About two years ago now, I was sitting on a bench in Central Park writing my initial thoughts on what I didn’t know then but would come to know as Youth Rights.

I don’t think I’ll ever remember why she did, but about halfway through the day Greta Thunberg came to mind, and I looked up the voting age in Sweden. And my blood boiled in a way I’ve never experienced in my entire life.

16 years old and one of the most famous and recognizable political activists in the world. 16 years old giving a confident, impassioned, admonishing speech to the fucking UN. 16 years old with no legal right to a voice in her country. No voice to vote for the policies she believed in or the people who might enact them.

My writing, already vitriolic to a fault, managed to become even moreso but with the topic abruptly switched to voting. For the first time in my life, I considered where I’d place the voting age if I could do so unilaterally. Not long into considering it I had a thought that I wrote down immediately, a question I’ve asked well over 100 times at this point with no substantial answer:

When is it reasonable to say to a person, ‘If you’re not at least this old, then I don’t give a fuck what you think’?

And from the moment I had that thought, I have been unable to place the voting age.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I could see some kind of arrangement where the age would be something reasonable like 16-18, but then there is a test you can write (basic civics questions eg. who are the candidates, what does the legislative branch do, etc.) and if you pass that test, kind of like a learner’s permit for driving, you can vote even if you’re under that age, down to a hard cutoff of like 13.

    • hellabryanstyle@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve had this exact same thought in response to the logic that the voting age was lowered to 18 during Vietnam so that 18yos could vote for a president who might draft them. But that logic extends to 14yos who may end up being drafted at 18 during the president’s term.

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s an interesting take but with our term lengths that means a 15y can vote for president and senator but can’t vote for a house rep.

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Any age after passing a basic high school civics test with retesting intervals, age isn’t the thing you’re selecting for it’s the cognitive ability to understand what the government is and how it operates that would be necessary to choose who leads and represents citizens in that organization. We use ages as an approximation instead of doing the work of testing but it may be a poor shortcut.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maybe, but also maybe not. A test that’s targeted specifically at “do you understand how the government functions” is actually quite different from a lot of other tests and less likely to be subjective.

        Like, if there was a question, what part of the government writes laws:

        • Congress
        • The President
        • The Supreme Court

        if you get that wrong, you probably shouldn’t be voting.

        • ultranaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          You should take a look at how simple civics tests have already been used in the US election system. It did not go well.

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just did a refresher per your request… We did not ever to my knowledge use civics tests. We used literacy tests and what made them particularly offensive was they had various exemptions for white people or simplified variants for white people.

            I am very icy to the idea of tests in general due to the effects having a “test” to vote could have. However, having a very low bar test of some sort administered without exceptions … it might make sense.

            We don’t let people drive whose eyes fail a safety test. Maybe we shouldn’t let people vote if they don’t even have a surface level understanding of what they’re voting for.

            I’m not saying do it, but maybe we shouldn’t totally write it off because of some bad behavior without any safeguards to prevent bad behavior.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Man, it’s a tough one.

    In theory, nobody should be disenfranchised by age at all. But at what age would they be able to vote, as in understand what to do, how to do it, and do so without adult supervision?

    Until they reach that point, it’s essentially their parents or guardians getting an extra vote.

    And then you have to look at other things we limit minors on by virtue of not being able to make informed decisions. So, would we go with driving age, since that’s when we trust them with a ton of death machine? Drinking age? Age of consent for sex (which isn’t always 18)?

    If we change it away from 18 to lower, showing that they have the full rights of any citizen, why don’t they get those other rights with enfranchisement? Why is someone able to vote like someone that has the ability to make an informed choice, but they can’t drink? Hell, that’s already a problem since 18 year olds can be sent to fight and die in the military, but can’t have a beer legally.

    I would be fine with 16 being the age of majority for everything if the individual wanted it. You wanna step into adult life, with all the rights and responsibilities, I don’t have an objection to that at 16. I had too many patients that were married and working before 18 to pretend that it isn’t realistic for someone that age to step into adulthood. I don’t think it’s the best choice, but I wouldn’t fight it if the world decided that way.

