Plan B Forum

Darren wrote:Comes across somewhat like the "Old enough to pee, old enough for me." philosophy. That philosophy usually espoused with a smirk, is obviously absolutely wrong. While not exactly the other side of the coin, the voting age requirement also assumes maturity in a different way. Due to the ongoing demonstrated failure of the educational system, the assumption of maturity of judgement among younger voters is tenuous at best.
If you regard people as sheep suitable only for shearing and for some, sex then maybe the young, ill informed, uninterested should be encouraged to vote w/o the offsetting maturity of the elderly who are more likely to vote.

Sue U wrote:......Maybe people over a certain age (65? 70?) should be prohibited from voting and being elected to office, and allowed to serve only in an advisory capacity (if at all).....

Sue U wrote:I have been thinking lately that if the future really belongs to the youth (or "yutes"), shouldn't they have the greatest say -- and responsibility -- in creating it? Maybe people over a certain age (65? 70?) should be prohibited from voting and being elected to office, and allowed to serve only in an advisory capacity (if at all). What do you think?

BoSoxGal wrote: their voting block is essential to keep the GOP from destroying SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

Long Run wrote:

BoSoxGal wrote: their voting block is essential to keep the GOP from destroying SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

Yes, it is right there in Section Deep 6 of the GOP platform, along with kicking puppies and drowning kittens. This would explain why a sizeable majority of senior citizens vote and register GOP.

Sue U wrote:I have been thinking lately that if the future really belongs to the youth (or "yutes"), shouldn't they have the greatest say -- and responsibility -- in creating it?

5 REASONS FOR LOWERING THE US VOTING AGE TO 16

REASON #1: WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE EFFECTIVE AND RELEVANT CIVIC LEARNING
Lowering the voting age can drive demand for effective civics education in schools, reviving a discipline that is too often pushed to the side. First, lowering the voting age can motivate students to engage with civics classes. Students learn best when the material presented is relevant to their lives, and civics classes fall short when they teach young people how government works without any ability to actually participate in it. Letting 16- and 17-year- olds vote will bring much-needed relevance to civics classes. In addition, lowering the voting age can lead schools to focus more attention on effective civics education. The high school classroom is the ideal place to teach and engage young people about important local issues, and lowering the voting age can inspire schools to take advantage of this opportunity.

REASON #2: SIXTEEN- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS HAVE A STAKE IN THE GAME, AND POLITICIANS MUST PAY ATTENTION TO THEM
Youth are affected by local political issues as much as anyone. They also work without limits on hours and pay taxes on their income, can drive in most states, and in some cases, are tried in adult courts. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds deserve the right to vote on issues that affect them on the local level. Further, voting is the most reliable way for ordinary citizens to influence the government. Lowering the voting age would force local politicians to listen to sixteen- and 17-year-olds and address their concerns.

REASON #3: SIXTEEN- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS ARE READY TO VOTE
Research shows that 16- and 17-year-olds are intellectually ready to vote. For example, on average 16-year- olds possess the same level of civic knowledge as 21-year-olds. Data from Austria, where the national voting age is 16, further indicates that sixteen- and 17-year-olds are ready to responsibly exercise the right to vote.

REASON #4: WE NEED TO MAKE VOTING A HABIT
Lowering the voting age can lead to a long-term increase in voter turnout, bringing more citizens in touch with their government and pushing the government to better serve its people. Research shows that voting is habitual. A person who votes in the first election they are eligible for is likely to continue voting consistently, while someone who doesn’t will take several years to pick up the habit. It is clear that age 16 is a better time to establish a new habit than age 18, and data from places that have lowered the voting age shows that 16-year-olds do indeed vote at higher rates than older first-time voters.

