News Is 18 the Right Age for Voting in Today's Society?

[Moonbear]

In the quest for something "different" on this forum, I'm posting a poll to ask whether the current voting age of 18 in the U.S. should be raised.

The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if the majority of 18 year-olds in our current society (not the way the society was 20 or 50 or 100 years ago) are sufficiently mature and independent to make such an important decision as who should be elected to government office.

I think it's a fairly generally known fact that young children generally reflect their parents' political views (if it isn't, then this can be a debate point). At some point as adults, we develop our own independence and may no longer share political views with our parents (many of course do share those views, but they arrive at those views independently; in other words, not just because it's what their parents told them to believe). What I'm unsure of is when during the developmental continuum from adolescence to adulthood do people stop taking their parents' view of the world and politics for granted and make independent political decisions?

Given that in other areas of life, indicators of independence seem to appear at a later age than historically (for example, adult children living at home with their parents over the age of 18, still dependent on their parents for financial support, or college students still having their parents come resolve their problems rather than doing it themselves), are 18 year-olds sufficiently independent to perform a function as important as voting, or are they only replicating their parents' votes? (You may disagree with the premise of this statement as well.)

You'll notice, I'm not working from hard data here, but my personal impression of changes in society and maturity of 18 year-olds. Hence, the poll and opportunity to discuss and present both supporting and opposing views.

Above, I probably should have defined majority...simple majority, 2/3 majority, overwhelming majority? I've chosen not to. If the difference would sway your opinion from yes to no, or vice versa, then choose unsure and explain.

Now that I've set up the general question, I'd like to put one restriction on the discussion. Discuss the merits of raising the voting age or keeping the status quo only as they apply to the maturity, independence, education, etc., of people in that age grouping, and not with regard to whether they are permitted or required to do other things at that age. For example, "If they can be sent to war at that age, they should vote," would not be a valid argument in this debate: make the assumption that whatever we set the voting age at, all related responsibilities that require that level of maturity would also be subject to revision as well.

I'll urge those who are around the age of 18 or nearing it to please not simply react to having to wait longer to vote. I tend to think the teens participating on this forum are more mature than the general population, so take into consideration your peers, classmates, etc., and think about whether enough of them have the maturity to make their own informed decisions when it comes to voting to merit keeping the age at 18. Don't worry, I'm not running off to lobby Congress to pass a new law, just thought it would make for an interesting non-partisan discussion.

 

[Tarheel]

I voted no.

I think there should be a minimum intelligence requirement though.
How about a test on current affairs and the US Constitution.

 

[Smurf]

... lol

In Canada we're currently debating a bill to lower the voting age to 16.

 

[Moonbear]

I voted no.
I think there should be a minimum intelligence requirement though.
How about a test on current affairs and the US Constitution.

That was a quick reply!

Such tests have been deemed unconstitutional. Look up Jim Crow laws.

 

[Moonbear]

... lol
In Canada we're currently debating a bill to lower the voting age to 16.

Really? Based on what reasoning? It might be helpful to this debate to know why people are considering lowering the voting age in Canada, and whether similar arguments would make sense in the US. (And since you always find a way to be troublesome with my poll choices, even when they seem entirely straightforward on a simple question, if you think the voting age should be lowered, that would be a "no" vote...it shouldn't be raised. )

 

[Smurf]

Really? Based on what reasoning?

Oh you know, freedom, taxation without representation, all that crap.

It was actually defeated in Parliament last june. But the people lobbying the bill will be proposing it again next government.
http://www.vote16.ca/en/index.htm

The UK is also pursuing this possibility.
http://www.votesat16.org.uk/index.php?PHPSESSID=1eda1b5655da898e64d33537b36413e2

 

[mattmns]

When are "kids" mature? Meaning what age would we raise it to, and why that age?For adult males living at home (ages 18-24) the percentage has gone from 54% (1970) to 55% (2002). The same study for females found 41% (1970) to 46% (2002) ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193723.html )

 

[Smurf]

While on the topic of Voting. I think I'll take this opportunity to post this:

http://voluntaryist.com/articles/001a.php

 

[Moonbear]

When are "kids" mature? Meaning what age would we raise it to, and why that age?


