The voting age should be raised

[rightwinger]

I admitted I have used me in a bikini as an avatar...

Amanda in a bikini!!!!!

 

[Amanda]

Excuse me?

Theres no "excuse me" about it. If it takes the military to make someone a better person, Id say that the parenting of that child/person was pretty god damn poor. The military creates Jar heads.

Jamie

"Excuse me" because of my post above yours. Were you directing that toward me?

Of course it was directed at you. You, apparently, are a piss poor parent.

Me, I applaud your daughter for serving her country. She has my thanks.

 

[Amanda]

I admitted I have used me in a bikini as an avatar...

Amanda in a bikini!!!!!

Yea, well... it falls into that "This is why we can't have nice things" category. A few always ruin things for everyone else.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This shows that a teen can be confused when it comes to politics as well. They cannot correctly identify emotions or make decisions that are not emotional based. Adults can. This could impair the teens ability to make a sound choice in the voting which could lead to misunderstandings and get them someone in office that they regret.

Jamie

Not being allowed to vote could get us someone in office we regret as well.

As I said before, a teenager may have different reasons for voting than somebody older but that's not a bad thing. We vote based on our unique situations, and that's the way it's supposed to be. I'm not sure what identifying the emotion of fear has to do with voting. I don't know about anyone else but I don't typically experience fear when I arrive at my polling place.

 

[Emma]

Theres no "excuse me" about it. If it takes the military to make someone a better person, Id say that the parenting of that child/person was pretty god damn poor. The military creates Jar heads.

Jamie

"Excuse me" because of my post above yours. Were you directing that toward me?

Of course it was directed at you. You, apparently, are a piss poor parent.

Me, I applaud your daughter for serving her country. She has my thanks.

Thank you. She is an amazing, incredibly intelligent young woman and a great mom. But so is her sister, who never enlisted in the military. I must have directed all of my parenting skills toward that daughter, while ignoring her sister altogether.

I'm going to stop before I say anything I'll regret.

 

[Agnapostate]

I believe there shouldn't be a minimum voting age at all.

I know the objection to that would be that toddlers have no knowledge of the political process or capacity to vote, but I don't believe they would attempt it. I think a genuine ignorance about the political process would breed apathy towards voting, and I don't envision that those who would vote for frivolous or foolish reasons would have so strong an interest in doing so that they could not be deterred without a prohibition. Moreover, aside from the fact that I believe that many underage youth are sufficiently informed and rational to exercise voting rights, I think it's also the case that the ability to exercise such rights would aid in the development of rational capacities and the ability to acquire information in those who have not matured such attributes to the fullest extent. As put by Avrum Stroll:

There is nothing in democratic theory that requires that those that govern be rational, must be mature, must be educated, must be knowledgeable, and so forth. That these notions have been incorporated into democratic doctrine is mainly the result of a mistake-a mistake issuing from the all too easy acceptance of the paternalistic model...It is not a precondition of self-government that those who govern be wise, educated, mature, responsible, and so on, but instead these are the results which self-government are designed to produce. Through the process of making decisions, of making and correcting mistakes, of deliberating and reflecting upon the facts and the gamut of opinions concerning the facts, individuals learn to become responsible, learn to make wise and judicious judgments. It is these processes which lead to maturity, lead to an educated citizenry, and lead to the development of responsible persons. Indeed we may say that it is only when children are given the responsibility to act in these ways that they can become mature adults and not simply grow older. As long as they remain wholly subject to parental domination, they will not-in general-achieve maturity.

And it's true. We gain the means to make knowledgeable decisions through experience, but we gain experience through mistakes. Hence, prior civic and political engagement would seem an integral element in the development of skills for both present and future involvement.

Raise the age? Don't know about that. Maybe pass a test showing you're competent to vote . . . that I could get on board with. Of course, it would have to be administered to all, not just the youth.

Do you believe there should still be a minimum age at which one could take the test, though? I wouldn't see a reason for it.

Most teens up until the age of 25 go on emotional response and they have been proven to get the emotion wrong in the first place.

The human brain does not cease physical development at any stage of life, and it's an even greater reality that the mind effectively never ceases development. It certainly isn't the case that the brain develops into perfection in the mid-20's, as is commonly fallaciously asserted. For example, even if you want to only consider physical brain development, consider Susan Vorenberg's article, Brain fine-tunes with age.

[W]hite matter – the connective fiber between the lobes that allows parts of the brain to interact with each other – continues to grow until about age 45, according to the study by UNM's Health Sciences Center and New Mexico VA Health Care Systems.

