CNN - "Let 16 year olds vote"

[Hobb]

Age 16 is bit too young in my book to vote, but I do favor lowering it to 17. Since at age 17 you can still join the military, though you do need your parents consent for that at 17, but if your able to fight in a war you should be able to vote. Was the whole reason for lowering it to 18 in the first place.

[Machismo]

Yeah, no, fucking stupid opinion is stupid.

There you go, arguing against freedom once again. How sad!!!

[TZucchini]

And that's how Jim Crow laws worked.

See. Under my system. People like you wouldn't be eligible to vote. I think this would work out perfectly.

The government of course would have a responsibility to also educate its citizens if they were to fail the test. So you're still in luck. You won't be completely barred from the process.

[zenkai]

There you go, arguing against freedom once again. How sad!!!

You have no argument but you made one up just to argue? How sad

[Machismo]

You have no argument but you made one up just to argue? How sad

Well, you are arguing against freedom, are you not?

Of course, if you want to be consistent, maybe we should also ban older people from voting, as far too many of them have lost their faculties, or are unwilling to accept information that would change their view of things.

Personally, I'm a big fan of freedom, I'm sorry you don't seem to think so.

[Projectmars]

See. Under my system. People like you wouldn't be eligible to vote. I think this would work out perfectly.

The government of course would have a responsibility to also educate its citizens if they were to fail the test. So you're still in luck. You won't be completely barred from the process.

I mean, it ain't like you would be eligible to vote under your own system either, so I reckon it's a fair trade.

[Deleted]

Actually, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Same here. Id rather have the voting age go up to 21 then go down to 16.
Also old people should not be voting. Look at brexit.

I can live with @Connal his plan!

[Doctor Amadeus]

CNN should allow 12 year olds to be what they call reporters on their channel, since 12 year olds could have asked harder hitting questions than they did during the elections.

[Deleted]

CNN should allow 12 year olds to be what they call reporters on their channel, since 12 year olds could have asked harder hitting questions than they did during the elections.

Thats fine. As long as we add some IQ tests as well so people like you are not able to vote.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Thats fine. As long as we add some IQ tests as well so people like you are not able to vote.

Well if you mean beyond a low double digit I.Q like yourself, I am sure I and most voters will be fine.

[Slant]

again, intellectual dishonesty.

we have 80+ year olds with all manner of mental illnesses voting for our future when they have a likely chance not to see the fruits of their vote.

do you understand what i mean now? you are creating barriers to entry which effects 1 group of people (16/17 year olds) while suggesting those barriers need not apply to anyone over 18. that is why you continue to be intellectually dishonest.

16 year olds do not have the experience to make these kinds of big decisions as a group. Maturity does not play a role in society's assumption that at 16 year olds mostly have not left school nor their homes and as such are not yet contributing citizens that have earned the right to decide how their lives are affected by Government. Heck, most of them still get told when to go to bed.

This isn't intellectual dishonesty, this is you talking bullshit. This barrier is there for a reason. It's not created, it's never been granted to them.

[Vankrys]

again, intellectual dishonesty.

we have 80+ year olds with all manner of mental illnesses voting for our future when they have a likely chance not to see the fruits of their vote.

do you understand what i mean now? you are creating barriers to entry which effects 1 group of people (16/17 year olds) while suggesting those barriers need not apply to anyone over 18. that is why you continue to be intellectually dishonest.

you say that, when during the brexit vote, the older people voted for the decision to leave the EU in crushing majority. The consequences of which, for better or worse, they will not live long enough to experience them.

Meanwhile, British youth, which voted also in crushing majority to stay, saw their future decided by the older generation. If the 16-17 years british teen would have been able to vote, the results of the referendum would have been vastly different, and the UK would work with the EU to build a better union, instead of battling in fruitless negociation.

If the referendum would have been held 2 years later, in 2018, the 16 years of then would be 18 (i'm good at math), and again, vastly different outcome for the referendum.

Funny how event that would decide the future of an entire nation for generations can be decided on the most random technicality.

[szechuan]

This isn't intellectual dishonesty, this is you talking bullshit. This barrier is there for a reason. It's not created, it's never been granted to them.

Hmmm Let's be intellectualy Honest for a little bit. Places like Austria have lowered the age to 16 and it did not have disastrous effects, Exit Polls in that country have noted that 16-17 year olds Tend to Vote More then any other age group at-least in Austria. And so far Austria seems to be doing okay and hell has not frozen over that may be something interesting to look into.

