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

[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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do not think that age is a very effective criterion for determining responsibility and maturity. The problem I see with this argument really is that the ability to vote is not based on responsibility and maturity. The ability to vote, in America, is supposed to be considered an inherant right of every adult citizen whether you deem them to be responsible and mature enough or not. When you reach the age of eighteen and are legally considered an adult you are supposed to be mature enough and responsible enough to take control of your own life. If you are supposed to be mature enough and responsible enough to take control of your life, whether you are or not, then you should be allowed to begin excersizing your right to vote as well.
Personally I don't think that eighteen is an unreasonable age at which to expect these things. If for some reason or another people at this age tend not to fit the description "responsible and mature" perhaps we should focus on helping them attain those attributes before they reach that age instead of compensating by changing the age we expect it of them.

 

[Moonbear]

Personally I don't think that eighteen is an unreasonable age at which to expect these things. If for some reason or another people at this age tend not to fit the description "responsible and mature" perhaps we should focus on helping them attain those attributes before they reach that age instead of compensating by changing the age we expect it of them.

I think that's a great argument to not change it. That highlights the issue I was thinking about if we raise the age: would that just raise the age these people start to act more mature because if we don't expect it of them, they'll live down to our expectations?

ray b, I think you also have a pretty good point (and a few others have made it too) that whatever age we decide people are mature enough to be adults, it should be consistent for all rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with adulthood. I could have asked the same question about many different topics associated with adulthood. I just stuck with voting because it seemed to fit best with this forum and seemed least likely to get derailed. You're either old enough to make decisions for yourself or you aren't.

 

[Smurf]

I think you're all Fascist bastards for expecting people to live up to your own standards before they deserve their already severely limited right to autonomy and a say in their government.

 

[brewnog]

I think that the US government should be instated by having a general election, where the electorate would be comprised of every single non-American on the planet.

 

[devil-fire]

i voted no because most of the people eager enough to vote at the age of 18 have a view they want represented. people who take the responsability lightly generaly don't vote at all.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I voted no. The age shouldn't be raised, it should be lowered, or eliminated. Let the kids vote! They are no dumber than many adults.

 

[Smurf]

see I didn't vote. I'm opposed to voting in general (in elections, not in polls) so I don't really care what the voting age is, it's corrupt either way.