8 ms·

He has proposed, for example, that the voting age be lowered to 16. “Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,” Dr. Steinberg

by davidp 10y ago

He has proposed, for example, that the voting age be lowered to 16. “Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,” Dr. Steinberg said. As if logical reasoning were sufficient. Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet, or the real-world practical effects of political choices over time, or just how confounding crowd effects and herd instinct can be, or any of the other weird shit about human behavior and governance that defies the kind of logical reasoning that many 40-year-olds are capable of, let alone 16-year-olds. A 500 GHz CPU with no data to work with is just an impressive lump of silicon.

kasparsklavins 10y ago
By that logic, neither do 18-year-olds. You'd prefer the minimum voting age be raised to 60, so only people with "experience" can vote? I'd wager that at least 90% of voters do not do any research no matter their age and just vote for what the media or the people around them say. Also.. I don't vote.
- bottled_poe 10y ago
  And why should they? Modern democracy is essentially voting between two polarised mixed bags of policies. Almost everyone's voice is misrepresented.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    The infighting in the US political parties this year should have made it clear that there are certainly more than two bags of policies.
  - staticelf 10y ago
    I'm guessing you're thinking of America in which I would agree. In Sweden and other European countries though, we have a lot of more parties because our system is designed differently. In Sweden for example, we have 8 parties in Riksdagen (the place where the represented politicians vote for shit). How that works is pretty simple. Here is the short version: Instead of one party (like democrats or republicans) winning each state, we have 3 elections each election. 1 election for each municipality, one for each county and one nation wide. The percentage of each is seperate and decides how much deciding power (seats) you will get in each instance. Since Sweden is pretty much ruled by each municipality governed by the country laws (essentially made by Riksdagen) you can retain some power in a municipality or county even if you don't get that many seats in Riksdagen. This creates some interesting scenarios, since I can vote for a tax-lowering party in my municipality but vote on a completely different party in the nation wide election. For example, I may want to reduce Swedens immigration and can thus vote for such party to Riksdagen that maybe have more socially goals for the society. But in a sense, yes, as long as direct democracy isn't a thing your specific voice won't be heard.
- hubert123 10y ago
  the voting age should be around 21 nowadays, that's probably closer to the average age people get a real job, move out of home and have to make some actual hard choices
  - kriro 10y ago
    I see it the other way around. I don't think "real world experience" should be a requirement to vote. I'd be in favor of anyone who passes a Turing test to get a vote. Since that's impractical I'll propose the age of 10 because that's a nice number. Additionally I'd like to give an additional proxy vote to parents for each child under 10. I'd be in favor of the additional proxy votes even if the actual voting age was never changed.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  [in the US] i'd prefer the voting age be 21, the driving age be 18, and the drinking age be 16, or none at all. basically, we have it backwards. i also think there should be different classes of driving licenses with different speed limits, but now we're just indulging in crazytalk.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Or like how England does motorcycle classes: the 16 y/o with rich parents can't drive the C63 AMG until later.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Germany has a drinking age of 16 (for beer and wine, spirits are 18+), a driving age of 18 (there is assisted driving at 17, where you need to have a parent/relative in the passenger seat until you turn 18), and voting age of 18 for federal elections (state and local elections vary, some states allow 16-yr olds to vote). It was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1970. Different speed limits for different drivers could result in a "lower-class" driver being an obstruction for others. I don't think that would work out. That said, motorcycle licenses in the EU are separated into several classes with various maximum engine sizes (16+ for 11kW/15hp, 18+ for 35kW/47hp, and 20+ unlimited). They're separate tests.
