Washington DC 16-17 year olds allowed to vote?

[PainIsLIfe]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-olds-vote-president-2020-election/523301002/

Hey everybody,

So this popped up on Facebook and I thought it was going to be an Onion article but apparently it's 100% legitimate. How do people feel about letting kids vote? I can't imagine the right is going to support any of this and it's obviously a push from the left to try and negate the votes of the average working person. The left found out in 2016 that even with the media in a 100% full-on smear campaign of Trump they still couldn't win the election, so now they're resorting to lowering the age to get more votes.

I'm just curious how people feel about this in general... would you want your 16 year old kid voting in a presidential election?

Not that it would matter in DC, but aren't federal elections governed by federal law - ie each city/state can't make it's own rules.

 

[usmctanker242]

Not that it would matter in DC, but aren't federal elections governed by federal law - ie each city/state can't make it's own rules.

From the source :

"But while cities can only extend voting rights in municipal elections, the District of Columbia is treated a state in some cases, and can, therefore, change the voting age to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote for President of the United States in addition to local elections."

Looks like it's up to the state.

 

[Fedorable]

our high school elections were a shit show.

 

[Michaelangelo]

our high school elections were a shit show.

just like our primaries

 

[Michaelangelo]

If you think 16 year olds are responsible enough to operate a 2 ton vehicle going in excess of 70 mph on busy highways then they're responsible enough to vote for a candidate that won't even do anything of real significance anyway.

Let them vote, most won't care enough to go through with it anyway.

should raise the driving age as well

 

[BEER]

We let them drive two ton vehicles at 60 miles an hour. At 17, you can enlist in the armed forces.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? 18 is an arbitrary age. You dont magically become a different, smarter, more enlightened person on your 18th birthday.

 

[Hitmandn]

Well DC's votes don't count in the Presidential election anyway so who gives a fuck

 

[usmctanker242]

We let them drive two ton vehicles at 60 miles an hour. At 17, you can enlist in the armed forces.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? 18 is an arbitrary age. You dont magically become a different, smarter, more enlightened person on your 18th birthday.

There is no real magic age here and I would even argue that 18 might be a bit low in terms of voting... personally I think 21 makes more sense. At 17 you can enlist with your parents permission, but not on your own because you're not legally considered an adult. I tried to enlist at 17 but had to wait until the day after my 18th birthday. As for the arbitrariness of the 18th birthday while nothing magical happens it's the point at which you're no longer being babysat by the government. From that point on society has determined that you're your own person and can take care of yourself. But again there's still restrictions on drinking, gambling, and sometimes smoking.

I don't know the real answer but I do question the necessity for lowering the age. Can you identify a specific reason that someone at such a young age should be given the power of the poll?

 

[usmctanker242]

Well DC's votes don't count in the Presidential election anyway so who gives a fuck

How do you figure? 23rd amendment gives Washington, DC the right to be treated as a state in terms of electing a president. It also gave DC the same number of electoral votes as the smallest number held by any other state, so in 2016 DC had 3 electoral votes.

From wiki :

"The Twenty-third Amendment (Amendment XXIII) to the United States Constitution extends the right to vote in the presidential election to citizens residing in the District of Columbia by granting the District electors in the Electoral College, as if it was a state. The amendment was proposed by the 86th Congress on June 16, 1960. Ratification by the requisite 38 of the 50 states was completed on March 29, 1961."

"According to the terms of the amendment, the district is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state, but no more electors than the least populous state (currently Wyoming, which has three electors); thus, the district cannot have more than three electors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twent...tates_Constitution#Ratification_by_the_states

Also, here's the data for the presidential election from Washington, DC in 2016 :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_the_District_of_Columbia,_2016

And of course, supporting my OP, this is fun :
"The District of Columbia has voted for the Democratic ticket in every election since 1964, which was the first election in which D.C. voters were allowed to participate."

 

[BEER]

There is no real magic age here and I would even argue that 18 might be a bit low in terms of voting... personally I think 21 makes more sense. At 17 you can enlist with your parents permission, but not on your own because you're not legally considered an adult. I tried to enlist at 17 but had to wait until the day after my 18th birthday. As for the arbitrariness of the 18th birthday while nothing magical happens it's the point at which you're no longer being babysat by the government. From that point on society has determined that you're your own person and can take care of yourself. But again there's still restrictions on drinking, gambling, and sometimes smoking.

I don't know the real answer but I do question the necessity for lowering the age. Can you identify a specific reason that someone at such a young age should be given the power of the poll?

If you can show me a significant decline of ability to understand the political arena from ages 18 to 16, I'd probably agree with you. Chances are, though, that you can't. It's an arbitrary age. Raising it to 21 doesn't make it any less arbitrary. Why not raise it to 30?

Obviously, there is a point at which we have to draw the line, but there isn't a magical significant difference between a 16 year old and a 21 year old. One has legal access to beer and might have a few years of college under their belt. I've met 16 year olds that are far more intelligent than a lot of 30 year olds I've met.

I'm fine with the age being 18, but it wouldn't irk me in any way if it was lowered to 16.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I disagree, in fact we should raise the voting age to 34 and only for those who are married or have a male heir.

 

[Black Helicopters]

They're too young to drink, smoke, buy guns, rent a car, and serve in the military. Having sex with one is illegal on the basis that they can, under no circumstances, consent to it, because even though they're biologically capable of having healthy offspring, they're emotionally immature and easily manipulated by older people.

But they're perfectly capable of deciding the future for the country. Surely some 16 year old not only has the intelligence and emotional maturity to qualify but also the wisdom and experience to make it a wise decision.

 

[Black Helicopters]

I disagree, in fact we should raise the voting age to 34 and only for those who are married or have a male heir.

Your ideas are too smart for this stupid nation.