Lower voting age to 16. Give your head a shake!

[fluffy]

It makes sense to me that finishing high school first would give us a more informed voter. Sixteen is a bit young in my opinion.

[Ken7]

Move everything up to 21 across Canada:
D/L
Voting
Drinking

Grandfather those already under 21, just that simple.

Like the new Federal Drug Act, let's just let each province decide what the FEDERAL Law will be. Never have I seen a law handled so poorly.

We have adults who are clueless and they vote. Maybe something needs to be changed!

[Bsuds]

I think if someone is old enough to join the Military and fight/die for their Country then they are old enough to Vote and Drink.

[oldtrucker]

Move everything up to 21 across Canada:
D/L
Voting
Drinking

Grandfather those already under 21, just that simple.

I'd say for voting- 25 yrs old, maybe even 30.
For driving...14 is learner lic.age in AB. 15 in Sk.
You can get your private pilots lic. at 17. Commercial at 18...Okay to be Capt but no way should anyone be voting...Ha!
Ya I was more mature at 18 than some 30 year olds now. But that was another time....Now, we have university students who are supposed to be adults acting like grade 8 or 9 children out partying/wrecking things...- on the news recently. They may be in their 20's but they are not adults. My sister teaches at U of A and NAIT, and she tells me the 'adults' can't handle real life as the parents of the students still want to do the parent- teacher interview thing when things don't go right for little Johnny or little Suzy. What a joke.

[JLives]

It makes sense to me that finishing high school first would give us a more informed voter. Sixteen is a bit young in my opinion.

I left home and was self sufficient at 16. Why shouldn't I have had the right to vote in the society I was contributing to and living in?

[rustled]

It makes sense to me that finishing high school first would give us a more informed voter. Sixteen is a bit young in my opinion.

I left home and was self sufficient at 16. Why shouldn't I have had the right to vote in the society I was contributing to and living in?

IMO, those of us who were anomalies in terms of how young we took on adult responsibilities shouldn't be referenced as though we are the norm.

Speaking for myself, very few of the students I attended high school with were politically engaged. Those of us who were engaged were heavily into our "activist" phase, with too little experience (IMO) to understand how often the negative consequences of good intentions can outweigh the positive - the entire concept of "first, do no harm" and risk/benefit analysis is lost on the impetuous young, which is why we don't allow them to purchase their own cigarettes and alcohol.

It seems to me the objectives of lowering voting ages (along with the next natural step of setting up polling booths at high schools) should be obvious: they are inexperienced, gullible, easily manipulated and subject to doing what's popular without much thought. Heaven knows we have enough adults with the same characteristics already voting.

Until we know our high schools are once again teaching the fundamental lessons of failed ideologies of the past, no good can come of lowering the voting age. If the objective is an engaged electorate, a thorough and unbiased grounding in history and political ideologies and their outcomes would be far more likely to convince people their vote does matter.

[JLives]

Ya that applies to adults too. Not a convincing argument.

[rustled]

Ya that applies to adults too. Not a convincing argument.

You've told me you only skim my posts, so it's likely you missed the part I've bolded:

It seems to me the objectives of lowering voting ages (along with the next natural step of setting up polling booths at high schools) should be obvious: they are inexperienced, gullible, easily manipulated and subject to doing what's popular without much thought. Heaven knows we have enough adults with the same characteristics already voting.

I realize some may think that if we already have a problem, it doesn't much matter if we make that problem bigger.

My thinking is that we already have a problem, no point making it bigger than it needs to be.

[d0nb]

It makes sense to me that finishing high school first would give us a more informed voter. Sixteen is a bit young in my opinion.

I left home and was self sufficient at 16. Why shouldn't I have had the right to vote in the society I was contributing to and living in?

You make an excellent point.

Voting age restrictions are just a clumsy attempt to improve the quality of election outcomes. Imagine how different things would be if elections were decided exclusively by those who financially contribute more to the country than they are given. Very few teenagers would make the cut, but as those few votes would likely be thoughtful and beneficial, there would be no obvious need for age restrictions.

[Andrewski]

It makes sense to me that finishing high school first would give us a more informed voter. Sixteen is a bit young in my opinion.

So in your opinion everyone who votes needs to prove they graduated high-school? That would against our charter of rights, I'm sure.

[Andrewski]

I left home and was self sufficient at 16. Why shouldn't I have had the right to vote in the society I was contributing to and living in?

You make an excellent point.

Voting age restrictions are just a clumsy attempt to improve the quality of election outcomes. Imagine how different things would be if elections were decided exclusively by those who financially contribute more to the country than they are given. Very few teenagers would make the cut, but as those few votes would likely be thoughtful and beneficial, there would be no obvious need for age restrictions.

You're suggesting a person's wealth decides how much of an impact their vote has? Yeah I don't see that becoming an authoritarian regime within months (I do). Could you be any more anti-democratic? Your opinion is borderline sedition.

[bob vernon]

We need to get this down to 16 as soon as we can. Before the next provincial and federal elections. Municipal too. And we need to have polling centres located in the high school gyms so that it will be easy for the 16 to 18 year olds to vote. They tend to be socialists or Green voters and we need more of them. Darn kids, anyhow!

[Andrewski]

We need to get this down to 16 as soon as we can. Before the next provincial and federal elections. Municipal too. And we need to have polling centres located in the high school gyms so that it will be easy for the 16 to 18 year olds to vote. They tend to be socialists or Green voters and we need more of them. Darn kids, anyhow!

If you think anyone anywhere in Canada is a socialist because they have left wing views than the value of your opinion and insight is zero, because you cleary don't understand fundamental types of government and economy. And you're allowed to vote? I know a17 year old with a better understanding but you gracefully proved my point that anyone's opinion could be worthless.

[fluffy]

So in your opinion everyone who votes needs to prove they graduated high-school? That would against our charter of rights, I'm sure.

Did I say that ? I'm saying that I'm just fine with the voting age at eighteen, as at that age most will have completed a high school education and thus just may have a better understanding of political issues, at least better than they did at sixteen. The law says you need to be sixteen , and it's not really a big enough issue for me to advocate for a voting age lower than that. It's neither here nor there really, as has been said a few times there are people well on in years who don't have clue one about political issues, at least with a high school education I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[d0nb]

You're suggesting a person's wealth decides how much of an impact their vote has?

The question had to do with whether “self sufficient” sixteen year olds should be enfranchised. IMO, many Canadians would view that sympathetically. The very wealthy already control the government, they don’t need extra votes.

Yeah I don't see that becoming an authoritarian regime within months (I do). Could you be any more anti-democratic?

Congratulations, not many can see beyond common sense with the kind of acumen it takes to see that responsible, gainfully employed Canadians are naturally disposed to electing authoritarian regimes. No doubt it would be wiser and safer to limit the franchise to those who can’t or won’t hold a job.

Your opinion is borderline sedition.

Good thinking Socrates, excesses in shielding the state from authoritarian libertarians is no vice. Should I be held in solitary confinement without bail until appropriate punishments for my thought crimes can be invented?