    I could definitely made an informed decision for voting at 16. I had access to alcohol, and was able to make the decision to not use it, same with tobacco. I had access to sex, and made the decision to make it safe sex. I was a decent driver, and didn’t have even a fender bender until I was 19, and I wasn’t the one that caused it then. All of the stuff that we limit to “adults”, I know I would have been fully capable of making informed and conscientious decision about any of them.

    But I also knew other teenagers that were absolute morons that couldn’t be trusted not to jerk off in the school bathroom. I knew 16 yos that wrecked cars and put other people’s lives at risk in the process. So I’m okay with the age of majority being 18 too; some of those morons would just flip a coin for their vote, and the mock votes we’d have in school were laughable across the board.

    Not everyone can make an informed and conscientious decision at 30, much less 18.

    So I don’t really think it needs to change, but I agree with you that it sucks that it’s so arbitrary.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      why don’t they get those other rights with enfranchisement?

      ton of death machine?

      because that endangers others too

      Drinking age?

      because alcohol negatively effects development

      Age of consent for sex

      because teenagers have sex anyway; making it illegal would only be harmful

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Until they reach that point, it’s essentially their parents or guardians getting an extra vote.

      Honestly I’ve sometimes thought that parents ought to be able to vote for their kids. At least that gives some form of representation to children.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        In that regard, they already have representation by their parents’ votes. All it would achieve is giving parents outsized voting power.

        • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          which isn’t a bad thing either if you want to encourage people to have more kids (which of course is debatable whether that should be a goal, but many people think it should)

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          In that regard, they already have representation by their parents’ votes.

          But that vote only counts as much as one person, so it doesn’t give any more representation to the child if you ask me. My whole point is that a parent should have outsized voting power because they represent two persons, not one (okay actually each parent would get 1.5 votes as the child’s vote would be split on each parent but my point is the same).

          • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            No, no citizen whatsoever should be able to cast the votes of other citizens, period.

            If the kid can’t get in the voting booth by themselves, cast their own vote without assistance, then they aren’t voting, someone else is.

            • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              The idea is that the parent represents the child. We don’t trust children to make an informed vote, but we trust parents to make all kinds of choices for their children, including extremely personal choices. The current alternative is to not give children a vote at all. I think letting parents choose the vote for their child is better, and fits pretty well with all the rest that parents currently choose for their child. I also think it’s better than simply letting children of all ages vote, since again, they probably won’t be able to make an informed vote.

              • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                So, all I have to do is pump my semen into enough women, get them knocked up, and have thirty votes? Awesome! I’ll be my own bloc!

                • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I mean… you can already kinda do that right? Raise your children to have similar values to you and they’ll vote like you when they grow up. That happens constantly. There’s just an 18 year latency to it. Obviously you lose the vote once they grow up to vote by themselves. I feel like you’re making a bit of a strawman out of what I’m saying here. We clearly just disagree and that’s okay.

    • hellabryanstyle@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      We seem pretty well-aligned. Personally I think 16 is the absolute latest a person ought to have the liberty to do anything that we age restrict. I was talking to someone from Scotland recently where the Age of Majority is 16 and he said that it’s not uncommon there for 16yos to graduate their school system, marry their person, and start a family.

      So to me that is at least some amount of evidence that if we simply perceived 16yos as adults, they would behave more like adults.

  • lady_maria@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s really frustrating how little value so many adults assign to the thoughts and feelings of kids. I felt the effects of that a lot while growing up.

    Idk. If it were up to me, I think I’d make the voting age maybe 14 or 15. It’s not that an 8-year-old’s feelings don’t matter (to me, at least), but you need to allow them enough time and brain development to be able to start to learn about and understand these kinds of things.

