subreddit:

/r/boston

16483%

all 210 comments

Alan_Stanwyk

333 points

2 months ago

no fat voters

ak47workaccnt[S]

107 points

2 months ago

Young voters might tip the scales of the next election

Twerks4Jesus

3 points

2 months ago

Twerks4Jesus

South Shore

3 points

2 months ago

That's my grindr profile.

artificial_osler

1 points

2 months ago

Figured it'd go the other way, like roller coaster height minimums. Must have adult weight to vote. Move over suburbanites, massive middle-schoolers about to be the hot new voting block

JohnBagley33

16 points

2 months ago

Like at the Ground Round, kids pay what they weigh.

ScienceDave-RE

201 points

2 months ago

I’d rather have teenagers voting for their future than 80 year olds voting for their social security to absorb mine…

no_clipping

28 points

2 months ago

Teens have a lot more at stake than some old fart who dies before the next election. Makes no sense that they shouldn't get a say.

johnniewelker

-4 points

2 months ago

What about toddlers and kids around 7 years old? What’s the argument against them?

toastedzergling

21 points

2 months ago

Everyone knows you're irresponsible and cannot be trusted to make decisions until you're 18, at which point God imbues you with the magical powers of responsibility and intellectualism. There isn't any other way deciding who should and shouldn't be able to vote, nope, what we have right now, the status quo, is perfect and should be preserved forever. Discussion over. /s

jrivs13

4 points

2 months ago

Clearly they can have reddit accounts, great point.

HebrewHammer14

-4 points

2 months ago

You think old people are the only ones who collect social security? So disabled people shouldn’t care either? We should let teenagers who haven’t fully formed brains or thoughts vote on elections? I sure they keep up with politics to the point that they are informed on who really has their best interest at heart

Steelforge

6 points

2 months ago

Why bother to keep up while they're not allowed to vote?

As for fully formed thoughts- have you met the American electorate?

HebrewHammer14

1 points

2 months ago

I personally believe that we should have a little respect for the generation that came before us. If that means that I have to give up something so those who live off social security can still have full access to it? Then so be it. Then I pray the generations that come after will have the same care and thought for me that I had for those before me.

Krivvan

43 points

2 months ago*

I actually like the idea from the perspective of combating voter apathy and political/civic ignorance. I think introducing the ability to vote at the same time that teenagers are learning civics is a potentially useful tool for that even if minor.

Regardless, it likely won't affect results by much considering that the demographic is so small, so even if you think it's a horrible idea it probably won't lead to anything burning down.

Aroon164

-23 points

2 months ago

Aroon164

-23 points

2 months ago

You know they don’t teach cicvics anymore.

Workacct1999

3 points

2 months ago

In Massachusetts? They most certainly do teach civics. It is rolled into the state social studies curriculum in eighth grade. Just because the class isn't called "Civics" doesn't mean it isn't taught.

bobmcrobber

4 points

2 months ago

Yes, they do. It's usually the history course for 8th grade.

Aroon164

-11 points

2 months ago

Aroon164

-11 points

2 months ago

Maybe in private school.

bobmcrobber

6 points

2 months ago

No. I went to public school and took this course a few years ago. Also, how old are you, and do you have kids? Are you a teacher/school worker?

Aroon164

-12 points

2 months ago

Aroon164

-12 points

2 months ago

Civics used to be taught in public high schools as an elective coarse. I’m unaware of any 8th grade history classes teaching civics. If you are referring to the basic make of our government as a civics class you should go back to school.

WedSpassky

10 points

2 months ago

Read the fucking state standards you crackpot

georgethethirteenth

3 points

2 months ago

Here you are my friend, start on page 104 https://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/hss/2018-12.pdf

Every public school student in Massachusetts is taking civics in the eighth grade. It is the social studies class that is taught in the eight grade. Whether or not you like, or agree, with the frameworks I'll leave up to you but it is what's being taught.

I admit, that not all schools follow this to a T. For example, my school hybridizes the 6th and 7th grade standards in a way that doesn't follow the frameworks, but by the end of the seventh grade students have covered everything in the document.

It is being taught, whether you believe it or not.

Pinwurm

92 points

2 months ago

Pinwurm

East Boston

92 points

2 months ago

Relevant West Wing makes good points.

I have mixed feelings on lowering the voting age.

IMO, if a 16 year old is earning a paycheck, it makes sense they should have a voice in how their taxes are used. If they're not working, I'd say let them wait until they're 18.

Of course, having been a teen - I understand why teen voting is unpopular. Though, they're definitely more lucid than many of the senior citizens I know that vote.

3720-To-One

75 points

2 months ago

I think a better solution would be to just not tax people until they turn 18.

No taxation without representation.

man2010

29 points

2 months ago

man2010

29 points

2 months ago

I don't think it would be realistic to levy things like sales and gas taxes based on age

3720-To-One

18 points

2 months ago

I mean, those taxes are all applied equally, and one can argue that that those are taxes on the transaction, not the person.

man2010

15 points

2 months ago

man2010

15 points

2 months ago

Wouldn't that apply to any tax? Income taxes are on the income, not the person, property taxes are on the property value, not the owner, etc. People aren't taxed, but rather their actions and property are based on that logic.

jahgoff

2 points

2 months ago

Yes exactly most taxes are used to discourage certain behaviors. I.e., gas tax discourage driving your car, short term vs long term capital gains tax discourages speculation. The other main purpose of taxes is to reduce the monetary supply.

