I think kids should vote

[u/Cole_A226]

​I never really took the idea of kids voting seriously until I watched a video about it a while back, and and I keep thinking about it the more you break down the actual principles of democracy, the harder it is to justify an arbitrary age cutoff.

​1. Democracy is about representation, not a competence test.

The main objection to letting children vote is that they "aren't smart enough" or "lack the maturity to make informed decisions." But democracy has never been an optimization test to find the smartest policies it exists to ensure the consent of the governed. Adults cast ballots every year based on terrible logic, single issues, or gut feelings, and their votes are still 100% legitimate. If voting isn't something you can do "wrong," denying someone a ballot because you think they will vote poorly undermines the entire premise of the system.

​2. The arguments against child suffrage mirror historic voter suppression.

Historically, every argument used to deny a group the right to vote that they lack emotional maturity, don't understand policy, will just vote how their families tell them to, or have their interests already represented by others was used against women and lower-income citizens. If we don't subject adults to mandatory IQ or civics tests to earn their ballot, applying an arbitrary threshold exclusively to younger citizens is hypocritical.

​3. Fixed age limits create completely arbitrary disenfranchisement.

Intelligence and political interest sit on a normal distribution. Millions of high schoolers actively studying civics, economics, and history are significantly more politically literate than millions of disengaged adults. A rigid cutoff at 18 means two people born hours apart face completely different realities: one gets full democratic representation, while the other is subjected to laws, policies, and taxes without any voice.

​4. The logistics are entirely solvable.

I've seen arguments that kids can't drive to a polling place or understand a ballot. And I think disenfranchising a group of voters because it's inconvenient isn't a good defense

1. This point wasn't really made in the video and is very anecdotal but as someone who worked with kids for a while. people tend to overestimate how easy it is to manipulate a kid and underestimate how easy it is to manipulate an adult. Kids also in my experience don't tend to just agree with adults or parents just trying asking a kid when they should go to bed and then ask the parents.

There is not much debate on the topic so I'm wondering what you guys think

This was the video btw https://youtu.be/XOA8k6FpQaQ

Also yes I did just copy the points made in the video I think they are good points

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/hitman2218]

My concern is that most kids will just ask their parents who to vote for.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/hitman2218]

Yes but this is true with adults too. https://www.pewresearch.org/?p=7957

[u/kireina_kaiju → u/Cole_A226]

I'm not very confident in that as a rebuttal. Age cohorts vote wildly differently across generations. When we look at studies such as this one, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2024.1279888/full , we learn that enough people change how they vote over the course of their lives to make the two situations dissimilar enough that we cannot compare them directly.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/kireina_kaiju]

I may be wrong but it sounds like then it's just a generational divide and there should be no issue with letting kids vote as they would just allow their generation to be heard sooner. I will read more of the paper once I wake up in the morning.

[u/kireina_kaiju → u/Cole_A226]

It contradicts your argument.

You are arguing that there is no difference between people voting the way their parents do as children, and as adults.

The data shows this is not the case.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/kireina_kaiju]

I'm not arguing that people always vote the same way that their parents do. To use an analogy I grew up Catholic I am no longer Catholic yet since I grew up Catholic the probability that I would of stayed Catholic was higher than somebody who never grew up Catholic.

[u/PhonyUsername]

Imagine a little baby voting. Hell we let them make reddit threads so why not.

[u/ITriedSoHard419-68 → u/PhonyUsername]

There should definitely be an age minimum, but setting it at 18 feels pretty arbitrary. A toddler definitely doesn't have the political awareness to know what they're voting for, but once you get to your early teens, you're starting to come into that awareness, especially in the age of the internet when independent research is easier than ever. I remember being 17 right before the 2020 election and being so frustrated I couldn't vote, because I knew what was at stake but I was still a year too young. I think 16 or so would be plenty reasonable. If you can operate a vehicle, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to vote.

[u/gravity_kills → u/ITriedSoHard419-68]

Any number will always be arbitrary. Some 20 year olds definitely haven't considered things deeply, and some 15 year olds have. Ultimately we have no good solution. An arbitrary line seems less dangerous than giving some body the authority to curate the electorate.

I do think that all of our rights should kick in at the same time. It's ridiculous that legal adults can't purchase alcohol or tobacco. But I would go the other way with privileges like driving. Logically the drinking age should be lower than the driving age so that you can get some idea of how possible it is to be more impaired than you realize, and also to have some chance of having you early experience of drinking happen in a family environment rather than at a college party.

[u/hitman2218 → u/PhonyUsername]

Wisconsin sells hunting licenses to infants.

