Should 16–17 year olds be allowed to vote as some political groups are advocating for currently, Charles Allen being one of those advocates?
My upfront opinion on the matter:No.At the age of 16/17, teenagers are not considered legally sovereign from their parents. They are not full citizens, are not considered under the same judicial precedent, and are not granted their full constitutional rights as Americans.“So what?”Well, the problem with allowing dependent persons voting privileges is that the controlling citizens, typically parents, may abuse their child’s right to vote for their own purposes.You see, many teens are perfectly capable of making an informed decision, at least, capable of making a similarly informed decision to any other American citizen. In fact, I would argue that plenty of 16 and 17 year-olds are better informed than their older counterparts. However, they are at the mercy of their parents, and parental influence can be a huge factor in a child’s life. Unless you make teens of said age group full citizens, you are allowing said age group to be manipulated and controlled by their parents.Now, some might say that plenty of people could be manipulated to vote a certain way, and I don’t refute it. People are manipulated and misinformed many times over surrounding voting. But, these people have the legal capacity to guide themselves, sustain themselves, and think for themselves. They are, or should be, at the steering wheel of their own life, for they’ve been given the legal power to do so.Sixteen and seventeen year-olds are not on the same legal footing as eighteen year old voters. Although this does not mean 18+ voters are less prone to foul play, they have the power to reject it and retain their own rights in a way that children do not (unless they are emancipated).So, the simple answer to all this is no, because parents cannot be trusted not to abuse their kids’ voting rights.EDIT: Looking at all of these other answers, I felt obligated to pose a question: we really think that our youth are that despairingly underdeveloped, un-engaged, and or unintelligent when it comes to politics compared to the average American? And, if so, I’d like to pose a statement: most children are reflections of their parents, whether it be an opposing or supporting one. American society is far from flawless with 18+ votes only, and I honestly doubt it would be any worse or more problematic with additional teen votes (most uninformed, uninterested teens who feel little civil responsibility won’t bother to vote anyway). That said, my answer above still stands.
Should 16 year olds be allowed to vote?
Yes, there are teens more mature than adults but there aren't enough teens more mature to justify such a thing. If we say "the mature ones can vote" then the rest of them will complain and claim discrimination. They don't want to deal with the immature ones who might vote more on which one they think is "cuter" or some other ridiculous reason and ignore what really matters (such as their policies).
Why are you legally considered an adult at 18?
In history, this wasn’t always the case. Legal Adult(s) were not considered as such until they were 27, then 25, 23, 21, 20, 19, and currently 18. It has to do with the maturity issue. Hence why you can not become President of our great country until you are AT LEAST 35. Senators have a certain age, and Representatives have another.A lot of the ages I mentioned are STILL in our legal system. Some go lower, some go higher. In some states you can not own Real Estate until you are either 21 or 23, depending on the state. Certain professional licenses, etc, etc,Then there is the issue of the Age of Consent (A.O.C.), some states are 14, 15, & 16 but most have certain age restrictions on the opposite sex that can not exceed more than five years. Others, …not so much on the age, but federal guidelines restrict on HOW, WHERE, and WHEN the “consent” IS LEGAL.Case in point: A girl can “consent” to sexual relations if she meets the age requirement in her particular state, BUT,… She can NOT consent to being photographed / videotaped, etc, etc, This would fall under FEDERAL LAW called Child PORNOGRAPHY, and a HUGE No-No. Most states require that the person be AT LEAST 18, …sometimes older. By the way, this ALSO APPLIES TO MARRIED UNDER AGED children, soooo, …DO NOT try it.‘NUFF SAID.
Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to drive??
Definitely not. And this is coming from a 16 year old. ^_^ All the kids in my class are like, "I don't drive below 50" and I'm like O_O and they know what parts the cops are at and where they're not so they don't get caught. 16 and 17 year olds are still way too immature. And I have a friend who just got her license. She is a super smart girl. AP classes and everything. She's a lousy driver. So just because kids may be smart, doesn't mean they're ready. What I want to know is how these people give THEM their licenses.' Oh and if you look at the deaths in car accidents, teens are the highest age group.
Why are 17 year olds considered children while 18 year olds are considered adults?
Historically the age of majority was set at puberty, which is reflected in various “coming of age” traditions in many cultures, like Christian confirmation or Jewish bar- and bat-mitzvahs. At that age, apprenticing a child out to work and live away from the birth family was the norm. That continued until the advent of the industrial age.Legal age of majority in Britain was historically 14 years old, then rose to 15 - essentially the point of marriage and the ability to work the land independently. With the development of knighthood the age of legal majority for the rights of a knight rose because of the need to be able to purchase a horse, armor, etc. - and to be well enough trained and strong enough to fight with armor on. That is the origin of 21 as age of majority, which became a standard across the British Empire. The age of majority stayed 21 even though with the advent of gunpowder younger people saw military service, most notably in the navy.As a result, age 21 became the age of legal majority in the United States as well, especially after the Industrial Revolution as we began to shift away from working the land. That remained true until the exigencies of war in 1942 required the conscription of 18-year-olds. After that, the argument “old enough to fight, old enough to vote and be an adult” won out, and the age of legal majority was largely reduced to age 18 across almost all states.Practically speaking in the U.S., our laws are incoherent in terms of how we treat children. For example, children as young as 11 have been subject to adult criminal penalties (“charged as an adult”), age of consent for sex varies but is often less than 18 as is age for mandatory schooling. People as young as 14 can operate motor vehicles and as young as 16 can pilot airplanes. The law recognizes “emancipated” minors as well. Meanwhile, purchasing a beer requires someone to be 21.
Should the legal voting age be lowered to 16?
80% of teenagers from 16 to 17 pay taxes about $9.7 billion dollars in sales taxes. However, they have no say on how their money is spent which is taxation without representation. Not only that, 16 year olds are understanding many political issues because of the classes they are taking. For example, students who took the WTP program scored higher than adults on a poll. 96% of the students could name the Vice President compared to 74% adults who were asked the same question. Also, the Voting Acts of 1965 states that anyone who has completed a 6th grade level of education in the English language has the intelligence and literacy understanding to vote. The IQ scores of 16 year olds has been raised 17 points from 1947 to 2001. Don't say that 16 year olds don't understand how the government works. Adults also don't understand it either. In a Washington Post poll, the majority of the adults who took the poll thought that foreign aid took up 26% of the budget when it actually took 2%