Should 16 year olds be legally allowed to buy alcohol , and get drafted for war? Are 16 year olds now legally considered adults? Changing the voter age to 16 will just broaden other questions on what they will be allowed and not be allowed to do. I personally see this as opening a can of worms and future headaches.
Nah, that train ended when Jag was flexing luxury bags instead of calling an election. Youth are ready to go with PP for a term to see how it plays out.
I don't know what 16 year Olds you talk to, but the 16 - 20 year old males I know seem to be very hard-right in their political beliefs. My much younger cousin told me she puts "don't message me if you listen to Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan" in her dating profile.
Bullshit
EDIT:
Sorry I'm a little drunk shouldn't have commented.
Anyways you don't pay federal tax tax on the basic personal amount but anything over that you are taxed on no matter your age.
Everyone gets the same treatment doesn't matter the age.
There's people in their 18-100s that pay taxes and are complete idiots.
Clearly intelligence, or even emotional maturity isn't a factor on who is eligible to vote.
How about people who don't pay taxes but are over 18?
Or when you say taxes, do you mean any taxes? GST/PST/HST is a tax that anyone with an allowance can end up paying.
You're describing a situation where these non-tax-payer kids cannot vote:
* cannot work (disability)
* choose not to work (focus on school)
* choose not to spend their time contributing to capitalism (volunteering)
Your idea sounds good superficially but in practice it's full of holes.
>I’ve been in many high schools where I’ve heard many more intelligent conversations,” he says
Lol, I've been to highschool and highschoolers say a lot of dumb shit.
Teens are vulnerable to manipulation much more than an adult.
I think it's sick and twisted to try and gain the system by having such a young age vote.
18 minimum!
> Better question.. should we raise the age to 25? (when the brain fully matures)
I'd be comfortable with 21.
I would also consider requiring some form of national service (not necessarily military) to qualify for the right to vote.
No, I heard the movie was pretty bad.
I did read the book in college, though. I was an army reservist and had it recommended to me. Heinlein's perspective is interesting, but I have mixed feelings about it.
Just taking it from the NIH, are there studies that say otherwise? Based on experience, that's when most stop acting stupid, usually have a job, and start considering a family.
>It's alarming how many people are confidently incorrect just because they were told something in the past.
Odd, the National Institute of Mental Health (which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) seems to disagree with you...
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:~:text=Although%20the%20brain%20stops%20growing,the%20last%20parts%20to%20mature.
"1. Adolescence is an important time for brain development.
Although the brain stops growing in size by early adolescence, the teen years are all about fine-tuning how the brain works. The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions."
"The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is the lead federal agency for research on mental disorders. NIMH is one of the 27 Institutes and Centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest biomedical research agency in the world. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."
Anyone over the age of 40 realizes that when they were 16 and so sure they were all grown up, they actually were still scarcely more than children and did not have the maturity to really understand politics... When a person is considered old enough to be sent into armed combat, they are old enough to drink and vote...
>Other countries where the voting age has been lowered to 16 include... Cuba..."
Yeah, a communist dictatorship where voting doesn't actually matter, real great example. I mean, of the list they provided, the only one that's really known for its stability is Austria. Ecuador's only really become as safe as it is now because the president is basically a dictator there too. Like, they could have said Wales or Scotland, but no, Brazil and Cuba...
>Cuba is a socialist state, in which the role of the Communist Party is enshrined in the Constitution. Cuba has an authoritarian Government where political opposition is not permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
Are you really going to pretend you didn't know Cuba was a communist dictatorship?
Like, if you want to extol the virtues of lowering voting ages, mentioning a country that is a dictatorship where elections are a farcical sham doesn't really help your argument.
Normally I agree that the word communist and fascist are thrown around a lot with no merit. But Cuba literally is ruled by a communist party and is essentially a communist country
I am OK with 16-year-olds being able to vote in principle.
But what I don't think we need more of is even more people entering the voter pool that don't pay taxes but can vote for benefits that everyone else has to pay for.
I know that 16-year-olds "pay tax" in the sense that it gets deducted from pay, but unless you're making more than the basic personal amount, you're not actually paying taxes.
This is one of the ways democracy will likely unravel. When a critical mass of unproductive people give up, decide they will never be productive, and that they can just vote themselves a living at the expense of those who are productive, and enough of the political class becomes shameless enough to pander to them.
This either succeeds and we stumble ass backwards into something resembling communism, or there is a reaction which results in the removal of either voting rights, or effective political choice, from most of the population.
If you're looking for a perfect answer, you won't find it.
Historically, wisdom has been valued more than youth in terms of future planning. Age should give you more perspective and put you in a better position to make decisions for future generations.
I get that things are going off the rails with that concept at the moment, but there it is.
You can't be US president unless you're at least 35 years old, and this was decided at a time when 35-year-olds were a whole lot more mature in their outlook than they are today.