For adult males living at home (ages 18-24) the percentage has gone from 54% (1970) to 55% (2002). The same study for females found 41% (1970) to 46% (2002) ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193723.html )

I wish they had broken the data down into smaller age groupings.

I think I'd want to see some real poll data on how "kids" vote relative to their parents. You'll expect some degree of agreement, simply because people do incorporate what they've learned from their parents into their own views too, but there should come a point where the percentage of those voting differently from their parents would increase to indicate they are making independent decisions. I guess one could compare the data to an older population, say 30 year-olds, to see when the percentages of those voting differently from their parents began to reflect adult, independent voting patterns (you could also use poll data of "if you were old enough, who would you vote for" among various ages of children to see when the change starts to happen).

Since I didn't state it outright before, I voted unsure in the poll. I could be underestimating the maturity of 18 year-olds. Alternatively, if we raised the age, would that also be sending the message that you don't have to grow up and pay attention to the world around you quite yet, and just shift the problem to a later age group?

 

[Skyhunter]

If they are old enough to go to war they are old enough to have a voice in the decision.

 

[Evo]

If they are old enough to go to war they are old enough to have a voice in the decision.

That was the argument for lowering the voting age to 18. I think 18 is too young to go to war.

Young kids rarely take the time to understand what is really going on (the highly intelligent and knowledgeable youth at PF not included).

During the last election the local radio station was driving around giving out concert tickets to kids if they would register to vote and of course the DJ's were on air telling them who to vote for. Not that older people aren't any less likely to be herded like sheep to the polls by what ever organization they belong to. Unions tell their members who to vote for.

 

[Skyhunter]

That was the argument for lowering the voting age to 18. I think 18 is too young to go to war.
Young kids rarely take the time to understand what is really going on (the highly intelligent and knowledgeable youth at PF not included).
During the last election the local radio station was driving around giving out concert tickets to kids if they would register to vote and of course the DJ's were on air telling them who to vote for. Not that older people aren't any less likely to be herded like sheep to the polls by what ever organization they belong to. Unions tell their members who to vote for.

I think 118 is to young to go to war.

Our whole system of sufferage, in the words of Heinlen is like "adding zeros."

 

[Moonbear]

If they are old enough to go to war they are old enough to have a voice in the decision.

I guess you missed this paragraph in the OP:

Now that I've set up the general question, I'd like to put one restriction on the discussion. Discuss the merits of raising the voting age or keeping the status quo only as they apply to the maturity, independence, education, etc., of people in that age grouping, and not with regard to whether they are permitted or required to do other things at that age. For example, "If they can be sent to war at that age, they should vote," would not be a valid argument in this debate: make the assumption that whatever we set the voting age at, all related responsibilities that require that level of maturity would also be subject to revision as well.

 

[BobG]

I have to admit my 'no' was influenced by how things were when I was in high school. By senior year, I think most were pretty aware of what was going on politically on a national level - considering that was the year Nixon resigned because of Watergate, that might not have been the typical level of political awareness for high school students. Still, seniors taking Problems of Democracy (not a required course) had to have an awareness of current events to pass the course - in fact, I was a little miffed that Time magazine articles were used for homework assignments, since our family subscribed to Newsweek. On a local level, I knew the candidates well enough to have an opinion of them, but local tax initiatives and other ballot issues took me by surprise.

Among my kids, two voted for the opposite presidential candidate and one voted the same as I did. Since Kerry was the first Democratic Presidential candidate I voted for, it's hard to say whether that supports or weakens your position. Of the two living at home (or at least within a mile of home), one knew more than just the Presidential candidate, while the one clueless about any of the candidates other than the Presidential election understood the State amendment about the electoral votes (that's typical - in 2000, she was clueless about what each candidate stood for, but was very interested in the post-election process, itself). Neither really paid much attention to the local ballot initiatives.

Looking at people overall, I think interest in the topic has more to do with the variations in political awareness than maturity. There's a pretty large segment of the population whose only source political knowledge are 30 second campaign ads and a lot of those folks should be pretty mature.

