Do You Support Lowering The Federal Election Age to 16?

[Shadow Wolf]

And a 16 year old is capable of appreciating that consequence just as well as they are capable of appreciating the consequences of their current choices and their choices with which we would advocate to empower them (i.e. abortion, beginning transition, vaccination without parental consent, etc.)

The point I've been trying to make is their brain is not yet mature enough to appreciate those consequences as an adult can. This is basic human psychology. The frontal cortex plays a very significant role in this exact cognitive function, and at 16 it is not matured. Which is, as I've also been saying, why teenagers and emerging adults are high risk groups, and the studies and statistics do support the idea of them being considered high risk. And it revolves around the brain not yet being fully matured.

It seems the crux is that you simply don't trust 16 year olds.

It's not so much trust as it is the acknowledgement they are not yet fully matured. There is a reason more states are placing more restrictions against 16-year-olds when it comes to driving.
It's also a position of defending childhood from having the demands of adulthood unreasonably expected. We need to allow our children to be children. This does include teenagers. We need to stop expecting them to have everything figured out before we even give them a high school diploma. Sure, some do know where they want to go in life even before high school. But, at the same time, switching majors in college isn't unusual because people tend to lack enough experience to know what they want and where to go when they graduate high school.

 

[Curious George]

The point I've been trying to make is their brain is not yet mature enough to appreciate those consequences as an adult can. This is basic human psychology. The frontal cortex plays a very significant role in this exact cognitive function, and at 16 it is not matured. Which is, as I've also been saying, why teenagers and emerging adults are high risk groups, and the studies and statistics do support the idea of them being considered high risk. And it revolves around the brain not yet being fully matured.

Voting is not a high risk activity. Older folks statistically have poorer vision. We can cite facts all day. You are not citing facts relevant to your argument. That a brain is not fully mature does not mean that a brain is not mature enough to handle the "shark" tank of voting.

It's not so much trust as it is the acknowledgement they are not yet fully matured.

Then why can you not make a link between this lack of maturity and the activity you think should be prohibited. You are simply going aroumd in circles.

I am well aware of the psychology involved. None of qhat you have suggested means a 16 year old cannot make choices in voting.

There is a reason more states are placing more restrictions against 16-year-olds when it comes to driving.

Yes, driving is much more dangerous than voting.

It's also a position of defending childhood from having the demands of adulthood unreasonably expected.

Asking a 16 year old to think about issues and voice an opinion is not an unreasonable expectation.

We need to allow our children to be children. This does include teenagers. We need to stop expecting them to have everything figured out before we even give them a high school diploma.

Asking them to think abpit issues and voice an opinion is not asking them to "have everything figured out."

Sure, some do know where they want to go in life even before high school. But, at the same time, switching majors in college isn't unusual because people tend to lack enough experience to know what they want and where to go when they graduate high school.

Except I am not talking about where they want to go to school and what they want to study. I am talking about there opinion on current issues.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are not citing facts relevant to your argument. That a brain is not fully mature does not mean that a brain is not mature enough to handle the "shark" tank of voting.

I've been trying to say their brain isn't mature enough to comprehend the actions of their vote. It has nothing to do with them personally or their upbringing, but it's very much a physiological fact the frontal cortex is responsible for such cognitive abilities, and at 16 it will still be several years before it reaches maturation (it's why we don't let people drink or use cannabis until the age of 21, with some states not even allowing tobacco until then, because the brain is still developing and drugs are especially bad for a developing brain). And I have been providing supporting claims that teenagers do not comprehend consequences to the extent an adult can.

Except I am not talking about where they want to go to school and what they want to study. I am talking about there opinion on current issues.

I keep bringing up these various points as support for my claims as to why they shouldn't vote. I am talking about over all trends, including teenage reckless abandon and our unrealistic expectations of expecting adult behaviors from children. Of course their thoughts and opinions matter, but they are also just learning how these things relate to society at large and how they fit into it all. Teach them, as children, to make wise and informed decisions. And have expectations of them suitable for children. It's perfectly ok for those with experience to interject and point out things that those without experience do not know because of their lack of experience. In regards to teenagers, this should manifest as promoting critical thinking towards political issues and exploring the long-term implications of elections and policies before we let them vote.

Then why can you not make a link between this lack of maturity and the activity you think should be prohibited. You are simply going aroumd in circles.

