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

That is true. I feel like they hope people are mature enough at 18 to make rational decisions but its clear they're people of any age that make irrational decisions

 

Here's why I expect it to work better. One, I expect that if we had civics tests now, we would not be doing it like this:

Excerpt from Wikipedia article on Literacy Tests - With Emphasis Added

Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century.

Literacy tests, along with poll taxes and extra-legal intimidation,[6] were used to deny suffrage to African-Americans. The first formal voter literacy tests were introduced in 1890.

At first, whites were exempted from the literacy test if they could meet alternate requirements (the grandfather clause) that, in practice, excluded blacks. The Grandfather Clause allowed an illiterate person to vote if he could show descent from someone who was eligible to vote before 1867 (when only whites could vote). Grandfather clauses were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Guinn v. United States (1915). Nevertheless, literacy tests continued to be used to disenfranchise blacks. The tests were usually administered orally by white local officials, who had complete discretion over who passed and who failed.[7] Examples of questions asked of Blacks in Alabama included: naming all sixty-seven county judges in the state, naming the date on which Oklahoma was admitted to the Union, and declaring how many bubbles are in a bar of soap.

So, as you can see, the problem with the tests was not just that access to education was unequal. It was that white people were grandfathered in, or capricious officials were just passing and failing whoever they wanted, or that prospective voters were being asked questions that they should not have been expected to know to be competent voters in the first place. It's because they tests themselves were specifically designed to disenfranchise black voters. The kind of test I'm imagining would not be conducted in that way at all.

The second reason I expect poll testing to go better this time around than in the late 1860s+ is that education has progressed a lot since then.

Excerpt from Wikipedia article on History of Education in the United States - With emphasis added

The school system remained largely private and unorganized until the 1840s. Public schools were always under local control, with no federal role, and little state role. The 1840 census indicated that of the 3.68 million children between the ages of five and fifteen, about 55% attended primary schools and academies.[48] Beginning in the late 1830s, more private academies were established for girls for education past primary school, especially in northern states. Some offered classical education similar to that offered to boys.

Data from the indentured servant contracts of German immigrant children in Pennsylvania from 1771-1817 showed that the number of children receiving education increased from 33.3% in 1771-1773 to 69% in 1787-1804. Additionally, the same data showed that the ratio of school education versus home education rose from .25 in 1771-1773 to 1.68 in 1787-1804.[49] While some African Americans managed to achieve literacy, southern states prohibited schooling to enslaved blacks.

...

Compulsory laws

By 1900, 34 states had compulsory schooling laws, 4 of which were in the South. 30 states with compulsory schooling laws required attendance until age 14 (or higher).[57] As a result, by 1910, 72 percent of American children attended school. Half the nation's children attended one-room schools. In 1918, every state required students to complete elementary school.

Universal education in the US (and from what I understand, this is only mentioning elementary school here) is fairly recent. We weren't making everyone go to school until 1918, which is anywhere from 40-60 years after we started doing racist poll tests, depending on the state. So, even if you were asking legitimate questions, rather than how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap, you weren't likely at all to get correct answers out of very many people at all, let alone groups of people who were systematically denied access to an education.

My point in all this is to show that access to education, while it may not be where it should at, it's at a point that's good enough where we can reasonably expect people to answer some factual questions about how our system of government works without triggering a problem where we're intentionally exploiting groups of people being denied access to education. I mean, we're making people go to high school nowadays.

The trick, I believe, is to devise such a test. Obviously, it can't ask questions of opinion; it can't even ask questions of economics, since while being important and political, they admit of debate (Keynesians and Austrians still argue). It can't ask philosophical questions about the role of government, since that also treads overtly on contested political territory. You can't ask who certain officials are: it's not relevant to know the names of the nine justices for example.

But, I think you can at least require basic knowledge about the form of government we have. Maybe the simplified "how a bill becomes law" process, plus enumerating some powers of the judiciary and the executive branches. We can make them publicly available in the library as pamphlets for free (kind of like you can always find blank forms in the library to file your income tax return).

 

I think there are some in their teens who have a lot more common sense & awareness of the world around them & actually care about issues than those my age or older. Many younger people are interested in being part of the process. If it is lowered, just to 16.

 

I don't think a test will ever be implemented again because of the stigma and giving power to one group of people while denying it to another never sounds like a good idea.

I voted to keep it at 18, but after reading some comments here, I wouldn't care if it's lowered to 16.

 

I think the solution to that dichotomy is more to stop moving to try children as adults so often. We did establish juvenile courts for a reason, but we seem to like chucking the book around too much to stick to it.