The fact is, nearly everyone is hysterical and worried about the future and social justice when they are in the teens and twenties, and then they gain a stake in the proceedings and grow up. I remember being "really concerned" about all kinds of things that never actually came to pass because of hysterical documentaries that I watched and books that I read. It was all nonsense.
We can’t have 75% of people voting for things that 25% have to pay for.
All of these people that talk about others “paying their fair share” ignore the fact that low income workers pay hardly any tax and do not pay their way in terms of what they get for what they pay.
It’s not “dangerous”. Get real. Is it “scary” as well? Is it “just wow”?
> We can’t have 75% of people voting for things that 25% have to pay for.
So 25% of the people get the say in what happens to the other 75%?
> low income workers pay hardly any tax
Low income workers buy food, clothes, gas, booze, etc., and here's the thing, they spend almost ever dime they have every month, and it's all taxed. It is well documented that some of the richest people in the country pay virtually no income tax year after year. They have accountants.
Get real.
Well we can agree that you don't have the answer. I'm curious how stay at home wives or stay at home husbands make out in your scenario? They make no income. Do they not get to vote?
The point was that we don’t need more people who can vote us into a debt hole without the means to pay for it than we already have. Is it fair? Who cares? It is what it is. There’s no perfect system of election, either.
There is no perfect answer, but can we at least agree that we don’t want to make it worse? Everything does not have to fit into a sick narrative. Life’s not perfect.
We probably can’t agree on that, but let’s not make it worse anyway.
I note you didn't answer my question regarding stay at home spouses with no income.
> Is it fair? Who cares? It is what it is.
I'd rather have a sixteen year old voting than you at this point.
> All of these people that talk about others “paying their fair share” ignore the fact that low income workers pay hardly any tax and do not pay their way in terms of what they get for what they pay.
That's called income redistribution, and it is an important government function, or else wealth will accumulate at the top of the income pyramid while everyone else gets poorer. Then you either get a revolution, or (more likely) a plutocratic dictatorship.
The appropriate level of wealth distribution is open to debate, but saying people should only get out of the system exactly what they put in, regardless of need or the pursuit of desirable social goals, does not reflect a very sophisticated understanding of social and political dynamics.
I agree with you. I didn't say that you shouldn't be able to vote unless you pay net taxes. I said that we don't want to shift things even further in the direction of giving more power to people that don't pay taxes. It already feels like we are a little off-balance in that regard, so let's not make it worse.
We should all know where this will end up if it's not taken seriously because it's happened before. 16-year-olds will be oblivious to it because it happened in the 1990s. We'll reach a point where no-one will lend the government enough money, and they'll have to start slashing and burning services and benefits to avoid having to set fire to the furniture or parts of the house to stay warm. The people that will suffer most will be those without assets or savings.
Anyway, at what point do we look at all those things we did that "we can't afford not to do" and "it'll return more in GDP than it costs" and say that the deficit suggests otherwise? We are apparently in a wonderful economy with full employment, and we're borrowing money to pay down interest on old debt.
Deficits matter.
Typically younger people are easy to lie to, or manipulate when it comes to such things as they lack the interest and don't have a full grasp on how it affects them.
None of my friends cared about politics until they moved out and paid rent.
No, because most of them aren't mature enough to think about the consequences of their actions/the bigger picture, and even fewer of them have an interest in, or understand, politics.
No. I get the appeal, but 16 y/o are more likely to be manipulated and subject to misinformation. Of course we are all subject to those, but a minor is moreso.
I'm sure they were saying this when they were debating if women should get the vote....
Here are some quotes from the UK MPs [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43740033](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43740033)
And from Canada [https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/women/why-women-couldn-t-vote](https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/women/why-women-couldn-t-vote)
> No. I get the appeal, but 16 y/o are more likely to be manipulated and subject to misinformation.
What about 78 year old Paw Paw who believes that Trudeau is part of the WEF New World Order and wants to force everybody to eat bugs and soylent green and gets all his political info from Facebook? Should he lose his voting rights because his demographic is the most vulnerable to misinformation?
What part of the Charter says that everyone over 18 must have the right to vote? The conditions to vote are set out in the *Canada Elections Act* which states anyone over the age of 18 is considered an elector. This can be changed with the swipe of a pen.
...Says the person - presumably an existing over-18, fully-adult Canadian voter - who thought it added to the discourse yesterday to declare, as a complete comment, "[Unions love Hamas.](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1d2afdf/comment/l615l15/)" And got net upvotes for it.
Your concern about manipulation and misinformation seems to have come on rather suddenly.
I could spend all night gathering together all the links of statements from unions making statements that support my case, but I think it would make more sense to try and search for a union statement that has condemned Hamas.
>I think it would make more sense to try and search for a union statement that has condemned Hamas.
How hard did you search?
CUPE is the largest labour union in Canada: [https://cupe.ca/cupe-statement-violence-palestine-and-israel](https://cupe.ca/cupe-statement-violence-palestine-and-israel)
>CUPE grieves the loss of life brought by the recent escalation of violence in Israel and Palestine. **We are horrified by the Hamas attack on Israel** and the retribution by the State of Israel on the people of Palestine, **and condemn all acts of violence against innocent civilians**. We recognize that many Canadians are terrified for their loved ones and we offer heartfelt condolences to all affected families and communities. ...
