“And neither are of course, …”

According to the left you cannot hold even a 21 year old responsible for homicide because his brain is not fully enough developed to allow him a full appreciation of the consequences of his actions. Similarly, low IQ persons who commit criminal acts similarly are not to be held responsible. And of neither are course outright juveniles.

But we are supposed to offer ourselves on the leftists’ altar of self-sacrificial solidarity and mutuality even to the point of self-destruction because … well, because they say so.

Alex Salmond probably enabled the 16 year olds to vote because he thought they would all vote for independence. From interviews with school children of voting age, it seems that he miscalculated. Much ‘independence’ sentiment has been fuelled over the past 20 years by hatred of the Thatcher government, which, for instance, ran its pilot of the loathed ‘poll tax’ in Scotland. The Scots never forgave her for treating Scotland as a guinea pig. If however a person was born in 1998 they will have heard of these things from their parents but their vote is more likely to be conditioned by the future than the past. So enabling the 16 year olds to vote in this case probably helped to save the Union.

At 16 you can:

Apply for your own home through your local council.

Buy wine, beer, cider or perry (i.e. Babycham), to drink in a restaurant only with a meal, but cannot buy it in a bar, off-licence or supermarket.

Stand for election to become a member of a Community Council in certain areas.

Join the armed forces, but not to train as an officer, you will also need parental consent if you are under the age of 18. You can apply from the age of 15 years 9 months.

===================

If you are old enough to stand for election and die for your country then you are certainly old enough to vote.

In my opinion 16-years old shouldn’t be allowed to vote but then I think there are a lot of people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

I favor (and have for some time) the following — but first, I *know* there are lots of kinks that have to be worked out and what-ifs to be ironed out. My suggestion is quarter-baked — not evn half-baked — but the idea is the *idea*, not the details (wherein the devil resides). Okay, here goes.

I favor (and have for some time) a voucher-voting system, whereby, for example: my Form 1040 income tax liability for 2012 gets placed on my voting voucher. Say it’s $2500 (without regard to how much I had had withheld). Then in 2014 I get to vote precisely $2500 worth of votes in 2014. Had my income tax liability been $5000, I’d get to vote twice as many votes, ’cause I’m footing twice the share of the tax collections.

But that favors the rich [one might shriek]. No, my dear, the rich pay hardly any income taxes, remember?

That way, those who foot the bill get to have the say, in direct proportion to their income tax outlay.

Oh yeah — all those people with no tax liability? Sorry, folks: become a tax*payer* and you get to vote.

Was it California State Senator John Vasconcellos, or was it the “US Government Expert” at the web site you linked to, who was so ignorant of the U.S. Constitution that he thought a constitutional amendment would be required in order for California to lower its voting age for Federal elections?

Before the 26th amendment was adopted, voting age was completely up to the states, and it was 18 in Georgia and Kentucky, while it was 21 everywhere else. The 26th amendment prevents states from raising the voting age above 18 for Federal elections; there is nothing to stop from from lowering it.