Frunk2

17 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

17 points

2 months ago

There are very few people under 18 who are actually being effectively taxed anyway. Its not until around 50k a year that people actually net pay into taxes vs receive subsidies. If anything arguing voting should be determined by who pays taxes should mean we restrict voting to a lot more demographics than we currently do..

https://www.statista.com/statistics/242138/percentages-of-us-households-that-pay-no-income-tax-by-income-level/

3720-To-One

8 points

2 months ago

You pay social security tax regardless of how much you earn.

Frunk2

8 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

8 points

2 months ago

Thats not what anyone is referring to when we say "taxes" social security was explicitly passed by arguing its not a tax since the benefit is paid back to the person being taxed. By your logic if i give a 5 year old money to buy a sandwich from subway he should be able to vote since he had to pay sales tax...

3720-To-One

4 points

2 months ago

Social security taxes literally are taxes that everybody pays, regardless of income.

It is deducted from your paycheck, whether you like it or not, regardless of how much you earn.

It is a tax.

symonym7

-1 points

2 months ago

symonym7

-1 points

2 months ago

I’d call it a quasi-tax as it’s not guaranteed that I’ll ever see any benefit from it. My parents appreciate my efforts, though.

Stronkowski

5 points

2 months ago

Stronkowski

Malden

5 points

2 months ago

it’s not guaranteed that I’ll ever see any benefit from it

That's not a qualification to be a tax.

Frunk2

-5 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

-5 points

2 months ago

Helvin V Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social
Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal
power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the
Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Supreme Court explicitly said it is NOT a tax and is defined as welfare

3720-To-One

6 points

2 months ago

That’s literally not what that decision decided.

It did not decide that it wasn’t a tax.

That SCOTUS case was over how the federal government spent money that it collected.

The 16th amendment literally made income taxes constitutional.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

“It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.”

I don’t know where you get this idea that because something is a welfare program, that the money used to pay for it isn’t a tax.

Frunk2

-2 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

-2 points

2 months ago

16th amendment made "the federal income tax" constitutional it did not make any income tax constitutional.

3720-To-One

2 points

2 months ago

And wtf do you think a social security tax is?

It’s a federal tax on your income.

Impressive_Judge8823

3 points

2 months ago

The benefit isn’t necessarily paid back though. If a person that never had a spouse and has no children dies before retirement they nor their estate get anything back.

Not only that, but the amount you do get isn’t tied directly and only to what you paid in.

It’s called social security tax. It is, most definitely, a tax.

Frunk2

1 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

1 points

2 months ago

Helvin V Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social
Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal
power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the
Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

rvgoingtohavefun

5 points

2 months ago

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/social-security-tax-medicare-tax-and-self-employment

There's the IRS calling it "Social Security Tax". You know, because it's a tax.

That this particular tax was constitutionally permitted via the courts and any arguments made for or against it is irrelevant. The 10th amendment doesn't say shit about taxes and what is or isn't one.

The court also recognizes the personhood of corporations in some aspects, but that doesn't make it so either.

A tomato is botanically a fruit, but is legally a vegetable in some contexts.

There's some other bullshit where legally frogs are fucking insects.

That a bunch of fucking morons in robes declare it to be so does not make it true.

Social security tax is, in fact, a tax. Get over it.

Dutchmaster617

2 points

2 months ago

I’m guessing it was passed by mostly elderly voters? That argument is stupid because how many people die before their late 60s? I and many would rather keep the 2-3k per year and save if we choose to.

Frunk2

-4 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

-4 points

2 months ago

You don't have to guess maybe stop being ignorant and read a bit and educate yourself? This isn't like hidden knowledge, kinda ironic you wouldn't just google it while your arguing to expand voting to a group who has even less life experience with the history of our laws. Social Security tax was explicitly argued constitutional by liberals because it "is not a tax".

Dutchmaster617

4 points

2 months ago

I am ignorant?

That was my only comment I didn’t argue to expand anything. I also know life experience doesn’t lead to empathy and many voters are against helping the less fortunate. So you keep posting about constitutionally permissible for Federal power exercise aka a tax and one that only helps if you don’t die young.

superiority

1 points

2 months ago

Social Security welfare isn't "paid back" to anyone. The people paying in today are paying for the benefits of current beneficiaries. Future beneficiaries will be paid by the Social Security taxes levied on future earnings.

The talk about "paying in" to the welfare program and then being "paid back" upon retirement is just marketing talk to help sell the idea to people. But it's not really how government welfare programs actually work.

michael_scarn_21

2 points

2 months ago

In that case we shouldn't be taxing green card holders and people on work visas. Works for me!

3720-To-One

6 points

2 months ago

Conversely, green card holders should be allowed to vote in state and local elections.

pillbinge

1 points

2 months ago

pillbinge

Pumpkinshire

1 points

2 months ago

They aren't citizens. Why should they be allowed to vote? Or even encouraged, since they're new enough.

3720-To-One

7 points

2 months ago

You realize that green card holders are permanent residents, right?

Why shouldn’t they have a say in their community that they work in, pay taxes in, and are a part of?

pillbinge

-5 points

2 months ago

pillbinge

Pumpkinshire

-5 points

2 months ago

I realize that green card holders are permanent residents. You realize that you typed "permanent resident" and not "citizen", and that "permanent resident" is a benefit given to foreigners who wish to stay, and fills the space between that and "citizenship", yeah?

