About two years ago now, I was sitting on a bench in Central Park writing my initial thoughts on what I didn’t know then but would come to know as Youth Rights.

I don’t think I’ll ever remember why she did, but about halfway through the day Greta Thunberg came to mind, and I looked up the voting age in Sweden. And my blood boiled in a way I’ve never experienced in my entire life.

16 years old and one of the most famous and recognizable political activists in the world. 16 years old giving a confident, impassioned, admonishing speech to the fucking UN. 16 years old with no legal right to a voice in her country. No voice to vote for the policies she believed in or the people who might enact them.

My writing, already vitriolic to a fault, managed to become even moreso but with the topic abruptly switched to voting. For the first time in my life, I considered where I’d place the voting age if I could do so unilaterally. Not long into considering it I had a thought that I wrote down immediately, a question I’ve asked well over 100 times at this point with no substantial answer:

When is it reasonable to say to a person, ‘If you’re not at least this old, then I don’t give a fuck what you think’?

And from the moment I had that thought, I have been unable to place the voting age.

    • Alice@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      This was my first thought, but then it occurred to me that if I was voting at 16, I’d almost certainly be voting for who my parents told me to. I’m still not against it but I think we’d need specialized education and tons of PSAs aimed at kids about it, because unless you’re already rebellious, “my house my rules” could easily be extended to voting.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I live in a country where the voting age is 16. It used to be 18 and I don’t think this change has caused many concrete policy changes: young people aren’t big or unified enough a voting bloc to meaningfully affect the results.

    I tend to be in favor of letting young people have more rights at a younger age in general (in part because I remember being young and not seeing any good reason why I shouldn’t), so I’m definitely not in favor of raising it to 18 again or further.

  • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    https://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDREN/tables/pop1.asp

    70-something million children. Let’s make them eligible to vote, and let parents vote on their behalf if they’re too young. As another poster said, the parents who abuse that on “both sides” would more or less come out in the wash. The parents who took it seriously would probably adjust both their vote and their child’s vote to benefit the child.

    (One interesting thing is that would mean citizen children of non-citizen immigrants would get to vote.)

  • lady_maria@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    19 hours ago

    It’s really frustrating how little value so many adults assign to the thoughts and feelings of kids. I felt the effects of that a lot while growing up.

    Idk. If it were up to me, I think I’d make the voting age maybe 14 or 15. It’s not that an 8-year-old’s feelings don’t matter (to me, at least), but you need to allow them enough time and brain development to be able to start to learn about and understand these kinds of things.

    There should also be accompanying education surrounding different political ideologies, history, policies, propaganda tactics, ect., but I’m sure that’d be very unpopular with a lot of parents.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Perhaps it should be decided by a cognitive test instead of age. This is a dangerous road though, because a lot of people with cognitive disabilities can and should be allowed to vote for themselves.

    Maybe the test could be made to test if a person understands what an election is and them being able to form their own opinion.

    The main issue isn’t age, but rather that a lot of people vote for something that they think others expect them to vote for without ever forming an opinion of their own.

    However those people should also be allowed to represent themselves, so I think all elections ought to have the option of voting for “shit, I don’t know, I have no idea what’s this is about”, and if that vote came over a certain threshold, then the election should be void and postponed for a week.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Some people here saying the same age you work and pay taxes and I absolutely agree, but with the caveat that it shouldn’t be compulsory before age 25.

    And I pick 25 as it’s the average age iirc the brain is considered to be fully matured.

    I personally had no clue of what I was doing and regret my first few rounds voting. I was aware at the time that I lacked the information and the big picture view of the political situation to make an informed decision though, and wished I could avoid voting entirely but in my country it was compulsory.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 hours ago

    If I could wave a wand and fix something about voting in the US, it would be to improve access for already qualified voters.

    Kids would vote similarly to their parents in general, so lowering the age means people from groups/locations that have good access would have more votes (not a bad thing) but groups/locations with poor access would still have poor access, possibly even worse access because of the increase in voters. So yeah, fix access first or it only exacerbates what I consider to be a larger issue in need of addressing.