As for driving and firearms, both remain predicate on the parents. Teenagers can be provided with firearms under certain conditions, but they cannot buy them, and a teenager who's parents do not want them driving or cannot afford it is not going to be able to drive. Neither is viewed as a right where minors are concerned.

I like the idea of automatic voter registration. California allows postal voting for anybody who wants it, no questions asked, and it works well enough for us. If added to automatic voter registration, the postal vote system should make voting extremely quick and easy.

18 years olds have at least been to a basic civics class.

We have to draw a developmental line somewhere, and the age of majority fits best.

That is both massively illegal and never, ever going to be politically workable. Poll tests of any sort are tainted by their historical use to prevent blacks from voting, so to try and implement them again would cause a massive outcry. Not to mention that we have a constitutional amendment saying poll tests aren't allowed.

---------- Post added 19th Jun 2015 at 11:19 PM ----------

Yea, and now poll tests are illegal on account of the history. We can't just up and bring them back.

Even if it can be done, I don't trust any system to be resistant enough to corruption and politicization in the long term. Any system will have people trying to abuse it sooner or later, and I can't see how those abuses can be adequately prevented in this case.

---------- Post added 19th Jun 2015 at 11:27 PM ----------

Unnecessary. The chances of the US Military using the draft again are miniscule. It isn't just a matter of political backdraft (which would be epic in scale), it's the fact that the military did not at all enjoy it's experience with conscripts during the Vietnam War, and sees its current job as one that can be done far better with an all-volunteer force. Even in the case of a conventional war, the disparity between production skill and time investment and the firepower available to a combat unit is so massive that losses would outpace production in a way they never did in WW2. By the time draftees got inducted, trained, and deployed, one side or the other would have most likely been ground down. It is also a lot harder to operate modern equipment, making professionals a great boon.

Basically, the US Military really doesn't see a use for conscription. Selective Service may still be around, but nobody is going to get called up.

 

I agree with all but the last sentence.

The reason I voted to keep it at 18 is that mommy and daddy could influence things too much for anyone under. By 18, you are starting to form your own opinions. That's just my thoughts.

 

It should stay. At eighteen you're an adult legally and you theoretically have the power to do actual research on which candidates you like best and make an informed decision as a mature person.

In reality, most people at eighteen are still extremely immature and don't do any actual research on candidates and they make almost completely baseless decisions.
I don't see any reason why the mature people should have to wait any longer than eighteen. The immature ill-informed people will still be so when they are twenty one so not much will change anyways.

 

Probably not.

 

I believe it should stay at 18. Only mature over 18's should vote. Children have little to no knowledge of politics and how social/environmental issues should be handled, they don't even have any adult responsibilities. Let the mature adults vote since it's their responsibilities that are affected and they can decide what they feel is better for the wider community including under 18's.

P.s: I wasn't insulting anyone's intelligence. I just strongly believe that only adults should vote, since children don't understand politics and how their vote could affect certain issues.

 

If we are talking about lowering the voting age, we are already talking about amending the Constitution. No particular reason we couldn't reevaluate testing. I cited some materials earlier about why poll testing was problematic, and it doesn't appear that anyone noticed.

 

I used to be against lowering the voting age , however the Scottish Independence Referendum proved me wrong. I just thought under 16s were too immature to vote and wouldn't think through the consequences, however 16 and 17 year olds were given a lot of media attention and it actually turned out that they were the second highest group in voting no to independence. I had thought that they would be the young impressionable minds the SNP wanted to boost the yes vote, well that backfired spectacularly on them!

I however don't support lowering it to 16 for one simple reason, you don't just turn 16 and become a young adult overnight, that takes time. So lowering it to 16 would mean there would be tens of thousands of kids who were 15 not so long ago and would be eligible to vote. 17 is the ideal age to be responsible to vote.

The US Justice system is already much harsher on under 18s than most parts of the world, if you want to treat them like adults it cannot be unilateral.

 

We should also have more expanded options for voting, like polling places open for several days and the availability of mail in ballots for all states.

 

You're not the only person who dislikes poll testing. o:

 

We have mail in ballots here in WA. I'm not sure exactly what policies are in place--and to a degree policies vary by county. In my Undisclosed County, mail in is the default (I believe--but can't say for sure--this is now the case for all counties). There is no official polling place, although the county does have ballot drop boxes for those too poor/too cheap to buy a stamp. As far as I know, the system seems to work quite well. It also apparently also is more efficient for financial resources.

I have to admit I like the mail in ballot system. I do partly miss the polling place, as strange at that may seem. Maybe it's the ceremony of going to vote. But overall I prefer mail in ballots--it's much more convenient.

 

Okay, if people aren't reading, I'm not writing anymore. All I really felt like making the point about is that knowledge and being informed is clearly not part of people's opposition to lowering the voting age if they don't want to test for it. Instead what's going on is people have just decided to make a developmental psychology-based argument and leave it there. I don't find that particularly principled, and I feel bad for today's intelligent youth, including you very bright folks.

