It’s best to raise it to 22, when they have some brain to work with, and cap it at 30.
the “cold cognition” capacity required for voting is generally formed by age 16 and stable thereafter. A 2019 study with more than 5,000 adolescents from 11 countries found that changes in the prefrontal cortex result in two independent neural pathways for decision making: one is related to digesting information and reasoning, the other operates when choices are made impulsively.ix Tasks such as voting and working are critically related to the first neural pathway, while impulsive behaviour such as criminal activity often relates to the second pathway. A 2021 review of the literature argues that: “taken together, adolescents, on average, are capable of rational, deliberative decision-making supported by their mature cognitive capacities”.x A significant proportion of scientists in the neurodevelopmental field have argued that lowering the voting age is in line with current evidence about adolescent brain development. Many experts assert that a 16-year-old has sufficient cognitive and critical thinking capacities to make political decisions independently.xi Giving adolescents a voice and allowing their participation in matters that affect them through voting would also help fulfill a developmental need for agency and autonomy, which are core developmental tasks in adolescence.
Many young people are well informed about ballot box issues such as COVID-19, climate change, mental health, education and inequality, among other policy issues that affect their lives now and in the future. Young people also display competence in civic education initiatives and public policy related advocacy. Some studies have shown that mid-adolescents have similar levels of political knowledge as young adults. In Brazil, where 16-year-olds are eligible to vote but compulsory voting is limited to those over 18, levels of political knowledge and media consumption are indistinguishable for those above and below 18. Similarly, when the voting age was reduced from 18 to 16 in Austria in 2007, 16- and 17-year-olds were found to be as well informed as 18- to 21-year-olds.
It can either go terribly wrong or terribly right.
This either makes the far-right radicalize teens at an earlier age, or finally schools no longer will be for 50+ year old bitter people who want the younger generation suffer.
If the young crowd in the US is any indicator, the influence of right-wing propaganda could be very worrying.
It’s the male loneliness epidemic.
Look, I will preface this by saying that I’m not an incel who thinks everyone is entitled to sex or that women should just get married and stay at home. I have to do this because there’s some things coming up that could be misconstrued as a very controversial opinion on my part, whereas I’m trying to explain what some people might be feeling. I don’t want to justify anything or anyone, I just want to explain my opinion of what’s happening.
Long story short, people are having less sex and more crucially, dating less. Here’s a source. The article surveyed men, but likely the same is true of women. But we’re focusing on men for this bit anyway, since we’re talking about the sudden right-wing turn of young males.
There are many reasons why people are spending more time online and less with potential romantic partners. I’m not getting into most of those. Many are valid. God knows I wouldn’t want to date a potential Andrew Tate fan or a Trump voter if I was a woman. And on both sides of the gender aisle, there’s new time consuming online hobbies, like gaming and doomscrolling.
This causes bitterness. I’ve been a teenager, and I’m still in my 20s. And I’m a dude. I can tell you that as a teenager there was a constant urge of “I wish I could get some” that masturbation could not quell for long, and once I did finally lose my virginity (well, after like the 2nd or 3rd time, everyone knows the first time is shit), I knew I wanted more of that and less of my hand. Luckily for me, I spent my late teen years in a stable relationship with a girl whose drive was also pretty high so we definitely had days of 4-5 sessions. As I’ve aged, I’ve calmed down on that front, there’s been an entire calendar year or 2 where I didn’t get any in my mid-late 20s, as I don’t have a lot of game, or free time.
Enough about me though, that was just to point out that young dudes can get ridiculously horny*. But horny is just one issue. You can usually get by with a good ol’ session of pocket billiards. But of course in your teens at least, you’ve been conditioned by shitty Hollywood teen coming-of-age movies to link sex with success as a male. And then there’s shows like HIMYM, Friends, Seinfeld, whatever - the main characters are ALWAYS dating someone.
Now on to dating. That’s the big elephant in the room. A lot of women nowadays have realized they don’t need some asshole hanging around their home. Much more interesting to get an education, build a career to be proud of. Gives you a lot more freedom compared to the traditional wife. So a lot fewer women are dating in their 20s. Those that are dating - well, they just get to be pickier. It’s a matter of supply vs demand, to put it extremely bluntly.
Apps make it even worse. Women on apps get to be extremely picky and receive hundreds or even thousands of matches with average looks in a big city, while men are happy to get into the tens. Why? Well, because there are a ton of horny dudes looking for just sex, and they devalue all the other men. Again, supply vs demand. A good saying I heard was “Men on Tinder are looking for fresh water in the desert, women on Tinder are looking for fresh water in the ocean”. It sucks for everyone, unless you’re looking for meaningless casual sex as a woman. Tons of that available for women. Hard to find anyone to actually date though and it seems that part applies for both genders. Especially because the apps’ algorithms don’t want you to find true love. The goal is to keep you on the app.
Another good reason for all this is the lack of the Third Place. I think the US is particularly bad in this regard, with suburban hell where you just have nowhere to go hang out and meet new people. No meeting new people in real life = you’re stuck with the horrible reality of dating apps if you want to meet potential partners, or even just new friends. Here in my corner of Europe, we have mixed zoning mostly and walkable cities, so it’s easier to just go walk to a bar, sit down, talk to other people who show up. No need to drive or order a rideshare.
