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 VAT

so 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

The fact that a teenager can drive should not at all be a reason to let a 16-year-old vote. Driving has nothing to do with voting because driving gives you control over your life and safety, but it's not a plausible reason to give a 16 year old power over the lives of millions of other human beings.

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

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

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

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.

1. ^ http://www.yesmagazine.org/yes/yes/issues/learn-as-you-go/the-power-of-why

"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 doing "vote" and every child would say they were/are "brought up properly" and voting age does matter does a 16 year old now what obama's healthcare plan is even about? I can assure anyone that any 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

The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary, it used to be 21, and previous to that it was 21 for men and 30. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote.

By excluding a certain set of people (in this case, under 18s) you are neglecting a particular social group with a distinct set of interests and needs. Young people have views on education which may well differ from those of the teaching unions, and they are still "stakeholders" in the education process. Similarly, regarding such issues as the way in which youth groups are treated by the police (particularly the use of anti-social behaviour orders) provision of youth recreational facilities, minimum wage variations amongst young people, all of these are issues in which young people both have a view and are affected by the policies implemented. Why should their views (if we go with the assumption that democracies are supposed to take all relevant interests into account) less valuable than others, particularly those who may not be stakeholders in certain aspects of policy (such as childless adults who cast votes which affect education policy).

The assumption that young people are too ignorant of politics to be entitled to vote is flawed for three reasons. Firstly, as a result of such initiatives as the Youth Parliament, and the increasing role young people are taking in protest groups (think of the sympathy protests in schools against the Iraq war) it is not at all clear that young people are especially politically apathetic or lacking knowledge relative to the rest of the population. Secondly, we do not make voting conditional on the awareness that the individual has about current political issues (we don't have general knowledge quizzes before you get your voting card, so this argument could be rolled out to deprive some adults of the vote. Further to this, if young people are not able to vote until they are eighteen, then the incentives to inform oneself about politics are significantly reduced (and part of the function of a democracy is to act as a political education for its citizens). Finally, even if we do concede that young people may know less and be less interested in politics than the average individual, the act of voting is self selecting. People who are less interested in politics will be less likely to go out and vote, whether they are young people or adults. What this effectively means is that the people who will be able to take advantage of the lowering of the voting age are most likely to be politically aware teenagers, those with little interest are unlikely to turn out.

As with many of the arguments in favour of lowering the voting age, this falls apart to a degree if you accept the need for some limit (so new-born babies don't get to vote), since whatever limit is chose will be arbitrary (16 is no less arbitrary than 18).

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.

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. The must be an arbitrary limit unless we are happy giving those 5 yr olds the vote, and 16 is no less arbitrary than 18.

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

Modern education has given the younger generation a lot more information which was not available to the older generations. Students are taught more at school and understand more about society than ever before.

So whats your point people should vote because education is more modern and better and people are smarter and more responsible?

this is wrong

1.American 12th graders rank 19th out of 21 industrialized countries in mathematics achievement and 16th out of 21 nations in science. Our advanced physics students rank dead last.

2.Since 1983, over 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade without having learned to read at a basic level. Over 20 million have reached their senior year unable to do basic math. Almost 25 million have reached 12th grade not knowing the essentials of U.S. history.

3.In the same period, over six million Americans dropped out of high school altogether. In 1996, 44% of Hispanic immigrants aged 16-24 were not in school and did not hold a diploma.

4.In the fourth grade, 77% of children in urban high-poverty schools are reading “below basic” on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

5.Currently, average black and Hispanic 17-year-old children have NAEP scores in math, science, reading and writing that are equivalent to average white 13-year-old children.

School spending and use of resources

6.Average per-pupil spending in U.S. public schools rose 212% from 1960 to 1995 in real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) dollars.

7.In 1960, for every U.S. public school teacher there were approximately 26 students enrolled in the schools. In 1995, there were 17.

8.In 1994, fewer than 50% of the personnel employed by U.S. public schools were teachers.

9.The average salary of U.S. public school teachers rose 45% in real dollars from 1960 to 1995.

Readiness for college work

10.In 1995, nearly 30% of first-time college freshmen enrolled in at least one remedial course and 80% of all public four-year universities offered remedial courses.

11.According to U.S. manufacturers, 40% of all 17-year-olds do not have the math skills and 60% lack the reading skills to hold down a production job at a manufacturing company.

12.76% of college professors and 63% of employers believe that “a high school diploma is no guarantee that the typical student has learned the basics.”

Teacher quality

13.Only 38% of U.S. public school teachers majored in an academic subject in college.

14.40% of public high school science teachers have neither an undergraduate major nor minor in their main teaching field and 34% of public high school math teachers did not major or minor in math or related fields.

