How in the world is it anti-democratic to let more people vote, even if they do tend to vote in a bloc?

On the other hand they will have to live with the decision for longer.

Of course it’s fair, the “No” vote has it in the bag anyway, always did.

If so, then it’s unfair to open-minded people in any election anywhere to let those over 40 vote.

How about we exclude demographics we disagree with from elections; it’s the only way to be truly democratic!

I’ve read about this, and apparently the teens are just as divided as their parents. And they only make up 3% of the electorate anyway. So yes, I think it’s fair.

But how come the director of elections allowed it? !6 is too too too young. How come the no side didn’t contest it? Or did they?

@CWOTUS But allowing 16 yr. olds? (that is just soooo young it is not even funny) Let’s say religious fundamentalist tend to vote for republicans, and the atheists vote for democract, but you can’t disallow them because they are part of the adult world that helps make decisions. There is nothing you can do about that. But allowing 16 yr.olds – that is just soooo young it is not even funny – to vote in such a giagantic decision?

@flutherother I’m trying to understand your answer.

Really? Then don’t allow under-30 to vote either; they’re immature know-nothings. Too young to have enough wisdom to deserve the right to an opinion on such a weighty matter.

@ucme “the “No” vote has it in the bag anyway” I thought it is looking like it can go either way if we go by the polls.
@downtide I think there is a limit for everything and18 should be the minimum. I find it is not too much to ask. And it could be the 3% that tips it over, no?

@flo If we were speaking about just the U.S., I might agree you. It’s my understanding that Scottish children ‘graduate’ at 16, then test for higher education or go into the work force. If a person can be working full time at 16, I think it’s reasonable for them to be voting. They can also join the military at 16 with parental consent.

@flo 16 year olds will have to live with the decision they make for 70 years and it will affect every aspect of their lives, their education, their employment, their health care etc. For that reason it seems fair they should be given a voice.

@flo Fairly close throughout, but the “No” campaign always held sway, only strengthened as the polls closed.

It’s their future, of course they should vote. I think 16 year olds should be able to vote in America. Old people shouldn’t vote. Their time has passed and they don’t have to live with the long reaching consequences of the future.

I still think voting should be only for white, male, landed gentry over 50.

Who have an IQ of at least 120. We should give everyone a test and make them pay for it.

When I was 16 I wouldn’t have stood in line to vote unless I actually cared. Kids aren’t known for standing in lines to do something they don’t care about when the time could be better spent on getting drunk and throwing rocks at cops.

I would think the ones voting are probably informed and care. Or there parents are forcing them to vote the way they want them to. But we all should know what a horrible idea that would be.

My understanding is in the UK, Ireland, Scotland, and other surrounding countries, 16 is the bewitching year similar to 18 in America. We have some jellies from that side of the Atlantic on this Q, they can let me know if I am incorrect. If 16 is when teens are basically given a lot of adult privileges then it seems logical they can vote.

3% won’t tip anything if the 16–17 year olds are split 50/50

And yes, 16 is when some rights are earned but still not driving, drinking or voting.

@johnpowell I think most teenagers would vote against their parents just on principle.

I think this discussion proves how many of us are stuck in the mindset of late-20th-century America without any real regard for the fact that other places, including America up until about the last quarter of last century, may have different notions on the nebulous age of “adulthood”.

Something that’s worth keeping in mind is that there have been several campaigns in the past 15 years to reduce the voting age in the UK to 16. Moreover, those campaigns have been strongly supported by Scottish voters and political groups. If the independence movement wins, the voting age in Scotland will almost certainly be lowered to 16 (maybe even immediately). It makes perfect sense, then, that Scotland would want to include those who might soon be fully enfranchised citizens.

To add another piece of information, my Scottish BIL told me he cannot vote because he lives outside of the country. People who live in the country who are not citizens can vote. Just another difference between America and Scotland voting.

No. It’s not remotely unfair. Sixteen year olds are quite capable of critically evaluating the available options and making as sound a judgement as someone who is 86. Given they’re probably better educated than those 86 year olds, I’d say they could be better qualified. And yes, they’re going to live with this decision for a lot longer than any of the other people voting.

That’s like saying it’s unfair to Republicans to allow minorities to vote because they’re more likely to vote for Democrats.

Actually, it’s a reasonable question. Teens can be rebellious, impulsive, don’t think about consequence, don’t have a real understanding of politics, their country, and the world, and we now have scientific evidence that the brain does not really stop growing and developing until age 25. The last part of the brain to develop is the area that helps us understand consequences. These are just generalizations and each person is an individual, but overall it is a statistical fact.

@JLeslie but then older people suffer dementia, so perhaps the two problems balance each other out.

@Earthbound_Misfit Yeah, I know. Above I said I was OK with the 16 year olds voting, and that my understanding is 16 year olds over there have some other adult privileges. I am just pointing out it isn’t an unreasonable question. People are comparing it to not letting minorities vote and that the young people have more of a stake because they will be living there longer, but they also have so much less experience in the world it is hard for a 16 year old to understand the real impact of such a decision I think.

