Voting Age

  • independence.

    independence. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    @ Jenna's a cutter.
    I'm not saying every 16 year old is, which is why I don't think the voting age should be lowered. At the same time though, I don't think 2 years makes much of a difference with maturity with some people. Some people can mature in leaps and bounds within 2 years while some wont mature at all within 10 years.

    But thanks. :) (I'm just assuming it as a compliment, not to sound cocky. /spam).
    July 24th, 2013 at 05:51am
  • Jenna's happeh

    Jenna's happeh (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    24
    Location:
    United States
    @ independence.
    It was a compliment. Mr. Green
    Some people do mature differently.
    It's just a fact.
    July 24th, 2013 at 06:16am
  • independence.

    independence. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    @ Jenna's a cutter.
    Well then thanks. Mr. Green /spam haha

    But exactly. I guess maybe it was just how you said it that seemed off to me, but we're definitely in agreement on that.
    July 24th, 2013 at 06:17am
  • Jenna's happeh

    Jenna's happeh (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    24
    Location:
    United States
    @ independence.
    Well they way you put it makes sense, I guess.

    Not all 16 year olds are mature, and not all of them are immature.

    Same with 18. But I'm pretty sure it was lowered because you can serve in the military at 18..? I think so...
    July 24th, 2013 at 02:59pm
  • independence.

    independence. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    @ Jenna's a cutter.
    Exactly.

    Which makes sense. If you can die for your country you should be able to vote for whoever is sending you off to war.
    July 24th, 2013 at 03:02pm
  • Name Of Misery.

    Name Of Misery. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    I think having minors vote could possibly get complicated because they are, again, minors. If a person is under 18, parent/guardian permission might come into play and that might keep some from voting (not wanting to ask their parents to sign a form, not having anyone to, etc.) or make people uninterested.

    I think the age should stay at 18 because it's the age at which people become legal adults.
    August 1st, 2013 at 10:27am
  • LostinTime

    LostinTime (200)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    Jenna's A BRO!:
    But is every sixteen year old that way?
    No, not every sixteen year old is that way.

    When I was sixteen I couldn't care less about what was happening in the political world, and I honestly still don't two years later. However, I also don't believe that I've changed all that much in these past two years and I'm definitely not planning on voting unless I do my research and actually approve of a candidate in the election next time around.

    If a sixteen year old has done their own research and thinks they are capable of making an unbiased decision on who they are voting for, I think they should be given a chance to vote.
    August 1st, 2013 at 10:42pm
  • folie a dru.

    folie a dru. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    36
    Location:
    United States
    @ LostinTime
    Most adults aren't capable of making an unbiased decision not swayed in some part by the media. I was political when I was nearly eighteen and wanted to vote, but the literature I read certainly influenced my thinking.
    August 1st, 2013 at 11:14pm
  • LostinTime

    LostinTime (200)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    @ dru's sick and tired

    I don't mean influenced by the materials they've used to do their research with, I mean the people they're around. In other words, they shouldn't let those they're close to (parents, friends, teachers, ect.) sway their opinion on the election.

    For example, my state leans towards the Republican side, so the majority of the people that I'm around the most try to influence me to root for whichever Republican candidate has been selected to run without a second thought. Although I wasn't of legal age to vote this time around again, I still tried to find materials that gave me the pros and cons of those who did run to base my decision as though I would have been able to voice my opinion and simply blocked everyone else out. However, as I said, I doubt I will ever partake in an election anyway because I don't believe anyone will be my top choice ever and I see it as unfair to give someone my vote when I don't support them.

    I do agree with you that most adults aren't capable of making unbiased decisions because the majority of them are easily swayed. If that's the case, though, then why exactly should those who are eighteen and older get to vote when they more than likely still have the same mentality that they've always had? Besides, it shouldn't be up to others to determine whether or not someone's opinion is biased or not, it's up to the voter in question. If they're without-a-doubt confident that's the candidate they want to be their President, that's who they vote for.
    August 2nd, 2013 at 04:23am
  • wx12

    wx12 (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United States
    LostinTime:
    @ dru's sick and tired

    I don't mean influenced by the materials they've used to do their research with, I mean the people they're around. In other words, they shouldn't let those they're close to (parents, friends, teachers, ect.) sway their opinion on the election.
    Why are materials a valid source but not people? Those research materials were created by people and affected by their bias. I'd rather consider the opinion of someone I know and respect than a stranger with an agenda.

