Because at 18 people are responsible for their own actions, and restricting them after that is unreasonable and contrary to personal freedom.
There's a consistent factoid going around that brains aren't done developing until the age of 25. It's frequently used as an argument to restrict young people.
Looking at performance by age in fields like math and music, declining brain plasticity seems more like a reason to implement the carousel from Logan's Run
> Because at 18 people are responsible for their own actions
This is only because we arbitrarily picked an age - we used to consider people responsible for their own actions at much younger ages, it makes sense to change the number when we get new science supporting that. If the argument is that we shouldn't use brain development as a reason to restrict young people, then why not lower the drinking age again or get rid of it?
Science has discovered that the age of 25 is when neuroplasticity starts to decline. So what? There's a lot of argumentation needed to link that physical threshold with legal restriction.
It seems like you're arguing that people shouldn't fully participate in society until they start losing their ability to learn. Have you met people who've lived overly sheltered lives until the age of 25? Their tolerance towards risk is low. Their ability to adapt to new experiences is busted. Forcing that on a society wide scale would be nuts.
The science does throw in a lot of complexity between the social ideas of freedom and the physical effects of alcohol. But have you met 18 year olds? They're drinking.
There's also the issue of life expectancy. In the US, for males? 77 years. Now we're basically saying "For the first third of your life, we're going to dictate a lot of what you can't do".
You aren't going to gain life experience before the age if you keep raising the age of being allowed to live life to match that age.
I know you're specifically referring to voting age, but just making a general observation on how everyone seems to only want to keep increasing these various arbitrary age gates as if simply being older is all it takes. Have you guys all forgotten when you went through these points?
I still distinctly remember how glaringly stupid I realized the world was when I had to take a waiver notice to my university dorm room and sign as my dad a few days before turning 18, and that just a few days later I'd be fine to sign it as myself, despite obviously not changing much in a few days. Either way I had been living at a university thousands of miles from my parents for nearly 2 years and had said as much, so it was a farce all around.
Similarly with turning 21 and being allowed to drink.
Should we put age limit on voting? 70 doesn’t have the brain functionality of an 18 year old. Why they are very susceptible to fraud because of cognitive decline.
Plenty of "idiots" outside the age range of 18-25, should we restrict them as well? How would we determine who is qualified to vote? Any other rights provided by the constitution you'd like to alter while we're at it? What other responsibilities available 18-25 year olds would you like to restrict? The draft, driving a vehicle, taking out loans, ...? Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to choose their own clothing, what food they eat, ...
In that case most of Congress should recuse themselves from voting on abortion bills considering they've been shooting blanks and having hot flashes since the 90s.
That you were not fully informed when you voted at 18 is not a reason to restrict the rights of others who are. Or aren't. Who's to say a 25yo is somehow any better prepared to vote? It's not like they were asked to pass a civics test first.
Obviously the US needs more mature voters. To match the very mature leaders (“”) who are so mature that they have symptoms of senility or die on the job while their helpers vote for them.
Personally, I think we should set the voting age to 35 and cut off everyone above 37. It’s too risky to let the old or young vote. We can raise both thresholds by one per year to account for inflation.
I have the opposite take you have. There should be no restriction on voting age at all. Everyone possesses the right to have a say in the direction of the government that governs them.
Riiiight. Because four year olds have a strong grasp on current events and deserve a say, and totally wouldn’t just become an extra vote for whomever their parents are voting for.
Yep, I understand the practical issues with my position. But I can’t ethically condone saying “you have no voice” to a fellow citizen, so I prefer no restrictions.
Whose voice does the 4 year old have? Theirs or their parents? What you do by opening the vote to children below a certain age is all you are doing is amplifying the vote of the parents, you are not giving voice to the children.
At what age does the child who can vote actually have the capacity to choose their candidate and are even able to negotiate the mechanics of voting? Let’s say 18 is too old, but how young before they are able to counter the influence of a parent and decide for themselves…I’d argue its at least well into their teens.
There are plenty of unethical outcomes available in the "let babies vote" scenario, to weigh against the allegedly-unethical scenario of having a voting age.
We have laws about how our elders with Alzheimer's and dementia vote, but self-sufficient 17 year olds have no say in how their lives will be managed for the next 4 years. There's nuance you're glossing over.
Unless you’re going to allow babies to vote, we have to draw the line somewhere. It’s also not true that a 17 year old is disenfranchised for 4 years - they can engage with the political process as an adult as soon as they turn 18. Presidential elections aren’t the only feature of democracy. They aren’t even the only vote.
Right, and drawing arbitrary lines is guaranteed to step on toes. In some ways, the fairest way is to draw it at the extreme (I'm not suggesting this is best, just that it sidesteps this particular issue). Children are humans, they're affected by political pressures same as the rest (and they'll experience these pressure for longer than most of us). We're also already choosing not to restrict voting based on assumed capacity for reasoning. Individuals with down syndrome, dementia, and Alzheimer's have their voting rights explicitly protected, but 16 year-olds aren't ready.
I guess my point boils down to simply: Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning?
For the record, I don't think that we're wrong to implement a minimum voting age, and I don't think toddlers should vote, but I still think it's a worthwhile thing to consider.
If (as I assume) our goal is to restrict voting to those deemed mature and of sound mind, then I'd expect to see similar laws enforcing such restrictions in other sectors of the populace. But we don't see that! Instead we see laws explicitly granting the right to vote to the elderly and mentally disabled. It's possible to end up in a situation where an individual is deemed mentally unfit to manage their own finances or medical decisions, but still able to influence the governance of an entire nation.
I'm personally quite fascinated by this. Maybe my assumptions are wrong! Wouldn't that be neat? My goal is not to suggest that our policy is bad or wrong, it's to suggest that the "allegedly unethical scenario of having a voting age" is actually quite complex and interesting!
Dumb example: Should Brittney Spears have the right to vote?
Indeed there are. There are many hills I’ll die on, and while this isn’t one of them, I do find it deeply uncomfortable to so clearly deny a whole category of citizens representation.
Maybe that's an opportunity to reevaluate those restrictions rather than make the argument that because restrictions exist that one is as good as another.
It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.
That’s not the argument. The argument is: restrict children from voting due to their lack of maturity in decision-making.
We apply this argument in all kinds of cases that are super-uncontroversial so it’s surprising to hear that it makes someone uncomfortable in this particular case.
If lack of maturity predicates voting, then we're inconsistently disenfranchising individuals within classes. That doesn't seem very fair and I don't really buy feasibility as an excuse. "Sorry, but it's not practically feasible to give you the rights you deserve," is beyond the moral pale.
The driving example is a bit disingenuous because, in the US at least, driving isn't conceptualized as a "right" - it's formulated as a privilege. The drinking example is closer, but that's the right to self-determination. I don't suspect that you believe children have zero self-determination, nor do I suspect that you believe that one person's right to vote should be based on everyone in a particular class.
It would be unconscionable to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I simply extend the same unconscionablity to children.
Believe it or not, our laws apply to children too! Other government programs that can affect children include schools, roads, libraries, healthcare, welfare... They're personally affected by a lot of political stuff.
While we're at it, why should adults be the ones deciding how the public school system works? It's been more than 10 years since I was in school, I doubt my experience is still relevant.
You are legally required to have auto insurance for exactly this reason. As for banking, there are limits on overdraft fees, also written into law because people are not always responsible with money regardless of age.
There's a consistent factoid going around that brains aren't done developing until the age of 25. It's frequently used as an argument to restrict young people.
Looking at performance by age in fields like math and music, declining brain plasticity seems more like a reason to implement the carousel from Logan's Run