> Why can't younger people vote? Because they don't have valid opinions?
Because society has a long-standing agreement that a phase of life called "childhood" exists, during which an individual is not fully developed and can't be trusted to make decisions about his or her future. It may be somewhat arbitrarily defined at 18, but I don't see why people who need to be protected against entering into contracts as well as receiving a slew of rights and protections can be expected to have meaningful input into the management of their country. Someone who can't even join the military could vote to send their older fellow countrymen into war. I find the idea that the voting age can be lower than the age of majority very strange, and I have strong doubts that the age of majority should be lowered to 16 - on account of protecting childhood.
> This seems to affect our dramatically in our modern era, as many of our older folks are still around and skewing the generational differences towards conservatism.
Wait, what. You meant to come out against ageism, then you criticize old people for voting "wrong"?
All in all, if you take a step back from you criticisms, there's a common point: Legitimacy. Submitting a ballot every few years is a very weak foundation for a government as sprawling and powerful as most modern and western ones. Fiddling the knobs of who can vote does little more than shift the balance of power inside the political class.
Even if we grant the notion of childhood as valid (one which I agree with, but am open to other models - the idea that one turns 18 and is suddenly a different person has weird impacts), we are seeing a systemic erosion of the notion. One which makes the GP's question valid.
I mean that the very idea of 18 == adulthood is going away. For instance, more and more people over the age of 13 but under the age of 18 are being prosecuted as adults in criminal cases. Zero tolerance policies for kids of all ages are assuming that they are capable of making choices with life altering consequences, but only in negative ways. So for some actions - adult understanding of the world is assumed much younger than the age of 18. On the other hand, we are seeing the infantilization of people older than 18 - drinking age is 21, car rental 25, college policies are becoming more and more like those of high-school, college campus law enforcement is becoming less and less tolerant of "young people behavior" (e.g. parties and festivals). It is a weird set of standards that sends a strange message. Those that conform well are placed in a class that can fully enjoy the rewards of membership eventually, and those that don't or make mistakes are placed in a different class, one with many restrictions.
Basically I'm saying that while the notions of adulthood and childhood aren't bad, the implementation brings them into question.
Your examples of blurring childhood and adulthood are mostly answerable (however poorly) by saying "well, these things may be increasingly happening, but they Shouldn't Happen and we should work on fixing that".
Here's an example that can't be thus answered. Should a minor pay income taxes, if they have enough income? I think most people would say yes. But then tell me again why they can't vote?
Hi, just wanted to say that if you lost a point of karma on this post, it was because I accidentally clicked downvote. Pure accident, really, because I actually think everyone in this thread should be heading over to youthrights.org and reading a bunch of their literature right now. This issue has festered outside the adult-public consciousness for far too long.
Minors can de facto have arbitrarily large incomes from investments, although typically the investments are structured as trusts and are not legally the property of the minor.
Someone who can't even join the military could vote to send their older fellow countrymen into war.
On the other hand, when someone who can't even join the military (e.g. folks over 30) could vote to send their younger fellow countrymen into war, no one thinks twice.
(I think 30 is the age at which you are too old to join the military, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
Within the branches I know that more interesting/selective active duty branches have lower requirements. For example, active duty Navy is 34 but Navy Seals' cap is 28.
None of this takes away from your point since there are plenty of voters older than 42.
The problem with that is that there's also this thing called "adolescence" where children have to actually learn how to be adults, and like almost everything else in life, the way you become good at being an adult is to be bad at being an adult and not letting that stop you.
Don't worry too much about kids taking over the country -- voter participation by people younger than 40 is so low that you could drop the voting age to zero and it wouldn't affect the results that much.
> Don't worry too much about kids taking over the country -- voter participation by people younger than 40 is so low that you could drop the voting age to zero and it wouldn't affect the results that much.
Well then let's do that. Seriously. Making assumptions on participation for youths in elections is akin to making assumptions on how women would vote before Women's Suffrage. While you may be correct, it's impossible to say that they're apathetic for such and such reasons when they're not even allowed to vote until the age of 18.
It's worth thinking through the actual impact on behavior that a lower voting age would bring.
I tend to think it's a bad idea because of how it would change behavior of some adults who interact with children.
As adults, if we want to do more than just voting, we can go door-to-door talking to voters, for example. We can put up posters, or make calls. If another voter isn't convinced, they can just say so; if they don't even want to talk, they can close the door or hang up the phone.
But children are often captive audiences. They are surrounded by adults (adult family members, teachers, etc.) who can and do tell them what to do, and there are consequences if they fight back. Sure, you can lie to Dad and say "sure, I voted for your guy", but what if he catches you lying and actually kicks you out of the house like he said he would? A teacher probably wouldn't outright tell students how to vote. But... they'd certainly have a much bigger incentive to teach them good political thinking, for the teacher's value of "good". There are already church leaders who outright tell their congregations how God wants them to vote. Do we want to point that kind of crap at kids as well?
A lot of adults wouldn't abuse their power, of course. Currently, children can't vote, so they have far less incentive to abuse it in this way.
> Wait, what. You meant to come out against ageism, then you criticize old people for voting "wrong"?
No, I'm simply pointing out that in this day and age, we have more older people voicing their opinion. This leads to policies that favor this group and disadvantages other groups (youth).
I think Thomas Jefferson had much to say on the tyranny of one generation to the next.
> All in all, if you take a step back from you criticisms, there's a common point: Legitimacy. Submitting a ballot every few years is a very weak foundation for a government as sprawling and powerful as most modern and western ones. Fiddling the knobs of who can vote does little more than shift the balance of power inside the political class.
Agreed. However youth suffrage is an important topic. You say that society needs to protect childhood, but to me, it seems like they're protecting them from their own opinions and values... Like the article mentions.
Because society has a long-standing agreement that a phase of life called "childhood" exists, during which an individual is not fully developed and can't be trusted to make decisions about his or her future. It may be somewhat arbitrarily defined at 18, but I don't see why people who need to be protected against entering into contracts as well as receiving a slew of rights and protections can be expected to have meaningful input into the management of their country. Someone who can't even join the military could vote to send their older fellow countrymen into war. I find the idea that the voting age can be lower than the age of majority very strange, and I have strong doubts that the age of majority should be lowered to 16 - on account of protecting childhood.
> This seems to affect our dramatically in our modern era, as many of our older folks are still around and skewing the generational differences towards conservatism.
Wait, what. You meant to come out against ageism, then you criticize old people for voting "wrong"?
All in all, if you take a step back from you criticisms, there's a common point: Legitimacy. Submitting a ballot every few years is a very weak foundation for a government as sprawling and powerful as most modern and western ones. Fiddling the knobs of who can vote does little more than shift the balance of power inside the political class.