Liberal senator is pushing new bill S-222 to reduce voting age to 16.

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No that's just you projecting as usual.

You're such a child.

LOLOL! 

Just now, User said:

Oh, so you confirm you were playing dumb. Thanks.

 

 

That's not true. He's not playing.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, User said:

They can't vote now. That is the status quo. What is your argument for why that should change?

I'm not arguing that it should. I'm arguing that not considering it for the wrong reasons doesn't defend the status quo.
Some countries already allow it. If there was no interest in the subject, it wouldn't come up every so often.
Perhaps the govt should survey Grade 11+ classes to gauge the actual interest of the people being discussed. We only know that Youth wings of political parties are the ones pushing for it, not 16 and 17s in general.

 

[LinkSoul60]

I wasn't aware of this, but at 14 years old you are eligible to join a political party and if you have a valid membership you can vote for in the parties leadership elections.  Seems odd to me that a 14 year old card carrying paid member can vote for a parties leader, but a 17 year old cannot vote in a civic election....  

Several countries, including Scotland, Austria, Cuba and Nicaragua, allow 16-year-olds to vote in elections.

Michael J. Wigginton, a postdoctoral fellow in political science at Carleton University, said research on voter turnout in Austria shows that 16- and 17-year-olds are as capable as anyone else of making an informed voting choice — though they’re also generally less likely to vote.

“You might see some interesting dynamics there where, if the median age of voters gets younger and younger, that might change how parties pitch to the public,” Wigginton said.

“But then again, they might have taken the same stance a lot of them are now, where younger voters aren’t necessarily the best to pitch to because they’re the hardest to get to turn out to vote.”

Wiggington said introducing younger voters to elections could encourage the parties to change the way they engage with certain policy topics, such as education.

“Rather than only be concerned with the opinions of parents and the community at large around K-12 education, parties would now also need to consider the opinions of current high school students,” Wigginton said. 

He said issues like government funding of universities and student loans could become more “electorally salient” and the younger median age of the electorate could change the way campaigning parties engage with policy.

“So, a slightly lower emphasis on (old age security) or nursing homes, and a slightly greater emphasis on helping first-time homebuyers or on student loans,” Wigginton said.

[eyeball]

Anyone else remember Wild In The Streets or am I showing my age?

 

[blackbird]

Lowering the age is not a good idea.  Many young are very idealistic and easily influenced by radicals.  Also schools are brainwashing them with leftist and woke ideology.

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I wasn't aware of this, but at 14 years old you are eligible to join a political party and if you have a valid membership you can vote for in the parties leadership elections.  Seems odd to me that a 14 year old card carrying paid member can vote for a parties leader, but a 17 year old cannot vote in a civic election....  

I can see why it may seem odd at a glance but any leader elected still has to win a seat in a general election and that's the "circuit breaker' on that. 

These little gaps are left more or less intentionally to allow people who are not normally eligible to vote to at least have some Form of impact on the representation of the country. For example Non-citizens can become members of the party and elect a leader as well even though they can't vote in an election. People not eligible to vote can also donate money which can impact a political parties fortunes. They can also donate time and be scrutineers and help win the election by getting out the vote.

There's all these little ways that a non -voting person can still have an impact so that they can feel like they're participating as well. But actually voting for individual Representatives is left to citizens who have an adult age and capable of making decisions on behalf of the country with at least a reasonable expectation that they are old enough to make those decisions.

54 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Several countries, including Scotland, Austria, Cuba and Nicaragua, allow 16-year-olds to vote in elections.

Oh well if it's good enough for Cuba and Nicaragua.....🙄🙄🙄

Kids are not ready to be making those kind of decisions earlier than 18 on average. We already have enough problems with our democracy without making things worse

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Lowering the age is not a good idea.  Many young are very idealistic and easily influenced by radicals.  Also schools are brainwashing them with leftist and woke ideology.

PP took the biggest share of the youth vote this past election.

So did Trump As I recall. I guess you're right, kids are falling for the radicals.

Edited Wednesday at 11:00 PM by eyeball

[LinkSoul60]

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Lowering the age is not a good idea.  Many young are very idealistic and easily influenced by radicals.  Also schools are brainwashing them with leftist and woke ideology.

Without idealism we don't allow ourselves to think bigger or dream of what might possible.  Many 'adults' are also easily influenced by radicals.  Would your opinion be different if the younger generation generally leaned more to right ideology?

