever gets them laid They almost universally have a chip on their shoulder regarding authority and are the most likely group to vote because of 'cool' factor or whatever. If there's any class of society that doesn't need to vote, it's 16-18 year olds. They can't even handle the responsibility of driving, so how the fuck are you going to expect them to vote properly?

Teenagers are the most impressionable, most susceptible to misinformation/disinformation tactics, and most whimsical people in the fucking country. They barely even know what they want to eat for lunch five minutes before they sit down to eat it, think the ideal way to spend a day is a mixture of munching on doritos, playing video games, and fucking like rabbits. They have no clue about anything outside of their own little worlds and wouldn't understand it even if you presented it to them, the parts of their brains responsible for forethought, risk prediction, and related functions haven't yet matured/come online, they basically live in the moment and their sum total of cares amounts to them. And whatever gets them laid They almost universally have a chip on their shoulder regarding authority and are the most likely group to vote because of 'cool' factor or whatever. Well at least they got one thing right.

many states allow this if you would have been before the next general election, so if your birthday is in january but the election is in november you can vote. The thing about 16 year olds though might be a bit too far. Just 2 cents there.

that's a poor prerequisite for voting. look at (of age) general population's political discourse. It is not the pinnacle of rational or mature opinion either.

So what prerequisite would you suggest for voting, then? Surely there is an age young enough where it would be inappropriate to allow someone to cast a vote.

The 26th amendment says: >The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Which means states can't set it any higher, but they can set it lower. Typically election practices are set by the state government

10 and 11 year olds are capable of political action and organization. Literally anyone is. Why is 16 or 17 an appropriate arbitrary age limit?

Hard to say. Anecdotally, I think I was just as capable of making an informed decision as a 16 year old as I am now. I don't believe the same thing about when I was 10. Traditionally, the idea behind voting rights is that whoever has a stake in society has the right to vote. They used to believe that only white male property owners had a stake in society, so only they could vote. Eventually we refined our ideas to include non-landowners, black men, and eventually women. In the 60s there were states in which 18 year olds could not vote, but 18 year olds could be drafted to fight in the Vietnam war by officials they were unable to give their consent to. So, because 18 year olds were SIGNIFICANTLY affected by the decisions made by elected officials, 18 year olds were given the right to vote universally. The question, then, should not only be about if 16 or 17 year olds are capable of making informed decisions (for the good of society), but also about whether or not 16 and 17 year olds have a stake in society that they are unable to influence or defend because they are disenfranchised. I would argue so; lots of long term policies are made by people who will die before their ramifications are felt (things involving the environment, long term effects on the economy, etc.) and 16 or 17 year olds are left to foot the bill. Additionally, there are things that politicians do or don't do today that affect highschoolers today. Gun laws, for example; some of those who have been most affected by poor gun laws, or at least poor enforcement of gun laws, have no say in how those laws are written. Instead, they have to hope that someone else has made the correct decision for them. One affect that many may not have considered is that by introducing the democratic process to people at a young age (and in an environment where they are a captive audience: highschools), it may be able to inspire a sense of civic duty towards voting. If you are 16 years old, and on, say, constitution day, teachers or administrators go around the class handing out voter registration forms and extolling the virtues of voting, you may be able to get young people to vote at earlier ages, so that by the time they turn 18 or are in their 20s, are more likely to vote since they were registered at such a young age.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a minimum age. I got in quite a protracted constitutional debate on fp about this very topic a few weeks ago. There's not really a "criteria" that can define it, it's more of an intuition and customary practice. I'll admit that it's subjective. But the argument that children are "irrational" isn't sufficient to explain why kids should have to reach a certain age to vote, because that characteristic is not isolated to children in the least bit. If we go by other measures of civil society - ie, legal age to work (14 is minimum at reduced hours, 16 is no hourly limit but prohibits unsafe occupations), age to drive, age of consent (16 being the most common in the usa), etc., I think that many people could agree that being able to vote at 16 isn't all that crazy. I think a lot of people get worried about drawing the line, slippery slopes, etc. For certain things, I get the argument (abortion, for instance). But for others, it's usually unnecessary. Decide the question in front of you - if it's within the boundary, then good. You don't have to know where exactly that boundary is - 10? 11? 12? - if that's not the question in front of you. All you need to determine is whether, given the public policy goals behind voting, it makes sense to allow 16 year olds to vote. I think it does. I also understand why others might not. Reasonable people can disagree on it.

