Lowering Voting Age To 16?

[Mouko]

it's irrelevant to compare a 16 year old to a 25 year old.

2 years doesn't make that much of a difference.

I disagree. When I was 15, I was a strong conservative, probably because of my parents. A year later, I had completely changed my mind and taken a strongly liberal view overall. The same happened to a good number of other people I know. A single year can make a difference, let alone two, in my experience.

[Ravenous megin-sane]

i meant compared to the 9 yrs between 16 and 25.

[Mouko]

I know. But I'm fairly sure I'll have different political opinions between now and the time I'm 25. Even a small amount of time can make a very big difference in someone's opinions.

 

Anyway, we're getting off topic. I say leave the voting age at 18.

[Moonlight_Graham]

It still tends to operate on that assumption that the second you turn 18, you have gained all the wisdom of the world.

i don't see it that way. I just see it that if you're 18 you are a bit more informed on politics, a bit more mature, and have a bit more life experience. I mean, you have to make an age limit somewhere.

 

18 you are mostly legally considered an adult (seems in everything but drinking) so i think its a good place to draw the line.

[Spritzup]

The whole topic is irrelevant. We all know people who are older than 18 who should never been allowed to talk, let alone choose the leaders of our country. We also all know people who are far younger than 18 and yet have a wisdom that is far beyond them. I think the biggest bit of B.S in our country with regards to age right now is how they have different ages for everything. For example -->

 

In Ontario --> 18 old enough to choose who should be the next leader of Canada, but not to choose whether you should drink or smoke

 

In USA --> 18 old enough to go and fight in a war, but just make sure you don't drink while you're doing it

 

In Canada --> 16 old enough to consent to sex, and have kids, but not do anything else.

 

Seems a little foolish to me.

[Dan #2]

-they can't serve in the army, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote

-they can't buy cigarettes, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote

-they can't buy/drink alcohol, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote

-WE'RE TRUSTING 16 YEAR OLDS WITH A VOTE???

-this would create problems in social science courses, with restrictions on what teachers could or couldn't tell students

A] 16 year olds CAN serve in the army, fools.

B] I can't legally buy cigarettes now, but guess who's rocking the booth January 23, LEGALLY?

C] See B

D] Only 16 year olds who care would vote, much like how only 40 year olds who care will vote.

E] Teachers cannot tell you what to think anyway

 

 

16 is a good age to be determined an adult. I would have liked to vote in the last election, and in the last year and a half, my politics haven't changed at all, and not from having a closed mind either. I'm always open to new ideas/opinions and such...

 

at 16, each kid should be determined an adult, as all limits are easily avoided. I've been drinking for three or four years now, and i could be smoking if i were stupider. I think it's about time people start looking at this, but the people in charge are all older, so they really don't care, as this issue does not effect them at all.

[garsk]

why give them the vote, should we get the 18-25 out more, i am one of my few friends who is going to vote. If 16 and 17 years are given the right, the majority of them are not going to uses it. Instead of giving the right to younger people, we should get the ones who can vote now, out to vote. even if they just go and null their vote.

[rebellious_L]

Most adults are just as clueless and stupid when it comes to voting anyway. Adding to The Rat Who Would Be King's idea, i think at 16 we should have to write a test, and until that test is passed you are not allowed to participate in any elections or referendums because you don't know enough. Of course, only about 5% of the population would be allowed to vote then.

[Matt]

Being smart isn't really enough, it's life experience, and while I believe students in College and Universities are still pretty protected from the real world, at least they are on their way to beginning their journey. High School kids are really protected though, and teachers these days (at least around here when I went to High School) would like to state their political views constantly and I did see people actually get influenced by that.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

I say lower the age. Mostly because they'll only bother to register if they're informed.

 

As far as life experience goes, it's irrelevant. I know people in their 50's, 80's, 20's, you name it who have gone through life without actually listening to a word any politician has said and just have the general, "It doesn't matter, they're all crooks anyway" attitude.

 

If you let them get involved earlier while they're actually learning the electoral process, they may just get out and vote or at least be more inclined to down the road.

 

 

Writing an eligibility test is tricky, by putting that policy in effect you are essentially denying a right that so many had fought for years and years ago. A right that democracy is basically founded upon. I believe it would also complicate the electoral process further, thus lowering voter turnout.

[ecnarf]

Being smart isn't really enough, it's life experience, and while I believe students in College and Universities are still pretty protected from the real world, at least they are on their way to beginning their journey. High School kids are really protected though, and teachers these days (at least around here when I went to High School) would like to state their political views constantly and I did see people actually get influenced by that.

those people are morons.