15.Only one in five teachers feels well prepared to teach to high academic standards.

Student behavior

16.In 1996, 64% of high school seniors reported doing less than one hour of homework per night.

17.57% of public schools reported moderate to serious discipline problems in the 1996-97 school year.

The federal role

18.In Florida, it takes six times as many people to administer a federal education dollar as a state dollar: 297 state employees are responsible for $1 billion in federal funds while 374 employees oversee $7 billion in state funds.

19.In Arizona, 45% of the staff of the state education department are responsible for managing federal programs that account for six percent of the state's education spending.

20.After spending $118 billion since 1965 on Title I, the federal government's largest K-12 program, evaluations conclude that the “program has been unable to lift [the] academic level of poor students.”

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html

please go to the site above

conclusion A) maybe it has but students are ignoring this so called "new information" besides where is this new information? and how was it not available to older generations? B) NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN RELEASED AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE STUDENTS AREN'T LEARNING ANYTHING

This was discussed by the Youth Parliament in the house of commons. If 13 year olds are interested in youth parliament and are trying to make a difference then surely they should be allowed to vote at the age of 16.

by the time they can vote again they would be 20. They are then looked at as that generation... they should have a say as its thier generation

Is the point that 16 year olds are similar enough to 18/20 year olds that they too should have the vote? If so, then why not let 14 year olds have the vote since they are similar to 16 year olds, then 12 year olds... A line must be drawn somewhere (since babies, I think we can all agree, should not be voting) and it will seem arbitrary wherever you decide the cut-off is, so 16 is no more sensible a voting age than 18.

In the UK you are allowed to have sex at 16 which has been the case since 1885. Around the world most countries have a similar age of consent with some being lower such as Canada at 14.^[1] If people at 16 are able to make what is potentially a much larger decision for their lives why should they not be allowed to vote.

Having a child arguably requires being more mature that voting, since there is another human dependent on you for sustenance, so if you allowed to become a parent, why shouldn't you be allowed to vote?

1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3699814.stm

Sex and voting are not particularly similar(!) The hope is that a fair amount of thought and consideration will go in to voting which will likely not be the case with sex especially since contraception became common.

I strongly agree to this point of view that, the voting age should be lowered down to the age of 16. In this 21 first century, technology if aiding the rate at which children think, act and understand issues. In this information age, children at the age of 16 is making in rolls and have brilliant ideas about how policies should be run and when. All this is made possible by the availability of information. It will interest us to know that the basis for pegging the voting age at 18 was due to the fact that individual where perceived to be matured biologically and mentally to make decisions in as aspects of life.

To day that point does not hold again. Biologically, teenagers are growing and maturing at a faster rate. this can be attributed to the fact that food that we eat do facilitate quick growth of the growth of individuals. Mentally, the availability of information is continually widening the mental abilities of teenagers. I strongly believe that with the above stated facts, the voting age should the further reduced to the age of 16.

v

no all teens are stupid... but then not all adults are smarter than a 16 year old. Sure 16 year olds may be manipulated by friends and family or not understand all the policies but on the other hand so can anyone else. Being still in school 16 year olds could potentially have more chance to look at policies and judge them along with others to decide who has the best policies for their age group. It would be part of learning whereas most people who are not involved in politics in some way do not have the time to analyse for themselves possible policies.

That's true; but there are some who are. Just because you are 16 does not give you the single right to vote. 16 Year Olds can be a part of Mock Government programs in their schools, to be a member in the Parlament, or vote on a fake bill.

16 Year Olds also can be manipulated by their friends and family to vote for someone else, and if they don't understand their policies; they could be voting for the wrong person.

Much of the point is irrelevant to the debate - geographical ignorance needn't necessarily mean misunderstanding of party lines in politics. The comparison between the USA and other countries is totally irrelevant to this debate. How does the fact that "students in Singapore and several other Asian countries significantly outperform American students" have any relevance to whether the voting age should be reduced? The only link I can see is if you're arguing that young people in Asian countries deserve the vote because of good education while those in the USA don't, but the debate is not specific to the USA, so the point is irrelevant.

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.

REALLY? young people are being taught? Take Iraq, for example. Despite nearly constant news coverage since the war there began in 2003, 63 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 failed to correctly locate the country on a map of the Middle East. Seventy percent could not find Iran or Israel.^[1]

U.S. Students Improving in Geography, Study Finds (2002) Survey Reveals Geographic Illiteracy (2002) Official Survey Site Nine in ten couldn't find Afghanistan on a map of Asia.

And 54 percent were unaware that Sudan is a country in Africa.

Remember the December 2004 tsunami and the widespread images of devastation in Indonesia?