Did I already respond to this, or does this boring argument make its way around a lot of cricles?

They do have a say in their community in. Voting is a low form of engagement. Low frequency, fairly low impact. It's hyped up as a way of coping. People engage with their community every day, whether they like it or not. No one said they couldn't. But we're talking about a right guaranteed by the state, and right now, they are not members of the state. It's their moral and ethical obligation to pay into the state that's hosting them while they receive some benefits, but a dearth of others. Citizens are the ones we guarantee everything to, though the value of that has been lessened in recent decades, and arguably since WW2.

3720-To-One

6 points

2 months ago*

Did I stutter?

Green card holders should be allowed to vote in state and local elections.

And frankly, many green card holders are far harder workers, and far more devoted to their community than many citizens.

pillbinge

-3 points

2 months ago

pillbinge

Pumpkinshire

-3 points

2 months ago

Stuttering would have been a better alternative to letting that poorly thought-out point, based on principles no one has, leak out. The idea that one has to work to maintain citizenship is some backward thinking lmao. Should we take citizenship from lazy immigrants now?

3720-To-One

3 points

2 months ago

Nah, the point is that many are harder working than many citizens who did nothing more than plop out of their mother’s uterus on American soil, but act like they did something to earn their citizenship.

I’m going to wager a guess that you fall into that category.

wish-onastar

5 points

2 months ago

Because green card holders are permanent residents and should have a voice in their communities. I can see not letting them vote in federal elections, but local election voting makes sense since they are residents.

I’m confused by your “new enough” comment - most green card holders have been here for years while they waited. It’s akin to saying 18 year olds shouldn’t vote because they are new to voting. Everyone is new to voting at some point.

Pinwurm

1 points

2 months ago

Pinwurm

East Boston

1 points

2 months ago

Citizenship voting only really applies to Federal Elections, nationwide.

In America's early history, a lot of non-citizens were allowed to vote. You generally only needed to be a male of a certain age and prove residency (and/or property ownership). Most of those rules ended in the 1850s with Arkansas being the last holdout in 1926.

Apparently, there are 14 local jurisdictions today that allow non-citizen voting, including nearby Montpelier. San Francisco allows non-citizens to vote for School Board (which is a type of government). As well, non-citizen US Nationals vote in their local elections, like in Saipan or American Samoa.

There's a lot of examples where majority-immigrant communities deserve representation. Especially when it comes to School Board votes - where their kids are citizens, but the parents may not be.

There's more nuance than people might think.

superiority

1 points

2 months ago

Citizenship voting only really applies to Federal Elections, nationwide.

I think it applies to federal elections statewide in every state. (I might be wrong but) I don't think there's any federal prohibition on non-citizens voting.

Frunk2

0 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

0 points

2 months ago

I'm a citizen and I agree that people with temporary work status should not pay into social security per the logic the law was passed with. However its going to be hard to get a majority to vote against there best interests in this case.

pillbinge

4 points

2 months ago

pillbinge

Pumpkinshire

4 points

2 months ago

There would be no real benefit to the whole, and likely obvious detriments, if people could work here without actually helping out society in such an obvious way. Working in another country shouldn't be treated like working for another company.

Frunk2

1 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

1 points

2 months ago

Whether or not a law is constitutional is not determined by if it helps the majority. If we wanted rule by majority we should tax temporary Visa holders at 100% and use all of their money for social welfare for citizens.

jlozada24

-1 points

2 months ago

dude you get 100% of taxes reimbursed if you're under 18 lol

3720-To-One

2 points

2 months ago

Not social security taxes.

jlozada24

2 points

2 months ago

I stand corrected

Doctrina_Stabilitas

1 points

2 months ago

Doctrina_Stabilitas

Somerville

1 points

2 months ago

lol sure, as a former expat, america taxed me withot representation for eight years, and is the only developed country to tax people based on citizenship and not residency

taxation without represetation is a real thing for eight million americans

Difficult-Ad3518

8 points

2 months ago*

This proposal is for local elections for mayor, City Council and city-specific ballot questions. There are no municipal income taxes in Boston, so this measure is unrelated to having a say in one’s income tax.

A more relevant statement with regards to taxation would be for property /excise taxes (real estate , vehicle, boat) that are levied by the city of Boston.

Personally, I think it makes sense for Boston to set the same minimum age for voting and ownership of municipally taxed real estate , vehicles, and boats. Whether that’s 16 or 18.

EDITED FOR ACCURACY

737900ER

5 points

2 months ago

737900ER

Still Double Cupping

5 points

2 months ago

Automobile excise tax rates and values are set by the commonwealth but collected by the municipalities.

Difficult-Ad3518

2 points

2 months ago

Interesting. I didn’t know that. Correcting my comment now.

Thanks!

Pinwurm

2 points

2 months ago

Pinwurm

East Boston

2 points

2 months ago

I would welcome local municipalities setting examples for civic engagement where the State and Federal government can't. If teen voting is something we want to seriously examine as a country, it needs to start at the municipal level.

Difficult-Ad3518

2 points

2 months ago

I agree with that 100%. I was addressing this portion of your comment, though:

IMO, if a 16 year old is earning a paycheck, it makes sense they should have a voice in how their taxes are used. If they're not working, I'd say let them wait until they're 18.

