Follow TV Tropes

Following

Lowering the voting age (and more general "ages of whatever" discussion)

Go To

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#51: Mar 15th 2019 at 11:03:30 PM

[up]The point is that age of consent is not about trusting younger people with more agency. It is about outlawing abuse of younger people by those who should know better.

Disgusted, but not surprised
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#52: Mar 15th 2019 at 11:07:55 PM
Thumped: Wow. That was rude. Too many of this kind of thump will bring a suspension. Please keep it civil.
Robrecht Your friendly neighbourhood Regent from The Netherlands Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
#53: Mar 15th 2019 at 11:45:58 PM

Age of consent is not relevant to this discussion. The age of consent is not a minimum age for people to have sex. It is not illegal for teenagers to have sex with each other.

Like [up] said, the age of consent is a restriction on ADULTS.

So... Eh... This isn't actually true. The (local) law needs to have a so-called 'Romeo and Juliet' exception on the books in order for two teenagers having sex to not be considered illegal.

Any sex under the age of consent is illegal, even if both participants are below the age of consent. It's just usually not prosecuted when that's the case.

Moving on...

And in any case, I fail to see how the problems you've pointed out start to not be a problem once someone's in their twenties.

Basically it's different because the same government officials, local or national, that want to be the ones who get re-elected are the ones who decide what these child voters would get taught in schools. Which includes both the information that these children get and what context that information is shared in.

I don't really see it as something that will definitely be a huge issue (though it certainly could be), but Septimus said he couldn't see any specific objections at all, so I thought I'd provide at least one, even if it's not an exceptionally strong one.

Angry gets shit done.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#54: Mar 15th 2019 at 11:51:37 PM

[up]Even then it is typically only the OLDER partner who is punished. Because the senior one should be the more responsible.

Age of consent is not about restricting a younger person. It is about preventing older people from abusing younger people.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Ramidel (Before Time Began) Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#55: Mar 16th 2019 at 2:22:43 AM

My concern is that I don't want anyone who's under parental authority to be able to vote; that's just guaranteeing abuse by the usual suspects. In Alaska, mail-in ballots have mostly replaced in-person voting; I do not want a situation where any parent has the slightest chance of filling out their child's vote and handing it to them to sign. (Yeah, illegal? Enforcing a child's rights against their parent is basically impossible.)

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#56: Mar 16th 2019 at 2:42:16 AM

I think that one consideration with Age of Consent laws is that unlike voting age, they are constrained by practical issues. To take an example, back when Hawaii raised the AOC from 14 to 16, there were concerns that 14 and 15 year olds would would not seek services for fear that their adult boyfriends would be prosecuted, and was judged severe enough that the original law only change applied for one year before it was prolonged and set up an investigative task force. Apparently (that report is not terribly well formatted) the task force concluded that they could not tell whether there would be a detrimental effect due to lack of data and thus recommended that the law change be prolonged - while also noting that a number of cases are already handled by rape laws and there is thus some inbuilt redundancy.

WRT "Romeo and Juliet" laws ... according to the aforementioned task force, about 35 out of 50+ US states have one, covering various age gaps and situations (I am not sure if I see any [[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=261.5. RAL in California's law]], though).

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Mar 16th 2019 at 3:36:51 PM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#57: Mar 16th 2019 at 3:18:23 AM

@Crimson: First, not every country's voting base is made up of idiots. Second, if you think bad decisions are going to made anyway and it's not about maturity, why not let 8-year-olds vote then?

Life is unfair...
RainehDaze Figure of Hourai from Scotland (Ten years in the joint) Relationship Status: Serial head-patter
Figure of Hourai
#58: Mar 16th 2019 at 6:36:55 AM

You're nitpicking now, and not making good arguments at all.

Exactly how to respond to disagreement.

Amongst the many things that people regulaely make calm, logical decisions about and don't get emotional at all, we can clearly include politics.

And even if we were to assume that politics doesn't have a heaping dose of emotional manipulation running through it, there's a large number of financial obligations and contracts minors can't be party to. These are also decisions one would hope are made on logic.

Lowering the voting age without changing some of these other restrictions isn't "expanding democracy", it's naked vote grabbing. Either you think minors can be trusted with more responsibilities before 18 or you don't—singling out only voting as something to move downwards is ludicrous.

Avatar Source
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#59: Mar 16th 2019 at 6:43:43 AM

[up]Considering that some states do have an age of marriage consent (with the permission of parents) of sixteen or even lower...

Old enough to be pimped out as a child bride/groom and get preggers with all the responsibly attached or start the process to get enlisted: old enough to vote (and, hopefully, get some agency back by helping change it).

Old enough to drive a death trap? Old enough to vote on road safety. Old enough to go out and hunt? Old enough to vote on gun regulation.

If you're old enough to trust with a part-time job while saving for college? Old enough to effing vote about your working conditions and the educational system you are currently trying to negotiate your way through.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Mar 16th 2019 at 1:57:04 PM

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#60: Mar 16th 2019 at 7:12:21 AM

The marriage thing is a bad argument, as I’m pretty sure no advocates of lowering the voting age are okay with the whole child marrige thing that the US has going on.

If we let kids drive than I’d say we should let them vote on the road laws they drive under, likewise we let plenty of 16 year olds work but they can’t vote on the labour laws meant to keep them safe at work?

As for the idea of the education system being used to brainwash kids, that argument just makes me thing about the right-wing claims that uni/college is brainwashing kids to vote left-wing.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#61: Mar 16th 2019 at 7:31:01 AM

[up]I'd argue that legislation to raise the age of marriage would suddenly start happening if federal law noted that marriage licence = able to vote without spousal or parental consent.

Because you're likely to have an opinion on the maternity ward (or lack thereof) you are likely to need to use, at the very least. tongue

Have licence to access to a governmental accountable service, right or status on behalf of yourself, but especially a likely dependant? You should have a say about that. Because being an active participant in the social contract should always be two-way.

Which is why prisoners should also have a say about how the legal system either does or doesn't work. And, if am earstwhile juvenile is tried as an adult... Well...

Edited by Euodiachloris on Mar 16th 2019 at 3:33:44 PM

RainehDaze Figure of Hourai from Scotland (Ten years in the joint) Relationship Status: Serial head-patter
Figure of Hourai
#62: Mar 16th 2019 at 9:35:09 AM

[up][up] I have to remind you that recently we did wind up with "everyone must stay in some form of education until 18", which undercuts the work thing.

And, "you're old enough to do X" comes with an issue that some of these things don't have a lower age bound (so you then go below 16) and conversely you still aren't legally able to do all these other things. So I still say it should wait until you are.

And not often come from the same parties that are most likely to be implementing other age-based restrictions because then they just come across as hypocrites.

Avatar Source
Add Post

Total posts: 62
Top