Should the voting age be reduced to 16 in the US?

[Andrew NDB]

It's already starting to happen. In Oregon it's already on the ballot:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/polit...rnd/index.html

Pelosi is all for it:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...gh_school.html

So a 16 year-old, they are responsible and their voice is important, but a 20 year-old can't be trusted to be responsible enough to own a gun? Yeesh.

[snake]

Yeah, no. 16 year olds are just a step above small children in terms of brain power.

[Candy Kappa]

In Norway there has been discussions about lowering our voting age from 18 to 16, but it didn't happen. I think they got to a point where we almost had a trial period but it didn't fell through.

I don't really see a problem with it, although in Norway I think it got shot down because, while 16 year olds have completed mandaroty School, can start pay taxes and can be jailed for crimes and probably are mature enough to vote. Voting should be tied to Age of Majority which is 18 in Norway, and 16 is too young to be the New Age of Majority. So I can see that argument.

While 18 year olds are more developed then 16 year olds mentally, it's still not fully developed. So maybe not? Depends on Age of Majority I guess

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Only if the draft age is lowered to 16.

HOW DO YA LIKE THEM APPLES, YA DAMN KIDS!?

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Only if the draft age is lowered to 16.

That was the primary justification for lowering it to 18 in the 26th amendment, so might as well be consistent.

Contemporary American Liberal Democrats covet ambulatory voters, whom they perceive as more likely to vote Liberal Democrat, and because winning elections is their primary goal, they will never tire of changing the rules to give them their best chance of winning. Conservatives and Republicans have done similar things throughout history, of course, but the 16-year-old voter push is almost entirely a liberal strategy to get more votes.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

That was the primary justification for lowering it to 18 in the 26th amendment, so might as well be consistent.

Contemporary American Liberal Democrats covet ambulatory voters, whom they perceive as more likely to vote Liberal Democrat, and because winning elections is their primary goal, they will never tire of changing the rules to give them their best chance of winning. Conservatives and Republicans have done similar things throughout history, of course, but the 16-year-old voter push is almost entirely a liberal strategy to get more votes.

Exactly.

I don't mind the Democrats wanting to enable more voters. But they need to be responsible adults, not children who've never paid a damn bill in their lives.

[Andrew NDB]

Also 16 year olds:

[Prowler]

I don't think my opinion really matters, but USA has some odd age requirements. It allows people to drive at 16, but you can only buy alcohol at 21. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised if the country lowers its voting age to 16 in some places.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Also 16 year olds:

FZurGu12ojg

The guys in Jackass was between 20 and 40, humans in general do stupid things

[Powder]

No, in fact it should be raised to 21.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by snake

Yeah, no. 16 year olds are just a step above small children in terms of brain power.

Thats a little bit of an exaggeration.

I do agree with other that the age should not be lowered. I would actually prefer if it was raised to 21 with an exception to anyone serving in the armed forces or local law enforcement.

Edit: Also I didn't think we were suppose to have anymore political threads???? lol

[Leo656]

A recent study that was published determined that the "grown-up" part of your brain isn't fully developed until around age 30. So if anything, that should be the minimum voting age.

Anyone under 25 is provably stupid to begin with.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm OK with whatever we agree is the age that we're 100% adult, and of sound mind. Whether that is 16, 18 or 21, or 30. And whatever number is decided, that age should get ALL the rights otherwise afforded to adults (gun rights, right to vote, buy cigarettes, alcohol, etc.).

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I'm OK with whatever we agree is the age that we're 100% adult, and of sound mind. Whether that is 16, 18 or 21, or 30. And whatever number is decided, that age should get ALL the rights otherwise afforded to adults (gun rights, right to vote, buy cigarettes, alcohol, etc.).

This is what I agree with the most.

Keep it consistent, so that someone who is old enough to vote is also not barred from serving in the military, and so on.

[Leo656]

The problem is, military service pretty much requires that people be young, mostly-uneducated, and lacking in foresight and common sense. So that skews things quite a bit. By age 25, no sane-thinking person would ever enlist in what's proven to be a very crappy deal, since all those promises about affordable college, housing, and health care never, ever pan out, since the one thing our government can consistently do well is promise to pay for things, and then just Not Do That.

So they need to keep enlistment ages young, or else they'd have nobody signing up and they'd have to bring back the draft. On paper, it sounds "fair" to have drinking, smoking, driving, voting, and military service all be achievable at one predetermined age of "maturity" - "I can go fight and die for my country, but I can't buy a beer?!" - but again, it pays to understand what the scam is, and how it specifically works.

Incidentally, those on the Left who want to lower the voting age want it for the exact same reason as having young enlistment age requirements: They too depend on people who are young, uneducated, and lacking in common sense and foresight. ALL young people vote Democrat, because at that age "Give everybody free sh*t and just figure out how to pay for it later" sounds like a great idea, as do ALL decisions based on compassion moreso than, y'know, common sense. Then you hit 30 and realize that your paycheck drops by a third every time someone builds a new school in the area, and you get really fed up with all that.

It's a very transparent scam, just like their scam to abolish Voter I.D. laws to prove you're a citizen, even though they're absolutely necessary. But no, nobody at age 16 is wise or experienced enough to do much of anything, so we shouldn't allow them to have a say in anything important. Or even important-ish. Let 'em come back in ten years when all the cocaine and Corona is out of their system and they've proven they can make good decisions; until then, whining on FB should be the absolute limit of their involvement in the political process.

[sdp]

Voting age should be 20-50, there's a reason companies don't like to hire before/after a certain age.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I'm OK with whatever we agree is the age that we're 100% adult, and of sound mind. Whether that is 16, 18 or 21, or 30. And whatever number is decided, that age should get ALL the rights otherwise afforded to adults (gun rights, right to vote, buy cigarettes, alcohol, etc.).

I fully agree.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by Leo656

A recent study that was published determined that the "grown-up" part of your brain isn't fully developed until around age 30. So if anything, that should be the minimum voting age.

Anyone under 25 is provably stupid to begin with.

Thats new.... universally the brain is not considered fully developed until age 25 or 26. The brain become optimally efficient at age 32ish when we are cognitively most efficient.

The study was probably talking about peak proficiency.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, at 16... are you kidding me? At 16 I was a moron. I certainly didn't have the first notion of politics and certainly had no business in the voting booth. Even at 18. Maybe 20 is when it really began to make sense.

[snake]

I can speak for my age group- as a 17 year old- that we absolutely should not be voting.