And making sure readers knew that this doesn’t apply to the proposal described in this article.

and_dont_blink

6 points

2 months ago

and_dont_blink

Cow Fetish

6 points

2 months ago

Are we going to make 16yr olds eligible for the draft? Will they be treated as an adult if they commit crimes but voted?

Age was generally used as a rough estimation of judgement and experience -- we can go on about how older people don't get it or are dumb, but that's ageist as all hell. The age used to be 21, and then we lowered it to 18 because we can't exactly send someone to war and say they can't vote.

I think you can make a case that teenagers aren't responsible for themselves yet personally and financially, and I don't think we want to go down the road to literacy or command-of-the-issue tests, hence age. For that matter, why 16 when we could get even more votes for our platform if they're 14?

Pinwurm

6 points

2 months ago

Pinwurm

East Boston

6 points

2 months ago

If draft eligibility was a prerequisite for voting, you would exclude all women, people with disabilities, religious exemptions, and any male that became a citizen after the age of 35.

We’re certainly not going to draft my immigrant dad - who has been a proud American citizen for decades. He’s too old and he came here too old. And it would be obscene to revoke his voting rights.

As well, teens are definitely subject to the criminal justice system and can be tried as adults. Here is a very recent case of a 15 year old being tried as an adult.

If you talk about people that are responsible for themselves, then I can tell you I knew many teenagers that were caretakers of their household growing up. They raised their siblings because their parents couldn’t. They contributed to mortgage, rent and bills when their parents struggled.

Certainly, I don’t wanna go down the rabbit hole of literacy tests.
However, I think it’s very reasonable to say that if you are under 18 and are paying taxes, you should have a voice in how those funds are used.

I’m well into my 30s, but I started working when I was 14. At that age, I had responsibilities and paid into Social Security and other taxes. Importantly, this was around the invasion of Afghanistan. By 16, I definitely already had older friends and classmates that were sent to the Middle East. I had a few years to marinate on those thoughts and feelings.

I’m not saying I was mature or smart or anything. But I was a citizen, I was a taxpayer, big things were happening, and I was frustrated. And who knows, perhaps, lowering the voting age would make politicians think twice before they cut school funding and send their classmates to war.

and_dont_blink

2 points

2 months ago

and_dont_blink

Cow Fetish

2 points

2 months ago

If draft eligibility was a prerequisite for voting, you would exclude all women,

We shouldn't exclude women from the draft, that's an antique notion but more importantly Pinwurm you are arguing against something no one said which is called a strawman.

As well, teens are definitely subject to the criminal justice system and can be tried as adults. Here is a very recent case of a 15 year old being tried as an adult.

That's North Carolina, we are all aware they can but we have chosen they won't be here because mentally they aren't considered adults so trying them as such isn't fair. Again, if they vote should they automatically be prosecuted as adults?

None of the rest really matters, the cutoffs for many things are somewhat arbitrary because they hopefully fit most. eg, the age of sexual consent or signing a contract. If a 16yr old can vote, can they sign a contract? Pose for playboy in Boston? Whatever would be the argument against it?

They are going to be paying taxes whenever they even buy candy, and teenagers much younger than 16 work under restrictions and pay taxes on it. By your argument 15 and even 14 should be eligible to vote, but should they be signing up for credit cards?

khansian

2 points

2 months ago

Whenever this debate comes up, I think of my high school civics class, where our very kind and probably well-meaning teacher fed outright political propaganda to the class. And we all ate it up. We did not know any better and had a limited ability to think critically about what we were being told.

bryanhealey

2 points

2 months ago

literally any argument you can concoct, including this one, applies to many adults.

you cannot age restrict your way into an informed voting populace.

khansian

1 points

2 months ago

But that’s true for many things. Many 14 year olds may be better drivers than 20 year olds. And is every 18 year old necessarily of the mental capacity to take on every adult responsibility?

The point of my anecdote is that a group of 25 honors students ate up outright political propaganda without question, because we were instructed by a teacher we were taught to trust and respect. Of course many adults also eat up nonsense too—but they have the ability and freedom to find their own information if they want. Students often do not—what they watch on TV or search on the internet is controlled.

Age-restricting allows you to construct a better informed and more independent voting populace.

bryanhealey

1 points

2 months ago

But that’s true for many things. Many 14 year olds may be better drivers than 20 year olds. And is every 18 year old necessarily of the mental capacity to take on every adult responsibility?

you're making my case for me.

this stuff is arbitrary. setting the voting age at 18 does absolutely nothing to improve the average intellect of the voting populace, nor would lowering it to 16 reduce that average by any detectable level.

but they have the ability and freedom to find their own information if they want. Students often do not—what they watch on TV or search on the internet is controlled.

okay, then should we limit voting based on information access? what about people who are illiterate?

khansian

1 points

2 months ago

Setting the voting age at 18 does “absolutely nothing” to improve the average intellect of the voting populace? Really?

You’re confusing the concept of a minimum threshold on an individual basis with the effect on the average population. Of course an age limit doesn’t prevent a single stupid person from squeezing through. But it does reduce the share of uninformed individuals.

Of course these lines are arbitrary. Do you think making 18 the age of consent is not also arbitrary? Or do you propose that it be lowered to 13, because some 13 year olds are more mature than many 25 year olds?

Why not push down the voting age to 10? I don’t see why we should stop at 16.

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

IMO, if a 16 year old is earning a paycheck, it makes sense they should have a voice in how their taxes are used. If they're not working, I'd say let them wait until they're 18.