 

[Just some guy]

No way, if anything it should be lowered to 16. 16 year olds (at least in Britain) have the right to consexual sex, abortions, marriage, the ability to serve in the armed forces, smoke, pay income tax and be tried as an adult in a court of law. With adult responsibilities comes adult priviledges - most important of which is having a say in how the political figures in our society shape our nation's future.

 

[Moonbear]

No way, if anything it should be lowered to 16. 16 year olds (at least in Britain) have the right to consexual sex, abortions, marriage, the ability to serve in the armed forces, smoke, pay income tax and be tried as an adult in a court of law. With adult responsibilities comes adult priviledges - most important of which is having a say in how the political figures in our society shape our nation's future.

And do you think they are already mature enough to handle those responsibilities? Again, I want to see arguments based on whether they are actually able to handle such responsibility by 18, not whether other laws expect them to do so.

 

[Just some guy]

And do you think they are already mature enough to handle those responsibilities? Again, I want to see arguments based on whether they are actually able to handle such responsibility by 18, not whether other laws expect them to do so.

Of course, otherwise society wouldn't expect them to do so.

Let's be completely honest, you either define 16 year olds as adults or children (not in a patronising sense mind) - if the former then they should have voting rights and if the latter they should have none of the rights and responsibilities I mentioned in my previous post. I'm sure there are plenty of young budding entrapreneurs or people in full-time employment who would love to not pay any income tax on their earnings.

 

[Moonbear]

Of course, otherwise society wouldn't expect them to do so.
Let's be completely honest, you either define 16 year olds as adults or children (not in a patronising sense mind) - if the former then they should have voting rights and if the latter they should have none of the rights and responsibilities I mentioned in my previous post. I'm sure there are plenty of young budding entrapreneurs or people in full-time employment who would love to not pay any income tax on their earnings.

In the US, we have different ages for different responsibilities, so it seems society hasn't come to quite the same consensus here. Here, you can drive at 17, vote, serve in the military, gamble, and smoke at 18, and consume alcohol at 21. Does this mean 16 year-olds in the US are less mature or responsible than in GB? Maybe it does...different societies and cultures exert different pressures on when people are expected to be responsible adults, and I suppose they could live up or down to that. Actually, that was my motivation for asking, because I think our culture may have changed enough that the age at which people are acting with sufficient maturity to take on such responsibilities is a bit older than 18 now, whereas I think there was a time when 16 year olds would have easily been mature enough to handle such responsibility...they started practicing that responsibility much earlier.

 

[Skyhunter]

I guess you missed this paragraph in the OP:

I admit I was answering the title and had not read the OP or the thread when I posted.

No, I do not think we should raise the age of suffrage. I think suffrage should be earned. Age does not equal maturity, wisdom, knowledge, or judgement.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the voters should write down the name of the candidate/issue they are voting for (rather than punch or select from a list). Spelling errors and illegible handwriting serve as automatic disqualifiers !

 

[Smurf]

16 year-olds in the US are less mature or responsible than in GB?

You actually have to ask that question?

 

[Art]

The UK are also considering lowering the voting age to 16. It will be debated by parliament next week.
The main reasoning is that there has been very low turnouts in recent elections and so they are looking to engage people at an earlier age to get them interested in politics in the hope that this interest will follow through into later years. Personally I'd be inclined to let them vote. If nothing else it would bring some badly needed diversity into politics.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't see what separates an 18 year old and say, a 21 or 24 year old sometimes. It would take some serious convincing as to how 24 year olds are in general, sufficiently more mature then 18 year olds.

 

[moose]

I don't see what separates an 18 year old and say, a 21 or 24 year old sometimes. It would take some serious convincing as to how 24 year olds are in general, sufficiently more mature then 18 year olds.

Really?

Between the ages of 14 and 16 people seem to change a lot maturity wise...

 

[Pengwuino]

Really?
Between the ages of 14 and 16 people seem to change a lot maturity wise...

That is true but even the people I knew at 16 shouldn't have been trusted to mop a floor...

I probalby wouldn't oppose it if something like this were up in the air... 16 year olds aren't going to vote anyways, who are we kidding haha. I mean hell, back in my high school, you didn't even have government until 12th grade.

 

[sid_galt]

I don't see what separates an 18 year old and say, a 21 or 24 year old sometimes. It would take some serious convincing as to how 24 year olds are in general, sufficiently more mature then 18 year olds.