So now we’ve established that young people aren’t having much sex or dating. Why does that make people young men in particular go conservative? Well it’s simple, really. It’s the fucking tradwife thing. Society makes you feel like you’re worthless if you don’t date or have sex, so you feel lonely, maybe you don’t even have any female friends. I know I didn’t until I was like 15 or so, I was scared of talking to the girls. So you know jack shit about women as actual human beings, only know what you’ve consumed in the media, which objectifies women anyway, and you’ve got these shitty role models that tell you you as a man deserve an obedient woman, someone who doesn’t talk back and does the chores and was a virgin before you. You absolutely fucking don’t, nobody deserves a bangmaid. But we’ve got all these incels and that ideology just clicks with them. Of course they feel like they deserve what their forefathers had. That we should go back to a society before women had any agency. Etc. It’s stupid as fuck, and it comes from indoctrination of lonely people. They’re just looking for someone to blame, and an easy solution for their issues. That’s always an easy thing for propaganda to make use of.
So what IS an actual solution? Some will say therapy, but it’s pretty difficult to make millions of people realize they could use some. Nor are there enough therapists in the world for everyone to get therapy. Plus I don’t think therapy is the end-all be-all solution for all the mental health issues the world is suffering from. I think the best solution, and I have no idea how this could be implemented, would be to just promote more inter-gender socialization in schools, kindergarten, etc. Just give young boys growing up every possible chance of making female friends. Not because those female friends are potential future romantic partners, but because I think a lot of guys just really need to understand women more and how can you understand them if you’ve never had any in your life as equals, as friends, hopefully close ones? I know I changed a lot as a person when I finally actually had some girls as friends. Learned to be more empathetic for sure.
Last, but not least: Us guys need to be there for each other more too. Ask your friends what’s wrong. Hell, if your friend’s been looking down for a while and doesn’t want to open up, get him moderately drunk, but don’t pry too hard. Let him open up on his own. Be supportive, don’t offer solutions unless asked for. You may save someone’s life.
TL;DR: Problem is incels. But that’s an oversimplification and the incels themselves are not the root cause. Problem is loneliness and a bunch of men who don’t necessarily understand women. It should really be fixed BEFORE these men grow up to be bitter incels. I bet most of them could do with more and closer friends in general too, not just female friends.
* I have of course been lead to believe by a feminist friend of mine that the same applies for women, but due to societal pressure, they’re more likely to hide that part, possibly even from themselves. She may very well be right, given how slut shaming shapes women to be less open about sexuality, resulting in less fun for everyone involved.
Is there a reason to call it “male loneliness epidemic” instead of just “loneliness epidemic”?
Isn’t the male part actually a reaction to the “fascist youth indoctrination” mentioned above? The modern fascism pushed by the anti-woke “intellectual dark web” is fundamentally a belief in inequality based on identity like sex, gender or race. Which is incompatible with dating emancipated women if based on sex, and causes problem when dating materialistic women who seek beauty or wealth.
So part of the problem is fascism. And the other part is neoliberalism, making raising children so expensive that it forces people to strongly consider wealth of partners before other attributes. That and the other things you mentioned of course, or an identity fueled by social media self marketing.
For all twelve 16 year olds who actually care about voting
Edit: Not to say they shouldn’t be, this comment was not meant as gatekeeping, more so that the youth typically have little interest in voting, which is a huge problem.
As someone who voted for Nick Clegg in their first ever general election vote, I think it’s important that we shatter our youth’s idealism early and often.
Not gonna lie, I don’t think that I was mature enough at sixteen for my opinion to have mattered on a macro scale.
Braindead inbred fucks from the midlands who worship the Daily Mail as gospel can vote, so I’m not worried about the kids.
When my son turned 16 and my daughter was 18 I had that discussion with them, as I’m a supporter of being allowed to vote with 16.
My 16y old son was against it “Look at all my friends, they don’t inform themselves and everyone would been voting for some shit party that promises something”
My answer to that is, most people do. “Being qualified” is not a condition for being able to vote. Yes, there’s a line you cross when you grow up, a toddler obviously can’t vote yet, an adult can.
But in the end it’s arbitrary where you put that line and by moving it down to 16 you can “a bit” influence the relative large weight of older generations in elections.
When I vote, I’ll have to live with the consequences for 30y in the best case before I’m worm food. For my kids the number is over 60y.
So regardless of “how qualified to vote” you are, moving down the election age changes the decision making to be of longer term and less of short term.
Most people aren’t mature enough their entire lives, but we don’t filter them out.
That’s the shittiest part. Honestly some people don’t deserve to vote, they just lack critical thinking
Let me guess most of those people don’t agree with you… 😁
I’m moderate so definitely both sides hate me
Lol yeah you need to be in a trench throwing rocks at the other side, not being all sensible how dare you! 😁
Sure, but I want mature enough at 18 either. A lot of people aren’t mature enough at 40 to fully comprehend what they’re voting for. We don’t enfranchise people with votes based on their level of knowledge though, we do it if they’re considered active members of society - and 16 year olds are considered adults in a large amount of their day-to-day life
But do you think you cared more about the future than someone who is 70?
