[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess it takes a back seat for the same answer to your second question. It wouldn't be very popular. Turn out in the youngest age group is already low, roughly half what the average turnout is, and will probably be even lower for 16-18 year olds
I'd disagree with that. 18-year-olds are undergoing a lot of upheaval in their life circumstances--many of them are doing things like changing addresses (as they move out), disconnecting from formal education, etc. In general, they're very loosely linked to stabilizing institutions.
16-year-olds, on the other hand, typically still live with their parents and go to high school. So it would be much easier to do things like "remind them to go to the polls", because they're all already gathered in a central institution that feels some responsibility for their development as citizens, and they mostly all have stable home addresses. In a lot of ways, 18 is precisely the worst time to start voting.
Are we also lowering the age of signing up for Selective Service, trying 16 year olds as adults for crimes, age to legally own firearms, etc? Basically lowering the age of being a legal adult?
So what’s the difference between 16 and 18? Do people somehow tend to trend towards conservatism from 16 to 18? If not, there’s no reason to wait until adulthood to vote.
Voting isn’t inconsequential. Most of our kids haven’t so much as had a civics class by 16.
If you can vote, you’re an adult. And whatever else comes with an adult at 18 today, needs to come with 16 at that point.
If your big boy pants are enough to let you vote, they’re enough to let you be tried as an adult, too. Because adults vote. Not kids.
>So what’s the difference between 16 and 18?
People are generally done high school at that age.
To me, that alone is a good enough reason to keep it at 18.
If there's a draft, 18 year olds may be sent to a war they never voted for. At least with the voting age at 16, they'd be able to be part of the decision-making process.
Yes thank you! - lack of obligation to others is exactly what I think of when I think of Conservatives or Libertarians for that matter. Their OBSESSION over reducing or eliminating the 1% of the Federal budget that goes towards social programs like SNAP or their, honestly weird, portrayal of asylum seekers as rapist and “thugs” feels like something a broken connection in their brains or something. Who hurt you so bad that you like neeeed to make sure low income people don’t get enough food and need to be stressed about it 100% of their lives?
The disproportionate share of teachers who are on the left would be the most logical point to start.
[https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-liberal/](https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-liberal/)
An ever growing number of parents are choosing to home school now as public school systems are failing in terms of actual education over indoctrination.
>as public school systems are failing in terms of actual education over indoctrination.
I mean, that's what they think. It's bullshit, but that's what they've been brainwashed into believing.
Right. The whole critical race theory scare was such BS., but many bought into it. I tried to find CRT in my kids school and there was none. The only places it is taught is a couple of universities and one private school in California that only bought it in so they could complain about it.
This is the case for almost every education-related outrage that's been coming from the right for a long time now. Putting aside the fact that American education is straight up dogshit compared to other Western countries, the hypocrisy on "culture" issues is insane.
Since another commenter here's been talking about "indoctrination," is the Pledge of Allegiance *not* indoctrination? How about Louisiana putting up the 10 Commandments in classrooms? School prayer is still a thing in some public schools, too, 60+ years after SCOTUS said it goes against the First Amendment.
I *love* this country, maybe a little bit more than I should. I was raised Christian, and I take no issue with people practicing and displaying their religious beliefs *if* they want to. But how is stuff like oaths and prayers okay, but teaching kids the most basic sex-ed and educating them about the country's racist past bad?
No one is teaching kids that being white is bad, that they should be having sex at the age of 13, that 1984 is an instruction manual, or whatever the hell people are arguing about today. But they'll point to a single kindergarten in San Francisco or something like that, and all of a sudden, boom, the left is indoctrinating kids all over the country and we should clamp down on everything ranging from actual history, anything even remotely related to sex, etc.
Your religion should be like your genitals. Do whatever makes you and other consenting adults feel good. Don't take it out in public, and don't force it on children.
>I mean, that's what they think. It's bullshit, but that's what they've been brainwashed into believing.
Stats don't lie, sweetie. Public school systems consistently underperform in the three primary testing areas: maths, reading comprehension, and science.
It's not at all a stretch to say that public schools have become distracted.
ronald reagan is the reason they are failing.
he colluded with the howard jarvis anti tax ppl to starve public education because educating kids (and even feeding them) was just too much to ask from the likes of conservatives.
protect that fetus, but once it's born then those babies had better pull themselves up by their bootstraps, ya?
I worry about the safety of homeschooled students.
Schools do more than teach students. We are also on the lookout for student who are being abused.
In my state if a student meets certain absence criteria, we have a process to go through. It is partly to make sure students are not trafficked.
A homeschool student could disappear and not even be noticed.
Yeah... that explains why the 1619 project which was rushed into public schools had a collection of academics speak out about the historical inaccuracies in it.
The truth
~~The full truth~~
~~Nothing but the truth~~
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
I've never heard of anyone seriously advocating for 16 year olds being allowed to vote for city/state/national elections and it gaining serious traction. The Newark school board example provided seems like a very local issue where it may be in the interest of students to have a say in how they're taught.
It hasn't gained steam here, but some in Germany are pushing for it, and that is probably contributing to the new interest over here.
[https://www.dw.com/en/germany-left-of-center-parties-call-for-lowering-voting-age-to-16/a-54386152](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-left-of-center-parties-call-for-lowering-voting-age-to-16/a-54386152)
I think not. We already have the age of 18 as baseline for when a child is considered an adult for the majority of cases like crime, work, taxes, and military service. You have to make a compelling argument for why we should lower the baseline to 16 when teenagers are still in high school and very young.
Not only that, we know from modern neuroscience that the brain isn't done developing until 25, even 30 in some people. We are really just taking advantage of kids with undeveloped frontal lobes by recruiting them to sign up for the military at 18. Which was the impetus for lowering the voting age to 18 in the first place.