We've already deemed those under 18 as not capable of making informed decisions in other areas. What makes voting any different? You just said in the line above that your guideline was the capability of making an informed decision. Now you're saying it's who has a stake in society, which is everyone as soon as they are born. Which one is it? Because these are conflicting reasons. This logic could be applied to 1st graders, because they are feeling the effects of poor education policies are feeling those effects today, and have no say in those policies. Why is 16 or 17 the correct arbitrary age limit? Or maybe, they could have a better curriculum on voting and the legislature than just "this is how it works". Have them try to follow a bill through the process and try to examine how it will affect them. Ultimately, we are failing to impart on them WHY voting and the government is so important. This won't change by throwing a voter registration form at them and telling them they have 10 minutes to fill it out.

We've already deemed those under 18 as not capable of making informed decisions in other areas. What makes voting any different? We're not talking about other areas, we're talking about voting. That's off topic You just said in the line above that your guideline was the capability of making an informed decision. Now you're saying it's who has a stake in society, which is everyone as soon as they are born. Which one is it? Because these are conflicting reasons. Okay I don't think you should read into my posts as if I'm stating axioms for how the universe works, dude. I never said that my exclusive guideline was capability of making informed decisions. They're not conflicting reasons, they're just side-by-side. This logic could be applied to 1st graders, because they are feeling the effects of poor education policies are feeling those effects today, and have no say in those policies. Why is 16 or 17 the correct arbitrary age limit? Like I said: anecdotally, I don't feel like I was able to make these decisions when I was 10. 16 seems pretty safe to me. Or maybe, they could have a better curriculum on voting and the legislature than just "this is how it works". Have them try to follow a bill through the process and try to examine how it will affect them. Ultimately, we are failing to impart on them WHY voting and the government is so important. This won't change by throwing a voter registration form at them and telling them they have 10 minutes to fill it out. I think we already do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag Side note: How do you quote someone's post bit by bit in those neat blue blocks? I hate these > quotes

Your argument seems to be "I feel like 16 year olds should vote." That's fine, but it's not an argument by which to change policy. I personally think that 16 year olds are both not mature enough, and have no had enough life experience to vote. As dependent minors, they haven't had to pay their own way in life, they haven't had to make many difficult decisions, etc. They simply haven't experienced enough life to have a good grasp on what makes a society work and what doesn't.

No, it is not off topic. You can't make the claim that they are capable of making informed decisions in matters like voting, but then also think that they can't make informed decisions on things like tobacco, alcohol, sex, firearms, or even that they should be tried under different rules for being a juvenile. They can either make informed decisions like an adult, or they can't. But they are conflicting. You use this portion to justify the next portion which states that people under 18 have a stake in this, and therefore should be allowed to vote or they are disenfranchised, while above you said that you couldn't have made an informed decision when you were 10, even though by your definition, they would be disenfranchised. Is the criteria you are using the ability to make an informed decision, or someone who has a stake in the direction of the country? Because those are two different viewpoints that have two different definitions. So your criteria is "able to make these decisions"? That is crap and you know it. It explains the process enough for you to remember it for a test. I'm talking about ENGAGING the students, not just preparing them to pass a test. Just highlight the part you want to quote and hit "reply". It will only quote the highlighted part.

But they're not conflicting? I'm saying there's more than one guideline. you can use a balance of both. things aren't absolute black and white. I guess that's part of it You can present the material but you can't make them care. I don't know what else you want beyond telling them how the process works and then having an in-class discussion about it. Ultimately if a student just wants to pass the class and go home and smoke weed then there's nothing to can do to make them care

They are conflicting. If you're going by ability to make an informed decision, then them having a stake in the future of the country has no bearing whatsoever on the decision. Likewise, if having something at stake is the guideline, the ability to make an informed decision is a null point. Each one nullifies the other as a criteria. If you're trying to jump back and fourth between both, you're just trying to artificially prop up your arbitrary limit over someone else's since you're never actually giving a hard criteria, but changing the criteria at will as an attempt to avoid it being criticized and having to answer hard questions on it. You're trying to justify a feeling. And handing out a voter registration form won't solve this.

No, they're really not conflicting. You can use both as guidelines and find a balance somewhere. Like I said, things in life aren't absolutes. You can't just pick one rule and make it a binary yes/no question. Given the two things I believe here, that 16 year olds have a stake in society and that they are capable of making rational choices (or at least no less capable than an adult), I would vote to give 16 year olds the right to vote. If you want to look at it in a more absolutist way, then that's your right and your opinion.

