3 ms·
even if you'd be allowed to vote at 16, doesn't mean that you actually CAN vote at 16 just because voting doesn't occur every year (maybe somewhere, but i disgr
by Tarsul 4y ago
even if you'd be allowed to vote at 16, doesn't mean that you actually CAN vote at 16 just because voting doesn't occur every year (maybe somewhere, but i disgress). Additionally, we let old people vote who don't have much to gain from it anymore. So where should the balance be? That's up for discussion but my personal opinion is that allowing people to vote at 16 doesn't dent the votes too much. It would be worthwhile if only because kids would talk about it at school and would probably learn in school a little more about it than right now.
- musicale 4y agoArguments against youth suffrage remind me of other anti-suffrage arguments. Perhaps schools could (and should) practice more of the democracy they preach (would 4th graders vote unanimously to ban math because it's "too hard" and expand recess because "it's fun?") and we could gradually phase in the things that citizens can vote for - rather than having a strict step function. Taxation with representation does sound better than the alternative. Gradual/progressive suffrage would allow citizens to gain some actual experience with democracy – rather than living under a strict authoritarian system.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoNone of the other suffrage movements had cognitive science in the "against" column. Youth voting does.