Select Page

Why Democrats Want to Lower Voting Age to 16

Why Democrats Want to Lower Voting Age to 16

The Democrats want to make changes to the Constitution so that they can lower the legal voting age to 16 years. But what’s behind this push by the left to get minors to vote in elections?

Last week, House Democrats introduced a resolution to abolish the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 26th Amendment requires only those United States citizens to vote who are at least 18 years old to. Abolishing it would allow the Democrats to lower the voting age to 16 years at a minimum. OANN quoted from the Democrats’ resolution:

“The right of citizens of the United States, who are sixteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

The resolution is a repeat attempt by Democrats to let younger teenagers to vote in elections, on both state and federal levels. In 2019, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts introduced a resolution to lower the federal voting age to 16. The resolution failed in the House by a 126-305 vote. But Democrats have continued to work on lowering the voting age to 16 and have proposed state and local legislations in Oregon, Virginia, California, Massachusetts, and D.C. 

Conservatives have questioned the motives behind the left’s push for allowing minors to vote. Nancy Pelosi, who recently lost her House speakership, has expressed her support for the proposed legislation on lowering voting age since 2019. Her comment on the proposed amendment in 2019, cited by The Daily Caller (January 13), offers a clue of what’s in it for the Democrats:

 “I think it’s really important to capture kids when they’re in high school, when they’re interested in all of this when they’re learning about government to be able to vote.”

The National Youth Rights Association agrees with Democrats on the voting age issue and considers it “age-based discrimination” to not allow people younger than 16 to vote in elections, and they also state that it’s “disenfranchising young people” adding that it’s “far from ethical.”

In 2021, the NOQ Report cited a number of polls and studies showing that the under-18 segment of population is mainly liberal in their worldview and happens to be the “low information voter.” The post concluded:

“If 16-year-olds were allowed to vote, it is safe to assume that many would vote Democrat rather than Republican. Therein lies the heart of this debate.”

This likely explains why Pelosi wants to capture the youth while they are still 16.

To amend the Constitution for lowering the federal voting age, Democrats need two-thirds of House and Senate members to vote for their resolution in the House and the Senate, respectively.

About The Author

20 Comments

  1. David Dutra

    People that aren’t mature enough to go into the military should not or make other than parental decisions shouldn’t be able to vote !

    Reply
    • VinnieA

      The Brain Dead and the Actual Dead vote for democrats so now they want 16 year olds to vote……that figures! It is Bad Enough that we allow the Democrat Party to Destroy Our Country, we do not need to Help Them,

      Reply
  2. frank stetson

    Representative Meng, again, failed miserably under Democrat control, good luck, only FOX even picked it up, a nothing burger.

    Reply
    • Tom

      Well Frank. I do not see it quite as a nothing burger. I think it does speak to “intent” to expand a base. Democrats are currently using the immigration process, and specifically the asylum process, to expand voter base. I can see why most media did not cover it. It is because most media are Democratic leaning, and many might like to hide the “intent” and covertly change the amendment.

      Now if Nancy wants to engage young people in the voting process that is great. But do it in the high school as a civics activity. Come up with a lesson methodology to hold a mach election using real candidates. And let the high schools report their mach election results to a central location for tally to see who would have won. This would be a perfectly legitimate lesson without having to use our actual real time election process. This would make the lesson: Separate, distinct, relevant, and meaningful.

      Reply
      • frank stetson

        Tom, I think your logic is off, perhaps because your bias’s are showing. First, you seem to assume that younger voters, new citizens, etc. results in more Democratic votes. That’s admitting that Republicans have nothing to offer today and will have nothing better tomorrow. That seems a bit biased. Secondly, the asylum process is exactly that: asylum. It’s takes these people 3-5 years to be able to vote in Federal elections and there’s just 15 metro’s offering something sooner, probably longer given the time to get through asylum. It’s about 25K in 2022, 11K in previous years, highest was over 80K, hardly enough to sway a national election.

        “Democrats are currently using the immigration process, and specifically the asylum process, to expand voter base.” OK, we have been doing asylum for decades; how many voters added and to what parties? I am not sure you would even be able to tell and to listen to Larry, I might say they are all becoming Republicans :>)

        How can anyone say Meng speaks for the intent of the entire Democratic Party?

        Second, you speak to intent. Give it a rest. Meng brought this up under Democratic House rule. It was DOA under Democratic rule. Do you expect it to fare better under McCarthy? How about the Senate. Come on. Yes, there are organizations pushing it, probably Meng supporters. BUT — if intent matters then:

        – Trump will kill someone and get away with it (oops, never mind, he might have done that)
        – Trump will default on our debt in order to renegotiate terms
        – Covid is over as the intent of both Biden and Trump has indicated

        Lastly, tell us, what do you think Trump’s intent was on January 6th 2021 when he sent thousands to the Capital and then watched the break-ins, assaults, and insurrection on TV and did nothing for over 3 hours? How about the intent of a gallows and “hang Mike Pence” signs or Mike telling the SS, I’m not getting in that car with you. Seems like cause and intent of something to me.