Is voting selfish reasons at 16 naturally better than someone doing the same at 80?
I agree, I probably didn’t know enough at the time to make the most informed choice but I was definitely more idealistic, and I think that would have been a good thing.
Also, will there her more policy aimed at improving the lives of 16+ knowing they can vote.
I think the positives out way any downside.
Honestly no, I was a twat at sixteen. But I acknowledge that I’m speaking for myself.
I appreciate your honesty. I would have to say I was still a twat when I started to vote, and was for a long time after.
I agree, this guy was a twat!
I’m j/king. People change all the time, it’s okay to acknowledge that.
You’re speaking for yourself, me and more or less everyone I hung out with which back then was a decent sized social group. I was barely competent to vote at 18.
100% idiot at 16. No shame admitting it.
Don’t worry, now teens have TikTok which they can source their information from, so we should be safe
Im 60 this year and feel the same now. I don’t know shit, so not sure i should be asked to vote.
I think being granted the right to vote at that age would have made me care enough to educate myself on some of the nuance. But I would also not describe myself as a typical meatbag.
Well good news, because the opinion of the electorate counts for shit in any case, whether they can vote or not.
At best we can choose the colour of the tie of the conservatives in charge.
In any case, a quick look at any town’s “Spotted” Facebook page should be enough to convince you that most adults aren’t really a lot more functional than teenagers. They’re just better at hiding their insecurity. People on mine went crazy for Reform. Reform got in (Derbyshire County Council). Reform closed a local community centre. The response: Why have Labour done this?
As a normal person, all I can do is run to one side to try and balance the Titanic, but if it’s going to sink, it’s going to sink.
I know I wasn’t mature enough, but if being well informed, politically conscious and sensible were a prerequisite for voting, we’d be living in a very different world. As far as I’m concerned, this is most likely to change things for the better.
I was the weird kid who was more politically informed than the average adult, but I’d read the newspaper daily since about 12 or so. Maturity IDK but there are many adults that are less mature than I was.
“The government said it was a reform to bring in more fairness for 16- and 17-year-olds, many of whom already work and are able to serve in the military. It brings the whole of the UK voting age to 16. Scotland and Wales have already made the change for Holyrood and Senedd elections, as well as local council elections.”
Great logical reform.
Work full time? When does mandatory school end over there?
In most of the west you can legally drop out ~15 years old. I kinda wish I did tbh. Most of my education came after school.
I mean I know you could take classes such that you could graduate early but that might get you 17 or 16 if you were enrolled in school early enough with a birthday at the right time of year. Im not sure if you can drop out without parent permission but you can emancipate at 16. For my area at least.
Until they decide to troll vote.
You know that impulse control doesn’t fully develop till ones twenties
Like Brexit? Damn all those 16 and 17 voters.
Oh wait, they weren’t part of that.
Mm hmmm. So where did I say any of that? and your argument is poor. 16 and 17 year olds were not legally able to vote so you have no data to back up your outburst
You’ve missed their point.
No. They made no point. What they did was blame the poor showing in that vote on older people. That isn’t what I said at all.
Said nothing about brexit, nor does the reply to me address anything I posted.
So no. You and they have missed the point.
They didn’t even say that! As they said: you missed their point. Congrats on doing so openly :)
Removed by mod
Would Reform undo it I wonder? This does smell a bit of gerrymandering as young people split leftwards
“I oppose democracy unless it aligns with me”
— this chudd
Lol, not at all. I’m worried Reform (who are looking possible to take the government next) would reverse this decision. A very regressive move imo. But not unlikely
I would make a counterargument and raise the age of being legally an adult to 21, or at least do not allow anyone to drink alcohol and do not allow anyone to drive a car before turning 21. There is a lot of tragedy that could be avoided just by doing that.
I’ll believe it when I see it
Controversial opinion: I don’t see a justification for ANY voting age.
For adults we (rightfully) don’t make voting dependent on mental or physical capacity, being dependent on other people, and there also is no upper age limit.
So i wouldn’t be opposed to allowing anyone elegible for voting to do so when he/she expresses the wish to do so.
That is just a very stupid idea. The best thing for all of us everywhere is for the most rational and well-informed people to vote. The fact that everyone gets a vote is unfortunate for all of us because that includes voters who vote against the public interest, but it is necessary for a free democracy. Children and even teenagers have simply not had enough time on this earth to make an informed decision. Even if you want to make the argument that some are informed enough, they are far, FAR fewer than in the adult populace. You do not want to broaden that window.
There needs to be some limit. Babies and toddlers don’t know shit, plus parents have an extreme amount of coercion over their children until they’re teenagers. Also allowing children to vote will result in more political propaganda targeted at children. They deserve to enjoy childhood without worrying about the clusterfuck. I think “teenager” is probably as low as you want to go for the foreseeable future.
it’s not necessarily a bad thing for parents to have more voting power than non-parents through this means. Parents would generally be voting with their children’s best interests in mind.
