Argentina lowers voting age to 16

[jimmy olsen]

This is just foolish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9647629/Argentina-lowers-voting-age-to-16.html

Argentina lowers voting age to 16

Argentina has lowered its voting age to 16 from 18, a change that could help politically ailing President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner court the youth vote ahead of 2013 midterm elections.

6:50AM GMT 01 Nov 2012

Dozens of opposition members of the lower house of Congress walked out of the rancorous late-night session just before the measure won final approval by a vote of 131 to 2.

Kirchner, who polls well among younger voters, has not ruled out a bid by her supporters to change the constitution to allow her to run for a third term in 2015. Legions of youthful activists have joined the "Campora" movement, known for its rowdy demonstrations in favour of Kirchner's heterodox policies.

Sceptics say the new law is aimed at drumming up support for the president before legislative elections scheduled a year from now. Supporters say the measure aims to bring Argentina in line with progressive countries such as Ecuador and Brazil that have already extended voting right to people as young as 16.

Kirchner-allied lower house member Diana Conti said the bill "is neither opportunistic nor demagogic," but rather seeks "to widen the electoral base of our democracy."

The make-up of Congress after the midterms will be key to any effort by her allies to open the door to another candidacy. The 59-year-old Peronist leader won a blowout re-election last year and no strong opposition figure has emerged since.

But her popularity has fallen to below 25 per cent as the economy gets hit by sluggish world growth, slowing demand from top trade partner Brazil, high inflation at home and government-imposed currency and trade controls that hurt confidence.

More than a million new voters are estimated to be eligible to cast ballots now that the bill has passed both houses. The Senate approved the measure earlier this month.

You still have to be 18 in Argentina to get married or buy alcohol or cigarettes.

Voting is compulsory for Argentines between the ages of 18 and 70 but it will be discretionary for 16- and 17-year olds under the new law.

Local Peronist party bosses may push to ensure high turnout from the new pool of teenage voters. But the benefits of the new law from Fernandez's point of view remain to be seen, said Ignacio Labaqui, who analyses Argentina for emerging markets consultancy Medley Global Advisors.

"It is evident that an electoral strategy lies behind the promotion of the youth vote," he said.

"But despite being teenagers, young people live in the same country as other voters. So if the climate towards the government continues to deteriorate, the government's approval rating among younger people should also decline," Labaqui added.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators rallied in major cities last month to protest policies such as a de facto ban on buying U.S. dollars and a possible bid for a third term.

Kirchner has a working majority in both houses of Congress, but would need two-thirds' congressional support to convoke an elected constitutional assembly. The president has been coy about the prospect of changing the law to run again. Any such plan would hinge on the outcome of the midterm vote.

Because she has not anointed a political heir, analysts say Kirchner may want to keep speculation alive about a potential re-election bid in 2015 to maintain her grip on the notoriously fractious Peronist party and ward off "lame duck" syndrome.

[derspiess]

Stupid bitch.

[Eddie Teach]

They still call one of their parties "Peronist"? 

[Count]

I have a friend who's really into education policy and is absolutely convinced we oppress children and we should abolish the voting age. Psuedo commies.  Makes for interesting discussions though

[The Brain]

Argentina is a clown country.

[Zanza]

Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.

[garbon]

Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.

[The Brain]

Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.

Well I can't cure the blind.

[Count]

Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.

That seems right to me but on the other hand the federal voting age was 21 before the 1970s.

[Phillip V]

With all our increased knowledge and riches, children should be made to grow up earlier, not later. They have so many more opportunities and tools in a safer environment than 100 years ago. Continuing to defer adulthood is stupid.

[Neil]

Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.

It seems foolish to give young people a say in matters that don't affect them.  The essence of government is money, and 16-year olds don't have any.  As a matter of policy, they're supposed to be in school.

Also, everyone under the age of 25 is stupid.

[garbon]

With all our increased knowledge and riches, children should be made to grow up earlier, not later. They have so many more opportunities and tools in a safer environment than 100 years ago. Continuing to defer adulthood is stupid.

Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?

[Phillip V]

With all our increased knowledge and riches, children should be made to grow up earlier, not later. They have so many more opportunities and tools in a safer environment than 100 years ago. Continuing to defer adulthood is stupid.

Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?

Yes, and their leg muscles are not fully developed at age 10, so they should not run?

The point is to challenge/educate the brain in real life matters while it's developing rather than waiting until bad habits and thought patterns have crystallized in their mid-to-late twenties, which is the current problem.

[Maximus]

Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?

So that their brains can develop properly, perhaps? There are limits to this of course, but the unrestrained "let them be kids" BS just makes sure that they are never anything but kids.

[garbon]

Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?

So that their brains can develop properly, perhaps? There are limits to this of course, but the unrestrained "let them be kids" BS just makes sure that they are never anything but kids.

But that's just saying they should get increase responsibilities not that we should force them into workforce or have them start voting.