But what shall we say when the 14 year olds start complaining? — Ludwig V

Let them vote too? The exact age threshold is pretty arbitrary. Someone who's 14 is not expected to analyse literature, write a discursive essay, or read and interpret a graph though. 15-16 seems about right to me for a threshold standard.

I'm not saying that you ought to be able to do these things to vote - most adults can't or won't when forming their opinions -, I'm saying that these things are benchmarks of development. It being justified to expect someone to have ability to do these things makes it a suitable threshold, whether they actually can or do on an individual basis is a different issue.

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

Do you mean that someone will have to write these tests of competence - with the issue that a miracle of dispassionate objectivity would be needed? The history of tests of voter competence is, how shall I put it, compromised.

Someone who's 14 is not expected to analyse literature, write a discursive essay, or read and interpret a graph though. — fdrake

Is that because they can't, or because we don't ask them to?

I'm not saying that you ought to be able to do these things to vote — fdrake

Wouldn't it make more sense to test for what you are looking for. Awareness and balanced judgement of public affairs. Such tests as these can't give us what we want. They can't provide an objective, impartial, accurate qualification for voting. It has to be fully automatic and undoubtedly will be rough and ready.

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

That seems reasonable. But once you have set that criterion, doesn't elementary justice mean that it should be applied to voters of all ages?

There is a big difference between 16 and 18 yrs of age. — I like sushi

Sure. But the question is whether that difference makes a difference. Given that the system is very rough and ready, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that it does not. Intellectually, we're on a slippery slope and political views are, of course, in play.

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

I will share my experience. At the age of 15-16, I was very indignant at the fact that my vote was not taken into account in the elections, because as it seemed to me then, I understood the world better than these "idiots" around me, who are 40 or more years old. After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45?

If a 16 year old is considered within the custody of his parents, would the parents be required to permit him to vote if that right were afforded him? Do they have a duty to get him to the polls? Can they withhold his vote to punish him for some offense? Can he only vote with the consent of his parents like in other instances (military and marriage) when they wish to be adult like at earlier ages?

Wouldn't it make more sense to test for what you are looking for. — Ludwig V

Policy wise I don't think so. Voting exams are bad news.

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. — Punshhh

Yes, and socialism too!

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-country

https://www.boerneraadet.dk/english/

Also found out that there's a bi-annual "children's congress" for children with type 1 diabetes in the states. Something interesting to note there is that the children don't have a right to vote but they can still participate in the process if there's some sort of organization to facilitate lobbying.. Funnily enough that's probably more effective than granting the right to vote carte blanche to children.

Overall, though, I tend to think children have more to offer the world in terms of their own needs than given credit for. The best way to teach responsibility is to make someone responsible for something and follow through. If you forgo all "irresponsible" decisions until 25, like the United Arab Emirates according to the link above, then you'll have no practice in being an adult until 25. Then you'll be the equivalent of an 18 year old who has likewise not experienced adulthood yet.

Also I think adults make much ado about their own strengths. If a person is impulsive all the way into their middle age then something tells me that they're not going to "reform" into proper property-owning responsible citizens that can make clear decisions in national affairs. They're just as confused as the rest of the world.

But the real reason to give people the right to vote is because they have a right to voice their own interests as they see fit. It's about giving them power as a universal right, not ensuring that they are meritocratic enough to wield power.

On the other hand, one argument for keeping children away from voting might be that it gives them the opportunity to live their formative years without being inured to state dependency, serfdom, and the utter farce that is electoral politics and representative government. They can learn to form their own bonds and organizations rather than having them hoisted upon them by some oligarchy. Sure, the desensitization to that power dynamic begins early enough in public education, but not having the fetish of representation and the fantasy that we can vote ourselves to a better world might help foster the self-governance required to do what's right in such a deranged system.

Sure. But the question is whether that difference makes a difference. Given that the system is very rough and ready, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that it does not. Intellectually, we're on a slippery slope and political views are, of course, in play. — Ludwig V

It is unreasonable to assume something when there is plenty of hard scientific evidence showing how adolescent brains are far less risk averse, immature in term of planning, managing emotions and delay gratification.

It is not exactly 'They gave me candy, so I will vote for them!' but it is not that far off this either when we are talking about the difference between 16 and 18 yr olds, let alone older.

When I was 18 and able to vote I knew I did not know enough so I voted for the Lib Dems in order to provide myself with choices in the future. I have not voted since and no longer live in the UK.

After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45? — Astorre

I can fully relate to this. I think 40 is when you get to point of reasonable balance (as they say, life begins at 40), but 30 is probably a reasonable number too.

One thing I am certain about. Teenagers are not at all clued into anything in any real sense. Maybe a handful are specialised and have had experience in certain areas, but this is more likely to bite them back in the future due to having tunnel vision for one particular facet of life.

We all know we are all stupid. and stupider still when younger. Why fan the flames of political ignorance?

We all know we are all stupid — I like sushi

Since we understand this, maybe it's better to give the right to vote to those who consider themselves smart at the age of 16? :lol:

What about dumb adults, or sheeple? — Punshhh

Outbreed and out-vote them.