Yes it is, it’s essentially giving people with children extra votes to use.
well, you just said the thing I said in reverse. I said, it’s not necessarily a bad thing; and you said: yes it is.
Babies and toddlers don’t know shit, plus parents have an extreme amount of coercion over their children until they’re teenagers.
Like I said we don’t make this a prequisite for adults. There are plenty of disabled or old people fully dependent on others.
Also allowing children to vote will result in more political propaganda targeted at children.
That is an interesting point definitely worth debating. Propaganda would definitely be an issue, but this is the case not just in children, but adults alike. On the other hand with children becoming a voting block it might shift the focus slightly on topics benefiting them.
They deserve to enjoy childhood without worrying about the clusterfuck.
True, although I think children pick up a lot regardless. And importantly obliviousness of issues doesn’t change how it affects them. Climate change and unfair pension systems for example will affect them regardless, this way they’d at least have a voice.
I think “teenager” is probably as low as you want to go for the foreseeable future.
I can for sure see how opinions can differ on the topic and I’d totally be ok with compromises and accepting some degree of hypocrisy. But nonetheless it’s imo worth looking at the issue from the extreme.
As far as compromises go I think another way to go about it would be to have staggered voting with lower limits in more local votes. I could see how it might be more acceptable there for some.
Edit: also regarding babies and toddlers i’d think that they would need to express a desire to vote in some form, which would probably make it so you don’t have literal 1 year olds voting (unless they are like an extreme genius, at which point they might aswell and it would only be a single vote of millions). Maybe one compromise would be to require some more active component below a certain age threshold, like having to vote in person for the first time or at least having to register somewhere (which if not done prior would happen automatically at a certain age).
Propaganda would definitely be an issue, but this is the case not just in children, but adults alike. On the other hand with children becoming a voting block it might shift the focus slightly on topics benefiting them.
you can’t ignore the fact that even more propaganda would directly target them, taking advantage of very effective data mining based profiling. they should be able to experience more of life before advertisers starts to dictate their agenda, otherwise they’ll easily think that advertisers are speaking the truth.
Climate change and unfair pension systems for example will affect them regardless, this way they’d at least have a voice.
they have a voice. It’s not like people can only vote if they are in their last decade. turning 18, just 2 years, anyone can vote, and I would say even 30 and 40 years olds are largely affected by these issues.
you can’t ignore the fact that even more propaganda would directly target them, taking advantage of very effective data mining based profiling. they should be able to experience more of life before advertisers starts to dictate their agenda, otherwise they’ll easily think that advertisers are speaking the truth.
Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn’t just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.
I’d break it up into two parts. Official election material and just general advertisements/media. The first one typically is already quite regulated and arguably for the benefit of all should already follow standards that are not harmful to children. The second one seems like the problematic one. However I’d argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what’s going on in the world. Anecdotally i can say that even at elementary school age children seem to be (to varying degrees) at least rudimentally aware of many things. To give a recent example like when Israel bombed Iran.
We have things like cigarettes and alcohol where we impose age limits, but those are directly harmful things. Hard to argue that voting in a democracy is harmful. Sometimes there might be anti democratic parties (like the afd here in germany for example), but in those cases you’d think about banning those, not taking away the ability to vote. Maybe you or someone else could give me an example of something positive being banned based on age because the state/society can’t provide protection from something secondary.
I would also add that advertisement to a young voting base wouldn’t exclusively need to be a bad thing. Take free school lunches for example. If as a politician you run a campaign on that for example you are banking on gaining favor from a voter base that only indirectly is affected by it. The people directly benefiting from it can’t vote for you.
they have a voice. It’s not like people can only vote if they are in their last decade. turning 18, just 2 years, anyone can vote, and I would say even 30 and 40 years olds are largely affected by these issues.
They have a voice, but no vote, which is what matters for the politicians in charge. Also “just 2 years” falls flat since my argument is not about the lowering to 16, but abolishing it in general. So for the sake of argument for example an 8 year old, which would make it a full decade. In practice even longer, since elections aren’t every year and you aren’t guaranteed to have one in the year you turn 18.
And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don’t see how that would be an argument against it. If anything i’d see it as an argument that children should also have a say. We also don’t have an upper limit after which you aren’t allowed to vote anymore. And for obvious reasons it would e.g. be impossible to have a rule that says x years before you die you aren’t allowed to vote anymore, since you won’t suffer all the consequences.
Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn’t just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.
when will we ban personalized advertising?
or any kinds of advertising that is more than just showing that your product/service is there.
but unfortunately, with deceptive videos all over the internet, that wouldn’t help at all.
