There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit pensions and the triple lock -- voting for wacky options and suffering no consequences. This is going to get worse and worse. Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount.
> There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit
16yo may not have a lot of skin in the game, but giving them more of a voice seems like a good idea. I like the idea of gradually increasing voting rights over time.
You're not really engaging with OP's point. "an impressionable and easily influenced demographic" describes every demographic. 16 year olds are not particularly unique in that regard.
16 year olds could absolutely flip to the far right in the future, who knows! But they have more of a stake in the future. Allowing them to vote redresses a small amount of balance against voters who do not have a stake in the future.
