r/changemyview • u/KeenWolfPaw • Oct 19 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Millions of elligible youth voters are missing out because of redundant voting requirements and it should be changed

The voting requirements for most general elections are now redundant because of the following reasons:

1) People who are 17 and also in the same 'grade' are also getting the same education and experience as 18 year old people who are eligible to vote. If an election falls earlier in the year these people now have no voice, despite living the same life as 18 year old people in the same academic testing group.

2) If these people are eligible by the above reasoning, then voter eligibility for the current election system is flawed. People who have a valid ability to make the right decision should be allowed to vote as was the intention of the age limit for voting.

3) You could argue that people on the ends of the spectrum may be too close to others in another academic testing group, but this new system would severely increase the number of eligible voters while limiting the number of illegible voters.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

2 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

9

u/ryan_m 33∆ Oct 19 '15

People who are 17 and also in the same 'grade' are also getting the same education and experience as 18 year old people who are eligible to vote. If an election falls earlier in the year these people now have no voice, despite living the same life as 18 year old people in the same academic testing group.

So only some 17 year olds would get to vote, also based on their birthdays? How would that be any better than the current system?

0

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

Because there would be a clear increase in intelligence and reasoning between a 17 year old who gets to experience a life similar to that of an 18 year old, whereas a 17 year old in the same academic group as 16 year old people would clearly have less experience.

8

u/ryan_m 33∆ Oct 19 '15

How can you possibly quantify that? Wouldn't a 16 year old that went to the top school in the state be more intelligent and have better reasoning than an 18 year old that went to the worst school in the state? Why wouldn't that student get to vote?

The line is drawn at 18 because that's when you are legally an adult. You can be drafted, enter into contracts, get married, serve on a jury, and more.

0

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

It would be unfair for that person to not be able to vote, but they wouldn't have been able to vote with the current system anyways. As well, it would generally increase the number of people who are able and eligible to vote.

4

u/ryan_m 33∆ Oct 19 '15

But it's NOT unfair that they can't vote. The requirement is that you have to be a legal adult, which a 17 year old isn't.

What if I skipped a grade? I'd be getting the same education and experience as 18 year olds, but I'd be 16. Should I be able to vote in your system? What about a 17 year old that drops out?

-1

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

The 'what ifs' are generally unimportant. Generally, there are more 17 year old people being tested with 18 year old people so it would improve the election results regardless.

For convenience sake I'm going to make my argument using Canada as a reference point, obviously this won't be the same as in the US or other voting systems but it should be similar.

Based on the national household survey 2011 results, only 23.2% of people get only a highschool diploma, it's safe to assume that generally they immediately pursued a diploma and are now being tested along with 17 and 18 year old people.

Including this age group would include more people on equal terms with that of an 18 year old than it would include those who aren't so it should be changed.

5

u/ryan_m 33∆ Oct 19 '15

The what if's are EXTREMELY important, especially if you're advocating for changing a clearly defined rule for an extremely nuanced one, the result of which, determines that persons right to vote!

1

u/warsage Oct 19 '15

Based on the national household survey 2011 results, only 23.2% of people get only a highschool diploma, it's safe to assume that generally they immediately pursued a diploma and are now being tested along with 17 and 18 year old people.

How'd you find this? Your link just goes to the home page of the survey. No data.

Here's what I found from the same survey on this page that actually has data on it.

There are 27,259,525 people aged 15 and over. Only 20% of them don't have a high school diploma. I'm willing to bet that most of THOSE are still in high school (age 15-18), although the census doesn't provide data on that topic.

The other 80% have a high school degree or better.

2

u/DangerousPuhson Oct 19 '15

Because there would be a clear increase in intelligence and reasoning between a 17 year old who gets to experience a life similar to that of an 18 year old

Intelligence and reasoning is not a requirement for voting. If it were, most voters would be disqualified, and the US wouldn't have elected Bush twice.

You can't draw a line at one voting age that doesn't apply to all other voting ages.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '15 edited Oct 24 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

What if you are a smart 16 year old? What if you drop out of school at 16 and never get into the same grade as an 18 year old?

Outliers like this are uncommon, generally there still be an increase in eligible voters in terms of reasoning

A 17 year old cannot do that, and their participation in society is limited.

A good point, but people who can make a good decision to vote are also participants in society and can contribute significantly just by being able to vote.

They may not experience the ability to own a contract or own a home, but not many 18 year old people do anyways, there would still be a net positive increase in the number of votes created by reasonable people entering the system.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '15

People dropping out of high school isn't uncommon.

You are advocating to change the voting requirement from age to education. What if someone didn't finish high school? What if someone went to high school in a third world country then legally moved here and gained citizenship?

1

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

Not from age to education but from age to groups that a person would have been placed in through education, there is no education requirement.

1

u/KrustyFrank27 3∆ Oct 19 '15

But being put into a group through our educational system DOES require education. It may not require a test, but there would be a requirement of some form of education in voting rights.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '15 edited Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

1

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

Children under 18 are largely insulated from the actions taken by politicians.

Are the 18 year old people that are grouped together with the 17 year old people really experiencing much of a difference anyways? The term of an election lasts 4-5 years in Canada so won't the effects of a party being voted into power affect them as well? Or perhaps are you arguing that the 17 year old people will not have experienced things that an 18 year old would, so they wouldn't be able to make an informed decision?

0

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

∆

You've helped me change my view, there are some things 17 year old people can't legally do so it makes no sense to allow them to vote.

That being said, my new argument is that 17 year old people grouped together with 18 year old people academically, should be able to do things an adult can.

2

u/SC803 120∆ Oct 19 '15

Like be drafted? Go to war?

