Modified:
08 Feb 2010
by Admin
Vote totals:
Yes:
44%
No:
56%
Neutral:
0%
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.
Misc Debates
Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Search:
DEBATE: THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Posted by: DebatewiseDave
Karma:
22
By lowering the voting age we are more able to engage young people with politics and with the democratic process. This has major long term benefits for political engagement.
Executive Summary
Join The Debate
All the Yes points
All the No points
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Voting is a right young people are entitled to
As voting is the central way in which citizens express their judgement and support of government policy, it is only fair that those who are affected by major government decisions are given the opportunity to express their opinions via the ballot box. Sixteen and seventeen year-olds can join the armed forces, raise a family and pay tax. If you can die for your country, get married, have children and pay towards society, you should have the right to indicate your feelings to the government. Our government was set up on the basis that we should not be taxed without representation. Sixteen year olds, as previously stated, can join the military, have kids, a job and have to pay taxes on the job. They have just as much say in who decides their taxes as all the rest of us. obviously its not like they don't know whom they are voting for. those kids as you call them,are not stupid,if nowadays its difficult
to fool a three year old with candy it would be impossible to fool a person who can differentiate good from bad so let them express
their feelings to those whom they trust by voting for them.
Sixteen and seventeen year-olds are restricted from front line duty, it is true they usually sign-up for a minimum of four years and so are making decisions which may place their lives in danger for half of their service, this half also coincides with the period at which they can vote.Young people of this age can only marry with their parents permission and yes, having legal responsibility over ones sex life shouldn't be underestimated it doesn't mean that people should be given the right, through voting, to have responsibility over wider society. Finally, if the argument that people who pay taxation should be entitled to representation is taken to its logical conclusion, then even five year-olds should be able to vote because the goods they buy with their pocket money are subject to VATso you're saying you want a kid to vote for some who is going to lead the nation for 4 years and it doesn't matter if their knowledgeable or capable or even know who the candidates are just as long as they pay for candy have uprotected sex and serve their country they should vote? and everyone has the right to indicate their feelings toward the government it is called freedom of speech
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Giving young people the vote would make them more engaged in society
Currently many young people are deprived of democratic participation until they are 23. Opening up voting to 16 and 17 year olds would ensure that they get the opportunity to vote from a younger age and it is more likely to be seen as an essential element of the transition to adulthood. 18 year olds are often more transient – they are more likely to be leaving home, working full time or starting university. At this busy time of life voting can all too easily drop down the list of priorities.The exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from elections is fuelling the disengagement of 18-24 year olds. The longer young people are denied involvement in the formal democratic process, the less chance there is of engaging them ever. There is no evidence to suggest that once 18, young people are likely to become more engaged.
It is a logical fallacy to suggest that if 18 year olds, who are affected by a wider array of political issues, such as employment law, universities etc. are not engaged with the political process, then those of a younger age will be.If we're having trouble getting those who are allowed to vote to actually vote, then the solution is to give them better reasons to do so: by increasing the prevalence of political education, by forcing parties to start appealing to the whole electorate, to empower the public so as to make them believe they can change politics, and perhaps even to change the electoral system to make our parliaments better reflect the public opinion.there is no evidence to suggest that 16-17 yr olds care about voting there was never a survey or a census and to say that the exclusion of TEENS is affecting how adults vote then you are mistaken my parents never said gee son since you can't vote Im not going to vote 18-24yr olds want to vote they can if not thats their choice and it's not going to change because they had a field trip and voted when they were teens
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
If they are old enough to die for their country they are old enough to vote
If it's OK for governments to send young people at ages 16 and 17 into war zones then there is no moral argument for not allowing them the opportunity to elect the government which may send them to their deaths or otherwise.The way to engage young people in politics is at school and votes for 16 will bring that forward
It's not okay to send people under the age of 18 to war. People can enlist in the army at that age, but the army is not allowed to send them into combat. [1][1}
The optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict to the Convention that came into force in 2002 stipulates that its state parties “shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons below the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities and that they are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces.”Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/chld-m08.shtml
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
If you are able to get your drivers license at the age of 16 then you should be allowed to vote.
If you are able to get your drivers license at the age of 16 then you should be allowed to vote. The Government thinks it's ok to let 16 year olds start on getting their license, but they aren't allowed to vote? Plus they are young adults and young adults should be able to have a say in what happens in the political field.