I just felt like jellies were implying the OP was being ridiculous, and I don’t think the question is ridiculous. Maybe I read the tone in the answers wrong.

I lersinally don’t think it is unfair to a particular side, which is what the OP specifically asked I just am saying questioning whether 16 is old enough to vote is worth discussion. I don’t think teens wanting to be independent in their personal lives is the same as wanting your country to become independent.

@JLeslie

Perhaps if the OP had framed it that way it wouldn’t have been ridiculous. The way the OP framed the question, however, was ridiculous. For what it’s worth I really don’t think 18 year-olds have much more experience or understanding than 16 year-olds do. And, of course, we can find people of all ages who are rebellious, impulsive and don’t think about consequences and/or don’t have a real understanding of politics, their country or the world.

@Darth_Algar I agree with all of that.

“Teens can be rebellious, impulsive, don’t think about consequence, don’t have a real understanding of politics, their country, and the world, and we now have scientific evidence that the brain does not really stop growing and developing until age 25. The last part of the brain to develop is the area that helps us understand consequences” @JLeslie Worth reposting.

Sounds like a good reason to take the franchise away from anyone who has attained 25 years, since we now have scientific evidence that their brains have stopped developing.

All I know is everyone has a number as to what they consider too young to vote, that is all, nothing to do with race, gender, political persuation, etc.

@CWOTUS I don’t believe that is what @JLeslie means.

@flo “All I know is everyone has a number as to what they consider too young to vote, that is all, nothing to do with race, gender, political persuation, etc.”

Really? I do? Since when? Hell, when did you start to know what I think?

I don’t quantize maturity for the same reason I don’t measure the taste of broccoli in inches. I’ve seen some quite immature people who lack the understanding of politics or appreciation of the consequences of their actions well into their grave. (It may be a coincidence that the vast majority of them are Conservatives, but I digress…) In fact, I know of at least one in this thread.

As for the brain stopping growing at 25, I agree with @CWOTUS that that is the beginning of the end; that after that, you are asking the opinions of people whose brains are rotting away.

However, @flo, You did prove my earlier point about how some people are SO stuck in the way that they think that then know that everyone else in the world thinks the same way.

@CWOTUS I hope you are not puttingnwords in my mouth or leaving off information that takes my words out of context? I didn’t say to take the vote away from 18 year olds or 16 year olds.

I also am not one of those people who walks around saying, “I don’t care who you vote for just vote.” You can see in past Q’s that I think if someone has no idea who or what they are voting for then not voting is probably better, because voting runs the risk of voting for someone you never would have voted for if you had more information.

@jerv No, not the beginning of the brain rotting away. Our brains remain able to learn and lay new paths up through old age (assuming nothing has interferred with it like a disease or pathology) the same science saying brains mature at about 25 years old also shows the plasticity of the brain and it contradicts some old ideas about the brain not being able to continue to grow and change as we age.

Edit: short article for you on adolecence and the brain and changing theory on brain development

@JLeslie That all assumes that “brain” and “mind” are actually synonymous… but that is a whole other discussion. Suffice it to say that if the brain is capable of learning after 25 then physical maturity and mental maturity are no really as closely related as some would think. Otherwise, there would have been no adults in the early history of humanity, and are few in those parts of the modern world where life expectancies are still low.

@jerv I really don’t know what you are getting at. You were 16 once, weren’t you? Do you think at age 16 compared to age 25 there was a difference in how you perceived the world, your emotional status, and how real consequences were to you? Especially closer to 30, I think we finally really understand the complexity of the world and finally feel like there is a lot we don’t know, while a teenager tends to think they know everything. It varies by individual of course.

There are many different parts of the brain and mind. Emotion, analytical capability, memory, etc, etc. Each mature at different paces and change over time.

Re. “I didn’t say to take the vote away from 18 year olds or 16 year olds.” @JLeslie , I think according to @CWOTUS you meant that even 18 to 24 yr. olds are too young to vote, which is what I responded to in my last post.

By the way, even electing for a president which is a 4 yr. term (in US anyway) is too important.

@JLeslie That only makes sense if I am truly a freak of nature so far outside of mainstream that even “statistical outlier” doesn’t do me justice. Or are you saying that I just grew up WAY too fast?

@flo In this society, given the way our youth act, you are making a strong case for raising the voting age to 25. Then again, the age of majority in a culture is often the age at which one’s education/training is complete and one is ready to go out into the real world.
In ancient times, and in non-industrialized portions of today’s world, that was/is closer to 12; boys were strong enough to hunt, and girls were mature enough to reproduce. In America during the mid-20th-century, it was the age one graduated high school and got a job; around 18.
In modern America, however, you aren’t really ready until you have a college degree, which usually involves a couple of years of burger-flipping as you save up for college, then go to class for a few years. That puts the age of adulthood closer to 22–25…. and we are coming up with the same “scientific reasons” for that as we did to justify the now-disproven theory that men have higher IQs than women (a theory based simply on brain mass and the mistaken notion that that actually was relevant).