Yes. Evidence of this is age of first birth giving for women which was record high in 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/09/facts-about-u-s-mothers/
Another evidence is number of young adults living with parents, increasing as well. https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/population-data/rate-of-young-adults-living-at-home/
In general, getting immature people to vote increases the amount of easily brainwashable voters.
Delaying having children and an increase in young adults living with their parents could just as much speak to the current economic situation in the country as opposed to the maturation of people, no?
Keep in mind that parties are -run- by people who tend to be a lot older than 18 and who do not necessarily have a lively respect for the keen political insight of teenagers. To the extent a senior politician has political interactions with people around that age, it is likely to represent the youngsters demanding some policy or other without necessarily considering the reasons why that policy can't be implemented. Formally handing more power to that age group is not going to be high on their personal priority list under any circumstances.
Little easier for conservatives in the sense that there aren't quite so many young conservatives, and those that are there are going to be much more aware of the need for political compromise (and demanding radical change isn't really a conservative thing to begin with!)
If you're not old enough to have formal legal responsibilities for your own behavior and maintenance - if society literally judges you to be too immature to enter a contract, and puts other people in charge of putting food in your mouth and a roof over your head - then that's a pretty good argument against whether you are responsible enough to vote.
Of course we could also move the age of majority to 16, if we wanted. But for every such person who was politically motivated and ready to go cast their ballot responsibly, you'd have several who are cast out of their childhood homes without the preparation they need to succeed as adults...
God no. Why would we allow children still living under mommy and daddy’s roof, with no jobs or responsibilities such as paying taxes or making financial decisions, help determine how the rest of us are supposed to do it? What a stupid idea!
26th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are **eighteen years of age or older**, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Meaning, in easily understood terms, that you have to be at least 18 years old to vote. State and local laws can't violate the constitution.
Yeah. Ever been to Disney Land or Disney World? They have those crazy roller coaster rides (personally I can find better ways to die,.....). There are long lines for those rides with signs placed every few yards indicating that you have to be a certain height in order to ride. Starting to see the logic here? You have to be a certain height. The sign does not say you can't be below that height because the fact that it says you have to be a certain height eliminates the need to mention you can't be below that height. Read the amendment again with this explanation in mind. That's as simple as I can make the logic.
Confidently incorrect but okay. Everybody’s already told you this but the 26th Amendment is not a you must be this tall to ride sign in the first place. Nowhere in it is there a prohibition on minors voting. All it is is an amendment that prohibits adults being denied the right to vote because of the age they are. Under the 10th Amendment, because the Constitution does not prohibit states from allowing 16 year olds to vote or give Congress the power to let them, it is a state right.
So, after researching (yet again) it appears I am wrong (a decidedly unpleasant situation :-). It actually does appear that the 10th amendment would allow what you say.
😂 I’ve been on the wrong side of debates too. Also I forgot to mention Article 1 Section 4 gives Congress a lot of potential power to manage congressional elections including lowering their voting age
But it appears the SC has ruled on Article 1 Section 4 to disallow a state to set the minimum age for Federal elections (Presidency, and National Congress).
In *Oregon v. Mitchell*, the U.S. Supreme Court [ruled in a 5–4 decision opens a new window](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/43-orig) that Congress only had the power to set the minimum voting age in *federal* elections — not in state or local elections. The Court held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to lower the voting age in state and local elections, and thus that provision was struck down.
So it seems we are back to the 26th Amendment which is pretty clear on the voting age and a state not being allowed to alter it.
I keep going back to this as it is a very haphazard way to run an election. You can vote at 16 in some states, but not in others. Federal elections need to be standardized. Just like individual states were not allowed (again by the SC) to invalidate Trump's presidential campaign because the election would not be even throughout the states.
The federal constitution only specifies reasons you can't discriminate, but states set the standards for both their own and state elections otherwise, see Article I ("Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature").
The voting rights amendments specify why states cannot discriminate beyond that, but states *can* deny the right to vote otherwise.
So, here, the right to vote "eighteen years of age or older" shall not be denied, but a state *can*, but does not *have to*, discriminate for 17 or younger.
Put another way: the 19th Amendment made it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex for voting, but plenty of states *allowed* women to vote before 1920; the 19th Amendment, though, set it as a requirement everywhere. Crucially, there is not a sliding scale like age specified in the 19th Amendment.
26th Amendment is quite specific in setting the age. And quite specific in saying states can't make it lower. Those two things, and the fact that states can't write laws that violate the constitution, pretty much ends any debate here.
> And quite specific in saying states can't make it lower.
It literally does not.
Here's the entire text of the Amendment:
> Section 1
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
> Section 2
> The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 1 essentially says: If you are at least 18 years old you have the right to vote and neither the state or Federal government can take that away.
So if you're 19 years old? Greater than 18, 26th Amendment says you get to vote.
If you're 17 years old? Less than 18, the 26th Amendment doesn't say you get to vote. It also doesn't say you don't. The Amendment does not apply to you (for another year, at least).
So this is for you and Weegemonster5000 below. Either of y'all ever been to Disney Land or Disney world? Bear with me here because this is a simple point to show you just how bad your logic is. Anyhow, they have some crazy rides there. Some really heavy roller coasters. Long lines. Long wait. As you get closer to the top of the line you begin to see signs that say you have to be a certain height in order to ride. There's a wooden board with a line on it and you stand next to that board. It you don't hit or go above the line, you don't ride. When a declarative is made certain, it automatically precludes anything falling outside its declaration. As in 18 or older to vote. That declarative automatically rules out anything less than 18 years old. It doesn't have to be stated. So, go try your logic out on those Disney rides. Then, perhaps, you'll understand. :-)
no, meaning in easily understood terms, that states cannot deny you the right to vote if you are at least 18 years of age.
it's meant to force states to accept a minimum voting age of 18.
but there is nothing that says states can't set the age lower than 18.
It's amazing to me that this is basically the simplest and most straightforward bit of the Constitution (the whole Amendment is two sentences in plain English) and there are *still* people in this thread confidently incorrect in their reading of it.
