What should the voting age be?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Our replies are growing exponentially

It has reaaally been my experience that people get a lot smarter between 18 and mid twenties. You can say it's just completely false if you want. But then I ask why you think college education is important outside of a resume and why you don't want a 16 year old on your jury

Whether there are bad voters who are over 25 is just not the point. It's about whether having a better voting pool is better for everyone, and whether raising the age limit would increase the quality of the voting pool. I think the argument that 25 is better than 18 in the same way that 18 is better than 14 is pretty straightforward when it's accepted that we want good, knowledgeable voters (because they are more likely to elect a good government). I think your sort of undefined moral imperative that as many people should vote as possible is a lot vaguer. If it did lead to a worse government how would you justify that? I'm aware you're arguing that it wouldn't.

Essentially, why do we tell people that they are qualified to understand complicated moral, legal, economic and foreign policy questions 3 years before we tell them they are qualified to drink without killing themselves? Why not the reverse?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Our replies are growing exponentially

It has reaaally been my experience that people get a lot smarter between 18 and mid twenties. You can say it's just completely false if you want. But then I ask why you think college education is important outside of a resume and why you don't want a 16 year old on your jury

Whether there are bad voters who are over 25 is just not the point. It's about whether having a better voting pool is better for everyone, and whether raising the age limit would increase the quality of the voting pool. I think the argument that 25 is better than 18 in the same way that 18 is better than 14 is pretty straightforward when it's accepted that we want good, knowledgeable voters (because they are more likely to elect a good government). I think your sort of undefined moral imperative that as many people should vote as possible is a lot vaguer. If it did lead to a worse government how would you justify that? I'm aware you're arguing that it wouldn't.

Essentially, why do we tell people that they are qualified to understand complicated moral, legal, economic and foreign policy questions 3 years before we tell them they are qualified to drink without killing themselves? Why not the reverse?

Well like I said, earlier what you perceive as them being smarter doesn't translate necessarily into a higher political function capability. I think that people probably are better at recognizing what is in their best interests and vote accordingly, but that is only half the battle and imo only progressing to that point and not the second half of voting for the benefit of all of us is just as self destructive if not more so then a completely ignorant person. Which is why I am saying that in terms of actual political functioning in terms of being better for the country, the benefit of the group is not large enough to justify cutting off other people who havent even gotten to the point of knowing who supports their own goals. College is important for the fact that it is a constant application and absorption of scientific, cultural and social facts and concepts and patterns of thinking for 3-4 years which helps many break the stigma of prejudices, bigotry and falsely based assumptions. For many it does not. For the most part, college is successful in specializing people to increasingly complex roles which are needed for the country to keep up technologically and financially with the rest of the world. The true connection of the facts and the break down your own preconceived notions can only happen on an individual level and for many it never happens sadly.

Well what is stopping you from going one step further and simply saying I think 30 is better for the cut off for the voting pool then 25 like DDave said or even saying you dont really know what life is all about until you hit the half way mark and wanting the limit be at 50. I understand where you are coming from, I'm just uncomfortable with the premise behind it that the longer you live, the better the voter you are. I have explained already why I think it is a false premise and why it is "slippery" so to speak when used imo. If it did lead to a worse government, well then my justification is that we get the government we voted for. One made on stupid decisions. We need to have our society have a sense of government being important, if not one of the most important things in our lives but as it stands right now we have lots of apathy not just in epidemic proportions among the youth but in large sections of all but the most elderly. Our Federal elections don't nearly get the voter turnout they should, when was the last time even 4 out of 5 people who could vote even vote? It seems...sloppy as a society to not better instill a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions among the youth and instead we just cut them off until they old enough to learn for themselves. That's my feeling on the situation. Personally, since there is such a really low voter turnout from youth, do you think that lowering the voting age would really flood the booth with ignorant voters? Or realistically would those few young politically motivated be the ones voting?

I think that last question is a bit unsatisfactory in this case, simply because the only reason that the drinking age is 21 is due to the federal government bribing the state governments with extra highway funds in exchange for raising their age limit. If the federal government wasn't paying these highways funds a lot of states would probably have an 18 drinking age still. I get your point though and all I can say is what is to stop me from saying if we trust them with complicated questions why not let them drink?