However I’d argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what’s going on in the world.
that’s right, but I think because of a lack of substantial amount of experiences (before being exposed to media), they have much less of a chance at figuring out what’s real and what isn’t.
heck I only started using facebook near the end of elementary school. and then when I got to be voting age, I had almost no clue about the running political parties, how truthful they are and what is their past. I just slightly missed being able to vote the time before that, and I know that I would have voted for a liar with a corrupt past, because of facebook ads of their party I assume. “oh look, they are apologizing and they regret it! they look so honest!”nowadays? they just post a tiktok video that they’ll give money to all below 20 if they are elected, and they get a bunch of votes. and the election office will do nothing. or they promise to lower the graduation requirements. or to make it unlawul to ban smartphone usage at school lessons. or anything that sounds good to them but everybody else knows is a bad idea.
they could have even cooperated with another party to make sure this one doesn’t get elected, but takes votes away from another one.
all because they promised something on tiktok, or really any platform that auto plays videos when scrolling by.deceptive social (and traditional) media is exactly why we can’t allow this. and if you allow them to vote, you just made it so that now we can’t even keep them away legally from that social media, because if you do that they won’t vote for you anymore, and the next party will just undo your laws.
And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don’t see how that would be an argument against it.
I think those adults had decades of life experiences that could have helped them recognize that they are being deceived and used. childrens won’t have any of that. They’ll have no chance of recognizing that, unless someone they trust tells them and they want to believe it.
it would also be interesting to read a study that compares the effects of video effects, animations and vibrant nice colors in videos on different age groups.
I’m reading your post and it reads just the same as what applies to many adults.
I know that I would have voted for a liar with a corrupt past, because of facebook ads of their party I assume. “oh look, they are apologizing and they regret it! they look so honest!”
I can’t even get started how many politicians have a corrupt past here in Germany and got plenty of votes.
nowadays? they just post a tiktok video that they’ll give money to all below 20 if they are elected
Here in Germany parties actively ran on the promise of raising and fixing the pension levels in an already unsustainable system. Alongside other gifts to certain voter bases. The one left out (I assume partially because they are not able to vote): The youth.
I also think you vastly overestimate the amount of influence underage voters would yield. Especially in our demographic structures and based on the fact that a significantly lower share of them would actually make use of it. They certainly wouldn’t have the power to introduce sweeping changes against the better judgement of other voting blocks. But you are right that they might influence smaller changes.
To take one of your examples i could see that for something like the smartphone ban. But would that be so bad? It might be a good thing, but i don’t think this is conclusively proven. In return it is probably something being pushed by a large majority that might not even use a smartphone on a daily basis or at the least is very far removed from the current level of technology. And it also wouldn’t all need to be negative. Take for example the stop killing games petition that is quite popular on this site. That one might suddenly gain some more supporters, which are actually affected by it.
However i’d also see a need for more studies. And i probably wouldn’t just make a major shift like that instantaneously, but rather in a gradual way and maybe lead with changes to smaller more local elections first. Which might give opportunities for such studies.
Here in Germany parties actively ran on the promise of raising and fixing the pension levels in an already unsustainable system. Alongside other gifts to certain voter bases. The one left out (I assume partially because they are not able to vote): The youth.
so they were lying, except to the youth, because to them they didn’t have a message. that’s a positive thing to me.
But you are right that they might influence smaller changes.
part of my worries is this, but rather how will this affect all of them, when sociopathic people will start targeting them with even more brainwashing/reeducation content.
To take one of your examples i could see that for something like the smartphone ban. But would that be so bad?
what do you mean? the banning the school-level banning of it? the problem is not smartphones themselves, but what they can do.
playing games and scrolling social media on lessons. taking pictures of your peers against their will, like when they get humiliated. using the infra blaster to fuck with classroom equipment. all of these were happening in my class, just a few years ago. unless your solution is mandating school-issued spyware on every phone, which I don’t support, the only solution is to ban them in one way or another. possibly only on lessons. and then somehow solve the problem of stolen phones, when someone knowingly took away a different phone at the end of lesson.
Could age not be an imperfect but good enough proxy for maturity and capability?
Yes, but we are not filtering for maturity and capability in adults. So if this is the argument then imo it is flawed, since we’d filter for something just to stop filtering for it after a certain age.
If one wants to filter for these things then it should be applied across the board. However we are not doing so for good reasons (I can provide some if needed).
It seems like you and I are both trying to make sense of democracy, how to make it inclusive, and how to have the best decision-making processes so that we, as a society, can have the best decisions possible. In other words, we’re trying to have the best possible democracy.
Now, we both agree that the age filter is imperfect. It’s a heuristic, a rule of thumb. You rightly point this out, and you interpret this fact as if there should be absolutely no filters at all. For you, any filter would be imperfect or problematic.
However, the way I see it, the age filter is a simple, cheap, and good enough heuristic. Age is ridiculously easy to keep track of, with current record-keeping technologies and institutions. In most of the world’s bureaucracies, people’s age appear right next to their face in state-issued documents. It’s everywhere.
Additionally, age is associated with physical and cognitive capabilities. Human children require care and nurture. Socializing children into the abstract world of economics and ecology takes time. I see the fact that children are required to go to school as a success, as a way of assuring that that culture sustains its cultural and scientific literacy over time. Ideally, when children can vote, they understand their world differently. They can see ecological, historical, and social processes around them in different ways. Here, setting a voting age is a heuristic for avoiding children who have not yet developed these abstract worldviews (because, after all, they’re… children).
