Should we lower the voting age to 16

Haven't got a horse in this race but it seems perfectly reasonable for an 18 year old to be deemed mature enough to vote, and drink alcohol and make all other life choices.....some which none of us are allowed to make regardless of our age.

And if they are old enough to serve in the Armed Forces surely they are old enough to drink and vote etc.

Sixteen might be a bit too young.....I was quite political aware at 16, I was an Anarchist.
Now I'm 53 - I won't say matured because I certainly haven't and hope I never do - and all that I've done and seen has made me quite the cynic but I guess I'm still an Anarchist at heart.

I suppose that goes against the grain, its alleged that people get more conservative and reactionary as they grow older....that would make most of ATS's US membership positively geriatric!



ETA
As an aside I'd just like to add that I think that anyone who registers to vote but fails to vote without good reason should be fined and banned from voting in any future elections....a 'Vote for none of the above' box should be added to all ballot papers etc for those who feel their views aren't being represented or those who wish to express dissatisfaction with the current system.

The voting age and the drinking age should be the same. You decide?

a reply to: JAGStorm

No we should raise it to 25.

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
No...16 yr olds are not familiar with politics and their brainwashing techniques. Now is a dangerous time to be asking that considering how fake news and media are biased for the DNC. America would be ruined faster than you know it if kids were allowed to vote at that age.

Watched one of those "Jaywalking" things with Jay Leno. One of the questions was how many branches are there in the US government?

No one got it right so, NO. If you can't even answer the most basic civics question then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I say raise the age....communism learned a long time ago that you cannot give the general dumb public such important power.

Liberals would vote in a Kardashian if given the opportunity

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I was married, with an apartment, car, job at 18, my wife was 20 and a legal aid. Senior year my friends parents were helping them decide on college,and we were living at Eastern Michigan and working..(no she wasn't pregnant).

It was Viet Nam days...and with all I was lucky to have going...I didn't know my ass from a hole in the ground (and Nixon was president).…

I understood a lot...but not in complete context until my late 20's, a U of M degree, and a divorce to cap it all off.

Hey...just my 2 cents...even wine has to mature a few years.

Best....MS

*PS ...how ya doing CCG?!

Clever psycho ops in play here.
Lower vote age to 16 then use reasoning well if public think a 16 Is mature enough to make vote decision then they are old enough to decide for themselves have sex. Therefore it follows they will have automatic argument to drop consensual age.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
This was the question on our local news station.
Should we lower the voting age to 16?

I think the overwhelming response was no, but I think it was more to start to get the question in people's minds.


All I have to say it watch this video and decide if kids should be able to vote:
www.delish.com...

Why not lower the age to 10 ???

To raise it one further, I would say we need to end high school as we know it at 16 years old. After that, 2 years of community college paid for by the state/federal government, 2 years of technical skills education (plumbing, electric, automotive, welding, etc), and 2 years in the military or peace Corp. Then, after completing all three of those, they decide if they want to go to college, spend more time in the military, seek self-employment or work in the trade industry.

By then they’ll have a wonderful grasp on economics, education, society, etc. their vote would be far more meaningful to them as an individual. And society would be better off because people are actually competent in a wide array of industry.

Obviously a lot of what ifs and what nots, but I would seriously be on board with that approach to American education.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: JAGStorm

Hmm … okay, well, sure, lower the voting age to 16, but please then also lower the age of consent, drinking age for alcohol, age to purchase nicotine, etc..

If you are an adult, and can vote, you should be adult enough to handle all that other stuff too.

I would have loved that back when I was 16

!!! Go Go Go!!!!

The UK is weird with our age laws. There is no minimum age for say a parent to allow their child to drink alcohol, and when a child is 16 they can drink alcohol in a pub so long as it is purchased by someone aged 18 and with a meal, that can be as little as a plate of fries. Age of sexual consent here is 16, but it is illegal to take photographs of someone naked until they are 18. Tobacco is legal for a child to smoke but police can confiscate it from under 18's and prosecute anyone supplying the under 18 with it.
You can join the armed forces aged 16 but not see active combat until 18, you can drive a car aged 17.

Perhaps making it compulsory is a better place to start..?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Perhaps making it compulsory is a better place to start..?

