DC Considers Allowing 16-Year-Olds to Vote

[Swordsmyth]

A council member in Washington, D.C., has introduced legislation that would lower the age to vote in federal and local elections to 16.
D.C. council member Charles Allen (D) last week introduced the legislation, which could allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2020 presidential election, WUSA-TV reported.
Allen said he proposed the legislation after seeing the students march last month in Washington, D.C. for the "March for Our Lives" event to protest gun violence and demand new gun laws.

Seven of the 13 members of the D.C. Council are backing the measure, advocates of the proposal told WUSA-TV.

More at: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-wa...year-olds-vote

[spudea]

oh that pesky 26th amendment!! 18 is required for federal elections and there's nothing the DC council can do about it.

[Anti Globalist]

These are the same kids that are eating tide pods and snorting condoms up their noses. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be voting at all until they grow a brain.

[timosman]

oh that pesky 26th amendment!! 18 is required for federal elections and there's nothing the DC council can do about it.

Don't underestimate the power of morons in large quantities.

[Cutlerzzz]

oh that pesky 26th amendment!! 18 is required for federal elections and there's nothing the DC council can do about it.

The 26th Amendment says that you can’t be denied the ability to vote based on age if you are 18 or older. It doesn’t say that states can’t lower the minimum age.

[oyarde]

Why are DC residents should be allowed to vote ?

[heavenlyboy34]

These are the same kids that are eating tide pods and snorting condoms up their noses. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be voting at all until they grow a brain.

OTOH, their parents consume copious amounts of mood and mind-altering pharma drugs while eating disgusting food and not exercising. $#@! it, nobody votes anymore till they can prove they're sane and competent.

[Valli6]

HaHa. Only 42% of D.C.’s public high School seniors are "on track to graduate." That's perfect!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.df368443c429

[Anti Federalist]

Wow, so DC will go from 91% leftist voting to 95% leftist voting?

[timosman]

Wow, so DC will go from 91% leftist voting to 95% leftist voting?

D.C. knows what's good for you. More government.

[kpitcher]

Since 16 and 17 year olds can be tried as an adult in various courts then they should at least have a chance to choose representation that may benefit them better.

[Swordsmyth]

Since 16 and 17 year olds can be tried as an adult in various courts then they should at least have a chance to choose representation that may benefit them better.

The two things have nothing to do with eachother.
We might as well let 6 year olds vote.

[Raginfridus]

The two things have nothing to do with eachother.
We might as well let 6 year olds vote.

Are 6 yo tried as adults?

[Ender]

The two things have nothing to do with eachother.

So much freedom- we can put you in jail for victimless crimes but you have no voice in it.

This is the same logic that will support an 18 year old joining the military but won't allow them to drink.

If people are going to be punished as adults then they should also have voting rights.

And- if the gov was out of the school system maybe we could stop the ridiculous stuff that keeps teens babies and then demands they "grow up" immediately at 18.

And, NO, I'm not in favor of 16 yr old know-nothings voting, but saying the two things aren't connected is not looking at the real picture.

[H_H]

If people are going to be punished as adults then they should also have voting rights.

Voting isn't a right.

Voting doesn't even make any sense.

Allowing people to vote should be decided on pure consequentialism (look it up, Ender). There is no moral element to it, so there need be, and should be, only one element considered: what policy would bring about the best country? We must hold results paramount, in fact hold them alone and ignore all else. To consider anything else would be nonsensical.

In light of that, our correct course is clear: raise the voting age to 30. Restricting, not expanding the franchise, will: improve the quality of voters, and thus election outcomes, and thus, eventually, of the management of our country, which is being, in case you did not notice: completely mismanaged right now, and for the last fifty years, acceleratingly so.

The young vote extremely poorly. Thus, they should not vote. As they age, they become somewhat wiser; that is when they should be permitted. There are other demographic groups as well who should be early on the chopping block, but I'll let you figure out for yourself which those might be.

What policy would bring about the best country? The best results? That's all we should care about here.

[H_H]

OTOH, their parents consume copious amounts of mood and mind-altering pharma drugs while eating disgusting food and not exercising. $#@! it, nobody votes anymore till they can prove they're sane and competent.

A BMI maximum threshold would do wonders for us. What should we set it at, HB?

[Swordsmyth]

Are 6 yo tried as adults?

So much freedom- we can put you in jail for victimless crimes but you have no voice in it.

This is the same logic that will support an 18 year old joining the military but won't allow them to drink.

If people are going to be punished as adults then they should also have voting rights.

And- if the gov was out of the school system maybe we could stop the ridiculous stuff that keeps teens babies and then demands they "grow up" immediately at 18.

