Voting At Age 16 Is Stupid - Amirite?

The District has legalized marijuana. Its city council is poised to give new parents 16 weeks of paid leave. And before lawmakers seal the deal on that progressive plan, a trio of council members on last week introduced another idea that could make waves nationally: letting 16-year-olds vote in federal elections.

Image for post Voting At Age 16 Is Stupid - Amirite?
0%Yeah You Are100%No Way
Budwicks avatar Politics
2 42
The people are still deciding if Budwick is right or wrong. Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Voting at 80 is even stupider.

Great, if this goes through in DC we'll be having Beyonce, Taylor Swift or even worse, any of those kardashians, in the WH. DC voters are the same ones who put Marion Berry back into office after being caught doing drug deals and going to prison. What kind of intelligent voting is that?

I assume you mean in local, state and national elections. Let's remember that the law still considers them 'children' and they are still 'maturing.' Of course there are some who are 36 who shouldn't be voting!

This user has deactivated their account.

Yeah, the story is about the District of Columbia allowing 16 year olds to vote in federal elections.

How do you feel about that?

This user has deactivated their account.

Not a good idea.

So is going to war at 18.

I think 16 is too young. I also think the age of consent is too low.

If a person can't drink alcohol responsibly at 18, how can they responsibly decide to risk their life in combat at that age?

This user has deactivated their account.

Preferably the age at which a person can wholly grasp fullest consequences of their choices.

Most think of sex, consumption, voting and enlistment when they think about the age of consent. What's most overlooked is contract law.

There are a great many under-20-somethings out there taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt they must repay and many cannot.

I think it merits consideration when we think about consent law.

This user has deactivated their account.

In my opinion, because the greater likeliness is that young people will face more financial predators growing up than sexual or otherwise.

This user has deactivated their account.

I don't disagree with you on the last part. Instilling adult responsibility and judgement in our kids won't speed up the development of the human brain, though.

This user has deactivated their account.

Of course not, but it does acknowledge it.

This user has deactivated their account.

That is a big issue though, especially when we look at the volume of debt in play there.

I do agree that there are more pressing problems than the age of consent.

This user has deactivated their account.

I was simply agreeing with your statements, Glis.

This user has deactivated their account.

No need to apologize. If anything it's my bad, that sort of stuff escapes me in rl, but especially in text form.

Why would it be 'stupid'? Some sixteen year olds are more informed than a lot of adults.

It's ridiculous that I can legally have sex at age sixteen, but I still have to wait another two years just to have a say in my government.

This user has deactivated their account.

And so we should?

Are 16 year olds naturally designed to handle the responsibilities of parenthood?

It seems you are really looking for disagreement.

This user has deactivated their account.

So, having sex at 16 would reflect poor judgement - like I said originally? Yet, you still decided to be contrary.

This user has deactivated their account.

Interesting. I would have thought that a realist would have approached this differently. Seems to me that labeling "sex at 16" as poor judgement is about as real as it gets! It's not at all derogatory or dismissive - it's reality. [Isn't that what a realist would shoot for?]

In your brand of 'realist' you admit that having sex at 16 is not something to shoot for, to promote, but calling it poor judgement is old school and wrong. My brand of realism is at least consistent. Of course consistency means that sometimes things will fall out of bounds, and being out of bounds is intolerant and non-inclusive and that makes you all itchy.

Sorry Glispix, you can't have it both ways. Things can't be good and bad at the same time.

Sure 16 year old kids have the equipment for sex, and their sex drive will never be stronger. Even an old fuddy-duddy like me knows that if you drop a group of high school students on a desert island for a while, they will have sex. That's not a valid reason to promote the idea however. You know that while sexually 16 year olds might be in their prime, intellectually and emotionally, they are not. [Again, not a slam, just fact] And, to ignore that is a dis-service to young people.

16 year olds will not be mature enough to select a right candidate. They will vote for cinema people or some such so called celebrities.Even older people make mistakes in voting. This is reflected in the elections all over the world. The kind of politicians getting elected and the misrule they indulge in is a sad commentary on the electoral system. I have a serious doubt about the suitability of the present type of elections to select the government.Elections without the influence of money and charisma is the need if they are to be useful. In today's democratic elections only dons get elected. In other words, democracy has become a haven for dons. Age may not matter much if we are able to prevent corruption and other malpractices in the elections.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.