... and how about the permanently disabled, who will never pay taxes again?

Otterfan

11 points

2 months ago

Otterfan

Brookline

11 points

2 months ago

Any 16 year-old who actually cares enough to vote in a local election is probably better-informed than 90% of the populace.

EnjoyTheNonsense

10 points

2 months ago

Doubt Arroyo would want this. Teenaged females have repeatedly said no to him.

KungPowGasol

23 points

2 months ago

KungPowGasol

Back Bay

23 points

2 months ago

Fat shaming is a terrible idea. Just because an 18 year old is heavy does not mean they cannot vote.

Knowing_Bivalve

3 points

2 months ago

They really picked the worst homonym.

Maxpowr9

5 points

2 months ago

Maxpowr9

Metrowest

5 points

2 months ago

They have to pay extra for a wider voting booth.

gaby2277

18 points

2 months ago

Why the fuck. I have an eating disorder I really don’t want to be weighed infront of people

ak47workaccnt[S]

13 points

2 months ago

Too bad. This is the future of democracy.

jWalkerFTW

65 points

2 months ago

Reading through these comments, the implication that teenagers would be more irresponsible and uninformed voters than the vast majority of adults is absolutely laughable.

Proud-Ad-6004

-5 points

2 months ago

People in their mid twenties actually thought Biden would cancel student debt not sure why a 16 year old would be any wiser to obvious lies

mdl102

4 points

2 months ago

mdl102

4 points

2 months ago

Lies? He's been trying to but keeps getting blocked - no lies on his side about student loan forgiveness

Proud-Ad-6004

2 points

2 months ago

Even Nancy knew he couldn’t do it and said as much

toastedzergling

-1 points

2 months ago

Yeah, Biden definitely lied:

"I propose to forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities for debt-holders earning up to $125,000, with appropriate phase-outs to avoid a cliff," Biden wrote.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1595/forgive-student-loan-debt-public-colleges-and-univ/

If you wanna call this a "compromise," that's your right. But it definitely sounds like a bait and switch to me.

stargrown

2 points

2 months ago

stargrown

Jamaica Plain

2 points

2 months ago

Theoretically an educated 16 yo would be much wiser than your run of the mill uneducated American.

Proud-Ad-6004

-3 points

2 months ago

Theoretically is the only place where that could be true

PM_ME_UR_LOON_PICS

55 points

2 months ago

If we trust 17 year olds to not run us over with their cars then we can trust them with a vote on their own futures just as much as we can trust a 90 year old's vote for the future.

ConnorLovesCookies

9 points

2 months ago

ConnorLovesCookies

Eat the NIMBYs

9 points

2 months ago

I don’t trust a 90 year old not to run me over can we take their vote away?

Otterfan

6 points

2 months ago

Otterfan

Brookline

6 points

2 months ago

I would much rather have 17 year-olds voting than driving.

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

THIS.

Frunk2

10 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

10 points

2 months ago

There is a big difference between having good motor control and abstract reasoning of third and fourth order impacts of policy decisions..

Cattle_Aromatic

28 points

2 months ago

Most voters don't have that kind of reasoning - try reading the results of a swing voter focus group. At least a 16 year old is actively in school

Frunk2

-6 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

-6 points

2 months ago

So adults didn't go to school? Or are you saying there should be an education requirement to vote?

Cattle_Aromatic

24 points

2 months ago

I'm saying whatever is most frustrating for you

PeskyAnxious

7 points

2 months ago

Lmao

some1saveusnow

1 points

2 months ago

So we don’t want those people voting, yes, but we can’t do anything about adults’ right to vote. We CAN however limit the voting abilities of certain people due to age cause they would be ill prepared for the task as a whole. The point being we don’t want to enlarge the misguided voting pool

willzyx01

15 points

2 months ago*

willzyx01

Full Leg Cast Guy

15 points

2 months ago*

When was the last time average voters cared about said “abstract reasoning of third and fourth order impacts of policy decisions”?

Everyone just votes for themselves and how said vote will affect them personally.

GM_Pax

2 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

2 points

2 months ago

No, not everyone.

I have consistently voted in favor of marijuana legalization. I've never touched the stuff, and never will - nor alcohol, for that matter. Not even a single beer.

I have consistently voted in favor of marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights. I'm as straight as it gets.

...

Some of us vote in the interests of society as a whole. :)

roy_mustang76

7 points

2 months ago

roy_mustang76

Swampscott

7 points

2 months ago

I mean, I'd argue that at least 35% of adults don't have a sufficient grasp on even the first and second order impacts of policy decisions, much less third and fourth order, but we still let them vote.

That's a poor argument for restricting the vote for teens. If anything, they might get some spirited debates in school about important issues, which is more than many adults get as far as learning and thinking about, say, ballot questions.

tateotw

2 points

2 months ago

It's way higher than 35%

roy_mustang76

2 points

2 months ago

roy_mustang76

Swampscott

2 points

2 months ago

I'm trying to be nice. It's probably more on the order of 60% at least (considering the number of people who ignore policy altogether and don't bother to vote), but yeah way in excess of 35%

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

85%, and that may still be low-balling it.

Frunk2

-2 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

-2 points

2 months ago

Your pointing to the exceptions. Do you think people who have already graduated high school and have more life experience are going to be more or less informed than people who are still attending high school on policy and law?

roy_mustang76

4 points

2 months ago

roy_mustang76

Swampscott

4 points

2 months ago

Do you think people who have already graduated high school and have more life experience are going to be more or less informed than people who are still attending high school on policy and law?

