What do you think about lowering the U.S. voting age to 16?

Why the hell not?
As the last election proved without the shadow of a doubt,
increasing age does not make you vote more responsibly.

I lost my ambivalence just after I posted the OP, and I agree.

My mother voted for JFK in 1960, because she thought he was better looking than Nixon, and that was when she was almost 40.

BTW, what’s the voting age in Germany?

I think it’s great.

Only if they reduce the drinking age as well. If you’re old enough to make serious decision about who to vote for, you’re old enough to drink alcohol.

There are many mature 16 year olds that are more informed about politics than many people in their 60’s and 70’s that soley watch Fox News. So why not.

I think I am against it, but I am open to listening to arguments for it.

I think most 16 year old American kids are clueless about how the world really works, and the complexity of it. Most teens are either parroting their parents or spiting them.

@rockfan

I agree.

I think major examples of mature <18 voters, are Parkland shooting survivors David Hogg and Never Again MSD.

By lowering the voting age its a power play to get youth votes for youthful candidates.
That is why it was changed ( In Canada ) to 18 year old’s and hence we now have a young Prime Minister in the lead.

My daughter is 16 years old and knows more about “how the world really works” than anyone I know – of any age.

I trust the youth more than anyone.

@Brian1946 The Parkland teens are a tiny tiny percentage of teens, and Broward County is an extremely liberal county before the shooting ever happened. There have been shootings at other schools and we don’t hear those kids in the same way, probably because they are in red areas of the country. The shooting in Parkland maybe turned those children into being activists at a young age, but they already were on the path to registering Democrat.

I would be more interested in a maximum voting age.

No point. Too many people are too uneducated and too uninformed to vote now, but they do. Why add to the problem? Let them get a little older and maybe they will be a little more knowledgeable when doing so.

@JLeslie

I’m sure there are many more progressive counties in addition to Broward throughout the US, and being on a Democratic, Republican, Green, gun-control, etc. path is no reason to deny those who are so affected by these tragedies, the right to vote.

However, if the VA was lowered to 16; if consequently the drinking age was lowered to 16, and texting while driving became a constitutional right, then I’d rethink my opinion. ;-)

I do think drinking should be 18 now. No one waits until 21 anyway if they want to drink. No one I know.

Sure there are plenty of progressive counties around the country. My point was, that shooting didn’t really change minds very much I don’t think. Although, I do think it gave people some motivation to take action. Not just the kids in the school, but others around the country also.

The most articulate and vocal in the school were put in front of the cameras.

I do think there are plenty of young people who are ahead of their time and age, but I don’t think most teens even think much about politics.

If memory serves, voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam war. That had big turnout. They didn’t want to be drafted. Check my history though. I suck at history.

The question people need to ask themselves is, if young people were most likely to vote republican would they want to lower the age?

How do I feel? It’s complicated.
They always promote voting. “Go vote!” they cry, even when someone hasn’t studied the issues or candidates positions.
I say: if you haven’t been paying attention, or read the briefs on the propositions, don’t vote. You’re probably canceling out someone’s informed opinion.

I would rather it be raised to twenty five.
I think people need to see at least two administrations at work before trying to choose anyone to be in charge.
Media, and the rants of the unhappy should not be forming the opinions of voters. Their choices should be made according to what they witness for themselves as working well or not.
Choosing a candidate on the basis of their platform is deceptive. Candidates frequently advertise their platforms according to what they think will get them votes.

On average, sixteen year olds have knowledge of their segment of the world. Only those with exceptional drive and interest even care beyond that.
Consider this, the most used word in a teen’s vocabulary is, “whatever”.

Not that it is indicative of anything, but if I voted when I was sixteen, I would have done a write in for John Belushi.

Besides the fact that 16-year-olds are likely to be more informed than older people, it’s more important that they get to vote. They are the ones that are going to have to live with the effects of climate change, $100k+ in college debt, loss of financial security, automation, etc. As it is right now, the ones who most often vote are those who are informed by a world that no longer exists, and it’s dangerous.

I think it is a scam to boost votes for the radical left. Most 16 year olds don’t have an understanding of what is going on in the world, much less why. And worse, they don’t care. They know mainly what Colbert or some other “comedian” tells them on political matters. The average American voter isn’t all that informed to start with, throwing 16 year olds into the mix isn’t making things better, it is making them worse.

@hmmmmmm Yeah, because 16 year olds are so good at understanding consequences. It’s basically a scientific fact that they aren’t. It doesn’t mean there aren’t some 16 year olds who are very knowledgeable and prudent, and know what is good for them, but generally speaking they are fairly self centered, and take risks in the moment. A lot of adults are like that too, but there is a little more hope for them.