[HoreTore]

A persons cognitive development is such that it makes just as much sense to allow voting at 16 as at 18, so obviously I support voting at 16.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well like I said, earlier what you perceive as them being smarter doesn't translate necessarily into a higher political function capability. I think that people probably are better at recognizing what is in their best interests and vote accordingly, but that is only half the battle and imo only progressing to that point and not the second half of voting for the benefit of all of us is just as self destructive if not more so then a completely ignorant person. Which is why I am saying that in terms of actual political functioning in terms of being better for the country, the benefit of the group is not large enough to justify cutting off other people who havent even gotten to the point of knowing who supports their own goals. College is important for the fact that it is a constant application and absorption of scientific, cultural and social facts and concepts and patterns of thinking for 3-4 years which helps many break the stigma of prejudices, bigotry and falsely based assumptions. For many it does not. For the most part, college is successful in specializing people to increasingly complex roles which are needed for the country to keep up technologically and financially with the rest of the world. The true connection of the facts and the break down your own preconceived notions can only happen on an individual level and for many it never happens sadly.

But I think you nailed a big part of it here. The 3-4 years in which people move beyond their upbringing and their parents unfounded beliefs. Having a better conception of the limitations of their knowledge rather than the brash confidence of mirroring their parents politics.

Well what is stopping you from going one step further and simply saying I think 30 is better for the cut off for the voting pool then 25 like DDave said or even saying you dont really know what life is all about until you hit the half way mark and wanting the limit be at 50. I understand where you are coming from, I'm just uncomfortable with the premise behind it that the longer you live, the better the voter you are. I have explained already why I think it is a false premise and why it is "slippery" so to speak when used imo.

But for the slope to be slippery there has to be reason to think that there is a significant difference between 25 and 30. But what is it? I don't see one.

If it did lead to a worse government, well then my justification is that we get the government we voted for. One made on stupid decisions. We need to have our society have a sense of government being important, if not one of the most important things in our lives but as it stands right now we have lots of apathy not just in epidemic proportions among the youth but in large sections of all but the most elderly. Our Federal elections don't nearly get the voter turnout they should, when was the last time even 4 out of 5 people who could vote even vote? It seems...sloppy as a society to not better instill a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions among the youth and instead we just cut them off until they old enough to learn for themselves. That's my feeling on the situation. Personally, since there is such a really low voter turnout from youth, do you think that lowering the voting age would really flood the booth with ignorant voters? Or realistically would those few young politically motivated be the ones voting?

We should not have a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions. We should have a cultural reverence for being educated.

I think that last question is a bit unsatisfactory in this case, simply because the only reason that the drinking age is 21 is due to the federal government bribing the state governments with extra highway funds in exchange for raising their age limit. If the federal government wasn't paying these highways funds a lot of states would probably have an 18 drinking age still. I get your point though and all I can say is what is to stop me from saying if we trust them with complicated questions why not let them drink?

Well, I was thinking about the message sent. It seems kind of pervasive...all those "just get out there and vote!" campaigns, those "quick summaries of the issues" pamphlets, the "list of who to vote for" sent by the party. That's all there is to it, they are trying to say. I feel like people are better off if they have the tools to analyze stuff before they dive in and affiliate themselves with a party.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But I think you nailed a big part of it here. The 3-4 years in which people move beyond their upbringing and their parents unfounded beliefs. Having a better conception of the limitations of their knowledge rather than the brash confidence of mirroring their parents politics.

It's a mixed bag on what exactly the majority walk away with from college. Many do not have their ideas changed, they simply continue to believe their parents religious doctrine and go into business and bypass any science altogether for example. Many walk away meeting lots of people and gaining a better understanding of people from different backgrounds but many do not. Those that even do have that interaction continue to be ignorant when it comes to non social issues like the economy or "moral" issues like stem cell research where any knowledge of the actual science clears up a lot of the "controversy" automatically. Many people simply don't process but instead regurgitate onto the test which does nothing. A lot of people simply don't go to college either. College does make a noticeable improvement but if you are basing that the age limit should be right where people come out of college I fear that you are banking too much on an institution to be the savior of the country, turning out educated voters when in reality it all comes down to an individual level.

But for the slope to be slippery there has to be reason to think that there is a significant difference between 25 and 30. But what is it? I don't see one.

You could argue that between 25 and 30 is when a lot of people start having kids. Having kids can greatly change your view on a great many things. Would you agree that a 30 (or 35) year old father has a lot more experience and wisdom to bring then a 25 year old spouse or single person since he has children and the experiences that they bring? A lot of preconceptions can be challenged when it conflicts with your desire to make your child safe or entertained or etc...

We should not have a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions. We should have a cultural reverence for being educated.

I absolutely agree. I should have made that clear in my earlier post. But try breaking America's anti-intellectualism that's been here since the beginning.

Well, I was thinking about the message sent. It seems kind of pervasive...all those "just get out there and vote!" campaigns, those "quick summaries of the issues" pamphlets, the "list of who to vote for" sent by the party. That's all there is to it, they are trying to say. I feel like people are better off if they have the tools to analyze stuff before they dive in and affiliate themselves with a party.