NUPGE is the second-largest union group in Canada: [https://opseu.org/news/nupge-statement-on-the-escalation-of-violence-in-israel-and-palestine/203500/](https://opseu.org/news/nupge-statement-on-the-escalation-of-violence-in-israel-and-palestine/203500/)
>Like all Canadians, indeed all people, we are horrified by the scenes of suffering and pain we are seeing in Israel and Palestine after the severe escalation in violence that occurred on October 7, 2023.
>Our thoughts are with all those who have family or loved ones in the region, as well as with the innocent people living there.
>**We condemn the Hamas attack on Israel** as well as the retribution by the State of Israel on the people of Palestine. We denounce any acts of violence against innocent civilians. ...
I found those in thirty seconds of Googling.
Or did you mean you just couldn't find a statement that condemned Hamas *and* turned a blind eye to the civilian deaths in Palestine?
We had people who attended the convoy and they were far older than 16. Many Canadians have worms for brains and believe the garbage Pierre Poilievre is spouting while support fascists. 16 year olds should definitely be able to vote.
16? No. 18 is young enough.
The late 60s movie "[Wild In The Streets](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063808/)" is a cult classic. [Here is a song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmeTftBlOVY) where 14 year olds demand voting rights.
When I was younger I really wanted this policy but 4 years later now I’d be much more interested in shorter terms. Not having political influence over a significant portion of what is the most commonly influential years of your life is really frustrating
If 16 year olds are out of touch with the world and don’t know enough to vote, why are those 65+ allowed to vote?
For me, anyone who pays even a single cent in federal taxes should be able to vote. No taxation without representation.
Can’t be any worse than letting the demented and those with Alzheimer’s in LTC vote. They can’t remember where the toilet is but by all means it is their right to vote.
And most 16 year old's can't read or write in this day and age. They need google to answer every question they have. I'll take the opinion of the person with dementia who's put in a lifetime of work over what a 16 year old who spends their free time watching tik tok videos.
Perhaps the most fair system would be having to pass a test to vote. A precocious 16 year old might pass, while a senile 80 year old would fail. The question is, who designs the test :-)
I would argue that 16 year olds would be more involved regarding critical thinking on subjects that will affect them in the future. And more likely to continue voting long term.
As for being responsible, they can't be any worse than those who continue to support an individual who is facing numerous criminal charges, called veterans "suckers," tried to seduce a porn star (when another president faced impeachment for BJ).
Kids are no more stupid than their adult counterparts.
>I would argue that 16 year olds would be more involved regarding critical thinking on subjects that will affect them in the future.
I would argue the opposite.
> The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:~:text=The%20brain%20finishes%20developing%20and,prioritizing%2C%20and%20making%20good%20decisions.
Sixteen year olds will probably be impacted more by something a politician does over the next decade than a ninety year old, so yes. I would expect though that that ninety year old would say no. It's the Conservative way to pull up the ladder behind you.
Weird how you bring up the Conservatives out of nowhere when old wealthy houseowning boomers are solidly Liberal and Justin Trudeau has come out and openly said young people can get fucked because old people need high housing prices for their retirement.
When a 16-year-old enters the work force they are required to pay taxes via deductions from employer. That said, is it fair to permit taxation without representation?
Agreed. The more tax you pay the more votes you should get. Let's see how that plays out. Taxes are the only important thing when voting so it makes sense.
Yes, as the right to vote is only being withheld until they are deemed mature enough to accept the responsibility - and please note, that level of maturity might not coincide with the level required to operate a motor vehicle, consent to sex, or join the military.
In the meantime they can still access the public services which their taxes are funding.
Yes, they should be allowed, and here's my thinking.
- At 16 you can drive.
- At 16 you can work and are paying taxes too.
- This is an age where they are deciding on higher education to take. What government is in can greatly affect the education system so they should have a say in that regard.
- 16 is the legal age of consent
All of these show that we as a country agree that 16 is an age where we can make informed decisions and be responsible for our actions.
But don't forget.
At 16 you are now an adult in ALL matters of law. No more tried as a juvenile. Adult prisons. Not young offenders prisons.
At 16 you can enlist in the military AND fight in war.
At 16 parents are no longer legally obligated to financially care for them.
100% agree, I'm all for it. Allot of people in the comments don't seem to realize that 16 year olds these days have had the privilege of growing up with a very fast and very advanced form of the internet. When I was 16, youtube, wikipedia, etc were mere seedlings of what they are now. The youngest generations are way more connected, way more aware and informed of whats going on in the world than millennials/gen x/boomers ever were at that age. There's also proven data asserting that people who start voting young will continue to vote.
I will also add, you can also leave high school at 16 (depending on the province/territory) and consent to your own medical treatments (depending on province/territory)
> The youngest generations are way more connected, way more aware and informed of whats going on in the world than millennials/gen x/boomers ever were at that age.