Only if 'none of the above' is an option, then I'd agree.
I've spoiled my ballot paper a few times writing my reasons why I didn't want to vote for any of them. I know it seems pointless but it was my opinion recorded and held by the government, my voice.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think you should get to vote at 30. Also, you should have to earn your citizenship.

Become a commissioned citizen and vote!

Military service, education or labor gets you a green card. Take a test and have a 2-year proving period.

Then you are a citizen.

Would you like to know more?

I think that view makes some logical sense on paper. In reality, it would be a mess. I do think that probably most kids would benefit from some kind of community service being a requirement. Military service? No way man. Not unless the definition of "military" were broadened to the point of absurdity to include people who do menial community service jobs.

Each person would have to be carefully evaluated. There are lots and lots of people who have no business being on a battlefield. If you were going to require some kind of "service" of every kid, you would have to make the same allowances you would for the military draft. You would not want to draft someone with an IQ of 50 and send them into combat. Someone like that would be fine picking up trash or something. I wouldn't want them by my side in a war zone.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Hmm well I was going to check out the article in the OP to see if there was any reasoning behind it, like to increase voter turnout, which would make sense.

I instead got something about a pregnant turkey!

a reply to: Chadwickus
Lol
Scotland allows 16 year olds to vote for their members of their government. The wider UK is 18 though and that seems sensible to me because most 16 year olds are still mainly immature twats. The difference between 16 and 18 is vast, those couple of years extra growing up are quite the change.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I agree with you. That's why I specified 3 distinct paths to citizenship. Labor, education or military service. There could be more.

So job corps in a union. Education in the private sector. And military (Gov) in the army or as a government employee.

Let me specify also that I think there should be no public education. All should be private. The only "public education" should be job training or a full apprenticeship for a government job.

Also; There should be no separate leadership in the military. It should be one corps with different specialties. Same uniform and traditions, different individual formation for each type of battlefield.

In the army, you need cooks, drivers, barbers and so on. 2 years as a janitor or whatever for the army would benefit someone with nothing at the start line of life. All is paid work of course.

Actual combatants issued weapons and weapon systems would go through 100℅ combat-related training at the intensity of our marine corps.

Everyone else takes something like Karate (self-defense) classes, PT exercise regimens, and civics classes. That before and during their employment in the army for 2 years and alongside whatever job training is required. Then they go.

All waivers and what not should be issued under whatever system makes the most sense.

I propose a total restructuring of society. No band-aid will do.

Citizen, would you like to know more?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Hmm well I was going to check out the article in the OP to see if there was any reasoning behind it, like to increase voter turnout, which would make sense.

I instead got something about a pregnant turkey!

Sorry that was too funny I had to share to show how gullible and uneducated some/most kids are.

Here are some of the reason behind the age:

"I'm starting to hear about this everywhere. Look out 2020
These are all recent articles:

Washington could lower voting age to 16 for 2020
www.foxnews.com...

Lowering the Voting Age - Top 3 Pros and Cons
www.procon.org...
"

Of course there are some that just believe that lowering the age will padd their team. Most think that would be Democrats, but historically it is actually republicans that benefit.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I agree with you. That's why I specified 3 distinct paths to citizenship. Labor, education or military service. There could be more.

Your positition, however, is absurd because no one should have to earn the right to exist. People don't ask to exist. People don't volunteer for existence. Their parents make that decision for them.

Now if you're talking about immigration, that's a completely different thing. If you're talking about forcing people who are born here to parents who are citizens to earn the right to exist, that's just barbaric and would turn out about the way you'd expect such a totalitarian policy to turn out.

If anything, people should pay an extra tax specifically for reproducing. Every child they choose to have is an extra 1 million dollars over the course of their life.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

No more taxes. No

No one has a right to exist, though they do. No one has a right to anything.

You don't need to be a citizen to function in society. To vote and effect change in policy yes.

That should be earned. All "human rights" still apply. (added: ) Whatever we deem them to be at any given moment in history. "Common sense applies" is more accurate.

Did I say this already? : No more taxes.

Which is my next point: No income tax. Only sales tax.

Paid in citizens buy tax-free. The retired and elderly specifically. Everyone else pays the same sales tax.

Citizen, would you like to know more?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: BrianFlanders

No more taxes. No

No one has a right to exist, though they do. No one has a right to anything.

That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution IS the foundation of the US government. You would have to completely re-write everything to change things to your liking. Complete fantasy.