A dose of reality, that is what separates an 18 year old from a 21 year old.

You see, a 21 year old has already gone through college and likely taken a job, one of the most life changing experiences.

 

[Pengwuino]

You see, a 21 year old has already gone through college and likely taken a job, one of the most life changing experiences.

Few 21 year olds are already done with college... The people I know with jobs and this "reality check" crap... I am sorry but i did not see any magical changes in them. I still don't see how many of them are allowed to even have responsibilities. Your bachelors degree is not a degree in responsibility unfortunately.

 

[MaxS]

you're assuming that all 21 year olds went to college and are living off their parents...

there are plenty of people right here in this country that have been on their own their entire lives.

 

[Pengwuino]

you're assuming that all 21 year olds went to college and are living off their parents...

I'm assuming "a 21 year old has already gone through college" meant that these particular people graduated with a degree...

But i guess i am wrong.

 

[MaxS]

I'm assuming "a 21 year old has already gone through college" meant that these particular people graduated with a degree...
But i guess i am wrong.

I wasn't talking to just you I was referring to the thread in general.

BUT as far as your post goes, my point still stands.. you're ignoring a large portion of the population by calling 21 yr olds immature while talking about college students.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well I have known a few mature 16 year olds but I wouldn't be making such a broad change based on a few mature people. I dunno... whatever, i don't care anymore, this thread has lost my interest, lower it to 10 for all i care, no one will vote anyways, this is America! land of the free, home of the lazy.

 

[Skyhunter]

Age doesn't make a difference.

Democracy should be more active. If people don't want to participate they can opt out. Those who do want to participate should earn their suffrage.

Voting should be a duty, not an option. Abstention is still participation. If one does not feel qualified to make a decision one can abstain.

If people were engaged and active on local, regional, and national levels, the nation, and therefore the world, would be so much better off.

If the Democrats get control, things will be different. Different people getting the money.

Why?

Because the majority of people are not involved enough in exercising democracy. Human nature is self interested. The entities, corporate and otherwise, that have the greatest opportunity to fulfill that human self interest have a distinct advantage.

The interest of the whole is in the interest of the self.

Politicians should be motivated by service, not profit. If this principle was primary to gaining the right of suffrage, the people electing our representatives would be engaged and active in the political process. They would have a greater ability to recognize others of like principles and support them.

I am not talking about an elite group, I am talking about the average American voter. By earning suffrage through service, and continuing that service by responsibly exercising their suffrage would do ever so much more to help democracy than requiring a person to take a certain number of trips around the sun.

Information technology is at a point where democracy can be practiced at a level never before seen.

The future can be wonderful.

Or not.

I wonder which way we will go when the pendulum swings back this time?

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think the average American has the time or patience to play politics. No matter how manyc onveniences we have, no matter how many time saving things we get... we seem to have the ability to create even more things to do. We'll never have any time for politics...

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't think the average American has the time or patience to play politics. No matter how manyc onveniences we have, no matter how many time saving things we get... we seem to have the ability to create even more things to do. We'll never have any time for politics...

Then we shouldn't practice it.

 

[Anttech]

"Man is by nature a political animal."

--Aristotle

 

[MaxS]

lol yeah great, the same genious who claimed heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and that the body is made up of four biles =)

 

[Anttech]

lol yeah great, the same genious who claimed heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and that the body is made up of four biles =)

yep, over 2000 years ago.. when most people where going ugg ugg and beating woman with bats for sex, this man was thinking about "gravity" and the Universe ;-)
Dont knock one of the founders of modern Science my friend. As we all know progession is by the means of extending our forefathers ideals
Seriously you should read some of his political Views.. there are mostly compitable with todays..
I especially like this oximoron

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.

anyway this is a bit off topic

 

[MaxS]

Because of that man scientific progress was stifled for some 2000 years

 

[Anttech]

Because of that man scientific progress was stifled for some 2000 years

That is an opinion and pure speculation, which cannot be backed up with any data.. Statements like that are what "stifle" scientific progress, not some Man 2000 years ago, who was with very little to go on attemping to understand what was around him..

