That's why, Phantom. I recognize I'm agreeing with a dictatorship.

Ah, so voting age would be irrelevant to you anyways.

Exactly. Age doesn't stop some people from being ignorant, stupid, or basically unable to be as unbiased as they can and vote, influencing the rest of people's futures by doing so.

It would be like saying everyone 25 years old and older are ready to have children. There are younger people that can afford and are emotionally ready to have children, just like there are 45-year-old women that shouldn't be having children.

Originally Posted by Unter Dem Eis

I apologize for not being aware of the laws in Australia. I do understand your point though. Not to stray off topic, but this is just an example... How would you know if a person is eligible enough to vote, depending on their age? Where I will stray for two seconds to, is alcohol consumption. Ignore all the reasons for drinking, just here is the point that I am trying to get across.

When a person turns twenty-one in the United States, and they are officially legal to drink, in spite of probably drinking beneath their age, whose to say being twenty-one makes them more responsible? Another few years to develop brain cells and some smarts, but like people have mentioned about eighteen year old teens not all being as informed as younger ones perhaps, why does government suddenly suspect that adults aren't going to go waste themselves the day they turn legal?

Back to voting, you understand my point don't you? Not all eighteen year old teenagers are entirely informed of matters. But some are. Shouldn't seventeen/sixteen year old teenagers have some kind of say, in a place where it is legal, to sign some form of document allowing them to vote because they hold a political interest? Like a Driver's Permit...

No apology needed~ I dont exect everyone to know the legal mess of each country. But as was posted easlier, i"d like to speak to someone who is able to vote at 16 also. I think they'd be able to shed a view we can't.

I don't think you can be truly eligible souly on your age alone. Alas there needs to be laws in place to distinguish adults from children, for person rights and the legal rights of the parents to harbor responsibility for their actions. So now i post another question... seeing as (in Australia anyway) You're not legally an adult until you're 18 (meaning your parents are responsible for you and make the choices for you legally speaking) and that is the age at witch you can vote, because you are legally a single member of society not tied to your family. Would the age of adulthood responsibility need to be lowered to 16 as well?

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Exactly. Age doesn't stop some people from being ignorant, stupid, or basically unable to be as unbiased as they can and vote, influencing the rest of people's futures by doing so.

It would be like saying everyone 25 years old and older are ready to have children. There are younger people that can afford and are emotionally ready to have children, just like there are 45-year-old women that shouldn't be having children.

I get that, but there's nothing stopping the leaders from being the same way, especially in a dictatorship.

I know, that's why I mentioned Rafael Correa, and said that a dictatorship would only work in my country.

For the rest of y'all, voting permit. The test would be a history and political present exam, just so we know they would be making an informed vote.

No. In fact, hell no. If you're still in high school, you shouldn't be allowed to do more than drive at 16. Yes, there are some very intellectual 16 and 17-year-olds who are interested in politics and have a valuable opinion. Unfortunately, there are too few of these people out there.

Take Brian from The Breakfast Club for example. He had a fake I.D. so that he could vote. Tell me, how many other kids out there have fake I.D.'s so that they can vote? I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the voting age. Ever. At 16 or 17 most kids just go by whatever party their parents are in. I like the voting age where it is so that by the time we can vote, we've established our own beliefs instead of saying "Well my parents are Democrats/Republicans so I guess that's what I am". Not necessarily.

If anything the voting age could be raised, but certainly not lowered.

Originally Posted by Unter Dem Eis

I admit, the perspectives of countries who already experience such change does provide a good case in point. An understanding of what things would be like. But yes, you need to consider country's different standings when it comes to such things. As Kyatto said, it is required in their country otherwise, you will have to pay a fine. Not everything varying between countries would necessarily be the same, so that actually argues against what I had previously mentioned.

"I admit, the perspectives of countries who already experience such change does provide a good case in point. An understanding of what things would be like."

It would not be an exact understanding, for case and view point, it is not like enough data. And would it be moral, to compare one's country's electoral system to that of another and say what works?

Really, like I mentioned two seconds ago in the other post, it would be nice if teenagers could be tested for some kind of permit.

Oh, I absolutely agree that it would not be an end all be all example. Although I do think having some examples of countries which have implemented such a change would be useful. As we could see potential problems, by looking at what happened in their experience. The testimonies of the sixteen year olds would also be highly interested as I would love to know how they feel about the change.

As for comparing electoral systems and saying which one works, that was not what I was intending. But rather I was expressing it can be another variable which changes the impact such things as lowering the age would have. As such it should certainly be taken into context when looking at how the situation is in Austria.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

I know, that's why I mentioned Rafael Correa, and said that a dictatorship would only work in my country.

For the rest of y'all, voting permit. The test would be a history and political present exam, just so we know they would be making an informed vote.

Haha well you have managed to conveniently save me some time, by giving the answer to a question before I even got around to asking it. I would however wonder whether or not a history and political exam would be a fair indicator of someone's voting eligibility.

As a person's motivation for voting will have a large impact on how they vote. Take for instance someone who has a great deal of knowledge in medical science and happen to use Government health policy etc as their basis for who they vote for.

If we were simply testing for history and politics then that would get missed. Or people who are quite active in community projects and development. While they might be highly aware of the needs of the community and what is going on, they may not be especially skilled in either politics or history.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

As a person's motivation for voting will have a large impact on how they vote. Take for instance someone who has a great deal of knowledge in medical science and happen to use Government health policy etc as their basis for who they vote for.

If we were simply testing for history and politics then that would get missed. Or people who are quite active in community projects and development. While they might be highly aware of the needs of the community and what is going on, they may not be especially skilled in either politics or history.

That's the issue with any sort of intelligence testing. People who are unintelligent in one way can be very knowledgeable about other subjects. Besides, I don't think their opinion should mean any less simply because they're not as "smart" as others. That's elitism and not what our country was founded on.

@Faygocytosis: As a few people have already stated, those who are interested will vote. The rest will more than likely not care enough to register. It's not like anyone would be required to vote. It would pretty much be the same way it is now, but with a larger voting pool. Everyone needs to remember, it's not just the presidential elections I'm talking about. There are so many bills passed that affect young people and (in my opinion) they deserve to have a say.

I know a lot of 16 or 17 year olds who are more informed and politically active than a lot of voting adults out there. When we think of teenagers, we tend to think that they'd be uninformed idiots... but let's not forget that their ignorance follows them into adulthood, yet nobody seems to care that they can vote. 18, 21, 35... none of these ages will magically make you care or do your own research if you don't want to.

Teenagers just partying all the time is a silly stereotype. Some teenagers even manage to fit in partying AND giving a crap about the world around them, but they're just a myth, right?

Originally Posted by Fabby

I know a lot of 16 or 17 year olds who are more informed and politically active than a lot of voting adults out there. When we think of teenagers, we tend to think that they'd be uninformed idiots... but let's not forget that their ignorance follows them into adulthood, yet nobody seems to care that they can vote. 18, 21, 35... none of these ages will magically make you care or do your own research if you don't want to.

Teenagers just partying all the time is a silly stereotype. Some teenagers even manage to fit in partying AND giving a crap about the world around them, but they're just a myth, right?

They're not a myth at all, they are just generally a minority. Just as adults who care also seem to be a minority (only slightly more so) Because most country's that have a vote, dont know what it's like not to have a say in how things are run. So we all seem to take it for granted in some way i think....

Originally Posted by Oirish

Television isn't a sorce... it's a tabloid. xD


Yes, I do.
Otherwise we're stuck with horrible presidents and other various horrible politicians.

yes, because I've never seen anything about politics or the economy on television.
My POINT wasn't that the tv should educate people. My POINT was that they should be educated about current politics and economic circumstances in their country.
I'm not saying that the television isnt biased, but I wouldn't exactly expect a 16 year old to get to the capital and stand in the crowd for obama's next speech.

Originally Posted by slickie

yes, because I've never seen anything about politics or the economy on television.
My POINT wasn't that the tv should educate people. My POINT was that they should be educated about current politics and economic circumstances in their country.
I'm not saying that the television isnt biased, but I wouldn't exactly expect a 16 year old to get to the capital and stand in the crowd for obama's next speech.

Maybe if they would make more news chanels to do with 16year olds if you get me, like school related things and education, recent events and gatherings for teens with some political stuff aswell, that might raise the interest in the affairs of their country.

Originally Posted by Kyatto.chan

Maybe if they would make more news chanels to do with 16year olds if you get me, like school related things and education, recent events and gatherings for teens with some political stuff aswell, that might raise the interest in the affairs of their country.

As long as it wasn't directed one way or the other, that would make perfect sense. I just wouldn't want my kid completely pushed in one direction or the other. Teens should have the right to make informed and individual decisions.

Originally Posted by PhantomLolita

As long as it wasn't directed one way or the other, that would make perfect sense. I just wouldn't want my kid completely pushed in one direction or the other. Teens should have the right to make informed and individual decisions.

No that should be illegal in my opinion, pushing people to one side or the other. Just general affairs, things that effect where they're at in their lives ^^ that way they might really want to have a say for those who go "well i'm just one person why does my vote matter"

Originally Posted by reddeath26

Haha it is an easy enough mistake to make.

How do you think the intelligence of a person should be determined? Also wouldn't it make more sense then to do away with democracy completely and simply have those who are most intelligent leading the country?

That's not what I meant.
I just meant I don't think they're mentally ready to vote.
16 is a young age and usually people are just really inexperienced and know nothing about life at that age. I know I was. xD Not necissarily so "dumb" as inexperienced.

Originally Posted by Faygocytosis

No. In fact, hell no. If you're still in high school, you shouldn't be allowed to do more than drive at 16. Yes, there are some very intellectual 16 and 17-year-olds who are interested in politics and have a valuable opinion. Unfortunately, there are too few of these people out there.

Take Brian from The Breakfast Club for example. He had a fake I.D. so that he could vote. Tell me, how many other kids out there have fake I.D.'s so that they can vote? I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the voting age. Ever. At 16 or 17 most kids just go by whatever party their parents are in. I like the voting age where it is so that by the time we can vote, we've established our own beliefs instead of saying "Well my parents are Democrats/Republicans so I guess that's what I am". Not necessarily.

If anything the voting age could be raised, but certainly not lowered.

Exactly, I agree. :]

Most 18 year olds don't give a damn about voting (trust me I'm one of them), so I doubt 16 year olds would care.
Ok yeah, theres the argument that getting them involved would promote them to think about it, but also they might just vote because they can, not really paying attention to the "best" voice. 16 year olds are usually stupid, lets not forget. They have minimal experience, and sometimes don't make the best choices.
No don't lower it. Make it so those that the gov't's choices actually affect get to choose which side to take.

Still need the opinion of an Austrian, one who's an election worker, even? :P

While I normally think that age has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, maturity and responsibility, I would rather prefer the voting age to actually be set to 21.

Most teenagers are not exactly interested in politics, anyway (and I can totally understand them - during times when you're concentrating on building a future for yourself you normally don't have a lot of time to investigate what power-hungry old geezer to vote for) - and while I feel sympathy for the few who really do, there's been this incident that made me think the disadvantages of allowing them to vote far outweigh the advantages.

During the last election, there was one (yes, a single one - it really shows how few are really interested in voting) boy under the age of 18 in our whole district (and it's a terribly large district), and he was literally dragged in at the sleeve by his father.

Now ask yourselves, do you think he was voting because he was interested in politics? Or do you rather think he was forced by his father to vote for the same party? Maybe I'm just a bit touchy, but if I had been the chairman, I would have taken action, since at least to me it was clear the father was just abusing his son to get a double vote.

While this is an extreme example, I think there are quite a few teenagers out there that are just echoing their parents' opinion instead of makings some research themselves. I've been guilty of it myself when I was that age, even though I don't consider myself a mindless clone strictly following my parents' will.

As an alternative I quite like the thought of some sort of test in order to determine whether someone is fit (and interested) in voting, for it would open the possibility to have interested teenagers to vote while those who are not would just fail the test (either because they don't want to, or because they just simply are not yet informed enough).

But even that system has a couple of drawbacks. To begin with, less educated people would feel excluded, and while I think their uneducated votes are rather dangerous, I also think they have the right to make those votes, whether I like it or not.

Also, there's the risk of corrupt politicians handing out questionnaires to people who will vote for them, thus influencing the percentage of voters to their own favour.

It's a rather difficult topic, and I don't think there's any definite answer to how voting systems could be improved, but if I personally had to choose: Yes, I would set the minimum age for voting to 21.

I really don't see how raising the age to 21 would make any sense. Maturity has nothing to do with voting and I know plenty of 18 year olds who are more mature and intelligent than 21 year olds. At 16, I was living on my own already with no help from my parents or the government. (I wouldn't want it) In my hometown, I know many people who were under the same circumstances. Many of them were very opinionated and would have made informed decisions when voting. I think that their voices deserved to at least be heard in some way.

Nalah Sin: You make many valid points, although I still don't personally agree with your conclusion. (which is only a personal opinion, so nothing to really argue about)

@PhantomLolita: I'm totally with you on the maturity thing, and normally I'm completely against age-based restrictions.