And, NO, I'm not in favor of 16 yr old know-nothings voting, but saying the two things aren't connected is not looking at the real picture.

The two things have nothing to do with eachother, 16 year olds are old enough to be fully responsible for heinous crimes like murder but they are not mature enough to determine government policy.
If you think they shouldn't be tried as adults for some or any crimes it still has nothing to do with letting them vote, we can possibly change what if any crimes they are tried as an adult for but giving them the vote is simply unthinkable.

[Danke]

Non-Citizens can be charged for crimes here. So they should be able to vote here too.

Except for Texans.

[TheTexan]

I support this measure. Voting is a natural born right, upon which all other rights are founded upon.

Except for Mexicans.

[dannno]

So much freedom- we can put you in jail for victimless crimes but you have no voice in it.

This is the same logic that will support an 18 year old joining the military but won't allow them to drink.

If people are going to be punished as adults then they should also have voting rights.

And- if the gov was out of the school system maybe we could stop the ridiculous stuff that keeps teens babies and then demands they "grow up" immediately at 18.

And, NO, I'm not in favor of 16 yr old know-nothings voting, but saying the two things aren't connected is not looking at the real picture.

People who use more tax money than they create shouldn't vote.

[heavenlyboy34]

A BMI maximum threshold would do wonders for us. What should we set it at, HB?

Doubt it, as BMI doesn't correlate with healthy body composition too well. (elite bodybuilders would be considered obese using BMI (Bodybuilding-era Arnold Schwarzanegger's BMI was 30.9) I would be more interested in stuff like body fat and muscle %.

[AZJoe]

So 16 is mature enough to be able to select the system of overlords, but still too immature and stupid to be able to drink a beer, carry a handgun, buy any firearm, get a tattoo, buy tobacco, enter a enforceable contract, make their own legal decisions, get married without parental consent, get a driver's license without parental consent, serve alcohol, get a liquor license, watch a rated R, NC-17 or X movie, work in a variety of hazardous occupations, work certain nighttime hours, .....

[Madison320]

Voting isn't a right.

Voting doesn't even make any sense.

Allowing people to vote should be decided on pure consequentialism (look it up, Ender). There is no moral element to it, so there need be, and should be, only one element considered: what policy would bring about the best country? We must hold results paramount, in fact hold them alone and ignore all else. To consider anything else would be nonsensical.

In light of that, our correct course is clear: raise the voting age to 30. Restricting, not expanding the franchise, will: improve the quality of voters, and thus election outcomes, and thus, eventually, of the management of our country, which is being, in case you did not notice: completely mismanaged right now, and for the last fifty years, acceleratingly so.

The young vote extremely poorly. Thus, they should not vote. As they age, they become somewhat wiser; that is when they should be permitted. There are other demographic groups as well who should be early on the chopping block, but I'll let you figure out for yourself which those might be.

What policy would bring about the best country? The best results? That's all we should care about here.

I agree, although I'd rather have some sort of system that only allows taxpayers to vote and not welfare recipients.

[Madison320]

People who use more tax money than they create shouldn't vote.

Yesssss!!!!!!!!

[timosman]

People who use more tax money than they create shouldn't vote.

How about we start with people directly employed by the Federal Government and maybe people working for government contractors?

[dannno]

How about we start with people directly employed by the Federal Government and maybe people working for government contractors?

I wish us luck.

[timosman]

I wish us luck.

How about people with security clearance? They have unfair advantage over most of us by knowing things we don't. This should provide an incentive for them to get their $#@! together.

[Brian4Liberty]

People who propose things like this are trying to take advantage (they think it is to their own advantage). They know that young and naive go together. It's an easier group to manipulate. It's why the age to go to war is so low. All hormones, no experience, ignorance of the way the world works, little regard for consequences.

[H_H]

Doubt it, as BMI doesn't correlate with healthy body composition too well. (elite bodybuilders would be considered obese using BMI (Bodybuilding-era Arnold Schwarzanegger's BMI was 30.9) I would be more interested in stuff like body fat and muscle %.

Sorry, I'm not using the right terminology. I just meant percentage of body fat. I thought that's what BMI meant; clearly was wrong.

So what's the too-fat cut-off? 15%? We'll have two different numbers, one for men and one for women, of course.

[H_H]

People who propose things like this are trying to take advantage (they think it is to their own advantage).

It blatantly and unconcealedly is to their advantage. Well, to their ideological team's advantage. Voting age lowering from 21 to 18 created 5 million Democrat voters, net. Or something like that.

So.... OK. It's pretty clear who ought to support this (the r-selected), and who shouldn't (the K-selected).