should 16year olds have the vote?

Question

Just wondering what people's opinions are on this. If no, why? and if yes, why? x

At the moment 16 year olds can work full time, and have to pay tax, so should they get a say in how the money they pay is spent (personally, being this age, and paying tax, i think they should, but what does everyone else think?)

Answer 1

I think any sixteen year old that actually had the interest to get off their backside and go to a polling station, would be the kind of sixteen year old that would no doubt, have the interest to find out about their local/national parties and their policies.

I mean, how many people (I live in the UK) are over 18, have no clue or don't care, and have never used their vote? I know plenty of people of my age (32) who have never voted because they just don't care or feel their opinion doesn't count because a certain outcome is inevitable.

In conclusion, any 16 year old taking an active interest in the future of this country and its government deserves to have a say. After all, who will be it's future government?

Any younger than 16 though, I don't think they have the capacity to understand the intricacies of many policies and their impact on things like economy.

Answer 2

It is true that few in the 18-21 bracket vote, and of course the total number of voters has never been as high as it could potentially be. It seems then a fair assumption that the 16-18 year old age band would not be a group of prolific voters.

Is that reasonable grounds to deny them the vote? Possibly, since the total increase in potential voter numbers would be proportionally slight, but the extra administrative costs and effort might be high.

There is some debate in the previous answers about 16 year olds being mature enough, or not mature enough, or that some are and some aren't. Can we allow some mature 16-18 year olds to vote and deny it to others? How would this be determined? Surely the only practicable method is by setting a cut-off age, which as we all know (in the UK) stands at 18.

Not every 18 or even 40 year old has a mature outlook on life or an interest in politics, but generally they have increased life experience and perhaps a more pragmatic viewpoint on national affairs. The difference may be slight towards the younger part of that spectrum (ie, 18-21 year olds), but it is still there.

Finally, I would add in response to Philhoonoseitall's answer that while a 16 year old can join the army, he (or she) is not allowed to serve in an operational theatre until they reach the age of 18.

Answer 3

There are some 16 year olds who would be better informed voters than some 60 year olds, but the law can't discriminate among 16 year olds and permit some to vote and others not to. That would end up allowing whoever controls the process to stack the deck in their favor by allowing only 16 year olds who support them to vote.

Thus, someone had to come up with a voting age, and it is 18 at present. It was 21 when I was 18, but 18 year olds were being drafted to fight in Vietnam and most people felt it was wrong to force someone to fight but deny them the right to vote.

16 year olds can't be drafted and working full time is optional for most of them. Some states won't let 16 year olds work after midnight and won't allow them to do some jobs (ones considered too dangerous for the most part).

That doesn't mean that 16 year olds, and younger folks, can't have an affect on the election. They can still support candidates by collecting donations, which is a very important part of the election process and often is the deciding factor in who gets elected. They can also work on a candidate's phone bank, distribute posters, carry signs, even be campaign managers.

Normally liberals would be the ones to support lower voting ages, but they may not be too enthusiastic about that now (IF what I read recently is true, and I don't know that it is or not). I read that conservative religious folks are having bigger families, and also that kids tend to agree with their parents on issues until they get to college. If that is true, liberals wouldn't want people voting until they leave home and start questioning their parents beliefs.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives/
A group to encourage developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.

Answer 4

I'm about 4 months shy of 16, and i honestly have no idea about what any of the canidates for the US are offering to the country. I'm pretty sure that i'm a republican, but only because my parents are, and they talk about it often. If i were looking at this situation from an older age, i would definitley say no, 16 year olds should'nt have the freedom to vote. Some 16 year old kids can't even drive! nonetheless, there are some intellectual 16 year old kids, that are way beyond their age in mentality. Kids dont know what's out there in the world until they live on their own and get to make all the choices that effect their lives. Even with that said, i think 18 is still a little too young.

Answer 5

Sure let them vote! The only reason 18 year olds can vote is because during Viet Nam it was decided that if we can force them to go to war through the draft they should be able to vote. Voting shouldn't be based on age. It should be based on some other criteria. For instance if you are a net recipient of tax money you should not be able to vote. If you live in the gutter you should not be eligible. If you can't pass a basic civics test you should not be allowed to vote. If you're found to be mentally incompetent you shouldn't be allowed to vote.The fact that these groups can and do vote is part of the reason we're in the mess we're in. I'm sure its considered blasphemy to say so but not everybody should be able to vote. If you don't understand the way our government is set up why are you voting? It may sound nice to have universal health care but it is unconstitutional to do it at the federal level. State level fine. Some of you are unaware that of what the constitution says so you're willing to vote for any thing that "sounds good". You aren't any different than an ignorant 16 year old. You're voting, so I guess it wouldn't make much difference if they were voting too.

Answer 6

No, no, no. It is bad enough that 18 year olds, who are just big kids have the vote. 21 was a much better age, but the change was made by the Wilson labour government to stay in power and damage the country for another 4-5 years. Watch this space when Brown comes up for re election.

Answer 7

Kit, the fact that you are posting questions on this website tells me you have an active interest in politics and you would probably study the issues and make an intelligent choice for president. For a young man of 16, I think you are different from the majority of your peers. The sooner younger people engage in the political process the better in my opinion, but I would have to agree with others on this issue. I don't think most 16 year olds are ready to vote. Heck, most guys don't even grow up until they're 30.

Answer 8

In the early 70s, there was a tremendous and ultimately successful battle to grant 18 year olds the vote. Voting by 18-21 year olds has declined ever since, and is now hovering around 15%. It seems unlikely that 16 year olds would be more involved. Why bother?

Answer 9

No! Thirty years ago I would have said yes to this, but not with the lack of good parenting and the immaturity that our young people continue to exhibit everyday. Most of them are not only immature and irresponsible, but they think it's cool to show it in public.I do realize that there are some out there who were raised properly and are very mature at 16 but for the good of the country we can't allow the all of these kids vote just so the small minority of mature ones get their chance.

Answer 10

No, I don't think they are ready to vote. Eighteen is about the right age. Once you're out of high school you are pretty much considered an adult, before then you are still considered a minor. There is still a lot of maturing going on at 16.