The state creates a licensing mechanism to determine whether you are qualified to drive, you do not receive your license automatically. Since the qualities of a decent driver are discernible, and a license can be withheld if they are not met, it is possible to judge an individual capable of driving before their brain has fully developed.
also you want a teenager to have a say in what plan of action the president should take on the matter of sending troops into the battlefield and taxes and so on and so forth
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Yes only for the qualified
It's very dangerous to enfranchise kids of ages 16-17 in developed countries where most of them are inattentive, biased, and immature. It might be a different story in developed countries like the U.S. There is a unique experiment in Hampton, U.S. in that youth and community leaders and the heads of social service agencies are brought together by the mayor to select teens for a Hampton Youth Commission, which are charged with representing their peers in the city decision-making process. "The students are engaged. The culture of the town has changed. The turnout of young Hampton voters in the 2004 elections was 29 percent higher than the national average."[1] As we can see, the voting age never matters. Any kid at the age of at least, say, 16 should be enfranchised as long as they are capable and brought up properly. There should be a (n) Agency/Commission/Institution specialized to qualify only youngsters who hold enough responsibility in their votes.
"Any kid at the age of at least, say, 16 should be enfranchised as long as they are capable and brought up properly"really so any kid who is not brought up properly should not vote? those who aren't capable of pushing a button for who they want to vote for ?
wow that is something any moron is capable of voting and every child would say they were "brought up properly" and woting age does matter does a 16 year old now what obama's healthcare plan is even about? I can assure anyone that a informed voter at the age of 30 or higher can and does now what is happening a 16 year old doesn't know current events and even if they weren't informed 30 yr olds watch the news and on the news it probably has or shows what as stated earlier obama's health care plan has or does. and maybe this voting thing the 29% increase was because of a fad and you say it was only in 2004 further proving my point of it being a fad just coming and going like the seasons so conclusion there is no way to test every kid and see if they are capable of voting or were brought up properly wich you are implying and this was only in hampton nowhere else
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
If your allowed to marry, quit school, and move from your home, you should be ready!
If your able to do all that then you should have the right and responsibility of voting!
thats just it teens as we know do not plan ahead so you need your parents permission to be married and if you quit school how does that make you qualified to make a decision that will probably be the most important decision of your high school drop out life. and if you leave your home while you're a teen it's called running away so conclusion teens don't plan what is going to happen with their life so they don't know what to expect from life and just head straight into a wall instead of turning you should learn that in high school.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Arbitrary set age
From the offset we should look into why the status quo allows for people over the age of 18 (or whatever age it may be in which ever country)to vote.
The fact that I cannot vote a day before my 18th birthday but randomly, thanks to nothing by a span of time can vote a few hours thereafter is a radically flawed concept. While some arguments do stand for the opposition, like irresponsibility and lack of knowledge etc...Those are problems that time (in itself) cannot fix and thus you cannot say that John is not intelligent enough to vote when he's 17 years and 364 days old but in two days he will be...For those 2 days, John could have been in a coma not gaining any knowledge but under the oppositions argument, somehow, those 2 days magically entitle him to some pseudo-knowledge and intelligence he previously did not have a matter of hours ago.Maybe, opposition can make a case that it's less that there are fewer intelligent people under the age of 18, but that doesn't mean that everybody under the age is too dumb too vote in much the same way as there are people who are over the age of 40/50/60 who would fit in the "too dumb to vote" criteria.By excluding a certain set of people (in this case, under 18s) you are obstructing the course of democracy. At least their parents should be allowed to vote on there behalf to represent them seeing as they are still bound to social contract and should have some say (even if it is an indirect one) as to what they perceive to be their best interests.This exclusion on the basis of too dumb/irresponsible based on age is biased and leads towards the notion of only intelligent people are allowed to vote, further deteriorating the concept of the democratic general will. At most, what opp is implying is that people (in their perfect world) will have to write a responsibility and intelligence test, which further creates problems as there is no magical puff dragon to finally decide on what responsibility and intelligence REALLY is.Only in a world where there is no voting limitations at all will we get a clear understanding of the general will of a state. Lowering the voting age is thus a step in the right direction.