    There should also be accompanying education surrounding different political ideologies, history, policies, propaganda tactics, ect., but I’m sure that’d be very unpopular with a lot of parents.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    More so than age, I think we should all get a holiday to vote, that holiday’s length should be calculated by population size to accomdate congestion. Then, somehow make voting fun and exciting, the actual experience of filling out a ballot, so these fucking people actually come out to vote. So many fucking people dont even vote. As soon as you are considered an adult you should be able to vote, whatever age that may be to society at large.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      And, we should establish something where kids get to vote on something. Anything that directly affects them, maybe some locale thing, and have it be enacted for a period of time. We need people, all people, to physically experience the laws they vote for. Engrain that in them so they dont forget these consequences are real and it matters.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Also: the vast majority of 18 year olds in the states are in, or just graduated, high school. Every single high school should also serve as a dedicated polling station for their students who are of voting age, as a matter of federal law. For state and local elections, too - not just presidential and congressional midterms.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Where I grew up, the schools all the way down to elementary school would hold votes to decide some school policies. Things like dress codes and rules governing hallway use, minor stuff, but stuff students care about and that affected us on a daily basis, and whatever won the vote became policy for that semester. We had lines and ballots and everything… The schools were the local voting places, so they had the official voting booths and everything from real elections. Was a great introduction to the process. We’d even get students canvassing in favor of certain policies beforehand if there was something particularly controversial on the ballot.

          • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The one that I remember best was restricting eating food outside of the cafeteria. Previously it had been allowed to eat outside (the school had a patio area out where kids would wait for the busses, right outside the cafeteria), but there’d been issues with people leaving trash and things out there. The options on the ballot as I remember them were to continue to allow it with no change, to allow it but to implement strict punishments for anyone caught leaving trash around, or to just ban it entirely, and surprisingly ‘Ban it’ ended up winning, but it was really close. There was a group of students really pushing hard for that; they made posters with pictures of garbage and whatnot outside on the patio area and posted them all around, and got enough support to make it happen.

    • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is one of the things I like about Germany. We always vote on Sundays, which is practically a holiday for us, unlike in the US where stores are still open.

  • Vaggumon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    16 is the latest I’d say. Even younger is fair. If we ask them to go to school where they can get murdered just because we fail to enact reasonable gun laws, then they should get to vote for the people who don’t care if they die or not.

  • SlothMama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Honestly I think everything should move to 20.

    Alcohol purchase, consumption. Military conscription, draft, voluntary service Age of majority, marriageable age Voting with automatic voting registration Drug consumption including nicotine, caffeine, and cabinets Driving ( permits at a prior age with supervision )

    We know people’s brains aren’t really formed enough even at 18 to consider people adults, this younger age is a hold over from even younger ages and doesn’t reflect reality.

    People who are not fully developed shouldn’t be able to make decisions with the full weight of adulthood, to take any other position is barbaric.

    • hellabryanstyle@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      We’re definitely not at the point that this brain development science should be affecting policy. Here’s an article from 2022 featuring commentary from several neuroscientists. And here are a couple important quotes:

      “Some 8-year-old brains exhibited a greater ‘maturation index’ than some 25 year old brains,”

      The interpretation of neuroimaging is the most difficult and contentious part; in a 2020 study, 70 different research teams analyzed the same data set and came away with wildly different conclusions.

      And here is a different article written entirely by a neuroscientist and released earlier this year.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Some people here saying the same age you work and pay taxes and I absolutely agree, but with the caveat that it shouldn’t be compulsory before age 25.

    And I pick 25 as it’s the average age iirc the brain is considered to be fully matured.

    I personally had no clue of what I was doing and regret my first few rounds voting. I was aware at the time that I lacked the information and the big picture view of the political situation to make an informed decision though, and wished I could avoid voting entirely but in my country it was compulsory.

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I would never let 16 year old me vote.

      25 is a solid voting age informed by life experience in the “real world” and a developed brain. Nobody in their late teens to mid 20s can vote with a grasp of reality and understanding of the actual problems that plague society. There is too much optimism and idealistic intentions at those ages. Progress is a slow march against an established defense. Progress, no matter the speed, gains more than attempting brute force attacks against a greater dying populous fervent in their position in opposition.

      With a declining birth rate, slow and steady wins the race; or maybe Idiocracy was a documentary and WALL-E is a hopeful outcome of Surrogates.

      • Michal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are a lot of adults who shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but in democracy you let everyone have equal say and don’t make arbitrary rules to exclude certain groups.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    If I could wave a wand and fix something about voting in the US, it would be to improve access for already qualified voters.

