ForumGarden

Should the legal voting age be lowered to 16yrs old?

I vote Yes

MOTime wrote: Should the legal voting age be lowered to 16yrs old?

I vote Yes


No.

Too black and white without the experience to see the greys

No.

(maybe try this again and make it into a poll)

MOTime wrote: Should the legal voting age be lowered to 16yrs old?

I vote Yes


No. Raise it to 25, and make it compulsory (with an "Abstain" option).

:yh_think

I didn't know voting worked anymore.

wow those were fast replys so far it stands at NO I noticed though that it came from older people maybe that is beacuse they are just to conservative and are frightened that if it was lowered the older population would have to move and vote to keep it the way they want it.:sneaky:

Actually, I think lowering the voting age to 16 would only create more votes for that of their parents' ideals...I think people at the age of 16 could care less who is in office...

MOTime wrote: wow those were fast replys so far it stands at NO I noticed though that it came from older people maybe that is beacuse they are just to conservative and are frightened that if it was lowered the older population would have to move and vote to keep it the way they want it.:sneaky:


Not for that reason - I can remember my thinking at 16 (and even at 21) and I know that it was not a balanced view.

For one thing, I saw everything in black and white - there were no mittigating circumstances, everything was either good to be championed or evil to be fought unto death, and for another it was too shallow and open to manipulation by those adept in public opinion.

Those under 21 have yet to learn that they do not know everything.

Lower the voting age to ten and hold intensive civics classes at primary school as preparation. The degree of thinking they'd put into the questions would outclass anything that happens to current voters, and you'd engage people's enthusiasm for representative democracy while they were still capable of rational thought. They might even get to talk to their parents about the issues as well, which might get the older generation thinking too.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Not for that reason - I can remember my thinking at 16 (and even at 21) and I know that it was not a balanced view.

Those under 21 have yet to learn that they do not know everything.


Those are words of wisdom but i have to disagree with K.Snyder, As i have a few 16 year old friends that care very much about who's in office and i know that someone is going to say 'well just cause a few of them are into politics dosn't mean they all are' and i deffiniatly understand that. but i have had some very heated political debeates with them and they assure me if they could vote they would.

K.Snyder wrote: Actually, I think lowering the voting age to 16 would only create more votes for that of their parents' ideals...I think people at the age of 16 could care less who is in office...


Sorry,

I should have said based on my observation I think that the majority of kids at the age of 16 could care less who is in office...

I also would like to add that I feel parents would have a strong influence on their kids if they were aloud to vote at 16 in my opinion, and I think mostly because of this, that it's a bad idea. I don't question one bit that there are 16 year old kids out there who would like to express their opinions through voting...

yes that is true the majority of them would not give a darn and yes it's probably true that the parents would innfluence their desicions.

MOTime wrote: yes that is true the majority of them would not give a darn and yes it's probably true that the parents would innfluence their desicions.


The trouble is that, in order to include those few who are engaged (and I've seen some of them go and they can be awesome), you have to include the vast majority who are not interested, who are easily manipulable, who don't understand the background, but who will insist on voting because they have the right to and it makes them "adult".

The downside overbalances the upside IMHO.

MOTime wrote: yes that is true the majority of them would not give a darn and yes it's probably true that the parents would innfluence their desicions.I'd have been horrified if my children had agreed with my politics at their age, but they were certainly frustrated that they were disenfrachised by their government and remained without influence over their representation for so many years. I'm sure I influenced their decisions but that doesn't mean they'd have voted as I did. I'm sure a lot of families have a similar dynamic.

The reason the majority of them would not give a darnn might be simply that they have no involvement at a more impressionable age.

spot wrote:

The reason the majority of them would not give a darnn might be simply that they have no involvement at a more impressionable age.


Too busy kissing face with the homecoming queen, and going to high school parties.

K.Snyder wrote: Too busy kissing face with the homecoming queen, and going to high school parties.


Translate please - we Brits are none too good at languages!

Bryn Mawr wrote: Translate please - we Brits are none too good at languages!


