Asklemmy

43968 readers

1431 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What do you think the voting age should be? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 months ago by hellabryanstyle@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

125 comments fedilink hide all child comments

About two years ago now, I was sitting on a bench in Central Park writing my initial thoughts on what I didn't know then but would come to know as Youth Rights.

I don't think I'll ever remember why she did, but about halfway through the day Greta Thunberg came to mind, and I looked up the voting age in Sweden. And my blood boiled in a way I've never experienced in my entire life.

16 years old and one of the most famous and recognizable political activists in the world. 16 years old giving a confident, impassioned, admonishing speech to the fucking UN. 16 years old with no legal right to a voice in her country. No voice to vote for the policies she believed in or the people who might enact them.

My writing, already vitriolic to a fault, managed to become even moreso but with the topic abruptly switched to voting. For the first time in my life, I considered where I'd place the voting age if I could do so unilaterally. Not long into considering it I had a thought that I wrote down immediately, a question I've asked well over 100 times at this point with no substantial answer:

When is it reasonable to say to a person, 'If you're not at least this old, then I don't give a fuck what you think'?

And from the moment I had that thought, I have been unable to place the voting age.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Any age after passing a basic high school civics test with retesting intervals, age isn't the thing you're selecting for it's the cognitive ability to understand what the government is and how it operates that would be necessary to choose who leads and represents citizens in that organization. We use ages as an approximation instead of doing the work of testing but it may be a poor shortcut.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a dangerous path, and also very likely unconstitutional in the US.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but also maybe not. A test that's targeted specifically at "do you understand how the government functions" is actually quite different from a lot of other tests and less likely to be subjective.

Like, if there was a question, what part of the government writes laws:

Congress
The President
The Supreme Court

if you get that wrong, you probably shouldn't be voting.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You should take a look at how simple civics tests have already been used in the US election system. It did not go well.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 2 points 2 months ago

Just did a refresher per your request... We did not ever to my knowledge use civics tests. We used literacy tests and what made them particularly offensive was they had various exemptions for white people or simplified variants for white people.

I am very icy to the idea of tests in general due to the effects having a "test" to vote could have. However, having a very low bar test of some sort administered without exceptions ... it might make sense.

We don't let people drive whose eyes fail a safety test. Maybe we shouldn't let people vote if they don't even have a surface level understanding of what they're voting for.

I'm not saying do it, but maybe we shouldn't totally write it off because of some bad behavior without any safeguards to prevent bad behavior.