That said, I wouldn't personally deny that MRI and fMRI scans provide us with intriguing observations of physical brain development, but we must be cautious about extrapolating data from these scans in an attempt to form broad policy approaches, as Jay Giedd, Laurence Steinberg, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd have been far too quick to do, in my opinion. The chief opponent of this approach thus far has been the aforementioned psychologist Robert Epstein (former editor of Psychology Today), who writes this in The Myth of the Teen Brain, published in Scientific American Mind:

This work seems to support the idea of the teen brain we see in the headlines until we realize two things. First, most of the brain changes that are observed during the teen years lie on a continuum of changes that take place over much of our lives. For example, a 1993 study by Jésus Pujol and his colleagues at the Autonomous University of Barcelona looked at changes in the corpus callosum—a massive structure that connects the two sides of the brain—over a two-year period with individuals between 11 and 61 years old. They found that although the rate of growth declined as people aged, this structure still grew by about 4 percent each year in people in their 40s (compared with a growth rate of 29 percent in their youngest subjects). Other studies, conducted by researchers such as Elizabeth Sowell of the University of California, Los Angeles, show that gray matter in the brain continues to disappear from childhood well into adulthood. Second, I have not been able to find even a single study that establishes a causal relation between the properties of the brain being examined and the problems we see in teens. By their very nature, imaging studies are correlational, showing simply that activity in the brain is associated with certain behavior or emotion. As we learn in elementary statistics courses, correlation does not even imply causation. In that sense, no imaging study could possibly identify the brain as a causal agent, no matter what areas of the brain were being observed.

Similar analysis is typically regarded to come from sociologist Mike Males in The "Teen Brain" Craze: New Science, or Ancient Politics?[/i], though his approach primarily centers around evaluating the apparent lack of a connection between physical brain development and the actual behaviors of adolescents and similar age youth, since it would seem that a faulty or underdeveloped brain would make one inclined to greater risk-taking and similar behaviors. He writes this:

1. Adolescents, immature brains and all, are doing far better today than the supposedly cerebrally-developed midlifers complaining about them.

2. Scientists always seem to find biological flaws in the brains of populations that politicians and the public find fearsome or blameworthy for social problems.

3. The preponderance of laboratory research does not find significant differences between adult and teenage cognitive ability.

4. Scientists have not compared teenage and adult risk taking on a level playing field.

...

Conclusion: The supposedly immature brain development that renders teenagers naturally risk-prone mysteriously fails to affect teenagers from more affluent backgrounds, or from Europe or Japan (where youth poverty rates and dangers are low), who routinely display risks lower than adults do. Rather, “science’s discovery” of the problematic “teenage brain” is just the latest in a long, disgraceful history of alliances between officials, interest groups, sensational media, and a small number of scientists who serve their needs. The ability of authorities to scapegoat unpopular, powerless groups in society instead of facing difficult social problems—in this case, rising middle-aged drug and crime epidemics and the effects of poverty on youth risk—endangers Americans by preventing realistic solutions to serious crises.

Of far greater interest to me personally is the literature on the actual mental abilities and competence of adolescents and other youth to make rational and informed decisions, not snapshots of physical brain development that may necessarily diverge from analyses of actual mental functioning: effectively another necessary distinction between "the brain" and "the mind."

1. We have Weithorn and Campbell's The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions.

This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

I'd thus agree with their analysis that "[t]he ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the 'cutoffs' below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."

2. Grisso and Vierling's Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective:

[E]xisting evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.

3. Ambuel and Rappaport's study intended to specifically focus on the topic of minors' competence to provide informed consent to abortion (though it obviously applies more broadly), entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion.

We examine an underlying presumption that minors are not competent to consent to abortion. Participants (N=75 age 13–21, seeking a pregnancy test at a women's medical clinic) completed an interview that was audiotaped and scored on four cognitive and volitional criteria of legal competence. Competence was compared in three age groups (15; 16–17; 18–21) for participants who considered abortion and for those who did not. Adolescents age 16–17 and adolescents 15, who considered abortion, appeared as competent as legal adults; only 15-year-old adolescents who did not consider abortion appeared less competent. Regression analysis was used to identify psychosocial predictors of competence. Results challenge the presumption that minors are not competent. An alternate policy based upon informed consent and empowerment of minors as decision makers is proposed.

4. And Kuther and Posada's Children And Adolescents’ Capacity To Provide Informed Consent For Participation In Research.

[T]he literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents.

There is a substantial empirical literature on these matters, as described.