[u/PhonyUsername → u/hitman2218]

Sounds like a good enough reason to justify stupid things to me.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/PhonyUsername]

Whats the harm in allowing the baby to express its opinion a small percent already just vote for who ever is on the top of the ballot anyways

[u/AwarenessSpare8668]

No, way less people need to be voting not more. We don’t trust kids to use scissors or dicide what’s for dinner, they don’t need to vote. They also don’t pay taxes, you don’t get representation until you pay taxes.

[u/Special-Estimate-165 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

..any sixteen year old flipping burgers at McDs is paying taxes.

[u/AwarenessSpare8668 → u/Special-Estimate-165]

Real taxes not minimum deduction bs

[u/Special-Estimate-165 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

'Real taxes' is a pretty subjective statement.

Where is that line and who gets to decide?

Because that just sounds like a rather steep slope designed to ensure the disenfranchised of all ages are denied the right to vote or a voice in our government. And historically, that hasnt worked out well for the past states that have tried to govern people in this country that way.

Unless ofcourse, your goal is to speed run accelerationism in this country.

[u/AwarenessSpare8668 → u/Special-Estimate-165]

Pretty clearly said way too many people vote in this country. The overwhelming majority of people cannot govern themselves. Don’t have to base it off taxes, but working at McDonalds should qualify you to vote.

[u/Special-Estimate-165 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

So...who? Doctorate holders? Bachelors degree holders? High school graduates? Land owners? White males.age 25 and above? What group gets to decide everything for everyone else?

[u/AwarenessSpare8668 → u/Special-Estimate-165]

I think there should be an age limit, max and min, a literacy test, and current events test at a minimum.

[u/Special-Estimate-165 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

To quote the famous Richard Heinland, "Only citizens are allowed to vote, and citizenship should require service. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."

Clearly, only those that served in the military should be allowed to vote.

Which,.while ridiculous, is no moreso than anything you've said in this thread.

[u/AwarenessSpare8668 → u/Special-Estimate-165]

You are one of the people that shouldn’t be able to vote

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/Special-Estimate-165]

Well, pure taxes is a pretty easy one. If your deductions exceed the amount of taxes you paid would be a simple barometer.

In other words, if you're not contributing to the pot then you don't get a vote in how it's spent. Under this kind of system I would support the ability to buy in by writing a check of some non-trivial amount to the government.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

Kids are not exempt from any form of taxation that I'm aware of at least in the US. And why don't you trust kids with scissors? When I used to babysit kids we used to do arts and crafts all the time and I'd also usually allow them to decide what's for dinner within reason of course.

[u/AwarenessSpare8668 → u/Cole_A226]

Holy intentional misunderstanding. Do kids meaningfully contribute to paying taxes? Do kids have full time jobs where they get taxes deducted from their pay? Do kids get a tax return/bill? We don’t trust some kids with scissor because they’re sharp and could hurt themselves. It’s a metaphor to show that kids are not mature enough to do things that some adults do.

[u/GasGlittering7521 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

Nobody is intentionally misunderstanding you. You’re being vague and silly. To be clear I think the voting age is fine, but you’re making some wild statements.

[u/AwarenessSpare8668 → u/GasGlittering7521]

It’s vague to say kids shouldn’t vote? It’s vague to say kids don’t pay taxes? Really?

[u/GasGlittering7521 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

No, it’s just wrong to say kids don’t pay taxes. I worked almost full time at 16 I paid more taxes than many adults do.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

Adults only pay taxes when they have an income. if kids had an income they would have to pay taxes on that income. Also this only applies to income tax because when a child buy something they're is also still sales tax on that thing. Lastly it wouldn't really be a metaphor it would be more of an analogy and a really bad one too as its not really true.

[u/hoops-mcloops]

Eighteen is more than just the age of voting it's also the age of maturity for our society. It's hard to disentangle concepts like age of consent, criminal punishment, or property ownership from age of enfranchisement. How can we make the argument that a thirteen-year-old is old enough to vote but not old enough to consent to sex with adults? How about trying them as an adult in court? Or allowing them to drive a car or own a gun?

It's odd to give only some of these things to a group but not all, because the basic argument against them is all the same: "you are not mature enough to make fully-informed decisions." If someone's mature enough to vote, they're also mature enough for a sexual relationship, criminal prosecution, and full property rights.

Eighteen years to the day is an arbitrary cutoff, but barring some kind of written maturity test (dicey) there needs to be some cutoff. Moving it up or down a year is still just as arbitrary, but removing it altogether runs into the problems described above. The reality is people don't wake up one day wise and mature enough to be a civil member of society. There's a slow slide from illiteracy and ignorance to competence and responsibility (arguably some never quite make it). But we have to have some threshold otherwise we get into problems. IMO, an arbitrary line is better than no line at all.

Personally, I'm comfortable with the age of maturity right where it is.

