Voting age reduction is not liberation

[DANAT4T]

I have no idea how reducing the voting age to 16 will lead to liberation. Society will not be better off just because 16 is seen as the right age anymore than those who said that 18 is correct. What about people younger than the 'appropriate' age. Political scientists have said that a younger age would not have changed the Brexit result. There has also been an outrage about 'young' men supposedly voting for Trump.
I hope more people will join me it calling out this particular 'liberation' scam.
Thank you

[Not Forever]

I believe that voting, in and of itself, should be a right, and honestly I don’t like the idea of something being tied to age. I’m skeptical of the notion that we would live in a better or worse society by denying or allowing the vote to certain categories of people. I know people who want young people to vote because they think they would vote left-wing; I know people who want to prevent older people from voting because they would vote right-wing or in favor of a welfare state that would ruin the nation, and so on… but to me these are pious illusions, since the voting tendencies of such groups can change from generation to generation. First and foremost, we are individuals; our age is a secondary characteristic.

If it were up to me, voting should be linked to paying taxes. Do you pay taxes in a given country? It doesn’t matter whether you were born there, it doesn’t matter if you’re an immigrant, etc.—you pay taxes, you pay for healthcare, you pay for education, you pay for the state, so you have the right to decide what happens to your money. So for me, the right to vote should be linked to work.

And in any case, this wouldn’t change anything in society; I simply like the logical reasoning behind it. And to me, within the concept of liberation, it could make sense to start untangling things from age.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

Representational democracy is meant to mean that the people in power represent all people within a society, including children and the elderly.
This only works if all people in society have a say in who is representing them. Arguably this is more important for young people since it's young people who inherit the results of today's policies. Why shouldn't a child have a voice? The argument that they don't understand the policies clear enough doesn't make sense since most adults don't either. Seriously, people are asked to make a choice on which party has the best economic policies when even economists can't agree? Or which party has the best military policies when most of what happens in the military is classified? You might as well ask people to decide on what the next incision should be for a surgeon performing brain surgery.

But we carry out this performance every 4 years. A group of ill-informed politicians peddle policies they think illiterate voters will like the sound of and give them another 4 years of ego stroking. The result is boom and bust economies, ever increasing levels of tax and ever more fractured societies all arguing whether their idiotic leader is better than the next persons idiotic leader.

I'm a parent and actually the sharpest political comments I hear usually come from my kids. I'm highly educated and work with highly educated people but when it comes to politics, honestly kids usually ask the sharpest questions and make the most clear and insightful statements. I don't see a valid reason for denying children any say in how they are governed. I think the reason they are not given any say is purely because they would see the nonsense spouted by politicians more clearly and hold them more accountable. A politician can say that coal and oil is good for the environment and I guarantee adult loyalists will be nodding in agreement at something obviously bs, but a young person would see it as nonsense and call it out.

And I disagree that Brexit would have been the same if 16 year olds could vote. There's no way to say that is the case. Most young people I know were anti-brexit but regardless, if 16 year olds were invited to vote then they would be invited to debate and discuss and debating societies and student groups were discussing both sides in the run-up to the vote so there would be informed people talking about both sides, discussing with older people and that would have an impact, whether it would swing left or right.

[Bookshelf]

I think focusing on the outcome of a reduced voting age in terms of policy is problematic when we're thinking of liberation. When debates around whether women should be allowed to vote were happening, would it have been rational to argue it's not a step in women's liberation just because polls suggest they might vote for the politicians/policies that you disagree with? You don't give people a right to vote because you want to manipulate voting outcomes.

Even if vote and referendum outcomes remain exactly as they are today, that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of reducing (or even abolishing) the voting age is to give youth a voice. We shouldn't deny their voice just because we don't like what they say.

[ReArm!]

I have no idea how reducing the voting age to 16 will lead to liberation. Society will not be better off just because 16 is seen as the right age anymore than those who said that 18 is correct. What about people younger than the 'appropriate' age. Political scientists have said that a younger age would not have changed the Brexit result. There has also been an outrage about 'young' men supposedly voting for Trump.
I hope more people will join me it calling out this particular 'liberation' scam.
Thank you

As a 16 year old myself, I think while it might not be full liberation, it's a step towards it. No freedom has been achieved fully all at once. And also, it makes sense for some governments to do that, simply because, at least in my country, you can work if you are at least 16, and therefore you are taxed, and I mean, if we follow the rule of "no taxation without representation",shouldn't I be able to vote since I have contributed to the state apparatus through my taxes?

Would it have been rational to argue it's not a step in women's liberation just because polls suggest they might vote for the politicians/policies that you disagree with?

And just to make a point, but yes, this was an actual argument used by the spanish left during the second spanish republic, which feared that women would be influenced by their priests and vote right wing.

[DANAT4T]

I think focusing on the outcome of a reduced voting age in terms of policy is problematic when we're thinking of liberation. When debates around whether women should be allowed to vote were happening, would it have been rational to argue it's not a step in women's liberation just because polls suggest they might vote for the politicians/policies that you disagree with? You don't give people a right to vote because you want to manipulate voting outcomes.

