Do you think teenagers should be able to vote?
830189
YES!  I know 14-year-olds who are much more politically informed that most adults.  Kids who don't care about politics would tend not to vote, just like adults who don't care.  And those who do are just as capable of making decisions as many adults.\n\nA while ago, I came across someone on Answers who proudly informed us that she'd voted for Bush in 2004 and would be voting for him again in 2008.  She was genuinely surprised to learn he was already on his 2nd term and couldn't run again.  Clearly there are plenty of uninformed voters out there already.\n\nThe "adult" voter population elected Bush.  Twice.  At a few weeks shy of 14 years old, it was already obvious to me that Bush was not going to make a good president.  Six years later, he ended up with approval ratings that rivaled those of Nixon, right before he resigned.\n\nIf 16-year-olds are old enough to drive, they should certainly be old enough to vote.  Cars are a fair bit more dangerous than ballots.\n\nThe younger kids are allowed to do something that most people don't inherently find exciting, the more likely they'll be excited to be old enough to do it.  If kids can start voting younger, they're more likely to start voting, ultimately resulting in increased voter turn out and civic participation.\n\nIf the voting age were lowered to 16, what's the worst that could happen?  We elect a lying idiot with an affinity for starting wars he can't win, who thinks he can finance that war with tax cuts for the rich, and has made every effort to set civil rights back 100 years?  Oh wait, we already did that.
934546
No. At 18, most young people are mature and ready through their education to make intelligent decisions. Most will be seniors in high school or graduated. I do not think those who are under 18 have the education, life experience, or knowledge to make such important decisions.\n\nChow!!
943942
If it's today or tomorrow - persuade them to VOTE!\n\nYoung people are very apathetic about voting, but they can make a difference!\n\n(And teacher's love this type of topic!)\n\nBest of luck!
838308
Yes. 16 year olds have a lot to deal with in society: going to school, maybe working, putting up with bull at school, like cliques and phoney people, some stupid ass teachers.\nmany kids do not have 2 parents, or one or two is not acting right and so on. If a 15-16 year old has problems, like little control over their lives, such as abusive parents or bf or gf or other peers, they should have that independence.\ncome on, look around, see the news; kids have a lot of pressure from the nasty/phoney media and from the not so stable fellow citizens they have to deal with. there is a lot of bull and bad stuff in america's society. yeah 16 year old is right to have all rights.\nof course people should encourage 16 year olds to think things thru and educate themselves on matters, like finance, voting, relationships, health and so on. take care everyone.
97478
Personally I think that all children should have chores, it builds character, and the research behind it says so as well....BUT I don't think it should be forced. Teenagers don;t need any more issues than they already have, they don;t need anything else keeping mom on thier case, and I think it would be perfectly appropriate to let a teenager (or younger kids for that matter) CHOOSE which chores they would like to do or be able to barter their way out of some chores. Of course, if you are like me, and have been having a child help around the house since they were walking then it won't be an issue when they are teens. Right now my son has four chores to do everyday, and he is 4. He has to feed the cat and the fish, pick up his toys and his laundry, and take a bath. Not so bad right?
836380
No. If  they're not old enough to vote for who runs this circus for the next 4 years they shouldn't be allowed to make a decision about something as important as the rest of their lives.  For Christ's sake, at 16 they've only been speaking in complete sentences for about 8 years, (if they even can) and they are just beginning to learn why they have body hair. They are so overrun by hormones that they are more concerned about what to wear to the mall than attending college and making a life for themselves.
939105
I think what there needs to be is test for voters.  You should have to prove that you know the issues and what the candidates stand for.  If we had educated voters, instead of 'rock the voters' we wouldn't have to be so concerned about sub-par people becoming president.  Elected officials are just a reflection of the population as a whole.
774517
I think the idea has some merit, as long as people are allowed the option of abstaining or spoiling their ballot paper.\n\nMy primary concern though is making sure that people make an informed choice, I think that is at least as important as increasing turnout. I think compulsory voting would only exacerbate the problem of uninformed voting, unless you make people sit through presentations from all the candidates on the ballot paper and then pass a test afterwards...let's face it, that ain't ever gonna happen.
686612
It's OK, but I would start by introducing the topic. "The idea of requiring potential voters to take and pass a test before being allowed to vote is a controversial one. My team and I concur that this is an unfair requirement which violates many American's constitutional rights."
828690
absolutyl, if you can vote its your civic duty to vote, if you dont vote then you have NO RIGHT  to complain
15119
I think we should be able to vote when were 16 because if we pay taxes and deal with other goverment stuff then why can't we vote. i also think it should be determaied on how well you know whats on the ballot. We live in the USA we should have a opinon to.
98758
no, you must be 18 years old to cast a vote in any state.
918141
There was a legitimate reason to lower the voting age to 18 from 21--with so many young people fighting and dying in Vietnam, it seemed appropriate for them to have a say in putting into power the policymakers who would control their destiny.\n\nHowever, there is no similar claim that can be made for 16 year olds.  Many may be interested in politics, but there is no legitimate reason to allow voting simply for the sake of voting.  By voting, citizens claim a role in the political process and seek to elect policymakers who will further their individual interests.  The interests and needs of a 16 year old largely are not addressed by Congress (with the notable exception of education-based bills), thus there is no legitimate claim for their right to vote.
1180150
I'm an elementary school teacher (first grade and now kindergarten).  When you have small children with many absences or tardies, there's something wrong with the parents.  Small children need the help of adults to get to school on time.  In the case of elementary school aged children I would say yes.  When kids get to be teenagers in middle and high school, it's a  different story.  By that age I think teens should be responsible enough to get themselves to school on time.  Some kids purposely ditch certain classes.  In that case I don't think it's fair to hold parents responsible.  I think teens should be punished for ditching their classes.  Maybe they should be forced to do detention or Saturday school; if they continue, make the punishment even harsher.  Perhaps if you've been absent a certain number of days you shouldn't be allowed to graduate until you make up those hours.  Or maybe they could require teens to complete some sort of community service to make up those hours.  I think it's time that we make people responsible for their own actions.
753098
More young people need to get involved in the whole campaign, voting process.  I really believe the focus should be to address internal local issues, like education and drugs.  Two areas that definitely impact America's youth.
870335
Yes, by all means, VOTE!\n\n(unless you're Republican, of course - JUST KIDDING!).\n\nYou're right, it is a sign of our times, dirty tricks on both sides (some already proven), questionable voting machines ,etc.  But you should vote for two reasons:  \n\nAs an American citizen it is your right and duty to vote.  The only way to ensure our Democracy is for our citizens to exercise their rights under that Democracy, including voting for those who will lead it and shape its policies.\n\nIf you believe that the current Administration is bungling the war in Iraq, or can't handle a disaster like Katrina, or disagree with Bush's assessment that Rumsfeld and Cheney are doing a heck of a job (like "Brownie" did), then you need to vote Democratic to restore a balance of power in Washington.  If you think America is 100% on the right track, and that the President should have almost unlimited power, with a rubber-stamp congress and superceding even the Constitution, you should vote Republican.\n\nEither way, you should vote.  Regardless of who they vote for,  I hope all good citizens do and vote their conscience, not what their party or religious leaders tell them to.
1083275
I partially agree with you. stupid adults DO vote.\n\nWhat would be sweet is an intelligence test for the right to vote. It would insure only smart people control the fate of our government. And include younger ages too. Besides many under 18 probably wouldn't care to vote anyway, so only interested "kids" would sign up.\n\nLET'S DO IT