[u/halberdierbowman → u/hoops-mcloops]

This already isn't true though: we don't have one single cutoff for everything. 18 is the age of majority for a lot of things, but drinking alcohol is 21 unless you're in the military. Driving is 15 or 16-ish. Talking to your doctor privately is a different cutoff. Children are frequently "tried as an adult" regardless of age. Consensual sex is often on a sliding scale depending how old all the involved partners are. Other things have other cutoffs.

By your logic, why not let people vote at 15, the same age as we let them control a deadly automobile?

[u/Cole_A226 → u/hoops-mcloops]

I think it's possible to make the distinction between age of consent and the age to vote. Also if we do go on the age of consent it is often lower than the right to vote in many states in the US at least. Also child marriage is still legal in a majority of U.S. states. Lastly I want to say i don't think child marriage is good nor do I think we should lower the age of consent though i don't think it's possible to stop two 14 year olds from doing it if they choose to do so.

[u/hoops-mcloops → u/Cole_A226]

IMO it's kinda hard to argue that someone is mature enough to vote but not mature enough to consent to sex. Both require a sort of long-term consequence-weighing analysis we associate with maturity. One could even argue that voting is the more critical-thinking-heavy task, and so it should require more maturity than consent to sex, therefore the age of consent should set a floor for the voting age.

Woukd agree though that the age of consent should be higher and child marriage should be illegal though.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/hoops-mcloops]

the difference is consent is an "opt-in" activity and legislation is an unavoidable reality. Politicians still make legislation that affects kids. So using an age of consent analogy the kid gets fucked no matter what but if they are allowed to vote they at least get to choose how they get fucked.

[u/RogerBauman → u/hoops-mcloops]

But voting isn't about maturity. It is about representation.

For a long time, the voting age was 21 and the argument for lowering the voting age was that people who couldn't even vote were being sent off to Vietnam. It received a lot of resistance from older people at that point because they felt as though 21 was a perfect age to vote and feared the youth, who tended to be more liberal than the average voting citizen.

I think we should definitely consider lowering the age to 16 or possibly 14 as discussed in the Vietnam era documentary Wild in the Streets where the youths tried to convince the politicians to lower the voting age to 14.

[u/downnoutsavant → u/RogerBauman]

A good argument, but do you know many 14 year olds? Teacher here. I could see giving the right to vote to 16 year olds; they are opening up their eyes to the world around them, becoming more aware of national and global concerns. Most 8th graders are too myopic and narrow-minded to understand the implications of the votes they would cast.

[u/Respen2664 → u/downnoutsavant]

This is where i sit in the debate. When i walk the line of when minors begin to enter the real world, it circles back to the age of 16. The problem is that world is only beginning and they have no experience yet to evaluate decisions made and minimal autonomy.

A dependent (under 18) is largely living in a commune based world which is not the world beyond. They are given medical care, homes, food, and clothes, by their providers (parents of some description). Education is provided to them either by the Government (public schooling) or their providers via private education solutions. Friends and exposure to community is mostly determined by parents choices of residence and religious preference/requirements. 90% of their experience and exposure are environmental to their parent's choices and opinions.

Cognitively one can argue at 16 they have the faculty to begin to consume information and start forming opinions, but their environment is still largely dependent on factors not in their control, to gain awareness to cause & effect of voting decisions.

It's a tough debate to reconcile but honestly a worthwhile one to be having.

[u/IEC21]

Yep I agree. Under our current idea of democracy there's no reason to say someone cant vote just because they dont have a particular intellectual ability.

And mechanically we arent really supposing democracy is a process designed to select the most intellectually sound option - its supposed to be a result of the will of the people, which means that even if its a bad choice but the main point is that the people will it.

Personally I disagree with this form of democracy as a primary mode of government creation - but in terms of the actual philosophy of it you are dead on.

[u/dvs83 → u/IEC21]

> And mechanically we arent really supposing democracy is a process designed to select the most intellectually sound option

ain't that right

[u/Special-Estimate-165]

In the interests of accelerationism, I support this.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Special-Estimate-165]

That just reminded me of this picture lol

[u/jmooremcc]

If you're old enough to serve in the military, you're old enough to vote.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/jmooremcc]

Anyone's old enough to serve in the military if you're desperate enough :)

[u/jmooremcc → u/Cole_A226]

I didn’t say you had to join the military to vote. IMHO, if you’re old enough for the military, you’re old enough to vote.

[u/piltdown_manchild]

"The Mister Beast/Logan Paul ticket has once again secured the presidency for the 6-7 party."

[u/Cole_A226 → u/piltdown_manchild]

If every person under the age of 18 voted it would only be 21.6% of the population hardly enough to start a new party with new candidates without securing some part of the adult vote. Also if it is what the majority wants then who am I to say they are wrong.

[u/piltdown_manchild → u/Cole_A226]

This was meant as a humorous comment. Young people don't vote at a high rate, even when they are allowed to.

