Hacker News Reader

Comment by hunglee2 | Hacker News Reader

the franchise should be truly universal and every citizen regardless of age should have the vote. There is no argument on level of maturity or intelligence - we have ample evidence that higher voting ages do not produce better outcomes - democracy should at least go down in as absolute a state as possible

View on HN

But 16 year olds are not mature enough to decide whether they want to drink or smoke. They also should look at least 25 for that.

It's really not a great idea. Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure, and schools are basically state-run indoctrination camps.

Labour are assuming the majority of the youth vote will go their way, but it could backfire heavily. The youth think Reform are cool and Labour are outdated.

> Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure

Sounds the same as everybody over 16 as well.

You are really saying that they lack experience to make good judgements. In a democracy every person needs to learn by experience at some age. It is fairer if they learn sooner rather than later (gerontocracy).

> Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure

As opposed to this 50+ guy I know who managed to once explain to me with a perfectly straight face that Bill Gates' foundations launched an unspecified pandemic in some african countries. And that Microsoft has secret weather control machinery on top of their Seattle buildings.

You're equating the disagreeableness of _most_ 16 year olds to a single 50+-year-old guy?

I don't think most 16 year olds are disagreeable...

I'm sure they should stay off your lawn ofc ;)

Most humans know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure.

Using this as an opportunity to teach about civic duty seems sensible to me. I'm doubtful a couple of years changes the outcome much. But I'm not in the UK. Best of luck!

> But 16 year olds are not mature enough to decide whether they want to drink or smoke.

I think the biggest thing 16 year olds are lacking is impulse control. A great many are curious about the world and capable of seeing the big picture of politics... but will also get blackout drunk at the drop of a hat. So I see voting at 16 (something that's pretty boring and with little immediate benefit or dopamine hit) vs drinking and smoking as being quite different.

> The youth think Reform are cool and Labour are outdated.

This is completely wrong. Support for Reform is lowest in the 18-24 age group at 8%. It is highest in the 65+ age group at 37%.

See https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intenti...

So would you allow five year olds to vote? You have to have an age requirement somewhere.

Should their be an age cap? At what level of mental capacity should the cap be set? How do you evaluate someone to determine if they are fit to vote?

The problem with rules around voting is that they can always be exploited. I generally believe that the best way to avoid that is simply to remove rules aside from 1 person 1 vote.

How does that work for e.g. infants? Doesn’t it give unscrupulous parents of those children an extra vote?

I think the execution is probably difficult, but in principle you can make the requirement that the voter marks a valid ballot by themself.

Interacts badly with mail in and lots of other issues of course.

fine - they have more at stake. Might actually encourage having more children, increase familial voting power

The rule for voting is very simple: if you are legally allowed to make decisions for yourself, you are allowed to vote (with a minor exception of certain kinds of criminal convictions). Children and people who are mentally impaired to a severe degree are not allowed to make legal decisions, and are thus not allowed to vote.

What you're proposing is nothing but an absurd over-representation for parents of small children, who will be able to vote twice or even more.

Yea you’re totally correct. I’m mostly responding to those saying mental acuity or general knowledge are reasons to not lower the voting age. That’s a line that’s very challenging to draw equitably.

yes of course. 5 or 50. There is no argument for an age requirement, other than gerontocratic one

what about the level of dementia?

That is already covered - if you are found mentally unfit to take care of yourself, you are not allowed to vote either, in general.

that s not true at least in the uk and most countries

who adjudicates this - once upon a time strong minded women were considered mentally incapable, some institutionalised for it, for no other than reason than for demanding their rights. A demented person - even a thoroughly demented on - should have the right to vote, empowered of another to take this away is intolerable

Just sounds like game to me.

I was indoctrinated by my teachers; kids are easy to manipulate. Voting age must stay high, OR schools must be decoupled from the government. A simple voucher system.

In the UK we have many different kinds of schools with different levels of coupling to local and national gov, traditional ones are probably the minority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com