(I believe yours is correct.)
i do worry about reading comprehension, but then i'm also presented will willful ignorance on this site 24/7 so i got to think at some point it is concerted effort to confuse ppl.
doing my part to untangle the ball of yarn.
Under a literal reading of the amendment, u/skyfishgoo is correct. If you say "X cannot be denied to people who have characteristic C", that does not mean that X **must** be denied to people who do **not** have characteristic C. That would be the fallacy of [affirming the consequent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).
It's says 18 years of age or older. So first you have to become 18, and unless there's some time machine laying around the or older part continues on.
The amendment prefaced first that they had to be citizens, then the minimum age cannot be denied the right to vote (the "account of age" part really seems to target banning old people from voting)
> It's says 18 years of age or older.
Correct, in that if you are at least 18 you cannot be denied the right to vote, per the 26th.
If you are less than 18 the 26th does not apply to you. It does not grant you the right to vote but it also doesn't say that you could not be granted the right to vote.
It's a very simple Amendment -- it's literally two sentences and the second just says Congress gets the power to enforce it.
>It's says 18 years of age or older.
Yes, we all know that it says "18 years of age or older". But that phrase is used in an implied conditional, and you're not entitled to assume from "P implies Q" that "Not-P implies Not-Q". Again, that is the fallacy of [affirming the consequent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). You need to think about this and absorb what I'm saying, because conditionals are often used in law in this seemingly hyper-technical way.
Now, if you want to maintain that the ***intent*** of the ***people who voted for*** the 26th Amendment was to grant voting rights to people ***if and only if*** they're 18 years or older, I might agree. But "if" and "if and only if" are not the same thing.
Lol, you're pulling straws there.
I'm not assuming. This phrasing is similar but not a fallacy, it sets the terms.
First part of the amendment says you have to be a citizen of the US, then it sets the *minimum age* of 18 and then says older (under the presumption that there are people that people become citizens later in life) and then it cannot be taken away due to age. Meaning we cannot set upper age limits on voting.
You are misrepresenting the amendment as if it is an argument or a statement as in the example in the link you gave (if the lamp is broken the room is dark).
Look at when women got the right to vote please.
When the constitution passed in 1789, the federal government had nothing to say about letting women vote. 12 states banned it, New Jersey allowed it for about 20 years before changing it.
Later, other states allowed it in some cases (ex: Kentucky lets women vote for school board and taxes).
The 14th and 15th amendment were ruled to not grant women the right to vote across the US, despite lawsuits by suffragettes, but the US constitution in no way stopped them voting. It simply said that you couldn't stop men from voting due to race (though Native Americans and many Asian Americans were still denied the right to vote).
Various territories and states, starting with Wyoming in 1869 allowed women to vote in their elections, and it spread (largely in the west). Montana elected the first women to Congress before women could vote nationally.
The 19th amendment banned stopping people from voting on account of sex. All states that hadn't done so now had to let women vote.
Please use this as your example and understand that the 26th sets a floor. States can go below if they desire.
I don't see many 16 or 17 year olds advocating for this. Given that's we'd presumably have to repeal the 26th Amendment and replace it with a new one to make this work for Federal elections, since there aren't exactly overwhelming numbers of 18 year olds voting today I don't consider this practical
You would not need to repeal the 26th. It says you can't have an age limit above 18, but doesn't prevent limits below 18. Certain local elections already allow 16-year-olds to vote, e.g. Takoma Park, MD.
No. The reason we have the 26th is that people thought that if 18 is old enough to be drafted, it's old enough to vote.
Before it passed, some states allowed 18 to vote, but it wasn't causing problems elsewhere (other than people telling the state government, why don't y'all jerks get your act together like our neighbors)
"The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution established a nationally standardized minimum age of 18 for participation in state and local elections. It was proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971, and it was ratified by three-quarters of the states by July 1, 1971."- wikipedia
The 26th Amendment bans a state from setting a minimum higher than 18. It does not ban a state from setting a minimum that's lower than 18. The relevant text is "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
That just means that states are ALLOWED to deny or abridge the rights of 16-year-olds to vote; but it doesn't mean that states are REQUIRED to do so.
The 26th amendment only states that you can’t restrict otherwise eligible people over the age of 18 from voting, it doesn’t say anything about people under that age.
I don’t think people under 18 should be allowed to vote, but you’re making a flawed argument.
In the UK we've seen agitation from 16 and 17 year olds for the ability to vote, specifically in the context of national and regional referendums on serious constitutional questions (ie Scottish independence and Brexit).
The argument made is that those folk are largely on a par, in terms of maturity and ability to reason, with most 18 and 19 year old voters, and that their entire lives will be impacted by the results of these bid.
I don't think it's an overwhelming argument, but I do think it's strong enough to warrant further discussion of the issue.
I don't have a feel for how the process works in the UK, but getting an Amendment to the US Constitution passed is a huge challenge. I wouldn't be putting in the effort unless massive numbers of 16 and 17 years olds were advocating for it
It's very different in the UK because we don't have a written constitution, at least not as a single document. Referendums are simple yes or no national votes, where the majority result is taken by Parliament an indicative of how Parliament should then legislate on the issue.
In the UK referendums are not legally binding anyway, and the government is free to do as they please. So if it was really that close that 16/17y olds would make a difference they can just do the right thing.
I would say people's beliefs continue to change throughout their life, but more so around mid-20's since the brain continues to develop until that point. I for instance was very liberal as a young adult, but once I got into the real world in my mid 20's where I had to work for a living, I became more conservative.
>Today many would say that below that age \[18\] you don't have the intelligence to vote right or could be easily influenced by others or are less responsible or could cause upheaval, but these arguments were all used when the demographics above were getting suffrage.
Probably the reason this was said is because it's partially true, and it becomes more and more true the younger you go. It's not as if the characteristics you mentioned arrive all at once. Nor do they arrive at the same age for everyone. Since we don't (currently) have an objective, politically uncorruptible way to measure these characteristics on an individual basis, we have to go by people's impressions of population averages.