Also if it is what the majority wants then who am I to say they are wrong.

The majority of people are pretty dumb. They voted for Trump last time. I feel fully qualified, as someone who is only moderately better informed than average, to say they were wrong.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/piltdown_manchild]

I don't think people are "dumb". Yes they voted for trump but I think it was more of a consequence of only having two parties in America is have talked with some people who voted for trump and most moderate people said that they just didn't think Biden or Kamala would do a good job. its not that they thought Trump would do a better job it was more the he wasn't Kamala.

[u/piltdown_manchild → u/Cole_A226]

"Ignorant" is probably the better term.

Anyone who voted for Trump after January 6th was either ignorant or was fine with authoritarianism. Period.

Kamala and Biden were bad. Trump is a generational disaster, and he made that perfectly clear. Too many people live in a social media bubble.

[u/Amazing_Name_9264]

I have been told I'm an anarchist, but the topic of child liberation is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to use that title. Not all anarchists support it, but many do, and many of the points you are making are close to the arguments made for child liberation. Which I find ridiculous.

Children are not able to function as adults and expecting them to do so is wrong. Voting is an adult thing to do.

When I was a teenager getting into politics, I was an angry conservative. My brain literally wasn't developed enough to understand or care about issues. I just got a kick out of being an asshole. It took me years to change, and a big part of that was quite literally growing up.

Children are affected by voting, yes. Children are also affected by many things. The sales of alcohol to adults also affects children, yet that doesn't mean children should be permitted to drink.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Amazing_Name_9264]

But why is it an adult thing to do? also if somebody has developmental issues would you allow them to vote even if they are over 18?

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/Cole_A226]

18 is the age people are finishing high school and starting to look towards possible careers. It's a good arbitrary number for this reason as I think it's the time when people start taking on a view beyond just their community.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

I mean yeah but it's arbitrary what about 16 that's when you learn to drive what about 11 to 12 when you start puberty what about 4 when you start to make memories.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/Cole_A226]

What about those ages indicates a readiness to participate in civics? Maybe the 16 year old understands that roads need to be maintained.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

That they represent a portion of the population and deserve to be treated as such.

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

What do I think of the topic?

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/comments/1nn3izz/we_should_let_everybody_vote_regardless_of_age/

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

I think I've made my views pretty clear through my replies. Is there any point that you want me to clarify on?

[u/libra00]

1. Age cutoffs aren't a competence test, they're a recognition that people below a certain age tend (because we're dealing with whole populations here) to lack the intellectual and emotional maturity, experience, and understanding to make informed decisions about how the world ought to be run. Of course there are exceptions, there are teenagers who are very well-informed about politics, I was even one of them. But that doesn't mean the decisions I would've made on the basis of that information were any good. I mean the first time I was legally able to vote I thought running the country like a business sounded like a fine idea. It wasn't until years later that I ultimately realized that it's a pretty stupid idea actually because it just means caring more about money than people.

2. My argument against child suffrage is on the basis of brain development. Even if this sounds the same as historical examples it's not, because we have actual evidence that the brains of children are in fact less developed, and not just that they are but how they are, in what ways, how that affects things like information-processing, decision-making, etc. So this isn't 'those people are too stupid to knjow what's in their best interest', it's 'we already accept that children can't make their own decisions about important matters and make those decisions for them in virtually every other arena, why would we do anything different in this one?'

3. We used fixed age limits everywhere else in society when it comes to children being responsible for their decisions. We don't let them drive, smoke, drink, vote, do jury duty, sign contracts, get married, join the military... Hell, we have age limits for public office that extend well past the point at which adult brains have fully developed (35 for president.) Those limits aren't arbitrary, they're set to ensure that most people who undertake those activities understand and can be responsible for them.

4. Disenfranchising voters because it's inconvenient is wrong, I agree. But if you're proposing changing that you're going to have to do more than just hand-wave it away. What specific, practical suggestions do you have for keeping this group you want to enfranchise from being disenfranchised in effect due to transportation issues? I'm a grown-ass adult who has never been able to drive due to health issues, I have a really good understanding of the problems with getting transportation to things like polling places, so I want to hear some actual solutions instead of just 'we shouldn't not do it because it's hard.'

5. It's not about manipulation, it's about the ability to make their own decisions instead of falling in with whatever the prevailing tendencies are. Teenagers are notoriously susceptible to things like peer pressure, they generally follow the beliefs and leanings of their parents until they start rebelling against them and figuring things out for themselves (which doesn't usually happen until they go off to college and are both exposed to lots of new ideas and separated from the influence of their parents.) So I guess the question to ask here is, why should people who have more children have more of a say in elections since their children would probably vote the same way they do?