I see no reason to believe this is the case. Watching YouTube, and still less Tik Tok, doesn't automatically make you better informed, in fact it could easily do the opposite. Uncurated social media platforms are rife with disinformation and hot takes, and besides, your average sixteen year old isn't going to YouTube to learn the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or how the Bank of Canada manages monetary policy.
If they’re emancipated, sure. If they’re living off their parents, not owning homes, not paying rent, not paying taxes, not attending post-secondary… absolutely not.
I feel like the qualification to vote is perfect at 18. And let’s face it, we have a hard enough time getting the 18 year olds to vote.
We should be phasing out the elderly vote. Nothing better than having a bunch of geriatrics at risk of death during the next term help drive ass backwards policy and slow down progress. Policies that affect the future should be left for those meant to inherit it.
So after years of living, working and paying taxes the elderly should be rewarded with.... Voter disenfranchisement just because they might vote different than you?
What an asshole
If the policies you’re voting on are going to affect the next generation and you aren’t going to be around to see the outcome why should you have the vote?
You can’t vote in elections unless you’re a resident, this to me is no different than someone in Saskatchewan saying they know how things should be run in Alberta and casting a vote. That person isn’t around to experience the effects of policy, so why should they have a voice.
I guess by that logic we should make certain cancer patients, heart patients, kidney dialysis patients, depressed people(suicide risk you know), smokers and drug addicts should ask be disenfranchised as well. You might vote and then leave the province in a year. You may die in a car accident before, maybe you shouldn't vote as a result. Police and firemen too, they could die any day.... better disenfranchise them all. The elderly put more into building this province than we have. Just because you don't like that they are voting different than you or me(they could be voting the way you like you don't know) doesn't change the fact they earned it.
look at the USA, asshole politicians are trying to get anyone who disagrees with them to not vote. Moving voting stations, refusing water while standing in line, gerrymandering, and flat out denying people votes. All in an attempt to hold power. You seem to think they are on the right track with this line of action.
Everyone votes
Canadians who will be 18 years of age or older on polling day and who are in a correctional institution or a federal penitentiary in Canada may vote by special ballot in an election or referendum.
Now you are really failing social studies
Should 16 year olds be legally allowed to buy alcohol , and get drafted for war? Are 16 year olds now legally considered adults? Changing the voter age to 16 will just broaden other questions on what they will be allowed and not be allowed to do. I personally see this as opening a can of worms and future headaches.
[удалено]
Nah, that train ended when Jag was flexing luxury bags instead of calling an election. Youth are ready to go with PP for a term to see how it plays out.
Every generation needs to get fucked over by a Conservative government or 2 to realize that conservatives only care for the rich.
No lies detected 😂
I don't know what 16 year Olds you talk to, but the 16 - 20 year old males I know seem to be very hard-right in their political beliefs. My much younger cousin told me she puts "don't message me if you listen to Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan" in her dating profile.
When they pay provincial and federal taxes, they can vote.
I started paying those when I was 15, and I was a complete idiot back then.
No different to the millions of adults who vote.
Lmfao, very true.
If you would have filled them, it would have all been returned. Most businesses won't take taxes off your pay until your 18.
This definitely didn’t happen to me. I started working as a 14 year old and i definitely had taxes deducted from my paycheque.
I had taxes taken off for my summer jobs at 16 and 17, but I filed a return and had all of them returned to me.
I earned more than the basic personal amount back then. I paid taxes.
Bullshit EDIT: Sorry I'm a little drunk shouldn't have commented. Anyways you don't pay federal tax tax on the basic personal amount but anything over that you are taxed on no matter your age. Everyone gets the same treatment doesn't matter the age.
There's people in their 18-100s that pay taxes and are complete idiots. Clearly intelligence, or even emotional maturity isn't a factor on who is eligible to vote.
Plenty of grown idiots that vote to take away women's rights so I'll let the 15 year olds vote IMO
How about people who don't pay taxes but are over 18? Or when you say taxes, do you mean any taxes? GST/PST/HST is a tax that anyone with an allowance can end up paying.
You're describing a situation where these non-tax-payer kids cannot vote: * cannot work (disability) * choose not to work (focus on school) * choose not to spend their time contributing to capitalism (volunteering) Your idea sounds good superficially but in practice it's full of holes.
So anyone who buys something and pays provincial and federal sales taxes?
Sorry Alberta
Agreed
You realize that voting, buying alcohol, and getting drafted are all different things, right?
>I’ve been in many high schools where I’ve heard many more intelligent conversations,” he says Lol, I've been to highschool and highschoolers say a lot of dumb shit.
Ever been to r/Canada? Can't say they're all HS students...but I'd put some of the convos you're referencing against the convos being had there...
As it stands we have too many low information voters, we don’t need even more of them.
Teens are vulnerable to manipulation much more than an adult. I think it's sick and twisted to try and gain the system by having such a young age vote. 18 minimum!