i completely agree with my opponent being 18 doesn't give you knowledge or intelligence ( it does give you the right to vote ) or that people are to dumb and 40/50/60 will fit can fit in the same criteria and that there are many biases and argument based on to dumb irresponsible but I do not agree and will never agree is this " what opp is implying is that people (in their perfect world) will have to write a responsibility and intelligence test, which further creates problems as there is no magical puff dragon to finally decide on what responsibility and intelligence REALLY is.Only in a world where there is no voting limitations at all will we get a clear understanding of the general will of a state. Lowering the voting age is thus a step in the right direction."i hate perfection i loathe it it implies that there is no room for imagination or improvement and no people don't write tests they take them and no one knows what responsibility and intelligence is but as long as they have that sense (18 yr olds) of having to be more responsible having to be more intelligent being a role model for the younger generation the schools prepare us for this they say what is right and wrong what is considered good moral principles and bad brainwashing you so you can have a sense of integrity,respect,and intelligence they will want to make an intelligent decision that will benefit society so they analyze as they've been taught and study the candidates and apply there belief system to their decision can you say a teen does that will a teen stop worrying about being popular or stop worrying if he or she will pass the end of course exam will they apply there belief system or will they be pressured into making a decision that is not there own.and what you say next is laughable do you seriously want there to be NO VOTING LIMITATIONS? there has to be a limit we don't want a 5 yr old or 15 yr old or 16-17 yr old to vote because they're irresponsible and if an 18 yr old is irresponsible then he probably is to lazy to vote and will not and if there were no limitations on voting there wouldn't be the sense of finally finishing schoold and becoming an adult and is lowering the voting age a step int the right direction next thing we know 14-15 year olds will play the it's not fair card like the 16-17 yr olds are doing then will they be able to vote next this will start a revolution that will not end pretty by the time it's over 5 yr olds will be able to vote conclusion the opponent thinks he set up a very well argument and he did ,but the time and day and to dumb and irresponsible who cares really there are many more dumbasses than intelligent people 40/50/60 year olds are not the majority of voters and irresponsible people probably forget to vote or don't vote and finally 18 yr olds have as said before a new sense of being. and there should always be limitations on something or anything
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Young people are too immature
When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. Whilst young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years.
Young people haven't developed critical thinking faculties which allow them to choose between parties. Young people are highly impressionable and are likely to be swayed by the last opinion they heard – especially if this was aired by someone attractive.Proof of their immaturity can be found in their preference for single issue campaigns over the complexity of a political party. It takes life experience to understand the need for political parties and young people simply don't have this.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections
Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%. Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote.
A larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. Turnout is already very low and the lower it gets the more people opt-out of the political process. If this gets much worse we run the risk of living in a society where all the decisions affecting our lives are made by the few who can be bothered to go out and vote.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Time, Awareness and Propaganda
16-18 yar olds will vote according to what they beleive and what they have time for. If some are too busy studying for exams that shouldn't mean none of them can vote. Those that have time will make an informed decision and make their voice heard. There is still a large enough percent of older voters to stop a young, totally inexperienced person to be elected just by young people.
Many teenagers have many more important things to think about such as schoolwork and their futures. Exams are already a huge stress for 16-18 year olds as they determine what the rest of their life will entail. Time to research the issues that determine which party would be a better choice, is something that many teenagers simply dont have.
Care must be taken not to stereotype all teenagers. Like the adult population, there would be a split between 'the interested' and 'the blissfully unaware'. The blissfully unaware section would not care about current affairs unless watching popular television programmes, such as "Have I Got News For You" or "Mock The Week", which give undoubtedly biased opinions on issues of the day. The main issue with dealing with younger voters is their attention. Entertain them and they will listen. The younger- and more immature the person the more susceptable they are to propaganda. Political parties will use propaganda to sway voters from this age group and we may see younger, less experienced parties and ministers take control mainly because of their own youth rather than their stance on political issues.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
It makes little difference on its own
Even if "Only the voters who want to vote will" it will increase voter turnout. People will vote if they think they can make a difference and if they believe in what they are voting for. 16-17 year olds will vote if they care about the issues and have the ability to be heard. It will increase young voter turnout if simply because more people are allowed to vote.
The Electoral Reform Society has the objectives of reducing the spread of political apathy: the ERS has tried to reach this goal by acting on the general principle that it is voting accessability which is key. They feel that as people perceive politics as more alien and separated from their everyday lives, they have to compensate by making voting more attractive: Postal voting, providing a choice of polling stations in more accessible areas such as shopping centers, voting on holidays or weekends, or the option of putting a ‘none of the above’ option are some of the new ideas which have been discussed or practised.The thought that giving 16-17 year olds the vote will increase their chances of political engagement is fallous. Those with the interest will vote, those who do not, won't. In order to make lifelong political engagement more likely, a larger rehaul of the way the political system operates needs to be thought out. Larger and more ambitious changes such as Electoral Reform, as well as the development of more opportunities for popular political discourse and feedback.I cannot foresee that this change will bring any real positive changes regarding voter listlessness on its own, but as part of a larger campaign for a reignition of the voice of the masses, a civil society, it is going to be more meaningful and effective.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Young voters would abuse the right to vote
The people who don't understand voting and who may vote for an unqualified person because of their fame will have no effect on the overall election. The people who care and make informed decisions will be the ones who will alter the overall results.