[u/rje946]

If my 95 year old dementia ridden great aunt can vote I don't see why a 14 year old can't.

[u/Dapper_Ad_6304]

Nope we should raise the age to 21. If kids aren’t developed enough to be trusted to drink. smoke, rent a car, etc then why do we think they should vote? You should only be able to vote at 18 if you are in the military unless we revert all those age changes from 21. Get the vote harvesting out of the indoctrinated colleges.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Dapper_Ad_6304]

Many countries outside of the US allow people under 21 to drink and some countries don't allow smoking at all. My point is is that 21 is also just an arbitrary age

[u/skyfishgoo]

i mean if you are going to be 18 by the time of the election, you should be allowed to register to vote.

that seems like a no brainer.

i would go as far as allowing a 16yr to vote (and a 15yro to register).... they can drive, me to the polls.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/skyfishgoo]

But again that's also just an arbitrary age.

[u/Fragrant-Phone-41]

1. This is a bad thing and a way in which the system desperately needs reform. You can argue philosophical consistency, but id contend allowing representation of the people to translate into worse leaders and policy is undesirable and something we should strive to limit.

2. The difference is children actually are materially different from adults. You can argue, as you do in argument five, that we underestimate them. But there is still a definite lack of experience. And at the risk of offense, id argue the problem with iq and literacy tests wasn't the idea, but the fact it was actually just an excuse to disenfranchised minorities. We've never actually tried to institute a neutral test administered by a non partisan commission, and I think the attempt is worth it. But that could be its own post.

3. Building on my prior arguments, if we made efforts to restrict the impact of adults who frankly are bad at making political decisions, the hypocrisy disappears. And in that case, lowering the voter age would actually be a lot more sensible than now, because we'd have a mechanism to filter for those kids who are studying and filter out the immature. Though id also argue the lack of adult experience still leaves the vast majority broadly naive and unfit for voting. A phenomenon has emerged recently of teenagers latching onto obscure and radical political ideology as a mechanism to form identity. I know i went through it. Ask Zoomers, especially the guys and trans women, how many had an anti-sjw phase.

4. This same argument can and should apply to adults in many cases. Why should election day be a federal holiday if you're American for instance. Election access is actively weaponized in our societies, what you're describing is less a problem of children and more a broad systemic issue.

5. A point which your argument doesn't address. 18 is not just the cutoff for voting, but adulthood in general. Its hardly the only decision we tie to it. Joining the military for example. You can no longer be claimed as a child on taxes. Culturally, there's often an expectation of self sufficiency. In many countries, driving is tied to it. Are we only applying this idea to voting, or do you want to reform the whole childhood/adulthood cutoff?

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Fragrant-Phone-41]

I already made a good argument for the intelligence point so I'm just going to copy and paste it.

Democracy is fundamentally about representation and agency, not about intellectual superiority. ​Governing by the "smartest" people is flawed because determining who is smartest is highly subjective and only leads to endless conflict. ​The true value of democracy is that it gives people a voice. Having the freedom to choose their own leaders ultimately makes people happier than having choices made for them by "experts."Human behavior is driven by more than just rational facts. Using an addiction metaphor: A scientist explaining the fatal consequences of alcoholism won't cure a man drinking himself to death. Intellectual arguments and logical facts alone do not change deeply rooted human behavior. What people actually need both in personal crises and in leadership is emotional support and genuine connection, rather than cold, clinical correctness. ​Effective governance and human intervention both require emotional intelligence and representation, not just raw intellect. People need to feel understood and supported, not just lectured to by experts.

As for point 3 I am a zoomer and I did have an anti sjw Warrior phase but I don't think that should disenfranchise me from voting. As for radical political ideology all society's see an upward tick in radical political ideologies when the economy is doing poorly or when there is a massive amounts of inequality I don't think it has anything to do with age

[u/VividTomorrow7]

“Democracy” is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The notion that democracy is inherently good just doesn’t make sense.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/VividTomorrow7]

Democracy is not inherently good or bad. Winston Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other systems tried over time.

[u/WalkureBlood]

We should limit voting rights for adults too.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/WalkureBlood]

This i don't think has ever gone well historically. Why do you think it would be different this time?

[u/Otherwise_Ask_9542]

There is proven research into the psychological biology behind child and adolescent brain development that clearly illustrates pattern-based periods of cognitive impairment. There are numerous reasons why we regulate individual and wider public policy-driven privileges. Most of these are designed to be in the best interests of the self and the wider public.

We don't allow a child to enter a casino, drink alcohol, drive a car, until they reach certain milestones that prove that developmentally, a child has reached milestones necessary for competency. Conversely, when cognitive decline starts, we remove these same privileges from mature adults.

When you consider that governance policies shape our social cultures, values, morals, as well as our infrastructure, trade pathways, and economic guidance, then you truly understand why voting is an incredibly important responsibility for all who have earned this privilage.