    Assuming good access to voting though, 18 makes sense to me as the time a person is an adult and legally responsible for themselves. I would be open to arguments for younger, it’s just not something I ever felt passionate about, even when I was under 18 years old.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Just like women vote the same as their husbands? We’ll practically double the line length at the polls if we give women the vote, and their votes won’t really matter, because it’s the same as if their husbands or fathers just voted normally. Not worth the effort.

      Not being an ass, it’s just that every single argument I’ve ever seen against lowering the voting age has been almost identical to the arguments used against women voters back in the day. I’m not suggesting you’re against women having the vote, just that the arguments are similar, and pointing that out helps to demonstrate why they might not as strong as some would think. Teenagers are also notoriously capable of disagreeing with their parents on political issues. It’s sort of a thing with them often enough.

      Totally agree about access to voting. Automatic registration at 16, coting day a national holiday, polls should be open for at least a month, with every post office a polling place, and government run bussing to and from polling places, and mandatory paid time off for wt least 1 day in that month. Universal suffrage. Including incarcerated people. Honestly, nothing should be able to interfere with your right to vote. I go back and forth on compulsory voting, but tend to lean towards it. And this is coming from an Anarcho communist, who doesn’t generally believe we’re ever going to fix things through the ballot box.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        No one’s fighting for teens to be recognized as adults at 16, and they will all have the right to vote in two more years, so I don’t see the parallel at all to the women’s suffragist movement who couldn’t ever expect to vote, married or not, and were part of a broader campaign for women’s rights. If there was momentum to make 16 the age of legal adulthood, it would make sense that voting would be a part of it.

        16 is arbitrary. Not linked to any legal status. Not linked to the age at which one can work and pay taxes. Not linked to any milestone being identified. Like I said, open to arguments but it needs to be better than “younger than 18, set it at an aesthetically pleasing number… 16 will do.”

        The most convincing arguments I see are about being able to vote for the president who could draft you, so theoretically voting at 14. But my preferred condition, and where I would throw any activist energy, would be to get rid of the draft entirely.

        I’m also against compulsory voting. Absolutely against it in current state with all the access issues we’ve agreed upon. Even with perfect access though, declining to vote can be a political statement in itself.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    26 when your brain is almost certainly fully myelenated to 65 since the future of young people is far more effected by elected officials than the futures of retired people.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I could see some kind of arrangement where the age would be something reasonable like 16-18, but then there is a test you can write (basic civics questions eg. who are the candidates, what does the legislative branch do, etc.) and if you pass that test, kind of like a learner’s permit for driving, you can vote even if you’re under that age, down to a hard cutoff of like 13.

  • Vaggumon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    16 is the latest I’d say. Even younger is fair. If we ask them to go to school where they can get murdered just because we fail to enact reasonable gun laws, then they should get to vote for the people who don’t care if they die or not.

  • beerclue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    I have a 15yo kid with ASD. While she is highly functional, goes to a good public school, she can’t decide which trash bin to use and will just freeze for a while, overthinking it… She can talk for hours about the anatomy of a cat, but knows nothing about politics, or how the world functions… I think 16 is too young to vote, but my perspective is warped.

    • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      And as a conflicting anecdote, my 16 year old is very interested in politics and very much wants to have a say in their own life, just like I did at that age. Are they the most informed individual? Hell no. Are they more informed than some adults? Hell yes.

      Younger people may be susceptible to their lack of experience, but they are also more likely to bring new ideas to the table because they are less invested in the status quo. If they have the capacity to make informed decisions, they should have the right to self determination and participation in our political systems.

      What you say about your kid doesn’t sound like an inability to process these concepts, just a lack of interest. Do you talk to your kid about politics and if so, how? I’ve found I’ve made a lot of progress by talking to teens about current events and asking them what they think. They won’t care about every topic, but I guarantee there is something that will peak their interest and typically topics related to adults imposing their beliefs on kids will get teens to talk, even if it’s just related to school. It’s important that you get them talking about their beliefs, not just telling them yours, because they won’t want to talk to you unless they feel like you will treat them as a peer.

      You don’t need to agree with their beliefs, just listen and not talk down to them. Ask follow-up questions that can turn into wider conversations. Help try to explain what is going on and the context surrounding it if needed. You can absolutely share your views, but it’s usually best to talk about what’s going on/being discussed, asking their thoughts, and then following with yours. If you talk down to a kid, they will shut down or fight back (and also shut down). They need the same respect adults crave. They’ll also eventually disagree with you just like adults.