What you should really be pushing for, is introducing a maximum voting age at 50 years.

@JLeslie: “A lot of adults are like that too, but there is a little more hope for them.”

I’m not even sure if you’re joking.

^^I’m very serious. There is a huge difference between a 16 year old brain and a 25 year old brain when it comes to understanding consequences. Let alone the older we get the more we know. It’s probably why the minimum age for president is 35. Are you saying that rule was a bad idea?

Yes, that rule is also a very bad idea.

If you think older voters, who gave us Trump, have a better understanding of the consequences of their political vote than younger people, I’m not sure what to say.

The youth of today are faced with challenges that you and I have never had to even consider. To allow those who are on the way out and don’t care enough to know what is going on is simply unfair. Most older people get their news from television or Facebook, and have very little understanding of US and world history.

My 16-year-old daughter knows more about what is wrong with – and what needs to happen to fix – the world than me (47). My generation has had to inform and keep tabs on our parents because they were completely clueless. The stuff my daughter is learning in high school is more than I learned in 4 years of college.

So, yeah, I’m for expanding democracy to include those who are the most deserving of the vote. Older people have proven they objectively and consistently provide the worst votes. And we recognize this whenever we talk about progress. We all can acknowledge that the next generation is the the force between positive change, while just holding our breath while the older generation dies off. Why be suddenly confused about expanding this by 2 years to include those who are at the mercy of the selfish and confused who are voting for their death and suffering?

Our parents weren’t completely clueless. Remember Bernie Sanders? He’s my parents’ generation. So is Bill Clinton, Robert Kennedy if he were alive, Gloria Steinem. They all had plenty of followers. Give a little credit to the generation who did a load of things to help the environment and civil rights. Maybe not as much as we had hoped, but they moved us forward.

In the 70’s I think is when finally laws and agreements were made to reduce chlorofluorocarbons to protect the ozone layer. Margaret Sanger helped fund birth control research in her 80’s. My own father has become much much mote liberal in his 60’s and 70’s, because now he has the time to really do some research and think.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton both won the popular vote. If 16 year olds vote will it actually affect the electoral college? Another thing to think about. I know some states are trying to pass laws to put all electoral votes in line with the national popular vote. That’s a whole different topic.

Maybe you should make the voting age 16–40. It sounds like most of the people on fluther are too old to vote competently.

@JLeslie: “Maybe you should make the voting age 16–40. It sounds like most of the people on fluther are too old to vote competently.”

Ok, so we’re not going to agree here. But in all seriousness, I’m not in favor of creating a maximum voting age. I just think we should encourage participation in democracy by expanding it. I don’t think it’s a very controversial idea.

I still laugh when people call politicians like Bernie Sanders “the radical left”.

I contend that the system we have now is radical. I had a friend from Europe visit last month and they were horrified to find out that a poor family of 4 have to pay 700 dollars worth of insulin medicine that week and go without dinner for a few days.

And then right wing douchebags have the nerve to say to “pull yourself up by your bootstraps.”

@rockfan My only point was it’s not like all 70 year olds are blowing up abortion clinics and fighting to bring coal back.

The problem isn’t age. If you look around the country it has more to do with what part of the country you live in, and the size of your city.

Bernie grew up in a city with free, good quality, college education available. I wouldn’t be surprised if he directly benefited from it (I don’t know where he went to college) but certainly he has peers that did, and in fact plenty of people we all know did. For all I know NYC was doing it before Europe. I don’t know the European history on that matter. My guess is the lower classes didn’t have access in Europe like they did in parts of America 60 years ago. It would be interesting to know the history on that. Of course NYC is only a very small part of the US, and can’t be used as an example to represent the US at that time or even now.

Go ahead give the vote to 16 year olds. It is likely more of them will vote for my choice than not. At least that is the case right now.

I don’t support it outright, but my feelings on it are not particularly strong, so I wouldn’t make much of an effort to oppose it either. I do think that the voting age being 18 is important because this is the age when people are going to start working and paying taxes and taking on other adult responsibilities (selective service, jury duty, adult penalties for crimes, etc). When I was 16, I was going to parties, playing video games, having my parents pay for everything (and doing well in school, mind you), but my political interest was limited and I certainly felt more like a “kid” than I did at 18. I couldn’t imagine myself voting at that age, nor most of the people I knew. That is not to say that being an adult automatically makes you “informed”, it certainly does not. The amount of adults I know who are partisan stooges attests to that.

But I’m not sure this is a solution to the “problem” with people voting. The thing about voting is that people get to vote whether they’re “informed” or not. I don’t get to pick and choose who gets to vote. I think it’s fair for voting to be another one of those privileges (because in this sense, it is a privilege if it comes with age) of no longer being a “minor”.