Obviously his ideas were flawed but you are attempting to debunking him with 2000 years of scientific progress behind you. which he didnt have..

 

[PerennialII]

The earlier people get involved in society the better, with some 'reasonable' lower limit around 16. People 'mature' differently and are always 'under the influence' in more ways than one which doesn't necessarily correlate with age - so these arguments don't necessarily have that much basis.

 

[Mercator]

That was the argument for lowering the voting age to 18. I think 18 is too young to go to war.

You don't have children, do you? I am 48 and my mother does not want me to go to war from the day I was born until now.

 

[Smurf]

You don't have children, do you? I am 48 and my mother does not want me to go to war from the day I was born until now.

she has several, but I believe they're all girls.

 

[MaxS]

That is an opinion and pure speculation, which cannot be backed up with any data.. Statements like that are what "stifle" scientific progress, not some Man 2000 years ago, who was with very little to go on attemping to understand what was around him..

Obviously his ideas were flawed but you are attempting to debunking him with 2000 years of scientific progress behind you. which he didnt have..

Well I guess its not really his fault, but its not speculation - the church adopted his opinions as doctrine (who knows why) and burned and tortured dessenters as heretics.

 

[SOS2008]

I voted unsure in that I'm unsure what age should be considered "adulthood." Whatever the age is, I feel consistency would be nice—meaning as applied to both responsibility (e.g., draft) and privileges (e.g., drinking) as much as possible.

It seems to me that children matured faster in earlier days—in terms of responsibility for chores, often contributing to the household income, helping to rear younger siblings, etc. Furthermore, now children are living at home longer and/or returning home more frequently:

With the cost of living constantly climbing, more and more young people are returning home to live with their parents. One study has shown that although graduates of the high-school class of 1980 bring home larger paychecks than earlier generations, they actually earn 23 percent less than the class of 1972 when figures are adjusted for inflation. While young white middle-class professionals find that their salaries are not keeping pace with the cost of living, those in the Black community--where economic trends exact the harshest blows--are finding it even more difficult to survive on their own. Gone are the days when young professionals hoped to live better than their parents did; downward mobility has forced many young adults to stay at home longer or go back to their parents when things get rough. According to 1988 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, 18.9 million adults between 18 and 34 share households with their parents, up nearly 50 percent since 1970.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1264/is_n2_v20/ai_7643409

It has already been mentioned that going into the workforce, getting your own place, starting a family, etc. is what helps young people to mature. These activities seem to be occurring later and later in life.

The question is being asked in regard to driver’s licenses as well. Of course a large reason for the higher percentage accidents involving young people is that they are new drivers. Still, I would say there is more awareness and sense of responsibility at age 21 in comparison to age 16. I know one person who began to teach his son to drive, and gave up in fear, not allowing him to drive until 18. Nonetheless, I feel it needs to be kept at 16 because independent transportation is so vital—not enough public transportation alternatives, especially in states in the west/southwest.

In regard to the OP and voting, I agree with a previous post that good citizenship needs to be learned at a young age. Whether being able to vote will help, I don’t know. I’d say the young voters who vote (I believe in small number) tend to do so because they are politically aware and interested. So I'm not too concerned about it. I do feel the vote and draft need to be the same age.

 

[Silverbackman]

Some tribal states think 13 is the right age we declare them adults with equal rights, while other more conservative countries view 21. Many countries view 18 as well as the legal age. What do you think should be the legal age?

I think the legal age for every country as well as the age we declare people as adults should be 17, because if we take the average of 21 and 13 we would come out with 17. We can't say 21 is the right legal age more than 13, and vice versa. So in order to keep things fair and balanced I think 17 should be the legal age.

This works also for the ongoing debate between whether the legal age should be 16 or 18. 17 is the average of 16 and 18, and makes the most sense.

Again as always mathematics is the best way to find a solution to any problem :p

And by legal age I mean age they can vote, buy alcohol, gambel, drive a car, join the military, ect. (everything any other adult can do except maybe run for political power, which should be IMO 25).

What do you think?

 

[Smasherman]

I voted no. I don't think that most teenagers are mature enough to have voting power, but most who aren't wouldn't bother to vote, anyway.

