What should the voting age be?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maturation in a person is highly variable. I'm 20. Highly conscious of the political climate, I feel mature, whether I am or not is subjective. You question my parents, my siblings, my friends, my lecturers about how mature I am you'll get 100 different answers. Then, under your suggestion, I shouldn't be allowed to vote simply because I don't meet a "time spent on planet Earth" criteria. Whereas, some window licker aged 26 can vote, regardless of how much life experience they actually have because they've had the good fortune to have been pushed out of their mother screaming and covered in fluids a a wink and skip before I was. Cabbage. Make it simple.

But variability is irrelevant. I may, at less than 25 years of age, be a good voter. And a certain 26 year old may not. But a cut off age is made because it is too difficult to determine who is ready to vote, so having a cutoff age is "making it simple" as you say.

I don't see where you are getting that it is subjective either. Are you more mature than you were at 12, yes or no? Yes. Where is the subjectivity?

When you are considered a legal adult you gain the right to vote. Sure, some people are not going to make conscious decisions, or thoughtful choices, but that is the nature of the beast. Some people either a) do not care about the process, b) aren't intelligent enough to make a diligent choice or c) will vote for the populist choice. Age has nothing to do with any of that. Across any spectrum of ages you will find people who fall into those categories. A lot of it has to do with the culture of the process and the way the process is taught and educated. If you get youth involved and interested then they will be less likely to fall into those three categories, it's a simple human process of developing habits, routines and cultures.

I agree. And if we develop the habit and the voting culture of "all that's important is that you are involved in the voting process" we get the result of people who think all they need to do is have an opinion on everything. I suggest that the higher age would lend itself towards a voting culture that saw voting as something that requires more thought and self questioning and education than the 18 year old age does.

Because it is the best option you have. Whether at 25, 26, 57 or 89 that is precisely what many people do. They “just do” that voting thing, or they abstain completely. In (general) absence of well thought out votes the next best thing is to have as many votes as possible because that way you have a much better view of the electorate as a whole including those who do not vote.

That's pessimistic, doesn't mean you're wrong though. But don't surveys suffice for a "better view of the electorate"? What is the distinct advantage to having 18-25 year olds represented? gaelic suggests something, but if people are just voting to serve themselves in his theory than so will young people. And if we have a culture of selfish voting, then people should have more time separate from their self voting parents before voting themselves. My argument is based on the idea that it would change people's voting styles, not just that 18 year olds make semi-blind votes.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's pessimistic, doesn't mean you're wrong though. But don't surveys suffice for a "better view of the electorate"? What is the distinct advantage to having 18-25 year olds represented? gaelic suggests something, but if people are just voting to serve themselves in his theory than so will young people. And if we have a culture of selfish voting, then people should have more time separate from their self voting parents before voting themselves. My argument is based on the idea that it would change people's voting styles, not just that 18 year olds make semi-blind votes.

Bums on seats. In other words because surveys do not confer a political seat, they can and will be ignored: specifically because in such a scenario the opinion of 18-25 year olds would not only be a minority opinion (by definition the 18-25 year olds are a small group relatively to those aged 25 and onwards) but also a minority opinion without political clout. There already is a strong tendency to ignore the younger members of society in favour of older generations.

Self interest changes over time, voting for your own self interest has been done since time immemorial. It's nothing to do with living in the basement of your mum, it's everything to do with a basic question: what's in it for me?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Bums on seats. In other words because surveys do not confer a political seat, they can and will be ignored: specifically because in such a scenario the opinion of 18-25 year olds would not only be a minority opinion (by definition the 18-25 year olds are a small group relatively to those aged 25 and onwards) but also a minority opinion without political clout. There already is a strong tendency to ignore the younger members of society in favour of older generations.

Self interest changes over time, voting for your own self interest has been done since time immemorial. It's nothing to do with living in the basement of your mum, it's everything to do with a basic question: what's in it for me?

I'm not objecting to voting in self interest per se, but to voting selfishly--i.e. in your own self interest while spiting others.

I think it's legitimate to say that there is a loss involved with moving the age, but I have been making a case that the benefits outweigh that. Just as the benefits of having the voting age set at 18 outweigh the fact that middle schoolers are a minority with no political clout--even though they have specific issues regarding education affecting them in a big way.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm not objecting to voting in self interest per se, but to voting selfishly--i.e. in your own self interest while spiting others.

And how is any voting age threshold going to change that? Specifically what makes you think the 50 somethings clinging on to an 80's sense of self-entitlement are going to become altruistic, well meaning citizens in touch with the need and tribulations of their society? How are they any better or more entitled to the vote than spoiled 20 year olds?

Or to put it bluntly: why further emphasise the power of those who led us into the current mess in the first place at the cost of those who will need to find a way out in 30 years time?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And how is any voting age threshold going to change that? Specifically what makes you think the 50 somethings clinging on to an 80's sense of self-entitlement are going to become altruistic, well meaning citizens in touch with the need and tribulations of their society? How are they any better or more entitled to the vote than spoiled 20 year olds?

Or to put it bluntly: why further emphasise the power of those who led us into the current mess in the first place at the cost of those who will need to find a way out in 30 years time?

I don't think 50 something will become altruistic. And spoiled 50 year olds are not more entitled to vote than spoiled 20 year olds. My suggestion is that raising the age will have a genuine positive effect on people in that regard. I think people at 18 are much more likely to either conform to their parents beliefs (the 50 year old spoiled person in your argument) or blindly reject them. More likely than they are at 25, when they are more independent and more educated and more experienced.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Heh, you should only get to vote if you pay more in taxes than you collect in benefits.

[Beskar]

Heh, you should only get to vote if you pay more in taxes than you collect in benefits.

But how do you make that fair? What is classified as "benefits"? What about someone who just recently lost work, do they lose their vote in the election the month after because of failure to get work?

It is a massive grey area.

Best solution would be to make the 'benefits' for unemployment do public service, then everyone is happy. It helps people keep work active, and they are not getting money for 'nothing'.