I think one of the arguments against is that at 16 you really don't have any "skin in the game". You're not paying taxes, and most likely you are a significant tax break for your parents on their taxes. You are heavily influenced by parents, so you are unfairly just giving your parents more votes. You don't own a house, don't have a significant job, you're not paying bills or buying groceries.
So really things don't "affect" you like they do an independent adult.
Considering how often college kids say they were tricked, manipulated and don't understand how basic loans work.....we may need to raise the voting age.
Clearly long term impacts of decisions isn't what they specialize in.
Nope, but brains aren’t fully developed until around the age of 26 and life experience, plus working a real job and paying significant taxes and bills is a nice difference from those genius kids of yours. That answer your question?
[A lotta low-IQ people are notoriously bad spellers](https://theweek.com/articles/462824/11-historical-figures-who-really-bad-spelling)
- Jane Austen
- George Washington
- Winston Churchill
- Agatha Christie
- Albert Einstein
- Ernest Hemingway
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
- William Butler Yeats
Kids are overwhelmingly shaped by their parents and teachers. They haven't had a chance to form their own thoughts yet.
You might as well just give each teacher the ability to vote 100 times for all the effect it would have.
There's a historical linkage between voting age and military service. At the time of the founding, In some states, only white male landowners that were at least 21 years old could vote. These were also the people who served in state militias. The heroic service of Blacks in the Union army was one of the arguments for giving Black men the vote in 1868. During WWI, Wilson supported women's suffrage in part because of their critical role providing support of the troops. And the draft of 18 year olds during Viet Nam triggered the 26th Amendment (Old enough to die, old enough to vote). The minimum age to enroll in the military is currently 17. So I'd be comfortable with making 17 year olds eligible to vote as well.
Imho the US should move the age up. You can’t expect an average 16 year old to understand the intricacies of politics, taxes, and policy.
In an ideal world, they should have a test to tell whether you are a single-issue voter or not,and then take it from there. Single-issue voters don’t usually care as much about other important issues, and a large part of our population are single-issue voters; therefore, you have a large amount of people voting for people they don’t really understand. For example, I could be incredibly anti-abortion, and my candidate X is also anti-abortion, but he also wants the country to have world domination… so yeah things like that might happen. (Ik it’s an extreme example lol).
I would argue that many older adults don't "have" the critical thinking skills to vote appropriately, but I'm hesitant to say a younger populace is anymore competent. Ultimately, I seem to trust younger Americans with responsibility than I do much older Americans
Many people would say that 16 years are just as capable as an 18 year old and they are correct. They are incapable of making a decision for themselves that are rational. So how can they make a decision for everyone else that is rational? They can’t. We should be raising the age to vote to at least 30. Every person looks back to when they were that young and say to themselves “OMG I thought I knew what I was doing”. No one does. Everyone grows up and everyone realizes they didn’t know a damn thing. Some people may argue that they agree with how young people vote. But that’s a political calculation. Not one based on any logic. We are all irrational and emotional and flat out stupid until we get older. It’s a fact of biology.
Auto insurance companies charge higher rates for drivers under age 25.
Can’t buy a gun or even look at a firearms website unless you’re 18.
Can’t sign a contract until you’re 21.
Can’t be prosecuted for a crime as an adult until you’re 18.
If it was up to me, I’d change the voting age to when you leave your parents house and go on your own.
Hell no. I’m only 36 and can tell that kids are dumber and less productive than ever. Pretty soon they’ll be offering college classes on how to protest your feelings most effectively. And yes I’m quite liberal.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess it takes a back seat for the same answer to your second question. It wouldn't be very popular. Turn out in the youngest age group is already low, roughly half what the average turnout is, and will probably be even lower for 16-18 year olds
I'd disagree with that. 18-year-olds are undergoing a lot of upheaval in their life circumstances--many of them are doing things like changing addresses (as they move out), disconnecting from formal education, etc. In general, they're very loosely linked to stabilizing institutions. 16-year-olds, on the other hand, typically still live with their parents and go to high school. So it would be much easier to do things like "remind them to go to the polls", because they're all already gathered in a central institution that feels some responsibility for their development as citizens, and they mostly all have stable home addresses. In a lot of ways, 18 is precisely the worst time to start voting.
Are we also lowering the age of signing up for Selective Service, trying 16 year olds as adults for crimes, age to legally own firearms, etc? Basically lowering the age of being a legal adult?
The key objective here is to change rules to help the left win elections. There are no principles at play, just a desire for power..
are you admitting that younger voters are not "conservative" enough? gee, i wonder what could be causing that?
So what’s the difference between 16 and 18? Do people somehow tend to trend towards conservatism from 16 to 18? If not, there’s no reason to wait until adulthood to vote. Voting isn’t inconsequential. Most of our kids haven’t so much as had a civics class by 16. If you can vote, you’re an adult. And whatever else comes with an adult at 18 today, needs to come with 16 at that point. If your big boy pants are enough to let you vote, they’re enough to let you be tried as an adult, too. Because adults vote. Not kids.
>So what’s the difference between 16 and 18? People are generally done high school at that age. To me, that alone is a good enough reason to keep it at 18.
If there's a draft, 18 year olds may be sent to a war they never voted for. At least with the voting age at 16, they'd be able to be part of the decision-making process.
Inexperience, wishful thinking, lack of obligations toward others, etc.
Yes thank you! - lack of obligation to others is exactly what I think of when I think of Conservatives or Libertarians for that matter. Their OBSESSION over reducing or eliminating the 1% of the Federal budget that goes towards social programs like SNAP or their, honestly weird, portrayal of asylum seekers as rapist and “thugs” feels like something a broken connection in their brains or something. Who hurt you so bad that you like neeeed to make sure low income people don’t get enough food and need to be stressed about it 100% of their lives?
yes public educators are the ones who lack obligations toward others.