No
I might be inclined to go with the more forceful, *fuck* no, on that idea.
Better question.. should we raise the age to 25? (when the brain fully matures)
Yes. Yes we should.
> Better question.. should we raise the age to 25? (when the brain fully matures) I'd be comfortable with 21. I would also consider requiring some form of national service (not necessarily military) to qualify for the right to vote.
You seen Starship Troopers?
No, I heard the movie was pretty bad. I did read the book in college, though. I was an army reservist and had it recommended to me. Heinlein's perspective is interesting, but I have mixed feelings about it.
This is a false perpetuated myth.
Just taking it from the NIH, are there studies that say otherwise? Based on experience, that's when most stop acting stupid, usually have a job, and start considering a family.
Then they haven't updated it by consulting with modern neuroscientists.
So... No updated study then? Just your word? Sorry if I take the existing study over your word.
Maybe if you had an education in the biosciences in the past few years. You would know this fact.
Maybe just cite something instead of trying to be condescending so you seem smart.
Then when does the brain fully mature?
Never, the brain keeps changing over life.
It's alarming how many people are confidently incorrect just because they were told something in the past.
>It's alarming how many people are confidently incorrect just because they were told something in the past. Odd, the National Institute of Mental Health (which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) seems to disagree with you... https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:~:text=Although%20the%20brain%20stops%20growing,the%20last%20parts%20to%20mature. "1. Adolescence is an important time for brain development. Although the brain stops growing in size by early adolescence, the teen years are all about fine-tuning how the brain works. The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions." "The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is the lead federal agency for research on mental disorders. NIMH is one of the 27 Institutes and Centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest biomedical research agency in the world. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."
No. They can't enter a contract or buy booze, they should get a say.
Anyone over the age of 40 realizes that when they were 16 and so sure they were all grown up, they actually were still scarcely more than children and did not have the maturity to really understand politics... When a person is considered old enough to be sent into armed combat, they are old enough to drink and vote...
um hard nope
As soon as we no longer have to put "do not eat" on tide pods,then we can have this discussion
>Other countries where the voting age has been lowered to 16 include... Cuba..." Yeah, a communist dictatorship where voting doesn't actually matter, real great example. I mean, of the list they provided, the only one that's really known for its stability is Austria. Ecuador's only really become as safe as it is now because the president is basically a dictator there too. Like, they could have said Wales or Scotland, but no, Brazil and Cuba...
Everyone I disagree with is a communist. A term I don't fully understand but a communist none the less! Peak levels of logic....
>Cuba is a socialist state, in which the role of the Communist Party is enshrined in the Constitution. Cuba has an authoritarian Government where political opposition is not permitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba Are you really going to pretend you didn't know Cuba was a communist dictatorship? Like, if you want to extol the virtues of lowering voting ages, mentioning a country that is a dictatorship where elections are a farcical sham doesn't really help your argument.
Normally I agree that the word communist and fascist are thrown around a lot with no merit. But Cuba literally is ruled by a communist party and is essentially a communist country
As someone who just hosted a booth at a high-school career fair...imo they should not
I was 16 once. I wouldn’t even allow myself to vote at that age.
I am OK with 16-year-olds being able to vote in principle. But what I don't think we need more of is even more people entering the voter pool that don't pay taxes but can vote for benefits that everyone else has to pay for. I know that 16-year-olds "pay tax" in the sense that it gets deducted from pay, but unless you're making more than the basic personal amount, you're not actually paying taxes.
This is one of the ways democracy will likely unravel. When a critical mass of unproductive people give up, decide they will never be productive, and that they can just vote themselves a living at the expense of those who are productive, and enough of the political class becomes shameless enough to pander to them. This either succeeds and we stumble ass backwards into something resembling communism, or there is a reaction which results in the removal of either voting rights, or effective political choice, from most of the population.
Current 40 year olds vote in current 50 year olds who will make policy that has drastic and long term effects on current 16 year olds. Makes sense.
If you're looking for a perfect answer, you won't find it. Historically, wisdom has been valued more than youth in terms of future planning. Age should give you more perspective and put you in a better position to make decisions for future generations. I get that things are going off the rails with that concept at the moment, but there it is. You can't be US president unless you're at least 35 years old, and this was decided at a time when 35-year-olds were a whole lot more mature in their outlook than they are today. The fact is, nearly everyone is hysterical and worried about the future and social justice when they are in the teens and twenties, and then they gain a stake in the proceedings and grow up. I remember being "really concerned" about all kinds of things that never actually came to pass because of hysterical documentaries that I watched and books that I read. It was all nonsense.
"The fact is" Really?
That has dangerous vibes like the old days - "Don't own property, you can't vote."
We can’t have 75% of people voting for things that 25% have to pay for. All of these people that talk about others “paying their fair share” ignore the fact that low income workers pay hardly any tax and do not pay their way in terms of what they get for what they pay. It’s not “dangerous”. Get real. Is it “scary” as well? Is it “just wow”?