      It varies by person, but I’ve found kids tend to start getting interested around 13-14 if you take this approach and then will really come into their own in terms of beliefs by 16. Kids have a LOT they are concerned about in the world today even without this. It causes many of them significant anxiety because they feel powerless. If you have success getting them interested, 16 (or after a few years of observing and talking about current events, history, and politics) is a good age to talk about analyzing the events.

      If you’re into Marxism, it’s a great time to start teaching and practicing dialectical materialism so they can figure out for themselves why the world is the way it is on their own.

      I know there can be differences with ASD, but I have a few cousins who are 15-20 years younger than me with ASD and have found the same applied for them. Details of the conversation, finding something that gets them invested in the topics, and explanations you give them may vary, but the basic approach doesn’t change and this varies by person regardless of any condition.

      This is just a random reply, but if it’s something you want to be able to talk to her about, I hope this helps you be able to do that in a way that expands your relationship as they grow older. I know I wish I could have talked to my parents about politics and the world the same way I do with my kids when I was a kid.

  • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Parents should be allowed a vote on behalf of their children until their children reach whatever age the jurisdiction allows independent voting.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        As opposed to billionaires just buying politicians?

        Parents somehow “taking advantage” isn’t the problem.

        It’s not like someone can just pop out 100 children to skew votes.

        • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          It’s not like someone can just pop out 100 children to skew votes

          On an individual basis sure, but this still poses two problems:

          1. Is there a group of people that typically vote a certain who are prone to having more children than other groups. Due to different cultures, this is likely true.
          2. Why should parents of children get an extra vote over those who can’t have children? Personally I feel that having had children should bear no influence on the power of your voice.
          • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 minutes ago

            Yeah, I agree that it’s unfair that it underrepresents childless people, and over represents large families.

            What annoys me is that a very large portion of the population is disenfranchised (but still taxed in my country). Children have the most to lose, they’re voting with an 80-year view, the oldies are voting with a 5 year view.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Then that’s the age we should be able to vote.

        And if people don’t like it, maybe we outlaw child labor. 🤷‍♀️

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I was offered a job at a computer repair shop at age 14. Dude had to retract his offer when I told him my age, he assumed I was 17 or older.

        Mississippi.

        • hellabryanstyle@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          18 hours ago

          According to this it would have been legal to hire you. There’s a lot of restrictions when it comes to number of hours and time of day that minors are allowed to work though which is probably what they didn’t want to deal with.

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Interesting. I’m not quite sure what the laws were back in 1996, but yeah with school and all, plus the travel distance of over 30 miles, even if it was legal for me to work a few hours a day after school, it wouldn’t have been practical at all.

            Still nice that he offered the job, I was trying to brainstorm and troubleshoot why my first sound card didn’t work. Turned out he got a defective batch, like 3 other customers had the same issues.

            He knew I did all the proper troubleshooting already. Honestly I forget what model sound card it was, but once I proved it didn’t work, he gave me a different card that cost twice as much, for no extra money.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        15 hours ago

        It’s 12 in the US for agricultural jobs. That’s when I started corn detassling and tree trimming and filed my first taxes.

        Don’t forget acting too. There are babies and toddlers acting and working for pay.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Man, it’s a tough one.

    In theory, nobody should be disenfranchised by age at all. But at what age would they be able to vote, as in understand what to do, how to do it, and do so without adult supervision?

    Until they reach that point, it’s essentially their parents or guardians getting an extra vote.

    And then you have to look at other things we limit minors on by virtue of not being able to make informed decisions. So, would we go with driving age, since that’s when we trust them with a ton of death machine? Drinking age? Age of consent for sex (which isn’t always 18)?

    If we change it away from 18 to lower, showing that they have the full rights of any citizen, why don’t they get those other rights with enfranchisement? Why is someone able to vote like someone that has the ability to make an informed choice, but they can’t drink? Hell, that’s already a problem since 18 year olds can be sent to fight and die in the military, but can’t have a beer legally.