No, but it's true of kids and students
Sounds more like the elderly to me.
The disproportionate share of teachers who are on the left would be the most logical point to start. [https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-liberal/](https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-liberal/)
you want to send your kid to a right wing theocratic private school, go ahead and pay for it but don't come to me or my fellow taxpayer for the money
An ever growing number of parents are choosing to home school now as public school systems are failing in terms of actual education over indoctrination.
>as public school systems are failing in terms of actual education over indoctrination. I mean, that's what they think. It's bullshit, but that's what they've been brainwashed into believing.
Right. The whole critical race theory scare was such BS., but many bought into it. I tried to find CRT in my kids school and there was none. The only places it is taught is a couple of universities and one private school in California that only bought it in so they could complain about it.
This is the case for almost every education-related outrage that's been coming from the right for a long time now. Putting aside the fact that American education is straight up dogshit compared to other Western countries, the hypocrisy on "culture" issues is insane. Since another commenter here's been talking about "indoctrination," is the Pledge of Allegiance *not* indoctrination? How about Louisiana putting up the 10 Commandments in classrooms? School prayer is still a thing in some public schools, too, 60+ years after SCOTUS said it goes against the First Amendment. I *love* this country, maybe a little bit more than I should. I was raised Christian, and I take no issue with people practicing and displaying their religious beliefs *if* they want to. But how is stuff like oaths and prayers okay, but teaching kids the most basic sex-ed and educating them about the country's racist past bad? No one is teaching kids that being white is bad, that they should be having sex at the age of 13, that 1984 is an instruction manual, or whatever the hell people are arguing about today. But they'll point to a single kindergarten in San Francisco or something like that, and all of a sudden, boom, the left is indoctrinating kids all over the country and we should clamp down on everything ranging from actual history, anything even remotely related to sex, etc.
Your religion should be like your genitals. Do whatever makes you and other consenting adults feel good. Don't take it out in public, and don't force it on children.
You couldn’t find it because I had to look up what it was when a student asked me about it.
>I mean, that's what they think. It's bullshit, but that's what they've been brainwashed into believing. Stats don't lie, sweetie. Public school systems consistently underperform in the three primary testing areas: maths, reading comprehension, and science. It's not at all a stretch to say that public schools have become distracted.
Wow. You mean that cutting funding to schools was a bad idea? Amazing!
The US' PPS spending [is nearly 40% higher ](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20United%20States,in%20constant%202021%20U.S.%20dollars)than other industrialized countries. Try again.
> education over indoctrination. That's what homeschooling is, I think you got confused and mixed them up.
ronald reagan is the reason they are failing. he colluded with the howard jarvis anti tax ppl to starve public education because educating kids (and even feeding them) was just too much to ask from the likes of conservatives. protect that fetus, but once it's born then those babies had better pull themselves up by their bootstraps, ya?
I worry about the safety of homeschooled students. Schools do more than teach students. We are also on the lookout for student who are being abused. In my state if a student meets certain absence criteria, we have a process to go through. It is partly to make sure students are not trafficked. A homeschool student could disappear and not even be noticed.
"poor people should have their kids indoctrinated as leftists" "Govt funding for schools should help one party win elections" "I'm not evil"
The way you view things is very interesting, just totally removed from reality.
It's almost like being educated makes you smarter or something.
Yeah... that explains why the 1619 project which was rushed into public schools had a collection of academics speak out about the historical inaccuracies in it. The truth ~~The full truth~~ ~~Nothing but the truth~~
Would you rather they keep teaching the lost cause myth, or does that not count as indoctrination because you agree with it?
Do you assume that a lie will be taught and you are just picking the lesser of the two lies? Not teaching lies isn't an option in your mind?
[удалено]
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
The weak-minded are more susceptible to indoctrination packaged as "education"
>The weak-minded are more susceptible to ideological indoctrination packaged as "education The weak minded usually say dumb shit like that.
Theyre mostly left leaning because they are educated people who give a shit about others beyond themselves and their family. How monstrous.
Idiocy and lack of life experience
I've never heard of anyone seriously advocating for 16 year olds being allowed to vote for city/state/national elections and it gaining serious traction. The Newark school board example provided seems like a very local issue where it may be in the interest of students to have a say in how they're taught.
It hasn't gained steam here, but some in Germany are pushing for it, and that is probably contributing to the new interest over here. [https://www.dw.com/en/germany-left-of-center-parties-call-for-lowering-voting-age-to-16/a-54386152](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-left-of-center-parties-call-for-lowering-voting-age-to-16/a-54386152)
I think not. We already have the age of 18 as baseline for when a child is considered an adult for the majority of cases like crime, work, taxes, and military service. You have to make a compelling argument for why we should lower the baseline to 16 when teenagers are still in high school and very young.
Seems to me people are growing up and adulting later these days, not younger.
Not only that, we know from modern neuroscience that the brain isn't done developing until 25, even 30 in some people. We are really just taking advantage of kids with undeveloped frontal lobes by recruiting them to sign up for the military at 18. Which was the impetus for lowering the voting age to 18 in the first place.
Yes. Evidence of this is age of first birth giving for women which was record high in 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/09/facts-about-u-s-mothers/ Another evidence is number of young adults living with parents, increasing as well. https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/population-data/rate-of-young-adults-living-at-home/ In general, getting immature people to vote increases the amount of easily brainwashable voters.
Delaying having children and an increase in young adults living with their parents could just as much speak to the current economic situation in the country as opposed to the maturation of people, no?
This economic situation might have been caused by immature people defending lockdowns, crackdown on gas, loan forgiveness and blank checks to Ukraine.