Even if vote and referendum outcomes remain exactly as they are today, that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of reducing (or even abolishing) the voting age is to give youth a voice. We shouldn't deny their voice just because we don't like what they say.

Emma Goldman predicted correctly that voting rights would not liberate women. She has been vindicated on most issues. Ayn Rand is also worth a mention.

[Bookshelf]

Emma Goldman predicted correctly that voting rights would not liberate women.

Emma Goldman was an anarchist that didn't just argue that women's suffrage wouldn't lead to liberation; she argued against the participation in politics from anyone period, including men.

I don't think it's accurate to say she "predicted correctly that voting rights would not liberate women" either, unless you're suggesting that the right to vote would mean liberation overnight. Women's suffrage meant that certain bills that would support women's growing independence were able to be passed. For example, the Maternity and Infancy Act of 1921 was passed in the US not long after women gained the right to vote; senator Wesley Jones, against the bill, complained at the time that the only reason it was being considered was because of "sentimental women's organizations". It's worth pointing out as well that maternity health bills had failed repeatedly in the past.

In our current political system, if you let a group vote, you allow that group to exert pressure on the government. You don't solve problems overnight, but you make a wedge that lets you put more pressure on representatives that rely on your vote to keep their seat.

And even if it doesn't, that doesn't matter; if anything, the reality that it can't change— or can't get any worse— is an even stronger argument for just letting a group vote. What's the reason not to at that point? Even Goldman was supportive of equal rights between men and women in the context of living in a defunct representative voting system, purely on the basis that if men can do something, so should women.

Letting youth vote isn't necessarily about changing policy. If it changes policy, great; if it doesn't, then it doesn't. It's about letting them do something that everyone else can do, on the basis that they are human beings and they deserve the same rights.

[DANAT4T]

Emma Goldman was an anarchist that didn't just argue that women's suffrage wouldn't lead to liberation; she argued against the participation in politics from anyone period, including men.

I don't think it's accurate to say she "predicted correctly that voting rights would not liberate women" either, unless you're suggesting that the right to vote would mean liberation overnight. Women's suffrage meant that certain bills that would support women's growing independence were able to be passed. For example, the Maternity and Infancy Act of 1921 was passed in the US not long after women gained the right to vote; senator Wesley Jones, against the bill, complained at the time that the only reason it was being considered was because of "sentimental women's organizations". It's worth pointing out as well that maternity health bills had failed repeatedly in the past.

In our current political system, if you let a group vote, you allow that group to exert pressure on the government. You don't solve problems overnight, but you make a wedge that lets you put more pressure on representatives that rely on your vote to keep their seat.

And even if it doesn't, that doesn't matter; if anything, the reality that it can't change— or can't get any worse— is an even stronger argument for just letting a group vote. What's the reason not to at that point? Even Goldman was supportive of equal rights between men and women in the context of living in a defunct representative voting system, purely on the basis that if men can do something, so should women.

Letting youth vote isn't necessarily about changing policy. If it changes policy, great; if it doesn't, then it doesn't. It's about letting them do something that everyone else can do, on the basis that they are human beings and they deserve the same rights.
[/quote]
Ayn Rand was right about feminists.

[JGHeaven]

Everyone should have a right to vote. If they don't have a right to vote then they shouldn't feel bound by the decision made around them.
I don't see any reasonable argument for denying children any say in how they live. Another group (adults) has determined that children lack the capacity to make reasonable decisions and so are abusing their position of authority to deny children a voice. Well adults often lack reason also, if we're using reason to determine who can vote then we have to leave it with a small number of experts to make decisions, or to some AI that is pure reason.

Democracy though is about everyone having a voice, it doesn't limit rights based on intellect or education or reasoming abilities. A crazy weed smoking conspiracy theorist has the same level of decision making as a highly educated economist. The idea that children alone should be denied a voice based on mental development makes a mockery of democracy and removes the capstone of respecting all members of a society.

[DANAT4T]

Everyone should have a right to vote. If they don't have a right to vote then they shouldn't feel bound by the decision made around them.
I don't see any reasonable argument for denying children any say in how they live. Another group (adults) has determined that children lack the capacity to make reasonable decisions and so are abusing their position of authority to deny children a voice. Well adults often lack reason also, if we're using reason to determine who can vote then we have to leave it with a small number of experts to make decisions, or to some AI that is pure reason.

Democracy though is about everyone having a voice, it doesn't limit rights based on intellect or education or reasoming abilities. A crazy weed smoking conspiracy theorist has the same level of decision making as a highly educated economist. The idea that children alone should be denied a voice based on mental development makes a mockery of democracy and removes the capstone of respecting all members of a society.

What if the majority vote for restrict the rights of the individual. The opposition to the Brexit vote was based on supremacist beliefs that leave voters were 'old' and 'stupid'. They were also labeled 'racist'. Everybody deserves rights regardless of age but youth rights should not be youth supremacy. We do not want a real life example of Login's Run.