    I would be fine with 16 being the age of majority for everything if the individual wanted it. You wanna step into adult life, with all the rights and responsibilities, I don’t have an objection to that at 16. I had too many patients that were married and working before 18 to pretend that it isn’t realistic for someone that age to step into adulthood. I don’t think it’s the best choice, but I wouldn’t fight it if the world decided that way.

    I could definitely made an informed decision for voting at 16. I had access to alcohol, and was able to make the decision to not use it, same with tobacco. I had access to sex, and made the decision to make it safe sex. I was a decent driver, and didn’t have even a fender bender until I was 19, and I wasn’t the one that caused it then. All of the stuff that we limit to “adults”, I know I would have been fully capable of making informed and conscientious decision about any of them.

    But I also knew other teenagers that were absolute morons that couldn’t be trusted not to jerk off in the school bathroom. I knew 16 yos that wrecked cars and put other people’s lives at risk in the process. So I’m okay with the age of majority being 18 too; some of those morons would just flip a coin for their vote, and the mock votes we’d have in school were laughable across the board.

    Not everyone can make an informed and conscientious decision at 30, much less 18.

    So I don’t really think it needs to change, but I agree with you that it sucks that it’s so arbitrary.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      why don’t they get those other rights with enfranchisement?

      ton of death machine?

      because that endangers others too

      Drinking age?

      because alcohol negatively effects development

      Age of consent for sex

      because teenagers have sex anyway; making it illegal would only be harmful

    • hellabryanstyle@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      We seem pretty well-aligned. Personally I think 16 is the absolute latest a person ought to have the liberty to do anything that we age restrict. I was talking to someone from Scotland recently where the Age of Majority is 16 and he said that it’s not uncommon there for 16yos to graduate their school system, marry their person, and start a family.

      So to me that is at least some amount of evidence that if we simply perceived 16yos as adults, they would behave more like adults.

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Until they reach that point, it’s essentially their parents or guardians getting an extra vote.

      Honestly I’ve sometimes thought that parents ought to be able to vote for their kids. At least that gives some form of representation to children.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        In that regard, they already have representation by their parents’ votes. All it would achieve is giving parents outsized voting power.

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          In that regard, they already have representation by their parents’ votes.

          But that vote only counts as much as one person, so it doesn’t give any more representation to the child if you ask me. My whole point is that a parent should have outsized voting power because they represent two persons, not one (okay actually each parent would get 1.5 votes as the child’s vote would be split on each parent but my point is the same).

          • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            12 hours ago

            No, no citizen whatsoever should be able to cast the votes of other citizens, period.

            If the kid can’t get in the voting booth by themselves, cast their own vote without assistance, then they aren’t voting, someone else is.

            • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              The idea is that the parent represents the child. We don’t trust children to make an informed vote, but we trust parents to make all kinds of choices for their children, including extremely personal choices. The current alternative is to not give children a vote at all. I think letting parents choose the vote for their child is better, and fits pretty well with all the rest that parents currently choose for their child. I also think it’s better than simply letting children of all ages vote, since again, they probably won’t be able to make an informed vote.

              • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                So, all I have to do is pump my semen into enough women, get them knocked up, and have thirty votes? Awesome! I’ll be my own bloc!

                • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  I mean… you can already kinda do that right? Raise your children to have similar values to you and they’ll vote like you when they grow up. That happens constantly. There’s just an 18 year latency to it. Obviously you lose the vote once they grow up to vote by themselves. I feel like you’re making a bit of a strawman out of what I’m saying here. We clearly just disagree and that’s okay.

        • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          which isn’t a bad thing either if you want to encourage people to have more kids (which of course is debatable whether that should be a goal, but many people think it should)

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I would never let 16 year old me vote.

      25 is a solid voting age informed by life experience in the “real world” and a developed brain. Nobody in their late teens to mid 20s can vote with a grasp of reality and understanding of the actual problems that plague society. There is too much optimism and idealistic intentions at those ages. Progress is a slow march against an established defense. Progress, no matter the speed, gains more than attempting brute force attacks against a greater dying populous fervent in their position in opposition.

      With a declining birth rate, slow and steady wins the race; or maybe Idiocracy was a documentary and WALL-E is a hopeful outcome of Surrogates.

      • Michal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        There are a lot of adults who shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but in democracy you let everyone have equal say and don’t make arbitrary rules to exclude certain groups.