        The House of Representatives is a less serious place than that Senate, if you think Meng’s intent is everyone’s intent, hold on to your jock strap, wait until you see the “intent” of all these investigations going forward including outing DOJ investigations for fun.

        Reply
        • Tom

          Well there’s alot to answer there but I will try. Easy ones first. Trumps intent in my mind was to guard his narcissism by overturning a legitimate election in a criminal way. And “hang MP is communicating a threat, which is illegal and those folks should have been arrested for such. I hope he and them all pays the price. Trumps statement about getting away with murder was his narcissism showing through in a flaming way.

          I agree with you as much as I agree with Larry. By the way, was he taking a break this week?

          Meng is a Chinese name that means “dream”, and his suggestion was seen by most as a pipe dream. But do realize that Chinese mainland children are indoctrinated into party thought, now called “Xi Thought” at a very young age.. No I do not think Meng speaks for the WHOLE Dem party, but does speak for some. Remember that in every revolution, there is one man with a dream!

          Let me update you on the facts regarding asylum. After the asylum case is approved and the person is awarded asylum status, they can apply for a green card after one year – whereas the normal immigration applicant can only apply for a green card after five years. This means asylum seekers with green cards can vote in local and state elections if the state has approved such, just cannot vote in federal position elections. This can influence the direction of a state in the short term, and does build base more quickly in the long term. I know this because I have been personally involved in both aspects of the immigration process. Now lets continue the view. To become a U.S. citizen, you must: Have had a Permanent Resident (Green) Card for at least five years, or for at least three years if you’re filing as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. So an asylum green card person can within six years get citizenship status whereas for a normal immigration person it will take ten years to become a citizen because you have to wait five years for the green card then five years after green card for the citizenship approval. So in the end, a voting base is built quicker using the asylum process than the normal immigration process. Also, the asylum process get around immigration quotas which Trump reduced and Biden increased again.

          Now with regard to high school students, I was a high school mathematics teacher for ten years. I can tell you personally that more high school students align with liberal theology and conservative theology. And we at the high school teacher level encourage it as high schools are supposed to be about learning and thought development – not about politics. Please notice the Gallup poll results that begin at age 19. The highest percentage is 19 year olds being democratic party oriented – this did not start at 19. It was cultivated at the high school level. A quote from the Gallup: “PRINCETON, NJ — Young Americans in their 20s and 30s today share two important political characteristics — they are the most likely of any age group to eschew identification with either party, and, among those who do have a political identity, they are the most likely, along with older baby boomers, to tilt toward the Democratic Party.” See full poll results at “https://news.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx” This Harvard poll is in agreement with the Gallop poll but is more extensive at “https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/spring-2022-harvard-youth-poll”

          Thanks for the thoughtful questions! I always enjoy your questions and comments! Enjoy some football this weekend!

          Reply
          • frank stetson

            A partial answer and yet longer than the original tome — they be talking about us soon, and you leaning right and me left — scandalous and yet role models for how Larry and Joe should behave…. :>)

            Tennis: AO. watching Murray repeat but still amazing.

            Good to hear on the 1/6 – follow the law.

            Ms. Meng, ahem, Ms., was born in Queens. represents Queens so shove that talk, bias….

            It was 125 to 108 on the 2021 Dem vote so a bit over 50% support. Unknown in the Senate and 100% against for Republicans since they want no extra voters of any kind from anywhere for obvious reasons. It’s DOA although could make a comeback in 2 years.

            My understanding on asylum becoming citizens is 3-5 years with 3 being in support of US spouse. Might be some asylum processing time too, I thought. Nonetheless, I know of few Democrats thinking 5 years in the future, but more important is it does not matter. ITS NOT THE NEW VOTERS that’s the problem, its the Republican Party not able to attract NEW VOTERS that bunches their panties. That’s the real problem for Republicans which is why less is more for them on these issues. That’s why voting restrictions are so positive for them. I indicated the potential volumes, can’t imagine anyone even worrying at those numbers, but that’s the new Republican game.

            Yours’s because you have a hard-on for immigrants, but that’s your bias. My mother is first generation American, my wife is first generation American. My grandparents immigrated from Slovakia, the other side was Irish side immigrating in the mid 1860’s, my FIL was born in Genoa and my MIL’s ancestor’s came before the Mayflower. We lifted ourselves whether from the steel mills, the Scranton coal mines, the NJ factories or the racy nightclubs of NYC in the 50’s (FIL was a cool guy) and it’s in our family DNA that immigrants lift America by competing with the previous species to make us all better and stronger as a nation. My family sent over 20 folks to WWII, half Slovakian born, half first generation. No one objected. I look forward Hispanic competition in the future, I think it will lift us all up again. They are generally law abiding hard working people looking for a better life. I am sure US politics is not their top priority even. But I think you are stuck on the legality, you have a point there, but that shouldn’t taint your feelings about them as people except for that point.