And I've of course already stated that there isn't an expectation that infants or toddlers will actually be voting, merely that setting a minimum age restriction does not serve a purpose. As put by Richard Farson, "[n]obody believes that one year old children will vote, but that does not mean we must deprive them of the right to vote. How many elderly people in our society are (almost) senile? Do we take away their right to vote?" As I previously stated, the purpose of the abolition of age restrictions isn't intended to foster an environment of toddlers driving, voting, and working, but to recognize the fact that age is an arbitrary measurement of competence that will fail to permit some persons below almost any age restriction to become independent.

 

[caela]

If you wouldn't let them vote at 18 then they shouldn't be able to join the armed services at 18 either. After all if they don't have the mental maturity to read about, and recognize the consequences of casting a vote then they certainly don't have the maturity to understand the consequences ( up to and including their deaths ) of signing their life over to Uncle Sam either.

I hate to break it to you, but one of the reasons men in their late teens are so valued in the armed forces is BECAUSE they're not entirely mature mentally. Men in late adolescence/early twenties tend toward recklessness, a certain disregard for personal safety, and a curious notion of invincibility, all of which is very useful in a soldier.

I understand all of that. The fact that they aren't set in their ideas and ways yet (allowing them to be more easily broken and remolded as a soldier during boot camp) as well as the quicker reflexes of youth are also highly useful. My point was that if you are considered old enough to go to another country and risk getting killed for Uncle Sam, you are sure as hell old enough to go down to the local voting booth and punch a few holes in a ballot.

 

[caela]

That's not necessarily a "mothers" point of view...it's YOUR point of view. I'm a mother myself and if my daughter chooses to join the military I'll support her decision to do so. There are certainly some advantages to it (job training, GI Bill for school etc.) along with the disadvantages. I'll make damned sure she reads everything she has to sign though so that she really knows and understands what she's getting into.

Well I disagree. The military says "Ill give you 20k to kill someone and then we'll give you schooling in return". Its a bullshit attempt to lure teens into joining the military because their parents are too poor to afford their college tuition....some end up paying with their lives for stuff that doesnt even involve defending our freedom, which was what the military was originally for. My husband was in the Navy and he will agree. The military is an industry that is a parasite of our youth. People think their children come out being better persons.. I say its because of poor parenting.

Jamie[/QUOTE]

You really are delusional aren't you? Is there the chance that any soldier might be sent to a warzone and end up having to kill someone? Yes, of course here is, that is the nature of the military. Is that what happens to the vast majority of them though? No. My youngest brother is currently in the Army and just got back from a tour in Iraq, stuck in the middle of a damned warzone and he spent most of his time bored out of mind. He wasn't out killing anyone else, he spent all his "work time" in a machine shop because he's a helicopter mechanic. I won't argue that some of our military personnel go through hell and come out the otherside terribly broken physically, mentally, or both, or that some die...but to make it sound as if that is true for all, or the majority of them is utterly ridiculous.

As for the poor parenting comment...bite me. That is nothing but sheer hubris of the highest order on your part.

 

[caela]

I dont think anyone should join the military until they are age 21 or higher..possibly higher. But then again, I would HATE it if my children joined the military at ALL...thats just a mother's point of view.

Jamie

That's not necessarily a "mothers" point of view...it's YOUR point of view. I'm a mother myself and if my daughter chooses to join the military I'll support her decision to do so. There are certainly some advantages to it (job training, GI Bill for school etc.) along with the disadvantages. I'll make damned sure she reads everything she has to sign though so that she really knows and understands what she's getting into.

if a mother says its a mothers pov that she doesn't want her child in the military, and another mother says the opposite, is one invalidated as being the opinion of a mother?

it is said that recruiters are like golfers, they both go for the green (recruiters earn bonuses for high recruitment, and they will say anything to get recruits!) so having anyone read what they are signing is a good move. might even have a lawyer look it over. if you wouldn't tell her, would your daughter have the capacity to take that step on her own...looking over the documents prior to signing?

No either one doesn't invalidate the other. It does show why I dislike statements like "It's a mother's point of view," however. It's my experience that people use such lump-sum statements to make it sound as if they have a whole group behind them when in fact they are simply spouting off their own personal opinions. She is a mother, and that is her POV, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. That could very well have been her POV before she became a mother but the way it is stated makes it sound like some sort of special motherly wisdom when it's just an opinion like anyone elses. Such statements also tend to be used as a means of invalidating the other person's opinion. "Oh well you're not a mother so you couldn't possibly understand."