Oh I absolutely agree with this as well. I dislike these college people coming to my dorm getting people to blindly register to vote when they have no clue about any issues. However, to use an overused expression, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Give the tools to an apathetic college kid and those tools will gather dust.

[Ronin]

whatever the age is it should always be the same age as the minimum age to volunter or be draffed into the military forces of each country.
if you are expected to put your ass on the line for the policies a government creates then you should have a word in them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As Louis hinted at, the household, as opposed to the individual, is the basis of our society, and the classical economic unit. It is ridiculous to think that one extended family may be able to promote its interests over another through having more inhabitants with the vote, simply on the grounds that it is larger! To relate this to the OP, 'one household one vote' would also solve the issue of voting at a certain age, since we could remove age boundaries entirely, since a person will only become a householder once they reach a relatively mature age, and have some life experience. Age cutoffs are arbitrary, this system would create a voting base with the values discussed earlier that make for a healthy electorate.

Furthermore, I propose a class-based voting system, similar to that of the old three-estates. An excellent real life examples is the Prussian three-class franchise.

While some lefties may at first complain, if they think about it, this is precisely the sort of system they should support if they honestly combine their socialist ideals with support for democracy. If society is fundamentally divided along class lines, and a person's class is what determines their political concerns, then it seems that all people can only be fairly represented if their class is given a voice in parliament.

Since there are far more working-class than middle-class people and nobility combined, then a system of 'one person one vote' in a single chamber would lead to a tyranny of the majority by the working classes, leaving the other two without democratic representation.

Only a greedy capitalist that denies the existence of class struggle would want a Parliament where every person gets one equal vote.

All good socialists should support the above system.

To try to link all these ideas together, the common theme is that it is silly idealism to think that the individual is the basis of society, and completely ignores the reality of the social/economic/political nature of society today, which is far too complex for such a simple system.

[TinCow]

In the US, 18 is the general age of majority. It does not make any sense to have the voting age different from the age of majority.

[Skullheadhq]

I vote for a voting age measured in political knowledge and IQ.

[Tellos Athenaios]

In the US, 18 is the general age of majority. It does not make any sense to have the voting age different from the age of majority.

That's an interesting argument; if I understand you correctly it boils down to: at age 18 you come of age, therefore you should have all the rights of other able adults.
But maybe look at some other age landmarks:

At age 13 a person is considered able to commit to agreements. One may now officially troll forums and get banned for it, post copyrighted or lewd content and get called to court over it. One may now chat up FBI investigators posing as other 13 year olds, too; one may now start to build up a lifetime's worth of debt.
At age 16 a person is considered able to operate a vehicle such as a car. One can now attempt to set official speed records and drive over passers by.
At age 18 a person is considered adult. One may now elect a series of disasters to strike the USA for the coming years. One may now build up debt faster than ever before, as well as demand state funds accelerate the combined debt of all your fellow citizens. One may now become the FBI agent and pretend to be 13 years old again.
At age 21 in the USA a person is considered responsible enough to spend money to buy a drink.

I think you can make a fair case that if at age 13 or 16 you are already trusted with certain liberties which enable you to inflict a lot of harm on society you might as well be allowed to vote at that age too. Also that the restriction on alcohol is kind of weird given you are considered adult at age 18, though admittedly it's obviously a relic of the past your stuck with.

[gaelic cowboy]

Furthermore, I propose a class-based voting system, similar to that of the old three-estates. An excellent real life examples is the Prussian three-class franchise.

That is gonna give us some mighty good comedy

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, I do not want fries with that.

Trust such a middle-class snobby capitalist to poke fun at my form of employment. Away, bourgeois!

Nonsense; I have always voted differently to both my girlfriends and the rest of my family.

I hope you have not married outside your class, I find such a prospect quite ghastly!

That is gonna give us some mighty good comedy

Heh, well if you think about it it makes perfect sense. Socialists say that society is dictated by economic/materialist factors, and deny that the individual is free to pursue happiness by himself, since he is subject to class structures. Therefore it is meaningless to give the vote on an individual basis, since interests exist purely along class lines.

And if such socialists are really committed to democracy, they will see that allowing for one person one vote in a single chamber will mean that only the most populous class, the working-class, will be represented, since they will be able to form a tyranny of a majority with their voting block. The middle-class and nobility would have no voice, which is undemocratic. So the seats in Parliament must be divided 33% to each class. That way everybody has their interests heard, and they can work together for the good of the nation as a whole.

[Beskar]

All good socialists should support the above system.

No, I do not want fries with that.