I'd actually prefer if the voting age were decreased. If teenagers were able to vote while still in high school, classes might become better oriented to sustain a democracy (ie, a politically informed populace) because students would, to some degree, express a greater interest in politics.

 

[Moonbear]

I voted unsure in that I'm unsure what age should be considered "adulthood." Whatever the age is, I feel consistency would be nice—meaning as applied to both responsibility (e.g., draft) and privileges (e.g., drinking) as much as possible.
It seems to me that children matured faster in earlier days—in terms of responsibility for chores, often contributing to the household income, helping to rear younger siblings, etc. Furthermore, now children are living at home longer and/or returning home more frequently:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1264/is_n2_v20/ai_7643409

That's a really interesting perspective of "downward mobility" in your quoted source. While I lean toward the view that it's an indicator of immaturity, I also lean toward the view of just plain being spoiled by a lifestyle no young person could sustain on their own. Sure, a young professional can do better than their parents if their parents were not professionals, but if you grew up in a household with two working lawyers, and grew accustomed to the lifestyle of having such excesses in money always around and fairly few limits on spending, of course you're not going to be able to support yourself in that style of living when you first graduate yourself, even if you really do have more than enough to support yourself. So, that's part of what I'm trying to figure out, and part of the undecided view of mine...are these people living at home longer because they aren't pulling their weight and capable of supporting themselves, or is it because they just have expectations for a grander lifestyle than someone just starting out really can have, so continue to be spoiled by their parents until they save up more to live that lifestyle?

On the other hand, others have presented the perspective that getting people to vote at a younger age might improve their participation in voting by making their classes on politics and government more immediately relevant to them. I think this is an interesting perspective that has some appeal as well, though alternatively, if they have not yet developed independent, critical thinking skills at that age, do we risk that instead of their parents influencing them, their teachers will? In the US, teachers' unions are very politically influential, so would they be properly taught without being unduly influenced by their teachers' political views? I think this is why I lean toward an age when people are more independent, living on their own, so that they are practiced in making decisions for themselves rather than relying on others to tell them what to do.

No, I don't know what age. Would just 19 be better than 18, or wait until 21? 21 seems as arbitrary as 18 to me. But, I also agree that all privileges and responsibilities of "adulthood" ought to be conferred at the same age, with the exception that out of necessity, the driving age remain reflective of the availability of alternative transportation (and in very rural areas, you'll have kids who have even earlier licenses to drive farm vehicles...but growing up on a farm, they'll have seen often enough the dangers of being careless).

I'm not really worried about the apathetic voters who don't bother going to the polls...I'd prefer that as long as they take no interest in being informed of the issues that they abstain from voting. I'm more concerned with those who simply parrot their parents' strong views, or whose parents drive them to the polls with them, and instead of making their own informed choices, just take their parents' word for it. Does it make much difference if it all evens out in the end? Maybe not. Maybe there's no point in changing things for that very reason, it won't really make a difference. But, how is the age of "maturity" determined in the first place? What was the reason for choosing 18? What's special about that age?

 

[Smasherman]

It's true that many would just "parrot" their parents' views. The advantage gained from lowering the voting age is instilling an interest in politics that will last for life. So, extend the influence of the parents of teenagers now for a more democratic society later. Conceptually it's good.

 

[SOS2008]

It's true that many would just "parrot" their parents' views. The advantage gained from lowering the voting age is instilling an interest in politics that will last for life. So, extend the influence of the parents of teenagers now for a more democratic society later. Conceptually it's good.

Parroting is good? Look at your own life and what age you were when you began to think independently. Even younger members here in PF reference what their parents say, which they believe strongly, yet can't logically explain why. Within the education system, students only report on what they read and learn, and aren’t expected to analyze and critique until taking more advanced classes at college universities. I feel there are many other, better ways to teach good citizenship and awareness of the world to our youth without handing over the power of the vote.

 

[ray b]

living in a state that jails 12 yearolds for life if the crime gets the people mad enuff
I think we need one age to be adult not different ages for various "RIGHTS"
we currently allow 16 yearolds to drive a car, but want them to be 21 to drink
while I don't care to debate what age is best to vote, we need to be consistent
and pick one age not a different one in each case