            You have a point with your poll; that urban legend about young dems becoming old repubs but since they don’t vote, we really don’t know. Like I have said, Mom called me her little Republican and that happened post college as I entered the world of business and finance. But the point should be are they old enough to vote; I couldn’t believe a drinking age of 21 but Vietnam at 18 while I started drinking in 7th grade. I HONESTLY DON’T HAVE AN OPINION, seems too young to even be interested, but I do know why Republicans would be against them: they can’t attract new voters — at any age, of any race, creed, or color.

            My point was Meng’s bill is DOA, intent is unproven, and passage is highly unlikely in the future, IMO.

        • Lela Sandoval

          Enough of democrats wanting to change our constitution to fit their needs. They can’t continue to lie and cheat.

          Reply
        • Lela Sandoval

          Enough of democrats wanting to change our constitution to fit their needs. They can’t continue to lie and cheat. Now they say I’ve already said this, when I have not!!!!!!!!!!

          Reply
  3. Joe

    We all know 16 yr olds are not mentally developed enough to vote,that is why the age is 18,where u can join the military and serve your country.The dumbocraps just want more people to lie,cheat,and steal elections is their evil agenda.

    Reply
  4. JoANN

    If they are not old enough to serve in the Military, buy liquor, and some are not even driving at 16, many are not capable of voting at the age of 16. Perhaps making the voting age 21 would give them a chance to research and determine what is going on in our Country.

    Reply
  5. Liberalism Sucks

    Yup, they want people whose brains aren’t fully developed (medical science and research shows the human brain isn’t fully developed until about age 25 or so. In some individuals, it seemingly never does…) to vote – because most likely they’ll vote Dummycrat. Just another ploy to permanently grab power in the USA and turn us into a Marxist nation, because it has worked SO well in other countries…

    Reply
    • Tom

      While I may agree with the facts and assertions of your answer, name calling Democrats “Dummycrats” reveals a level in intellectual maturity / human development not yet achieved. That is this “Independent/unaffiliated voter’s opinion. Name calling is a turnoff to most Independent/Unaffiliated voters. I have noticed that probably 90% of such name calling is by GOP voters which suggests to me that GOP those name calling GOP voters are intellectually immature. Frank and I may vary widely in some of our opinions, and be synergistic in other of our opinions. But we do not call each other names – we are both mature. So raise your game!

      Reply
  6. My2Cents

    Because they have the same mental maturity of a 16 year old. It would be so cool if teeny boppers could vote. Give me a #$%^&*# break morons.

    Reply
  7. JoeyP

    MOST 16 year olds don’t THINK for the FUTURE . . .Only the Here and NOW. – In other words, they DON’T think DEEP enough about the CONSEQUENCES.

    Reply
    • Rick

      You mean like frank stetson? He votes like a 16 year old because his brain never matured past that. Most all people are liberal idiots and easy to indoctrinate when they are young. That is why the democrat demons prey on them. But, then you have some liberals that get stuck and never break free even when they are old and should have more wisdom. Old liberals think that they are the smartest people on the planet. Therein is the reason they are so dangerous.

      Reply
  8. Gayle Heinz

    Oh yes, I can see it right now. If you vote you’ll get your drivers license, but only if you vote democrat! It wouldn’t surprise me one bit! Seriously, 16 year olds don’t even know who or what goes on in elections. They are more concerned about getting their license and finding a girlfriend or boyfriend and how to get rid of a blemish. They aren’t ready for that. Plus… They don’t pay taxes or own property!

    Reply
    • Dr Katz

      It seems that the Dems are the ones that dont want to punish criminals under the age of 18 either. Dems say they are just kids and to give them a break cause they are too immature to realize the results of their actions. No, 16 is too young to vote!

      Reply
  9. Robin W boyd

    While I reluctantly admit we need to establish a minimum legal age, we should at least make it the same for everything. If an 18 year old is old enough to die for their country, they should be old enough to drink alcohol and vote. 16 is too young!

    Reply
  10. spaceman spiff

    Not only should the voting age NOT be 16, it should also not be 18. It should be 21 or even higher. And, it should not be based on age, but on contribution to the nation through national service of some sort. Restart the CCC and such programs and make sure that anyone who wants to vote will have the chance to EARN THE RIGHT, rather than have it given to them just because they can breathe and have reached age 18. When I was 18, I know I and most of my friends were not mature enough to vote. But, we did anyway.
    The whole point of working for the vote means that if such were the case, the people who EARN the right to vote would have what is termed “skin in the game” so to speak. You value something you have much more if you have to work to obtain it. Same with the right to vote. If you make people earn the right, then they will likely be more thoughtful when they cast such votes. It may not change the results, but it would certainly make it a bit easier to count the totals. There are probably a fair number of people out there who wouldn’t want to work for the right of franchise. Those are the ones who shouldn’t be voting anyway.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *