Voting Age

Eizu:

^
Uh... that's the reason we are debating this is because they're being denied a right to vote. Denied a right.

You don't have the right to vote though. It's not a right you're being denied. It's a right you want but are not currently entitled to. As a minor you have the right to food, water, clothing, shelter, education, and to not be abused. That's all.

It's a right I want but am being denied.

I want a candy bar, but mommy says no! It's not for you! It's for the older children.
I was just denied a candy bar.

I also have right of assembly, of speech, of protest, etc. Bill of Rights?

Eizu:

It's a right I want but am being denied.

I want a candy bar, but mommy says no! It's not for you! It's for the older children.
I was just denied a candy bar.

I also have right of assembly, of speech, of protest, etc. Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights, I believe applies to adults. I think your parents/guardians can take away your right to assembly and protest.

You're not being denied a right though. You're being denied, but not a right. A right is something you are entitled to and you are not entitled to vote as a minor. You're being denied a want.

Eizu:

It's a right I want but am being denied.

I want a candy bar, but mommy says no! It's not for you! It's for the older children.
I was just denied a candy bar.

I also have right of assembly, of speech, of protest, etc. Bill of Rights?

So do you think kids should have the right to have a candy bar whenever they want? To protest openly? Being denied something isn't the same as having your rights denied.

^
The candy bar was an analogy I was using to say that the right to vote is being denied to 16-17 year olds. But I realize that the saying "denied the right" is different from "denied the want"

and yes kids should be able to protest openly.

Eizu:

^
The candy bar was an analogy I was using to say that the right to vote is being denied to 16-17 year olds. But I realize that the saying "denied the right" is different from "denied the want"

and yes kids should be able to protest openly.

Where do you draw the line between a want and a right?

As an under 18, I can't drive (excluding a provisional), I can't drink, I can't smoke. In some countries (and states) you can't legally have sex until you're 18. Are those rights, or wants? And what makes voting different?

its optional to drive/drink/smoke/sex but the fact is, voting determines the present, AND the future. Today's leaders and decisions affects MY future, and I should have a say in what happens today and tomorrow since I am still under this country.

^
It's obviously quite optional to vote as people don't do it and you don't die if you don't partake.

You don't get a say in the country because you're not contributing to it. You can make your voice heard, sure, but you don't get a right to vote. And if you think you do, then why is 16 the cut-off age? Shouldn't six year olds get a say?

Eizu:

its optional to drive/drink/smoke/sex but the fact is, voting determines the present, AND the future. Today's leaders and decisions affects MY future, and I should have a say in what happens today and tomorrow since I am still under this country.

Driving, drinking, smoking and having sex can all have a huge impact on your present and future as well.

dru's so young.:

^
It's obviously quite optional to vote as people don't do it and you don't die if you don't partake.

You don't get a say in the country because you're not contributing to it. You can make your voice heard, sure, but you don't get a right to vote. And if you think you do, then why is 16 the cut-off age? Shouldn't six year olds get a say?

I'll give a full retort once I've completed my report but I don't agree with the statement that young people don't contribute to the country. That is a fallacy.

Many people under the age of eighteen contribute to the UK (at the least). Volunteering can start at a young age (my sister for example started volunteering when she was 10) and I would suggest that volunteering is a "contribution" to society, perhaps moreso than 99% of office work.

Similarly, I would not suggest that because a person is young that they are inept to contribute financially, culturally, morally or physically for a country. That is a gross miscalculation and I don't think should be the basis for an argument in terms of voting since many adults contribute nothing to society at all.

It's a poor line of reasoning imo.

Eizu:

its optional to drive/drink/smoke/sex but the fact is, voting determines the present, AND the future. Today's leaders and decisions affects MY future, and I should have a say in what happens today and tomorrow since I am still under this country.

So what if you make it 16 - plenty of fifteen and fourteen year old will be insisting that it will affect their future too, and they should have a say, won't they?

i am not joan:

I'll give a full retort once I've completed my report but I don't agree with the statement that young people don't contribute to the country. That is a fallacy.

They don't contribute to society to the same extent adults do. You're correct. They can contribute, just not to the same extent.

dru's so young.:

They don't contribute to society to the same extent adults do. You're correct. They can contribute, just not to the same extent.

As some adults, not all.

i am not joan:

As some adults, not all.

I'll try again. Teenagers cannot contribute to society in the same way that the majority of adults are able to.

^I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, but I suppose I could be a bit biased.

There are a lot of mature teenagers that can fully contribute to the society just as well as adults. The problem is that there aren't enough of them---I'd say that the majority can't. Some can, not all, and certainly not enough to lower the voting age.

With that said, I personally don't believe sixteen year olds should be allowed to vote. I think many of them would be too easily swayed and persuaded. Plus, if it [the voting age] is lowered, think of how drastic the candidate's platforms might turn. I highly doubt it would help the country if we vote for a president who appeals primarily to teenagers.

venetian doll.:

There are a lot of mature teenagers that can fully contribute to the society just as well as adults. The problem is that there aren't enough of them---I'd say that the majority can't. Some can, not all, and certainly not enough to lower the voting age.

I'm not saying they can't because they aren't intelligent enough or don't have the skills. But society isn't set up in such a way that would allow them to. Like having a full-time job, for instance.

Just as with virtually all things adults are allowed and minors aren't, I'm sure there are young people who could competently vote, drive, drink or have sex under the legal age limit. But for the sake of practical application of law, there needs to be a cut off number or limit or whatever.

I don't know what it's like in America but in the UK at 16 you can move out, get married, have sex and join the army. Also if you earn over a certain amount you have to pay taxes. Therefore, at this age you have basically all the responsibility of an adult but none of the rights. The way I see it, it isn't truly a democracy if there are people who have to pay taxes who have not been able to have a say in who they want to be elected. I know there's the argument that at 16 people aren't mature enough but if they are old enough to sign their lives over to the army then surely they can place a cross in a ballot box? More than ever young people are becoming interested in politics, and I think that a lot of my friends have more political knowledge than a lot of young adults.
I think it would be good if we did have the vote, but if we dont then I honestly dont think it's fair that we have to pay taxes. A democracy means we all have an equal say in how our money is spent and how our country is run. At 16 its your country and if your paying taxes then it is your money so you should have a say too.

Along the line with what Ballet_Girl has said -- if 16 is the age at which most of the responsibilities are given to young adults/teenagers in the UK, then voting should go along with that. This same debate happened in the US during the Vietnam War when the voting age was 21 and yet young men were drafted at 18. If we are old enough to die for our country, they argued, then are we not old enough to have a say in how it is run? This same argument applies here. If, at 16, you are legally responsible for yourself (allowed to move out and get married) and you are old enough to sign your life away to the army, then it is logical to also have suffrage.

starcrossed.:

If, at 16, you are legally responsible for yourself (allowed to move out and get married)

Actually, 18 is the age of legal responsibility in the UK (excl. Scotland). And 16- to 18-year-olds are only allowed to move out/marry/enlist in the army if they have parental consent (also excl. Scotland).