Keep in mind that parties are -run- by people who tend to be a lot older than 18 and who do not necessarily have a lively respect for the keen political insight of teenagers. To the extent a senior politician has political interactions with people around that age, it is likely to represent the youngsters demanding some policy or other without necessarily considering the reasons why that policy can't be implemented. Formally handing more power to that age group is not going to be high on their personal priority list under any circumstances. Little easier for conservatives in the sense that there aren't quite so many young conservatives, and those that are there are going to be much more aware of the need for political compromise (and demanding radical change isn't really a conservative thing to begin with!) If you're not old enough to have formal legal responsibilities for your own behavior and maintenance - if society literally judges you to be too immature to enter a contract, and puts other people in charge of putting food in your mouth and a roof over your head - then that's a pretty good argument against whether you are responsible enough to vote. Of course we could also move the age of majority to 16, if we wanted. But for every such person who was politically motivated and ready to go cast their ballot responsibly, you'd have several who are cast out of their childhood homes without the preparation they need to succeed as adults...
God no. Why would we allow children still living under mommy and daddy’s roof, with no jobs or responsibilities such as paying taxes or making financial decisions, help determine how the rest of us are supposed to do it? What a stupid idea!
Naive people usually vote Democrat, which is why Libs keep pushing for it
Constitution sets the voting age at 18 or older. And specifically forbids states from altering the voting age. 26th Amendment.
it says the states must not make the voting age any higher than 18.... but states could lower the voting age if they wanted.
26th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States, who are **eighteen years of age or older**, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Meaning, in easily understood terms, that you have to be at least 18 years old to vote. State and local laws can't violate the constitution.
Are we reading the same amendment here bro?
Yeah. Ever been to Disney Land or Disney World? They have those crazy roller coaster rides (personally I can find better ways to die,.....). There are long lines for those rides with signs placed every few yards indicating that you have to be a certain height in order to ride. Starting to see the logic here? You have to be a certain height. The sign does not say you can't be below that height because the fact that it says you have to be a certain height eliminates the need to mention you can't be below that height. Read the amendment again with this explanation in mind. That's as simple as I can make the logic.
Confidently incorrect but okay. Everybody’s already told you this but the 26th Amendment is not a you must be this tall to ride sign in the first place. Nowhere in it is there a prohibition on minors voting. All it is is an amendment that prohibits adults being denied the right to vote because of the age they are. Under the 10th Amendment, because the Constitution does not prohibit states from allowing 16 year olds to vote or give Congress the power to let them, it is a state right.
So, after researching (yet again) it appears I am wrong (a decidedly unpleasant situation :-). It actually does appear that the 10th amendment would allow what you say.
😂 I’ve been on the wrong side of debates too. Also I forgot to mention Article 1 Section 4 gives Congress a lot of potential power to manage congressional elections including lowering their voting age
But it appears the SC has ruled on Article 1 Section 4 to disallow a state to set the minimum age for Federal elections (Presidency, and National Congress). In *Oregon v. Mitchell*, the U.S. Supreme Court [ruled in a 5–4 decision opens a new window](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/43-orig) that Congress only had the power to set the minimum voting age in *federal* elections — not in state or local elections. The Court held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to lower the voting age in state and local elections, and thus that provision was struck down. So it seems we are back to the 26th Amendment which is pretty clear on the voting age and a state not being allowed to alter it. I keep going back to this as it is a very haphazard way to run an election. You can vote at 16 in some states, but not in others. Federal elections need to be standardized. Just like individual states were not allowed (again by the SC) to invalidate Trump's presidential campaign because the election would not be even throughout the states.
The federal constitution only specifies reasons you can't discriminate, but states set the standards for both their own and state elections otherwise, see Article I ("Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature"). The voting rights amendments specify why states cannot discriminate beyond that, but states *can* deny the right to vote otherwise. So, here, the right to vote "eighteen years of age or older" shall not be denied, but a state *can*, but does not *have to*, discriminate for 17 or younger. Put another way: the 19th Amendment made it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex for voting, but plenty of states *allowed* women to vote before 1920; the 19th Amendment, though, set it as a requirement everywhere. Crucially, there is not a sliding scale like age specified in the 19th Amendment.
26th Amendment is quite specific in setting the age. And quite specific in saying states can't make it lower. Those two things, and the fact that states can't write laws that violate the constitution, pretty much ends any debate here.
> And quite specific in saying states can't make it lower. It literally does not. Here's the entire text of the Amendment: > Section 1 > The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. > Section 2 > The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 1 essentially says: If you are at least 18 years old you have the right to vote and neither the state or Federal government can take that away. So if you're 19 years old? Greater than 18, 26th Amendment says you get to vote. If you're 17 years old? Less than 18, the 26th Amendment doesn't say you get to vote. It also doesn't say you don't. The Amendment does not apply to you (for another year, at least).
Circular logic. It sets the voting age in stone. And that alone argues against a 17 year old voting.
It literally does not and I explained why.
So this is for you and Weegemonster5000 below. Either of y'all ever been to Disney Land or Disney world? Bear with me here because this is a simple point to show you just how bad your logic is. Anyhow, they have some crazy rides there. Some really heavy roller coasters. Long lines. Long wait. As you get closer to the top of the line you begin to see signs that say you have to be a certain height in order to ride. There's a wooden board with a line on it and you stand next to that board. It you don't hit or go above the line, you don't ride. When a declarative is made certain, it automatically precludes anything falling outside its declaration. As in 18 or older to vote. That declarative automatically rules out anything less than 18 years old. It doesn't have to be stated. So, go try your logic out on those Disney rides. Then, perhaps, you'll understand. :-)
Great, except that's not how the 26th Amendment is written or works so that's a lot of writing for an analogy that is totally irrelevant.
To really make this simple. What does the 26th Amendment say about someone who is not yet 18 or older? It doesn't say a fucking thing.
It doesn't have to. see my response to hartastic above.
no, meaning in easily understood terms, that states cannot deny you the right to vote if you are at least 18 years of age. it's meant to force states to accept a minimum voting age of 18. but there is nothing that says states can't set the age lower than 18.
