What do you think is the best age to allow for voting. — I like sushi

21 or 25.

Although there are always exceptions to the rule, I think the span should be between that range of ages because it is when the people (the vast majority) start to be more mature because they have already gotten into adult life.

When you have taken part in some social scheme? — I like sushi

Well, I think we all take part in society from the very first day we are born. We are born having rights, and the government or the public administration has the commitment to help us out. It is very different from taking part in politics actively. I have had the right to vote since I was 18, but I barely used that right because politics are not interesting to me. Nonetheless, I am part of society in other ways: when I pay for using public transport or when I visit the doctor.

What do you think. — I like sushi

That age is used by the politicians depending on the circumstances.

I agree with the government that it is time to reduce the voting age to 16. But more importantly, democracy and the role it plays in our nation should be taught in schools. So as the educate the electorate to at least understand and articulate the basic principles and pitfalls of voting and what is at stake.

This is needed now because social media is having a deleterious effect on democracy. With people being convinced to vote in certain ways as a result of lies and populism.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies.

Fully agree regarding a basic education in how democracies function.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies. — I like sushi

"When asked which party they would vote for, ITV News' poll showed 33% said they would vote Labour, followed by 20% who said they’d choose Reform, while 18% would vote Green, 12% Liberal Democrats and only 10% said they’d vote Conservative".

I don't know if you'd call the little mentioned Green Party a populist party, but I take your point.

It's certainly a leftwards slant. Could it be that all of our values come from our heart, and our heart hardens with age?

It's certainly a leftwards slant. Could it be that all of our values come from our heart, and our heart hardens with age? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It is well known that as we age we tilt more towards conservatism, which makes perfect sense when you think about it really.

My concern is more or less that I do not regard myself as anywhere near being clued up on living life until I was 40 yrs old let alone 18 or 21. I absolutely believed I had a reasonable grasp on what the world was about in my 20's but there is simply no substitute for lived experience.

A more viable system for me would be a gradual increase in influence with age and experience. I am not completely against a 16 yr old voting, but I do not think their vote should weigh in the same as someone my age.

Whatever system is in place will inevitably fall short ... but I guess that is precisely what democracy is about. We fall short, over shoot, and keep trying to correct.

A more viable system for me would be a gradual increase in influence with age and experience. I am not completely against a 16 yr old voting, but I do not think their vote should weigh in the same as someone my age. — I like sushi

I'm sceptical that experience acquired through age is as valuable as intelligence and economic literacy.

If we go down that road, shouldn't intelligence and economic literacy be taken into account. To avoid the hassle of doing tests, it could be done by standard of education?

Even giving more of a vote based on age, the less the results are what the majority prefer - there's less democracy.

I should say, that as someone that is fairly young, I could be underestimating experience acquired through age. I have been told this before, and ironically this could be something that I have to learn through experience acquired through age.

The PM's comments don't suggest that working, paying taxing, or serving in the armed forces are conditions that must first be met to vote, but just states that if society already treats 16 year olds as adults for other purposes, then to be consistent, they should also be allowed to vote.

Your suggestions are more problematic because they impose potential voting tests, enfranchising only those that meet certain criteria beyond just age and citizenship. Historically, those sorts of tests have eliminated the least powerful and traditioanally most discriminated classes from the voting rolls.

The age of majority is necessarily arbitrary, and I'm fine with it being 18. I do know that those underage can serve in the military and get married and do other adult activities, but that typically requires parental consent. Whether it ought be 16 and not 18, I suppose an argument could be made either way, but 16 just sounds awfully young to vote or to serve in the military.

16 just sounds awfully young to vote or to serve in the military. — Hanover

I agree, especially in a world where maturity seems to be decreasing rather than increasing. To take one simple example, what is the average age that people have children now as compared to 40 years ago? 16 year-olds seem to be less mature than they were in the recent past.

Your suggestions are more problematic because they impose potential voting tests, enfranchising only those that meet certain criteria beyond just age and citizenship. — Hanover

I do not believe in voting tests. I marked it as something people often express.

My view is a limiting factor that scales with age. Maybe something like a 16 yr olds vote counts as 1 vote whilst someone 30+ counts as 2 votes. In a more complex system I would have people's age reflect more heavily on different policies, but that would require a somewhat clunky system.

