I'm for it. There is no real argument against it. There are literally thousands of ignorant adults or completely disengaged voters who do more harm than anyone. Yet young people do have a certain ability to care about the future of the country than others who do not have the time or inclination to spend thinking about. They increase the spread of ideas in society as well.

Pelican

No-one is suggesting 10 or 12 as suitable ages, you are trying to use the "slippery slope' argument here and it just doesn't any merit.

If a young adult is deemed old enough to have sex and drive a car (not at the same time) then they are old enough to vote. Having sex and getting a driver's licence are about taking on adult responsibilities and therefore completely relevant as examples where we do give adult choices to teenagers.

Not all young people immediately go drive a car or have sex, just because they are old enough. I'm not sure about what your point was with the 13 year old.

The only difference I can see for 16 year olds is that it not be compulsory. Then the people who are interested can vote if they want to.

It would then be a matter of choice - just as it is to drive or have sex.

Hi Fractelle

My argument about the sex bit was just to demonstrate that just because someone 'can' do something doesn't mean it should provide the benchmark for determining the legal age.

Pericles is right there is no patently wrong or right answer here just the difference between people who think 16 is too young and others who don't. :)

The proliferation of ignorant adults is not in itself an argument for lowering the voting age.

Pelican

I haven't mentioned ignorant adults at all in my argument in favour of giving the vote to 16 Y.O.s.

There will always be ignorant people irrespective of age.

I can't see any good reason why if we treat 16 Y.O.'s as adults in some cases, that they shouldn't have the choice to vote. In fact, I think it is hypocritical not to given that they are entitled to other adult responsibilities.

Just claiming that they are too immature doesn't convince me. If voting isn't compulsory, then I posit that it would mostly be the more mature ones who would vote anyway.

Fractelle I don't remember using the term slippery slope here -it is not applicable to the argument.

I raised the ignorant adult argument because it was raised by others (not you) - sorry I should have made that clearer, I just lumped my responses in the one post.

I stand by my very first post on this topic. Sixteen year olds are immature some less so than others, some adults are still immature. On average 16 year olds are still learning and developing into adulthood, forming their own opinions and becoming more aware about the world outside themselves. At 18 they have had another two years of development and experience

As the person who started this thread I have to say that I do not believe 16yr olds are generally mature enough to drive responsibly, nor are they old enough to have sex responsibly - if only because they are most certainly not old enough to parent responsibly, nor do they have the financial capacity to parent. Being responsible is almost certainly lacking in thrills or the adrenalin rush brought on by something like deliberately breaking road rules. It's 'boring' and a majority of teenagers are not ready for 'boring'. Biology dictates behaviour all too often at this age.