Voting age 16?

[zenfisher]

I think the argument of slowly integrating responsibility would be valid...if we didn't allow them to drive before they voted.
However, seeing as a vehicle has potential to be lethal to the driver and others, aren't we in essence giving them a greater responsibility when we allow them to drive. While a vote can affect all of us...an accident has a more direct action upon individuals involved. Which can have legal repercussions which a sixteen year old may not be able to handle. Yet we allow them this responsibility. If their mind is not " as fully developed" at this point ...why would we as a society allow them the potential to do great harm...yet not permit them to choose their own leaders. That just seems silly.

 

[GreenGreta]

Truthfully, I did not read the whole thread.

I want to say this though, I would trust my son to vote intelligently even at 16. I'd rather he voting at 16 than driving...

 

[yballa09]

ha, i bet most parents would say the same thing greengreta...

 

[Shiva]

The right to drive at age sixteen was given to people quite some time ago before we knew all the dangers associated with driving for young teens. If we had things to do over again, I doubt teenagers would be driving so young. It would be hard to change the age one is allowed to drive to something older because once rights are given in our democratic system, they're not usually taken back.

 

[zenfisher]

Driving is a privilege not a right. We remove that right from many segments in our society to this day.

Voting is a right afforded to all citizens older than the age of majority. That is a big difference. Voting still a safer responsibility to afford to a sixteen year old. It would be very simple to amend the laws to raise the age of receiving a driver's permit. Not that I think that should happen. It still does not make the argument that voting rights should not be given to sixteen year olds.

 

[Summer]

I keep noticing how some people tie the idea of voting to someone paying rent, etc. Face it, lots of 18 year-olds don't do that either, and even some people in their twenties. Whereas it's not at all uncommon for a 16-year old to at least be working, which is something else that some here have put forth as part of the criteria. Lots of 16 year olds-would vote responsibly and with great forethought, because they are capable of it. And then there are those who would not, because they either are not capable of it or simply don't have the maturity yet to really look at the issues.

And it's not much different for 18 year-olds; you get the same two types of individuals there.

So if it were my decision to make, I'd let 16 year-olds vote in local elections to get their feet wet as it were and get some practice in how the whole system works and how the consequences of one's vote come into play. NOT voting for a kid to sit on city council or whatever, but voting in the real election of adults in their community or area. Then after that, once they are 18, they might be better prepared to vote in the "big picture" elections than the average 18 year old currently is.... and more of them might be LIKELY to vote.

Frankly, I wish we did that here in the States... would be interesting to see how it would affect things over time.

 

[Briteyes]

I agree with the rock the vote even if it does not count. That is how you teach kids about the issues so that when they turn 18 they have the knowledge they need to make an informed decision. My son is now 15 and he is asking questions and learning and he thinks he still does not know enough about the system to make a informed choice. I have sent him to all 4 party sites and even the block's website so he knows what each party represents and he thinks he wants to vote for the block even though he can't because they only run in Quebec but he likes their platform the most except for the seperation part.

 

[no1important]

I firmly believe 15 should be the voting age at all levels of governments. I know people who are teenagers and are much more on top of the issues of the day and more mature than a lot of 18-30 year olds.

 

[MMMike]

I would support lowering the voting age to 16. Yes, that might result in a lot more left-leaning voters, but what can you do?! On the other hand, I'd also support a minimum IQ test for voters too, which would no doubt weed out a lot of those NDP voters. Seriously, it's all about awareness of the issues and the parties. If the 16 year olds are motivated enough to come out and vote, they probably have some idea of the issues. And what about taxation without representation? A lot of 16 year olds work and pay (some) taxes. Most adult voters don't even know or understand anything beyond the 3 second sound bites they hear on TV. Should they be allowed to vote?

 

[no1important]

Youth vote campaign scaled back

A teaser:

One of the campaigns encouraging young people to vote has faded away, 18 months after its splashy debut during the run for the last federal election.

With a goal of changing the tendency of younger voters to not cast a ballot, Rush the Vote kicked off at the 2004 Juno Awards where Prime Minister Paul Martin also made an appearance.

And it tried to use pop stars like Nelly Furtado and slogans such as "democracy is sexy" to generate interest.

Now, as the current election campaign gears up – voters go to the polls Jan. 23 – Rush the Vote has few plans to target younger voters this time out, citing a lack of funds and difficulty in replacing staff who have moved on. [/teaser]

What a shame, too bad this happened.

Thats why I believe politics should be taught in High School in Grade 10 (when teens are 15) and it should be a mandatory course (1 semester) and when succesful completion of this course and as long as teenager is 15 or over they should be allowed to vote in all Federal, Provincial and municipal elections.

This way we do not have to rely on "Rock the Vote" type programs to get younger people interested to vote. Plus lowering Voting age to 15 more younger peole would be interested in voting and will have their opportunity to participate by the time they graduate.

 

[Cliffy]

How did this thread come up when the last post says 1995?
Are there ghosts in the system?
Did no1important come back from the grave to pull this off?
Inquiring minds have nothing better to do.

 

[Cliffy]

OOPS!! should have said 2005...

 

[JLM]

OOPS!! should have said 2005...

Anyway since it's up here, the anwer in my books is NO and I would add one more thing, set the I.Q. necessary to vote at 100. (Just watch this thread liven right up Cliff)

 

[pegger]

I voted yes because:

1) At 16, they pay income tax - can you say "taxation without representation" anyone?

2) At 16, they face adult charges when committing a crime - we say that they
are not mature enough to vote, but they mature enough to get adult sentences?

3) 98% of all our elected officials act like 12 years.

 

[wulfie68]

I voted no.

Our society suffers from a defficiency in terms of the willingness of people to be informed about issues. Adding an additional segment that suffers from even more distractions won't help matters, especially as impressionable as teenagers are.

 

[Tonington]

I voted no. Starting at 16 is just as arbitrary as 18. For a good many voters, they vote by party line, or family history, or any number of things equally as ridiculous as the popularity contests which elect class presidents in elementary school.

Use informed consent rules, or something similar to the Gillick competency standard. Or, incorporate more civics lessons in elementary school.

 

[shadowshiv]

I voted yes because:

1) At 16, they pay income tax - can you say "taxation without representation" anyone?

2) At 16, they face adult charges when committing a crime - we say that they
are not mature enough to vote, but they mature enough to get adult sentences?

3) 98% of all our elected officials act like 12 years.

Regarding point #2. Exactly how many face adult sentences again? One in several 1000? I would vote yes if every person aged 16 WAS sentenced as an adult if they were involved in a violent crime(armed robbery, rape, murder, child molestation, etc.).

Since that is not the case, I am voting NO.

 

[Nuggler]

When I was 16, I was still trying to figure which hand to use.

Voting..........mehhhhhhhhhhhhhh. :lol:

 

[lone wolf]

I said NO 'cuz that 16 year old is 20 now...

 

[Sebastiansky]

At age sixteen years ? I don't know. It depends from personal preferences and from education. This age - sixteen years is lowest border, when the society can voting. It's a very good idea. Can try with this options.