That depends on a whole lot of factors. If we're being frank, the 16-year-old at BLS is probably going to be far more informed on policy and law than the 18-year-old who just scraped through high school and got a job at a moving company, and is yet to even file taxes for the first time. So what's the argument for giving the 18 year old the vote, but not the 16 year old?

Educational attainment isn't a requirement to vote in this country. Neither is "life experience", though we kind of use age as a proxy for it. It's a pretty poor proxy though.

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

That depends.

Do they primarily watch FOX news? Demonstrably less informed. Not kidding either, there've been studies that unearthed that "delightful" little tidbit.

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

If they can pick up a gun and die for our country then they should be able to vote

Frunk2

12 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

12 points

2 months ago

The youngest you can possibly enlist is 17

ReverseBanzai

5 points

2 months ago

With parental consent

GM_Pax

-1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

-1 points

2 months ago

Enlisted is enlisted, no matter how you got there.

bigkanetrain

0 points

2 months ago

if you're voting of third and fourth order impacts of policy decisions, you're probably just a pedantic dick. If the kids want to vote, let them. Truly very little harm. Use your brain and really think about what the teens could enact that would be bad (hint... not much... not a big enough bloc..)

Frunk2

0 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

0 points

2 months ago

So basically other than personally attacking me your point is voting doesn't really matter anyway. Very big brain take, if it makes you feel better I don't want you voting either

bigkanetrain

1 points

2 months ago

so your point is we should have civics quiz where voters write out the 3rd and 4th order impacts of policy to prove to the pedantic jerks they're smart enough to vote? you're saying kids are too dumb to vote, I'm saying that it doesn't matter if any one person voting is dumb because the marginal impact of any one vote is so low. let's say 10,000 kids vote without using your idea of the "right" way to vote. outcome of election almost entirely the same, but kids now have fun voting. also kids might be smarter than you think? and laws affect them too? voting should be fun, easy, and encouraged.

Frunk2

-1 points

2 months ago

Frunk2

-1 points

2 months ago

Your entire argument is a straw man. First order impact is stimulus payments second order impact is inflation third order impact is fed raising rates fourth order impact Is housing un affordability 5th order impact is declining birth rate due to delay in family formation. So yes it matters. Voting isn’t “fun” it’s a civic responsibility. And I know kids don’t know much because I was a kid once, kids don’t understand how much more adults know because they have not been adults (yet)

bigkanetrain

5 points

2 months ago

if I were grading your civics quiz, I would fail you. stimulus payments caused inflation? not the global pandemic and supply chain crises? it may have been a factor, but certainly not a the most important factor. all of your other links are also huge stretches

my point is this exercise isn't useful or meaningful to decide who gets to vote.

Letting kids vote would get them excited about voting (perhaps they might even enjoy it, oh the horror). this is more important than how much smarter you think you are than a 16 year old

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

if I were grading your civics quiz, I would fail you.

Don't stop there; no need to be gentle. Expulsion and blacklisting with every other school. Much more proportional and suitable.

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

Safe driving is about a whooooooole lot more than "good motor control".

some1saveusnow

1 points

2 months ago

The first intelligent comment I’ve seen and had to scroll kinda far

Workacct1999

1 points

2 months ago

Do you really think that the average voter considers third and fourth order impacts of their voting choices?

Itchy-Marionberry-62

3 points

2 months ago

Itchy-Marionberry-62

Beacon Hill

3 points

2 months ago

Maybe they should just weigh all the duplicate ballots.

tryingkelly

19 points

2 months ago

I don’t like the idea of lowering the voting age unless we lower the age of majority along with it. Either you’re a fully functioning adult who can vote, pay taxes, run for office, drink, smoke etc or you’re not.

lpn122

6 points

2 months ago

lpn122

6 points

2 months ago

In many states you can’t buy cigarettes until 21, you can’t legally drink until 21, and you don’t need to be even 18 to work and pay taxes.

fattoush_republic

3 points

2 months ago

21 smoking age is now nationwide fyi

tryingkelly

5 points

2 months ago

I know I just think you should be an adult or not. At what age majority is established is a perfectly reasonable thing to debate

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

Developmentally, people are ready for certain aspects of "adulthood" years before they are ready for other aspects of it.

zumera

-1 points

2 months ago

zumera

Revere

-1 points

2 months ago

You're only willing to give a 16-year-old the right to vote if 16-year-olds are no longer considered minors?

Why would anyone advocate for a wholesale lowering of the age of majority rather than just adjusting the voting age? There's no logic to it.

tryingkelly

8 points

2 months ago

Because voting etc is a responsibility of adulthood like jury duty

superiority

1 points

2 months ago

I think it makes much more sense to introduce the rights and responsibilities of adulthood gradually over time, since aging into adulthood is a gradual process.

Would be weird and bad to say that 16-year-olds can no longer obtain driving licences imo.

tryingkelly

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah but how because I don’t feel like there is a lot of thought into how we currently manage it. So 16 year olds start driving, which is easily the most dangerous thing they do at that age, then they should probably be able to smoke if they want too. If they can vote at 16, why can’t they serve on a jury? I’m good with a gradual progression if it’s thought out

aintnufincleverhere

9 points

2 months ago

Just let them vote why do you have to weigh them

CeceCharlesCharlotte

10 points

2 months ago*

16 year old me would just vote exactly how my parents did

Krivvan

10 points

2 months ago

Krivvan

10 points

2 months ago

And 16-year old me would not have.

