3 ms·

> 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 i

> 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.

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.