What do you think about lowering voting age?

Post Reply New Topic

If one *really* wanted to open a can of worms...

... then one could argue for different voting ages for men and women.

Since the brains of women mature faster than the brains of men (See here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf), perhaps women should be allowed to vote at age 18, while men would have to wait until age 21.

Brain maturity isn't so much the issue as no independent life experience of which I don't think women do any better than men at that age, 18 is basically a child. They actually only lowered the age to 18 in the 60s, it was 21 before that. It probably was a mistake, the draft is gone now so the main argument for their suffrage is gone as well. Extended adolescence is the norm now, I didn't know anybody that wasn't living at their parents at age 18. The first people to get places on their own were the druggies for obvious reasons, maybe that was just my messed up city.

People who can't even support themselves, probably never had a job, and have virtually no responsibilities?

That would be "like no".

If it were up to liberals, newborns would be voting as registered democrats.

1) What you've said here doesn't apply to all young people.

2) What you've said here also applies to a large number of people with disabilities.

Are you suggesting that people with serious disabilities should be banned from voting?

Last edited by LH42 on 02 Jun 2016, 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What a ridiculous conclusion. The question was related to age, as was my response.

In what way is person's age a helpful means of measuring whether he or she as an an individual is capable of making an informed decision? Surely, the rational position would be that individuals who possess at least a rudimentary understanding of civics and philosophy are an asset to democracy, in contrast to those who do not.


A minority, which doesn't have any bearing on my stance whatsoever. I believe that individual rights and liberties are paramount, for reasons I hope I've already made clear. Do you? If not, why not?

Why is it a ridiculous conclusion? Do you have a counter-argument to present me with?

Why not let 16 year olds vote? Why not let 14 year olds vote? Why not 8 year olds? There is an arbitrary cut off regardless, it has nothing to do with individual rights unless you take it to its logical extreme being everybody can vote regardless of age because there will always be an arbitrary cut off point. The voting age WAS 21 at one time, the reason it came down was because the US was drafting 18 year olds to go fight wars which is not happening anymore.

I reiterate, The question was related to age, as was my response. Context is everything.

I can't help but feel you're being deliberately obtuse. The initial question is irrelevant to this conversation, and your response was not related exclusively to age. It proposed a set of personal characteristics which you feel ought to disqualify someone from voting.

You claimed that you object to the youth vote on the grounds that a large number of young people are "people who can't even support themselves, probably never had a job, and have virtually no responsibilities". I then pointed out that these characteristics also apply to a large number of people with serious disabilities, and they do.

If the presence of these characteristics in a large number of people in one demographic are enough for you to argue that the entire demographic should be banned from voting, why is the same not true for another demographic?

Here in Scotland, we already have. After sixteen and seventeen year olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish independence referendum and the diverse range of nuanced opinions amongst young voters became clear, a youth vote for all devolved Scottish elections was swiftly introduced by parliament with overwhelming cross-party support.Yeah, why not? I do accept that there is a significant risk with the prospect of younger children being used by their parents as a second/third vote, and that's where your idea of a civics test comes in. If someone under fourteen is capable of passing a rigorous civics test and can at least briefly state a valid philosophical reason for wanting to vote, then who are we to deny them? Why have an arbitrary cut off point when we could have pure meritocracy?Civil rights should never be contingent upon whether or not one is at risk of becoming a physical slave of the state.

Um, because of their age and experience, or lack thereof. Now really, who is being deliberately obtuse here?

Personally, I believe that no one should be allowed to vote in this country until they have served honorably for four years in at least one branch of the Armed Forces. I further believe that no one should be allowed to run for election to a public office until they have served honorably for four years in at least one branch of the Armed Forces.

Now, I might be convinced that four years of honorable service in secular organizations like Doctors Without Borders or the Peace Corps should qualify, as well; but I'm withholding judgement on that.

You sure about that? You know who the preferred candidate by the military in this election and who it was the last 2? Here's a hint, I wouldn't be upset.

Last edited by Jacoby on 02 Jun 2016, 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1) I've yet to see you explain why age alone is a helpful means of measuring whether an individual is capable of making an informed decision.

2) Many seriously disabled people do lack the kinds of experience you're talking about.
You. Stop it.

Mr. Trump received four student deferments from service in the Vietnam Nam war, followed by a 1968 medical deferment that came a few months after he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

Hillary Clinton, who opposed the Vietnam War, tried to join the Marines shortly after the Viet Nam war ended. She was rejected for age and poor eyesight.

Bernie Sanders filed a petition to be classified as a conscientious objector. By the time he was interviewed and the final disapproval issued by his draft board, he was too old to be drafted (26 years).

Two draft dodgers and a 4F'er. That's mighty slim pickings for this years crop.

"The Military" consists of five branches. There is also the Veterans' Administration, and several veterans' charitable organizations.

Which group endorsed which slacker candidate? Can you provide links?