CNN - "Let 16 year olds vote"

[Yvaelle]

I'll agree to a 21 voting age, if the max limit becomes 70. 70 year olds who are jaded on life should not punish the rest of the nation based on their jaded perception of reality.

Deal?

I actually think we should have max voting ages - it should probably be tied to when retirement benefits kick in (ex. 65).
After that, you may advocate politically, you may still run for office - but your time as a voter has ended - you had your time to shape the country, now it's time to pass the torch.

Initially I was also hesitant about this stance given the rapidly growing lifespans we have seen over the past century, and will see over the next century. Instead, my position there too has changed - because old people generally accumulate more clout and power as they get older naturally - they don't generally need their vote to make an impact. A 200 year old dude has been shaping the world around him for centuries - he doesn't need to show up in the polls to have an impact.

Particularly if he's managed to grow his wealth and power during that time - he has a massive advantage over the young 65 year olds just starting their potentially long lives.

[Yvaelle]

I was considering retirement as well... I guess I would consider something like this, if there was a study done on how/what actual affect this would have. Intuitively, I can see why this could be a "good thing" for the reasons I brought up, (people get more jaded, and get disconnected from the current "active" generation)... In practice though? Maybe there is some edge case benefit... like if the current generation has completely gone off its rocker, and the older generation has to step in and "right the ship".

If you are going with something like 18-65, that's about ~3 generations that are always actively involved in voting. To win you would need to win 2/3 generations - and natually generations somewhat rebel against their adjacent generations. So example:

Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers.

1) Millennials and Gen X agree on new student loan policy, but Baby Boomers just see it as a cash grab for the young = X & Y win.

2) Millennials and Baby Boomers agree marijuana should be legalized. Gen X think it's just the wayward youth and the old hippies trying to get high = Y & BB win.

3) Millennials want Kim Kardashian to be the next POTUS. X & BB think that's dumb = X & BB win.

Three generations should be enough to right the ship. Plus, the older generations are still likely to win public office because they naturally have the most experience, all the money, the most friends in high places, the longest records in office, the most clout, etc. So you are likely to see the 70-150 crowd as politicians and bureaucrats still - even if they can't vote.

[Felya]

US has precedent for enlistment, or more draft age, being the determining factor for voting. Any opinion that doesn’t start with that, is for entertainment purposes only.

[Antiganon]

Here is my idea.

16 to 18 can vote, if they engage in civil service. Military, ROTC, volunteer work in local or state government, etc.

Over 64 can vote so long as they continue to pay taxes.

SSDI benefits are now 100% tax exempt.

Over 64 collecting Medicare or SSDI benefits and not earning any taxable income would be unable to vote. These people would be grandfathered into the benefits they had when they started collecting.

The idea is basically if you are contributing to society, you deserve a vote in how society manages your contribution. If you are not contributing, you do not deserve a vote.

No taxation without representation.

No representation without taxation.

[GennGreymane]

Im gonna stand at my notion that its possible to be mature at 16 and well informed compared to people who can vote. Case and point, this board.

Also I like the "cant vote till 25" well lets move military service up there then... if you cant make decisions until your brain is fully developed at 25, the military cant get 18 year olds anymore.

[Slant]

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.

If you want to talk about giving 16 year olds more representation, that is a fair argument. But the bullshit conversation about 16 year olds voting more left or right that some are having in this thread is ridiculously concerning. Whatever they are likely to vote for should never be a reason to give or not give them voting rights. The whole point of democracy is not to give people voting rights when they "vote the right party", it's to accept whatever is their choice.

[Techno-Druid]

Here is my idea.

16 to 18 can vote, if they engage in civil service. Military, ROTC, volunteer work in local or state government, etc.

Over 64 can vote so long as they continue to pay taxes.

SSDI benefits are now 100% tax exempt.

Over 64 collecting Medicare or SSDI benefits and not earning any taxable income would be unable to vote. These people would be grandfathered into the benefits they had when they started collecting.

The idea is basically if you are contributing to society, you deserve a vote in how society manages your contribution. If you are not contributing, you do not deserve a vote.

No taxation without representation.

No representation without taxation.

This, I like this.

[szechuan]

This, I like this.

Although his method may decrease uneducated voters and increase educated voters I doubt it will work due Simply because technically that is Disenfranchising Voters Excluding the 16-17 age range.

- - - Updated - - -

But the bullshit conversation about 16 year olds voting more left or right that some are having in this thread is ridiculously concerning.

Fox News and Conscpiracy Websites to Extreme Right Wingers are peddling that bull that's why.

[kail]

W/e is considered a legal adult. Set an age and stick with it, maturity is not something that can be measured and varies, unlike age.