While there are some mature youths (like myself) there are some who are simply not meant to be voting at this age. Most don't have a clear enough grasp on current events or politics to make an informed decision and would simply abuse the system by voting recklessly and unimformed. This can do nothing but hurt our country in the long run, because as I look around my high school the number of moronic young people there are roaming the halls is revolting. I would hate to think those people could vote on the next president!
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
They are lazy
Teenagers are either to lazy or too busy
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
teens at 16
teens should not vote even though they can drive they should be able to vote, look at all the car crashes that involves 16 year olds
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Too big of responsibility
At 16 they should still be in school, they do not know enough to vote... they should finish school BEFORE being able to vote. Graduate first, Vote second.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
TOOOOOOOOOO IRRESPONSIBLE
At the age of 16, citizens are still only 'teens'. They are irresponsible and too young!
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Criminal Responsibility / The vote
In a Western Liberal democracy, youth below the age of 18 are generally afforded substantial protections from criminal prosecution. This is based on two important principles: Firstly, since a teen's brain is still developing, they are not considered capable of rationality, and thus culpability, to the same degree as an adult. Secondly, given that their brains are still developing, it is deemed to be useful to afford them a second chance.The relevance of this analysis to the arguments stated about the quality of a teen's vote should be clear, I would like to develop a subsidiary point: that it is impossible to make valid legislative decisions while being protected from them.Criminal law is premised on equality before the law. Allowing people to create law while being shielded from its effects enables teens to make decisions without needing to properly analyze the consequences of the legislation, an unforgivable intrusion on the rights of others.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
teens
can the voting age be lowered maybe should it? absolutely not teens get excited over every new fad then drop it. allowing teens to vote is ludicrous why change what works giving teens the power to choose the president because thats whats gonna happen teens outnumber adults 3 to 1 adults never trusted children and have never and will never trust teens so why should they start now. teens choosing the president so all a candidate has to do is appeal to the youger population and what do we now about teens that their irresponsible, can't make their own decisions because of peer pressure, and don't really care who the president is going to be. come on when has a teen said change the channel the presidential debate is about to start. and as adults (educated ones) know that candidates are misleading some make promises that are never met others are a sham and others don't really care about the country just the title president. teens are naive and open to suggestion going with a choice voting for a certain president because their friends said it was cool. and if some genius makes an argument about educated teens trust me their are more morons than smart people no offense to the morons I strongly encourage other teens ( educated ones) to vote against this teen voting you can make a difference by making ads holding speeches and if you're not brave enough to do that then you don't really care about what president you want in office
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
no knowledgeof politics at 16
The voting age should not be lower to 16 because the teens at that age have no real idea about politics,etc.
Vote on the overall debate: The voting age should be lowered to 16 --- Sponsored by the Electoral Reform Society
What do you think? Vote on this debate below.
admin
|10:39, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
|Applause: 1
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:39, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:39, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:39, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|06:01, 16 October 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|06:01, 16 October 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
MKelso25
|13:32, 22 October 09
|Karma Score: 6
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
fnord
|20:50, 30 November 09
|Karma Score: 36
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
VoVietAnh
|10:04, 01 November 09
|Karma Score: 139
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
headphoneguy
|00:25, 09 January 10
|Karma Score: 38
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
Debater101234
|18:09, 24 November 09
|Karma Score: 6
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
headphoneguy
|00:46, 09 January 10
|Karma Score: 38
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
Chem
|09:21, 28 November 09
|Karma Score: 4
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
headphoneguy
|01:17, 09 January 10
|Karma Score: 38
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:40, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:40, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:41, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:41, 11 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|15:55, 15 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|15:55, 15 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|09:42, 16 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|09:42, 16 August 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:13, 27 September 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
admin
|10:13, 27 September 08
|Karma Score: 14
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
howdy
|12:21, 01 November 09
|Karma Score: 7
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
yfz450
|19:42, 09 November 09
|Karma Score: 3
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
Debater101234
|18:14, 24 November 09
|Karma Score: 6
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
jyeom12
|20:34, 26 November 09
|Karma Score: 11
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
fnord
|20:33, 30 November 09
|Karma Score: 36
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
headphoneguy
|00:12, 09 January 10
|Karma Score: 38
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
debatedave
|01:58, 11 January 10
|Karma Score: 13
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply