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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly, I agree. :]

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.

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

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.

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.