    There is no such thing as an unbiased decision on most social issues because we're not dealing with scientific facts, but the interpretation of facts. Nobody, no matter how intelligent or well researched, exists without bias. Bias is not an inherently bad thing.
    August 2nd, 2013 at 04:45am
  • LostinTime

    LostinTime (200)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    I didn't say all materials were valid sources nor did I say all people weren't, as I'm aware it takes a person or more to produce a material.

    And no, bias isn't inherently a bad thing, but voting for a candidate should be made by a person without inputs from someone who spews out great things about one and negative things about another. While yes, there are biases everywhere, materials in my opinion are easier to distinguish than people you see every day.

    My argument is that, in my opinion, a typical sixteen year old is (or should be) at the age where they can perform the conscious act of researching for themselves and voting for a candidate using their own voice instead of anybody they're close to who could have intentionally influenced in a way that would make them voice their opinion instead, which I know some people like that are capable of doing. If they aren't able to then why would two years make a difference?
    August 2nd, 2013 at 08:08am
  • folie a dru.

    folie a dru. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    36
    Location:
    United States
    @ LostinTime
    Going to college. Leaving the nest. Being deposed to a world other than yours. That's what junior to college freshman can do.

    Until my mother showed up with her crazy liberal views I had no way of knowing Harry Potter wasn't evil and abortion was a choice. There were less than 2000 people in my town and minimal Internet usage.

    Being exposed to the real world makes a difference, I think.
    August 2nd, 2013 at 04:10pm
  • wx12

    wx12 (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United States
    LostinTime:
    I didn't say all materials were valid sources nor did I say all people weren't, as I'm aware it takes a person or more to produce a material.

    And no, bias isn't inherently a bad thing, but voting for a candidate should be made by a person without inputs from someone who spews out great things about one and negative things about another. While yes, there are biases everywhere, materials in my opinion are easier to distinguish than people you see every day.

    My argument is that, in my opinion, a typical sixteen year old is (or should be) at the age where they can perform the conscious act of researching for themselves and voting for a candidate using their own voice instead of anybody they're close to who could have intentionally influenced in a way that would make them voice their opinion instead, which I know some people like that are capable of doing. If they aren't able to then why would two years make a difference?
    It seems you have this purified view of what voting is and who should vote and how they should do it.

    My parents/family/friends will affect my political beliefs because we're likely the same race, same religion, same socioeconimic status, etc. In terms of political issues, we're affected by the same thing. For example, unions are a big deal in my family of carpenters and electricians. Thus, I am very pro-union. It's not that I've only been fed information about how good unions are and how bad anti-union politicians are, I've see how unions benefit the people I love and care about, and yes, they too have vocalized their support. At this point, you cannot distinguish between me voicing my own opinion and my family members voicing their opinions- we just have the same opinion due to shared experiences.

    People don't vote because of research they do- they vote because of the life they live and the issues they experience first hand and the influences around them. I'm not saying this is the best way to vote, but I don't think it's a bad way either. Your vote should reflect your life as a citizen, not an idealized political philosophy you spend hours in the library constructing.

    You can't base the voting age off of ones ability to do research or the ability to rise above influence. Most people can do that, but they don't (you have to remember a majority of Americans don't vote at all, even though they legally can). You can't force how you choose to form political opinions on the rest of the country as law- voting is an inalienable right, whether someone votes after months of researching candidates or by flipping a coin.
    August 2nd, 2013 at 04:53pm
  • Jenna's happeh

    Jenna's happeh (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    24
    Location:
    United States
    @ LostinTime
    But how does everyone know who's educated and who's not?
    August 3rd, 2013 at 05:52am
  • Name Of Misery.

    Name Of Misery. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    dru's sick and tired:
    @ LostinTime
    Going to college. Leaving the nest. Being deposed to a world other than yours. That's what junior to college freshman can do.

    ...

    Being exposed to the real world makes a difference, I think.
    I agree with this, and I will add that living as an "adult" (living on one's own, in a dorm, etc.; paying rent, possible health/car insurance, gas, groceries) can put things into perspective. People may realize what things are important to them when faced with real life choices and problems, such as not having health insurance or getting a job (among plenty of other things).

    I'm not saying that people who live at home with parents/guardians don't know what being an adult is like, but it puts things in a different perspective.

    When I was 16 all I knew was what my parents told me and what I read/saw on the news and on news websites. I don't live on my own now, but I do help with my friends' and boyfriend's daily living occasionally and knowing that he has to make choices for himself (and can't have his parents do it for him) makes certain opinions of things change or be questioned.
    August 3rd, 2013 at 10:38am