What should the voting age be?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not very convinced about the physical deterioration...I think that's more of a description of how it is than a biological thing. People will be less likely to be peak performers but that doesn't seem to be required. And there are a bunch of issues with the draft in the first place. Besides, if I'm 17 and can't vote for president, and then I turn 18 and the president who I couldn't vote for institutes the draft...??? How about the fact that the vast majority of the people voting aren't eligible for the draft? When in our future will we need one? Couldn't we readjust the age if something like that occurred? Would it make a difference in the vote?


re: influence of young people, that is really only part of my concern. Mainly I dislike the idea of having people commit to a personal identity and set of moral beliefs when they are in high school. That's just a powerful bias we're instilling, and it's the worst kind too, because people who haven't arrived at their beliefs through thinking about it have much less respect for people who disagree.

[Louis VI the Fat]

re: influence of young people, that is really only part of my concern. Mainly I dislike the idea of having people commit to a personal identity and set of moral beliefs when they are in high school. That's just a powerful bias we're instilling, and it's the worst kind too, because people who haven't arrived at their beliefs through thinking about it have much less respect for people who disagree.

There is an upside to that. If you arrive at a believe at an early age, odds are good that at some point in your life you will change your mind, or at least become more nuanced in your convictions.

This creates respect for different ideas.* If you disagree with yourself, or your former self, you realise that people are not born with ideas which they must seek to spread or defend against those with different beliefs, like orcs and elves in Lord of the Rings. Convictions are a personal journey, to be refined, discarde, picked up again. You were not Stalin when you were the young socialist with a heart, and you are not Hitler when you're the forty year old with a brain.


*At least those with some intellectual honesty, and a memory. Not those apply beliefs backwards: 'I have always said that...'

[Louis VI the Fat]

Also, democracy is not about making the best decisions. Suffrage is not about IQ or political insight.

Democracy is about granting a voice to all, about granting rights and dignity to the convictions of all citizens, smart or dumb, rich or poor. Not because all people all have smart convictions, but because everybody has convictions that are their own.


Democracy is not about installing a sane, or even workable form of government,. It is about human rights, about dignity, about equality, about giving everybody a stake in society. The origin of democracy is not the laboratory of the political scientist devising the perfect state. The origins are the loftiest enlightenment, humanist ideals about freedom and the nature of man. Universal suffrage is the final product of the ideals of liberty, equality and (pick one) A) fraternity, or B) hedonistic pursuit of individual happiness.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Also, democracy is not about making the best decisions. Suffrage is not about IQ or political insight.

Democracy is about granting a voice to all, about granting rights and dignity to the convictions of all citizens, smart or dumb, rich or poor. Not because all people all have smart convictions, but because everybody has convictions that are their own.


Democracy is not about installing a sane, or even workable form of government,. It is about human rights, about dignity, about equality, about giving everybody a stake in society. The origin of democracy is not the laboratory of the political scientist devising the perfect state. The origins are the loftiest enlightenment, humanist ideals about freedom and the nature of man. Universal suffrage is the final product of the ideals of liberty, equality and (pick one) A) fraternity, or B) hedonistic pursuit of individual happiness.

Naaaaaahhh

What about justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, general welfare, and the secure blessings of liberty?

Anyway, your all citizens...etc is already "all adult citizens...etc". And so it is with the age at 25 compared to 18. Your argument is more directed at having a qualification test that must be passed.

There is an upside to that. If you arrive at a believe at an early age, odds are good that at some point in your life you will change your mind, or at least become more nuanced in your convictions.

Are the odds good? Anyway, people at 18 will still have beliefs. They will just not have committed to them in the same way. They won't have the "well, I voted X last three elections..." in the back of their mind the whole time.

[Skullheadhq]

Also, democracy is not about making the best decisions. Suffrage is not about IQ or political insight.

Democracy is about granting a voice to all, about granting rights and dignity to the convictions of all citizens, smart or dumb, rich or poor. Not because all people all have smart convictions, but because everybody has convictions that are their own.


Democracy is not about installing a sane, or even workable form of government,. It is about human rights, about dignity, about equality, about giving everybody a stake in society. The origin of democracy is not the laboratory of the political scientist devising the perfect state. The origins are the loftiest enlightenment, humanist ideals about freedom and the nature of man. Universal suffrage is the final product of the ideals of liberty, equality and (pick one) A) fraternity, or B) hedonistic pursuit of individual happiness.

Then democracy is worthless, the state is not a tool to make dumb people feel good.

[HoreTore]

Then democracy is worthless, the state is not a tool to make dumb people feel good.

The state is the means to get people to work together.

And if one group feels left out, they will rebel, and we will stop working together. Democracy includes everyone, nobody feels left out and everyone works together.

