The point is that you can argue X is can't do ABCD, therefore X should not be allowed to vote, but age restrictions can be, and almost always are, quasi-arbitrary. 17 to enlist with parental permission. 18 otherwise. 21 to drink. Age of consent ranges from 16 to 18. You can be tried as an adult at ages substantially below 18. Parents can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their under 18 children...except many states put caps on the liability...in effect partially emancipating children from their parents (or really, parents from children). The age of majority in most states is 18, but it's 19 in a couple cases. There has never been a definitive age where the rights and responsibilities of people reach adulthood, nor has there been a definitive age where parents are no longer responsible for their children. Age of adulthood is a grey fiction. I could just as easily say that if I'm old enough to drive a car, I'm old enough to vote as I could say old enough to die in a war.
There has been a legal concept of adulthood. It does vary among countries for sure, I am sure the adult line for other countries is below 18. Don't get me wrong politically it makes sense, young people tend to skew left, so lowering the age would help Democrats and that is the point that AB was making. I just think that voting should be done by legal adults, but is not that all important.
Where I was going........ I've been on this planet for quite some time and noticed that although many have reached and surpassed the age of maturity quite a few have never made it to adulthood!
I get what you're saying. I'd just note that in Alabama and Nebraska, people aren't legally adults until the age of 19. We already have people voting at ages where they are not legally considered to be adults in their respective states. But in AL for example, they can vote, marry and enlist at 18. They can quit school at 17. They can drive and/or have sex with any adult they want aged 16+ at the age of 16, and they can drink at 21. My political leanings aside, I don't see an argument that 16 year olds are less qualified to make political decisions than 70 year olds. Despite their lack of "life experience", 16 year olds can probably better contextualize the impact of proposed policies on future cultural and economic realities. I'll take my chances with the average high school junior today knowing/retaining more general civics than his/her 70 year old counterpart long since forgotten/distorted.
This might be the funniest thing I've read on P&CE, and P&CE is a pretty rich vein for unintentional hilarity.
No. That would be the Zuckerberg's Senate hearing where he was questioned by a bunch of 50 and 60 year olds on the nature of social media. People who are supposedly highly educated and anything but the average voter. I'm not saying that living through history isn't a valuable teacher, but when we're talking about the average person, the ignorance/hubris of older people is every bit as ignorant as the ignorance/hubris of youth. The political commentary at the bingo parlor or Elks Lodge is no better than what you get in a high school cafeteria. And the old folks at the Elks Lodge don't spend a lot of time asking themselves where the country should be in 30 years. They're too busy considering more immediate concerns like cemetery plots and catheter options.
Not understanding technology that came of age when they were already 40-50 and likely running around in the leisure/donor class for a significant portion their lives prior and since doesn't mean that their teenage counterparts are good at seeing the big picture.
These are elected officials with paid staff responsible for conducting thorough research to ask intelligent questions. I could find 1000 teenagers capable of asking better questions without the help. The context point appears to be lost on you, so I'll try again. I'm not saying that teenage counterparts are good at seeing the big picture. I'm saying that old people suck at seeing the big picture and set a very low bar that is met. The youth is often accused of being overly idealistic and incapable of seeing the bigger picture. There's truth to that. Older voters have context, but the problem is that this context is often informed by rules and conditions that no longer apply from decades ago. We can argue that people with experience should be able to derive larger and more fundamental truths from all of that experience, but you're giving average people way too much credit if you do that. Most people don't see implications beyond their personal circumstances. Evidence: get yourself a entry level job with a pension. We should make stuff like we did back in 19xx...because global labor markets and know-how hasn't changed in 40 years...pay for your own healthcare like I did (when it was cheap), but subsidize mine while you're at it...work your way through school like I did, failing to recognize the costs of education have far exceeded inflation/wage growth in the intervening decades. And so on. We even have a term for this these days. Nostalgia voting. So the question is: who can create the proper context? People whose views are sharpened by years of experience but who completely suck at applying that experience to today's realities...or young people and all their idealism.
I was waiting for the overlong response that continues to focus on your chosen caricature of a subset of a subset in opposition to the noblest subset of a subset that you have put your trust in. Glad to see you delivered. Nice to see the seamless shift from out-of-touch near-geriatric lawmakers to "older voters" generally, too.