I believe you will respond that “if the point is filtering for cultural and scientific literacy, then test for that, but not for age. There are children who are brilliant decision-makers and lackluster adults”. And I’d agree with you. Age is an imperfect measure. I’m not denying there are people who are exceptional. But what I am saying is that, for most people, age is a good enough heuristic.
Of course, as a society we could say that we shouldn’t go for the cheapest heuristic. We could say that we should include people in a better way. But you and I agree that the alternatives are tough. I’d say they’re costly, controversial, and probably imperfect.
Yes, i think we should definitely pay more consideration to how our democratic system works on a more mechanical level, and not just specific opinions. Glad to hear i am not alone in this and i imagine that other suggestions like e.g. the use of ranked choice voting would be much less controversial than this one.
Now, we both agree that the age filter is imperfect. It’s a heuristic, a rule of thumb. You rightly point this out, and you interpret this fact as if there should be absolutely no filters at all. For you, any filter would be imperfect or problematic.
I’d say the age filter is perfect. But it only filters for the one thing it measures: age.
My argument is that (here in Germany) when i go to vote there are 4 requirements asked of me:
-
Citizenship (although in some more local elections i think this isn’t even a requirement as e.g. other EU residents are for example also allowed to vote). Which is a binary classifier, one either has it or does not. I’ve had it since birth
-
That i am currently not stripped of my voting rights. Something that (rightfully) is done extremely rarely and on an individual basis, e.g. for high treason or bribing officials. Here in Germany it’s also always a temporary measure for a maximum of 5 years.
-
There are some limitations based on residence. For example federal elections seem to require that you’ve lived at least 3 months in Germany during the past 25 years (with exceptions for some professions).
-
Age, currently being over 18 in federal elections, 16 in some state and regional ones. Again a binary classifier, once you pass the threshold it becomes irrelevant.
The last aspect of course is that it is done so by ones own free will.
Now this i think is what you are going for, but i don’t think it has anything to do with the age requirement. It’s required from anyone that votes regardless of age. And in fact we already have a system in place that we deem sufficient enough to decide it, since we already have citizens where it might be in question like e.g. someone with an intelectual disability which can voice their wish to vote and sometimes receive help in doing so. Similarly if you have physical issues and are e.g. blind or can’t read you can get support to allow you to vote. Prisoners who are not able to control a lot of their circumstances are able to vote. Notably we do not care about whether or not you vote “badly”, for the wrong reasons, or for someone we disagree with.
The filter for this imo would be the same as for anyone else. A declaration that you want to vote and that you do so free of duress. This filter could imo be fulfilled by a child stating their wish to vote just the same. However as stated somewhere in another comment above i’d be fine with having an additional requirement here that the first vote would need to be either in person or that one would need to actively apply for it (and if not the automatic registration comes at a certain age), in which case we’d probably need to give children some options on where to do this, e.g. in school.
-
It’s always the far right that’s trying to lower the age. I think that says enough.
The right are trying to disenfranchise voters. Lowering the voting age is s classic leftist move
I’ve never heard of this before. Where else is this the case?
That is beyond stupid. Hell our brains aren’t fully developed at 18 , at 16?
Some people make it to their 70’s without a fully developed brain.
Some people become president of the world’s most heavily armed nation without one
Yep. To all of what you said.
Still. It’s a bad idea. I think we all know it if we really think about
What are your thoughts on people with degenerative brain diseases being able to vote?
Should you have to take a test once you hit 70 to confirm you are still aware enough to vote in an informed way? (Should you be able to work in politics after 70?)
I admit I’m taking it to the extreme to make a point but if you can work and pay tax at 16, I think being able to vote makes sense.
the age limit is not about closing people out entirely, but limit it while they are more gullible. sure there’s lots of fools beyond 18, but the concept is that hopefully most people as they ahe, become less so, and much of that process happens around age 18 and somewhat beyond.
now add that kids today are not only exposed to shit spreading on facebook but now tiktok too, and they don’t know when they are being deceived. source: I didn’t know with facebook when I was in that age.look, there were not too many elections yet on which I could have voted. but I think even 18 might be too early. I remember that I just missed an election by a few months, and today I’m ashamed of what would have been my choice. I almost voted for a party that looked ashamed of its corrupt past, just because they acknowledged it and promised it wouldn’t happen again.
this is not a step forward.
If your main points are around misinformation, propaganda, fake new, ai generated content or anything that convinces people of something that is false, I would say this is a huge, but separate issue that affects everyone, not just 16-17 year olds.
Younger people consume different types of media and paying influencers to pick political sides doesn’t seem to be as uncommon as I would like.
That being said, Cambridge analytica already showed us that the age groups that can vote are not immune to have their opinions manipulated via targeted misinformation.
They are just as fucked as we are, let them vote.
okay. but then just delete the age limit. lets have kindergarten aged kids vote. what could go wrong?
If we are taking things to extremes to make the point.
You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.
The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?
It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?
I think yes.