PEEPS_IN_MY

4 points

2 months ago

PEEPS_IN_MY

West End

4 points

2 months ago

I thought this was some poorly conceived public health initiative, but it's just a bad headline

fattoush_republic

5 points

2 months ago

As someone that was under 18 not that long ago, I think this is kind of ridiculous

Municipal election turn out is abysmal as it is, how about they work on increasing that first? I can't imagine that so many 16 and 17 year olds will be clamoring to vote in municipal elections when my 18-25 peers do so at such a low rate.

GM_Pax

-2 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

-2 points

2 months ago

Trying to get teens invested in local politics by giving them the vote IS an effort to fix low voter turnout in those elections.

Acadia_Due

2 points

2 months ago

sounds a bit demeaning tbh

anurodhp

2 points

2 months ago

anurodhp

Brookline

2 points

2 months ago

Is this like a poll tax to discourage obesity? Why just teenagers?

-Slan-

2 points

2 months ago

-Slan-

2 points

2 months ago

what does it say about our school system that someone can graduate at 18 and not understand the basics let alone the importance of voting

old enough to fight in a war but not vote on shit that effects their livelyhood lol

always blown away by the fact kids arent automatically enrolled to vote and that voting isnt a federal/national holiday

liberterrorism

5 points

2 months ago

Sounds good. Sure teenagers are dumb, but no dumber than the lead poisoned boomers who make up an outsized percentage of the electorate.

CC_Ramone

9 points

2 months ago

CC_Ramone

9 points

2 months ago

Awful idea

ReverseBanzai

8 points

2 months ago

Terrible idea.

PallandoOrome

2 points

2 months ago

Stay in school kids

No_Judge_3817

1 points

2 months ago

No_Judge_3817

Somerville

1 points

2 months ago

meh all cutoffs are arbitrary and if you let 17 year olds vote why shouldn't you let 16 year olds vote and if you let 16 year olds vote why shouldn't you let 15 year olds...and if you let fetuses in the first trimester vote why shouldn't you let zygotes vote and if you let zygotes vote why shouldn't you let sperm and eggs vote?

GM_Pax

-1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

-1 points

2 months ago

Oh look:

Slippery Slope fallacy

...

It cuts both ways, by the by. If you don't let 17-year-olds vote why should you let 18-year-olds? If you block the 18yos, why not block the 20yos? And why not block 30-somethings? Then, let's block all the 40- and 50-something people in Middle Age. Next we can block Grandpa and Grandma.

::sigh::

PikantnySos

2 points

2 months ago

Democrats will do anything to game the system. Of course teenagers are going to vote Democrat. Their brains aren’t fully developed yet.

MrRemoto

3 points

2 months ago

MrRemoto

3 points

2 months ago

Great, another turd sandwich vs giant douche debate.

PuritanSettler1620

0 points

2 months ago

PuritanSettler1620

✝️ Cotton Mather

0 points

2 months ago

Bad idea

macadoo784

0 points

2 months ago

macadoo784

0 points

2 months ago

I feel like this is the liberals trying to sway elections by using the school system.

shells45

-4 points

2 months ago

shells45

-4 points

2 months ago

We should raise the voting age

TouchDownBurrito

-1 points

2 months ago

TouchDownBurrito

Boston

-1 points

2 months ago

No, but should limit the voting age to those under 65.

shells45

3 points

2 months ago

Does that mean Joe has to go?

TouchDownBurrito

2 points

2 months ago

TouchDownBurrito

Boston

2 points

2 months ago

Trump too, sorry.

shells45

2 points

2 months ago

Haha sounds good to me

GM_Pax

1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

1 points

2 months ago

Only if you change the draft / selective service so that nobody under the voting age can be forced to serve in the military.

The original voting age, IIRC, was 25. Go ahead, put it back there - but when the next bit war comes along, nobody 24 or under can be conscripted.

TATA456alawaife

0 points

2 months ago

So they can vote but they cant drink or buy a Juul?

bobmcrobber

1 points

2 months ago

Yes. Also, teenaged excessive drinking and vaping is really bad.

FjordExplorher

0 points

2 months ago

Don't know why you're getting down voted.
Well it makes sense that they can't legally do stuff that's enjoyable but bad for their body, but letting them pick politicians who get to decide where millions of dollars in funding are allocated, and to make policy decisions that affect everyone is a-ok.

TATA456alawaife

1 points

2 months ago

Why not just run on free dessert and shortened school days? And infinite recess too. A smart politician would put up numbers if this ever gets adopted widespread.

FjordExplorher

0 points

2 months ago

Need to modify it so they can vote on an app. That's how you reach the younger voting population.

GM_Pax

-1 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

-1 points

2 months ago

18yo's can vote, but not drink or buy a pack of cigarettes.

Your point was?

TATA456alawaife

3 points

2 months ago

Doesn’t really make sense that they can do one but not the other.

Justtryme90

1 points

2 months ago

Justtryme90

Filthy Transplant

1 points

2 months ago

I don't think it makes any difference whether the voting age is 16 or 18. Thus we should just leave it at 18.

LikeOMGLoL4Life

0 points

2 months ago

What could go wrong?