Some States in Germany have also lowered it down to 16. So why is America Disenfranchising a whole age group of potential voters when it seems to be doing okay in other countries?

In fact if you want to be more intellectually honest then this helps 16 year olds get involved in the political process earlier if they want to change things.

[Slant]

Hmmm Let's be intellectualy Honest for a little bit. Places like Austria have lowered the age to 16 and it did not have disastrous effects, Exit Polls in that country have noted that 16-17 year olds Tend to Vote More then any other age group at-least in Austria. And so far Austria seems to be doing okay and hell has not frozen over that may be something interesting to look into.

Some States in Germany have also lowered it down to 16. So why is America Disenfranchising a whole age group of potential voters when it seems to be doing okay in other countries?

Have we? Crazy world. Thing is, lowering voting age due to an argument of who votes for what, that is dishonest. The only metric that is applicable is maturity and what you consider the age at which someone has "the right of self determination". If you think that's 16, go ahead and change it to 16. Personally, I do not agree with that, but apparently I'm an old fart and times have passed me by. :P

[Shaderas]

Overall I am unsure on this topic. But if they are working full time and being taxed, I think they should be able to vote though, "taxation without representation" and all

[szechuan]

Have we? Crazy world. Thing is, lowering voting age due to an argument of who votes for what, that is dishonest.

How so? It's Democracy. I agree that Democracy has it's faults but we should give representation to people who want to speak out especially when they're making good points and in this case it's the teens.

the only metric that is applicable is maturity and what you consider the age at which someone has "the right of self determination". If you think that's 16, go ahead and change it to 16. Personally, I do not agree with that, but apparently I'm an old fart and times have passed me by. :P

fair enough.

[Vankrys]

Have we? Crazy world. Thing is, lowering voting age due to an argument of who votes for what, that is dishonest. The only metric that is applicable is maturity and what you consider the age at which someone has "the right of self determination". If you think that's 16, go ahead and change it to 16. Personally, I do not agree with that, but apparently I'm an old fart and times have passed me by. :P

Does it matter in the grand scheme of thing? What is 2 years really for a country (unless you are making rash decision like brexit). In the US congress, term lenth is 2 years (why do i even know that), so if you don't get to vote now, you can vote for the next congressional election anyway.

I don't think giving a vote to the 16 years old is that important. What is important is that those kids are coming. If you wrong them now, they will remember it in 2 years. I wonder if the republicans are feeling the wind of change blowing.

[Allybeboba]

Your entire argument falls apart with 5 min of reading r/The_Donald

also opinion piece

Or MMOC-Pol

Peace

[Antiganon]

Hmmm Let's be intellectualy Honest for a little bit. Places like Austria have lowered the age to 16 and it did not have disastrous effects, Exit Polls in that country have noted that 16-17 year olds Tend to Vote More then any other age group at-least in Austria. And so far Austria seems to be doing okay and hell has not frozen over that may be something interesting to look into.

Some States in Germany have also lowered it down to 16. So why is America Disenfranchising a whole age group of potential voters when it seems to be doing okay in other countries?

Disenfranchisement is removing the right to vote from those who previously had it. Under 18 has never had the right to vote.

The founding principle of this country, the entire reason for our independence, is "no taxation without representation". Teenagers pay no tax, thus they have no inherent right to vote for their representatives. If you want to argue whether or not we should give them suffrage, be my guest, but don't use intellectually dishonest loaded terms like disenfranshisement when discussing it.

In fact if you want to be more intellectually honest then this helps 16 year olds get involved in the political process earlier if they want to change things.

I am very much in favor of having 16 year olds become more involved in the political process, but I don't think giving 16 year olds the right to vote is necessarily the best means to accomplish that.

[szechuan]

Disenfranchisement is removing the right to vote from those who previously had it. Under 18 has never had the right to vote.
The founding principle of this country, the entire reason for our independence, is "no taxation without representation". Teenagers pay no tax, thus they have no inherent right to vote for their representatives. If you want to argue whether or not we should give them suffrage, be my guest, but don't use intellectually dishonest loaded terms like disenfranshisement when discussing it.

You are correct on that. I used the wrong language to explain what I meant. What I meant was giving them a representation not disenfranchisement.

I am very much in favor of having 16 year olds become more involved in the political process, but I don't think giving 16 year olds the right to vote is necessarily the best means to accomplish that.

Fair enough.