4 ms·

If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? I keep hearing that the human adult brain is still growing and changing until they are 24.

If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? I keep hearing that the human adult brain is still growing and changing until they are 24. It almost makes more sense to raise the age. Most 18 year olds have not held a job, ran a hose hold, had a kid, managed other people, lives on their own, bought a house, or even own a car. But yes for the sake of “the will inherit” we should allow people with a childlike understanding of the world to sway votes of emotion void of logic. There is a case of lowering the max age. As they could potentially sway votes for only ultra short term reasons.

giraffe_lady 1y ago
> If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? It's a good question. It doesn't seem correct, but I can't find any argument for having it at 16 or 18 or 21 that doesn't also apply for having it at 14 or 9 either. But having it at 25 or 30 based on development smacks of disenfranchisement and eg jim crow literacy laws. It's not a question I think we can get a satisfying answer for through a scientific-medical model. An 18 year old is still developing, but is also still capable of making informed decisions. So to a lesser extent, is a 16 year old, and to an even lesser extent a 9 year old. And adults who for any reason are less intellectually sophisticated still have the right to vote, which again is a matter of societal values not medicine. Looking at cultures through history, the timing of transition from childhood to adulthood, the rituals that mark it, the responsibilities that accrue with it, that's really what we're talking about here. The age varies quite a bit across time and place (and different groups may have different reasons for placing it where they have settled on, as do we) but 14-20 probably catches the majority of when most people would consider this change to have taken place. And 16-18 may be pretty much the median? I don't want to assert it too strongly but probably anything within these ranges is "fine" with certain tradeoffs one way or another.
- mbrumlow 1y ago
  > But having it at 25 or 30 based on development smacks of disenfranchisement and eg jim crow literacy laws. Nobody said they would have a test based system. Fairly sure we uniformly say brains are not fully developed until 24. So your Jim Crow comment is unfounded, at best as a misunderstanding or at worst an attempt to throw race into a conversation to try and strengthen your position with past atrocities void logic.
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    Well, are people with medically arrested development given the franchise under this system? Developmental delays and learning disorders? At what age, how severe, who decides, etc. Is the franchise removed from people with dementia? Traumatic brain injury? Who pays the doctor that decides? There is so much to figure out & manage here with very high stakes. We've landed at universal suffrage for a whole host of historical reasons, yes including past atrocities but also just as a way to avoid all those questions above. I didn't "throw race into" this; when discussing who may be permitted to vote it is already there whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Defining "universal" remains fraught significantly but not only because of that, and age remains the only exclusion. Maybe with good reason, maybe not.
    - mbrumlow 1y ago
      No. I refuse to play your silly game that everything reduces race based of twisted reasons. It’s nonsensical reasoning that nobody with a line of reason should ever have to put up with. Beyond that you are also horridly wrong. Age is not the only exclusion today. 1. Age is one. 2. Being not disqualified: not having certain felony conviction, or being judged mentally incompetent to vote (depends on state) 3. Residency in the state you are voting 4. Being a citizen. While 18 year olds can make informed decisions they also are super capable to manipulate into making super bad decisions. Queue student loan crisis. But beyond that making school going age people capable of voting will reduce our ability to educate further by making schools and places of leaning battle grounds for political beliefs, which regardless is the leaning that wins will only result in a worse education.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
testing22321 1y ago
18 is arbitrary anyway. The whole point here is to get young people involved and have them feel they actually have a say and the ability to steer the ship away from the rocks it is about to slam into.
michael1999 1y ago
If the senile and the crazy can vote, why not 16-year-olds?
- ElectronCharge 1y ago
  Because the number of senile/crazy people voting is a tiny percentage. The 16-17 year old block is potentially much larger, and might actually swing an election. I share the opinion of many here that almost all those below 18 are too ill-informed, poorly educated, and immature to deserve a vote. They'd be easily propagandized and peer-pressured into voting poorly. That's not to say that many 18 and older don't fall into the same category, but we don't need a new large group like that.
- mbrumlow 1y ago
  You did not read my comment. I called out a case for limiting the upper ends, but I guess your emotions responded.

giraffe_lady 1y ago

> If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? It's a good question. It doesn't seem correct, but I can't find any argument for having it at 16 or 18 or 21 that doesn't also apply for having it at 14 or 9 either. But having it at 25 or 30 based on development smacks of disenfranchisement and eg jim crow literacy laws. It's not a question I think we can get a satisfying answer for through a scientific-medical model. An 18 year old is still developing, but is also still capable of making informed decisions. So to a lesser extent, is a 16 year old, and to an even lesser extent a 9 year old. And adults who for any reason are less intellectually sophisticated still have the right to vote, which again is a matter of societal values not medicine. Looking at cultures through history, the timing of transition from childhood to adulthood, the rituals that mark it, the responsibilities that accrue with it, that's really what we're talking about here. The age varies quite a bit across time and place (and different groups may have different reasons for placing it where they have settled on, as do we) but 14-20 probably catches the majority of when most people would consider this change to have taken place. And 16-18 may be pretty much the median? I don't want to assert it too strongly but probably anything within these ranges is "fine" with certain tradeoffs one way or another.

mbrumlow 1y ago
> But having it at 25 or 30 based on development smacks of disenfranchisement and eg jim crow literacy laws. Nobody said they would have a test based system. Fairly sure we uniformly say brains are not fully developed until 24. So your Jim Crow comment is unfounded, at best as a misunderstanding or at worst an attempt to throw race into a conversation to try and strengthen your position with past atrocities void logic.
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  Well, are people with medically arrested development given the franchise under this system? Developmental delays and learning disorders? At what age, how severe, who decides, etc. Is the franchise removed from people with dementia? Traumatic brain injury? Who pays the doctor that decides? There is so much to figure out & manage here with very high stakes. We've landed at universal suffrage for a whole host of historical reasons, yes including past atrocities but also just as a way to avoid all those questions above. I didn't "throw race into" this; when discussing who may be permitted to vote it is already there whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Defining "universal" remains fraught significantly but not only because of that, and age remains the only exclusion. Maybe with good reason, maybe not.
  - mbrumlow 1y ago
    No. I refuse to play your silly game that everything reduces race based of twisted reasons. It’s nonsensical reasoning that nobody with a line of reason should ever have to put up with. Beyond that you are also horridly wrong. Age is not the only exclusion today. 1. Age is one. 2. Being not disqualified: not having certain felony conviction, or being judged mentally incompetent to vote (depends on state) 3. Residency in the state you are voting 4. Being a citizen. While 18 year olds can make informed decisions they also are super capable to manipulate into making super bad decisions. Queue student loan crisis. But beyond that making school going age people capable of voting will reduce our ability to educate further by making schools and places of leaning battle grounds for political beliefs, which regardless is the leaning that wins will only result in a worse education.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

testing22321 1y ago

18 is arbitrary anyway. The whole point here is to get young people involved and have them feel they actually have a say and the ability to steer the ship away from the rocks it is about to slam into.

michael1999 1y ago

If the senile and the crazy can vote, why not 16-year-olds?

ElectronCharge 1y ago
Because the number of senile/crazy people voting is a tiny percentage. The 16-17 year old block is potentially much larger, and might actually swing an election. I share the opinion of many here that almost all those below 18 are too ill-informed, poorly educated, and immature to deserve a vote. They'd be easily propagandized and peer-pressured into voting poorly. That's not to say that many 18 and older don't fall into the same category, but we don't need a new large group like that.
mbrumlow 1y ago
You did not read my comment. I called out a case for limiting the upper ends, but I guess your emotions responded.