Merely using your strawman to bring this full circle. Start with the general group, show that even the "most informed" with paid resources can be completely out of touch, then go back to the general group. To keep it brief for your attention span: old people vote for a time that was, but can never be again. Young people vote for what could, but probably won't be. But the old people won't be around to say, "I told you so". They'll be dead and forever unburdened by big gubmint. The nostalgia voter phenomenon isn't a caricature. Trump net support among white people by age group: 18-29: -15.7% 65+: +3.4% That roughly 20 point swing isn't a statistical anomaly, and it doesn't even touch on the changing racial landscape.
You're passive-aggressively butting up against some pretty dickish assumptions with your past few posts, there, Smokey. Keep obliquely impying away. I'll be laughing up my sleeve.
What am I implying? That young people would be as good at voting and old people. I'm not suggesting that either group is so unfit that they shouldn't be permitted to vote. Now THAT would be dickish. These assumptions are merely things that have been repeated to me by this rather anachronistic segment of our voting pool. The truth in all the nostalgia/"anxieties" "assumption" is in the motto Make America Great Again. Well, that and math. I'm not saying older people shouldn't vote. They won't vote fairly soon, but we've all got an expiration date. Just pointing out that younger people have as much insight (and possibly more) as the group you're defending.
I'm not defending anything. Holy smokes, man. I have uttered not a phrase of "defense" of "old people". To be perfectly clear, I'm mocking your sentiment.
You've "obliquely implied" so much from statement 1. Humor me. What do you think my sentiment is? What makes older (white) voters different from younger and even middle aged white voters?
I also think age is an arbitrary reason to vote. We have so many obstacles to voting in this country that are purely arbitrary.
And just to give Mr. Contextualize a hint, I don't disagree with Brummie, broadly speaking, on this point as presented here - not necessarily, and certainly not in light of the various other arbitrary lines we draw viz. adulthood. On the other hand, I can easily find myself arguing such that no one under 25 or so votes, gets drafted, drinks, drives, checks into a hotel, etc. on a similar basis.
@Timon19 If that's what you think the overarching sentiment is, there's not much left to say. I can't help you read better. The sentiment was that 16 year olds are no less qualified to opine on politics than 70 year olds. You can pick at one statement all you want, but you haven't offered anything to support the opposite. I get that's your MO around here.
If you hadn't mentioned that quoted statement, in all its earnestness, maybe you wouldn't have sounded so ridiculous, but alas, here we are. I'm not the only one who reacted immediately to the silliness of that statement, but out of respect, I will not reveal who it was, as the poster messaged me in confidence. If he wants to reveal himself, then he can.
Why 25? I assume that's some sort of neurocognitive distinction you're making re: crystallized intelligence, impulse control, etc.? If so, then couldn't we also argue that a person at age X no longer has the fluid intelligence they once did and therefore also should not be permitted to vote? If you can't as easily spot a poor argument/political pitch as you once did, is it time for electoral retirement?
Because it's the latest "barrier to adulthood" that I'm aware of, which is when you can rent a car yourself, free and clear. I.e., arbitrary as ********. You really ought to stop that.
Don't care who said what to whom. If they wanna say something, they can. Gossip aside, people can be "dickish" or they can try to understand why something was said/intent. The underlying issue, which offers better future context: -more experience, but anchoring bias suggests much of the information used to frame those views/attitudes could be outdated. -less experience, but the bulk of that experience is more contemporary. I'll take a wise old head in the former category over anyone in the latter all day long. But those types are more rare than they should be. That's how we get things like anti-immigrant messaging front and center in a campaign working really well with people who grew up when the country was 4-6% foreign born. It's front in center with the populist resurgence we've been seeing with things like Brexit. To paraphrase a really smart guy with the best words who many good people have been PMing to say he should get the Nobel Prize...if they want to reveal themselves, they can : some people have experience, but it's bad experience. That's not a legal thing so much as it is a market thing though. You can rent younger than 25. There are generally additional fees to cover liability. If a car rental place wanted to charge the same rates to 22 year olds and 50 year olds...they could. An insurance company could also charge the same health insurance premiums to a healthy 22 year old as a 64 year old with stage IV cancer. Using the same logic, maybe we should only let people with the lowest health insurance premiums vote.