16 years old voters

[DuncanONeil]

You do realize, as a general rule, that the young are often the most liberal. Which condition often changes in the other direction over time.
No one has, as far as I know, endeavored to explain why. But perhaps it is that the life of a child is not governed by what they earn but by what is given to them by their parents. This mind set is likely altered by their entry into the world as an adult, but such surely takes time.
Many mock elections have been held in schools and the results are often far from those of the nation as a whole. Now based on today some may say that is a good thing, but I am sure many others would not agree. Think "Logan's Run"! Imagine if this idea had been successful during the Counter Culture Period when the mantra was never trust anyone over 30. And do not forget these folks are now running many of our institutions anyway!

While I'm not entirely sure that 16 year olds can vote responsibly, I'd rather have them making some irresponsible votes initially and then actually voting throughout their lives rather than never learning to vote (which seems to be the case these days). I think the ideal voting age would be such that every individual would be able to vote once during high school (regardless of what year they are in). This would enable tie-ins to civics classes, etc. Of course the education curriculum has to be there for this to make sense.

[steelish]

You do realize, as a general rule, that the young are often the most liberal.

That's because most young kids only know how it is to be "taken care of" and believe that is the role of the government. Even kids who are taught the lesson of hard work still don't quite "get it" and some never grow out of it.

Do I believe kids as young as 16 should vote? No.

Personally, I think they should RAISE the age to 21...the same as the legal drinking age.

[SadisticNature]

Different people have different life experiences. It's also debatable how much the politics of individuals actually shift. I know plenty of people who are just as liberal or conservative at 40 as they were at 15. At least part of the reason that people are more conservative when they are older is that the politics of just about every country in the world shift to the left over time.

One particularly polarizing issue was race relations, which has historically been progressed by the left-wing party of the day in the US (Republicans in the civil-war era, and Democrats once the parties had switched who was on the right and who was on the left). In analyzing this issue we can look at two questions:

(I) Are people born in year X more likely to be anti-minority rights over their lifetimes than people born in year Y?
(II) Are people more likely to become anti-minority rights as the grow older?

I think the answer to (I) is without a doubt yes for X < Y by a generation. The answer to (II) is probably yes in some cases as well, but my own experiences based on my life and my interactions with people of different generations is that (I) is the much larger factor.

If you want to take a less touchy example consider the following:

Someone who voted Democrat for social programs in their 20's and 30's might be voting Republican in their 60's because they trust the Republicans to maintain the specific programs they believe in while they fear the Democrats will expand them or add ones they don't. Has their view of policies shifted to the right, or has the nation shifted to the left while their views have remained pretty consistent?

You do realize, as a general rule, that the young are often the most liberal. Which condition often changes in the other direction over time.
No one has, as far as I know, endeavored to explain why. But perhaps it is that the life of a child is not governed by what they earn but by what is given to them by their parents. This mind set is likely altered by their entry into the world as an adult, but such surely takes time.
Many mock elections have been held in schools and the results are often far from those of the nation as a whole. Now based on today some may say that is a good thing, but I am sure many others would not agree. Think "Logan's Run"! Imagine if this idea had been successful during the Counter Culture Period when the mantra was never trust anyone over 30. And do not forget these folks are now running many of our institutions anyway!

[Thorne]

My feeling is that the voting age should be based primarily on maturity, not on age alone. Granted, there may be some 16 year olds who are mature enough to handle the responsibility of voting. And there are some 60 year olds who aren't. But in general, I don't think the average high-school graduate is mature enough. Showing maturity by enlisting in the military (or yes, other forms of service organizations as well. I admit, I didn't think about those) should reflect well upon people. Even during a draft, coming out of a military term with an honorable discharge will generally indicate an acquired maturity, as does gaining a college degree. Perhaps even an Associate's level degree would be enough, I don't know.

But I never advocated denying anyone the right to vote permanently, nor did I say anything about 30 years old. My first thought was 25 years. Maybe that's too old, maybe not enough, I don't know.

Immigrants who apply for citizenship must pass a citizenship before they earn the right to vote. Maybe we should have all citizens take such a test. I doubt that most American adults today could pass such a test, which is not a good thing. As SadisticNature noted, several of the latest presidents, and I would venture to guess Congressmen and Senators as well, won because of their popularity and charm, rather than their qualifications.

And lest you think my answer is just sour grapes, I don't think the under-20's elected the wrong candidate. Obama was, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils. Alas, history may prove me wrong.

[SadisticNature]

My feeling is that the voting age should be based primarily on maturity, not on age alone. Granted, there may be some 16 year olds who are mature enough to handle the responsibility of voting. And there are some 60 year olds who aren't. But in general, I don't think the average high-school graduate is mature enough. Showing maturity by enlisting in the military (or yes, other forms of service organizations as well. I admit, I didn't think about those) should reflect well upon people. Even during a draft, coming out of a military term with an honorable discharge will generally indicate an acquired maturity, as does gaining a college degree. Perhaps even an Associate's level degree would be enough, I don't know.