You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.
where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20)
The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?
some kind of test would be ideal, but it sounds like Pandora’s box. an assumed “good” administration starts doing it, but even if it’s done fairly at the beginning, it’s too easy to change it to be used discriminatively
It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?
I think yes.
I’m confident that 16 year olds should neither have voting rights, nor be allowed to go to war.
where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20
You didn’t, you took my point to the extreme when you said this:
but then just delete the age limit. lets have kindergarten aged kids vote. what could go wrong?
I was doing the same to your point to show how ridiculous it sounds when you exaggerate any of these ideas.
What I would add that got pointed out to me today is, that if we have a general election every 5 years, someone who turns 18 just after an election potentially may not be able to vote for the first time untill they almost 23.
Again, my opinion is that being able to vote for the first time between 16-20 sounds a lot better than voting for the first time between 18-22.
Those are good questions
I do think that our voting public needs more education and we needed to have age appropriate, and yes , at times medical consitions may have to be looked at.
I feel that the last part I can speak to a bit( I am not a doctor or anything) as I grew up with a mother who was left with extreme tbi after an accident but could still function in society.
But she didn’t vote. She didn’t have any grasp of what was happening politically. She was never told not to, but I think somehow she knew.
Honestly there are ways to disseminate the voting information enough that those who can grasp the vote should.
I have no easy answers though. It’s not an easy question
Definitely agree there are no easy answers.
At least this seems like a much better place to have a discussion on it that some other places online.
Edit: I did just saw you first comment got down voted. I think you have a valid point, I don’t agree but I wouldn’t down vote you for having it and I don’t think you should have been.
Yeah, I’m not saying I have all the answers or that I’m not missing something, but the way it stands it’s a bad idea. It needs thought, a process developed and guardrails in place.
I will say this. As well. I have a 17 year old extremely intelligent son. He works. He ain’t ready to vote. He’ll be the first to say it as well.
Ironically that’s what makes him grounded enough to have a vote imo, with people out there being so susceptible to propaganda and proud of it too it’s worth having more stoic views on it
You laugh but I said the same thing to him. Told him I’d kick his butt if he didn’t vote next year. We need guys who actually inquire and argue with those in Authority. Even when that authority is his dad lol.
Hey sometimes I’m wrong and he’s right. It happens
oh don’t tell me you believe in that debunked your-brain-is-fully-developed-at-25 pseudoscience.
No you rude shit. I believe in the science involved in brain formation, maturity and it’s response to nature and nurture
You?
I also believe in the science. That’s why I don’t believe in the developed-at-25 myth. If you look it up online you can see it’s been widely rebuked. Here’s an article from the BBC for instance.
Apologies for the rudeness.
The brain development at that age does allow for far more nuanced decision making, but I agree. The brain developed and decays constantly and differing rates, from my limited understanding , but I do believe that PEAK decision making capabilities don’t occur until an average age that probably is between 25 and 35. But again that’s not basing it solely on ,“brain development”. I should have been more precise.
And, water under the bridge
the “cold cognition” capacity required for voting is generally formed by age 16 and stable thereafter. A 2019 study with more than 5,000 adolescents from 11 countries found that changes in the prefrontal cortex result in two independent neural pathways for decision making: one is related to digesting information and reasoning, the other operates when choices are made impulsively.ix Tasks such as voting and working are critically related to the first neural pathway, while impulsive behaviour such as criminal activity often relates to the second pathway. A 2021 review of the literature argues that: “taken together, adolescents, on average, are capable of rational, deliberative decision-making supported by their mature cognitive capacities”.x A significant proportion of scientists in the neurodevelopmental field have argued that lowering the voting age is in line with current evidence about adolescent brain development. Many experts assert that a 16-year-old has sufficient cognitive and critical thinking capacities to make political decisions independently.xi Giving adolescents a voice and allowing their participation in matters that affect them through voting would also help fulfill a developmental need for agency and autonomy, which are core developmental tasks in adolescence.
Many young people are well informed about ballot box issues such as COVID-19, climate change, mental health, education and inequality, among other policy issues that affect their lives now and in the future. Young people also display competence in civic education initiatives and public policy related advocacy. Some studies have shown that mid-adolescents have similar levels of political knowledge as young adults. In Brazil, where 16-year-olds are eligible to vote but compulsory voting is limited to those over 18, levels of political knowledge and media consumption are indistinguishable for those above and below 18. Similarly, when the voting age was reduced from 18 to 16 in Austria in 2007, 16- and 17-year-olds were found to be as well informed as 18- to 21-year-olds.
I’m still not convinced about this. I have known many teenagers who are more adept than me at making mature decisions (late 20s). So I think we all mature at different rates. I don’t especially believe that there’s a magic time in ones 20s where one becomes especially mature. And if there is, it is likely only a couple % higher in maturity points than at other times in one’s life.
Still, this magic 25 number appears a lot when people are trying to advocate for removing rights from young adults. Like for instance, saying trans people have to be at least 25 to transition. I’m always skeptical of it.
Seems convenient that it’s happening now, under a conservative Labour PM, at the same time that data show that the generation currently around the age of 16 is generally more conservative than their parents.