    - beachstartup 10y ago
      > Different speed limits for different drivers could result in a "lower-class" driver being an obstruction for others. I don't think that would work out what i'm really saying is that you should be able to test for a higher speed limit in the US. slow drivers will be slow regardless of what the limit is, and unsafe. i've driven on the autobahn in the no speed limit sections (primarily around munich) and there were still slower, unsafe morons occupying lanes they shouldn't have been. maybe tourists. remember, in the US we have very low speed limits of ~100kph pretty much anywhere. i think it should be higher. people routinely drive 145kph here in southern california, enforcement of 100kph is arbitrary, which is not healtyh for respect for the law in general.
- c22 10y ago
  Maybe we should let everyone vote but weigh the votes on a bell curve by age.
  - 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
    Isn't this already roughly the case due to turnout differences among the different age groups?
- emilga 10y ago
  > You'd prefer the minimum voting age be raised to 60, so only people with "experience" can vote? This sounds quite interesting, actually. I wonder what the consequences would be if e.g. only grandparents have the right to vote.
  - pizza 10y ago
    Adding a delay to the votes of the current young voters experiencing the latest form of reality by 60-16=44 years. It could make quite some difference w.r.t. the time gradient of policy..
  - axitanull 10y ago
    What if they only vote in their best interest, putting burden on their young?
    - endisukaj 10y ago
      This has already happened, to some degree. With baby boomers putting the burden on their grandchildren.
- circlefavshape 10y ago
  I'd wager the second half of your wager is wrong. Very few people do any policy research, but they don't just do what they're told - instead they vote for the candidate they identify with most closely. In a representative democracy this is probably the most sensible strategy, as you're choosing the person who will do what you would do in any given situation
darpa_escapee 10y ago
Yet, they pay tax and laws still apply to them. There are people in every age bracket who don't know a thing about history nor much of what you've listed.
otalp 10y ago
>Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet, or the real-world practical effects of political choices over time, or just how confounding crowd effects and herd instinct can be, or any of the other weird shit about human behavior and governance To be fair neither do the majority of adult voters. Politics is not quantum physics. There are plenty of intelligent 16 year olds out there who can understand the subtleties of political rhetoric and what's at stake. Again, it's not like 16 year olds are compelled to vote. But for teens who are politically active and passionate about changing the world- I feel they need to have as much right to vote as some conspiracy-theory believing, infowar reading 60 year old. After all, the effects of climate change are going to hit the youngest people the hardest and the baby boomers the least.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
nly 10y ago
> Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet Your average 40 year old doesn't know shit about history or politics either. They just feel like 20-25 years of adult life makes their opinions hard-earned and valid, even if they're just long-held beliefs. When I was 16, and dinner table debate with my adult family members got heated, it always ended with the ad hominem "you'll understand when you're older and have worked for 25 years like me". Now I have (ish), and I still largely hold the same opinions. There's just not enough in that 20-25 year period that makes your average joe a special insightful snowflake. It's just like every fucking parent who believes having a child, and muddling through parenthood, somehow makes their beliefs on internet censorship more rational.
- circlefavshape 10y ago
  > It's just like every fucking parent who believes having a child, and muddling through parenthood, somehow makes their beliefs on internet censorship more rational. There's nothing special about parenthood in this regard - most people need some justification for their positions, personal experience is weak evidence, but it's better than no evidence at all
js8 10y ago
> As if logical reasoning were sufficient. I agree. There is also empathy, which is entirely orthogonal to logical reasoning. And there is evidence that 16-year-olds often don't have the same level of empathy as 25-year-olds.