I think you are simply not wanting to acknowledge my points. I don't even know how many times I've stated now it entirely revolves around the fact that at age 16 the brain is not fully matured, and this immaturity does have implications on cognitive functions such as impulsivity, comprehending consequences, and thinking in long term. Those things, which are hallmark characteristics of teenagers, pose many potential problems for elections, such as a lack of understanding issues, how election outcomes effect things long after the winner is out of office, and that no issue is self-contained. Voting is the same as driving, but as a group teenagers generally lack the ability to understand that today does effect tomorrow, and they aren't known much for caring about tomorrow (again, a feature of brain immaturity).

 

[averageJOE]

I voted "Yes"...but only if he/she has a job. I believe a 16 year old who is working and paying taxes should have a say in how their tax money is spent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure about the US but in the UK you can't vote until you are 18 but...

You can join the army/navy/air force at 16
You can drive a car at 17

If you are old enough to fight for your country, you should be able to vote.

Or.....
If one isn't old enuf to vote,
one shouldn't be killing for one's country.

 

[Stevicus]

What about development, maturity, and experience?

I would contend that it's sufficient for the purpose of voting.

 

[Altfish]

Or.....
If one isn't old enuf to vote,
one shouldn't be killing for one's country.

Maybe not but..
I should have added that if you are paying income tax you should have a vote.

 

[Revoltingest]

Voting is not a high risk activity.

This view exists only because the relationship between a vote & results is
not so directly connected as is driving. Each vote has a small chance of
affecting the outcome, but it's greater when the margin of an election is slim.
Now consider that one's presidential vote has large effects, both good & bad.
To list a tiny fraction...
- Near nuclear war with the USSR.
- Ending the military draft.
- Killing a million Iranians in a proxy war.

Voting is dangerous.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe not but..
I should have added that if you are paying income tax you should have a vote.

Or only property owners should have the right?
Or only veterans?
Or only business owners?

 

[Altfish]

Or only property owners should have the right?
Or only veterans?
Or only business owners?

You added the word 'only'

 

[Revoltingest]

You added the word 'only'

I'm glad you noticed.
Provocative, eh?

 

[WalterTrull]

"Hey, let's all write in Mickey Mouse for President heehee!"

Do you think??? Where can I look up the demographics for 2016???

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you just made my argument then.

I was just confirming that it was your argument.

It's a ridiculous position, so I didnt want to assume.

 

[Curious George]

This view exists only because the relationship between a vote & results is
not so directly connected as is driving. Each vote has a small chance of
affecting the outcome, but it's greater when the margin of an election is slim.
Now consider that one's presidential vote has large effects, both good & bad.
To list a tiny fraction...
- Near nuclear war with the USSR.
- Ending the military draft.
- Killing a million Iranians in a proxy war.

Voting is dangerous.

Pbbt.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pbbt.

Eloquent!

Let's consider the empirical side of things.
In my experience, both government and drivers have been life threatening.
- Run down by a drunk driver (driver problem). Btw, I survived.
- Drunk driver was a messed up Vietnam vet (government problem)
- Almost drafted into Vietnam War (government problem)
- Nixon cancelled draft just in time (government solution)

One may believe each vote has a vanishingly small consequence.
But many small votes add up to enormous deadly effects.
And with the curious reasoning you've shown....your vote in
particular is dangerous indeed.

 

[Curious George]

I've been trying to say their brain isn't mature enough to comprehend the actions of their vote. It has nothing to do with them personally or their upbringing, but it's very much a physiological fact the frontal cortex is responsible for such cognitive abilities, and at 16 it will still be several years before it reaches maturation (it's why we don't let people drink or use cannabis until the age of 21, with some states not even allowing tobacco until then, because the brain is still developing and drugs are especially bad for a developing brain). And I have been providing supporting claims that teenagers do not comprehend consequences to the extent an adult can.

I keep bringing up these various points as support for my claims as to why they shouldn't vote. I am talking about over all trends, including teenage reckless abandon and our unrealistic expectations of expecting adult behaviors from children. Of course their thoughts and opinions matter, but they are also just learning how these things relate to society at large and how they fit into it all. Teach them, as children, to make wise and informed decisions. And have expectations of them suitable for children. It's perfectly ok for those with experience to interject and point out things that those without experience do not know because of their lack of experience. In regards to teenagers, this should manifest as promoting critical thinking towards political issues and exploring the long-term implications of elections and policies before we let them vote.