But aside from that, this seems like a good thing.
I think it’s going to completely change how schools are managed.
If some politicians decide to cater to 17 year olds about improving school funding or safety or regulation… we might see changes not based on fear (or they might just stop degrading due to lack of attention).
I think we see a reform manifesto pledge to ‘bring back good, honest turkey twizzlers’ to school canteens 🙃
But aside from that, this seems like a good thing.
I’m really not sure about that, even if not considering the relation of people from that age to personalized manipulative social media.
Maybe but electoral outcomes can take decades to work out the consequences they have to live with, so it makes some sense.to allow them to have a voice.
When i voted my first time at 18 i wasn’t engaged in either the process or the candidates, it took another couple years, so maybe by the time they’re 18-20 they will take it seriously and be more engaged rather then by the time i was 22-24.
As a 60 yr old, lefty, I don’t think an 80 yr old should have the vote. They had their chance for many, many decades.
When i voted my first time at 18 i wasn’t engaged in either the process or the candidates, it took another couple years, so maybe by the time they’re 18-20 they will take it seriously and be more engaged rather then by the time i was 22-24.
I had the same experience at 18, and it wasn’t even a decade ago. this is a reason I think we should increase the age limit, if we touch it at all.
So much this. 16 year olds rarely know (or care) much about politics, AT ALL.
This will make it much more likely that young people will acquire the habit of not voting.
Make them wait till they want it.
Having said that, I’m finding some of the arguments the other way here fairly convincing.
But conversely, I remember in 2010 I asked a youth group what they thought the main parties were about. They said that Labour were about making education better and the Conservatives were about making the NHS better. None of them remembered that the Conservatives massively underfunded the NHS and always prioritised tax cuts over public services. I was right. They were wrong.
If you pay (edit: income) tax, you should have the right to vote. I’m not convinced by all of the catastrophizing about it. Turning 16 unlocks a lot of rights and privileges in the UK and I have faith that teenagers won’t be the reason that quality of life worsens.
everyone who buys something in a shop also pays tax, because of VAT. should little Billy, 9 years old, be able to vote because ma’ asked him to help her and buy a loaf of bread?
other options include either making it so that teens under 18 can work tax free, or banning people under 18 from working for money (probably the same as the other point practically while also enraging the teens), but I’m afraid that would incentivise more work instead of studying and socialization.
so, by this logic, we either fuck up their youth, ban them from working, or fuck up the whole country with even more voting gullible people.
Sorry, I meant income tax. So little Billy will not be able to vote. My bad, Billy.
I knew what you meant, I also think that statement was wrong just for the fact that the money Billy used was not his own anyway.
The only issue i see with income tax is what about the people who don’t earn any income?
I’m not advocating for paying income tax being a requirement to vote, that’s ridiculous.
I’m arguing that people who are 16 are already afforded many of the rights and responsibilities (such as being able to work, join the military, get married with a parent’s permission, etc.) that come with the concept of “adulthood” and so they should also be allowed to vote.
You’re entirely missing the implicit reasoning behind my position with this comment. Hopefully you’ll understand it more now that I’ve spelled it out, but if you still disagree, honestly I don’t care and this is happening regardless.
Nope, not at all. I agree with you. I was just throwing crap out there as a hypothetical to what was said.
You realize your argument here is the same argument used against women being able to vote and black people being able to vote and a numerous others right? They’re too gullible. They’re not intelligent enough. They’ll just do what they’re told. All arguments that we’ve heard before.
I don’t agree. I think it’s a pretty glaring large difference that we don’t ban anyone from voting for life, but until they at least start to get mature, with an age limit that is the same across white young man, white young woman and black young people.
Honestly I have no idea whatsoever how did you conclude that I’m racist. I really can’t help but think that you have already decided that I and everything I think is bad.
I mean…the youth in general don’t usually come out for elections, but I’d like to think that when they do, they’ll be voting for their own long-term best interests. When it comes to gullibility, plenty of older people fall for scams and cults all the time, I mean shit, look at Brexit, a case where mostly older voters voted for something they probably didn’t do too much research into a side from watching a political ad and just outright believing it. If impulsivity was a problem, then older people can have that problem too. Plus…you’re talking about 9 year olds? Really? It’s absurd to make the argument that the group of youths a mere 1-2 years before the 18 year old adulthood designation gaining voting rights would be the same as 9 year old children gaining the right to vote.
I mean…the youth in general don’t usually come out for elections,
its just a tiktok short away. it’ll also be much more efficient in telling them who to vote for than government tv channels were at any point
Plus…you’re talking about 9 year olds? Really? It’s absurd to make the argument that the group of youths a mere 1-2 years before the 18 year old adulthood designation gaining voting rights would be the same as 9 year old children gaining the right to vote.
obviously not. they were talking about taxpayers. everyone is a taxpayer when buying something in the shop. yes I see their edit now.
Great. Let the red pill kids vote.
As a young person that vividly remembers what I and people around me were like at that age, I really don’t think that we should have been allowed to vote. Optimal age for maturity would probably be around 20.