    Kids would vote similarly to their parents in general, so lowering the age means people from groups/locations that have good access would have more votes (not a bad thing) but groups/locations with poor access would still have poor access, possibly even worse access because of the increase in voters. So yeah, fix access first or it only exacerbates what I consider to be a larger issue in need of addressing.

    Assuming good access to voting though, 18 makes sense to me as the time a person is an adult and legally responsible for themselves. I would be open to arguments for younger, it’s just not something I ever felt passionate about, even when I was under 18 years old.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Just like women vote the same as their husbands? We’ll practically double the line length at the polls if we give women the vote, and their votes won’t really matter, because it’s the same as if their husbands or fathers just voted normally. Not worth the effort.

      Not being an ass, it’s just that every single argument I’ve ever seen against lowering the voting age has been almost identical to the arguments used against women voters back in the day. I’m not suggesting you’re against women having the vote, just that the arguments are similar, and pointing that out helps to demonstrate why they might not as strong as some would think. Teenagers are also notoriously capable of disagreeing with their parents on political issues. It’s sort of a thing with them often enough.

      Totally agree about access to voting. Automatic registration at 16, coting day a national holiday, polls should be open for at least a month, with every post office a polling place, and government run bussing to and from polling places, and mandatory paid time off for wt least 1 day in that month. Universal suffrage. Including incarcerated people. Honestly, nothing should be able to interfere with your right to vote. I go back and forth on compulsory voting, but tend to lean towards it. And this is coming from an Anarcho communist, who doesn’t generally believe we’re ever going to fix things through the ballot box.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        No one’s fighting for teens to be recognized as adults at 16, and they will all have the right to vote in two more years, so I don’t see the parallel at all to the women’s suffragist movement who couldn’t ever expect to vote, married or not, and were part of a broader campaign for women’s rights. If there was momentum to make 16 the age of legal adulthood, it would make sense that voting would be a part of it.

        16 is arbitrary. Not linked to any legal status. Not linked to the age at which one can work and pay taxes. Not linked to any milestone being identified. Like I said, open to arguments but it needs to be better than “younger than 18, set it at an aesthetically pleasing number… 16 will do.”

        The most convincing arguments I see are about being able to vote for the president who could draft you, so theoretically voting at 14. But my preferred condition, and where I would throw any activist energy, would be to get rid of the draft entirely.

        I’m also against compulsory voting. Absolutely against it in current state with all the access issues we’ve agreed upon. Even with perfect access though, declining to vote can be a political statement in itself.

  • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m conflicted on this. I used to think kids at 16 would be a good counterpart to old people, being more revolutionary in nature and so on. Maybe they don’t have a good sense of how things work in life yet but it would help balance out the people who are so stuck in the old ways that it ends up being fair.

    But the reality I see is that they are very easily manipulated by unregulated media like TikTok and would vote for the same extreme right wing party as old people. Surveys here in Germany are a bit disturbing…

    Can’t we instead take away voting rights from old people? Also kinda wrong.

    How about a voting license that needs to be renewed every 30 years? You have to pass a test that checks if you are capable of thinking objectively or something like that.

    • kronisk @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      But the reality I see is that they are very easily manipulated by unregulated media like TikTok

      As opposed to adults?

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve never seen any evidence that adults aren’t also manipulated by media. I would also add that claiming someone isn’t mentally strong enough to vote by themselves without being subject to others was also used as an argument against both women and black people not being allowed to vote.

      • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s a different test and the rules were flawed because it was obviously made to discriminate african americans. But I’m aware it’s not as simple as it sounds to me and leans towards ableist.

    • Vanth@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      RFK Jr. is now in charge of the department that handles voter licensing requirements and sets the criteria for “capable of thinking objectively”. Yikes, and he’s not even the worst person for the job I could conjure up in 5 seconds of thought.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      How about a voting license that needs to be renewed every 30 years? You have to pass a test that checks if you are capable of thinking objectively or something like that.

      Any type of criteria that is not absolute (like age), can and will be used to exclude certain groups of people from voting.