Yes, I am aware of ETA etc, but that is exactly my point, the ETA are militant exactly because they do not feel that their voice is heard, they do not feel included.

[Skullheadhq]

The state is the means to get people to work together.

No, the state is the means to rule the country as good as possible, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I am aware of ETA etc, but that is exactly my point, the ETA are militant exactly because they do not feel that their voice is heard, they do not feel included.

Spain is a democracy, your argument is invalid.

[HoreTore]

No, the state is the means to rule the country as good as possible, nothing more nothing less.

How can you rule something that isn't working?

And wouldn't you define "the country" to mean "the people"?

Spain is a democracy, your argument is invalid.

No, it proves my point perfectly. Spain is a democracy, yes, but not at a good enough level that the Basques feel included and heard. When they feel included and heard, they will lay down their weapons instantly. And the way to achieve that is through more democracy, not less.

[TinCow]

Besides, if I'm 17 and can't vote for president, and then I turn 18 and the president who I couldn't vote for institutes the draft...??? How about the fact that the vast majority of the people voting aren't eligible for the draft? When in our future will we need one? Couldn't we readjust the age if something like that occurred? Would it make a difference in the vote?

Yes, I suppose that would be an option. Interestingly, Wikipedia shows that the age of the draft has shifted wildly over the years. The very first Selective Service Act (1917) set the age of the draft as 21 to 30, with the age shifted to 21 to 45 in 1918. In 1940, the new draft age was set at 18 to 65 (!!!), and it's wavered up and down on the lower end of the scale since 1948.

re: influence of young people, that is really only part of my concern. Mainly I dislike the idea of having people commit to a personal identity and set of moral beliefs when they are in high school. That's just a powerful bias we're instilling, and it's the worst kind too, because people who haven't arrived at their beliefs through thinking about it have much less respect for people who disagree.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd need to see evidence that people are more willing to change their minds as they get older. My instinct makes me think that it's the other way around. Personally, I've only voted Republican once in my entire life, and that was when I was exactly 18 years old.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, I suppose that would be an option. Interestingly, Wikipedia shows that the age of the draft has shifted wildly over the years. The very first Selective Service Act (1917) set the age of the draft as 21 to 30, with the age shifted to 21 to 45 in 1918. In 1940, the new draft age was set at 18 to 65 (!!!), and it's wavered up and down on the lower end of the scale since 1948.

The 65 year olds must not have been for active duty...

I understand what you're saying, but I'd need to see evidence that people are more willing to change their minds as they get older. My instinct makes me think that it's the other way around. Personally, I've only voted Republican once in my entire life, and that was when I was exactly 18 years old.

Yes, the evidence part is the weak point, though it works both ways. I do recall studies showing that when people were instructed to write a short paper arguing a random point, follow up studies showed that something like 90% of them believed in the point they had defended. So it's less about minds changing as it is minds not being set. I think when people vote at 18 they have to justify that decision to themselves, and even though it is often based solely on their upbringing they will invent something and stick with that.

To expand, I think the psychological research (which is common sense really) on our reasoning ability shows that it evolved to produce arguments and to evaluate arguments of others. But often when we produce arguments we fit them to a conclusion we already have or want (confirmation bias) and when evaluating the arguments of others we refute them anyway we can. Unless we have an additional motivation for truthfulness or honesty, which is pretty scarce and weak. So fundamentally when you have people saying "I'm a republican/I'm a democrat" they will filter everything through that. And we should delay their identifying with a party until they have a better filter.

[HoreTore]

A 12-year old, who has reached the formal operational stage, is perfectly capable of finding out what society he wishes to live in, the difference between good and bad, just and unjust, etc through logical reasoning. He is perfectly capable of pointing out what is wrong, and also to explain why he thinks it's wrong and what one can do to improve the situation. They understand fairness, that even though something does not directly improve your situation it can still be good.

Thus, the voting age should be 12.

[Tellos Athenaios]

To expand, I think the psychological research (which is common sense really) on our reasoning ability shows that it evolved to produce arguments and to evaluate arguments of others. But often when we produce arguments we fit them to a conclusion we already have or want (confirmation bias) and when evaluating the arguments of others we refute them anyway we can. Unless we have an additional motivation for truthfulness or honesty, which is pretty scarce and weak. So fundamentally when you have people saying "I'm a republican/I'm a democrat" they will filter everything through that. And we should delay their identifying with a party until they have a better filter.

If the filter is your problem, playing with voting age isn't going to do anything about it. People still tend have an opinion on dilemma's regardless of whether or not they are actually allowed to affect it; age doesn't really mean that much there.

So if you are lacking in the filters department there is only one freemarket approach possible: throw as many types of them at the wall and see which ones stick. I.e. have more political parties to accelerate political debate and provide people with new insights/reasoning.