by davidp 10y ago

kasparsklavins 10y ago

By that logic, neither do 18-year-olds. You'd prefer the minimum voting age be raised to 60, so only people with "experience" can vote? I'd wager that at least 90% of voters do not do any research no matter their age and just vote for what the media or the people around them say. Also.. I don't vote.

bottled_poe 10y ago
And why should they? Modern democracy is essentially voting between two polarised mixed bags of policies. Almost everyone's voice is misrepresented.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  The infighting in the US political parties this year should have made it clear that there are certainly more than two bags of policies.
- staticelf 10y ago
  I'm guessing you're thinking of America in which I would agree. In Sweden and other European countries though, we have a lot of more parties because our system is designed differently. In Sweden for example, we have 8 parties in Riksdagen (the place where the represented politicians vote for shit). How that works is pretty simple. Here is the short version: Instead of one party (like democrats or republicans) winning each state, we have 3 elections each election. 1 election for each municipality, one for each county and one nation wide. The percentage of each is seperate and decides how much deciding power (seats) you will get in each instance. Since Sweden is pretty much ruled by each municipality governed by the country laws (essentially made by Riksdagen) you can retain some power in a municipality or county even if you don't get that many seats in Riksdagen. This creates some interesting scenarios, since I can vote for a tax-lowering party in my municipality but vote on a completely different party in the nation wide election. For example, I may want to reduce Swedens immigration and can thus vote for such party to Riksdagen that maybe have more socially goals for the society. But in a sense, yes, as long as direct democracy isn't a thing your specific voice won't be heard.
hubert123 10y ago
the voting age should be around 21 nowadays, that's probably closer to the average age people get a real job, move out of home and have to make some actual hard choices
- kriro 10y ago
  I see it the other way around. I don't think "real world experience" should be a requirement to vote. I'd be in favor of anyone who passes a Turing test to get a vote. Since that's impractical I'll propose the age of 10 because that's a nice number. Additionally I'd like to give an additional proxy vote to parents for each child under 10. I'd be in favor of the additional proxy votes even if the actual voting age was never changed.
beachstartup 10y ago
[in the US] i'd prefer the voting age be 21, the driving age be 18, and the drinking age be 16, or none at all. basically, we have it backwards. i also think there should be different classes of driving licenses with different speed limits, but now we're just indulging in crazytalk.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Or like how England does motorcycle classes: the 16 y/o with rich parents can't drive the C63 AMG until later.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  Germany has a drinking age of 16 (for beer and wine, spirits are 18+), a driving age of 18 (there is assisted driving at 17, where you need to have a parent/relative in the passenger seat until you turn 18), and voting age of 18 for federal elections (state and local elections vary, some states allow 16-yr olds to vote). It was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1970. Different speed limits for different drivers could result in a "lower-class" driver being an obstruction for others. I don't think that would work out. That said, motorcycle licenses in the EU are separated into several classes with various maximum engine sizes (16+ for 11kW/15hp, 18+ for 35kW/47hp, and 20+ unlimited). They're separate tests.
  - beachstartup 10y ago
    > Different speed limits for different drivers could result in a "lower-class" driver being an obstruction for others. I don't think that would work out what i'm really saying is that you should be able to test for a higher speed limit in the US. slow drivers will be slow regardless of what the limit is, and unsafe. i've driven on the autobahn in the no speed limit sections (primarily around munich) and there were still slower, unsafe morons occupying lanes they shouldn't have been. maybe tourists. remember, in the US we have very low speed limits of ~100kph pretty much anywhere. i think it should be higher. people routinely drive 145kph here in southern california, enforcement of 100kph is arbitrary, which is not healtyh for respect for the law in general.
c22 10y ago
Maybe we should let everyone vote but weigh the votes on a bell curve by age.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  Isn't this already roughly the case due to turnout differences among the different age groups?
emilga 10y ago
> You'd prefer the minimum voting age be raised to 60, so only people with "experience" can vote? This sounds quite interesting, actually. I wonder what the consequences would be if e.g. only grandparents have the right to vote.
- pizza 10y ago
  Adding a delay to the votes of the current young voters experiencing the latest form of reality by 60-16=44 years. It could make quite some difference w.r.t. the time gradient of policy..
- axitanull 10y ago
  What if they only vote in their best interest, putting burden on their young?
  - endisukaj 10y ago
    This has already happened, to some degree. With baby boomers putting the burden on their grandchildren.
circlefavshape 10y ago
I'd wager the second half of your wager is wrong. Very few people do any policy research, but they don't just do what they're told - instead they vote for the candidate they identify with most closely. In a representative democracy this is probably the most sensible strategy, as you're choosing the person who will do what you would do in any given situation

darpa_escapee 10y ago

Yet, they pay tax and laws still apply to them. There are people in every age bracket who don't know a thing about history nor much of what you've listed.

otalp 10y ago

>Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet, or the real-world practical effects of political choices over time, or just how confounding crowd effects and herd instinct can be, or any of the other weird shit about human behavior and governance To be fair neither do the majority of adult voters. Politics is not quantum physics. There are plenty of intelligent 16 year olds out there who can understand the subtleties of political rhetoric and what's at stake. Again, it's not like 16 year olds are compelled to vote. But for teens who are politically active and passionate about changing the world- I feel they need to have as much right to vote as some conspiracy-theory believing, infowar reading 60 year old. After all, the effects of climate change are going to hit the youngest people the hardest and the baby boomers the least.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

nly 10y ago

> Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet Your average 40 year old doesn't know shit about history or politics either. They just feel like 20-25 years of adult life makes their opinions hard-earned and valid, even if they're just long-held beliefs. When I was 16, and dinner table debate with my adult family members got heated, it always ended with the ad hominem "you'll understand when you're older and have worked for 25 years like me". Now I have (ish), and I still largely hold the same opinions. There's just not enough in that 20-25 year period that makes your average joe a special insightful snowflake. It's just like every fucking parent who believes having a child, and muddling through parenthood, somehow makes their beliefs on internet censorship more rational.

circlefavshape 10y ago
> It's just like every fucking parent who believes having a child, and muddling through parenthood, somehow makes their beliefs on internet censorship more rational. There's nothing special about parenthood in this regard - most people need some justification for their positions, personal experience is weak evidence, but it's better than no evidence at all

js8 10y ago

> As if logical reasoning were sufficient. I agree. There is also empathy, which is entirely orthogonal to logical reasoning. And there is evidence that 16-year-olds often don't have the same level of empathy as 25-year-olds.