@jerv It wouldn’t surprise me if you were mature ahead of a lot of your peers. I was kind of born grown up, I get it. I still had more awareness and understanding at 25 than 16. Just still living in my parents home changes things compared to living on our own I think. It’s why you will see on many Q’s a say I think it is good for people to live on campus if they go to school or just getting out of their parents house changes a person and helps foster independence. This goes with adulthood being at the time when education is finished, and indeed 18 in the US is the common age kids are done with high school.

I actually think 18 should be the drinking age, not 21, because I can’t fathom a working 18 year old living on their own and supporting themselves can’t buy a wine cooler in the supermarket or have a glass of wine while out at dinner. In Scotland I think still to this day for some 16 is when they finish their education, depending on their course of study, but maybe that has changed since I first learned about education in that part of the world many years ago. Even in America most states only require children to be in school through age 16, but they don’t leave with a diploma unless they go through grade 12 requirements. I finished high school at age 16 (just a few weeks shot of my 17th birthday) my dad 16, and my mom 17. Should I have been able to vote? I don’t know, I didn’t care much about politics when I was that young. Looking back I probably would have voted fairly consistent with how I vote today, so I guess it would have been fine. But, I grew up in a home with two parents who belonged to two different political parties, willing to vote for people in other parties, and who discussed issues more than they discussed what their party and party leader thought was right. They tried to think for themselves. So, I never had to agree with them politically or rebel.

@JLeslie Maybe that’s it then; I live less on my own now than when I was 7. And just based on observation and analysis, I was aware of the flaws of Supply Side economics by age 10, and by age 16 had listed many of the problems that were going to happen in Iraq that didn’t actually come to light until almost a decade later. I am actually glad that my understanding and awareness of the world, already greater than that of most “adults”, didn’t keep going after my early/mid-teens as it probably would have led to insanity. Ignorance is bliss, so I will never know peace.

@downtide “3% won’t tip anything if the 16–17 year olds are split 50/50” I’ve been thinking about that. I don’t know if it would be split 50/50, that is the thing.

People with demetia are allowed to vote?

Yes @flo. They can in the U.K.. In Australia, where voting is compulsory, a guardian can have a person who can no longer vote removed from the electoral role but they can vote, and could be fined for not voting until they’re removed. I’m pretty sure any fine would be waived if the person or their guardian queried the fine. In the US, to my knowledge, where voting is a constitutional right, people with dementia can vote.

Alright then, @Earthbound_Misfit

I think it would better to make it compulsory to take parenting courses.

Well that’s a whole different topic @flo, but I’m not a fan of compulsory voting. I’d rather people vote because they want to and are invested in the process.

@Earthbound_Misfit me neither not a fan of compulsory voting.

People with dementia vote in America. Also, people can vote when they are drunk or high, and I assume all sorts of diminsihed capacities.

@JLeslie There are those that would argue that part of the reason for the decline of our education system is precisely so that the mental capacity of the voting pool is diminished. Those incapable of critical thinking an ignorant of facts are gullible, easily led, and likely to vote however the fear-mongering PR flaks tell them to instead of making informed decisions based on rational thought.
Whether or not they are correct or merely paranoid is another discussion; I mention it here merely to provoke a little thought.

@jerv I don’t agree with that conspiracy theory. I think educators want children to do well and learn. How they carry out the task might not be working well, but I don’t think they actually want to dumb sown the population. The people in charge might be not too bright. I have heard arguments that the teachers and people in other parts of the school system are not as bright as years ago as a whole. They say that back in the day when women couldn’t get a fair shake in many parts of the workforce they often were teachers. Some of the smartest women were teachers. Then they were able to enter all areas of the workforce and get paid better, and the very smart ones went into being doctors and lawyers and CEO’s of corporations. I don’t know how valid that is. I know some very smart women who are teachers and I know many not so smart who are teachers, but smart enough. Those teachers aren’t big time critical thinkers, but they can teach the material given to them. A lot of learning is memorization. Doctors have been shown to have stronger memorization skills than the average person.

I think a lot of people pick up a lot of their critical thinking skills from their parents.

And of course people who would allow 5 yr olds to vote are critical thinkers.

@JLeslie If your last sentence is true, we have a problem. The problem is that many parents are not critical thinkers themselves and thus don’t have those skills to try to pass down. At least the youth ask questions instead of maintaining the status quo, and questioning takes more thought than blind adherence to tradition.
Personally, I think they’re self-taught, and only those with a desire to learn (regardless of age) ever have them. And there’s plenty of older folks who measure IQ solely by the number of candles on the birthday cake in some twisted variation of Dunning-Kruger. But that’s just my opinion.

@jerv What if she had said “I think a lot of people pick up a lot of their critical thinking skills—such as they are—from their parents”? That is, what if the claim was just this: to the extent that most people have any critical thinking skills at all, they haven’t gone looking for them; they’ve just mimicked their parents (as people often do) and not attempted to develop themselves further”? These claims are entirely compatible with your claim that many parents are not critical thinkers themselves and thus don’t have critical thinking skills to pass down.

@SavoirFaire Possible, but having only had one parent that I’m considerably different from and a wife who is nothing like her folks, I’m still leaning no.

I’ll finish that thought later; time to get to work…