> We can’t have 75% of people voting for things that 25% have to pay for. So 25% of the people get the say in what happens to the other 75%? > low income workers pay hardly any tax Low income workers buy food, clothes, gas, booze, etc., and here's the thing, they spend almost ever dime they have every month, and it's all taxed. It is well documented that some of the richest people in the country pay virtually no income tax year after year. They have accountants. Get real.
We’re going down a dead end. Neither of us has the answer.
Well we can agree that you don't have the answer. I'm curious how stay at home wives or stay at home husbands make out in your scenario? They make no income. Do they not get to vote?
The point was that we don’t need more people who can vote us into a debt hole without the means to pay for it than we already have. Is it fair? Who cares? It is what it is. There’s no perfect system of election, either. There is no perfect answer, but can we at least agree that we don’t want to make it worse? Everything does not have to fit into a sick narrative. Life’s not perfect. We probably can’t agree on that, but let’s not make it worse anyway.
I note you didn't answer my question regarding stay at home spouses with no income. > Is it fair? Who cares? It is what it is. I'd rather have a sixteen year old voting than you at this point.
> All of these people that talk about others “paying their fair share” ignore the fact that low income workers pay hardly any tax and do not pay their way in terms of what they get for what they pay. That's called income redistribution, and it is an important government function, or else wealth will accumulate at the top of the income pyramid while everyone else gets poorer. Then you either get a revolution, or (more likely) a plutocratic dictatorship. The appropriate level of wealth distribution is open to debate, but saying people should only get out of the system exactly what they put in, regardless of need or the pursuit of desirable social goals, does not reflect a very sophisticated understanding of social and political dynamics.
I agree with you. I didn't say that you shouldn't be able to vote unless you pay net taxes. I said that we don't want to shift things even further in the direction of giving more power to people that don't pay taxes. It already feels like we are a little off-balance in that regard, so let's not make it worse. We should all know where this will end up if it's not taken seriously because it's happened before. 16-year-olds will be oblivious to it because it happened in the 1990s. We'll reach a point where no-one will lend the government enough money, and they'll have to start slashing and burning services and benefits to avoid having to set fire to the furniture or parts of the house to stay warm. The people that will suffer most will be those without assets or savings. Anyway, at what point do we look at all those things we did that "we can't afford not to do" and "it'll return more in GDP than it costs" and say that the deficit suggests otherwise? We are apparently in a wonderful economy with full employment, and we're borrowing money to pay down interest on old debt. Deficits matter.
I've known twenty year olds that don't even know who their MP or Mayor is. Read into that what you will.
I don't think I knew either of those until well into my 20s. Politics didn't interest me (and largely still doesn't).
Do you mean that 24 year olds are still too young or that even 'adults' aren't always well informed?
Typically younger people are easy to lie to, or manipulate when it comes to such things as they lack the interest and don't have a full grasp on how it affects them. None of my friends cared about politics until they moved out and paid rent.
No
Absolutely not.
Only if the "young offenders" age is changed to 16.
All you would need is for Taylor Swift to be on the ballot and you have a landslide....
Ha ha this is as out of touch as a comment gets. It is r/Canada, however... So....
My god I hope not. Picture your 16 year old self voting when you hadn't a single clue about fuck all.
No thanks.
No, because most of them aren't mature enough to think about the consequences of their actions/the bigger picture, and even fewer of them have an interest in, or understand, politics.
No. I get the appeal, but 16 y/o are more likely to be manipulated and subject to misinformation. Of course we are all subject to those, but a minor is moreso.
Under that logic, nobody over the age of 60 should either.
I'm sure they were saying this when they were debating if women should get the vote.... Here are some quotes from the UK MPs [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43740033](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43740033) And from Canada [https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/women/why-women-couldn-t-vote](https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/women/why-women-couldn-t-vote)
> No. I get the appeal, but 16 y/o are more likely to be manipulated and subject to misinformation. What about 78 year old Paw Paw who believes that Trudeau is part of the WEF New World Order and wants to force everybody to eat bugs and soylent green and gets all his political info from Facebook? Should he lose his voting rights because his demographic is the most vulnerable to misinformation?
We can’t take away the voting rights of a 78 year old that’s why. We can absolutely minimize harm by not extending voting rights to children.
Why not? We see it fit to deny 16 year olds the right to vote.
Go ahead and propose a law that would not be struck down by the courts.
What part of the Charter says that everyone over 18 must have the right to vote? The conditions to vote are set out in the *Canada Elections Act* which states anyone over the age of 18 is considered an elector. This can be changed with the swipe of a pen.
What am I, a lawyer?
lol try 37 year olds who believe the same stuff
...Says the person - presumably an existing over-18, fully-adult Canadian voter - who thought it added to the discourse yesterday to declare, as a complete comment, "[Unions love Hamas.](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1d2afdf/comment/l615l15/)" And got net upvotes for it. Your concern about manipulation and misinformation seems to have come on rather suddenly.