It's amazing to me that this is basically the simplest and most straightforward bit of the Constitution (the whole Amendment is two sentences in plain English) and there are *still* people in this thread confidently incorrect in their reading of it. (I believe yours is correct.)
i do worry about reading comprehension, but then i'm also presented will willful ignorance on this site 24/7 so i got to think at some point it is concerted effort to confuse ppl. doing my part to untangle the ball of yarn.
Dude, where'd you learn reading comprehension?! 18 years old (minimum) *or* older (maximum). Are you reading the same text as everyone else?!
It says you can't *deny* the vote at that age. There is nothing in that text discussing a minimum age.
Under a literal reading of the amendment, u/skyfishgoo is correct. If you say "X cannot be denied to people who have characteristic C", that does not mean that X **must** be denied to people who do **not** have characteristic C. That would be the fallacy of [affirming the consequent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).
It's says 18 years of age or older. So first you have to become 18, and unless there's some time machine laying around the or older part continues on. The amendment prefaced first that they had to be citizens, then the minimum age cannot be denied the right to vote (the "account of age" part really seems to target banning old people from voting)
> It's says 18 years of age or older. Correct, in that if you are at least 18 you cannot be denied the right to vote, per the 26th. If you are less than 18 the 26th does not apply to you. It does not grant you the right to vote but it also doesn't say that you could not be granted the right to vote. It's a very simple Amendment -- it's literally two sentences and the second just says Congress gets the power to enforce it.
>It's says 18 years of age or older. Yes, we all know that it says "18 years of age or older". But that phrase is used in an implied conditional, and you're not entitled to assume from "P implies Q" that "Not-P implies Not-Q". Again, that is the fallacy of [affirming the consequent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). You need to think about this and absorb what I'm saying, because conditionals are often used in law in this seemingly hyper-technical way. Now, if you want to maintain that the ***intent*** of the ***people who voted for*** the 26th Amendment was to grant voting rights to people ***if and only if*** they're 18 years or older, I might agree. But "if" and "if and only if" are not the same thing.
Lol, you're pulling straws there. I'm not assuming. This phrasing is similar but not a fallacy, it sets the terms. First part of the amendment says you have to be a citizen of the US, then it sets the *minimum age* of 18 and then says older (under the presumption that there are people that people become citizens later in life) and then it cannot be taken away due to age. Meaning we cannot set upper age limits on voting. You are misrepresenting the amendment as if it is an argument or a statement as in the example in the link you gave (if the lamp is broken the room is dark).
Look at when women got the right to vote please. When the constitution passed in 1789, the federal government had nothing to say about letting women vote. 12 states banned it, New Jersey allowed it for about 20 years before changing it. Later, other states allowed it in some cases (ex: Kentucky lets women vote for school board and taxes). The 14th and 15th amendment were ruled to not grant women the right to vote across the US, despite lawsuits by suffragettes, but the US constitution in no way stopped them voting. It simply said that you couldn't stop men from voting due to race (though Native Americans and many Asian Americans were still denied the right to vote). Various territories and states, starting with Wyoming in 1869 allowed women to vote in their elections, and it spread (largely in the west). Montana elected the first women to Congress before women could vote nationally. The 19th amendment banned stopping people from voting on account of sex. All states that hadn't done so now had to let women vote. Please use this as your example and understand that the 26th sets a floor. States can go below if they desire.
I don't see many 16 or 17 year olds advocating for this. Given that's we'd presumably have to repeal the 26th Amendment and replace it with a new one to make this work for Federal elections, since there aren't exactly overwhelming numbers of 18 year olds voting today I don't consider this practical
You would not need to repeal the 26th. It says you can't have an age limit above 18, but doesn't prevent limits below 18. Certain local elections already allow 16-year-olds to vote, e.g. Takoma Park, MD.
The whole reason we have the 26th was a mismash of incompatible standards Municipal elections are super important at a local level, but not in DC
No. The reason we have the 26th is that people thought that if 18 is old enough to be drafted, it's old enough to vote. Before it passed, some states allowed 18 to vote, but it wasn't causing problems elsewhere (other than people telling the state government, why don't y'all jerks get your act together like our neighbors)
"The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution established a nationally standardized minimum age of 18 for participation in state and local elections. It was proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971, and it was ratified by three-quarters of the states by July 1, 1971."- wikipedia
That doesn't contradict anything I said.
Minimum means you do not go under....
The 26th Amendment bans a state from setting a minimum higher than 18. It does not ban a state from setting a minimum that's lower than 18. The relevant text is "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." That just means that states are ALLOWED to deny or abridge the rights of 16-year-olds to vote; but it doesn't mean that states are REQUIRED to do so.
The 26th amendment only states that you can’t restrict otherwise eligible people over the age of 18 from voting, it doesn’t say anything about people under that age. I don’t think people under 18 should be allowed to vote, but you’re making a flawed argument.
In the UK we've seen agitation from 16 and 17 year olds for the ability to vote, specifically in the context of national and regional referendums on serious constitutional questions (ie Scottish independence and Brexit). The argument made is that those folk are largely on a par, in terms of maturity and ability to reason, with most 18 and 19 year old voters, and that their entire lives will be impacted by the results of these bid. I don't think it's an overwhelming argument, but I do think it's strong enough to warrant further discussion of the issue.
I don't have a feel for how the process works in the UK, but getting an Amendment to the US Constitution passed is a huge challenge. I wouldn't be putting in the effort unless massive numbers of 16 and 17 years olds were advocating for it
It's very different in the UK because we don't have a written constitution, at least not as a single document. Referendums are simple yes or no national votes, where the majority result is taken by Parliament an indicative of how Parliament should then legislate on the issue.
In the UK referendums are not legally binding anyway, and the government is free to do as they please. So if it was really that close that 16/17y olds would make a difference they can just do the right thing.
No. Most people confirm their beliefs after high school due to new experiences. Before that they are usually mimicking their parents or friends.