:up: :up:

We all know we are all stupid, and stupider still when younger. Why fan the flames of political ignorance? — I like sushi

So true. :smirk:

Policy wise I don't think so. Voting exams are bad news. — fdrake

Yes. I know. But I thought it was a theoretical discussion.

It is unreasonable to assume something when there is plenty of hard scientific evidence showing how adolescent brains are far less risk averse, immature in term of planning, managing emotions and delay gratification. — I like sushi

I didn't suggest assuming anything. On the contrary, I suggested evaluating the information and making a decision on that basis. I'm also suggesting that If you are so worried about 16-year-olds voting on the wrong criteria, you look at all the other voters who do the same thing.

Why fan the flames of political ignorance? — I like sushi

I propose the following turn in the discussion:

Will the elections of sixteen-year-old voters, subordinated to school, algorithms, and the whispers of the media, diverge so radically from the opinions of older voters, entangled in the same web?

maybe the point is that young minds require less effort to influence, more easily succumbing to the discourses of power, or are capable of increasing turnout?

And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions?

Aren't we, by arguing, weaving that very web, mistaking its next knot for a riot?

Eh. Even if anarchy is the goal -- learning political participation at the representative level can pave the way to being able to judge the difference between various political ideologies, but in practice.

It's not like we just get to avoid the state existing because we have ideals of something better. It's as necessary to deal with as farming methods and so forth.

I lean toward voting being tied to meaningful engagement—like taking part in a social scheme, whether that’s volunteering, community service, or some form of national or civic contribution. It’s not about gatekeeping, but about encouraging participation before decision-making. Voting isn’t just ticking a box—it’s shaping the system. So it makes sense to ask: have you stepped into it before you help steer it?

It's interesting. I can see through social media that opinions (primarily among young males) have shifted toward Reform Britain. Obviously, a good number of these boys are just being influenced by the stigma that RB has attached to illegal immigrants, but there are several diehard youths genuinely standing behind the cause.

I'll be affected by this, as I turn 16 in two months. I would just recommend that young men carefully consider their politics and only vote if they are well informed.

Maybe my tone came across wrong. Was just driving home the point that there is conclusive evidence. That said, there is the problem of determining a reasonable age. From 18 to 16 is perhaps a bigger leap than people realise.

Would be better return to 1969 where the minimum age was 21 imo.

More broadly I look at this as being about experience combined with knowledge. As referred to by previous replies here, we often think we are more capable than we really are, and only with accumulated wisdom do we realise that when we thought we had a good grasp of life it turns out we were quite deeply in error - often in more than a singular aspect of human living.

And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions? — Astorre

I would like to add something to this. Broadly speaking Popper was doing part anthropology and part philosophy when talking about Open and Closed society. I have often found it useful to look at an individual human life and view it as a blueprint of human evolution both biologically, and in the abstract, poltically.

So, when we are born we experience Closed Society. Infants do not question or ask, they simply live according to their biological requirements and remain largely passive. As we develop into adulthood there is a transitionary period where Open Society comes into play. In loose terms we could use Piaget's developmental markers to show how this works. If I recall correctly (probably not) children have gone through the required stages of cognitive development by age 7 or so (?), so you may ask why not set voting age to 7 yrs old.

Just because someone is equipped wioth certain tools it does not mean they know how to use them. Plus, adolescence is when broader socio-political capability are just beginning to flourish. A teenager (13-19) has one foot in Closed Society and one foot in Open Society. They are open to any new ideas, understand the rational use of them, but have yet to hone the skill to compare and contrast.

Contrary to everything I have said there are some interesting perpsective against my position. Neoteny may look liek something that backs up my claim but it has been suggested that modern life requires retention of behavioural traits in juveniles, as it allows for better adaptation in an increasingly complex social environment.

I am by no means saying outright that either view is all bad or all good. I just see some moves made in politics as being about gaining immediate votes rather than creating a better system. This was very much the case with the collaboration between Lib Dems and Conservatives all those years ago where the amount of propaganda flooding the media ruined the referendum for reform that the Lib Dems had in mind. It was one time where Labour and The Conservatives joined forces as it was mutually benefical for them to keep the current system.

Beyond the cyncism of politicking though, there are some interesting questions regarding who qualifies to vote and - more importantly - finding a happy medium that balances out the best selective processes in a practical sense. Here again we find the issue tha both Popper and Berlin talked about, with Berlin's Pluralism showing the aarduous journey all civil society faces between the balancing of common and disperate interests that will alamost always conflict in some unexpected manner - hence Negative Liberty being the favoured choice for Berlin, rather than radical revolutionary movements.

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. — fdrake

First, I would say that this whole question turns on whether they are an adult. "They can do X, Y, and Z; therefore they are an adult; therefore they should be able to vote." I don't think it makes much sense to deny the 16 year-old adulthood and then claim they should be able to vote.