But I never advocated denying anyone the right to vote permanently, nor did I say anything about 30 years old. My first thought was 25 years. Maybe that's too old, maybe not enough, I don't know.

Immigrants who apply for citizenship must pass a citizenship before they earn the right to vote. Maybe we should have all citizens take such a test. I doubt that most American adults today could pass such a test, which is not a good thing. As SadisticNature noted, several of the latest presidents, and I would venture to guess Congressmen and Senators as well, won because of their popularity and charm, rather than their qualifications.

And lest you think my answer is just sour grapes, I don't think the under-20's elected the wrong candidate. Obama was, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils. Alas, history may prove me wrong.

Apologies I mixed up your post where you said 25, and denuseri's which suggested 30 (although perhaps not whole-heartedly).

[DuncanONeil]

The original "Progressives" were highly racist.
Were it not for Republicans the various Civial Rights Acts would never have passed!

Different people have different life experiences. It's also debatable how much the politics of individuals actually shift. I know plenty of people who are just as liberal or conservative at 40 as they were at 15. At least part of the reason that people are more conservative when they are older is that the politics of just about every country in the world shift to the left over time.

One particularly polarizing issue was race relations, which has historically been progressed by the left-wing party of the day in the US (Republicans in the civil-war era, and Democrats once the parties had switched who was on the right and who was on the left). In analyzing this issue we can look at two questions:

(I) Are people born in year X more likely to be anti-minority rights over their lifetimes than people born in year Y?
(II) Are people more likely to become anti-minority rights as the grow older?

I think the answer to (I) is without a doubt yes for X < Y by a generation. The answer to (II) is probably yes in some cases as well, but my own experiences based on my life and my interactions with people of different generations is that (I) is the much larger factor.

If you want to take a less touchy example consider the following:

Someone who voted Democrat for social programs in their 20's and 30's might be voting Republican in their 60's because they trust the Republicans to maintain the specific programs they believe in while they fear the Democrats will expand them or add ones they don't. Has their view of policies shifted to the right, or has the nation shifted to the left while their views have remained pretty consistent?

[SadisticNature]

The original "Progressives" were highly racist.
Were it not for Republicans the various Civial Rights Acts would never have passed!

Actually the original Republicans were the progressives. Democrats were the political right. Republicans in the civil-war era were by and large allied with the Whig party on federal government infrastructure spending, while democrats were opposed. Similarly on issues like state rights (Republicans supported a stronger federation, Democrats wanted strength to go to the state governments). Other parallels include regionalization (Democrats controlled a base that is similar in geography to the modern Republican base, and vice versa).

It's only in the 1896 when the pro-business Bourbon Democrats lost control and the party reinvented itself as the party of the left.

You may want to read about the realigning elections of 1896 and 1932 before implying Republican in the civil-war era has ties to Republican now in terms of values and policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...publican_Party

[DuncanONeil]

There has been a change in the direction of the major political parties over the years. But the accepted progenitor of the Progressive movement is Woodrow Wilson. Now that I have gotten that far I wonder if you are caught in the Progressive "trap", equating "Progressive" with progress? They are in no way equivalent!
BTB Woodrow was a democrat.

Actually the original Republicans were the progressives. Democrats were the political right. Republicans in the civil-war era were by and large allied with the Whig party on federal government infrastructure spending, while democrats were opposed. Similarly on issues like state rights (Republicans supported a stronger federation, Democrats wanted strength to go to the state governments). Other parallels include regionalization (Democrats controlled a base that is similar in geography to the modern Republican base, and vice versa).

It's only in the 1896 when the pro-business Bourbon Democrats lost control and the party reinvented itself as the party of the left.

You may want to read about the realigning elections of 1896 and 1932 before implying Republican in the civil-war era has ties to Republican now in terms of values and policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...publican_Party

[SadisticNature]

There has been a change in the direction of the major political parties over the years. But the accepted progenitor of the Progressive movement is Woodrow Wilson. Now that I have gotten that far I wonder if you are caught in the Progressive "trap", equating "Progressive" with progress? They are in no way equivalent!
BTB Woodrow was a democrat.

Actually I used the word in the way the rest of the modern world uses the word to refer to the movement of social progressivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressivism

One has to be careful when using words that are rather overused, and refer to multiple movements each with different ideologies values and beliefs.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...arty_of_Canada

Progressive has a radically different meaning in this context, the one I am most familiar with.

[DuncanONeil]

Interesting pair of definitions. However neither really compare to the US Progressives.
Perhaps the worst part of the Progressives is that they fervantly wish the Constitution did not exist!

Actually I used the word in the way the rest of the modern world uses the word to refer to the movement of social progressivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressivism

One has to be careful when using words that are rather overused, and refer to multiple movements each with different ideologies values and beliefs.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...arty_of_Canada

Progressive has a radically different meaning in this context, the one I am most familiar with.