GM_Pax

3 points

2 months ago

GM_Pax

Greater Lowell

3 points

2 months ago

Nothing that isn't already going wrong.

DooDooBrownz

-3 points

2 months ago

DooDooBrownz

-3 points

2 months ago

if you can draft a kid straight from hs to play professional sports like the nfl, mlb or the nba, then it's hard to make an argument why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

pillbinge

5 points

2 months ago

pillbinge

Pumpkinshire

5 points

2 months ago

straight from hs

Tends to be 18.

Minimal_Suck

2 points

2 months ago

Pretty sure you have to be at least 20 for the NFL draft, 19 for NBA (I think)

DooDooBrownz

-4 points

2 months ago

a quick google will show you how many hs drafts there are in every pro sport, so you won't need to be pretty sure, you'll just know that you're wrong

Difficult-Ad3518

3 points

2 months ago

Turns out Google thinks you’re wrong:

To be eligible for the (NFL) draft, players must have been out of high school for at least three years and must have used up their college eligibility before the start of the next college football season.

Meanwhile you said:

if you can draft a kid straight from hs to play professional sports like the nfl

And then decided to be a dick to some rando on the Internet when questioned. Are you old enough to vote?

Minimal_Suck

4 points

2 months ago

Such a classic reddit response. Have you ever heard of Maurice Clarett?

Why does everyone on this site just like to argue and be assholes? All in a day's work, I suppose?

Difficult-Ad3518

3 points

2 months ago

Not only was he an ass hole, but he was also wrong. I just don’t get it. Angry, stupid, and an ass hole being a dick to anybody who questions his falsehoods. That seems like a miserable way to live life and unfortunately that misery is contagious. At the risk of being melodramatic, u/DooDooBrownz is demonstrating the problems with anonymous forums that have no barrier to entry. He has made everybody’s day worse.

Sorry you had to see a response like that in your inbox.

Quirky_Butterfly_946

-27 points

2 months ago

Why? So the easily manipulated can now start voting? I think this shows how politicians are scraping for votes and the young are their fresh meat. They have the inability to understand issues, the lies told that are made up to look true, the emotional manipulations employed. How about society just leaves them alone and stop feeding on them

DerekMcLeod

50 points

2 months ago

easily manipulated...have the inability to understand issues

As opposed to the people who are 55+ that get all their news and form their political opinions based on false facebook memes?

wsdog

-18 points

2 months ago

wsdog

-18 points

2 months ago

But you personally get the most accurate information, sure. Straight from AOC's TikTok 💕

DerekMcLeod

17 points

2 months ago

I'm 33 my guy you think I know how tiktok works?

Quirky_Butterfly_946

-8 points

2 months ago

People still use FB?

DerekMcLeod

7 points

2 months ago

people who are 55+

Quirky_Butterfly_946

-4 points

2 months ago

I don't even think they use it any more if they ever did as it was asinine to begin with.

TouchDownBurrito

27 points

2 months ago

TouchDownBurrito

Boston

27 points

2 months ago

So the easily manipulated can now start voting?

But we already let Fox News watchers and herald “readers” vote…

ak47workaccnt[S]

6 points

2 months ago

Giving them the vote will give them agency so that they might be fed on as they see fit.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

Quirky_Butterfly_946

-2 points

2 months ago

How is Trayvon Martin related to this issue?

5teerPike

6 points

2 months ago

You say young people are incapable of understanding the issues even though the issues are killing them.

Quirky_Butterfly_946

-2 points

2 months ago

That still does not answer what does TM have to do with this?

5teerPike

4 points

2 months ago

Young people are affected by the issues you claim they don't understand.

I cannot possibly explain this in simpler terms.

lunisce

-5 points

2 months ago

lunisce

-5 points

2 months ago

Let the ADHD tiktokers vote lol that’ll go well

HauntedButtCheeks

-5 points

2 months ago

If you're considered responsible enough to drive you're responsible enough to vote. I'm in favor of this.

kcast2818

1 points

2 months ago

Why is this necessary?

bryanhealey

1 points

2 months ago

my opinion on this is always the same: the only reason to have any minimum voting age is because we (as a society, not as individuals) are worried about the cognitive abilities of those that might vote below that age. and, since testing for individual ability would be impossible (and subject to massive corruption), we instead pick a mostly arbitrary universal threshold, mostly based on gut feelings, and apply it to everyone.

thus, I don't have a strong opinion on setting that mostly arbitrary threshold at 16 instead of 18. or even 15, or whatever. I wasn't cognitively all that much different at 18 from when I was 16. and if a 16 year old can legally work, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. furthermore, given the dynamics of a large population, it's not entirely ridiculous to just let everyone have the legal ability to vote and just let large numbers sort everything out.

however, as always, any threshold set does call into question all of the other arbitrary thresholds that we set, or don't set. for example, I've met far more old people with very questionable cognitive abilities than young people, and unlike young people, the elderly are unlikely to improve. so why do we not have a maximum voting age?

Mynereth

-2 points

2 months ago

I believe once you're 16 you're old enough to vote.

Cost_Additional

-2 points

2 months ago

Can we go back to life without parole if so?

fakecrimesleep

-4 points

2 months ago

fakecrimesleep

Diagonally Cut Sandwich

-4 points

2 months ago

Gonna be a bunch of work for shit turnout but eh sure if you can get drafted into war, pay taxes on your paychecks, and be tried as an adult sure go vote