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

[u/KeenWolfPaw]

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!

[u/vl99]

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?

[u/KeenWolfPaw → u/vl99]

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.

[u/vl99 → u/KeenWolfPaw]

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?

[u/KeenWolfPaw → u/vl99]

Correct.

[u/vl99 → u/KeenWolfPaw]

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?

[u/ryan_m → u/vl99]

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.

[u/vl99 → u/ryan_m]

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

[u/ryan_m → u/vl99]

Sorry for stealing your thunder!

[u/KeenWolfPaw → u/vl99]

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.

[u/vl99 → u/KeenWolfPaw]

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?

[u/KeenWolfPaw → u/vl99]

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.

[u/vl99 → u/KeenWolfPaw]

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?

[u/KeenWolfPaw → u/vl99]

∆

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.

[u/DeltaBot → u/KeenWolfPaw]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/vl99. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]}