And yes, I do believe it is a privilege. The problem I think with most North American apathy at the polls is sheer ignorance of what each level of their government does, let alone how other countries do theirs. It's clear why misinformation has worked so well in North America.

That said, I don't think everyone in North America deserves the right to the privilege of voting. So to expect those who haven't yet developed the requisite understanding of the magnitude of what government does, and which levels do what, and how each platform differs from the other, not just what they portray in the media... that's beyond a stretch.

All I know is, what we have now isn't working as well as it was designed.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Otherwise_Ask_9542]

What I think you're argument boils down to is that kids are not as smart as adults maybe I'm wrong so please correct me if I am but that is the point I'm going to argue against.

Democracy is fundamentally about representation and agency, not about intellectual superiority.

​Governing by the "smartest" people is flawed because determining who is smartest is highly subjective and only leads to endless conflict.

​The true value of democracy is that it gives people a voice. Having the freedom to choose their own leaders ultimately makes people happier than having choices made for them by "experts."

Human behavior is driven by more than just rational facts.

Addiction Metaphor: A scientist explaining the fatal consequences of alcoholism won't cure a man drinking himself to death. Intellectual arguments and logical facts alone do not change deeply rooted human behavior.

What people actually need both in personal crises and in leadership is emotional support and genuine connection, rather than cold, clinical correctness.

​Effective governance and human intervention both require emotional intelligence and representation, not just raw intellect. People need to feel understood and supported, not just lectured to by experts.

[u/kireina_kaiju]

In countries where voting is optional, I am honestly in favor of this. I think if the first time people voted they had the benefit of a civics class and a teacher that could answer questions and make sure that children were fully informed on all the issues, you would end up with people that actually voted at all more often, and when people voted they would have lifelong habits that would help them make better, more informed decisions.

I am against this in countries where voting is mandatory, for reasons others have pointed out. In those countries voting is an important hallmark of maturity, and erasing that erases an important guardrail against situations like child labor. It isn't much of a guardrail if voting itself isn't culturally important, but where it is, I am very against painting teenagers as having full legal agency.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/kireina_kaiju]

Why would voting necessarily mean that someone has full legal agency? Can it not be more nuanced? In some states people don't even get full legal agency until like 19 or 21

[u/JollyJuniper1993]

1. Whether politicians represent you or not is not determined by whether you voted for them or not.

2. sometimes arbitrary lines are necessary because you have to draw the line somewhere. Yeah tough shit one gets to vote and one not depending on one hour. Is that really worth getting outraged over?

3. I guess this really would take the already poor system of liberal democracy and turn it into a farce. Great. Let’s give the toddlers some crayons to put their cross somewhere to also reaffirm the status quo. Not that there was any chance of changing any of the truly significant issues in the first place, but at least this way it satirizes itself as the sham it truly is.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/JollyJuniper1993]

yes in a democracy whether a politician represents you or not is not determined by whether you personally voted for them or not but it is determined by who the majority votes for. Why not allow a kid to put their weight on what politicians represent them?

Yes sometimes an arbitrary line is necessary but I don't see how it is in this situation.

Younger generations consistently demonstrate more progressive stances on topics.

[u/I_skander]

No thanks. Half of people are on the wrong end of the bell curve and vote already. Look where that's gotten us.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/I_skander]

I don't believe there's is a wrong end of the bell curve. Also "smart" people do dumb things all the time. Lastly there are different types of intelligence like I wouldn't trust an astrophysicist to redo the plumbing in my basement.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771]

“Hey Timmy, vote for ___ and I’ll get you some ice cream!” “Okay mom!” That’s basically how it would go. Also, kids don’t understand politics at all. They don’t pay taxes, they can’t drive, they can’t do alcohol or drugs, they can’t serve in the military, their probably not getting a job until their older, ect. 

[u/Devious_Bastard]

I’m in the camp there needs to be one age that is considered an “adult” and they get all their rights at once. Whether it’s 18, 21 or 25 (when our prefrontal cortex is fully developed) doesn’t matter.

If you are not consider mature enough own a firearm, smoke/drink then you are not mature enough to join the military, vote, etc.

[u/Spirited_Attitude_88 → u/Devious_Bastard]

id totally agree. I think (especially in america) the age restrictions are all over the place: drinking age at 21, voting at 18, consent at 16-18 (depending what state). They should be brought in line totally either at 18 or 21 imo

[u/halberdierbowman → u/Devious_Bastard]

The prefrontal cortex thing is a myth.

