Should the legal age to vote in the US be lowered?

16 year olds may have adult responsibilities. If they work, they have to pay taxes. If they drive, they have to follow traffic law. If we elect Republican controlled Congress and President in 2016, and they immediately start more unjustified wars over oil, a 2016 16 year old may be drafted the minute he or she turns 18.

 

Actually tests could be done well. Poll tests in the past purposefully relied on structural racism via reduced access to education. Those conditions no longer prevail, and we can devise tests to address equity and access concerns.

 

If someone doesn't care for politics if their 16 they won't care much more if they're 18.

 

That's true.

The worry though is that a modern test could be used to exclude as well. Just imagine the test some conservatives might come up with.

True/False: Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

True/False: In economics, cutting taxes on the rich well benefit us all because their wealth will "trickle down".
​

If you answered "false" to either question above, you flunk the test.

 

This.

If your life is affected by a law, you should at least have the right/ability to vote on it. If you're 16 and working, and something comes up on taxes, you're damn right you should be able to, even if just for this, vote.

 

Well, 18 year olds can be just as stupid as 16 year olds (hey, just look at me!). It doesn't make a damn difference to me, obviously. I'm already 18.

I was given the opportunity to register to vote awhile back and I declined. Why? I didn't see the point of filling out paperwork (which is something I absolutely despite) just so I could chose between the lesser of two evils.

The Libertarian Party is also fairly messed up, so I wouldn't even vote on that side, despite agreeing with libertarianism itself. Aside from that, third party voters and independents (such as myself) are given little say in political arena, if any. I say it's not even worth the trouble to register.

So if you raised the voting age to age to 30 tomorrow, it wouldn't affect me at all. It'd still be ridiculous to do that, but there is so much shit in American politics that it wouldn't even surprise me, sadly.

 

I think it should either stay at 18 or be risen to 21. Most Americans are not mature adults even by 18. People aren't even considered legal adults until they are 18. I don't see any need to change it.

We tried "civics tests" in the past.......... Didn't work out so well...

 

Okay, I see the point for why a 16 year old may need to vote, but I'm still concerned about where we draw the line.

 

Please man. I already addressed the concern about racist poll testing. Twice. Everybody and their grandma's dog knows about that history.

 

This has been discussed in the UK after Scotland allowed 16-17 year olds to vote in the independence referendum. Turnout was over 85% for them - so they are clearly engaged.

 

Certainly laws affect teenagers. They affect children as well; even the unborn. Naturally, we can't let the unborn vote, but should we lower the voting age to allow 4-5 years of age, so they can vote on issues that affect them?

Parents make decisions that affect children all the time. Mostly, those decisions are not made democratically. It is the province of the parents to make decisions in the interest of their children...I see State powers that affect children and adolescents as an extension of this.

So I don't buy the "it affects them, so let them vote" argument.

I totally get the concerns about a Political Awareness exam. Naturally, it would not be created by politicians or political interest groups, for instance *rolls eyes at BMC's "Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman" T/F question*. I'm not about to draft a process here and now, but it seems to me that a reasonable process could be drafted...with a lot of work and attention to detail. I suspect that a pretty lowball test (i.e., requiring only basic information about ideologies) would be plenty sufficient...some awareness of differing ideologies and existing positions on social issues (not evaluating them; just awareness of what the ideologies and positions actually are); possibly also where different candidates stand on those? Just thinking out loud, not suggesting a process.

These days kids can get their driver's licenses at age 16...but increasingly, they wait until 18 or 21 or later. I suspect if you said "ok, you can vote as soon as you pass this test", most Americans would put it off similarly.

Another radical suggestion: the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 around the time of the Vietnam war, when we were asking lots of nonrepresented citizens to die for their country in an unpopular war (no disrespect meant to any vets). Let's raise it back to 21 and stop drafting 18+, but instead draft 40-70 year olds, including politicians. That move could end war entirely.

 

Or just ask factual questions about the Constitution. No questions about the role of government.

Heck, we can even skip case law.

 

I think 18 is fine. Before 18 most people don't have the knowledge, nor the stake, in politics to really make an informed choice. Before you're 18 can you even own property?

As a teenager you're still learning, and trying to make sense of the world. You can find some teenagers who are incredibly informed, but they tend to be in the minority.

 

I'm sorry...I really don't think that even having the entire US Constitution committed to memory prepares a person to vote intelligently on most issues. You need to know something about the issues, the positions that can be taken, the candidates and what their positions are. You needn't know every detail for every person...just some indication that you're paying some attention.

But I agree that it should all be factual; not interpretation or judgment. So although I kinda scoffed at the question BMC put out about marriage being between one man and one woman, I don't believe it would be an unreasonable T/F question to ask if one *position* in the same-sex marriage debate is that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

 

Yes and why do you think it will work any better than it did last time? You do know that white, wealthy, older individuals are more civicly involved, right? Someone will scream "institutional racism" no matter how you spin it. Make it an objective factual test -- minorities who have less access to quality education will be disadvantaged no matter how objective you make it. You'll disproportionately cut off minorities and poor people. In addition, you know who will make the tests? There's no way internal biases won't make it into the test or at least there's no way people won't complain that they do. I'm sorry, but I don't think that would be a good answer.

---------- Post added 19th Jun 2015 at 05:39 PM ----------

Was this right after the voting age was lowered? If so, I'd guess that that is part of the reason -- the "novelty" of being able to vote. In America, the least politically informed and the least likely to vote are the youngest individuals.

---------- Post added 19th Jun 2015 at 05:41 PM ----------

8 year olds also cannot steal and must obey the laws; they should be able to vote as well.

18 is a good age to allow voting -- you are legally an adult so the law affects you MUCH MORE than those under 18. Heck, only in very serious cases does the law apply equally to people under 18.

 

Personally, there shouldn't be any age-cap at all... But I didn't vote for it.

I think you have to pass a test each election year to have a good grasp and education on the issues, needs, constitution in US, and candidates running before you can be qualified to vote.

Too many people make frivolous votes, or votes toward things that just "sound" like a good idea. That isn't what makes a good president or world leader.

 

Another radical possibility: we could get rid of elections entirely. They are just so 18th century. Instead, we will create a reality TV show to decide who wins office. This would would more appealing to the average modern American.

 

Oh, now this I like! I enjoyed the President Bill strip back in the early 90's, about Randomocracy, where the president by picked by lottery...it fit with the times. But a reality TV show would bring the whole concept up to date, majorly! Fabulous idea!

 

I voted that it should stay 18.

Back in middle school in American History class, we had to do a brief 2 minute presentation on who we would vote for as President and the reason for picking that candidate and some of the presentations were beyond ridiculous.

 

Good point. But the sad truth: you could do the same thing with a group of 40 year olds, and probably end up with some ridiculous presentations...