All in all, I think education can help people of all ages to acquire a better perspective from which to vote according to their beliefs, desires and needs.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies.

I understand this, but in my experience the most likely demographic falling prey to populist ideology in the U.K. are the boomers, ages 60-80 years of age. Although I am aware that there is an issue with young men being easily captured by Reform. This doesn’t seem to follow with young women, who lean more to Greens, with some to Labour and some to Lib Dems.
On balance I think those young voters are slightly less vulnerable, so reducing the age to 16 is a positive move, provided the schooling is implemented at the same time.

If the boomers had had the equivalent education when they were young, I think they would now be less vulnerable.

Personally, I was always going to vote Green from the age of about 15. What annoyed me is when I first voted at 19, there wasn’t a Green candidate on my ballot.

All in all, I think education can help people of all ages to acquire a better perspective from which to vote according to their beliefs, desires and needs. — I like sushi

I'm obviously a huge advocate for education for education's sake, this being a philosophy forum and all, but unfortunately education is not what creates better people and better voters

education is not what creates better people and better voters — Hanover

Not perfectly, predictably, or uniformly, no. Not every time, not on every occasion. But surely lack of education is what creates worse people or at the very least perpetuates everything that plagues mankind ensuring it will remain with us for all time only worsening the state of society in perpetuity. So. at the very least, I'd suggest it (education) certainly doesn't hurt. Perhaps you're referencing strictly technical data (how to build a super weapon, for example) as opposed to emotional intelligence and social understanding (why and when not to use said weapon in the first place).

Let everyone vote. Cradle-to-the-grave government requires cradle-to-the-grave participation, so why not?

Speaking broadly I view education as a means of reading people for their real education. Education for me is about people learning how to educate themselves rather than fill a gap in the job market.

Exposure is of importance in early development.

All said and done mayeb we will see teenagers start to take a more serious interest in world affairs? Somehow, even if they do, I do not think they are capable of really grasping more far reaching topics simply because they are more focused on short term goals rather than long term.

For the US I think the optimal voting age range for federal & state elections (re: legally eligible citizens) is 30-70.

:up: :up:

. . . but just states that if society already treats 16 year olds as adults for other purposes, then to be consistent, they should also be allowed to vote. — Hanover

OK, kids, let's head to the liquor store! And let's permit consensual sex for girls at that age. Oh. and let's bring back the draft, this time for 16 year olds.

Because simply offering more candy to a baby is offering candy to a baby. Young adults have similar inbuilt biases regarding immediate pay-off versus long-term consequences. That said, it could be argued that the vast majority of the population is made up of more senior citizens so perhaps some form of temporary balance would be ideal?

But more importantly, democracy and the role it plays in our nation should be taught in schools. — Punshhh

It is.
Citizenship programmes of study: key stages 3 and 4 National curriculum in England

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults.

Thanks for the link, that’s interesting. I think they need a new section focussing on the use of social media and the rise of populism.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults. — LuckyR

Biological (or external and outward) maturity =/= intellectual or mental (inward or internal) maturity. Numerous studies attest to this fact. The state or quality of, basically just "not being dangerously insane" which is essentially all "legal competence" is these days, seems hardly a profound or reliable measure of judgement, to be quite honest.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults.

What about dumb adults, or sheeple?
Here in the U.K. there is a large cohort who still subscribe to political vibes from about 40years ago. Often described as Essex man, or Mondeo man. This cohort handfistedly drove us off the cliff of Brexit and elected Boris Johnson. And now, they are lining up to elect Nigel Farage, Britain Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_man

Not so much of a democracy then.

Not everyone is equal. If the means of a political voting system is to create a stable society in which people can flourish this means dependance comes at the cost of responsibility.

Democracy is an idea only. The practical application of any governmental system has to compete with the reality that faces it. If we create a poltical body that is increasingly dependent upon the short-term whim of inexperienced minds - who are biologically driven by a myopic perspective - then I fear for the long-term future. Of course, mayeb a fresh and naive perspective is just what is needed? Who knows?

Either way, our intuitions will lead us on more than our knowledge. When they meet each other then we have a period of relative harmony and peace (like now). Current societal changes do seem to have us at a very imnportant juncture in human civilization. Will be interesting to see how things pan out.