REASON #5: DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS HURT YOUTH IN ELECTIONS: LOWERING THE VOTING AGE CAN REVERSE IT
Due to the country’s shifting demographics, it is now more than ever important to increase the turnout rate among young voters. When older voters outnumber younger voters by an overwhelming margin, as some municipalities experience, the interests of young people, such as school funding, can be overlooked. Lowering the voting age is a reform that can create habitual voters who, as they continue voting through their 20’s, can increase the young voter turnout rate and advocate for the interests of youth in local elections.

Vote early, vote often
Why the voting age should be lowered to 16

Young voters are becoming disillusioned with elections. Catch them early and teach them the value of democracy

Feb 4th 2017 - Economist

HOW young is too young? Rich democracies give different answers, depending on the context: in New Jersey you can buy alcohol at 21 and cigarettes at 19, join the army at 17, have sex at 16 and be tried in court as an adult at 14. Such thresholds vary wildly from place to place. Belgian youngsters can get sozzled legally at 16. But on one thing most agree: only when you have turned 18 can you vote. When campaigners suggest lowering the voting age, the riposte is that 16- and 17-year-olds are too immature. This misses the real danger: that growing numbers of young people may not vote at all.

The trend across the West is disturbing (see article). Turnout of American voters under 25 at presidential elections fell from 50% in 1972 to 38% in 2012; among over-65s it rose from 64% to 70% (data for the 2016 election are not yet available). For congressional races, the under-25 vote was a dire 17% in 2014. A similar pattern is repeated across the rich world.

Young people’s disenchantment with the ballot box matters because voting is a habit: those who do not take to it young may never start. That could lead to ever-lower participation rates in decades to come, draining the legitimacy of governments in a vicious spiral in which poor turnout feeds scepticism towards democracy, and vice versa.

The disillusionment has many causes. The young tend to see voting as a choice rather than a duty (or, indeed, a privilege). The politically active tend to campaign on single issues rather than for a particular party. Politicians increasingly woo older voters—not only because they are more likely to vote but also because they make up a growing share of the electorate. Many young people see elections stacked against them. It is no surprise, then, that many of them turn away from voting.

Some countries make voting compulsory, which increases turnout rates. But that does not deal with the underlying disillusionment. Governments need to find ways to rekindle the passion, rather than continue to ignore its absence. A good step would be to lower the voting age to 16, ensuring that new voters get off to the best possible start.

This would be no arbitrary change. The usual threshold of 18 means that young people’s first chance to vote often coincides with finishing compulsory education and leaving home. Away from their parents, they have no established voters to emulate and little connection to their new communities. As they move around, they may remain off the electoral roll. Sixteen-year-olds, by contrast, can easily be added to it and introduced to civic life at home and school. They can pick up the voting habit by accompanying their parents to polling stations. In Scotland, where 16- and 17-year-olds were eligible to vote in the independence referendum in 2014, an impressive three-quarters of those who registered turned out on the day, compared with 54% of 18- to 24-year-olds. In 2007 Austria became the only rich country where 16-year-olds could vote in all elections. Encouragingly, turnout rates for under-18s are markedly higher than for 19- to 25-year-olds.

Merely lowering the voting age is not enough, however. Youth participation in Scotland might have been still higher if more schools had helped register pupils. Governments also need to work harder at keeping electoral rolls current. Some are experimenting with automatic updates whenever a citizen notifies a public body of a change of address. Civics lessons can be improved. Courses that promote open debate and give pupils a vote in aspects of their school lives are more likely to boost political commitment later in life than those that present dry facts about the mechanics of government.

Standing up to gerontocracy
A lower voting age would strengthen the voice of the young and signal that their opinions matter. It is they, after all, who will bear the brunt of climate change and service the debt that paid for benefits, such as pensions and health care, of today’s elderly. Voting at 16 would make it easier to initiate new citizens in civic life. Above all, it would help guarantee the supply of young voters needed to preserve the vitality of democracy. Catch them early, and they will grow into better citizens.

ex-khobar Andy wrote:Not sure what point you're making Gob, but Churchill's actual quote was more general.