Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidp | Hacker News Reader

He has proposed, for example, that the voting age be lowered to 16. “Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,” Dr. Steinberg said.

As if logical reasoning were sufficient.

Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet, or the real-world practical effects of political choices over time, or just how confounding crowd effects and herd instinct can be, or any of the other weird shit about human behavior and governance that defies the kind of logical reasoning that many 40-year-olds are capable of, let alone 16-year-olds.

A 500 GHz CPU with no data to work with is just an impressive lump of silicon.

View on HN

> Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet

Your average 40 year old doesn't know shit about history or politics either. They just feel like 20-25 years of adult life makes their opinions hard-earned and valid, even if they're just long-held beliefs.

When I was 16, and dinner table debate with my adult family members got heated, it always ended with the ad hominem "you'll understand when you're older and have worked for 25 years like me". Now I have (ish), and I still largely hold the same opinions. There's just not enough in that 20-25 year period that makes your average joe a special insightful snowflake.

It's just like every fucking parent who believes having a child, and muddling through parenthood, somehow makes their beliefs on internet censorship more rational.

> It's just like every fucking parent who believes having a child, and muddling through parenthood, somehow makes their beliefs on internet censorship more rational.

There's nothing special about parenthood in this regard - most people need some justification for their positions, personal experience is weak evidence, but it's better than no evidence at all

>Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet, or the real-world practical effects of political choices over time, or just how confounding crowd effects and herd instinct can be, or any of the other weird shit about human behavior and governance

To be fair neither do the majority of adult voters. Politics is not quantum physics. There are plenty of intelligent 16 year olds out there who can understand the subtleties of political rhetoric and what's at stake.

Again, it's not like 16 year olds are compelled to vote. But for teens who are politically active and passionate about changing the world- I feel they need to have as much right to vote as some conspiracy-theory believing, infowar reading 60 year old.

After all, the effects of climate change are going to hit the youngest people the hardest and the baby boomers the least.

By that logic, neither do 18-year-olds. You'd prefer the minimum voting age be raised to 60, so only people with "experience" can vote?

I'd wager that at least 90% of voters do not do any research no matter their age and just vote for what the media or the people around them say.

Also.. I don't vote.

And why should they? Modern democracy is essentially voting between two polarised mixed bags of policies. Almost everyone's voice is misrepresented.

The infighting in the US political parties this year should have made it clear that there are certainly more than two bags of policies.

I'm guessing you're thinking of America in which I would agree. In Sweden and other European countries though, we have a lot of more parties because our system is designed differently. In Sweden for example, we have 8 parties in Riksdagen (the place where the represented politicians vote for shit).

How that works is pretty simple. Here is the short version:

Instead of one party (like democrats or republicans) winning each state, we have 3 elections each election. 1 election for each municipality, one for each county and one nation wide. The percentage of each is seperate and decides how much deciding power (seats) you will get in each instance. Since Sweden is pretty much ruled by each municipality governed by the country laws (essentially made by Riksdagen) you can retain some power in a municipality or county even if you don't get that many seats in Riksdagen.

This creates some interesting scenarios, since I can vote for a tax-lowering party in my municipality but vote on a completely different party in the nation wide election. For example, I may want to reduce Swedens immigration and can thus vote for such party to Riksdagen that maybe have more socially goals for the society.

But in a sense, yes, as long as direct democracy isn't a thing your specific voice won't be heard.

the voting age should be around 21 nowadays, that's probably closer to the average age people get a real job, move out of home and have to make some actual hard choices

I see it the other way around. I don't think "real world experience" should be a requirement to vote. I'd be in favor of anyone who passes a Turing test to get a vote. Since that's impractical I'll propose the age of 10 because that's a nice number. Additionally I'd like to give an additional proxy vote to parents for each child under 10. I'd be in favor of the additional proxy votes even if the actual voting age was never changed.

[in the US] i'd prefer the voting age be 21, the driving age be 18, and the drinking age be 16, or none at all. basically, we have it backwards.

i also think there should be different classes of driving licenses with different speed limits, but now we're just indulging in crazytalk.

Or like how England does motorcycle classes: the 16 y/o with rich parents can't drive the C63 AMG until later.

Germany has a drinking age of 16 (for beer and wine, spirits are 18+), a driving age of 18 (there is assisted driving at 17, where you need to have a parent/relative in the passenger seat until you turn 18), and voting age of 18 for federal elections (state and local elections vary, some states allow 16-yr olds to vote). It was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1970.

Different speed limits for different drivers could result in a "lower-class" driver being an obstruction for others. I don't think that would work out. That said, motorcycle licenses in the EU are separated into several classes with various maximum engine sizes (16+ for 11kW/15hp, 18+ for 35kW/47hp, and 20+ unlimited). They're separate tests.

> Different speed limits for different drivers could result in a "lower-class" driver being an obstruction for others. I don't think that would work out

what i'm really saying is that you should be able to test for a higher speed limit in the US. slow drivers will be slow regardless of what the limit is, and unsafe. i've driven on the autobahn in the no speed limit sections (primarily around munich) and there were still slower, unsafe morons occupying lanes they shouldn't have been. maybe tourists.

remember, in the US we have very low speed limits of ~100kph pretty much anywhere. i think it should be higher. people routinely drive 145kph here in southern california, enforcement of 100kph is arbitrary, which is not healtyh for respect for the law in general.

Higher speed limits for separate highways that would require a special license to enter? I'd support that.

Well wouldn't better driver's ed solve most of those issues? A tiered license system seems like an overly complex solution.

I've driven in both Germany and the US (DC area, while on holiday), and found US driving a lot more relaxed. There are some odd rules here and there, but in general it was less unpleasant. Driving on the Autobahn can be quite stressful when you have a few people who want to drive really fast. Those kinds of speed differences reduce road capacity significantly. I'm not saying these people are necessarily unqualified to drive at such speeds, they may be the best drivers in the world, but everyone would reach their destination sooner if those folks were to stick to 130-140km/h.

That said, the posted speed limits in the US are definitely on the low side. The same roads would have a higher speed limit in Germany.

Maybe we should let everyone vote but weigh the votes on a bell curve by age.

Isn't this already roughly the case due to turnout differences among the different age groups?

> You'd prefer the minimum voting age be raised to 60, so only people with "experience" can vote?

This sounds quite interesting, actually.

I wonder what the consequences would be if e.g. only grandparents have the right to vote.

Adding a delay to the votes of the current young voters experiencing the latest form of reality by 60-16=44 years. It could make quite some difference w.r.t. the time gradient of policy..

What if they only vote in their best interest, putting burden on their young?

This has already happened, to some degree. With baby boomers putting the burden on their grandchildren.

I'd wager the second half of your wager is wrong. Very few people do any policy research, but they don't just do what they're told - instead they vote for the candidate they identify with most closely. In a representative democracy this is probably the most sensible strategy, as you're choosing the person who will do what you would do in any given situation

Yet, they pay tax and laws still apply to them. There are people in every age bracket who don't know a thing about history nor much of what you've listed.

> As if logical reasoning were sufficient.

I agree. There is also empathy, which is entirely orthogonal to logical reasoning. And there is evidence that 16-year-olds often don't have the same level of empathy as 25-year-olds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com