Voting age

[Hatman 🍁]

option #1. Anything else is just an arbitrary number.  I support gradually lowering the voter age though, so people get used to it.  If at any point it is deemed too low (with good reason), then we can just decide to stop there. Right now, there is absolutely no reason not to lower the age to 16.

I can think of a reason: sixteen year olds.

Ha! Good point. While we're at it, let's disenfranchise another spoiled segment of the population: Republicans

[Padfoot]

I think 18 is a good age.  I also believe that any high schooler who can pass a test about government and current affairs should be permitted to vote as well.

[Јas]

18.  At that age you are a man or a woman, no longer a boy or a girl.  You become an adult at that age. 

Says who?

Anything earlier and you run a higher risk of non-voters because most 15-17 year olds probably care nothing about politics and don't watch the news at all. 

So what if many of them don't vote? A great many people above that age don't care about politics either and don't vote - that's hardly an argument to set it at 18 or any age. Indeed that's an argument towards assessment on non-age related grounds.

The law says you become an adult at midnight the morning of your 18th birthday. Whether you act like an adult is a different story.  Heck, as you well know, there can still be 40 year olds who act like little kids and 14 year olds who act like grown, mature adults.

So what if that's what the law currently says - it's an arbitrary figure that can be changed.

The issue of non-interest politics really doesn't make a whole lot of different to me, but I want to try to reduce, as best I can, the non-informed votes.  I like the fact they are voting, because it is our civil duty, but PLEASE try to know something about what your voting on.

Well if it's informed voters you want, then surely you shouldn't seek age based access to voting at all, but some form of civics exam based system.

[A18]

I might like to see it vary with the office; perhaps something like 18 for U.S. House, 30 for U.S. Senate, and 35 for president.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I might like to see it vary with the office; perhaps something like 18 for U.S. House, 30 for U.S. Senate, and 35 for president.

Huh?  I'm confused...  you mean i have to be 35 years of age just to vote for President?  Thats the age you have to be to BE President.

Let's leave the voting age at 18 for all offices.

Jas,

I agree with the idea of some sort of litmus test for high school students.  Leave the voting age at 18, but if the 16-year-old or junior in high school can prove through some kind of litmus test that he or she knows a sufficient amount of current events and the way things work in Washington or their other elected offices in which they vote, then they should be able to vote.  I would put a requirement that you must be a junior in high school or 16 years of age.  Now, if you can vote, but you are under 18, I would put in the stipulation that you must attend with someone over age 21, who can legally vote present with them.  (The adult doesn't have to, and should not tell the teen how to vote, but be present with them).  If you are 18 or over, then go on and vote by yourself.  The adult presence is just to try to weed out as much horseplay and recklessness as can be weeded out considering they are teenagers who probably haven't heard the meaning of the phrase "calm, cool, and collected".

[© tweed]

would anyone like to offer a rebuttal to my idea?

but I also favor offering a complicated civics exam.  and anyone who can pass it, whether they're 4 or 17, should be eligible to vote.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

would anyone like to offer a rebuttal to my idea?

but I also favor offering a complicated civics exam.  and anyone who can pass it, whether they're 4 or 17, should be eligible to vote.

I would. Who exactly would write this civics exam? The goverment backed school Authority? I would hope not or else it would be children swallowing the gruel they learn in school and make it actually needed for an important aspect of citizenship. Also it would alienate those who don't do well in a civics exam and thus turn them off the political process even more then it would already. In others greater an even greater division between the "informed" (Whatever that is) elite and the "great unwashed". It's a horribly elitist idea..

And that's not to mention that who is more likely to fail a civics test? Some spoilt Paris-Hilton wannabe whose daddy spends buckets load on private education for his "princess" or some black kid from Rural Mississippi whose parents think education is holding him back from doing proper jobs; like menial labour.

[© tweed]

would anyone like to offer a rebuttal to my idea?

but I also favor offering a complicated civics exam.  and anyone who can pass it, whether they're 4 or 17, should be eligible to vote.

I would. Who exactly would write this civics exam? The goverment backed school Authority? I would hope not or else it would be children swallowing the gruel they learn in school and make it actually needed for an important aspect of citizenship. Also it would alienate those who don't do well in a civics exam and thus turn them off the political process even more then it would already. In others greater an even greater division between the "informed" (Whatever that is) elite and the "great unwashed". It's a horribly elitist idea..

And that's not to mention that who is more likely to fail a civics test? Some spoilt Paris-Hilton wannabe whose daddy spends buckets load on private education for his "princess" or some black kid from Rural Mississippi whose parents think education is holding him back from doing proper jobs; like menial labour.

fair points, although I think the overt tone of anger is horribly misplaced - I'm hardly some elitist class warrior.

to address some of your questions, I'd prefer the test to be standardized by the states (or perhaps the federal government, but that causes problems). 

my main motivation is to give the youth some power in the process, as we are too easily oppressed with no conceivable ramifications.  such as laws against buying cigarette lighters.  or midnight curfews.  or being treated like prisoners in public schools.  the list goes on.  this probably would change nothing, but, a hypothetical: if this made the electorate 5% under-18, and Candidate A defeats Candidate B 50.1-49.9% with candidate A taking 75% of that voting bloc, perhaps that would send a message.

the classism is a valid point, certainly.  I reconcile it with this being temporary, as everyone over 18 would be eligible to vote anyway.  I just prefer some standard of merit being used instead of some arbitrary age keeping the youth (even the intelligent, well-informed youth) as prisoners of the state until they hit some stupid deadline.

the working class is fucked anyway, and will be until they revolt; either, through the ballot box or though violence.  sadly, probably neither.  might as well take one oppressed group (under18) out of the dark, even if it arises fears that another may be more thoroughly raped.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

When did you become a Anarcho-Syndalicist Tweed?

Anyway I know you are not an elitist; just saying that it's a horribly, horribly elitist idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That stretchs the word "oppression" quite a bit. But if you tone down the rhetoric I would agree with you..

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't really see how the States goverment is better than the federal system. (If you were to ask my honest opinion I'd say the United States is too big a country and it would be better in the long run if it broke up.. but Imagine the chaos on the forum If I said THAT). The only way you could have a reliable testing system is if they were ran by the schools themselves; If 1) the schools were independent of goverment and 2) non-profit or at least communitarian. But this idea is unworkable because each school (and how many schools are there in the US?) would have it's own test, each with it's own standard difficulty, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough point but still how one defines "informed" and "intelligent" is really up to debate. If history has taught us anything it's how things can be rigged; so say to be "intelligent" you have to claim that homosexuality is disease (to use an extreme example; it's usually more subtle than that.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No comment except to say that nowadays it's very difficult to see the "working class" as a single entity; especially obvious when we are talking about the division between Rural and Urban.

[Hatman 🍁]

A citizenship test for anyone under 18 isn't a bad idea, either.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Age 18 or graduation of high school, whichever comes first.