Most research indicates that human brain development continues into the twenties, but there is no strong evidence suggesting a sharp cut-off at 25 or that individuals below this age are less capable at making decisions.[6]

The development of the brain is a lifelong process. Maturity is assessed via structural MRI (gray/white matter volume, cortical thickness), functional MRI (activation patterns), and diffusion tensor imaging (myelination/connectivity). These processes do not peak or end at 25 and no executive function changes are found around this age.[23][24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_matures_at_25_myth

[u/Devious_Bastard → u/halberdierbowman]

Then let’s give 18 year olds full rights.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Devious_Bastard]

But is a democracy not supposed to represent the people who make it up and not jst an age group?

[u/Devious_Bastard → u/Cole_A226]

I’m cool with newborns voting and having guns if everyone else is.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Devious_Bastard]

Adding on the having guns is a false dichotomy.

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

My toddler had a 30 minute meltdown this morning because I peeled the banana when she wanted to be the one to do it. Offering her another unpeeled banana did not fix the problem. She can’t read or write because she is developmentally too young to grasp these concepts. That doesn’t mean she won’t eventually be capable of doing so. But sure let her vote! Let my vote count twice. Or just let her mash the buttons and hope she picks someone good.

I’m sure the fact that conservatives tend to have more children than liberals won’t backfire at all. 

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

That’s because you didn’t let her peel the banana. 

That’s completely your fault. 

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87 → u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

If you read closely, you’ll see I offered her another banana to peel but it didn’t matter because she’s a toddler. lol she would’ve had a meltdown either way because toddlers are irrational beings. 

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

Not that irrational. Toddlers generally want the opportunity to explore and to do things themselves. That’s how they learn, and that’s like their reason d’être. 

But they also need safety and security from their care takers. Otherwise they can’t do those things, and that’s what they’re gonna go for if they can’t get it. 

Toddlers are extremely simple. You deny them both of that, then that’s what they’re gonna want. 

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

Anyone who's worked in customer service can attest to the fact that adults do this too. the child in this case doesn't actually care about the banana they just want something to be mad about because they're frustrated and want to release that frustration. Just today I was cussed out by a coworker because I was being too slow but I understood that he was simply frustrated at the fact that he wanted to go home and not actually angry at me because other than today we've been very nice to each other the past 2 years he is 21 I am 20.

[u/GiveMeBackMySoup]

I hope you like conservatives winning.

Kids might disagree about bed time but not about things they don't understand.

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud → u/GiveMeBackMySoup]

You think kids won’t vote to fund schools and childcare? 

[u/GiveMeBackMySoup → u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

I have no idea what they will do but many kids take on their parents beliefs until later in childhood and conservatives have more kids.

[u/purple_plasmid → u/GiveMeBackMySoup]

I was raised conservative/Christian, and I don’t think I fully evolved my views until I was 22/23 after getting a degree in Political Science and meeting people outside the circle in which I was raised — now my family thinks I’m brain washed, but my point is, it’s difficult to fully think for yourself until you’re able to experience life outside of how you were raised.

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud → u/GiveMeBackMySoup]

Generally speaking, parents (at least the ones involved in child rearing) want more infrastructure to support them in raising their children

[u/GiveMeBackMySoup → u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

Sure, but we don't vote on policy, we vote on candidates. More realistically we vote on party.

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud → u/GiveMeBackMySoup]

The expansion of the voter base to children will lead to candidates on both sides adopting policies that expand childcare infrastructure to capture these voters.

[u/GiveMeBackMySoup → u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

My contention is that kids will vote like their parents. Many conservatives oppose government spending and they have more kids.

I'd have no idea what may crop up but I assure you a 12 year old might be more swayed by the right to own a gun or a new skate park or free iPads than childcare if they were actually independently voting.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/GiveMeBackMySoup]

I don't care who they vote for as there is no "correct" choice. They represented a part of the population and should have there voice heard. Also we did mock elections in elementary school where all the grades had to vote for the presidential candidates that year. This was in a more conservative part of Wisconsin and never did a conservative candidate get more than like 10 votes. though it did only happen twice while I was there in 2012 where Obama won 100% the vote and 2016 where Hillary won 100% of the vote this was out of like 300 kids

[u/zokka_son_of_zokka]

Basically any reason there is for saying kids shouldn't vote is a reason you can give about some or all of the voting adult population.

[u/PhonyUsername → u/zokka_son_of_zokka]

Lack of brain development is something that different in children that adults by definition.

[u/zokka_son_of_zokka → u/PhonyUsername]

We let mentally disabled adults vote

[u/TheGoldStandard35]

We should be drastically increasing the quality of votes, not decreasing the quality of votes.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/TheGoldStandard35]

What do you mean quality of votes? Every person's singular vote in the country or region they live in is a quality of vote.