As for whether my daughter would read something before signing it I certainly hope that I will raise her to be cognizant enough to do so without my prompting, however, right now it's not an issue since she's not even old enough to read yet.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow, this is probably one of the most offensive threads I've seen in a while, disguised as a logical debating point.

You don't like how a certain group of people vote, so you've decided that their right to vote should be taken away from them?

Next I guess you'll be saying the same thing about black folks, or hispanics.

In fact, it's not too long ago that the same thing that your saying now about young people was said about women.

But here's a directly relevant counterpoint:

It's a known fact that, in general, critical thinking skills and the ability to learn degrade as one grows older, past the age of 50 or so, especially due to senility or alzheimers, but not limited to those cases.

Which means, following the same logic, that if you want to bar young people from voting, you should CERTAINLY then bar old people from voting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, this is probably one of the most offensive threads I've seen in a while, disguised as a logical debating point.

You don't like how a certain group of people vote, so you've decided that their right to vote should be taken away from them?

Next I guess you'll be saying the same thing about black folks, or hispanics.

In fact, it's not too long ago that the same thing that your saying now about young people was said about women.

But here's a directly relevant counterpoint:

It's a known fact that, in general, critical thinking skills and the ability to learn degrade as one grows older, past the age of 50 or so, especially due to senility or alzheimers, but not limited to those cases.

Which means, following the same logic, that if you want to bar young people from voting, you should CERTAINLY then bar old people from voting.

Actually, if you're looking at voting in terms of what's best for the nation, rather than from an individual point of view, there's a lot of evidence that women have not, as a group, been particularly responsible voters. And I say this as a woman myself.

 

[Amanda]

This shows that a teen can be confused when it comes to politics as well. They cannot correctly identify emotions or make decisions that are not emotional based. Adults can. This could impair the teens ability to make a sound choice in the voting which could lead to misunderstandings and get them someone in office that they regret.

Jamie

Not being allowed to vote could get us someone in office we regret as well.

As I said before, a teenager may have different reasons for voting than somebody older but that's not a bad thing. We vote based on our unique situations, and that's the way it's supposed to be. I'm not sure what identifying the emotion of fear has to do with voting. I don't know about anyone else but I don't typically experience fear when I arrive at my polling place.

It has NOTHING to do with it.

Kids live in a world where "reading" other kids is important. Adults live in a world where "reading" adults is important. How many times have you heard parents talking about how they don't understand their teens? Does this make them incompetent to vote? Hardly. It was a weak argument and isn't holding up to scrutiny.

 

[Amanda]

"Excuse me" because of my post above yours. Were you directing that toward me?

Of course it was directed at you. You, apparently, are a piss poor parent.

Me, I applaud your daughter for serving her country. She has my thanks.

Thank you. She is an amazing, incredibly intelligent young woman and a great mom. But so is her sister, who never enlisted in the military. I must have directed all of my parenting skills toward that daughter, while ignoring her sister altogether.

I'm going to stop before I say anything I'll regret.

I'm sure you did a great job with both of them. Anyone that grows up and has a desire to serve their country got something right taught to them.

I don't remember exactly but I believe "Jamie" said she was an infant or a toddler. Clearly that makes her some kind of authority on child rearing. I know I'm not qualified to make sweeping judgements. I don't have any kids and I hope it stays that way for years to come. I'm not ready to give myself over to that responsibility, because I know it will consume me, and I'm not done partying yet. But I do think about it... I hope that someday when I am a mother I can do better than my parents did (not that they were bad) and give my child (or children) the best possible start in life. It's an exciting thought and a little scary. But I would never tell someone they messed up because of decisions their children make. When they become adults you have to let go. I go through this occasionally with my mom, she tries to guilt me into moving back home or getting married and settling down. But now my life is mine, and I have to make my own decisions and my own mistakes and have my own triumphs. I'm glad your daughter has made choices that make you proud, I can't imagine a more satisfying feeling than you must get when you see what sees done.

 

[Vast LWC]

Adults live in a world where "reading" adults is important.

And seniors live in a world where they just have trouble reading...

 

[Amanda]

Adults live in a world where "reading" adults is important.

And seniors live in a world where they just have trouble reading...

Then clearly they should be denied the right to vote.

 

[vincubus]

What happened to your maturity since that time?

cant attack the content, so must attack the poster.

ad hominem.

Sorry Vinny..
You just threw up a softball and I had to swing for it

no worries. i now know you to be a reasonable adult. takes awhile to weed out the decent posters.

 

[vincubus]

I believe there shouldn't be a minimum voting age at all.

nice sites.