this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
146 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2165 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Children should be allowed to vote. Kids would show up in droves. They'd get their parents voting. I'd love seeing politicians that were forced to pander to young people. There's no downside.

[–] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 60 points 3 months ago (32 children)

People like Mr.Beast gain their massive success from producing overstimulating content that attracts a forever young audience that doesn't recognize the basic manipulation and scams that he employs.

This is what politics would turn into if we earnestly let kids vote. Manipulating child audiences is practically a science now.

Even discounting that, in 2016 when I was 16 I was a "both sides are bad" centrist type. I simply didn't have the roots to consider how things like basic public policies would affect me personally. You need some grounded experience in order to realize that the things on screen will affect you and your community directly.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's crap. Kids don't outnumber adults, and politicians would still need to appeal to older generations.

Also, when you were 16, you were right. Both sides are bad. But one side is much, much worse. Politicians would need to spend some time and effort engaging with children and explaining why their policies do matter. Imagine how valuable that would be for a significant population of adults!

Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. They can smell bullshit, and they will vote their conscience.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Maybe I’m an outlier or I was a shitty kid, but I was straight up defending Cheney in high school, because my dad was a bush fan. My first year of college, I entered rapid decompression and started understanding how my morals actually aligned with politics. I don’t think it’s because I was a dumb kid, but kids are really influenced by their parents.

That said, it doesn’t matter if there are more republican voters, it is morally right imo to allow children 15/16+ to vote.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

12 year old me didn't know anything and knew it. 16 year old me still didn't know shit but believed he knew everything. Allowing any age to vote is crazy.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's the same argument that was made against women's suffrage. Adults are influenced by their parents, their peers, their employers, their professors, and many many adults live in a social echochamber that gives them a skewed sense of the world. That's still not an argument to deny the right to vote.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Exactly, we tend to reflect our parents from a young age. Mostly because their world view is basically what we know.

It isn’t until we get out from under that, that we fcan begin to form our own perceptions.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If your aim is to legally prevent demographics that lean Republican from voting, your effort would be better spent campaigning against the right of mormons and scientologists, to vote. Hell, campaign to prevent straight white men from voting. You'll have better results than trying to prevent democracy for children.

Our children will have to live in the world the longest, and as such they have the greatest need in our society for a right to vote. Greta Thunberg inspired the world when she was 15. There is no reason she shouldn't have been able to vote at the same time.

[–] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I feel this would work in theory, but in practice the path of least resistance for a political party wouldn't be to appeal to young voters and teach policy. It would be to crank up the indoctrination machine and encourage parents to do so too.

I'm sure some families would teach their children how the world works, but most would just not change; or they'd indoctrinate and abuse their kids to supporting their political party (even harder than before).

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's happening anyway. You're describing the current world we live in.

You know what would help kids see through their parents' bullshit? If adults and other kids were talking directly to them about issues relevant to their lives.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Kids of 1 aren't smarter than we give them credit for. People who can't speak in sentences or wipe their own butts probably shouldn't be weighing in on the presidential election.

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Most adults barely have a clue about the issues they're voting on, let alone kids. And many topics that are voted on aren't really appropriate for children to be discussing. Plus, would you really want our schools to become 6 hours of propaganda for whatever political party is in charge?

Children would be voting virtually at random, to the point where elections would essentially be decided by random chance.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I’d say the vast majority of things we vote on in politics can be discussed with children. Kids who are talked to like adults mature far more gracefully than those who are artificially shielded from anything mildly uncomfortable.

Politicians should have to explain directly to kids why their family is deep in medical debt. Or why they can’t have certain books in their library. Or why we should bomb children in other countries.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 months ago

What topics are we voting that are not appropriate for children? I went to the polls with my dad almost every time he voted starting at age 6 and he talked with me about most of it.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

More adults would have a better idea if they had been voting as kids. And if you don't think topics like abortion affect kids, you're out of your fucking mind. Schools are already ideological battlefields, with conservatives posting pictures of Jesus and the 10 commandments, forcing kids to stand and pledge allegiance to their God, demanding kids conform to gender roles and societal norms. Shouldn't the people most affected by those decisions have some say in them?

Adults vote at random. We don't take away their right to vote just because they are uninformed.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

More adults would have a better idea if they had been voting as kids.

You think a 6, 10, 12 year old is going to vote based on their understanding of the significant geopolitical issues of the day or something?

For all the bullshit stories that people have said about "When I was 10 years old, my mommy told me all about North Korea and......oh fucking bullshit she did. But let's say those stories actually happened. Do you think that supposed 10 year old was given accurate, unbiased information? When they walk into a voting booth, do you think they're going to be able to understand, or in many cases even read the information being given to them?

At best, you would have children being marched into voting booths and checking off whatever boxes mommy and daddy told them to check off and then they'll go out and get some ice cream. You would be giving parents of large families outsized voting power, as that mother of 8 now essentially has 9 votes instead of just one. You would basically be giving the JD Vances of the world exactly what they want.

And that's a best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that we end up with another Donald Trump because there were enough kids in swing states that voted for him either because their parents told them to or they just recognized the name from TV and went with it. Voting results would have little to do with the issues or even party politics and more to do with just random chance. It would be basically flipping a coin with a lot of extra steps.

Or, we end up with a GOP takeover because Democrats tend to have less children than Republicans and would therefore have less voting power in a race that was already skewed in favor of the GOP by the electoral college.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

What age and why?