I think you are simply not wanting to acknowledge my points. I don't even know how many times I've stated now it entirely revolves around the fact that at age 16 the brain is not fully matured, and this immaturity does have implications on cognitive functions such as impulsivity, comprehending consequences, and thinking in long term. Those things, which are hallmark characteristics of teenagers, pose many potential problems for elections, such as a lack of understanding issues, how election outcomes effect things long after the winner is out of office, and that no issue is self-contained. Voting is the same as driving, but as a group teenagers generally lack the ability to understand that today does effect tomorrow, and they aren't known much for caring about tomorrow (again, a feature of brain immaturity).

No, you are romanticizing both voting and teen cognitive ability. Teens are very much competent enough to understand if they vote (and enough people with them) in support of a proposition or leader then that proposition will pass or that leader will get elected.

It is not that I do not want to acknowledge your points. It is that your points are absurd. Teens are indeed given more responsibility in other decisions that effect their lives and the lives of others. What is more, we generally want, expect, and believe they should have choice in these arenas. Nothing in a 16 year olds development makes voting not age appropriate. 16 year olds are capable of decision making. Studies that challenge teen decisionmaking do not do so for behaviors such as voting. Voting is not drinking, driving, working, making medical decisions, etc. Votimg is contributing your voice toward the shaping of government and policy. Asking that the 16 year olds do not vote is asking that they have no contribution toward that end. When pressed for why they should not, you tell me how immature and irresponsible they are.

But no real reason as to why their voice does not, and should not matter. You just dismiss it as they wouldn't umderstand the consequences amd children need to be children.

These are vague indefensible positions that are built on studies not related to voting, or relevant to voting. These opinions also idealize voting and demonize teens.

I suggest lack of trust because even if you cannot see it, you do not trust that teens would make an informed decision. This is because you believe them incapable of doing so.

We are just goimg around in circles now. Hopefully our discussion highlighted oir two positions and the consistency of those positions. If you have any questions of my position feel free to ask. If you would like to just reiterate your position again, you are welcome to do that.

 

[Curious George]

Eloquent!

Don't worry, i was just quoting an old Scott.

Let's consider the empirical side of things.
In my experience, both government and drivers have been life threatening.
- Run down by a drunk driver (driver problem). Btw, I survived.
- Drunk driver was a messed up Vietnam vet (government problem)
- Almost drafted into Vietnam War (government problem)
- Nixon cancelled draft just in time (government solution)

One may believe each vote has a vanishingly small consequence.
But many small votes add up to enormous deadly effects.
And with the curious reasoning you've shown....your vote in
particular is dangerous indeed.

Try as you might, voting is not engaging in high risk or dangerous behavior.

I am all too aware of how votes add up to produce results that I do not desire. That however, is part of our government. For better or worse, we decide on some things as a nation, state, or community. Civic engagement is a responsibility by virtue of our citizenship. 16 year olds are capable of voicing their own opinions and are capable of thinking about how different issues impact them.

FWIW, I don't think this demographic will be swaying any elections. But no one has given good reason as to why their vouce should not be considered.

You would have me believe that 16 uear olds are blubbering bafoons incapable of thought and in desperate need of coddling.

 

[averageJOE]

Right now as I write this, there is an international global climate strike taking place. A strike that was started by Greta Thunberg, a 16 year old activist. She inspired 1.4 million kids, kids as young as 12, in 123 countries to go on strike and protest our climate crisis.

I believe it's unfair, and just plain arrogant, to think that a 16 year old cannot develop a well informed political opinion. Kids as young as 5, 10, 15 and 16 are brutalized by police. You don't think they have a political opinion? 16 year olds drive on the same crumbling roads adults do. They don't have an political opinion? Kid's are the one directly affected by school mass shootings. They don't have an political opinion? I believe if a 16 year old has a job and is paying taxes should be able to express their political opinion in the form of a vote.

But...I don't think this is an issue that will become a reality any time soon. It's not even one I'm really concerned about. It's just my opinion that a 16 year old does in fact have the ability to develop a well informed political opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Try as you might, voting is not engaging in high risk or dangerous behavior.

Liberals have told me otherwise regarding my vote for Trump.

You would have me believe that 16 uear olds are blubbering bafoons incapable of thought and in desperate need of coddling.

What I'll actually tell you is that young'ns have not matured regarding
the connection between today's actions & tomorrow's consequences.
Life experience & brain development improve that situation.
So 21 years old strikes me as much more reasonable than 16.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe it's unfair, and just plain arrogant, to think that a 16 year old cannot develop a well informed political opinion.

No one says that it's impossible for a 16 year old to be mature enuf to vote.
This is just as not every 30 year old is worthy of the right to vote.
The question is the frequency of maturity at the threshold we decide upon.