[TheKwas]

Let me vote guys >:C

[Pixie-elf]

I say lower the age. Mostly because they'll only bother to register if they're informed.

 

As far as life experience goes, it's irrelevant. I know people in their 50's, 80's, 20's, you name it who have gone through life without actually listening to a word any politician has said and just have the general, "It doesn't matter, they're all crooks anyway" attitude.

 

If you let them get involved earlier while they're actually learning the electoral process, they may just get out and vote or at least be more inclined to down the road.

 

 

Writing an eligibility test is tricky, by putting that policy in effect you are essentially denying a right that so many had fought for years and years ago. A right that democracy is basically founded upon. I believe it would also complicate the electoral process further, thus lowering voter turnout.

I agree with you, I don't see any real harm in doing it, and as you said only the ones who cared would vote.

 

I HATED the fact I couldn't vote in 2000. Had I the option I would have gone out and voted. I don't think it would truly harm anything to let them have their say in it.

[Matt]

Being smart isn't really enough, it's life experience, and while I believe students in College and Universities are still pretty protected from the real world, at least they are on their way to beginning their journey. High School kids are really protected though, and teachers these days (at least around here when I went to High School) would like to state their political views constantly and I did see people actually get influenced by that.

those people are morons.

See that's just ridiculous, life experience plays a major part in how people will vote. Calling people morons is really just un-acceptable. People need to learn from being out in the world how it's really like and voting for a party that will represent that and try to build upon that over many years to improving it.

[ecnarf]

I'm saying that people who take their teacher's political opinions at face value are morons.

 

And, having been in a class where topical political discussion took part on a regular basis, I can't say I saw anybody in that class (comprised of 16, 17 and 18 year olds) take the teacher's opinion at face value and mindlessly agreed with whatever he said.

[Matt]

I've seen lots of kids do that, truthfully it makes no sense to have 16 years old vote anyways, 18 is the age kids start to become adults so it's the age that makes sense.

[TheKwas]

Yeah, being able to serve in the military and being able to drive isn't an indication of "growing up".

 

Anyways, most seem to be missing the point of this idea.The idea isn't to get lots of 16 year old people to vote, it's to get people involved in politics in general earlier so that they will vote by the time they are 18.

[Ravenous megin-sane]

In Canada --> 16 old enough to consent to sex, and have kids, but not do anything else.

it's 14, now.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

I've seen lots of kids do that, truthfully it makes no sense to have 16 years old vote anyways, 18 is the age kids start to become adults so it's the age that makes sense.

I have seen instances of this as well, but it is also illegal to relay your political views as a person in a position of trust in schools. If 16 year olds were to become eligible, this policy would be enforced a bit more strictly as well. And only the kids passionate enough about THEIR beliefs will actually vote anyway, which are mostly the same kids that have matured past their age as well.

 

 

Besides more kids would be more likely to listen to their parents more than their teachers over who to vote for anwyay. They get political prejudice from their parents long before they can even spell the words. 18 year olds are just as guilty of this as 16 year olds.

[Matt]

But 18 year olds are still on the way to becoming adult and discovering what the world's really like. 16 year olds are still pretty protected. Also how could someone really prove a teacher's biasedly teaching students stuff? The kids might just say it's "their views".

[Monochrome Rainbow]

Is it really that likely that many 16 year olds can be influenced enough by a teacher to register and vote? Anyone that concerned about politics at that age would more or less take the initiative to inform themselves. And to get any sort of strong following from a student you'd basically have to bluntly preach your own opinions. Word will get out, there will be one student in a class at least to speak out against the bias, even if it is not extremely obvious.

 

All lowering the voting age will do is give students that are actually passionate about voting and politics the ability to vote while they are actually learning about the political process and the issues at hand (and in my opinion, probably more informed than many adults that will vote).

 

Some 20 year olds are pretty protected too, and some 18 year olds. I don't even see why we're debating who's more protected anyway, I honestly don't think how independant someone is will influence their vote significantly. You can still educate yourself and understand the issues. If you're gonna register and vote at the age of 16, you'll do that too. I don't need to pay my own rent to decide whether or not the health care system needs more federal funding, or if scrapping the GST is a good idea. Any kid that'll get too excited over saving 3 cents on a bag of doritos to think past the issue at hand won't even register.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't even expect a high turnout in 16 year olds. I don't think anyone does but when you're 18 or 20 or 25 you may be more compelled to take interest in politics because you'll have had more experience with it. And you'll pay more attention to what you learn in school if all of a sudden you have the option to apply that knowledge in a matter that can make a difference in your country, or at the very least allow you to voice your opinions.