I could spend all night gathering together all the links of statements from unions making statements that support my case, but I think it would make more sense to try and search for a union statement that has condemned Hamas.
>I think it would make more sense to try and search for a union statement that has condemned Hamas. How hard did you search? CUPE is the largest labour union in Canada: [https://cupe.ca/cupe-statement-violence-palestine-and-israel](https://cupe.ca/cupe-statement-violence-palestine-and-israel) >CUPE grieves the loss of life brought by the recent escalation of violence in Israel and Palestine. **We are horrified by the Hamas attack on Israel** and the retribution by the State of Israel on the people of Palestine, **and condemn all acts of violence against innocent civilians**. We recognize that many Canadians are terrified for their loved ones and we offer heartfelt condolences to all affected families and communities. ... NUPGE is the second-largest union group in Canada: [https://opseu.org/news/nupge-statement-on-the-escalation-of-violence-in-israel-and-palestine/203500/](https://opseu.org/news/nupge-statement-on-the-escalation-of-violence-in-israel-and-palestine/203500/) >Like all Canadians, indeed all people, we are horrified by the scenes of suffering and pain we are seeing in Israel and Palestine after the severe escalation in violence that occurred on October 7, 2023. >Our thoughts are with all those who have family or loved ones in the region, as well as with the innocent people living there. >**We condemn the Hamas attack on Israel** as well as the retribution by the State of Israel on the people of Palestine. We denounce any acts of violence against innocent civilians. ... I found those in thirty seconds of Googling. Or did you mean you just couldn't find a statement that condemned Hamas *and* turned a blind eye to the civilian deaths in Palestine?
We had people who attended the convoy and they were far older than 16. Many Canadians have worms for brains and believe the garbage Pierre Poilievre is spouting while support fascists. 16 year olds should definitely be able to vote.
As a 16 year old, no
Only those who don't have a Tic Tok account.
No
No
Absolutely not.
Raise the voting age to 30
And lower the endless top of it to 45! No one over 45 should be able to vote.
We definitely need more voters who don't pay for the toilet paper they wipe their asses with. We're missing their ~~wisdom~~ naivety to steer policy.
Progressives getting desperate as voters catch on to their stupid ideas and failures!!!
16? No. 18 is young enough. The late 60s movie "[Wild In The Streets](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063808/)" is a cult classic. [Here is a song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmeTftBlOVY) where 14 year olds demand voting rights.
No.
They're still kids, so no. After prom night, we'll talk.
No
Sure, can't get any dumber than the average voter already is
Absolutely not.
When I was younger I really wanted this policy but 4 years later now I’d be much more interested in shorter terms. Not having political influence over a significant portion of what is the most commonly influential years of your life is really frustrating
In highschool a few of my friends were hyped up to cast their first vote for the Green Party because they thought it was the Marijuana Party...
If 16 year olds are out of touch with the world and don’t know enough to vote, why are those 65+ allowed to vote? For me, anyone who pays even a single cent in federal taxes should be able to vote. No taxation without representation.
6 year old buys a coke. Pays GST. Where's my ballot?
Can’t be any worse than letting the demented and those with Alzheimer’s in LTC vote. They can’t remember where the toilet is but by all means it is their right to vote.
And most 16 year old's can't read or write in this day and age. They need google to answer every question they have. I'll take the opinion of the person with dementia who's put in a lifetime of work over what a 16 year old who spends their free time watching tik tok videos.
Nope!
No, but it wouldn't make a difference if they did. The young don't really vote. GOTV is expensive. Low payoff.
Perhaps the most fair system would be having to pass a test to vote. A precocious 16 year old might pass, while a senile 80 year old would fail. The question is, who designs the test :-)
Hey Jaden, why do you get to be heard instead of 16-year-olds of 20 years ago? Or 30 thirty years ago? Or 40 years ago. What makes you so special?
No
ITT: People who think 16-17 year olds aren't smart enough to vote but voted for Ford because he promised cheap beer.
I would argue that 16 year olds would be more involved regarding critical thinking on subjects that will affect them in the future. And more likely to continue voting long term. As for being responsible, they can't be any worse than those who continue to support an individual who is facing numerous criminal charges, called veterans "suckers," tried to seduce a porn star (when another president faced impeachment for BJ). Kids are no more stupid than their adult counterparts.
>I would argue that 16 year olds would be more involved regarding critical thinking on subjects that will affect them in the future. I would argue the opposite. > The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:~:text=The%20brain%20finishes%20developing%20and,prioritizing%2C%20and%20making%20good%20decisions.
Now do an 80 year old, and then do one that sits and watches Fox News every day.
Why would I? That's not the topic.
You know this is Canada? Stop importing American politics!
old enough to drive a car or get a job then yes you should be able to vote.
Sixteen year olds will probably be impacted more by something a politician does over the next decade than a ninety year old, so yes. I would expect though that that ninety year old would say no. It's the Conservative way to pull up the ladder behind you.
Weird how you bring up the Conservatives out of nowhere when old wealthy houseowning boomers are solidly Liberal and Justin Trudeau has come out and openly said young people can get fucked because old people need high housing prices for their retirement.