But with voting, there's one thing where age actually makes a difference: At least over here most people leave their home at the age of 19-21, so restricting the voting age to 21 would make sure that a huge share of voters have actually already cut the cord and are thus not just echoing their parents' opinion. Of course there are also those teenager who are living with their parents and still have their own opinion (and those who leave earlier, just like yourself) - but that's a fairly small percentage, so at least it would have a bit of an impact.

Then again, it won't happen anyway. Politicians know quite well that a lowered age for voting works in favour of the dominant part(y/ies), so it will stay at 16, anyway.

(But this thread makes me feel a bit better about that fact, for it's a nice reminder that there are teenagers out there that stand up for their own opinion! =3 )

Yeah, I've met many teenagers that will vocalize their opinions. (I'm almost 22, so it doesn't really apply to me) If nothing else, they should be allowed to vote on things that affect them directly.

I do not think that they should lower the age. Even though it is something that a lot of people take for granted, voting is actually a pretty important thing. In grade 10 we have to take a civics course (where I live) and half of the class do not know what the different political parties are. I just think that there are too many 16 years old who cannot make a decision based on the fact that they have very little knowledge of the political issues.

As a politically interested sixteen year old...no, I don't think it should.

Last year I was a sophomore in high school (and this year I'm a university freshman *whoo*), and I can't tell you, I dread thinking about most of these kids driving, let alone voting. I simply don't think most us, including myself, are responsible enough for those kinds of decisions.

The same can be said of adults, but we can't pick and choose based on individuals. Because 18 is the age that you're a legal adult, I think it's a good determining factor.

Originally Posted by Kris

As a politically interested sixteen year old...no, I don't think it should.

Last year I was a sophomore in high school (and this year I'm a university freshman *whoo*), and I can't tell you, I dread thinking about most of these kids driving, let alone voting. I simply don't think most us, including myself, are responsible enough for those kinds of decisions.

The same can be said of adults, but we can't pick and choose based on individuals. Because 18 is the age that you're a legal adult, I think it's a good determining factor.

I would tend to agree with this line of thinking, as the age where a person is legally defined as being an adult would be a nice bar to set. In New Zealand, I would argue this would make it closer to being 16. As you can get married, have children and learn to drive at the age of sixteen.

Here Sue Bradford argues in favour of why the voting age should be changed. It is important to note this is a private members bill aimed at New Zealand, so it may be quite irrelevant for other countries.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0706/S00410.htm

Originally Posted by Sue Bradford

Lowering the voting age and teaching them civics can help young New Zealanders get on track to being better informed, more engaged citizens. In that sense, my Bill is similar in intention to the successful 'Kids Voting' scheme running in Auckland schools since 2000, and launched in Hamilton this week, aimed at raising awareness among young people about New Zealand's electoral process.

As for the voting scheme she refers to, several high schools have begun implementing a system where at the time of general elections, they hold their mock elections. This article here looks at results they come up with at last years election. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0811/S00326.htm It was a little sad to have our election at the same time as that of U.S.A, as it would have been interesting to follow the U.S election more closely.

Originally Posted by Nalah Sin

But even that system has a couple of drawbacks. To begin with, less educated people would feel excluded, and while I think their uneducated votes are rather dangerous, I also think they have the right to make those votes, whether I like it or not.

It also makes the mistake of assuming that there is an intelligence which could be measured in order to determine what the 'good voter' is. As politics is such a wide subject, there are many areas in which one could have knowledge. For instance as I used in a previous example, one might be greatly aware of the situation in their community but simply lack in the technical/academic side of things.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

It also makes the mistake of assuming that there is an intelligence which could be measured in order to determine what the 'good voter' is. As politics is such a wide subject, there are many areas in which one could have knowledge. For instance as I used in a previous example, one might be greatly aware of the situation in their community but simply lack in the technical/academic side of things.

But it wouldn't even try to determine a "good" voter - only an educated one. And people who don't have the technical/academic knowledge can choose: Either they are really interested in politics, then they would simply study whatever they don't know about, or they think it's not worth their time, and then it would be better for them to not vote, anyway.

If I was ever to move to the US, I would have to study for such a wide subject as "the US", too, in order to gain citizenship. It's the same concept: Of course you cannot tell whether someone will become a "good" citizen, but at least you can tell whether they are really interested in becoming one.