There are also plenty of teenagers who are responsible enough to drink alcohol without facing serious consequences, but we retain the drinking age as a safety net for the majority who are not. Nobody is arguing that every single 16 or 17 year old is incompetent, but compared to adults, enough of them are that it's wiser imo to keep the age at 18.

If anything I think there should be an age limit, why should old retired people be able to vote for our future?

I was going to make a point like this. Not quite as un-ironically but similar none the less. If you are going to argue that teens are too dumb and undeveloped to vote, what about people who are old, set in their ways, and possibly bordering on senile? I don't actually think votes should be taken from the elderly, but a lot of the reasons posters have stated for denying younger people the vote have a flip side that could be applied to the elderly. A lot of older people simply do not understand new forms of technology and how they have changed our world. Many don't even understand the many ways the world has changed at all since they were younger. My Gran voted for brexit because she thinks "The bloody Germans bombed us they are the enemy". My granddad, who has dementia, votes conservative because he believes "the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table are nicer than those from the poor man's". Neither of these positions are even close to the reality of the actual policy they are voting for. The fucking Nazis don't run Germany any more, and the Tories are a party dedicated to catching any and all crumbs that might drop from "the rich man's plate" and depositing them right back on there. They think getting a job is still as easy as walking into a shop and passing them a CV. That houses can be bought for pennies. The true scope and influence of the internet is alien to them- they don't understand how you could use it to apply for jobs, or network with people. If these things they cling to were ever true to begin with, then these things have changed. But my grandparents can't comprehend this concept. My Gran literally thinks the fucking third Reich is still biding it's time waiting for the right moment to invade i'm not even making a joke. You could find ample reason to deny any demographic a vote if you are basing said denial on sweeping statements like "they don't understand the real world!" and "they haven't had to make hard choices!".

TBH, you're using crazy, exaggerated examples as exemplars of an entire group. That simply isn't an honest presentation. I doubt even a tiny minority of older people voted for Brexit because they literally thought Germany was their military enemy. In contrast, my statements about not having lived in the real world as dependent minors is generally true. They haven't had to pay their own way (what 16 year old has had to deal with their own health insurance, for example?), they haven't had to make decisions that have real, lasting, consequences, they haven't had to take responsibility for those around them, etc. You're using outliers to make general claims while I'm trying to take general truths and apply it to the group. We don't make policy based on outliers.

My biggest concern isn't one party drawing more voters (e.g. the idea Democrats want more votes) and not even as much that they aren't informed. At 16 years old, I knew individuals that would vote against what they believed to be edgy without understanding the consequences of voting in an incapable leader. A month after the election I talked to someone in our resident hall about their political views. They fell in line with about every single policy HRC advocated for. Who did he vote for? Trump. Why? Because he could. He was an 18 year old and voted against his own beliefs because he thought it would be funny. The thought that DC would let 16 year olds vote to further slate in favor of Democrats is absurd. Besides, DC's never voted for a Republican President even through the practically-solid red Reagan/Bush Sr. years and that was without the help of 16-year-olds. Even if it did, it wouldn't be the primary influencing factor this mid-term cycle (and we probably could guess what actually is. I don't know that I'd want to say yes to this, as I'm usually hesitant with any major change like this.

Nah i'm not exaggerating. I said I wasn't joking, she really thinks that. I also, quite obviously, wasn't suggesting that the elderly all voted for brexit because they believed the exact same brand of nonsense as my own grandma. Rather that old people are prone to being set in their ways, resistant to changing their minds, and resistant to accepting or understanding changes in the world around them. That, generally, older people can't keep up with advances in technology and have greater potential to be suffering from conditions like dementia that would impair their judgement. I would argue that those are pretty acceptable "general truths" to apply to a group as far as such things go. However, Personally I don't believe in judging demographics based on general feelings about them or stereotypes.

Is he 16?

i honestly do not see how that's any different from the average American voter

I'd be okay with this if we had required political science classes in high school, instead of the basic "government" classes.

How about we just let nobody vote and call it a day?

America needs to actually pick an age that defines being an adult and stick with it, not continue expanding the patchwork mess of contradictory standards. If a demographic isn't mature enough to be held fully liable for crimes they commit, not mature enough to consent to sex, not mature enough to drink, not mature enough to enter legally binding contracts, they're not mature enough to influence the direction of the entire country.