If we create a poltical body that is increasingly dependent upon the short-term whim of inexperienced minds - who are biologically driven by a myopic perspective - then I fear for the long-term future. — I like sushi

That's been the classic arguments against democracy since the Athenian expedition to Sicily 415-413 BCE. Plato builds a political philosophy around it.
The classic reply is the Latin proverb "The voice of the people is the voice of God". This means that if you create a political body that is increasingly dependent on the short-tem interests of a small group - who are driven primarily by their own short-term interests at the expense of everyone else - then you should fear for the long-term future.
I'm sure you know who I'm looking at. I leave it to you to work out which is closer to our situation.

BTW. I've always seen "vox populi, vox dei" attributed to Cardinal Bellarmine. But apparently it is much older than that. Wikipedia cites a letter from Alcuin of York to Charlemagne in 798 CE as "an early reference".

Either way, our intuitions will lead us on more than our knowledge. When they meet each other then we have a period of relative harmony and peace (like now). — I like sushi

Yes. People do seem to focus on the fact that there has not been a world war since 1944. Whether it is appropriate, on that ground, to call the last 80 years a period of relative harmony and peace is not obvious to me. But I do agree that we seem to be in a particularly critical and unstable time. We live interesting times, unfortunately.

Specifically, teenagers are not mentally equipped to plan long-term. Adults are more prone to diliberate and attend to long-term consequences.

The prefrontal cortex needs to develop. This is not something we can simply dismiss.

Let 'em vote. Adults are no more politically savvy than mid to late teenagers. 13 year olds can do well at debate club. Most adults can't.

If you want to make sure a person is fully biologically mature before they do any of these Big Stakes Decisions {tm}, you're waiting until they're 25 and their brain development stops. That's 25 before they can vote, join the military, imbibe substances etc. It's fully consistent to prohibit people doing these things until they reach those ages, but you end up postponing participation in society until... the person's capacity for neuroplasticity has gone down. That's a recipe for social disengagement and long term ills, we need to adapt to those responsibilities and the stakes in society they grant.

In the case that you end up allowing some participations prior to full maturation, that opens the door for case by case reasoning. Is there any compelling reason to believe a 16 year old is insufficiently intellectually developed to vote when they're sufficiently intellectually developed to do complex jobs, analyse literature, read a graph... I doubt it. Let them vote it'll be good for them.

The prefrontal cortex needs to develop. This is not something we can simply dismiss. — I like sushi

If I've got it right, the prefrontal cortex doesn't stop developing until around 25. So that ship sailed long, long ago.

Yes, it is true that younger people are more prone to impulsive behaviour. But older people are prone to rigid views that have become inappropriate.
Perhaps then we should not simply dismiss the mental decay that sets in later on in life. Where would you put your cut-off?

The difficulty is that, if you are interested in the competence of people, there is no age at which everybody becomes competent. It is a gradual process. I'm sure that there are 16/17 year olds who are not well qualified to decide on the next Government as well as some that are. The same is true of the loss of competence at the other end of life. I agree also with the remark "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

If you are going to assess the competence of voters, then you should assess all voters, of any age - and, preferably, convince them that your assessment is correct. Good luck with that.

Democracy may not the best way to select the people who are to govern. But it is the best way of ensuring that those who cannot govern (that is, at least keep the peace) are, in the end, thrown out. Popper, in "The Open Society" is very keen on this point. He's not wrong. An election is much less damaging than a revolution.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.… — "Churchill

Enough said, I think.

Let them vote it'll be good for them. — fdrake

Quite. I can't see that they will wreck the overall result.
But what shall we say when the 14 year olds start complaining?

If I've got it right, the prefrontal cortex doesn't stop developing until around 25. So that ship sailed long, long ago. — Ludwig V

There is a big difference between 16 and 18 yrs of age. Anyone with basic life experience knows this. The development of the prefrontal cortex effects numerous areas of cognitive behaviour. It is not only about long and short term planning. That was one item of concern.

Note: I might be more in favour of increasing the age from 18 to 25 than lowering it from 18 to 16 tbh. The difference in developmental progress is seriously stacked in earlier years of neurogenesis.

As for senile dementia, I see no reason they should still be able to vote.

"Yesterday I didn't know there was a curriculum, and today I'm writing it".

That's how it works.