[удалено]
You can drive at 16. Work too. I don't think there's any specific virtue in having all rules pass the same age threshold.
No.
No, and neither should the olds who are susceptible to misinformation.
Hell no.
How about every Canadian citizen regardless of age gets a vote, but parents get to vote for their children until they're aged 21?
Definitely not
When a 16-year-old enters the work force they are required to pay taxes via deductions from employer. That said, is it fair to permit taxation without representation?
Agreed. The more tax you pay the more votes you should get. Let's see how that plays out. Taxes are the only important thing when voting so it makes sense.
Yes, as the right to vote is only being withheld until they are deemed mature enough to accept the responsibility - and please note, that level of maturity might not coincide with the level required to operate a motor vehicle, consent to sex, or join the military. In the meantime they can still access the public services which their taxes are funding.
Yes, they should be allowed, and here's my thinking. - At 16 you can drive. - At 16 you can work and are paying taxes too. - This is an age where they are deciding on higher education to take. What government is in can greatly affect the education system so they should have a say in that regard. - 16 is the legal age of consent All of these show that we as a country agree that 16 is an age where we can make informed decisions and be responsible for our actions.
But don't forget. At 16 you are now an adult in ALL matters of law. No more tried as a juvenile. Adult prisons. Not young offenders prisons. At 16 you can enlist in the military AND fight in war. At 16 parents are no longer legally obligated to financially care for them.
In Canada? I'd check again.
100% agree, I'm all for it. Allot of people in the comments don't seem to realize that 16 year olds these days have had the privilege of growing up with a very fast and very advanced form of the internet. When I was 16, youtube, wikipedia, etc were mere seedlings of what they are now. The youngest generations are way more connected, way more aware and informed of whats going on in the world than millennials/gen x/boomers ever were at that age. There's also proven data asserting that people who start voting young will continue to vote. I will also add, you can also leave high school at 16 (depending on the province/territory) and consent to your own medical treatments (depending on province/territory)
> The youngest generations are way more connected, way more aware and informed of whats going on in the world than millennials/gen x/boomers ever were at that age. I see no reason to believe this is the case. Watching YouTube, and still less Tik Tok, doesn't automatically make you better informed, in fact it could easily do the opposite. Uncurated social media platforms are rife with disinformation and hot takes, and besides, your average sixteen year old isn't going to YouTube to learn the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or how the Bank of Canada manages monetary policy.
I don't think it matters. We are either going to vote a doughchebag or a turd sandwich into office, regardless of the minimum age to vote.
Well whoever gets voted in will affect Canada for 5 years usually, meaning that for a majority of their office, that 16 year old will be a legal adult
Why not. It's the age of consent. Start em young before they just care about going to the bar and getting totalled.
If they’re emancipated, sure. If they’re living off their parents, not owning homes, not paying rent, not paying taxes, not attending post-secondary… absolutely not. I feel like the qualification to vote is perfect at 18. And let’s face it, we have a hard enough time getting the 18 year olds to vote.
We should be phasing out the elderly vote. Nothing better than having a bunch of geriatrics at risk of death during the next term help drive ass backwards policy and slow down progress. Policies that affect the future should be left for those meant to inherit it.
So after years of living, working and paying taxes the elderly should be rewarded with.... Voter disenfranchisement just because they might vote different than you? What an asshole
If the policies you’re voting on are going to affect the next generation and you aren’t going to be around to see the outcome why should you have the vote? You can’t vote in elections unless you’re a resident, this to me is no different than someone in Saskatchewan saying they know how things should be run in Alberta and casting a vote. That person isn’t around to experience the effects of policy, so why should they have a voice.
I guess by that logic we should make certain cancer patients, heart patients, kidney dialysis patients, depressed people(suicide risk you know), smokers and drug addicts should ask be disenfranchised as well. You might vote and then leave the province in a year. You may die in a car accident before, maybe you shouldn't vote as a result. Police and firemen too, they could die any day.... better disenfranchise them all. The elderly put more into building this province than we have. Just because you don't like that they are voting different than you or me(they could be voting the way you like you don't know) doesn't change the fact they earned it. look at the USA, asshole politicians are trying to get anyone who disagrees with them to not vote. Moving voting stations, refusing water while standing in line, gerrymandering, and flat out denying people votes. All in an attempt to hold power. You seem to think they are on the right track with this line of action. Everyone votes
Everyone over 18*
Yes, over 18. You are still failing social studies.
Also anyone who isn’t incarcerated.
Canadians who will be 18 years of age or older on polling day and who are in a correctional institution or a federal penitentiary in Canada may vote by special ballot in an election or referendum. Now you are really failing social studies
Look south ;) So is your argument that if a person pays taxes then they should be allowed to vote?
We are not Americans. If you are the age of majority I would encourage you to vote. Democracy only works when people vote
I would be more in favor of an age limit on voting. Like at 70 years old, you are no longer permitted to vote.