Three-quarters of respondents failed to find that country on a map. And three-quarters were unaware that a majority of Indonesia's population is Muslim, making it the largest Muslim country in the world.

if they don't even know where to point and say this is where afghanistan is how will they be able to wrap there minds around amereican political science? look at Current president obama in the US of A can you say who voted mostly for him? 18-30 yr olds and know the same people that are barely finding out what he is actually doing know they're saying take him off of presidency (excuse the grammar) and furthermore here's another example 1) Polls Have Shown A Fifth Of Americans Can’t Locate The United States On A World Map. Why Do You Think This Is? 2)even experts agree with me that america's education system needs change American students even in low-performing states like Alabama do better on math and science tests than students in most foreign countries, including Italy and Norway, according to a new study released Wednesday. That's the good news.

The bad news is that students in Singapore and several other Asian countries significantly outperform American students, even those in high-achieving states like Massachusetts, the study found.

"In this case, the bad news trumps the good because our Asian economic competitors are winning the race to prepare students in math and science," said the study's author, Gary Phillips, chief scientist at the American Institutes of Research, a nonprofit independent scientific research firm.

The study equated standardized test scores of eighth-grade students in each of the 50 states with those of their peers in 45 countries. Experts said it was the first such effort to link standardized test scores, state by state, with scores from other nations.

Gage Kingsbury, the chief research and development officer at the Northwest Evaluation Association, a group in Oregon that carries out testing in 2,700 school districts, praised the study's methodology but said "a flock of difficulties" made it hazardous to compare test results from one country to another and from one state to another. "Kids don't start school at the same age in different countries," he said. "Not all kids are in school in grade eight, and the percentage differs from country to country."

Because of such differences, Kingsbury said, it would be a mistake to infer too much about the relative rigor of the educational systems across the states and nations in the study based merely on test score differences.

The scores for students in the United States came from tests administered by the U.S. Department of Education in most states in 2005 and 2007. For foreign students, the scores came from math and science tests administered worldwide in 2003, as part of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, known as the Timss.

Concern that science and math achievement was not keeping pace with the nation's economic competitors had been building even before the most recent Timss survey, in which the highest-performing nations were Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan. American students lagged far behind those nations, but earned scores that were comparable to peers in European nations like Slovakia and Estonia, and were well above countries like Egypt, Chile and Saudi Arabia.

The Timss survey gives each country a metric by which to compare its educational attainment with other nations'. The nationwide American test, known as the National Assessments of Educational Progress, allows policy makers in each state to compare their students' results with those in other states.

The new study used statistical linking to compare scores on the national assessment, state by state, with other nations' scores on the Timss. Phillips, who from 1999 to 2002 led the agency of the Department of Education that administers the national assessment, likened the methodology to what economists do when they convert international currencies into dollars to compare poverty levels across various countries, for instance.

On the most recent national assessment, the highest-performing state in math was Massachusetts, and in science, North Dakota. The new study shows that average math achievement in Massachusetts was lower than in the leading Asian nations and in Belgium, but higher than in 40 other countries, including Australia, Russia, England and Israel.

Mississippi was the lowest-performing state in both math and science. In math, Mississippi students' achievement was comparable to those of peers in Bulgaria and Moldova, and in science, to those in Norway and Romania.

In math, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York students were roughly equivalent with each other and with their peers in Australia, the Netherlands and Hungary.

The study's contribution is the high-level perspective it offers on the nation's education system, a bit the way a satellite image highlights the nation's topography, said Thomas Toch, a co-director of Education Sector, an independent policy group.

"It shows we're not doing as badly as some say," Toch said. "We're in the top half of the table, and a number of states are outperforming the majority of the nations in the study. But our performance in math and science lags behind that of the front-running Asian nations."

only a few actual states out of 50 at least only 5 are great and thats because they have reformed their tests to fit No Child Left Behind Act and that is why these states are above most

1. ^ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html

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.

---------

If you read the point properly, it says that 16 year olds will not vote more than 18-24s, but the fact that we give 18-24s the vote despite low turnout means we can't use low turnout among 16-18s as a good reason to deny them the vote. This point, as a counterargument, is not specifically saying that we should give 16-18s the vote, just that the original point (lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections) is not a good reason why they shouldn't be given the vote. ----------- Also I disagree with the argument that it would lower turnout. A survey done bu JPF [Jack Petchey Foundation] has shown that 62% of under 18's would have voted, were they able to. Considering average turnout in the UK is about that anyway it would not make that much difference.

http://www.jackpetcheyfoundation.org.uk/?media-centre/press-releases/jpf-challenges-uk-to-listen-up.html

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.

You just pointed out that 18-24 age group do not turn out to vote, and yet you're saying that we should let 16 year olds vote, What is going to make them vote more at 16 if they are not voting at 18, surely by just allowing them to vote and saying if they don't vote it doesnt matter does not strengthen your point. If it does not matter whether they vote because their percentage will not make a difference why give it to them?

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. Older people are in many cases more busy that 16-18s, but it is rarely suggested that those working long hours should be denied the vote (indeed they are often pointed to as admirable and the sort of people who have truly earned the right to vote).

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.

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.

Growing to over 18 does not automatically increase your grasp on politics - as with many of the 'no' points, this point suggests all ill-educated people should be denied the vote which is generally considered quite an extreme and elitist view.

While there are some mature youths 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!

This is not really an argument against lowering the voting age. What about those who would like to get out and vote? It seems to be discriminating against them on because perhaps a majority would not bother to vote. We don't deny the poorest the right to vote because they are less likely to vote than the rich and equally we should not deny the young because they are less likely to vote than the elderly.

It could be said that teenagers are either too lazy or too busy so will not vote anyway. The likelihood of people voting goes up as they get older and it is probable that many teenagers will not be interested in politics. If the young themselves cannot be bothered to vote when they do gain the right and why should they get the right earlier.Although many like the thought of having a say as to how their country is run,when it comes to voting time how many will actually turn up to the polling station?

So, by your logic, we stop everyone has had a car crash from voting. What is the correlation between age and car crashes got to do with it. If a 40 year old woman crashes her car does she suddenly loose the right to vote? no.

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

Just read this survey... Out of 6000 teenagers surveyed: Only 2% want to be famous 75% regularly help other people 16% feel like they have a say in politics. http://www.jackpetcheyfoundation.org.uk/?media-centre/press-releases/jpf-challenges-uk-to-listen-up.html

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.16 is a time of learning and experiencing the world,therefore voting at this age may be too much a responsibility for teenagers.By 18,they will be more experienced and learned,therefore more able to make a well informed decision as to how they want their country to be run.

at 18 citzens are still only 'teens' to but that has not stopped them having the right to vote. my brother who is now 19 couldnt tell you much about politics (he tought the SDLP was 2 parties when he heard the actual name) yet he is given the right to vote. age doesnt indicate how responsible you are or how much politics you know

The fact that few 16-18s would use the vote is not a strong argument against giving them the vote - if none ever voted, there would be no issue whatsoever. It also seems probable that the majority of 40% of 18-24 year olds who voted would also have voted at 16 - it is unlikely that people would have changed dramatically in those two years - so your point works just as well as an argument for denying 18-24s the vote.

At the age of 16, citizens are still only 'teenagers'. They are still in compulsory education, irresponsible and too young!

At present those between 15 and 21 are least likely to be politically active, with only 5% of this age group describing themselves as "political activists"^[1] and 40% of 18-24 year olds who were eligible to vote in the 1997 General Election choosing not to do so^[2] . With the low interest in politics indicated by these figures, can we really justify lowering the voting age further?

1. ^ http://www.radstats.org.uk/no070/article3a.htm
2. ^ http://www.radstats.org.uk/no070/article3.htm

The majority of Western Liberal democracies have an age of criminal responsibility below 16, e.g. 6-12 in the USA and 10 in the UK^[1] If you can be held responsible for crimes, surely that suggests your brain is sufficiently developed to deserve the vote.

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy#Ages_of_criminal_responsibility_by_country

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.

Teens outnumber adults 3 to 1?? That's ludicrous - where are you getting your stats from?

I find it ironic that in complaning about 'moron[ic]' teens, you use 'their' instead of 'there'; while this is not really relevant, it casts doubt on your call to 'trust [you]'.

While undoubtedly some teens would vote based on razzmatazz, this is already the case with many adults, and the logical conclusion is that the vote should be reserved for the well educated, something widely opposed as elitist and backward.

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

Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago.

The voting age should not be lower to 16 because the teens at that age have no real idea about politics,etc.

Driving gives a teen great power over others' safety - careless driving can very easily cause deadly crashes, so the vital 'difference' between driving and voting is mistaken.

Just because a 16 year old can drive, doesn't mean they should be given the power to vote. Driving only gives a teen power over themselves and their own safety, it's not a reason to give them power over milions of other Americans lives.

Teens often go against their parents to 'rebel'. In any case, upbringing has a massive effect on who you vote for no matter when you're voting, and your parents' influence is barely greater at 16 than in later life.

at 16 in most states you are not a legal adult so you still live at home with your parents. so unless you secretly do it you parents are almost geting anouther vote by telling you who to vote for or what evers being suggested in the voting.