Oregon may drop voting age to 16 in 2020

[EnderOTD]

8 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Why do you think all young people are lefties?

They do predominantly vote democrat, and it’s Oregon. 

[Dejarma]

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 barely function .. doing basic math and basic literature.

i know many adults like that

[spartan max2]

31 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Why do you think all young people are lefties?

Just statistics, I definitely wouldn't say all. 

[Unusual Tournament]

26 minutes ago, EnderOTD said:

So you made it personal, thank you for being honest.

thanks for being annoying right.

[Agent0range]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

On another note, the length the left will go to get extra votes is pretty ridiculous...

The fact that you think that letting younger people vote is a length the left will go to get extra votes is a problem with your party, not the law.  These kids aren't going to change their socio-economic beliefs in two years.  I'm a millenial.  I consider myself socially liberal, and moderately conservative.  But, social issues (gay rights, abortion), climate change, are going to sway my vote far more than anything else.  I 100% hope that you are right.  I 100% hope that kids that are coming of age to vote are swinging more to the left.  If you think 2 years is going to change their mind...good luck with that.  

[Farmer77]

20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

n my opinion, 16 year olds can barely function going to school... doing basic math and basic literature. I, myself, don't want them becoming just more uninformed voters who are swayed by liberal (or conservative) media sources (or celebrities) coming across whatever screen they are using constantly. Young kids are too impressionable IMHO.

Seems to me to that exact same argument can be made for most folks over 65.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Seems to me to that exact same argument can be made for most folks over 65.

 Again, too bad a test would be Constitutionally wrong. It would eliminate the idiots, and those who are not sound of mind. 

[+DieChecker]

12 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you don't like the idea because teenagers tend to vote left and for social, lifestyles issues. 

Yes, basically I do. And let me tell you why.

Do they do so because they have experience in the world, or out of peer pressure? Few 16 year olds have experienced the world like even a 18 year old has. 

Point being people (tend) to be either ignorant, or inexperienced, or personally affected (minority), that vote left for social/lifestyle issues. Those that have reasons... good for them, fight to be heard. Those that vote out of social pressure combined with ignorance... Probably shouldn't. And 16 year olds I think (tend to) fit that description.

Edited March 2, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

 Again, too bad a test would be Constitutionally wrong. It would eliminate the idiots, and those who are not sound of mind. 

Perhaps lowering the legal voting age of folks who achieve a certain GPA would be a good incentive for kids to get engaged? Say if you get a 3.7 GPA your voting age is lowered to 16?

IDK I actually agree with you that lowering the voting age isnt a great idea. My comment (and frustration) comes from dealing with my town tripling in size every winter due to "snowbirds" and my over familiarization with the demographic.

[+DieChecker]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Perhaps lowering the legal voting age of folks who achieve a certain GPA would be a good incentive for kids to get engaged? Say if you get a 3.7 GPA your voting age is lowered to 16?

IDK I actually agree with you that lowering the voting age isnt a great idea. My comment (and frustration) comes from dealing with my town tripling in size every winter due to "snowbirds" and my over familiarization with the demographic.

We can't even require people to prove who they are (show id) before voting.... So I don't think any test, or limitation will ever be acceptable. 

[spartan max2]

8 hours ago, Agent0range said:

The fact that you think that letting younger people vote is a length the left will go to get extra votes is a problem with your party, not the law.  These kids aren't going to change their socio-economic beliefs in two years.  I'm a millenial.  I consider myself socially liberal, and moderately conservative.  But, social issues (gay rights, abortion), climate change, are going to sway my vote far more than anything else.  I 100% hope that you are right.  I 100% hope that kids that are coming of age to vote are swinging more to the left.  If you think 2 years is going to change their mind...good luck with that.  

If not for votes then why do Oregon politicians want to lower the age?

It would be pointless otherwise. 

But how do you feel about it in general? 16 is not an adult yet. If you can't drink, marry, be drafted, smoke, because you're not an adult then why in the world should you be able to vote.

Edited March 2, 2019 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you don't like the idea because teenagers tend to vote left and for social, lifestyles issues. 

Why not lower the age to 14?

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

...then why in the world should you be able to vote.

Because someone has decided the issue is "Progressive", and so must be "Good". 

Rather then logic, usually the responses to resistance is, "What will it hurt?". Followed by, "You're just trying to hold people Down!". Both of which are Arguements from Emotion. They intend to create sympathy, or at least pity, to get their way. To make people resisting feel bad. And it works very well usually. 

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Why not lower the age to 14?

A 14 year old is just about as mature as a 16 year old.... we should let 13 and 14 year olds drive cars and carry guns... Because to not do so is to be holding them back... right?

[Unusual Tournament]

5 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Why not lower the age to 14?

Not so sure about that. I think that’s just too much pressure on a 14 year old to deliver an informed decision. 

[Robotic Jew]

On 3/2/2019 at 7:44 AM, Farmer77 said:

Perhaps lowering the legal voting age of folks who achieve a certain GPA would be a good incentive for kids to get engaged? Say if you get a 3.7 GPA your voting age is lowered to 16?

IDK I actually agree with you that lowering the voting age isnt a great idea. My comment (and frustration) comes from dealing with my town tripling in size every winter due to "snowbirds" and my over familiarization with the demographic.

You want them to vote AND get married? What are you thinking??

[Myles]

This is really just plain dumb.    

Of course some are knowledgeable enough to vote responsibly, but on average, 16 year olds are not as knowledgeable as 18 year olds.  

[travelnjones]

I have to ask why.  Oregon is deep deep blue already.   No one is pretending, changing the age is for anything other than more blue votes.  But they already have them now.  Why go to the trouble to set a precedence for other states?  

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, travelnjones said:

have to ask why.  Oregon is deep deep blue already.   No one is pretending, changing the age is for anything other than more blue votes.  But they already have them now.  Why go to the trouble to set a precedence for other states?  

You might be barking up the wrong color.  Think green.   What things are important to teens?  Balance the budget or trade?  Don't think so. Typical conservative vs. liberal talking points? Maybe not.  Probably some social equality issues, some tolerance for LBGTQ issues and maybe more importantly, climate change.  If you have a kid or grand kid even as young as 12 and they haven't already voluntarily taken you down a peg for being irresponsible and killing porpoises and baby seals, and what not, then just ask them.  It is really important in their lives because they believe we have left them holding the bag.  They might have some grounds for that assumption  and in my personal experience, they can get pretty militant about it.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, travelnjones said:

I have to ask why.  Oregon is deep deep blue already.   No one is pretending, changing the age is for anything other than more blue votes.  But they already have them now.  Why go to the trouble to set a precedence for other states?  

Perhaps its a reaction to this argument?

Clearly we shouldnt remove folks' voting rights so maybe someone thought lowering voting age would be a good alternative?

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, travelnjones said:

I have to ask why.  Oregon is deep deep blue already.   No one is pretending, changing the age is for anything other than more blue votes.  But they already have them now.  Why go to the trouble to set a precedence for other states?  

Probably because it isn't as blue as they would like. Clinton got 50% and Trump got 39%. That may sound like a clear win, but some Senate races, and the Governor race also, have often been very tight. 

This legislation would be like gerrymandering to get more influence in contested areas.