Too bad as adults some of us don't have faith in you.



I always hand deliver my mail ballot. Never miss an election. Especially not a municipal one.

 

You have it backward. They are the only one who likes it. Yes poll testing was extremely biased before and selective of who actually had to take it, and I've seen some excerpts of tests and they were rigged... Well, that certainly would be less of a problem if we simply required everyone to take it.

And access to education is more equal... But access to education is still not equal:

The Condition of Education - Elementary and Secondary Education - Student Effort, Persistence and Progress - Public High School Graduation Rates - Indicator May (2015)

Just look at the graduation rates by race for high school. One could guess that since black and Hispanic people have a lower graduation rate, they may not actually ever complete a government course, or may not have paid as much attention. Similarly, I'm not going to look but I'm guessing people with less money will graduate less often. These people will thus have less representation of we require them to take a test to take a test that they may not be prepared for.

Overall, there's a disparity in education and wealth and thus a poll test would disproportionately effect some groups. Also, you have to consider that wealthier people who have more time and/or access to materials that would help them study for the test, depending how hard it is. Those in power already have better access. A poll test would just compound the problem.

A poll test would just give more power to those with already in power. It's debatable whether we want people who are less educated or civicly informed to be able to vote, but if we prevent "less educated" people from voting by poll tests, it's pretty obvious who it will effect, and whose representation in government will this be even more limited than it already is. I know that's not your intent and you're more optimistic than me, but that's what I think would result.

---------- Post added 20th Jun 2015 at 02:49 PM ----------

A lot of people have argued that 18 is the age of majority and that is when the laws equally apply to you and have much more effect on you. Most people still live with their parents or guardians (and should legally) at 18. Thus, that's why 18 is a good age -- it is when you are legally considered an adult. Not everyone is arguing simply based on maturity. However, age is used as a gauge of general maturity. While 18 year old may not be significantly more mature than 16 year olds, 16 year olds may not be significantly more mature than 15 year olds.... Etc. Theres many places where the law has issues with people who are 17 years and 364 days old and are considered completely different than people who are 18 years and 0 days old... But we need a cutoff somewhere.

Also, the reason I didn't read your other post earlier is because it was long and didn't convince me any different.

 

@Pret Allez and Austin

As I've said in an earlier post; I honestly don't think age should really matter. I find it dismissive and frankly ignorant that people weigh so heavily on age - like the cut-off time Austin mentioned. It truly bears no significance and I also feel like poll testing is one-sided and only benefits to people who already hold power and disadvantages other people from understanding and learning of everything that is to know before being able to cast a vote.

I think everyone should pass some sort of test before being able to vote. Relating to how much education and knowledge they have on the running candidates, issues across the US, and overall a more clear stance on politics and the constitution.

Because honestly, I don't think a lot of people know what they vote for before placing it. It also makes me cringe how what Pret Alez was somewhat truthful. Many adults don't really have faith or much care for youth... where as youth we can be just as significant and helpful in voting in todays society given the correct resources.

 

I can agree with this. Some people who are 60 years old have no clue how the country should run. And even if you're under the age of 18, you most likely are still being governed by US laws if you live here. Many sixteen-year-olds (and some people who are younger) work and pay sales tax as well as income tax. No taxation without representation, aye?

 

Let's face it; Most voters are not well informed. They usually base their choice on one or two of the candidates standpoints that they favor and or how charismatic they perceive the candidate to be.

 

Ideally, every citizen would have all the knowledge of civil lawyers in exercising their democratic rights.

Alas, they do not, and any test as Pret Allez has been mentioning would, I fear, be more likely to drive many away. If poorly executed, it would be a measure to disenfranchise many, even accidentally. I support compulsory, comprehensive education in political matters and compulsory voting, but to step in to limit access to voting is not something I could stand for; the intricacies of relations between the various organs of state are something for professionals, even if we are all affected. I reject the idea that ignorance is sufficient grounds to bar someone from voting, precisely because most developed nations have a good system of laws which are relatively sheltered from an ignorant populace. If democracy is to work with rule of law, it must be limited in some ways, rather than having a more strongly enforced democracy tainted by selectively picking out electors. In the discussion that's been happening, I'm more inclined to side with Austin, despite finding Pret Allez's reasoning quite strong and her case well put.

Back to the question posed, I think that 18 is honestly as good an age as any - it's the point at which most people truly start to forge their own lives, be it through higher education or whatever else. I might be more open to 16 as the age for voting in referenda, but it is almost always somewhat arbitrary and no great injustice to keep it at 18.