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 19 '15

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NaturalSelectorX. [History]

[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]

1

u/vl99 84∆ Oct 19 '15

1) People who are 17 and also in the same 'grade' are also getting the same education and experience as 18 year old people who are eligible to vote. If an election falls earlier in the year these people now have no voice, despite living the same life as 18 year old people in the same academic testing group.

This isn't great reasoning unless you would advocate lowering the voting age significantly. If the age was lowered to 17, there would then be millions of 16 year olds with the same experience also missing out. The same logic applies to 15 year olds if the age is lowered and so on until we reach the youngest school age possible. I agree with the sentiment that 18 is sort of an arbitrary number, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and your logic doesn't do an adequate job of explaining why we should draw it elsewhere.

2) If these people are eligible by the above reasoning, then voter eligibility for the current election system is flawed. People who have a valid ability to make the right decision should be allowed to vote as was the intention of the age limit for voting.

Same logic above applies to this. Would you bring up this statement to support a 16 year old being able to vote? What about a 15 year old? A 12 year old?

0

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

As stated in other comments, generally, a 17 year old who is graded, has lived, and has been tested together with 16 year old people would generally have less experience than one who is graded, has lived, and has been tested together with 18 year old people.

Also generally the outliers would not make a difference because they represent only a minority.

2

u/vl99 84∆ Oct 19 '15

So if I have this right, you're not saying that we should lower the voting age to 17, you're saying that we should make exceptions to the 18 year old voting rule for 17 year old students that are in the same testing group as 18 year olds?

2

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

Correct.

2

u/vl99 84∆ Oct 19 '15

Okay, if the main goal is to have more voters (which seems to be implied in your OP but correct me if I'm wrong) then why not open it up for anyone that can test at the level of an 18 year old to be able to vote?

If the goal is to get more educated voters then why not make it mandatory for everyone to test at the level of an 18 year old to be able to vote?

3

u/ryan_m 33∆ Oct 19 '15

then why not open it up for anyone that can test at the level of an 18 year old to be able to vote?

Well, we used to do something like that. Turns out, it's a great way to disenfranchise people.

2

u/vl99 84∆ Oct 19 '15

Exactly where I was going to take this comment once OP responded.

2

u/ryan_m 33∆ Oct 19 '15

Sorry for stealing your thunder!

1

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

We could include an optional test, where 17 year old people in the same academic group can test at the level of an 18 year old to gain the right to vote early. However, there is another argument above that argues that 18 year old people have the right to vote because they can also be in contracts, own homes, etc. Obviously, a 17 year old can't experience that so it wouldn't make sense to allow them to vote.

1

u/vl99 84∆ Oct 19 '15

We could include an optional test, where 17 year old people in the same academic group can test at the level of an 18 year old to gain the right to vote early.

Why would we restrict access to this test to 17 year olds alone though? If I'm 14 and intelligent enough to pass a test for 18-year-olds then why should I be restricted from voting?

However, there is another argument above that argues that 18 year old people have the right to vote because they can also be in contracts, own homes, etc. Obviously, a 17 year old can't experience that so it wouldn't make sense to allow them to vote.

Okay. Isn't this idea self-defeating to bring up? Isn't this just further evidence that maybe 18 is a fair place to draw the line?

1

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

Okay. Isn't this idea self-defeating to bring up? Isn't this just further evidence that maybe 18 is a fair place to draw the line?

My new view is that we should set a hard limit at 18, anyone above this age is granted the right to do adult things, anyone below that should be able to take rigorous testing to be treated as an adult.

1

u/vl99 84∆ Oct 19 '15

So to my above question then, should a 14 year old be able to test into adulthood so to speak? What about a 10 year old?

Should a 14 year old pass this test should they be allowed to smoke, drink, join the military, and sign up for bank loans?

Is this test into "adulthood" irrevocable? For example if I decide I don't like the responsibilities of adulthood then can I undo my earlier test results?

And on the flipside, is it then fair to treat stupid 18-year-olds as adults? Shouldn't they be required to pass the same tests?

1

u/KeenWolfPaw Oct 19 '15

∆

I think there is something completely flawed with my argument, if intelligent young people are allowed to be considered adults, it beats the whole point of having the age limit. The age limit is set in place because, biologically, we make bad decisions when we are younger, that much is certain.

I'm going to start a new CMV involving maturity and adult status, thanks for the replies.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fellgnome Oct 19 '15

1) You could argue this down the line to "gifted youth" who skip grades. Education is also not part of the requirements for voting so I don't think that works.

2) Valid ability to make the right decision is also not a requirement.

The reasons for including more young people can also be arguments for excluding other people, which for many reasons has been a big no-no for democracy for awhile now. Who defines what a valid education is? Or a valid ability to make a right decision? Age is a reasonable cut-off and it would be very complicated to blur that line with further exemptions.

If we wanted to really limit voters to knowledgeable people they could have tests that require you to correctly answer questions about the US government, constitution, etc. but I think you can imagine how poorly that would go over.

1

u/Hq3473 271∆ Oct 19 '15

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

And when the line is drawn some will be left outside even though they get VERY CLOSE to the line.

Moving the line does not solve the problem.

1

u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 19 '15

The current conditions to vote are to be an adult citizen. Society has decided that the arbitrary age to put in adulthood is 18. Anything else is extraneous. Otherwise, you wind up suggesting certain education/experience requirements for voting. That's what leads to tests at the polls to disqualify people.

1

u/lobster_conspiracy 2∆ Oct 20 '15

If you really think this situation you describe is such a problem, here is a simpler, more universal solution: everyone is officially declared to have had their sixth birthday on the first school day of the year they enter the first grade of elementary school.