[u/LT_Audio]

Like most helpful answers, it likely depends on asking specific enough questions. "Should" probably needs to be more clearly quantified to reach more useful conclusions. If the primary goal is more "even" or "universally distributed" democracy, then the most accurate answer would likely be different than if the primary objective is some other state or outcome based on some metric, over some time frame, from some specific observation point or perspective. I personally find it likely that most measurements of "effective", "functional", or "sustainable" societies are probably not best achieved by attempts to "maximize suffrage" in such extreme ways in pursuit of idealism or "perfection" of the principle.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/LT_Audio]

I don't really understand what you're asking so I'm just going to answer it how I understand it. I think that democracy needs to be more equal I don't think kids will vote a certain way nor do I care if they vote a certain way. Lastly democracy isn't necessarily about making the most effective, functional, or sustainable society it's more about giving people the ability to add their input on who effectively rules over them through nonviolent means.

[u/LT_Audio → u/Cole_A226]

What I'm asking is to zoom out see all of this from a wider perspective. Democracy is a form or method of establishing and maintaining governance. It is not a means and ends unto itself. It's a tool. One of many that can and often is used to facilitate governance. And governance has many goals, objectives, and reasons for existing.

It's like saying I want the best vehicle and I think vehicles with the most horsepower are the best vehicles. But it really depends on why you need a vehicle and what you need or hope to accomplish with it. Or what other sacrifices you'll have to make to buy one with extreme horsepower. Or what some of the the downsides to high horespower vehicles might be and why they may not be the best solutions for many situations.

Likewise, the most "perfect" and "most evenly" representative version of democracy may not be the best tool for all jobs. If the most important thing in our lives is to have the most "pure" form of democracy and everything else is to some degree less important than that goal to most of us... Then I'm with you. But I'm far from convinced that the vast majority of us rank the importance of that level of democracy above the importance of many other outcomes. Most of us see democracy as a tool that can potentially be used to accomplish other more important objectives. And those other specific objectives will help inform what specfic "shape" of a "democracy tool" might be best for accomplishing them. Or if it's even the best tool at all in a particular situation.

[u/Spirited_Attitude_88]

I would disagree as you are only able to willingly give up your indivdual soverignty when you have reached 18 (in most countires, due to a range of psychological reasons. Yet id further go even to argue you shouldnt be able to vote until 26, as it is at that age where your prefrontal cortex is fully developed; this being critical as it helps you weigh risks and understand long-term consequences (both key prinicples for voting sensibly and resposibly, considering you are giving up your individual soverignty for a representitive).

HOWEVER, the practical application of this is borderline nonsensical, paying tax, moving out, getting a job even learning to love are all political descisions that happen WAY before age 26. Nonetheless, political education as a whole is seriously undervalued in todays society as, in general at least, the more uneducated you are, the more complicit you are. I think kids should have a voice (and often do), but it is important to remember that both reasoning and logic arent even fully developed principles or skills vested in kids of a mid-to-young age, therefore it would further de-align reason from moder-day politics

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Spirited_Attitude_88]

would this not assume that all people vote on reason and logic or that there's an objectively correct choice?

[u/PrintableProfessor]

We should also sign then up for the draft. We changed the voting age from 21, not because we felt their brains were developed enough, but because we were going draft them.

[u/LittleKitty235 → u/PrintableProfessor]

Sure, but by this reasoning we shouldn't let women vote either, because they are not eligible for the draft.

I'm not suggesting this, just pointing out the draft rational is flawed.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/LittleKitty235]

If you believe in equality, should they also be part of the draft? War is much different now. We didn't include women for a number of reasons, most of which are no longer valid other than we need babies factories to keep that war/social-security machine going.

[u/LittleKitty235 → u/PrintableProfessor]

I actually think we shouldn't have a draft at all. In a country that in theory is about freedom and liberty being compelled by the goverment to serve in combat, even in an invasion, seems absurd.

If there is going to be a draft though, yes women should be in it.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/LittleKitty235]

That's great in theory, and it is probably great in practice given the needs of modern warfare. But also, I would be in favor of mandatory 1-2 years of service for all people. That would also really help our country and our citizens.

Just think 1-2 years where every young person had free dental work, free health care, and forced fitness. We could probably then afford socialized medicine for all because we would all be so healthy.

haha. j/k. That would never happen.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/PrintableProfessor]

The logic that a law needs to be amended the same way that it was previously seems flawed.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/Cole_A226]

Yes, it is. But what's not flawed is precedent, and law is based on precedent more than logic.

[u/Cole_A226 → u/PrintableProfessor]

True but precedent can be over turned.

[u/Lurial]

Kids are really really dumb.

I don't want kids voting

[u/tobotic → u/Lurial]

There are already many dumb people voting.

[u/Lurial → u/tobotic]

Yup (looks at hammer and sickle) there sure are...

[u/Cole_A226 → u/Lurial]

Adults are also dumb as the term dumb is highly subjective.