Every year in high school, kids within each high school vote on homecoming kings and queens in which nine times out of ten everyone votes for the most "popular" kids in school. Homecoming is an event, to my knowledge, is held by every school in the nation and sort of signifies its own identity throughout the country. Homecoming is also a school dance and is held as sort of a weekend event, along with usually a sporting event(Usually American football) that is particularly against the biggest school rival within the region.

The homecoming queen is mostly always attractive, hence every guy wants to make out with them - kissing face - and i'm sure you know what a party is.

I vote one age for everything adult: sex, driving, drinking, voting, the works.That's the way it is in Japan (20 years old) & works quite well.



Make it 18 just to be consistent.

I'd vote (pun intended) no. Most sixteen-year-olds haven't got a clue what is best to vote for, wouldn't know how to research the issues, and probably couldn't be bothered to take time out of the mall-crawling to go vote.

But voting isn't really all about electing any particular person to office. I'm not naive enough to think that my one little vote makes a huge difference. For me, it's all about preserving my right to bitch about the outcome....because if you don't vote, you're not entitled to complain.

K.Snyder wrote: Actually, I think lowering the voting age to 16 would only create more votes for that of their parents' ideals...I think people at the age of 16 could care less who is in office...


I agree with K here. I think at 16 kids may still be influenced by thier parents choices...both for and against. I can see a kid either voting for a candidate because thier parents support them....OR just because thier parents are against them!!

I am not sure even the most savy 16 year old can make enough of an informed choice.

K.Snyder wrote: I think people at the age of 16 could care less who is in office...
I think you're 100% correct, which is why I say NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!!

K.Snyder wrote: Every year in high school, kids within each high school vote on homecoming kings and queens in which nine times out of ten everyone votes for the most "popular" kids in school. Homecoming is an event, to my knowledge, is held by every school in the nation and sort of signifies its own identity throughout the country. Homecoming is also a school dance and is held as sort of a weekend event, along with usually a sporting event(Usually American football) that is particularly against the biggest school rival within the region.

The homecoming queen is mostly always attractive, hence every guy wants to make out with them - kissing face - and i'm sure you know what a party is.


Thank you - 'twen't like that when I were a kid :-6

16? No way. Idealistic and self absorbed are the two things that come to my mind.

K.Snyder wrote: Every year in high school, kids within each high school vote on homecoming kings and queens in which nine times out of ten everyone votes for the most "popular" kids in school. Homecoming is an event, to my knowledge, is held by every school in the nation and sort of signifies its own identity throughout the country. Homecoming is also a school dance and is held as sort of a weekend event, along with usually a sporting event(Usually American football) that is particularly against the biggest school rival within the region.


But why "Homecoming"? What does *that* mean?



K.Snyder wrote: The homecoming queen is mostly always attractive, hence every guy wants to make out with them - kissing face - and i'm sure you know what a party is.


Make out, probably shagging. "Kissing face" - kissing? Some sexual activity?

A party - well, that's just a party. It seems that they're becoming out of hand,

though, from what I've read here (banned because of drunkenness, etc.). I

went to a party for 4-5 year olds at the weekend. Very noisy. Mayhem. "Pass

the parcel", etc.

Accountable wrote: I vote one age for everything adult: sex, driving, drinking, voting, the works.That's the way it is in Japan (20 years old) & works quite well.



Make it 18 just to be consistent.


18 is what it is here. What is it in the 'States?

Bill Sikes wrote: 18 is what it is here. What is it in the 'States?Mixed. 18 to vote & die for the country; 21 to drink; 16 to drive in most states; not sure about sex (that doesn't read right somehow).

Accountable wrote: Mixed. 18 to vote & die for the country; 21 to drink; 16 to drive in most states; not sure about sex (that doesn't read right somehow).


'K. AFAIK in the Yook it's 17 for driving (16 for a moped (a type of small

motorbike)?), 18 to vote, 16?17? to fight, 16 for sex (although ISTR taking

photos of 16-y.o. girls has, bizzarely (in context!) been held "illegal"),

18 to buy alcohol (16 for fags, though). Odd.

Bill Sikes wrote: No. Raise it to 25, and make it compulsory (with an "Abstain" option).


I'm with you on that one Bill.

If they were to lower it, political parties would pander to 'yoof' issues to gain a vote, plus, even at 18 most people don't have a clue about much...

