this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
225 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10178 readers
221 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Good for them; hope it works.

There is not a single argument against lowering the voting age that holds water.

Try it for yourself: think of any argument against it. "But what if they..." fill in the blank. And then realize old people already do that and we don't require them not to.

"They don't understand the issues!" MF'er, do you? "The Issues" is such a vague, broad, and nebulous term that you could use this to argue that anybody who can't reproduce your exact opinions on demand "doesn't understand the issues." And here's the thing: you're not required to. Old people can vote literally by throwing darts at a board and not be disenfranchised for it.

"They'll just vote for a celebrity." Young people didn't have the vote when Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse "the Body" Ventura, or Donald fucking Trump got elected to office. Hell, old people elected former actor Ronald Reagan and 40-odd years later we still haven't recovered from the damage he did to the country and probably never will.

"They'll vote for whoever is good-looking." Disregarding that literally nobody on earth is that shallow, young people didn't have the vote when Kennedy got elected.

"They'll vote for whoever their parents do." One would hope so; that's called "instilling values" and it's something most families strive for.

"They'll vote against whoever their parents do!" Disregarding that this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" logical-fallacy-circlejerk... one would hope so; that's called "establishing your own identity" and it's something most people should strive for.

And on and on. Every argument against lowering or even abolishing the voting age is like this. Either its a non-issue being made to sound like a catastrophe, or its something that old people already do and we don't take away their rights for it.

[–] CoderKat@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I also like to draw analogies to other age restrictions. If they're allowed to drive a car, literally the most dangerous thing they can do in terms of causes of death, then how can they not be responsible enough to vote for their leaders?

We also have no qualms about sentencing 16 year olds as adults if they commit a bad enough crime. This one strikes me as society knowing 16 year olds are perfectly capable of being responsible but we just give them a bit more leeway.

And personally, I've met plenty of 16 year olds that are better informed about politics than a number of adults I know.

[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am so happy to find people like you here in fediverse. (I'm viewing this from kbin; not sure where you are; doesn't matter! Here we are. It's great.) I've been absolutely crucified on Reddit for posting pro-youth sentiments. It feels like most of society treats young people like dangerous aliens or something. So to find a friendly voice so quickly is really uplifting.

[–] DreamerofDays@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Some of it is distrust of young people. Some of it is a slavish devotion to “the rules” or “the way ~~it’s always been~~ I’ve always known it to be”.

I don’t get the former, and I’m doing my best to never settle for “the rules” as an answer without those rules being grounded and justifiable.

[–] AnalogyAddict@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Driving a car carries immediate physical consequences, something much easier to grasp than abstract consequences.

We don't dump everything on them at once, because each step of adulthood and personal responsibility is hard.

[–] alanine96@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure, and this is another gradation of voting; this would only be for local and school elections, which can have pretty immediate consequences for teens. In fact, 16 year olds (and others around that age) are the best positioned to have a say about school board policy, because they have been and currently are directly affected.

I do appreciate your perspective that a 'stepwise' system of adulthood can have huge benefits. I think this proposal actually fits quite nicely into it. They aren't voting for president; they're voting for the who will run the place they spend 8 hours per day.

[–] AnalogyAddict@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe it depends on where you live. Currently, our local politics is poorly attended. I shudder to think of the average local teen making community decisions. Among other things, we would end up with no police and my community is already stained for police presence (though some would consider that an advantage, I live too close to a high school to be comfy with that.) I'm guessing in more affluent areas, that might not be a big of a risk, but it definitely is here. Most teens here don't traditionally work anyways.

Voting within their school, sure. But not at the community level.

[–] alanine96@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Hmm, yeah, I think we have fundamentally different positions if you see the average teen voting for less policing to be ill informed or disastrous. I don't mean this in a snarky way, I mean I think we would have a lot of ground to cover before agreeing on this point one way or another.

The one thing I would consider is you probably don't know what the average teen in your community thinks, because they do not have a political voice. Sure, they can attend community council meetings, but why do that when they aren't able to choose who sits on that council? Teens being disengaged from community issues and teens not being able to have input on community issues are fundamentally linked.

[–] AnalogyAddict@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with school, just disagree with local community voting. They don't own or rent homes, and therefore have near-zero consequence for the outcome.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This. For all the bad votes young people may cast, I can hardly imagine them doing any worse than the adults have already done. I'm almost 40, and I am bitterly disappointed in my peers.

But let's be honest. The real objection to letting young people vote is that they might vote left-wing. Every other objection is just a dog whistle for that one.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

“They don’t understand the issues!”

I love how right-wingers make the argument that young people are too dumb to vote and only adults are smart enough, but when ranked-choice/approval/etc voting reform is the issue at hand, they make the exact opposite argument—that adults are too dumb to understand the new voting system!

And how is that even a bad thing? If some people can't even understand how to vote, they definitely can't understand the issues they're voting on.

[–] AnalogyAddict@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

It's not whataboutism. I'm guessing you've never raised a teen?

I'm personally surprised by how important it has been to my child to chop up learning adulthood into small pieces. It's a lot to take on all at once, and functioning adults take their knowledge for granted.