[Hobb]

Here is my idea.

16 to 18 can vote, if they engage in civil service. Military, ROTC, volunteer work in local or state government, etc.

Over 64 can vote so long as they continue to pay taxes.

SSDI benefits are now 100% tax exempt.

Over 64 collecting Medicare or SSDI benefits and not earning any taxable income would be unable to vote. These people would be grandfathered into the benefits they had when they started collecting.

The idea is basically if you are contributing to society, you deserve a vote in how society manages your contribution. If you are not contributing, you do not deserve a vote.

No taxation without representation.

No representation without taxation.

That would only eliminate the poorer elderly, which then brings up discrimination.

For most elderly they should be pulling in a small income from their 401k, pension, stocks, etc. which is taxable. And even if they don't have one or more of those sources but own a home they'll still be paying property taxes.

[Ozyorkbourne]

So the more young people voting the more likely left wing governments will be elected. I doubt you will find many Democrats arguing against lowering the voting age.

My opinion is this is absurd and pushes a leftist agenda, which is shocking for CNN I know. Younger people tend to lean left because they haven't experienced responsibility like raising a family or paying a mortgage. Leftist ideology appears attractive because it gives the illusion of making things easier or 'fairer'. Of course as they get older they start to take more centrist views and as old age approaches they even start to take conservative views. I am a believer that the voting age should be raised to over 20, not lowered to 16. Emotive arguments like the one CNN tries to make are disingenuous.

That isn't 'leftist propaganda', it's the same desperate attempt that the left has made for years (including Labour in the UK) to lower the voting age because they know the young are easily manipulated by unrealistic socio-economic policy. It's the attempt to get their hooks in with fairly pro-youth policy that the youth fail to realise they either can't deliver or if delivered would cause immense problems.

At age 16, I wanted to vote and thought I knew it all. At age 18, I realised I knew nothing at age 16. At age 25, I know that at 18 I would have made an informed decision on the basis of what information was available to me.

The voting age should definitely remain at 18.

[Slant]

Fox News and Conscpiracy Websites to Extreme Right Wingers are peddling that bull that's why.

I should've known... /facepalm

[Antiganon]

That would only eliminate the poorer elderly, which then brings up discrimination.

For most elderly they should be pulling in a small income from their 401k, pension, stocks, etc. which is taxable. And even if they don't have one or more of those sources but own a home they'll still be paying property taxes.

Still paying property taxes (local or state level) means they would still be able to vote for state or local elections. Taxation = representation.

I would also be willing to extend the franchise to those volunteering in their communities, under the same terms as those 16-18.

The idea is that you need to be willing to contribute something of value to society if you want to have a voice in how that society governs itself. This can be tax dollars, public service, volunteerism, etc.

[Deleted]

Lol sure, let's get 16 years old to vote to and if we still don't get the desired candidate we can let 14 year olds vote too.

[Deleted]

Here is my idea.

16 to 18 can vote, if they engage in civil service. Military, ROTC, volunteer work in local or state government, etc.

Over 64 can vote so long as they continue to pay taxes.

SSDI benefits are now 100% tax exempt.

Over 64 collecting Medicare or SSDI benefits and not earning any taxable income would be unable to vote. These people would be grandfathered into the benefits they had when they started collecting.

The idea is basically if you are contributing to society, you deserve a vote in how society manages your contribution. If you are not contributing, you do not deserve a vote.

No taxation without representation.

No representation without taxation.

So people on welfare wouldnt be able to vote? Actually seems like a decent idea.

[Antiganon]

So people on welfare wouldnt be able to vote? Actually seems like a decent idea.

Right, that's totally what I said.

16-18 can vote on condition of civil service.

65+ can vote on condition of paying income taxes or civil service.

Nowhere did I suggest that laws would change for 18-64.

Also, welfare and SSDI - not the same thing.

[Deleted]

Right, that's totally what I said.

16-18 can vote on condition of civil service.

65+ can vote on condition of paying income taxes or civil service.

Nowhere did I suggest that laws would change for 18-64.

Also, welfare and SSDI - not the same thing.

"The idea is basically if you are contributing to society, you deserve a vote in how society manages your contribution. If you are not contributing, you do not deserve a vote."

Im pretty sure thats exactly what you wrote.

[Jotaux]

If you are old enough to be shot at school you're old enough to vote. Why shouldn't they get a say in something that directly affects them? Nothing else is being done about school shootings in the only country they happen regularly.

[Shadowferal]

We can't even get the 18-25 demographic to vote with any regularity...I can't imagine that lowering the age will be an improvement.