Revolting Age





I suppose Id say 13.

BabyRider wrote: [QUOTE=K.Snyder]I think people at the age of 16 could care less who is in office...I think you're 100% correct, which is why I say NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!![/QUOTE]The same's true of a sizeable proportion of adults who have the vote - they don't use it. Why should any minors be remotely concerned about representative government if they have no vote to cast? Don't you think that, if they had it, they'd be more interested and discuss it among themselves and with their mentors? More interested on average than those jaundiced adults who have simply given up thinking or even voting at all? I'd much rather stimulate a child's interest in what voting can achieve, even at the cost of letting it vote to engage its attention.

spot wrote: The same's true of a sizeable proportion of adults who have the vote - they don't use it. Why should any minors be remotely concerned about representative government if they have no vote to cast? Don't you think that, if they had it, they'd be more interested and discuss it among themselves and with their mentors? More interested on average than those jaundiced adults who have simply given up thinking or even voting at all? I'd much rather stimulate a child's interest in what voting can achieve, even at the cost of letting it vote to engage its attention.


We have a hard enough time keeping their attention in class, let alone expanding their knowledge into politics. Not to mention them actually being able to understand it.

Keep the voting age at 18, and make civics a mandatory course in which needs to be passed for seniors in high school.

K.Snyder wrote: We have a hard enough time keeping their attention in class, let alone expanding their knowledge into politics. Not to mention them actually being able to understand it.I speak only as I find. Mine were definitely engaged and aware of their impotence.

I think there should be an exam to test if someone understands enough about modern politics to be able to vote. It isn't about age so much as an informed decision.

fieldfare07;670896 wrote: I think there should be an exam to test if someone understands enough about modern politics to be able to vote. It isn't about age so much as an informed decision.
Ah but then it becomes a privilege rather than a right. Also, it would be far too tempting to play politics with the exam. Who will write it? How will you ensure nobody's "disenfranchised"? It's too dangerous to even start. Bad idea, imo.

Accountable;670914 wrote: Ah but then it becomes a privilege rather than a right. Also, it would be far too tempting to play politics with the exam. Who will write it? How will you ensure nobody's "disenfranchised"? It's too dangerous to even start. Bad idea, imo.


I don't mean anything too hard-line, merely a basic proficiency test in politics. Ie: terminology used in the media, what departments/ministers are responsible for what. Only basic stuff, common ground for all parties, closed to corruption, and just enough to dissuade voters with no understanding of politics.

As for being a right, well of course it is a right and I wasn't suggesting it was taken away merely that there should be a basic responsibility along with that right?

I just don't think that age is the best indicator. Are some people mature enough to vote at 16? I think so. Are some people too immature at 21 or over to vote? I think so...

fieldfare07;670896 wrote: I think there should be an exam to test if someone understands enough about modern politics to be able to vote. It isn't about age so much as an informed decision.
What kind of a test should there be for a yes or no vote on a casino?

YZGI;671096 wrote: What kind of a test should there be for a yes or no vote on a casino?


Some form of basic understanding of the health, legal and local and national ecconomic implications of allowing or prohibiting them?

YZGI;671096 wrote: What kind of a test should there be for a yes or no vote on a casino?


Being able to name the appropriate Indian tribes. :rolleyes:

Voting age should be down from 18 to 17. That is the age when you can fight in the army.

fieldfare07;671034 wrote: [...]

As for being a right, well of course it is a right and I wasn't suggesting it was taken away merely that there should be a basic responsibility along with that right?

By requiring a person prove themselves qualified to exercise their right, and prohibiting the exercise should they fail to pass the exam, you are in fact taking away that right.

Accountable;671384 wrote: By requiring a person prove themselves qualified to exercise their right, and prohibiting the exercise should they fail to pass the exam, you are in fact taking away that right.


Fair point, but to be honest, I don't really care: if someone doesn't grasp the basics of what they are voting on then they are far more open to manipulation than any exam.

fieldfare07;671513 wrote: Fair point, but to be honest, I don't really care: if someone doesn't grasp the basics of what they are voting on then they are far more open to manipulation than any exam.
'kay.



I'm glad we can have different systems.