Should the voting age be changed to 16+?

Originally posted by Fire
[B]Because you would give certain ppl of the age of 16 and up the right to vote where others don't get that right. How is it decided? by a test, as Ush has said this would create two class's those that can vote and those that can't.

If those who can't are so broke up about it, they can learn about politics and pass the damn test.

maybe, maybe not now you are forcing ppl to commit which also is against democracy, in a better way but still

i think changing the age of voting is a bad idea. you should be able to vote when you are able to support yourself. when your 16 some kids might still have influences from their parents.

Originally posted by amlap
when your 16 some kids might still have influences from their parents.

So? People might be influenced by their friends, too, and their church, and a million other things.

And I have no data to back it up, but I strongly suspect that most people do not change their political party between ages sixteen and eighteen.

they might gregory but they probably won't still that is besides the point

still your friends might influence you but when your 16 your parents have alot of say in waht you do.

im just going from past exeriences with my mother. shit if she didnt get what she wanted it was either im out of the house or did it her way.

Amlap, the support yourself thing is a good idea, I guess. But there are lot's of people who are older who can't support themselves.

It would not create a second-class. You can't create a second-class among teens unless it involves money. Do you really think the kids who don't care about voting will give a shit if others their age can vote?

it doesn't matter wether or not the kids perceive it as a second-class, in theory it is one and that is dangerous enough

Originally posted by Fire
it doesn't matter wether or not the kids perceive it as a second-class, in theory it is one and that is dangerous enough

Teenagers in that age-group already live in a stratified society. There are the rich kids and the poor kids, the popular kids and the misfits, the athletic kids and the kids who get picked last in gym, and on, and on...

I absolutely guarantee that whether or not a kid can vote will have less effect on his status than how he makes up his hair. It is not a real risk.

you can't guarantee something that will take place in the future.

Originally posted by Fire
you can't guarantee something that will take place in the future.

This is just semantics. Unless teenagers have changed drastically in the two years since I've been in high-school, I assure you that what I say is true. If you don't like the word "guanantee," stick in one of your own.

it doesn't matter mate you can NOT guarantee or prove or whatever something that will happen in the future it is theoreticaly impossible

and with democracy I dont want to take that risk

It's also theoretically possible that the next time I step out of my house, I'll be struck by a meteor. Should I huddle behind closed doors for the rest of my life? Of course not. I consider it to be an acceptable risk.

Likewise, I consider the (very, very remote) possibility that letting teenagers vote under certain conditions will create some sort of social problem to be an acceptable risk. You do not. I doubt that we will ever agree on this point.

idd we wont

and yes that is a risk.

i feel that letting a younger teens vote is just gonna make more of a problem.... how in anyway will it be useful? i further my arguement that teens under the age of 18 are still the property of their parents. therefore the parents in the end always have the right to decide who their vote goes to, if they want it that way. plus if 16 yr olds can vote then next thing your know the army will start scouting for 16 yr olds and instead of having trained men in iraq we will have kids who cant even buy cigs fighting our wars. the thing about hte usa is that 18 is when your declared an adult. 16 yr olds are still counted as children and in no way, shape , or form have complete control over their lives.

and yes there are people who cant support themselves. but its their given right to choose. so they vote for a certain someone for money or something of the sort.

the way i look at it is that if you pay taxes and are declared as indepentent then you have the right to vote.

Originally posted by amlap
i further my arguement that teens under the age of 18 are still the property of their parents. therefore the parents in the end always have the right to decide who their vote goes to, if they want it that way.

I don't know what third world country you hail from, but here in the USA, people are not property.

Yes, they are. At least until they turn 18. That's why there are laws stating that it is the parent's responsibility, until you turn the age of majority(18), to take care of you. In that sense, you belong to them. Amlap is right, your parents could influence you, but then again, television could influence you.

Originally posted by Jeff_Atello
Yes, they are. At least until they turn 18.

You may be right. I haven't been able to find anything on the subject. But does that mean that "therefore the parents in the end always have the right to decide who their vote goes to"? I mean, are parents literally allowed to dictate every aspect of their children's existance?

If so, I consider it a far greater wrong than merely not allowing teenagers to vote.

When the child turns 18, the parent is no longer legally responsible for them. Therefore, they really couldn't dictate who the child's vote goes to.

Originally posted by Jeff_Atello
When the child turns 18, the parent is no longer legally responsible for them. Therefore, they really couldn't dictate who the child's vote goes to.

No, I mean, if the voting age was lowered to sixteen.