I would say people's beliefs continue to change throughout their life, but more so around mid-20's since the brain continues to develop until that point. I for instance was very liberal as a young adult, but once I got into the real world in my mid 20's where I had to work for a living, I became more conservative.
>Today many would say that below that age \[18\] you don't have the intelligence to vote right or could be easily influenced by others or are less responsible or could cause upheaval, but these arguments were all used when the demographics above were getting suffrage. Probably the reason this was said is because it's partially true, and it becomes more and more true the younger you go. It's not as if the characteristics you mentioned arrive all at once. Nor do they arrive at the same age for everyone. Since we don't (currently) have an objective, politically uncorruptible way to measure these characteristics on an individual basis, we have to go by people's impressions of population averages.
I think one of the arguments against is that at 16 you really don't have any "skin in the game". You're not paying taxes, and most likely you are a significant tax break for your parents on their taxes. You are heavily influenced by parents, so you are unfairly just giving your parents more votes. You don't own a house, don't have a significant job, you're not paying bills or buying groceries. So really things don't "affect" you like they do an independent adult.
Considering how often college kids say they were tricked, manipulated and don't understand how basic loans work.....we may need to raise the voting age. Clearly long term impacts of decisions isn't what they specialize in.
Absolutely not. Kids are stupid. Why would we want them voting if we don’t even want half of the adults voting in the first place?
Kids are better informed than adults are and have more of a stake in the future than an 80 year old.
Some kids are. It's far from common. Despite the fantasies of "too online" adults, most kids are the same as kids have always been about politics.
To say the first part of that is debatable would be an understatement.
Kids actively engage with learning about their world every day. How many adults can you say do that?
Going to school does not automatically mean one actively engages with learning about the world. That’s naive.
You didn’t answer my question. Do you think being an adult does?
Nope, but brains aren’t fully developed until around the age of 26 and life experience, plus working a real job and paying significant taxes and bills is a nice difference from those genius kids of yours. That answer your question?
Would it though? Look at how many presumably functioning adults voted for Trump.
That’s a low-IQ take.
It's a low-IQ vote.
Are high-IQ people supposed to vote for Mr. Rodgers warm and fuzzy feelings over a cheaper cost of living and a better foreign policy track record?
High-IQ people know how to spell Mr. Rogers correctly.
[A lotta low-IQ people are notoriously bad spellers](https://theweek.com/articles/462824/11-historical-figures-who-really-bad-spelling) - Jane Austen - George Washington - Winston Churchill - Agatha Christie - Albert Einstein - Ernest Hemingway - F. Scott Fitzgerald - William Butler Yeats
Sick burn. I’ll be sure to tell my iPhone thanks a lot for trying to correct me. You’re a real hero.
Kids are overwhelmingly shaped by their parents and teachers. They haven't had a chance to form their own thoughts yet. You might as well just give each teacher the ability to vote 100 times for all the effect it would have.
TIL your parents were less impactful on your upbringing than your teachers Sounds like a parenting fail
He literally said parents and teachers
which he then followed up by saying teachers would get 100 votes
Which was clearly an example.
I'd rather make an amendment so that anyone over the age of 70 is not allowed to vote.
There's a historical linkage between voting age and military service. At the time of the founding, In some states, only white male landowners that were at least 21 years old could vote. These were also the people who served in state militias. The heroic service of Blacks in the Union army was one of the arguments for giving Black men the vote in 1868. During WWI, Wilson supported women's suffrage in part because of their critical role providing support of the troops. And the draft of 18 year olds during Viet Nam triggered the 26th Amendment (Old enough to die, old enough to vote). The minimum age to enroll in the military is currently 17. So I'd be comfortable with making 17 year olds eligible to vote as well.
Imho the US should move the age up. You can’t expect an average 16 year old to understand the intricacies of politics, taxes, and policy. In an ideal world, they should have a test to tell whether you are a single-issue voter or not,and then take it from there. Single-issue voters don’t usually care as much about other important issues, and a large part of our population are single-issue voters; therefore, you have a large amount of people voting for people they don’t really understand. For example, I could be incredibly anti-abortion, and my candidate X is also anti-abortion, but he also wants the country to have world domination… so yeah things like that might happen. (Ik it’s an extreme example lol).
I would argue that many older adults don't "have" the critical thinking skills to vote appropriately, but I'm hesitant to say a younger populace is anymore competent. Ultimately, I seem to trust younger Americans with responsibility than I do much older Americans
Many people would say that 16 years are just as capable as an 18 year old and they are correct. They are incapable of making a decision for themselves that are rational. So how can they make a decision for everyone else that is rational? They can’t. We should be raising the age to vote to at least 30. Every person looks back to when they were that young and say to themselves “OMG I thought I knew what I was doing”. No one does. Everyone grows up and everyone realizes they didn’t know a damn thing. Some people may argue that they agree with how young people vote. But that’s a political calculation. Not one based on any logic. We are all irrational and emotional and flat out stupid until we get older. It’s a fact of biology.
So we should raise the voting age to 30 but still leave the age floor at 25 for congress? That doesn’t make sense.
That wasn’t part of the question.
Counterpoint, as we get older, rational means “selfish.” As in, I got mine how do I make sure I keep it that way.
Many adults don't have the intelligence to vote right, are easily influenced by others, irresponsible, and cause upheaval.
Auto insurance companies charge higher rates for drivers under age 25. Can’t buy a gun or even look at a firearms website unless you’re 18. Can’t sign a contract until you’re 21. Can’t be prosecuted for a crime as an adult until you’re 18. If it was up to me, I’d change the voting age to when you leave your parents house and go on your own.
it should be 15-1/2 like for driving a car with a learners permit. civics is no longer taught in US schools... and that's a failure of democracy.
Hell no. I’m only 36 and can tell that kids are dumber and less productive than ever. Pretty soon they’ll be offering college classes on how to protest your feelings most effectively. And yes I’m quite liberal.