IMHO, it is all about right and duties.

So you're allowed to vote, but you don't need to pay your taxes. You're still considered a child regarding justice law, but considered adult regarding voting?

So basically you're not allowed to camp somewhere without the consent of your parents but you're "suddenly old enough" to judge about some laws?

I think the consensus is missing if voting is permitted by 16, but everything else stays the same.

If you have sufficient income or wealth at 16 you do have to pay taxes. It just happens that most 16 year olds don't have sufficient wealth or income to pay taxes. There is very little difference in terms of duties of a 16 year old and an unemployed adult who does get to vote.

Somewhere one has to draw the line, or you can go down to voting power for toddlers. And the best and obvious line was to treat an adult human as a "full" citizen with all the rights and duties.

So how far down in age would you go and why would you stop at that age?

Oh no not the slippery slope! I think 16 sounds good. I would not let anyone younger than 16 vote, because it's against the law.

I'd argue earliest age at which you can be drafted minus maximum term length (ie. 5 years in the UK) sounds good as a general rule. Otherwise people can get drafted by a government they didn't have a say in electing.

I'd also argue that there should be no lower age limit for voting for people with taxable income. No taxation without representation.

> Otherwise people can get drafted by a government they didn't have a say in electing.

This kind of thinking is not rooted in reality. When you were born, you were forced to accept the conditions you were born into. The same is true with laws. I understand that going to war is something else than going to school, but that's life.

> No taxation without representation.

"Representation" in the original slogans context does not really apply here (since it was about voting rights for a taxed population as a whole).

But for the idea of "anyone who has to pay taxes, must also have a say!", I can only say that it comes right back to the previous point: You could just as well argue the individual income tax rate must be zero, until a person had the opportunity to vote at least once. The world doesn't work this way.

>The world doesn't work this way.

Obviously. I'm saying it ought to work this way.

Voting has a major impact on a nation's future.

I don't think children should have a say in the matter, they lack the critical thinking skills that adults do, which is why we limit their freedoms.

Granted, most adults also lack deep critical thinking skills but they have more capable brains than children.

Further, children are easier to manipulate than adults, which is very dangerous when it comes to something as critical as voting.

When it was the last time we had an actual issue where 16yo voting had direct measurable negative impact on something in real life? I think it's as other said, we have to draw a line, and I think it's reasonable to debate this because maybe each nation prepares their kids differently so one nations 16yo isn't another, this way there isn't a universal rule. But arguing that you have to discuss ALL the other civil liberties before discussing 16yo voting rights is absurd because there is no connection between drinking and voting and all else.

> Does it make you a better voter if you can leave school, drink alcohol, drive a car

I don't think we're being ambitious enough here. I should be able to vote while drink-driving.

I honestly thought this is how the majority of the Americans voted last election.

Of course it makes you a better voter. Because you have skin in the game.

What's absurd is allowing a minor to vote.