Second, I don't remotely agree that 16 year-olds are no less politically savvy. I would say "Political savvy" has little to do with debating and reading your favorite news sources . It has to do with understanding the rationale behind societal decision-making, which begins in the family. The reason adults have the political wherewithal to vote is because the family life they lead is a microcosm of the polis. More simply and broadly, we are thinking about the age at which one's decisions are on a par with other citizens (e.g. able to legally contract, consent, etc.).

In any case, I think any good argument has to be based on adulthood. The reason the age of majority was lowered from 21 to 18 in the U.S. was largely because 18 year-olds could serve in the military. It was the same idea. The argument that military service entails adulthood is very strong.

I just see some moves made in politics as being about gaining immediate votes rather than creating a better system. — I like sushi

Yes, indeed. I suspect that motive is very much present in this case.

It was one time where Labour and The Conservatives joined forces as it was mutually benefical for them to keep the current system. — I like sushi

Yes. Getting those in power to vote for something that will make their lives more difficult is not easy. IMO, In 2010 the Libdems, once they were in coalition, realized that they might one day get power without PR. They accepted a feeble compromise rather than put their power-sharing deal on the line.

Here again we find the issue tha both Popper and Berlin talked about, — I like sushi

Yes. They both make a lot of sense to me.

Would be better return to 1969 where the minimum age was 21 imo. — I like sushi

One reason I didn't much like that reform was precisely because of the slippery slope. But that works both ways. I don't see a good reason for not raising the age of majority to 25, for all the reasons that you give for not reducing it to 16. Impossible in practice, I know. On the other hand, I don't think it matters very much, so long as there is consensus, or at least acquiescence, and the system works reasonably well.

Infants do not question or ask, they simply live according to their biological requirements and remain largely passive. — I like sushi

Infants don't have a lot of power. But they don't hesitate to use what they do have, in my experience. Children are always pushing at the boundaries. Just like adults.

The argument that military service entails adulthood is very strong. — Leontiskos

Yes, it is, if you are thinking of volunteering. It's a life-and-death decision. Conscription is different. There's an ambivalence here between the soldiers as heroic defenders laying their lives on the line and soldiers as cannon-fodder.

Yes, it is, if you are thinking of volunteering. It's a life-and-death decision. Conscription is different. There's an ambivalence here between the soldiers as heroic defenders laying their lives on the line and soldiers as cannon-fodder. — Ludwig V

I guess conscription is different if we think it is okay to conscript children, but I don't think that. It seems as though conscription also entails adulthood.

There was a very, very bad and very, very wonderful movie back in the late 60s or early 70s called “Wild in the Streets”. In it, the voting age was reduced to 12 and anyone over 30 was put in camps where they were given psychedelic drugs to keep them passive.

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Sound similar to Logan's Run. Mostly cuz of the 30-year-old cutoff for their society, and that it's also a bad and wonderful scifi flick. (1976)

I guess conscription is different if we think it is okay to conscript children, but I don't think that. It seems as though conscription also entails adulthood. — Leontiskos

I don't think conscription is OK. Period. Nobody likes it, not even the army. If you have to force someone to join the army (or navy, air force, whatever) they are somewhat unlikely to make good soldiers, beyond getting lined up to be shot at. But it is a fact of life.
I think my point was that if you are prepared to conscript soldiers, you have already abandoned ethical thinking beyond your own survival. Questions of adulthood or not have been set aside.

I think my point was that if you are prepared to conscript soldiers, you have already abandoned ethical thinking beyond your own survival. Questions of adulthood or not have been set aside. — Ludwig V

Well the notion of in extremis is a central part of ethics, and I don't see why one couldn't be ethically prepared to accept conscription while at the same time being ethically unprepared to accept the conscription of children. It's not as if anyone who favors conscription therefore cannot distinguish between conscripting adults and conscripting children.

Well the notion of in extremis is a central part of ethics, and I don't see why one couldn't be ethically prepared to accept conscription while at the same time being ethically unprepared to accept the conscription of children. — Leontiskos

I don't disagree with that. The problems with conscription are partly ethical and partly practical. So conscription even of adults is a step over the line. Conscription of children is worse than conscription of adults. All I'm saying is that in time of war, ethics often comes under pressure and people often step over the line rather than lose. Perhaps they may justify it as the lesser of two evils - and others may well disagree.

- :up:

I'll be affected by this, as I turn 16 in two months. I would just recommend that young men carefully consider their politics and only vote if they are well informed. — Jotaro

Nice to have someone so young here. Do you believe everyone should be able to vote when they are 16? What is your individual perspective on the matter considering you are perhaps closer to understanding the general view of the 16 yr olds you know.

I guess conscription is different if we think it is okay to conscript children, but I don't think that. It seems as though conscription also entails adulthood. — Leontiskos

Would be nice to see minimum age for army as 90 yrs old ;)

Oh you don't need to explain Britain Trump to me, I get it. But the goal, in my opinion, when determining voter eligibility policy isn't to try to exclude legally competent simpletons, rather to include all competent adults and separately cultivate a robust education system and media. Which worked well... until the Interweb put any ol' crackpot on the same visibility as professional journalism. That plus algorithms that forward incrementally more extreme sites to generate clicks.