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Without idealism we don't allow ourselves to think bigger or dream of what might possible.  Many 'adults' are also easily influenced by radicals.  Would your opinion be different if the younger generation generally leaned more to right ideology?

For god's sake they're too young whether they're conservative or not. Children should not be electing the lawmakers of the country. And you haven't made any kind of cases to why they should.

Our political system allows them to be involved and to participate as is and when they're old enough they'll get a chance to vote as well. But children should not be voting in a democratic system to pick the lawmakers. It's that simple. And as I posted previously the medical research shows quite clearly that on average they have not reached cognitive maturity before 18

Your argument that somehow we need their idealism rather than cold rational intelligent thought based on reason intellect and fact is beyond nonsense. Absolutely nothing whatsoever stops them from presenting ideas, exercising political power or advocating for things outside of an election. And they do frequently.

But the decision about who is going to make the laws and run the country should be left to adults and not idealism. Idealism gave us communist Russia. Idealism gave us Nazi Germany. The last thing we need is idealism when it comes to selecting the actual leaders. Idealism comes later

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Without idealism we don't allow ourselves to think bigger or dream of what might possible.  Many 'adults' are also easily influenced by radicals.  Would your opinion be different if the younger generation generally leaned more to right ideology?

Idealism???  What is that?

How about education, understanding the political world and the real world and having a degree of maturity.  That takes time and age.

If age doesn't matter, why not give the vote to all kids from kindergarten up?

[LinkSoul60]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

For god's sake they're too young whether they're conservative or not. Children should not be electing the lawmakers of the country. And you haven't made any kind of cases to why they should.

Our political system allows them to be involved and to participate as is and when they're old enough they'll get a chance to vote as well. But children should not be voting in a democratic system to pick the lawmakers. It's that simple. And as I posted previously the medical research shows quite clearly that on average they have not reached cognitive maturity before 18

Your argument that somehow we need their idealism rather than cold rational intelligent thought based on reason intellect and fact is beyond nonsense. Absolutely nothing whatsoever stops them from presenting ideas, exercising political power or advocating for things outside of an election. And they do frequently.

But the decision about who is going to make the laws and run the country should be left to adults and not idealism. Idealism gave us communist Russia. Idealism gave us Nazi Germany. The last thing we need is idealism when it comes to selecting the actual leaders. Idealism comes later

 

One such argument is that those under the age of 18 lack the cognitive, emotional and moral maturity to vote. However, psychological research suggests that young people have adult-level cognitive capacity by age 16.   https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Flhb0000315

[LinkSoul60]

33 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Idealism???  What is that?

How about education, understanding the political world and the real world and having a degree of maturity.  That takes time and age.

If age doesn't matter, why not give the vote to all kids from kindergarten up?

The dictionary definition is; the unrealistic belief in or pursuit of perfection.  

The learning part is realizing that very little is ideal and perfection is more often than not possible....which applies to education and the real world in any and every way.  Along the way we mature as we learn.

I never said age doesn't matter, but I have and will say 16 is reasonable.  Their cognitive capacity has reached adult levels by that age so to say they need to understand the political world, the real world and have a degree of maturity....why?  It's not a prerequisite for an adult.

 

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

One such argument is that those under the age of 18 lack the cognitive, emotional and moral maturity to vote. However, psychological research suggests that young people have adult-level cognitive capacity by age 16.   https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Flhb0000315

That's not what the study says at all. It says kids MAY reach that level by 16. Not that they do on average. 

Further it notes that it's incomplete and not fully matured,  which is in keeping with the study i posted showing that on average reaches MATURITY at 18.  So while some 16 year olds may be starting to think at an adult level they have not reached maturity yet. 

Further it notes that they're still very immature in some circumstances. from your study:

" Importantly, whereas cognitive capacity reached adult levels around age 16, psychosocial maturity reached adult levels beyond age 18, creating a “maturity gap” between cognitive and psychosocial development. Juveniles may be capable of deliberative decision making by age 16, but even young adults may demonstrate “immature” decision making in arousing situations"

Politics is very often a passionate area.

So you have posted a study that proves that 16 is too young.

Congratulations you have joined the ranks of many left-wingers on this board who have managed to post-proof that they are wrong  LOLOLOL

As your study says they are getting close but they are not fully mature at 16. That is in  keeping with the study I posted which shows on average they reach a maturity at 18

So no voting till 18